January 13, 2015
Squirting, or “female ejaculation,” is like pregnancy scares or your falling GPA in that it’s not anything anyone wants to talk about, yet something plenty of girls deal with at some point. Despite its somewhat embarrassing nature, I’ve gotten multiple questions on the topic - it’s obviously something people want answers about, including what it is and why it happens. Well, some pervy French scientists decided to run a study, and their results may shock you - chemically, your gushing lady love is virtually indistinguishable from pee. Kind of, sort of. But not really.
The study, which appears to be the first of its kind, involved seven women. Basically they peed, and had their sex parts stimulated until they squirted. Ultrasounds throughout the process and biochemical analysis of the, uh, stuff were used to analyze the results:
“After a variable time of sexual excitation, US2 (just before squirting) showed noticeable bladder filling, and US3 (just after squirting) demonstrated that the bladder had been emptied again. Biochemical analysis of BSU [before sexual stimulation], S [the actual squirt], and ASU [after squirting] showed comparable urea, creatinine, and uric acid concentrations in all participants. Yet, whereas PSA [prostatic-specific antigen] was not detected in BSU in six out of seven participants, this antigen was present in S and ASU in five out of seven participants.”
In non-nerd speak, this translates to “Basically, women who squirt are really just peeing, except in most of them there’s something present that wasn’t there in their normal pee.” As you might imagine, many people take issue with this analysis.
Feminists, for starters, are split on the results. Some think they’re a bad thing, as reducing an orgasmic event to glorified urination detracts from the importance of female sexual pleasure. Others are happy with the results because to call it anything more than urine perpetuates male fetishes and fantasies. All that tells me, personally, is that there’s a significant group of women who have no idea what the fuck “feminism” means.
The study itself is not without its flaws. For one thing, seven women is light years away from a representative sample size, and the study specifically called for women who self-reported “recurrent and massive” fluid emission during sexual stimulation. It makes no mention of penetrative versus clitoral stimulation, does not address women who experience less-frequent and less-voluminous squirting and offers no explanation as to why the bladder filled during stimulation. Worst of all, it kind of glosses over the fact that 71% of their test subjects’ sex juices contained a new substance, which apparently comes from the “female prostate,” an organ which scientists have yet to even bother identifying.
Don’t worry, it’s not unusual for science to have literally no idea how the female body works when it comes to sexuality - it was just last year that scientists got around to mapping out the entire clirotal organ.
What pisses me off about this more than anything, I think, is that it gives women yet another thing to be self-conscious about when it comes to their bodies and sex. Women who squirt will obviously vary in how they feel about it, but VERY few people would be ok with the idea of regularly pissing the bed. That’s why suggesting that female ejaculate is just pee - without incontrovertible evidence - is wrong, in my opinion.
Whatever it is, if you’re a woman who squirts sometimes, just roll with it. In my own experience with it, the fluid has never smelled or looked remotely like pee. Squirting is also one of the most-searched porn terms in the world, meaning guys are into it by a large margin (if that matters to you). Finally, there are plenty of other (though equally small) studies that just as definitely claim that no, your squirt is not pee.
Thus concludes your daily example of what happens when men who have never had sex attempt to scientifically quantify female sexuality.