TVGuy

Producer
  • Content count

    1,103
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    41

TVGuy last won the day on February 15

TVGuy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,673 Exalted

About TVGuy

  • Rank
    Speilberg of Omorashi Videos
  • Birthday 06/20/1982

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://HDwetting.com
  • Skype
    TVGuy.FSP

Personal Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Sexual Orientation
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Pacific Northwest region of the United Sates
  • Interests
    Primary interests are video/film production and photography. Outside of that? All your typical nerdy/geeky stuff- Everything from Star Trek to Harry Potter to Firefly.

Recent Profile Visitors

11,139 profile views
  1. Sexuality is a spectrum. The majority of people are not 100% straight or 100% gay with bisexuals sitting firmly in the middle. It is not abnormal to be 95% straight, but have a slight inclination to the same sex when it comes to a specific fetish. When it comes to arousal and attraction, there is no single prevailing majority. A lot of people are 100% straight, many people are homosexual, and a whole lot of people fall somewhere in between. I don't think there is a universally accepted standard for classification here. Does having just a tiny sliver of same-sex interest when it comes to a very specific fetish mean your not straight? I'm not going to make that argument. Personally, I think sexuality is a wonderful and complex mystery. I have no desire to assign people arbitrary labels and classifications. I care much more about someone's opinion of Harry Potter or Star Trek when considering them as a friend than I do their sexual attractions or what they have between their legs.
  2. Hi! I just wanted to quickly share some wetting selfies from Alisha. The full gallery can be seen here, if you are interested. Warning- There is some nudity in these images (Alisha goes topless).
  3. It is a very good thing we don't rely on elementary school students for scientific research. Are you trying to argue that you can make broad scientific statements from a self selected group of 7 people? The only thing that I was trying to say is that the conclusions you can draw from such a study are limited. As I said originally, I think the only thing you can conclude from such a small study is that at least some women are indeed urinating when they squirt. I don't think that there is enough evidence to make a broader statement. Do you disagree with this? If so, what other evidence was present in this study? If you don't disagree with this statement, why are you arguing it? The problem is that the meta-review paper was not by a primary researcher. The statistical analysis in the meta-review paper showed a tremendous range of results, far from any kind of consensus among the studies. The paper itself even acknowledges the lack of research into squirting itself, instead relying on research regarding any kind of vaginal fluid discharge. No. The lack of of evidence is not proof. This is a logical fallacy. The lack of explanation for every single minute detail of biological evolution is not evidence of intelligent design. That we don't understand every minute detail for how the Egyptians built the pyramids doesn't meant that aliens did it. Just because there is a lack of evidence for something, doesn't mean you get to automatically conclude something else. You say there is no other plausible source of fluid for squirting, but the very article that you cited as your proof acknowledges that the female prostate, or skene's gland, is typically three fourths to four fifths the size of the male prostate (one fourth to one fifth smaller). Getting a bit personal here, I can ejaculate a significant amount. Using myself as a base, even three-fourths of my ejaculate volume would still be, by my definition, a significant amount of fluid being expelled. My criticisms are related to the conclusions that you can actually draw from the data. Small studies, with no control group, and no random sampling, severely limits what kind of conclusion you can arrive at. To make a giant conclusion- That squirting does not exist at all, in any case, in any woman, that it is urination 100% of the time, is a sweeping conclusion. Before accusing every single woman who claims to be a squirter, and that it is not urine, of being a liar and telling them that they are, in fact, urinating, and that it is scientifically proven, the science backing that should be unimpeachable. The material you pointed to lacked any consensus on even the most basic figures. Some of the papers in this review placed the prevalence of female ejaculation at 10%, while others placed that at over 50%. The majority of the papers that were in the review you cited were not about FE or squirting, but rather analysis of general vaginal fluid secretions. With small studies, you can have one study of ten women where only one of them ejaculates, and then conclude that 10% of women ejaculate. In the next study you can have 5 out of 10 women ejaculate, and put that rate at 50%. That is the problem with these small studies. You need much larger numbers before you can draw such large, sweeping conclusions. I don't think people are falling for anything. They simply recognize that you can't make giant, generalizing conclusions based on limited data with little consensus between studies. Couple notes- A) I am not trying to argue that squirting and urination are two entirely separate phenomenon. In fact, I think it is quite clear by the studies that we can say that often, when women squirt, they are in fact urinating. I just don't think there is nearly enough data out there to conclude that this is the case for every single woman. B) There is a lack of definition between squirting and female ejaculation. FE has been documented scientifically, and shown to be distinct in composition from urine. While squirting is talked about as being a much larger volume of fluid, there has not been a consistent definition for what constitutes a squirt or separates it from FE. Is it all about volume? Consistency of the fluid? Where do you draw that line? C) If we know that some female can ejaculate, and the source of this ejaculatory fluid is from the Skene's Gland, and we further go on to state that there is no plausible source of squirt fluid as nothing is physically large enough to contain that volume except for the bladder, are we then assuming that all Skene's Glands are equal? There is a good deal of variety in the size of male prostates. Other anatomical structures in the body can also very greatly from one individual to the next. Again, citing my own body as an example, a while back I had my appendix burst. I was in the hospital for nearly 24 hours, dying, before it was discovered to be my appendix. Why did it take so long? My appendix was not located where it is in most people. Its size and position was abnormal. Why should we expect such uniformity in the female prostate when the rest of our anatomy can have such variations? Squirting may very well be urination in some cases, possibly even the majority of cases. Right now I think it is possible, depending on how you define that line between FE and squirting, that all cases of squirting may indeed be urination- I admit that is a possibility. I just don't think we can conclude that with absolute certainty right now.
  4. Have you thought about writing WHP and seeing if they can help you out? If it is something they produced, they might be able to point you in the right direction.
  5. Here are some freeze frames from a recent HD Diapers video with Alisha. In the video, she gets her soaking wet baby style diaper changed. WARNING: These images contain nudity-
  6. A) Anyone who has a graduate school education should be able to explain to you why, when doing human studies, a self selected small sample size isn't ideal. The conclusions you can draw in this case are limited. It relies on the subjects of the study providing a self-selected definition of what constitutes squirting, instead of an objective definition provided by the researches. However, the point that I was trying to make is that from a study that only has 7 participants, you can't say that it has been completely and conclusively confirmed that all squirting is peeing when you are basing that on such a small study. B) You said that, "large 'squirts' are composed of anything but mainly urine." While I think it is definitely clear that this is absolutely the situation in many cases, I don't think we can claim that all squirts are urination with 100% certainty. I disagree that the meta-review shows this. C) I have a problem with meta-reviews: They are usually written by graduate students at the very beginning of their research careers, and thus are often some of the most error prone scientific publications. There is no information provided about the methodology of the studies conducted, only a review of their conclusions. Additionally, we have no idea how the studies for this review were selected, or how many of the studies might be at odds, or the methodology employed for the conclusions that were drawn. In this case the article was by a medical doctor, not a researcher. D) The meta-review you provided states that, "The prevalence of FE is 10–54%." This is a huge statistical range, which means there was either a seriously flawed statistical analysis of the data or that the studies involved in this review had a tremendous variety of results. With such uncertainty in the data presented, I think it is difficult to claim any kind of absolutes, which again was the whole point of my original reply on this thread. E) With all this said, I find no flaws with the conclusion of this meta-review. But, even according the conclusion provided, "Pathophysiology of squirting is rarely documented." As stated, this was a meta-review of studies regarding vaginal fluid secretions related to orgasm, not a specific look at "squirting".
  7. Ryann recorded this video of herself outside, desperate to pee, and wetting her jeans. In this video we find Ryann Rain outside, apparently locked out, and extremely desperate to pee. Recording the video herself with her phone, she describes her situation and how badly she to pee. Unable to hold it any longer, she squats down and pees through her jeans, all over the deck. We can see her pee stream force its way between her fingers and it pushes through her jeans. The denim fabric grows dark and glistens with wetness as she pees her pants. Standing up mid stream, rivers flow down her legs to the ground. Finally, she is done peeing, but her pants are soaked. Simultaneously embarrassed and relieved, she takes a moment to show of her soaked jeans before the video comes to an end.
  8. I don't know about WHP, but we had something very similar happen at HD Wetting back when we were doing live webcasts. It was one of our first webcasts using our new live streaming platform, and despite having tested everything earlier, when it came time for the show, the encoder refused to connect to the streaming server. Sosha had no choice but to wait, and grow ever more desperate, while we frantically tried to get the stream working. The page for the video on HD Wetting is here. Unfortunately, the video itself has been lost. Not quite a year ago now I moved my sites to a new server. Most things transferred smoothly, but this video and a few others did not. Almost all the videos that failed to transfer I was able to restore from backups. Unfortunately, before I could restore this video disaster struck, resulting in the loss of my primary and my off-site backups. As a result, I no longer have a copy of this video and it does not exist on my server. If anyone out there happens to have this video, it is vid_467, you have my permission to post it here.
  9. I hate to rain on everyone's parade, but I fear that the vintage films shown here may be fakes. Produced in more modern times, but designed to look like older films. My degree is in television and film production technology. Adult entertainment has been a significant driving factor of motion picture technology, so a significant amount of what I studied had to do with how adult material pushed the technology forward. Especially before home video, adult films typically lead the way with mainstream films using what was successful. I also became extremely familiar with the technologies, techniques, and styles of different eras. To me, the videos that have been shared here, purporting to be vintage film, are highly suspect. This first film, I can promise, is almost certainly a fake, originating on digital video with filters used to make it look like film. There are several clear giveaways- One is the colors. Old film, unless stored extremely well at a constant temperature in a humidity free environment will deteriorate, especially blue and green colors. 8mm film was especially bad at this, and didn't have that great of blue/green presence to begin with. The colors, as seen in this video, would almost certainly not be there if this was a film shot in 1970. We can see blue and green objects in the shower and at the endgue of the frame that are still fully saturated. The girls shorts also still appear to have a bluish-purple tint to them, which likely wouldn't have been picked up by the film to begin with. The magenta in the skin tones is a major giveaway though. These high magenta skin tones were never that present in 8mm film- The hyper sensitivity of film to reds and magentas tended to make skin tones appear overexposed and washed out. What we see hear was known in early 2000's video production circles as the "Panasonic look." Specifically the DVX100 camcorder, but also some of their pro cameras that followed, tended to capture these high magenta skin tones. Another major giveaway is the film artifacts. The dust and scratches are simply too uniform, and consistent. Actual film would have much more variety, and would feature distortion around the damage, which simply doesn't exist here. The colors remain constant, right up to the edge of the scratch. The only way to account for this is that the scratches were added in post, layered on top of the video. Also, suspect is the stabilization. Any film, as it is run through a projector time and time again, will have its register holes slight stretched. This leads to imperfect stabilization as it runs through the projector, causing the image to shake or bounce slightly, or sway around. 8mm film, as a consumer product, wasn't even produced to that wonderful of specifications in the first place, so it almost never would be this steady. Now, it is true that modern software could stabilize this after it had been digitized, but that usually results in some warping or stretching. Another problem with stabilization is it needs some static, high contrast point to lock onto. This video appears too softly focused, with no point offering enough contrast to get that kind of perfect stabilization to remove film judder. The final nail in the coffin of authenticity for this video, for me, is the zoom. Few 8mm film cameras had zoom lenses. A popular solution was to have lenses of different photo lengths on a wheel. The camera operator could rotate the wheel to select a focal length, but you couldn't do an on camera zoom. The lenses that could actually zoom in were manual zoom, so you had to rotate a zoom ring to zoom in. Typically these were not parfocal lenses, so zooming resulted in the loss of focus, but more significantly is that it is next to impossible to do a steady, silky smooth zoom with a manually zoomed lens. Modern video zoom lenses use a servo motor driven system to provide smooth zooms. You simply did not have that on 8mm film cameras or their lenses. Yet, that is the style of zoom you see here. This looks much more authentic- The film judder and damage is consistent with what you would actually expect from something that originated on film and was stored under less than ideal conditions. The blown out highlights, the vignetting, artifacts, and motion rendering are all consistent with a 1920s era hand cranked 16mm film camera. From a technological perspective, this could be real. There are just a couple things styalistically that don't feel right to me. The biggest issue is with the title cards. For short silent films of this era, especially ones of erotic nature, used hand drawn or painted title cards. These title cards also typically had some kind of framing or border, to help the camera frame them properly. The uniform typeface here, and lack of frame, is somewhat suspect. Also suspect is the date. While short, silent erotic films were being made in the 1920's, they were mainly French or Italian. The title cards would not have been in English. This style of short erotic film hadn't really made its way into predominantly English speaking countries until the very late 1920's, and even then only a couple films are known to have survived until today. In the late 40's and early 50's we started to see an influx of short "nudie comedy" films. Often low budget, these films were the forerunners of much of today's pornography. Frequently they were shot in a style as to appear vintage and older than they actually were, and presenting them in the style of an old silent film was definitely popular. Film makers fearful of obscenity prosecution believed that if they could pass their films off as not being contemporary, but from a previous generation, that they may be shielded from criminal penalties. Based on the title cards, and overall style, I think it is much more likely that this film dates from the era of "Nudie Comedies" and not the 1920's. Much the same as the previous film, this appears more in line with the "Nudie Comedies" of the 1950's. Again, the title cards are not consistent with what you would expect of short films from the 1920's. Also, at 25 seconds into the video we can see what appears to be a security door, with a narrow slit window in it. This style of door, common in schools and other institutions, did not exist in the 1920's. A patent for such a door, was filed in 1947. Also, the title card reads "A Warmer Bruz Stinkaroo," which I think we can probably assume is a parody of, "A Warner Bros. Cartoon." However, this phrase didn't actually appear in front of Warner Brother's animated short features until the mid 1940's. It isn't likely that these films from the 1920's would have survived. Aggressive obscenity prosecution and censorship made owning or producing films with nudity a very dangerous prospect, at least in the United States. The only known surviving short erotic films from the 1920's are Uncle Si and the Sirens, Forbidden Daughters, and Hollywood Script Girl. If these films truly dated from that era, they would be incredibly significant from a film history point-of-view. However, far more likely is they are from the 1950's, where there were countless "Nudie Comedies," many of which survive today.
  10. Here are some samples from Ryann Rain's recent selfie photo set on HD Diapers. For those of you who already have an HD Diapers membership, the entire gallery features more than 50 photographs.
  11. Briefly studies particle physics, but then realized that such an education would lead to few careers that I would enjoy, so I switched to television and film production. Still continued to study physics on my own and take advanced math courses, much more so than what was required for my TV and film degree. My girlfriend is currently wrapping up her PhD in the biological sciences. Our social group is mainly made up of graduate students and post grads, so, while not actually having a background in science myself, it has almost become a lifestyle for me.
  12. Sorry... I hate to be "that guy" but a single study doesn't show the whole picture. The entire article is based on a single french study that only involved 7 participants. This is hardly enough to be considered a pilot study, and definitely not enough to be statistically valid. The methodology is extremely flawed- For one, the 7 participants were self selected, identifying themselves as "squirters" not a random population sampling. The most I think you could conclude, based on this study, is that some women believe they are "squirters" are actually urinating. I have seen this study, or different articles citing this study, shared on many fetish forums since it was first published in 2014. And though I am all for women peeing during sex, the scientist in me is bothered that so many are willing to reach this conclusion, that all squirting is urination, based on such a small and questionable study. To reach such a conclusion, you would have to ignore the other studies, with more participants, that contradict this one. Numerous other studies have identified the Skene's Gland as a source of female ejaculatory fluid, which has already been shown to be distinct from urine. More recently, studies have started to document the huge variety in sizes of the Skene's gland, some women don't have any detectable Skene's Gland at all, while others have very large Skene's Glands. So, I think we can say from the French study, cited here, that at least some women are urinating when they squirt, other studies have shown that other women can and do squirt ejaculatory fluid that is distinct from urine.
  13. Holding her pee makes Alisha horny. The more desperate she is to go, the more aroused she gets. Watch in this video as she pushes herself past the breaking point, holding so long that she wets her pants. At the start of the video, Alisha is already extremely desperate to pee. Wearing light khaki pants and a red t-shirt, she dances around, holding herself, growing aroused by the sensations from her achingly full bladder. Thoroughly enjoying the feeling, she doesn’t want to end it by using the toilet. So, she makes herself keep holding until she ultimately can’t take it any longer. Unable to hold back, she ends up peeing in her khaki pants. After she finishes peeing in her pants, she is more turned-on than ever. Extremely horny, she takes off her soaking wet pants revealing her saturated gray cotton panties underneath. Sitting on the floor in her wet underwear, she masturbates in them. The feeling of the warm, wet fabric against her clitoris is beyond her power to regulate. It isn’t long before she is overcome by an earth-shattering orgasm. Taking a moment to collect herself, she removes her soaked panties. With a blissful smile on her face, she says “goodbye” and the video comes to an end.
  14. I like it! I'll be sending you a PM with your free HD Wetting login.
  15. This giant photo gallery features more than one hundred images of Alisha peeing in her jeans. Once she is done wetting her pants, she takes them off, revealing her soaked pink panties. We start off the photoset outside with Alisha, looking cute in her tight jeans and t-shirt. After a few cute poses, it becomes evident that she needs to pee. There are several dozen photos of Alisha crossing her legs, holding her crotch, and looking extremely desperate. When she does pee her pants, it starts out as just a small leak. Even though she has wet a little, she still tries to hold on. The small wet patch, however, is clearly visible. It isn’t too much longer before she accidentally leaks more, followed soon by even more leaks. Ultimately she ends up completely wetting her jeans. After she is done peeing she takes some time to show off her soaked jeans for the camera. Then, she proceeds to take off her peed in pants, revealing her wet, pink, cotton panties underneath. She shows off the wet underwear, before taking them off as well and holding them up to the camera. Full gallery available here. Preview images (Nudity Warning)-