Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous | Next

Dream spot


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.


Jan. 4th, 2010 05:49 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.)
Jan. 4th, 2010 06:22 pm (UTC)
I can think of at least two other things that could be going on, and only one of them is confirmation bias.
Jan. 4th, 2010 06:39 pm (UTC)
What's the other one?
Jan. 4th, 2010 06:53 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).
Jan. 4th, 2010 09:15 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
Jan. 4th, 2010 09:25 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.
Jan. 4th, 2010 10:52 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.
Jan. 4th, 2010 11:29 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)


bad wolf
Notes from extinction

Latest Month

November 2010

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com