Originally Posted by The G-spot 'doesn't appear to exist', say researchers

The elusive erogenous zone said to exist in some women may be a myth, say researchers who have hunted for it.

Their study in the Journal of Sexual Medicine is the biggest yet, involving 1,800 women, and it found no proof.

The King's College London team believe the G-spot may be a figment of women's imagination, encouraged by magazines and sex therapists.

But sexologist Beverley Whipple, who helped popularise the G-spot idea, said the work was "flawed".

She said the researchers had discounted the experiences of lesbian or bisexual women and failed to consider the effects of having different sexual partners with different love-making techniques.

The women in the study, who were all pairs of identical and non-identical twins, were asked whether they had a G-spot.

If one did exist, it would be expected that both identical twins, who have the same genes, would report having one.

But this pattern did not emerge and the identical twins were no more likely to share a G-spot than non-identical twins who share only half of their genes.

Mythical

Co-author of the study Professor Tim Spector said: "Women may argue that having a G-spot is due to diet or exercise, but in fact it is virtually impossible to find real traits.

"This is by far the biggest study ever carried out and shows fairly conclusively that the idea of a G-spot is subjective."

Colleague Andrea Burri was concerned that women who feared they lacked a G-spot might feel inadequate, which she says is unnecessary.

"It is rather irresponsible to claim the existence of an entity that has never been proven and pressurise women and men too."

Dr Petra Boynton, a sexual psychologist at University College London, said: "It's fine to go looking for the G-spot but do not worry if you don't find it.

"It should not be the only focus. Everyone is different."

The Gräfenberg Spot, or G-Spot, was named in honour of the German gynaecologist Ernst Gräfenberg who described it over 50 years ago. It is said to sit in the front wall of the vagina some 2-5cm up.

Recently Italian scientists claimed they could locate the G-spot using ultrasound scans.

They said they had found an area of thicker tissue among the women reporting orgasms.

But specialists warned there could be other reasons for this difference.

Originally Posted by Genetic and Environmental Influences on self-reported G-Spots in Women: A Twin Study. Andrea Virginia Burri. 2010; Journal of Sexual Medicine - Wiley InterScience

Andrea Virginia Burri, MSc, Lynn Cherkas, PhD, and Timothy D. Spector, MD
Department of Twin Research and Genetic Epidemiology, King's College London, London, UK
Correspondence to Andrea Burri, MSc, Twin Research and Genetic Epidemiology, King's College London, St. Thomas' Hospital, Westminster Bridge Road, London SE1 EH7, UK. Tel: 00447943802987; Fax: 004402071886718; E-mail: andrea.burri@kcl.ac.uk, tim.spector@kcl.ac.uk
Copyright © 2009 International Society for Sexual Medicine
KEYWORDS
G-Spot • Twin Study • Genetics • Heritability
ABSTRACT

Introduction. There is an ongoing debate around the existence of the G-spot—an allegedly highly sensitive area on the anterior wall of the human vagina. The existence of the G-spot seems to be widely accepted among women, despite the failure of numerous behavioral, anatomical, and biochemical studies to prove its existence. Heritability has been demonstrated in all other genuine anatomical traits studied so far.

Aim. To investigate whether the self-reported G-spot has an underlying genetic basis.

Methods. 1804 unselected female twins aged 22–83 completed a questionnaire that included questions about female sexuality and asked about the presence or absence of a G-spot. The relative contribution of genetic and environmental factors to variation in the reported existence of a G-spot was assessed using a variance components model fitting approach.

Main Outcome Measures. Genetic variance component analysis of self-reported G-spot.

Results. We found 56% of women reported having a G-spot. The prevalence decreased with age. Variance component analyses revealed that variation in G-spot reported frequency is almost entirely a result of individual experiences and random measurement error (>89%) with no detectable genetic influence. Correlations with associated general sexual behavior, relationship satisfaction, and attitudes toward sexuality suggest that the self-reported G-spot is to be a secondary pseudo-phenomenon.

Conclusions. To our knowledge, this is the largest study investigating the prevalence of the G-spot and the first one to explore an underlying genetic basis. A possible explanation for the lack of heritability may be that women differ in their ability to detect their own (true) G-spots. However, we postulate that the reason for the lack of genetic variation—in contrast to other anatomical and physiological traits studied—is that there is no physiological or physical basis for the G-spot.

Originally Posted by Redlemon (Post 2745694)

Some women don't like to have their nipples stimulated. If there weren't visible on the surface, these researchers would probably conclude that nipples don't exist.

Originally Posted by Lucifer (Post 2745764)

Seriously? have you ever met one?

Originally Posted by Lucifer (Post 2745764)

Seriously? have you ever met one?

Originally Posted by raging moderate (Post 2745942)

Just because certain researchers couldn't find the G spot does not mean it doesn't exist. in other words - BULLSHIT! Though I would like to be on the team of researchers hunting for G spots...mmm where do I apply for THAT job

Originally Posted by girldetective (Post 2746297)

Sometimes I simply love you willravel.

Originally Posted by filtherton (Post 2745682)

Well, if you look at it another way, there is as much scientific evidence for the g-spot as there is for religious experience.

I believe in the g-spot.

Originally Posted by StuffGuyDude (Post 2746708)

What kind of obscure sample group is that? Since when have identical twins ever been 100% perfectly physical copies of each other, who have also developed exactly the same psychologically and sexually? I'll keep believing real medical science and the fact that i've actually *touched a blood engorged gspot before* over this wonky pseudo-science bull any day. The G-spot doesn't exist because a handful of pairs of identical twins dont both know how to work it? Sounds like the person running the study needs to go take some college logic classes.

Originally Posted by Martian (Post 2747923)

The Journal of Sexual Medicine is a peer-reviewed publication, and King's College London is a well-established research institution. There's nothing pseudo-scientific about this.

Identical twins were used to demonstrate heritability. If two identical twins offer different answers when asked whether or not they have a G-spot, it rules out the possibility that the trait is heritable but not represented in the sample used.

The study was designed to examine the heritability of the G-spot, based on the fact that heritability has been observed in every anatomical feature studied to date. 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. Based on that, the lack of correlation between genetically identical twins and G-spot prevalence would seem to suggest that the G-spot is indeed not a distinct physical structure. There are other possibilities for why some women respond so strongly to stimulation of the anterior vaginal wall, and further study would be required to determine the basis of the effect.

Sounds like you need to educate yourself on how science actually works before criticizing the experts.

Originally Posted by Redlemon (Post 2747979)

Nope. I have an engineering degree, I understand scientific studies. I still disagree with the methodology of this report. Some women don't orgasm from clitoral stimulation; that doesn't make the clitoris nonexistent. The concept of the study is good; check for heritability among identical twins. The method for determining it I find faulty.

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".

Originally Posted by Halanna (Post 2747994)

The estimated female population of the world in 2009 was 3,386,509,865.

They call talking to and having surveys filled out by 1804 of those a "large" study?

Originally Posted by Redlemon (Post 2747979)

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".

Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2747984)

Have you actually read the study? Or just the news report on it?

Originally Posted by Martian (Post 2748047)

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.

Originally Posted by thermight (Post 2748172)

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.

Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2748234)

Because, as it is often said, the brain is the most powerful sex organ.

...........

In the case of the G spot, no one has ever found evidence of an organ separate from the extension of the clitoris there.

Originally Posted by thermight (Post 2748300)

While this does not mean the existence of the location that has the potential for pleasure does not exist. It just means that it is not its own organ.