![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
This article seems to suggest that there are two different possible phenomena here (ie ejaculation vs. gushing), but it's not clear when it's referring to which one. The article starts of by mentioning squirting and gushing as alternate names for the same phenomena, then appears to describe "gushing" under reports, draws another distinction at the Ejaculation vs. Gushing paragraph, appears to describe Gushing again under incontinence. This may be related to the fact that they are poorly distinguished in the scientific community, but it's clear that the article is talking about different phenomena at different times, and it needs to be cleaned up to treat these two issues separately.
TheChancellor (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
The Schubach (2001) catheterization study was mentioned only in passing and flagged as "citation needed". I found it at the bottom under other links and moved it into the main reference list. This is the only truly decent study mentioned in the whole article; none of the others can possibly do a decent job of identifying whether female ejaculate differs from urine. Are there any other studies that use urethral catheterization in order to separate expulsions from the bladder from other potential ejaculate?
I strongly suggest cutting most of the other chaff in the research section, and finding only the highest-quality studies that suggest differences between female ejaculate and urine. We should probably rewrite to point out that the balance of research favors the urine theory. I may start doing this myself.
By the way, to pre-empt any claims of bias: if anything my bias is toward the idea that female ejaculate is NOT urine. I recently had a sexual relationship with a squirter and I'd prefer to believe she didn't repeatedly pee on my bed.
Travis of the cosmos (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
chat |
---|
|
As an encyclopedia entry I believe this article needs a fair amount of work. Although for the most part I believe all that needs to be done is some minor retooling, removal of POV statements, and maybe some untraditional organization.
Essentially there are three major groups who would visit this article, people who don't know much or anything about female ejaculation (i.e. heard it for the first time recently), people who believe it is a myth (although I'm not sure why anyone would search for something they don't believe is real), and those who believe it is real and know about it, (whether through first hand experience or research). Unfortunately as the article stands, the disagreements between the last two categories have taken a toll on the presentation of the entry. The "meat" information, is buried and there are POV's abound which reduce the legitimacy of the article because it makes it can suggest the editor has a distinct POV and maybe even an agenda. In turn I propose a couple few things to start with:
Well that's all I have. I look forward to working with you all to get this article up in quality.
P.S. My motivation for all this was encountering another woman who is among the 6% of women who experience this. Reading the article I realized that anyone arriving at this page wanting the basic information on it would be quite lost. Try going back and reading it from the beginning with this in mind. Veritas Solum (talk) 07:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
While I do not claim to be a know-it all in this field, my previous studies show that ejaculation is a term exclussively used for males, and so I'd say that what we call here "female ejaculation" is simly a type of female orgasm.--96.232.57.56 (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Extended content |
---|
All's I know is I have been having ejaculations ( call it what you want)since I was 18 and I'm 44 now. It does not smell, stain and from what I have been told taste like urine. I dont belive it is urine. I empty my bladder before intercoursw. Still acheive a large amount and it can at times eject across the room.---- i dont believe it could ejaculate across the room....thats stupid....i seen some pornos and they over exagerate with the fluid/water sparayin out....its not like that at all....it just makes sex wet whilst doing it,and thats the honest truth....it dont sray out like a hose lol..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.238.107 (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
|
Just wanted to mention that feminism has nothing to do with female ejaculation, and if there is evidence to support otherwise, it should be included in the text, not as a random box on the right. --Magsxemail (talk) 07:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Feminism has nothing to do with anything these days. Trumpy (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The phenomenon is known as "female ejaculation" to all who have experienced it or researched it. The fact the fluid has been proven to be similar to semen and comes from glands that are analogous to the prostate, is enough information to suggest that "ejaculation" is a reasonable name for it. To rename the phenomenon is like renaming the sunrise. That's just what it's called. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.219.40 (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
In response to the above comment: I disagree, it is not known as "Ejaculation" by those who experience it. I am a female, and have had about 4 or 5 male partners who have experienced my "gushing", "squirting", "waterfall", "cumming", etc. None of them ever used the word ejaculation, nor do I. I don't think they want to associate it with male form of ejaculation, because they view it as sexy, feminine and a turn-on as heterosexual males. I hate my cumming being compared to a man's cum. I think that female gushing needs to be recognized and renamed, as should the name of the article. What it should be changed to is difficult to say! Perhaps the medical community needs to take leadership on this, since in our society, we value medical research, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curious Cat 2011 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I see this was brought up in August, but I'd like to revisit the issue of having the Feminism sidebar on this article. It seems to be borderline Original research to link this topic to feminism (or more broadly sexism). I've removed the sidebar for the moment. Anybody have thoughts on any of this? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Having completed a introductory study of feminism myself, I feel that the issue of female ejaculation is one of importance for feminist theory. No issue more profoundly highlights the collision between androdgynous and essentials feminism (those who argue men and women are totally equal, versus those who argue that attempts to give women the same features of men are misguided as they exist within a 'male identified' society. The fascination within pornography with female ejaculation also makes for an interesting feminist debate as it can be linked with the 'debasement' and sexualisation of women that has been recently documented in Natasha Walter's latest book 'Living Dolls'. For these reasons I feel feminism is importantly tied to the issue of female ejaculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.216.211 (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, if you look at the references, "Feminist ejaculations" by Shannon Bell is cited a fair bit (albeit in a muddy way), so it it's not unreasonable to consider this topic of feminist interest, although I can also see why the sidebar may offend. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The Social Significance section is embarrassing. This is an encyclopedia, not a cultural theory course. --69.196.140.230 (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
what is the female orgasim flued mail with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.195.172.59 (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there any formal one word name for this? --Matthew Bauer (talk) 04:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Not trying to sound like a voyeur or anything, but since there's a video tape of a male ejaculating on the male ejaculation page, shouldn't some one volunteer to do a taping on the female ejaculation page?
Just a thought :P Children of the dragon (talk) 12:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Yea like there videos out there why don't someone ask them permission to use it Markstar (talk) 05:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
URLS:[link titlehttp://www.squirttechnique.com/images/squirt.jpg][link titlehttp://www.squirtqueen.com/][link titlehttp://www.tantraattahoe.com/female-ejaculation/female-ejaculation-video.htm ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.138.133 (talk) 06:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I just saw an excellent demonstration at this address: http://secretosdeungigolo.com/blog/2007/12/21/como-hacer-eyacular-a-una-mujer/ I found the video very illuminating; I will try to add it to commons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.247.137 (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Extended content |
---|
Female ejaculation, it just doesn't existThe entire body of information regarding female ejaculation is based on the spongy prostate like tissues around the g-spot containing the ejaculate. Every video I've seen of it involves at least tens or hundreds of ml's of fluid. When you consider this is similar in size to an average male or female bladder, are you kidding me medical science wouldn't have detected a 'second bladder' in these girls? It's urine. And the traces are what they are, traces, probably containing lots of fluids from the secretory glands near the vaginal opening. It's interesting to note that pornography involving urination on another person is illegal in many countries. To claim it is not urine, but in fact a different fluid altogether, forms an argument that could circumvent the censoring bodies of these countries. The distributors of the material then place the burden of proof on the censoring bodies, claiming they are in some way rejecting female sexuality by denying it's existence - despite lack of significant proof in favor of their argument. Multiple world renowned health organisations, such as the British Medical Association, claim that nothing they've seen could qualify as female ejaculation. The question is really, so what if it is urine? But to cover it in hopeful ignorance is what it is, ignorance. And worse, it makes girls who feel it as urinating feel as though they are in some way defective, for the sake of porn being distributed. I say, do whatever feels good. I don't say, pretend it's something different and try to kid the world to make money. Another thing worth checking out is that the g-spot is directly over where a babies head would rest during childbirth. One thing that is common among descriptions of g-spot stimulation is the urge to push out, and urinate. It's much more likely that these nerves were placed there to encourage women to push babies out as they're born; an image the porn industry doesn't want to sell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnheritage (talk • contribs)
These are the writings of someone who has never experienced it. Find a girl who ejaculates and see for yourself. I'd like to know if you have the same views after that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.219.40 (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC) For all that anecdotal evidence is worth: I've induced female ejaculation through penetrative sex, and I have to say, I know what urine smells like; Whatever happened, it wasn't urine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.166.227 (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
my experience: it does exist,but not in a over exagerated way like a hose spraying,I have had sexual relationships and to be honest have never really reach orgasim like i have with my new partner.....i was so surprised at what happened to me....it was no way anything to do with urine!and i know trust me...all i know is that i got so wet with him,i said how thats never happened to me before?.........so i guess its either the guy knows how to make this happen or something or maybe were perfect piece together....its clear and odurless and makes the sex better anyway.I t it didnt exist but because i experienced it,thats why im on this page.
At least Wikipedia has come a long way since I joined. At that time, this article was bare-bones and unequivocally categorized it as "urination during sex". I'm thankful for all those who are helping to set the record straight! (I still don't understand why some refuse to believe in it. My advice for the non-believers: Do some first-hand research.) Woodson (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Well, my anecdote from the one girl I've been with who consistently squirted is that it certainly smelled and tasted like urine to me. But what makes it obvious is the amount: where could all that liquid be stored? Obviously the bladder, as there's no other suitable storage area, and if it's coming from the bladder then it's either urine or mixed with urine. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing, but to anyone saying it's not urine must deal this simple observation. (On the other hand, if you're talking about a small secretion, then sure.) 184.78.155.105 (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC) |
One Belgian guy, four years ago, does not the attestation "biblical scholars" make. This statement desperately needs to be revised: "Biblical scholars attest to the fact that there are erotic references to lovemaking techniques in the bible, and that includes female arousal, orgasm and ejaculation. One example is the Song of Solomon, in which three verses might be understood as references to female ejaculation (4:11-12, 4:14-15, 5:1)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince o palities (talk • contribs)
Is it just me OR does tis need a picture if not while happening the of Skenes gland labeled like File:Skenes gland-english.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markstar (talk • contribs) 04:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Extended content |
---|
Proof that female ejaculation existsOf course you'll have to take my word for it but without entering into details I have witness first hand fluid related to multiple orgasm in quantity so great it could never have been urine (the subject did not drink any fluid during the related period) and beside (reader discretion is advise for the following) it is practically tasteless with absolutely no trace of salt or smell which characterize urine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.122.145.30 (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
You tasted it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.69.5.94 (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC) My wife is 40 now, but when we were married she was in her late 20s and was the most voluminous squirter I have ever been with. I don't doubt that the fluid was "related" to urine, as it were; but it was still distinctly different in taste, odor, color, etc. We often engaged in "watersports" as well, and on several occasions she urinated and squirted during the same "session." Sory for the TMI, but I came to this page randomly, and couldn't help being interested in it. In any case, the taste, odor, color, etc., of her urine and the liquid she ejaculated during orgasms was different; absolutely, without a doubt. Given that I was able to make this comparison during the same "session," so to speak, for me at least, it's quite definitive. I presume the ejaculate was a combination of urine, natural lubrication, Skene's fluid, etc. Related, but still distinct. I also noticed that it was primarily when I was stimulating her clitoris and clitoral hood piercing manually or with a toy that she really squirted, although any strong orgasm would do it. Alas, as the years have gone by, it happens much less frequently now; only if/when she's incredibly turned on, and then in nowhere near the volume. She's still gorgeous girl, though: slim redhead, pale skin, pure blue eyes, looks 30 at 40, and always joking and so much fun to be around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.230.87.247 (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC) |
It is unlikely that female ejaculation could be provoke in any women but more likely a physiological traits probably inherit of only certain women —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.122.145.30 (talk) 06:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
So I was thinking that this article needs a photo depicting actual female ejaculation (and not urniation), and not just footage taken from common pornography -- of course this would be STRICTLY for scientific purposes. ;) --173.75.45.2 (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I cam to this article to read a bit more about the topic, having experienced something I thought might be that and wanting to learn more. I was a little disappointed to find that it has just a short two line lead, and seems to be lacking a basic section in the article defining it and giving the medical aspects. I realize its existence is disputed, but it seems like there should at least be a basic explanation of what those who do support it feel it is, possible reasons for it, etc. As it is, in reading the article I ended up with little information beyond some guy named Alzate fully believes its BS and that it is "stress urinary incontinence" (which isn't really explained at all), while some think it is, and that the "feminists" seem to go back and forth...yet not what it really is, etc. Some expansion on the basics might be helpful. (experienced editor posting under IP for basic privacy reasons) 74.192.33.242 (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
If we need photographic proof I would be more than willing submit some of my own personal footage and/or photos. I can also say from personal experience that it tastes like water with a hint of cucumber juice, unless unusually high amounts of Vitamin B are present in the system in which case it tastes like water that has had bleach added to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.114.129 (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
-that would be much appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.205.51 (talk) 03:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Why would you know what bleach tasted like...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaraquanWocky (talk • contribs) 03:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
please upload a good labeled picture an leave the file name under my comment and they could use one 122.104.163.193 (talk)
I found that it smells somehow like burned wood and somehow tastes like it too. However, that was for one female partner only. CielProfond (talk) 11:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
as someone who has done long distance hiking, i can explain the bleach thing. adding a drop or two of bleach to a large amount of water disinfects it, killing all the bacteria in it, and since it's such a tiny amount, it's not TOTALLY dangerous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:A700:4FE:452C:F462:E9A6:267F (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
chat |
---|
|
Aside from the debate on what constitutes female ejaculate, I would like to propose that whatever it is, its biological function may be to synchronise female orgasm with male ejaculation so as to increase chances of conception by "sperm upsuck" of the cervix. The sensation from the gush of warm liquid tending to tip the male into orgasm.
Variations in females and thier ejaculation (or lack of) may be down to on going evolution. Kingy112 (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The sperm upsuck mechanism doesnt appear to be accepted by the majority of the establishment yet. Once the basic process of sperm and egg were found the previous ancient knowledge was dissmissed as primitive and uneducated, labelling female ejaculation mere shamefull bed wetting to be avoided at all costs. Prior to this shamefull labelling perhaps there was some real intelligent evolution by accidental squirters whose off spring became more prevalent. Squirting by other animals is not known (as far as I know). These are just my thoughts as far as I know, if there is no supporting evidence I wouldn't mind researching it myself! ;-). but seriously I think it would be very hard to verify, it took them long to prove smoking was bad. If there is anything new in what I say I would obviously like to see it in Wiki. Also I feel if female ejaculation was assigned a legitimate purpose in reproduction then attitudes towards it will hopefully be shifted away from perversion and more into the mainstream so to speak. Kingy112 (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually I have found one possible supporting reference of the concept that the evolutionary purpose * of the females orgasm was to stimulate the males orgasm. This was in the links at the end of the main article An Annotated Bibliography on Sexual Arousal, Orgasm, and Female Ejaculation in Humans and Animals [2]
Allen, ML. and Lemmon, WB 1981 Orgasm in female primates. Am J. Primatol. 1:15-34.
A review of the evidence for orgasm in nonhuman primates with the author's own evidence from the digital stimulation of female chimpanzees suggestings that something akin to interspecies orgasm occurs in chimps (this apparently was not a reciprocal arrangement). Though this research will probsbly be most remembered for the original data collected (and the original data collection method) actually the most bizarre part of this paper is the author's suggestion that female orgasm evolved to stimulate male ejaculation. Few theories on the function of female orgasm have flown in the face of such counter evidence as this one, but I actually heard the first author present it at a national meeting in great seriousness and with a straight face.
This may turn out to be another one of those new ideas that has been poo-pooed by the establishment which turned out to be nearer the truth than they were.
Kingy112 (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Not much to go on this. There's a paper in Medical Hypotheses, if you care: Moalem, S.; Reidenberg, J. S. (2009). "Does female ejaculation serve an antimicrobial purpose?". Medical Hypotheses. 73 (6): 1069–1071. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2009.07.024. PMID 19766406.. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the article http://www.medical-hypotheses.com/article/S0306-9877%2809%2900513-1/abstract , have they actually analysed the fluid for antimicrobial constituents yet? There seems to be a lot of hypotheses without actually testing for something real, which I presume could be quite easily done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingy112 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
"The terminology (such as female prostate and female ejaculation) invoke images of the female as merely an imitation of the male, mapping the female body onto the male, as if, like the Galenic view, it was incomplete.[20] Furthermore overemphasis of ejaculation may induce performance anxiety.[11] For the reason that 'sameness' has been construed as a male perspective, some feminists reject the term ejaculation. " If this is the case, may I suggest this article use a suitable replacement for the word 'female ejaculation'? I agree that the word ejaculation provokes analogues to what is essentially a male act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinophile21992 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
an article this big needs a picture. perhaps one with pubic hair to lessen pornography accusations. 99.20.100.127 (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Please remove this pornagraphic image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.84.192 (talk) 05:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored but that image clearly depicts a woman who is urinating and is therefore factually unrelated to the article except insofar as the article mentions that the fluid produced in this way is probably just urine. This page is unnecessary; there is already a page about urination. The picture is offensive and borderline pornographic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.29.227.184 (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
chat |
---|
Postulating a Hypothesis
I postulate that female ejaculation is subjective, but is quite real. Whether the origin is either uterine fluid, or a build up of vaginal secretions, I am uncertain, and it could well be both. I suggest that the actual ejaculation is the subjective part, and depends upon the quantity of fluids present within the vagina (or uterus if it consists of said fluid), and it is a female orgasm which causes the vaginal walls to constrict, and the movement of the cervix, the effect of which could be described as being similar to squeezing a tube of fluid toothpaste: the pressure applied is released through the only orifice available. The addition of lubricants, or simulated semen is often used for visual effect. The term, "gushing," refers to copious amounts of female ejaculate being released, as a garden hose gushes under pressure. However, this is often misrepresented by the use of thinner lubricates, which produce thin, powerful jets which more closely resembles urination than ejaculation to an observer. However, naturally occurring female ejaculate would consist of whatever fluid is in the vagina. Being of subjective matter, it can also appear to be as liquid as water, or urine.
I think that this is a huge debate between the experienced and the unexpierienced. Not a single person who experienced, discards, and everyone who discards never experienced. I have collected that the volume of excreted liquids originate from more than one small gland in the anterior, releasing when muscles contract at climax. Due to a build up of liquids that mass, because the female tries to not climax, but after continued pleasure all stress is relieved at once. Thats only a theory but its pratical. From my own experience a large enough volume excreted that "could of" came from the bladder but was clearish milky in light, and not as near, but slimy like male semen. I dont understand how there is a huge debate over this.. Maybe the researchers should look at the vagina during an orgasm and watch where the damn liquid comes from! because it either has to come from the urethra or the vagina, for it to be urine or an ejaculation. ttt jan 21st 2011 |
This evaluation (source is Chalker's popsci book, which seems okay as a source in general) was tagged with {{dubious}}. It seems clear that there's controversy/debate. Most if not all recent papers say as much in their abstract. However, given the dearth of recent research on this (and the small volume overall), it's probably fair to say that it's far from a hot research topic in academia. So, I'm guessing that's why "hotly" is questionable, i.e. the controversy doesn't generate much interest outside a small group of researchers. So Chalker is perhaps overstating her case in this respect, being to close too the topic. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
"Hotly" isn't the same as "widely". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.129.247 (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
There's no support for the "Dubious" tag, and it should be removed. 108.49.158.121 (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
The article says "De Graaf discussed the original controversy but supported the Aristotelian view." Aristotle's view on female ejaculation is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. Any idea what that was supposed to mean? 64.161.114.2 (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The Aristotelian view, cf. [1]: "Some think that the female contributes semen in coition because the pleasure she experiences is sometimes similar to that of the male, and also is attended by a liquid discharge. But this discharge is not seminal; it is merely proper to the part concerned in each case, for there is a discharge from the uterus which occurs in some women but nor in others. It is found in those who are fair-skinned and of a feminine type generally, but not in those who are dark and of masculine appearance. The amount "of this discharge, when it occurs, is sometimes on a different scale from the emission of semen and far exceeds it. Moreover, different kinds of food cause a great difference in the quality of such discharges; for instance some pungently-flavoured foods cause them to be conspicuously increased." Tr. by Arthur Platt, in: [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter J. Barta (talk • contribs) 17:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The File:Eyaculación Femenina.theora.ogv video added to this article by User:Max Rebo Band is an obvious copyright violation. Let me run down the clues: well-lit, professional video quality, ridiculous fingernails, uploaded to Commons by a user with no other activity. Commons is full of copyvio porn, but admins there seem to have trouble recognizing it or parting with it. I am removing it from the article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok so when I read this I had a slight problem. I want it to be noted that you (females) do not have to "ejaculate" to reach an orgasm. From personal experience to watching porn, not everybody "ejaculates". Aaa321 (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
How is listing individual porn stars alledged to ejaculate noteworthy? Seems more like using wikipedia for advertising, rather than explaining the subject. It should be sufficient to say that female ejaculation is featured in some pornography and leave it at that.
It should be stated in the section about Pornography that the "squirting" performed in recent times in pornography is of an amount(several 100 ml), which is far from what is discussed in scientific literature for female ejaculation (several ml), so that is obvious that the "squirting" in pornography is urine. The article makes believe that what is seen as "squirting" in pornography is the ejaculation that is the topic of serious discussion. It doesn't help the topic and leads to more confusion if we let the pornographic industry shape this ridiculous image of female ejaculation. So please mention that in the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.177.199 (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
"Function is unknown" seems to imply that everything must have a function, which is controversial in evolutionary biology. 187.191.13.177 (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
reproducible, tracked w/speculum and care: via jiz lee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.63.86.115 (talk) 03:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
"It is also described by Freud in pathological terms in his study of Dora (1905), where he relates it to hysteria.[19]" The text cited next to this statement does not say anything about female ejaculation being pathological or related to hysteria. It says that women who have an abnormal secretion of the mucous membrane of the vagina (not that the secretion is in itself abnormal, but when it is, maybe because it's too much), feel disgust; that it has the power of humiliating them, of lowering their self-esteem, and of making them irritable, sensitive, and distrustful.
This article seems to heavily depend on dated sources. Per the MEDRS guideline, recent review sources are highly preferable. This and this both look like good sources that aren't used in the article. The Call of Cthulhu (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Given the controversial aspect of this article I think the picture used for this article as the date I add this comment, is just as controversial if not more so. For one, articles in Wikipedia should be presented under a scientific academic and neutral view, the picture used right now is not proof of female ejaculation since it's not an image of a scientific study or research. The depiction could be of urination for all we know.
How can we determine that the image depicts female ejaculation in its actual sense? I think an image or diagram of the anatomy of what it is believed to be the source of this ejaculation (Bartholin's gland) would be a much better and scientifically correct depiction of this biological phenomenon. Let me add, I have no doubts that the picture might be of a woman in fact ejaculating as a response to sexual stimuli, but if we are to present scientific correct information then we need to make sure we doubt and question every resource here presented. Thanks --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 21:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
This article is about a Physiological phenomenon, and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with feminism. Many groups of people will have opinions on the subject, but there's nothing about feminists that makes their opinions any more relevant than say, Catholic Priests or Turnip Farmers. I strongly suggest that the "feminist criticism" section be deleted. It makes an absolute farce of an otherwise quite neutral article and is basically just a political rant by a non-notable author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.176.129 (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Inducing female ejaculation was a treatment for the retention of fluid (seen as unhealthy). The affliction was officially called: "suffocation ex semine retento", this is a potentially rich source of historic material for this topic. [4] - RoyBoy 21:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it was in an episode of Californication. So were masturbation, statutory rape, plagiarism, wine, novelist, divorce and a million other things. We also have several million article topics that have been covered in various songs, Saturday Night Live sketches, magazine articles, comic book plots, statues, knock knock jokes, camp songs, etc. Selecting any one of these, citing the primary source and including it is not encyclopedic. As discussed], this is covered by WP:IPC. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
There's a good summary of some new research from New Scientist here: [5] As far as I can see, the take-home message is: there's urine in there, for sure, but in most of the cases, there's some kind of non-urinary fluid in the mix, with some properties similar to male prostatic secretions, that is not present without sexual stimulation.
Here a cite for the paper itself:
and it's also listed in PubMed:
Hopefully this might help the BBFC in their ongoing deliberations about the dreaded wee menace. -- Impsswoon (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Female ejaculation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This edit requesttoFemale ejaculation has been answered. Set the |answered= or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would to add this photo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gushing_detail.jpg thanks Ipertornado (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Other sections already cover the ongoing debate, and the sources cited seem to be heavily painted against the existence of the phenomenon, specifically the citation of the debate where Shannon Bell argued that:
"...the debate is confused by the discussion of two separate phenomena.[specify] She comments that Alzate simply dismisses women's subjective experiences in favour of rigorous scientific proof, and is typical of male sexologists withholding the validity of experience from women."
The article is already incredibly wordy, and unfounded assertions that directly and irrelevantly spit in the face of the scientific method without providing any reasonable substance to the article is rather intellectually dishonest. This entire paragraph simply restates what is already in other portions, and the individual in question doesn't appear to be important enough to warrant their own soapbox on a cluttered and confused article - the emotions of those involved matter little outside of a placebo effect, which is already alluded to in other sections.
The other paragraphs are incredibly wordy and amount to a few feminists of moderate to minor repute putting forward theories with no evidence to support it. If the issue is that torn and the refusal of evidence is so apparent, perhaps the article should be revised to omit or condense a lot of that section, bearing in mind how little information such a block of text reveals.
ThisIsFronk (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Female ejaculation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{dead link}}
tag to http://business.avn.com/articles/6517.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
The following section should be added to included information about what it feels like for the woman who is ejaculating:
Women who release fluid when they orgasm also have orgasms where they don't release fluid, and report that the two orgasms are experienced very differently. An Orgassm that is accompanied by ejaculation, gushing or squirting feels distinctly different compared to an orgasm that does not release fluids. Both are pleasurable and provide different experiences.
The Squirting or Gushing Orgasm can often happen multiple times during one session of arousal. The orgasm from clitoral stimulation that does not release a large amount of fluid ends arousal and cannot lead to another orgasm unless there is a break or re-arousal.
Women can experience a large amount of fluid that shoots out, similar to a water gun, in which the phrase "squirting" is a more fitting descriptor. The same woman can also experience a large amount of fluid that pours out like a waterfall, in which "gushing is a more fitting descriptor. The amount of fluid can be more than 250-500 mL. The word "female ejaculation" as a descriptor is flawed because it suggests a comparison to male ejaculation. The amount of fluid, and the consistency of the fluid has significant differences from male ejaculation. Further it reinforces women as secondary to men.
Women can experience ejaculation, squirting, or gushing from a partner's penetration, their own penetration (hands or sex toys), or no penetration. Tapping on the front of the clitoris or sucking the clitoris, without any penetration in the vagina can lead to Squirting or Gushing.
The orgasm which results in female ejaculate, squirting, or gushing, is said to be a result of stimulating the g-spot. And an orgasm that does not result in a large amount of fluid, is talked about as resulting from stimulating the clitoros area specifically. Though when stimulated, both areas can lead to either type of orgasm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danafaune (talk • contribs)
I see three sections about the image, and in all there appeared to be more support for having a relevant illustration than not. Wnt (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Beverly Whipple, a neurophysiologist from Rutgers University in Newark, New Jersey, says that the term female ejaculation should only really refer to the production of the small amount of milky white liquid at orgasm and not the “squirting” investigated in this paper. “This study shows the other two kinds of fluids that can be expelled from the female urethra – urine alone, and urine diluted with substances from the female prostate,” she says.
“This study presents convincing evidence that squirting in women is chemically similar to urine, and also contains small amounts of PSA that is present in men’s and women’s true ejaculate,” says Barry Komisaruk, also at Rutgers.
Reference #1 is missing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clumsybunii (talk • contribs) 20:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Female ejaculation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Female ejaculation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This edit requesttoFemale ejaculation has been answered. Set the |answered= or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the following sentence: Some studies have described the fluid as a diluted form of urine, without the presence of ammonia.
The phrase "some studies" is inaccurate since there is one citation, and it's not a study. Also the citation is of low quality and it references other studies, which are not cited. Strange-attractor (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Female ejaculation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Female ejaculation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
This link is dead: https://books.google.com/?id=ph-2F94pR_0C (Title: Living With Contradictions: Controversies in feminist social ethics) --46.82.208.90 (talk) 10:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
comparisonoffemale ejaculation article intro to female ejaculation#Research. Only a few words change. Also, is para-urethral supposed to have a hyphen or not? Or is it optional, like e-mailoremail?
71.121.143.169 (talk) 08:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)