Reviewers Recommend Satisfying Lesbian Desires - review by Captain Jack Starring: Julia Ann, Kendra Lust, Whitney Wright, Hime Marie, Eliza Ibarra, Freya Parker, Kay Lovely, Alexis Tae. Read review
I think many of the members here have serious doubts if squirting even EXISTS. Just use the search function, you will see loads of threads about that point.
Paying trib-ute to SinncentVanSage 1412 Posts 12/04
Posted - May 17 2005 : 8:33PM
I have nothing to add to what squirtfan1 said but I can't go past a thread about squirting consciously. So I post this to wish you luck and hope you'll enjoy this sexiest act in the world.
Well, the forums here aren't the best place to go to ask for help with this IMO. Probably the best place I've seen online for getting help w/ FE is the forums at FemaleEjaculation101.com; the people who run it know what they're talking about due to personal experience, and will respond pretty quickly from what I've seen.
Paying trib-ute to SinncentVanSage 1412 Posts 12/04
Posted - May 22 2005 : 12:33PM
1 Drink lots of water, so your urine is colour- and odourless.
2 Put pressure on your bladder and squirt out a medium amount of urine.
3 Tell the world that you've just had an orgasm and that it's real ejaculate.
Click to expand
That was quite funny were it not for the fact that it wasn't funny. She didn't ask how to fake squirting, mind you. By the way you could have left step 1 and 2 aside even then.
Obviously, you never had the pleasure of experiencing it because you would know that it has a sweet taste to it. All naysayers never experienced it, but they voice their ignorant opinion because they do not believe it. Watch some of the squirting stars and try to figure out how they "urine" while they are being penetrated. Explain to me why Cytherea continues to convulsions after "urinating"? People are known to convulse after an orgasm, but after urinating? I was once a naysayer and did not believe it, but I educated myself on the subject and I proved to myself that female ejaculation is not a myth.
I won't dive into the facts about where body fluids come from, but please. Cytheria is an actress. Perhaps she convulses because she's trying to sell videos?
Paying trib-ute to SinncentVanSage 1412 Posts 12/04
Posted - May 29 2005 : 6:54AM
If these convulsions were fake then Cytherea would be the best actress Hollywood ever had by far, and make at least ten times the money she makes now. Don't know how much she gets now but obviously it'd be more likely for her to appear in TV commercials and the like as a mainstream actress.
The versatile virgin Vince visits the village - Mary go hide yourself!
Come now, female orgasms manifest themselves too differently, for most of us on the other side of the TV screen to tell a real one from a half way decently faked one.
Whether she cums for real or not, I appreciate the attempt of at least making it look like she does. Too many don't even try that.
Besides, Hollywood actors are generally piss-poor anyway.
Paying trib-ute to SinncentVanSage 1412 Posts 12/04
Posted - May 29 2005 : 7:31AM
I can't tell whether it's real or faked in most cases but should Cytherea's orgasms turn out to be faked someday I won't believe in the existence of female orgasms anymore.That's why I said Cy would be the best "by far".
The versatile virgin Vince visits the village - Mary go hide yourself!
Gads. Its a bit like arguing evolution with a creationist. And I mean that in a good way, of course. The creationists have it made-Ignore all facts that don't fit with your view, and instead rely on a thousands-year-old document of unknown authorship with tales of talking serpants and magical fruit, where a 6 day work week was plenty to bring all into existance.
1. If a girl 'squirts' more than you did, its pee. nothing more, nothing less. Medicine, anatomy, physics-yes, you can ignore them, but it doesn't make you right. I'm willing to yeild you a teaspoonfull or so with your paraurethral glands, bulbourethreal glands, and what have not, but more than that, pee.
2. Relying on crap science and unsourced web sites is a good way to find out who really killed Kennedy and who the Clintons murdered, but its a lousy way to get medical information. Its not the absolute number of references you can cut-and-paste, its the quality. And the quality of the pro-squirt assembly isn't enough to get me damp.
3. I've seen porn in my life, and I'll be honest, I have no idea how many female orgasms I've seen. Could be 0, could be a thousand. I dunno. But you have to admit, it is at least possible, that a woman can fake an orgasm, no matter how convincing it appears. Heck, I've heard they can even do it in person, although I'm sure it's _never_ happened to me.
4. I've seen a clip of Cytheria. Litterally, you would have to believe in a higher power, or Dianetics, or magic, or...gads, I don't know, maybe that book about the talking snake and the magic fruit...is involved in her production of fluid if it wasn't pee. Because its pee. Its OK if it turns you on, and if the censors have a problem with pee, but not with the word 'squirt', then I'm cool with that. But like I'd say to the Jehovas Witnesses, you should keep your less-than-rational belief system to yourself and not try to coerce others into your cognitive dissonance.
5. There's a lot of stuff in porn that men seem to like that most real-world women wouldn't. There's always someone in the business that will jump in on these discussions and voluteer that they really, really love whatever it is, double anal, semen in the eye, Ron Jeremy (who strikes me as a decent fellow, but not one I'd like to sleep with), and will try to convince you that their responses on screen are real, honest-to-gosh passion. The cynic in me would say that they're not, that they're creating and selling a persona as much as a video, and marketing both of them to the guys that are turned on by it and buy their product.
Paying trib-ute to SinncentVanSage 1412 Posts 12/04
Posted - May 31 2005 : 9:11AM
Yeah, good example... for me it's easier to believe in a superior being that brought laws of nature into existence and therefore is able to annul them whenever it wants to than believing in random events producing something else than chaos when you give them enough time. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm very happy about it. It just means that I lack the belief that's necessary to support evolution theory. And I did my degree with an exposition about evolutionary algorithms.
I've heard about squirting from so many different and independant sources (including women who experienced it) that I have no problem to believe in it. In most of these sources it was mentioned that it can be a lot of juice, significantly more than a man ejaculates. I totally agree with you that Cytherea is not the norm. But is Peter North the norm? Or Mandingo? No, there's something special about them that could be an explanation why they are in that business. Of course that's not proof of squirting being real, and of course I want it to be real but that doesn't mean it has to be piss, either. I don't think we know too much of female sexuality by now. Probably we don't even know everything about male sexuality. I'd be not surprised if someone found out every man is potentially capable of having multiple orgasms. If someone doesn't agree with my opinion I have no problem as long as no one forces his/her opinion on me, especially by law. Otherwise I don't care. I just know I'm into squirting but not into watersports (though no offence meant to those who are). Feel free to stick to your opinion, I'll stick to mine, too.
The versatile virgin Vince visits the village - Mary go hide yourself!
myk, you can make all the arguments you want about female ejaculation being a myth, but you never experienced it. I have and there is no way that what I tasted, which has a sweet taste, and experienced was urine. There has been research on female ejaculation that concluded that the female ejaculation was vastly difference from urine, but obviously these facts you ignore because of your viewpoint. Doctors can not sexually stimulate their patients unless they want a lawsuit. No doctor would have known about female ejaculation, before sexual researchers like Kinsey. Most naysayers of female ejaculation never experienced it, but yet they state their opinion and try to discredit the people that have experienced it. I was once a naysayer of the female ejaculation camp, but instead of being a "closed minded" person about the subject I wanted to prove it to myself. I read up on the subject and experimented. From my own personal experience, I recommend the naysayers to take the "open-minded" approach and investigate it themselves. Stop trying to hijack a thread from someone who wants to learn for themself.
Not hijaking at all...just reaffirming the best answer of the week. Drink a lot of water and let it rip.
I understand that people are turned on by a lot of things that I don't understand, and that they don't really understand themselves. It doesn't change the facts on the ground, or in the pelvis.
I'm not ignoring any facts-I'm just weighing them based on their likelyhood of being accurate. When a medical journal says its piss, and 'squirt.com' or whatever says something else, I take the journal. When the biggest avocates of something are either selling it or are sexually aroused by it, I take their viewpoints with a large grain of salt.
I guess my point is, if someone is presenting information that is contrary to commonly held belief and a thorough examiniation of the scientific evidence, and that person is either A) trying to get your money or B) has an erection, then you should be suspicous.
I can understand your viewpoints about ancient texts, but the book I read and learned from was "The G Spot" by Alice Kahn Ladas, Beverly Whipple, and John D. Perry. This book was not some nonsense website with nonsense babble. This book used a lot of references of scientific research to back their claims.
I also experienced it with past girlfriends. I am not a porn star promoting a video and I am not a webmaster promoting a site. I am just an average Joe who took an "open mind" to female ejaculation, educated myself with scientific book, and experienced whether female ejaculation is a myth or not for myself.
The people that usually made history were not "close minded" people. These people did not follow the trend at the time. They were "free thinkers" with an "open mind" approach and made discoveries on their own. If it was not for explorers like Christopher Columbus, people would still believe that the world is flat. I recommend people take an "open mind" approach and explore for themselves. Whether they discover it from themselves is up to them and their partner(s).
Naysayers can listen to you or I argue all they want. I believe they are not going to learn by watching from some porn movies, though there are some movies on educating people on G-Spot stimulation. They can form their ignorant opinions from what they saw on a porn movie. The only way to battle ignorance is education. Naysayers have to learn for themselves and not listen to people like you and I argue about it.
Well, while I wouldn't equate FE with Christopher Columbus and the search for new worlds, I won't piss on your boot and tell you its raining, so to speak.
senoritasquirtfan, i've never seen anyone with such an unwavering refusal to consider listening to what someone else is trying to explain, but i've lost touch with most of my friends who were into suicide-bombings and jihad. this is absurd, you're telling someone who spent over half-a-decade intensely familiarizing himself with the human body. it's entirely irrelevant how smart you are or think you are--he's simply going to have a sense of what's plausible and what's not that you cannot get on some "sex-positive" websites. maybe traditional medicine isn't ignoring it for any other reason than they've taken enough women apart and seen enough weird fluids to know it's total, laughable bullshit and a huge waste of research-money to satisfy some gullible porn-fans brainwashed by axl braun. your sources, as usual, either suck or you're getting something out of them that was never there to satisfy "squirtfan's order of the universe". listen to people who know more than you like doctors on medical topics. maybe, just maybe there's a chance you're not infallible and the world's not out to get you. the world's just pissed because they went to harvard and fletcher or medical school and you're delusionally convinced you're always right. the truth is you're fanatically-ignorant about a lot of stuff.
Paying trib-ute to SinncentVanSage 1412 Posts 12/04
Posted - Jun 2 2005 : 10:33PM
I'd say sometimes personal experience is at least as good a source as being a doctor of medicine. When I haul a man's body out of a lake in midsummer I don't necessarily need to be a doctor to tell you whether he's dead or not. Sometimes I can see it in his ice-skates.
I'm not a virgin anymore. I'm a liar now.
Edited by - VincentVanGauge on 6/2/2005 10:33:43 PM
Personal experience is great, but having a brain tumor doesn't make you a neurosurgeon.
You would think, if there were something in a woman's pelvis that could hold the half-gallon of clear fluid that Cytheria can spout, we'd see it-autopsies, disections, surgeries, MRI's, scans-I can find a half-centimeter lymph node, you'd think that something that holds as much as a sport bottle would be obvious. But what should I know. Live by anecdote.
I see now! Doctors are infallible, god-like beings who never make mistakes. The years of medical school, internship, and residency raise them beyond mere mortal status.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
p.s. I personally take no position on the existence of female ejaculation.
I also want to say this isn't directed at Myk, but at the "doctors know everything about the human body there is to know" school of thought. I respect and trust most M.D.s and D.O.s, but I myself have been misdiagnosed and mistreated enough times over the years, to not blindly respect and trust any member of the medical profession.
Its interresting you mention it, but I got an A+ in my infallibility class in medical school. Of course, if you're taking a class in infallibility, what other grade could you get?
Yes, there are crap docs out there, and there are honest mistakes. But the issue here is that there is an easy, obvious answer here-clear liquid that comes out of your urethera is pee. Now, sometimes easy, obvious anwers are wrong, but the burdeon of proof is on those that insist that there is something else there. A woman's pelvis is pretty jam-packed with good things, but there aren't open areas to fill with fluid other than...
Heck, I'm beginning to think I'd rather be analyzing why straight men rent 'shemale' videos than discuss this. I don't have anything against pee, although it doesn't turn me on. I just think that if you're going to say something, you should back it up. And just because someone happens to agree with you doesn't make them any more right than you are-you need to look at the quality of the evidence. And there just isn't any quality. The emperor has no clothes, and his girlfriend is peeing all over him.
There is more to it than that. I also do not hold any "position" on female ejaculation, but I do know that there is a medical "establishment" that resents and suppresses new ideas.
Knowledge of the bacterial cause of stomach ulcers was suppressed for over thirty years.
Harmful drugs are pushed on patients who only need a change of diet and lifestyle.
Medical textbooks are probably still anatomically incorrect in their diagrams of the clitoris, they certainly were until very recently.
Doctors are still giving negligent diagnoses like "old age", "nerves" and "growing pains".
Doctors don't know everything, and a patient who doesn't personally research his own medical condition has a strong chance of getting an incorrect diagnosis or treatment.
Personal experience in my own family has included doctors who were incapable of diagnosing diabetes, whooping cough, potassium deficiency and brain tumour, after hearing the symptoms of each described in accurate detail. One of these misdiagnoses was fatal.
The opinion of the "medical establishment" on the current state of medical research, is, in my opinion, close to worthless.
there are crap doctors out there, but they can't be utter-morons to get in and out of medical school. more importantly, they've had to spend time and lots of it learning how the plumbing works, seeing dead but real plumbing, and potentially the squirting fairies that come flying out of the body to bless another pornstar with their gift. i'd trust a shrink with parkinson's, years removed from anatomy-class over the majority of the universal-geniuses the world has seen to take my tonsils out in a jam. simply because at some point, they spent tons of time learning the basics of how a human body works. sometimes you just can't get around experience.
sure they can't tell you how nuerontin works, but what do you think the average lifespan would be if the medical establishment dissapeared? children get delivered alive almost without fail, cancer isn't always fatal, they can get your appendix out faster than jiffy-lube can change oil, bipolarity isn't a sentence to life in an institution, etc. the medical establishment gets a lot right licker.
I don't care if he is a doctor or read books about the human body. I don't know any doctors that can sexual stimulate their patients. Do you? So how can a medical doctor have an opinion on a sexual fluid if they can not sexually stimulate their patients? Because they read medical journals? Medical doctors are writing journals about a sexual subject? I read a book about the G-Spot that was written by sexual researchers, not some porno or website about the subject. I think they would know more about the subject than a medical doctor.
It was a personal experience that has happened to me a number of times, are you or myk going to tell me what I experienced? myk never experienced before, so how can he tell me what I experienced?
You can personally attack me all you want, it just shows your character. I don't care if you think I am ignorant or not, because your opinion means nothing to me.
myk can claim "Personal experience is great, but having a brain tumor doesn't make you a neurosurgeon." If you had a brain tumor and needed surgery, are you going to go to a neurosurgeon who had experience with the surgery or a medical doctor that read something about it in college. I don't know about you, but I'll take my chance with the neurosurgeon whose had experience with the surgery.
That is true of course, but it does not make them all experts on every aspect of sexuality.
I am a successful software developer who also gets a lot right, but that doesn't qualify me to ridicule every new concept that appears in computer science research.
When doctors ridiculed Louis Pasteur's germ theories, do you think they had any sound scientific reasons for doing so? Of course not . They were just resisting change to the sacred teachings.
Did you ever analyze the fluid when a woman squirts? Do you know for sure it is urine. You tested it. You analyzed it and concluded it was obviously pee. Frank Addiego, a sexual researcher, performed a case study on Female Ejaculation. He analyzed both samples of female ejaculation and urine. He concluded that FE had significant higher amounts of Prostatic acid phosphantase and glucose while the urine had higher amounts of urea and creatine. But you obviously analyzed your own samples of urine and FE and came up with a different conclusion or are you just making an ignorant comment?
It's foolish to think there's a hidden pouch that holds an abundance of "special" liquid that doctors and/or scientists haven't found.
And to say the reason it hasn't been found is somehow due to "crap doctoring", comparable to misdiagnosing a disease or the continuing discovery of diseases caused by genetic flaws or outside influences, along with continuing to face constant hurdles in discovering treatments for said diseases, is foolish as well.
It's urine. Nothing more. I maintain a very healthy diet. My urine is always light. When I take my vitamins in the morning, my urine is crystal clear for the better part of the day.
Now, If I succeeded in pissing clear urine while semi erect, would this mean I was "squirting" too?
I don't see what the big deal is in just acknowledging that that's exactly what it is.
What should be addressed is what effect expelling urine during orgasm has on a female. If it intensifies the orgasm, how can this be looked at as a bad thing? The only drawback seems to be the mess it causes, which seems a rather small price to pay for both parties. Of course a girl will want to feel her best, and most guys want to be responsible for whatever pleasure the girl has received. It's a win-win situation.
Scientists have found and tested FE. Scientists like Grafenberg, 1950; Sevely & Bennet, 1978; Belzer et al., 1981; Perry & Whipple, 1981; Addiego et al., 1981; Sensabaugh & Kahane, 1982; Belzer et al., 1984; Zaviavic et al., 1984; Stifter, 1987; etc. all concluded that the fluid produced during stimulating the G-Spot is vastly different from urine. Naysayers can argue all they want about their ignorant opinions. They never experienced it. I personally experienced it and tasted the fluid. From my personal experience, the fluid did not smell like urine, the fluid was clear, and it has a sweet taste to it. From my experience, I agree with sexual researchers like Grafenberg, Sevely, Bennet, Belzer, Perry, Whipple, Addiego, Sensabaugh, Kahane, Zaviavic, and Stifter.
Like I said in my previous post, I was once a naysayer, but the difference between the naysayers that posted on this thread and I was a took an "open mind" approach to it. I wanted to educate myself on the subject and I read The G Spot : And Other Discoveries about Human Sexuality by Beverly Whipple, John D. Perry, Alice Khan Ladas. This is not something I read from some website or some porno. This book was based on the findings of sexual researchers. I educated myself and practiced stimulating the spot on past girlfriends and produced results. I suggest naysayers take an "open mind" approach and learn for themself. Explore for yourself.
You're assuming I haven't "explored". And you're assuming I haven't mastered the delicate art of discharging streams of liquid from my partner's vagina. It's wrong to assume. How does that old proverb go again? To assume makes an ass...
Well, you get the point.
What is your point of reference? Have you tasted anything else that emits from a woman's vagina? Can you say with absolute certainty that urine isn't sweet? And lets say you have, for whatever reason, tasted urine. Would it not be feasible for it to taste differently from different people?
Everybody's diet is different and everybody's body reacts differently to the basic necessities that it needs to survive. There will always be a difference in the by-product the body excretes from person to person. Like I said in my first post, my urine is always light, and most of the time, completely clear. I would actually be worried if mine came out yellow because it is very, very uncommon.
Anyone can pee clear. It's juice and soda and the other garbage that has become a standard that causes coloration. Stop drinking all of that shit, drink water for a week and see what happens.
Also, take this into consideration: While the urine is expelled during sexual stimulation, it will obviously be mixed with the woman's "sweet" tasting natural lubrication that is coming from almost the exact same area; the small hole between her legs were things can easily suffuse.
As I said in my first post, urinating during orgasm for some could possibly intensify the experience. I mean, we all know how great it feels to take a piss when we have to go badly. The relief your bladder feels is wondrous. Add that feeling to an orgasm, and I can clearly see why the experience could be earth-shaking for a woman.
I understand you have read some books and found a few people that believe in "squirting". But for every doctor that backs that theory, there are dozens that don't. At the end of the day, it really shouldn't matter what it is. If two people are enjoying it, and they can afford the dry cleaning bill, then there's no reason they shouldn't do it.
Additionally, it's not so much that you believe what you believe, it's the way you present your argument. It's as if you believe you're more sexually liberated and knowledgeable than other people here, which comes across as condescending, especially to someone like myself, who feels he's knows a thing or two about sex and the pleasures derived from it. Using the word "ignorant" right out of the gate isn't kosher.
P.S. Cytheria is notorious for guzzling large bottles of water before scenes. Coincidence?
True Story: I had a doctor who practiced for more than 30 years, administrated hospitals and was a well-known and respected doctor. He has the doctor that even delivered me. He was my doctor for over 25 years. I went to him about stomach pains and told him the symptoms I was having. Without running test, he diagnosed me with colitis and prescribed me some pills for the pain. He did not tell me that I had to eat a certain diet, if it was colitis. After a week, the medicine I took did not help my stomach pain. I ask my doctor if he could run some tests. He denied my request and stated his years of experience and knowledge. He said he seen many patients and he knows it was colitis. Not satisfied with his diagnosis without testing, I seek a second opinion. This time I found a family doctor with a specialty in gastrointestinal. He ran a lower GI and a colonoscopy to determine the source of the pain. My new doctor ruled out my previous doctor's expert opinion, since there was no evidence on any intestinal inflammation. It was later found that my stomach pain was stress related and my doctor prescribe my medicine that helped to cure me. If I would have listened to my "close minded" doctor's opinion I would probably still would have been misdiagnosed.
Yes, I have done it. I wouldn't have made a big deal about your assumptions had I not. I "assumed", apparently falsely, that that was clear.See my paragraph above? See what I highlighted in bold? Those are questions, not assumptions. The rest isn't an assumption either, they're proven facts. The other stuff is about me.What the fuck? I don't get what you're trying to say here. Maybe the less "ignorant" can discern it for me.Really? They drink liters of water before they're about to shoot a "squirting" scene? First off, if I wasn't clear about it being a squirting scene, my apologies, but only a few people shoot those kind of scenes. Your telling me it's normal for most performers to drink liters of water before a scene and not, say, during breaks in the scene? You know, when the dehydration actually sets in. Drinking that much water before any kind of physical exertion can cause great pain, just ask any runner. I would "assume" the only reason she would risk performing in an uncomfortable state is because she needs that water to "squirt".
Scientists like Grafenberg, 1950; Sevely & Bennet, 1978; Belzer et al., 1981; Perry & Whipple, 1981; Addiego et al., 1981; Sensabaugh & Kahane, 1982; Belzer et al., 1984; Zaviavic et al., 1984; Stifter, 1987; etc. all concluded that the fluid produced during stimulating the G-Spot is vastly different from urine. Naysayer can dispute their claims with their own opinions, but I rather believe someone that has research it and analyzed the fluid. That is my opinion, of course.
I have taken courses in college on Probability and Statistics for Engineers and Scientists. Anyone that took this class or has done research knows you assume a hypothesis that the fluids are the same, when your statistics prove that the data does not support your original hypothesis, you "fail to reject" the hypothesis and accept the null hypothesis that the fluids are not equal. Researchers have proven this a number of times, but obviously we have researchers in this forum that researched it themself and came up with a different conclusion. Using the same logic, I can not conclude that what I experienced was FE or urine since I did not get it analyzed, but I can state my opinions like everyone else in this thread. I just happen to agree with the scientists that have done the research.
myk stated before in this thread: "The creationists have it made-Ignore all facts that don't fit with your view" But he ignores the research facts that I present. Is he ignore the facts that I present because they do not confirm to his view?
Paying trib-ute to SinncentVanSage 1412 Posts 12/04
Posted - Jun 3 2005 : 8:24AM
I can't come up with experience, I'd have to be glad to get a harmless kiss by a woman so maybe I'm in the wrong place to discuss here. I just wanted to say that many things in nature aren't obvious. I have a special sponge with suction abilities that put every female porn star to shame. When it is dry it is so hard it puts every male porn star to shame. Now show me the hollow spaces in that sponge that can contain big amounts of water. You can't see any holes in it but you can't deny that sponge sucks up huge amounts of water.
I don't say women have a spongy thing in there, mark you. Maybe they have, maybe not, I'm not an expert in this matter. For me it's enough that I read about women's squirting experiences way before I found squirting in porn. And I had to wait a long time until I finally got what I was looking for in a porn movie. Squirting is not an invention of porn industry. They just finally realized that it's about high time to give Vince what he needs, LOL.
With the sponge example I just wanted to state the following: If you look for the obvious only it's no wonder you won't find anything special.
The scientific method is the one where you submit a hypothesis and then devise experiments to prove or disprove.
Probability and Statistics is supposed to teach you how to determine the probability of certain events occuring. For example, how often should you get heads when you flip a coin? Since there are two possibilities - heads or tails, a balanced coin should come up heads 50% of the time. That doesn't mean it has to come up heads one time and tails the next. It means that over a statistically relevant sample, you should see heads 50% of the time.
So, what does Probability & Statistics have to do with proving that squirting isn't piss? Not a damned thing.
PS - I have no idea where you got 'fail to reject' and 'null hypothesis.' Sounds like somebody was blowing smoke up your ass.
This at least is wrong . I've been drinking water only for a few years at a time and my piss was just as yellow as at any other time . The thought process is probably goes along the lines of "if what comes out is liquid , it must be made of the liquids which went in" - a simple but misguided mistake . It's impurities in the food as well as the drink which aren't flushed by the kidneys that colour your piss . With the right diet I have at times pissed clear , but it's from more than just drinking water . Incidentally you can quit taking the vitamin tablets , they're mostly flushed straight through your system . Eating fruit and veg is probably the only real solution .
As to the central contention in this thread , yes , I too tend to believe it's piss . BUT . That doesn't mean it actually is . The simpering belief some people are displaying to the medical profession is touching , if more than a little misguided . The issue isn't a few dodgy Docs , it's a lack of any widespread research at all . Most Doctors aren't studying human anatomy beyond what they had to cram for exams , so they could wind up in some cushy GP post , playing Golf every weekend and driving a BMW . These guys and girls are hardly setting the world alight with their investigations into human physiology . They're filing clerks , with human flesh instead of metal cabinets . No need for God like powers , just some semblance of a bedside manner . I'm friends with a number of Doctors , and this is what they are . It's all they are .
There are researchers of course , and radicals who shake the establishment . But the establishment of any profession fights to maintain it's old beliefs , as Licker already said . It's a long hard furrow to plough before the old fogeys die off and new ideas are accepted as mainstream .
So how does any of that relate to squirting/pissing ? Well , until relatively recently the anatomy of female genitalia was inaccurately understood (willfully and lazily) . This was then taught to the legion of Doctors-to-be , who then forgot most of it as soon as they'd written the last answer on their finals . Very few doctors then went on to research in human anatomy , assuming we already knew it all , and of those who did even fewer concentrated on female genitalia . See where I'm going ? The tendency when invoking the mighty medical establishment as your backup is to imagine a colossal body of brainiacs working over many centuries to arrive at the answers they have today . The reality though is a very few people occasionally working on any particular problem , until a crisis develops and an answer is demanded in double quick time . No such crisis has driven research into the workings of female genitalia . Throw in a healthy dose of male prurience about those dirty lady bits , and you have a perfect recipe for poorly researched and faulty information passed on to a huge number of medical practitioners who learn it by rote . Have the Doctor worshipers forgotten the leaches so soon ?!
That being said , I still reckon that it probably is piss . Just ... Keep the doubt alive , baby , it allows your mind to breath .
Satisfying Lesbian Desires - review by Captain Jack
Posted - May 16 2005 : 2:23PM
