Jump to content

Talk:Female ejaculation/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

I got kicked off facebook for using this article to settle an argument

in particular the pic depicting the glands — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.58.154 (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

What was the argument? Mhannigan (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

This article needs more sourcing.

It’s a little WP:SYNTHy. Jasphetamine (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The sourcing should be compliant with WP:MEDRS. And WP:SYNTHy in what way? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

19th century “Women’s writing”

This is too vague. Is it meant to refer to written correspondence between women of the era that has been archived and is now public, to a category or sub genre of literature written by or popular with women at the time, or all of the above? Jasphetamine (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Part of this page is inaccurate

The very beginning of the female ejaculation page says that the fluid comes out of the vagina. This is false. The fluid in "squirting" is expelled via the urethra because the Skene's glands drain into the bladder, a much smaller quantity of the fluid can be expelled from small ducts on either side of the urethra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annajack1970 (talk • contribs)

Without going into detail about anatomical matters, I will state that, as the article makes clear, the exact source of the fluid (where it originates from) is debated. I see that you think the "from" wording you've taken issue with is like when uninformed people think that girls/women urinate out of the vagina when the urine isn't expelled from the vagina? In this section of the Vagina article, it is noted that that "vaginal secretions are primarily from the uterus, cervix, and vaginal epithelium in addition to minuscule vaginal lubrication from the Bartholin's glands upon sexual arousal." So even though, for example, vaginal lubrication partly comes from the Bartholin's glands, the lubrication is still called vaginal lubrication. For many or most, the wording "vaginal lubrication" is unproblematic in that case; for others, it's problematic because it can imply that the lubrication via the Bartholin's glands is coming from the vagina itself.
Anyway, if you have alternative wording to propose, preferably with academic sources, go ahead and propose it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
As seen with this edit, the "from" wording was added by an editor in 2017. And I stated, "That doesn't work either, since women do not urinate out of the vagina. I'll look at sources later about how to describe the initial sentence." I added "near" as a temporary, sort of remedy. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Lack of "reliable sources" disclaimer

This article shouldn't be polemical but since there's an apparent lack of studies to support a serious thesis I don't see how it still lacks, at least, the "reliable sources" disclaimer. Marcelo Meirelesmsg 21:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

This topic and therefore this article can't help but be polemical. It's a controversial topic. Period. As for a lack of studies, that doesn't equate to a lack of reliable sources. Sources in this article should generally be WP:MEDRS-compliant. If you are suggesting that the top of the article be tagged with an "additional sources are needed" tag, best to just place that in whatever section it's needed in. Other that, "citation needed" works fine. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

"While its possible function was still uncertain the phenomenon itself was no longer uncertain."

Saidmann, regarding this and this? One reason I reverted is because your edit made the the lead very inadequate. The lead should summarize the article per WP:Lead. The lead I reverted to still needs more added to it, but it at least adequately summarizes the fact that there have been few studies on female ejaculation and the issues with the definitions and research methodology. These aspects are not an outdated matter. These are still factors when studying this subject. I also reverted because your edit made it seem like this topic is no longer controversial and that the debates about female ejaculation are now settled. That's not the case.

I don't see where the reviews you linked to state "While its possible function was still uncertain the phenomenon itself was no longer uncertain." or something like that. Both this 2017 "Differential diagnostics of female 'sexual' fluids: a narrative review" source and this 2020 "Female ejaculation: An update on anatomy, history, and controversies" source state that the topic is controversial. Not that it was controversial. And the 2017 source, despite its title, calls itself a study and is clear that it is "aimed at suggesting a diagnostic scheme to differentiate among these phenomena." While it does define female ejaculation as "the secretion of a few milliliters of thick, milky fluid by the female prostate (Skene's glands) during orgasm, which contains prostate-specific antigen.", it's still the case that researchers and sources on this topic usually do not definitively state that the Skene's gland is the source of female ejaculation. They instead state that there is evidence or strong evidence that the Skene's gland is the source. The 2020 reference is clear that it presents various hypotheses and that there is substantial evidence in support of female ejaculation and it originating in the Skene's glands. Because of all of this, I do not think we should make it seem that debate on these matters is settled. We shouldn't state in Wikipedia's voice that the Skene's gland is the source of female ejaculation, not without a qualifier such as "significant evidence." What I mean is that what we should do, like I've done with this edit, is state that there is considerable evidence that the Skene's gland is the source of female ejaculation. This is the route we take for all types of academic topics, including the Big Bang, where considerable evidence exists but the matter is not presented beyond being the prevailing theory or the widely believed matter. Well, usually not presented as such in formal research. As for the existence of female ejaculation? Well, given that the fluid (debated as urine, otherwise, or both) exists, the phenomenon has obviously existed to women researchers women and researchers in one form or another. But like the 2020 source states, its composition is a matter of debate. And so is its function, which you did note in the lead (although not in a straightforward manner). I've also noted this is in the lead (and in a straightforward manner). Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I have tweaked the lead further, including with this edit. Given the disagreement in the literature about how to define female ejaculation, it might be better to go with "the expulsion of fluid through the urethra during orgasm in response to sexual stimulation" definition used by the 2020 source. Take note that this differs from the 2017 source's definition that includes "by the female prostate (Skene's glands) during orgasm." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

"any fluid expelled from the vagina"

Crossroads, there is no such thing, and there is nothing in the literature that might indicate that there was. The reason is that there is no gland in the vagina that can produce a quantity of anything that could be called "fluid". The obvious cause of the error is that women usually cannot see where the fluid came from and then assume that it might have come (also) from the vagina. But this is anatomically impossible. So, please reinstate the correct version. Thank you. --Saidmann (talk) 11:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The vaginal walls produce a critically important fluid, which increases with arousal, as well as fluid that is made by the vaginal walls and cervix, among other organs like the Bartholin's glands. --Equivamp - talk 14:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Neither vaginal lubrication, nor vaginal discharge is expelled. The quantities are much too small, and there is no muscular system that has the function to expell anyhing from the vagina. The mentioned substances can only ooze out. The Skene's gland and the bladder are altogether different in this respect. They can expell fluids, driven by muscular systems. Also please note that your first source states: "The vaginal lining has no glands". --Saidmann (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Crossroads was right to revert you here. Your wording didn't make sense (in the context of urine being expelled away from the vulva and when trying to relay substances exiting the body rather than substances entering an area of the body) and contrasted what the source states. No matter how one personally defines "fluid", "expulsion" or "expelled," the source states "many individuals refer to any fluid expressed from the vagina or urethra during coitus as female ejaculate, which leads to significant confusion in the literature." I reworded the text just a bit so that I'm not copying the line in its entirety. My text stated, "It is common for any fluid expelled from the vagina or urethra during sexual activity to be referred to as female ejaculate, which has led to significant confusion in the literature." You changed the text to "It is common for any fluid expelled into the vulva during sexual activity to be referred to as female ejaculate, which has led to significant confusion in the literature." My wording relays what the source states, although I chose the word "expelled." Also, whether one states that the vagina has no glands, the Bartholin's glands, which are located on each side of the vaginal opening (though some sources state "located in the vulva on either side of the opening to the vagina", at "either side of the folds of skin (labia) that surround the vagina", at "each side of the labia minora, just outside of the opening to the vagina", etc.), are considered an aspect of the vagina.
Vaginal secretions are primarily from the uterus, cervix, and vaginal epithelium in addition to minuscule vaginal lubrication from the Bartholin's glands upon sexual arousal.[1] Yes, the Bartholin's glands were originally considered the primary source for vaginal lubrication and further examination showed that they provide only a few drops of mucus.[2] Vaginal lubrication is mostly provided by plasma seepage known as transudate from the vaginal walls. This initially forms as sweat-like droplets, and is caused by increased fluid pressure in the tissue of the vagina (vasocongestion), resulting in the release of plasma as transudate from the capillaries through the vaginal epithelium.[2][3][4] Vaginal secretions are sometimes referred to as "vaginal fluids" (or as "fluids") in the literature. And for whatever reason, the 2020 source used the words "any fluid" and "from the vagina." The source does say "expressed" instead of "expelled." But I think "expressed" is a bit odd and confusing to use. So I went with "released" for a compromise. We can also state "that exits from the vagina." As for the word "fluids"? One might think we could use "discharge" instead. But the source is also clearly talking about vaginal lubrication, and vaginal lubrication is not usually what sources mean when they state "vaginal discharge." So what word do you suggest instead of "fluid"? Also keep in mind that I did quote this source lower in the article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Instead of fluid I would suggest secretion. The source refers to women talking about their impressions. Thus the source is correct. But the lead implies that scientists talk about fluid from the vagina. That should also be corrected. --Saidmann (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
The source states "many individuals refer to any fluid expressed from the vagina or urethra during coitus as female ejaculate, which leads to significant confusion in the literature." That line is not stating that women are expressing (as in stating) that fluid comes from their vagina. So per what I stated above about "expressed", I won't be using it for my own words; it can stay in the quote lower in the article. I've gone with "secretion" per your suggestion. The first dictionary definition of "secretion" that came up for me when Googling it states that it is "a process by which substances are produced and discharged from a cell, gland, or organ for a particular function in the organism or for excretion." So the word works when speaking of vaginal substances that exit the vagina. But, of course, it works, given the sources I cited above. Since the source also states "or urethra", and the urethra is not described in the literature as secreting urine (not usually anyway), I wondered if a person might find that "secretion" is not a strong enough word for referring to a substance expelled from the urethra, or might consider it plain inaccurate. So I stuck with "fluid" for the urethra piece. I ended up wording the text as follows: "It is common for any secretion that exits the vagina, and for fluid that exits the urethra, during sexual activity to be referred to as female ejaculate, which has led to significant confusion in the literature." For that line, "secretion" could easily be changed to "substance."
I also looked at different dictionary definitions given for "fluid", and I feel that it's understandable that sources sometimes state "fluid" when speaking of a substance that exits the vagina. But anyway. I changed "released from the" to "exits the." Yesterday, and again today, I additionally wondered if some people might think we are talking about menstrual blood as well. But they should know/most will know that we are we aren't. We state "during sexual activity." And although one can engage in sexual activity, including specifically penile-vaginal sex, during one's period, menstrual blood is released because it's that time of the month.
On a side note: The "no glands" thing reminds me that I had to make this clear back in 2014 at the Vaginal lubrication article. So I definitely understand why you didn't want to give the impression that the vagina itself has glands. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

_____

References

  1. ^ Dutta DC (2014). DC Dutta's Textbook of Gynecology. JP Medical Ltd. pp. 2–7. ISBN 978-9351520689.
  2. ^ a b Sloane E (2002). Biology of Women. Cengage Learning. pp. 32, 41–42. ISBN 978-0-7668-1142-3. Archived from the original on June 28, 2014. Retrieved October 27, 2015.
  3. ^ Bourcier A, McGuire EJ, Abrams P (2004). Pelvic Floor Disorders. Elsevier Health Sciences. p. 20. ISBN 978-0-7216-9194-7.
  4. ^ Wiederman MW, Whitley BE Jr (2012). Handbook for Conducting Research on Human Sexuality. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-1-135-66340-7.

why no video

If there can be a video of male ejaculattion, why not one of female ejaculation? 108.183.249.246 (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2022

In male ejaculation pics and even video is there, why not for female ejaculation? 2409:4073:4E88:675C:71CA:8B69:F5C6:896A (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Don't think there's a prohibition on a video or other media, but there needs there to be a fitting example that meets Wikipedia:Image use policy uploaded. Also note that the term is ill defined and therefore verifying that video does indeed depict ejaculation might be difficult Cannolis (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Female_ejaculation/Archive_4&oldid=1239170163"