Talk:Female ejaculation

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Feminism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Female ejaculation. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Female ejaculation at the Reference desk.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Female ejaculation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 60 days

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change Terrence Hines to Terence Hines. 2600:1700:7794:D540:6535:E121:F8C4:4AD0 (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done UtherSRG (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please correct the web link for the source 10.1007/s00192-017-3527-9 (correct link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322099654_Differential_diagnostics_of_female_sexual_fluids_a_narrative_review). (Currently it links to another publication: 10.1016/j.jpag.2018.04.007.) 157.143.14.30 (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Zefr (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article makes it clear that it's about expelling a small amount of creamy fluid (ejaculation) and not about a large amount of clear fluid (squirting). Yet, both the "squirt" disamb page and a Google search for squirting link here, and there doesn't appeal an article on the clear fluid discharge.

Happy to work on adding that information but wanted to see if anyone thought it'd be better as part of this article or on its own page. I'd lean towards the former as it seems even the scientific literature is still wrestling with the nomiclature of the two effects, so I think it makes sense for "Female Ejaculation" to cover both...

I can also see an argument for a name change to "Vulvic Ejaculation" as not all people with vulvas are female. Haven't edited on here in over a decade so I'm not sure if there's a site wide policy on that.

jwanders^Talk 14:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the last comment: retain “female”. It is far more common in RSs, far more likely to be searched by those looking for the topic, and we are referring to the female organs here, not whatever gender a person decides they are. The article title is thus biologically and sexually accurate. I have no opinion on the rest. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the thing is all over the place, it'd make for a much better return to start aiding the content rather than messing around with names. But if anything, and since you're arguing for a mash-up yourself, the current title is lopsided in the exact other place and in the sense that it gives undue weight to only one of the two phenomena. The *much* less commonly known/named at that, nowhere justified. I'd prefer it the other way around, just call it squirting, it's what people would look for; then disambiguate for other, more specific and possibly more contentious mechanisms. Another option is trying to be general, and hyper-sciencey, and go for sth. like "orgasmic/sexual expulsions in women", knowing that even fewer people would *ever* search for something like that. To me this is all clinical paper talk, and with all respect for the required kinds of sources, body matters and sexuality isn't only about scientific papers. Nor does an encyclopedia catering to general readership absolutely have to ape their caption choices. That being said, there's a ton of papers with squirting in the title as well. No scare quotes. -194.114.136.17 (talk) 02:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]