Medical science continually refuses to acknowledge the abundance of information surrounding the physical reality of female ejaculation. A considerable amount of contradiction surrounding the subject exists, leaving true sexual educators a mountain of unrealistic notions from those they teach. Providing a clear, consistent message becomes difficult, yet over the past few years prevailing opinions of noted experts have not wavered. We know the reality and continue to teach. Our role as educators would however become easier if funding for large-scale investigational studies were available. Due to the lack of medical priority, the study of women’s sexual behaviors are often left out with regard to research funding.
Until recently, Sexual Research Institutes across the board have not admitted there was anything more going on than loss of bladder control to varying levels. Recently in a news column, Dr. Debby Herbenick, of the Kinsey Institute, was asked a question on the subject. Her article was a skillfully written work. It neither confirms nor denies the medical fact that “orgasmic expulsion” in women is one hundred percent real (Kinsey Confidential, 11-25-08). Nevertheless, it was the first time I have read anything from The Kinsey Institute or Masters and Johnson as the top praised Sexual Institutes even acknowledge the existence of the phenomenon known in lay terms as female ejaculation. It was a pleasure to read the positive, supportive, tone in which the article was written. Forthright communication about women’s sexual fluids in a widely uninformed medical community is going against the flow, and brave to say the least and I commend her actions.
Dr. Herbenick does qualify a couple of points I strongly agree with. First, medical science needs to agree on what to term this physical process. Second, as I previously stated, more research must be done.
As to the name, what should this absolutely real physical response to specific sexual stimulation be called? My belief, if the medical community does finally get together to pin it with a name, they should consider honoring Whipple, Perry, et al, and coin the medical terminology Orgasmic Expulsion from their work in 1981-82, and since then. Their recognition of Ernst Gräfenberg with the coining of the G-Spot in their papers as well as books left a legacy for a pervious pioneer in the field. I believe Orgasmic Expulsion as they called it would fit quite well within the medical community. It remains majority men, and they feel an ownership right to the word ejaculation! So, keep that debate off the board, while also honoring the new pioneers. The layperson may be left as female ejaculation, leaving squirt, gush and other terms to slang.
Now to the second point which I concur. Additional study is clearly needed. Searching for the scientific support of the statements and claims of subjects not witnessed in study environments is warranted. Funding for study should be of paramount importance to the gynecological side as well as the overall mental health and physical wellness segments of women’s health. The supporting scientific studies already exist proving sexual stimulation to completion of ejaculation has calculable health benefits for over a century now. If medical science would be able to simply agree on the analogous parts of men and women that cause ejaculation. Redefine the para-urethral sponge as the female prostate and erectile tissue. Women and men share the same individual structures. Although sexual differentiation prevents ovaries from descending and becoming testis, and so on, there now clear support that the glands surrounding the urethra in women is analogous to the male prostate. As well, the fluids expelled from the female, during sexual stimulation contains prostate specific antigens. We should simply realize the parts are the same they do not disappear though their location may change. How science found a need to separate analogous parts by different medical terminology is beyond my comprehension. The glands in our throats are called the same thing. Why, however, are the glands and tissue that surround the urethra identified differently? Because of the sexes? On the other hand, perhaps it is connected to the taboo of male scientists doing critical analysis of women’s sexual organs. I am not sure the reason for this but it surely adds to the confusion. Most, if not all, conversations I choose to inject that women have a prostate inevitably evokes debate. This debate can be dissuaded when illustrations are available. Showing the profiles of male and female abdomens often demonstrate the analogous nature of the body parts. An educated or intelligent person can easily see the apparent similarity. However, graphics are not something you can carry around in your pocket.
Progress is being made. The medical community is still overdue in coming together and agreeing that in the study of female ejaculation is worth the investment. It would allow both women and men who have had the experience of FE clear answers rather than embarrassment and contemplation of costly medical procedures to correct something that is purely natural and very real.