?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous | Next

Dream spot

Sigh.

The G-spot 'doesn't appear to exist', say researchers.

Thanks for that, Tim and Andrea. You asking a few sets of twins questions totally invalidates millions of women's personal experiences.

(And now I sound like some sort of religious anti-scientist. But really.)

Andrea Burri, the other author, said she was concerned that women who feared they lacked a G-spot were suffering from feelings of 'inadequacy or underachievement'.


Can't exist, then.

I accidentally saw some of the Mail commenters' views on the matter, too.

Another lesbian myth shot down in flames.


I don't know which direction to get angry in first.

Comments

( 22 comments — Comment )
isihac
Jan. 4th, 2010 01:53 pm (UTC)
Three options. Sigh, point and laugh, or look smug.
pickwick
Jan. 4th, 2010 02:00 pm (UTC)
I don't have a smug icon (must be rectified), so...
dave_t_lurker
Jan. 4th, 2010 01:56 pm (UTC)
It just means scientists cant find the g-spot.
Umm. Damn.
pickwick
Jan. 4th, 2010 02:01 pm (UTC)
Suddenly this icon seems relevant twice in a row ;->
dave_t_lurker
Jan. 4th, 2010 04:17 pm (UTC)
Of my current two lady-friends one is definitely aware of her g-spot and enjoys it, the other not so much.
pickwick
Jan. 4th, 2010 06:14 pm (UTC)
Yeah, it seems to vary from person to person, as most erogenous zones do.
zotz
Jan. 4th, 2010 02:20 pm (UTC)
Too many things everybody knows are actually false for common knowledge to be a good source.
pickwick
Jan. 4th, 2010 02:49 pm (UTC)
Yeah, I know, but in this case, I'm sure.

(And yeah, I know that's what they all say. Suddenly I have empathy for people who believe in ghosts.)
zotz
Jan. 4th, 2010 03:22 pm (UTC)
I can think of at least two other things that could be going on, and only one of them is confirmation bias.
pickwick
Jan. 4th, 2010 03:39 pm (UTC)
What's the other one?
zotz
Jan. 4th, 2010 03:53 pm (UTC)
Sensitivity increases over time when an area is stimulated more. The widespread statement that the anterior vaginal wall is more sensitive leads people to work on there more than other areas - before long it's true, but not because it was more sensitive already.

The third option is, of course, that the area originally comes more sensitive in many women - the difficulty is distinguishing between these possibilities (and probably also others I haven't thought of).
pickwick
Jan. 4th, 2010 06:15 pm (UTC)
Heh, yeah, that makes sense. I think it's more sensitive when you're already aroused than when you're, eg, sitting in a lab with a scientist poking about, too :D
zotz
Jan. 4th, 2010 06:25 pm (UTC)
Oh, I don't know. There's nothing so odd someone won't find it a turn-on. I remember two friends of mine discussing their recent smear tests, for instance . . . although they were both very heavily into the medical thing. Very heavily into the medical thing.
luckykaa
Jan. 4th, 2010 07:52 pm (UTC)
I have no doubt there are more unusual fetishes than that. Still, you would have to have a reasonable number for this to affect the sample sufficiently. And some may well be aroused just by the scientist poking about.
zotz
Jan. 4th, 2010 08:29 pm (UTC)
Of course, if I were a curmudgeonly pedant I might point out that a preprint of the paper is available, but of course I'm really far too nice a person to go to those lengths.

Edited at 2010-01-04 11:29 pm (UTC)
(Deleted comment)
pickwick
Jan. 4th, 2010 03:04 pm (UTC)
Me too, but it's against my scientific principles to say that!
(Deleted comment)
pickwick
Jan. 4th, 2010 03:04 pm (UTC)
Yes, exactly! And presumably lots of these woman did say they had g-spots, and yet were assumed to be lying because their twins didn't...? That just seems weird.

I like the nipple analogy.
zotz
Jan. 4th, 2010 08:49 pm (UTC)
all that shows is that it's not genetically determined

Well, that depends. The usual idea of the G-spot is that that area of the vaginal wall is functionally different from other areas in some innate way in at least a large proportion of women. If it's entirely a learned matter of the type you mention, and that area has no pre-existing differences from other areas of the vaginal wall, then the concept really falls. In that case, women probably develop greater sensitivity there because they or their partners concentrate on that area because of pre-existing public discussion of it, but could in principle just as easily concentrate on a different area which might then develop these same properties over time.

If, on the other hand, that area is innately different in some way such that it is or is more likely to become more sensitive, then as a more biological matter we'd expect identical twins to be more similar on this matter than non-identical twins, which is what the study looks at (a preprint is available from a link here) and fails to find.

Obviously it's not going to be the final word on the matter, but for what it's worth their result suggests that before a woman becomes sexually active there's unlikely to be an identifiable difference between that part of the vaginal wall and others, so presumably the experienced differences would (in a sense) be learned rather than innate.
moonhot97
Jan. 4th, 2010 03:38 pm (UTC)
Remember Yes, Prime Minister. The golden rule of research is that every study will reach the exact conclusion that the researchers want it to reach.
pickwick
Jan. 4th, 2010 06:16 pm (UTC)
Very true!
(Deleted comment)
pickwick
Jan. 4th, 2010 06:16 pm (UTC)
Yes, she seems to be much more sensible (by which, of course, I mean that I agree with her too!)
moonhot97
Jan. 16th, 2010 06:59 pm (UTC)
Happy birthday! xx
( 22 comments — Comment )

Profile

bad wolf
pickwick
Notes from extinction

Latest Month

November 2010
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930    
Powered by LiveJournal.com