Indigo Investigates Vulva Ejaculation

10 out of 10
Pairs well with late nights and strong coffee. When you get to the bottom of something, you need both of those.
Recently, I have been having a lot of orgasms, thanks to the miracle of testosterone. Not only do I always want sex, but I commonly use sex as stress relief because apparently, I physiologically can’t cry anymore. Like, the emotions are there, but the release isn’t? This is fine. I’m fine.
But it inspired me to research ejaculation in bodies with vulvae, because that is not a subject that is often talked about. When it is talked about, there’s a lot of discussion about “controversy.” Because I am a student and a scholar, I have finally done some solid research in the databases available to me and I have found several scientific articles and studies relating to female ejaculation, and as a bonus, I’ll also discuss the Grafenburg Spot (G-Spot).
Let me start with my personal adventure. I have often been described as “juicy” by my partners. I produce a lot of natural lubricant and when I orgasm, I often ejaculate or “squirt.” Let me tell you, waterproof sheets saved my life. I began to hear the words G-Spot and squirting when I worked at a sex shop. I was curious about this, so I did some fast internet research. I found that it is somewhat common, but not everyone does this. I felt a bit lucky because it came up in porn so much, and I assumed it was desirable. It is actually a pain to deal with because I kept ruining sheets. My laundry stacked up fast.
After becoming a blogger and really exploring my body with new toys, I realized that this “squirting” thing wasn’t new to me and I had been doing big orgasms this whole time. So I began to lean into this concept of using layers of towels, and I started using my Pure Wand with more excitement. In those moments when I really need a good cry, I’d reach for my Pure Wand and fuck myself until I was dehydrated from squirting. It wears me out and gives me a cathartic release that normally, yelling into a pillow in agony would. Thank the gods for this cathartic release.
So what does ejaculation feel like? Well, instead of feeling the stimulation in my labia or clit, I often feel it deeper and…higher? Like instead of crotch feeling good, the area within my pubic mound feels good. It can sometimes be almost painful, but I like the intensity. When I orgasm from G-Spot stimulation, I am almost guaranteed to squirt. Well, to be honest, I gush, really. It sometimes projects out, but that is usually helped with thrusting. Normally, it just sort of rushes like a tiny waterfall. A twaterfall, if you will. Instead of tingling and pulling up, I feel a push down and my whole body tenses deeply.
Sometimes, my ejaculate is odorless and cloudy. Sometimes, it smells a bit like urine, or even just how my vagina smells that day. I don’t worry about what it smells like, beyond just checking in with my body. If it smells really bad, then I worry I have an infection, but if it’s just a little bit like pee, I’m not worried. After all, I know that ejaculate does void through the urethra, so it makes sense that it would smell a bit like urine, which also voids that way.
So I experience this. Big deal, right? WRONG. Here’s the truth: there are many many people with vulvae that experience the same thing! I consistently hear about many people who quirt, whose G-Spots swell during sex, who can’t orgasm without stimulation there. So it’s not just me. And the sample size is not small, despite what people say.
So I turned to the research. There is surprisingly little on this phenomenon, which doesn’t surprise me. There is research enough to confirm it might exist. The only reason to research would be to understand it better, which isn’t tied to life-saving science, but social justice science. Most of the studies around sex are related to bodies with penises, and in order for this to be studied, it would shift the focus, which removes privilege. As a result, the studies aren’t funded. It’s “not important” according to the powers that be. This is my personal opinion, but I’m willing to bet that I’m not alone in this train of thought.
Though there are many studies that say female ejaculation is real and the G-Spot has plausible evidence to be investigated, there are still people saying that it isn’t real. And to have my experiences (and many others’) invalidated is wrong. You can’t tell me that so many people with vulvae just don’t know their bodies or just don’t understand sex. I have sex a lot. And I know my body well enough to know you are the one who is wrong. My purchase of a sex sheet is NOT in vain.
Here’s what the science actually says. The Kamasutra mentions “when she feels him moving in a certain spot inside her, the pleasure of that touch makes her eyes whirl around in a circle.” So there is a clear space in the vagina that is arguably more sensitive or responsive. Well that makes sense because the vagina is surrounded by many different organs, glands and nerve paths. However, it has been consistently found by many people in the same general area. So there’s a historical context for the G-Spot existing, at least for some.
In 1981, a gynecologist named Martin Weisberg at a conference heard about female ejaculation and didn’t believe it. He went to the speakers of the panel and asked if it was true. They not only confirmed it, but showed him some subjects who were willing to demonstrate in person. It was so compelling that he later wrote a note in The Journal of Sex Research about how gynecologists were not helping their clients if they didn’t know about ejaculation. He went so far as to posit that in the future, there would be laughter about the debate of female ejaculation. I can only hope, my friend.
In 1981, there was another paper published regarding a case study, which means just one person. Addeigo and company studied a woman who consistently released fluid when she had sex with her husband. They wanted to know what it was and if it could be related to the G-Spot. So they manually stimulated her G-Spot and she ejaculated as a response. This was in a controlled environment with similar stimulation each time. They gathered the fluid and studied it’s contents. They found that though it had some similar components to urine (urea, glucose, cretinine), it was largely Prostatic Acid Phosphatase. This chemical literally has “prostate” in the name. Which means it’s not a primary ingredient in urine. Later, it was hypothesized that this fluid comes from a series of glands that are biologically analogous to the prostate in typical penis-owners. This is why the G-Spot is sometimes called “the female prostate.” You can get out with your over-simplified, gendered bullshit.
So if these people see it, where’s the counterarguments? In my research, I found one article which I could access that had creative scientific counterpoints. It was written by a Terence Hines. In this one article, Hines mentioned a lack of historical mention of the G-Spot (which I have already disproved in my discussing the Kamasutra. This same article also discusses how there is a lack of scientific studies around the G-Spot. Those which exist are primarily anecdotal often has small sample sizes. Well, most phenomenon were stories before they were studies. How about we get some proper funding, and proper scientists on this, eh?
His last argument was regarding nerve endings. Hines discusses the lack of nerve endings around the vagina, which means it’s unlikely that it will be a center of deep sensations which many people with vulvae describe. Except so many people describe the sensation as deeper and not the same as other stimulation. So I hate to break it to you, Hines, but you’re looking for nerve endings in the wrong spot.
Basically, we just need to listen to people with vulvae. We know our own bodies. Even if the scientists get funding and prove the G-Spot doesn’t exisit, would you use that as an excuse to not pleasure someone in a way they enjoy? Do you really feel the need to be right over the desire to please a partner? Why?
This post was written in collaboration with Sheets of San Francisco. The research was my own work and opinions are my own. These sheets have been my best toy, which I use every time I masturbate. If you also squirt, or want to, pick some up.

Indigoes: Four Great Concepts I Learned Out of AltSex 2018

Last year, I heard about a little conference called AltSexNYC. I was truly enamored with the idea of a bunch of people who study sex and psychology in a room together talking about sex and psychology. So I decided to go by myself. With very few connections in New York City at the time, I was a little nervous, but I made a friend through another friend who let me stay with them. It turns out that a bunch of people studying sex and/or psychology and coming together to talk about sex and psychology was perfect for me! So when it came up again this year, I immediately bought my tickets. This time, I was lucky enough to stay in a hostel and bring a friend.
I always learn fascinating things from conferences, but this one has a special place in my heart because it’s so professional-based and very much about research that I just learn things I know I will use and expand on in my everyday life. So let me tell you about the 4 mind-blowing concepts I learned at AltSex2018.
First. The DSM is lazy. Samuel Hughes presented some excellent research about kink and how it develops in our lives. One thing he briefly touched on was the pathologization of kink. In easy terms, we often think of kink as a medical issue to be fixed. The evidence of this can be found in the Diagnostics and Statistics Manual (DSM), where we currently find around 8 diagnoses that have to do with sex and/or kink. These include Masochism, Sadism, Fetishism, and Pedophilia to name a few. Now, most of them cannot be diagnosed without one major component: That it causes significant distress to the patient.
So many people think don’t get diagnosed with these things. And Hughes made the argument that we should not be using them at all. Because the desires are not the problem. The results are. So instead, of diagnosing someone with Masochism, get to the bottom of their distress around it. Are they in physical danger from too much harm? Are they in distress because they worry what others will think (external locus of control)? Those issues are fixable. With pedophilia, the issue isn’t the desire or attraction itself, but the action around it. That is more related to impulse control, which has other diagnoses.
I recently heard that the use of the word “crazy” is just laziness because you usually mean something else. When I say that some administration is crazy because it’s making policies against marginalized communities, I probably mean “careless,” “thoughtless,” or even “cruel.” But not crazy. Now, I’m beginning to think of these diagnoses in the same way.
Second. Sex Educators are still using the word “virginity.” There were many times I heard the word virgin in this conference. Someone even used the phrase “lose their virginity.” I cringed so hard when I heard it. Virginity is an out-dated, sexist concept that was used to commodify women and control sexuality. I think that a room full of people should say “had sex for the first time.” Or “someone who hasn’t had/engaged in sex.” I feel so strongly about this because:
Third. Language is incredibly important. Both inside and outside of communities.
One study presented talked about common traits of “tops” and “bottoms.” It was presented by two people who seemed to be outside of the community, or at least less knowledgeable. They never addressed switches. They never defined “top” and “bottom.” They never diverged the idea of top/bottom dynamics from dominant/submissive dynamics. Then they attempted to take these words from the context of BDSM and apply them to the vanilla community.
In that transfer, the words lost their meaning. Instead, the presenters described “topping” and “bottoming” like dancing. “Someone has to lead,” they said. Well, when you enter a room of kinksters, and those who work with kink, you need new language. Because those words are taken and they do not mean what you think they do. The words we use in kink and negotiation are as important as pronouns or names. We cannot recycle them. Leading/Following, Topping/Bottoming and Domming/Subbing are all different concepts in subtle ways. If you take our language, you muddy the waters through which we tread and someone will be hurt.
Lastly. Being seen is being mistaken for being loved. Dr. Herukhuti gave the last speech of the conference. It was beautiful and moving. There was a poetry in the words that made me feel safe and invigorated all at the same time. He ended to a huge round of applause that was well-deserved. I took away a few concepts from that talk. But he wasn’t done. During the final Q&A, he had one last thought that hit me like a truck:
“Being Seen is so rare, and so spiritual, that it can often be mistaken for being loved.”
The implications of this statement were so profound. I capitalize the word “seen” for a reason. I don’t mean to physically see someone. I mean to understand who they are and what they want or need. To really know someone. On one hand, being Seen can be like being loved. It can feel so affirming and wonderful. It’s the highest form of interaction in some ways. However, it can also be used. People who are abusive usually See their victims immediately, which helps them target. They identify with them and know their ins and outs. It’s hard to be Seen because it’s vulnerable. And someone who is all there, who just lays out their life, can be Seen by anyone.
I’ll leave you with one last thought that I had. It occured to me while Buck Angel was talking about what trans men should need to transition (namely, that every trans person should have a therapist). While I agree that everyone (regardless of gender) should have a regular therapist, this is an inaccessible notion right now. At best, the idea that Buck has is privileged. Buck argued that many people are making irreversible decisions without knowledge or thought, and seeing a therapist would help them with those decisions. I agree a therapist would help, but I don’t think anyone is trans without being very mindful of their gender expression. While I disagree with Buck in these basic ways, I just don’t understand why he feels such an inaccessible form of help is the solution. Basically: If you try to solve a problem, but can’t work within the structures that currently exist, or create the entirety of the ideal world you want to live in, your solutions are not solutions, but speculations.
Again: If you cannot make your solution work in this world we live it, then it is not a solution.
I don’t want to focus too much on that, because I truly loved AltSex this year. I learned a lot and shared a lot. I was grateful for the experience, just as I was last year, and I’ll see ya’ll next year too!
For More quick recaps of what i learned, take a look at these Twitter threads (I’m real good at live-tweeting, y’all):

 
Author’s Postscript: I didn’t want to harp on the negative things about AltSex, because I love this conference a lot. But I do have some issues with it too. There is a survey disseminated, which I will also put this feedback into, but I want my readers to know too. 
Firstly, they don’t stay on schedule. We lost about 10-20 minutes of our lunch break because of this and it’s extremely frustrating. There need to be more buffers built in or more severe cut-offs for speakers. 
Second, they lost a lot of time because the organizers talk a lot. I feel bad saying this because I know people want to talk and it’s important to thank those involved. But having less time for the organizers thanking people and introduction of speakers would help with the time crunch.
Third (and last), they do not link to the speaker’s websites on the AltSex webpage. If you look at the schedule page, they have links in the names. Those links lead to another subpage of AltSexNYCConference.com, and there are no links to the speaker websites despite many of the speakers having one. This is unfair, and undermines a speaker’s publicity and reason for speaking at conferences. I honestly believe it’s ethically wrong.