What is the difference between female ejaculation and squirting according to medical literature?
Executive summary
Medical literature increasingly treats “female ejaculation” and “squirting” as related but distinct phenomena: female ejaculation is described as a small-volume, whitish secretion from para-urethral (Skene’s) glands often containing prostate-specific antigen (PSA), while squirting is typically a larger-volume, clear gush that most studies find to be largely bladder urine (e.g., ultrasound and biochemical studies) [1] [2] [3].
1. What the papers say: two different origins
Recent reviews and clinical studies classify female ejaculation (FE) as a low-volume, thicker, whitish fluid produced by Skene’s/paraurethral glands — sometimes called the “female prostate” — and squirting (SQ) as a high-volume, watery emission that is predominantly transurethral and originates in the bladder [1] [3] [2].
2. The biochemical evidence: PSA, glucose and urine markers
Biochemical analyses show FE fluid can contain PSA and may resemble prostatic-type secretions, while squirting samples often contain urea, creatinine and uric acid — markers indicating a urinary origin; some squirting samples also contain small amounts of PSA, implying mixed contributions in some individuals [1] [4] [3].
3. Imaging and volume data: what ultrasound found
Ultrasonographic studies cited in narrative reviews observed bladder emptying before stimulation, bladder filling during arousal, and bladder emptying after squirting episodes — a pattern consistent with squirting being an involuntary expulsion of fluid stored in the bladder rather than purely glandular secretion [3] [5].
4. How definitions shaped past confusion
Historically researchers lumped all orgasm-related fluid emissions together; a semantic shift since about 2011 has led to clearer separation in many recent studies. Because older studies mixed phenomena, earlier claims that conflated FE and SQ reflect inconsistent definitions rather than settled physiology [2] [5].
5. Where disagreement remains
Not all authors or sources use identical language: some clinical outlets and reviews emphasize squirting as largely urine [6] [3], while patient-facing sources and surveys note subjective differences in smell, taste or feel and report PSA or other glandular components in some SQ samples, leaving room for mixed-origin interpretations in individual cases [4] [7] [8].
6. Subjective experience vs. lab findings
Large surveys and qualitative studies report that many people who experience squirting perceive it positively and link it to orgasm; yet psycho‑physiologic reports also show many first-time reactors felt they had urinated, revealing a gap between subjective experience and biochemical classification that researchers note needs more study [2] [4].
7. Clinical distinctions: squirting, FE, and incontinence
Researchers and clinicians warn not to conflate squirting with coital urinary incontinence: coital incontinence is leakage related to pelvic floor dysfunction and unrelated to orgasmic secretion, whereas squirting and FE are framed as orgasm- or arousal-associated phenomena with distinct etiologies [2] [9].
8. Methodological limits and research gaps
Limitations are explicit across reviews: small samples, variable sampling methods, few simultaneous imaging-plus-biochemistry studies, and inconsistent pre-study bladder status mean conclusions are provisional. Authors call for larger, standardized studies combining ultrasound, timed sampling, and biochemical panels to resolve how often fluids are mixed and what triggers each pathway [3] [2].
9. Practical takeaways for readers
In current medical literature, “female ejaculation” refers to a small glandular secretion often containing PSA; “squirting” refers to larger-volume emissions primarily from the bladder and chemically similar to urine. Mixed cases occur and subjective reports vary, so clinicians and readers should treat both phenomena as real, variable, and incompletely understood [1] [3] [2].
Sources cited above summarize the literature and debates in the provided reporting and reviews [1] [3] [2] [4] [6]. Available sources do not mention large, multicenter randomized trials that definitively settle the biochemical overlap question; that gap is explicitly noted in the cited reviews [3] [2].