Quote:
Originally Posted by thermight
What I see here is one of the differences in scientific approaches. Engineering is a hands on actually go and test the thing field. Medicine in many ways is an inferred approach. For example they test a drug and it helps 60% of the people it is considered a success. Engineering requires the thing you build to work 100%. This gives different ways of viewing studies.
Based on the science of the study they would have concluded my wife did not have a G-Spot. Since for 17 years I would poke a bundle of nerves and she would react, but the reaction was to tense up. She would ask me to stop when I was rubbing her G-Spot. This was not a successful stimulation of the nerves.
Now she likes the exact same bundle poked and reacts differently. This proves that mental state is also a condition of the experiment that must also be accounted for. In the case of twins the mental state can vary. So, physiology is only one component to the successful stimulation of the G-Spot.
Sounds like we all need to do more independent research, repeatedly as often as we can.
|
The reason medicine might have to take that approach is that the human body is orders of magnitude more complex than any building.
So let's go back to the study again: it is peer reviewed, so people who have spent their entire lives studying this read it and found it to be good enough for publication, so the idea that one can simply brush it aside because of an article they read on the BBC is a bit naive.
But more important than that, it is important to understand that they are not denying that women feel something when "poked" around that region. Heck, in their own sample they reported a majority of women feeling something.
But the thing is, how do you explain that sensation? There are women who also report having orgasms through anal sex, should we create an "A" spot?
Because, as it is often said, the brain is the most powerful sex organ.
In the case of the G spot, for example, no one has ever been able to identify it anatomically or biochemically. We know the appendix exists exists not because people say they feel it, but because if you cut someone open, if you do an ultrasound, etc, you can see it there. In the case of the G spot, no one has ever found evidence of an organ separate from the extension of the clitoris there.
So this study makes perfect sense in that regard: we can't find it, so what explains the sensations? Is it the mental/environmental part of sexual arousal or an actual physical characteristic? Well, with something so far undetectable like the G spot, they relied on something that is widely used and accepted in medicine, which is twin studies. And other twin studies have found higher correlations for twins regarding clitoral orgasms and premature ejaculation, establishing a hereditary aspect to both. But there is no hereditary aspect to the g spot. Now, saying it's mental/environmental doesn't mean its fake. The study doesn't deny that women feel something, just that they found no evidence that it is a inheritable, and therefore physical, as opposed to mental, trait.