Science of Squirting

Laney · 14-01-15 01:20:38

I've always been frustrated by the lack of reliable information about squirting. What exactly is the fluid? Where does it come from? Why is it so rare? Surely we should know more about this very important thing by now.

French researchers recently organised a study of seven women who produce enough fluid to fill a cup at orgasm. They took ultrasounds of their bladders before masturbation, just before climax and after squirting. Read it here: Female ejaculation comes in two forms, scientists find

Here are the results:

"A chemical analysis was performed on all of the fluid samples. Two women showed no difference between the chemicals present in their urine and the fluid squirted at orgasm.

The other five women had a small amount of prostatic-specific antigen (PSA) present in their squirted fluid - an enzyme not detected in their initial urine sample, but which is part of the "true" female ejaculate

PSA, produced in men by the prostate gland, is more commonly associated with male ejaculate, where its presence helps sperm to swim. In females, says Salama, PSA is produced mainly by the Skene glands."

This didn't confirm what I wanted to believe - that female ejaculate is a special fluid unrelated to pee that is produced in a different way with a different purpose. It's still good to have more information about it and I don't have any criticism of the method of the study. And pee is good too of course!

I'm interested to know more about the "small amount of milky white fluid" expressed at orgasm that they define as "true" female ejaculate. I've never noticed this happening to me, but then again there are many milky and clear fluids being mixed around while masturbating so it's kinda hard to tell.

"Why some women experience these different types of ejaculation and others don't is not yet clear, says Salama, but he believes every woman is capable of squirting "if their partner knows what they are doing"."

This guy should know that women don't need a partner to squirt! Maybe he was quoted out of context.

Of course, the sample size of this study is tiny and each woman only had one orgasm. It would be great if this study could be repeated with more women, but considering how few women squirt, and of those women how few would be comfortable doing so in a study, I imagine progress in this area will keep happening slowly. If only they were based in Australia - maybe we could help them find participants?

I'm interested to know what you think!

viva · 14-01-15 01:35:39

Wait so, that study says it's urine (with occasionally some accidently lady-juice mixed in cause orgasm?)

Laney · 14-01-15 01:52:17

They define two kinds of fluid involved in squirting. One is pee, the other is "true" female ejaculate: a small amount of milky white fluid expressed by the skene's glands (presumably) that contains prostatic-specific antigen (PSA). I don't know of any studies into whether this milky female ejaculate thing is present in non-squirting orgasms. It's different to the normal lubricating lady-juice in its origin and composition.

I'm really happy that this study happened. Despite the few participants and trials its method was sound so the results are too. Yes, they confirm the views of censorship boards worldwide, but we should choose whether or not we accept them based on the merit of the study.

Laney · 14-01-15 01:57:20

I mean classification board... same thing I guess...

aven frey · 14-01-15 02:10:54

"Presumably, under current UK law, if a woman were to have what is considered a true female ejaculation - the expulsion of a small amount of milky white fluid - and the BBFC were satisfied that this did not contain urea - this act would not be subject to the ban."

This is absurd, if our ejaculation actually does include urea, then that's just what it is. Gah! 'A true female ejaculation'? This makes me want to poke my eyes with forks.

I often wonder if ejaculation has something to do with the direction in which our vagina and urethra pulses during orgasm. I don't ejaculate but I know I do this

" the kidneys work faster to produce urine during sexual stimulation than at other times"

as I always need to go to the toilet after orgasm and what I pee is usually very different to my ordinary pee (completely odorless and not even slightly yellow). I also know that my body kinda sucks in rather than pushes out.

That's just my personal experience, bitches be all different and shit!

MisterEd53 · 14-01-15 02:27:59

Hi Devochka,

The following links are for information purposes. I hope you and others find them helpful.

The 3 D Vulva:

http://www.3dvulva.com/

If link below doesn't work, scroll down to Female Prostate Gland :

http://www.3dvulva.com/diagrams/f_prostate2.jpg

Normal Vagina and Vulvar and Fluids - with a ton of other information you may find helpful.

http://www.the-clitoris.com/anatomy_of_ … 2_2#normal

I will post another reply with information on the Science of Squirting specifically.

Mr. Ed

viva · 14-01-15 02:43:19

From the conclusion of their study:

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

Don't know... this article makes me feel really uncomfortable for some reason. Overall, I just don't buy that squirting is a tiny bit of "true ejaculate" diluted in normal straight-up pee. I'd like better science to be done for me to marvel at and enjoy.

It's just such a tiny little experiment, not anything to draw any kind of real conclusion from. Yet they speak as if they've figured something out.

And from this "study" they are going to release papers which someone reckons will support those nasty censorship laws? World-effecting, conclusion-drawing, "legitimate" truthy papers?

"... appears to be referring to squirting - not female ejaculation. So this new paper may support the current legal position, since it shows it is essentially involuntary urination. Presumably, under current UK law, if a woman were to have what is considered a true female ejaculation - the expulsion of a small amount of milky white fluid - and the BBFC were satisfied that this did not contain urea - this act would not be subject to the ban."

Let's recap. A "true female ejaculation" is just a lil bit of milky white stuff which everyone may or may not produce. That "squirting" is really pee. Sorry guys. It's pee seriously. Some french guys, an ultrasound and 7 orgasm ladies said so. Go home shows over.

But it doesn't seem to be pee. I've smelled it, not pee. Others I know have tasted it, not the same as pee. Others I know and trust have experienced both peeing and squirting and claim a difference.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was urine chemicals present, sometimes, or all the time. With a properly conducted study over time with a control group and a satisfying number of instances and subjects, we might see that the amount of urine present in each ejaculation changes from person to person, orgasm to orgasm. Considering that it all gets pretty mixed up down there and how similar the pee feeling is to the i'm gonna squirt and im gonna come feeling, in addition to lowered physical and mental inhibition in those moments, it's likely that sometimes chicks just pee.

Here's an article that talks about prostate fluid. It's vague but it says "definitely not urine" as confidently as these guys say "definitely urine". I reckon the jury's still out in the mainstream world of people who don't squirt or haven't been around squirting, but the rest of us are waiting for them to stop going "pee or not pee" and do some actual science.

(Psychology Today claims "Definitely Not Urine".

MisterEd53 · 14-01-15 02:43:35

Additional links:

http://www.the-clitoris.com/female_ejac … ands#mucus

http://www.the-clitoris.com/female_ejac … LXHVnsl9qB

Laci's cute, but informative video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz68K2qAlkE

Mr. Ed

P.S. If all of the above doesn't help - I would defer to Gala! :-)

Laney · 14-01-15 03:41:56

Thanks MrEd, I'm familiar with the 3d vulva site, isn't it great? I love their diagrams of the internal clitoris, very informative. I'm familiar with vaginal secretions as well, probably more than most. A female doctor once told me that it's unusual for women to touch their own cervix, which I thought was weird since I do it nearly every day!

Viva, I get what you mean about it being a tiny study. Wouldn't it be great if they'd recruited 1000, or maybe 100,000 participants? The results then would be taken as more representative of the population. I hope studies on that scale will be done in the future.

They also really should have also had a control group of women who don't produce huge amounts of fluid at orgasm as well. Testing the content of their secretions would have shown whether or not they also produce PSA and possibly raise questions about this "true female ejaculate" concept.

Do you have any criticism of the method of the study - taking a urine sample and ultrasound for bladder fullness at the start, another ultrasound before orgasm, then sampling the squirted fluid and taking another ultrasound afterwards? To me this is a good set of tests making the data gleaned from them valid.

Until there can be a larger scale study, let's take the results for what they are. The chemical composition of fluid expelled at orgasm by seven women was tested. Two of the fluid samples were chemically identical to pee samples provided earlier. Five of the fluid samples contained urea and a chemical produced by the skene's glands that's also found in semen. All of the women's bladders had been emptied after squirting. While this isn't enough to say that this is exactly what happens for every one of the millions(?) of women who squirt in the world, this information is a valid addition to our currently very limited knowledge on the subject.

It's important to be critical of scientific studies and this one is definitely lacking in sample size, repetition of trials and a control group. It's also important to stay open minded to discovering new facts about the world that don't agree with our current ideas and anecdotes from friends. I'm interested to hear from Montreme on this subject .

Laney · 14-01-15 03:46:56

I don't want to discount people's lived experiences of squirting, but I see them more as raising questions for further study than reliable evidence in themselves. There are lots of stories of the fluid smelling and tasting different to pee, even being a different colour. We need to test it! Could it contain super diluted urine because the bladder fills up more quickly when aroused? Could it be that the seven women in this study happened to be freaks who are completely unrepresentative of the rest of squirting women? Maybe there are lots of different ways to squirt but we need to study them to be sure.

So squirting women please take yourself to your closest science lab!

Last edited by Laney (14-01-15 03:52:32)

viva · 14-01-15 05:04:19

For me, this study holds as much proof/information as someone's anecdotal experience of squirting on a towel, then peeing on another one, and then smelling both. The reason I think this way is due to insufficient information about methods/definitions, lack of a control group, and insufficient numbers.

So, still interesting, but no more informative really.

However, I also think this research, or at least the conclusion, is biased - it seems like they're making an experiment to see if the liquid is pee or something else. When they found that it is something else (a liquid with some chemical elements of urine, but also some chemical elements of something else) they decided it's still called pee, but just pee with something else added to it. That, to me, seems like an overly facile conclusion. I'd be really interested to know the exact ratios of chemicals present in the before-orgasm and at-orgasm bladder liquid. Are they identical? Is a liquid urine if it contains urine? If I pee in my beer, is my beer now pee?

Devochka wrote:

Do you have any criticism of the method of the study - taking a urine sample and ultrasound for bladder fullness at the start, another ultrasound before orgasm, then sampling the squirted fluid and taking another ultrasound afterwards? To me this is a good set of tests making the data gleaned from them valid.

I think this method can tell us something, when performed on a large group with proper controls, which is whether or not female ejaculate comes from the bladder.

However I don't find it valid when it comes to ascertaining whether or not ejaculate is different from urine. Here's why.

From testing the chemical content of the liquid, these researchers concluded that it was urine. However, it's possible that bladder-liquid created as a by-product of waste, and bladder-liquid created as a by-product of arousal (perhaps as a vehicle to deliver that sneaky PSA stuff) might not be the same, even if they may share some chemical content. Indeed, leftover pee (even after we pee, our bladder never fully empties) would mix with the arousal liquid as they are produced in the same small space. This could account for the urine chemical content in an otherwise odorless, urea-less liquid.

This possibility was not accounted for, and indeed would be very difficult to test for.

This is why for me, anecdotal evidence and lived experience are actually important, because it's possible that the only "difference" between arousal-liquid and waste-liquid is what it looks and smells like. If women are consistently reporting that they ejaculate an odor-less, clear liquid upon orgasm and then peeing a yellow, pee-smelling liquid after, that's a big deal and we should listen to them.

Women with full bladders before sex might find that they are in fact expelling equal amounts of urine and ejaculate, or more urine than ejaculate. With experience, women who ejaculate regularly over the course of their lives would know roughly the ratio of urine to ejaculate in each individual instance, purely by smell and color.

There's no way (yet?) to produce the female ejaculate outside the bladder. There's no way I can figure to separate the two, except by individual perception. Urine is primarily water, and so seems to be this ejaculate stuff, and since it's produced in the bladder it's going to have urine in it, or be part urine, or whatever.

Or maybe science can do this. I think we need to do some kind of water-fast and kidney analysis and medical full-emptying of bladder pre-orgasm, to like 10,000 women in a highly controlled environment, for a few years and see if we can produce an arousal-liquid which collects in the bladder but contains absolutely no urea or other trace nitrogens etc. That's the only way we can be sure that we are not peeing in our beds or on our boyfriends!

Thanks for the fresh take on this topic Devochka! I am really enjoying thinking about this from a new perspective.

viva · 14-01-15 05:14:16

I don't know much about any of this, but here's another study (only on two ladies this time, sigh)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17634056

For fun, I'm translating the methods and results:

METHODS: We checked out two ladies who squirt and went up in 'em to look for a prostate. We compared their squirt water to pee water.

RESULTS: Score, we found a gland-y thing and a duct hole in a prostate spot. Also, that orgasm water was just like prostate plasma, and not really like the pee water at all.

cause it's the important bit, here it is untranslated:

Biochemically, the fluid emitted during orgasm showed all the parameters found in prostate plasma in contrast to the values measured in voided urine.

Laney · 14-01-15 06:03:40

viva wrote:

For me, this study holds as much proof/information as someone's anecdotal experience of squirting on a towel, then peeing on another one, and then smelling both. The reason I think this way is due to insufficient information about methods/definitions, lack of a control group, and insufficient numbers.

Running chemical analysis on urine and squirt samples collected in a controlled way is a more accurate test than smelling pee on a towel. Definitions and information about the methods used are available in the journal article, unfortunately behind a paywall. I suspect they didn't use a control group in this study because it wasn't an experiment - they didn't manipulate the variable being measured (squirt fluid composition).

viva wrote:

When they found that it is something else (a liquid with some chemical elements of urine, but also some chemical elements of something else) they decided it's still called pee, but just pee with something else added to it. That, to me, seems like an overly facile conclusion. I'd be really interested to know the exact ratios of chemicals present in the before-orgasm and at-orgasm bladder liquid. Are they identical? Is a liquid urine if it contains urine? If I pee in my beer, is my beer now pee?

According to the New Scientist article: "two women showed no difference between the chemicals present in their urine and the fluid squirted at orgasm". If liquid released at orgasm is different to pee in, say, dilution, but contains no other special chemicals related to arousal (say PSA) - what makes it more special than really well hydrated pee, or pee from someone with a bladder infection, or someone drinking coffee or any other kind of pee? They measured the presence of different chemicals in the fluids, hopefully they recorded the quantities and included that in the full journal article (I ceebs paying for it to find out). If they didn't, hopefully they will in their next study about how quickly kidneys produce urine during arousal.

The point you make about this being a small sample of the population is definitely a good point, but can you imagine there are thousands of squirting women willing and able to participate in the study right now? Surely if there were the researchers would be very happy to include them. Studies like these help draw attention to the topic and hopefully attract more participants for future studies. This is still a very new field of study and we're only at the beginning of understanding it.

I agree that we need to listen to women's experiences of squirting and design studies to test the things they experience. There is always the possibility that the data won't reflect their experiences. This happens all the time in science, and when it happens repeatedly through well designed studies the information becomes established and allows people to make better sense of their experiences.

viva · 14-01-15 07:45:36

About the 2 women whose "ejaculate" did not contain any PSA I would hazard that perhaps those 2 women were peeing and did not ejaculate at all? Like me, I don't ejaculate and if I were to pee during sex, the liquid would probably look like theirs.

As far as my querulous-ness goes, I'm not so attached to the small group of participants problem as I am to the philosophical issue. I'm more of a philosopher than a scientist. The issue here is, "What is urine?"

If a liquid has urine in it, is it urine? If a liquid collects in the bladder, is it urine?

These guys are saying it is, or at least, it appears that they are - given the limited amount of information we can glean from a 3rd party article and a study synopsis. It seems that they are saying that ejaculate is a tiny amount of thing, and the squirting that happens is involuntary incontinence.

I think that those two conclusions are a bit rash in this case, and that a more proper conclusion would be that "5 out of 7 women who ejaculate upon orgasm were found to have produced a liquid which was similar to but not identical to urine."

I mean the question is whether we produce liquid as a result of arousal in addition to the "milky white ejaculate substance". Would that not-urine but similar-to-urine in so many ways liquid NOT exist if we did not experience arousal?

If we could know that within a given 5 hour period, Sally drinks 1 glass of water, and produces .5 glass of liquid from her bladder, but if that same 5 hour period, she experiences an ejaculatory orgasm, she would produce 1.5 glasses of liquid - well, that would mean something specifically related to arousal is occurring. It's not just pee. That would imply that some women produce a liquid in the bladder which is a by-product of prostate arousal, and not a waste-product.

Here's another philosophical issue:

If liquid released at orgasm is different to pee in, say, dilution, but contains no other special chemicals related to arousal (say PSA) - what makes it more special than really well hydrated pee?

Well that's a good question. If I arrange a bunch of wood into a shape for use as a chair, is it the same as a bunch of wood in the same shape which I've created for use as a table?

I mean, they look the same. They have the same chemical composition. But one's a chair and one's a table?

I think that to me, for accuracy of identification, classification and understanding, it's important to know for sure why the body produced it in addition to being able to identify the chemical content.

Sidenote, I wonder what happens when a girl empties her bladder and then squirts in less than 25 minutes. The fact that the fastest participant took that long to reach orgasm is interesting. I've seen Gala come, and it took less than 5 minutes for the 1st gush.

Another sidenote, I'm curious if any of the women in the study had more than 1 orgasm. Maybe the first gush would contain more urine than the last. Unlike peeing, it seems like ejaculatory orgasms do not empty the bladder. Like when you pee you pee in one steady stream until you're done, but when a girl squirts it seems like usually she can do it more than once.

About science being more accurate than evidence based on impression, well, that's a yes and no. Science is a tool of rationality, wielded by us faultiest of irrational beings. Science is only as good as the scientist.

It's often the case that beliefs are proven wrong by scientific method. But that doesn't mean that "science" is at all representative of reality. It's often been the case that scientific theories and conclusions have been proven false too. Science is a process, and it's as subject to bumbling and bias as any layman's perception. And perhaps this kind of tiny study presented by this article as truth is more dangerous than an opinion piece, because people read these articles and come away thinking they've learned facts.

Anyway! I argue with this stuff because I feel that the philosophical issues matter (if anything does, that is). Why are we even doing science, if not to justify our philosophies? Also, I think it's important to be skeptical, especially when it comes to science and how we present our interpretations of data as fact. I think it's a good area to be challenging around, and the more challenging everyone is, the better the science.

Thank you for engaging with me Dev! It's really fun to talk to you here.

Laney · 15-01-15 01:35:44

viva wrote:

About the 2 women whose "ejaculate" did not contain any PSA I would hazard that perhaps those 2 women were peeing and did not ejaculate at all? Like me, I don't ejaculate and if I were to pee during sex, the liquid would probably look like theirs.

So what we can take from this study is that it's possible when women have squirting orgasms for them to release pee. It's definitely happened twice, at least.

viva wrote:

I mean the question is whether we produce liquid as a result of arousal in addition to the "milky white ejaculate substance". Would that not-urine but similar-to-urine in so many ways liquid NOT exist if we did not experience arousal?

That is a good question. Women who squirt generally report that the fluid smells, tastes and looks different to pee, so we should investigate why that is. It would be interesting to know if the women in this study also reported this about themselves.

I feel like this concept of similar-to-urine, and the insistence on squirted fluid not being pee might be stemming from the taboo around peeing. It goes without saying that most people don't like peeing during sex, so when they suddenly squirt a huge amount of clear, funny-smelling liquid all over their boyfriend, I imagine they'd rather think of it as something else. It would be interesting to measure the participants' views on pee and peeing during sex and see if there's a correlation with their views on squirting.

It would be interesting to see if hydration levels also affect the colour, volume and smell of squirted fluid. If the participants were dehydrated, would they squirt less? Would the fluid look more like pee or would it be exactly the same as it is when they're hydrated?

viva wrote:

Sidenote, I wonder what happens when a girl empties her bladder and then squirts in less than 25 minutes. The fact that the fastest participant took that long to reach orgasm is interesting. I've seen Gala come, and it took less than 5 minutes for the 1st gush.

I was pretty impressed that all of the women even had orgasms... I imagine them on a hard bed, the kind you would find in a doctor's office, with a paper towel over their bare legs, awkwardly letting the researchers know they were about to climax so they can ultrasound their bladder. Gala would probably have no trouble having an orgasm in a situation like that, she's pretty exceptional.

It would have been good if they'd had a control group of non-squirting women, given them the three ultrasounds then collected their juices and urine after orgasm. Then had another control group of women who didn't masturbate, just peed after 60 or 25 minutes, so they could compare the pee between all of them.

Anyway, I agree that they should have definitely had more participants and a control group, but I still think that having this information about seven women is better than only having ideas based on anecdotes and speculation. It raises more questions to be studied and attracts attention to the topic. Hopefully women who squirt will find out about it, think "That's not what happens to me at all! They've got it wrong" then go and contribute to further study on the subject.

viva · 15-01-15 02:34:37

I think there is a taboo around it being pee and I kind of understand why. It's a waste product and so I think it makes a bit of sense for the physical, biological reaction to be, get it away from me. Of course, we can override that if we have it, and lots of people don't have that reaction at all, and lots of people have the opposite reaction - they love pee! Although it's possibly a function of the taboo/subversion that informs a lot of a pee-lovers, but who knows really.

I think for me if I squirted, I would rather it be magical arousal-liquid than urine because the idea of an great orgasm seems good, but the idea of involuntary incontinence as a result seems tough. I don't know why it makes a difference. Probably see above. And a lifetime of conditioning my bladder to obey me.

But watching others, I don't care if it's pee or not, it's so beautiful. It's definitely a different experience to see that, than to watch someone pee. The liquid comes out differently and the orgasmic aspect is so deep and gorgeous....

Question, if I pee at the point of my normal, clitoral style orgasm, does it make it a squirting orgasm? I think for me it wouldn't?

Laney · 15-01-15 02:44:56

I kind of like the idea of an orgasm so intense that it makes you pee involuntarily. From what I've heard it's something that usually happens when you're really hydrated, so the pee would be really dilute and has PSA in it giving it a different smell. But like you I guess I prefer to think of this as happening to someone else. It's so fascinating and sexy to watch! For myself I guess I would rather have the special orgasm liquid as well...

I think it would be a squirting orgasm if you peed involuntarily? I imagine it would be hard to pee voluntarily at the point of orgasm, but maybe it would feel good.

LydiaBennett · 16-01-15 01:23:51

Always my most curious angle is "mature". The urethra shortens, muscles loosen (especially fro childbirth), lubrication lessens, So what happens to the gland because of, or in spite of, the changes which start to occur in mid age, please, keen researchers?
then there are the variables of fitness, alcohol, asparagus.
oh, I dunno. it seems to me that the total surrender and enjoyment for all and with all that is expressed (pun intended) only calls for more, no matter what it is.
Let it flow
xL

aven frey · 21-01-15 01:44:02

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre … are_btn_fb

viva · 21-01-15 02:00:49

Yes, god, sheesh. Thankyou.

Monotreme · 22-01-15 00:41:56

I am sorry I'm coming (!) to this discussion so late. Devochka asked me some time ago to join in, but between my effed up personal life and some difficulties with site access, I've been scarce here on the forums the last few weeks. As you might imagine, the study cited has been a big topic of discussion on all my social media accounts as well.

I am a brain scientist, not a vulva scientist, so I just have some general, probably non-helpful observations.

First of all, understand the basic problem is there's no gland in the female genital region which in itself is large enough to hold and secrete the squirt of fluid one sees in orgasm in some, definitely not all, maybe not even most, women. Bartholin's glands (greater vestibular glands) and Skene's glands (paraurethral glands) are pea-sized or smaller, and there is a lot more fluid than that.

So the fluid is either made by other organs and stored in the bladder until released, or made "on the spot" as it were. I don't think there's any evidence for it being made on the spot, and if it is, where is it held until released? Neither set of glands is big enough to hold the volume of fluid we're talking about.

As Viva says above, if it comes out of the bladder, can we call it urine? To me, urine is defined as the by-product of kidney function, a sterile filtrate of blood conditioned by the nephrons (working units) of the kidney to a specific composition, then stored in the urinary bladder until released from the body through the urethra.

I'm willing to accept that this fluid is stored in the bladder. What's going to be harder is to determine whether it's made by the kidneys. I don't think it is. All the chemical composition information I've seen indicates it has mixed with urine, which is what we'd expect if it were stored in the bladder, but by my definition (and Viva's) that doesn't make it urine. This study indicates it's stored in the bladder, and released from the bladder, but gives no clue as to where it's made, at least from what I've read second- and third-hand.

The article is still behind a paywall for me because it hasn't been printed (what people have commented on is a pre-publication release). I will be able to read it and process it more fully once it's officially published, presumably in a few months. I can comment more knowledgeably then.

viva · 22-01-15 01:25:50

Jeez Monotreme, nice biology talk... you know you're a nerd when you get a bit hot and bothered by a professor on a forum describing kidney function.

But I digress..

I'm just happy to read your input, but I came here also to share that I've been paying attention lately and peeing before masturbation - normal pee - only to find that each and every time my bladder is full after, even with fairly quick (3 min or so) orgasms. And when I do go to the toilet it feels different than peeing, more like "letting go" than actively urinating. And it seems that the liquid is colorless and odorless though I can't really tell because.. it's in a toilet. So this is kind of in line with what Aven was talking about...

aven frey · 22-01-15 02:05:19

viva wrote:

Jeez Monotreme, nice biology talk... you know you're a nerd when you get a bit hot and bothered by a professor on a forum describing kidney function.

Yup.

MisterEd53 · 23-01-15 00:56:51

Hi Viva,

I really enjoy your website. I have been trying to follow the discussion in this forum in regards to the Science of Squirting,
as it relates to Britain's recent pornography laws changes on December 1, 2014. I have a few questions which would help me "connect the dots" to the discussion.

1. I am not sure where your offices/studio are? Are they outside the realm of British Rule? I know on IFM's site it states "The Netherlands"

2. I understand the impact of the law on the big picture, how does this law specifically affect IFM and other Feck Websites?

3. Will some government regulator come to your shoots with tweezers and litmus paper to determine if it is urine or female ejaculate?

(I ask question 3 with "tongue in cheek")

Thanks for your time!

Mr. Ed

viva · 23-01-15 01:18:56

Thanks Mr. Ed!

Ok, for your first question, our Feck office is located in Australia. So we are outside the realms of British rule kind of. I am but a lowly American and cannot accurately understand the influence of the Empire upon our fair shores. Ask an Aussie bout that one mate.

Australia is famed for having draconian laws about censorship, so basically the Brits got the guidelines for their sweet new laws from us. I mean, as far as I know. Here in Australia we have to be pretty careful about what we shoot. There's a lot of ideas I want to shoot but I can't because they're too risque for Australian production. C'est la vie.

Number 2 and 3, I'm gonna let Richard have a crack at, if he has time to answer, as I'm not 100% clear about that.

#1 14-01-15 01:20:38

Science of Squirting

#2 14-01-15 01:35:39

Re: Science of Squirting

#3 14-01-15 01:52:17

Re: Science of Squirting

#4 14-01-15 01:57:20

Re: Science of Squirting

#5 14-01-15 02:10:54

Re: Science of Squirting

#6 14-01-15 02:27:59

Re: Science of Squirting

#7 14-01-15 02:43:19

Re: Science of Squirting

#8 14-01-15 02:43:35

Re: Science of Squirting

#9 14-01-15 03:41:56

Re: Science of Squirting

#10 14-01-15 03:46:56

Re: Science of Squirting

#11 14-01-15 05:04:19

Re: Science of Squirting

#12 14-01-15 05:14:16

Re: Science of Squirting

#13 14-01-15 06:03:40

Re: Science of Squirting

#14 14-01-15 07:45:36

Re: Science of Squirting

#15 15-01-15 01:35:44

Re: Science of Squirting

#16 15-01-15 02:34:37

Re: Science of Squirting

#17 15-01-15 02:44:56

Re: Science of Squirting

#18 16-01-15 01:23:51

Re: Science of Squirting

#19 21-01-15 01:44:02

Re: Science of Squirting

#20 21-01-15 02:00:49

Re: Science of Squirting

#21 22-01-15 00:41:56

Re: Science of Squirting

#22 22-01-15 01:25:50

Re: Science of Squirting

#23 22-01-15 02:05:19

Re: Science of Squirting

#24 23-01-15 00:56:51

Re: Science of Squirting

#25 23-01-15 01:18:56

Re: Science of Squirting

Board footer