Squirting study

[midwestyankee]

I was recently wandering around the neighborhoods at FetLife, where I found a thread dedicated to this same study. Not one person of twenty or so was willing to pay attention to the facts of the study. While there's some reasonable skepticism being expressed here, at least we're basing the discussion on the contents of the study and not focusing solely on the headline.

 

[Cumference]

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

That is a really good question, because that is the typical observation.

Could you, in the name of science and general naughtiness, try catching the squirt in a plastic bag?

When you have caught it:
What volume is delivered?
What color?
How does it smell when fresh, and after some minutes?
How does it taste compared to her normal urine?
What viscosity does it have?


It is a very intriguing subject, to have something so close to our bodies, and it still being an enigma!

 

[Cumference]

I was recently wandering around the neighborhoods at FetLife, where I found a thread dedicated to this same study. Not one person of twenty or so was willing to pay attention to the facts of the study. While there's some reasonable skepticism being expressed here, at least we're basing the discussion on the contents of the study and not focusing solely on the headline.

I need the hugging smiley here!
That is my point exactly.

I've read the paper, and it is the most thorough I've seen on this subject so far.

 

[midwestyankee]

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

That is a really good question, because that is the typical observation.

Could you, in the name of science and general naughtiness, try catching the squirt in a plastic bag?

When you have caught it:
What volume is delivered?
What color?
How does it smell when fresh, and after some minutes?
How does it taste compared to her normal urine?
What viscosity does it have?


It is a very intriguing subject, to have something so close to our bodies, and it still being an enigma!

It seems to me that this observation (but it doesn't taste or smell like urine!) is fairly close to universal - which is surely part of the reason why so few people are willing to take this study's conclusions at face value. My own sense is based on my knowledge that my own urine varies widely in color and aroma - and taste, I'm told - and that the variation can be caused by more than one factor. Further, I've been with more than one partner who squirted/gushed and I would not have guessed that the liquid was urine either.

I wonder if the stronger tasting urine might have a higher concentration of uric acid (is that the right term here?). After all, our urine is most clear when we are very well hydrated, leaving our urine less concentrated. Perhaps there is some mechanism at play that causes the squirted liquid to contain very little uric acid despite passing through the bladder and urethra.

 

[GiggLeGasm]

I think I have commented enough on the number.

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".

I don't think anyone is arguing that you haven't discussed it thoroughly. The fact remains that the things used to determine Level of Evidence do not attach a high confidence level to this particular study. All research is ranked. Without a control group or random entry into the study, it is impossible to even consider it mid-level research.

As a part of published research, the authors are expected to indicate weaknesses with their work. Implications for practice or further study are also typically included.

It has nothing to do with liking or not liking the results.

It seems as if you are suggesting that we can not discuss the details of the study because it somehow invalidates the study results. If you do research, you also know that the research question never presumes an answer. Perhaps the number of women who can ejaculate with a catheter is small; but it could also be stated that the number of women who ejaculate without a catheter is small. I think it's more fun to discuss how new research might proceed instead of defending that which has already been published.

It gets the creative juices flowing :::wiggly eyebrows:::

 

[Cumference]

I think it's more fun to discuss how new research might proceed instead of defending that which has already been published.

It gets the creative juices flowing :::wiggly eyebrows:::

So do I..... Which makes it a bit funny, that the main effort in this thread so far has been to insist, that because there were only 7, there is no reason to believe in the results?



Is it reasonable to assume, that in this study, it is correct, that all the participants delivered something, that was mostly or completely urine?

I'm not talking about the rest of the world, just these 7 women.

 

[midwestyankee]

So do I..... Which makes it a bit funny, that the main effort in this thread so far has been to insist, that because there were only 7, there is no reason to believe in the results?



Is it reasonable to assume, that in this study, it is correct, that all the participants delivered something, that was mostly or completely urine?

I'm not talking about the rest of the world, just these 7 women.

Maybe one question to ask is: what is urine? Is any fluid that contains the chemicals that were found in these women's vaginal fluids by definition urine? The information I have seen does not specify the concentration of the chemicals, only that they were present. Yes, the fluid appears to have been delivered through the bladder, but might there be some other liquid that can be accumulated in the bladder that would pick some of the chemical traces ordinarily associated with urine? Or is it, as my earlier post suggested, that the subjects produced a highly dilute form of urine that few of us would recognize as urine merely by taste and smell?

 

[GiggLeGasm]

we could certainly presume that these 7 women produced something similar to urine and end the discussion. I don't think the study is weak because of the number of women. It is weak because it was women who volunteered to be in a study (not randomized) with no control group.

yes.. it appears as if these 7 women produced something that may or may not be urine. The point is.. where does the research go from here

 

[Cumference]

Maybe one question to ask is: what is urine? Is any fluid that contains the chemicals that were found in these women's vaginal fluids by definition urine? The information I have seen does not specify the concentration of the chemicals, only that they were present. Yes, the fluid appears to have been delivered through the bladder, but might there be some other liquid that can be accumulated in the bladder that would pick some of the chemical traces ordinarily associated with urine? Or is it, as my earlier post suggested, that the subjects produced a highly dilute form of urine that few of us would recognize as urine merely by taste and smell?

Indeed.

If you ask a urologist, I think he will be very clear when it comes to what organs are delivering liquid to the bladder.

But maybe the kidneys go in overdrive during good sex... And if you expect good sex, you are likely to take a leak beforehand (ok, I know that some do not, but most people are not that "advanced"), giving space for the dilute juice.


The bladder is a relatively simple organ, and we have been taking animals and people apart for quite some time.

 

[Cumference]

we could certainly presume that these 7 women produced something similar to urine and end the discussion. I don't think the study is weak because of the number of women. It is weak because it was women who volunteered to be in a study (not randomized) with no control group.

yes.. it appears as if these 7 women produced something that may or may not be urine. The point is.. where does the research go from here

Glad that you are willing to accept that it was urine, or something remarkably similar to it.
(I wonder if they compared it to Budweiser?)

Self selection can be a real problem, and the question is, how bad a problem is it here?
If we made a questionnaire on Lit regarding sexual habits, and only those interested answered it, I would be very cautious about the results.
Imagine letting the male litsters tell their BMI and penis length....

We are not testing a medication that is expected to influence the subjects, wanting to see if it has an effect or not, in which case double blind tests are the way to go.
And we are not "hoping that people will give an honest answer".
We "just" want them to perform something that they claim to be able to do, and then we will see what they do.

If we wanted to study sword-swallowing, the reasonable thing to do, would be to look for people who were able to swallow a sword, and study them.
There are not many, and we could ask managers and circus directors.

Would a control group mean anything for the study?
Jamming a sword down the throat of the control group would make little sense.

Like the squirting study, it would make more sense to take all the swallowers we could get hold of, and test them all.

(It has been done, some guy got an IGNobel price in medicine for it as far as I remember)

 

[Cumference]

The way forward:
Set up a testable hypothesis!


The hypothesis now:"oh piss! It is urine"

More test subjects, define urine better, ask for subjects who are sure they do not piss?

 

[GiggLeGasm]

actually, since we're looking at involuntarily produced body secretions, a control group would significantly strengthen the study.

Also, I never said that agree or disagree about the contents in the study being urine. I can find the same chemicals in blood samples in any one of my patients who has undergone physical trauma or stress. Using this chemistry alone, we could look up rhabdomyolysis and find chemistry that suggests that orgasm leads to this harmful condition.

personally, I find the study interesting as a study, regardless the results. I don't find a need to either agree or disagree.. I like research for the geeky love of research..

 

[desertslave]

There are other testing methods wandering around in my head; further testing that would help to confirm the original findings.

First, they found the that fluid was similar, but not exactly the same. Where is the PSA coming from, for example? Anecdotal information (bunches from the post on FetLife) indicates that the odor and taste are different. One person noted that the bright yellow normally excreted from a B vitamin was present in pre- and post-ejaculation urine, but not in the ejaculate itself.

So why not add:

1) An imaging study wherein the product of the kidneys could be tagged (either a contrast dye or a nuclear substance) and followed. Does the fluid enter the bladder only, or somehow feed into the Skene's glands (theoretical 'source' of squirted fluid)?

2) Sample vaginal fluid pre- and post-ejaculation. Arguably this is difficult because the risk of cross-contamination with urine (if the urine is definitely coming from the urethra) would be difficult to prevent. Unless, perhaps, there was some way to sense whether the fluid was of vaginal origin or not. (Some sort of more scientific version of 'put a cork in it and see if it blows.')

 

[midwestyankee]

Having just done a CT scan with contrast dye this weekend, I definitely WANT to date any woman who can squirt after taking on a contrast dye. I will volunteer to take notes, sign in study participants, and so forth. All in the interest of science, of course.

 

[GiggLeGasm]

I'm IRB certified. Let's go.

(actually.. I'm leaving. I leave it up to you to seek approval)

 

[Cumference]

1) An imaging study wherein the product of the kidneys could be tagged (either a contrast dye or a nuclear substance) and followed. Does the fluid enter the bladder only, or somehow feed into the Skene's glands (theoretical 'source' of squirted fluid)?

2) Sample vaginal fluid pre- and post-ejaculation. Arguably this is difficult because the risk of cross-contamination with urine (if the urine is definitely coming from the urethra) would be difficult to prevent. Unless, perhaps, there was some way to sense whether the fluid was of vaginal origin or not. (Some sort of more scientific version of 'put a cork in it and see if it blows.')

I think I saw a study somewhere, where methylene blue was given. It will leave you through the urine. I guess it is one of the oldest pharmacist's practical jokes.
I tried it years ago.... It looks a bit shocking.
(It was with no other purpose than to turn regular urine blue, and then green as the color was washed out.... and then green in the morning for a couple of days)

The cork could be an idea too. There are some products to treat incontinence, that literally is a urethral plug.

 

[Cumference]

Not a study, not even a review, rather some "thoughts and musings" on the subject.

Female Ejaculation: The Long Road to Non-Discovery

Concluding, that so far there are a lot of beliefs, theories and guesses.... but very little hard science.
If that blog is to be believed, this squirting study is the first made in 20 years.


And it is pretty hard to do hard science on the subject.

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.

 

[GiggLeGasm]

An interesting twist..

A study on female ejaculation that was published Dec 8, 2011 in the Journal of Sexual Medicine concluded that there is a difference between squirting and female ejaculation. Both fluids have traces of urine, but they are otherwise different in chemical structure. Additionally, the organs and mechanisms that produce them are different.

There has actually been a great deal of research on this - it's just not all published for use in Western medicine, making it difficult for some to find or translate. Also, I think the language changes, some cultures are content referring to it as a phenomena, some want hard proof, etc

It's funny how, after thousands of years, it still stirs interest as the unanswered question

 

[Cumference]

But it makes some sense, that here should be a difference.

Squirting will require quite a volume and some kind of narrow orifice to built up pressure. The bladder/urethra is a very likely candidate to deliver just that.

A male ejaculation is given as "between 0.1 and 10 mL", that is a more likely volume to store in more modest glands, and be delivered as a more moderate flow.

 

[Cumference]

Reading up on the subject: The catheter study has been made!

Gary Schubach (August 2001). "Urethral Expulsions During Sensual Arousal and Bladder Catheterization in Seven Human Females". Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality 4.

I can read it here, but I do not know if there is general access:
http://www.ejhs.org/volume4/Schubach/abstract.html

(Seven again.... there is even a magic of numbers in it!)

And they touch upon the same problem:

The problem with conducting this experiment previously has been the unavailability of test subjects who could generate the questioned fluid in a clinical environment. This researcher's access to highly trained women who were capable of achieving the desired result under scrutiny created the opportunity for this unique experiment. All these women are very comfortable with their bodies as well as their sexuality. They also teach other women body awareness along with how to experience more sexual and sensual pleasure including G {Goddess (their terminology)} spot stimulation. They were not chosen to be statistically representative of all women but instead were chosen because, if a urethral expulsion during sensual arousal was possible, these women were the most likely to be able to produce it in a scientific environment.

 

[GiggLeGasm]

so they run into the same issues and report the limitations to their study related to being volunteer studies of small numbers..
It may just be one of those things we'll never be able to prove or disprove.

 

[Cumference]

so they run into the same issues and report the limitations to their study related to being volunteer studies of small numbers..
It may just be one of those things we'll never be able to prove or disprove.

It should be made a national research effort!


Unfortunately sexology in general is not exactly politically sexy, and the topic is not life-threatening or important for society.
It is not likely that money will be granted for a large scale study.

It is much more likely that we will see small studies made in the "spare time" or as part of other efforts.
I still think, that small studies are valuable, and we are getting better and better at pooling data from different studies.

The progress is slow... but it is not life-threatening after all.

 

[GiggLeGasm]

omg.. there is no such thing as a study that is done in spare time. It's a full time job just to get approval!

 

[crowfoot]

Wish I could make my wife squirt so I could make my own judgement! Ya know I am a real scientist!

 

[Cumference]

omg.. there is no such thing as a study that is done in spare time. It's a full time job just to get approval!

You are right, that is an obstacle too. As soon as the words "medical experiment" and "people" pops up, there are all kinds of boards and approvals to stop you.

It is so much easier to do research on something that is not considered to have patient's rights!


Could we make a Petri dish ejaculate?

Or maybe a strain of very horny fruit flies?