Background: Little is known regarding the demographic, sexual, and relationship characteristics of men with symptoms of delayed ejaculation (DE).

Aim: To identify differences between men with and without DE symptomology to validate face-valid diagnostic criteria and to identify various functional correlates of DE.

Methods: A total of 2679 men meeting inclusion criteria were partitioned into groups with and without DE symptomology on the basis of their self-reported "difficulty reaching ejaculation/orgasm during partnered sex." Men were then compared on a broad array of demographic and relationship variables, as well as sexual response variables assessed during partnered sex and masturbation.

Outcomes: Outcomes included the identified differences between men with and without DE symptomology.

Results: Men with DE-whether having comorbid erectile dysfunction or not-differed from men without DE on 5 face-valid variables related to previously proposed diagnostic criteria for DE, including ones related to ejaculation latency (P < .001); self-efficacy related to reaching ejaculation, as assessed by the percentage of episodes reaching ejaculation during partnered sex (P < .001); and negative consequences of the impairment, including "bother/distress" and (lack of) "orgasmic pleasure/sexual satisfaction" (P < .001). All such differences were associated with medium to large effect sizes. In addition, men showed differences on a number of functional correlates of DE, including anxiety, relationship satisfaction, frequency of partnered sex and masturbation, and level of symptomology during partnered sex vs masturbation (P < .001).

Clinical implications: Face-valid criteria for the diagnosis of DE were statistically verified, and functional correlates of DE relevant to guiding and focusing treatment were identified.

Strengths and limitations: In this first comprehensive analysis of its kind, we have demonstrated widespread differences on sexual and relationship variables relevant to the diagnosis of DE and to its functional correlates between men with and without DE symptomology during partnered sex. Limitations include participant recruitment through social media, which likely biased the sample; the use of estimated rather than clocked ejaculation latencies; and the fact that differences between men with acquired and lifelong DE were not investigated.

Conclusion: This well-powered multinational study provides strong empirical support for several face-valid measures for the diagnosis of DE, with a number of explanatory and control covariates that may help shed light on the lived experiences of men with DE and suggest focus areas for treatment. Whether or not the DE men had comorbid erectile dysfunction had little impact on the differences with men having normal ejaculatory functioning.