Female Ejaculation
and the Beer-Piss Hypothesis
By John D. Perry, PhD
Recent research by Gary Schubach at the Institute for Advanced
Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco has prompted me to re-examine both my
published work and private thoughts on the topic of "female
ejaculation". This re-evaluation has also been stimulated by the release of
certain videotapes, including the widely-publicized "How to Female
Ejaculate". It appears that the topic is more complicated than first
supposed.
The most controversial aspect of the discoveries about female
ejaculation concerns the volume of fluids sometimes claimed, or even
photographed and videotaped. Many professionals have been unable to find these
large-volume ejaculations credible, especially in the light of the relatively
small mass of the glands that comprise the Skene's glands (also known as
paraurethral glands or female prostate). At the very least, they argue, the
female glands should not be credited with producing any more, and probably less,
fluid than the corresponding male glands.
I had the good fortune of being divorced and dating in the
brief idyllic period after the publication of "The G Spot" (mid-1982) and
before AIDS became a household word in Portland, Maine. (The first AIDS
case there was in late 1984.) My "recovery" was helped considerably by
a local Divorce Support Group at the church.
Eventually I joined the local
"Together" dating service, and for a few months enjoyed a grueling
"social" life - a professional advantage that was denied to
researchers like Kinsey and Masters. Although the service promised something
like 2 new dates a month, I averaged at least four a week. I met some wonderful
women and had some marvelous times. I more than made up for my shy younger
years.
Obviously my new partners were somewhat
"self-selected" - it was my professional reputation, not my good looks
- that caused my popularity. So it should not be surprising that many, if not
most, of the women I dated were capable of "female ejaculation".
Providing, of course (to borrow Master & Johnson's famous fudge-phrase) they
received sufficient "effective stimulation".
But here's the caveat: in
every case, the amount of ejaculation would best be described as "less than
a thimble-full", sometimes MUCH less, and never the copious amounts shown
in recent films. Since many credible sources had attested to larger amounts, I
kept my private thoughts private, thinking that my "data" was still
"within normal limits".
The publication of Fanny Fatale's videotape "How to Female Ejaculate"
in 1992 raised questions again in my mind, but there was no
scientific data to investigate. But even from the very first public discussions
about female ejaculation (i.e., well before there was any public cultivation of
it as an art form) I was aware of reports of larger volume ejaculations than I had
personally experienced - or could comprehend.
The recent research of Gary Schubach provides a new handle on
the investigation of female ejaculation. Gary was kind enough to send me a copy
of his paper, and to loan a videotape of the actual research activities. His
methodology was innovative - and, I think, interestingly flawed - but like good
research should, it has significant heuristic value.
What Gary and his staff did was to catheterize female subjects
who were then stimulated in their favorite ways to "ejaculate". The
fluid that was collected (before, during and after) was later analyzed. The
fluid was described as a "watered down" form of urine; that is, with
much lower than normal (within subjects) amounts of urea and creatinine.
There were no components that might have had origins in the
paraurethral glands, which was expected, since the catheter prevented their
entry into the collection device. The author speculates that in other
researcher's results, such as Belzer et al, the fluids which may have originated
in the bladder were mixed with fluids which may have originated in the
paraurethral glands. [This is only a superficial comment on Schubach's first
report, which we can expect to see in greater detail in the appropriate
publishing time.]
Schubach's finding of "watered down urine" in the
bladder of sexually-stimulated subjects was especially provocative. I have long
been fascinated by - and irritated by - the presence of what appeared to be
"watered down urine" in my own experience. When I was growing up, we
learned to call it "Beer Piss". Folklore explained that this as a
function of drinking excessive amounts of alcoholic beverage. I found that it
happened to me most often when flirting and drinking in very active "pick
up" bars. Just when the conversation got interesting, I'd have to excuse
myself to pee, and I was always irritated to notice the colorless
"urine" that I expelled, sometimes three or four times in a single
evening.
As a matter of fact, I switched to concentrated hard-liquor
drinks under such circumstances, hoping to reduce the amount or at least the
frequency of "beer piss" interruptions. It didn't really solve the
problem, but in typical unscientific reasoning, I would tell myself how much
worse it would be if I had been drinking beer! An alternative explanation, which
is given some support by Schubach's research, is that the colorless expulsions
were really stimulated by sexual arousal.
Research Suggestion: I've long been vaguely aware of the role
of sexual stimulation in "beer piss". In fact, I once envisioned doing
"field studies" in the men's room of a popular singles bar. One
experimenter, stationed next to the urinals, would offer a financial incentive
to men who would (1) describe their drink selections and (2) pee into a bottle
for later analysis. A confederate, cued by hidden communications devices, would
observe and record the social interaction of the sample-givers. I predicted that
the most aggressive males would have the "weakest" pee.
Research Aside: Just as "beer piss" has nothing to
do with "beer", so also the "Piss Hard-On" of the
just-awakened male has nothing to do with "piss". It is only
coincidental that the male has to pee AND has an erection, a fact which becomes
obvious when - in later years - one begins to pee in the early morning and go
back to bed. Then one still wakes up with the erection, but doesn't have to pee.
Erections come from thinking (or dreaming) about sex, not from having a full
bladder.
The "beer piss" hypothesis raises an interesting
question about the famous Urised experiment conducted by a student of Prof. Ed
Belzer in Halifax in 1980 ("Orgasmic Expulsions of Women", Journal of
Sex Research, Vol. 17, Feb. 1981, p. 6). You will recall that Belzer first
became interested in researching female ejaculation when a graduate student
reported wetting the sheets during sex. As a test, she ingested a Urised tablet,
which turns the urine blue, and reported that sex-related wet spots ranged from
"a faint bluish tinge" to "no color at all". On the other
hand, intentional urination produced a distinctly deeper blue such that
"there was no comparison". Missing from the report is information
about the timing of the various spots - we don't know if the "urine"
spot came before or after the "ejaculations", nor by how much time.
Now that Schubach has established the presence of watered-down
urine in sexually-aroused subjects, the Urised experiments will have to be
repeated in a manner to control for "beer piss". Obviously the same
mechanism that produces fluid in the bladder that lacks the yellow color might
also produce fluid that lacks the blue color. We need a kidney expert on the
team!
Prior to 1980 it was accepted that any fluid released during
orgasm was a variation on urinary stress incontinence. Several subsequent
reports have demonstrated the presence - sometimes -- of chemical components
that obviously have their origins in the paraurethral glands. But the
paraurethral glands can only produce a small amount of fluid (just like in the
male, of course.) What are we to make of large-volume non-yellow expulsions,
such as shown in the recent "How To" film? One hypothesis is that
women are being trained to release "beer piss", either in addition to
OR instead of ejaculation.
In summary, there now appears to be three kinds of fluid that
women may expel during sexual activity:
(1) ordinary urination (large volume, yellow color)
(2) female ejaculation (small volume, colorless)
(3) "beer piss" (large volume, also colorless)
And combining (2) and (3) leads to a fourth option:
(4) ejaculation mixed with "beer piss" (large
volume, colorless)
The proof - provided by Schubach's research - that women can
produce "beer piss" (just like men) goes a long way towards resolving
the skepticism that many scientists had about female ejaculation in the early
1980s. After all, most skeptics did not challenge the presence of acid
phosphatase and glucose in ejaculation specimens, but they did reject the large
volumes of fluid reported as being inconsistent with the glandular source.
Option (4) above provides a plausible explanation.
There is much more of interest in Schubach's research, which
I'm sure will soon be published and reported in detail.
In view of the recent discussions on SexNet* about the
importance of revising one's opinions in the light of recent discoveries, I felt
it was incumbent on me to report this first major revision in my thinking.
- John D. Perry, PhD
* This paper was first posted on "SexNet", a
professional mailing list for academically oriented sex researchers, on May 1, 1997
Copyright 1997 by John D. Perry, PhD. All rights
reserved.
This page was been viewed 
times since it was first posted on this
website on February 3, 2001.
