Talk:Female ejaculation/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Female Ejaculation vs. Gushing/Squirting

This article seems to suggest that there are two different possible phenomena here (ie ejaculation vs. gushing), but it's not clear when it's referring to which one. The article starts of by mentioning squirting and gushing as alternate names for the same phenomena, then appears to describe "gushing" under reports, draws another distinction at the Ejaculation vs. Gushing paragraph, appears to describe Gushing again under incontinence. This may be related to the fact that they are poorly distinguished in the scientific community, but it's clear that the article is talking about different phenomena at different times, and it needs to be cleaned up to treat these two issues separately.

TheChancellor (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Catheterization Study Strongly Suggests that Female Ejaculate is Primarily Urine

The Schubach (2001) catheterization study was mentioned only in passing and flagged as "citation needed". I found it at the bottom under other links and moved it into the main reference list. This is the only truly decent study mentioned in the whole article; none of the others can possibly do a decent job of identifying whether female ejaculate differs from urine. Are there any other studies that use urethral catheterization in order to separate expulsions from the bladder from other potential ejaculate?

I strongly suggest cutting most of the other chaff in the research section, and finding only the highest-quality studies that suggest differences between female ejaculate and urine. We should probably rewrite to point out that the balance of research favors the urine theory. I may start doing this myself.

By the way, to pre-empt any claims of bias: if anything my bias is toward the idea that female ejaculate is NOT urine. I recently had a sexual relationship with a squirter and I'd prefer to believe she didn't repeatedly pee on my bed.

Travis of the cosmos (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

chat

I second that is is primary urine. I don't mean urine in the sense of all the nitrogen from protein metabolism but more in the sense of just the volume of water. The female body just does not have any where to store this amount of liquid besides the body. Anecdotally the squirters I have been with squirted a lot more than "ranged from 3–15 ml (0.1–0.5 US fl oz)" it was more like 30 mL- 50mL of liquid. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Article quality

As an encyclopedia entry I believe this article needs a fair amount of work. Although for the most part I believe all that needs to be done is some minor retooling, removal of POV statements, and maybe some untraditional organization.

Essentially there are three major groups who would visit this article, people who don't know much or anything about female ejaculation (i.e. heard it for the first time recently), people who believe it is a myth (although I'm not sure why anyone would search for something they don't believe is real), and those who believe it is real and know about it, (whether through first hand experience or research). Unfortunately as the article stands, the disagreements between the last two categories have taken a toll on the presentation of the entry. The "meat" information, is buried and there are POV's abound which reduce the legitimacy of the article because it makes it can suggest the editor has a distinct POV and maybe even an agenda. In turn I propose a couple few things to start with:

1. Any project like this would take the support of those who manage this article or tend to it regularly. Any of those of you who do, could you please sign your name if you agree that the entry needs work to improve it's legitimacy. However if you do not, please also comment and let us know your perspective.
2. This talk page is overflowing at best and also has a very distorted "signal to noise" ratio. I think stale conversations need to be archived so we can have a relatively clean slate for this project. 51 discussions is way too many.

Well that's all I have. I look forward to working with you all to get this article up in quality.

P.S. My motivation for all this was encountering another woman who is among the 6% of women who experience this. Reading the article I realized that anyone arriving at this page wanting the basic information on it would be quite lost. Try going back and reading it from the beginning with this in mind. Veritas Solum (talk) 07:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Most of the comments on this page refer to earlier versions which have disappeared since this article has been almost completely re-written over the last few months and a better sense of balance restored by diligently checking primary sources. Balance was improved by adding POV that were missing. The article was a mess and the various criticisms of it have ben attended to.

I was a bit surprised by the POV comment. I don't think it is a question of whether it is real or not, the fact that there are various POVs is acknowledged and they are cited. What is more important is setting out the facts that are known, and stating how reliable they are, eg peer review journals vs. unpublished. Possibly you could be more specific. Also could you be more specific about what the basic information is they were looking for. They might be better reading a classic text like Rebecca Chalker, if they don't want history or all the critical literature. If you like I can sum the whole thing up in a few paragraphs for you. The only agenda was making sure the information on the page was actually accurate, and pointing out the methodological problems that caused the controversies. On the other hand my time is very limited at the moment. Mgoodyear (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen the amount of work that Mgoodyear has done on this article? Before, after. Frankly, I think the amount of improvement is so vast that it would be better if you were to give more specific, concrete descriptions of whatever problems you see. Whatever404 (talk) 04:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Should the name of this article be changed to something that's more properly fit

While I do not claim to be a know-it all in this field, my previous studies show that ejaculation is a term exclussively used for males, and so I'd say that what we call here "female ejaculation" is simly a type of female orgasm.--96.232.57.56 (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Extended content

All's I know is I have been having ejaculations ( call it what you want)since I was 18 and I'm 44 now. It does not smell, stain and from what I have been told taste like urine. I dont belive it is urine. I empty my bladder before intercoursw. Still acheive a large amount and it can at times eject across the room.---- i dont believe it could ejaculate across the room....thats stupid....i seen some pornos and they over exagerate with the fluid/water sparayin out....its not like that at all....it just makes sex wet whilst doing it,and thats the honest truth....it dont sray out like a hose lol..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.238.107 (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC) Pressure and quantity can, in some cases, be astonishing. You would be impressed! Twipley (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to mention that feminism has nothing to do with female ejaculation, and if there is evidence to support otherwise, it should be included in the text, not as a random box on the right. --Magsxemail (talk) 07:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Feminism has nothing to do with anything these days. Trumpy (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the OP. Ejaculation is the exception; secretion is the norm. Vranak (talk) 02:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The phenomenon is known as "female ejaculation" to all who have experienced it or researched it. The fact the fluid has been proven to be similar to semen and comes from glands that are analogous to the prostate, is enough information to suggest that "ejaculation" is a reasonable name for it. To rename the phenomenon is like renaming the sunrise. That's just what it's called. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.219.40 (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In response to the above comment: I disagree, it is not known as "Ejaculation" by those who experience it. I am a female, and have had about 4 or 5 male partners who have experienced my "gushing", "squirting", "waterfall", "cumming", etc. None of them ever used the word ejaculation, nor do I. I don't think they want to associate it with male form of ejaculation, because they view it as sexy, feminine and a turn-on as heterosexual males. I hate my cumming being compared to a man's cum. I think that female gushing needs to be recognized and renamed, as should the name of the article. What it should be changed to is difficult to say! Perhaps the medical community needs to take leadership on this, since in our society, we value medical research, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curious Cat 2011 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Feminism sidebar

I see this was brought up in August, but I'd like to revisit the issue of having the Feminism sidebar on this article. It seems to be borderline Original research to link this topic to feminism (or more broadly sexism). I've removed the sidebar for the moment. Anybody have thoughts on any of this? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. What this article should have is a link to the Sexuality portal. I will add that. Powers ^T 20:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I like how the feminist disbelievers blame "male fantasy", while the feminist believers blame men for "withholding the validity of experience from women". Make up your minds! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.61.79 (talk) 06:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason being that, as with all prejudice, logic goes out of the window. Feminism, like racism, will twist reality to meet it's own bitter ends. OldSquiffyBat (talk) 10:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Quite so. In this wiki article, a piece of scientific research appears to have hardly more worth of the mere opinion of any old feminist, provided she is enough of a self-promoter.80.47.102.164 (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, wow, the beliefs of a few feminists contradict those of a few other feminists... Quit thinking of feminism as a uniform set of beliefs and you might realize that no minds really need to be "made up" just for the convenience of your pigeon-holing activities. 83.254.193.127 (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Having completed a introductory study of feminism myself, I feel that the issue of female ejaculation is one of importance for feminist theory. No issue more profoundly highlights the collision between androdgynous and essentials feminism (those who argue men and women are totally equal, versus those who argue that attempts to give women the same features of men are misguided as they exist within a 'male identified' society. The fascination within pornography with female ejaculation also makes for an interesting feminist debate as it can be linked with the 'debasement' and sexualisation of women that has been recently documented in Natasha Walter's latest book 'Living Dolls'. For these reasons I feel feminism is importantly tied to the issue of female ejaculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.216.211 (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It's one-way, don'y you see? The issue might have quite an important bearing on feminism or not, that's entirely up to you, but the opinion of feminists has no bearing whatsoever on the physiological facts of the matter.80.47.102.164 (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the references, "Feminist ejaculations" by Shannon Bell is cited a fair bit (albeit in a muddy way), so it it's not unreasonable to consider this topic of feminist interest, although I can also see why the sidebar may offend. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's a topic of feminist interest, add it to some other article about feminism. This is an article about Physiology, not feminism. We all know that "Feminists views on X" are added to many, barely-related articles for political reasons, not because they're relevant or interesting. I strongly argue in favor of deleting the section from the article entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.176.129 (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

This is not an article about physiology. This is an article about female ejaculation. Yes, physiology is certainly part of it and WP:MEDRS sources should be used for this aspect of it. By your reasoning, large sections of the article on Red hair should be removed to articles about culture, fashion, medieval beliefs, discrimination, religion, etc. What you find "interesting" is moot. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Social significance

The Social Significance section is embarrassing. This is an encyclopedia, not a cultural theory course. --69.196.140.230 (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It may constitute undue weight, but it is sourced and seems by-and-large relevant. Any particular ideas about what to do with it, as by no means should it be removed wholesale. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It bugged me, too. Especially this part: "Women have reclaimed control over their sexuality in a reconstructed narrative of feminine anatomy, and sexual arousal, and at the same time have gained some insight into society's priorities in studying and understanding female sexuality, where mainly dysfunction gets funded."

That's a lot of text that doesn't really say much, and starting with "women" unfairly presents this an an undisputed fact and not one opinion. 64.9.236.71 (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

what is the female orgasim flued mail with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.195.172.59 (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The article wants to jump back and forth between a medical discussion and a feminist critique. Its the same problem on the G Spot article: both attempt to give information on a physical/medical issue but try to source it with feminist theory. The article claims that female ejaculation is distinct from incontinence but then goes on to say that the exact fluid ejaculated is subject to debate, that it may contain urine, abd that it may actually be urine in women suffering from incontinence?????? The lead needs to be more honest: the source of the fluid is under debate and the relationship between female ejaculation and incontinence is under debate. Anything short of medical research should be treated as such and should not be presented as medical evidence, and that includes feminist theory.155.229.22.50 (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I merged the section controversy and feminist criticism into social significance, pulled out some parts from the feminist criticism into a new section I called health implications, and organized the text into subsections highlighting the main sources of debate. I think that it really has a social significance and I've found the feminist criticism section valuable, although a little bit outdated, I would encourage to experts in the field to update it. Please double check my wording because I'm not English native. Conjugado (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Format one word name

Is there any formal one word name for this? --Matthew Bauer (talk) 04:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it's "ejaculation" and therefore ambiguous. Powers ^T 19:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Multimedia, anyone?

Not trying to sound like a voyeur or anything, but since there's a video tape of a male ejaculating on the male ejaculation page, shouldn't some one volunteer to do a taping on the female ejaculation page?

Just a thought :P Children of the dragon (talk) 12:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Yea like there videos out there why don't someone ask them permission to use it Markstar (talk) 05:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

URLS:[link titlehttp://www.squirttechnique.com/images/squirt.jpg][link titlehttp://www.squirtqueen.com/][link titlehttp://www.tantraattahoe.com/female-ejaculation/female-ejaculation-video.htm ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.138.133 (talk) 06:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I just saw an excellent demonstration at this address: http://secretosdeungigolo.com/blog/2007/12/21/como-hacer-eyacular-a-una-mujer/ I found the video very illuminating; I will try to add it to commons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.247.137 (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that video is very illuminating and I concur in adding it up to the article. The precision and care taken in the video is almost surgical. Great vid! WaddlingTimy (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Off topic

Extended content

Female ejaculation, it just doesn't exist The entire body of information regarding female ejaculation is based on the spongy prostate like tissues around the g-spot containing the ejaculate. Every video I've seen of it involves at least tens or hundreds of ml's of fluid. When you consider this is similar in size to an average male or female bladder, are you kidding me medical science wouldn't have detected a 'second bladder' in these girls? It's urine. And the traces are what they are, traces, probably containing lots of fluids from the secretory glands near the vaginal opening. It's interesting to note that pornography involving urination on another person is illegal in many countries. To claim it is not urine, but in fact a different fluid altogether, forms an argument that could circumvent the censoring bodies of these countries. The distributors of the material then place the burden of proof on the censoring bodies, claiming they are in some way rejecting female sexuality by denying it's existence - despite lack of significant proof in favor of their argument. Multiple world renowned health organisations, such as the British Medical Association, claim that nothing they've seen could qualify as female ejaculation. The question is really, so what if it is urine? But to cover it in hopeful ignorance is what it is, ignorance. And worse, it makes girls who feel it as urinating feel as though they are in some way defective, for the sake of porn being distributed. I say, do whatever feels good. I don't say, pretend it's something different and try to kid the world to make money. Another thing worth checking out is that the g-spot is directly over where a babies head would rest during childbirth. One thing that is common among descriptions of g-spot stimulation is the urge to push out, and urinate. It's much more likely that these nerves were placed there to encourage women to push babies out as they're born; an image the porn industry doesn't want to sell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnheritage (talk • contribs) Wow, did you register just to post that? Does your opinion have anything to do with the writing of this article, or did you just want to get that off your chest? Powers T 13:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC) These are the writings of someone who has never experienced it. Find a girl who ejaculates and see for yourself. I'd like to know if you have the same views after that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.219.40 (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC) For all that anecdotal evidence is worth: I've induced female ejaculation through penetrative sex, and I have to say, I know what urine smells like; Whatever happened, it wasn't urine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.166.227 (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC) Same here. Lady was embarrassed all the same. Mind you, urine of someone who's recently had a few glasses of water will be virtually colourless and odourless.80.47.102.164 (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC) RE: I absolutely disagree. I know it exists. I know it makes (I don't know if all women, but) my woman uncomfortable sometimes afterwards... (because it varies in purity) Sometimes is pure clear and silky, I am not exactly sure how people would want to describe it, but, I think it's silky and it has a little viscosity to it. Either way, it exists! Sometimes it comes out with urine, let's not pretend we don't notice it and there is no way you cannot know how urine smells. There is absolutely NO WAY I would not know how my wife's urine smells! Yes that's right, don't be ridiculous, we all know our significant others details. It doesn't happen very often but women ejaculate! I love my woman and I like having fun with her. Thanks everyone! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonlopez83 (talk • contribs) my experience: it does exist,but not in a over exagerated way like a hose spraying,I have had sexual relationships and to be honest have never really reach orgasim like i have with my new partner.....i was so surprised at what happened to me....it was no way anything to do with urine!and i know trust me...all i know is that i got so wet with him,i said how thats never happened to me before?.........so i guess its either the guy knows how to make this happen or something or maybe were perfect piece together....its clear and odurless and makes the sex better anyway.I t it didnt exist but because i experienced it,thats why im on this page. One time, my girl squirted and... No. Just No. This is probably the most perverted and disgusting discussion on wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place to talk about personal experiences, unless the situation calls for it. I am fascinated by female ejaculation, but I don't want to hear about Bobby's wife doing it and Susie Q. doing it. Just plain disgusting. A Word Of Advice From A Beast: Don't Be Silly, Wrap Your Willy! 01:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Okay, everyone, we don't need any more anecdotes here. Just let it be. Powers T 13:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC) It doesn't exist? Then I must be imagining it... as far as I'm concerned - sometimes it happens to me and sometimes it doesn't. Mostly when I completely relax and just let it happen - sometimes it's a lot, sometimes it's a little. But it definitely does happen and it's definitely not urine. Those who have never experienced shouldn't comment because you obviously have no idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.247.249 (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Once again. Another personal experience. How about all the people with the personal experiences upload a pic and/or a non-pornographic and encyclopedic video clip (so all the little kids in the library corner don't get boners, unless they're seriously messed up) so we can make the article better! What an idea!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beastly21 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC) At least Wikipedia has come a long way since I joined. At that time, this article was bare-bones and unequivocally categorized it as "urination during sex". I'm thankful for all those who are helping to set the record straight! (I still don't understand why some refuse to believe in it. My advice for the non-believers: Do some first-hand research.) Woodson (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Well, my anecdote from the one girl I've been with who consistently squirted is that it certainly smelled and tasted like urine to me. But what makes it obvious is the amount: where could all that liquid be stored? Obviously the bladder, as there's no other suitable storage area, and if it's coming from the bladder then it's either urine or mixed with urine. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing, but to anyone saying it's not urine must deal this simple observation. (On the other hand, if you're talking about a small secretion, then sure.) 184.78.155.105 (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Gross overstatement

One Belgian guy, four years ago, does not the attestation "biblical scholars" make. This statement desperately needs to be revised: "Biblical scholars attest to the fact that there are erotic references to lovemaking techniques in the bible, and that includes female arousal, orgasm and ejaculation. One example is the Song of Solomon, in which three verses might be understood as references to female ejaculation (4:11-12, 4:14-15, 5:1)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince o palities (talk • contribs)

Who thinks this article needs a picture

Is it just me OR does tis need a picture if not while happening the of Skenes gland labeled like File:Skenes gland-english.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markstar (talk • contribs) 04:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is not censored and the article on male ejaculation has images and a video, so I would agree that it wouldn't hurt to have said on this article as well. What is available, however, may be a different story entirely. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Off topic

Extended content

Proof that female ejaculation exists Of course you'll have to take my word for it but without entering into details I have witness first hand fluid related to multiple orgasm in quantity so great it could never have been urine (the subject did not drink any fluid during the related period) and beside (reader discretion is advise for the following) it is practically tasteless with absolutely no trace of salt or smell which characterize urine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.122.145.30 (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC) So you witnessed a woman expel a quantity of fluid which was apparently greater in volume than the bladder can hold, and you instantly assume the liquid was taken from some other hidden reservoir in the body? By your logic female ejaculation has the power to instantly collect enormous amounts of liquid from within the body and instantly redirect it out the urethra or vagina. That simply is not possible. With the right combination of food and water,(mostly just an excessive amount of water) urine can be nearly odorless when it leaves the body. Why is this so hard for you people to understand? Ipokesnails (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC) You tasted it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.69.5.94 (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC) My wife is 40 now, but when we were married she was in her late 20s and was the most voluminous squirter I have ever been with. I don't doubt that the fluid was "related" to urine, as it were; but it was still distinctly different in taste, odor, color, etc. We often engaged in "watersports" as well, and on several occasions she urinated and squirted during the same "session." Sory for the TMI, but I came to this page randomly, and couldn't help being interested in it. In any case, the taste, odor, color, etc., of her urine and the liquid she ejaculated during orgasms was different; absolutely, without a doubt. Given that I was able to make this comparison during the same "session," so to speak, for me at least, it's quite definitive. I presume the ejaculate was a combination of urine, natural lubrication, Skene's fluid, etc. Related, but still distinct. I also noticed that it was primarily when I was stimulating her clitoris and clitoral hood piercing manually or with a toy that she really squirted, although any strong orgasm would do it. Alas, as the years have gone by, it happens much less frequently now; only if/when she's incredibly turned on, and then in nowhere near the volume. She's still gorgeous girl, though: slim redhead, pale skin, pure blue eyes, looks 30 at 40, and always joking and so much fun to be around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.230.87.247 (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Female ejaculator

It is unlikely that female ejaculation could be provoke in any women but more likely a physiological traits probably inherit of only certain women —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.122.145.30 (talk) 06:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Photographic Proof

So I was thinking that this article needs a photo depicting actual female ejaculation (and not urniation), and not just footage taken from common pornography -- of course this would be STRICTLY for scientific purposes. ;) --173.75.45.2 (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well it's not like we can just will one into existence. And this talk page already has a {{reqphoto}} tag on it. I'm not sure what else you want us to do. Powers ^T 12:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I would like to see a video, much like the male ejaculation page. Things would be a lot clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.48.178 (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Missing Basic info?

I cam to this article to read a bit more about the topic, having experienced something I thought might be that and wanting to learn more. I was a little disappointed to find that it has just a short two line lead, and seems to be lacking a basic section in the article defining it and giving the medical aspects. I realize its existence is disputed, but it seems like there should at least be a basic explanation of what those who do support it feel it is, possible reasons for it, etc. As it is, in reading the article I ended up with little information beyond some guy named Alzate fully believes its BS and that it is "stress urinary incontinence" (which isn't really explained at all), while some think it is, and that the "feminists" seem to go back and forth...yet not what it really is, etc. Some expansion on the basics might be helpful. (experienced editor posting under IP for basic privacy reasons) 74.192.33.242 (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I would encourage you to find some sources so we can add that sort of information to the article. Since you're an experienced editor, you know we need to refer to other sources. Powers ^T 23:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I will volunteer

If we need photographic proof I would be more than willing submit some of my own personal footage and/or photos. I can also say from personal experience that it tastes like water with a hint of cucumber juice, unless unusually high amounts of Vitamin B are present in the system in which case it tastes like water that has had bleach added to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.114.129 (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

-that would be much appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.205.51 (talk) 03:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would you know what bleach tasted like...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaraquanWocky (talk • contribs) 03:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what people would be doing smelling bleach (pointing out the availability of scented bleaches on the retail market), but if you want a real opinion of what bleach tastes like, ask a WWI vet (see Chlorine Gas article). Sadly, fewer are alive today to provide their eye witness account of chemical warfare. My whole point being, comparisons to bleach-flavour may not be the best of analogies.

Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

please upload a good labeled picture an leave the file name under my comment and they could use one 122.104.163.193 (talk)

I found that it smells somehow like burned wood and somehow tastes like it too. However, that was for one female partner only. CielProfond (talk) 11:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

as someone who has done long distance hiking, i can explain the bleach thing. adding a drop or two of bleach to a large amount of water disinfects it, killing all the bacteria in it, and since it's such a tiny amount, it's not TOTALLY dangerous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:A700:4FE:452C:F462:E9A6:267F (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

chat
Adding bleach in any parts to water is not safe and not an approved way to kill bacteria/parasites/viruses in drinking water. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Purpose?

Aside from the debate on what constitutes female ejaculate, I would like to propose that whatever it is, its biological function may be to synchronise female orgasm with male ejaculation so as to increase chances of conception by "sperm upsuck" of the cervix. The sensation from the gush of warm liquid tending to tip the male into orgasm.

Variations in females and thier ejaculation (or lack of) may be down to on going evolution. Kingy112 (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Can you point editors to references that discuss this, or research describing it? My Google Scholar search found five [1] (but only five) references to "sperm upsuck". Atom (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I cannot point to anything at the moment (aside Hipocrates and Galen in the two seed theory from main article) when it was claimed that conception required ejaculation of both male and female.

The sperm upsuck mechanism doesnt appear to be accepted by the majority of the establishment yet. Once the basic process of sperm and egg were found the previous ancient knowledge was dissmissed as primitive and uneducated, labelling female ejaculation mere shamefull bed wetting to be avoided at all costs. Prior to this shamefull labelling perhaps there was some real intelligent evolution by accidental squirters whose off spring became more prevalent. Squirting by other animals is not known (as far as I know). These are just my thoughts as far as I know, if there is no supporting evidence I wouldn't mind researching it myself! ;-). but seriously I think it would be very hard to verify, it took them long to prove smoking was bad. If there is anything new in what I say I would obviously like to see it in Wiki. Also I feel if female ejaculation was assigned a legitimate purpose in reproduction then attitudes towards it will hopefully be shifted away from perversion and more into the mainstream so to speak. Kingy112 (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually I have found one possible supporting reference of the concept that the evolutionary purpose * of the females orgasm was to stimulate the males orgasm. This was in the links at the end of the main article An Annotated Bibliography on Sexual Arousal, Orgasm, and Female Ejaculation in Humans and Animals [2]

• evolutionary purpose - This could be intelligent conscious evolution, and this intelligence can be handed down mother to daughter again quoting from the main article section, Anthropological accounts ... Amongst the Batoro, older women teach the younger women "kachapati" (spraying the wall) at puberty.

Allen, ML. and Lemmon, WB 1981 Orgasm in female primates. Am J. Primatol. 1:15-34.

A review of the evidence for orgasm in nonhuman primates with the author's own evidence from the digital stimulation of female chimpanzees suggestings that something akin to interspecies orgasm occurs in chimps (this apparently was not a reciprocal arrangement). Though this research will probsbly be most remembered for the original data collected (and the original data collection method) actually the most bizarre part of this paper is the author's suggestion that female orgasm evolved to stimulate male ejaculation. Few theories on the function of female orgasm have flown in the face of such counter evidence as this one, but I actually heard the first author present it at a national meeting in great seriousness and with a straight face.

This may turn out to be another one of those new ideas that has been poo-pooed by the establishment which turned out to be nearer the truth than they were.

Kingy112 (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Not much to go on this. There's a paper in Medical Hypotheses, if you care: Moalem, S.; Reidenberg, J. S. (2009). "Does female ejaculation serve an antimicrobial purpose?". Medical Hypotheses. 73 (6): 1069–1071. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2009.07.024. PMID 19766406.. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the article http://www.medical-hypotheses.com/article/S0306-9877%2809%2900513-1/abstract , have they actually analysed the fluid for antimicrobial constituents yet? There seems to be a lot of hypotheses without actually testing for something real, which I presume could be quite easily done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingy112 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Terminology

"The terminology (such as female prostate and female ejaculation) invoke images of the female as merely an imitation of the male, mapping the female body onto the male, as if, like the Galenic view, it was incomplete.[20] Furthermore overemphasis of ejaculation may induce performance anxiety.[11] For the reason that 'sameness' has been construed as a male perspective, some feminists reject the term ejaculation. " If this is the case, may I suggest this article use a suitable replacement for the word 'female ejaculation'? I agree that the word ejaculation provokes analogues to what is essentially a male act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinophile21992 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope. There is no other appropriate term for female ejaculation. I know "squirt" is synonymous, however, not appropriate at all. Sorry Feminists, but there is nothing you can do here. 99.20.100.127 (talk) 02:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

PICTURE

an article this big needs a picture. perhaps one with pubic hair to lessen pornography accusations. 99.20.100.127 (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

What about this one? [3] Guy1890 (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Why not? It's in the commons. Robvanvee 17:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Please remove this pornagraphic image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.84.192 (talk) 05:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:CENSORED|Wikipedia is not censored.]] - SummerPhD (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored but that image clearly depicts a woman who is urinating and is therefore factually unrelated to the article except insofar as the article mentions that the fluid produced in this way is probably just urine. This page is unnecessary; there is already a page about urination. The picture is offensive and borderline pornographic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.29.227.184 (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You seem to really dislike the photo -- though not because you feel it is offensive and pornographic -- but because you feel it is inaccurate and OMG IT'S OFFENSIVE AND PORNOGRAPHIC. I don't think you are trying to censor Wikipedia but there is no indication the image is inaccurate and you are trying to censor Wikipedia. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Off topic chat

chat

Postulating a Hypothesis I postulate that female ejaculation is subjective, but is quite real. Whether the origin is either uterine fluid, or a build up of vaginal secretions, I am uncertain, and it could well be both. I suggest that the actual ejaculation is the subjective part, and depends upon the quantity of fluids present within the vagina (or uterus if it consists of said fluid), and it is a female orgasm which causes the vaginal walls to constrict, and the movement of the cervix, the effect of which could be described as being similar to squeezing a tube of fluid toothpaste: the pressure applied is released through the only orifice available. The addition of lubricants, or simulated semen is often used for visual effect. The term, "gushing," refers to copious amounts of female ejaculate being released, as a garden hose gushes under pressure. However, this is often misrepresented by the use of thinner lubricates, which produce thin, powerful jets which more closely resembles urination than ejaculation to an observer. However, naturally occurring female ejaculate would consist of whatever fluid is in the vagina. Being of subjective matter, it can also appear to be as liquid as water, or urine. This is all pure hypothesis and speculation, but should provide direction for further scientific research. Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 11:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC) And this is the correct place to put this? I would say contacting a notable sex researcher (via email?) with this because this makes a lot of sense. A Word Of Advice From A Beast: Don't Be Silly, Wrap Your Willy! 23:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beastly21 (talk • contribs) And if it isn't the correct place to put it, it hasn't stopped anyone else from coming up with their own ideas. Just read the discussions. If you contest my addition to the discussion, then you bring whole sections of the main article into question as to whether they belong or not ("Controversy, debate and feminist criticism," and "Research," just to pick the most obvious examples). Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I think that this is a huge debate between the experienced and the unexpierienced. Not a single person who experienced, discards, and everyone who discards never experienced. I have collected that the volume of excreted liquids originate from more than one small gland in the anterior, releasing when muscles contract at climax. Due to a build up of liquids that mass, because the female tries to not climax, but after continued pleasure all stress is relieved at once. Thats only a theory but its pratical. From my own experience a large enough volume excreted that "could of" came from the bladder but was clearish milky in light, and not as near, but slimy like male semen. I dont understand how there is a huge debate over this.. Maybe the researchers should look at the vagina during an orgasm and watch where the damn liquid comes from! because it either has to come from the urethra or the vagina, for it to be urine or an ejaculation. ttt jan 21st 2011

"one of the most hotly debated"

This evaluation (source is Chalker's popsci book, which seems okay as a source in general) was tagged with {{dubious}}. It seems clear that there's controversy/debate. Most if not all recent papers say as much in their abstract. However, given the dearth of recent research on this (and the small volume overall), it's probably fair to say that it's far from a hot research topic in academia. So, I'm guessing that's why "hotly" is questionable, i.e. the controversy doesn't generate much interest outside a small group of researchers. So Chalker is perhaps overstating her case in this respect, being to close too the topic. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"Hotly" isn't the same as "widely". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.129.247 (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no support for the "Dubious" tag, and it should be removed. 108.49.158.121 (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Aristotelian view

The article says "De Graaf discussed the original controversy but supported the Aristotelian view." Aristotle's view on female ejaculation is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. Any idea what that was supposed to mean? 64.161.114.2 (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I am similarly confused. Aristotle is referred to about a paragraph later, as well. This website (http://www.thebacchanalian.com/2009/08/female-ejaculation-liquor-vitae/) states Aristotle believed that female ejaculation has no reproductive purpose and is solely for pleasure, but I don't think I would rely on it as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.8 (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ya although aristotle is probably right, he unfortuenetly does not have a medical degree... and should not be used as a source, but it does make the article more interesting.Meatsgains (talk) 00:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If this article is going to continue to refer to the "Aristotelian view" in multiple instances, perhaps it would be useful to explain what that view is within the article itself. 74.91.74.241 (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The Aristotelian view, cf. : "Some think that the female contributes semen in coition because the pleasure she experiences is sometimes similar to that of the male, and also is attended by a liquid discharge. But this discharge is not seminal; it is merely proper to the part concerned in each case, for there is a discharge from the uterus which occurs in some women but nor in others. It is found in those who are fair-skinned and of a feminine type generally, but not in those who are dark and of masculine appearance. The amount "of this discharge, when it occurs, is sometimes on a different scale from the emission of semen and far exceeds it. Moreover, different kinds of food cause a great difference in the quality of such discharges; for instance some pungently-flavoured foods cause them to be conspicuously increased." Tr. by Arthur Platt, in: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter J. Barta (talk • contribs) 17:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Obvious copyright violating video

The File:Eyaculación Femenina.theora.ogv video added to this article by User:Max Rebo Band is an obvious copyright violation. Let me run down the clues: well-lit, professional video quality, ridiculous fingernails, uploaded to Commons by a user with no other activity. Commons is full of copyvio porn, but admins there seem to have trouble recognizing it or parting with it. I am removing it from the article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You mean commons:File:Eyaculación Femenina.theora.ogv? Which a Commons admin has deleted as a copyvio? If you know of other copyvios on Commons, please nominate them for deletion. Powers ^T 17:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It's really not a good use of my time. On the one hand, it is a widespread problem and, on the other, there are too many admins who act like every image is scared. Commons is hopelessly broken. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I am sure some images (and image owners) are scared of ending up in Commons, but I think you probably meant sacred. ;) --JN466 23:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Well thanks for nothing, then. You realize Commons, like every Wikimedia project, is a volunteer project, right? You have time to expound upon how much Commons sucks, but no time to go over there and click a link? Heck, I'm ASKING you for help and you still tell me "no" and what a horrible job my colleagues and I are doing. The least you could do is give me a list of known copyvios so that I can nominate them for deletion, or speedy them if it's obvious. If you're not going to lend a hand, at least stop criticizing the efforts of your fellow editors. Powers ^T 15:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

LtPowers, do you think that video was deleted from Commons by coincidence? Trust me, it wasn't. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

If you're saying it was deleted because you shined a light on its presence, then that only reinforces my appeal for you to help us out by listing some other known copyright violations. I promise to personally look into the list (or a reasonable subset thereof given limitations on my time) if you provide it, and I do have the admin bit on Commons. Powers ^T 00:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Article quality note

Ok so when I read this I had a slight problem. I want it to be noted that you (females) do not have to "ejaculate" to reach an orgasm. From personal experience to watching porn, not everybody "ejaculates". Aaa321 (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Watching porn is not conclusive evidence of anything except for what goes on in porn. Powers ^T 15:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Ejaculation in Pornography

How is listing individual porn stars alledged to ejaculate noteworthy? Seems more like using wikipedia for advertising, rather than explaining the subject. It should be sufficient to say that female ejaculation is featured in some pornography and leave it at that.

It should be stated in the section about Pornography that the "squirting" performed in recent times in pornography is of an amount(several 100 ml), which is far from what is discussed in scientific literature for female ejaculation (several ml), so that is obvious that the "squirting" in pornography is urine. The article makes believe that what is seen as "squirting" in pornography is the ejaculation that is the topic of serious discussion. It doesn't help the topic and leads to more confusion if we let the pornographic industry shape this ridiculous image of female ejaculation. So please mention that in the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.177.199 (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous assertion made out of ignorance, there is no evidence that it is urine, and you can't deduce that it is from lack of evidence that it isn't. and even if u could it amounts to WP:OR . I know for an absolute fact that it isn't urine because I can squirt large volumes of liquid, and have even hit the ceiling with it. I have smelled it and tasted it and it isn't urine. Still WP:OR prevents me from adding any of this in the article. so if first hand experience in invalid, first hand conjecture is more invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.71.7.41 (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Please not that I included the word "alleged to female ejaculate". Regardless of whether it is faked or not, its presence in pornography does have social significance. Asarelah (talk) 02:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm find with listing sex workers but this part "and she claims to have discovered her ability during a scene with Mark Ashley" seems a little unnecessary. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Adaptationism

"Function is unknown" seems to imply that everything must have a function, which is controversial in evolutionary biology. 187.191.13.177 (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

"Function" is a bit of a shorthand for "evolutionary origins and source of positive evolutionary pressure". Powers ^T 18:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

There might not have been any positive pressure - that was the point of the first commenter.80.47.102.164 (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent work

reproducible, tracked w/speculum and care: via jiz lee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.63.86.115 (talk) 03:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Misunderstanding of Freud's words

"It is also described by Freud in pathological terms in his study of Dora (1905), where he relates it to hysteria.[19]" The text cited next to this statement does not say anything about female ejaculation being pathological or related to hysteria. It says that women who have an abnormal secretion of the mucous membrane of the vagina (not that the secretion is in itself abnormal, but when it is, maybe because it's too much), feel disgust; that it has the power of humiliating them, of lowering their self-esteem, and of making them irritable, sensitive, and distrustful.

Sourcing

This article seems to heavily depend on dated sources. Per the MEDRS guideline, recent review sources are highly preferable. This and this both look like good sources that aren't used in the article. The Call of Cthulhu (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

There are not a lot of recent review sources on this topic, especially because it is so debated (the existence of female ejaculation as distinct from urine has not been undoubtedly proven). Per the part of the guideline you linked to, "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published." This is an area where little research progress is being made.

Also, concerning this edit you made with regard to the overuse of the word female (an edit which caused me to briefly investigate you and see that you are Mark, LOL), it appears that the point of including it was to clarify that this is only studied in humans. The edit also left behind a typo. Flyer22 (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that typo, I tried to clear it up. Yeah, I'm not trying to be overly legalistic about the "5-year limit", but I think it would be good to incorporate a few newer sources if possible. Not that it has to be done immediately, but I figured I'd mention the sources in case anyone interested in working on things stopped by the talk page. Accessing studies online can be tough though if you don't know someone who can get into subscription databases. The Call of Cthulhu (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I of course agree that adding reliable recent sources, preferably reliable recent review sources, to the article is a good thing. Most definitely. And, yes, this tweak (the placement of human) is better. Flyer22 (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding current picture

Given the controversial aspect of this article I think the picture used for this article as the date I add this comment, is just as controversial if not more so. For one, articles in Wikipedia should be presented under a scientific academic and neutral view, the picture used right now is not proof of female ejaculation since it's not an image of a scientific study or research. The depiction could be of urination for all we know.

How can we determine that the image depicts female ejaculation in its actual sense? I think an image or diagram of the anatomy of what it is believed to be the source of this ejaculation (Bartholin's gland) would be a much better and scientifically correct depiction of this biological phenomenon. Let me add, I have no doubts that the picture might be of a woman in fact ejaculating as a response to sexual stimuli, but if we are to present scientific correct information then we need to make sure we doubt and question every resource here presented. Thanks --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 21:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Camilo Sanchez, I obviously didn't state this at the time you removed the image, but I agree with your removal of that image. We should not be presenting an image of supposed female ejaculation, when that liquid could be urine or mostly urine, for all we know, and/or photoshopped to make it look like female ejaculation (for example, the image's liquid is seemingly clear instead of yellow). Given the scientific debate over female ejaculation existing, at least as fully distinct from urine, it is silly to essentially state: "Oh, and here is an image of female ejaculation." It would be better to add the word supposed in front of the word female in the case of that image's caption if we are to use that image. As seen here with a followup edit, I reverted Madere (talk · contribs)'s restoration of the image. Looking at Madere's sporadic Wikipedia editing and talk page, it's likely that Madere will revert me. If that happens, or if someone else restores that image, I will bring WP:Med and WP:Anatomy, two WP:WikiProjects that I am part of, into this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22 it seems to me like he did. If the user continues reverting the edit it might just be vandalism. I am removing the picture now and see what happens. If he continues he may need a warning. Thanks --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 15:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Camilo Sanchez, look in the article's edit history; it shows that he didn't. It's simply that I accidentally reverted myself when trying to restore Download's edit. So like I stated here, thanks for fixing the matter. It took me another try before finally restoring Download's edit without reverting myself, as seen here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

We see that "is not personal"... --Craftdraw (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Camilo Sanchez, Madere is back, but is WP:Sockpuppeting as Craftdraw (talk · contribs). Compare this and this edit at the Female ejaculation article. And compare this and this edit at the Snowballing (sexual practice) article. He also has the same WP:Edit warring tendencies as Madere, WP:Edit warring with me here at the Female ejaculation article, and WP:Edit warring with Grayfell at the Snowballing (sexual practice) article. Madere was indefinitely blocked by Jesse Viviano for WP:Vandalism/possibly a WP:Compromised account. I'll be starting a WP:Sockpuppet investigation on Madere shortly. Flyer22 (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ Madere. Flyer22 (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Consensus to remove section about feminism

This article is about a Physiological phenomenon, and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with feminism. Many groups of people will have opinions on the subject, but there's nothing about feminists that makes their opinions any more relevant than say, Catholic Priests or Turnip Farmers. I strongly suggest that the "feminist criticism" section be deleted. It makes an absolute farce of an otherwise quite neutral article and is basically just a political rant by a non-notable author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.176.129 (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The "non-notable author", Shannon Bell is a notable professor and the Graduate Programme Director at York University. Yes, her postmodern, feminist view is, well, postmodern and feminist. She is writing directly about the subject of the article and a core element of the subject: Does it exist? As an academic writing within her field about the subject at hand it belongs here. I am unaware of any relevant academics discussing female ejaculation in re Catholicism or turnip farming. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Well put PhD.... I have nothing to comment on this except that the section seems to exist because there is indeed discussion on it, by professionals in the academic and medical worlds. So it's not an outrageous thing to include. It could possibly use with some clean-up and condensation of the main ideas though. CaffeinAddict (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Besides, the Controversy, debate and feminist criticism section that the IP is referring to contains more than just feminist views. Flyer22 (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Bell is an entirely non-notable author with regard to this issue. This is an article about human physiology—a rather laughable one at that—and not about "women's subjective experiences". Look at the ejaculation article. It is strictly about anatomy with a comparison to other species and without any nonsense about "male subjective experiences being dismissed in rigorous scientific proof". It also does not ramble on and on about the historical significance of male ejaculation, Plato's views on this issue or other irrelevant babble that could be easily shoved into the article, such as social stigmatisation premature ejaculation. While we're at it, there is no reason to include studies that have been later found inconclusive. The whole thing needs to be reduced by 2/3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.215.25.249 (talk) 06:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Female ejaculation is highly debated, as is much of female sexuality. Just like female orgasm gets far more attention than male orgasm, and women's subjective experiences are taken into account for that topic, including with regard to the highly debated G-spot, women's subjective experiences are taken into account for the topic of female ejaculation. This is not like the topic of male ejaculation in the least. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the article is not about the physiological phenomenon only, it is about female ejaculation in a wide sense. Removing this section would leave aside part of the social dimension: Would make any sense to remove for instance the social consequences of clitoris mutilation from the article clitoris arguing that the article should only describe a part of the body? I tried, however, to make the article more cohesive and I merged the section controversy and feminist criticism into social significance, pulled out some parts from the feminist criticism into a new section I called health implications, and organized the text into subsections highlighting the main sources of debate. I've found the feminist criticism section a little bit outdated, I would encourage to experts in the field to update it. Please double check my wording because I'm not an English native. Conjugado (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Expulsion of seed - medical treatment

Inducing female ejaculation was a treatment for the retention of fluid (seen as unhealthy). The affliction was officially called: "suffocation ex semine retento", this is a potentially rich source of historic material for this topic. [4] - RoyBoy 21:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I've read some of that Catherine Blackledge book; I used it as a source for parts of the Clitoris article. But Blackledge's belief that the vagina is the seat of women's sexual pleasure and is the most misunderstood sexual organ (or anatomical organ in general) is out of step with what the vast majority of researchers state; they attribute those things to the clitoris. Then again, at times, it's like Blackledge is using the word vagina to refer to all of the female genitalia.

Anyway, that book has a lot of information in it that is supported by other reliable or more reliable sources. It can definitely be a decent source for the aspect that RoyBoy proposes above. Flyer22 (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Random WP:IPC reference

Yes, it was in an episode of Californication. So were masturbation, statutory rape, plagiarism, wine, novelist, divorce and a million other things. We also have several million article topics that have been covered in various songs, Saturday Night Live sketches, magazine articles, comic book plots, statues, knock knock jokes, camp songs, etc. Selecting any one of these, citing the primary source and including it is not encyclopedic. As discussed], this is covered by WP:IPC. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I see now that an editor is insisting that I "Get a consensus from all editors on the article talk page" before removing material that the original editor has now agreed to the removal of. As the insisting editor has offered no explanation as to why they might believe the material should stay and has never edited this article before, I can only assume that they are thinking more deeply on this and conducting thorough research into the significant and lasting impact of this episode of Californication. For my own part, like many others, I feel the changes to popular culture are so obvious as to eliminate any need of mention. What more can one say about the Kennedy Assassination, the Moon Landing, 9/11 and the female ejaculation scene in Californication? Nothing. It has touched us all too deeply for any reliable sources to dare discuss it. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Summer, my apologies, I think I may have triggered a slight case of WikiHounding with BMK. He and I are in a dispute over an image in the Stripper article. I am in agreement with your assessment, and furthermore, I plan to heavily edit the Porn section once I find sufficient references to use to bring it in line with the tone and style of the rest of the article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

No need to apologize. You didn't make an absurd demand for universal comment on a trivial issue while not commenting yourself. A couple of days and I'll take it out again. At that point, no one who is not commenting can really demand comments again. (Then again, I wouldn't have expected the first demand, so what the hell do I know?) - SummerPhD (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

While I will long remember where I was and what I was doing when this episode aired and I am virtually certain that there was a significant shift in world affairs as a result of it, no one -- least of all the editor demanding consensus on this -- seems to have anything to suppost the far-reaching implications of there being sex on Californication. Shocking.

If there's anything more to discuss here, it is certainly "well past the range of knowledge that I have". - SummerPhD (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

More research rolls in

There's a good summary of some new research from New Scientist here: [5] As far as I can see, the take-home message is: there's urine in there, for sure, but in most of the cases, there's some kind of non-urinary fluid in the mix, with some properties similar to male prostatic secretions, that is not present without sexual stimulation.

Here a cite for the paper itself:

Salama, S.; Boitrelle, F.; Gauquelin, A. L.; Malagrida, L.; Thiounn, N.; Desvaux, P. (2015). "Nature and Origin of "Squirting" in Female Sexuality". The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 12: n/a. doi:10.1111/jsm.12799. PMID 25545022.

and it's also listed in PubMed:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25545022

Hopefully this might help the BBFC in their ongoing deliberations about the dreaded wee menace. -- Impsswoon (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Female ejaculation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090621120229/http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org:80/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=9586671 to http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=9586671
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120106142005/http://www.xcitement.com:80/fan_base/sl/sunny_lane_hf_int.html to http://www.xcitement.com/fan_base/sl/sunny_lane_hf_int.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2015

I would to add this photo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gushing_detail.jpg thanks Ipertornado (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Done Eteethan(talk) 16:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Reverted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The #Regarding current picture section above is clear about why I reverted. Different image, but the same principle. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Undone: This request has been undone. Please come to a consensus before making an edit request. Eteethan(talk) 17:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Relevance of "Feminist Criticism".

Other sections already cover the ongoing debate, and the sources cited seem to be heavily painted against the existence of the phenomenon, specifically the citation of the debate where Shannon Bell argued that:

"...the debate is confused by the discussion of two separate phenomena.[specify] She comments that Alzate simply dismisses women's subjective experiences in favour of rigorous scientific proof, and is typical of male sexologists withholding the validity of experience from women."

The article is already incredibly wordy, and unfounded assertions that directly and irrelevantly spit in the face of the scientific method without providing any reasonable substance to the article is rather intellectually dishonest. This entire paragraph simply restates what is already in other portions, and the individual in question doesn't appear to be important enough to warrant their own soapbox on a cluttered and confused article - the emotions of those involved matter little outside of a placebo effect, which is already alluded to in other sections.

The other paragraphs are incredibly wordy and amount to a few feminists of moderate to minor repute putting forward theories with no evidence to support it. If the issue is that torn and the refusal of evidence is so apparent, perhaps the article should be revised to omit or condense a lot of that section, bearing in mind how little information such a block of text reveals.

ThisIsFronk (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Your argument seems to hinge on you feeling they are wrong and therefore should be excluded. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Female ejaculation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://business.avn.com/articles/6517.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150318045348/http://www.avn.com/index.cfm?objectID=EDA31550-1372-4B41-C4FD7ABDBD630755 to http://www.avn.com/index.cfm?objectID=EDA31550-1372-4B41-C4FD7ABDBD630755
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090918203501/http://www.the-clitoris.com:80/f_html/ejacula.htm to http://www.the-clitoris.com/f_html/ejacula.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Female experience of ejaculating, gushing and squirting

The following section should be added to included information about what it feels like for the woman who is ejaculating:

Women who release fluid when they orgasm also have orgasms where they don't release fluid, and report that the two orgasms are experienced very differently. An Orgassm that is accompanied by ejaculation, gushing or squirting feels distinctly different compared to an orgasm that does not release fluids. Both are pleasurable and provide different experiences.

The Squirting or Gushing Orgasm can often happen multiple times during one session of arousal. The orgasm from clitoral stimulation that does not release a large amount of fluid ends arousal and cannot lead to another orgasm unless there is a break or re-arousal.

Women can experience a large amount of fluid that shoots out, similar to a water gun, in which the phrase "squirting" is a more fitting descriptor. The same woman can also experience a large amount of fluid that pours out like a waterfall, in which "gushing is a more fitting descriptor. The amount of fluid can be more than 250-500 mL. The word "female ejaculation" as a descriptor is flawed because it suggests a comparison to male ejaculation. The amount of fluid, and the consistency of the fluid has significant differences from male ejaculation. Further it reinforces women as secondary to men.

Women can experience ejaculation, squirting, or gushing from a partner's penetration, their own penetration (hands or sex toys), or no penetration. Tapping on the front of the clitoris or sucking the clitoris, without any penetration in the vagina can lead to Squirting or Gushing.

The orgasm which results in female ejaculate, squirting, or gushing, is said to be a result of stimulating the g-spot. And an orgasm that does not result in a large amount of fluid, is talked about as resulting from stimulating the clitoros area specifically. Though when stimulated, both areas can lead to either type of orgasm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danafaune (talk • contribs)

Where are your WP:Reliable sources for such material? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Image restored

Reports of female ejaculation often involve a larger volume of fluid than can be accounted for by para-urethral tissue.

I see three sections about the image, and in all there appeared to be more support for having a relevant illustration than not. Wnt (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

And I have reverted you, per the most recent discussion before this one: #Regarding current picture. Back then, I stated, "We should not be presenting an image of supposed female ejaculation, when that liquid could be urine or mostly urine, for all we know, and/or photoshopped to make it look like female ejaculation (for example, the image's liquid is seemingly clear instead of yellow). Given the scientific debate over female ejaculation existing, at least as fully distinct from urine, it is silly to essentially state: 'Oh, and here is an image of female ejaculation.'"

I stand by that statement. While I am aware of the arguments to add an image of what a topic looks like even when the image is not what it looks like, I cannot agree that we should use this image. I consider adding it irresponsible. I noted in that aforementioned discussion that I would contact WP:Med and WP:Anatomy to weigh in if the image was restored by another editor, and I'll do that now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

As seen here and here, I contacted the aforementioned WikiProjects and further explained my concerns. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

We would need an excellent reference to back up the existence of the event. Otherwise saying something is something which likely does not exist is undue weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@Doc James: I thought my text was sufficient to emphasize that the image could not be an image of strictly paraurethral fluid -- I worded the text a bit conservatively because the definition is not clear; see below -- but I'm happy to rework it. According to [6],

Beverly Whipple, a neurophysiologist from Rutgers University in Newark, New Jersey, says that the term female ejaculation should only really refer to the production of the small amount of milky white liquid at orgasm and not the “squirting” investigated in this paper. “This study shows the other two kinds of fluids that can be expelled from the female urethra – urine alone, and urine diluted with substances from the female prostate,” she says.
“This study presents convincing evidence that squirting in women is chemically similar to urine, and also contains small amounts of PSA that is present in men’s and women’s true ejaculate,” says Barry Komisaruk, also at Rutgers.

Now it is clear that sexual "squirting" is popularly referred to as "female ejaculation" by some --- and this is not a medical phenomenon, as it has no medical diagnosis or treatment. But "true" female ejaculation is a smaller quantity of fluid. We can provide the reader a useful service by providing a user-submitted example of "female ejaculation" to emphasize that this must be primarily bladder fluid, hence not the strict prostate fluid only substance. As for the image being photoshopped, or other such conspiracy theories (and who assumes urine is bright yellow when seen in individual droplets anyway? Gah, drink something now!), we generally assume good faith from uploaders. We assume they didn't upload the wrong waterfall to illustrate a state park just to mess with our heads. And if this isn't female ejaculation (sensu lato) it's a very convincing simulation! Wnt (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I have seen images that are not what they say they are. Only see it rarely though. We should still be skeptical. The image looks like a woman peeing though. Either they have dilute urine or the color has been adjusted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

IMO, the current illustration is quite relevant - given the small volume characteristic of female ejaculate that is not diluted with urine, showing the paraurethral glands is the most educational option. Keilana (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Keilana, you appear to be referring to a different image, the one currently at the head of the article. The image in dispute (currently deleted from the article) is the one purporting to depict ejaculation in progress. I am adding it to the top of this discussion for clarity. Eric Pode lives (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Wnt, Doc James and Keilana, researcher Beverly Whipple is just one researcher and she's a researcher many other researchers disagree with when it comes to the belief in the G-spot. Just like many researchers doubt the existence of the G-spot, which is considered to be tied to female ejaculation, many researchers doubt the existence of true female ejaculation. There's also the fact that female ejaculation is defined differently by different researchers. As for trusting the uploader, it's kind of difficult to trust the uploader when the existence of female ejaculation is so debated and when imagery of female ejaculation has been so often faked in the pornography world. Doc and I have seen editors upload images that are not what they claim to be. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like all this comes down to the figure legend. Perhaps:

Sexual "squirting" or "gushing" involving a large volume of clear fluid is primarily derived from the urinary bladder. Although this may include female prostatic fluid and be released during orgasm, some authorities restrict female ejaculation proper to refer only to a release of a small quantity of milky fluid of prostatic origin.

Even if this image is taken not to be female ejaculation, it is still appropriate to include images of things "not to be confused with" in articles, such as a similar-looking mushroom in recently featured Exsudoporus frostii. Wnt (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

That caption suggests that researchers generally agree on the nature of the fluid. As for WP:Pertinence, I brought that up above because I knew that someone likely would. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me - I wasn't actually familiar with this guideline. It says "Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic.", which pretty much takes care of that issue. Wnt (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't take care of my concern. I obviously considered what that guideline states, and I still do not support the image being added. I've been over why. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference #1

Reference #1 is missing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clumsybunii (talk • contribs) 20:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The commenter means the link is dead. I have added a tag. Eric Pode lives (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Female ejaculation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100323014422/http://www.counterpunch.org:80/block02262005.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/block02262005.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080807175157/http://doctorg.com/Grafenberg.htm to http://doctorg.com/Grafenberg.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517164514/http://www.ntv.co.jp:80/hatena/onair/13.html to http://www.ntv.co.jp/hatena/onair/13.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Female ejaculation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.counterpunch.org/block02262005.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111028082511/http://www.doctorg.com/sexual_products/ebook_female_prostate.html to http://www.doctorg.com/sexual_products/ebook_female_prostate.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ntv.co.jp/hatena/onair/13.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101121110512/http://carnalnation.com/content/35307/1001/fluid-sexuality-female-ejaculation-and-censorship-uk to http://carnalnation.com/content/35307/1001/fluid-sexuality-female-ejaculation-and-censorship-uk
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140313070954/http://www.incontinet.com/ejacbib.htm to http://www.incontinet.com/ejacbib.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040405210615/http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~kim/orgasm.html to http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~kim/orgasm.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2017

Remove the following sentence: Some studies have described the fluid as a diluted form of urine, without the presence of ammonia.

The phrase "some studies" is inaccurate since there is one citation, and it's not a study. Also the citation is of low quality and it references other studies, which are not cited. Strange-attractor (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Female ejaculation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120710213035/http://news.behindkink.com/2008/05/14/charley-chase-crowned-the-queen-of-cumming/ to http://news.behindkink.com/2008/05/14/charley-chase-crowned-the-queen-of-cumming/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130209000518/http://www.wantedlist.com/Interviews/Flower_Tucci.aspx to http://www.wantedlist.com/Interviews/Flower_Tucci.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Female ejaculation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070810052559/http://www.hunterhouse.com/shopexd.asp?id=367&bc=no to http://www.hunterhouse.com/shopexd.asp?id=367&bc=no
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111101053512/http://www.sexparty.org.au/index.php/news/press-releases/619-depictions-of-female-orgasm-being-banned-by-classification-board to http://www.sexparty.org.au/index.php/news/press-releases/619-depictions-of-female-orgasm-being-banned-by-classification-board

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Dead Link

This link is dead: https://books.google.com/?id=ph-2F94pR_0C (Title: Living With Contradictions: Controversies in feminist social ethics) --46.82.208.90 (talk) 10:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

repeated text. repeated text plagiarized?

comparison of female ejaculation article intro to female ejaculation#Research. Only a few words change. Also, is para-urethral supposed to have a hyphen or not? Or is it optional, like e-mail or email?

71.121.143.169 (talk) 08:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

What are you going on about plagiarized text? The lead can repeat some of what the lower part of the article states. The lead, per WP:Lead, is supposed to summarize the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)