Scientists unable to find the G-spot

[Zuul]

Yeah, I know. I giggled, too.

So does it exist or not? Is taking a mechanistic approach to sex a mistake?

My personal experience is that oh fuck yes it exists, but I don't think searching for it (at least not in a scientific setting) is all that fantastic of an idea. Female bodies are used as political pawns when it comes to this sort of thing, in ways male bodies rarely are. No one sits around debating whether or not the frenulum is an erogenous zone or not. If something gives a man physical pleasure, it's taken as a given that it's an erogenous zone--after all, that's the definition of an erogenous zone.

Yet you say a spot on a woman's body can cause an orgasm and rather than saying, "Sure, in some women", there are seventy years of contention and fighting as scientists search for proof that such a thing could happen.

It's offensive and insulting. While sexual reproduction might fit within the realm of anatomy, sexual pleasure can't. 90% of it is happening between the ears.

[AllWalker]

I wont bother linking to the xkcd comic. You've all seen it by now.

As for the remark about pleasure being between the ears, absolutely. For a foot fetishist, giving a foot amssage to a beautiful woman would be highly pleasurable. Is that because he has some erogenous zone in the other person's foot? If so, that would be awesome, and running a marathon would just about kill someone else.

[OtakuLoki]

I'm always leery of any kind of reporting on scientific studies in the popular press. Neither of the stories on that linked page actually describe more than the conclusion of the study.

From what I recall, the claims about the g-spot have ranged from simply being a sensitive area where many women respond to stimulus with an orgasmic reaction, to a concentration of sensory nervous analogous to the glans or foreskin on the male, and thus causing the massive response when actually stimulated. The first definition is, as you've said Zuul completely internal, and only going to proven or disproven on an individual basis. The second definition is actually an anatomic definition, and thus falsifiable via study and experimentation. It wouldn't mean that a woman cannot have orgasms because her g-spot is stimulated, simply that the anatomical reasons for it are not the ones that are causing her response.

When one considers the wide variety of areas that can be erogenous zones for men and women, if there is no anatomical reason such as that proposed by my second definition that doesn't obviate that an individual woman may have a sensitive g-spot as her own erogenous zone. Such things do often vary greatly from person to person. I've heard of people for whom the belly button is a sensitive and erotic area, much rewarding sensation, other people have no response to that, or even fear and pain. So to get back to my complaint - the g-spot has been defined as something both personal and something anatomical. It can be falsified as an anatomical construct without falsifying anyone's personal experience, IMNSHO.

[Zuul]

From what I recall, the claims about the g-spot have ranged from simply being a sensitive area where many women respond to stimulus with an orgasmic reaction, to a concentration of sensory nervous analogous to the glans or foreskin on the male, and thus causing the massive response when actually stimulated.

Glans and foreskin are the clitoris and hood. When sexual differentiation begins in the fetus, those structures go their separate ways, but they begin as a phallus that both sexes have. Current thought is that the G-spot would be in some way associated with what, in males, becomes the prostate gland.

If that's the case, it would make sense that it isn't present in all women or that responses to stimulation would differ wildly. Not all men find erotic pleasure in having their prostates manipulated, and a structure that has no use in a woman might very well be so underdeveloped in some cases as to basically not exist.

[OtakuLoki]

Glans and foreskin are the clitoris and hood. When sexual differentiation begins in the fetus, those structures go their separate ways, but they begin as a phallus that both sexes have. Current thought is that the G-spot would be in some way associated with what, in males, becomes the prostate gland.

Fair cop. I just remembered it was being claimed to be analogous to one of the normally male-only structures.




To build on the point I was making about science reporting in the press: Back in the 90s there was a big hoopla about a study that reported that toothpaste in the gut had been linked to cancer. Now, swallowing large amounts of toothpaste has always been considered a bit of a bad idea, but the reporting in the press was all about how now people would have to be extra careful about swallowing toothpaste while brushing their teeth.

What no one reporting on the study had twigged to was that the cancers occurred after the toothpaste had been injected into the abdominal cavity, not ingested through the alimentary canal! FFS, of course grit that the body can't get rid of is going to be linked to cancer!

[pepperlandgirl]

When I was a JR in college, I took a class about human sexuality. It was a joint lecture with an anthropology professor and a biology professor. It was a ridiculous class in a lot of ways and I remember being pissed off more than once (usually by the students. One young man claimed that women usually "had it coming" when they were sexually assaulted. Several others insisted that female circumcision was A-OK because it was part of a culture, but I digress). The biology professor was an older gentleman, probably in his 50s. One day, we were discussing female sexuality. The various bits and pieces, as well as the states of arousal. He covered the standard stuff, but didn't mention anything about the G-spot. So I asked, because hello, that seems like a pretty important aspect of female pleasure! He looked me right in the eye and said calmly, "The G-spot doesn't exist."

I did the only reasonable thing I could.

I argued with him.

A lot.

I don't think I have ever been so angry/frustrated with a professor before. I mean, it was so ridiculous at the time, and seems even more ridiculous now in hindsight. It was extremely offensive and insulting, and I feel that same sense of frustration every time the issue comes up. So if the G-spot doesn't exist (according to men) then how do they explain my own personal experience? The aforementioned professor explained it with a shrug and an insistence that it simply doesn't exist.

[Hatshepsut]

Technically speaking, I don't have a "G-spot." But I have ... spots.

"Polymorphously perverse" is a useful term.

[Zuul]

I don't think I have ever been so angry/frustrated with a professor before. I mean, it was so ridiculous at the time, and seems even more ridiculous now in hindsight. It was extremely offensive and insulting, and I feel that same sense of frustration every time the issue comes up. So if the G-spot doesn't exist (according to men) then how do they explain my own personal experience? The aforementioned professor explained it with a shrug and an insistence that it simply doesn't exist.

That's how I feel when the topic comes up like this as well. There's just this helplessly horrified feeling at having your own experiences with your own body declared invalid. It's like being told that the experiences of female bodied people who have G-spots and have experienced orgasms from them simply don't matter.

[OneCentStamp]

On the one hand, you have people who have experienced something first hand, find it completely real, and are understandably upset that other people would claim it doesn't exist.

On the other hand, you have people who haven't experienced it, who point out that empirical evidence for its existence is vague and conflicted at best, and who also point out that even among those who agree that it exists, the accounts of its nature and location vary.

We could just as easily be talking about God as the G-spot.

[RabbitMage]

The G-spot is God. Or so I am told.

Alright, since this escapes science, everyone stand aside. I, RabbitMage, will singlehandedly locate the G-spot.

[ivan astikov]

On the one hand, you have people who have experienced something first hand, find it completely real, and are understandably upset that other people would claim it doesn't exist.

On the other hand, you have people who haven't experienced it, who point out that empirical evidence for its existence is vague and conflicted at best, and who also point out that even among those who agree that it exists, the accounts of its nature and location vary.

We could just as easily be talking about God as the G-spot.

Or UFO's!

[AllWalker]

I thought the G stood for God?

Although it should be the RFG-spot. Because it's really fucking great.

[ivan astikov]

I have a Giggle-spot, but I'm not saying where!