What an anti-climax: G-spot is a myth (The Sunday Times, January 3, 2010)

----------------------------------------------


Lois Rogers

A sexual quest that has for years baffled millions of women — and men — may have been in vain. A study by British scientists has found that the mysterious G-spot, the sexual pleasure zone said to be possessed by some women but denied to others, may not exist at all.

The scientists at King’s College London who carried out the study claim there is no evidence for the existence of the G-spot — supposedly a cluster of internal nerve endings — outside the imagination of women influenced by magazines and sex therapists. They reached their conclusions after a survey of more than 1,800 British women.

“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,” said Tim Spector, professor of genetic epidemiology, who co-authored the research. “This is by far the biggest study ever carried out and it shows fairly conclusively that the idea of a G-spot is subjective.”

In the research, 1,804 British women aged 23-83 answered questionnaires. All were pairs of identical or non-identical twins. Identical twins share all their genes, while non-identical pairs share 50% of theirs. If one identical twin reported having a G-spot, this would make it far more likely that her sister would give the same answer. But no such pattern emerged, suggesting the G-spot is a matter of the woman’s subjective opinion.

While 56% of women overall claimed to have a G-spot, they tended to be younger and more sexually active. Identical twins were no more likely to share the characteristic than non-identical twins.

Andrea Burri, who led the research, said she was anxious to remove feelings of “inadequacy or underachievement” that might affect women who feared they lacked a G-spot.

“It is rather irresponsible to claim the existence of an entity that has never really been proven and pressurise women — and men, too,” she said.

Most conventional doctors have always doubted that G-spots exist. “I think this study proves the difference between popular science and biological or anatomical science,” said Gedis Grudzinskas, consultant gynaecologist at London Bridge hospital.

Beverly Whipple, emeritus professor at Rutgers University, New Jersey, helped to popularise the G-spot, named after Ernst Gräfenberg, a German scientist who claimed to have discovered the elusive erogenous zone in 1950.

Whipple found G-spots in a study of 400 women and has written a number of books on the phenomenon.

This weekend she dismissed the findings of the British study as “flawed”, saying the researchers had discounted the experiences of lesbian or bisexual women and failed to consider the effects of different sexual technique.

“The biggest problem with their findings is that twins don’t generally have the same sexual partner,” said Whipple.

The quest for the G-spot will not be abandoned. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, which is publishing Burri’s and Spector’s work this week, is planning a debate, with publication of research from the pro and anti G-spot camps.

Meanwhile, David Matlock, a Beverly Hills cosmetic surgeon, is credited with creating an artificial version of the G-spot. In some cases this has resulted in an over-sensitive zone which induces orgasms when, for example, women drive over bumps in the road.
----------------------------------------------

Now, I can't tell if this article is serious or facetious, but...

Assuming it's serious, one could attack the horrible way the "study" was conducted, among numerous other things.

Assuming it's facetious...

Maybe I'm being paranoid, but does anyone else notice it seems to be a rather well-veiled attack on atheism? Honestly, I'm being paranoid. I'm sure of it. I just got off CARM.org after a "debate" with a Creationist who pulled the usual tactic of not actually debating with us but inventing his (or her, I don't know) own strawman atheist to debate, and their strawman atheist used quite similar language, albeit about God rather then g-spots. So I'm just being paranoid. Forgive me.

But still... this article is rather ridiculous.

Views: 35

Replies to This Discussion

If there is no such thing as as G-spot, then I've known at least two to three women who have the DAMNEDEST vaginal orgasms you ever saw, mama!

Someone's zoomin' SOMEONE here, methinks.
I'm hoping it's a satirical article, but it's hard to tell...
Yeah, you're being paranoid about that atheism thing. I got nothing about atheism from the article. Now, there are similarities in style to your creationist, but, had I just come from reading a diatribe against dismissers of homeopathy, I'd see homeopathy in it.
Yeah, I figured I was being paranoid.

And yeah, you're right about that.
I have a pet 'theory' that articles like these are written for people who don't enjoy sex and wish they knew why.
Ha Ha!
I'm with you on that-
I've had that same idea reading stuff like this!
From my perspective, the science of G-spots is kinda like the science behind nuclear fusion. Plenty of indirect evidence, but mighty hard to demonstrate and replicate with any consistency. The female body is like the bottom of the ocean, at the very frontier of science, it is misunderstood.

To me it isn't important that there is «a» G-spot, only that my lover can find any sweet spot, whether it's called G or not :)
This sounds like a badly flawed study. Isn't it true that different areas , like nipples for instance, can be sensitized by exposure to stimulation. In that case the assumption that twins aught to respond in the same way is wrong and the studies conclusions are extremely suspect. The researcher admits to a vested interest in proving the g-spot nonexistent.
yeah but the mere fact there we're using language such as "most likely" about an "organ" of human anatomy is pretty darned depressing. Fact is the science behind this is just not very solid. Medicine has been controlled by patriarchal/dinosorial medical associations for so long, it's a wonder our cesarean sections rates are not already through the roof.

http://www.childbirthconnection.org/article.asp?ck=10456

I mean if we're LOOSING knowledge on birthing, how can we expect to become more knowledge in pleasure. What a medical deception...
I love "Dinosaurial."
I thought our Cesarean rate Were pretty high?
what's sad about this is just how pathetically little is known & understood about female sexuality!

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service