Quote:
Originally Posted by Redlemon
You have to learn to meditate. Meditation has significant effects on the body systems. Using that as an analogy, I disagree that "We can also hypothesize that if the G-spot exists as a significant physiological phenomenon, psychology or 'knowing how to work it' wouldn't be an issue, any more than it is for the glans or clitoris or other sensitive sexual organ".
|
I'm not really sure what you mean to say by using meditation as an analogy. There is no meditative gland or M-spot; it's entirely a psychological phenomenon. Unless, then, you're arguing that the G-spot is actually psychological in nature (a claim the paper does not appear to refute), your analogy isn't valid.
56% of respondents reported having a G-spot. The paper would never have made it to publication if the researchers had stated there was nothing to this. Indeed, even in their conclusion (as offered by the abstract, which is the only material I have access to) that women may differ in their ability to find the G-spot, and that therefore their conclusion could be considered tentative at best.
Regardless, their logic
is sound. If you poke a bundle of nerves, you're going to get a reaction 100% of the time. If not all women have the bundle of nerves, you would expect the breakdown to occur along genetic lines. Since not all women report having a G-spot, and heritability has not been demonstrated, it's not unreasonable to posit that there's no bundle of nerves in the first place.
to Halanna, 1800 is certainly a statistically significant sample size. Without full access to the paper one can only take on faith that they've accounted for sampling biases and margin of error, but then that's why the peer review process exists in the first place. I'm no statistician, so I'll simply leave that there.