Very true. When I typed "garbage" I was referring to food. Just didn't elaborate as much as I should of. Typing that longwinded post at 2:30am, I'm surprised it came out as coherent as it did. Sorry about that.
Just for fun, here's a clip of Cytheria from Ksex. If this is anything other than urine, and somehow we can get Skeeter to confirm it with his magical pool cleaning test, I will purchase 3600 seconds of Cytheria's services for squirtfan.
Review: Hypothesis Testing Facts Researchers including 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 used statistics to prove that FE was vast different from urine. They had to use Hypothesis Testing to conclude that FE was different from urine. They can not just state their opinion blindly. Researchers also use hypothesis testing for side effects of drugs. The Probability part of the book has nothing to do proving that squirting isn't piss, but the Statistics side of the book does. Hypothesis Testing is what is used and is the "scientific method" of proving or disproving something, even myk has to agree to that.
You ask me questions but they you go on to discredit my answer if I happened to taste piss and FE when some diet notion. So why should I answer the question if you already discredited my answer? I sure like to hear how some diet is going to disprove how Addiego "scientifically proved" that FE had over 11 times the glucose than urine. How is your answer going to prove that I received the same results with different women. Did they all eat the same diet. I can tell you for a fact that they did not.
Here is a couple questions for you. What does the G-Spot feel like and where is it located? Please educate us on the G-Spot. I like to hear it.
Skeeter is the one that said Cytherea drinks a lot of water before a shoot. I heard from a reliable source in the industry that Skeeter has a motive. Skeeter discredits FE, because he had a falling out with Seymore Butts who specializes in FE themed films. I don't know Skeeter, I can not say that Cytherea drinks a lot of water before or during a shoot because I was not there, I don't know if the people I heard the rumor from is true or not. In my opinion, my hearsay is just as good as your hearsay, but I heard my hearsay from more than one source.
Did you ever try to piss but it does not come out because you are too full? What do you normally do to let it out? Relax that is what I do. To say that Ariana Jollee relaxes to let the "urine" out when she is getting fucked in the ass profusely is some kind of trick.
I'll cancel the car boot sale , and you can quit scouring the pedo prisons , that looks like piss to me . But then most people puke , does that mean every liquid coming out of the mouth isn't saliva ? Just saying maybe one neg doesn't proove a pos . ya get ?
I can't believe I'm actually taking time out work to answer this...All right, all right, we all get it. You read a few books. Great. Fabulous. Try reading some other ones.
I could look up dozens, if not hundreds, of other works that would disagree with Addiego, but I have neither the time nor desire to do so.
These are just silly questions. Even if I didn't know where the G-Spot is -- it's located about two inches up on the inner wall of the vagina, give or take a few centimeters depending on the woman's build -- I could easily just google it.
Also, I have never once discredited the G-Spots existence. I never even mentioned it. I'm very much aware that a woman can achieve orgasm through stimulation of the G-Spot. That doesn't mean she can shoot something other than urine out of her vagina like it's coming out of a freakin' Super Soaker.
Actually, I was referring to Gen Padova saying it.Reliable source, huh? More than one? Spill it. Or does "Deepthroat" need to maintain his or her anonymity?
It matters little what I, or anybody for that matter, says. Even if someone handed you a dozen books from prominent physicians with assessments that differ from the 3 or 4 books you've read, you still wouldn't even think to change your opinion. Your views are biased. You're a "squirtfan". I'm a "nothing". I just look at science recorded in medical journals. I'll take those words over the words of any of the fringe-doctors who have devoted their lives to publishing their opinions/finds in order to profit from a small, specialty market.
I have to give credit to Lee O. He is a naysayer, but at least he has an "open mind". I am purely fine with that. Ivory and licker didn't have an opinion on it, but at least they have an "open mind". I have to give them credit. I admit that I have some bias opinions and squirting is one of them. My personal experiences and the books I read from sexual researchers is enough proof for me to create the bias. I am not going to let someone tell me what I experienced. I am not gullible. I don't believe in Axel Braun's statement that every women has the ability to FE while sexual researchers have found a wide range of success of FE in 6% to 40% of their studies. I believe that sexual researchers still have to be learned about FE.
I didn't know that medical doctors can sexually stimulate their patients. Is this a common practice where you live? You are going to take some physician's word, who can't sexual stimulate their patients, over a sexual researcher who has studied, analyzed, and made conclusions on the subject? I admitted I am bias on the topic. I took an "open mind" to the subject and I did my own research to prove or disprove what I read. If I was not able to do it, believe me I would be on you side of the camp, but I prove it to myself and that is all the proof I need to create my bias on the subject. I am not asking people to believe me. I am asking to read up on the subject themself and come up with their own conclusions.
Good lord. I didn't realize they were wrapping up methodology in so much BS jargon these days. You have my sympathy for having to swallow that ridiculous terminology. I can only suggest you unlearn it post-haste.
This discussion is almost as much fun as getting hopped up on Ritalin and playing whack-a-mole.
You misunderstand statistics and the scientific method. Although I do note that the class was directed to engineers, so there must have been some _extreme_ oversimplifications. :)
Your proposal is that the fluids are different. The null hypothesis would be that they are not different. You are obligated to prove that they are different, within a level of statistical power. This statistical power is what allows you to ignore the null hypothesis. These are tools for determining sample sizes for studies.
The 'scientists' that have done the research. Getting back to not trusting a man with an erection, don't trust a researcher that calls themself a 'sexpert' or a 'sexologist'. Don't trust an actual researcher that doesn't present his or her findings in a scientific forum but instead writes a book or a website to sell their findings.
Its not that I don't understand the sources you cite. Its either that I find them irrelevent to the central argument (that the bulk of the fluid coming from cytherias urethra is urine) or that, from an academic standpoint, they're worthless. Its not the number of citations, its the quality. I actually pulled the papers published in scientific journals on this. Only a few, all said its pee. But I take that data over a hundred Semore Butt's clones selling videos of people urinating.
Medical students used the same book and had the same teachers, so how was my class extremely oversimplified from medical students? I did not want to bore the other posters with the statistics used to come up whether or not you reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis. In the case I presented, the null hypothesis would assume that the two different fluids are equal and the alternate hypothesis is that the two fluids are not equal. Since the null hypothesis is rejected , the alternate hypothesis that the fluids are not equal is accepted.
Of course, you calculate your t-values or z-values depending on the sample size (assuming normal distribution). Sure there are other distributions like Weibull, Chi-Squared, Gamma and Exponential to name a few, but why bore posters about the world of statistics? This is just another one of your feeble attempts to try to discredit my posts, but it may have never occurred to you that I may know something or two about what I am talking about. Did you ever see Kinsey, which is about Alfred Kinsey revolutionized sexual research. Money has to be raised somehow to perform their studies. Sexual researchers do not have the luxury of having some multi-national pharmaceutical company (for-profit) financially backing their studies. These sexual research institutions (non-profit) have to generate money somehow to back their studies. Sexual researchers are not doctors who receive a fee when they see patients or do surgery. They get their money from selling their findings or donations to their institute. If anything these institutions are suppressed by the religious conservatives and doctors like you that try to discredit their findings with your opinions, not your own research.
If you pulled the papers published in scientific journals then why did you not cite them?
Your posts went from arguing that posters thinking squirting is real from directing people to some websites that post crap about ancient text and tales of talking serpents and magical fruit, to no scientific research, to trying to discredit the numerous findings I have found that dispute your opinion on the subject. I am sure you can find a couple of "quality" studies that may support your opinion. That is fine by me. I can sleep at night knowing some "close minded" doctor that never experienced FE but read some medical journals has a different opinion than me. Why? Because I educated myself by reading scientific research on the subject, practiced, and succeeded in experiencing FE for myself. I am sorry if my education and personal experience on the subject (my bias opinion) does not suit your bias opinion.
The null hypothesis is _always_ that there is no dif. between 2 groups. Its null. That is always the assumption. It is up to the iinvestigator to prove that null is false. And most medical students don't understand statistics very well, either.
I didn't know you wanted to see actual scientific references-I've posted them before, and you ignored them because they don't fit your aqua-erogenous view. But here are a couple...
American Journal of OBGYN . This is a real scientific journal. You can find it on medline. 2001. 'The G-spot: a modern gynecologic myth' is the title of the article. The best line in the summary is 'This article reviews the behavioral, biochemical, and anatomic evidence for the reality of the G-spot, which includes claims about the nature of female ejaculation. The evidence is far too weak to support the reality of the G-spot. Specifically, anecdotal observations and case studies made on the basis of a tiny number of subjects are not supported by subsequent anatomic and biochemical studies.'. But hey, they're just doctors. Why not trust Axel to answer your question instead.
How about the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy ? Granted, its an academic B-lister, but they look into it too. The article is 'The "G spot" and "female ejaculation": a current appraisal.' The best line? 'It is concluded that evidence in support of the "G spot"--defined as a discrete anatomical structure located on the anterior vaginal wall, which swells upon being tactilely stimulated--is inconclusive, and, in the event of its existence, no evidence has been produced linking it to Skene's glands.'
But wait! they also looked at 'squirters' in that journal! And what did they find? 'Examination of the ejaculate of six women failed to detect elevated levels of prostatic acid phosphatase and the substance appeared similar in biochemical properties to urine.'
Now, if you want to see a list of articles on urninary stress incontinence (doesn't sound as sexy as 'squirting', does it?), I can give you a slew of references.
You make it seem like no one is doing research on sex. Granted, its not as big as, say cancer, but if you can find something out about sex and market it, you can make a few billion. Look at Viagra and all the other ED meds out there-bringing the term '4 hour erection' into the common lexicon.
Why do you assume that all of medicine is closed-minded and hiding the truth (or deliberatly ignoring it) when it comes to the magic of FE? The null hypothesis here would be that they aren't, and it isn't anything more than orgasm associated urinary stress incontinence, reported by up to 20% of women.
now, as for elevated glucose-levels.....that's just urine from a person with diabetes.
i can drink a lot of water and still have yellow urine if i've taken a b-complex vitamin. if i don't take the vitamin, the discharge is clear.
there's too much evidence girls are getting paid to piss, and it's not like cytheria's got a rep as more than a complete-tweaker. tweakers do stuff if you pay them. gen's admitted it, i've read about jennifer steele admitting they got her to squirt using water, milk and a turkey baster. there's no easter bunny either, try being a little more discriminating.
Congratulations you found 3 studies to my 9 studies. Like I said myk, you would find some articles that support your opinion. It is funny how you mention an article in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology by Dr. Terence Hines entitled, “The G-Spot: A Modern Gynecologic Myth.” Sexual researchers picked a part his data because he cites relevant articles that support the existence of a female prostate gland as the so-called G- Spot, but ends up concluding that it does not exist . Don't forget to mention that the article states “If the G-Spot does exist , it will certainly be more than a system of glands and ducts. If an area of tissue is highly sensitive, that sensitivity must be mediated by nerve endings, not ducts.” He is not denying the exist of a spot, but it sounds like he had a hard time finding the spot as well as your other articles.
'Examination of the ejaculate of six women failed to detect elevated levels of prostatic acid phosphatase and the substance appeared similar in biochemical properties to urine.' Sounds like a problem of sample size to me. If six women have this "finding" that means the whole population has the same finding. Finding something inconclusive does not mean that it does not exist. It means they conclude not conclude anything.
I can assure you, jamesboston, that my past girlfriends did not have diabetes.
It is quite foolish to look at the number of studies rather than the quality. 6x good studies versus 12x crap studies isn't just 6 vs 12. There isn't a lot of quality across the board here, but these are by far the best articles. You may not agree with the Hines study, but it is a peer-reviewed article published in a reputable journal. You may not like the sample size of the other article, but its a real research laboratory actually assaying the samples from 'squirters'-a bit more accurate than your taste-test. If this fluid really were something more than urine, you could find it with one test, not 6 or a hundred. The reality is, negative studies never get published, so no one cares-if you look at FE and discover that it is the same as urine, no one will write up what you did. You have to find something beyone the null hypothesis. That;s the problem of publication bias that makes meta-analysis dificult.
Because that's how we do things -- there has to be right and there has to be wrong, truth and untruth. There can be no other way. There can be no deviation. That apparently huge body of scientific work devoted to unravelling the intricaies of female sexual pleasure and anatomy can brook no questioning -- a pissing match it must be remain. BTW I can piss further than you, and you and you...
Having been near fatally misdiagnosed by one of the more arrogant know-it-all physicians myself, I am under no illusion that medical researchers have discovered all there is to discover about the human body or that doctors are particularly open minded to new ideas.
Still, it seems to me like those researchers, who have concluded that squirting has nothing to do with peeing, do not appear entirely objective either. They come across a little too much like they're trying to market something.
And no offence intended, but the words of Axel Braun and Cytherea and other porn stars carry no weight with me on this subject. They are after all, doing their best to market their gimmick/cash cow. (Nothing wrong with that.) It's also a neat way to circumvent the golden shower issue in the US.
Don't get me wrong, I like Cytherea and her performances. Her convulsions are most woodifying and I think it looks cute when she hoses down her partners and half the set. But the sheer volume of Cyth and her colleagues' ejaculations has me totally convinced they're pissing.
That it should come directly from the Skene's gland doesn't wash. Have you ever seen an overactive salivary gland shoot out a stream? While it can fly several feet, there's no way it'd be able to fill up the wine glasses these squirt-girls do. The prostrate of even Peter North doesn't come close to producing anything like that volume either.
That much liquid has to be built up over time and stored somewhere before ejaculation. Despite my occasional reservations with respect to the compentency of medical professionials, I would think they'd have found all cavities or sponge-like areas capable of holding that much liquid by now.
Whether there is a gland that, during stimulation of the G-spot, could fill up the bladder with something other than pee, I have no idea. Myk, any thoughts?
Either way, the squirting pornstars insist that the sensation is nothing like peeing. But if the liquid does come from the bladder, it should feel similar whether it's pee or she-cum.
Orgasmic spasms can provoke an involuntary forceful emptying of the bladder, and perhaps the sensation of peeing would be either masked or even add extra pleasure. I would happily call that an orgasmic squirt, but that alone does not turn the liquid into something other than urine.
Anyway, that I find the credibility of porn squirts lacking, does not mean that I take any fixed stand on the issue as a whole. Having been on the receiving end of an unexpected squirt facial (luckily my fit of laughter relieved her embarassment rather than exacerbate it), it never occurred to me before these ADT threads on the matter, that it could possibly ever be anyting other than pee.
I still lean strongly towards it always being pee, but would love to hear any arguments to the opposite from any civilian women who have experienced it themselves and, unlike pornstars, do not have any monetary stake in this.
Kpervaroonie wroteA civilian? -- like not a member of the Squirting Army you mean? I nearly giggled to death imagining the uniform of such an army...
I hate to argue and I haven't had a scientist in my bedroom for around 16 years so my validity or the validity of my experience is gravely lacking and would never stand up to peer review (note to self to invite a few peers in). Having said that it happens under particular circumstances, it isn't as spectacular as seen in porn, more gush that squirt, it happens when I have what I'd consider an empty bladder, it doesn't taste, smell or look like urine -- we'd both be totally okay with it if it was -- it doesn't feel like urinating at all and I don't think that orgasm masks that. It leaves no after scent on sheets as you imagine urine might. I have no incontinence problems. Having seen Axel's hand technique I think I can safely say that that would be the kind of stimulation that would bring on a very wet time. There, that's all I know.
Edited to add -- this anecdotal, I am not and have never been a member of the Squirting Party or the Squrting Army.
Paying trib-ute to SinncentVanSage 1412 Posts 12/04
Posted - Jun 5 2005 : 8:26AM
You ladies rule! You brought the fun back in this thread. I knew it, female ejaculation is more fun when women are involved.
Did you know I'm a terrorist in the land of sex? Better call the Squirting Army. I won't surrender, so you'll have to use your weapons. Cleave my mind with your cleavage and squirt on me till my clothes cleave on my body and still I won't fell pissed off. I'll stand tall for my cuntry.
Yes, there are mis-diagnoses, due to a lot of reasons (miscomunication being one of the most common), but this is debate over having a half-liter squirtbottle hidden in your pelvis. You'd think that even the most arrogent, closed-minded doc would say 'hmmmm' if he saw that sitting there.Exactly. Try to find unbiassed information when you canExactly right again. These Skene's glands are smaller than your salivary glands, smaller than a prostate. They may add a bit to the general juices down there, but they won't make a fountain.You know, I'm flexible on this to a point. If those little paraurethreal glands are making something, maybe a bit of it can get into the bladder. But 99% of the fluid there is pee filtered by the kidneys. Could there be a teaspoonful of something squirting out there? Sure, what the heck, enjoy. I'm not willing to claim the null hypothesis here. But if your girlfriend squirts more than you do, she's peeing. Nothing wrong with that, enjoy.
i've become convinced that squirting is real, if you allow that cytherea has hidden an exotic triggerfish somewhere in her genitals. in this symbiotic relationship, the triggerfish is given a porn career in exchange for the ability to shoot briny seawater a dozen feet to knock beetles, spiders and other insects out of the air for cytheria to eat(they're the perfect atkins-food). they can also use blasts of water to flip starfish upside-down to feast on their vulnerable underbelly. nature is great.
Oh well...I guess the debate will never end. It never ceases to amaze me how much controversy this subject keeps bringing. To be perfectly honest it was more of a crusade for me when I was younger, while now I just don't have the time nor the will to try and convince haters and non-believers. For the ones who know the truth, female ejaculation is a nice addition to a healthy sexual life. For the ones who want to learn, my door is always open. For the others...sorry. At least, like someone pointed out, it's still a gimmick to sell videos.
Well, this has still been the most interesting thread in Sex Talk for weeks!
I think squirting, in a small amount, not huge arcing geysers, seems plausible. I just have never experienced it myself to be able to add personal experience to this discussion.
I will say that the "G-spot doesn't exist" assertion is one I disagree with. I myself definitely experience a different type of orgasm when G-spot stimulation is thrown into the mix. It's not what I would term "better" per se, just different.
Loraine-btw, thank you. I am a big fan of movie stars from the 1920s and 1930s, and Jean Harlow is my very favorite.
*sigh* I just knew that woman's question was gonna result in this... I feel the need to make a few points here.
1.) The volume misconception.
"Half a gallon", "Half a liter".... where are you coming up with these numbers from? I've never seen these kinds of volumes claimed outside of advertising hyperbole on a porno boxcover or porno webpage. It seems to me you're basing part of your argument on a strawman of your own concoction...
When I've asked people who've actually experienced real FE in real life (ie, outside of porn) how much there is, has said it's never been more than a couple tablespoons *at most*, even when it's squirted out - and usually less. And pretty much all of the legitimate FE researchers will say the same thing. I'd say a tablespoon or two is well within the capability of the skene's and bulbourethral glands to generate and hold, in the average woman.
And it's somewhat of a fallacy to assume that the size & structure of those glands are going to be exactly the same in every single woman. If any one thing about the human body is true, it's that variation - sometimes extreme - is the norm. The sex organs are no exception. The problem is, there's little to no funds to do proper FE research, and certainly not enough to afford MRI scans on the women who can squirt to see what the difference is (if any), so this will continue to be a point of contention.
Then again, after reading through all the posts, this thread doesn't really seem to be an argument over FE in general, but about the reality of FE in porn, especially....
2.) Cytherea
"Cytherea this" "Cytherea that" "Cytherea this" "Cytherea that" "Cytherea this" "Cytherea that".... people keep bringing her up in this thread, over and over and over. It's as though you folks think a) FE did not exist in porn prior to her, b) she's the be-all and end-all of FE in porn, and c) proving the reality or fakeness of her squirting in the movies she's done is the key to proving FE real or not universally. All of which is complete nonsense - she wasn't the first, she's not the only one in the biz (there's about a dozen or so working right now, out of how many hundreds of performers?), and she won't be the last.
Here's the thing. Porn isn't exactly the most conducive environment for either men or women to have an orgasm; the male talent often struggle to get the popshot out at the end of the scene, and do so under a great deal of pressure to perform. I can't imagine it being any easier for a woman to actually cum in a scene. For example, let's take a female performer who's a squirter and known for it, but discovered it by accident one day instead of having sought to learn how to do it, and doesn't really understand it all that well; then, put that woman in situations on set where they're *expected* to squirt huge during the scene, and nothing less than that will do. Now that woman faces that same pressure to perform that the men do, perhaps even worse, but not necessarily with the same ability to deliver reliably. Would it be all that surprising that a performer such as this, when put in such a situation on a regular basis (often by their own actions) would, after a couple 'failures to perform' choose to guzzle water and - if unable to have a legit FE orgasm - resort to a shortcut with some acting thrown in to ensure that the producers and viewers wouldn't be dissapointed, and to avoid being labeled as 'unreliable'?
Besides, porn is by and large a twisted caricature of what normal human sexuality is really like. Using anything from a porno movie as an example is questionable at best, and folly at worst.
3.) "But look at that squirt! That's a huge amount of fluid!"
Not necessarily. Two words: optical illusion. The stream breaks up in mid-flight into a number of small droplets, flying close together. These have a total surface area much greater than the original stream, and reflect more light, and also give the stream an appearance of greater aggregate width. Combined with the lower resolution of even DVD video, and the human eye's inability to perceive fine detail in rapidly moving objects and images, it ends up looking like a hell of a lot more fluid than there actually is.
*****
The problem is that most of the 'civilian' women who are squirters who I've talked to on message boards - and many of the men who are FE advocates - absolutely LOATHE porn, and in particular they hate how FE gets treated as a circus act so often in porn, and don't want anything to do with porn at all. They won't go anywhere near a porn message board like this one, not with some of the knuckledragging sleazeballs that crop up from time to time.
*****
It's pretty apparant to me that this issue won't get entirely settled anytime soon. However, in the interest of trying to find some common ground, can we all at least agree that FE involves women having a somewhat different kind of orgasm, regardless of where you think the fluid comes from?
And throw a cup of water on the floor and it'll often look like you emptied half a bucket. That's not the case in quite a few of the porn squirt scenes though. When they nearly fill up a wine glass, it's clearly more than a couple of spoonfulls.
I remember watching an episode of "Loveline" on MTV (back before they cancelled it in favor of more "Road Rules" reruns), and a girl called in after having an orgasm where she'd squirted and made a big wet spot on the wall. She thought it was a lot, but Adam Corolla (of all people!) made the observation you just did - a little bit of fluid can look like a lot, and to demonstrate he poured out a little bit of his coffee onto the table they had in front of them; it was a puddle about 8" around, but the level of the coffee in his mug hadn't visibly changed. I mean, if *he* could make that distinction...
Personally, the only porn movie I've seen with squirting into wine glasses was Squirtwoman 2, and usually the glass never got filled more than half full from what I remember (it's been a while since I watched it), but I see your point. I've been burned by fakery in porn enough times to not take everything I see at face value, I don't blame you for taking the same approach - being a Linux-using Libertarian, I understand the value of skepticism.
HD
Edited by - Heinrich Dahlmear on 6/6/2005 7:08:17 PM
myk, I was hoping for a better argument then you provided. Talks about unbiased information and opinions are laughable. You point to two studies that do not DENY the existence in their conclusions, but that does not stop you from denying it. You point to 6 data points that support your opinion, but disregard the thousands of data points in numerous studies that are contrary to your view point. Every scientist and engineer knows the more data points you have the better it supports your argument.
I like the spin of "quality" on the journals. Researchers all use the same "scientific methods" to come up with their conclusions.
It does not look like I am the one in the state of denial. You continuously drew lines in the sand in this thread on to step back and draw a new line when proven wrong. You continuously exaggerated your claims like Cytherea squirts a "half gallon" of fluid. I did not know that you were there to measure it. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. If you want to turn a "blind eye" to numerous studies that contradict your opinion, then that is your prerogative. Your posts continuously attacked my experience, but it showed that your attacks where baseless. Engineers used "scientific methods" too. It is called Six Sigma, which I am certified in by a top university. Your opinions on my experience does not mean anything to me, my experience and accomplishments speak for itself.
For me, I was once skeptical on FE too, but experiencing it was the "eye opener" for me. I never asked people to prescribe to my opinion. I simply asked them to educate themself on the subject and try to experience FE for themself. I did not use some website of ancient text by some unknown author or tales of talking serpents and magical fruit, I used sexual research. I know that some people will continue to be skeptics about FE, until they experience it. I hope they find it.
I agree with you that some people are naive if they think that a woman is going to squirt like Cytherea or have the success of Axel Braun on making women squirt. Personally, I have not experienced anyone like Cytherea yet and I do not have the success rate of Axel, so I can not prescribe to their school of thought. It is sad if people think sex is like what they see in the porn films. These people may think that the average penis is 9 inches, every girl loves anal, knows how to deep throat, loves to swallow cum or an internal cumshot by watching too much porn. I would agree with you that these people are naive. Did it ever occur to you that people like Cytherea and Axel Braun are extra ordinary cases and that is why they are in porn? I am sure the average penis is not like Mandingo. I am sure the average cumshot is not like Peter North. If I perform the same exercises and eat the same food as Peter North, will I shoot cum like him? That is naive.
Don't get me wrong, Heinrich, I wasn't burned by Squirtwoman 2 (it was too wet for that anyway). In fact, it's one of the very best gonzos of recent years. It features a phenomenal looking female cast, some of the best looking guys in porn today, no rough stuff, lots of shots of the girls' feet, and girls pissing themselves for joy. What's not to like?
I bought it expecting a wee wee vid, and as far as I can tell, that's what I got. And, save for one three year old scene with Chennin Blanc, I'm convinced all other porn squirts I've seen, have been pee too.
Whether real-life, moderate volume squirting is also pee, I don't know. Unless someone can get a volunteer to squirt with a strategically positioned surgical fibre-optic camera , I doubt we'll have definite proof of where it's coming from anytime soon. Loraine's description is the first source in support of FE I've read, that I personally consider credible. The *cough* scientific researchers seem a little too much like televangelists or snake-oil salesmen.
Anyhow, if the sensation is pleasurable, the source of the liquid is not at all important to me, and I've honestly never been able to understand the strength of the emotions this fun subject seems to evoke, whenever it comes up on ADT. After all, nobody is getting hurt either way. Really, I'd be hard pressed to find a supposedly more harmless subject.
If I'm fortunate enough to get some unexpected girl juice on me again, I'll be far too busy grinning from ear to ear, to ponder the philosophical ramifications of whether it's been filtered through her kidneys or it's some kind of glandular secretion. I'm squeamish about some things, but not that.
.
Way off topic: Come to think of it, Nautica Thorn's scene in Squirtwoman 2 has some of that leg-warmer porn you were looking for, Loraine.
Posted - Jun 3 2005 : 4:47PM
