Red Roses,
Read the study again. All of the compounds discovered in the female ejaculate are present in urine. There were two components of urine (urea and creatinine) which were found to be at very low levels in comparison to "standard" urine.
"While the results were consistent with the earlier studies done in the 1980’s showing lowered urea and creatinine levels, no signs of any prostatic components such as fructose or glucose were detected."
The results were consisten with other studies. Also note that " no signs of any prostatic components such as fructose or glucose were detected." Which refutes the unsupported statement of this site's article "The four main ingredients are Glucose, prostatic acid phosphatase (an enzyme which is characteristic of the prostatic component of semen), urea and creatinine" to which GoingDownTown69 so genteely refers me.
The scientists in the study that I mention, and most clinical studies on the subject, have consistently found female ejaculate to share all of its ingredients with urine,but since certain ingredients are not at the same proportions no one has dared to say "this is urine." On the other hand, as far as I have been able to discover, no serious researcher has said "this is not urine." Based on the data and my personal experiences and observations over three decades it is urine.
Whether female ejaculate is urine or some other substance which mysteriously shares all of its ingredients with urine is not important. Getting back to the original topic: What matters to me is that when I have sex with women copious amounts of liquid are expelled from their urethra I derive great psychological pleasure from this.
Have lovely weekend Red Roses. I always enjoy conversing with bright and interesting people.
p.s. Concerning the other non urethral fluids observed in the study. I agree that those could be analyzed. My personal experience is that those other fluids occur even in the absence of "squirting."
My guy loves it when I squirt/gush.He told me so in the middle of our lovemaking right at that exact moment.He said "I love making you happy".Well I love making him happy too.And he is the only one of my lovers to ever get me to be relaxed enough to be able to go all the way.I was also self conscious and couldn't do it before for fear of embarrassment.So please don't be scared,it's a beautiful thing and not all women can achieve this,so be proud and enjoy the moment.
[QUOTE=dw2;275815]I ask because I am self conscious. When I do it, I get really embarrassed. So to ease my mind I was wondering if guys feel weird about it.[/QUOTE]
Well honestly I don't see any reason to feel self conscious about it. I think it is a wonderful thing! You have the ability to have another type of orgasm. :) Nothing wrong with that at all! If your guy isn't comfortable about it, have him read up on the subject so he understands it better.
Based on what I have read and talked about in person over the years, only the guys who are not educated on what Female Ejaculation really is are weird about it. Well maybe the selfish guys too who don't care much about anything but getting themselves off. Other than that most guys are open to it when they really know what its all about.
Since the female orgasm is not guaranteed with every sexual act it would be gratifying to see the lady I'm with fully enjoy herself. Nothing to worry about really because a good man wants you to be comfortable and enjoy your body. Just talk to your man if this something only brewing in your head.
[QUOTE=GoinDownTown69;275819]:confused: It is NOT PEEING! Please spend some time reading and educate yourself further.[/QUOTE]
Oh I have read a lot and have over 30 years experience being party to this. Please do some further investigation and education of yourself.
[url=http://www.ejhs.org/volume4/Schubach/abstract.html]Abstract - Urethral Expulsions - EJHS
Seems like to me that your link clearly states a woman is NOT peeing.
This is another small sample study amongst many, including results of only 7 women. Again emphasizing female ejaculate is not of the same chemical composition as urine. Difference is that they observed the source to be the bladder, instead of the glands that are assumed to cause it in other studies. Though they also report emissions that were from outside the bladder in this study. It's good to make a mental note that without their material to separate sources of the fluid, you should consider these fluids expelling as one in normal life.
I find it interesting, that's for sure. Personally; I'm surprised that these women were even able to have orgasms with a catheter down their urethra :eek: It doesn't change the point of view. When a woman ejaculates, she isn't peeing. She shouldn't feel like she wet the bed or became stress-incontinent or whatsoever. It's clear that she didn't. She just had an orgasm.
I had read about the sugar-like-components missing, but hadn't commented on it. May have been part of GDT's point, it was beside my point. When the bladders of these women were drained prior to the test and urea and kreatine is not of the same amount as it is in standard urine, it's safe to say it's "unknown fluid" as the article suggests. Thus you can't call it urine or pee either.
It's important to make a difference that is a difference. Otherwise you risk female ejaculate will be abolished to the realms of "eeeew, she pied on me" instead of perfectly healthy response to orgasm.
As for the research. Apart from the small sample, I found it quite surprising to read that the women were aged 41 to 71, which usually means these women are either passed or at least in diminishing fertility stages of their lives. I could imagine there is a hormonal influence to the chemical fingerprint of female ejaculate that could be interesting. Particularly since the researchers themselves dwell on the thought of hormones involved causing this physical response.
For example; around ovulation cervical mucus contains remarkable more glucose than usual. A woman could even track this by using the same sticks they use for testing urine for diabetes, only you apply the mucus to it daily. Personally; I have only 3 years of experience with female ejaculation, but it's with myself as subject, which is quite an upclose setting :) Not to mention I take a rather scientific approach on fertility. I would say that my own female ejaculate tastes sweet to very sweet (sugar-water-style). We could say this is because of a mixture of fluids, which seems a likely option given my above description. But I'd like to add that even in saliva a chemical change is visible along with a woman's cycle. I wouldn't be surprised if this change would come up in more bodily fluids.
I can imagine this research is hard to do, though, since volunteers may be hard to find. After all; you not only have to find the women that can ejaculate, but also are capable and feel comfortable doing this in a research-setting while being video-taped and would want a tube inside their urethra for the sake of science. And when that's all agreeable, I can only imagine the fun of someone rushing in to save the sample of whitish substance or fluids that are not captured by the catheter :rolleyes: By the looks of it, this research has to deal with a considerable influence of the research-setting itself, perhaps even to the size of a Schrödinger's cat. A pity I haven't seen that mentioned in the article as issue of discussion.
I used to date a girl that would get embarrassed when she would squirt and she would always hide it from me, until the day that I noticed and went down on her immediately!!
@ RedRoses
You seem to be firmly in the not urine camp concerning the nature of female ejaculate. I am in the not completely convinced either way, but with a strong inclination toward urine camp. I think we would both agree that based on the information that we as laypersons have available to us there is no 100% conclusive study which has been repeated under exctly the same conditions. If you are aware of one I would like to see it.
What bothers me a bit is the following: I detect a trend in which more and more emphasis is placed on whether a woman expels a liquid from her urethra during sex. There is so much misunderstanding on the part of younger and less experienced people and so much erroneous and mythical information purveyed by pornography, peudosexology websites, and magazines directed at male and female audiences that there are men and women who believe that an orgasm or a sexual encounter is to be qualified on whether the woman "squirted." So now we have people asking questions such as - "My girlfriend doesn't squirt when we have sex what am I doing wrong?" or "I think I'm having an orgasm because I loose control of everything and it feels really good, but nothing comes out. What is wrong with me? Did I cum or not?"
And then we come to questions such as the topic of this thread, "GUYS: Squirting, does it turn you on?"
What is really the question here? Seeing pornographic videos of women "squirting" or having your partner ejaculate during sex? If the question refers to the former I am fairly disinterested. If it refers to the latter then it turtns me on greatly. I do not consider it a major goal nor a major criterion for a successful sexual encounter.
I am pointing out the danger of using the same terms for actions of which the nature is different. From a scientific point of view it hasn't been sufficiently investigated to pass the same terminology on. And even more so important: among women who can ejaculate: it is clear that this is a response to orgasm and not a response to excrete human waste. This means there is an inter-subjective understanding that female ejaculation is different from peeing. A word triggers meaning and emotion. Not to mention it makes things confusing. After all; you're using the same words for a woman who "pees" during sex, because she is (stress-)incontinent or who has a healthy response upon orgasm. Whereas we know that the former has a totally different meaning than the latter.
Don't underestimate the power of words.
There's a funny thing I'd like to add: I discussed this specific subject with my former lover yesterday. Who wasn't surprised by the bladder being source, since we both had been seriously doubting over whether such an amount of liquid could be excreted through a few small glands. More funny: we discovered that in Dutch there is no specific word used for female ejaculation, there's just "nat klaarkomen", which translates to "wet orgasm". Apparently we didn't invent a new word for it, but just added to the orgasm that it's with a voluptuous amount of liquid. When we go back to what it is in it's essence, I think that is actually is closer to the meaning we're looking for.
[QUOTE=dlb;276044]And I insist that there is so far no clinical study (available to the public at least) which definitively proves what the liquid in female ejaculate is.[/quote]
Well then, that's where we are on the same page :)
[QUOTE=dlb;276044] And while we are talking about danger
seems to me to be a phrase which one wouldn't want to use especially if one is trying to make a case for female ejaculation. That comes dangerously close to saying that women who "can't" ejaculate are somehow something less than women who "can" ejaculate. Of more interest is why some women do and some don't. [/quote]
Fair enough, allow me to rephrase that to "women who have experienced ejaculating". My point was that women who have felt it, can describe the feeling. It would be unfair to ask women who have never experienced it how it feels ;) I try to translate to English to my best capabilities, but do sometimes lack the subtle differences. I appreciate you point this out to me.
I don't necessarily believe that all women should be considered capable... There is the human body and whatever it's capable to do and there's the individual. There is the individual genetic composition that creates potential. There is the individual upbringing that brings out potentials and can even repress potential from blooming to capability. That's not to say it's super-human to be able to do it. It's not to say it's abnormal if you're unable to accomplish it. Normal is a range.
What I do am sure about is that from the cultural perspective there's so much screwing with our natural potentials and capabilities through religious or strict upbringing, sexual violence, etc. So there must be a whole lot of women that do have this capability as a potential hidden inside themselves. A believe in their potentials is much welcome. And I'm very much in favor of that! I just don't like to say "all", when we don't know if that's true and when that would mean excluding women with perfectly happy and fulfilling sex-lives from that range of normal... Do you understand what I mean?
[QUOTE=dlb;276044] My experience has been that women are often not aware of it happening at the moment it happens, especially the first time they experience it. Even when they know that it happens they often seem surprised. I don't kow how many times I have had a conversation that went something like, she:" Oh no! The condom broke" dlb: "No it didn't" she "Yes it did! Feel how wet all this is" dlb:-smiling- "That came from you." she: "Wow!"[/QUOTE]
Now that sounds very familiar :) Except for the guy underneath me was also at first very confused, since he had never had sex with a woman that did. And we had a pregnancy-scare right before, so we were a bit nervous about the condom and how it was holding up. At least he knew it was possible for a woman to orgasm gushing and was rather enthusiastic about it, after those first few seconds of uncertainty.
Personally: I had never even heard of a woman being able to come gushing. In fact: I had only less than a year prior discovered I could achieve orgasm. At that time it was all about me discovering myself and I didn't need anyone to tell me how to or what to. All I needed was to just go with a flow, enjoying every step on that path, every second worth it. That's what got me to bloom those potentials I had decided not to believe they existed or didn't even know they did exist at all. The only other person that mattered to me at the time was my loving and caring partner, who did a great job supporting me along the way and was enjoying himself tremendously as well.
I'm very much in favor of sharing and learning from eachother. And do strongly believe that knowledge is empowering. But like the examples you mentioned of women being distressed about not gushing upon orgasm, etc. I sometimes wish people would be a little less occupied with achieving goals, a little more occupied with themselves and their own beautiful experiences, instead of constantly seeking affirmation and comparing themselves to others. It's not that I don't understand (I do! I do the same whenever I'm insecure), I just know that life becomes so much more enjoyable when you don't worry about that.
[QUOTE]I am pointing out the danger of using the same terms for actions of which the nature is different From a scientific point of view it hasn't been sufficiently investigated to pass the same terminology on.[/QUOTE]
And I insist that there is so far no clinical study (available to the public at least) which definitively proves what the liquid in female ejaculate is.
And while we are talking about danger
[QUOTE]among women who can ejaculate[/QUOTE] seems to me to be a phrase which one wouldn't want to use especially if one is trying to make a case for female ejaculation. That comes dangerously close to saying that women who "can't" ejaculate are somehow something less than women who "can" ejaculate. According to the book that spawned the past thirty years' boom of interest in female ejaculation, The G Spot,and other discoveries about human sexuality by Alice Kahn Ladas,Beverly Whipple, and John D. Perry all women are capable of ejaculating. I actually read the book when it came out in 1982. By the way, authors Whipple and Perry worked on a study in 1981 with Frank Addiego, Edwin G Belzer, Jill Comolli, and William Moger which coined the term "Gräfenberg spot" in the published abstract. For their book Whipple, Perry, and Ladas decided "G spot" sounded catchier.
Of more interest is why some women do and some don't. My experience has been that women are often not aware of it happening at the moment it happens, especially the first time they experience it. Even when they know that it happens they often seem surprised. I don't kow how many times I have had a conversation that went something like, she:" Oh no! The condom broke" dlb: "No it didn't" she "Yes it did! Feel how wet all this is" dlb:-smiling- "That came from you." she: "Wow!"
[QUOTE=RedRoses;276048] I sometimes wish people would be a little less occupied with achieving goals, a little more occupied with themselves and their own beautiful experiences, instead of constantly seeking affirmation and comparing themselves to others. It's not that I don't understand (I do! I do the same whenever I'm insecure), I just know that life becomes so much more enjoyable when you don't worry about that.[/QUOTE]
Well that is what I have been saying all along!
I know English is not your first language, but I understand your thought processes. Also I like the way nat klaarkomen sounds. I'm going to listen to some Dutch language youtube vids to work on the accent so I can say it:) Oops I just said it and it sounds like and Irish accent. I must work on that haha.
You can practice it here :)
[url=http://www.acapela-group.com/text-to-speech-interactive-demo.html]Acapela Text to Speech Demo
Another often used word is "spuitend klaarkomen" but that's a bit more vulgar way of speaking about it (porn-style)
Dutch NL- Max pronounces it like we'd say it. Femke has a bit of a strange computer-accent ;)
Red Roses,
Read the study again. All of the compounds discovered in the female ejaculate are present in urine. There were two components of urine (urea and creatinine) which were found to be at very low levels in comparison to "standard" urine.
"While the results were consistent with the earlier studies done in the 1980’s showing lowered urea and creatinine levels, no signs of any prostatic components such as fructose or glucose were detected."
The results were consisten with other studies. Also note that " no signs of any prostatic components such as fructose or glucose were detected." Which refutes the unsupported statement of this site's article "The four main ingredients are Glucose, prostatic acid phosphatase (an enzyme which is characteristic of the prostatic component of semen), urea and creatinine" to which GoingDownTown69 so genteely refers me.
The scientists in the study that I mention, and most clinical studies on the subject, have consistently found female ejaculate to share all of its ingredients with urine,but since certain ingredients are not at the same proportions no one has dared to say "this is urine." On the other hand, as far as I have been able to discover, no serious researcher has said "this is not urine." Based on the data and my personal experiences and observations over three decades it is urine.
Whether female ejaculate is urine or some other substance which mysteriously shares all of its ingredients with urine is not important. Getting back to the original topic: What matters to me is that when I have sex with women copious amounts of liquid are expelled from their urethra I derive great psychological pleasure from this.
Have lovely weekend Red Roses. I always enjoy conversing with bright and interesting people.
p.s. Concerning the other non urethral fluids observed in the study. I agree that those could be analyzed. My personal experience is that those other fluids occur even in the absence of "squirting."
Hi,
Your question would best be asked if it were made into an actual poll. Doing so permits readers to actually vote.
-doc
My guy loves it when I squirt/gush.He told me so in the middle of our lovemaking right at that exact moment.He said "I love making you happy".Well I love making him happy too.And he is the only one of my lovers to ever get me to be relaxed enough to be able to go all the way.I was also self conscious and couldn't do it before for fear of embarrassment.So please don't be scared,it's a beautiful thing and not all women can achieve this,so be proud and enjoy the moment.
[QUOTE=dlb;275813]Female ejaculation?
Yes. Sure. It's nice to know I screwed her so well she peed.[/QUOTE]
:confused: It is NOT PEEING! Please spend some time reading and educate yourself further.
[QUOTE=dw2;275815]I ask because I am self conscious. When I do it, I get really embarrassed. So to ease my mind I was wondering if guys feel weird about it.[/QUOTE]
Well honestly I don't see any reason to feel self conscious about it. I think it is a wonderful thing! You have the ability to have another type of orgasm. :) Nothing wrong with that at all! If your guy isn't comfortable about it, have him read up on the subject so he understands it better.
Based on what I have read and talked about in person over the years, only the guys who are not educated on what Female Ejaculation really is are weird about it. Well maybe the selfish guys too who don't care much about anything but getting themselves off. Other than that most guys are open to it when they really know what its all about.
Hope that helps! :)
Dw2, if you can, it's a gift! Congratulations! Enjoy it with all your little heart :)
@DLB I'm assuming you're joking...
Since the female orgasm is not guaranteed with every sexual act it would be gratifying to see the lady I'm with fully enjoy herself. Nothing to worry about really because a good man wants you to be comfortable and enjoy your body. Just talk to your man if this something only brewing in your head.
[QUOTE=GoinDownTown69;275819]:confused: It is NOT PEEING! Please spend some time reading and educate yourself further.[/QUOTE]
Oh I have read a lot and have over 30 years experience being party to this. Please do some further investigation and education of yourself.
[url=http://www.ejhs.org/volume4/Schubach/abstract.html]Abstract - Urethral Expulsions - EJHS
Seems like to me that your link clearly states a woman is NOT peeing.
This is another small sample study amongst many, including results of only 7 women. Again emphasizing female ejaculate is not of the same chemical composition as urine. Difference is that they observed the source to be the bladder, instead of the glands that are assumed to cause it in other studies. Though they also report emissions that were from outside the bladder in this study. It's good to make a mental note that without their material to separate sources of the fluid, you should consider these fluids expelling as one in normal life.
I find it interesting, that's for sure. Personally; I'm surprised that these women were even able to have orgasms with a catheter down their urethra :eek: It doesn't change the point of view. When a woman ejaculates, she isn't peeing. She shouldn't feel like she wet the bed or became stress-incontinent or whatsoever. It's clear that she didn't. She just had an orgasm.
[QUOTE=dw2;275798]Yes or No or Sometimes[/QUOTE]
Absolutely, Positively YES!! Can't get enough of it! YUM!:D
Major Turn on!
I'm curious, why you ask that?
[QUOTE=GoinDownTown69;275802]Absolutely, Positively YES!! Can't get enough of it! YUM!:D
Major Turn on!
I'm curious, why you ask that?[/QUOTE]
I ask because I am self conscious. When I do it, I get really embarrassed. So to ease my mind I was wondering if guys feel weird about it.
Female ejaculation?
Yes. Sure. It's nice to know I screwed her so well she peed.
I had read about the sugar-like-components missing, but hadn't commented on it. May have been part of GDT's point, it was beside my point. When the bladders of these women were drained prior to the test and urea and kreatine is not of the same amount as it is in standard urine, it's safe to say it's "unknown fluid" as the article suggests. Thus you can't call it urine or pee either.
It's important to make a difference that is a difference. Otherwise you risk female ejaculate will be abolished to the realms of "eeeew, she pied on me" instead of perfectly healthy response to orgasm.
As for the research. Apart from the small sample, I found it quite surprising to read that the women were aged 41 to 71, which usually means these women are either passed or at least in diminishing fertility stages of their lives. I could imagine there is a hormonal influence to the chemical fingerprint of female ejaculate that could be interesting. Particularly since the researchers themselves dwell on the thought of hormones involved causing this physical response.
For example; around ovulation cervical mucus contains remarkable more glucose than usual. A woman could even track this by using the same sticks they use for testing urine for diabetes, only you apply the mucus to it daily. Personally; I have only 3 years of experience with female ejaculation, but it's with myself as subject, which is quite an upclose setting :) Not to mention I take a rather scientific approach on fertility. I would say that my own female ejaculate tastes sweet to very sweet (sugar-water-style). We could say this is because of a mixture of fluids, which seems a likely option given my above description. But I'd like to add that even in saliva a chemical change is visible along with a woman's cycle. I wouldn't be surprised if this change would come up in more bodily fluids.
I can imagine this research is hard to do, though, since volunteers may be hard to find. After all; you not only have to find the women that can ejaculate, but also are capable and feel comfortable doing this in a research-setting while being video-taped and would want a tube inside their urethra for the sake of science. And when that's all agreeable, I can only imagine the fun of someone rushing in to save the sample of whitish substance or fluids that are not captured by the catheter :rolleyes: By the looks of it, this research has to deal with a considerable influence of the research-setting itself, perhaps even to the size of a Schrödinger's cat. A pity I haven't seen that mentioned in the article as issue of discussion.
I enjoy these conversations too :)
I used to date a girl that would get embarrassed when she would squirt and she would always hide it from me, until the day that I noticed and went down on her immediately!!
@ RedRoses
You seem to be firmly in the not urine camp concerning the nature of female ejaculate. I am in the not completely convinced either way, but with a strong inclination toward urine camp. I think we would both agree that based on the information that we as laypersons have available to us there is no 100% conclusive study which has been repeated under exctly the same conditions. If you are aware of one I would like to see it.
What bothers me a bit is the following: I detect a trend in which more and more emphasis is placed on whether a woman expels a liquid from her urethra during sex. There is so much misunderstanding on the part of younger and less experienced people and so much erroneous and mythical information purveyed by pornography, peudosexology websites, and magazines directed at male and female audiences that there are men and women who believe that an orgasm or a sexual encounter is to be qualified on whether the woman "squirted." So now we have people asking questions such as - "My girlfriend doesn't squirt when we have sex what am I doing wrong?" or "I think I'm having an orgasm because I loose control of everything and it feels really good, but nothing comes out. What is wrong with me? Did I cum or not?"
And then we come to questions such as the topic of this thread, "GUYS: Squirting, does it turn you on?"
What is really the question here? Seeing pornographic videos of women "squirting" or having your partner ejaculate during sex? If the question refers to the former I am fairly disinterested. If it refers to the latter then it turtns me on greatly. I do not consider it a major goal nor a major criterion for a successful sexual encounter.
Absolutely YES! Wife's been close a couple of times, would love for to let go!
DLB, do not put me in a camp, please.
I am pointing out the danger of using the same terms for actions of which the nature is different. From a scientific point of view it hasn't been sufficiently investigated to pass the same terminology on. And even more so important: among women who can ejaculate: it is clear that this is a response to orgasm and not a response to excrete human waste. This means there is an inter-subjective understanding that female ejaculation is different from peeing. A word triggers meaning and emotion. Not to mention it makes things confusing. After all; you're using the same words for a woman who "pees" during sex, because she is (stress-)incontinent or who has a healthy response upon orgasm. Whereas we know that the former has a totally different meaning than the latter.
Don't underestimate the power of words.
There's a funny thing I'd like to add: I discussed this specific subject with my former lover yesterday. Who wasn't surprised by the bladder being source, since we both had been seriously doubting over whether such an amount of liquid could be excreted through a few small glands. More funny: we discovered that in Dutch there is no specific word used for female ejaculation, there's just "nat klaarkomen", which translates to "wet orgasm". Apparently we didn't invent a new word for it, but just added to the orgasm that it's with a voluptuous amount of liquid. When we go back to what it is in it's essence, I think that is actually is closer to the meaning we're looking for.
[QUOTE=dlb;276044]And I insist that there is so far no clinical study (available to the public at least) which definitively proves what the liquid in female ejaculate is.[/quote]
Well then, that's where we are on the same page :)
[QUOTE=dlb;276044] And while we are talking about danger
seems to me to be a phrase which one wouldn't want to use especially if one is trying to make a case for female ejaculation. That comes dangerously close to saying that women who "can't" ejaculate are somehow something less than women who "can" ejaculate. Of more interest is why some women do and some don't. [/quote]
Fair enough, allow me to rephrase that to "women who have experienced ejaculating". My point was that women who have felt it, can describe the feeling. It would be unfair to ask women who have never experienced it how it feels ;) I try to translate to English to my best capabilities, but do sometimes lack the subtle differences. I appreciate you point this out to me.
I don't necessarily believe that all women should be considered capable... There is the human body and whatever it's capable to do and there's the individual. There is the individual genetic composition that creates potential. There is the individual upbringing that brings out potentials and can even repress potential from blooming to capability. That's not to say it's super-human to be able to do it. It's not to say it's abnormal if you're unable to accomplish it. Normal is a range.
What I do am sure about is that from the cultural perspective there's so much screwing with our natural potentials and capabilities through religious or strict upbringing, sexual violence, etc. So there must be a whole lot of women that do have this capability as a potential hidden inside themselves. A believe in their potentials is much welcome. And I'm very much in favor of that! I just don't like to say "all", when we don't know if that's true and when that would mean excluding women with perfectly happy and fulfilling sex-lives from that range of normal... Do you understand what I mean?
[QUOTE=dlb;276044] My experience has been that women are often not aware of it happening at the moment it happens, especially the first time they experience it. Even when they know that it happens they often seem surprised. I don't kow how many times I have had a conversation that went something like, she:" Oh no! The condom broke" dlb: "No it didn't" she "Yes it did! Feel how wet all this is" dlb: -smiling- "That came from you."
she: "Wow!"[/QUOTE]
Now that sounds very familiar :) Except for the guy underneath me was also at first very confused, since he had never had sex with a woman that did. And we had a pregnancy-scare right before, so we were a bit nervous about the condom and how it was holding up. At least he knew it was possible for a woman to orgasm gushing and was rather enthusiastic about it, after those first few seconds of uncertainty.
Personally: I had never even heard of a woman being able to come gushing. In fact: I had only less than a year prior discovered I could achieve orgasm. At that time it was all about me discovering myself and I didn't need anyone to tell me how to or what to. All I needed was to just go with a flow, enjoying every step on that path, every second worth it. That's what got me to bloom those potentials I had decided not to believe they existed or didn't even know they did exist at all. The only other person that mattered to me at the time was my loving and caring partner, who did a great job supporting me along the way and was enjoying himself tremendously as well.
I'm very much in favor of sharing and learning from eachother. And do strongly believe that knowledge is empowering. But like the examples you mentioned of women being distressed about not gushing upon orgasm, etc. I sometimes wish people would be a little less occupied with achieving goals, a little more occupied with themselves and their own beautiful experiences, instead of constantly seeking affirmation and comparing themselves to others. It's not that I don't understand (I do! I do the same whenever I'm insecure), I just know that life becomes so much more enjoyable when you don't worry about that.
[QUOTE]I am pointing out the danger of using the same terms for actions of which the nature is different From a scientific point of view it hasn't been sufficiently investigated to pass the same terminology on.[/QUOTE]
And I insist that there is so far no clinical study (available to the public at least) which definitively proves what the liquid in female ejaculate is.
And while we are talking about danger
[QUOTE]among women who can ejaculate[/QUOTE] seems to me to be a phrase which one wouldn't want to use especially if one is trying to make a case for female ejaculation. That comes dangerously close to saying that women who "can't" ejaculate are somehow something less than women who "can" ejaculate. According to the book that spawned the past thirty years' boom of interest in female ejaculation, The G Spot,and other discoveries about human sexuality by Alice Kahn Ladas,Beverly Whipple, and John D. Perry all women are capable of ejaculating. I actually read the book when it came out in 1982. By the way, authors Whipple and Perry worked on a study in 1981 with Frank Addiego, Edwin G Belzer, Jill Comolli, and William Moger which coined the term "Gräfenberg spot" in the published abstract. For their book Whipple, Perry, and Ladas decided "G spot" sounded catchier.
Of more interest is why some women do and some don't. My experience has been that women are often not aware of it happening at the moment it happens, especially the first time they experience it. Even when they know that it happens they often seem surprised. I don't kow how many times I have had a conversation that went something like, she:" Oh no! The condom broke" dlb: "No it didn't" she "Yes it did! Feel how wet all this is" dlb: -smiling- "That came from you."
she: "Wow!"
[QUOTE=RedRoses;276048] I sometimes wish people would be a little less occupied with achieving goals, a little more occupied with themselves and their own beautiful experiences, instead of constantly seeking affirmation and comparing themselves to others. It's not that I don't understand (I do! I do the same whenever I'm insecure), I just know that life becomes so much more enjoyable when you don't worry about that.[/QUOTE]
Well that is what I have been saying all along!
I know English is not your first language, but I understand your thought processes. Also I like the way nat klaarkomen sounds. I'm going to listen to some Dutch language youtube vids to work on the accent so I can say it:) Oops I just said it and it sounds like and Irish accent. I must work on that haha.
You can practice it here :)
[url=http://www.acapela-group.com/text-to-speech-interactive-demo.html]Acapela Text to Speech Demo
Another often used word is "spuitend klaarkomen" but that's a bit more vulgar way of speaking about it (porn-style)
Dutch NL- Max pronounces it like we'd say it. Femke has a bit of a strange computer-accent ;)
DW2 Getting a women to ejaculate is about as good as it gets I cant get enough of it.