In a recent column, you say, “As she [Dr. Carol Queen] says, it has not been established if all women have a G-Spot (known scientifically as the prostata feminina).”
I’d like to direct you to the following research article [PDF].
It reliably shows that your belief in whether you have a G-Spot or not is not driven by genetics – which would be the only possible cause for differences among women. The only logi-cal conclusion is thus that there is no measurable variation either no wo-man has a G-Spot or else all women have one. It reliably shows that your belief in whether you have a G-Spot or not is not driven by genetics – which would be the only possible cause for differences among women. The only logi-cal conclusion is thus that there is no measurable variation either no wo-man has a G-Spot or else all women have one.
Why the researchers chose to ignore one of these two possibilities and “conclude” that women have no G-Spot is beyond me. Actually, what they show is that all women have a G-spot, but the authors don’t realize it.Why the researchers chose to ignore one of these two possibilities and “conclude” that women have no G-Spot is beyond me. Actually, what they show is that all women have a G-spot, but the authors don’t realize it.
I still find it incredible that there’s debate about things like this when it’s so easy, once you learn the technique, to make women squirt. I even offered to make the two female authors squirt. They didn’t answer.I still find it incredible that there’s debate about things like this when it’s so easy, once you learn the technique, to make women squirt. I even offered to make the two female authors squirt. They didn’t answer.
Marc-André Marc-André
Most women I’ve met, regardless of their relationship to and understanding of this highly coveted piece of real estate, balk at this particular offer. Isn’t it bad enough that the G-spot, known also as the prostata feminina, is named after Ernst Gräfenberg, a dude? (He didn’t stake this claim himself, mind you Beverly Whipple and John Perry did.) But now we’ve got guys offering to make us squirt.
This type of ownership is, well, onerous, actually. How would you like it if your balls were named after someone named Natalie and women were always squeezing and yanking them, hunting for your N-Spot – not with an eye to your pleasure but to personal triumph?
I have to agree, though: this study is fucked up for a variety of reasons. I am perplexed by the language and methodology of scientific studies more often than not, but what this one seems to be saying (and I know you’ll correct me if I’m wrong) is that the researchers determined that whether a woman believes she has a G-spot or not is not genetically driven, not by physically examining 1,800 women, but by asking them if they thought they had one.
Not only that but this is the question they asked: “Do you believe you have a G-Spot, a small area the size of a 20p coin on the front wall of your vagina that is sensitive to deep pressure?” They did not use the term Gräfenberg Spot “as this might be confusing to some respondents.”
If their goal was to simplify things, they shouldn’t have used this term at all. With all the panic and feeling of inadequacy whipped up around the G-Spot, this is sort of like asking a woman if she has a unicorn stabled in her vagina.
To top it off, they eliminated lesbians and bisexuals from this study because, apparently, we finger-bang each other more (as many of us know, a fairly tried and true method of reaching and stimulating this sensitive area), and I guess the G-Spot can only legitimately be activated by a cock.
Furthering this repugnant notion is the fact that women who had never had vaginal intercourse were excluded as well as women who were able to reach orgasm more easily through masturbation (technique not specified).
Carol Queen made her remark rather facetiously. Her intention, I believe, was to point out the same thing the authors of this study did, “that knowledge of the anatomy, biology, and pathophysiology of female sexual function is limited.”
The difference is that the authors of this study openly admit to this fact and still manage to come to their stunning conclusion, based simply on interviewing people. Queen rightly states that lack of funding for research into female sexual pleasure is a major roadblock, a fact confirmed by scientist Cindy Meston.
It seems to me that whenever money is received, it goes into the wrong research papers. In fact, one of the G-S-pot researchers involved said openly that one of their goals was to make women who did not feel they had a G-Spot feel less inadequate about this.
As the paper says: “There is an ongoing debate around the existence of the G-Spot. 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.” Fuck you, scientific community.
Like you’ve never shown contempt and bias towards female anatomy and sexuality before.
