Comments on: In search of the “so-called G-spot”

By: Sean

Sean — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 10:49:54 +0000

I read this too and was fairly amazed by the logic. Let’s take a relatively less controversial hypothesis such as that most men have penises. Then the likelihood that an identical twin has one is exactly the same as that anyone else has one. There is no fathomable reason why an identical twin would be more likely to report having one if his twin also did so. Thus the lack of any such correlation proves strictly nothing.

At most, the researchers have disproved that there is a genetic factor in whether or not a woman has a G-spot. It remains open whether all women have one or none does. Nonetheless the researchers conclude that reports have no evidential value at all. Some undefined yet presumably high proportion of women will have reported having one, and yet they conclude that it does not exist. If they asked the same question to men about transanal prostate sensitivity, they would get similar results but draw opposite conclusions.
I call this simply misogynistic bias and invite all sisters to be duly outraged by it!

By: Kelly Holden

Kelly Holden — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:27:44 +0000

“as it put a lot of pressure on me to have only vaginal sex or receive only certain types of stimulation.”

Funny, I was always under the impression that the g-spot was best manually stimulated, rather than through coitus, which is why I find the idea that they weeded queer women out of the study on the grounds we get “too much” manual stimulation so very odd.

By: Clarisse Thorn

Clarisse Thorn — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:42:59 +0000

Thanks for covering this. I was so annoyed when I heard about this study, it blew my mind. So ridiculous.

By: Miss Werewolf

Miss Werewolf — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:15:46 +0000

You know, I was kind of relieved when I heard that the g-spot may not exist, as it put a lot of pressure on me to have only vaginal sex or receive only certain types of stimulation. But now that I have read the study, I do believe it is flawed. Oh well, so much for pressure being taken off of me. But why are people using such black and white terminology with anatomy? Why can’t some women have a g-spot and some women not have a g-spot? Why aren’t people paying attention to the fantastic organ, the clitoris? I think it has to do with people using the G-spot as an excuse to further Freud’s theory that women who cannot have vaginal orgasms are undeveloped. Which we of course know is BS. Now, some women probably have g-spots, but not all do, or not all receive pleasure from them.

By: Kari Lerum

Kari Lerum — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 01:09:40 +0000

thanks for the links, Garland!

By: Garland

Garland — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 00:22:23 +0000

Oooh. A non-paywalled link! The authors currently have a prepress copy of the manuscript posted here: http://www.twin-research.ac.uk/G%20spot_manuscript_Jan10.pdf .

By: Garland

Garland — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 00:11:03 +0000

Genetic and Environmental Influences on self-reported G-Spots in Women: A Twin Study

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01671.x

Kari – Assuming you’re using UW library resources: You may be able to access the ‘Early View’ edition of the paper via the doi link while on-campus (or from off-campus: http://dx.doi.org.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01671.x ).

By: Kari Lerum

Kari Lerum — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 23:43:39 +0000

Mike, unfortunately I haven’t yet read the original study because The Journal of Sexual Medicine (where it’s published) is not supported by my library system. Here’s the link for the abstract though, which should be accessible regardless of institutional subscription.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123232355/abstract

Additionally, it looks like there may be another G-spot study coming soon in this same journal — this one using more Kinsey-style methods of direct observation: “French researchers Odile Buisson and Pierre Foldès did ultrasounds of a small number of women having intercourse with men. By looking at the changes in the vagina, the researchers found physiological evidence of the G-spot. This study is under review at the Journal of Sexual Medicine…” (http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/01/05/g.spot.sex.women/)

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 23:16:09 +0000

Did you read the original study? Could you link to it?

By: abandoning eden

abandoning eden — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 14:19:26 +0000

Thanks for putting perfectly in words what I felt was wrong with this study. You can’t go around asking people if they ‘believe’ they have a g-spot and then scientifically conclude anything…do you take a survey of people to ask if they ‘believe’ they have a pancreas and then determine if they do based on the survey results? No, you cut open some dead people and look at their farkin pancreas!

Fortunately, no cutting is required to observe a cervix and a possible g-spot (although as the babeland people point out, that also has been done)- they just have to reproduce some of the original Masters and Johnson research techniques (Which I believe happened after the Kinsey report came out, by the way, as according to wikipedia they did their research on physical human sexual response well into the 1960s, and the Kinsey reports came out in the early 1950s/late 40s).

I’m normally an advocate of survey research (given that I rely on it for my own research), but this is just a completely inappropriate research method to use to explore this topic. Unless the research question was “Do women believe they have a g-spot.” In which case, they found that the MAJORITY (albeit a slim majority) did believe they have one, so how they came to their conclusion that it does not exist, I don’t understand.