ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Bering in Mind

Bering in Mind


A research psychologist's curious look at human behavior
Bering in Mind Home

Female Ejaculation: The Long Road to Non-Discovery


Email   PrintPrint



I confess: this subject—the science of female ejaculation—is not an easy topic for me to write about. I could, in principle, feign complete gynaecological objectivity, affixing to my literary visage the stone-faced look of a caring urologist palpating your pudendum. But I suspect you know me better than that by now. Of course I do care. Yet for better or worse, the truth is that, should a drop of such mysterious fluid (and it really is mysterious, as we’re about to see) ever make contact with my skin, I may well writhe about on the floor as if Satan just spat at me.

Now, having said that, there’s certainly nothing to be ashamed of, ladies, if you are indeed an ejaculator. And in fact I find it unfortunate that female ejaculation would ever inspire distress, embarrassment or shame. I’m not like most men, after all, since I just happen to prefer semen over vaginal fluids. And, actually, at the risk of inciting a certain hair-trigger contingency of readers poised to pounce on me, female ejaculation, in spite of my own homosexual biases, which I’ll try to keep from saturating our discussion, is an enormously fascinating subject matter that has largely escaped serious scientific inquiry, particularly from an evolutionary perspective.

This is all the more puzzling given that female ejaculation, which is usually defined as the expulsion of a significant amount of fluid around the time of orgasm—estimates range from, on average, 3 to 50 ml (about 10 teaspoons)—is a topic that was first described by scholars around 2000 years ago. In an extraordinary review article last year in Sexual Medicine History, urologist Joanna Korda and her colleagues combed through the translated texts of the ancient Eastern and Western literatures and plucked out multiple references that would appear to distinguish between common vaginal lubrication during intercourse and the rarer external ejaculation of sexual fluids. The 4th century Taoist text, "Secret Instructions Concerning the Jade Chamber," for example, written for the enterprising man in the art of satisfying a woman in bed, suggested that he decipher the following "five signs" of feminine arousal accordingly:

(1) "reddened face" = "she wants to make love with you"

(2) "breasts hard and nose perspiring" = "she wants you to insert your penis"

(3) "throat dry and saliva blocked" = "she is very stimulated and excited"

(4) "slippery vagina" = "she wants to have her orgasm soon"

(5) "the genitals transmit fluid" = "she has already been satisfied"

I wouldn’t recommend you implement these secret instructions today; citing number two in your defence that, say, some woman with a sweaty nose wanted you to insert your penis into her isn’t likely to hold up in a court of law. But the fact that this ancient text distinguishes between "slippery vagina" and "the genitals transmit fluid," reason Korda and her coauthors, means that the latter can "clearly be interpreted as female ejaculation [at] orgasm." In ancient India, the Kamasutra, which dates to 200-400 A.D., speaks of "female semen" that "falls continually." And in the West, even Aristotle had something to say about female discharge during sexual intercourse, which, he pointed out, "far exceeds" the seminal emission of the man. He also noted—and it’s tempting to speculate about just how he came to this conclusion—that female ejaculation tends to be "found in those who are fair-skinned and of a feminine type generally, but not in those who are dark and of masculine appearance."

It wasn’t until the latter half of the 17th century, however, that the first truly scientific account of female ejaculation would be presented, this by a Dutch gynecologist named Reinjier De Graaf (pictured), precisely distinguishing between vaginal lubrication, which facilitates intercourse, and female ejaculation, which is tantamount to seminal emission. "This liquid was clearly not designed by Nature to moisten the urethra (as some people think)," wrote De Graaf, describing the "pituito-serous juice" sometimes excreted around the time of female orgasm. "The ducts [from which they arise] are so placed at the outlet of the urethra that the liquid does not touch it as it rushes out."

Fast-forward to 1952, past the historical hordes of women secretly ejaculating in mass confusion, and we arrive at the offices of German-born gynecologist Ernest Gräfenberg, who, while the contributions of De Graaf and others are often overlooked, is credited with "discovering" an erotic zone on the anterior wall of the vagina running along the course of the urethra. Ernest, in other words, is the one who first christened your "G-spot" with his article, "The Role of Urethra in Female Orgasm." In their review of his discovery, Korda and her colleagues report how Gräfenberg observed masturbating women expelling fluids from their urethra with orgasm "in gushes." Since this never occurred at the beginning of sexual stimulation, but rather only at the acme of orgasm, the physician concluded that its purpose was more for pleasure than for lubrication. "In the cases observed," wrote Gräfenberg:

…the fluid was examined and it had no urinary character. I am inclined to believe that ‘urine’ reported to be expelled during female orgasm is not urine, but only secretions of the intraurethral glands correlated with the erotogenic zone along the urethra in the anterior vaginal wall.

It wasn’t until 1982, in fact, that female ejaculate was first chemically analyzed. If it’s not urine, and it’s not semen, then what, exactly, is it? After all, according to an interview study (pdf) published by Amy Gilliland of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, most female ejaculators report "copious" amounts of fluid being released around the time of orgasm, enough to "soak the bed" or "spray the wall" or have their partner scream in terror and misunderstanding. So it’s rather odd that we still don’t have a name for this substance that 40 percent of women report having produced liberally at least once in their lives. (I’m just stating the obvious, no need to name it after me.)

Nearly all studies have shown a chemical dissimilarity between urine and female ejaculate—in fact, there are commonalities with male seminal fluid. You might recall from a previous article that only a small portion of semen contains sperm cells, the rest is a batter of psychotropic concoctions. Yet for many women, urine isn’t entirely absent from the emission, either. Most female ejaculators, left to their own devices and without access to scientific information, describe their own explorations of the mysterious material. Some describe it as thick and viscous, or salty, others as watery and odorless. "No research has been done in this area for over 20 years," laments Gilliland, "and we still do not have an answer satisfying to most sexologists as to what female ejaculate fluid is or where it is manufactured."

Part of the trouble in investigating the phenomenon under properly controlled scientific conditions, however, is the fact that it doesn’t particularly lend itself to laboratory investigations. Many women report needing to be intensely aroused, as well as very relaxed, to ejaculate at orgasm. So, although the clearest picture of what’s happening down there would come from rigorous methodological studies, the trouble is that subjecting self-reported female ejaculators to a barrage of invasive electromyographic laboratory techniques designed to stimulate their clitoris and evoke ejaculation kind of kills the mood.

This is something that a team of Egyptian researchers learned the hard way recently. After attaching multiple electrodes to the genitals of 38 healthy young women, as well as using vaginal and uterine balloons to measure pressure, and then stimulating the women to orgasm using electrovibration, they didn’t find a drop of ejaculate, only vaginal lubrication. They could only surmise that foreplay might have done the trick. By contrast, a team of Czechs did manage to evoke "female urethral expulsions" in 10 women under laboratory conditions back in 1988, but these women, unlike those in the more recent Egyptian study, had a self-reported history of frequent ejaculation.

In many ways, then, our best understanding to date of female ejaculation comes from the reports of female ejaculators themselves, many who, sadly, are just as clueless as their partners who believe they’re making love to an inconveniently incontinent woman. But we do know from the chemical assays at least this: although it may have traces of urea, female ejaculate is not urine. Many of the women interviewed by Gilliland recounted that, after several humiliating episodes at this unexpected outburst of fluid, they’d since taken to voiding their bladders before having sex, yet still they ejaculated prodigiously. In fact, six of the thirteen women in the study had never even heard of female ejaculation prior to reading the study description; they just assumed they were "abnormal" and that they’d been urinating.

For most ejaculators, it doesn’t happen every time an orgasm occurs, only infrequently. But this is in stark contrast to Masters and Johnson’s dubious 1966 assertion that female ejaculation is only an urban legend. Although some women were fortunate enough to find partners that enjoyed their ejaculations—partners would be right to assume, after all, that they’re triumphant lovers if they can actually bring a woman to ejaculate—most had, at least at first, felt deep shame at the thought of "peeing" on a misunderstanding partner. In some cases, this translated to self-imposed celibacy and, not surprisingly, strained relationships.

Education, of course, is key. One participant in Gilliland’s study described the transformation in her husband after he understood her ejaculation was a sign of her extraordinary sexual arousal—her reaching this stage showed how much she desired him, rather than reflecting something negative:

Before he’d say, "I don’t want pee on me," or "Can’t you go to the bathroom before sex?" Now he feels it’s attractive and he’ll say, "Squirt me!"

The good news is that women, eventually, seem to conceptualize their ejaculations in increasingly positive and empowering ways over the course of their lives. I’m very sympathetic to Gilliland’s position when she concludes that, "Overall, it is the effect of ignorance about female ejaculation that should arouse us to action, not just scientific curiosity." I don’t think that was an intentional pun on her part, by the way, but you do see how difficult it is to avoid them sometimes.

Yet still, and please don’t call me callous, I’m left enormously curious about the science. Why do only some women ejaculate and not others? What, if any, was its role in human evolution? And why—just look at you now—is it is such a giggle-inducing, fetishistic topic? Science has a long, wet, slippery challenge ahead indeed.

And should you have the urge to email me a "special" link after reading this–really, no thank you.

About The Author: Want more Bering in Mind? Follow Jesse on Twitter @JesseBering, visit www.jessebering.com, or friend Jesse on Facebook. Jesse is the author of newly released book, The Belief Instinct: The Psychology of Souls, Destiny and the Meaning of Life (W. W. Norton).





Rights & Permissions

Comments 44 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. c.harvey 5:16 pm 06/17/2011

    "And as far as writhing on the floor, remember where you came from, literally." Oh c’mon, the author was joking, you jerk. Assuming you’re a straight man, let’s see how stoic you’d be with another man’s semen all over you, then you can complain about his reasonable aversion to female ejaculate!

    Link to this
  2. 2. HowardB 5:33 pm 06/17/2011

    An extraordinarily juvenile and bizarre attitude for someone who claims to be a research psychologist ….. which is such a pity. A fascinating topic and lots of interesting information … almost drowned by pure silliness.

    Link to this
  3. 3. charles_tow 5:41 pm 06/17/2011

    Ha! well actually, I thought it was really smart. Juvenile, maybe, but definitely fun *and* informative. Go read Wikipedia if you want dry not Bering!!!

    Link to this
  4. 4. candide 5:49 pm 06/17/2011

    I’d comment on this… but I have to go wipe off my face. ;)

    Link to this
  5. 5. NatureTM 5:55 pm 06/17/2011

    Better to be drowned by pure silliness than pure female ejaculate.

    But really, if you want dry, go read the sources this article cites. I like reading Bering and enjoy his writing style. Not many people can talk about so many risque issues with humor and without being offensive.

    Link to this
  6. 6. Elderlybloke 7:53 pm 06/17/2011

    Look chaps we are writing about Bartholin’s glands which Evolution has given us Hupersons so that the mating process will go more smoothly.
    Smoothly , as in less friction.

    Now go back Science again.

    Link to this
  7. 7. mathewritchie 9:23 pm 06/17/2011

    The auther assumes that all features are the result off selection,but there is nothing to stop a feature from propagating if it dosn`t reduce survival.

    Link to this
  8. 8. vkerbyv 10:34 pm 06/17/2011

    exceptionally well written, as I have come to expect from your column.

    Link to this
  9. 9. davidhill222 7:16 am 06/18/2011

    Wow! The author says…
    "I just happen to prefer semen over vaginal fluids…"

    Is Scientific American a science website or has it become some cheap porn blog?
    Female ejaculation is an interesting subject, but I believe the reader should not be exposed in such lowbrow way to somebody else’s sexual preferences. Moreover, I though this was a website my children could access, well not anymore…

    If the author is a indeed a scientist, he should have the good sense to write and make comments in a scientific manner and refrain from making putrid statements like those.

    And this nor a matter of conservative X liberal points-of-view. It is only a matter of good taste.

    Link to this
  10. 10. HowardB 10:15 am 06/18/2011

    Well said David. I don’t think the alternative is ‘dry’ and ‘boring’. Science can be very interesting and entertaining without crawling around in the language of some top shelf porn magazine’s letters page.

    Link to this
  11. 11. charles_tow 11:10 am 06/18/2011

    Uh, dude this is a blog post about how weird ejaculate is. I fail to see how you liken this article to porn. if you can’t handle the science of sex written lighthearted there’s plenty other things on sciam website for you to read. grow up!

    Link to this
  12. 12. HowardB 1:35 pm 06/18/2011

    Hey i’m no prude … at all ! But this is Scientific American … You know ? the World wide admired Science publication ? and no one is objecting to ‘light hearted’ either.

    Link to this
  13. 13. phranger 3:02 pm 06/18/2011

    Jesse, Aristotle was generally homosexual, like his teacher, Plato, and his student, Alexander. He probably learned about female ejaculate the same way he learned most odd facts about humans, by listening.

    (Don’t you know this is how the Virgin was fertilized? Through the ear.)

    Link to this
  14. 14. davidhill222 6:27 pm 06/18/2011

    Again, it is not the article but the language and the tone in it was written.

    Sex is interesting, female ejaculation is sort of a mystery so the article has everything to be exciting, but in the manner in which it was written it sounds like a cheap and dirty porn magazine column.

    I am not condemning the subject, but the prose and the style.

    This was supposed to be a child-friendly website. This blog makes me feel kids are learning about sex in the worst possible way. It sounds wrong, biased, heavy-handed and dirty. It sounds like a conversation one hears in a porn movie.

    One has to draw a line somewhere, right?

    Link to this
  15. 15. irenealhanati 9:27 pm 06/18/2011

    This article is very interesting, well-written and most informative. I congratulate the author for his objective approach on a hidden issue of the female sexuality.

    Link to this
  16. 16. alkanakana 4:09 pm 06/19/2011

    I would ask whether women most prone to female ejaculation also have brothers who have particularly huge or messy offloadings.

    Link to this
  17. 17. Quo1980 2:56 pm 06/21/2011

    I have one Hopothesis:
    Maybe we must see if there are any pheromones involved in these secretions, which I understand, may become of many mililiters. It could be that, like the skunk with its powerfull odor perineal glands, the human female evolved this secretion to impregnate her lover ( which is worthy enough because he is cappable of giving her orgasms) and thus, he covered with this scent, would be uncountiously rejected by other females that might value him as worthy.

    Link to this
  18. 18. Newtoon 8:48 am 06/22/2011

    The first paragraph shocked me, not that I have a problem with sex or gays but because a straight guy would never have started with such (opposite : "like button") statements, not even on his own science blog. It is not even funny at all ; it is just despise or at least mockery. So, to find it with a "Scientific American" label is simply not normal. Get out (not of the closet but of this site).

    Link to this
  19. 19. Raghuvanshi1 12:06 pm 06/22/2011

    There is a most fascinating museum in Badami district Bellary, Karnataka state in India.There are many rare sculptures,statues, artisan-ship of 7,8Th century. There is one sculpture or say statue made in stone.One young lady is sleeping nakedly full of organism coming from her organ,her eyes are half closed,she is smiling very slowly.Her face is shining and she experiences pure joy. maybe self satisfaction.I request to Jesse Bering if he want know true female`s pure joy and self satisfaction please visit to Badami you learn more than writing this kind boring article If you have no time and money please read last chapter of James Joyes novel Ulysses in that heroin described her organism in second to second detail from that you can learn how women can get pure joy and self satisfaction.

    Link to this
  20. 20. chupacabra 12:18 pm 06/22/2011

    Honestly, I think this is a little too dry for kids to be interested after the first couple of sentences. I mean… really.

    Link to this
  21. 21. chupacabra 12:22 pm 06/22/2011

    I don’t think so. There was no "owning" of your lover or monogamy in early mankind’s time here on earth. I don’t think any of the female ejaculate emitted any odor according to research, either. I think if anything, it cleans out the glands, especially after intercourse, where two people are sharing intimate areas of their bodies, where bacteria, etc., could be exchanged, the act of expressing fluid probably helps a woman keep herself from getting urinary tract infections, and so on.

    Link to this
  22. 22. Schnientific American 12:36 pm 06/22/2011

    I was struck by the quote about this happening only in fair-skinned, feminine-type females because this has also been said about women who reach orgasm without clitoral stimulation (penile thrusting is sufficient in this small percentage of women). Also, in more feminized, less mascuinized women the distance between the clitoris and the vaginal opening is smaller. I wonder if there is a morphological connection between these three (ejaculation, orgasm without clitoral stimulation and a short distance).

    Wow, so sad to see that so many readers of Sci Am are so prudish, sexually-repressed and humorless. Hope their children find ways around them.

    Link to this
  23. 23. Schnientific American 12:37 pm 06/22/2011

    name for this phenomenon? how about ejillculation?

    Link to this
  24. 24. markus 1:54 pm 06/22/2011

    some of the offended here may well never get any closer to female ejaculate than "the science". is this projection? LOL….

    Link to this
  25. 25. vagnry 2:42 pm 06/22/2011

    "I just happen to prefer potatos over rice…"

    "I just happen to prefer sex with women over sex with men…"

    "I just happen to prefer semen over vaginal fluids…"

    Are these all porn language, or does it only become porn language (in some peoples view), when the latter is said by a man, and what would it be said by a woman?

    Bering writes tongue in cheek, whatever the subject, remember, sex is fun, why not treat is as such.

    A healthy sex life keep youngsters away from the temptations of sports!

    Link to this
  26. 26. karen00100 4:34 pm 06/22/2011

    Frankly, I loved this article. Being a female ejaculator I can absolutely relate to everything that was said. I have had a partner who loved it and a partner who was sure I was peeing. I, too, was a bit worried that I was peeing, except the fluid was watery and odorless and came out in squirts instead of a flow. At first I did not like it at all…but since it went along with particularly nice orgasms I learned to accept it. Lots of towels is the answer. I hope someday this will be a subject that is as well understood as male ejaculate. Most of all, I am very glad Masters and Johnson have been summarily dismissed as incorrect in at least this one area.

    Link to this
  27. 27. lrogalsk 5:49 pm 06/22/2011

    Another great column! I love the way you mix humor with solid reporting. To HowardB and davidhill, why not just stop reading the column? Can’t Scientific American have some columns that you love and others that appeal to the highly-educated, yet silly and sometimes immature set? In my opinion, the author did a fabulous job of inserting levity in appropriately fun places, without interrupting the transmission of scientific information. Cheers, Bering!!!!

    Link to this
  28. 28. dhrosier 5:57 pm 06/22/2011

    Sexual repression is the most likely answer to the question posed in the next to last paragraph:

    "Why do only some women ejaculate and not others?"

    In spite of his sexual preferences the author may have done more to encourage considerable expansion in the body of women who do enjoy the ecstasy of female ejaculation – kudos to the author of ejillculation!

    Education without the biases and superstitions that are all too common in formal education is critical to freeing women and men from the suffocation of repressive sexual attitudes. Yes, there is a sexual revolution in process, and some folks are overdoing it with the porn and some pretty sick practices, but our culture is rife with parallel stories of young people pursuing exaggerated interest in sex after escaping repressive environments such as religious schools and cults and controlling, ignorant parents. Our whole society is a bit like the stars of those stories.

    How many formal "sex education" programs do you suppose ever even mention female ejaculation? I would not be surprised if the answer was zero as recently as 10 years ago, and near zero even today. Silence on the phenom is gross dereliction of the obligation taken on by anyone who claims to be an educator. I believe it to be immoral to leave trusting innocents ignorant of an event that can happen to anyone and have such deeply rooted emotional impact.

    I urge readers to forward this article to as many people as they think will benefit from learning that many practices thought to be "evil" are quite normal and very healthy. Even with the several warts I believe it to be one of the best educational pieces that speaks to the topic.

    Link to this
  29. 29. JamesMcK 6:52 pm 06/22/2011

    I too thought that Scientific American was a magazine that my kids could read, but not so with this drivel.
    Mr. Bering seems more interested in promoting his homosexuality than he is in scientific journalism.

    Link to this
  30. 30. bobgeezer 8:45 pm 06/22/2011

    A magazine for kids? Get serious. This is a Scientific exchange, not a prudish fairy tale blog. Actually, I’d feel proud if you said your kids had read this and were educated thereby; but you, as many, seem to think that everything should be censured because some "kid" might read it. Censureship is FAR worse that honest scientific reporting: you demonstrate only your ignorance and predudice by attempting to curtail my adult reading of scientific writing. If you want drivel, go to Facebook.

    Link to this
  31. 31. bahead 9:09 pm 06/22/2011

    Interesting article. From the videos I’ve seen, I had always assumed female ejaculation was either a hoax (e.g., water purposefully injected into the uterus for the purpose of the video) or else urine. I was never curious enough to research the topic. Now I know.

    I appreciated the humour in the article, in such lines as "which I’ll try to keep from saturating our discussion." I think if you’re writing about female ejaculation from a non-clinical perspective, humour is a perfectly acceptable way to introduce a potentially uncomfortable subject.

    Link to this
  32. 32. kemil 10:09 pm 06/22/2011

    I’ve read somewhere that female orgasm induces a "retrograde ejaculation" (for women that do not squirt, of course). This is a comparison to male retrograde ejaculation, that’s certainly not a common practice among men, but can be learned (some tantric practices).

    Now I wonder… maybe, this is the default mode of female orgasm, but just like men can learn to ejaculate "inward", women can learn to do it "outward"…

    I disagree with some people that commented on this post saying that women that don’t squirt are sexually repressed. I know several girls that that don’t squirt but are quite liberal, have a very fulfilling sex life and are able to have multiple orgasms.

    I’ve also heard that the probable evolutionary advantage of female orgasm is that it provokes the uterus inner pressure to drop (the sperm is "sucked inside"). So, maybe there is no evolutionary advantage in squirting and it’s just something that was propagated because it doesn’t present any disadvantages.

    By the way, great article! both for the scientific and humorous content.

    Link to this
  33. 33. KamranBehzad 11:10 pm 06/22/2011

    Jesse Bering’s style is just fine. To those friends who expressed concern about the publication being safe for their children, let me say this. As early as 10 years of age I knew the secret location of my dad’s porn material. I also knew of another secret stash which only at the age of 40 I discovered actually belonged to my grand-dad! They were just as fascinating as the encyclopedia we had on the shelf. I have no problem with my ten year old reading these articles. Let’s not pretend we, or our children, are so naive.

    Link to this
  34. 34. RedRoseAndy 12:29 am 06/23/2011

    All women can ejaculate. To explain, a clitoral orgasm takes three and a half minutes to achieve whilst a vaginal orgasm takes five minutes. This can be seen in female ejaculation which is achieved after five minutes of pulling gently downwards on the inner labia. After three and a half minutes the pleasurable sensation goes, but when it is carried on the pleasurable sensation comes back shortly before five minutes and female ejaculation occurs on five minutes, which is the length of time needed for a G spot orgasm.

    Link to this
  35. 35. RedRoseAndy 11:22 am 06/23/2011

    All women can ejaculate. To explain, a clitoral orgasm takes three and a half minutes to achieve whilst a vaginal orgasm takes five minutes. This can be seen in female ejaculation which is achieved after five minutes of pulling gently downwards on the inner labia. After three and a half minutes the pleasurable sensation goes, but when it is carried on the pleasurable sensation comes back shortly before five minutes and female ejaculation occurs on five minutes, which is the length of time needed for a G spot orgasm.

    Link to this
  36. 36. intelcurio 6:45 pm 06/23/2011

    The first paragraph was totally inappropriate for a science magazine. I don’t care about the author’s sexual orientation or preference/distaste for different body fluids, it was almost as if the author was justifying or protecting himself against the gay male brotherhood for having a deep knowlege of females.
    The rest of the article was excellent, ommision of the first paragraph would have made the piece flawless.
    It’s getting a little tired that Bering has to state in every piece he writes that he is gay, who cares so what, move on, just write the good science pieces you are capable of writing.

    Link to this
  37. 37. rwstutler 11:19 pm 06/25/2011

    I enjoyed the article. I think it is child and family friendly. The only possible reason to believe it is not family friendly is the belief that the subject of human sexuality is not child safe – a view that leads to very messed up children and lots of therapy bills.

    For the readers who feel that the tone of the article is innapropriate for a Science Magazine or for the tender ears of their fragile children, I suggest you not allow your children to surf the internet. Or to read. And be sure to buy your children helmets – life gets a lot rougher than this.

    Link to this
  38. 38. marianamontreal 9:36 am 06/26/2011

    I found it very hard to get past the "writhing on the floor as if Satan spat on me" quip. SURELY you can see the difference between saying "not my thing" and comparing sexual intimacy with a woman to a demonic attack.

    I get that this is a blog and you are trying to be irreverent but you don’t need to add to the "female sexuality is gross" rhetoric to do it. Come on.

    Link to this
  39. 39. ppioos 5:20 am 06/30/2011

    (3) "throat dry and saliva blocked" = "she is very stimulated and excited"

    Link to this
  40. 40. Noturshorte 8:41 pm 07/6/2011

    Personally I think that many women don’t really know how to experience great orgasms. I never had great orgasms until one day a couple of years ago I decided to look into squirting. I was able to teach myself to relax at climax and now I don’t know how NOT to squirt when I orgasm. It is completely amazing!

    Link to this
  41. 41. dilettante72 11:49 am 07/7/2011

    "Why do only some women ejaculate and not others?"
    The answer is simple: all women can ejaculate. I’m not just talking from personal experience, but this was also shown by twin study (http://www.twin-research.ac.uk/G%20spot_manuscript_Jan10.pdf ) although the researchers (all women!) get to the wrong conclusion by an obvious error of reasoning.

    Link to this
  42. 42. brerlou 12:36 pm 07/15/2011

    For some reason, not having done my research, I thought the author was a female. How else would the author know of "the stone-faced look of a caring urologist palpating your pudendum." As I said I don’t know the author, "well enough." I wish he’d kept his personality out of what would have done well as an academic approach to the topic. Somewhere, further along in the article I couldn’t stifle an involuntary "UGH!" Maybe that was in keeping with the topic, somehow.

    Link to this
  43. 43. brerlou 12:37 pm 07/15/2011

    Air?

    Link to this
  44. 44. gerrymander 9:48 am 12/23/2011

    I think it unfortunate that an interesting topic was derailed by people’s reaction to the author’s aversion to female secretions. Maybe the blog’s primary content could be discussed instead of Bering’s predilictions, which interest me less than does this topic.

    Very different information is muddled together in this post as if it is all about the same phenomenon, female ejaculation. For example, de Graaf’s description “This liquid was clearly not designed by Nature to moisten the urethra (as some people think),” wrote De Graaf, describing the “pituito-serous juice” sometimes excreted around the time of female orgasm. “The ducts [from which they arise] are so placed at the outlet of the urethra that the liquid does not touch it as it rushes out.”
    Would appear to refer to the para urehtral glands, including the ducts of bartholins. These are not what more recent (the 1980′s) researchers are discussing as in all reseasrch articles the ‘ejaculate’ is emitted from the urethra.
    Having read the original 20th Century literature on this topic I can say that without a doubt it has not been ruled out that female ejaculate is not urine. Administering methylene blue, which will turn urine bright blue would resolve the issue, but none of the ‘female ejaculate’ researchers have done this study and today it is not clear that one could get it through an IRB. Barring that study, which would resolve the issue, there is a theoretical (dare I say evolutionary) issue that Bering does not address. The male reproductive system is adapted to producing large amounts of seminal fluid that facilitates the transfer of sperm to the female reproductive tract. Seminal fluid directly affects male reproductive success and thus one would expect that its composition and volume are under strong selective pressure. What is so strange about the ‘female ejaculator’ issue is that the volume of female ejaculate is typically many times the volume of male ejaculate and yet no one is arguing that it is under selective pressure (except negative pressure to the extent that it reduces the likelihood that men will have sex with women who “ejaculate”). So why is the volume so great and what organ or organs produce an ejaculate that is many times greater than that produced by the prostate and seminal vesicles, organs whose function is to produce ejaculate.

    Even if one buys the argument that female ‘ejaculators’ posses prostatic tissue remnants which is the source of the PSA often reported in female ‘ejaculate’, how would this remnant produce ejaculate volumns that even Peter North couldn’t imagine (Peter North is a porn star infamous for his copious ejaculations and who it is rumored has two prostate glands, though there is no evidence in support of this view)?

    So why do some believe that female ejaculate is not urine. The primary argument is that the ‘ejaculators’ or their partners report that it doesn’t smell like urine. However, as far as I know no one has ever collected an unoxidized urine sample (via a bladder catheter for example) and asked subjects to identify the liquid by smell. Unoxidized urine typically has almost no odor (assuming one hasn’t been eating asparagus). The odor most of us associate with urine is the urea odor that appears after some oxidation time.

    I just realized that there is a very simple test that an IRB would approve to test whether the ‘ejaculate’ is urine – The Asparagus Test. Eat a lunch and dinner of asparagus and if the ejaculate is urine one will immediately know, as the odor of asparagus-infused urine is quite distinctive.

    BTW there is a rumor in the field that one of the principle researchers arguing that female ‘ejaculate’ is not urine did the methelyne blue test and that the ejaculate was blue, but they never published the study and have not published a study on that topic since then.

    My own view is that if the appropriate studies were done it would be discovered that female ejaculate is 99% urine and that the typically strong inhibitory control of the bladder sphincter is removed in intense orgasm for some women. Instead of creating a ‘unicorn’ story about female ejaculation this urination from orgasmic inetisity should be enjoyed for what it is, a relatively unique erotic experience that some women routinely experience.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American MIND iPad

Give a Gift & Get a Gift - Free!

Give a 1 year subscription as low as $14.99

Subscribe Now >>

X

Email this Article

X