The British Board of Film Classification provides a list of permissible content for
videos seeking classification as 'R18' category videos, available only to adults from
licensed sex shops. This permissible content includes aroused genitalia, and ejaculation
and semen. Ejaculation is not qualified by gender, hence it would seem reasonable to
assume that this would permit female as well as male ejaculation. However, on May 2001, a
video entitled British Cum Queens (initially submitted as Squirt Queens),
was finally passed with a R18 certificate having been cut by six minutes and 12 seconds
because the ejaculation of fluid by female performers as a sexual response was deemed to
be urolagnia, banned in accordance with the Obscene Publications Act 1959. The Board
reasoned that the film did not show female ejaculation because, according to the 'expert
medical advice' received by the Board, female ejaculation does not exist.
Feminists Against Censorship (FAC) express their surprise and dismay at this judgment,
and have sought advice from the world's foremost medical researchers specialising in
female sexuality and female ejaculation. Our findings, summarised here, lead us to the
conclusion that female ejaculation cannot be rejected out-of-hand as non-existent. Having
found scientific researchers who are prepared to state that 'all, or at least most, women
ejaculate'[1], the conclusion which FAC would concur with is that 'the existence of a
female prostate and the phenomenon of female ejaculation are fact not fantasy'[2]. The
spontaneous release of fluid - ejaculation - is a part of sexual response for at least
some women, pointing to a purely discriminatory approach to ejaculation by the Board -
that is, the depiction of male, but not female, ejaculation is being permitted.
It should be emphasised that FAC has no direct connection with the video material in
question and this submission is not made on behalf of or at the request of any film-maker.
FAC is concerned that the Board has made a discriminatory decision, contrary to the most
recent expert medical advice, and a decision which continues to suppress the
acknowledgement of the full range of sexual response which exists in women. FAC seeks from
the Board its acknowledgement of the existence of female ejaculation in the light of the
research referred to here, and urges the Board to consider fully the implications of this
for its future decisions.
The Board, in a response given to www.world-sex-news.com, stated that "expert
medical advice informed us that there is no such thing as 'female ejaculation' and that
the fluid present in Squirt Queens (and the earlier tape) was in fact
urine"[3]. Such a simple statement, when compared to research findings in the wider
scientific community, can only imply that the adviser consulted by the Board was not an
expert in female sexuality. Many medical experts, even those with experience of urology
and reproductive biology, may not have had training in human sexuality. It is certainly
not knowledge that should be taken for granted; "Even amongst anatomists and
sexologists, there is an astonishing lack of agreement over what actually constitutes
women's genital anatomy"[4].
There is now acknowledgement that female genital anatomy includes a female prostate,
also known as the paraureathral glands, or Skene's glands, named as such in the 1880s[5],
and described in their historical and anatomical detail in 1948 by John W. Huffman[6].
Interest in the sexual function of the female prostate was taken up by Earnst Grafenberg
in 1950, who wrote of the "large quantities of a clear, transparent fluid [that] are
expelled not from the vulva, but out of the urethra in gushes"[7]. Later, scientific
interest stemmed from a paper by Sevely and Bennett which concluded that female
ejaculation had received wide acknowledgement in many cultures prior to the twentieth
century, and that the female prostate had a role in the production of fluid released as a
part of female sexual response.[8] Dr Beverly Whipple and Dr John Perry included a chapter
on female ejaculation in their 1982 book on the G-Spot[9], and Whipple continued to pursue
the subject in articles and conference lectures, and made, in clinical setting, a film
which showed women ejaculating.[10]
Research in the 1980s and 1990s finally began to analyse the chemical of fluids
released in female sexual response in some depth, focussing on the presence of
prostate-specific antigen (PSA) manufactured in the female prostate, and the concentration
of other substances (urea, creatinine, glucose, fructose) in relation to their usual
concentration in urine, usually achieved by taking samples of pre-orgasmic urine,
post-orgasmic urine, and female ejaculate.
Analysis carried out by Whipple and Perry in the early 1980s established substantially
higher levels of prostate-specific antigen and glucose, and substantially lower levels of
creatinine and urea, in samples of ejaculatory fluid than in samples of urine from the
same women.[11]
A simple marker test carried out by Whipple, in which the characteristic odor produced
by ingesting asparagus was clearly present in subjects' urine, demonstrated that this was
not present in female (and indeed in male) ejaculate, demonstrating a difference in the
two fluids.[12] This is similar in its result to the much reported experiment in which a
student of Edwin Belzer took a drug to dye her urine bright blue, and found that whilst
her urine became strongly coloured as expected, the fluids she ejaculated during
masturbation showed only a slight blue tinge or no colour at all.[13]
A study by F Cabello Santamaria analysed urine for prostate-specific antigen (PSA)
using Microparticle Enzyme Immunoassy and found that 75 per cent of the sample showed a
concentration of PSA in postorgasmic urine samples which was not present in preorgasmic
urine samples.[14] The fluid collected at the point of orgasm (distinct from the urine
samples) showed the presence of PSA in 100 per cent of samples. Cabello believes his
research to confirm his hypothesis that all women are capable of ejaculation, but the
amount of fluid expelled from the female prostate, or the direction in which it is
expelled (towards the bladder), mean that it is not always perceived. (Cabello notes that
retrograde ejaculation is also an occurance in some men.)
Cabello provides his own summary of those whose work he concludes has proven the
presence of PSA in females fluids: "...we have all those authors that try to prove
that women emit a certain fluid, different from vaginal lubrication, during their sexual
response (Grafenberg, 1950; Sevely & Bennet, 1978; Belzer et al, 1981; Perry &
Whipple, 1981; Addiego at al,. 1981; Sensabaugh & Kahane, 1982; Belzer et al., 1884;
Zaviavic et al., 1984; Stifter, 1987 etc). Thanks to this last group, the presence of
prostate acid phosphate and fructose in the supposed female ejaculation, elements normally
present in male ejculation, seems proven".[15] According to Whipple, it is Zaviacic
in his 1999 book on the human female prostate[16] who provides "the most complete
enzyme histochemical, exocrine, and imunohistochemical studies on the female prostate and
the analysis of female ejaculation".[17]
Despite this body of evidence, it cannot be said that the issue is without
complications. Dr John Perry has attempted to analyse findings further, to propose that
there may be more than one type of sexual response in women which involves the emission of
fluid. 'Pure' female ejaculation involves secretions of the female prostate;
alternatively, 'gushing' involves a much diluted form of urine; or the two phenomena may
occur in combination.[18] Whilst larger volumes of fluid may indicate that it involves the
expulsion of dilute urine, its chemical composition implies that it is a distinct part of
sexual response rather than ordinary urination. An experiment recorded by Dr Gary Schubach
involved female subjects engaging in sexual stimulation then having their bladders drained
with a catheter. After this draining, seven women still expelled 50 -900 ml of fluid in
sexual response, fluid that showed "a greatly reduced concentration of urine and
creatinine (the primary components of urine). The clear inference was that the expelled
fluid is an altered form of urine, meaning that there appears to be a process that goes on
during sensual or sexual stimulation and excitement that effects the chemical composition
of urine".[19]
It is reasonable to suggest that the most far-reaching conclusion to be drawn from this
is that it is not credible to expect the expulsion of urine (especially if chemically
altered, vastly diluted expulsions from the bladder are still to be described as urine) to
always be kept completely out of scenes of sexual activity and response.
It is certainly not acceptable for the Board to promulgate a point of view that lacks
clear research support, and denies both women and men knowledge of a natural female sexual
response. Too often in history women have been denied the right to know about aspects of
their own biology, and have lived with the fear that the way in which their own bodies
function is not 'normal'. Cabello considers it sufficiently important to state that
"With the obtained data, we...calm those women who fear that they have urinated while
experiencing orgasm"[20]. Indeed, it is not a trifling matter when some women have
been referred for surgery to correct what is perceived to be some form of urinary
incontinence.[21] To accept that female ejaculation exists is not synonymous with stating
that all women ejaculate, nor with advocating ejaculation as the goal of sexual
achievement for all women. We are sure that the Board must be aware that much of the
sexual material it passes with an R18 certificate does not necessarily represent the
sexual experiences of all women.
The fact that in September 2000 the Board passed a film (British Housewives
Fantasies Part 1) which showed two women ejaculating on orgasm implies that there is
some recognition by the Board that the expulsion of fluid by women can be a natural sexual
response distinct from urination. This accords perfectly with the view of an NHS
Consultant in Human Sexuality: "Ejaculatory women do not 'choose' to void urine, it
is the consequence of a neural reflex and a natural part of their sexual
response"[22]. The move away from what could seemingly be described as a 'common
sense' approach cannot be justified by the opinion of a single unnamed medical expert and
advice from the police on the interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act.
The Board does not pass material that it considers to be in breech of the Act - that
is, material with a tendency to deprave and corrupt. Yet the events which led to more
relaxed guidelines for R18 category videos being published in July 2000 indicate that
female ejaculation may not necessarily fall foul of this definition. Indeed, this should
be balanced against the damage that can be done to women by indicating that what they
experience as a natural response to sexual stimulation simply does not exist.
In addition to the scientific research summarised here, there are also the testimonies
of ordinary women, which should not be overlooked. These range from experiences of "a
dime-sized puddle on the bathroom floor" to "very dramatic squirting episodes
where the fluid hit my toes"[23]. It should not be forgotten that women are still
developing from a past in which their ability to orgasm has been disputed, not to mention
their proper role being characterised as one of disinterest in sexual matters and sexual
response altogether. The anxiety which some of the scientific researchers refer to is also
expressed: "During sex, I worried and got embarrassed about the mess I seemed to
make"[24]. If the Board continues to blindly support the line that 'female
ejaculation does not exist', does that mean all women who experience it are liars? Can the
Board really expect to sustain an approach which, when measured against its own
guidelines, appears to be based so heavily on ignorance and discrimination?
Appended is a bibliography on the subject of female ejaculation that demonstrates the
volume of research on this subject, plus correspondence sent directly to FAC from relevant
researchers in support of our submission on this issue. We are confident that the
arguments presented here, and specifically, the expert research which supports these
arguments, is far stronger than whatever 'evidence' the Board may have considered in
rejecting outright the existence of female ejaculation. The research may not all be
straightforward, but, "to be fair, our understanding of ejaculatory physiology in men
is almost as rudimentary as our understanding of it in women, but no-one has the temerity
to say that male ejaculation does not exist".[25]
We look forward to your response, and sincerely hope that it will adequately reflect
the depth of scientific research which is available on this matter, and the right of women
not to have their natural sexual responses denied and censored.
Yours sincerely,
Louise Achille and Catherine Wilkinson
on behalf of Feminists Against Censorship
Female ejaculation, or shiofuki, as it's called in Japanese takes the term
also used to describe a whale spouting water.