The Mosby guide, quoted in the GQ thread, refers to use of tampons in females, menstruation, lubrication (or lack of it) and precociousness (as related to the abnormally early onset of menarche, I presume).
I admit the Mosby quote is somewhat opaque to me, and I’m not sure what particular clinical scenario is being referred to.
That was a rhetorical question, fuckwad. But, if you want a free clue, read the post above by neutron star, who stated it clearly enough for even you to understand.
Now, that makes sense. It’s too bad Q.E.D. is incapable of this type of post.
Now, in what way was 2 1/2’s OP expressing a controversial opinion?
You had plenty of opportunity to write such a post, dipshit. You didn’t. Why not?
As a doctor, do you think the quote answered my question? I thought it did.
Do prepubescent females menstruate?
Right. After it answered the question about premature females, a reference was made to proper menstrual technique. I fail to see how that negates the answer, however.
Alrighty. Still don’t see any question in the OP about menstruating females.
Take it easy, he’s actually on your side. He wants proper review. That’s why we need dialog. That’s why we’re here, after all.
I hope my question did not come across as an attack. It was just a question.
He wasn’t. At least not this time. A controversial question will get attention just as well as an off-the-wall opinion (the proof being that this thread even exists), and that’s all he’s after.
The GQ OP asked about pre-pubescent females. The Mosby Guide appears to refer to females who have started menstruation. While I’m open to being corrected, I believe these categories are mutually exclusive.
Huh. To each his own. My reaction was more like 
.
Third post in the thread.
That’s hilarious in its cheeky preemptivism. 
-FrL-
It was an ok answer that at least pointed you towards the essential info, that pre-pubescent lubrication is minimal. Not the greatest from my point of view, but then I’d want a complete answer to talk about epithelialization before and after the 1st estrogen/progesterone surges, normal secretory lubrication that all such tissues have vs. lubrication meant to facilitate coitus, etc. etc.
I don’t see anything untoward about the OP itself. I didn’t read the thread, but the OP is just an anatomy question. It’s not the type of anatomy question you’d ask in polite company, but really, what anatomy questions can you ask in polite company, anyway? One of my favorite things about the SDMB has always been that people can ask about things they’ve always wanted to know but been afraid to ask. I was one of the many people on the “2.5" is a troll” bandwagon in his early days, but personally, I’ve long thought that he’s just got loose lips.
Because it’s disturbing. I’d rather the question be left firmly in the academic, not to hear that he’s thinking about specific prepubescent girls. JMHO.
Why would you assume it’s supposed to add something to the discussion? Maybe it’s just something that crossed his mind and this seemed like the only place he could get a reasoned, level-headed answer to it.
That said, you have a point here:
Yeah thats what I meant to say :smack:
[snort]
This made me laugh right out loud. Thank you.
(bolding mine)
This I think is where the answer was most decidedly *not *answered, even without getting into the epithelial issues. Arousal lubrication and menstrual fluid and cervical fluid are all completely different things. This, along with the conflation of prepubescent and menstruating girls, means that the question wasn’t even close to accurately answered.
I should add though, that I don’t have a better cited answer, and given the strict constraints of the thread, couldn’t add anything to it even if it were reopened. My anecdotal answer as a former young girl is that arousal fluid was about the same as it is now that I’m older, but other fluids like cervical fluid were not present until I started ovulating, which by definition is post-pubescent.
What squicked me out seriously was this part:
I took this to mean “increased relative to mature women” (cue cries of “what could lead anyone to imagine such a thing?”), and it took a bit of time for the possibility that TAAHIOF meant “increased relative to a state of non-arousal” to percolate through.
In any case, I took a quick look on PubMed and research on the physiology of vaginal secretion (during arousal or otherwise) is, as far as I can tell, minimal to nonexistant; the most solid data I could come up with was that
So a comprehensive scientific answer may not be forthcoming anytime soon (or at least not from me). On the anecdotal front, I was once a prepubescent girl who occasionally meditated upon, shall we say, mature subject matter, and do not recall vaginal lubrication occurring at all until I stopped being prepubescent, if you see what I mean.
JRB
I don’t understand how there can be any question that he is a troll, even if you ignore the extremely weird and disturbing ‘vaginal lubrication’ thread. Remember the “Tax on Fat People”? What about “Why Can’t I Say Fat People are Disgusting”. “Institutionalizing the Homeless”, “No More Public Education”, “No Health Care for the Poor”, etc, etc, etc. Not to mention the oodles and oodles of faux outrage over every conceivable little thing - OMG, someone hasn’t heard of some obscure author! Someone vaguely misconstrued something that totally doesn’t matter! Time to start another pit thread!
Frankly, I can’t believe the guy is still here. He is the most utterly, ridiculously, slimy idiotic little troll.
Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.
You are wrong if you think it’s just, like, that poster, man.