|
The G-spot 'doesn't appear to exist', say researchers (now NSFW)
First, the news article:
Quote:
Further Googling led me to the abstract (the full text is behind a subscription login): Quote:
(edit) And xkcd is already on the case. http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/g-spot.png |
Maybe it shows up at a certain age lol I know mine wasn't located until I was 35!! God bless Dave :)
|
I saw this article yesterday too and wondered about it.
Well it's not like it's an organ you can identify, point and say 'look there it is'. I don't know if it exists as well but I can say from experience that repeated stimulation of the area I have read to be the 'g-spot' in the correct way produces a different, more intense orgasm than usual. It's definitely not a button you can press to produce the exact same effects every time at will. If it can be called an actual 'spot' I don't know, but I'm glad it feels that great ;) Edit: "pseudo-phenomenon"? Riight. |
The g-spot is a myth. Like the clitoris and the female orgasm.
|
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. |
Science will never be able to convince me that I don't have a G-spot. And Pluto will always be a fucking planet.
|
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.
|
Don't forget that some researchers deny female ejaculation.
|
If g spot stimulation is wrong, I don't want to be right. :)
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
interesting, but whatever i'm stimulating, it sure gets my partner wet in a hurry, now we're experimenting with the ejaculation part...trial -n-error
|
wink wink wink ;);) muahhhhh
|
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
|
Quote:
|
It's my understanding that the clitoris isn't just the head at the top of the boat, but continues inside a woman's body. There is erectile tissue and a shaft, it's just below the surface. When a penis (or sex toy) moves in and out of the vaginal tunnel and puts movement and pressure on the upper wall, it's putting that pressure and movement on the bottom of the whole clitoris, which I would imagine has a similar effect as that type of movement might have on the penis of a man or transgendered individual.
Then again, this isn't really my area of expertise. All I really know is that I've seen the effect of g-spot stimulation first hand on women and it would seem to exist. |
Sometimes I simply love you willravel.
|
It does or it doesn't... I'm still gonna stick my dick in there.
|
You ladies let me know when you find your GH-spot.
It sometimes isn't were you would expect it. Othertimes it is. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I don't understand why this even matters and why they spend money on this. People enjoy sex, women enjoy their vaginas being touched certain ways. Can't we just leave it at that?
|
Quote:
|
Haha!! so I guess you know its bad when researches "can't find the g spot" :eek:
In all fairness though, their findings obviously are accurate to their research. If they tested with 1800 women, and found that 1800 women appear to not have a g spot stimulation area, then this is true, however - I think its kind of like seeing a ghost. If you haven't seen one then you will naturally be skeptical - if you've seen something like that then you don't know what to believe other than you know you saw something crazy. I have seen women have earth shattering orgasms because of g spot stimulation. I have given women earth shattering orgasms because of g spot stimulation. Not all women are capable, true, and those who are may not have "A-typical" g spots, but they do exist in my opinion. You know, if you kiss the back of a woman's neck and it makes her orgasm every time - that's technically a g spot in a weird way. Or its a trigger point. |
I know I had tried to find my wife's G-spot for 17 years. I would always rub what was supposed to be the right spot but she would not relax enough to let anything happen. The feeling like she had to pee took over. Finally about 2 years ago we got past that and now she is a full fledged squirter.
Besides no two women like the exact same things. They should study those who claim they have a G-spot. They need to look at both sides of the evidence. Do it like mythbusters and go test one of those squirting porn stars to get big positive result before you call it busted. I think I just came up with the idea for a porn flick. A parody of Mythbusters. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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". |
Quote:
|
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? |
Now, to add on to my last post so as not to sound completely snarky: when it comes to sex, the discussion of nature versus nurture is ancient and hard to resolve. Twin studies are popular precisely because of that, as identical twins have the same genetic make up. Other studies have used twin studies to show that genetics explain a good deal of premature ejaculation and clitoral orgasm, for example, as twins would have significantly correlated responses to questions regarding those issues.
Regarding it being a "large" study, interviewing 1800 people regarding this issue is not a trivial matter. And how representative a sample is is not about share of the population interviewed, but sampling procedure. You can have a representative sample of any population you want with as little as 300 people, if the sampling is done correctly. |
Quote:
On a more general note, it would be nice if it didn't cost money to read the actual research paper, because the flimsy BBC writeup says a lot without really saying anything. It would be interesting to see how the researchers addressed the possibility that some of their participants might have lacked sufficient sexual experience to know whether or not they had a g-spot. Or whether the prevalence of g-spots found among their participants is similar to the prevalence of g-spots in the general population. I don't think this study disproves the existence of g-spots at all. |
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
---------- Post added at 10:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:52 AM ---------- Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
1st the brain is the key. So, much is dependent on the person and even their state of mind. Have a bad day and you can "poke" those nerves for hours and not get a pleasurable response. 2nd an extension of the clitoris. This is a key fact that I was not aware of, since I am an amateur G-spot researcher. Since, some ladies like theirs stimulated up and down, side to side, in circles or "poked" from the location commonly referred to as the G-spot. 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. I would conclude that while the G-spot is not a unique organ it still exists. I do have one question on the topic. Do they know where the fluid comes from when they squirt? I have heard different theories and don't know what is fact verses speculation. |
Quote:
"There is no physiological or physical basis for the G-spot" doesn't rule out the possibility that girls who like having their 'G-spot' stimulated aren't actually enjoying stimulation of the urethral sponge or clitoral shaft. It simply states that there is no distinct physical organ that can be identified as a G-spot. |
I reread the OP and I'm having a bit of trouble understanding. Science doesn't work by democracy. Asking a woman if she has a G-spot is no more scientific than Fox News asking if President Obama is a secret Muslim. There's no experimentation taking place here, it's just a census.
Quote:
Here's how it should work Is there a G-Spot? Research, including both testimony and experimentation Construct a hypothesis Test the hypothesis directly with experimentation Analyze the results Until this is done, there cannot be any scientific conclusion presented. |
Sigh.
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? 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. 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. |
Quote:
What is science coming to when that is too much to ask? |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Why are self reported studies less scientific? The notion that "science" only happens in lab settings with controlled experiments is completely naive.
Self reporting is the basis of a significant part of modern medicine, and the entire basis for most research regarding mental health, pain, and, yes, sex. And keep in mind that no study is ever intended to be the final word on anything. The fact that a study is not the absolute most perfect study ever does not preclude it from being valid and making a contribution. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Also, the idea of an objective measure of sexual pleasure seems a bit like an oxymoron. |
Quote:
That's why it would be nice to see the actual study- you've got access dippin, don't you? A quote from one of the researchers showed that they were at least aware of the considerable pressure a woman may be under to conjure up a g-spot she may or may not actually have. It would be informative to see how the researchers dealt with this potential source of bias in their survey. It might also be informative to see how the prevalence of g-spots reported by the participants compares to g-spot prevalence reported in other studies. Just for the record, one of the reasons I can't wait to get started in grad school is that I will get access to pubmed back. |
Quote:
Quote:
These are all necessarily abstracts; I am neither a medical practitioner nor a student, and therefore do not have access to anything more detailed. Here's a study from 2009, demonstrating via sonography the relationship between the clitoris and the anterior wall of the vagina. Specifically, it notes that a likely cause of 'G-spot' stimulation is contractions of the anterior vaginal wall stimulating the clitoral shaft: The clitoral complex: a dynamic sonographic study. [J Sex Med. 2009] - PubMed result Here's one that found an increase in nerve density about two fifths of the way into the vagina. Sample size: 7 cadavers, all Korean. Innervation of vagina: microdissection and immunoh... [J Sex Marital Ther. 2009] - PubMed result From 2008, this article notes a direct correlation between the thickness of the urethrovaginal wall and propensity toward vaginal orgasm, but again identifies no discrete and/or distinct 'G-spot' structure. Measurement of the thickness of the urethrovaginal... [J Sex Med. 2008] - PubMed result This one found the entire anterior vaginal wall to be sensitive, with no specific area of increased sensitivity (ie, no 'G-spot'). Sadly, there's no mention of methodology in the abstract, so you'll have to take on faith that their study was sound: Vaginal erotic sensitivity by sexological examinat... [Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1986] - PubMed result And an article from the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, summarizing previous information. Again, sadly only an abstract, but it plainly states that although there's clearly a basis for tactile stimulation of the anterior vaginal wall leading to orgasm and even female ejaculation, there's no discrete physical structure known to be the cause of it: The "G spot" and "female ejaculation": a current a... [J Sex Marital Ther. 1986] - PubMed result You'll note that a few of these articles do note a relationship between the clitoral shaft and/or root and the anterior vaginal wall, but there's only one that indicates anything that could be remotely considered evidence for a discrete 'G-spot' structure. As for that one -- well, I'm certainly not an expert, but I'm not sure that 5 out of 7 is statistically valid. |
Quote:
I'm not saying self reported studies are perfect, just that they are informative and that there are several known ways to deal with the most obvious statistical issues. Regarding the issue you mentioned, they include a number of variables in the study, some related to individual experience, some to the so called "measurement error" and that is how the eliminate the "genetic" aspect of it all. For some bias to explain the insignificance of genetic factors in a multivariate study like this, the bias would have to be one that is extremely high correlated with experience and uncorrelated with genetics. Is it possible to have something like that? Sure, but that is why we have significance levels in statistics. |
Quote:
I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree with their analysis and results. I do think that the abstract doesn't do much to provide support for their conclusion and without reading the study I can't tell whether the study actually supports their conclusion. *edit because I responded before your third paragraph made it in* From a completely anecdotal standpoint, I think that sexuality is sufficiently complicated that experience might play an an equally significant or greater role than genetics. |
I think this is another one of those "according to science, the bumblebee is not supposed to be able to fly...and yet it does."
|
Quote:
Quote:
This is actually quite relevant to the discussion at hand. It's important to keep in mind that the researchers did not claim that women aren't able to orgasm from stimulation of the anterior vaginal wall. All this study is doing is trying to determine the basis of a demonstrated effect. I don't understand why everyone is so up in arms about this. |
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.
|
Quote:
If a plastic surgeon can consistently elicit a natural physical sexual response, why can't a (likely better trained) researcher? Quote:
My interpretation is "Gee, that spot feels good". |
Quote:
There's no objective way to measure whether or not something 'feels good.' This is apples and oranges, to use the colloquialism. Quote:
Let's review the conversation to date. I said: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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. |
I don't want to turn this into a long drawn out discussion. The BBC article is problematic because the claims made in the abstract are much tighter than the claims made in the article.
It's one thing to say "We didn't find any evidence that g-spots are heritable." This is what the abstract says. It's another thing entirely to say "We didn't find any evidence that g-spots are heritable, therefore they do not exist." This is what the researcher quoted in the article seems to think. I think that the responses in this thread are probably fairly typical of the types of concerns people have when they are: unfamiliar with the ins and outs of clinical research methods; butting up against clinical research results (as reported in the BBC article)which seems to directly contradict their own experiences. They should be skeptical-- it's the appropriate course of action given the circumstances. Unfortunately, the scientific community does a pretty shitty job getting actual research into regular folks' hands, so people are left to muddle around with a shitty BBC article and a short-on-detail abstract. |
After reading the study, I don't really see any problems of it, though many of the statistical aspects went over my head. The only really issue I have is that the heritability argument doesn't seem sufficient to me to proclaim that the g-spot doesn't exist, it just places more emphasis on nongenetic factors.
|
I came across:
Quote:
It's a blog review of one of the articles Martian posted that has some interesting implications. First if the G-spot is an association of anatomy, it would be unsurprising then, given the variable nature of reproductive anatomy, that there are varied reports amongst women. It also accounts for the initial study's (that was quoted in the OP) inability to locate the g-spot based on self reporting. The self reporting was accurate but due to the nature of the anatomy it both existed and did not exist in the people who said it did, which understandably did not cross the minds of the researchers in the study. Right data, wrong conclusion, which is why interpretation is important. The idea here also explains why there is such variability among the women who report having a g-spot. Everything from 'meh, it's there" to "ZOMG GREATEST THING EVER". One potential shortcoming is the inability to then explain the account of g-spot orgasm being different from clitoral orgasm, as it would be the same organ causing both. Next round of studies: Can we induce a g-spot response in women who claim to not have it by artificially narrowing the wall of the vagina between the vaginal cavity and the base of the glans? |
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
Statistical survey, a method for collecting quantitative information about items in a population. Which description better fits? |
Quote:
It's a pleasant (drifting & sometimes elusive) intensifier for an orgasm, less so than prostate stimulation. (past life memories) ---------- Post added at 04:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:15 PM ---------- |
Quote:
And is the scientific method dependent on experimentation? |
All your G-spot are belong to us.
|
I will be willing to quit my job and do some field work on this.
|
Sexually active physician's perspective on G-spot: research is ridiculous
This whole controversy is ridiculous. Every female who has experienced pleasurable sensations (and especially orgasm) from sexual positions like doggy style, which do not directly stimulate the clitoris; every female who has ever experienced pleasure through digital stroking of the front wall of her vagina, by herself, her partner, or a dildo; every male who has inserted a finger or two and stroked this area of the vagina as it becomes engorged and protrudes from the rest of the vaginal wall; all these have confirmed the existence of what may be called the G-spot. Since women have been given inconsistent information, asking them if they have a G-spot is stupid research. Asking if they are aware of a sensitive area in that area of the vagina would be better, but of course not all have discovered it.
There is an area not too deep inside the front wall of the vagina, with glands and sensitive nerve tissue, which becomes engorged (even larger than the clit in many women, so calling it a "spot" is not accurate or helpful) during sexual stimulation, and becomes highly sexually sensitive. Its nerves must be connected to the same nerves as serve the clitoris, because all orgasms feel similar and cause the same physiological results, like muscular contractions of the vaginal wall and subsequent resolution of congestion. And the interesting thing is that not only have most sexually aware human females been aware of this physiology for thousands of years before it had a name, thousands of other species that have intercourse from the rear know about it too. Only stupid human researchers have any doubt! |
Quote:
|
I think it does...
|
This is my first post so go easy on me please.
I have always loved to experiment sexually and find my chances of enjoying sex are massively limited if I don't feel like my partner (whoever that may be at any particular time) is enjoying it, and I mean really enjoying it. Because of this I prefer to perform oral than have it performed on me or to use my hands rather than have hands used on me, it's just the way I am. Anyway, after a past I'm not overly proud of involving 100's of sexual partners of different shapes and sizes (some which do not bear thinking about in the cold light of day) and a 5 yr marriage which ended when my wife died last year, I know that I've had more sex than most 30 yr olds I'm totally relaxed about it and I've never had any complaints lol. Anyway to cut a long story short I read all about finding the g-spot years ago and it was never obvious to me what it was by feeling it but some girls have reacted to the 'come hither' motion, some by needing a 'wee' which subsides when I reduce pressure or speed and some who totally lose it maybe squirting a bit but the vast majority seem far more sensitive to clitoral stimulation. However a few weeks ago I met a girl who proved to me beyond all doubt the existence of a g-spot. Funnily enough the first thing I noticed was how hard her clit was to find and how she hardly seemed to react when I played with it but when I went for a bit of the old 'come hither' there is a hard wet lump almost like a hard rubber nose the size of a big toe and when I touch it either at the same time as her clit or nipples she goes absolutely wild and has massive full body orgasms that last for ages and squirts like I've only seen in porn. It is absolutely amazing and absolutely massive. Categorically the g-spot does exist! |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:11 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project