Check out some similar questions!

natkatmac · Aug 8, 2012, 06:47 PM

There have been many articles on the web telling me that female ejaculation is only possible with a g-spot orgasm. Now, I have never experienced an orgasm (i.e. muscle contractions) before. But what I HAVE experienced was a large amount of fluid//ejaculation coming out of me. This was only by clitoral stimulation alone and I didn't touch the g-spot, so that's out of the question.
What I'm wondering is how common it is for a female to ejaculate without orgasming? And what exactly is happening?

tickle · Aug 9, 2012, 05:15 AM

You are only experiencing a large amount of lubricant from the stimulation of your clitoris. Some women just happen to have more then others, some nothing at all and must use a synthetic.

Female ejaculation cannot happen without orgasm. Of course, this is my opinion, there are doubts that female ejaculation occurs at all.

smoothy · Aug 9, 2012, 05:46 AM

And we are back to an argument that can not be proven by an acknowledged Medical site.

Pee is pee...

backpack2389 · Aug 9, 2012, 11:04 AM

Without stimulation of the g-spot, it's hard to say if you're describing female ejaculation. Based on your description, however it does seem like you could be ejaculating from orgasm induced by clitoral stimulation. You should do some quick online research but I think as long as your sure you're not urinating and your aren't experiencing pain that you're totally normal.

smoothy · Aug 9, 2012, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by backpack2389

Without stimulation of the g-spot, it's hard to say if you're describing female ejaculation. Based on your description, however it does seem like you could be ejaculating from orgasm induced by clitoral stimulation. You should do some quick online research but I think as long as your sure you're not urinating and your aren't experiencing pain that you're totally normal.

Got an actual medical site you can link this proof to? Otherwise its unproven conjecture.. Requirements made by the SuperModerator Synnen on this topic.

backpack2389 · Aug 9, 2012, 11:57 AM

To natkatmac,

This is not a medical site, but a discussion board with feedback from lots of women who have had the same experience you seem to be describing. Hope it helps!

The Marriage Bed • View topic - Female Ejaculation without g-spot stimulation?

smoothy · Aug 9, 2012, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by backpack2389

to natkatmac,

this is not a medical site, but a discussion board with feedback from lots of women who have had the same experience you seem to be describing. hope it helps!

The Marriage Bed • View topic - Female Ejaculation without g-spot stimulation?

Purely anicdotoal from people with incontenance issues that won't face them...

If there isn't well known and respected MEDICAL sites proving how this somehow excaped the entire medical community and someone avioded dtection my how many centuries... its nothing more than theory..

And Synnen can be expected to say as much soon... No respected medical links PROVING it either way, then its not happening.

backpack2389 · Aug 9, 2012, 12:55 PM

For natkatmac,

An online, but peer-reviewed journal that could acceptably be cited. In other words, legit research.

Abstract - Urethral Expulsions - EJHS

Alty · Aug 9, 2012, 01:01 PM

Though I do understand that backpack is trying to help, getting info on the internet, posting links, it's only useful if you yourself know that the info in that link is correct.

Since you don't, and can't say for sure that the info is correct, it's best to refrain from posting links to internet sites. The internet should be taken with a grain of salt. Most of the info out there isn't accurate at all. That's why we have experts on this site, people that actually have the education or knowledge on the subjects asked.

Again, I'm not saying you're wrong, and I do realize you're trying to help, but do so by posting the info you know, not the links you think may help.

smoothy · Aug 9, 2012, 01:01 PM

And biologally What new organ did women recently evolve that would allow this useless function to occur, which has been thusfar undocumented by anyone in the medical or scientific community.

I mean... since nobody ever claimed to do this before recent porn movies started misrepresenting this... now you have a lot of young inexperienced people claiming things that can't be proven. Coincidence? I think not.

I'll believe Unicorns exist when someone brings in one live or dead... Same with Sasquatch and any number of other unproven topics.

With the sheer volumes of UTI's women suffer from (its not an area that hasn't had MASSIVE amounts of research and examination over the course of human history)... CAT scans and other Imaging technologies... there aren't those sort of major discoveries to be made... everything a human body does does or has served some purpose or it would not have evolved.

backpack2389 · Aug 9, 2012, 01:08 PM

The link is just to an online journal that posts studies on human sexuality. The studies are conducted by individuals with the appropriate credentials and the literature is peer reviewed. I had initially posted just my knowledge but later posted the link in response to a request for supporting evidence of my knowledge.

tickle · Aug 9, 2012, 01:21 PM

Hi back, to give you a little background, to explain why you are being caught in the crossfire, our supermoderator Synnen, and this is one of Syn's forums, will not tolerate us posting on this issue without medical journal proof.

Some of us have already heard from Syn regarding this, and please don't be offended by my hint.

Thank you for your input just the same, just aprising you of the situation regarding this topic.

Tick

CravenMorhead · Aug 9, 2012, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by backpack2389

for natkatmac,

an online, but peer-reviewed journal that could acceptably be cited. in other words, legit research.

Abstract - Urethral Expulsions - EJHS

I looked at that 'paper' and wasn't impressed. I will given credence where it is due. This is not it. In the end there has been no clear answer for this question. They said it was urine.

The most common source of these questions comes from porn in one form or another. A porn star will drink lots and lots of water, to the point of clear urine, and during 'orgasm' (Fake most the time), they will urinate and call that squirting. Guys see this and think that they should be able to get their partner to do this. They talk to them and then everyone tries to figure out how to do this. They try and fail and come on here and ask.

While Sexual studies, specifically around the area of females and female climaxing, are coming more common they're still taboo. I don't expect this to be settled any time soon. When they're settled there is libel to be a head line equivalent to, "FEMALE EJACULATION FOUND!" Because you know every guy would like to figure that one out.

That leaves what is happening to the OP. I don't know. It depends on what you mean by large amount. Was it a cup, half a cup, a quart, a pint? What did it smell like, look like, etc. Chances are it could have been an accidental pee caused by the stimulation.

backpack2389 · Aug 9, 2012, 02:32 PM

The paper did say that the fluid was produced by the bladder and they called it an altered form of urine, but it was chemically different from urine. They stated that while it had many of the same components, the concentrations (of urea and creatinine) were very different. Kind of like the difference between sweat and urine. They have many of the same components, including urea and creatinine, but we consider them to be different substances. So maybe it should be classified as urine, maybe not.

The page that the link is for does not have the most impressive presentation, granted. However, that page is just the abstract and does not provide the methods, the results, etc. For those you need to access the links at the bottom of the page. There you will also find a link to the homepage where the credentials of the site are provided.

CravenMorhead · Aug 9, 2012, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by backpack2389

They stated that while it had many of the same components, the concentrations (of urea and creatinine) were very different. Kind of like the difference between sweat and urine. They have many of the same components, including urea and creatinine, but we consider them to be different substances. So maybe it should be classified as urine, maybe not.

You really didn't say that did you? Difference between urine and sweat? You might as well as said, difference between urine and blood, or semen, or vaginal liner.

The test procedures were that they were drained and then collected. It came from the bladder, it is Urine. Waste that were filtered from the blood through the kidneys.

Originally Posted by backpack2389

The page that the link is for does not have the most impressive presentation, granted. However, that page is just the abstract and does not provide the methods, the results, etc., For those you need to access the links at the bottom of the page. There you will also find a link to the homepage where the credentials of the site are provided.

The NCBI page you posted was the closest thing to a peer reviewed paper. This one wasn't. It could just be a clever forgery. You have no proof that it isn't. What you're lacking here is the critical thought. The sceptical nature that comes with university degrees. The ability to discern good information from poor information. This is why no one believes the links you posted. Even with one good link among specious links they're all going to look suspect.

The science is out on this. Until a discovery is made the science is going to continue to be out on this. Anecdotal evidence and internet rumour is no substitute. It muddies up the water and confuses the issue. So, as the super moderator synenn says, unless you have medical journal articles, don't bother.