lol no doubt a federally funded study.
squirters, what say you??
I am not sure if it was government funded or not but I dont think it was the US government. According to iflscience one of the study was done by French Hospital/research center.
that it had the faint taste of urine and smelled like it to, but it wasn't strong or overpowering. So that always made me wonder if the 2 were similar or one in the same.
This debate will always remain. But for ladies that truly squirt and men you have had the awesome experience of seeing it know good and well it's not urine!
Posted By: anubis74
I pride myself in being moved by facts. That is that is my perspective/opinion on something is based on erroneous factual information then I modify my views. I was totally in the camp of Squiriting not being the same as urine or may have a small amount of urine at worst but as more or less female semen/protein.
That view is modified today.... As the science is clear in no uncertain terms that Squirting is involuntary peeing that could have a minute amount of protein but is unlikely to have any at all.
Man so this means than any one who has been squirted on has received a Golden Shower... I am horrified 0.0 .
"The present data based on ultrasonographic bladder monitoring and biochemical analyses indicate that squirting is essentially the involuntary emission of urine during sexual activity, although a marginal contribution of prostatic secretions to the emitted fluid often exists."
There isnt a debate....lol.. this is acceptance of a fact. If analyzed and the chemical composition of urine and "squirt" are the same then they are the same. There is nothing to really debate. The conditions of urinating are exhibited and the chemical identical liquid is excreted. Seems that the only difference is whether it is done purposefully or not.
There is no way "know good and well it's not urine" unless they take a sample to a lab and run it under a microscope.
Look I am not trying to change anyone's mind, but rather share information and/or at least discuss it. I was solidly in the corner of them not being the same. Hell I even posted in here ISO of squirter in ATL.
Until there is a more thorough study by a more reliable source... I wont be yelling "It's not urine" simply because I dont want it to be urine.
I know what my urine smells like and I honestly can't stand to smell it. If my squirt is my urine why doesn't it smell like my urine? I would be disgusted if I smelt urine when I squirt but I don't. To me my squirt juices really don't have a smell or taste. And I have white sheets at home. Why are they not yellow?
Posted By: anubis74
There isnt a debate....lol.. this is acceptance of a fact. If analyzed and the chemical composition of urine and "squirt" are the same then they are the same. There is nothing to really debate. The conditions of urinating are exhibited and the chemical identical liquid is excreted. Seems that the only difference is whether it is done purposefully or not.
There is no way "know good and well it's not urine" unless they take a sample to a lab and run it under a microscope.
Look I am not trying to change anyone's mind, but rather share information and/or at least discuss it. I was solidly in the corner of them not being the same. Hell I even posted in here ISO of squirter in ATL.
Until there is a more thorough study by a more reliable source... I wont be yelling "It's not urine" simply because I dont want it to be urine.
Cristin Sparks,
By all means accept what you want to accept for reasons you want to accept them. Who am I to tell you otherwise? However, as a point of fact, I accept that a biochemical analysis is more reliable than your "it would smell different and taste different."
I am sure there are some who would accept your sense of smell and taste as a point of fact over disinterested instruments results or the scientist themselves.
Have you done a chemical analysis? The Human Sexuality college courses I took too many years ago said they were chemically different.
Then link a disinterested third party credible scientific study in the past year that says they are chemically different. I am going to hardly take what you say YOU learned many years ago as fact. I hear a lot of people say I talked to XYZ or I heard but no one is providing a recent link or study of anything credible. If not just let the thread die.
Here you go...
You're manners are lacking.
Posted By: anubis74
Then link a disinterested third party credible scientific study in the past year that says they are chemically different. I am going to hardly take what you say YOU learned many years ago as fact. I hear a lot of people say I talked to XYZ or I heard but no one is providing a recent link or study of anything credible. If not just let the thread die.
The term "exact science" is an oxymoron. Medicine is one of the least exact and most variable "sciences" out there (I'd call it a discipline and not a science, myself).
Every body fluid - blood, urine, etc.. - is a subset of plasma. Each fluid is defined by different constituents and their concentrations, compared to other fluids. In this and other papers, the "gush" flluid differed in both constituents and their concentrations; the difference is especially pronounced when referred to creatinine, to control for differing fluid volumes. They did, certainly, contain some similar constituents - as do all bodily fluids derived from plasma.
What seems so simple is often overlooked. Anatomically speaking, the male urethra is a dual-purpose structure. It emits both urine and ejaculate. Unfortunately, some cannot perceive a similar function for the female urethra. Or the female bladder. The bladder is merely a reservoir; was it filled by the kidneys with waste (urine) or by some other structure/mechanism and fluid during arousal? While anatomically amorphous, tissues have been identified in the female that are analogous to male prostatic tissue. We have a fluid source, a reservoir and fluids that are different in both constituency and concentration from urine. Albeit, similarities (plasma derived) exist. Why is it that because it isn't white and sticky it must be disbelieved?
A study is designed to prove or disprove a hypothesis. It doesn't speak to the worthiness of the hypothesis, nor it's correct application.
"If I had an hour to solve a problem and my life depended on the solution, I would spend the first 55 minutes determining the proper question to ask, for once I know the proper question, I could solve the problem in less than five minutes."
- Albert Einstei
did you even look at the study? Not sure what your point is other than saying nothing is perfect therefore we shouldnt accept anything
of schooling, but I'll add a word or two:
The "Aim" was to "analyzing the biochemical nature of squirting" - The study focused solely upon measuring a vastly reduced set of essentially solely urinary constituents. Prior studies, referenced in this one, analyzed other constituents and found significant differences: Chloride, Sodium, Potassium (not present in ejaculate, present in urine); PAP, PSA, PSAP (normally present in ejaculate, not present in urine); glucose (not present in urine but present in large amounts in ejaculate). And what pee test does not include pH, S.G. and Temperature testing? Sheesh!
Small differences in constituents and their concentrations define the difference between all plasma-derived fluids. The study aim was biased towards proving the fluid was urine - and so they did.
The study acknowledges in the Statistics section that data normality could not be established. No statistical analysis of the bladder filling parameters was provided at all, although it was remarked several times in the article. The study remarks that portions of the samples could not be "recovered" (collected) but does not add further discussion - source and relative volumes of unrecovered sample could be significant. A sample size of 7? Really?
The sample size and statistical analysis are weak at best. The lack of explanatory discussion about unrecovered samples and lack of any analysis of notable bladder filling differences between US1/US3 and US2 is remarkable in it's absence
If the conclusion of the study (which I'm not saying I necessarily agree with) is that squirt is pee then they left unanswered a very important question:
Why does squirt not look like or smell like pee?
Factual, first hand observation is an important part of the scientific method - which I am a firm believer of. In my (admittedly limited) personal experiences with squirters their squirt doesn't look like pee (clear as opposed to yellow) and it certainly doesn't have a pee scent.
I find it interesting that they say it is the same thing as something else but it lacks two very distinctive characteristics of that very thing.
Honestly, I don't care as I don't have a cock (uh, er... dog) in this fight. I believe in science but I also know that many studies are biased by their very nature - who is funding them, the basis of the problem statement, the size/selection/predisposition of the subjects, expectation of particular results, etc.
Posted By: MasterZen
of schooling, but I'll add a word or two:
The "Aim" was to "analyzing the biochemical nature of squirting" - The study focused solely upon measuring a vastly reduced set of essentially solely urinary constituents. Prior studies, referenced in this one, analyzed other constituents and found significant differences: Chloride, Sodium, Potassium (not present in ejaculate, present in urine); PAP, PSA, PSAP (normally present in ejaculate, not present in urine); glucose (not present in urine but present in large amounts in ejaculate). And what pee test does not include pH, S.G. and Temperature testing? Sheesh!
Small differences in constituents and their concentrations define the difference between all plasma-derived fluids. The study aim was biased towards proving the fluid was urine - and so they did.
The study acknowledges in the Statistics section that data normality could not be established. No statistical analysis of the bladder filling parameters was provided at all, although it was remarked several times in the article. The study remarks that portions of the samples could not be "recovered" (collected) but does not add further discussion - source and relative volumes of unrecovered sample could be significant. A sample size of 7? Really?
The sample size and statistical analysis are weak at best. The lack of explanatory discussion about unrecovered samples and lack of any analysis of notable bladder filling differences between US1/US3 and US2 is remarkable in it's absence.
Actually science DOES NOT take into account First hand information or humans senses. It is the WORSE form of scientific evidence and should not be accepted as sole evidence to support or disclaim anything.
To quote Astrophysicist Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson:
"We know that the lowest form of evidence that exist in this world is eye witness testimony.... If you come into my lab and say 'you gotta believe me because I saw it(smell it, heard it, taste it, felt it)' you can go home until you can bring me something that can be tested and reproduce-able in a lab environment with instruments, because the human perception system is RIP with always getting it wrong."
I mean no offense to anyone but it seems a lot of people have drawn a number of fallacious conclusion about the scientific process when it seems they dont know enough science to come to those conclusions. Including but not limited to how to ask a scientific question, a sample size, confidence intervals, confidence level, experiment reproduction, etc etc etc.
Now I am not claiming to be a gynecologist nor have a PhD in biochemistry but I do know enough to accept the reproduce-able published findings of a team of scientist than some random lady on the internet saying "they are wrong because I'm a squirter, therefore I hold more credibility than them".
I linked Dr Tyson explaining this when someone using the same reasoning about UFOs, if you are interested in a really general explanation of how scientific process works. The explanation starts at the 2:50 mark if you dont want to watch the entire video
Lord knows he has more weighty topics to ponder than what a girl's squirt is. Things like "why are we here?", "what does it mean to be human?", "how big is the universe?", and "will we ever see the end to dick size threads?".
As much as I am a fan of NDT (I do think he is awesome), on this point I would respectfully say - some things in life you just have to experience for yourself and draw your own conclusions. Not only do I think it is part of the scientific method, it is an important part of being human.
If I had only read in some scientific journal about honey and how it was produced I can assure you I would never have tried it - it sounds disgusting. But I did try it, and you know what? It is delicious stuff. 
If I had only read medical studies about how deplorable juicy, bacon cheeseburgers were to the human body, I probably never would have tried them either. But, they are also delicious (even if they are a sin to my body). Sometimes in life there is just no substitute to being able to see, feel, hear, taste and smell the totality of an experience.
For a large percentage of our day to day existence perception is reality. The grass is green, the sky is blue, the sun is warm. I perceive those things directly and they are "real" for me. In my (again, limited) experience a woman's squirt neither smells or looks likes pee. So my reality is that it isn't pee. Is that sticking my head in the sand? Perhaps. But if scientific evidence tells me something contrary to what I experience my perception of the event tends to win.
But then again you're talking to a guy that doesn't particularly care either way. If further examination, research, and study concludes this (or follow up experiments) are the real deal (and squirt is pee) I won't be horrified, mystified, or jump off of a bridge. In fact, my life will go on exactly as it did before. I'll enjoy girls that squirt and those that don't.
Certainly if the thought that squirt is pee, or may contain pee, or is the third cousin twice removed to pee - freaks you out, then you should probably not go to bed with a squirter. The rules are pretty simple around here. If you're into it - that's cool. If you're not into it - that's cool too. Just please don't disparage those on the opposite side of the fence from you for wanting something different.
I digress as usual, but my original point remains. If squirt is considered to be urine (if we are to believe the results of this study) then why does it not share two primary characteristics (color and smell) of it?
Posted By: anubis74
Actually science DOES NOT take into account First hand information or humans senses. It is the WORSE form of scientific evidence and should not be accepted as sole evidence to support or disclaim anything.
To quote Astrophysicist Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson:
"We know that the lowest form of evidence that exist in this world is eye witness testimony.... If you come into my lab and say 'you gotta believe me because I saw it(smell it, heard it, taste it, felt it)' you can go home until you can bring me something that can be tested and reproduce-able in a lab environment with instruments, because the human perception system is RIP with always getting it wrong."
I mean no offense to anyone but it seems a lot of people have drawn a number of fallacious conclusion about the scientific process when it seems they dont know enough science to come to those conclusions. Including but not limited to how to ask a scientific question, a sample size, confidence intervals, confidence level, experiment reproduction, etc etc etc.
Now I am not claiming to be a gynecologist nor have a PhD in biochemistry but I do know enough to accept the reproduce-able published findings of a team of scientist than some random lady on the internet saying "they are wrong because I'm a squirter, therefore I hold more credibility than them".
I linked Dr Tyson explaining this when someone using the same reasoning about UFOs, if you are interested in a really general explanation of how scientific process works. The explanation starts at the 2:50 mark if you dont want to watch the entire video.
I plan to investigate a bit with a few ladies myself! 
You gotta love a "scientist" who says observation is not part of science, eh? lol It doesn't look, feel, smell or taste like pee IMO, either.
I also know that a past study involved Methylene Blue (that turns pee a greenish color). The gals' pee was greenish, the "squirt" was not. A study worth repeating under better controlled conditions, perhaps? Of course, it might not support the contention that it is pee!!
I suggest we have the ladies eat a huge amount of asparagus, and then sniff test. I'm betting that would be definitive!
Or maybe not; I kind of like the mystery.
I agree MZ, as men of science we owe it to the world (and the lovely ladies of Atlanta) to get to the bottom of this conundrum. As quickly and efficiently as possible. This issue is tearing the very fabric of our society apart. Not to mention our forum.
Much, much, much more research is required.
And by research I mean boinking...
Posted By: MasterZen
I plan to investigate a bit with a few ladies myself!
You gotta love a "scientist" who says observation is not part of science, eh? lol It doesn't look, feel, smell or taste like pee IMO, either.
I also know that a past study involved Methylene Blue (that turns pee a greenish color). The gals' pee was greenish, the "squirt" was not. A study worth repeating under better controlled conditions, perhaps? Of course, it might not support the contention that it is pee!!
I suggest we have the ladies eat a huge amount of asparagus, and then sniff test. I'm betting that would be definitive!
Or maybe not; I kind of like the mystery.
The only thing I am horrified about is that after all these years the great minds of the planet are still discussing whether squirt is pee or not. It either indicates that scientists are complete idiots or women are wonderful and mysterious machines. I vote for the latter conclusion.
Really, I think it's a female conspiracy so they can pee on us, tell us they are "squirting", and all laugh at us guys later over a bottle of moscato. 
That would show us men. And certainly not one of us guys ever got an ounce of enjoyment from being squirted on. Oh, wait a minute - yes we did. Or speaking for myself at least - I did.
The fact that it's pee or not is almost irrelevant to me (ok I said almost). The few squirters I have had the privilege to experience have only been able to do so by being "in the moment". Not really sure how to describe it, but that is what's hot for me. When a woman can let go with abandon like that it is very special to experience. So I suppose even if we do conclude squirt is pee (This was hardly an exhaustive study - 7 subjects? Seriously? lol) I think there will still be a niche market for it.
But I've been with squirters and non-squirters and had fun with them all. Like I always say it all comes down to one thing - having a really awesome attitude.
Hmmm, in fact the only thing that may change for some of us guys is - we may have to rethink the proclamation that we aren't into golden showers. LOL
PS: Wasn't Brando just the fucking coolest? He was a man's man. He wouldn't be afraid of a little pee. Sorry, I mean squirt.
This is SO interesting!!!
I mean every time I've squirted with a guy. (not may can bring me there) It's not like I tried to squirt, it just happened.
It IS an involuntary act. So, whether it's pee or not, don't blame her. The guy should blame himself for hitting it right lol.
I've heard every girl is different, some have a smell, some don't.
I hear girls say theirs smell like pee, I hear girls say theirs don't smell like it. But to say "a girl that truly squirts". What doesn't make a girl a "true squirter"? When most girls pee, the urine doesn't come out in short bursts or squirts out like urine does. I'm sure, they don't experience those spasms that you get after each squirt. Not to mention your body has a reaction after as you're squirting. Or is that not for every girl?
So how does one know if they are anyway?
Do you think it could differ from person to person?
Not to mention, when you're well hydrated, your pee doesn't have a color to it nor can you smell it from standing above the toilet.
Maybe it differs from girl to girl? I dunno...
I can't say it's pee, but I can't say it isn't.
The mystery remains I guess.
But to say it is involuntary pee is believable to me. But don't be horrified at the girl when it is clearly an involuntary act.
I think we should all accept the fact that the woman's body is one mysterious wonderland. Even to us! There is way more mysterious things that goes on with our bodies. It doesn't end nor begin with squirting.
-Nina
My squirts are involuntary as imagine most every ladies are. I can't make myself squirt. It takes a lot to get me there. And very few people have made me squirt. I just know what I'm squirting isn't my pee. I know that my pee has a distinct smell. And like I said above, I don't care for my own smell. What I squirt has no real smell, taste, color, or texture. I have white sheets at home and I squirt on the and it not a yellow liquid. So if it doesn't smell like my urine and isn't the same color how can my squirt be urine.
I speak in terms of me because I can only speak for myself. I know when I'm about to squirt but I have no control over the when. I sometimes say that I have a dry squirt because I have the orgasm of a squirt but nothing squirts.
I will argue that it's not pee. I've been with other squirters and it's not pee with them.
Sorry but I don't believe anything that doesn't come from a reputable source.
Posted By: anubis74
I pride myself in being moved by facts. That is if my perspective/opinion on something is based on erroneous factual information then I modify my views. I was totally in the camp of Squiriting not being the same as urine or may have a small amount of urine at worst but as more or less female semen/protein.
That view is modified today.... As the science is clear in no uncertain terms that Squirting is involuntary peeing that could have a minute amount of protein but is unlikely to have any at all.
Man so this means than any one who has been squirted on has received a Golden Shower... I am horrified 0.0 .
"The present data based on ultrasonographic bladder monitoring and biochemical analyses indicate that squirting is essentially the involuntary emission of urine during sexual activity, although a marginal contribution of prostatic secretions to the emitted fluid often exists."
-- Modified on 5/8/2015 4:59:05 PM
How is the Journal of Sexual Medicine not reputable? Wht is reputable to you??
With all the people complaining about it only being 7 women tested, realize that statistically 7 woman may actually be a large distribution based on the number of women that actually experience the phenomenon.
However, more to the point, sample size is only important when statistical trends and probability are being analyzed. This experiment (NOT a statistical study) was basically repeated 7 times with consistent results.
For example, I don't need to split an atom 100s of times to realize what happens when you do. 7 times is pretty effective.
You will just keep on and on. If you know so much about medical and scientific studies you would know that they have rules and regulations on what they consider to be an appropriate sample size in a study for it to be considered a true study. And you are a failer at it no less. '7 woman may actually be a large distributions based on the number of women that actually experience the phenomenon' who made you God and knowledgable to know just how many women experience this? That statement of yours is exactly what's wrong with some so called scientific studies. Truth is you don't know unless you have an appropriate sample size including different races and genders (obviously this study would only include women) and also studying women that don't squirt to have a control to go off of!
Posted By: anubis74
With all the people complaining about it only being 7 women tested, realize that statistically 7 woman may actually be a large distribution based on the number of women that actually experience the phenomenon.
However, more to the point, sample size is only important when statistical trends and probability are being analyzed. This experiment (NOT a statistical study) was basically repeated 7 times with consistent results.
For example, I don't need to split an atom 100s of times to realize what happens when you do. 7 times is pretty effective.
You have no concept of how a scientific experiment is conducted and that is obvious. Truth is a sample size is irrelevant in this experiment. I explained that clearly. Sorry you dont understand this point.
You really want to tell me I didn't take biochemistry and microbiology in college. Believe me I know how to collect data and present it you fool! 7 women cannot speak for the whole world. You're the fool for thinking they can!
Posted By: anubis74
You have no concept of how a scientific experiment is conducted and that is obvious. Truth is a sample size is irrelevant in this experiment. I explained that clearly. Sorry you dont understand this point.
apparently you didnt take biochemistry or microbiology or if you did you might have failed it, or worse you passed it and still dont understand scope. If you think this experiment is suppose to speak for all the women in the world. You clearly dont understand scope nor do you understand the Abstract of the study. You incriminate yourself.
You, my dear, are the one who posted this thread acting like the one study speaks for the whole world. I have not come here acting like I'm smarter than science! I have said everytime that I can only speak for myself and the ladies I have been with. But when it comes to research, I do know how to do my homework. And no I didn't fail anything. Reread your original post!
Btw, you can put me down all you want. I'm confident enough in myself that someone like you can't hurt my ego. So keep it coming!
Posted By: anubis74
apparently you didnt take biochemistry or microbiology or if you did you might have failed it, or worse you passed it and still dont understand scope. If you think this experiment is suppose to speak for all the women in the world. You clearly dont understand scope nor do you understand the Abstract of the study. You incriminate yourself.
Yes I insulted you and the other lady because you attacked me personally "you are a fail" is I believe what you said and I was respectful to those who were respectful to me, even if we disagreed. A couple of people I did wrongly insult and I apologized to them via dm for it.
Your initial posts were fair enough talking about the study and how your urine smells and taste different. Then when I posted about the sample size stating that for an empirical study and not a statistical or probable study a small sample size of women who OB/GYN and Physicians deemed squirters is sufficient.
Now your response to that was calling me a fail instead of addressing my point and I am not the type to ignore and roll over and play dead. Now if you make ad hominem attacks on me, expect them in kind. Moreover you can thank VIP Veronica for changing the entire mood of a thread, which initially was suppose to be self-deprecating in "omg I am horrified I been making women pee in my face the entire time and loved it... I would have b comfortable in my ignorance" and have a good laugh at myself.
Instead some older provider on the board whose social security check hasnt come, and need money for their hip replacement, felt the need to protect their "cash cow" fetish by name calling, labeling, asking loaded questions and being insulting, or trolling just not sure which yet. So you took some of my hostility toward a couple other people and when you called me fail and yes I started being as obnoxious, arrogant and a general asshole toward you as much as them.
Now I will take the opportunity to be an adult and do two things offer an explanation based on what I have read and what a source I know and trust explained to me. Contrary to others who swear I should take the research they have done as gospel but who havent linked any research so that I my look at or take their personal experience and conversations to be fact(again not going to happen). The second thing is reconciliation.
First as it was explained to me... pee is waste. yes your piss could possibliy smell, look and taste different depending on your biochemistry and level of hydration than your squirt. The reason it would, piss is rancid, that is to say it is stored WASTE in your bladder and when release it can often be foul in smell, taste and looks.
While on the contrary, when squirting your body would fill your bladder with fluid that is draw useful nonracid/nonwaste fluids into the bladder filling it up and releasing it. Because the latter isnt waste and hasnt been stored necessarily in your bladder it tends to be less foul in looks, taste, and smell.
Now, you should consider this third hand information as you did not talk nor read to the source of the information as I did; thus it should be viewed with a grain of salt. I encourage everyone to do their own research or like I did previously link source research material.
Moreover, on reconciliation. I publicly apologize to you in the interest of hopefully killing this thread and switching the tone to what it originally should have been. It is my sincere expression of regret that I have insulted you, your education, or any personal attribute of your digital persona. I was wrong and humbly request your acceptance of my apology and hope to move forward.
Personally, I don't know too much about the study of squirting because I have never been compelled to reseach on the topic and not a woman either. How about each side agree to disagree with this topic and move on. To me it seems counterproductive to discuss something that neither side is going to bend.
With the study of 7 women, did the person actually collect the sample and ran at the very least 5 trials to verify that it is urine? Normally, when doing research there should be a minimum of 5 trials per sample to get an accurate data of testing.
Now, I am not going to dispute or disapprove your finding based upon my field isn't in biology or what not. However, we are going no where with this topic and it seems best to move to more important topic.
I agree BigJoe .... let's just move on. I wont respond to any more comment.
I showed this study to two gynecologists and a nephrologist. All three laughed and blew it off. (Nephrologists are kidney doctors and specialists in the study of urine).
You aren't a gynecologist, a nephrologist nor are you a biochemist. You haven't been with enough (or any?) "squirters" to draw any kind of conclusion of your own. Your entire basis of argument is this single flawed study.
Stop with your condescending and disrespectful statements to the women here. Your attitude toward the women responding in this thread is wrong. You have no idea of the education level of the women posting nor their scientific experience. For you to say "they don't know enough science to come to those conclusions" is insulting. You say you "mean no offense", but then you insult the intelligence of the women posting. That IS offensive.
Women who squirt, who have researched for years, spoken with their doctors and have read this study (and many others) DO know more than you do (after you've read this single study) and their opinion (along with the opinion of their doctors) IS more valid than yours. You would be delusional to think otherwise.
Now, to address the quoted study...
It is written that they started with a limited (seven women), self-reporting sample of women who stated that they expelled "massive" amounts of "fluid" (with no note of whether the women themselves thought it was urine) during sexual stimulation. They only studied women reporting "massive" release of fluid.
"Therefore, we elected, in the present study, to not consider individuals reporting slight fluid emission but to focus only on those that related a regular and massive liquid discharge during arousal or orgasm, also known as “squirting.”
"All of them were referred by other physicians who were aware of the purpose of our investigation. Inclusion criteria were: (i) report of regular liquid expulsion during arousal or orgasm that was comparable with, at least, that of a glass of water, which abundantly wetted bed sheets; (ii) age >18 years; and (iii) body mass index (BMI) ranging from 18 and 25 kg/m2."
"AT LEAST, THAT OF A GLASS OF WATER" is a LARGE amount of fluid. Squirters produce fluid, but usually not quite THAT much. It just seems like a lot of fluid because it squirts out under pressure. Calmly pouring a shot glass or two of liquid doesn't seem like much, but it seems like a lot more when the same amount of liquid is sprayed/squirted.
Due to the volumes of fluid reported by the women IN THAT STUDY it makes me suspicious that some women IN THAT STUDY may actually be experiencing incontinence.
Each participant was then left alone in the same examination room and started sexual stimulation by herself (with or without a sex toy) or with the help of her partner. In case of sexual intercourse, a condom was systematically used to prevent all genital contamination with ejaculate. As soon as the participant felt sufficiently aroused, a second ultrasonographic examination (US2) was performed to identify any noticeable modification in the pelvic anatomy and to assess the size of the bladder (measurement of the three orthogonal diameters). Left by herself again, each individual continued sexual stimulation until squirting occurred. The expelled fluid was collected into proper plastic bags.
The study did not control for what type of sexual stimulation occurred (was pressure put on the bladder with a hand, toy or penis?). The sexual "stimulation" was not observed or documented in any way.
That study MAY draw accurate conclusions that are applicable to SOME women who expel "massive amounts of fluid during sexual stimulation", but this study by no means defines ALL "squirt" fluid nor does it define ALL "squirters" as a group.
Personally, I know that *some* squirt fluid could flow from the bladder, especially given the studies of retrograde female ejaculation from the para-urethral glands into the bladder and the possibility of pelvic muscle contractions causing some leakage from the bladder (if it contains urine at the time). *FYI, men can also experience retrograde ejaculation into the bladder and can leak small amounts of urine AND blood during orgasm*. Gynecologists have known for decades that Para-urethral glands, Skene's glands and Bartholin's glands, (and possibly some urine) all contribute to fluid expulsion i.e. "squirting". I believe it can be one or several of these things, depending on the particular woman and her physiology.
Female physiology varies greatly, especially the size, structure and even presence (or not) of these various glands. I think the mechanism varies from woman to woman. Yes, there are some women whose "squirt" is incontinence. There are some women whose "squirt" is part urine and part glandular expulsion. There are some women whose "squirt" is mostly glandular expulsion with very little or no urine.
Lots of women leak a tiny amount of urine during sex. If the idea of getting "pee" on you in any percentage bothers you, I recommend that you never make any woman orgasm, or at least, don't DATY. You will never know how much "pee" you're getting in that little gush of wetness - even if the woman isn't a "squirter". MOST ladies who are known as "squirters" have that reputation because MOST of their ejaculate is NOT urine. If it those women expelled mostly urine, they would be known for golden showers instead and it would surely be noted in their reviews that it was urine rather than squirt fluid.
Men's ejaculate contains seminal fluid, sperm, blood and urine. Should the ladies be as "horrified" at the composition of your ejaculate as you are of the composition of theirs? If you are uncomfortable with this aspect of sex, that's ok. I suggest seeking all services covered and refrain from DATY, BBBJ and COB.
This subject comes up so often, I'm saving a copy of my post because I doubt that I will type this much on this subject again :P
I hope this helps some people a bit, and I hope you (the OP: Anubis74) take a more thoughtful approach to women here in the future.
Posted By: anubis74
I mean no offense to anyone but it seems a lot of people have drawn a number of fallacious conclusion about the scientific process when it seems they dont know enough science to come to those conclusions. Including but not limited to how to ask a scientific question, a sample size, confidence intervals, confidence level, experiment reproduction, etc etc etc.
Now I am not claiming to be a gynecologist nor have a PhD in biochemistry but I do know enough to accept the reproduce-able published findings of a team of scientist than some random lady on the internet saying "they are wrong because I'm a squirter, therefore I hold more credibility than them".
Funny because I just actually talked to both a OB/GYN, a my Physician, and my friend who is a Neurologist apparently there are several studies that have been done and they had no issue with the scope, scale and conclusion drawn in this study.
I find it funny that people can find all these "Doctors and Scientists" who they know "personally" who say studies they personally disagree with is bullshit. Yet the peer-reviewed scientific community has found it credible enough to publish in a Journal of medicine.
PLEASE STOP WITH THE BULLSHIT. This is my last comment on this quackery analysis than any 3rd year chemistry student can explain to you .
Oh wait as my OB/GYN friend pointed me ... let's a female OB/GYN weigh in and explain this particular study since "I dont know what I am talking about"...
I am sure she doesnt know what she is talking about either because nevermind she is a OB/GYN .. she simply dont agree with you and there for must be a quack
Posted By: anubis74
Funny because I just actually talked to both a OB/GYN, a my Physician, and my friend who is a Neurologist apparently there are several studies that have been done and they had no issue with the scope, scale and conclusion drawn in this study.
I find it funny that people can find all these "Doctors and Scientists" who they know "personally" who say studies they personally disagree with is bullshit. Yet the peer-reviewed scientific community has found it credible enough to publish in a Journal of medicine.
PLEASE STOP WITH THE BULLSHIT. This is my last comment on this quackery analysis than any 3rd year chemistry student can explain to you .
Oh wait as my OB/GYN friend pointed me ... let's a female OB/GYN weigh in and explain this particular study since "I dont know what I am talking about"...
I am sure she doesnt know what she is talking about either because nevermind she is a OB/GYN .. she simply dont agree with you and there for must be a quack.
Based on your adversarial response I can't conclude that you thoroughly read my post. Your response doesn't make any sense based on what I posted. I am not disagreeing wholly with the study. My opinion is that it is flawed, but may still contain accurate conclusions that do apply to *some* women. Did you miss that part?
My opinion is that the conclusions drawn from the study cannot be applied to ALL women who squirt/ejaculate. You stated a similar opinion (that all squirt/ejaculate may not be the same) in your post to Ginger, so what is your argument with me (or my post) exactly?
I have a hard time believing that you've discussed this topic with your personal physician, a gynecologist and a neurologist (who wouldn't know much about this topic anyway) in the scant two months since this study was published (March 2015) *but I will give you the benefit of the doubt*.
While you may have discussed the topic of female ejaculation/squirting with a few acquaintances in these past two months, you must understand that my experience and research on this topic is much greater than yours. I have consulted with far more professionals on the subject and over more years than you have. As a woman who has squirted/ejaculated since my teens, I have had 20+ years of discussion with my gynecologists and other medical professionals on this subject. The gynecological practice I've used for the past 20+ years is comprised of 5 female M.D.s and 3 female N.P.s. I'm confident that they know what they're talking about. Given the additional number of medical professionals I have as "friends" it's safe to say I've explored this topic with a broad spectrum of the medical community.
For you to think that you've had more thorough discussions on the topic of squirting/female ejaculation than I have had defies reason. (The same applies to the other women on this board).
I obviously won't disclose my "friends", but if you'd like to email me, I will send you the link to the all female practice I use so you can ask them all of your questions. You can email me the names of your neurologist and GP if you wish. Maybe they'd like to do some personal "research" on the subject hehe
Honestly, I think you are arguing just to argue. Nothing wrong with a good debate. Perhaps it's a semantics issue (female ejaculation vs. squirting)? You seem to acknowledge a difference between the two, but yet you are still arguing with me over something we seem to agree on. We seem to agree that different types of fluid expulsions are possible from women during sexual intercourse. Perhaps whether it's called "squirt" or "ejaculate" is at the heart of your argument?
If you are holding to the definition of "squirt" from that study (a massive expulsion equal to a glass of water) then maybe that's the problem? Most people call smaller amounts of fluid expulsion "squirt" and don't make a distinction between "squirt" and "female ejaculation". Most people consider these two terms to be interchangeable. "Squirter" is more catchy than "Female Ejaculator". :P
You don't seem to be interested in continuing the debate, but if you could define what you mean when you say "squirt" and "female ejaculation" we may find that we agree? I think that you're labeling massive (a glass full) mostly urine expulsion as "squirt" and non-urine expulsions as "female ejaculate". I that's the case, then I don't think we have much disagreement - just differences in the words we're using
you are right I am wrong.
When I said "the same applies to the other women on this board" I meant that the other women on the board would also likely know more because they have also experienced it, researched it, and discussed it with their doctors for many years
bareback provider on BP?
oops didn't mean to hijack the thread.
You need to be with a real Squirter. Not a Urinator. LOL
A real squriter squirts a clear liquid that comes from the urethral sponge. It lies just above the vagina and below the urethra. You can see it gush out from inside the vagina. It is not possible to gush urine from the urethra the same way.
There are some women who urinate and think that they are squirters. Don't be confused.
You have not lived until you are with a true squirter.
Finally the voice of reason to this ridiculous thread !
Squirting is real my friends and real squirters are not "peeing"
My suggestion is see 4 or 5 real squirters for a test drive asap
Perhaps the person who started this thread was with a 1 "squirt pretender"
and is confuse
