Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
There are plastic surgeons all across the US that do something called a clitoral enlargement. The method of this procedure goes something like this: locate the clitoris, stimulate the clitoris until it becomes engorged and emerges from under the hood, and inject the clitoris with testosterone. In order for this procedure to work, the surgeon has to stimulate a woman and evoke a sexual physical response. In a clinic or hospital environment. It's not just an accentual sexual response like what may occasionally happen with pelvic exams, it's a necessary part of the procedure.
If a plastic surgeon can consistently elicit a natural physical sexual response, why can't a (likely better trained) researcher?
|
Engorgement of the clitoris is an involuntary response that's highly similar to a male erection. It's entirely dissimilar to a subjective report of pleasure.
There's no objective way to measure whether or not something 'feels good.' This is apples and oranges, to use the colloquialism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Whoa, whoa, whoa, who said anything about a structure? The "spot" in g-spot suggests location, not structure. If there's a specific location within the vagina (a little bit in, on the roof) which when stimulated triggers the sexual response associated with g-spot stimulation/orgasms, that's the g-spot. I don't know of anyone that's suggesting there's some g-spot organ or something. I certainly wasn't arguing that, in fact above I very specifically said that it was internal clitoral stimulation. That doesn't mean there's no g-spot, though.
My interpretation is "Gee, that spot feels good".
|
Huh?
Let's review the conversation to date.
I said:
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.
|
And then you said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
I would very much like to see these studies.
|
And then I said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martian
Fair enough.
*STUDIES*
|
And then you said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
The "spot" in g-spot suggests location, not structure.
|
All emphasis mine, natch.
Did you not fully read what I wrote the first time?
The scope of the study linked in the first page related solely to the G-spot as a distinct physical entity. If the 'G-spot' is really a term for indirect stimulation of the clitoral shaft/root, then it would not be inaccurate from a biological perspective to say that the G-spot doesn't exist. It may exist as a euphemism, or as a psychological phenomenon, but neither of these has any place in a study to determine the biological basis of it, and the study in question makes no claims whatsoever regarding either.
EDIT -
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
I imagine that everyone is up in arms because the researchers decided to proclaim that they believe that the g-spot doesn't exist (at least according to the BBC) and this proclamation runs counter to many folks' firsthand (heh) experience.
|
Okay, I suppose that's fair.
Allow me to respond with a multiple choice question.
You read a headline in a newspaper, online, or posted on Facebook/Reddit/a discussion forum. You dislike the headline. Perhaps you believe it to be an outright fabrication. Do you:
A) Discount the headline, perhaps noting the journalistic propensity towards sensationalism over accuracy;
B) Read the article and then independently research the issue to determine the accuracy of the headline's claims; or
C) Call the headline's sources frauds, ignorant pseudoscientists and all-around meanies without doing any of the above?
I know what my answer is.