Talk:Female ejaculation/Archive 2

message: I am "mothballing" these, to err on the side of caution, till verified. I have not been able to find any to date. Mgoodyear (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, Osho does not appear to have talked about female ejaculation. This mention should not be reintroduced, unless someone can produce a solid, verifiable citation. Jayen466 17:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Unverified statements

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

message: Can someone explain to me why we have a picture of a statue depicting a female pissing that dates back to 1200 C.E. in this article...  A real picture would be better in my opinion...   For those of you who are against having a real picture for whatever reason than please find a better picture.
as a suggestion: 
217.162.43.151
I don't see a problem with that picture.  Though everytime I tried adding a picture someone took it down.  If no one has a problem with this then we should add this picture. --Corilof 13:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a problem with it. It is unclear as to the soruce/nature of the fluid. It could be female ejaculation, or it could be faked or it could be some other fluid. Given this, it shouldn't be used. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Picture...

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

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

message: There is still a contradiction in the main article about the vagina/urethra question.
Under pornography it says: "In other cases, the fluid is clearly seen as coming from her urethra, at high velocity."
Which is there to serve as proof that it is not a female ejaculation. In other parts however, it says that female ejaculation does never come from the vagina, but always from the urethra. This is still confusing to me. I refrain from editing because I think my English is unsufficient, but I wanted to point it out.
:I think that's just another reason why we shouldn't be citing porn as authoritative when there are 30 or 40 peer-reviewed, academic articles on the topic.
:Not that the academic stuff is free of conflicts, but at least they can be figured out.  The physiology of the female prostate is highly variable.  In some women they are pretty large, in others they are too small to be locatable at all, and the ducts don't always seem to lead to quite the same location.  In our graphic, the ducts don't lead into the urethra, but I can point to at least one medical paper (with dissections to back it up) which says that they do.  There was also at least one paper done on the fluid itself, and the results were as mixed as could be - some samples were not distinguishable from urine, others clearly contained no urine, and yet others seemed to be a mixture to one degree or another.  That's probably why this subject is as debated as it is; the facts are highly variable from one individual to the next.
:As for porn, here are my own thoughts (quite undocumented in the medical literature, mind you).  A female prostate may contain somewhere between zero and a couple of tablespoons of fluid at a time.  It may be ejected forcefully, or it may be a completely invisible process.  If being able to put on a good enough show might make the difference between a $15,000 paycheck and unemployment, there would certainly be some incentive to make sure that it was visible.  Might they even go so far as to intentionally expel some amount of urine, to make sure that their "money shot" worked out?  I don't think it's inconceivable.  Heck, some of them might have even had cosmetic surgery!  ;-)  
:In any case, the impression will be given that it's inevitably an event which can be picked up by a camera from some distance away, which is clearly untrue.  If a woman's prostate holds half a teaspoon, and the ducts are pinhole-sized openings somewhere other than the urethra, there is no camera in the world which is going to pick that up.  You might as well watch porn and conclude that guys under 8" long simply do not exist.
:Would anyone object to removing the last porn reference, and switching this over to peer-reviewed medical literature? Poindexter Propellerhead 18:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: contradiction

message: Why was my reordering reverted ? Ericd 18:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was better this way. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reordering 

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

message: Female Ejaculation  A minority of women sometimes eject from four tablespoons to two cups of fluid when they experience orgasm.  The liquid is chemically different from urine and while most reports indicate the vagina as the source, some have reported that this came out of the urethra.  Some women experience it as though it was just "dumped" out, and others send a stream flying several feet with each pelvic contraction.  This has been associated with particularly long foreplay and particularly powerful orgasmic sensations.   There is no specific way yet known to either cause it to happen or stop it from happening.  "Be prepared" is thus the "treatment" of choice.
http://sexdoc.com/femorg.html
William F. Fitzgerald, Ph.D.
you can use this if you want he's a sex therapist
-Iopq 12:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another reference 

message: This is due in part to religious beliefs that result in repressed sexuality, and also the tendancy to treat human sexuality as a scientific phenomena as opposed to a deeply spiritual expression.
:Er, I can believe the first part, but how does treating human sexuality as scientific phenomena *prevent* lack of knowledge. I'm really quite curious about this. Does anyone have any anecdotes that could shine some light on this? treed 14:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific Phenomena 

message: The picture displayed is really shocking, inappropriate, and sort of pornographic in nature. Plus, there's no caption, and it is really upfront. Perhaps someone could make a link to the pciture instead of having it vulgarly displayed, and warn that it is graphic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andrewia (talk • contribs) .
:Wikipedia is not censored for anyones sensibilities. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, wikipedia does not censore.  However you will notice that there is such a thing as quality control.  Specifically the case could be made regarding verifiability of what is being pictured.  How can we know this this person isn't just urinating in this picture?  Personally, I'd prefer a medical journal or some site that isn't trying to sell me something, or otherwise has no means of profitting, display some image.  For that reason I believe this image should be removed.  Not because someone may be offended.  -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 06:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with the article or the subject of female ejaculation itself (however, the lack of credible sources leads me to consider the merit of having it in the first place), but I do have a problem with the image itself. Even if it is linked and not clearly displayed, the image belongs not on an encyclopedia, but on a pornography web site. Even though it is clearly stated that this picture was taken by a couple for Wikipedia's use, the woman's high heels and the faux zebra bedspread seems something which is reminiscent of a Ron Jeremy flick. If female ejaculation were to be referenced in a reputable medical dictionary, like Taber's, I do not think that you would find an image such as this. Therefore, I move that something more "clinical" be found. For example, an anatomical image, or a sketch. Articles such as oral sex and clitoris are great examples of using images that would not be considered erotic in nature.ICXCNIKA 20:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Porno-like image  

message: Ths article is too unclear. Should people coming to it for help be advice to visit this discussion page until the article has being developed to a useful state? There appears to be little knowledge here other then the personal testimonies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Glen Searle (talk • contribs) .
:No. Talk pages are for discussing the article. There should not be a pointer from the article to the talk for "more information". Wikipedia is not for original research. There is way more discussion of the topic of the article here than is reasonable. (Also, please add new talk discussions to the bottom of the page, and sign your talk entries with four tildes (~'s). - UtherSRG (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You, sir, are an idiot, and I agree with the OP, the article is mainly useless and requires a rewrite.Countchoc 08:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not make personal attacks. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 08:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: article discussion

message: Is the section of the article that's just a long list of porn star names useful to anyone?  Editors periodically add names to it, usually one at a time, so it swells and swells.  In my opinion we should drop the entire section. LWizard @ 01:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hesitate to add to the Oprah-esque 'testifying' that this talk page has turned into, but in my personal experience, a) it has nothing to do with orgasm, b) my vaginal, PC and abdominal muscles are not stronger than normal, and as per other discussion/the article page, it takes place after unusually long, intense foreplay and/or vigorous, long-term g-spot stimulation (manual or penile). As for whether it's uretheral or vaginal I'm not sure, but it seems vaginal. It's definitely not urine, in any case. Anchoress 06:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt Oprah ejaculates, lol. This comment is 98% exactly what I've been saying in my other comments, except I would say I'm positive it is not urine. :) -- NatsukiGirl\talk 01:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of ejaculators

message: Bold textI am completely confused as to why I am all of a sudden either ejaculating or urinating during sex.  I think it is definately urine most of the time.  It is a very strong smell.  I am not a health nut and I do not drink a lot of water.  I heard that the foods you eat can change the taste and odor of bodily fluids.  I am older now and have been having sex for several years.  A year ago I experienced my first really wet orgasm. More like a small lake! It happens if I am on top or lying down and he is on his knees over me with my lower torso raised slightly.  I have been to the doctor for this and she says..."enjoy!!".  But I have been looking into what makes things work down there and looking for photos of the penis inside the vagina to try to discover how and why.  I do not understand why it has never happened before and personally, I find it embarrassing.  It makes a huge mess, sometimes it is stinky and I have to wash the sheets constantly!!  It makes me not want to have sex.  My boyfriend does like it because it lets him know he is satisfying me, but the mess it makes seems to make concentrating on the moment difficult.  I am not afraid of my vagina nor do I live in the stone age.  But I also think not all women are alike. --M.lynn 03:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the book on the subject by  Deborah Sundahl. You can probably get it from any online bookstore such as amazon. This will help you understand it much better. If your boyfriend is enjoying it, you are both very lucky indeed. Go to a medical store and get a matress protector for your bed, then let yourself go and enjoy!  He'll love you for it. Regarding the smell, you can experiment with your diet. It's smell can depend on what you eat. Eat lots of oranges and it will taste/smell orangey. But whatever works for you. Also I would argue that it is *not* urine. Do a simple test and collect some of your urine in a transparent container, then have sex and collect your ejaculate. Smell the difference. Taste it. You'll see it's perfectly fine. bunix 08:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: This page has been vandalized several times.  Should it be protected? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.105.255.212 (talk • contribs) .
:Nah. Sex-related topics all get vandalised a lot. And could you sign your posts and post to the bottom of talk pages? Thanks. Anchoress 04:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: consider semi-protection

message: The introduction to the article makes it sound very matter of fact that the fluid isn't urine.  The citation is based on the 1981 work of  Addiego, et al, with a sample size of 1 person.  I see several other studies listed here http://www.ejhs.org/volume4/Schubach/Chap2.html that show evidence of each.  In fact this portion seems relatively accurate on the research I've been able to find "In a 1993 paper in the Journal of Sexual Research , Zaviacic states that, “The phenomenon of female ejaculation exists.  Based on the previously mentioned research, one could conclude that some women expel a fluid from the urethra during sexual response that is similar to urine and may be related to urinary stress incontinence, and others expel a fluid that is different from urine.”" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.129.206.98 (talk • contribs) .
I certainly like articles like this to be sex positive without our traditional societal stigma but to say that it definately not used while citing a 1981 study with a sample size of 1 seems either like shoddy work or academic dishonesty.  Anyone else think the urine or not question needs a little more detail to be accurate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.129.206.98 (talk • contribs) .
: I agree. The article needs revamping in the light of recent literature. It is definitely not urine. bunix 15:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: urine or not?

message: Who the hell is Gwendolyn Kelly Boyer? This looks like total BS and vandalism. Search google for her and you find some very bogus stuff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.159.230.129 (talk • contribs) .
:You're right. "GKB" doesn't seem to have anything to do with female ejaculation. There are no ghits for "GKB" and "ejaculation (except wikipedia mirrors, ditto for "KB" and "ejaculation". I've tagged that part of the article with  for now. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gwendolyn Kelly Boyer

message: Someone just added a link and I checked the site.  I'm not sure Wiki is the right place for a link to a site where one of their pages starts with "So you want to see some bitches squirt do ya?" so I'm going to be removing the link.  AuburnFury 18:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still not sure about the validity of the site but I just realized there's a link to the Yahoo! directory so..  someone else can make the call.  If it's deemed informational and appropriate for a Wiki link someone else can put it back.AuburnFury 18:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link Added / Removed 

message: This link was just added and then removed:
:A Squirter's Handbook: An comprehensive guide to the art of female ejaculation, including how to articles and scientific information 
And actually I think it's a good addition. The 'science' article has a great drawing (we don't have anything that good, drawing or photograph, on any of the women's sexuality articles I've seen), and it's very low-key. Anchoress 15:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a valid reason to exclude the link. The policy on external links forbids (or strongly recommends against) sites whose primary purpose is to sell products or link to sites that do. Anchoress 16:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: This article is henceforth considered rude by myself!! -- Chris 18:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! This article is hereby and henceforth certified porography free! Anchoress 18:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this article should be censored as such. Obviously this article discusses the anatomy of genitalia.. and censorship is not Wikipedia's policy. larz 06:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please remove the porography 

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

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

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

message: Report by a woman who experienced it once : 1
Huge amount of fluid by the same woman in a long term relationship : too many too count...
Small amount of fluid by the a woman in a recent relationship : 1, with some chances to improve the score.
;-)
Ericd 23:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raw datas 

message: Wikipedia is not censored, so please don't say it would be obscene. This article needs a photo of what female ejaculation looks like. Malamockq 19:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been numerous attempts to insert images here, and also links to pornography. I do not believe this requires any images as they would not improve the quality of the information. Mgoodyear (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a photo 

message: I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, but I have to say that this seems like pretty useless and unscientific information. Unless someone can show a good reason to justify it, I think it should be cut from the article. Kagechikara 00:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. We could just as well make a list of "famous male ejaculators". --BiT (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Famous female ejaculators' list 

message: I'll add to the growing list of women who say it's real and it's not urine.  Mine is clear, comes in large amounts and has no smell.  I have no clue where it comes from and who cares, anyway?  The other thing is even though it's called "ejaculation" I often do it during sex and never have an orgasm.  For me, it happens before orgasm just as much as during.  It does feel like I'm contracting when I do it.  I think this society is obsessed about women and fluids period.  So what if we sweat?  So what if we ejaculate?  What's different from that and men?  Does it make us less sexy or gross? 've suppressed orgasm for years because I was afraid how men would react. So if you can handle it, go ahead and do it and men, relax about it and stop brooding about whether it's urine.  One caveat:  Have a LOT of towels handy.
71.239.240.158 17:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And then there's the growing number of us guys who find it very sexy. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Even of us say it's real 

message: I think this article is really horribly bad. For one, it's not well referenced, and for another, it falls into the common trap of wikipedia sexuality articles: it represents the POV of perverts turned on by "female ejaculation." Just reading through the talk page shows most of the editors talking about how much they're turned on by female ejaculation.
I think we need a reality check--anyone with a basic understanding of human anatomy can tell that women don't have prostates, that "skene's glands" are miniscule, and that the bladder is the only logical origin of "female ejaculation." All the stupid references in this article are probably misrepresentations of the scientific consensus since all the editors here have a slanted POV.
This needs cleanup badly, and it would be a lot better if this article were cut down to 3-4 paragraphs. Jolb 16:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree that the article needs cleanup (as do a great many), but disagree with your assertion that Skene's glands are negligible.  If you look at our page Skene's gland all you see is the duct, and sure, that is miniscule.  The glands themselves are not http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn2495/dn2495-1_500.jpg and their role as the female equivalent of the prostate is established in peer-reviewed medical literature: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10603093&dopt=Abstract  That said, I think this article is quite due for cleanup, most articles on popular subjects need tidying up regularly, and those related to sex more often than most. Poindexter Propellerhead 10:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a terrible article 

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

message: If the ejaculation page can have a movie of a man ejaculating why cant we have a movie to demonstrate a female ejaculation?
:It can have one. However, it may be a little difficult finding one that is free-use. There's also a problem determining if the ejaculation is real or not. Faking is generally limited to porn (about 99% of it, haha), but we can't assert it's real. That needs to be up to a scientifically reputable website. If you can find a scientifically reputable website with one, and it's free-use, that will do. Good luck. :) --125.236.144.168 11:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sis a very silly argument. The male movie is self-made, it did not come from a "scientifically reputable website", how do we know it was not "faked"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.208.12 (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not being serious, are you? Tell me how one could fake a male ejaculation? Our pee is not white - just by the way. -- Anonymous :).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.206.142 (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie 

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

message: I am a female ejaculator.  It did not happen for me until I was in my 30’s.  I have squirted through clitoral stimulation with no vaginal penetration so I don’t understand the insistence that it is related in any way to the G-spot.  I know it’s going to happen before it starts.  The liquid is a sparkly clear, odorless fluid.  I only know this as once I was standing in front of my mirror masturbating my clitoris and witnessed the fluid.  This obviously has nothing to do with camera tricks by the porn industry.  It has never occurred during cunninglus so my husband has never had the opportunity to see it happen or taste it as it is ejected.  It leaks or trickles out of me and is sometimes a tablespoon and sometimes soaks an 8" area.  It is a prequel to orgasm and because it is such an intense process, has actually caused me to lose my orgasm.  It does not emit from my vagina but neither does it feel as though it generates from the urethra.  It has nothing to do with the G-spot.
As I can only hypothesize on my personal experience through my sensations, this is actually why I was researching the question; from where does the liquid generate?  I will not refute scientific analysis of actual fluid samples stating that there may sometimes be some urine in the liquid but I would strongly dispute this.  I have ejaculated with sufficient fluid in my bladder to need to use the bathroom afterwards.  There is absolutely no commonality in the process of urination and ejaculation in my opinion which is why I don't think it comes from either the urethra or the vagina but somewhere just under the urethra.  The picture depicts glands that however tiny, should be able to emit fluid if there is any opening, right?
As for whether or not the phenomenon exists and women can accomplish it, I do not believe we actually have control over it.  The only consistency I can pinpoint is that it seems to happen for me when I am in a very high state of arousal.  I can go weeks or months without having it occur while experiencing wonderful orgasms and then several days or weeks in a row when it does happen even if I don't achieve orgasm.  This is regardless of whether the stimulation is through topical masturbation or sexual intercourse.  However, the most significant fact is that it happens whether I want it to or not.216.93.193.21 19:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Experience 

message: I make and observe my wife ejaculate on regular basis and here are my/our experieces and tips:
1. The best time to achieve this is during ovulation (10th to 13th day from the start of period). I keep track of the cycle so I know when the time is right and when to expect the most ammount of fluid. Approximately 400ml or more can be produced by multiple 3 to 6 orgasms.
2. I alternate penetration with using my fingers/hands. Fingers probably work best. This consists of inserting two fingers into the vagina until I feel the cervix and then applying pressure/rubbing the prostatic tissue (lining the urinary tract), pulling it towards the urethra. This, in combination with the woman pushing eventually ejects part of the prostatic tissue out of the vagina and then the magic happens.
3. The ejaculate definitely squirts out of the urethra probably originating in other channels which join into the urinary tract (analogous to men). Sometimes instead of squirting it runs into the vagina which explains some testimonials. I also don't rule out the fact that the prostatic tissue may have pores or channels exiting into the vagina rather that into the urinary tract.
4. Since this procedure involves a lot of rubbing, it is important to use a lot of lube. This prevents any potential lesions and/or infections at a later time.
5. It is my observation that in some women the prostatic tissue develops and becomes bulgier with age and/or after giving birth.
* We found that points 1 and 4 are very important (not mentioned anywhere else).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.10.128.125 (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your input, but Wikipedia has a policy against original research, which is what your personal experiences are. Please see Wikipedia:No original research, which explains this policy in detail. If you can find medical literature to back up this information, then by all means, please include it in the article, but mere personal experience alone cannot be included.Asarelah (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Personal Experience (by a man) 

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

message: Wow. How odd. See, currently my girlfriend is stuck in Leeds Bradford (UK), and she can squirt and I've witnessed it and made it happen first hand (hehe), and she has never mentioned to me, anything about it being censored in the UK. Then again she doesn't watch british pornography, so yeah. But I still find it odd that the Brits think it's fake. I thought it was fake too until during the heat of the moment, I made her squirt. Shocked me, I'll say. [Tyler] (talk/contribs) 03:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source claims the BBFC said "expert medical advice informed us that there is no such thing as 'female ejaculation'" - do you have a source saying otherwise? It is not know whether it is banned or not, without proving whether the banned films really do show female ejaculation - but if they believe it doesn't exist, then it is banned, and of course the BBFC would claim they are banning urination instead (they can't say they are banning it if they don't believe it exists). Mdwh (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Banned in the UK?

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

message: Is this phrase right- should it be thus?- "which will often (be) present without typical symptoms"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by IceDragon64 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The original is correct. A medical condition presents in a certain manner. Multiple condition can present in the same way. "Present" here means to have a particular set of symptoms, or lack thereof. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical contradictions 

message: This article is still in fairly poor shape. Methodologically the subject matter remains controversial and most studies use highly selected individuals and very small numbers of subjects. Noting various references to pornography above, the images from pornography have contributed to the general level of confusion on this topic, in addition to ideological difficulties in describing anatomy and physiology in terms that are at times suspiciously those of a male lens. Lastly hyperbole about female sexual dysfunction, partly at least driven my industry disease mongering and the medicalisation of health has further contributed to the general level of misinformation. Mgoodyear (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have rewritten the first half of the article, and can probably absorb the remainder of the loose structure as I proceed, based on a review of the literature. Mgoodyear (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Amongst other problems is over-reliance on secondary sources, which are frequently erroneous rather than reading primary sources. Mgoodyear (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Today somebody came along and removed a chunk of text unbeknownst to me - this is unhelpful and discourteous. Please don't do this, but use this page. Mgoodyear (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK: By no means perfect but completely restructured, so tags removed. Interface with Skene's gland (even worse) and G spot needs sorting out, I removed "lifts". Mgoodyear (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure 

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

message: Hmm...Hmm...Hmmmm...
Please, help me...I need to breath...
Women ejaculation is indeed a great step toward equality...
What about a "Sexuality serie" ? Ericd (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes it's denied that the g-spot or female orgasm exists, and the denial of them is commonly linked to sexism.  By the way, a couple of years ago you said you looked forward to the day that an article on the female prostate was created.  You're in luck.  -- AvatarMN (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Feminism serie..." ?