Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Sexuality


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-06-2010, 06:15 AM   #1 (permalink)
Devoted
 
Redlemon's Avatar
 
Donor
Location: New England
The G-spot 'doesn't appear to exist', say researchers (now NSFW)

First, the news article:
Quote:
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.
So, it appears that they simply asked women if they have a G-spot, and used those results to draw their conclusion? Sounds like bullshit for science. Also, the quotes from the researchers sound like they made their conclusions before analyzing the data.

Further Googling led me to the abstract (the full text is behind a subscription login):
Quote:
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.
So, it seems the news article was surprisingly accurate. I'm still not impressed. Opinions?

(edit)

And xkcd is already on the case.

__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.

Last edited by Redlemon; 01-06-2010 at 06:39 AM..
Redlemon is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 06:39 AM   #2 (permalink)
Submit to me, you know you want to
 
ShaniFaye's Avatar
 
Location: Lilburn, Ga
Maybe it shows up at a certain age lol I know mine wasn't located until I was 35!! God bless Dave
__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!
ShaniFaye is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 06:50 AM   #3 (permalink)
Leaning against the -Sun-
 
little_tippler's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: on the other side
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.
__________________
Whether we write or speak or do but look
We are ever unapparent. What we are
Cannot be transfused into word or book.
Our soul from us is infinitely far.
However much we give our thoughts the will
To be our soul and gesture it abroad,
Our hearts are incommunicable still.
In what we show ourselves we are ignored.
The abyss from soul to soul cannot be bridged
By any skill of thought or trick of seeming.
Unto our very selves we are abridged
When we would utter to our thought our being.
We are our dreams of ourselves, souls by gleams,
And each to each other dreams of others' dreams.


Fernando Pessoa, 1918

Last edited by little_tippler; 01-06-2010 at 06:53 AM..
little_tippler is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 07:05 AM   #4 (permalink)
We work alone
 
LoganSnake's Avatar
 
Location: Cake Town
The g-spot is a myth. Like the clitoris and the female orgasm.
__________________
Maturity is knowing you were an idiot in the past. Wisdom is knowing that you'll be an idiot in the future. Common sense is knowing that you should try not to be an idiot now. - J. Jacques
LoganSnake is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 07:09 AM   #5 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
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.
filtherton is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 07:15 AM   #6 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Lady Bear Cub's Avatar
 
Location: north carolina
Science will never be able to convince me that I don't have a G-spot. And Pluto will always be a fucking planet.
__________________
"I give myself very good advice,
But I very seldom follow it,
Will I ever learn to do the things I should?"
Lady Bear Cub is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 07:45 AM   #7 (permalink)
Devoted
 
Redlemon's Avatar
 
Donor
Location: New England
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.
__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.
Redlemon is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 08:25 AM   #8 (permalink)
Evil Priest: The Devil Made Me Do It!
 
Daniel_'s Avatar
 
Location: Southern England
Don't forget that some researchers deny female ejaculation.
__________________
╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air,
And deep beneath the rolling waves,
In labyrinths of Coral Caves,
The Echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand;
And everthing is Green and Submarine

╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝
Daniel_ is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 08:34 AM   #9 (permalink)
Extreme moderation
 
Toaster126's Avatar
 
Location: Kansas City, yo.
If g spot stimulation is wrong, I don't want to be right.
__________________
"The question isn't who is going to let me, it's who is going to stop me." (Ayn Rand)
"The truth is that our finest moments are most likely to occur when we are feeling deeply uncomfortable, unhappy, or unfulfilled. For it is only in such moments, propelled by our discomfort, that we are likely to step out of our ruts and start searching for different ways or truer answers." (M. Scott Peck)
Toaster126 is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 11:53 AM   #10 (permalink)
Husband of Seamaiden
 
Lucifer's Avatar
 
Location: Nova Scotia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redlemon View Post
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.
Seriously? have you ever met one?
__________________
I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls.
- Job 30:29

1123, 6536, 5321
Lucifer is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 12:04 PM   #11 (permalink)
Paladin of the Palate
 
LordEden's Avatar
 
Location: Redneckville, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucifer View Post
Seriously? have you ever met one?
I have and I have tried to please her. Let's just say it was difficult.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru View Post
In my own personal experience---this is just anecdotal, mind you---I have found that there is always room to be found between boobs.
Vice-President of the CinnamonGirl Fan Club - The Meat of the Zombiesquirrel and CinnamonGirl Sandwich
LordEden is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 12:14 PM   #12 (permalink)
Evil Priest: The Devil Made Me Do It!
 
Daniel_'s Avatar
 
Location: Southern England
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucifer View Post
Seriously? have you ever met one?
Met one? I was married to one!
__________________
╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air,
And deep beneath the rolling waves,
In labyrinths of Coral Caves,
The Echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand;
And everthing is Green and Submarine

╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝
Daniel_ is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 01:20 PM   #13 (permalink)
Upright
 
route69's Avatar
 
Location: the desert
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
__________________
if its not broke leave it alone
route69 is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 01:52 PM   #14 (permalink)
Upright
 
DomJustCame's Avatar
 
wink wink wink muahhhhh

Last edited by DomJustCame; 02-13-2011 at 09:14 PM..
DomJustCame is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 11:03 PM   #15 (permalink)
Insane
 
raging moderate's Avatar
 
Location: Whatever house my keys can get me into
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
__________________

These are the good old days...




formerly Murp0434
raging moderate is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 11:27 PM   #16 (permalink)
Evil Priest: The Devil Made Me Do It!
 
Daniel_'s Avatar
 
Location: Southern England
Quote:
Originally Posted by raging moderate View Post
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
The job's in London, but the end of the queue is in Edinburgh...
__________________
╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air,
And deep beneath the rolling waves,
In labyrinths of Coral Caves,
The Echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand;
And everthing is Green and Submarine

╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝
Daniel_ is offline  
Old 01-07-2010, 11:08 AM   #17 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
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.
Willravel is offline  
Old 01-07-2010, 10:10 PM   #18 (permalink)
sufferable
 
girldetective's Avatar
 
Sometimes I simply love you willravel.
__________________
As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons...be cheerful; strive for happiness - Desiderata
girldetective is offline  
Old 01-08-2010, 10:27 AM   #19 (permalink)
Here
 
World's King's Avatar
 
Location: Denver City Denver
It does or it doesn't... I'm still gonna stick my dick in there.
__________________
heavy is the head that wears the crown
World's King is offline  
Old 01-08-2010, 10:45 AM   #20 (permalink)
Gastrolithuanian
 
Giant Hamburger's Avatar
 
Location: low-velocity Earth orbit
You ladies let me know when you find your GH-spot.
It sometimes isn't were you would expect it.
Othertimes it is.
Giant Hamburger is offline  
Old 01-08-2010, 12:05 PM   #21 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by girldetective View Post
Sometimes I simply love you willravel.
Merci.
Willravel is offline  
Old 01-09-2010, 03:37 PM   #22 (permalink)
Upright
 
Quote:
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.
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.
StuffGuyDude is offline  
Old 01-10-2010, 10:31 AM   #23 (permalink)
Let's put a smile on that face
 
blahblah454's Avatar
 
Location: On the road...
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?
blahblah454 is offline  
Old 01-10-2010, 01:54 PM   #24 (permalink)
Minion of Joss
 
levite's Avatar
 
Location: The Windy City
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton View Post
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.
I like this notion. I was surprised to see this research, since I have never failed to locate the g-spot of any girl I slept with. But perhaps the idea that the g-spot is a religious experience would explain why, when I did, they always seemed to yell, "Oh, God, oh God!"
__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)
levite is offline  
Old 01-13-2010, 10:48 AM   #25 (permalink)
Upright
 
Haha!! so I guess you know its bad when researches "can't find the g spot"
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.
lovely25 is offline  
Old 01-13-2010, 12:51 PM   #26 (permalink)
Upright
 
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.
thermight is offline  
Old 01-13-2010, 01:31 PM   #27 (permalink)
Young Crumudgeon
 
Martian's Avatar
 
Location: Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by StuffGuyDude View Post
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.
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.
__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame
Martian is offline  
Old 01-13-2010, 03:30 PM   #28 (permalink)
Devoted
 
Redlemon's Avatar
 
Donor
Location: New England
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martian View Post
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.
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".
__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.
Redlemon is offline  
Old 01-13-2010, 03:52 PM   #29 (permalink)
Crazy, indeed
 
Location: the ether
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redlemon View Post
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".
Have you actually read the study? Or just the news report on it?
dippin is offline  
Old 01-13-2010, 04:05 PM   #30 (permalink)
Insane
 
Halanna's Avatar
 
Location: Over the rainbow . .
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?
Halanna is offline  
Old 01-13-2010, 04:28 PM   #31 (permalink)
Crazy, indeed
 
Location: the ether
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.
dippin is offline  
Old 01-13-2010, 04:29 PM   #32 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halanna View Post
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?
I think that when they say large, the mean that it's large enough to provide statistically significant results.

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.
filtherton is offline  
Old 01-13-2010, 07:19 PM   #33 (permalink)
Young Crumudgeon
 
Martian's Avatar
 
Location: Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redlemon View Post
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".
I'm not really sure what you mean to say by using meditation as an analogy. There is no meditative gland or M-spot; it's entirely a psychological phenomenon. Unless, then, you're arguing that the G-spot is actually psychological in nature (a claim the paper does not appear to refute), your analogy isn't valid.

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.
__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame
Martian is offline  
Old 01-14-2010, 06:34 AM   #34 (permalink)
Upright
 
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.
thermight is offline  
Old 01-14-2010, 07:54 AM   #35 (permalink)
Devoted
 
Redlemon's Avatar
 
Donor
Location: New England
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin View Post
Have you actually read the study? Or just the news report on it?
I tried to find the study. If you check the first post, you will see that I read the official abstract. I don't have a subscription to the journal in question, so I can't read the full text. The abstract gives a good overview of the methodology, enough that I feel comfortable criticizing it.

---------- Post added at 10:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:52 AM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martian View Post
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.
But, they *didn't* poke the nerves. They merely asked questions. I like thermight's further explanation.
__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.
Redlemon is offline  
Old 01-14-2010, 09:37 AM   #36 (permalink)
Crazy, indeed
 
Location: the ether
Quote:
Originally Posted by thermight View Post
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.

Last edited by dippin; 01-14-2010 at 09:44 AM..
dippin is offline  
Old 01-14-2010, 01:24 PM   #37 (permalink)
Upright
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin View Post

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.
I think these two points you make are the key points the discussion.

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.
thermight is offline  
Old 01-14-2010, 03:32 PM   #38 (permalink)
Young Crumudgeon
 
Martian's Avatar
 
Location: Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by thermight View Post
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.
That's how I interpreted the study.

"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 wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame
Martian is offline  
Old 01-14-2010, 03:58 PM   #39 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
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:
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.
They, being individuals, could interpret the same stimulation differently regardless of shared phenotype.

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.
Willravel is offline  
Old 01-14-2010, 04:39 PM   #40 (permalink)
Young Crumudgeon
 
Martian's Avatar
 
Location: Canada
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.
__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame
Martian is offline  
 

Tags
exist, gspot, researchers

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:19 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360