Point me to the NIH's disagreement with the findings or other more recent contradictory evidence then the July 2013 article I provided.
Simple, rightAt the risk of being chided for not doing enough homework, I'm posting to see if there are any providers either currently touring in, or consistently located in center city who have the ability to squirt. When I use the "search" function I only come up with two providers in my results, one of whom is not local and the other who I have reached out to for an appointment. Was wondering if there are any other ladies who have this ability that my search is overlooking.
that squirting is not a sure thing... sometimes yes, sometimes no. That being said...
Philly Abbey is absolutely amazing
http://www.theeroticreview.com/reviews/show.asp?id=221705
Chrissy is awesome
http://www.theeroticreview.com/reviews/show.asp?id=157611
Good luck.
I have not seen her, but I know guys that have and I've heard several reports from providers from an orgy she attended. She apparently "explodes" water, like I say I haven't seen her but this is how it was explained by friends I've talked to
My personal experience is that squirts don't smell like pee. Don't know what urine tastes like but squits don't really taste like anything, neither salty or sweet. The women I know who squirt don't feel at all ashamed when they 'wet' the bed. 
However, there is some heated debate on this phenomenon of "female ejaculation" and what exactly it is.
Interesting intro to discussions on this question.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_ejaculation
Finally, I think it's fun to see and have a woman squirt but it pales beside the full fledged, multi-orgasmic response with which women are so blessed!
Some women produce a few drops of whitish liquid when they come.
But the copious amount of fluid that occurs when the woman gushes during squirting, is urine with some vaginal secretions mixed in that changes the look, taste and viscosity.
And its not a debate to the NIH.
You must be referring to the NIH's federally-funded squirting study. You know, the one that doesn't exist.
As someone who has been with plenty of squirters (and gushers) both in the hobby and in my private life, I can only say that a) if you think it's pee and b) you believe that the source is the woman's urethra, then you don't have much or any experience with actual squirters. The origin of the fluid released during squirting is from the Skene’s gland, on the anterior wall of the vagina, just past the entry point. The only connection of the fluid from squirting to urine is that both contain urea, which is one of the primary fluids of the human body. But saying it is pee because it contains some of the same compounds as urine is like saying that gin is like NyQuil because both contain alcohol.
The Skene's gland is the source of the female ejaculate ONLY, NOT the squirting that is associated in p4p. The SG is NOT large enough to house the copious amounts of liquid people associate with "gushing/squirting."
Squirting/gushing is different from female ejaculate. FE is smallish amounts of white liquid with some common traits of male semen. It is measured in drops or teaspoons.
The liquid that is expelled during squirting i.e. amounts measurable by cups if not quarts, does not come from the Skene's gland but from the urinary bladder and yes, the urethra.
There are some very small amounts of other vaginal secretions as well mixed in but chemically speaking, it is urine, slightly diluted.
When you pee after you have been drinking, you might notice the pee is different in color, many times being clear, with very different or no smell whatsoever. The drinking does not make it any less urine even though there is remnants of alcohol in it
Again, you've clearly never been with a squirter/gusher if you believe that it comes from the urethra. A little BIO 101 for you. A vagina is a reproductive organ anterior to the anus. The anus is used for expelling solid material waste from the human body.) The urethra, on the other hand, is used for expelling liquid material wasted from the human body. The female urethra is anterior to the vagina, tucked just under the clitoris. It is an EXTERIOR organ, by which I mean it is not IN the vagina. It is, in laymen's terms, "above" the vagina.
So when a woman squirts or gushes clear fluid from her vagina--I've seen this happen many times, and I've brought it about myself plenty of times through stimulation of the Skene's gland (and, yes, cups of it)--by definition it is not coming from the urethra. The clear fluid squirts or flows from INSIDE THE VAGINA.
We are in agreement on one thing. It isn't the same as female ejaculate. But I recommend you familiarize yourself firsthand with the physiology of squirting and dissuade yourself of the strange myth that women pee out of their pussies.
Or are you going to continue on with your know nothing drivel?
Uh Jack....did YOU read that link?? It clearly states that female ejaculate is similar to prostate fluid. As to amount of production, wouldn't that depend on the individual? Some men ejaculate with copious amounts of cum and some hardly at all.
It was I that pointed out that there are TWO distinct phenomena. ONE being female ejaculate and the other being squirt. THEY ARE DIFFERENT ABBEY.
This is VERY simple. If you are producing only a few drops of whitish liquid for your clients and that is what YOU call "squirt", well fine, but all people that I know in p4p, when referring to squirt, are talking about copious amounts of clear liquid, which the federal government, upon analyzation of the fluids and by looking at all the previous studies, have determined it's urine.
This study from I cite is from 2011 and completely backs up a study of 27 women done in 1985 that said the liquid is "chemically indistinguishable" from urine. I can provide that study for you if you'd like.
People much smarter than you and me, with no vested interest in the outcome, have concluded it is urine.
Here is their conclusion since you must have missed it:
"Female ejaculation and squirting/gushing are two different phenomena. The organs and the mechanisms that produce them are bona fide different. The real female ejaculation is the release of a very scanty, thick, and whitish fluid from the female prostate, while the squirting is the expulsion of a diluted fluid from the urinary bladder."
-- Modified on 7/4/2014 6:48:00 PM
Female ejaculation and squirting/gushing are two different phenomena. The organs and the mechanisms that produce them are bona fide different. The real female ejaculation is the release of a very scanty, thick, and whitish fluid from the female prostate, while the squirting is the expulsion of a diluted fluid from the urinary bladder."
I am paying attention Jack. The title to this particular article is "NEW INSIGHTS FROM ONE CASE OF FEMALE EJACULATION". One case.
I have to ask, do you have any experience with female ejaculation? I am not trying to bust your balls but I am amazed that you have an opinion based on what I presume is anecdotal and not fact. If your opinion is based on personal experience, after reading many posts from you, do you ever think....way in the back of your mind, that you probably deserved to be pissed on?
Go ahead and flame me, I am just drawing on my OWN experience with this subject.
And this will be my last attempt as you are free to believe whatever you wish. The article I attached to this post is about MANY, MANY peer reviewed cases, not just one.
If you look on the GD discussion of this, you will see the other evidence that backed up all the links I provided in this thread as well.
This is not an archaic article either, as it is from just 12 months ago and again, from an incredibly reliable and trusted source as the NIH.
You keep saying this is my opinion. I am not stating my opinion. I am offering up scientific fact. It is YOU that is providing your opinion on this subject.
You are also confused as to what "anecdotal" means as well. What YOU are providing is anecdotal evidence. It is your "belief" the fluid you expel is not urine. From your experience. That is the very essence of what anecdotal evidence is. I will assume you have never had it analyzed.
When the experts did analyze the fluid of many women of what you and I would call "squirting" they determined it to be urine. So the problem you should have is with them, not me.
Now many guys and gals, like Mr. Fisher, say they don't care what the liquid is. It turns them on in either case. Thats good enough for me. But that is a totally different argument than this one.
If you want the last word on this please take it. I only ask you have an open mind about the evidence I have presented. I haven't seen any evidence from you to contradict the NIH. If you have it and if it is more recent than my article, I'd like to see it.
Take care. JD.
-- Modified on 7/4/2014 10:25:03 PM
The authors, Rubio-Casillas, and Jannini ate from University of Guadalajara and University of L'Aquila in Rome, respectively. Their article, published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine is indexed in the publicly available, searchable bibliographic database maintained by the National Library of Medicine.
If it were an NIH study, the full text would be openly accessible, not behind a paywall. I'd be interested in reading the article, but I'm not about to pay for it. It's based on one case study. A study of a large group of woman would be more informative. I didn't search through the literature to see if it's been replicated.
Anybody want to FE literature review for us? Haha!
Jack, Jack, Jack.....for the love of God, please do better research. This topic is making my head hurt. Kindly refer to an interesting article by Alice M Prater PhD, www.sciences360.com/index.php/the-skenes-gland-8707/....this is a study done in 2007.
I am quite sure I have never urinated on anyone...not into watersports, as least that kind! You are SO SURE of yourself, it's amazing. I do think that there are instances when "squirting" wasn't squirting. To say it's a myth and we all fake it is ignorant and makes you look stupid. I don't want to insult you but you are taking archaic research and passing it off as fact.
I am not saying its a myth, the federal government is. Take it up with them Abbey.
An article on PubMed doesn't mean it is endorsed by the NIH, sponsored by the NIH or accepted by peers. The most recent paper isn't necessarily the "best" or most authoritative. There are other PubMed publications that contradict the one you cite, and the one you cite acknowledges the scientific controversy.
You argue that there are traces of compounds found in urine that are also found in "ejaculate" and/or "squirt". You also argue that the bladder is involved and therefore, it MUST be urine. Not the case at all! The male urethra is involved in urination and ejaculation and both fluids contain traces of common compounds. Would you argue on this basis that the two fluids are the same? Might the female bladder also have a dual role?
I get the skepticism... but one must be a skeptic in full, and not jump to one conclusion OR another when faced with conflicting evidence.
I will also state that IMHO, it is foolish to discount the personal experiences of the women who actually experience ejaculation or "gushing". Abbey's personal example of methylene blue being present in urine but not in ejaculate is completely unexplained by your conclusion and the paper you cite. She is not the only one with similar stories. Medicine is not an exact science, and it fails miserably when Docs treat numbers and discount patient experience.
You're entitled to your opinion, and so are others. Your vehemence on this topic is approaching Tidwellian status. You don't need to convince anyone that you are right.
"Tidwellian status"
I love this. I'm going to use it. Thanks, Zen!
Point me to the NIH's disagreement with the findings or other more recent contradictory evidence then the July 2013 article I provided.
Simple, right
the answer is "no".
I will explain:
The NIH did not sponsor, conduct, write, endorse or have any involvement with either of the articles you cite - beyond making them available to all of us.
In fact, the 2011 article you reference was conducted in Guadalajara, Mexico. The second, from 2013, in the Czech Republic. They in NO WAY represent the scientific consensus or opinion of the US Government or the NIH.
Also, I do not presume that the most "recent" work is the most authoritative, trustworthy, valid, or applicable to a certain point or application.
Here is what I will say:
I stick to my opinion that female ejaculation and "gushing" exist as phenomena distinct from urination. For the reasons already stated.
That's it.
If you'd like, you could pay for some of our renowned TER "gushers" (perhaps Abbey, Chloe Carter, Raquel Roxxx, you get the idea) to visit, be dosed with Methylene Blue and then fucked silly by me. We will then use simple colorimetry to look for the blue.
VERY EASY; wonder why the researchers haven't tried this? Maybe they have another agenda? Anyway, I will need 27 "gushing" providers for good statistical validity, I believe. You may also want to consider sending me a control group of "non-gushing" providers.
Hell, you can watch and make sure I do them right and don't cheat.
You'll stick with your anecdotal evidence and I'll stick with the most recent scientific evidence.
We'll call it a day and agree to disagree.
Peace.
-- Modified on 7/5/2014 5:22:06 PM
Cognitive dissonance is a bitch.
Disconfirmation Paradigm:
"Dissonance is felt when people are confronted with information that is inconsistent with their beliefs. If the dissonance is not reduced by changing one's belief, the dissonance can result in restoring consonance through misperception, rejection or refutation of the information, seeking support from others who share the beliefs, and attempting to persuade others."
rather than civil engineers: The finished product is esthetically beautiful, but no civil engineer would plan a city or neighborhood with the waste disposal lines dumping right at the most important playgrounds and entertainment centers.
I guess I may have to change my name to scatlover? LOL