Talk:Female ejaculation

Catheterization Study Strongly Suggests that Female Ejaculate is Primarily Urine

The Schubach (2001) catheterization study was mentioned only in passing and flagged as "citation needed". I found it at the bottom under other links and moved it into the main reference list. This is the only truly decent study mentioned in the whole article; none of the others can possibly do a decent job of identifying whether female ejaculate differs from urine. Are there any other studies that use urethral catheterization in order to separate expulsions from the bladder from other potential ejaculate?

I strongly suggest cutting most of the other chaff in the research section, and finding only the highest-quality studies that suggest differences between female ejaculate and urine. We should probably rewrite to point out that the balance of research favors the urine theory. I may start doing this myself.

By the way, to pre-empt any claims of bias: if anything my bias is toward the idea that female ejaculate is NOT urine. I recently had a sexual relationship with a squirter and I'd prefer to believe she didn't repeatedly pee on my bed.

Travis of the cosmos (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Article quality

As an encyclopedia entry I believe this article needs a fair amount of work. Although for the most part I believe all that needs to be done is some minor retooling, removal of POV statements, and maybe some untraditional organization.

Essentially there are three major groups who would visit this article, people who don't know much or anything about female ejaculation (i.e. heard it for the first time recently), people who believe it is a myth (although I'm not sure why anyone would search for something they don't believe is real), and those who believe it is real and know about it, (whether through first hand experience or research). Unfortunately as the article stands, the disagreements between the last two categories have taken a toll on the presentation of the entry. The "meat" information, is buried and there are POV's abound which reduce the legitimacy of the article because it makes it can suggest the editor has a distinct POV and maybe even an agenda. In turn I propose a couple few things to start with:

1. Any project like this would take the support of those who manage this article or tend to it regularly. Any of those of you who do, could you please sign your name if you agree that the entry needs work to improve it's legitimacy. However if you do not, please also comment and let us know your perspective.
2. This talk page is overflowing at best and also has a very distorted "signal to noise" ratio. I think stale conversations need to be archived so we can have a relatively clean slate for this project. 51 discussions is way too many.

Well that's all I have. I look forward to working with you all to get this article up in quality.

P.S. My motivation for all this was encountering another woman who is among the 6% of women who experience this. Reading the article I realized that anyone arriving at this page wanting the basic information on it would be quite lost. Try going back and reading it from the beginning with this in mind. Veritas Solum (talk) 07:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Most of the comments on this page refer to earlier versions which have disappeared since this article has been almost completely re-written over the last few months and a better sense of balance restored by diligently checking primary sources. Balance was improved by adding POV that were missing. The article was a mess and the various criticisms of it have ben attended to.

I was a bit surprised by the POV comment. I don't think it is a question of whether it is real or not, the fact that there are various POVs is acknowledged and they are cited. What is more important is setting out the facts that are known, and stating how reliable they are, eg peer review journals vs. unpublished. Possibly you could be more specific. Also could you be more specific about what the basic information is they were looking for. They might be better reading a classic text like Rebecca Chalker, if they don't want history or all the critical literature. If you like I can sum the whole thing up in a few paragraphs for you. The only agenda was making sure the information on the page was actually accurate, and pointing out the methodological problems that caused the controversies. On the other hand my time is very limited at the moment. Mgoodyear (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen the amount of work that Mgoodyear has done on this article? Before, after. Frankly, I think the amount of improvement is so vast that it would be better if you were to give more specific, concrete descriptions of whatever problems you see. Whatever404 (talk) 04:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Should the name of this article be changed to something that's more properly fit

While I do not claim to be a know-it all in this field, my previous studies show that ejaculation is a term exclussively used for males, and so I'd say that what we call here "female ejaculation" is simly a type of female orgasm.--96.232.57.56 (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

All's I know is I have been having ejaculations ( call it what you want)since I was 18 and I'm 44 now. It does not smell, stain and from what I have been told taste like urine. I dont belive it is urine. I empty my bladder before intercoursw. Still acheive a large amount and it can at times eject across the room.----

i dont believe it could ejaculate across the room....thats stupid....i seen some pornos and they over exagerate with the fluid/water sparayin out....its not like that at all....it just makes sex wet whilst doing it,and thats the honest truth....it dont sray out like a hose lol..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.238.107 (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Pressure and quantity can, in some cases, be astonishing. You would be impressed! Twipley (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to mention that feminism has nothing to do with female ejaculation, and if there is evidence to support otherwise, it should be included in the text, not as a random box on the right. --Magsxemail (talk) 07:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Feminism has nothing to do with anything these days. Trumpy (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the OP. Ejaculation is the exception; secretion is the norm. Vranak (talk) 02:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The phenomenon is known as "female ejaculation" to all who have experienced it or researched it. The fact the fluid has been proven to be similar to semen and comes from glands that are analogous to the prostate, is enough information to suggest that "ejaculation" is a reasonable name for it. To rename the phenomenon is like renaming the sunrise. That's just what it's called. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.219.40 (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Feminism sidebar

I see this was brought up in August, but I'd like to revisit the issue of having the Feminism sidebar on this article. It seems to be borderline Original research to link this topic to feminism (or more broadly sexism). I've removed the sidebar for the moment. Anybody have thoughts on any of this? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. What this article should have is a link to the Sexuality portal. I will add that. Powers ^T 20:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

What a load of feminist hocum, a good chance to bash men for womens shortcomings. Trumpy (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I like how the feminist disbelievers blame "male fantasy", while the feminist believers blame men for "withholding the validity of experience from women". Make up your minds! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.61.79 (talk) 06:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Having completed a introductory study of feminism myself, I feel that the issue of female ejaculation is one of importance for feminist theory. No issue more profoundly highlights the collision between androdgynous and essentials feminism (those who argue men and women are totally equal, versus those who argue that attempts to give women the same features of men are misguided as they exist within a 'male identified' society. The fascination within pornography with female ejaculation also makes for an interesting feminist debate as it can be linked with the 'debasement' and sexualisation of women that has been recently documented in Natasha Walter's latest book 'Living Dolls'. For these reasons I feel feminism is importantly tied to the issue of female ejaculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.216.211 (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Social significance

The Social Significance section is embarrassing. This is an encyclopedia, not a cultural theory course. --69.196.140.230 (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It may constitute undue weight, but it is sourced and seems by-and-large relevant. Any particular ideas about what to do with it, as by no means should it be removed wholesale. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It bugged me, too. Especially this part: "Women have reclaimed control over their sexuality in a reconstructed narrative of feminine anatomy, and sexual arousal, and at the same time have gained some insight into society's priorities in studying and understanding female sexuality, where mainly dysfunction gets funded."

That's a lot of text that doesn't really say much, and starting with "women" unfairly presents this an an undisputed fact and not one opinion. 64.9.236.71 (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

what is the female orgasim flued mail with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.195.172.59 (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The article wants to jump back and forth between a medical discussion and a feminist critique. Its the same problem on the G Spot article: both attempt to give information on a physical/medical issue but try to source it with feminist theory. The article claims that female ejaculation is distinct from incontinence but then goes on to say that the exact fluid ejaculated is subject to debate, that it may contain urine, abd that it may actually be urine in women suffering from incontinence?????? The lead needs to be more honest: the source of the fluid is under debate and the relationship between female ejaculation and incontinence is under debate. Anything short of medical research should be treated as such and should not be presented as medical evidence, and that includes feminist theory.155.229.22.50 (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Format one word name

Is there any formal one word name for this? --Matthew Bauer (talk) 04:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it's "ejaculation" and therefore ambiguous. Powers ^T 19:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Multimedia, anyone?

Not trying to sound like a voyeur or anything, but since there's a video tape of a male ejaculating on the male ejaculation page, shouldn't some one volunteer to do a taping on the female ejaculation page?

Just a thought :P Children of the dragon (talk) 12:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Yea like there videos out there why don't someone ask them permission to use it Markstar (talk) 05:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

URLS:[link titlehttp://www.squirttechnique.com/images/squirt.jpg][link titlehttp://www.squirtqueen.com/][link titlehttp://www.tantraattahoe.com/female-ejaculation/female-ejaculation-video.htm ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.138.133 (talk) 06:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I just saw an excellent demonstration at this address: http://secretosdeungigolo.com/blog/2007/12/21/como-hacer-eyacular-a-una-mujer/ I found the video very illuminating; I will try to add it to commons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.247.137 (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that video is very illuminating and I concur in adding it up to the article. The precision and care taken in the video is almost surgical. Great vid! WaddlingTimy (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Female ejaculation, it just doesn't exist

The entire body of information regarding female ejaculation is based on the spongy prostate like tissues around the g-spot containing the ejaculate. Every video I've seen of it involves at least tens or hundreds of ml's of fluid. When you consider this is similar in size to an average male or female bladder, are you kidding me medical science wouldn't have detected a 'second bladder' in these girls? It's urine. And the traces are what they are, traces, probably containing lots of fluids from the secretory glands near the vaginal opening. It's interesting to note that pornography involving urination on another person is illegal in many countries. To claim it is not urine, but in fact a different fluid altogether, forms an argument that could circumvent the censoring bodies of these countries. The distributors of the material then place the burden of proof on the censoring bodies, claiming they are in some way rejecting female sexuality by denying it's existence - despite lack of significant proof in favor of their argument. Multiple world renowned health organisations, such as the British Medical Association, claim that nothing they've seen could qualify as female ejaculation. The question is really, so what if it is urine? But to cover it in hopeful ignorance is what it is, ignorance. And worse, it makes girls who feel it as urinating feel as though they are in some way defective, for the sake of porn being distributed. I say, do whatever feels good. I don't say, pretend it's something different and try to kid the world to make money.

Another thing worth checking out is that the g-spot is directly over where a babies head would rest during childbirth. One thing that is common among descriptions of g-spot stimulation is the urge to push out, and urinate. It's much more likely that these nerves were placed there to encourage women to push babies out as they're born; an image the porn industry doesn't want to sell.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnheritage (talk • contribs)

Wow, did you register just to post that? Does your opinion have anything to do with the writing of this article, or did you just want to get that off your chest? Powers ^T 13:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

These are the writings of someone who has never experienced it. Find a girl who ejaculates and see for yourself. I'd like to know if you have the same views after that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.219.40 (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

For all that anecdotal evidence is worth: I've induced female ejaculation through penetrative sex, and I have to say, I know what urine smells like; Whatever happened, it wasn't urine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.166.227 (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: I absolutely disagree. I know it exists. I know it makes (I don't know if all women, but) my woman uncomfortable sometimes afterwards... (because it varies in purity) Sometimes is pure clear and silky, I am not exactly sure how people would want to describe it, but, I think it's silky and it has a little viscosity to it. Either way, it exists! Sometimes it comes out with urine, let's not pretend we don't notice it and there is no way you cannot know how urine smells. There is absolutely NO WAY I would not know how my wife's urine smells! Yes that's right, don't be ridiculous, we all know our significant others details. It doesn't happen very often but women ejaculate! I love my woman and I like having fun with her. Thanks everyone! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonlopez83 (talk • contribs)

my experience: it does exist,but not in a over exagerated way like a hose spraying,I have had sexual relationships and to be honest have never really reach orgasim like i have with my new parthner.....i was so surprised at what happened to me....it was no way anything to do with urine!and i know trust me...all i know is that i got so wet with him,i said how thats never happened to me before?.........so i guess its either the guy knows how to make this happen or something or maybe were perfect piece together....its clear and odurless and makes the sex better anyway.I t it didnt exist but because i experienced it,thats why im on this page.

One time, my girl squirted and... No. Just No. This is probably the most perverted and disgusting discussion on wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place to talk about personal experiences, unless the situation calls for it. I am fascinated by female ejaculation, but I don't want to hear about Bobby's wife doing it and Susie Q. doing it. Just plain disgusting. A Word Of Advice From A Beast: Don't Be Silly, Wrap Your Willy! 01:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, everyone, we don't need any more anecdotes here. Just let it be. Powers ^T 13:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't exist? Then I must be imagining it... as far as I'm concerned - sometimes it happens to me and sometimes it doesn't. Mostly when I completely relax and just let it happen - sometimes it's a lot, sometimes it's a little. But it definitely does happen and it's definitely not urine. Those who have never experienced shouldn't comment because you obviously have no idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.247.249 (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again. Another personal experience. How about all the people with the personal experiences upload a pic and/or a non-pornographic and encyclopedic video clip (so all the little kids in the library corner don't get boners, unless they're seriously messed up) so we can make the article better! What an idea!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beastly21 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

At least Wikipedia has come a long way since I joined. At that time, this article was bare-bones and unequivocally categorized it as "urination during sex". I'm thankful for all those who are helping to set the record straight! (I still don't understand why some refuse to believe in it. My advice for the non-believers: Do some first-hand research.) Woodson (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Gross overstatement

One Belgian guy, four years ago, does not the attestation "biblical scholars" make. This statement desperately needs to be revised: "Biblical scholars attest to the fact that there are erotic references to lovemaking techniques in the bible, and that includes female arousal, orgasm and ejaculation. One example is the Song of Solomon, in which three verses might be understood as references to female ejaculation (4:11-12, 4:14-15, 5:1)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince o palities (talk • contribs)

Who thinks this article needs a picture

Is it just me OR does tis need a picture if not while happening the of Skenes gland labeled like File:Skenes gland-english.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markstar (talk • contribs) 04:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is not censored and the article on male ejaculation has images and a video, so I would agree that it wouldn't hurt to have said on this article as well. What is available, however, may be a different story entirely. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Proof that female ejaculation exists

Of course you'll have to take my word for it but without entering into details I have witness first hand fluid related to multiple orgasm in quantity so great it could never have been urine (the subject did not drink any fluid during the related period) and beside (reader discretion is advise for the following) it is practically tasteless with absolutely no trace of salt or smell which characterize urine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.122.145.30 (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

So you witnessed a woman expel a quantity of fluid which was apparently greater in volume than the bladder can hold, and you instantly assume the liquid was taken from some other hidden reservoir in the body? By your logic female ejaculation has the power to instantly collect enormous amounts of liquid from within the body and instantly redirect it out the urethra or vagina. That simply is not possible.

With the right combination of food and water,(mostly just an excessive amount of water) urine can be nearly odorless when it leaves the body. Why is this is hard for you people to understand? Ipokesnails (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You tasted it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.69.5.94 (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Female ejaculator

It is unlikely that female ejaculation could be provoke in any women but more likely a physiological traits probably inherit of only certain women —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.122.145.30 (talk) 06:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Photographic Proof

So I was thinking that this article needs a photo depicting actual female ejaculation (and not urniation), and not just footage taken from common pornography -- of course this would be STRICTLY for scientific purposes. ;) --173.75.45.2 (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well it's not like we can just will one into existence. And this talk page already has a {{reqphoto}} tag on it. I'm not sure what else you want us to do. Powers ^T 12:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Missing Basic info?

I cam to this article to read a bit more about the topic, having experienced something I thought might be that and wanting to learn more. I was a little disappointed to find that it has just a short two line lead, and seems to be lacking a basic section in the article defining it and giving the medical aspects. I realize its existence is disputed, but it seems like there should at least be a basic explanation of what those who do support it feel it is, possible reasons for it, etc. As it is, in reading the article I ended up with little information beyond some guy named Alzate fully believes its BS and that it is "stress urinary incontinence" (which isn't really explained at all), while some think it is, and that the "feminists" seem to go back and forth...yet not what it really is, etc. Some expansion on the basics might be helpful. (experienced editor posting under IP for basic privacy reasons) 74.192.33.242 (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I would encourage you to find some sources so we can add that sort of information to the article. Since you're an experienced editor, you know we need to refer to other sources. Powers ^T 23:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I will volunteer

If we need photographic proof I would be more than willing submit some of my own personal footage and/or photos. I can also say from personal experience that it tastes like water with a hint of cucumber juice, unless unusually high amounts of Vitamin B are present in the system in which case it tastes like water that has had bleach added to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.114.129 (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

-that would be much appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.205.51 (talk) 03:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would you know what bleach tasted like...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaraquanWocky (talk • contribs) 03:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what people would be doing smelling bleach (pointing out the availability of scented bleaches on the retail market), but if you want a real opinion of what bleach tastes like, ask a WWI vet (see Chlorine Gas article). Sadly, fewer are alive today to provide their eye witness account of chemical warfare. My whole point being, comparisons to bleach-flavour may not be the best of analogies.

Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Purpose?

Aside from the debate on what constitutes female ejaculate, I would like to propose that whatever it is, its biological function may be to synchronise female orgasm with male ejaculation so as to increase chances of conception by "sperm upsuck" of the cervix. The sensation from the gush of warm liquid tending to tip the male into orgasm.

Variations in females and thier ejaculation (or lack of) may be down to on going evolution. Kingy112 (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Can you point editors to references that discuss this, or research describing it? My Google Scholar search found five [1] (but only five) references to "sperm upsuck". Atom (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I cannot point to anything at the moment (aside Hipocrates and Galen in the two seed theory from main article) when it was claimed that conception required ejaculation of both male and female.

The sperm upsuck mechanism doesnt appear to be accepted by the majority of the establishment yet. Once the basic process of sperm and egg were found the previous ancient knowledge was dissmissed as primitive and uneducated, labelling female ejaculation mere shamefull bed wetting to be avoided at all costs. Prior to this shamefull labelling perhaps there was some real intelligent evolution by accidental squirters whose off spring became more prevalent. Squirting by other animals is not known (as far as I know). These are just my thoughts as far as I know, if there is no supporting evidence I wouldn't mind researching it myself! ;-). but seriously I think it would be very hard to verify, it took them long to prove smoking was bad. If there is anything new in what I say I would obviously like to see it in Wiki. Also I feel if female ejaculation was assigned a legitimate purpose in reproduction then attitudes towards it will hopefully be shifted away from perversion and more into the mainstream so to speak. Kingy112 (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually I have found one possible supporting reference of the concept that the evolutionary purpose * of the females orgasm was to stimulate the males orgasm. This was in the links at the end of the main article An Annotated Bibliography on Sexual Arousal, Orgasm, and Female Ejaculation in Humans and Animals [2]

• evolutionary purpose - This could be intelligent conscious evolution, and this intelligence can be handed down mother to daughter again quoting from the main article section, Anthropological accounts ... Amongst the Batoro, older women teach the younger women "kachapati" (spraying the wall) at puberty.

Allen, ML. and Lemmon, WB 1981 Orgasm in female primates. Am J. Primatol. 1:15-34.

A review of the evidence for orgasm in nonhuman primates with the author's own evidence from the digital stimulation of female chimpanzees suggestings that something akin to interspecies orgasm occurs in chimps (this apparently was not a reciprocal arrangement). Though this research will probsbly be most remembered for the original data collected (and the original data collection method) actually the most bizarre part of this paper is the author's suggestion that female orgasm evolved to stimulate male ejaculation. Few theories on the function of female orgasm have flown in the face of such counter evidence as this one, but I actually heard the first author present it at a national meeting in great seriousness and with a straight face.

This may turn out to be another one of those new ideas that has been poo-pooed by the establishment which turned out to be nearer the truth than they were.

Kingy112 (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Terminology

"The terminology (such as female prostate and female ejaculation) invoke images of the female as merely an imitation of the male, mapping the female body onto the male, as if, like the Galenic view, it was incomplete.[20] Furthermore overemphasis of ejaculation may induce performance anxiety.[11] For the reason that 'sameness' has been construed as a male perspective, some feminists reject the term ejaculation. " If this is the case, may I suggest this article use a suitable replacement for the word 'female ejaculation'? I agree that the word ejaculation provokes analogues to what is essentially a male act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinophile21992 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope. There is no other appropriate term for female ejaculation. I know "squirt" is synonymous, however, not appropriate at all. Sorry Feminists, but there is nothing you can do here. 99.20.100.127 (talk) 02:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

PICTURE

an article this big needs a picture. perhaps one with pubic hair to lessen pornography accusations. 99.20.100.127 (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Postulating a Hypothesis

I postulate that female ejaculation is subjective, but is quite real. Whether the origin is either uterine fluid, or a build up of vaginal secretions, I am uncertain, and it could well be both. I suggest that the actual ejaculation is the subjective part, and depends upon the quantity of fluids present within the vagina (or uterus if it consists of said fluid), and it is a female orgasm which causes the vaginal walls to constrict, and the movement of the cervix, the effect of which could be described as being similar to squeezing a tube of fluid toothpaste: the pressure applied is released through the only orifice available. The addition of lubricants, or simulated semen is often used for visual effect. The term, "gushing," refers to copious amounts of female ejaculate being released, as a garden hose gushes under pressure. However, this is often misrepresented by the use of thinner lubricates, which produce thin, powerful jets which more closely resembles urination than ejaculation to an observer. However, naturally occurring female ejaculate would consist of whatever fluid is in the vagina. Being of subjective matter, it can also appear to be as liquid as water, or urine.

This is all pure hypothesis and speculation, but should provide direction for further scientific research.
Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 11:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

And this is the correct place to put this? I would say contacting a notable sex researcher (via email?) with this because this makes a lot of sense. A Word Of Advice From A Beast: Don't Be Silly, Wrap Your Willy! 23:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beastly21 (talk • contribs)

And if it isn't the correct place to put it, it hasn't stopped anyone else from coming up with their own ideas. Just read the discussions. If you contest my addition to the discussion, then you bring whole sections of the main article into question as to whether they belong or not ("Controversy, debate and feminist criticism," and "Research," just to pick the most obvious examples).

Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)