i'm 47, and i can almost always manage two, maybe three, orgasms per session if i'm sufficiently turned on by my partner.

after shooting my first load, i can pretty easily get hard again for round two and then sometimes round three. but some of my round two boners aren't rigid enough for buttsex. especially if it's a woman who is really really tight.

what do guys in their 40s do to maintain granite-hard erections? i know i'm no longer a teenager and have come to accept that staying hard all night is no longer in the cards. but i'd like my boners to be hard enough so they serve my purposes.

any advice? time for viagra?

Quote |

Yep, time for Viagra, Cialis, etc.

Quote |

Sounds like it to me.

Quote |

well, it's off to see the doc in about 2 weeks. will ask for a script for some ED drugs.

thanks for the advice.

Quote |

Hopefully you explain to your doctor that you want the drugs for those "second and third" rounds...

Cause you CAN get an erection and you CAN complete the act the first time around... so, you do NOT have erectile disfunction.

Remember, viarga, cialis, etc. are made for those who cannot get erect enough at all.

They work on the vascular system (that's why it's a concern for heart patients).

If you use them, when you really do NOT need them, you run the risk of damaging your vascular system.

That can mean always needing them in a few year because you fucked around them them.

Just be honest with your doctor. Hopefully, you'll realize that if you wait a little longer, you'll be as hard as you were during round one of the night.

Also, no one mentioned you need to quit smoking (if you do) and reduce or eliminate the alcohol as well. Both contribute to a limp(er) dick as we age.

I'm 44 and get hard enough for anal in the tighest ass EVERY time -- when I give myself some time in between.

__________________
Hairy top guy looking for some hot action now and then. 44, 6'1", 220, lots of body fur, nice cock with big nuts. Enjoy rimming a nice clean ass before I fuck it. Open to other options. Groups rock! Drop me a note.

Quote |

Harry -- I'm curious as to where you found information relative to long-term use of Viagra. Not being critical, just curious (unless, of course, you just pulled it out of your ass). Viagra was judged to be clinically safe by the FDA when when approved on March 27, 1998. The known side effects of Viagra are lightheadedness, dizziness, headache, nausea, facial flushing and temporary visual disturbances. Anecdotal (not supported by studies) evidence has intimated a connection between long-term use and loss of vision (50 cases reported, no causal link determined).

No, I don't work for Pfizer ... I'm just curious as to your source of info.

BTW, I do not doubt AT ALL that there is a very real risk of psychological dependence on Viagra ... I'm just curious about 'damage to your vascular system' (although I suppose you could be refering to priapism, the proverbial 'erection lasting more than 4 hours in the absence of sexual stimulation') ...

Quote |

At age 44 if you can still get an erection, maybe all you need is a little more aerobic execise. Aerobic exercise does wonders for your circulatory system. Keeping that system in fine tune will do more for allowing you to maintain an erection than anything else.

Talk to you doc about that. Leave the Viagra for when you really need it.

Quote |

Viagra and the extended family of ED drugs have not existed long enough to make any sort of definitive, clinical statements with regard to possible long term adverse effects. Any information that might exist "out there" in cyber-land is anecdotal supposition at best.

HOWEVER -- I have long maintained that because we don't yet have enough long-term data available, extreme caution and common sense should be used when considering ED medication. Consequently, LACK of evidence is not, by any means, a good reason to go ahead and pop a pill every time you want to bust a nut more than once a night. You just MIGHT be setting yourself up for some future problems of a highly undesirable nature.

Then again, maybe not.

Most of us share a love-hate relationship with the FDA. It cannot be argued that the FDA has approved a whole hell of a lot of drugs that later turned out to have some extremely serious, even deadly, side-effects that were never considered until mass public use. At the same time -- I personally wouldn't want to live in a nation that had NO agency like the FDA to keep on an eye on things. We could get into the bureaucracy of the FDA and discuss their sorry relationship with special interests, and we could discuss the many other flaws of the FDA, but that's just boring and we've been down that road before. The fact is -- they do a pretty good job, at least most of the time, and with the massive influx of new drugs being released and created, it's no wonder they fuck up from time to time, too. The FDA isn't evil, but they sure aren't our best friend, either. Not much we can do about that except to use our own good judgment when it comes to elective medications such as Viagra.

Bearing in mind that not enough time has yet passed to effectively form conclusions about long-term Viagra use -- as it appears right now, dependence issues are of little concern, though as someone stated, psychological dependence is a very real possibility, at least in my mind. It just seems rather obvious that this could happen, given the fact that humans are predisposed to habitual behavior, especially when it comes to something as sensitive as sex .

Just about anything can be addictive -- and right now, given the lack of hard, scientific data about long-term Viagra use, it seems likely that dependency issues are of greater concern than any real physical damage. Then again... time will tell.

So... sure, there are considerations to keep in mind, but no reason as yet to panic.

I've NOT been a huge supporter of recreational Viagra use, meaning I don't think it should be exploited by men who don't necessary NEED it. ESPECIALLY since I fear the influx of more and more new STD and HIV infections as a result of increased and rampant sexual activity. The fact is -- if you CAN'T fuck six times in one night, at the very least you are reducing risk. But if you CAN... well, the rest is obvious. No need to get into the discussion about choosing safer sex no matter of how many times you do have sex -- we all know LOTS of dudes are popping ED drugs and heading out to cruise the bookstores and baths and allowing their erectile delight to get the better of them. Many of these guys might NOT be so frisky if it weren't for their raging hard-ons. Yet many might be safe no matter WHAT the condition of their genitals, hard or soft.

But whether any of us support recreational use of ED drugs, the fact remains that it is going on and isn't about to stop anytime soon.

So... who "NEEDS" Viagra? THAT is the tricky question. The answer is probably very simple, though: most guys KNOW if they NEED it. And frankly, most guys are too proud to take it if they do NOT (at least the young guys).

Does the original poster NEED it because he can't get it up repeatedly for a second or third fuck? Probably not. This is fairly normal for his age. But the male ego is tough to fight when our minds are filled with thoughts of what we USED to be able to do back in our early twenties, isn't it?

The poster has many options, though, and Viagra is certainly one of them. Will it seriously hurt him to pop a pill and have some hot sex many times in one night? If he wears a rubber -- probably not at all. If he uses Viagra modestly and enjoys it for what it is -- he need not be concerned.

I am quite sure, and I don't think many of you will argue, that while Viagra is a modern-day miracle and a blessing for truly impotent men, Pfizer KNEW it would sell like hotcakes to a HUGE demographic of men, the bulk of which are NOT impotent at all. So saying that it was created for only those who are impotent -- I can't buy into that. Pfizer was seeing dollar signs when they created Viagra.

The original poster can learn to live with his new-found limitations a result of age. He can also learn to overcome these on his own, without a pill. He can explore tantric opportunities. He can learn to enjoy his refractory period and maybe even *GASP* snuggle for a while until his penis is working again. He can teach himself through masturbation how to hold off ejaculation for HOURS on end so that even if he can't cum more than once, he can at least give a partner a run for their money (this is what I do -- guys ask me all the time if I want to cum more than once -- I CAN, and sometimes I do, but generally speaking, after four hours... most dudes are satisfied with ONE ejaculation out of me and do NOT ask for more -- TIRE the guy out and going for seconds won't even be an issue)!

Or the guy CAN take some Viagra. HIS definition of "NEED" is no less valid than many others. It is a personal choice each man must make for himself.

I would use it if I felt the need. Maybe in five years I will. USING it is OK -- it is ABUSING that is the problem.

So, original poster -- you do what you want. It isn't going to kill you and you just might have some fun. There is NOTHING wrong with wanting to get it up multiple times. But DO be aware that you are not obligated to do this. If you simply WANT it for the sake of your own sexual pleasure -- why the hell NOT?

Quote |