OK, let’s pick apart my original comment, since I think it’s fair to approach that and attempt to see the interpretation from your side, since I don’t have your eyes, I would appreciate that perspective.
I’ve tended to disagree with a host of your articles in the past. However, this article is absolutely spot on!
The only thing I can probably argue differently is the above sub-paragraph.
In the bedroom, women’s responses have traditionally been used by men, and some women, as a yardstick of the man’s prowess in that department. The kind of mythical response to a virile man who is so amazing in bed that the woman he’s with loses all control of herself, screaming and then collapsing and passing out, fainted limp and lifeless. It’s akin to Trump and his “locker room” talk.
Yeah man, I grabbed her p^*%@# so hard she squirted!
The first thing I want to be clear about is Emma’s article is in this instance, spot on. Female ejaculate is peeing. Emma’s article wasn’t the first time I’d seen this news, since I saw the original research independently (which may or may not have been assumed in the responses). In any event, Emma’s baseline is 100% accurate and I don’t question the facts, since I saw the same facts and agree with Emma’s position. If I had to disagree with anything, it would be the assertion above which isn’t attached to any research. I state this because of the first sentence, which for convenience, is:
So, why are we so obsessed with the squirt?
Well, probably because it looks a lot like a male orgasm.
The word probably infers a personal opinion. I don’t question facts and if you’re assertion is that my facts, which are the same facts as Emma’s cited research, are wrong, then Emma’s research would be wrong, which it isn’t. This leads us into a recursively contradictory, ad absurdum position. It would be useful to know what I’m missing with this though.
The idea of a squirting response is exactly that sort of rubbish [Ed: Trump’s “locker room talk”, male’s ego attachment to female orgasms etc.]. Women who have been conditioned into that way of thinking and with the natural need to want to pleasure a partner, which is present in any/both partners, it results in a feeling of deficiency or shame when that person discovers such a truth. It shakes them to the core sometimes. Some even turn that truth inwards and start thinking they haven’t actually been that good a partner.
The one thing it definitely isn’t, is a reminder of a male orgasm. Not sure there is any evidence of that at all.
I stated the last sentence for two reasons. The first is that it isn’t necessary for it to be a reminder of the male orgasm. Throughout the last 2 centuries, the patriarchal societies we lived in, with similar representation in media (including plays and public displays) tended to represent women as “fainting” and “swooning” which were perceived in contemporary society as females falling through flustering. Whilst in reality it was just as “evil” , in no small part, due to dressing for the benefit of men. Either way, no good result. This isn’t a position I came up with, as it was inferred from historians and historical records. I invite you to read that article, as I’d be interested in your take.
We cant forget that sex is exercise and due to the body’s breakdown and filtration of creatinine during exercise, which happens if folk go to the gym, that’s likely why they’re seeing a larger concentration of it in the post-coital urine. Totally natural process. It’s still pee and it’s 100% pee. Pee isn’t a chemical term. It’s a compound of varying levels of various molecules. It’s why it’s different colours, precisely as you say.
This is in reference to the reason for the creatinine. As someone who spends a lot of time in the gym, especially as an ex-thrower, I am more attuned to the existence of hormonal and enzyme changes in the human body during exercise than most. This has been well studied completely independent of myself. That is true fact, not alternative. I’d be interested to know which part of this you see as alternative.
All that being said, the rest of your article is absolutely bang on the money. The facts are the objective reality, whatever folk choose to believe or close their eyes and ears to. If a tree falls in the woods and one isn’t listening to it, then it crushes you if it falls your way. That’s the reality. Pure and simple.
This was a direct troll of men or women who, for various reasons, may want to believe in the existence of female ejaculate counter the means by which Emma’s article states. However, as Emma, the OP, rightly points out and cites, the science doesn’t back that up.
As for continuing to talk to me, you certainly don’t have to. The same is true vice versa. I am interested in learning stuff. I am not all that interested in whether you want to help educate anyone. It isn’t an obligation of yours to educate anyone else, as it isn’t mine. You can choose to enlighten, or you can choose to remain in positions that echo certain sympathies, without a connection to the rest of the world, as Trump’s underground support did. As someone who is keen on learning, I rarely block quickly, because I want to glean as much understanding as possible. That said, when it is clear that there isn’t really any more point in continuing the conversation, then I for one, lose patience. The choice of that is between the parties in conversation. The can continue to learn from the other nobody-on-the-internet, or both nobodies can go separate ways. Whatever suits.