Squirting study

Thought I would post this to the group. Not to say I don't wanna make it happen anyway but....

When aroused, some women may experience squirting, or a rather noticeable discharge of fluid. What it is exactly and where it comes from has been hotly debated: female ejaculation or adult bedwetting? Researchers are now saying that squirting is essentially involuntary urination.

Female ejaculate is technically the small amount of milky white fluid that’s expressed when climaxing, New Scientist explains. Squirting, on the other hand, results in a much larger gush of a clear fluid, which comes from the urethra, the duct where urine is conveyed from the bladder. The findings, which combine biochemical analyses with pelvic ultrasounds, were published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine on Christmas Eve.

A French team led by Samuel Salama from Hopital Privé de Parly II recruited seven healthy women—who’ve reported recurrent and massive fluid emission (enough to fill a cup) during sexual stimulation—to undergo “provoked sexual arousal.” The team conducted pelvic ultrasound scans after urination and during sexual excitation just before and after the squirting event.

All of the women had empty bladders before sexual excitation, however, urine collected just before squirting showed that the bladder was filling up. Urine sampled after squirting revealed that the bladder had been emptied again, revealing the origin of the squirted liquid.

The researchers also analyzed chemical concentrations in the urine samples (before arousal and after squirting) as well as the squirting sample itself. These included urea, uric acid, creatinine (a byproduct of muscle metabolism), and prostatic-specific antigen (PSA). The latter is a protein that’s produced in men’s prostate glands and in the “female prostate” called the Skene glands; PSA is found in “true” female ejaculate. Urea, uric acid, and creatinine concentrations were comparable in all of the urine and squirt samples. However, PSA, which was not detected before sexual simulation in six of the women’s urine samples, were present in urine collected after squirting and in the squirt sample in five of the women.

Squirting, they found, is essentially the involuntary emission of urine during sexual activity—though there’s also a small contribution of prostatic secretions as well. Salama’s team is now working on a protocol to test whether the kidneys work faster to produce urine during sexual stimulation than at other times, New Scientist explains. And if so, why.

Paging Mr G.

Mr G to reception.

Interesting study. I can only speak of personal experience and all I can say is that when I squirt, the liquid's consistency and smell is definitely different from urine. It's definitely more viscous and slick (a bit like lube). It is thinner than my normal vaginal secretions.

I too am interested in hearing Mr G's thoughts.

simplegirl said:

I too am interested in hearing Mr G's thoughts.

Click to expand...

Then you both best click on over to S.Q.U.I.R.T. Headquarters.

I have seen lots of squirt gifs of videos and most look like clear liquid. I have only seen one or two vids where it looks like a white stream of liquid.

Rainshine said:

Am I the only one NOT surprised to read this?

Click to expand...

Not really surprised but it kinda takes a little mystery out of the whole thing!

After looking up the study, I would hold judgement until further research proves the results to be replicable. A volunteer sample of seven women who were chosen based on information that they provided could significantly skew results. I would be curious to see what would happen if the chose a random sample to see if women who had not previously noted "squiring" would have a similar physical response..
and I say this partially because of the number of women who discuss "gushing" without ejaculation.
would they find that vaginal secretions, in general, were closer in chemical makeup to urine than had previously been reported?
do women who don't "squirt" have this filling of the bladder?

also.. I'm just a little curious to know how they were able to interrupt sexual stimulation to perform repeated US. Having done bladder scans far too many times to count, this is an impressive feat.
(I haven't actually read the full study yet. I have it bookmarked. Hopefully, this is covered in the published research because my mind has too many questions)

and how did they collect post-orgasm urine samples? I see potential for cross contamination, even with use of a straight cath.

Its more important to know how to make a female squirt, and make her have mind blowing orgasms. The liquid that is squirted is not pee, I know I like the taste .

GiggLeGasm said:

and how did they collect post-orgasm urine samples? I see potential for cross contamination, even with use of a straight cath.

Click to expand...

Exactly! How in the name of God did they do that.
Plus 7 women? Hand picked?
I'm not saying I'm surprised and I imagine they are possibly right....but.... I don't think it is anything like the kind of strength of urine when you go for a pee.

FakeaSmile said:

Exactly! How in the name of God did they do that.
Plus 7 women? Hand picked?

Click to expand...

More info may be forthcoming in the BTS, in the 2 hour compilation DVD, Swallow My Sex Study Squirt II, coming out in time for Valentine's Day.

Urine trouble now!

(Sorry, couldn't hold it in any longer!)

Miles Long said:

Urine trouble now!

(Sorry, couldn't hold it in any longer!)

Click to expand...

You made me squirt with laughter

GiggLeGasm said:

After looking up the study, I would hold judgement until further research proves the results to be replicable. A volunteer sample of seven women who were chosen based on information that they provided could significantly skew results. I would be curious to see what would happen if the chose a random sample to see if women who had not previously noted "squiring" would have a similar physical response..
and I say this partially because of the number of women who discuss "gushing" without ejaculation.
would they find that vaginal secretions, in general, were closer in chemical makeup to urine than had previously been reported?
do women who don't "squirt" have this filling of the bladder?

also.. I'm just a little curious to know how they were able to interrupt sexual stimulation to perform repeated US. Having done bladder scans far too many times to count, this is an impressive feat.
(I haven't actually read the full study yet. I have it bookmarked. Hopefully, this is covered in the published research because my mind has too many questions)

Click to expand...

I had similar concerns. To my knowledge, it's not possible to find a sample size of 7 to be statistically significant unless the known universe of possible subjects is less than 25 or so (and, clearly, it's not in this case). Please let us know your thoughts after you read the whole study, which I have also not yet done.

But I guess it depends on what you conclude.

If the conclusion is " in all 7 cases reviewed, the ejaculate and urine had similar composition", then it is what is observed, and that is perfectly valid.

If on the other hand it is concluded, that "in all 7 cases reviewed, the ejaculate and urine had similar composition. Therefore female ejaculation in general is incontinence caused by sexual arousal".
Then 7 cases is too little.



You could even publish a single case (it has been done numerous times, especially in medicine) if it is of interest.
You can say little about the world in general based on a single case, but it certainly exists.

my guess is that 17 out of 10 schizophrenics would agree with this article... but it can be so hard to tell.

Cumference said:

But I guess it depends on what you conclude.

If the conclusion is " in all 7 cases reviewed, the ejaculate and urine had similar composition", then it is what is observed, and that is perfectly valid.

If on the other hand it is concluded, that "in all 7 cases reviewed, the ejaculate and urine had similar composition. Therefore female ejaculation in general is incontinence caused by sexual arousal".
Then 7 cases is too little.



You could even publish a single case (it has been done numerous times, especially in medicine) if it is of interest.
You can say little about the world in general based on a single case, but it certainly exists.

Click to expand...

The article quoted suggests that the authors of the study made generalized conclusions.

Here is the link:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jsm.12799/abstract

I'll see if I have access at work and read it if that is the case.

Well fuck, stop the press, a whole sample of 7!

That's it, conclusive evidence, nothing more needed.

Women, seriously, stop pissing the bed during sex, yes?

Lunch break now, I've just read the paper.

From an academic standpoint, the work seems thorough, and it is published in a peer reviewed journal.

In the seven subjects studied, there is no doubt that the ultrasound showed:

- bladder empty before sexual stimulation started
- bladder filled during stimulation (ultrasound made when subject reported to be close, then left alone again to squirt. That must have been pretty distracting! )
SQUIIIIIIIRT (collected in plastic bag).
- bladder was empty again after squirt

Chemical analysis of the liquid showed it to be identical with urine samples given by the subjects.

I would say, that these are a very valid arguments, that the expelled fluid is urine.
Furthermore, there are no other glands in that area capable of containing more than 100 mL of liquid. They would have to be the size of small apples... and they would have showed up in the ultrasound.

And then we end up in the validity of the test.
"I do not like the results, therefore they must be wrong" is not a valid objection.

"Only 7.... that says nothing!" is not a valid argument either.
It very clearly says, that in these seven cases, it was beyond any reasonable doubt urine that was expelled in the squirt.

Conclusions
The present data based on ultrasonographic
bladder monitoring and biochemical analyses indi-
cated that squirting essentially is the involuntary
emission of urine during sexual activity. Moreover,
a marginal contribution of prostatic secretions to
the emitted fluid often exists.

Click to expand...

Had they seen anything else, the "essentially" had in my mind been taking it too far.
I would say, that until someone reproduces the "experiment", and with a comparative certainty shows that it is not urine... Well, the ball is in the yellow corner.

But it only takes one case (a single case could be published, it would still be valid) showing a squirt with copious amounts of liquid that was not urine, to show that "it does not have to be urine, it can also be X".


But there seems to be a lot of feelings (bordering to the religious) in this. Maybe because there is quite a taboo regarding urine and urination?
I'll grasp the popcorn and enjoy the show (please don't tell me to piss off)

Cumference said:

Lunch break now, I've just read the paper.

From an academic standpoint, the work seems thorough, and it is published in a peer reviewed journal.

In the seven subjects studied, there is no doubt that the ultrasound showed:

- bladder empty before sexual stimulation started
- bladder filled during stimulation (ultrasound made when subject reported to be close, then left alone again to squirt. That must have been pretty distracting! )
SQUIIIIIIIRT (collected in plastic bag).
- bladder was empty again after squirt

Chemical analysis of the liquid showed it to be identical with urine samples given by the subjects.

I would say, that these are a very valid arguments, that the expelled fluid is urine.
Furthermore, there are no other glands in that area capable of containing more than 100 mL of liquid. They would have to be the size of small apples... and they would have showed up in the ultrasound.

And then we end up in the validity of the test.
"I do not like the results, therefore they must be wrong" is not a valid objection.

"Only 7.... that says nothing!" is not a valid argument either.
It very clearly says, that in these seven cases, it was beyond any reasonable doubt urine that was expelled in the squirt.




Had they seen anything else, the "essentially" had in my mind been taking it too far.
I would say, that until someone reproduces the "experiment", and with a comparative certainty shows that it is not urine... Well, the ball is in the yellow corner.

But it only takes one case (a single case could be published, it would still be valid) showing a squirt with copious amounts of liquid that was not urine, to show that "it does not have to be urine, it can also be X".


But there seems to be a lot of feelings (bordering to the religious) in this. Maybe because there is quite a taboo regarding urine and urination?
I'll grasp the popcorn and enjoy the show (please don't tell me to piss off)

Click to expand...

Surely you have been exposed to published research in reputable journals that would not be considered high quality research. The secretions were not identical and so it even prompts the question, does the bladder become a holding area for other secretions that are byproducts of sexual arousal? Is this a matter of cross contamination?
I'm not saying the article is "right" or "wrong" - I don't believe that is the purpose of research. I'm saying that the research is weak and suggests a need for further research.
A single case is almost never used to draw parallels for application to a general population. You keep bringing up a case study as if it has any relevance to this. It really doesn't.

GiggLeGasm said:

Surely you have been exposed to published research in reputable journals that would not be considered high quality research. The secretions were not identical and so it even prompts the question, does the bladder become a holding area for other secretions that are byproducts of sexual arousal? Is this a matter of cross contamination?
I'm not saying the article is "right" or "wrong" - I don't believe that is the purpose of research. I'm saying that the research is weak and suggests a need for further research.
A single case is almost never used to draw parallels for application to a general population. You keep bringing up a case study as if it has any relevance to this. It really doesn't.

Click to expand...

I don't think we disagree.

And we certainly agree, that there is a basis for much more study.


And a single case study could be relevant. It will show that "it can be done/ it can happen/it exists".
In biology, finding a single live critter, is enough to say that the species is not extinct (but it could be, if your critter dies....what if it was the last?)

Just a single case showing that (very large amounts of) liquid actually can be produced in the glands ending in the urethra and move backwards to be accumulated in the bladder, then to be released during orgasm would be a valuable argument for the "it's not urine" standpoint.

That single case would be a great argument for a larger study, with enough participants to make a statistically sound evaluation of the relative proportion of urine and "something else".



.... and then identify what that "something else" was, and a model for, what role it plays.
That certainly had to be something more interesting than "loss of bladder control in the heat of passion".

Cumference said:

But I guess it depends on what you conclude.

If the conclusion is " in all 7 cases reviewed, the ejaculate and urine had similar composition", then it is what is observed, and that is perfectly valid.

If on the other hand it is concluded, that "in all 7 cases reviewed, the ejaculate and urine had similar composition. Therefore female ejaculation in general is incontinence caused by sexual arousal".
Then 7 cases is too little.



You could even publish a single case (it has been done numerous times, especially in medicine) if it is of interest.
You can say little about the world in general based on a single case, but it certainly exists.

Click to expand...

Seven people is a piss poor (pun completely intended) number for a study. While the techniques employed (ultrasound) are helpful, they're not absolutely conclusive. The kidneys are constantly making urine, and the volume is dependent on several variables which are clearly not even under consideration.

I think a better way to study this would be to catheterize the study candidates to rule out any significant fluid flow from the urethra. Not exactly conducive to sexy-fun-time but a much better way to figure out what came from where.

Bad science annoys me.

wonder

Wonder why my wife's squirt smells not at all like urine?

desertslave said:

Seven people is a piss poor (pun completely intended) number for a study. While the techniques employed (ultrasound) are helpful, they're not absolutely conclusive. The kidneys are constantly making urine, and the volume is dependent on several variables which are clearly not even under consideration.

I think a better way to study this would be to catheterize the study candidates to rule out any significant fluid flow from the urethra. Not exactly conducive to sexy-fun-time but a much better way to figure out what came from where.

Bad science annoys me.

Click to expand...

I think I have commented enough on the number.


The bladders filled while the subject was being stimulated, contained urine before squirting.... And were empty after.
Isn't that pretty conclusive?

I agree, that you could have interesting results from catherization (is it called that?) of the test subject, but it think the group of people who are squirters and able to get off big time with a tube in the urethra, is pretty small!


I agree, bad science is very annoying.
But "I do not like the conclusion" is not enough to call it "bad".

Do we have a study anywhere with more participants and better protocol that concludes it is not urine?

Do we have any studies, where the ultrasounds show glands swelling to the size of small apples just before squirting?
(If you do not store it somewhere, there really is no way to expel that much liquid that fast).