The G-spot 'doesn't appear to exist', say researchers (now NSFW) - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

levite · 01-14-2010, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian

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.

Obviously, the researchers needed to take each of the 1800 women out for a fun date, give them roses, split some champagne, get to know them, make them feel listened-to and adored, share some secrets over a digestif and a little chocolate dessert, go back to their place for some more intimate talk, a candlelight massage, and then fingerbang them to check for g-spot.

What is science coming to when that is too much to ask?

Willravel · 01-14-2010, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian

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?

Finger-banging? Probably not, but thin again I'm not a researcher so I'm not qualified to answer. I'm not a biologist and even I'm aware there there's been testing and experimentation on the female sexual response, with results that aren't just verifiable, but predictive. We have information on everything from nervous response being higher towards the surface of the vaginal cavity than the inside to what specific chemicals are released during the female orgasm. If researchers are so impotent when it comes to testing of female sexual response, how can we have such information?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian

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.

These are baseless assumptions without evidence. Can you demonstrate that women are less likely to have a g-spot orgasm in a laboratory setting by citing data or studies? Science doesn't work on assumptions because we as humans are fallible, we introduce bias and mistakes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian

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 would very much like to see these studies.

dippin · 01-14-2010, 05:17 PM

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.

Willravel · 01-14-2010, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

Why are self reported studies less scientific?

Bias, of course. Humans are not good at science. We forget, we make shit up, we misunderstand things, and we imprint the subjective. We're crap at objectivity, which is why we have science.

dippin · 01-14-2010, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Bias, of course. Humans are not good at science. We forget, we make shit up, we misunderstand things, and we imprint the subjective. We're crap at objectivity, which is why we have science.

Science isn't as objective as you might think. But that aside, most biases in self reported studies end up as statistical "noise," as we really have no reason to expect that personal biases in self reporting any issue will all go in the same direction.

Also, the idea of an objective measure of sexual pleasure seems a bit like an oxymoron.

filtherton · 01-14-2010, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

Science isn't as objective as you might think. But that aside, most biases in self reported studies end up as statistical "noise," as we really have no reason to expect that personal biases in self reporting any issue will all go in the same direction.

There are many instances where biases in self reported studies would mostly go in one direction. For instance, women who have children with birth defects are more likely to report that they were exposed to chemicals during their pregnancies than women whose children were born without birth defects. There is also the classic example of polls over-estimating support for minority candidates because poll takers don't want to seem racist.

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.

Martian · 01-14-2010, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

These are baseless assumptions without evidence. Can you demonstrate that women are less likely to have a g-spot orgasm in a laboratory setting by citing data or studies? Science doesn't work on assumptions because we as humans are fallible, we introduce bias and mistakes.

Do you honestly need a citation for the assertion that uncomfortable women have a difficult time orgasming, or that a typical medical examination room is uncomfortable? If you do I'll have to apologize, because I sincerely doubt any researcher would ever waste time on such a thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

I would very much like to see these studies.

Fair enough.

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.

dippin · 01-14-2010, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

There are many instances where biases in self reported studies would mostly go in one direction. For instance, women who have children with birth defects are more likely to report that they were exposed to chemicals during their pregnancies than women whose children were born without birth defects. There is also the classic example of polls over-estimating support for minority candidates because poll takers don't want to seem racist.

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.

But when there is systematic bias like that, that becomes an included variable, and tests on omitted variables turn significant.

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.

filtherton · 01-14-2010, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

But when there is systematic bias like that, that becomes an included variable, and tests on omitted variables turn significant.

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.

Ideally it becomes an included variable, and you'd expect that such things would be accounted for, but you can't really tell unless you read the actual study.

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.

Shaindra · 01-15-2010, 08:11 PM

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."

Martian · 01-15-2010, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaindra

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."

Except that 'science' has never said anything of the sort:

Quote:

According to 20th century folklore, the laws of aerodynamics prove that the bumblebee should be incapable of flight, as it does not have the capacity (in terms of wing size or beats per second) to achieve flight with the degree of wing loading necessary. Not being aware of scientists "proving" it cannot fly, the bumblebee succeeds under "the power of its own ignorance". The origin of this myth has been difficult to pin down with any certainty. John McMasters recounted an anecdote about an unnamed Swiss aerodynamicist at a dinner party who performed some rough calculations and concluded, presumably in jest, that according to the equations, bumblebees cannot fly. In later years McMasters has backed away from this origin, suggesting that there could be multiple sources, and that the earliest he has found was a reference in the 1934 French book Le vol des insectes; they had applied the equations of air resistance to insects and found that their flight was impossible, but that "One shouldn't be surprised that the results of the calculations don't square with reality".

Further to that, science would never actually say anything of that nature -- that's not how scientists do their job. The most that one might say in that regard is that 'we don't yet understand the mechanism used by bumblebees to achieve flight.'

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.

filtherton · 01-15-2010, 08:55 PM

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.

Willravel · 01-15-2010, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian

Do you honestly need a citation for the assertion that uncomfortable women have a difficult time orgasming, or that a typical medical examination room is uncomfortable? If you do I'll have to apologize, because I sincerely doubt any researcher would ever waste time on such a thing.

There are plastic surgeons all across the US that do something called a clitoral enlargement. The method of this procedure goes something like this: locate the clitoris, stimulate the clitoris until it becomes engorged and emerges from under the hood, and inject the clitoris with testosterone. In order for this procedure to work, the surgeon has to stimulate a woman and evoke a sexual physical response. In a clinic or hospital environment. It's not just an accentual sexual response like what may occasionally happen with pelvic exams, it's a necessary part of the procedure.

If a plastic surgeon can consistently elicit a natural physical sexual response, why can't a (likely better trained) researcher?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian

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.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, who said anything about a structure? The "spot" in g-spot suggests location, not structure. If there's a specific location within the vagina (a little bit in, on the roof) which when stimulated triggers the sexual response associated with g-spot stimulation/orgasms, that's the g-spot. I don't know of anyone that's suggesting there's some g-spot organ or something. I certainly wasn't arguing that, in fact above I very specifically said that it was internal clitoral stimulation. That doesn't mean there's no g-spot, though.

My interpretation is "Gee, that spot feels good".

Martian · 01-15-2010, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

There are plastic surgeons all across the US that do something called a clitoral enlargement. The method of this procedure goes something like this: locate the clitoris, stimulate the clitoris until it becomes engorged and emerges from under the hood, and inject the clitoris with testosterone. In order for this procedure to work, the surgeon has to stimulate a woman and evoke a sexual physical response. In a clinic or hospital environment. It's not just an accentual sexual response like what may occasionally happen with pelvic exams, it's a necessary part of the procedure.

If a plastic surgeon can consistently elicit a natural physical sexual response, why can't a (likely better trained) researcher?

Engorgement of the clitoris is an involuntary response that's highly similar to a male erection. It's entirely dissimilar to a subjective report of pleasure.

There's no objective way to measure whether or not something 'feels good.' This is apples and oranges, to use the colloquialism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Whoa, whoa, whoa, who said anything about a structure? The "spot" in g-spot suggests location, not structure. If there's a specific location within the vagina (a little bit in, on the roof) which when stimulated triggers the sexual response associated with g-spot stimulation/orgasms, that's the g-spot. I don't know of anyone that's suggesting there's some g-spot organ or something. I certainly wasn't arguing that, in fact above I very specifically said that it was internal clitoral stimulation. That doesn't mean there's no g-spot, though.

My interpretation is "Gee, that spot feels good".

Huh?

Let's review the conversation to date.

I said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian

There have been studies in the past to find a physical structure that could be identified as the G-spot. They turned up nil.

And then you said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

I would very much like to see these studies.

And then I said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian

Fair enough.

*STUDIES*

And then you said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

The "spot" in g-spot suggests location, not structure.

All emphasis mine, natch.

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:

Originally Posted by filtherton

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.

Okay, I suppose that's fair.

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.

filtherton · 01-16-2010, 01:39 AM

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.

filtherton · 03-06-2010, 01:44 PM

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.

Hektore · 06-11-2010, 10:02 AM

I came across:

Quote:

Originally Posted by neurotopia

Friday Weird Science: FINALLY, a clitoris study!

Category: Friday Weird Science
Posted on: June 11, 2010 12:43 AM, by Scicurious

Sci has constantly been annoyed that no one seems to have performed a real, thorough study on the sensitivity of the vagina. Or at least, it's beyond her pubmed-fu. If someone has done it, please let me know! I'd really like to cover it and I'm very annoyed that I cannot seem to find it. Sci is also annoyed by this because several studies have covered the sensitivity of the penis. It's just not fair.

But today, Sci was pubmedding furiously, and she FOUND SOMETHING. I am so excited.

ResearchBlogging.org Foldes and Buisson. "The Clitoral Complex: A Dynamic Sonographic Study" Journal of Sexual Medicine, 2009.

YES! Not the whole thing, but it's a start.

I suppose you could say the pictures below are NFSW. But they're sonograms. So it could be anything, really, and most people won't know. If your boss comes up behind you, tell them you're looking at someone's baby pics.

Alright, so here we go. What this study was really after was not vaginal, or even clitoral sensitivity. What this study was after was the G-spot. As you might be aware, there is some controversy as to whether or not the G-spot actually exists, and if it does, what it consists of. For example, is there really a difference between clitoral and vaginal orgasm, and what causes the difference?

To look into this further, let's look at some anatomy:

You can see above the basic anatomy of the clitoris and the vaginal opening below it. You can see that the clitoris has a glans and a cavernous body, which is located on either side of the urethra. Keep in mind that the root of the clitoris extends pretty far in, and comes rather close to the anterior (that's the front) wall of the vagina.

My my...isn't that similar...

Indeed.

The female clitoris and the male penis are really quite similar in anatomy. So the reasoning behind this paper was this: why aren't all women capable of having a vaginal orgasm if they have the equivalent of a penis? Perhaps it has something to do with the relationship between the clitoris and the vagina.

To look at the relationship between the clitoris and the vagina, they took women (age matched), and checked out the clitoris. They did this both at rest and when the women were performing perineal contraction (that's a Kegel). Their underlying hypothesis was this: if the clitoris comes really close to the vagina, perhaps the clitoris plays the underlying role in vaginal orgasms.

And here's what they got:

What you can see here is the sonogram image, aligned like the model above. The glans is at the top, the cavernous bodies (clitoral bodies) are on the sides, vagina is at the bottom.

This is a slightly different angle. Here you're looking at the cavernous bodies of the clitoris on the sides, with the top of the body above and the bottom below (like you're viewing up someone's vagina if they were at the gynecologist). What you can also see is a change resulting from the contraction of the perineum. In the contraction (on the right), the cavernous bodies are brought downward and the angle is decreased, bringing them closer to the anterior wall of the vagina.

And what you can see here is a midsagittal section, with the woman lying on her back, and the entrance to the vagina in the air (which is odd and I think due to an extreme pelvic tilt). You can see that the root of the vagina is closely located to the anterior vaginal wall.

They then had the patient locate the area of most sensitivity with their own fingers, and took an ultrasound that way. Invariably (though it was n=5), the women poked at the area closest to the clitoral root. When she then contracted her perineum, the clitoris moved closer to the area of the anterior wall she was pointing to.

So what's the conclusion? The authors conclude that women may be able to achieve vaginal orgasm via stimulation of the G-spot because the highly innervated clitoris is pulled closely to the anterior wall of the vagina. This is cool because this means there's no need for some special region of nerves to create a G-spot, it could, rather, just be an association of anatomy.

Sci does have some issues with this paper, though.

1) n=5? We can so do better.

2) All of the women apparently were able to locate their own g-spots successfully. It would be very interesting to see this done in women who do not think they have a g-spot or don't know where it is, and see where they point to when asked for the most sensitive spot.

3) Sci has issues with the fundamental question of why not all women can have a vaginal orgasm if they have the anatomical equivalent of a penis. My problem is this: a clitoris may be the anatomical equivalent of a penis. The VAGINA isn't. So perhaps a clitoral orgasm (of which almost every woman is capable unless there are underlying problems) is the equivalent of the male orgasm, while the vaginal orgasm is something else, if it IS something else, and related more of the positioning of the clitoris relative to the vagina?

In conlusion: Moar studies, pleez!

Friday Weird Science: FINALLY, a clitoris study! : Neurotopia

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?

RogueGypsy · 06-11-2010, 11:28 AM

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?

ring · 06-11-2010, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

The "spot" in g-spot suggests location.

My interpretation is "Gee, that spot feels good".

Yeah, it's in a few ways, and somewhere up on the roof.
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 ----------

YouTube - The Drifters UP ON THE ROOF

dippin · 06-11-2010, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogueGypsy

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?

Why are the two mutually exclusive?

And is the scientific method dependent on experimentation?

FuglyStick · 06-11-2010, 01:26 PM

All your G-spot are belong to us.

lionrock · 06-20-2010, 08:55 PM

I will be willing to quit my job and do some field work on this.

Dr. Safelove · 07-03-2010, 08:22 PM

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!

swmnkdinthervr · 07-12-2010, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlemon

The G-spot 'doesn't appear to exist', say researchers (now NSFW)

It's really pretty simple!!! You can't prove that by my wife!!!

floe206 · 07-15-2010, 04:41 PM

I think it does...

Gaz30Leeds · 07-25-2011, 05:55 AM

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!

01-15-2010, 08:11 PM	#50 (permalink)
Shaindra Psycho Location: Massachusetts	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." __________________ "Never regret something that once made you smile."

06-11-2010, 11:28 AM	#58 (permalink)
RogueGypsy Insane Location: The Great NorthWet	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? __________________ Methods, application and intensity of application vary by the individual. All legal wavers must be signed before 'treatment' begins. Self 'Medicating' is not recommend. However, if necessary, it is best to have an 'assistant' or 'soft landing zone' nearby. Any and all legal issues resulting from improperly applied techniques should be forwarded to: Dewy, Cheatum & Howe, Intercourse, PA 17534. Attn: Anonymous.

06-11-2010, 01:26 PM	#61 (permalink)
FuglyStick WHEEEE! Whee! Whee! WHEEEE! Location: Southern Illinois	All your G-spot are belong to us. __________________ AZIZ! LIGHT!

07-03-2010, 08:22 PM	#63 (permalink)
Dr. Safelove Upright	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!

01-14-2010, 05:17 PM	#43 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	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.

01-15-2010, 08:55 PM	#52 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	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.

01-16-2010, 01:39 AM	#55 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	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.

03-06-2010, 01:44 PM	#56 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	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.

06-20-2010, 08:55 PM	#62 (permalink)
lionrock Insane	I will be willing to quit my job and do some field work on this.

07-15-2010, 04:41 PM	#65 (permalink)
floe206 Upright Location: seattle	I think it does...

07-25-2011, 05:55 AM	#66 (permalink)
Gaz30Leeds Upright Location: Leeds	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!