• S E X
    L O V E +
    R E L A T I O N S H I P S


    ❤️ Welcome Guest! ❤️


    Posting Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • SLR Moderators: Senior Staff

do you find a girl attractive that squirts?

I like it ,i find it a turn on that i have given her a more intense orgasm than usual [i concede that it may not be my doing at all ,and may have occured had she masturbated ,but i like to believe that it was me]
 
It has happened to me on occasion...not squirting clear across a room. I wouldn't bother mastering that feat. I like the intensity of it.

Achieving this depends on the position and/or situation. I can't figure out how to consistently reproduce the wet orgasm. My boyfriend wishes he could. Lord knows he tries...and I let him ;) He likes the warm gushy feeling. It's like a extra gold star for a job well done.
 
fuck yeah, i WISH i could find a chick thats a squirter. most ppl generally dont advertise for it tho :(
 
meh

I've made myself squirt a few times...its fun and its differentl but the whole " you've never had a real orgasm till you've had a mature orgasm" or whatever is a bunch of bull, IMO

I'm with Randycaver on this one..I've had just as good of orgasms, if not better, without squirting. Plus I'd rather not squirt all over everything, it just makes more of a mess for me to clean up. After sex I just want to roll over and cuddle and maybe have a cigarette, not mop up a bunch of bodily fluids.
 
LOL if only I could find other threads like this for topics that interest me besides. Anyhow I think probably any girl could squirt but maybe there's a fear of pissing or something and if you squeeze that muscle tight enough you won't squirt really, just orgasm. Either way some fluid is going to cum out. I've always wanted to experience that at least once. I mean I am gay but still I try to study or learn everything I can in life and it might be cool to get a girl off at least once and see what it's like or feel her gripping my finger when she cums. I don't think I'd ever have sex though unless the girl was sterile and even then I am loyal to the person I am with so ... It's just I am terrified to have sex with a girl. I've had a lot of traumatisation and part of it is lots of my friends either got someone pregnant or were made pregnant by someone. I can't do that to myself and I wouldn't risk it even with protection or pills. The girl would have to be sterile or have her tubes tied I think. I'd rather suck on a cock though or a guy's tongue than to do oral so I think the finger is the only thing I'd do. This all sound intersting or worth the study though. I heard something about the fluid that cums out of a girl when she squirts is the same as a guy's precum minus what little sperms may have made their way into which is rare but happens. lol I guess I'm a pussy when it come to pussy!
 
Last edited:
i was watching a movie the other day called 'the g-spot and female ejaculation' and there was a doctor on there explaining the squirting or shooting of fluids.

What he said though is what i thought all along. Him and other doctors had tested a bunch of women that had this ability and in a LARGE case of them the liquid come out was in fact urine. Just because it doesnt smell funny, doesnt taste funny (like you think urine would taste or smell bad, when in fact fresh urine has relatively little taste and smell), doesnt mean it aint piss.

One of the easiest proving points he provided was asking where the fluid came from? If there was a decent amount, say a few oz or so, where does that liquid come from? The only place in the body that is capable of holding that any doctors know about is the bladder.

interesting video, i suggest you watch it.
 
Yeah I might be able to say the same to you. Try the bi-curious thing maybe or whatever you like. You can still do some of the stuff with a girl but it's mostly synthetic. It's much better when it's real but then again I don't play with toys so I am just going with gut instinct. Natural and real I think is always better. You don't know what you're missing out on man! lol ;)
 
hmm so is it urine or not? if it is urine, i figure we should link this thread together with the golden shower thread ;)
 
To me this is kind of embarassing. I wouldn't say I squirt across the room etc.. because I just haven't witnessed myself actually see how far it goes, however.. I know that if there wasn't a face/body between my legs, i could probably shoot far. It all depends on how good the guy is on getting me off.

Like NubXer said.. sometimes I hold back my orgasms because it kinda makes me feel weird. Recently, I did this, and just let go, and I managed to leave a huge wet spot that soaked though the towel, blanket, sheets onto the mattress. ( No i didn't piss lol) My guy was cool about it, thought it was okay, but I was still feeling akward about it.

I hate laying in "wet spots" lol, no matter if it's mine. So afterwards, My sweetie pushed me over to the "dry" side, laid down a towel over the wet spot and he laid on top of it instead. :D (dont know many guys who would do that..)
 
Yeah just like most guys don't like to cum on their sheets or lay in it when they are done. Some shoot on the chest but still .... or clean it after or shower. I imagine girl cum stains or leaves something reminiscent of a grease stain though right?
 
EternalX said:
What he said though is what i thought all along. Him and other doctors had tested a bunch of women that had this ability and in a LARGE case of them the liquid come out was in fact urine...
Click to expand...

I became curious about what you had said.. I've never experienced female ejaculation myself but I saw it recently for the first time in a porn movie, and I was *shocked* at the amount of fluid that came out. I always thought that women squirted about as much as guys do.. maybe a bit more, but not that much...

Anyway I tried to find info on what studies have been made to see if it's urine or not... the best summary I found was the following:

Research in the 1980s and 1990s finally began to analyse the chemical of fluids released in female sexual response in some depth, focussing on the presence of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) manufactured in the female prostate, and the concentration of other substances (urea, creatinine, glucose, fructose) in relation to their usual concentration in urine, usually achieved by taking samples of pre-orgasmic urine, post-orgasmic urine, and female ejaculate.

Analysis carried out by Whipple and Perry in the early 1980s established substantially higher levels of prostate-specific antigen and glucose, and substantially lower levels of creatinine and urea, in samples of ejaculatory fluid than in samples of urine from the same women.[11]

A simple marker test carried out by Whipple, in which the characteristic odor produced by ingesting asparagus was clearly present in subjects' urine, demonstrated that this was not present in female (and indeed in male) ejaculate, demonstrating a difference in the two fluids.[12] This is similar in its result to the much reported experiment in which a student of Edwin Belzer took a drug to dye her urine bright blue, and found that whilst her urine became strongly coloured as expected, the fluids she ejaculated during masturbation showed only a slight blue tinge or no colour at all.[13]

A study by F Cabello Santamaria analysed urine for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) using Microparticle Enzyme Immunoassy and found that 75 per cent of the sample showed a concentration of PSA in postorgasmic urine samples which was not present in preorgasmic urine samples.[14] The fluid collected at the point of orgasm (distinct from the urine samples) showed the presence of PSA in 100 per cent of samples. Cabello believes his research to confirm his hypothesis that all women are capable of ejaculation, but the amount of fluid expelled from the female prostate, or the direction in which it is expelled (towards the bladder), mean that it is not always perceived. (Cabello notes that retrograde ejaculation is also an occurance in some men.)

Cabello provides his own summary of those whose work he concludes has proven the presence of PSA in females fluids: "...we have all those authors that try to prove that women emit a certain fluid, different from vaginal lubrication, during their sexual response (Grafenberg, 1950; Sevely & Bennet, 1978; Belzer et al, 1981; Perry & Whipple, 1981; Addiego at al,. 1981; Sensabaugh & Kahane, 1982; Belzer et al., 1884; Zaviavic et al., 1984; Stifter, 1987 etc). Thanks to this last group, the presence of prostate acid phosphate and fructose in the supposed female ejaculation, elements normally present in male ejculation, seems proven".[15] According to Whipple, it is Zaviacic in his 1999 book on the human female prostate[16] who provides "the most complete enzyme histochemical, exocrine, and imunohistochemical studies on the female prostate and the analysis of female ejaculation".[17]

Despite this body of evidence, it cannot be said that the issue is without complications. Dr John Perry has attempted to analyse findings further, to propose that there may be more than one type of sexual response in women which involves the emission of fluid. 'Pure' female ejaculation involves secretions of the female prostate; alternatively, 'gushing' involves a much diluted form of urine; or the two phenomena may occur in combination.[18] Whilst larger volumes of fluid may indicate that it involves the expulsion of dilute urine, its chemical composition implies that it is a distinct part of sexual response rather than ordinary urination. An experiment recorded by Dr Gary Schubach involved female subjects engaging in sexual stimulation then having their bladders drained with a catheter. After this draining, seven women still expelled 50 -900 ml of fluid in sexual response, fluid that showed "a greatly reduced concentration of urine and creatinine (the primary components of urine). The clear inference was that the expelled fluid is an altered form of urine, meaning that there appears to be a process that goes on during sensual or sexual stimulation and excitement that effects the chemical composition of urine".[19]

It is reasonable to suggest that the most far-reaching conclusion to be drawn from this is that it is not credible to expect the expulsion of urine (especially if chemically altered, vastly diluted expulsions from the bladder are still to be described as urine) to always be kept completely out of scenes of sexual activity and response.
Click to expand...

sorry it's a bit long... taken from http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/femejac.htm
 
^ Thanks glitterbizkit, I found that really interesting!

I think I need a career change in the direction of female ejaculatory research :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top