Jump to content
Existing user? Sign In

Sign In



Sign Up

It has been scientifically concluded that squirting, is in fact peeing!


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, KozmoFox said:

completely and conclusively

*cringe*

11 minutes ago, KozmoFox said:

why is something like squirting so complicated all of a sudden

Nothing about humans is simple. We evolved over the course of millions of years, adapting excruciatingly complex biological, chemical, electrical, and mechanical, systems that have made us the most formidable extant lifeforms on this planet.

The number of neurons in your brain likely outweighs the number of stars in this entire galaxy.

The way proteins fold within our bodies is so involved that the Folding@Home project utilizes 100 PETAFLOPS of distributed computing power to run its various simulations.

The body is so complicated in fact, that it's just been determined THIS VERY YEAR that the Mesentery is actually a single, separate, self contained organ, and not just a group of distinct parts of the intestinal tract. We're still rewriting anatomy textbooks TO THIS DAY!

And that's the great thing about science: There's always more to discover. Even if you've got the vast majority of something figured out, there's gonna be someone who comes along later and goes a little bit deeper...

Link to comment
9 hours ago, TVGuy said:

Sorry... I hate to be "that guy" but a single study doesn't show the whole picture.  The entire article is based on a single french study that only involved 7 participants.  This is hardly enough to be considered a pilot study, and definitely not enough to be statistically valid.  The methodology is extremely flawed- For one, the 7 participants were self selected, identifying themselves as "squirters" not a random population sampling.  The most I think you could conclude, based on this study, is that some women believe they are "squirters" are actually urinating.

I have seen this study, or different articles citing this study, shared on many fetish forums since it was first published in 2014.  And though I am all for women peeing during sex, the scientist in me is bothered that so many are willing to reach this conclusion, that all squirting is urination, based on such a small and questionable study.

To reach such a conclusion, you would have to ignore the other studies, with more participants, that contradict this one.  Numerous other studies have identified the Skene's Gland as a source of female ejaculatory fluid, which has already been shown to be distinct from urine.  More recently, studies have started to document the huge variety in sizes of the Skene's gland, some women don't have any detectable Skene's Gland at all, while others have very large Skene's Glands.

So, I think we can say from the French study, cited here, that at least some women are urinating when they squirt, other studies have shown that other women can and do squirt ejaculatory fluid that is distinct from urine.

That's a quite good analysis/critics that shows comprehensive understanding of how peer reviewed science works.
Made me curious if you have a background in science by any chance.

Link to comment

I have never believed in squirting as a squirt of female ejaculation (lubricant)     simply through experience......I have had several young g/fs who had an orgasm experience more powerful than any they had before (or even never had an orgasm) and they lost control and peed.....(They were all mortified that they had peed either on me, my fingers or my face)  I have had older women, more relaxed about the fact that sometimes during the act of chilling enough to really let that orgasm happen, they have released either some or the whole contents of their bladder........and I have had women who during the act of orgasm have had what I would call a flood of lubricant...enough to soak panties and put a big wet patch on..... say jeans.....that wasn't pee, but it certainly could not be described as a squirt.....more a good flow.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, JulesH said:

That's a quite good analysis/critics that shows comprehensive understanding of how peer reviewed science works.
Made me curious if you have a background in science by any chance.

Briefly studies particle physics, but then realized that such an education would lead to few careers that I would enjoy, so I switched to television and film production.  Still continued to study physics on my own and take advanced math courses, much more so than what was required for my TV and film degree.

My girlfriend is currently wrapping up her PhD in the biological sciences.  Our social group is mainly made up of graduate students and post grads, so, while not actually having a background in science myself, it has almost become a lifestyle for me.

Link to comment

This study came up on Savage Love when it came out (a few years ago now?) and Dan had a scientist of some sort on the show to pick through the study. They suggested that the findings were quite flimsy, as some here have already pointed out.

Among other things, the conclusion that found a certain compound (was it a protein? I don't know this shit) present in the fluid indicated that it was urine would also show male ejaculate to be urine, which it is obviously not. I'll see if I can find the episode...

Link to comment

Squirting is not peeing. When a woman squirts, she can expel some urine, but it is not urine. About twice a year, a study is found/published/quoted (and in some cased misquoted) that "proves" squirting is peeing.

I happen to love both peeing and squjirting. My wife can do both copiously.

On another personal note, we having a close friend in the medical sciences field (She is an MD and a PhD.). Upon her request and on six separate occasions, I obtained samples of my wife's pee and female ejaculation. Igave them to our friend for analysis - without her knowing which sample cup contained which liquid.

I decided to make sure there was no bias. Here is what I sent for samples"

A                                             B

1, Tap Water                           Pee

2. Female Ejaculation             Female Ejaculation

3. Pee                                    Female Ejaculation

4. Tap Water                          Filtered Water (Zero Water)

5. Female Ejaculation            Pee

6. Pee                                   Pee

7. Female Ejaculation           Tap Water

8. Filtered Water (Zero)        Female Ejaculation

9. Pee                                  Tap Water

 

Only I knew what vial held what liquid. The tests were conclusive and pee was not the same as female ejaculation or water.

 

Link to comment
On 15.2.2017 at 4:39 AM, TVGuy said:

Sorry... I hate to be "that guy" but a single study doesn't show the whole picture.  The entire article is based on a single french study that only involved 7 participants.  This is hardly enough to be considered a pilot study, and definitely not enough to be statistically valid.  The methodology is extremely flawed- For one, the 7 participants were self selected, identifying themselves as "squirters" not a random population sampling.  The most I think you could conclude, based on this study, is that some women believe they are "squirters" are actually urinating.

I have seen this study, or different articles citing this study, shared on many fetish forums since it was first published in 2014.  And though I am all for women peeing during sex, the scientist in me is bothered that so many are willing to reach this conclusion, that all squirting is urination, based on such a small and questionable study.

To reach such a conclusion, you would have to ignore the other studies, with more participants, that contradict this one.  Numerous other studies have identified the Skene's Gland as a source of female ejaculatory fluid, which has already been shown to be distinct from urine.  More recently, studies have started to document the huge variety in sizes of the Skene's gland, some women don't have any detectable Skene's Gland at all, while others have very large Skene's Glands.

So, I think we can say from the French study, cited here, that at least some women are urinating when they squirt, other studies have shown that other women can and do squirt ejaculatory fluid that is distinct from urine.

Of course they would study squirters. After all, the question was what the composition and origin of these "squirts" was, so what would a random selection of the population contribute? You can't fault a study for answering a different question than the one you want it to ask.

There's a good metareview from 2013 here called Female Ejaculation Orgasm vs. Coital Incontinence: A Systematic Review, in the Journal of Sexual Medicine. It probably gives as complete of a picture of this phenomenon, or phenomena, as we have today.

Female fluid emissions during sex could come from three distinct sources: vaginal lubrication, diluted urine, and fluids originating in the female prostate, which are similar in composition to the prostatic component of male ejaculate. But it's highly unlikely that large "squirts" are composed of anything but mainly urine, for simple anatomical reasons. Let me quote the paper:

Quote

The female prostate is one fourth to one fifth smaller (5.3 g vs. 23.7 g) and contains a higher proportion of glandular and ductal components than the male prostate. It is unlikely that it can produce tens of milliliters of gushing fluid [31], considering that the average volume of male ejaculate is 3.2 1.4 mL [58] and the actual prostatic component constitutes a maximum 25–30%, or approximately 1 mL [59]. The term “FE” should be used only for the small volumes of female prostate secretions expulsed during orgasm. As a differential diagnosis, the term “squirting” refers to uncontrolled pulsing orgasmic transurethral fluid expulsions of a larger quantity under pressure. These are two different phenomena, and the associated fluids have different compositions and volumes, originating from the female prostate, urinary bladder, or a combination of both.

So to sum up, fluids from the male prostate typically constitute a maximum of 1 mL of ejaculate. It seems highly unlikely that a gland 4-5 times smaller than the male prostate could produce much more than that. As the metareview concludes, "Female ejaculation orgasm manifests as either a female ejaculation (FE) of a smaller quantity of whitish secretions from the female prostate or a squirting of a larger amount of diluted and changed urine." It also notes the huge difficulty in studying such a phenomenon: either you have poorly controlled variables in a home setting/subjective questionnaires, or you have the difficulty of achieving spontaneous sexual activity in the lab.

Nevertheless, if for nothing else because of basic anatomy, it seems that if a squirt is more than a few mL, it's highly likely to be composed mainly of diluted urine. That's not the conclusion of just one study from 2014, but also from a meta-review of 46 studies and 5 books. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, satyr said:

Of course they would study squirters. After all, the question was what the composition and origin of these "squirts" was, so what would a random selection of the population contribute? You can't fault a study for answering a different question than the one you want it to ask.

There's a good metareview from 2013 here called Female Ejaculation Orgasm vs. Coital Incontinence: A Systematic Review, in the Journal of Sexual Medicine. It probably gives as complete of a picture of this phenomenon, or phenomena, as we have today.

Female fluid emissions during sex could come from three distinct sources: vaginal lubrication, diluted urine, and fluids originating in the female prostate, which are similar in composition to the prostatic component of male ejaculate. But it's highly unlikely that large "squirts" are composed of anything but mainly urine, for simple anatomical reasons. Let me quote the paper:

So to sum up, fluids from the male prostate typically constitute a maximum of 1 mL of ejaculate. It seems highly unlikely that a gland 4-5 times smaller than the male prostate could produce much more than that. As the metareview concludes, "Female ejaculation orgasm manifests as either a female ejaculation (FE) of a smaller quantity of whitish secretions from the female prostate or a squirting of a larger amount of diluted and changed urine." It also notes the huge difficulty in studying such a phenomenon: either you have poorly controlled variables in a home setting/subjective questionnaires, or you have the difficulty of achieving spontaneous sexual activity in the lab.

Nevertheless, if for nothing else because of basic anatomy, it seems that if a squirt is more than a few mL, it's highly likely to be composed mainly of diluted urine. That's not the conclusion of just one study from 2014, but also from a meta-review of 46 studies and 5 books. 

A) Anyone who has a graduate school education should be able to explain to you why, when doing human studies, a self selected small sample size isn't ideal.  The conclusions you can draw in this case are limited.  It relies on the subjects of the study providing a self-selected definition of what constitutes squirting, instead of an objective definition provided by the researches.  However, the point that I was trying to make is that from a study that only has 7 participants, you can't say that it has been completely and conclusively confirmed that all squirting is peeing when you are basing that on such a small study.

B) You said that, "large 'squirts' are composed of anything but mainly urine."  While I think it is definitely clear that this is absolutely the situation in many cases, I don't think we can claim that all squirts are urination with 100% certainty. I disagree that the meta-review shows this.

C) I have a problem with meta-reviews: They are usually written by graduate students at the very beginning of their research careers, and thus are often some of the most error prone scientific publications.  There is no information provided about the methodology of the studies conducted, only a review of their conclusions.  Additionally, we have no idea how the studies for this review were selected, or how many of the studies might be at odds, or the methodology employed for the conclusions that were drawn.  In this case the article was by a medical doctor, not a researcher.

D) The meta-review you provided states that, "The prevalence of FE is 10–54%." This is a huge statistical range, which means there was either a seriously flawed statistical analysis of the data or that the studies involved in this review had a tremendous variety of results.  With such uncertainty in the data presented, I think it is difficult to claim any kind of absolutes, which again was the whole point of my original reply on this thread.

E) With all this said, I find no flaws with the conclusion of this meta-review.  But, even according the conclusion provided, "Pathophysiology of squirting is rarely documented."  As stated, this was a meta-review of studies regarding vaginal fluid secretions related to orgasm, not a specific look at "squirting".

Link to comment
11 hours ago, TVGuy said:

A) Anyone who has a graduate school education should be able to explain to you why, when doing human studies, a self selected small sample size isn't ideal.  The conclusions you can draw in this case are limited.  It relies on the subjects of the study providing a self-selected definition of what constitutes squirting, instead of an objective definition provided by the researches.  However, the point that I was trying to make is that from a study that only has 7 participants, you can't say that it has been completely and conclusively confirmed that all squirting is peeing when you are basing that on such a small study.

B) You said that, "large 'squirts' are composed of anything but mainly urine."  While I think it is definitely clear that this is absolutely the situation in many cases, I don't think we can claim that all squirts are urination with 100% certainty. I disagree that the meta-review shows this.

C) I have a problem with meta-reviews: They are usually written by graduate students at the very beginning of their research careers, and thus are often some of the most error prone scientific publications.  There is no information provided about the methodology of the studies conducted, only a review of their conclusions.  Additionally, we have no idea how the studies for this review were selected, or how many of the studies might be at odds, or the methodology employed for the conclusions that were drawn.  In this case the article was by a medical doctor, not a researcher.

D) The meta-review you provided states that, "The prevalence of FE is 10–54%." This is a huge statistical range, which means there was either a seriously flawed statistical analysis of the data or that the studies involved in this review had a tremendous variety of results.  With such uncertainty in the data presented, I think it is difficult to claim any kind of absolutes, which again was the whole point of my original reply on this thread.

E) With all this said, I find no flaws with the conclusion of this meta-review.  But, even according the conclusion provided, "Pathophysiology of squirting is rarely documented."  As stated, this was a meta-review of studies regarding vaginal fluid secretions related to orgasm, not a specific look at "squirting".

Anyone who has an elementary school education should be able to explain why you don't get to point fingers at people for asking and answering a different question than the one you wanted them to ask. If you want to study the characteristics of X, then obviously you want to investigate patient who present with X, not Y or Z. If you want to study a broader phenomenon of which X is one subtype, that is an entirely different question! You're right that the sample size is small, but that has nothing to do with the lack of random sampling.

Just because someone has "MD" as a title doesn't mean they aren't a researcher. If anything, someone who is a practicing doctor probably has more direct experience with the phenomenon in question than a pure researcher. I have no idea what that kind of ad hominem attack is supposed to do there, along with your high and mighty scientific standards. It's also not true that "we have no idea how the studies were selected" since that is specified, as is common in any meta review. Typically it constitutes the results of a search in databases X and Y for keywords "...." which was also the case here.

The lack of evidence for any other explanation, the existing evidence for the "diluted pee" hypothesis, in addition to the physical impossibility that the only other plausible source of "squirts" could produce a large volume of liquid, is pretty damn strong evidence. Throwing every Scientific Method 101 critique at the wall in order to get one to stick looks petty at this point. Especially when you make "criticisms" which would be answered by actually reading the source, or completely baseless critiques based on formal fallacies.

If it's a large amount of liquid, it's mostly pee. If you think not, show me the evidence otherwise. I already pointed you to a wealth of source material, and you're content to play armchair skeptic. I can't believe that so many people fall for that shit.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, satyr said:

Anyone who has an elementary school education should be able to explain why you don't get to point fingers at people for asking and answering a different question than the one you wanted them to ask. If you want to study the characteristics of X, then obviously you want to investigate patient who present with X, not Y or Z. If you want to study a broader phenomenon of which X is one subtype, that is an entirely different question! You're right that the sample size is small, but that has nothing to do with the lack of random sampling.

It is a very good thing we don't rely on elementary school students for scientific research.

Are you trying to argue that you can make broad scientific statements from a self selected group of 7 people?  The only thing that I was trying to say is that the conclusions you can draw from such a study are limited.  As I said originally, I think the only thing you can conclude from such a small study is that at least some women are indeed urinating when they squirt.  I don't think that there is enough evidence to make a broader statement.  Do you disagree with this?  If so, what other evidence was present in this study?  If you don't disagree with this statement, why are you arguing it?

2 hours ago, satyr said:

Just because someone has "MD" as a title doesn't mean they aren't a researcher. If anything, someone who is a practicing doctor probably has more direct experience with the phenomenon in question than a pure researcher. I have no idea what that kind of ad hominem attack is supposed to do there, along with your high and mighty scientific standards. It's also not true that "we have no idea how the studies were selected" since that is specified, as is common in any meta review. Typically it constitutes the results of a search in databases X and Y for keywords "...." which was also the case here.

The problem is that the meta-review paper was not by a primary researcher.  The statistical analysis in the meta-review paper showed a tremendous range of results, far from any kind of consensus among the studies.  The paper itself even acknowledges the lack of research into squirting itself, instead relying on research regarding any kind of vaginal fluid discharge.  

2 hours ago, satyr said:

The lack of evidence for any other explanation, the existing evidence for the "diluted pee" hypothesis, in addition to the physical impossibility that the only other plausible source of "squirts" could produce a large volume of liquid, is pretty damn strong evidence.

No.  The lack of of evidence is not proof.  This is a logical fallacy.  The lack of explanation for every single minute detail of biological evolution is not evidence of intelligent design.  That we don't understand every minute detail for how the Egyptians built the pyramids doesn't meant that aliens did it.  Just because there is a lack of evidence for something, doesn't mean you get to automatically conclude something else.

You say there is no other plausible source of fluid for squirting, but the very article that you cited as your proof acknowledges that the female prostate, or skene's gland, is typically three fourths to four fifths the size of the male prostate (one fourth to one fifth smaller).  Getting a bit personal here, I can ejaculate a significant amount.  Using myself as a base, even three-fourths of my ejaculate volume would still be, by my definition, a significant amount of fluid being expelled.

2 hours ago, satyr said:

Throwing every Scientific Method 101 critique at the wall in order to get one to stick looks petty at this point. Especially when you make "criticisms" which would be answered by actually reading the source, or completely baseless critiques based on formal fallacies.

My criticisms are related to the conclusions that you can actually draw from the data.  Small studies, with no control group, and no random sampling, severely limits what kind of conclusion you can arrive at.  

To make a giant conclusion- That squirting does not exist at all, in any case, in any woman, that it is urination 100% of the time, is a sweeping conclusion.  Before accusing every single woman who claims to be a squirter, and that it is not urine, of being a liar and telling them that they are, in fact, urinating, and that it is scientifically proven, the science backing that should be unimpeachable. 

2 hours ago, satyr said:

If it's a large amount of liquid, it's mostly pee. If you think not, show me the evidence otherwise. I already pointed you to a wealth of source material, and you're content to play armchair skeptic.

The material you pointed to lacked any consensus on even the most basic figures.  Some of the papers in this review placed the prevalence of female ejaculation at 10%, while others placed that at over 50%.  The majority of the papers that were in the review you cited were not about FE or squirting, but rather analysis of general vaginal fluid secretions.

With small studies, you can have one study of ten women where only one of them ejaculates, and then conclude that 10% of women ejaculate.  In the next study you can have 5 out of 10 women ejaculate, and put that rate at 50%.  That is the problem with these small studies.  You need much larger numbers before you can draw such large, sweeping conclusions.

2 hours ago, satyr said:

I can't believe that so many people fall for that shit.

I don't think people are falling for anything.  They simply recognize that you can't make giant, generalizing conclusions based on limited data with little consensus between studies.

Couple notes- 

A) I am not trying to argue that squirting and urination are two entirely separate phenomenon.  In fact, I think it is quite clear by the studies that we can say that often, when women squirt, they are in fact urinating.  I just don't think there is nearly enough data out there to conclude that this is the case for every single woman.

B) There is a lack of definition between squirting and female ejaculation.  FE has been documented scientifically, and shown to be distinct in composition from urine.  While squirting is talked about as being a much larger volume of fluid, there has not been a consistent definition for what constitutes a squirt or separates it from FE.  Is it all about volume? Consistency of the fluid? Where do you draw that line?

C) If we know that some female can ejaculate, and the source of this ejaculatory fluid is from the Skene's Gland, and we further go on to state that there is no plausible source of squirt fluid as nothing is physically large enough to contain that volume except for the bladder, are we then assuming that all Skene's Glands are equal?  There is a good deal of variety in the size of male prostates.  Other anatomical structures in the body can also very greatly from one individual to the next. Again, citing my own body as an example, a while back I had my appendix burst.  I was in the hospital for nearly 24 hours, dying, before it was discovered to be my appendix.  Why did it take so long? My appendix was not located where it is in most people.  Its size and position was abnormal. Why should we expect such uniformity in the female prostate when the rest of our anatomy can have such variations?  

Squirting may very well be urination in some cases, possibly even the majority of cases.  Right now I think it is possible, depending on how you define that line between FE and squirting, that all cases of squirting may indeed be urination- I admit that is a possibility.  I just don't think we can conclude that with absolute certainty right now.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, TVGuy said:

It is a very good thing we don't rely on elementary school students for scientific research.

Are you trying to argue that you can make broad scientific statements from a self selected group of 7 people?  The only thing that I was trying to say is that the conclusions you can draw from such a study are limited.  As I said originally, I think the only thing you can conclude from such a small study is that at least some women are indeed urinating when they squirt.  I don't think that there is enough evidence to make a broader statement.  Do you disagree with this?  If so, what other evidence was present in this study?  If you don't disagree with this statement, why are you arguing it?

No, I disagree that this makes it a flawed study. The flaw lies in trying to extend the study beyond its actual scope. However, in combination with other studies, the conclusions can indeed be a lot more definitive than they could be from one limited study. Thus I disagree that the study itself is methodologically flawed, and I also also disagree that you can't make a rather sweeping statement on the basis of numerous other studies in combination with that 2014 study. But I never said that that study alone was enough to make sweeping statements.

Quote

You say there is no other plausible source of fluid for squirting, but the very article that you cited as your proof acknowledges that the female prostate, or skene's gland, is typically three fourths to four fifths the size of the male prostate (one fourth to one fifth smaller).  Getting a bit personal here, I can ejaculate a significant amount.  Using myself as a base, even three-fourths of my ejaculate volume would still be, by my definition, a significant amount of fluid being expelled.

No, the study says that the female prostate is 1/4 to 1/5th the size of a male prostate. And further, that in a typical ejaculation, no more than 1 mL of fluid originates in the male prostate. Thus it seems ludicrous to suggest that this organ which is at most 1/4th the size of the male prostate produces much more than 1 mL of fluid. That eliminates the only plausible source of the majority of "squirt" fluid.

What I believe is that taking all the evidence into account, including the anatomical impossibility that the female prostate (or Skene's gland as you call it) could produce a large volume of liquid, there exist two distinct phenomena:

1. Female ejaculation: A very small, whitish liquid similar in composition to the prostatic component of male ejaculate

2. "Squirting": A larger portion of liquid, composed mainly of diluted urine, possibly in combination with (1)

No evidence in the 40+ studies cited in the meta-review I linked provided any evidence that any more than a small shot-glass' worth of liquid could be anything but diluted urine, and many agreed that even that was too much for the female prostate to produce.

That is what the evidence says. It's not a logical fallacy to say that when there is solid evidence for hypothesis (a), and no evidence for hypothesis (b) and indeed theoretical limitations on the possible evidence for (b), and no other plausible explanation, then hypothesis (a) is correct. That's basic science.

Link to comment

I feel like some people are pushing some false dichotomies here, where if the expelled fluid doesn't come from the Skene's gland, it's not ejaculate, or that if it's stored in the bladder, it's urine.

The idea that female ejaculate is produced by the Skene's gland was really only ever a hypothesis. "Secretions from the Skene's gland" are not synonymous with female ejaculate, rather, "secretions from the Skene's gland" are a proposed explanation for the phenomenon of female ejaculation.

More recent evidence suggests that when most women ejaculate large quantities of fluid, the urinary bladder rapidly fills and is emptied. But this doesn't mean that the fluid is urine, unless we define urine by where it's temporarily stored, and not by its composition or the process by which it's accumulated. Whether the fluid is "really" pee is ultimately a matter of semantics, but defining urine as any fluid stored in the urinary bladder and expelled through the urethra, when there are multiple different fluids which can be stored and expelled from the bladder by different processes, is probably not the most practical way to define our terms.

Link to comment
  • 5 months later...

I have had two girlfriends that squirted very definitely, and in both cases I am pretty sure they peed, or that their ejaculate contained a fair proportion of pee (based on smell rather than chemical analysis).

 

TvGuy, I am wondering what your chemical analysis was looking for - is there a specific chemical that would be released by the Skene gland. Bear in mind that concentrations of urea and other chemicals would vary widely from urine sample to sample depending how strong it was.

 

I'd like to think that women really do ejaculate pee! If they do, I have had it splashed all over my face! It is one way to get some watersports action without having a woman who is into watersports!

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...