RN
Most arguments about this are unresolvable for a boring reason: the two people arguing are describing different events that share a name.
Researchers working on the subject separate them. Once you separate them too, almost every contradictory thing you have read stops contradicting.
Two things, not one
Female ejaculation is a small secretion — on the order of a millilitre or less — from the paraurethral glands, the tissue around the urethra sometimes called the female prostate. It is thick, whitish or milky, and its composition includes prostate-specific antigen, glucose and fructose. It is easy to miss entirely. Plenty of people who produce it have never noticed.
Squirting is a different event: a larger expulsion through the urethra, transparent, often ten millilitres or considerably more. Analysis of that fluid finds urea, creatinine and uric acid — the markers that identify fluid processed by the kidneys and collected in the bladder. A 2022 imaging study that used dye placed in the bladder to trace the source concluded that what comes out is mostly, though not entirely, urine, with some contribution from the paraurethral glands.
Where researchers still disagree is on whether that fluid is chemically identical to ordinary urine or a diluted version of it, and imaging results have not been consistent — some people's bladders empty, others do not. That is a genuine open question rather than a settled one being reported badly.
The two can happen together, which is how one name ended up covering both, and which is why "it contains PSA, so it isn't urine" and "it contains urea, so it is urine" are both true statements about different fluids.
Why the pee question matters less than it seems
Suppose it is settled tomorrow that squirting is dilute urine. What changes? Urine from a healthy person is not the biohazard the question implies, and it is already involved in far more of ordinary sex than the people asking are usually tracking. Nobody who is comfortable with the rest of what happens in a bed has grounds to be squeamish here specifically.
The question persists because it is really a proxy for a different one — is this a real thing my body did, or an embarrassing accident? The physiological answer is that a bodily response to sexual stimulation is a bodily response to sexual stimulation. Which glands and which reservoir were involved does not determine whether it counts.
What is actually down there
The urethra runs through the front wall of the vagina, wrapped in the paraurethral glands and in erectile tissue that is part of the clitoral structure — most of which is internal and considerably larger than the visible part. Pressure on the front wall is pressure on all of that at once.
Whether a discrete anatomical "G-spot" exists as its own organ is not established, and anatomists have looked. The more defensible description is a region where several structures overlap, which is why sensation there is common but why nobody has ever produced a reliable map with an X on it.
The sensation of urgently needing to urinate during that stimulation is expected and follows directly from the anatomy: the bladder and urethra are being compressed. It is not a warning sign.
The "anyone can learn it" claim
This gets asserted constantly, usually by someone selling a technique. The evidence does not support it as stated. Response varies between individuals for reasons that are not understood, some people never experience it under any circumstances, and no study has demonstrated a method that reliably produces it in someone who does not.
The framing is worth resisting on its own merits, too. Treating it as a skill to be unlocked converts sex into a test with a visible pass mark, which is a reliable way to make arousal harder rather than easier. It also produces the specific situation where someone is being firmly worked over for twenty minutes past the point of enjoyment because a result is expected — and sustained pressure on the urethra can leave real irritation and a day or two of stinging afterwards. If it stops being pleasant, that is a complete reason to stop.
The distinction with clinical weight
This is the part that most writing on the subject omits, and it is the part that can actually help someone.
Coital incontinence — involuntary urine loss during sex — is a recognised condition, distinct from either phenomenon above. In women who already experience incontinence, reported incidence lands somewhere in the range of ten to twenty-seven per cent. Of those affected, roughly sixty per cent leak at penetration and forty per cent at orgasm, and the two patterns tend to have different underlying mechanisms. It is substantially underreported: in one study, only a small fraction of affected women had raised it with a clinician before being asked directly.
It is also treatable, often very successfully, when the treatment is matched to what urodynamic testing finds — pelvic floor work, medication or surgery depending on the mechanism.
So the practical rule: fluid released around orgasm, in the context of arousal, is not a medical concern. Leakage that also happens when you cough, laugh, lift something or run, or that occurs at penetration rather than at climax, is a different thing wearing the same costume, and it is worth mentioning to a doctor rather than filing under a sex-positive label and living with it.
About what you have seen filmed
Volumes on camera are not a baseline for anything. Scenes are lit, framed, shot in multiple takes and edited to make fluid visible, and from the footage there is no way to determine what happened, in what order, or how long it took. That is not an accusation about any particular production; it is what watching an edited recording of anything can and cannot tell you.
Using it to calibrate expectations of a partner's body is the same category error as using an action film to calibrate expectations of a car. Enjoy it as the thing it is.
If this happens, that is fine. If it does not, nothing is wrong. If it stopped happening, or started happening outside sex, that is a question for a clinician — and a fairly routine one.