What you see on DVD is usually just water or milk or whatever poured into the vagina right before the camera is turned on and then squeezed out for the camera.

[Link]

DenverDon

[Link]

Terminator 1, and Terminator 2. Do we really expect to see a liquid metal man morphing into something else. Not really, but it's fun to watch and feed our fantasies.

But female ejaculation is fun to watch and it entertains us.

DenverDon

Edited by - DenverDon on 10/8/2002 2:57:08 PM

[Link]

Someone's going to slap me for nitpicking, aren't they?!

[Link]

You're right. I just posted it wrong.

DenverDon

[Link]

It peaked your interest, didn't it?

[Link]

Go Ask Alice! article.

Also, here's an excerpt describing the laboratory tested chemical composition of female ejaculate (not urine). (The site that this is from is here - not a medical site, but it points to definitive medical sources.)

---

At Dalhousie University professor Ed Belzer found varying concentrations of acid phosphatase in the women's ejaculate. This chemical had previously been thought to be produced only by males, and in some courtrooms was accepted as evidence to support a rape charge. Belzer's discovery proved that it wasn't urine and also pointed out the existence of a genuine female prostate-like gland.

Not only are the fluids they produce chemically similar, the female prostate acts like the male prostate: when rhythmically prodded, it swells up and then discharges fluid through the urethra. To reach a male's prostate gland, you have to reach in through his anus. In the female, you reach in - at virtually the same angle - through her vagina.

There has been debate whether the ejaculation originate from the bladder or from the urethral glands and ducts. Both may be the case in that a small amount of fluid may be released from the urethral glands and ducts in some instances and mixed in the urethra with a clear fluid that originates in the bladder.

Tests have been done where the bladder is drained of urine before the sexual stimualation and resulting ejaculation. Even though their bladders had been drained, they still expelled from 50 ml to 900 ml of fluid through the tube and into the catheter bag. The only reasonable conclusion would be that the fluid came from a combination of residual moisture in the walls of the bladder and from post draining kidney output.

Regardless, a number of tests have chemical analysis have been done on the fluid. Exactly what it is, isn't known but there is a consistency of results that show a greatly reduced concentration of the two primary components of urine, urea and creatinine, in the expelled fluid.

As Unv of So Calf tests showed the results were clearly "out of the range" to be defined as urine.

But women's sexuality still remains a mystery (as women do in other ways ... as the exact source and exactly what the fluid is remains natures secret.

---

With all due respect to Dumblonde, I found the above in only 5 minutes of searching the Internet. I didn't spend the time to read the medical source material, nor am I a doctor or an expert, but it certainly seems that there is at least professional controversy and simply dismissing the topic out of hand (in real life, not necessarily faking it in porn) is doing a disservice to the subject.

[Link]

A good thing to check out is that a lot of the women who do ejaculation videos also do pissing videos. Whats the correlation? Draw your own conclusisons; my opinion is that women who pee on video are also good at 'pretending' to squirt during orgasm, they just force a good ol' pee at the key moment.

[Link]

I found many similar articles Mythsong, and I certainly didn't dismiss it out of hand. But the fact is, I found nothing from any *reputable* medical institution.

The real disservice that I saw was in perpetuating this thing, both in porn and the internet, when there were almost no counter-views.

I have no vested interest one way or another. I spent a lot of time researching it, reading anatomy books, talking to medical professionals as well as porn directors. I also have first-hand personal experience with it, and P-Knuckle is correct that it has nothing to do with orgasm.

NOTHING is "taboo" to the medical profession. That just doesn't happen, it's not how they work. What, now they are saying that there's some kind of conspiracy, or coverup?

I really don't understand why people are so opposed to the idea that it's urine, but this aversion seems to be at the core of it. When people take their fluid sample to a major medical institution and have it tested, I would be open and interested to hear that. There is no conspiracy.

I stand by the conclusion I came to, and have read nothing since that hasn't been a re-hash usually by the same fringe group of people, including that doc in Slovakia.

It was never meant to be more than onesided. It was the conclusion I came to after a lot of work. I thought the title Female Spunk Debunked made that clear.

But if I had it to do over again, I might not have bothered taking the time to write that. I also could have avoided the hate mail, personal attacks, and apparently still bitter feelings that the article brought down on me. Again, all by males, for what it's worth.

People will, and should, believe whatever they want to. I would suggest however, just to be more skeptical of things on the internet or having to do with porn.

Peace

Edited by - dumblonde on 10/10/2002 12:19:16 AM

[Link]

I find that surprising since this has more to do with female sexuality than anything else - a field that most men would not care very much about.

> didn't dismiss it out of hand. But the fact is, I found
> nothing from any *reputable* medical institution.

It depends on what you mean by "reputable". As I mentioned, such research is only considered something to be interested in by sex clinics and proponents of the study of female sexuality. It wasn't even until the 20th century that female orgasms were considered to be "proven" or "real" and, until then, the clitoris was overlooked as an important part of the woman's body. Prior that that, every reputable medical doctor (almost all male) would laugh at the notion that such things were worth study, important, or in existence.

> The real disservice that I saw was in perpetuating this
> thing, both in porn and the internet, when there were

I'm not trying to aruge for or against how the adult industry is portraying this. Said industry is rife with stereotypes, misrepresentations, and things that have little bearing on most real life situations.

> NOTHING is "taboo" to the medical profession. That just

In the sense that it's not considered valid or worth study, the medical profession can be just as short-sighted as any other scientific group. I'm sure that Galileo would agree here. <grin>

> saying that there's some kind of conspiracy, or coverup?

I'm not saying that there's anything willfull going on, simply a lack of interest and/or awareness. In addition to the above examples of historic scientific derision of things that we now accept as "normal", can be added Western medicine's recently increased acceptance of Holism (Eastern medicine in general) as an authentic and valid medical practice. More and more classically trained doctors in North America are recognizing and even practising such things as acupuncture and herbalism. (Up until now it's been treated mostly with scorn and derision - as so much "hogwash" - by Western science. Only now is it starting to gain attention.)

> I really don't understand why people are so opposed to the > idea that it's urine, but this aversion seems to be at the

I'm not pointing to my personal "preference" (if it were just urine it wouldn't bother me) but to clinical research studies that show not only that it's not being produced by the same organ as is urine, but that it's chemical composition is different from that of urine - also that it can be produced even after the bladder has been emptied. All of these studies suggest that something else is going on.

> When people take their fluid sample to a major medical
> institution and have it tested, I would be open and
> interested to hear that.

I've tried to point out that this has already been done in several studies, and that the analysis has shown that it does not have the same chemical composition of urine. The fact that there hasn't been a more wide-spread analysis is simply due to a lack of interest. I would be more than happy to read of "mainstream" studies that have shown the reverse - taken a good sample of cases and tested the fluid to be nothing other than urine - but there haven't been any that I'm aware of. The only studies that have been done, with chemical analysis, etc. (at least as far as I'm aware), have shown the opposite.

> since that hasn't been a re-hash usually by the same
> fringe group of people, including that doc in Slovakia.

I just watched an interesting documentary on the new "Phage" treatments coming out of Russia that offer an alternative to the increasingly ineffective and dangerously overprescribed use of antibiotics. Such research, until a couple of years ago, was considered to be "unscientific" and "on the fringe" but it, too, is steadily gaining increased recognition in Western medicine - especially as we realise the increasing dangers of antibiotic use and start (through necessity) to consider alternatives. One of the hospital's in the States has opened a research lab, funded and staffed to do nothing other than replicate and study the Phage work in Russia.

> just to be more skeptical of things on the internet or
> having to do with porn.

I believe almost nothing that I see in adult movies.

[Link]

What I wanted to comment on is the medical profession. Mythsong is on the right track there. A lack of interest and an unwillingness to investigate leads to a lack of evidence. For years (decades, I think) one researcher was ostracized for saying that ulcers were caused or facilitated by the bacteria H. pylori. Whoops! He was right. The medical profession doesn't like to reverse itself or look foolish, so things get supressed.

For an equally long time, the inventor of the Heimlich maneuver has said that in drowning cases, the Heimlich maneuver should be performed to remove water from the lungs before giving mouth-to-mouth (otherwise water in the lungs will be driven into the lung tissue). The Red Cross having given different advice for a very long time, has been reluctant to adopt this ever-so-simple idea which has virtually no downside.

Female ejaculation or no female ejaculation, it's not a priority for the medical profession, and they don't have the last word with me.

[Link]

Scientific research papers

It's real. Enough said.

By the way, do you know how easy the BIBLIOGRAPHY was to find?

I went to The Kinsey Institute, did a search for 'female ejaculation', clicked on the first result, and scrolled down the list to find the link.

Edited by - RobHammer on 5/21/2003 8:50:19 PM

[Link]

"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" - Aleister Crowley 1875-1947

[Link]

Do you think you can get a screener on this one from Dr. Schubach's bibliography:

------(consultant) and Schoen, M. (filmmaker). Orgasmic expulsions of fluid in the sexually stimulated female. Film available from Focus International, Inc., 1776 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10019.

I'll volunteer to do the review. I promise I'll pass it on to DB when I'm done. I know it's not on DVD but we should make an exception for this one.

Edited by - RobHammer on 5/22/2003 8:31:19 PM

[Link]

My mind isn't totally closed on the subject, it's just that until I see studies published by more reputable sources (other than a VHS tape by Dr. G Spot/Schubach that is), I prefer to remain skeptical, but that's just me.

[Link]

Edited by - Mythsong on 5/23/2003 12:27:47 PM

[Link]

"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" - Aleister Crowley 1875-1947

Edited by - Asmodeus on 5/23/2003 12:15:54 AM

[Link]

Now as for Dr. G-spot, I take his brand of medicine with a healthy dose of skepticism. However, I'm quite tempted to spend the $25 dollars and get his report. The references cited in the bibliography from all those independent studies published in reputable scientific journals seems legitimate to me. That coupled with personal testimonials on this thread and others have me convinced.

In the grand scheme of things, whether some women squirt and some women don't is as unimportant as whether some men shoot a geyser and some men dribble. It may look good on camera but it doesn't make a difference for their own personal pleasure.

The first mate says, "The world is flat. We're going to sail off they edge if we keep going."

"Nay mate," says the captain, "The world is round. Sail on."

Western civilization has been it's own worst enemy when it comes to the pursuit of knowledge. This is especially true in medical science and human sexuality. Things that were known and practiced for thousands of years in the healing arts were lost, and are slowly being rediscovered. The knowledge that other cultures had about sexuality, from things like natural methods of birth control to female sexual response to aphrodisiacs and abortive agents were also swept away with civilizations progress. So we can remain skeptical, or keep an open mind and we may rediscover something that someone already knew.

Edited by - RobHammer on 5/24/2003 3:01:02 AM

[Link]

I'm Rob's wife of 19 years and Rob has a right to speak how he feels about his sexual freedom, but I'm afraid because I'm Rob's 2nd wife. OK and maybe I'm not used to it from someone I've loved for so long. Rob wants to express his sex etc. but I'm afraid to lose the only person I've loved for 19 years.

Signed,
Mrs. RobHammer

Edited to correct grammatical errors.

Edited by - RobHammer on 5/24/2003 2:42:12 AM

[Link]

PS - It's your sex life too!
---------------------------------------------------------

Edited by - lindi on 5/24/2003 9:38:08 AM

[Link]

I could have deleted it on the spot and forgot the whole thing, but I didn't. If she felt that strongly about something to write about it and post it, I should respect her feelings and try to understand her.

Granted, Thursday is her regular night out and she had consumed her quota of alcoholic beverages. That showed through with her original poor grammar and unpunctuated form. She was obviously expressing her most insecure feelings. But after writing it at 3AM she didn't have any trouble jumping my bones at 4AM.

So I went to work and chewed on it. I opened an email pointing out the post and asking me if I might want to delete it. No, I don't mind the revealing glimpse into my personal life. I got another email asking if everything was all right and if I wanted to talk about it. Yes, things are going just fine and no, there's nothing to really talk about. So why am I still bugged? Why can we talk candidly about the most intimate sexual situations, and have one little expression of emotion throw a monkey wrench in the works? Well, sex gets you nude, but emotion leaves you naked.

Friday night I opened up the thread and my wife smiled at lindi's reply. I asked her if she wanted to change anything and she said, "No, I know what I wrote." I knew what she meant, and where she was coming from. She isn't really afraid that she will lose me in the sense of my physically leaving. She's afraid that I might want more from her than she is capable of giving, and that I might look elsewhere to get it. (Wow, now that's revealing).

We have a great relationship, and great sex, but I've been pushing the envelope on her comfort zone for years. I've been writing essays and erotic fiction, and now reviewing movies and posting here at ADT. My interest in swinging and involvement at the GLBT community center has made her even more uncomfortable. We do share everything, and respect each others limits and personal boundaries, but she still feels insecure.

So, do any of you have issues you'd like to share? Or insights on dealing with issues in your own relationships?

Lindi - start a new topic title 'Your Partners Feelings' with this and the 4 previous posts.

[Link]

It's over here.

[Link]

Because I'm new to this site I hadn't seen shelby69's post above on this topic - great post!

[Link]

The "female prostate" is not a gland like it is in men, but rather a more complex system that is comprised of the urethral and paraurethral glands, and the Skene's ducts as well. "Ejaculate" is measured by PSAs (prostate specific antigens)...and women do indeed secrete them in their own complex way. But unless your girl has a set of balls with matching vas deferens, she has no seminal fluid (cum) to secrete her PSAs in...so the female system mixes them with the nearest available fluid source...from the bladder. So what "squirts" out is a weakened version of piss, which contains the orgasmic secretions.

A devout squirter will defend the valid proof that the fluid is not entirely urine, but to the layman, you should consider yourself being pissed on.

So basically, if your woman does it uncontrollably while she's cumming, it's called "squirting"...If she does it first thing in the morning, it's called "pissing"...If she does it all over your parent's bed and you blame the dog, it's called "priceless".

I must say in defense of "squirters", it's totally fucking hot , and as long as science can say that females do indeed secrete ejaculate fluid into the stream, then we can continue to shoot it as "female ejaculation".

As for turkey basters? Milk and water fill-ups? No..never on my set, and probably on very few of the others. I believe the girls who squirt do it for the pure sexual pleasure contained in that moment of release and relief. Hell, if pissing myself while I came was possible and felt good, I'd do it too...

[Link]

but what wood i no i'm not a scientist

[Link]