Not the stuff that comes out of Cytherea, hasn't.It has been tested in a lab and the scientists concluded that female ejaculation is different from urination.
God hates us all, you know it's true, God hates this place. - Slayer 1726 Posts 10/03
Posted - Feb 15 2005 : 7:40AM
Personally I don't care what it is, but I think it's hot. I can careless if it FE or urine - to me it is FE... My wife squirts on occasion, granted she never does the amounts of some one like Cy, but she does it none the less and it don't smell like pee to me. Even if it was, I'd still like it
The only point(s) I care to make (or attempt to make) is for those who don't want to see it - fast forward or don't buy the movies of girls who squirt. And those who don't want to get their furniture wet during shoot, just don't hire the girls who are known squirters or use plastic .
I mean instead of labeling people and outing them isn't just easier to do that?
P.S. Flower I support you. Regardless of what you squirt, you're still one of the sweetest and nicest people I have had the pleasure of meeting. I was with Den in Monroe, OH to meet and chat with you at Hustler and was able to catch up with you again in Vegas. Thanks for being such a great person.
I just wonder why ANY of these people who believe it is real will not take Skeeter up on his offer.
Flower or Cy...should either put up or shut up and end all the controversy.
The reason they won't do it because it is in their best interest for others to believe it something other than urine and would be harder for them to continue making a living off squirting knowing the truth.
Did you even read the thread? Flower said she would be up for any challenge brought her way. And she said it more than once.
The fact is this: no one will bring the challenge to the squirters. They say they'll put up $X to prove such and such, but they want the squirters to come to them to prove themselves, when it's the challengers who should be forced to disprove it.
The reason they'll never bring the challenge is because of what it would mean if they were wrong. If squirting is proved fake, and that it's just piss, then nothing happens. A popular trend in porn dies out, a few people are disappointed, and life would return to normal. But, what would happen if it were proved real? Well, that would mean another discovery about the female body had been made, and all the naysayers would have to eat their words, and admit that they don't know anything about female pleasure (yes, even the women against the idea of F.E. - or maybe especially the women).
Just remember what science was sure of when you make your judgements. Scientists were sure that male cum contained little tiny people that grew into bigger people when it went into a woman. Scientists were sure the Earth was flat, that it was the center of the universe. Scientists were sure it was impossible to break the pull of gravity and escape the atmoshpere. Scientists (Thomas Edison included) were sure that A.C. electrical current was completely impractical and not usable to provide power. Scientists were sure that the only way to cleanse the gene pool was to eradicate the genetically inferior (eugenics), which lead to the Holocaust. (Incidentally, eugenics was a belief held by some of the most important people in history, including American presidents). Experts were sure that Y2K would destroy every computer system in the world made before a certain date. Alchemists were sure they could turn lead into gold. Scientists were sure that everything in the universe contained one of the four elements: air, fire, earth, and water. Scientists were sure that "time" was a constant, and made huge computational errors. Scientists were sure that spinach was extra good for you because it had so much iron in it, when in actuality it has next to none. Scientists were sure that x-rays weren't harmful, and that DEET was. Scientists were sure that the birth cycle couldn't be stopped once it was started, no matter how far along. Scientists were sure cigarrettes couldn't hurt you. Scientists were sure cocaine wasn't addictive.
Just imagine what scientists will be sure of tomorrow.
.....Flower has set the challenge......this debate can finally be put to rest.......and it is going to take a woman to settle it. I think for the most part....that F.E. is real.....just most women are not to the same degree as Cytherea....from what I have read, most women expell 2 to 5cc, I have been with women who have had the F.E. experience, and it only occurs at a very high level of arousal, and it usually is a very small amount. Cytherea seems to have quite a unlimited supply, and who knows why that is, all people are unique in one way or another. Later E
There are some interesting links to articles on the clitoris here. The thread is a couple of years old, but the links work, and the 'newer' studies of the clitoris have raised some interesting concerns.
I feel a tingle! I's gots ta tinkle! If there's a new wrinkle Why all the stinkle?
Uh yeah anyway ...
I think Skeeter is dead-on on many regards. I know he's seen it all . But I also witnessed Tianna Lynn squirt 14 times on a shoot (yes, it was a fabulous summer vacation, but what do you put on the postcard to Mom?), and, I tell ya, no way any bladder could hold that much piss. I also watched Tianna for the 2 hours preceding the shoot, and I didn't see her guzzling down a lot of water. (She did guzzle down a lot of Michael Stefano).
I think some girls can and do, and some girls may just pretend it's not piss for the sake of a new hat trick to keep them in vogue. Personally, I don't care. Like they used to say on late-night NYC cable, "The extra "E" is for the extra pee!"
As long as the scene is hot, girls can be squirting double soy decaf latte out of their pussy, ass, earholes and both nostrils, and, you know, joy to the world.
Paying trib-ute to SinncentVanSage 1412 Posts 12/04
Posted - Feb 15 2005 : 5:38PM
Maybe some of you should risk a look on this page and think again. Even if you don't agree with the second part doesn't mean that the first part is wrong.
To those who say there's no squirting because it's useless in a reproductive sense: Well, you shouldn't believe in clits and female orgasms, either, since they just exist for pleasure (as far as we know by now which is probably not that much).
Flower, you're great, and I hope there'll be a squirting movie with you in every scene in the not too distant future. I'd get that one for sure (unless I'm stroken by a lightning or mistaken for a doormat by a pink hippopotamus). I'm not into golden showers but I would love to be your target in a no-squirt-dodging-allowed-themed movie, so you can be sure I believe in what you say and do.
"Cytherea" is an ancient name for calypso bulbosa (an orchid) as a reference to the Greek Godess of love and beauty, Aphrodite, you can look it up here . "Flower" is the name of a flower, too, as most of you would have guessed without my mentioning it for sure. That makes it quite clear: Humanity watered flowers for so long (and NOT ALWAYS with piss), now the flowers strike back! (Sorry for the bad joke... just couldn't resist. )
Edited to add, that Tiana seems to be a flower, too (and has a nice bud form as well).
So every fire hydrant could squirt if you got the key? I say it's all just piss!
Edited by - VincentVanGauge on 2/15/2005 7:04:21 PM
What we're moving into the beastiality area now are we
All we need now is a comment about flogging a dead horse and we's have beastiality and BDSM combined... mind there's probably a movie out there somewhere along those lines
If you'll excuse the deliberate bad pun - I'm Pissing myself at this thread.
Oh and for the record (like it matters) I wanted to believe it wasn't piss - but last time I saw a thread on this there was some link that looked pucker that categorically stated - it was piss.
I don't know for sure but now am in the "It's Piss" camp.
Quantum science program Lindi thanks for the extra links, I bought a copy of Dr O'Connell's scientific paper and a copy of the New Scientist report but I've never come across the link to the Quantum science program which airs here weekly. Her research and the findings of her work have huge implications for how surgery is conducted and on a more personal note explains why pressing firmly down the outer sides of the vulva feels so damned good! Three cheers for Saint Helen!
To pick up on Heinrich Dahlmear's point; 4.) Oh yes, and you folks keep bringing up these autopsied corpses with tiny skenes glands... and then say that these are representative of EVERY SINGLE WOMAN IN THE WORLD. Well, isn't that a nice fallacy to fall into! Have you folks ever heard of the word 'atrophy'? As in the shrinkage of a muscle or organ due to lack of use? Those women whose bodies were cut apart in all likelyhood never had FE orgasms, so why would they have large glands? No one has ever thought to do an MRI imaging of the pelvic region of a woman who *is* a gusher (esp. one who can have large FE orgasms), and then see what the size of these glands are in her body, to see how they compare... until that time, no one can claim that all women have the same exact glandular structure as those corpses.
From the New Scientist article;
So why have anatomists routinely got the clitoris wrong? Part of the problem may be a Victorian prudishness about examining women's sexual organs in detail. Then there's the fact that most of the clitoris is hidden inside, shielded by lots of fat and the arch of the pubic bone. Another obstacle to accuracy is that anatomical studies are usually done on the bodies of women in their 80s and 90s. Just as muscle and bone wither with age, so does the mass of erectile tissue in the clitoris. In men, shrinking erectile tissue is less of a problem, at least for the anatomist. More men die in accidents, so young bodies routinely find their way to the dissection table. And as the erectile tissue of the penis is mainly on the outside in one compact piece, it's easier to spot .
O'Connell had two cadavers of women under forty. The older bodies had much smaller clitorises (although still far larger than in the textbooks), but once O'Connell had identified the erectile tissue in the younger women it was easy to find in the older ones. "We lucked out," she says, "one of our cadavers was 36 years old. She looked like an Amazon."
Sorry, I am too lazy to read the entire thread, and it's all been said before anyway. But I just thought I should chime in and note that I can make my girlfriend, um, "squirt", or whatever it is, any time. It's definitely NOT a part of an orgasm for her, but it is very intense for her. It happens when I fuck her in edge-of-the-couch-mish, or sometimes girl-on-top, and fuck her fast. I can tell I'm banging her g-spot when I do it. She gets all intense and then it drips or pours out - it doesn't actually squirt, and there is way less liquid than there would be if she just took a full-on piss. It is never really the focus of our fucking because we're not especially into the squirting thing and she doesn't like to make a mess. I think it is probably just pee-pee, but it sure never smells like pee and it has never been yellow, and she says it doesn't feel like she is peeing when it happens. The best she can describe it is "intense". Yeah, girls sometimes aren't too good at describing the dirty stuff. It's just the way they are.
So, to summarize, I guess what I am trying to say is that my girlfriend is hot and I enjoy fucking her a lot.
If the bladder can't hold that much fluid, then what on earth in the pelvis of a woman can? In a non-pregnant woman, there is _nothing_ there that is anywere near the capacity of the bladder. Bartholin glands the size of a grape? Paraurethral glands the size of a pea? 'G-spot' the size of an almond? or a bladder that can hold a 6-pack?
OK, I'm tired of playing 'whack a mole' with the various shifting arguments 'supporting' FE.
You can be rational or you can choose not to be rational. That's fine. The thing that gets me going about this is that te irrational are trying to justify themselves with pseudoscience. That's what gets you aura manipulation, scientology, nutritional supplements, and hunts for non-existant weapons of mass destruction.
Everyone is irrational at times. We all have our motivations. Religion isn't something based in the rational mind. Heck, I can watch Star Trek and believe, for an hour, that ships can travel at warp speed, whatever that is. I choose to take off my reality hat and enjoy it. I don't try to convince others that my pseudoscience is real.
When one is looking at female ejaculation, one is looking at clear fluid coming out of the urethra. That's pee. Until proven otherwise. Now, before you start trying to bury me under 'clitoris.com references, or some other stack of links where a) no one does any actual research, b) no one cites any actual research and c) everyone repeats verbatim the same crap, and tries to make up for the dearth of their information with volume, lets look at what we call 'real science'. Also, lets look at the motivations of the people posting their information. My motivation is to bring people into rational thought while being a pedantic know-it-all. Others have their motivations to tell you what they want, but remember, most of the pro-FE crowd are either a) making money off of doing it or showing it or b) are aroused by it, and aroused people are already taking a step away from 'rational'.
Now then, I'm not trying to press ignorance, hide wonderful orgasms, or subjugate women. But here's the real info.
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, what you do find in these actual scientific journals are articles on urinary stress incontinence and coital incontinence. Meaning pee leakage with sex and orgasm. And that's what it is. And people that don't believe in FE don't have to 'prove' that it doesnt exist, although the scientific literature does exactly that. Those that believe in something odd have the responsibility to demonstrate it.
When you hear thundering hooves behind you, it might be a zebra. Usually its just a horse.
Ellis thank you for the compliment about being poetic, it is one of my favourite writing forms, in this case the effect was unintentional, as was any sarcasm. I'm just speaking frankly. In this case based on what I've read, seen and experienced,I'm entirely comfortable with my irrationality, which I think is what Myk has been urging all along.
My favourite irrational Zen verse goes ;
If you understand, things are just as they are; If you do not understand, things are just as they are.
And that grasshopper, is all I have to say for now.
I agree. The bladder can hold a lot of pee. Once I had to hold it for a pee test, and just out of curiosity, when I was finally able to go (and I drank no water or other fluids during the three hours or so that I had to wait), I peed into a measuring cup after I filled the specimen cup. Yes, I was conducting a little scientific experiment in my bathroom! Anyway, it was exactly a quart.
Now imagine spilling a quart of water on your floor. How much mopping does it take to clean it up. A lot!! So, I humbly suggest that, yes, the bladder can indeed hold that much pee even if the pee-er isn't constantly swigging water.
myk, you can say that people that believe female ejaculation are irrational people if you like. But the fact is that you never witnessed female ejaculation. Everyone that has witnessed female ejaculation said that the fluid was clear and did not smell like urine and that the female had an "intense feeling" when expelling female ejaculation. How can one be "reasonable" or "rational", if they never experienced it? You can continue to regurgitate theories from your old dated textbooks or a few studies on anatomy trying to disprove female ejaculation. As I learned coming out of college, the theoretical world is much different from the practical world. Most of the people that believe that female ejaculation does not exist have not experienced it.
You must have missed the post when I talked about "The G Spot" by Alice Kahn Ladas, Beverly Whipple, and John D. Perry. This is a book with a bunch of medical research. Frank Addiego et al., "Female Ejaculation: A Case Study" pg. 9 clearly states the difference between the urine samples and female ejaculation samples.
You may ask why haven't doctors or gynaecologists, as a general rule, discovered the G spot? Doctors are trained to not stimulate their patients sexually for fear that their intentions might be misinterpreted.
Red alert, red alert we have someone mentioning Christianity in a porn forum. MLyons I beseech you...next time someone googles Christianity they'll end up here!
[quote...And I started yapping about the Davinci Code in the news and nonsense section.....what happens to us Pagans???????(I'M only kidding)......E Loraine wrote: Red alert, red alert we have someone mentioning Christianity in a porn forum. MLyons I beseech you...next time someone googles Christianity they'll end up here! [/quote]
When I was talking about an "intense feeling" when expelling female ejaculation, I was talking about the same "intense feeling" when a woman has an orgasm. No one can have an orgasm and urinate at the same time.
As far as the practical world and the theoretical world, in Engineering my textbooks continue to teach MRP methods and mass production, while in the practical world of manufacturing most manufacturers now practice "lean" methods and ERP. The methodology is vastly different from the theory taught while attending college. College textbooks are often out-dated to the practical times.
He's talking about seeing it IN PERSON. As in witnessing it with one's own eyes.
I love how Myk and this fellow use the old secular humanist trick of declaring that anything that disagrees with their existing orthodoxy/ideology is 'irrational', 'pseudoscience', or what have you, whether true or not. As if you guys are some kind of John Galt-like Randian supermen who are 100% perfectly rational and omnipotent yourselves.... LOL! I have been nothing BUT rational about this, for all these years. I'm not going to stand here and be called some irrational mystic simply because what I know to be factual contradicts someone else's preexisting orthodoxy.
Also, I like how Myk went after skronker's uninformed comment about there being too much for the bladder to hold, and then attacked that strawman, even after I shot it down in my previous post (did anyone even read it?)
It isn't piss.
Most women don't ejaculate very much.
There are Doctors who have researched it, and shown it to be real, whether you choose to read their results, or just ingore it because it's not in conformance with medical orthodoxy.
In the fullness of time, the reality of FE will finally be acknowledged by the medical community. Does it matter? No. Medical 'science' has been wrong before, it's wrong now, and it'll be wrong again in the future. Women will still enjoy wonderful FE orgasms whether people with PhD's agree with it or not.
This thread is rapidly decending into an interpersonal war between the posters...
I've said my piece. The facts are out there. Read them ALL, and make your own choice.
Peace
HD
http://www.femaleejaculationnation.net/
Edited by - Heinrich Dahlmear on 2/15/2005 11:54:23 PM
I'm going to continue having wonderful squirting orgasms in movies and in my personal life. Do you really think I care what you think? Do you honestly believe that if you post some old medical text that I'm going to stop squirting?? LOL. It's like having a billion dollars and no one believes you. Who cares, you still have the billion dollars!!! Right?? You post text, I gave links. I could of posted the text from all, but I figured I'd make it simple. You can test my ejaculation, deprive me of fluids, make me your science project. Also, I get paid the same amount as any other performer that doesnt squirt. I dont get residuals. I squirt for my own pleasure and I dont have a weak bladder. I'm sorry that you ignorant people cant accept the facts. . Again for the 10th time, "I'm up for any FE challenge, bring it!!" Smooches topped with lots of squirt, Flower Tucci
p.s.By the way for you non believers becareful of walking off the edge of the world. I hate to see you float off into outerspace.........
<shakes head> I see you're adding a lot to the discussion here! LOL
It just annoys me when people hop into a discussion thread, and instead of contributing to the actual topic, do little more than make sweeping ad hominem attacks on people. Known more commonly as 'trolling'.
Does anyone else have anything *intelligent* to say about the topic?
Posted - Feb 15 2005 : 6:30AM
