Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is female ejaculation real?

Options
1…678911

Comments

  • Options
    #302
    looking_around
    Registered Users Posts: 2,491 ✭✭✭looking_around


    Cartoon_Head wrote: »
    Its very real and its not piss. I know from personal experience.

    until tested, your experience is not evidence.

    Humans sense of smell and taste are not as good as we like to pretend, in fact, they are pretty darn awful.


  • Options
    #303
    Firewalkwithme
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,066 ✭✭✭Firewalkwithme


    looking_around wrote: »
    until tested, your experience is not evidence.

    Humans sense of smell and taste are not as good as we like to pretend, in fact, they are pretty darn awful.

    I tested it, it didn't taste the same as piss. And its always clear too. Good enough for me. Anyway I really don't care since its pretty cool to have it spray all over yourself, yummy :-)


  • Options
    #304
    boardsuser1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,196 ✭✭✭boardsuser1


    Cartoon_Head wrote: »
    I tested it, it didn't taste the same as piss. And its always clear too. Good enough for me. Anyway I really don't care since its pretty cool to have it spray all over yourself, yummy :-)

    You got a face full then?


  • Options
    #305
    UCDVet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,894 ✭✭✭UCDVet


    looking_around wrote: »
    actually its illegal to film female ejaculation either way, because on camera it's "indistinguishable" from pee.

    I dunno, maybe it's changed. But apparently the BBFC ( British Board of Film Classification) was quoted saying:
    "Therefore, unless it's very clear that what is being shown is indeed 'female ejaculation', as opposed to urolagnia, the Board's position has to be that scenes of this nature featuring liquid that might be urine have to be cut. The situation is further complicated, for us, by the fact that medical advice we have taken has suggested that some scenes submitted to us that purported to show 'female ejaculation' were, in fact, urination."
    http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/joel-golby-ejaculation-police-squirting-vaginas-jizzing-cocks-808

    According to that, and other quotes, it's NOT illegal to film female ejaculation. It just need to be 'very clear that what is being shown is indeed 'female ejaculation', and it shows that a lot of what is shown in porn really is urination being presented as female ejaculation. But it acknowledges that female ejaculation exists and that if you film it, it is legal - so long as it is clearly not urine.


  • Options
    #306
    looking_around
    Registered Users Posts: 2,491 ✭✭✭looking_around


    Cartoon_Head wrote: »
    I tested it, it didn't taste the same as piss. And its always clear too. Good enough for me. Anyway I really don't care since its pretty cool to have it spray all over yourself, yummy :-)

    I'm not saying you should care :)

    In fact I think, people like what they like and should not be ashamed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #307
    Firewalkwithme
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,066 ✭✭✭Firewalkwithme


    KC161 wrote: »
    You got a face full then?

    Many times my man :-)


  • Options
    #308
    Firewalkwithme
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,066 ✭✭✭Firewalkwithme


    looking_around wrote: »
    I'm not saying you should care :)

    In fact I think, people like what they like and should not be ashamed.

    The last thing I am is ashamed LOL


  • Options
    #309
    looking_around
    Registered Users Posts: 2,491 ✭✭✭looking_around


    UCDVet wrote: »
    I dunno, maybe it's changed. But apparently the BBFC ( British Board of Film Classification) was quoted saying:


    http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/joel-golby-ejaculation-police-squirting-vaginas-jizzing-cocks-808

    According to that, and other quotes, it's NOT illegal to film female ejaculation. It just need to be 'very clear that what is being shown is indeed 'female ejaculation'.

    and therefore, due to the fact that on camera it looks the same, it's illegal.

    Even if they prove female ejaculation to be real(and I believe it is, don't get me wrong, I just believe that it is often mixed in with urine..maybe even needs to be, to an extent, we need more studies to know.),
    but if it looks like urine, it can't be filmed.
    Idk how they would make it clear on camera that it isn't pee.

    A statement across the screen " we tested this fluid after the scene and came to the conclusion it was not pee". ) ?


  • Options
    #310
    Titzon Toast
    Registered Users Posts: 2,495 ✭✭✭Titzon Toast


    KC161 wrote: »
    You got a face full then?

    I did, many's a time. It's not piss.


  • Options
    #311
    UCDVet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,894 ✭✭✭UCDVet


    looking_around wrote: »
    and therefore, due to the fact that on camera it looks the same, it's illegal.

    Even if they prove female ejaculation to be real(and I believe it is, don't get me wrong, I just believe that it is often mixed in with urine..maybe even needs to be, to an extent, we need more studies to know.),
    but if it looks like urine, it can't be filmed.
    Idk how they would make it clear on camera that it isn't pee.

    A statement across the screen " we tested this fluid after the scene and came to the conclusion it was not pee". ) ?

    You could have the actress take a drug that dyes the urine a very visible colour - something like Phenazopyridine maybe, or a safer alternative. Then you should show (behind a curtain) produce a urine sample to show that the colour of her urine is bright orange.

    Then film whatever sexual activity and, so long as the female ejaculate is clear - you'd be able to show that it isn't urine.

    Or maybe something more reasonable. They could have a medical professional on site collect a sample, send it to a lab, and submit the results to the governing body to clearly show that it is not urine and include such information in the disclaimer prior to the film. Half the movies I watch or buy on DVD have pages of warnings and disclaimers before it starts.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #312
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users Posts: 7,548 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    looking_around wrote: »
    the psa could explain the stickiness.

    Like I said, use paper sheets, I guarantee if your bed sheets are getting wet, so is the mattress, the sheets don't magicly hold it, like some inverse sponge.
    __

    What is a large amount, if a cup is a huge amount?

    I don't know if I said it, I would like to see a study on women who squirt low amounts. I can imagine that some is just glands, but I can't see glands filling much more than an egg cup.

    Basically, I can't imagine female ejaculation, somehow being larger in amount than male ejaculation, there's nowhere, for it to be stored.

    If it is coming from the bladder, it's urine, by definition. Albeit probably heavily diluted, but that doesn't change what it is.

    Should this change/stop anyone from enjoying it? no, I don't think so. but I don't understand the up in arms against the likelihood.

    All I know is that I think that study is too small and too simple for something conclusive to be drawn from it


  • Options
    #313
    looking_around
    Registered Users Posts: 2,491 ✭✭✭looking_around


    UCDVet wrote: »
    You could have the actress take a drug that dyes the urine a very visible colour - something like Phenazopyridine maybe, or a safer alternative. Then you should show (behind a curtain) produce a urine sample to show that the colour of her urine is bright orange.

    Then film whatever sexual activity and, so long as the female ejaculate is clear - you'd be able to show that it isn't urine.

    Or maybe something more reasonable. They could have a medical professional on site collect a sample, send it to a lab, and submit the results to the governing body to clearly show that it is not urine and include such information in the disclaimer prior to the film. Half the movies I watch or buy on DVD have pages of warnings and disclaimers before it starts.

    But I think they want to avoid anything that "looks like" watersports. And anyway, so far it seems the lab results are not in favour of female ejaculation.


  • Options
    #314
    CK73
    Registered Users Posts: 410 ✭✭CK73


    flutered wrote: »
    in my long and mostly very happy erotic and fulfilled sex life, may i say it is definatly not urine, the female is of the opinion that she is about to p, but similar to the male, no she does not

    I don't get a feeling of needing a pee when it happens to me. For me it feels like a release of pressure.

    When I was married a million years ago, I never had an orgasm once with my husband, as I was young and innocent and I thought the pre-orgasm feel was like I needed to go pee, so I would stop proceedings to go to the toilet and never let it happen. I was 31 before I finally had an orgasm because I was so paranoid that I might pee.

    When I gush it is like someone flicking a switch or pressing a button and letting the flood gates open and a totally different but fulfilling sensation. You have to be very relaxed for it to happen and completely involved in what you are doing. I've had it done mostly due to g-spot massage and maybe 2 or 3 times now due to intense cliteral rubbing.

    It's rather hot and now I just scream for a towel when I feel the sensation coming on, as I know the consequences mean new bed sheets!


  • Options
    #315
    CK73
    Registered Users Posts: 410 ✭✭CK73


    UCDVet wrote: »
    You could have the actress take a drug that dyes the urine a very visible colour - something like Phenazopyridine maybe, or a safer alternative. Then you should show (behind a curtain) produce a urine sample to show that the colour of her urine is bright orange.

    Then film whatever sexual activity and, so long as the female ejaculate is clear - you'd be able to show that it isn't urine.

    Or maybe something more reasonable. They could have a medical professional on site collect a sample, send it to a lab, and submit the results to the governing body to clearly show that it is not urine and include such information in the disclaimer prior to the film. Half the movies I watch or buy on DVD have pages of warnings and disclaimers before it starts.

    I've just though of a good way to do an experiment. Berroca makes my pee go orange. I'll take one of those half an hour before sex and not have a wee until afterwards. I'll put a white towel down and the results should be on the towel. I'll try this 7 times, to make it the same as their test and get back to you in due course!


  • Options
    #316
    syklops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,966 ✭✭✭✭syklops


    CK73 wrote: »
    I've just though of a good way to do an experiment. Berroca makes my pee go orange. I'll take one of those half an hour before sex and not have a wee until afterwards. I'll put a white towel down and the results should be on the towel. I'll try this 7 times, to make it the same as their test and get back to you in due course!

    You sound swell!

    :cool:


  • Options
    #317
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Cartoon_Head wrote: »
    I tested it, it didn't taste the same as piss. And its always clear too. Good enough for me. Anyway I really don't care since its pretty cool to have it spray all over yourself, yummy :-)

    People with uncontrolled diabetes have sweet urine because of the sugar in it. People with porphyria have red urine. By your logic their urine isn't urine.

    Just because you don't think it's wee doesn't mean it's not wee, especially when scientific analysis has determined that it's 'wee, with some other stuff in it'.


  • Options
    #318
    CK73
    Registered Users Posts: 410 ✭✭CK73


    kylith wrote: »
    People with uncontrolled diabetes have sweet urine because of the sugar in it. People with porphyria have red urine. By your logic their urine isn't urine.

    Just because you don't think it's wee doesn't mean it's not wee, especially when scientific analysis has determined that it's 'wee, with some other stuff in it'.

    What constitutes a scientific investigation? Are you always so readily willing to accept results without questioning the content, or is it more about bias?


  • Options
    #319
    Firewalkwithme
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,066 ✭✭✭Firewalkwithme


    kylith wrote: »
    People with uncontrolled diabetes have sweet urine because of the sugar in it. People with porphyria have red urine. By your logic their urine isn't urine.

    Just because you don't think it's wee doesn't mean it's not wee, especially when scientific analysis has determined that it's 'wee, with some other stuff in it'.

    Wee with other stuff in it is no longer wee. It's something else.


  • Options
    #320
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Cartoon_Head wrote: »
    Wee with other stuff in it is no longer wee. It's something else.

    Is tea with sugar in it no longer tea?


  • Options
    #321
    Firewalkwithme
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,066 ✭✭✭Firewalkwithme


    kylith wrote: »
    Is tea with sugar in it no longer tea?

    No. it's tea with sugar in it. A compund like female ejaculate.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #322
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    CK73 wrote: »
    What constitutes a scientific investigation? Are you always so readily willing to accept results without questioning the content, or is it more about bias?

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/seriouslyscience/2015/01/12/proof-female-ejaculation-just-pee/

    Does that one explain it?

    I always assumed it was pee. Is it such a big deal either way? A lot of people seem pretty insistent one way or the other but it seems like nobody knows for sure?

    Even the comments below the article, it feels like even if they had 100% proved it was pee (which I'm not sure they have) there would be plenty of people willing to step up and say "well, it didn't look/smell/taste like pee to me"!


  • Options
    #323
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    CK73 wrote: »
    What constitutes a scientific investigation? Are you always so readily willing to accept results without questioning the content, or is it more about bias?

    Something more scientific than 'I dipped my finger in it and it didn't taste like wee'. Something more like this PubMed article which involved chemical analysis of the liquid (which found that it had the same creatine, urea, and uric acid as urine) and ultrasound of the abdomen to determine where the liquid was coming from (the bladder).

    I, like another poster upthread, don't really understand what the 'it's not urine bruhaha' is about. So what if it's wee? Does that stop it being enjoyable? Or is it the psychological 'weeing on yourself' thing?


  • Options
    #324
    syklops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,966 ✭✭✭✭syklops


    kylith wrote: »
    Something more scientific than 'I dipped my finger in it and it didn't taste like wee'. Something more like this PubMed article which involved chemical analysis of the liquid (which found that it had the same creatine, urea, and uric acid as urine) and ultrasound of the abdomen to determine where the liquid was coming from (the bladder).

    Did you read her proposal?


  • Options
    #325
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Cartoon_Head wrote: »
    No. it's tea with sugar in it. A compund like female ejaculate.

    So, it's still tea, just with sugar in it, just like how the liquid expelled from some women's bladder is urine with something else in it, or are you going to say that other adulterated urine, such as urine with blood in it, isn't urine either? Or are you suggesting that the PSA (which wasn't even detected in all samples) somehow changes the urine to something else?


  • Options
    #326
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    Cartoon_Head wrote: »
    No. it's tea with sugar in it. A compund like female ejaculate.

    I am more curious about why it's SO important to you to make the distinction? You'd seriously argue that tea with sugar in it is not tea?

    If we removed the sexual aspect altogether and I went to the docs and said "Ok this strange liquid comes out of me sometimes and I dont think its pee, I am worried about my health". OK, so the doc has me pee. Checks my bladder is empty. Lets me drink some stuff. Checks bladder, contains liquid. Then I have a "strange liquid incident". Doc checks bladder, empty. Tests liquid. Its urine.

    Would you argue with the doctor that you just KNOW its not pee?

    Is it the introduction of the sexual element that has people insisting that there is no way it is pee? Some people seem to be quite worked up about the idea that other people think "its just pee".

    I am working under the assumption that the information in the link is correct
    --> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/seriouslyscience/2015/01/12/proof-female-ejaculation-just-pee/


  • Options
    #327
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    syklops wrote: »
    Did you read her proposal?

    CK73's or the PubMed one? If I've missed something please feel free to point it out.


  • Options
    #328
    Firewalkwithme
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,066 ✭✭✭Firewalkwithme


    kylith wrote: »
    So, it's still tea, just with sugar in it, just like how the liquid expelled from some women's bladder is urine with something else in it, or are you going to say that other adulterated urine, such as urine with blood in it, isn't urine either? Or are you suggesting that the PSA (which wasn't even detected in all samples) somehow changes the urine to something else?
    orubiru wrote: »
    I am more curious about why it's SO important to you to make the distinction? You'd seriously argue that tea with sugar in it is not tea?

    If we removed the sexual aspect altogether and I went to the docs and said "Ok this strange liquid comes out of me sometimes and I dont think its pee, I am worried about my health". OK, so the doc has me pee. Checks my bladder is empty. Lets me drink some stuff. Checks bladder, contains liquid. Then I have a "strange liquid incident". Doc checks bladder, empty. Tests liquid. Its urine.

    Would you argue with the doctor that you just KNOW its not pee?

    Is it the introduction of the sexual element that has people insisting that there is no way it is pee? Some people seem to be quite worked up about the idea that other people think "its just pee".

    Ok, to try to reply to both of these I'll just say that I really don't care whether it is or is not piss when it comes to sex. I am simply trying to tell you that from my own experiences, there is a difference. It is mixed with something, perhaps it's the natural lubricants in the vagina but more of them than would normally be produced. At this stage I have to be crude. I've done more than dipped my finger in, I've had mouthfuls of both and thay are not the same.

    As for the if it's mixed with something it's still wee point, let me ask you this. If I walk in to a bar and order a vodka and coke. I get a glass with the measure of vodka and a bottle of coke which I pour into the glass. There is now more coke than vodka in the glass so does that mean that it is now coke? Or is it still vodka? It's neither, it's vodka and coke, a mixture of two liquids creating another new liquid just like female ejaculate which is a mixture of more than one liquid other than piss. Therefore, it's not piss.

    It's vodka and piss.


  • Options
    #329
    FISMA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,616 ✭✭✭FISMA


    Irish people, if they're not taking the piss, they're giving it...


  • Options
    #330
    looking_around
    Registered Users Posts: 2,491 ✭✭✭looking_around


    Cartoon_Head wrote: »
    Ok, to try to reply to both of these I'll just say that I really don't care whether it is or is not piss when it comes to sex. I am simply trying to tell you that from my own experiences, there is a difference. It is mixed with something, perhaps it's the natural lubricants in the vagina but more of them than would normally be produced. At this stage I have to be crude. I've done more than dipped my finger in, I've had mouthfuls of both and thay are not the same.

    As for the if it's mixed with something it's still wee point, let me ask you this. If I walk in to a bar and order a vodka and coke. I get a glass with the measure of vodka and a bottle of coke which I pour into the glass. There is now more coke than vodka in the glass so does that mean that it is now coke? Or is it still vodka? It's neither, it's vodka and coke, a mixture of two liquids creating another new liquid just like female ejaculate which is a mixture of more than one liquid other than piss. Therefore, it's not piss.

    It's vodka and piss.

    but the study is saying it;s urine AND PSA
    just pointing that out.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #331
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    This may be an idiotic question but surely in all the hours of porn somebody has managed to catch a glimpse of if it comes from the urethral opening and not the vaginal opening :confused:


Advertisement