I agree with her. I heard that podcast and thought, "What a load of bullshit!' over and over again.

So glad she wrote it; I was going to and never had the time to articulate all the points on which the guest was spouting touchy feely b.s. Thank you, Jen!

It's true there's not much evidence to back Heicke's claims, but there isn't really any evidence to refute them either.

Given the lack of science around this subject, the fact that Heicke can ejaculate probably makes her as much of an expert as anyone.

Of course, Heicke's claims should not be confused with scientific fact. However, until science steps up with something interesting (and contradictory) to say about the matter, I think it's quite appropriate to have her as a guest on your show.

sounds like Dan was on an episode of Portlandia. sheesh.

Yeah, unfortunately I've got to side with Jen on this one. That New-Age self-promoting spurter was just not up to Savage Podcast's usual standards. But I remain a faithful listener. Everyone messes up now and again. Yeah - Have Jen on! She's cool.

@seandr: There's also a lack of scientific evidence refuting invisible winged frogs living under my bed. But hey, since I'm the one that sleeps in that bed, and since science hasn't weighed in on this one yet, I'm as much of an expert as anyone.

Oh, and as expert, I feel like I should tell you that there are invisible winged frogs under every one of your beds as well, and if you don't know they're there it's because there's something wrong with you. Possibly rape?

I wondered why she was on because she certainly didn't sound like an expert anything. That being said, I so totally dismissed everything she said that I forgot about her until reading this. I cannot believe any woman who heard that show took this new-age hippy to heart. Dan did try & call her out on this many times during the show. I would hope she's been filed in the 'never again' category for guests on the podcast.

I just really hope women that are trying to get more orgasmic aren't assuming "emotional pain" is what's keeping them from getting there. I appreciate what Heike's doing to get women more into exploring their bodies, but the new age component just isn't necessary. Maybe some people get pleasure from the idea of storing and releasing "energy" but it's definitely not required to get sexual satisfaction (and personally I was squicked out). I look forward to hearing Jen on the show!

@3 Sean, I think the problem is that many fallacies were evident in her reasoning.

Dan was pretty hard some "everyone get naked together class" guest (forget the exact nature) but he gave a total pass on the female ejaculation pseudoscience lady. Can't win em all.

#3: Just like astrology, religion, and psychodynamics. It's not evidence-based, so it can withstand any and all scrutiny.

@ #7: your comment is made of WIN.

Thanks for the sort of apology, Dan. It would be cool for some practical tips about how to ejaculate someday. But that woman was just an idiot. As a woman who'd be interested in practicing ejaculation, her advice was useless. I have to see if I can come up with some repressed abuse memories? I should try to be more intimate during sex? Um... thanks, I try that.

Yer a mensch, Dan Savage.

I knew she was in over her head when she brought a puppet to a radio show.

I'm really glad this was posted. The blogger's comment, "… perpetuating the mindset that women are somehow damaged if they don't react in a certain way" really hits the point home. The majority of information (about everything) directed at women comes from a place of guilt: If you're not doing this then you're doing it wrong or feeling the wrong way. I'm exhausted by it.

Dan likes the say his column is pure entertainment, but more and more people come to him for honest, truthful and factual advice about sex. It's not just a cheeky column anymore; it's helpful. Thus, these wingnut "experts" have to go.

(Oh, and @7 comment's is right on!)

Alright, while I don't agree with the "expert", being a "squirter" myself I have my own opinions and takes on the whole thing however... Jen really sounds like someone who is REALLY bitter about NOT being a squirter. Maybe she's seeking scientific evidence to support why she can't but fuck man, is it really THAT big of a deal? She keeps refering to evidence but states in the beginning that its a big mystery... so which is it? I haven't heard the podcast but I'm pretty sure that if so many people were upset over this guest then all dan needs to do is apologize and invite maybe some "normal" people squirters along with some people who "can't" squirt to have an interesting conversation about it. Maybe that would be helpful. I just really resent the way Jen wrote and her use of "hippie" and "New Age" (people who use those terms use it offensively- similar to calling someone "retarded"- and don't know what they're talking about).

But really Dan, I wouldnt give her the glory of being a guest because she is a bitter non-squirter. There are a bunch of nicer ones out there.

I was just thinking maybe I should finish the podcast and listen to the rest. good to know I didn't miss anything.

Wow, jealous much @21? No, Jen hit on every single point on why the guest on Dan's show was so far off. The point was, since there's absolutely no hard evidence on "female ejaculation," this makes the claims of the guest completely suspect. Not to mention the whole "if you don't enjoy sex you probably have some (repressed if you don't remember!) awful rape experiences in your past" -- oh, way to support female sexuality (!) Oh, and any woman that disagress with your perceived world view of women must be "bitter" -- yep, another classic (!)

But hey Dan, if you get Jen on your show, that'll have been worth it! If you do, post a transcript of that part?????? Since I can't listen to the podcasts :(

I'm glad for the pushback here. The guest's attitude that all women CAN squirt and therefore those that don't are somehow defective was incredibly offensive, especially for a topic that is so scientifically unresolved.

@8 " I cannot believe any woman who heard that show took this new-age hippy to heart."

Being bombarded your entire life with people pretending they're experts on female sexuality blaming women for not all performing in one narrowly defined way becomes mentally burdensome and restricts womens' ability to find sexual fulfillment. We need to speak out against people like this more often, not less.

@23 it's funny because Jen came off as totally 'bitter' to me. I can agree from what I've read that this guest was totally offensive- nowhere in my post did I agree with her.

And really- who cant get a podcast?

Can I be on your podcast? I'm a published sex author who ejaculates, and while not formally trained, at least I know a lot more than this person. Only one in ten women is able to ejaculate, it is VERY dependent on PC muscle strength, and while not exactly urine (from the tests that have been done), for a woman who ejaculates with a full bladder, whatever is in her bladder is going to come out along with the ejaculate since women don't have that valve thingummy that men do.

I think this woman is basically running a con game with her class. She's like a psychic, to me. Obviously, squirting does exist but I the premise that any woman can be taught to squirt is a con game.

I'm a life long skeptic born in New Orleans. Did you know that VooDoo only works on you if you believe in it? If you doubt a psychic, you'll just end up blocking her with your bad energy? When people go to faith healers and don't get cured, they understand that it's because they didn't believe hard enough.

See, if the bullshit doesn't work on you, it's because you are not allowing the bullshit to work on you. It's always your fault when the bullshit doesn't work on you.

That comes standard with these con games.

@26 -- a deaf person can't get a podcast

Oh boy, listening to it now. Massive fail.

@7: There's also a lack of scientific evidence refuting invisible winged frogs living under my bed

Wrong. There are mountains of scientific evidence to suggest that the existence of invisible winged frogs is extremely, extremely unlikely.

In contrast, there is no evidence I'm aware to suggest that some women lack the physiological requirements to squirt. If there is, Jen should have mentioned it.

@13: Just like astrology, religion, and psychodynamics

You're confused. There is plenty of scientific evidence (the entire field of physics, for example) indicating that astrology and religion are complete bullshit. And the problem with psychodynamics is that it doesn't make any scientifically testable predictions, so it's not falsifiable.

In contrast, the claim that all women are potential squirters is, in fact, scientifically testable. Apparently, science just hasn't gotten around to testing it yet. Until science chimes in, I see no reason why we should reject this claim out of hand.

I'm bitter because I can't squirt? Oh assumptions, how funny you are!

@33 but so *predictable*! "Oh you woman who disagrees with me about some FABULOUS ASPECT of female sexuality?! You must be BITTER!"

Not just "in disagreement" or "that person who has different ideas about this" or "oh hey she disagreed with me and gave me lots of reasons why so now I need to do my homework and come back to the debate..." Naw.

"Bitter!" Yeah that will shut down the debate & prove'em right!

Blag Hag is coming on the podcast to slap me in person.

@35 Sweet!

And I know logistics and costs and all that mean the podcasts aren't transcribed, and I totally get that, but *this segment*?? What can I bribe you with?

@21:
Why would anyone be bitter about not being a squirter? It doesn't sound like an improvement to me -- just additional mess. Kind of inconvenient, in fact; if I squirted stuff out whenever I came, I'd be doing a lot more laundry. Why would anyone care about whether they do this or not?

My favorite comment on the link: "Surely you aren't claiming that Dan Savage isn't an expert on the female orgasm."

I'm bitter because I can't squirt? Oh assumptions, how funny you are!

I can squirt - doesn't stop me from being bitter.

The bit about how women who don't ejaculate aren't opening themselves up and being emotional enough during sex - that was the most ridiculous part for me.

I have had some amazing, intimate relationships with really great guys that I was very attracted to. Never squirted. Didn't bother me, I didn't really think about it because I was very satisfied by the sex I was having. I regarded it as some kind of carnival trick that porn stars train themselves to do by doing Kegels or something.

Then, I had a fling with a young Navy rescue diver. We had nothing in common besides a physical attraction, and spent very little time talking. But I was going through a stressful time in my life, and he was an escape for me. A rock hard body and a gorgeous face. He was a very skilled lover and we were physically in sync, although I had no idea what he was thinking at any given time, and we never went on any dates besides dancing at a bar. We had absolutely zero emotional connection!

The second time we were together, I felt a sudden rush of liquid, and was confused. It didn't even occur to me that I'd ejaculated, I thought somehow I'd peed the bed. He laughed and just put down extra towels the next time. It continued to happen, and to surprise me, throughout the several weeks that the fling lasted.

Has never happened since. I am now thinking about marriage with my live-in boyfriend, who is an incredibly handsome, kind, and considerate partner. I've opened up to him about all sorts of deep dark secrets, including sexual desires I have never revealed to anyone. I occasionally cry after sex with him because it is so intimate and I feel so open and vulnerable. We've been together three years, yet I have never once ejaculated with him.

So basically, my experience completely contradicts Heike's.

Do a cross-over episode with The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast on the truth of female ejaculation and I'll be in podcast heaven.

People use "OMG INTIMACY" to push a lot of BS ideas. Was talking to one guy who was trying to convince me that dental dams were a bad idea, as they and flavored condoms reduced the "intimacy" of oral sex, and therefore it felt less good.

Said fellow wasn't even trying to get into my panties!

Anything that claims something reduces intimacy or is the result of not enough intimacy sets off my BS-o-meter like a fire alarm.

@37 "Why would anyone care about whether they do this or not?"

That's exactly my point. It's totally not a big deal so don't go blog vomiting about it. That goes for the woman on the podcast too. I can't imagine why anyone would get as upset about it as Jen did if they didn't feel somewhat targeted or bitter about the topic. Really? I've got bigger fish to fry here.

Oh and, people don't squirt every time they come. For the record. Someone earlier mentioned PC muscles. You get the picture.

Why is it so important to squirt anyways?

@45 It's not important TO YOU. YOU =/= everyone else.

@45 oh FFS. And, class act on the podcast comment.

Jesus, no one is saying it's important/special/amazing to squirt except the silly lady in the podcast. lighten up.

While I'm with everyone who called bullshit on the stuff about non-ejaculating women having repressed childhood trauma, I'm really beyond fucking tired of having to prove that my G-spot is real, that female ejaculations are real and that multiple-orgasmic states for women are orders of magnitude more intense than the ordinary ones triggered by the top part of the clit.

I'm in my mid-30s. In my early twenties, that single clit-focused orgasm did me just fine. I had no idea what I was missing. Well, a longgggg dry spell in my late 20s led me to toys and it was that subsequent experimentation that led to me now routinely having orgasms that go on for 20 minute-plus-stretches--all internally triggered via G-Spot play--orgasms so intense that I cry, so intense that I feel the sensations of orgasm travel to the top of my head (if I'm kegeling upward) and so intense that I sometimes squirt out (if I'm kegeling downward).

So, 2 points:
1. When this woman described these experiences as "emotional" I presumed she was speaking to their profundity, not psycho therapeutic breakthroughs or romantic sentimentality. That may have been too generous a read on my part, I realize, but I identified with what she said because a multiple-G-spot triggered orgasm is, again, a profoundly different thing than an ordinary one. It does open you spiritually in ways that I associate with meditation and yoga.

2. If you evolved over time from no orgasms to 1-orgasm-ooh-that-felt-good to holy shit I think I might pass out after 45 minutes of screaming my head off, you too would desperately want other women to know that their bodies are capable of. I don't care what the official scientific explanation of it is--a gland, the deeper tissues of the clit, whatever--it is a PROFOUND and very real experience that has fundamentally changed how I define good sex. I do not believe that evolution would be so cruel as to allow me this kind of pleasure but not other women.

Fact is, many women do not take the time to really experiment with their own bodies, especially if they do not masturbate and have always had a partner around. This doesn't mean I'm arguing that said women are lesser or, yes, give me a break, damaged. I argue about this so often because I WANT all women to experience it.

I think this endless argument that the G-spot is a myth speaks to how deeply we afraid we continue to be of women's sexuality. It breaks my heart when I hear women insist that they "cannot." But it fucking infuriates me when folks insist that their lack of experience trumps my actual experience because they've decided i'm lying to make themselves feel better. That ready dismissal does not suggest to me a sex-positive philosophy of "to each his own." It suggests instead that my experience is not only profound, but profoundly threatening.

I

@49 well let's see now: Did you try to imply all women who don't "ejaculate" have some kind of trauma in their past? Did you try to imply all women should be able to do this -- or else they're inferior? Did you give any room to the notion that women are variable and perhaps not all of them will "ejaculate"? How extensive is your knowledge of the studies done on female anatomy? How many examples do you have of women learning how to "ejaculate"? How repeatable are these examples? How respectful are you of other womens' experiences?

These are the kinds of questions to ask yourself when you're discussing this. They're questions that Dan's guest utterly failed to consider. I'll leave it to you to decide which, if any, you failed to address.

@35: "Blag Hag is coming on the podcast to slap me in person."
>coming on the podcast
>coming
I see what you did there, Dan...

Jen McCreight. I don't know who she is, but she's fantastic. GO SCIENCE!

Dear Stranger,

What with the bad economy and all there are a huge number of smart people like Jen with actual scientific backgrounds out there, unemployed or underemployed, available for cheap. Would you please get more of these folks on the Stranger payroll and stop embarrassing yourselves.

@50 - why is "ejaculate" in quotation marks?

At any rate, some proportion of women who might be able to ejaculate are not learning about it, and I'm all in favor of maddy811 spreading the word that women might want to explore it. I have ejaculated a handful of times, and am working on getting it more under my control (hard, because my main way of identifying the overpowering sensation so far is that when I get that "omigod-it's-gone-too-far-no-turning-back-now" feeling, that's when I squirt. So it feels impossible to control. But practice practice practice :-)

There's some reasonable advice at
http://www.eioba.com/a/1b2m/finding-the-…
http://www.master-your-g-spot.com/female…

@50 I have a humanities Ph.D.. Please take that into consideration when I say that it's nonsense that I cannot speak to female ejaculation unless I am up to speed on the scientific literature on the subject. I was writing about my own experience.

As I'm fond of saying to my students, a person cannot "disprove" another's experience but can show that it is (or is not) representative within larger patterns. Thus, what I can say with some authority from what I have read about multiple orgasms, the G-Spot and female ejaculation is that my own experience--including my decades-long discovery of it--is fairly commonplace among women who recount having similar experiences.

Are you aware of the studies that document the staggering percentages of adult American women who have never orgasmed or rarely do? Would you feel similarly compelled for them to prove that they haven't? Would you rest content with many of them concluding that their bodies weren't capable of it? The reality is that human sexuality studies are frought with all kinds of political tensions that have arisen from living in a sex-negative society that conditions girls to regard their bodies with fear and/or shame. To my mind, that's what's at stake here. If women routinely reached multiple-orgasmic states I think we'd rarely tolerate slut shaming or shitty sex. That's just my philosophy, though, so please don't ask me for Judith Butler or Michel Foucault's opinions on the subject.

The real question for me is, why the need to discredit and deflect? What's at stake for you in putting, as EricaP noting, deligitimating quotes around "ejaculation?"

@32: don't forget, buddy: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I challenge you to find literature refuting my invisible winged frogs. Sure very few people have observed them, but hey, the rest of the world just doesn't know what to look for, right?

As for that end part of your "argument", lets get a little more serious. It's fairly obvious that you've never been involved in any kind of scientific study. How exactly would you go about testing this? Where would you get funding? What sorts of controls would you use? How would you ensure you were getting an even distribution of the population, or using the right "technique"? Even if you found a technique that worked for some, how could you be sure that would work for everyone? You don't seem particularly bright; how would you get that many women to submit themselves to your "experiments"?

It's damn-near impossible to prove an absolute like "everyone can do this, if they can't there's something wrong with them", so when someone claims this, at least without the backing of some pretty well-founded science, you probably don't want to take them very seriously.

Yay, I'm excited that Blaghag is going to be on the podcast! Her post about the episode was absolutely spot on.
Good for Dan for inviting her, I think it's a great idea.

"Your orgasms are all wrong, but with practice you can have the right kind, but no, I don't have any anatomical studies to back up my assertions."

Is this super-modern enlightened sexuality, or just the new Sigmund Freud?

It's funny, maddy811, in trying to teach women how to have vaginal orgasms, the hardest pushback I've gotten has been from very liberal feminist women. "All orgasms are clitoral orgasms, female ejaculation is just peeing, women don't need a penis inside them to have great sex, by talking about it you make women who can't do it feel inadequate."

@58 I'm a very liberal feminist, Marrena, and I'm eager to learn more about sexual pleasure. But why argue with people who are convinced that you don't exist? If such women have found their own fun, more power to them. And if there is a road to greater sexual pleasure, I doubt it runs through Debate and Argument. (Though I do get off on the arguments I have here on Slog :-)

@54 I absolutely was not looking to answer those questions for you -- interesting to see your own defensiveness on them. For example, did I say that you tried to speak for all women (as Dan's guest tried to do) or did I ask if you did so? The really fascinating thing, to my mind, was that I found your post (@49) far more positive and in fact pretty much unobjectionable, unlike Dan's guest's comments. I was, actually, listing the ways in which I thought you and Dan's guest *differed* in your presentation, eg a comparison of the answers to those questions asked of Dan's presenters versus asked of you were different (or so I thought, based on @49).

The quotes are because I think the probability is quite high that it's simply urine and not some sort of non-urine fluid. We don't call it ejaculate when a man pees. It's ejaculate for the non-urine stuff. That's all. I'll correct my terminology henceforth.

I am going to point out, though that in @54, you basically told me that I have a miserable sex life because I don't have those glorious, urine-soaked orgasms -- despite the fact that you know *nothing* about my sex life, *nothing* about my orgasms, and really, *nothing* at all about me whatsoever. Let me lay it out for you: I am perfectly orgasmic, get an orgasm most times when I have sex -- even sometimes penile penetration only. I have had multiple orgasms. Like most regulars around here, I'm pretty happy with my sex life, I'm sex positive, and I'm even pretty knowledgeable.

But I've never peed when orgasming.

And apparently because of that, my view point is completely unimportant. In fact I'm somehow deluded, myself & if I would just open my eyes and see the light! I'd also pee while orgasming, thanks to your kindly and wonderful intervention. And I'm going to let you in on a teeny-tiny secret: I found that just a little bit insulting.

But hey! Do spread the word. Allow me to make one teeny-tiny suggestion: don't combine it with the mindset of "oh you must be *miserable* if you're not peeing while orgasming -- if indeed, poor thing, you orgasm at all!" Just a thought. Just in case you don't want to find yourself in the middle of these sorts of digressions Yet Again.

P.S. I hear that born-agains, they tend to have that presentation problem at first, too.

P.P.S. "I have a PhD in Humanities." Really? REALLY? You trotted *that* out in an argument? *facepalm*

@60 "We don't call it ejaculate when a man pees. It's ejaculate for the non-urine stuff."
What about when he pees during orgasm? Oh, right, that doesn't happen. When someone has stuff spurt out of their genitals, during orgasm, we say that person has ejaculated.

BEG, have you ever been there when a woman ejaculated? It doesn't look or smell like pee. And the feeling is explosive and the liquid feels smooth/silky, whereas I've never had pee feel that way.

@60 also, where did Maddie811@54 say anything about the value of your orgasms?

As I said, the best candidate so far for the fluid is urine. Please point me to research showing otherwise, and I'll be more than happy to update my terminology, again.

But let's boil this down to one critical question: Can you have wonderful orgasms without letting go of some or a bunch of fluid, most likely urine, in the middle of it?

I say one can, either way. I'm not hearing certain people on the thread admitting that, and that is what I am taking to task. One can't complain that one's opinion is being devalued when one turns right around and does it to other women. And why can't I have an opinion about this? Because I haven't had one of these urine soaked orgasms? There is the implication that I have a miserable - or at least such a useless one that I can't opine on anything -- sex life since I don't have one of these wonderful, emotional, mind blowing wet orgasms. That's irritating. And *wrong*.

And my point about a more tactful approach to evangelicizing the wonders of the Fluid Soaked Orgasm (yep, you guys have got me going now -- I was rather more sympathetic earlier this afternoon) still stands.

(Now I'm wondering if I'm going to be taken to task for scare quotes around dry. I'm betting not.)

I hate the editing on this blog. Shiny big green button beckons clicky clicky. Y'all can ignore my last sentence since I managed to edit my use of "dry" orgasm out of my comment. Meh.

Oh for the love of God and for the last friggin' time, female ejaculate is NOT urine.

It's clear to milky (not unlike semen), feels slippery, and smells sweet.

Again, you say you're not defensive, but you refuse to listen to people who have seen it and done it.

As a woman who ejaculates (without quotation marks) I can assure you that I have not pissed the bed in more than 35 years, thanks. As to whether or not the fluid is urine:

Current theory holds that the female prostate gland is a principal source of ejaculate fluid for some or most women (Cabello 1997; Zaviacic 1999), and that this fluid is expelled through the urethra through rhythmic pelvic contractions. The fluid
contains prostatic specific antigen (PSA) markers that are analogous to PSA markers in male semen created by the male prostate gland during sexual arousal (Zaviacic and Ablin 2000). It may also contain trace amounts of urea from urine residue found in the urethra. Cabello tested the preorgasmic and postorgasmic urine of several
women, including women who do not ejaculate (Cabello 1997). A significant difference was found in PSA values between the two specimens. Cabello
hypothesizes that all women may create ejaculate fluid, although some may have retrograde ejaculation; instead of the fluid being expelled out along the urethra, its follows the urethra back into the bladder. (Gilliland, A. L. (2009). Women’s experiences of female ejaculation. Sexuality & Culture: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, 13(3), 121-134.)

Stimulation of this area, the "Grafenberg spot." produced what she described as orgasm which felt "deeper" than orgasms in response to vulvar stimulation. Such an orgasm was often accompanied by expulsion of liquid from the urethra. Chemical analysis indicated that the expulsion was not urine. It contained prostatic acid phosphatase. an enzyme characteristically found in prostatic secretion. (Addiego, F. (1981). Female ejaculation: A case study. Journal of Sex Research, 17(1), 13-21.)

A few of many studies that have been conducted, written, and published in various journals. The science is there, you just have to look for it.

So let's just agree: I won't claim that a woman who doesn't ejaculate is deficient in some way( because they are not) and you won't claim that I'm pissing on myself and my partner. 'K?

@63, I have at least 30 more studies that I could quote from.

I won't tell you that you can't have mindblowing orgasms without ejaculating--I do at least once a day. I also have mind blowing orgasms that include ejaculating, quite absent of urine. But for you to point your finger and scream "URINE!" is offensive to those of us who have experienced this.

Maddy811, it tastes sweet also. Chemical tests have shown women's ejaculatory fluid to be high in glucose.

As to learning how to ejaculate (sorry, I don't remeber whose comment that was in) I did. I didn't stumble onto this by accident, I decided I wanted to learn how to do thid, and I did. I took a workshop with the incomparable Tristan Tarmino, read a few books, tried some stuff, and I can ejaculate when I want to.

@63 " Can you have wonderful orgasms without letting go of some or a bunch of fluid?"

Yes, of course.

I went years after accidentally squirting without wanting to try that again - far too overpowering and scary. Clitoral orgasm is my friend! But talking to maddie811 and some other women with squirting experience, I have a new curiosity to see if I can have the super intense orgasm without the burst of fear that accompanied it before. If your body is doing what you love, and you're not curious, then more power to you.

I have an absolutely creepy amount of enthusiasm for any and all McCreight-on-Stranger action. It's a good thing anyway.

@49 "I do not believe that evolution would be so cruel as to allow me this kind of pleasure but not other women."

Why not? Because you don't want to?

Just to add my 2 cents: I've ejaculated more than a few times, on purpose, by stimulating my g-spot. I emptied my bladder beforehand, and it was a gush of fluid, so unless my bladder magically refilled itself in 5 minutes, with something that doesn't smell, taste or feel like urine, it wasn't urine. I have also read at least one study that backs that ancedotal evidence with science. "Urine-soaked" is offensive.

I also think suggesting that women who don't, won't, or have no interest in ejaculating are not having as good sex as women who do is offensive. For what it's worth, my clitoral orgasms are much, much more satisfying than ejaculating.

I don't know if all women are capable, but I do know that most women are capable of having anal sex and some do (to great results), some do (to lackluster results) and some don't (and are very happy with that choice). Suggesting that someone's sex life is somehow incomplete or lacking because they don't do this wonderful, amazing thing that *you* get great pleasure out of is an asshole thing to do. Providing information to those that are interested is great - Thanks EricaP.

@71 That was Totes McGoats worth more than 2 cents.

You know you've gone off the track when somebody tells a deaf woman that her inability to squirt is heartbreaking.

Yeah, I definitely cringed my way through that whole part of the podcast. That woman had a few grains of truth wrapped in layers and layers of smothering woo-woo hippy-dippy bullshit, and she was pretty insulting to boot.

(@49 - Evolution essentially is cruelty. It's not just a liberal-approved substitute for God. It's time and struggle and death.)

@73 for every argument you give me from evolutionary psychology about the inherent capacity of humans toward struggle, violence and survival, I will point to scientific data documenting the evolution of empathy, sociality and the need for love as as basic as the need for survival.

Again, the clitoris is the only organ that has evolved for the sole purpose of providing pleasure and it has how many thousands more nerve endings (I forget) than a penis?

New age bullshit aside, I think every woman should experience higher orgasmic states and, if you're gonna base your argument on evolution, there must have been some time where the capacity for pleasure conferred reproductive advantage.

Again, I don't think it's insulting or condescending to want women to experience the most pleasure possible, ejaculation or no. And it seems to me that these folks who insist ejaculation isn't real are forgetting the context in which many women don't orgasm often or at all. Make fun of me all you want for calling that heartbreaking, but i think it is.

I like how this thread is a bunch of women defending the types of orgasms they have.

a few points: 1. that podcast lady was totally offensive. 2. calling female ejaculate "urine" is totally offensive. 3. the only people getting really pissed off are the ones who cannot and/or don't understand female ejaculation and I'm guessing they feel targeted and defensive.

4. do what feels best to you and leave your offensive opinions and misguided ideas out of other peoples bedrooms.

Yeah, I have to say when I was listening to it, I kept thinking "who is this nutbag?"

I like to stimulate my G-Spot because it feels AWESOME. I hate squirting because it's messy-as-hell, takes forever to clean up, and honestly doesn't feel anywhere near as good as a clitoral orgasm.

I'll take the clitoral orgasm any day of the week, and I promise, I wasn't raped when I was 6, and any other squirters who have a problem with that can shove it.

Can't WAIT to hear BlagHag in the podcast! =D Gotta agree that that last guest totally dropped the ball. Still love ya, though, Dan!

@78 then she's not ejaculating, she's peeing.

@45: My partner can't orgasm without ejaculating, which gets messy sometimes. She can't control the ejaculations: they just happen during intercourse. Is there a way she can still have great orgasms but stop the ejaculation sometimes?

@74: I LOVE LOVE LOVE all your posts in this thread, except for the first 2 paragraphs of #74: you missed the point about evolution being cruelty. It's true that empathy and love evolved, but that doesn't change the fact that the process of evolution itself requires huge amounts of suffering and death and doesn't work towards some grand purpose or anything. And I'm not sure the clit evolved for the sole purpose of providing pleasure: it's just the female equivalent of a procreative organ, and the pleasure is likely to be a happy accident.