Talk:Female ejaculation/Archive 2

Unverified statements

I am "mothballing" these, to err on the side of caution, till verified. I have not been able to find any to date. Mgoodyear (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The Italian Renaissance anatomist Renaldus Columbus referred to female ejaculate in his explanation of the function of the clitoris.

However Aristotle's reference 'to swell with wetness' in describing the orgasm may be instead interpreted by some as arousal.

According to studies conducted by the Universidade de São Paulo, by doctor Paulo Carvalho Fez Barroso, a probable explanation for female ejaculation was that the ejaculation delivers important energy sources such as glucose and fructose to improve the semen feeding sources, thus improving too the chances of fertilization of the woman's egg.

Many Tantric gurus such as Osho Mgoodyear (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Osho does not appear to have talked about female ejaculation. This mention should not be reintroduced, unless someone can produce a solid, verifiable citation. Jayen466 17:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Categories

I noticed somebody switched Women to Women and Sexuality, while on the surface this makes sense, an inspection of the latter category suggests it does not fit well there which is oddly devoted to lesbianism and BDSM. It clearly requires some balance. Mgoodyear (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Joanne Flynn "experiment" deleted

This was deleted: "The most recent study has been conducted by American Scientist Joanne Flynn. Flynn asked for her G-spot to be stimulated in such a way as to see whether or not female ejaculation would occur. After minutes of stimulation, other scientists watching saw that ejaculation occurred, and was a clear gushing action."

I deleted it because it probably didn't happen and it's ridiculous for a scientist's only test subject to be herself. Most likely, someone named Joanne Flyn or someone who knows a Joanne Flyn added this to the article out of vanity/humor.

The Picture...

Can someone explain to me why we have a picture of a statue depicting a female pissing that dates back to 1200 C.E. in this article... A real picture would be better in my opinion... For those of you who are against having a real picture for whatever reason than please find a better picture.

as a suggestion:

File:Female ejaculation 01.jpg

217.162.43.151

I don't see a problem with that picture. Though everytime I tried adding a picture someone took it down. If no one has a problem with this then we should add this picture. --Corilof 13:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with it. It is unclear as to the soruce/nature of the fluid. It could be female ejaculation, or it could be faked or it could be some other fluid. Given this, it shouldn't be used. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyway - the picture was deleted without any comment by a Wikipedia administrator (= censor)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.27.185.253 (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

the real truth from real experience

The fluid is not urine it is a lubricant from the clitoral sponge. there may be confusion because prior to ejaculating, there may be the sensation that the woman may urinate. this is completely normal. which may also explain why not all women do it, they just don't know what it is. although the fluid is not urine, inexperience can lead to accidental urination. if this is the case, do not freak out. simply decide if the desire is still there to try it again. the fluid dose travel through the urethra, and the contractions can be strong enough to (for the lack of a better word) squirt it several feet. as it should be, all women are different. some only produce a trickle, while others soak though what ever has been laid down. not only knowing it can be done, doing it properly is just as important. this part is subject to the individual. some like clitoral stimulation, some like vaginal. Hands, toys, or the penis may be used, it all depends on the level of comfort and trust between partners. all you have to do is decide what you like; fast, slow, hard, or soft. most men won't complain about doing it your way, they like to know it is being done right (at least that is the case with me). Just make sure it is enjoyable for both of you. the key is to keep an open line of communication. you can't know if they like unless you ask. there is also a lot of information out there, just Google it. . Campbellut 20:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to observe when ejaculation happens - it can happen at any time, although rarely on the first orgasm. I have noticed it's particularly easy to ejaculate just towards the end of my period up until a day or two after it (about a week after starting) and then from my fertile time, just before / during ovulation up until my period. It comes (pardon the pun) less easily in the 10 days after those two days after the end of my period. So I figure there must be some hormonal connections with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.165.52 (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

revert of good edit

I removed " However, in scenes depicting female ejaculation in modern pornography, the volume of fluid typically "ejaculated" doesn't appear to originate from anywhere other than the urinary bladder." Sure, that may be someones personal observation, but it hardly sounds like citeable research. It pretty much fits the Wikipedia definition of original research verbatim. Find a reference that supports the statement please, or leave it out of the article. Atom 17:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

vagina vrs. urethra?

where does this fountain sprout from? I clearly saw some dispute of this in a recent edit comment. Jack 10:54, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The bladder, exiting via the urethra. Self help materials show such things as continuous streams of liquid projecting many feet from the body. However, it appears that some find this prospect distasteful and prefer to say it comes from the vagina, use the vagina to mean the whole genital area rather than the medical vagina, or notice a wet bed and don't observe how the fluid emerges. Or, I suppose, some might use the term to refer to simply vaginal fluids rather than the more common use - I'm not aware of any general use with that meaning but if someone knows that some use the term with that meaning, we should document it even if it is uncommon. The urethral emission is, I assume, why the British Board of Film Censors treats it as urination-related.

I'm pretty sure that some of it, sometimes, IS urination. I think there is a valid middle ground which could reflect all POV's, expressing that perhaps on some occasions, this is simply urination, but that there is, however, a (somewhat common?) situation involving a particular size of opening (or lack thereof?) in their Skene's gland. There is ALSO normal vaginal lubrication, which can be present in various quantities. There is alot of potential for this article. :) Jack 05:57, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

One of the Canadian/US TV sex therapist shows covered it when a caller asked whether it was urine. Explained that emptying the bladder first would eliminate the urine in the bladder and almost all of the fluid then would be the alternative ejaculate originating from the stimulation of the g spot. But that the body wouldn't stop producing urine, so a variable amount of urine would be present, depending on the rate of production how much had been consumed in the couple of hours before) and elapsed time since bladder emptying. This is consistent with the Schubach sexologist study of a small number of self-described female ejaculators, which also noted that most of the subjects didn't seem to produce any fluid from the urethral ducts (including Skene's gland) but that in some cases they did. So, in summary, it seems to be:

• whatever is in the bladder prior to sexual activity, so empty the bladder if you want to largely eliminate urine.
• whatever urine is produced during sexual activity, so don't drink in large quantities for the couple of hours before sex if you want to minimise the quntity present.
• the clear liquid which somehow collects in the bladder as a result of g spot stimulation.
• variable amounts of secretion from the urethral glands and ducts, including Skene's gland, in the Schubach subjects. The variability in this and urine quantity present seems to explain the varying chemical analysis results for the combined fluid which have been reported.

This appears to be the currently accepted view among US/Canadian sex therapists, based on what I've found written about the subject by them. Not enough formal medical studying done to be certain that it is accurate in all respects so that needs to be mentioned as well as describing the accepted view - which has changed over the years and could change again if new research shows something else happening. Jamesday 08:25, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As a female who ejaculates, here is my personal data on the subject: it comes out of my vagina (as my bf who has front row seats to my "love hole" can attest. I can feel it coming from there, and he can see it from a clear vantage point. Secondly, I can only ejaculate if the penis or dildo is QUICKLY removed at the moment I feel the pressure. Ejaculating is not "orgasmicly" exciting... merely a rush because it's supposedly "rare" and my bf enjoys it greatly. Female ejac. and orgasm do not go hand in hand (hehe, pun intended). Anyway, bf's taste test said that my liquid was like sugar water, I also tasted it myself and it did have a very slight sweet taste. I can ejaculate all night... endlessly. When I first discovered it way ack when, I went to the bathroom a couple of times before sex, and didn't drink anything for a while... but I was still able to ejaculate over ten times... and the bed was soaked aftwerward. It IS NOT urine, and it DOES NOT come from the urethra. That's all -- NatsukiGirl\^talk 07:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm a guy. But it's also from my own experience with and observation of sexual partners that most that do ejaculate do so via the urethra. But some do via the vagina as well. This has long been a curiosity of mine and I've seen it! Now that sex therapists and other 'professionals' are starting to widely recognize female ejaculation in general (via the urethra, in particular) as a fact, I look forward to the time they recognize and address the source and reason for ejaculation via the vagina. I still have no idea where it's coming from, though I'm thoroughly enjoying finding out! ~_^ Darnold01 23:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

From my personal experience, I have not found a powerful stream (as some pornographers attest), but a copious amount of fluid is released. As to the source of the ejaculate, though I have found it to be quite odorless, the trace amounts of urea and creatine strongly suggest the urethra as the source. My point is, I guess, that whatever it is, it is not urine. By the way, I apologize for my hideous grammar. 70.178.167.187 18:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Jo.

Just to add my two cents as an ejaculating woman; I am also not able to ejaculate with an object in my vagina, but I'm pretty sure the fluid comes from my urethra. What other hole has the muscle power to ejaculate fluid with such force? I assume the inability to ejaculate during vaginal penetration has to do with the pressure it puts on the urethra. I have to admit I'm a little doubtful when aquaintences of mine swear ejaculation originates in the vagina, because it seems like they're trying to dissacociate it from urination in their own minds. I also do not believe the fluid to be urine though, simply because it is clear and not acrid in the least. It doesn't leave yellow stains, or reek like pee does. Froghat 05:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

contradiction

There is still a contradiction in the main article about the vagina/urethra question. Under pornography it says: "In other cases, the fluid is clearly seen as coming from her urethra, at high velocity." Which is there to serve as proof that it is not a female ejaculation. In other parts however, it says that female ejaculation does never come from the vagina, but always from the urethra. This is still confusing to me. I refrain from editing because I think my English is unsufficient, but I wanted to point it out.

I think that's just another reason why we shouldn't be citing porn as authoritative when there are 30 or 40 peer-reviewed, academic articles on the topic.

Not that the academic stuff is free of conflicts, but at least they can be figured out. The physiology of the female prostate is highly variable. In some women they are pretty large, in others they are too small to be locatable at all, and the ducts don't always seem to lead to quite the same location. In our graphic, the ducts don't lead into the urethra, but I can point to at least one medical paper (with dissections to back it up) which says that they do. There was also at least one paper done on the fluid itself, and the results were as mixed as could be - some samples were not distinguishable from urine, others clearly contained no urine, and yet others seemed to be a mixture to one degree or another. That's probably why this subject is as debated as it is; the facts are highly variable from one individual to the next.

As for porn, here are my own thoughts (quite undocumented in the medical literature, mind you). A female prostate may contain somewhere between zero and a couple of tablespoons of fluid at a time. It may be ejected forcefully, or it may be a completely invisible process. If being able to put on a good enough show might make the difference between a $15,000 paycheck and unemployment, there would certainly be some incentive to make sure that it was visible. Might they even go so far as to intentionally expel some amount of urine, to make sure that their "money shot" worked out? I don't think it's inconceivable. Heck, some of them might have even had cosmetic surgery!  ;-)

In any case, the impression will be given that it's inevitably an event which can be picked up by a camera from some distance away, which is clearly untrue. If a woman's prostate holds half a teaspoon, and the ducts are pinhole-sized openings somewhere other than the urethra, there is no camera in the world which is going to pick that up. You might as well watch porn and conclude that guys under 8" long simply do not exist.

Would anyone object to removing the last porn reference, and switching this over to peer-reviewed medical literature? Poindexter Propellerhead 18:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

A Myth?

Bigfoot is a myth! The Loch Ness Monster is a myth! Female Ejaculation is merely rare. Not all women can do it, of course... I believe we have agreed upon that. Not all men can achieve multiple orgasms, either. Are they a myth? I think not. We should avoid any and all article wording that disputes this natural occurance. It is not urine, either.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just ebcause a few writers here have never experienced it (nor seen) doesn't give them the right to dispute it as truth. Savvy?

Gosh, just download some porn, it wont be hard to see that its not a myth. I mean, there couldve been "camera tricks" or whatever, but use your own judgment. --Tothebarricades.tk 07:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Porn videos of female ejaculation are comprised of camera tricks and of simple urination. Kingturtle 16:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some are, some aren't. - UtherSRG 16:41, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

There is absolutely zero medical evidence of female ejaculation beyond urination. there is no secret organ or hidden tube. Kingturtle 18:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You might not say tht if you've seen what I've seen. - UtherSRG 19:58, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Some people are just thickheadedly stupid. Just because something they haven't experienced in real life or scientifically proven means it's not real. They just don't have enough brain cells to carry the concept of benefits of doubt. I have only seen them on porn movies but I won't discount it neither as myth nor real. I don't need to keep on saying it's fake because they are not "scientifically proven to be fake". Hey, these thickheaded people are rare too, maybe as rare as ejaculating females...maybe someone need to scientifically prove they are real.

abubin 27 Sept 2006 05:24 (UTC)

Even if some scientists believes it's a myth, I've seen it. Those scientists are simply wrong, they're missinformed because :

• For mens : they don't have the right feminine partner; For womens : they never experienced it,
• they never heard a report of someone that experienced or saw it or their didn't believe the report,
• they never watched the "good" porn movie.

Ericd 1 July 2005 19:28 (UTC)

Most women are scared of their vagina... and they don't know how to do it. Too bad for them. -- NatsukiGirl\^talk 07:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Heh...I joined just because of this search I did. Lol. Well, I female ejaculate every single time, multiple times, huge amounts. There is NO WAY I could EVER urinate that far without my urethra exploding. Mine has never had even the slightest resemblence to urine and I'm CERTAIN it comes from my vagina because when it happens i am touching my clitoris the majority of the time and i'd notice if my hand was covered it in everytime. Natsuki, you're NOT alone. <3 kymmeh <3 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kymmeh (talk • contribs) .

Its defiantly real, my girlfriend can ejaculate, and its definatly not urine and when she does her whole body shakes. Funny cause afterwards she is so giddy and can't stop giggling. Anyone who says it isn't real either can achieve it or hasn't been with someone who was able too. 220.233.25.44 12:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the article nothing in the (medical) vagina is capable of producing the liquid. It comes from somewhere else... the disputed parts are the urethra, or the glands. Also, since the "mystery fluid" is almost all urine as it is, the small and insignificant portion that's magically "created" by stimulating the g-spot (if it does indeed exist) is not even noticable with all the urine. Basically the female is feeling the buildup of what could infact be a fluid, but instead confuses the feeling with having to urinate and releases tension on her bladder control and urinates. If you take a cup of orange juice and pour it into a gallon of urine... I'm sorry its still urine. 71.239.147.154 (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the veridicality of female ejaculation; but when it comes to 'squirting,' porn producers are obviously having a bit of fun with some of the more earnest contributors to this discussion. Try an image search on Google and see for yourself: there simply isn't any gland in the human body that could produce the spectacular quantities of 'ejaculate' that porn models regularly seem to manage. A beer-distended bladder, however, could easily enable a model to produce high-powered squirts on demand, as well as supply her with a reasonably clear fluid. This is still 'urine,' albeit a fairly watery version, and the involvement of the bladder and urethra gives the model the control she needs--a control that would be impossible if she really had to rely on 'glands' responding just so to a very timely orgasm. The only conceptual difficulty here is deciding whether to join the porn kings in their laughter or marvel at the gullibility of their dupes. This is hardly the only forum in which comical, pseudo-scientific pretentiousness masks medieval peasant-style credulousness, but the social iffiness of the topic provides some of the more fanciful notions of true believers unaccustomed scope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.29.147 (talk) 08:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC) If you're too delicate to visit a 'porn' link for evidence, don't click on the following: http://www.squirtinghotbabes.com/gals/3103/indexaabser.html Someone above advised us to use our own judgment. If, in your judgment, the samples at this site are of anything other than an at least partial, high velocity emptying of the bladder, don't ever attempt to represent yourself before a real judge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.29.63 (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Same story here! Unless this model's 'skene's gland' is the size of her liver, she's peeing: http://galleries.freecdgirls.com/galleries/gallery/angela-stone-squirting-masturbation.htm

Looking forward to "Female Prostate" and "Female Testicles" articles...

Perhaps the article is POV because from everything I'm reading including this discussion I believe it's incontinence. I've even watched a "how to" video where the male host explains at length how it's "not pee," and proceeds to describe his use of of diuretics and how to apply indirect pressure on the woman's bladder (not using my words of course). I believe that women can "squirt" a small amount of liquid, but I don't understand how these streams of liquid could come anywhere other than the bladder. Could the article be updated to explain how this is (even theoretically) physically possible for a woman to squirt an arch of non-urine fluid? Daniel 208.59.130.243 17:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You're free to believe what you want to believe.... As a direct witness I think I'm allowed to believe something else... However I don't believe I have enough expertise to write an "how to"... Ericd 18:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to believe, I'm asking a simple technical question. Where is the fluid coming from? How is the force of the gush physically possible if it's not coming from a bladder? Look at a picture of a female's anatomy and tell me where the juice-- which is undoubtly coming out of the urethra-- is coming from. And then tell me how it's not urine. Not one person involved in this article has done this. Daniel 208.59.130.243 22:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, The article needs some work, and from most of the people I've talked with. Real female ejaculate comes from the vagina not the urethra. And it's not nearly as dramatic as "seen in the movies"TM. One of wikipedia's users was discussing it at some point, she could probably offer a bit more info on it. --Wynler | Talk 20:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I´ve tasted it and it is not urine.

The Skene's glands, which are now often thought of as the female prostate, are the most likely source of urethral ejaculation in females. Vaginal discharge is also possible during orgasm, and it may be produced by the Skene's glands, Bartholin's glands, vaginal mucosa, and/or uterus. Andrea Parton 16:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Defiantly not urine, doesn't even smell like it. It is clear and doesn't really have much of a smell at all. 220.233.25.44 12:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fresh urine is odorless. It is a sterile substance that only acquires its characteristic smell after bacterial contamination causes the decomposition of the contained urea back into ammonia and carbon dioxide. But this happens only after some time. Also it is not very difficult to turn your urine colorless by drinking lots of water.

I'm not saying that it's a myth, I'm just saying that these observations don't count. Mütze (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Reordering

Why was my reordering reverted ? Ericd 18:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was better this way. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced image

I have removed an image without copyright information. Please specify its copyright status if you wish to include it. Isopropyl 05:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Another reference

Female Ejaculation A minority of women sometimes eject from four tablespoons to two cups of fluid when they experience orgasm. The liquid is chemically different from urine and while most reports indicate the vagina as the source, some have reported that this came out of the urethra. Some women experience it as though it was just "dumped" out, and others send a stream flying several feet with each pelvic contraction. This has been associated with particularly long foreplay and particularly powerful orgasmic sensations. There is no specific way yet known to either cause it to happen or stop it from happening. "Be prepared" is thus the "treatment" of choice.

http://sexdoc.com/femorg.html

William F. Fitzgerald, Ph.D.

you can use this if you want he's a sex therapist -Iopq 12:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Scientific Phenomena

This is due in part to religious beliefs that result in repressed sexuality, and also the tendancy to treat human sexuality as a scientific phenomena as opposed to a deeply spiritual expression.

Er, I can believe the first part, but how does treating human sexuality as scientific phenomena *prevent* lack of knowledge. I'm really quite curious about this. Does anyone have any anecdotes that could shine some light on this? treed 14:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Porno-like image

The picture displayed is really shocking, inappropriate, and sort of pornographic in nature. Plus, there's no caption, and it is really upfront. Perhaps someone could make a link to the pciture instead of having it vulgarly displayed, and warn that it is graphic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andrewia (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia is not censored for anyones sensibilities. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

True, wikipedia does not censore. However you will notice that there is such a thing as quality control. Specifically the case could be made regarding verifiability of what is being pictured. How can we know this this person isn't just urinating in this picture? Personally, I'd prefer a medical journal or some site that isn't trying to sell me something, or otherwise has no means of profitting, display some image. For that reason I believe this image should be removed. Not because someone may be offended. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 06:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the article or the subject of female ejaculation itself (however, the lack of credible sources leads me to consider the merit of having it in the first place), but I do have a problem with the image itself. Even if it is linked and not clearly displayed, the image belongs not on an encyclopedia, but on a pornography web site. Even though it is clearly stated that this picture was taken by a couple for Wikipedia's use, the woman's high heels and the faux zebra bedspread seems something which is reminiscent of a Ron Jeremy flick. If female ejaculation were to be referenced in a reputable medical dictionary, like Taber's, I do not think that you would find an image such as this. Therefore, I move that something more "clinical" be found. For example, an anatomical image, or a sketch. Articles such as oral sex and clitoris are great examples of using images that would not be considered erotic in nature.ICXCNIKA 20:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Image

The image has been removed lately because it has no "assertion that it is genuine or belongs." This reason puzzles me. I have never seen a picture on Wikipedia with the assertion "Yes, this is a genuine image, and it does belong in this article." I'm not sure what User:Voice of All wants (other than to not have that picture displayed). So please, if you're going to keep removing the image against consensus, at least tell us why in some detail here. Thanks, ^L_Wizard @ 04:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As I argued about the image on Ejaculation, I will aruge the same here: This image does not illustrate ejaculation, it illustrates Ejaculate. Ejaculation is a process, better illustrated by a diagram than a still photograph. Yes, WP:NOT censored, but Wikipedia is also not a porn site, nor should there be images in our articles that are not of an encyclopedic nature and that do not contribute to the understanding of the topic. Frankly, this image contributes nothing except shock value, and I see absolutely no reason to keep this image around at all. The only compromise I would be willing to make would be to restrict the image from being displayed in-line in the article, such that those who wish to see the image can follow a link. Please find an image that actually illustrates how the process of ejaculation works, as this image does not do that. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As another note, the image does not even illustrate ejaculate but urine. Can you please tell me why we need an image of a woman with her hand up her clit pissing all over herself at the head of this article on Female ejaculation? AmiDaniel (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[Edit conflict, text inserted] Are you also annoyed by all the irrelevant pictures of dead things at death? Death is a process too. Eating has the same problem. The fact is, lots of processes may be best illustrated by still images of one stage in the process.

Your claim that this image contributes nothing is simply wrong. The image contributes at least as much as all the text of the article. Female ejaculation is a relatively rare event, and many even claim that it does not happen at all. Relatively few people have witnessed it. There's a lot of misinformation about what it is like. The photo provides evidence that it does occur and shows what it is like.

Now that that's all out of the way, happily, I am also willing to use the linkimage template here, if that's the consensus. ^L_Wizard @ 06:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I've converted it to linkimage for now. I still fail to understand what the image contributes to the article, as I don't believe this to be depicting female ejaculation but rather urination, and as you stated, the image is "proof" that it does occur. While female ejaculation's status as myth or fact is a highly debated matter, I'd say the image interjects quite a bit of bias on that point, which we should avoid. I'm not offended by the image, nor will I argue that it may offend others--I simply don't agree with your reasons for inclusion. Thank you, however, for not screaming "WP:NOT censored!" as I've grown quite tired of individuals citing that as a reason for keeping an irrelevant image. Anyway, given the poor source info, the image will likely be deleted in the future, but I would still like to find a diagram or some other more relevant image/illustration for how the process is believed to occur (again, not how it occurs, as it is not proven that it does occur). AmiDaniel (talk) 06:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

And yet another note from me, the image has bad source information, and I have a very hard time trusting the license tag as well. I've contacted the uploader. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, if it's unfree we mustn't use it. Let me know what you find out. ^L_Wizard @ 06:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking into it. The uploader has 5 (or is it 7?) days to find adequate source info and clarify licensing issues, though if you or someone else can find this out for me, that will work just as well. I'm trying to track down the website from which the image was downloaded. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

While I support a testes image, I don't see the use of this. I strongly support having several images at sex organ pages like vagina, because it is a derivative page. Once you see those, you can easily the same thing, except with urin coming out. The image licenence, source, and credibility (as a true ejaculation is iffy/non-existant), and it does not add anything. To give a non-sex related example: I support pictures of stables, but not pictures of "what a staple looks like when a guy throws it". On top of this, this image does have shock value, and is right at the beginnning. Now shock value alone is nt enough to stop an image per WP:NOT CENSORED, but when that adds on to a list of grevienes to an already pointless page, it only acts as the nail on the coffin.Voice-of-All 06:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Your argument against "derivitate [sic]" images seems silly. Why do we have Image:Mexico coat of arms.png? I mean, since we have eagle, snake, and cactus, it's easy enough to imagine an eagle perched atop a cactus eating a snake. Heck, why do we need Image:Flag of the United States.svg? It's just "a banner Gules, six bars Argent; the canton Azure charged with 50 mullets Argent." If you've seen a banner gules, an argent stripe, an azure canton, and an argent mullet, there should be no problem putting them all together. It seems like Wikipedia might be operating under the general belief that if a topic is notable enough to have an article about it, it's probably worth having a picture of the topic, too. ^L_Wizard @ 06:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Cough, cough to both of you =D. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It sounds complicated, but it is really a way of putting words into practical ideas. As for the "Mexico coat of arms", you still do not know where they are. If you asked 50 people to draw a "flag, eagle, and banner", you would come up with 50 totally different images, even though there is only one correct answer. As for a healthy women urinating, what does that add? It is an issue of the average (assuming low intelligence too) reader to be able to accurately and easily picture an image in an accurate way, its a trait present in many animals. If you can't picture what a women urinating looks like, or a stable being trown by a guy looks like, then you won't be able to comprehend any of the text anyway. It only seems complicated, because it is describing something simple. 50 average people, when given a text description of that may see different images, but none of them should be wrong, like the logo case. When people challenge practical or common sense ides based on things we take for granted, no matter what, it will take a LOT of explaining. And "derivative" is the correct spelling, I was writing down what I was thinking about as fasts as I was thinking :). But seriously, the issue is "what does it add", "is this necessary". I don't see how it is.Voice-of-All 07:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

So, you agree that we don't need an image of the US flag, because the heraldric description is sufficient? Never mind, those are bad examples. How about polydactyly. We have six images of it, when, come on, anyone can imagine what an extra finger would look like.

Anyhow, look, I can settle this part of the debate easily. I did not picture female ejaculation the way it is portrayed in the image. I expected more of a stream with less splatter. I also expected a slightly different color and consistency of the liquid. Okay? I, a reader of at least average intelligence (I hope), did not picture female ejaculation properly before viewing the image. The image gave me more information about the nature of female ejaculation. ^L_Wizard @ 07:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

i)Do you represent the "average" reader though? It should be independent of a single person's experience. ii)Is the image even ejaculation or pissing? No confirmation given, and it looks exactly like how piss does (if it does, then the text can just say that, and if it arcs more, then it can say that). iii) Another image's problems don't justify this page's, though if there s cruft there then it needs to be timmed out. Now lastly, does its matter that much that it tricklies and forks out a tad more than you though (assuming the pic is a genuine ejaculation)? At this point, we are possible at gradience; I say no, and it seems fairly obvious. Nevertheless, someone may think that it does matter enough. However, it is soo minor that I hope that even if you think it matters, then you would see practicallity issues to it, in that every article would need at least 3 more images on average; I am serious. Think about it, every topic has many possible images with some little tiny twist that some people may find interesting, when does it stop? We'd have pages cluttered with images left and right. I just don't see the practicallity. Its not about censorship, but about what the average reader will not be able to picture on his own accurately. Also, if there are any relavent sex images I would gladly support you or us any admin tools if warranted (if the person is disruptive) to stop reverts against them, and I have supported some images before like this, I have removed special characters that censored words (like writing fuck as f*ck), and I have removed "this page contains adult content" tags before. I know that we are not censored. My general image standards just rule this one out. If you can find non-sex articles that are crufted it up, then I'll deal with those too.Voice-of-All 07:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

i) I may not be average. We don't have that data. By the data we have, half of all readers find the image informative. You're the only one who has clearly stated that it has no informative value at all. We shouldn't base judgements on your sole opinion.

ii) We don't know if it's ejaculation or piss for sure. There are lots of images that we aren't sure of, but trust the uploader. As a random example, can you prove that Image:OxfordshireCountyHall20041024 CopyrightKaihsuTai.jpg really depicts Oxfordshire County Hall? Probably not - we're taking Kaihsu's word for it.

iii) I wasn't citing polydactyly as a problem. Wikipedia has a lot of pictures, even of things that are well-known or easily imaginable. Sky. Sun. Cube. Tree. Even human. Think of any common object that anyone can recognize, and Wikipedia will probably have at least two images of it. If you disagree with the image use at all those articles, then I think it's clear that the consensus is against you.

Finally, as a point of my own, I will note that I find the doubt with which some editors approach this subject offensive. Kymmeh just edited this article to chime in with her own personal experience with female ejaculation. You have a right to your opinion, of course, but be considerate. ^L_Wizard @ 04:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I will use "idea" so as not to make it seems so "listy", since that usually starts to seems passive-aggressive to me. Idea i) I don't think I am the arbiter of all things. I do think that as a user, of many, that it should be discussed in a wide as possible medium to see where most user's lie on something being curious enough to go in on those grounds. Anyone can add an image first, per WP:BOLD, but if it not everyone sees value in a A)picture of that sort or B)that specific image, then it may have to go. Now that it is transcluded, the shock value on the article page itself is removed from a borderline or less useful image, so that makes me more inclined to not care if its there. Idea ii) But this image has far less credibility, who is it? Who took it? Why is the name a huge random number? And we all now that sex related topic on the internet have even less credibility than most others, especially from porns sites. It just is that way, mainly due to people being either immature (like when people added hordes of made up words to sex slang lists here) or porn business faking things for profit. That is not to say there are good sex informative sites, but you really have to check where it came from and their credibility, more so than a lot of the stuff out there on the internet. When I see sex pages here and pages on politically divisive topics, I am alert for foolishness/fabrication and vandalism, its just higher there. As for random realistic pictures of buildings uploaded here being faked, what is the motive? There is no profit, you'd have to spend a lot of time and money to photoshop it that well; it just does not happen. Idea iii) As for pointless images elsewhere, only about 1-2 of the images on most of those pages are minimally useful. 3 of images on sun are striking(a plus I guess), while the others are just there to contrast them (i.e. "A typical daytime sky."). So they mainly act as decorations. Some of the examples on cube are really not needed, like the Dice, but are simple there for iconic decoration. On the otherhand, I have very little or no reason to doubt their validy, and they have no shock value on the page or the image, so I maybe I'll clean up a few, but I, nor anyone else, am not really inclined to care much (hence they stayed). The problem is that this image is borderline useful at best (and IMO, not useful at all) and it had shock value(a minus). For most images, everyone agrees enough that they are clearly informative or no one objects. Sometimes everyone agrees that they make "good decorations" even though they aren't really needed, even though that is kind of subjective. Useless useful images with shock value are almost never included anywhere, since there tends to be agreement, especially if the license is crappy. To be clear, I would likely support a linked image (like how it is now) with a picture that has a good license, caption and credibility, and a more serious look to it (more like medical images) rather than porn, (though if a porn image could be cropped and had the object and event focused on, without some other guy over there, and facing the reader more, like medical journals, then that would be fine). If a credible source describes ejaculations as clear or not clear, then it would clear up color issues for readers. Nevertheless, that could just be described in words, but at least such a picture would not have shock/license/caption/source/credibility issues. It would have very little usefulness, but it would also not have enough downsides for it to have to go, so I wouldn't care if it stayed. Regards.Voice-of-All 20:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that I see the linkimage template, it's painfully clear that the image needs to be moved to a shorter name. I don't know if there's a good way to do this, but I seem to recall hearing that admins have a nice tool to do it. Could you help us out a bit, Voice of All? ^L_Wizard @ 06:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no way to move images; they simply have to be deleted and reuploaded at a new location, which I'd rather not do currently since we're awaiting a response from the original uploader, and I'd like to keep that info intact. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's Get a Few Facts Straight

• Female ejaculation is real it is not urine. It has been scientifically tested and there are over 150 peer-reviewed journal articles on the topic. Go to scholar.google.com and check for yourself. I would like to synthesise all these articles and properly re-write the whole wiki-site on Female Ejaculation...but alas I am too busy. I hope someone else can do this.

• Female ejaculate tastes nothing like urine. Try it tasting it yourself. It's got a very pleasant taste. I tasted it numerous times on different subjects and had a variety of taste sensations anything from the taste of oranges to the taste of marijuana. I conclude that it takes on different flavors depending on what the person has been on or has been eating. (Rather in a similar fashion to the way sweat can smell like what you eat).

• I have personally witnessed 3 different ejaculators and every time it came out of the vagina. I have never seen it come out of the urethra. I do not doubt the urethral version, I just have never seen it...there are many people reporting urethral expulsions so I believe it. What is lacking is a proper scientific study to differentiate female ejaculators into two subclasses: vaginal expellers and urethral expellers. Is the molecular composition of the fluid identical in both cases? Is the origin really from the Skene's gand in both cases? What percentage of ejaculators are urethral and what percentage are vaginal? We don't know. These are important open questions.

• The whole female ejaculation issue is extremely charged. It has important implications for gender politics and is very empowering for women. It makes reverse bukkake possible...this is very powerful politically. There perhaps therefore is a political male resistance to taking this whole thing seriously and carrying out properly funded university research on this topic. I believe there are dozens of very interesting scientific open questions surrounding female ejaculation, and it needs someone to seriously fund this research. The money is simply not going to come from government sources and it needs an enlightened private sponsor. So if you have a spare $1.5million and want a good scientist to do this thing properly do contact me via this discussion board.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.0.16.100 (talk • contribs) .

• Another very important open question is: is female ejaculation universal or only for the elite few? This is critical to research this. The positive hypothesis that it occurs in all women relies on the idea that women ejaculate all the time, without knowing it, because it is a retrograde ejaculation into the bladder. So by training women to reverse the retrograde action, anyone can potentially ejaculate. The negative hypothesis says that it is only for the elite few because not all women appear to have Skene's glands or paraurethral ducts (this would be sad if true). Both these hypotheses need thorough scientific testing to establish which is really true.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.96.22.251 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks for the support. Except, I'm not familiar with this "retrograde action" stuff?? All I know is, it DOES happen often without trying. If the right spot is being hit, with the right force and friction and so forth, I'll get "wetter" than usual. It feels the same as becoming wet, but it's a "flood" rather than just a slight lubing effect. The more aroused I am, the easier and more frequently it occurs, also. Making it "squirt" out requires timing and an extra "push" but it's not "reversing" anything, it's simply projecting the liquid that's already going to escape into the vaginal canal. -- NatsukiGirl\^talk 03:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Natsuki, I have some interesting questions for you. Are you vaginal or urethral or both? What age were you when it started happening? Was there any specific event that bought it on the first time? Does every orgasm you have now involve an expulsion or is it only some of them? Do you have any reason to believe your PC muscles are stronger than average? And here's a really interesting question: can you will an expulsion not to happen? (For example you might be in a store changing room and might not partculary want to get everything wet.) This is an important question because I would like to know if expulsions are totally involuntary or if the mind can control them to some extent. This is important to know. If the mind is involved then visualisation exercises can be used in training women to ejaculate for the first time. Fascinating stuff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.0.16.100 (talk • contribs) .

Vaginal (there's no such thing as urethral... that's called normal urination and it's not related to femm.ejac. whatsoever). First realized I could do it at age 18. My bf at the time accidentally hit the right place at the right time and pulled out at the right moment. Clitoral orgasm and ejaculation are seperate... they don't happen at the same time and feel completely different from each other. No I have no reason to believe that. If I'm flooding, but not trying to squirt... no, I can't control the flow, but in order to squirt I must be trying for it, or it will just drip out like usual. -- NatsukiGirl\^talk 19:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Natsuki, it is interesting you say there's no urethral ejaculation. As I said above, I've only seen vaginal. So the actual visual evidence I've seen matches your statement. However, there are lots of written reports of urethral female ejaculation--have you read these? How do you explain them? Are they lying or mistaken? We complain about the skeptics who disbelieve female ejaculation altogether, so aren't we being as bad as them by denying urethral female ejaculation without doing the research?

• This is a question for anyone out there, not Natsuki. Is there anyone out there who's tasted an urethral expulsion and can swear that it didn't taste of urine? Speak now or forever hold your peace :-) If no one steps forward then maybe Natsuki is right.

I've always believed my ejaculation to be urethral, and I have tasted it. It just feels like it's coming from the urethra. One time I was curious so I spent some time and effort and caught some of the fluid in a small glass. It was water-like in conststancy, and a little bit milky or cloudy in color. It tasted pretty neutral.

Another thing that might be worth pointing out, my experience of ejacuation sounds quite different from NatsukiGirl's. I've only achieved ejaculation through masturbation, usually if I stimulate the G-spot, but not always. Also for some reason, being in a sitting position, such as sitting in a chair or with my back against a wall, seems to facilitate ejaculation much easier. That sometimes causes me to ejaculate without "trying for it," especially if I masturbate to orgasm several times. Masturbating to orgasm several times in a row seems to make ejaculation more likely, as well.

Also I differ from NatsukiGirl in the sense that she claimed to ejaculate seperate from orgasm. This is definitely not the case for me. For me, as I feel orgasm approach I can sense whether or not the urge to ejaculate is present. If it is, and I give in to the urge to push, I can get anywhere from a small stream to several large gushes when orgasm hits. I can nearly always prevent myself from ejaculating when inconvinient, however.

I think I may have once experience the orgasm-less ejaculation NatsukiGirl spoke of, after several orgasms and ejaculations it just happened, to my amusement.

Any other questions? :) Froghat 18:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Want to give anyone a demonstration? :D - UtherSRG (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Natsuki, as for your statement "I must be trying for it"-does this mean that if you don't try for it, you can get a conventional dry orgasm whenever you wish? (When I say "dry" I mean one that doesn't wet the sheets). Let's say you are staying at someone's house. You are trapped without a rubber sheet or spare towels. You don't want to ruin their matress and you want sex. My question is, can you will yourself to have a normal dry orgasm or are you likely to "let go" and accidentally ruin the matress? (This is an important question as it shows to what extent the mind controls ejaculation).

• Natsuki, I have another interesting point to discuss. In all my above comments I have not differentiated between a "squirt" and a diffuse slower "gushing out" so long as they are both copius in quantity. To me those both count as female ejaculation. To me the speed doesn't matter. What matters is that it is a huge quantity of fluid that comes out potentially ruining the matress. However, your above discussion seems to differentiate the two. My question to you is therefore: is your orgasm different if you squirt the fluid as opposed to expelling it more slowly?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.34.209.186 (talk • contribs) .

Well female ejaculation exists. But sadly every time I saw one I was very unscientific mood and didn't notice were it came from. Ericd 22:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

For me, the only thing I'd call an orgasm is when I climax from clitorial stimulation. Perhaps the squirting or gushing is a different form of orgasm? It's not an intense experience like a clitorial climax is. When I say "try for it" I mean I have to sense when it's going to happen, and then have the object pulled out at the right moment. I couldn't have it expel just on a whim (it's not squirting out like a penis does, the conditions have to be correct for it to appear like it is), I would need the aide of an object and good timing. Also, depending on the object or situation it would require differing amounts of friction or movement... illustrating it has to be on command, however it can happen without trying, but most likely it's when I'm simply having sex and it happens, and usually it's not at a moment where I've decided to make it squirt out. So basically, it can happen whenever, but to make it squirt requires forethought usually. -- NatsukiGirl\^talk 01:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My girlfriend experiences female ejaculation, and she says it is much diffrent to clit stimulation. For her, her whole body will shake and she will just curl up into a ball and be all giggly and cant stand for a fair while. It is also not urine, doesn't smell like it, and it is clear thought ive never taken the time to see exactly were its comming from, but if i had to guess a volume it is just one powerfull squirt. 220.233.25.44 12:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ditto - my girlfriend "gushes" regularly .... can we upload a video of it for people to verify/comment? Why do so many people want to deny this experience many women have when it is a verifiable phenomenon??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanzarotemaps (talk • contribs) 00:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

article discussion

Ths article is too unclear. Should people coming to it for help be advice to visit this discussion page until the article has being developed to a useful state? There appears to be little knowledge here other then the personal testimonies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Glen Searle (talk • contribs) .

No. Talk pages are for discussing the article. There should not be a pointer from the article to the talk for "more information". Wikipedia is not for original research. There is way more discussion of the topic of the article here than is reasonable. (Also, please add new talk discussions to the bottom of the page, and sign your talk entries with four tildes (~'s). - UtherSRG (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You, sir, are an idiot, and I agree with the OP, the article is mainly useless and requires a rewrite.Countchoc 08:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 08:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

My wife and I are "Swingers" and I must say that female ejaculation (or Squirting) is quite a recent phenomenon. It was a topic that was never discussed back in the 1980's or early 1990's until the release of the Rainwoman video series starring Fallon. I also happen to work in the Adult Entertainment industry, and have produced a few Adult videos with Squirting. In ALL cases, we faked the female ejaculation, mainly with women who could urinate with force and distance. In the past 25 years, I have only been with 3 women who seemed to ejaculate with any force, and in all cases the taste wasn't any different than urine. Urine does not have a strong taste normally, but can be affected by diet, and it did seem similar to me. I do know many women (my wife included) who "gush" during orgasm, which results in a large wet spot, but the true ejaculation is a rare phenomenon at best. I also have yet to see true "Peer Reviewed" articles on the subject of Female Ejaculation. When you go through the listed studies, you find that they are really very small studies that were never reviewed. 24.202.175.154 21:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Danny Cox from Wild Rose Productions

List of ejaculators

Is the section of the article that's just a long list of porn star names useful to anyone? Editors periodically add names to it, usually one at a time, so it swells and swells. In my opinion we should drop the entire section. ^L_Wizard @ 01:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

---

DOES EJACULATION INVOLVE STRONG MUSCLES? CAN IT BE SEPARATED FROM ORGASM?

I would like the earlier asked question answered if the women who ejaculate have extra strong vaginal muscles. Also it seems that ejaculation does not always involve an orgasm. Is that right? From my Tantric teachings I have learned that the female ejaculation is very desirable and only happens to very sensual women. It's spiritual too, since the fluid is a transformation of sexual energy. Energy turning into matter! The thick fluid is called Kalas in Tantra and is considered to be very, very rare and very precious. By consuming this 'elixir of life' you can regain your youth. 12 august 2006 LvD

I hesitate to add to the Oprah-esque 'testifying' that this talk page has turned into, but in my personal experience, a) it has nothing to do with orgasm, b) my vaginal, PC and abdominal muscles are not stronger than normal, and as per other discussion/the article page, it takes place after unusually long, intense foreplay and/or vigorous, long-term g-spot stimulation (manual or penile). As for whether it's uretheral or vaginal I'm not sure, but it seems vaginal. It's definitely not urine, in any case. Anchoress 06:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt Oprah ejaculates, lol. This comment is 98% exactly what I've been saying in my other comments, except I would say I'm positive it is not urine. :) -- NatsukiGirl\^talk 01:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

On whether it is urine or not-

Bold textI am completely confused as to why I am all of a sudden either ejaculating or urinating during sex. I think it is definately urine most of the time. It is a very strong smell. I am not a health nut and I do not drink a lot of water. I heard that the foods you eat can change the taste and odor of bodily fluids. I am older now and have been having sex for several years. A year ago I experienced my first really wet orgasm. More like a small lake! It happens if I am on top or lying down and he is on his knees over me with my lower torso raised slightly. I have been to the doctor for this and she says..."enjoy!!". But I have been looking into what makes things work down there and looking for photos of the penis inside the vagina to try to discover how and why. I do not understand why it has never happened before and personally, I find it embarrassing. It makes a huge mess, sometimes it is stinky and I have to wash the sheets constantly!! It makes me not want to have sex. My boyfriend does like it because it lets him know he is satisfying me, but the mess it makes seems to make concentrating on the moment difficult. I am not afraid of my vagina nor do I live in the stone age. But I also think not all women are alike. --M.lynn 03:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)mel.

Read the book on the subject by Deborah Sundahl. You can probably get it from any online bookstore such as amazon. This will help you understand it much better. If your boyfriend is enjoying it, you are both very lucky indeed. Go to a medical store and get a matress protector for your bed, then let yourself go and enjoy! He'll love you for it. Regarding the smell, you can experiment with your diet. It's smell can depend on what you eat. Eat lots of oranges and it will taste/smell orangey. But whatever works for you. Also I would argue that it is *not* urine. Do a simple test and collect some of your urine in a transparent container, then have sex and collect your ejaculate. Smell the difference. Taste it. You'll see it's perfectly fine. bunix 08:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If it has a really strong smell you should go back to your doctor. Thin, clear fluid with a strong odor can be a symptom of a uterine or vaginal infection, which can be caused by the ph imbalance introduced by semen and/or spermicide. You can seem fine, then intercourse (maybe it's your partner's penis bashing your cervix) can loosen the fluid. Anchoress 06:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are peeing or you are expelling smelly discharge, you're doing something wrong, or you need to see a doctor. My ejaculate is crystal clear, does not smell, and I've been told by more than one person that it has a slightly sweet taste. -- NatsukiGirl\^talk 01:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I often ejaculate during masturbation, usually on about the third time. It usually happens just before and during orgasm. I always need the toilet afterwards and have a long pee so I'm sure it's not straightforward urine although wouldn't be surprised if it contains a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.165.52 (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

consider semi-protection

This page has been vandalized several times. Should it be protected? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.105.255.212 (talk • contribs) .

Nah. Sex-related topics all get vandalised a lot. And could you sign your posts and post to the bottom of talk pages? Thanks. Anchoress 04:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

urine or not?

The introduction to the article makes it sound very matter of fact that the fluid isn't urine. The citation is based on the 1981 work of Addiego, et al, with a sample size of 1 person. I see several other studies listed here http://www.ejhs.org/volume4/Schubach/Chap2.html that show evidence of each. In fact this portion seems relatively accurate on the research I've been able to find "In a 1993 paper in the Journal of Sexual Research , Zaviacic states that, “The phenomenon of female ejaculation exists. Based on the previously mentioned research, one could conclude that some women expel a fluid from the urethra during sexual response that is similar to urine and may be related to urinary stress incontinence, and others expel a fluid that is different from urine.”" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.129.206.98 (talk • contribs) .

I certainly like articles like this to be sex positive without our traditional societal stigma but to say that it definately not used while citing a 1981 study with a sample size of 1 seems either like shoddy work or academic dishonesty. Anyone else think the urine or not question needs a little more detail to be accurate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.129.206.98 (talk • contribs) .

I agree. The article needs revamping in the light of recent literature. It is definitely not urine. bunix 15:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The article, like many needs some work. As for the urine argument, from my own experience with many women I have experienced it many times. Indeed, I can assure you that women can expel fluid that is not urine. Yes, I have had them expel urine also, but that is besides the point. My experience is anecdotal, as would be the personal experience of other editors. But, rest assured that although we need solid cites and references, rather than original research, that the phenomena is true. Atom 16:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Why there is a list of "Famous female ejaculators in adult film"?

Why there is a list of "Famous female ejaculators in adult film" in this scientific article about Female Ejaculation? I don't see any list of "Famous male ejaculators in adult film" in the article of male ejaculation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.39.90.189 (talk • contribs) .

Gwendolyn Kelly Boyer

Who the hell is Gwendolyn Kelly Boyer? This looks like total BS and vandalism. Search google for her and you find some very bogus stuff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.159.230.129 (talk • contribs) .

You're right. "GKB" doesn't seem to have anything to do with female ejaculation. There are no ghits for "GKB" and "ejaculation (except wikipedia mirrors, ditto for "KB" and "ejaculation". I've tagged that part of the article with {{fact}} for now. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Additional forward

There are several search terms that point to this article, as an example, squirting. Would it be possible for someone to set up one of these forwards for "gushing"? I noticed that even though it's one of the more common terms there are no reference pages to direct it here. Thanks. AuburnFury 23:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. ^L_Wizard @ 01:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

In the hopes of teaching a person to fish.... you can esily set up a redirect yourself, Auburn.

1. Create a redlink for the redirect you want.
   1. Edit any page and type this: [[gushing]]
   2. Don't save the page, but click on show preview. Now you have the redlink.
2. Create the redirect itself.
   1. Click on the redlink you created
   2. Type this: #redirect [[female ejaculation]]
   3. Save the page.

UtherSRG (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Link Added / Removed

Someone just added a link and I checked the site. I'm not sure Wiki is the right place for a link to a site where one of their pages starts with "So you want to see some bitches squirt do ya?" so I'm going to be removing the link. AuburnFury 18:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not sure about the validity of the site but I just realized there's a link to the Yahoo! directory so.. someone else can make the call. If it's deemed informational and appropriate for a Wiki link someone else can put it back.AuburnFury 18:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually that is the site review page however 90% of this site is articles on how to squirt, STDs and squirting, the science of female ejaculation. I also have listed toys that can help a woman squirt. I am changing the wording on the page right now since it offends. Any questions...feel free to ask. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sirena609 (talk • contribs) .

External Links

External Links should only rarely be in a wikipedia article. The Wikipedia policy is at Wikipedia:External_links.

• Unrelated information does not belong in the article at all.
• Related information of value should be incorporated into the article itself, and citations in the reference section.
• Rarely a link, such as one with a great deal of information (medical, technical, scientific) might be there because it is to detailed or technical for the article.
• Sometimes external links are there temporarily, until they can be incorporated into the article.

Wikipedia is not a link repository.

• Links to be avoided include: Links to search engine results.

Based on this, I will be removing most are all of the external links. If you think the information is valuable, please put it into the article body.

Atom 22:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Based on Wikipedia policy I've gone through the links and removed the links to "Ask Alice". The articles didn't provide any relevant or even thorough information. Having said that and in response to Atom, not ALL information can be put into the article body. If you check some of the sites you'll see that for yourself. The article should provide basic and accurate information and allow the reader the opportunity to do further research themselves.

Also, I'm getting really sick of whoever keeps posting the Yahoo! link. Some assistance in dealing with them or with ths problem would be appreciated. People come to Wiki to get information not porn. AuburnFury 23:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The Yahoo! link (Adult Female Ejaculation Links from the Yahoo! Directory) has been getting added and removed for months now. Users adding it have included User:NoCarrier, who has written many edit summaries claiming "Link approved by other admins and the community." and the like; User:85.17.45.23 who often doesn't include edit summaries but has at least once described it as "removed spam"; User:72.249.12.217 (no edit summary); User:208.101.35.52 (recent edit summary described "removed spam from a previous spammer") -- that's just one edit each of these four users for the last ten days. The link is to a Yahoo! directory which is listed in Wikipedia:External links as a "links to be considered" ("A web directory category, when deemed appropriate by those contributing to the article, with preference to open directories."). Some users have been unhappy about the links and have described them as "pornography", in contravention to "Wikipedia is not censored" policy. Personally I've been deleting it because links to web directories seem generally un-useful, since they replicate something anyone could easily do for themselves. Yahoo! is not a curated web directory; it accepts submissions automatically and offers advertising-influenced rankings. Last, the link in question is for "Shopping and Services" and is therefore a commercial portion of the Yahoo! arm. However this is indeed becoming a pain in the neck, and I'd invite these users to explain why this link should be included here. Otherwise we should do a RFC and/or ask for semi-protection, because going back and forth is a waste of machine resources. --LQ 20:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Squirting site

This link was just added and then removed:

A Squirter's Handbook: An comprehensive guide to the art of female ejaculation, including how to articles and scientific information

And actually I think it's a good addition. The 'science' article has a great drawing (we don't have anything that good, drawing or photograph, on any of the women's sexuality articles I've seen), and it's very low-key. Anchoress 15:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The site may have very good information, but it is a commercial site. It has special offers and commercial links. I suggested that Sirena609 add content to the article instead of adding the comercial link. WODUP (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not a valid reason to exclude the link. The policy on external links forbids (or strongly recommends against) sites whose primary purpose is to sell products or link to sites that do. Anchoress 16:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I just sent you a message back or at least tried to read it and let me know what you think. =) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sirena609 (talk • contribs) .

Okay. If the link goes in, then it goes in (per WP policy). I feel, though, that the better solution would be to include the information from the web site in the article. WODUP (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. Besides, different women need different instructions on how to squirt. I have nothing against to site (I like porn, I like squirters, and I like women teaching women what they know). I do not feel that it is an appropriate site for an encyclopedia to link to. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The policy on what Wikipedia is not is regarding the actual text of articles, not external links. Lots of articles, including many medical and science articles, contain external links that include instructions relating to the topic. And I don't see any self-promotion in that site. Anchoress 16:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

In order to get paid to make the site it had to be commercial, however, it was a site that I originally had wanted to make for myself only to run, so this is what I am gonna do, I am going to get a different domain and I am going to remove all commercial ties off the site and run it that way, that will be what I submit to the encyclopedia. I understand not wanting porn, completely. The reason I made the site was to help woman who wanted to take their experience to the next level. I'm an adult webmaster and I had never seen someone do it till I promoted it and then I wanted to learn because the girl damn near died when it happened. After my experience I thought, hey make a site for woman and their partners so they can learn and take themselves to that next level too. Its a new site so it doesn't have all the articles I want it to have yet. I still have a list of about 20 more articles I want to write and incorporate into the site. So if I uncommercialize it, can it stay?Sirena609 16:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't have a problem with the pornographic images, as long as they are not the main purpose of the site. Several editors have a problem with the commercial links and aspects, although - as they also make up only a small part of the site, and they are modestly presented - the site does still fit within the EL policy. If you can remove them, that would be best. Anchoress 16:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"In order to get paid" is part of what makes a link to the existing site self-promotion. If you can produce a site that is just articles about squirting, then there is no reason you can't just edit the Wikipedia article and cite your sources. However, if you are just writing about your own and others' experiences without any information other than those anecdotes, then your information is not worth in Wikipedia nor as a link from Wikipedia. If the only information you do have is already in Wikipedia, then your site is not valuable as a link, either. See the Talk:Female ejaculation#External Links section above for some guidance on using external links. Here are some other tidbits from the external links policy that apply:

1. A page which only provides information already in the article, or which does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article.
2. A page that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
3. A page that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important and difficult objective at Wikipedia. If your page is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let unbiased Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link.
4. Links intended to promote a site, especially if that site's primary purpose is to advertise or sell products or services, or if the site requires payment to view the relevant content. This is colloquially known as external link spamming.

So no.. just uncommercializing it won't be enough. You are posting your own site. That's against policy no matter what. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What I meant was to get paid making it on company time. Its a site that tells you how to do it, how the body can do it and I am also doing articles on STD transmission and a whole boat load of other things too. Here is the new link http://sirena.asquirtershandbook.com/ do you see me making money off this one because I surely do not. Its a site for woman, its a site about female ejaculation. It contains information. Isn't that what this is about? Making a source so that people can get information? Sirena609 17:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It is still against policy: "A page that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important and difficult objective at Wikipedia. If your page is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let unbiased Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link." - UtherSRG (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I had this problem with the Lanzarote page when I provided a link to Lanzarote Maps. Despite it being a very useful (and hugely) used reference by people visiting and living on the island - the link was disallowed. No reason was given other than businesses had paid to be listed. The fact that the MAPS were the main resource seemed irrelevant. I think it's stupid to remove a potentially useful link on ANY subject. Lanzarotemaps (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please remove the porography

This article is henceforth considered rude by myself!! -- Chris 18:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Done! This article is hereby and henceforth certified porography free! Anchoress 18:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this article should be censored as such. Obviously this article discusses the anatomy of genitalia.. and censorship is not Wikipedia's policy. larz 06:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Please cite the Aristotle reference

I added a "citation needed" marker by the reference to Aristotle in the first section. Who ever wrote this needs to cite the passage. Thanks! larz 06:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I did a bit of hunting and found about 30 citations of Wikipedia attributing the first mention of female ejac to Aristotle... see how the lack of infomation propagates ;)

But after 100 or so hits I found a reference to the work it comes from at least. It's supposedly in the Metaphysica. I'm not a classical scholar, so maybe I can find someone to pass the baton to. I have a link for the etext of it here: http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/AriMeta.html SophisticatedPrimate 13:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

---

add male transexual ejaculation

its great that you have that bit about MTF's, but there is considerable though anecdotal evidence that FTM are much more likely to ejaculate after they begin testosterone treatments, the only support I can find is that there was a workshop covering this subject at a true spirit conference. I'm new to wikipedia and I'm not sure how to deal with anecdotal evidence, or I would do the edit myself. Gowithflo

---

External Links

I originally added SquirtingTruth to this article as an external link but after having visited the site today (after a long lapse) I'm thinking that perhaps it is no longer a suitable link for this article. The reason - the site has changed and is now geared more toward porn and porn related income, in much the same way that started a huge debate with another visitor who added a site several months ago. That site was not added. Rather than remove it I wanted to raise the issue and let one of the editors make the decision. Thanks. AuburnFury 21:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

After checking some of the other external links (scholars papers, reference text, etc.) I've removed the one in question pending an editors decision.AuburnFury 22:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think removing it is a good idea. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I would dearly love to know how this site has now become "geared towards porn"?? I am the owner of this site and there is nothing there but quality information about female ejaculation, (what visitors come to this site to see) and what I think is good about this site, is that it lets visitors comment and give advice on this subject. I am re-listing this link.

As the owner of the site, it is inappropriate of you to add it. See WP:EL and WP:COI. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if someone can tell me how this link was "geared towards porn" and removed, I am more than happy for my link to be deleted, otherwise I suggest reinstating the link. 13:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

When I was there the other day the link to the images section went directly to a porn site and I noticed a section on male ejaculation, which was all spam. Then you have the commercial element. External links for this article should be to reference material on female ejaculation only. Sites that link to porn sites and that contain a lot of spam are a dime a dozen and I don't feel they are appropriate for external links. Not to mention, if you allow one you have to allow them all.

Having said that, it's an editors decision, not mine. I'm not an editor, just a researcher. If you feel this is wrong then ask them to review the site and reconsider. I originally added this site because I liked the fact that it had so much information and let people share their ideas. Maybe there's some way to fix it, I don't know. AuburnFury 14:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Request Site Revision - If possible, can an editor please review this site for an inclusion back into wikipediea's external links. Thank you. 23:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Revising the revision

Uther, I think the article should go back to the version by 65.19.19.63 on January 8. I went over it and the author had their facts straight. It was very good information. It's up to you of course but personally I was really pleased to see the addition, I thought it raised the quality of the article substantially. AuburnFury 14:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The exact source is unknown?

"The exact source is unknown" is a cop-out. It should be "unclear" rather than unknown. Because we have candidate sources, it is not unknown, as it has been narrowed to a few sources. Here we are in 2007, when we should be colonizing other stars with advances in technology, and yet the source of a widely-agreed-not-to-be-urine fluid coming from over 3 billion human vaginas is "unknown". Look how far we've 'come'. Android8 21:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

We cannot believe the exact source is unknown since nowadays the whole human anatomy system is understood there is no way an internal process can be unkown

G-spot

This article assumes, in its header, that the G-spot exists. The wikipedia article on G-spot, in its header, contradicts this assumption, stating that the existence of the G-spot is a matter of controversy. It's fine for this article to refer to the G-spot, but it needs to be properly contextualized. Otherwise, we're spreading (more) sexual misinformation.

Its Real

I am so happy to read that squirting happens to others and is normal. My BF loves it. I was thinking I was peeing on him, and did not want it to continue. It is uncontrollable and only happens when love making is exactly right. Some times I will expell huge amounts of liquid and sometimes small amounts, I never squirt because we are in the process of love making and the exit site is blocked. Deartraci 21:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Raw datas

Report by a woman who experienced it once : 1

Huge amount of fluid by the same woman in a long term relationship : too many too count...

Small amount of fluid by the a woman in a recent relationship : 1, with some chances to improve the score.

-)

Ericd 23:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Needs a photo

Wikipedia is not censored, so please don't say it would be obscene. This article needs a photo of what female ejaculation looks like. Malamockq 19:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, find the right model, take your camera, and shoot at the decisive moment ! Ericd 19:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My g/f can squirt every time if I stimulate her in the right place. I suspect that a video would not be allowed however, can someone clarify? Does she have to hold a board saying "not porn, for educational use, filmed for Wikipedia" before it's accepted ?? Lanzarotemaps (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, there are a few videos of Pubic hair waxing and Ejaculation (male), so why can't there be a video of female ejaculation? Gentlelife (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There have been numerous attempts to insert images here, and also links to pornography. I do not believe this requires any images as they would not improve the quality of the information. Mgoodyear (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

'Famous female ejaculators' list

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, but I have to say that this seems like pretty useless and unscientific information. Unless someone can show a good reason to justify it, I think it should be cut from the article. Kagechikara 00:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We could just as well make a list of "famous male ejaculators". --BiT (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Even of us say it's real

I'll add to the growing list of women who say it's real and it's not urine. Mine is clear, comes in large amounts and has no smell. I have no clue where it comes from and who cares, anyway? The other thing is even though it's called "ejaculation" I often do it during sex and never have an orgasm. For me, it happens before orgasm just as much as during. It does feel like I'm contracting when I do it. I think this society is obsessed about women and fluids period. So what if we sweat? So what if we ejaculate? What's different from that and men? Does it make us less sexy or gross? 've suppressed orgasm for years because I was afraid how men would react. So if you can handle it, go ahead and do it and men, relax about it and stop brooding about whether it's urine. One caveat: Have a LOT of towels handy.

71.239.240.158 17:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Learning to deal with it

It's very real!!! And a very GOOD thing - nothing to be embarrassed or ashamed of.

After being with the same partner for 25 years and having no inhibitions about my own body I would describe the experience as orgasmic and a release. It is absolutley not urine and can just 'flow' or given the space 'spurt'. I wouldn't be surprised if the orgasm I exprience when I ejaculate is similar to that of a male as there is a definite building up of pressure and a wonderful orgasm when the fluid is released. It is then also typical (for me anyhow) to then move on and have a clitoral orgasm as well (different to the one had while ejaculating). I have been meaning to 'google' this for a while to see if it was a common occurence or not and I'm pleased I have as it doesn't sound like it is so I feel very lucky - and so does my husband. Note - I have only been experiencing this regurlarly in the last 10 years. It was very rare at first but has become more frequent as I have come to relax about it and my husband knows what to do to bring it on. 143.238.236.251 23:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

And then there's the growing number of us guys who find it very sexy. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you kind sir. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.239.240.158 (talk • contribs).

• • I concur that it didn't start happening until later in life. It seems a great portion of making it happen is in simply relaxing which is something that happens as we mature sexually216.93.193.21 19:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a terrible article

I think this article is really horribly bad. For one, it's not well referenced, and for another, it falls into the common trap of wikipedia sexuality articles: it represents the POV of perverts turned on by "female ejaculation." Just reading through the talk page shows most of the editors talking about how much they're turned on by female ejaculation.

I think we need a reality check--anyone with a basic understanding of human anatomy can tell that women don't have prostates, that "skene's glands" are miniscule, and that the bladder is the only logical origin of "female ejaculation." All the stupid references in this article are probably misrepresentations of the scientific consensus since all the editors here have a slanted POV.

This needs cleanup badly, and it would be a lot better if this article were cut down to 3-4 paragraphs. Jolb 16:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that the article needs cleanup (as do a great many), but disagree with your assertion that Skene's glands are negligible. If you look at our page Skene's gland all you see is the duct, and sure, that is miniscule. The glands themselves are not http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn2495/dn2495-1_500.jpg and their role as the female equivalent of the prostate is established in peer-reviewed medical literature: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10603093&dopt=Abstract That said, I think this article is quite due for cleanup, most articles on popular subjects need tidying up regularly, and those related to sex more often than most. Poindexter Propellerhead 10:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Right because the [male ejaculation] page would also be alot better if it has 3-4 paragraphs. Countchoc 09:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Fully referenced material for cleanup

Seeing how this article needed a lot of straightening up, and was in need of references to replace speculative statements and observations from porn, I put together summaries of 11 studies on Skene's gland (now usually referred to as the "female prostate" in the literature) and on female ejaculation. It doesn't come close to covering everything, but it covers most of the main points, including some that are left unanswered in the current article. Every one of the studies was peer reviewed, published in an academic journal, and is fully cited with PubMed number and the works. If anyone wants to start the process of making this a fully credible article, feel free to use these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Poindexter_Propellerhead/Sandbox/Skene Poindexter Propellerhead 06:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Movie

If the ejaculation page can have a movie of a man ejaculating why cant we have a movie to demonstrate a female ejaculation?

It can have one. However, it may be a little difficult finding one that is free-use. There's also a problem determining if the ejaculation is real or not. Faking is generally limited to porn (about 99% of it, haha), but we can't assert it's real. That needs to be up to a scientifically reputable website. If you can find a scientifically reputable website with one, and it's free-use, that will do. Good luck. :) --125.236.144.168 11:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This sis a very silly argument. The male movie is self-made, it did not come from a "scientifically reputable website", how do we know it was not "faked"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.208.12 (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanzarotemaps (talk • contribs) 21:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You're not being serious, are you? Tell me how one could fake a male ejaculation? Our pee is not white - just by the way. -- Anonymous :). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.206.142 (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

G-spot controversy

I was just going over the article about the G-spot, and there is an inconsistency between these articles where it references the urethral sponge as having the alternate name of the G-spot. As I have seen other articles that support this (or something very similar) I have not changed it, but I think it is something for someone more knowledgeable to look into. Just another guy trying to be a Chemical Engineer, Nanobiotechnologist, and Mathematician 04:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal Experience

I am a female ejaculator. It did not happen for me until I was in my 30’s. I have squirted through clitoral stimulation with no vaginal penetration so I don’t understand the insistence that it is related in any way to the G-spot. I know it’s going to happen before it starts. The liquid is a sparkly clear, odorless fluid. I only know this as once I was standing in front of my mirror masturbating my clitoris and witnessed the fluid. This obviously has nothing to do with camera tricks by the porn industry. It has never occurred during cunninglus so my husband has never had the opportunity to see it happen or taste it as it is ejected. It leaks or trickles out of me and is sometimes a tablespoon and sometimes soaks an 8" area. It is a prequel to orgasm and because it is such an intense process, has actually caused me to lose my orgasm. It does not emit from my vagina but neither does it feel as though it generates from the urethra. It has nothing to do with the G-spot.

As I can only hypothesize on my personal experience through my sensations, this is actually why I was researching the question; from where does the liquid generate? I will not refute scientific analysis of actual fluid samples stating that there may sometimes be some urine in the liquid but I would strongly dispute this. I have ejaculated with sufficient fluid in my bladder to need to use the bathroom afterwards. There is absolutely no commonality in the process of urination and ejaculation in my opinion which is why I don't think it comes from either the urethra or the vagina but somewhere just under the urethra. The picture depicts glands that however tiny, should be able to emit fluid if there is any opening, right?

As for whether or not the phenomenon exists and women can accomplish it, I do not believe we actually have control over it. The only consistency I can pinpoint is that it seems to happen for me when I am in a very high state of arousal. I can go weeks or months without having it occur while experiencing wonderful orgasms and then several days or weeks in a row when it does happen even if I don't achieve orgasm. This is regardless of whether the stimulation is through topical masturbation or sexual intercourse. However, the most significant fact is that it happens whether I want it to or not.216.93.193.21 19:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Another Personal Experience (by a man)

I make and observe my wife ejaculate on regular basis and here are my/our experieces and tips:

1. The best time to achieve this is during ovulation (10th to 13th day from the start of period). I keep track of the cycle so I know when the time is right and when to expect the most ammount of fluid. Approximately 400ml or more can be produced by multiple 3 to 6 orgasms.

2. I alternate penetration with using my fingers/hands. Fingers probably work best. This consists of inserting two fingers into the vagina until I feel the cervix and then applying pressure/rubbing the prostatic tissue (lining the urinary tract), pulling it towards the urethra. This, in combination with the woman pushing eventually ejects part of the prostatic tissue out of the vagina and then the magic happens.

3. The ejaculate definitely squirts out of the urethra probably originating in other channels which join into the urinary tract (analogous to men). Sometimes instead of squirting it runs into the vagina which explains some testimonials. I also don't rule out the fact that the prostatic tissue may have pores or channels exiting into the vagina rather that into the urinary tract.

4. Since this procedure involves a lot of rubbing, it is important to use a lot of lube. This prevents any potential lesions and/or infections at a later time.

5. It is my observation that in some women the prostatic tissue develops and becomes bulgier with age and/or after giving birth.

• We found that points 1 and 4 are very important (not mentioned anywhere else). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.10.128.125 (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that based on our observations the liquid is definitely NOT urine. The taste is neutral, non salty and the smell resembles amniotic fluid.

Needless to say it is a mind blowing sexual experience for both of us every time. It saddens me that in this day and age female ejaculation is still a mystery or a fetish rather than something as normal as male ejaculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.10.128.125 (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, but Wikipedia has a policy against original research, which is what your personal experiences are. Please see Wikipedia:No original research, which explains this policy in detail. If you can find medical literature to back up this information, then by all means, please include it in the article, but mere personal experience alone cannot be included.Asarelah (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Tidying Up

There was a link to the 'prostate' page with a malformed page anchor. It was linked to 'Male_Sexual_Response,' when it should have been 'Male_sexual_response.' Not sure if this was a typo or the 'prostate' page was since changed. Wikipedia should find a way to be dynamic and update any pages that depend on material from another page. -- Sakkath 19:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Banned in the UK?

Wow. How odd. See, currently my girlfriend is stuck in Leeds Bradford (UK), and she can squirt and I've witnessed it and made it happen first hand (hehe), and she has never mentioned to me, anything about it being censored in the UK. Then again she doesn't watch british pornography, so yeah. But I still find it odd that the Brits think it's fake. I thought it was fake too until during the heat of the moment, I made her squirt. Shocked me, I'll say. [Tyler] ^{(talk/contribs)} 03:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Its not banned in the UK, however wrote that is wrong. There is record of the BBFC saying that they do not NOT believe it exists, they simple havent seen anything yet that they deemed to be female ejaculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GavSalkeld (talk • contribs) 01:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The source claims the BBFC said "expert medical advice informed us that there is no such thing as 'female ejaculation'" - do you have a source saying otherwise? It is not know whether it is banned or not, without proving whether the banned films really do show female ejaculation - but if they believe it doesn't exist, then it is banned, and of course the BBFC would claim they are banning urination instead (they can't say they are banning it if they don't believe it exists). Mdwh (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Female Ejaculation in other languages

In Japanese the term for a female ejaculation is shiofuki (潮吹き), originally meaning "a whale's spouting of water".217.232.99.206 (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Medical contradictions

Is this phrase right- should it be thus?- "which will often (be) present without typical symptoms" —Preceding unsigned comment added by IceDragon64 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The original is correct. A medical condition presents in a certain manner. Multiple condition can present in the same way. "Present" here means to have a particular set of symptoms, or lack thereof. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Structure

This article is still in fairly poor shape. Methodologically the subject matter remains controversial and most studies use highly selected individuals and very small numbers of subjects. Noting various references to pornography above, the images from pornography have contributed to the general level of confusion on this topic, in addition to ideological difficulties in describing anatomy and physiology in terms that are at times suspiciously those of a male lens. Lastly hyperbole about female sexual dysfunction, partly at least driven my industry disease mongering and the medicalisation of health has further contributed to the general level of misinformation. Mgoodyear (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have rewritten the first half of the article, and can probably absorb the remainder of the loose structure as I proceed, based on a review of the literature. Mgoodyear (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Amongst other problems is over-reliance on secondary sources, which are frequently erroneous rather than reading primary sources. Mgoodyear (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Today somebody came along and removed a chunk of text unbeknownst to me - this is unhelpful and discourteous. Please don't do this, but use this page. Mgoodyear (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

OK: By no means perfect but completely restructured, so tags removed. Interface with Skene's gland (even worse) and G spot needs sorting out, I removed "lifts". Mgoodyear (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Secondary sources ? You want a primary source... "That's pure reality ! I saw it it !". Believe me I'm a primary source... And I'm not lying. But what it is worth from a sientific POV ? For an historian secondary sources are often better than primary sources... Ericd (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation

The section Skene's glands and female ejaculation seems to be extensively plagiarised from http://www.loversguide.com/sex_articles.0.html?&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=449&tx_ttnews[backPid]=52&cHash=1677c67c13 and was removed.--Apotheosis247 (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"Feminism serie..." ?

Hmm...Hmm...Hmmmm... Please, help me...I need to breath...

Women ejaculation is indeed a great step toward equality...

What about a "Sexuality serie" ? Ericd (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it's denied that the g-spot or female orgasm exists, and the denial of them is commonly linked to sexism. By the way, a couple of years ago you said you looked forward to the day that an article on the female prostate was created. You're in luck. -- AvatarMN (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits (reversion)

It would be really helpful if edits were discussed here. If a very large number of edits are made in one swipe, it becomes very difficult to keep on top of the article.

Orgasmic expulsion: term commonly used in medical literature. If you search just on female ejaculation you will miss many articles. This should stay.