Quote:
Originally Posted by Martian
Everyone seems to be getting caught up on the self-reporting aspect. Do you really think the researchers fingerbanging 1800 women would've affected the outcome in any significant way?
|
Finger-banging? Probably not, but thin again I'm not a researcher so I'm not qualified to answer. I'm not a biologist and even I'm aware there there's been testing and experimentation on the female sexual response, with results that aren't just verifiable, but predictive. We have information on everything from nervous response being higher towards the surface of the vaginal cavity than the inside to what specific chemicals are released during the female orgasm. If researchers are so impotent when it comes to testing of female sexual response, how can we have such information?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martian
A lab setting or office setting is not conducive to relaxation. If relaxation is required for a woman to identify G-spot stimulation, then it's highly unlikely the scientists actually would've gotten anything. If the ladies didn't find it on their own, it wasn't going to be found during the study.
|
These are baseless assumptions without evidence. Can you demonstrate that women are less likely to have a g-spot orgasm in a laboratory setting by citing data or studies? Science doesn't work on assumptions because we as humans are fallible, we introduce bias and mistakes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martian
There have been studies in the past to find a physical structure that could be identified as the G-spot. They turned up nil. This study was based on heritability, and it demonstrated no correlation. It was perfectly valid, from a scientific standpoint.
|
I would very much like to see these studies.