http://groups.yahoo.com/group/female_ejaculation_nation/

[Link]

cum on, is it REALLY cum?

Edited by - stupid ass on 12/16/2004 8:01:23 PM

[Link]

Speaking of squirting bukkakes, Cytherea mentioned on her KSEX show tonight that she's doing one on the 21st with her, Flower, and a bunch of other squirters; in hers the target is a guy. I didn't hear more details than that, though. I'm sure details will follow in due time.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/female_ejaculation_nation/

[Link]

Or maybe there was some kind of nuclear attack I haven't heard about and one of the side effects of the radiation is squirting pussies.

Or maybe it is fake, and it really is piss.

Or maybe it's real. Maybe women have been doing so forever, but it was always considered a medical problem, something to be pitied and ridiculed rather than marveled at, so now that it's accepted - and indeed sought - they're coming out of the woodwork, so to speak.

Or maybe it is something that can be learned, and now that it's a popular phenomenon, people are learning how to do it.

Or maybe the female orgasm is getting more and more intense as the years pass, maybe girls are cumming differently as time progresses. Because maybe they're learning to explore themselves more fully as society learns to accept female sexuality.

Or maybe this is all nonsense, I don't know...

Whatever it is, I dig it and will be first in line to pick this one up.

Edited by - nickdel on 12/16/2004 11:36:55 PM

[Link]

There had to be atleast 20+ girls on set that day. It was a great time. I loved getting drenched. I think reguardless this movie is going to be hot as hell.

[Link]

AC Cream

[Link]

Keep an eye on Flower Tucci. If anybody can take this film idea to a great level it is this amazing young woman. JM turned this film into a pissfest. For this film idea to really be something special it needs 1 person(Flower?) with the backing of a company that respects squirting. Not knowing the "squirters" JM lined up the only thing worthwhile about this film is any camera time with Genesis before the "squirting" started.

AC Cream

[Link]

The second concept is the desire for inclusion. Most people want to fit in. They dress in fads, they speak with the lingo of their peers, they do things they ordinarily would not do if they were alone. Drinking to excess, drugs, speeding, blowing red lights, smoking, listening to certain kinds of music, wearing their hair this way or that way. We can all agree that this is true of most people. Maybe some might think, "that's kid's stuff, adults don't do that." Of course they do, but it's about what kind of car you drive, or the clothes you wear to the office, or your briefcase, or whatever. Most people don't want to stand out.

Put these two ideas together, and you get what I mentioned. Can a person's emotional need to fit in (or any mental state) govern their bodily functions? I believe it can/does. And it relates in this way.

There was a time when female sexual gratification was not only overlooked, not only ignored, but attacked, abused. "A woman should be chaste and clean and not have sexual desires, for they are to serve as the man's companion," and blah blah blah. That nonsense goes on and on. But, society deemed it not only acceptable, but as it should be . And who wants to be ostracized in their community, or in their home? What woman would go up to their husband and say, "Gee, I was wondering if you might want to eat my pussy tonight?"

So, society says it's wrong for a woman not just to experience pleasure, but to WANT to experience pleasure. That's important because that's where the mental state comes into play. A horny woman thinks to herself, "Well, there's something wrong with me. I don't know what it is because my mother never told me about this, but I know there's something wrong. I'm antsy, I can't sit still, I snap at people for no reason." Her husband comes home, bangs her for a few minutes, and now she's worse because she got all hot and bothered, with no satisfaction. That could drive a person crazy if they didn't know how to alleviate it. Especially when members of religious organizations like priests and rabbis are telling these women that their desires should be squelched and not given in to, that the only sexual urge needed to be taken care of is the man's. In fact, from what I've heard and read, an orgasm for a female back in the day was a truly rare occasion, that most people didn't even know what a clitoris was, let alone where it was located. All of this culminates in a lack of sexual knowledge for the woman. And they dealt with it. And they didn't cum. And their physical being accepted that because that's what the mind told it to do.

As times have changed over the decades, women are discovering themselves in a new way, in a way that their mothers never explained, or that they maybe hinted at. Now, female masturbation is accepted, and glorified in some circles. The man is being criticized if he can't get his woman off. And experimentation is the rule of the day, for both genders.

Society is accepting this change, and sometimes even helping it along. And, it is no longer "wrong" to discover yourself. So, discovery - because of its acceptance - is now possible, when it wasn't years back. And the things being discovered are emotional, psychological, and, yes, physical.

What would a woman in the 1800's have thought about multiple orgasms? And if she could achieve them, would she have been thought a slut and/or a whore? While these days that's not necessarily an insult, then it was something to be avoided.

I know all this is somewhat less than clear, but it boils down to this. I believe that a person's psychological state governs their physical being, ALL of their physical being. And it is a basic human need to be included somewhere. And if society says don't cum, you don't cum. When those reigns are removed, anything is possible. For women, their restraints have only been loosened a little while ago, in comparison with the history of humanity. Who knows what they are capable of? They don't even know. But we have directors like Mason and girls like ... well, there's too many to name ... who are documenting it all on film for the future to learn from, and for me to jerk off to.

Just my thoughts...

[Link]

ps I'm not really sure what shucks are.

[Link]

Damn, Nickdel, I think I'm in love!

You basically summed up everything I have ever felt about being sexual and being a woman. Great fucking post.

[Link]

Post of the Month!

Well thought and phrased, man.

I'm glad I saw Mason's name on the summary and checked out this thread. (Good save from someone trying to derail it into typical boorish JM Prod.-bashing/"It's all pissing, even though I haven't seen the movie" blah blah nanner nanner, too!)

Edited by - skronker on 12/18/2004 3:53:43 PM

[Link]

People have been talking about female ejaculation all over the net for a couple of years. All the women (and their partners) for whom this was happening already, suddenly had access to the stories of women and men all over the world, they no longer felt like freaks. Or at least they didn't need to feel like lonely freaks.

I recommend Alice Roissy's article at Literotica.com on Female Ejaculation as a nice summary on the topic.Article

Or Annie Sprinkle "Fifteen years ago, when I started teaching women's sexuality workshops, I asked how many women knew where their g-spot was. Only one or two women in twentyfive would raise their hand. A few months ago, at the same workshop at the same place, about %80 raised their hands. Over the years, more and more women found their G spots and the whole concept has become very much a part of the female sexual consciousness."

nickdel wrote

Annie also writes well on 7 types of orgasm, armed with information, women learn more about their responses and they become more responsive.

It's like the first time you have a G Spot orgasm/s, it feels different to the clitoral kind, if you had no information that such a thing existed would you recognise it as such? Another example would be an orgasm induced by nipple stimulation. I used to have these all the time but didn't realise that that's what it was. I'd never heard of it. I didn't know it was possible. I felt it but didn't recognise it. Does that make sense?

A while back I recall some Dutch research that was highlighted in a French doco called The Clitoris, where the research team discovered and confirmed that women who thought of themselves as non orgasmic could be taught to orgasm, that the neural pathways for pleasure could be established and recognition of arousal could be learnt.

Once you learn to ejaculate, you know what kind of stimulation brings it on, you recognise the feelings and sensations that accompany it, the pathway is established. Oh...and then you get addicted.

[Link]

But I just cannot imagine how it was possible to remain like that hundreds and hundreds of years. I dare to assume that not only the women had no fun during sex but the men didn't, too! Well, they had their orgasm... but that would not be enough to really satisfy me. (Maybe I'm a crazy freak or something, but I prefer the version with the unsatisfied men. )
For me the female orgasm is the greatest thing about sex at all. It's so great to be able to do that to a woman, it gives you so much self-confidence. In that thing I think many of you will agree. So let's go a step further (or back to the topic ):
There are men who would never give a woman head. Others would in order to get a blowjob afterwards. Some would do it because they just want to do her a favour. Finally there are those (like me) who do it also because it's a turn-on they would never want to miss. And getting squirted on by a woman while giving her head would probably be the greatest compliment I could ever get. If that happened I surely wouldn't have to worry about my own orgasm, too. There seems to be more hope for this dream to come true than a few years ago.
For the moment I would just be glad to know things like the release date of that video.

@Mason I didn't write that to impress you, but I could deal with it if I did.

She gives me pleasure no gauge can measure

[Link]

Edited by - M.B. on 12/28/2004 10:16:36 PM

[Link]

And the vibrators from the past you mentioned... From what I've read, it seems that women (this is maybe 8 decades ago or more) were going into "hysterics" every now and then and some "doctor" came up with a device that when he touched a woman with it, she would grow extremely agitated until some pinnacle was reached and she calmed down and left the office, until the next time. Well, that device was one of the first vibrators. And women went to these doctors because they didn't know what was going on with their bodies, just that this doctor had the cure.

b) People are not fucking the same way they always did. Yes, people must be fucking but for most of time it was a chore for the female, something to satiate the male and mainly to propagate the species.

c) Have you read the Kama Sutra? Not looked at the pictures, but read the texts? Here are some excerpts (translated of course, and not by me as I don't speak Sanskrit).

"WHEN a girl of the same caste, and a virgin, is married in accordance with the precepts of Holy Writ, the results of such a union are the acquisition of Dharma and Artha, offspring, affinity, increase of friends, and untarnished love. For this reason a man should fix his affections upon a girl who is of good family, whose parents are alive, and who is three years or more younger than himself. She should be born of a highly respectable family, possessed of wealth, well connected, and with many relations and friends. She should also be beautiful, of a good disposition, with lucky marks on her body, and with good hair, nails, teeth, ears, eyes and breasts, neither more nor less than they ought to be, and no one of them entirely wanting, and not troubled with a sickly body. The man should, of course, also possess these qualities himself. But at all events, says Ghotakamukha, a girl who has been already joined with others (i.e. no longer a maiden) should never be loved, for it would be reproachable to do such a thing .

To avoid quoting any more huge paragraphs, let me sum up some other words of wisdom.

-Only eunuchs give males oral sex. And a eunuch is a guy. And if a girl gives oral sex she is wanton and unchaste, a serving maid, not to be married by anyone.

-Here's another small quote: "A VIRTUOUS woman, who has affection for her husband, should act in conformity with his wishes as if he were a divine being."

This shit goes on and on. Don't tell me these people were sexually enlightened. There's all kinds of things in there about how the man and woman should act. This book is not dedicated to teaching about sexual positions and mutual enjoyment of the act, but more a set of rules as set down by the god they worship. There's stuff in there like a man and woman can only kiss by lamp-light if they have previously known each other, and if they haven't they must kiss in darkness.

Poor example.

d) Check out some of Axel Braun's posts. In one of them he gives a decent treatise on the subject, and especially its history. He notes the mention of the phenomenon in older books, hundreds of years ago.

There's a lot of literature on this subject, and from what I understand, Axel has read all of it. Like I said before check out his posts (bottom of the page).

[Link]

VincentVanGuage, I totally agree. The female orgasm is a fascinating event for me. Not just the pleasure she feels, but the entire process. The lead-up, the orgasm, and the wind-down. It's the most erotic visual! The first time I was the cause of one, the girl nearly suffocated me. She grabbed onto my head and smothered me against her mound. I had no idea what the hell I was doing, and was just as surprised as she seemed to be. But I knew right then I needed to find out how to make it happen again.

Licker, Skronker, Mason and anyone else that gets anything positive out of anything I ever say/write in my whole life, even if they never read this particular post, I offer my thanks.

Edited by - nickdel on 12/29/2004 12:08:15 PM

[Link]

Edited by - M.B. on 12/29/2004 12:45:14 PM

[Link]

The problem is with figures like Milton, who in Paradise Lost (in which his stated purpose was to "justify the ways of God to men"), skews the original story, making Eve out to be the real culprit who falls and drags Adam down with her by coersion.

What's my point? That religious texts are not necessarily what teach the repression of female sexuality; it is the people that read them. Here's an example: in England of the time of Shakespeare and Spenser, female "chastity" was a crucial "virtue" mainly because of economic reasons. If a woman had never had sex before you married her, then you were sure that any child she bore was your own, and you were sure to pass on your wealth and land to your own blood. There was no such thing as DNA; the only way men knew to be sure was to basically force women to be chaste. So, in order to propagate this idea, they had people like Spenser writing about how Chastity is one of the "Twelve Moral Virtues," essentially giving religious meaning to an economically-driven purpose.

My point is that you can't necessarily blame religion. Religion is simply a tool used by those who want to propagate their own agendas. The supression of female sexuality, then, I think comes from deeper origins than whatever the Bible says.

Edited by - getcool on 12/30/2004 4:39:37 AM

[Link]

She gives me pleasure no gauge can measure

[Link]

Yes, sex is the most demanding urge animals have. This is for procreation. But, there is a stronger force in the human animal. It's called the will. The will can conquer anything in the body - urges, sickness, etc. And, people are emotional before they are sexual. Emotions exist at birth, sexual response does not exist until natural puberty begins, or some experience triggers it unnaturally, such as molestation.

If a person is told their whole life that sex is dirty, they will believe it is so. And, if they are raised up in such a way as to respect and/or fear the person who told them that, then they will try not to give in to those urges, because the emotional ties to the rules/laws have a greater bearing on their mind than physical urges.

Now, that's a fact - Humans are ruled by their emotions, not their urges. If urges ruled, there'd be fucking in the streets, no one would ever get any work done, and chaos would reign until a natural order took shape. And that natural order would be animalistic. The weak get left behind, we'll do what we want until someone else kills us, etc.

I'm trying to say that our emotional ties to society govern our behavior. If a girl (or anyone, really) is told that touching herself is dirty and filthy and disgusting and base and that God frowns on that kind of activity, and all that shit, that poor girl will believe it. And she will not touch herself. Sure, she'll slip up and rub the goodies from time to time - because those urges are damn strong - but she'll feel horribly about it. She'll feel dirty and that she let her parents down, and that she's a disgrace in the eyes of God, etc., if that's what she's been taught. Because your parents are supposed to know everything. They're supposed to have all the answers.

I remember seeing a documentary on tv about this very subject. And one of the story's points was that women don't explore their bodies because they were taught not to, they were taught that it is a sin or that it is dirty, or whatever. The point is that they did not explore themselves. That's history, not merely my opinion.

And, BTW, animals don't explore themselves. They don't try new positions, or use the feathers of other animals. And they don't tie each other up, and there's no "pawing" where one animal sticks his paw into the other animal. And I've never seen animals paddle, pierce, or DP one another.

I guess my argument is that society dictates how people conduct themselves, both publicly and privately. And I guess your point is that my point is off the mark. However, I ask you this. Ever be walking down the street or in a store and see some chick who's just fucking insanely gorgeous? The kind of hot that you'd give up ten years of your life to fuck? Did you go up to her, sniff her ass, bend her over and fuck her from behind in the middle of the mall or a parking lot, or a field of daisies? Because that's the urge of the animal inside of us. But, society tells us that's wrong, unnacceptable, so we don't do it, no matter what our urges tell us to do.

Edited by - nickdel on 12/30/2004 9:34:36 AM

[Link]

You mention all English versions going back to King James. But the old testament was written in Hebrew, not English. It has been translated over and over for centuries, by men, not gods, men who have their own opinions of what should be worshipped as a holy text and what should not. James is a perfect example. Here's a guy with such an ego that he feels it is his direct responsibility to decide which stories are to be included in the bible, and which are not. He picks four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But what about the others? There have been many many storiess written about the life of Jesus Christ, but King James decides that these four are the only ones worthy of inclusion? Curious. The other gospels are in the appocrypha(sp). Makes for interesting reading.

Also, the King James bible has 68 books in it, and the Catholic bible has 72. Why the discrepency? Because man has an ego.

Religious texts are written by man, interpreted by man, worshipped by man, taught by man. This is a flawed system of spiritual enlightenment, you're very correct on that point. But, I guess I was trying to say that the teachers of this stuff - as you mention - have their own agenda. And, for much of recent history, that agenda has been sexual repression.

[Link]

But first I have something to add to the discussion between Nickdel and M.B.:

I myself was brought up with the belief that sex outside of marriage is a sin and so sexual thoughts are, too. Well, my parents don't call masturbation a sin, but our church says although it's not called a sin by the bible it's not good because it's selfish and because Christianity always refused it. The church taught me not to listen to whatever else I might learn in school. It said that girls don't have sexual desires if no man awakens it, and that it would be selfish to awaken it. And I believed that, because the girls really didn't seem to have sexual desires... well, if you are not to have them, you do what is needed not to have them...
That's why I always felt guilty when I felt attracted by a girl or even fell in love. Because the girls wouldn't want that, I didn't tell them. I was almost 17 when I masturbated for the first time, and I felt very guilty about it. But because there's a society outside my church I was confronted with other opinions, too, and I learned to think for myself. Now I believe that doing yourself something good is only selfish if it could have a bad influence on others. That's why you don't see me masturbating in public.
When I bought my first porn video I didn't feel guilty anymore, I had no problems to look the saleslady in the eyes because I knew that many other people do that, too. (And if she has a problem with that she's definitely on the wrong job.)
I didn't buy that stuff mainly because of my sexual urges but to kick the ass of all the teachers who wanted to rule my mind. The more they pull you in one direction, the more force is needed to break free... maybe I would watch soft porn otherwise.
Unfortunately you cannot erase your past completely, and having contact of any kind with any girl is a very seldom experience for me because I never felt worthy talking to these angelic beings so pure and free of every sexual desire.

So I think it's right that society and your upbringing has very much influence on what you do or don't... though not on everything. (I started to masturbate when I was 17, although I didn't start to think until I was 20.)

She gives me pleasure no gauge can measure

[Link]

Edited by - M.B. on 12/30/2004 3:03:13 PM

[Link]

Edited by - getcool on 12/30/2004 3:24:45 PM

[Link]

But, again, I question the purposes of sexual congress within the societies you mention, Thailand, for example. And about Thailand. Here is another country that expects all women to be chaste until marriage, and premarital sex between a dating man and woman is strictly forbidden. Now, contrast that idea with the idea that prostitution is the biggest trade in Thailand, and try to figure out how the people see women. Over 95% of males in Thailand have slept with a hooker. In fact, picking up a hooker is considered part of a night out, like going to dinner and a movie over here. But, women are supposed to be chaste, and subsequently unloved if they are not. That's a confused culture.

Even if a culture celebrates sex with statues and the like, it's the males of these societies that carve such statues, make the laws, etc.

I'm not saying that people don't or didn't fuck. What I'm saying is that women didn't always fuck for pleasure, especially in this country, or any other ruled by a religious hand. They fucked as part of the responsibility of being married, much of the time it being an unpleasureable experience for her.

And, incidentally, many species in the animal kingdom do get themselves involved in gang bangs. What I mean is that the female often is fucked by male after male, to make sure the sperm being deposited inside of her has a greater chance of taking root, thus continuing the species. Animals don't fuck for pleasure. Pleasure is a side effect - and a damn necessary one - but they fuck for procreation only. Humans are the only animals who go against this nature and fuck for pleasure. In fact, most human sex is engaged in with the hopes of not getting the woman pregnant. This is contrary to the laws of nature that you mention.

Yes, the most sophisticated animal on the planet has urges, yes they fuck. But, in civilization, emotions and feelings come before physical urges. And often times, those emotions and feelings make sex a dirty, vile thing. And involving oneself in such an act would be very damaging, so they wouldn't do it, or wouldn't do it all that much.

Guilt is a far stronger emotion than pleasure. That's why parents often use guilt to get their kids to conform to their wishes, rather than using the pleasure principle, because those pleasures must be controlled, not placated, as society demands.

[Link]

Good luck to ya, VVG.

[Link]

First of all, nickdel - great post and very well put. Thank you for a thoughtful and articulate contribution.

As always there is far more to both female and male sexuality than is commonly perceived. I recently spent a glorious four days with a man who had the most incredible orgasm control I have ever seen. He could maintain a very hard erection for more than 2 hours or until I was happy (very happy!) without coming and when he did come he would have multiple orgasms. The most amazing and glorious thing I have ever seen! I think I counted about 6 with a small break in between each and the sheer volume of semen he produced was unbelievable (over half a cup). Oh wait, maybe he was peeing too? No, it was thick, white, pure male ejaculate. He insists it is a skill that can be learned if a guy is prepared to put in the time and effort (hmmm... sounds suspiciously like the FE phenomena doesn't it?).

As to the eternal and heated speculation about female ejaculation and what *it* is - I can't for the life of me understand why it matters?!

I squirt, it only happens with g-spot stimulation and once I start I don't want to stop so it's usually a marathon session. The volume of clear, slightly sweet fluid produced with each orgasm is not large but I will have orgasm after orgasm over a long period of time so it is a large volume altogether. And here's the thing: my partner and I don't care what it is! Imagine that! If a woman is having a mind blowing orgasm (or better yet, a series of) and her partner and/or audience think it's hot, who really cares what it is? I don't care if she's squirting holy rosewater!

edited for typo

Edited by - Naiad on 12/30/2004 10:35:56 PM

[Link]

Oh, and I hope I didn't give you the impression that I hate religion... I just hate what some people do with it... and there are much worse things... much more people were killed for God's sake than for Satan's during history, and that's really a shame.

And hey, I'm still in college, too (though we call it university in Switzerland), live with my parents and will be 27 in April. And what's more, I know the technique to make a woman squirt, my tongue is even more eager to touch a pussy than my cock, but a kiss on the cheek is the most intimate thing I managed to get. (Okay, some might say, telephone sex is more intimate, but not me...).
But hey, you're right, I'm ready for a change, and if I'm not struck by lightning or something I will have sex, and if I should have to pay for it, who cares? I have much more respect for a prostitute than for a women who marries a man just because he's wealthy. Maybe sex is something that shouldn't be bought and sold... but buying and selling love is much worse, I think.
If God will condemn a prostitute, I cannot change it, but that doesn't mean I have the right to condemn her... much more religious people than I do it, even some of her customers do it (!!), but I will not, cause I don't even know her reasons. In fact I have great respect for every woman, and all the more since I know they have human needs, too. Just in case someone brings up the idea that watching porn movies goes hand in hand with contempt for women...

She gives me pleasure no gauge can measure

[Link]

On another occasion I masturbated and came exactly when I wanted to... but I expected just a couple of short, quick jets, not that powerful continuous stream for about 3 seconds without a break that came first... unfortunately I don't know how I did it and how to do it again, but I would recommend it.

I'm quite sure there are many other aspects of male and female sexuality than we know nowadays.

She gives me pleasure no gauge can measure

Edited by - VincentVanGauge on 12/31/2004 12:55:55 AM

[Link]

2, If a person expels that much fluid from their body, it needs to be replenished. I don't care if it's sweat, piss, or puke, when hydration is attacked, the person needs to drink something. So, drinking a bottle of water every thirty seconds in itself isn't proof of anything either way.

There really is no way that I can think of to test this. The problem is that one process taints the other. Here's something that might work. Take a squirter and bring her to a lab for about a week with no orgasms. Have her drink the same amount of water per day that she would if she were squirting on a regular basis. And every time she urinates, examine the chemical makeup of this fluid. Now, keep her there a second week, squirting at will, but multiple times per day, all the while drinking approximately the same amount of water as the first week. Now examine both her regularly expelled urine and her squirted fluids. Compare these results with the results of the first week. And come to a conclusion.

And the presence of ammonia doesn't mean anything. The fluids travel through the same tube, so having a trace amount of urine doesn't mean the basic fluid is piss. What matters is the percentage of urea found in the liquid. Semen has trace amounts of piss for this same reason, but you don't see anyone doubting a man's cumshot, even if it is clear.

What I outlined above would give a good basis for comparison for a single subject, rather than compare results for multiple women. When those percentages are calculated, then a more definitive answer can be discovered. but, who's going to volunteer for this? And who's going to pay for it? Maybe Skeeter can put up his $10,000 and pay for the tests, and we can have a squirter get involved and maybe it can be made into a kind of porno documentary, and the people can see for themselves what's going on.

Or we can just let it go.

[Link]

Edited by - nickdel on 12/31/2004 11:25:31 AM

[Link]

As to this challenge, it's interesting that he specified drinking a Red Bull... a drink loaded with caffeine, which is a known diuretic. Not that a militant enemy of female ejaculation would try and rig the test, oh no, that would NEVER happen... not in the scrupulously moral porn industry! :O;)

Regarding a properly done test, there is a compound called methylene blue that turn urine blue... if it doesn't affect the color of femejac, that would make it very easy to distiguish between one and the other.

http://www.femaleejaculationnation.net/

[Link]

But, I say fuck it. I don't care if it's maple syrup, I dig it. (Although a maple syrup dispensing woman would make shopping less costly.)

[Link]

@nickdel Maybe it WILL be maple syrup in a few years... at least in the dicktionary. Wouldn't that be a fine camouflage term for FE? Maybe we talk about maple syrup someday as we do now about watersports and snowballing.

She gives me pleasure no gauge can measure

[Link]