Is it just me, or is the media obsessed with the G-spot lately? Everywhere I look, I seem to find articles citing this study or that study, claiming the G-spot is an irrefutable part of female anatomy or claiming its just a bunch of hooey.
While I recently covered male bits in my piece on testicular cancer (see link in list below), I feel like a bit of balance (on the female anatomy side of things) is in order. As a scientist who regularly reads about controversial or conflicting research findings, here is my take on the G-spot debate.
The term G-spot (in yellow on the diagram above, taken from newscientist.com) was coined in 1950, to describe the Skene’s glands on the inner top wall of a woman’s vagina, an area anatomically similar to the man’s prostate gland. Like in males, this gland in women is thought to produce ejaculate and to be highly sensitive to arousal – in fact, the G-spot contains an extension of the clitoral anatomy. The G-spot is found in the urethrovaginal space of the vagina, which is rich in blood vessels, glands, muscle fibres, nerves, and for some women the Skene’s glands.
In 2002 a group of Italian researchers set out to find a biochemical marker for the elusive and controversial G-spot. They found that the enzyme PDE5, which degrades the chemical signals that trigger erections for example (and is blocked by Viagra), is highly clustered in the G-spot. However, not all females appear to have the same levels of PDE5 in this area, and women with lower PDE5 in the G-spot area also appear to lack the Skene’s glands. This finding may explain why some women have difficulty obtaining a vaginal orgasm, and may also explain why Viagra is a successful stimulant for many women.
Later in 2008, the same Italian group conducted research using ultrasound imaging to connect their PDE5 findings earlier in the decade with the ability or inability for a woman to reach a vaginally stimulated orgasm. Their studies found that women who are able to reach a vaginal orgasm have thicker tissue in the vaginal space where a G-spot would be. This study also suggests that there is not a simple dichotomy of women with or without a G-spot. In fact, there may be a spectrum of G-spot size and sensitivity, leaving some women better able to utilize this sensitive spot in their sexual play.
Psychiatrists, and neuroscientists studying the brain’s role as a sex organ, may suggest that ‘practice makes perfect’ when it comes to successful orgasms, including those utilizing the G-spot.
Recent headlines claiming the G-spot does not exist, and has been a myth all along, stem from a 2009 study in the UK utilizing a large sample size (which the earlier Italian studies lack) and a questionnaire. Most scientists and doctors specializing in female sexual health would immediately scrutinize this finding given the nature of the data collection – physiological and biochemical data to suggest the presence of a G-spot is a highly preferable form of data versus a personal opinion. Because as we all know, not all women are exploratory or aware of their own sexual physiology, and not everyone is (knowingly or not) honest in a questionnaire. Tomes have been written on the value of a well-conducted questionnaire study in research – but not all scientific questions can be addressed in this manner. Taken with the proverbial grain of salt, in this UK study, 56% of women report experiencing a G-spot, but there was no higher link between identical twins (usually the hallmark of a biological finding).
In fact, Beverly Whipple, a researcher at Rutgers who has found G-spots in large cohorts of women through her studies and has helped to popularize the 1950’s term, finds the UK study to be highly flawed. So, as with many topics in science today, the debate continues…but for now the evidence seems to be tilted toward the physiological presence of a G-spot in most women.
*******************************
Aliquot enjoys a good science discussion. For this post, please share, rate, comment or send a message. Much appreciated!
********************************
Further Reading:
Aliquot’s post on testicular cancer:
http://open.salon.com/blog/aliquot/2010/01/21/grab_those_balls_why_you_or_your_partner_should
Sexual Science by New Scientist:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17523503.100-bigger-is-better-when-it-comes-to-the-g-spot.html
Coverage of the UK study:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article6973971.ece
Update: The brain as sex organ:
**http://discovermagazine.com/topics/mind-brain/sex-the-brain
**http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v427/n6973/full/427390a.html
Dec 2011 update:
Finally, about 18mo later, I have read Mary Roach's book: Bonk: the Curious Coupling of Science and Sex. May I suggest this to everyone who has an interest in this topic. While Roach is not a scientist, nor a science writer, she does a very competent (and entertaining) job of researching the topic and conveying the research findings. Definitely a page-turner worth paging through!
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Michael Steinberg
doctorwascher
Paul Hinrichs
Mary Elizabeth Williams
Cary Tennis
Dave Cullen
Salon.com
Comments
And judging from my personal research the Grafenberg spot is not a myth.
Anyhoo, Robin made my point for me. :)
-R- (or should I say, stroked)
It's nice to know the physiology behind it. I always wondered what was really going on there. Calling it a 'spot' is not very helpful.
Thanks!
{[R]}
I'd love to see an article on this site about the invention of the vibrator and why it came to be. If anyone doesn't know this full story---check it out. There's even a Broadway play about it now--The Vibrator Room.
Women weren't "suppose" to have orgasms and sex was about their husbands getting it on and over with as fast as possible. In the late 1800's and early 1900's (not long ago!) women were often labeled "hysterics" and the treatment was basically to go to the doctor and have him bring the women to climax with his hand. You'd think doctors might have enjoyed this, but evidently it was exceedingly tedious and doctors were thrilled when the vibrator was evented. (saved the muscles in their hands plus they could see more patients per hour.)
And the husband would stand outside and wait.
Admit it, it's true. :-D
1. They exist and are in the G spot location .... oops, re-reading I see that's not the case and Skene's glands are being called the U-spot.
2. They drain into the v.
3. They can generate a lot of fluid (squirting is real for sure as can be verified on the net, so, ... )
There is quite a bit of info linking the Skene's gland to the G or U spot.
There is a female Viagra available online. I'm pretty sure it's the same active ingredient and maker, but I don't know if there is any difference between the men's and women's versions. I don't think it has been approved for the US, but there are many offshore pharmacies who sell and ship to the US. You can do a search for "offshore pharmacy no prescription female viagra" or something similar and get some ideas. DON'T pay for access to a list; those are usually of little quality, and info is available free for a good search engine user.
If you don't want to search (as it did take time for me to find pharmacies), you can wander over to my blog and look for the article on how to obtain prescription medications with no prescription or insurance. I added a few links in the comments section for pharmacies I have personally used with very good success. It's more expensive but no doc required. I use three from Mexico, India and a Mediterranean country (Greece maybe?). The price varies depending on foreign drug dispensation rules and shipping costs.
I get asthma inhalers, blood pressure meds, and antidepressants this way as I don't have insurance.
so what hope do we have for consensus on... global warming...
or... 911 wtc blg 7???
science, at times, is weak and lame....
I have a copy of "Human Sexual Response" that I bought at a used bookstore. It's hilarious. Seriously, in order to scientifically (with sensors and electrodes and internal cameras all that jazz) determine what women want, they built this artificial male. Since there's considerable variety among men, to be as true to possible as real life it had a variety of lengths and girths, was capable of various speeds and depths and positions, all of which the lucky lady of science got to pick from.
Then they cranked that baby up and measured various things and took various temperatures and timed various things out and there were many charts and graphs and bell curves.
I was recounting this to my friend Ginny. Neither of us could stop laughing. "Yeah," she said, "but you're fucking a robot!"
(BTW, Masters and Johnson answered the question "What do women want?" with "it depends on the woman.")
I'll tell you know what I told Mary Kelly then. It's real.
rated.
This will deter from our fun.
No wonder women are so mysterious! Their physiology seems impossible to describe consistently.
Just to address a few of the scientific points:
- Wikipedia is not the best source of scientific information...while some pages are accurate, or curated by scientists, there are many pages either out of date or flat-out incorrect...and its difficult to distinguish between the good and the bad.
- Claire533 - you bring up a great point, what an interesting time in the history of science and medicine! Would love to see a post on that!
- vzn: I think you misunderstand what science is all about. Science is the process of discovery, not the list of facts in a textbook. All the studies cited above, as controversial and contradictory as they may be, ARE science. Over time, the data piles up in favor of one scientific argument and a concensus is built. Science does not build concensus easily, or quickly, and that is the beauty of its design. Only the best ideas make it through this rigorous, peer-reviewed (and highly critical) process. And yes, global warming/climate change HAS made it through. But many studies are still hotly contested: the effect of red wine (or antioxidants in general) on aging, the benefits of HRT, whether mamograms under the age of 50 are any better at detecting cancer, etc, etc, etc... We are witnessing the history of scientific discovery as it is made.
Thanks for the feedback everyone! Wish I could respond to every comment - so many made me laugh out loud or nod my head in agreement!
A.
that older woman was a teenager and a sexcellent instructor.
I was 12 at the time.
Well, I had all this knowledge right there on the tip of my tongue.
As I progressed through my teen years, I discovered that I had this subject licked.
How cunning of me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OK, now this:
I always have to laugh at all the "explanations" and questions and other things which people allow to get in the way of pleasure.
I subscribed to Playboy for years.
I typically got a lot of laughs from the "Playboy Advisor" section.
Some of the questions were just plain stupid.
Well, that "older woman" I was weith way back when taught me what was the most important part of sexual relations.
I learned from her that, if I pay attention to what a woman likes/dislikes during sex, it will end up good for both.
Why is enjoying sex so difficult for so many?
Is it the uptightness learned from our parents?
I had some really strange people in my family and actually found out that they were wrong.
Finally, there's something which I have always enjoyed and, it seems to never be so much as mentioned.
That is afterplay.
Anyone?
At first, this does seem counterintuitive. Women to not have penises or get erections (per se), but they do have the same enzyme that plays this role in men, and lower levels of it do appear to correlate with lack of Skene's glands, suggesting that this enzyme aids in vaginal orgasm. The authors of the study suggest that Viagra, which blocks this enzyme and aids in erections for men, may be more effective in women with higher levels of the enzyme...but its unclear how it could have a beneficial effect if the enzyme is required for orgasm. However, this requirement has not been proven, just the correlation between level of enzyme and apparant presence of Skene's glands. And in science, correlation does not equal causation. Clearly more data is needed to nail down the mechanism of this phenomena, and to address why Viagra does apparantly work for women.
"apparently there are some things about our bodies that are not determined by genes, maybe. "
Definitely!! The area of genetics research is a rapidly growing field. Technology and new understanding are allowing scientists to discover that there is more to human DNA than meets the eye...or that met the eye several years ago! So-called Junk DNA, those dead spaces between our genes, are now recognized as areas rich in functional significance. Also, epigenetics, the stuff AROUND our DNA that affects how/when a gene is expressed, is a hot area of science right now. So, long story short - YES, there is nature (genetics) and nurture (environment) interacting in a complex manner in human physiology. Science is just beginning to grapple with the complexity - the DNA you inherit from your parents is only the beginning of the story. See AliciaPhD's posts on this topic, as well. She is has a background in genetics research.
Jeff, I think you are on to something. I've never seen a thousand dollar bill, but I have to think that it would elicit similar results to finding the G-Spot in some women.
I've been incredibly turned on by a man touching my knee, or my hand, or just by looking at me in a certain way... as I assume others have been! They are all "g-spots" if you're in the mood. (rated!)
SALON CONVERSATIONS
Click on the "SC's" to listen.
The human body is packed with erogenous zones, and the brain is certainly our most powerful sex organ. The nervous system (with the brain in central command) innervates our sex organs, and estrogen (for example) plays a powerful role in the brain.
Read more about the brain as sex organ from the scientific publications I added as an update above...
When I was growing up in the 60's, conventional wisdom said that sexually adequate women had orgasms while having sex with their husbands during vaginal stimulation. Women who had any other kind of orgasm were immature. Those who needed clitoral stimulation to achieve orgasm needed to cut that out, to strive to experience the vaginal orgasm, and only the vaginal orgasm. Such women were sexually inadequate for their men.
Then came the sexual revolution, when scientists discovered that the nerve endings at the clit showed it was actually the orgasm center, while the vagina didn't have anything comparable.
Almost immediately the "g-spot" was created in a mass of pop science findings that have resulted in a generation of research trying to prove it exists. And as always, accompanied by instructions to women that they are inadequate if they do not experience those elusive vaginal orgasms, and that sex for women should be hard work but they are obligated to produce real vaginal orgasms for the entertainment of men whenever they have sex.
Because women in porn videos always have loud screaming orgasms when during sex, don't they?
Spare me.
Now we come to "squirting". Women have to "squirt" during orgasm. There's no mechanism for releasing that volume of liquid from the vagina during orgasm, and women have been cured of squirting with Kegel exercises, but NOoo... We are inundated with demands that we must work hard to "learn" to squirt.
Men expect it of women now.
It's just a matter of trying to make women feel perpetually inadequate, so they won't actually take control of their sexuality and stop letting men objectify them.
Want a "vaginal" orgasm? Then you need a male with slim hips, average endowment (not too big---that can be a problem), preferably a male you care about and who knows his way around your body, listens to you, has the intuition then to "ride you high" (his slim hips allow this)--- then sure enough a vaginal orgasm is difficult to NOT have.) Does this all still involve the clitoris? Uh...yeah. It's the equivalent of saying, does orgasm in men "always" involved the penis?
It's really not so complicated with women. It's just that many women have been culturally programmed to not get to know themselves and many men have been culturally programmed to not get to know the woman they are with.
oh yes thank you for the brief tutorial on science. I am familiar with the process, thank you very much. what I am pointing out is how slow scientific consensus is established. its feeble at times. many, many world class researchers have investigated the gspot, and at times it feels as if we are right back where we started. and this study is peer reviewed, of course, but it is *contradictory* to other peer reviewed studies. (oh yeah, and they just *retracted* that peer reviewed study that linked autism and vaccines... did you hear that?) so yeah, thanks for the 6th grade lesson in science, but I was thinking of those various Phd level issues.... which I thought you might be conversant with....
- AIDS. still no cure.
- same with cancer.
untold billions, probably trillions have been spent on both in scientific research over the decades.
- autism. still cant figure it out despite massive research.
- schizophrenia. fairly common. still very mysterious.
- parkisons
- alzheimers
etcetera
in many of these cases, its still unclear after decades of research to what degree environment vs genetics play in them, etcetera....
so, I say to you, sometimes science is feeble, and though shalt not have a false god before you....
Yummy
But again, I'll have to respectfully disagree, because I think you're still not quite understanding the philosophy of science. Clearly you're well read in this area, as I've seen your comments on my other posts. But from a philosophical point of view, science has certainly not 'fallen down' in the areas you mention - pick any high impact scientific journal from recent weeks and you'll see the groundbreaking work being done in all those areas. Some groups using model organisms, others doing translational research or using in vitro systems or conducting meta-analyses...all of which are peer reviewed and offer something different to the pile of data. And yes, they can and probably do contradict each other, but often these contradictions spark ideas for other scientists and the process continues until concensus and a full understanding are eventually reached. After hundreds and hundreds of years, this process of doing science has evolved and I argue that its the best possible way to do it. Retractions do occur when research knowingly or unknowingly contains fraudulent data or glaring errors. Of course that will happen occaisonally, but of the hundreds of thousands of research articles, very few have been retracted.
So, for Alzheimers, Parkinsons, Autism, Cancer...the entire list you provide, I completely agree that science has not yet provided a textbook answer to the how/why. But the research progress in the past couple decades is astounding, and should not be discounted. Science isn't perfect - far from it, and I'm more than happy to admit to its downfalls. But, its the best system we've got for figuring out the unknown in our world.
I understand your frustration that science (especially research) moves so slowly. There are many reasons for that---some very reasonable and some not. Still, science is critical, I think, and answers to various illnesses, for example (such as ones you bring up) are very difficult, some have not received enough funding for research and so on but I don't think "science" itself is the problem at all. I also think we're on the cutting edge of new breakthrough with genome/genetic studies.
I only wish religion could learn from mistakes the way science does. Science has theories that can be proved right or wrong, or unknown. Religion, all to often, seems to have all the answers when this makes no sense to me. I wish religion would take a clue from science---when something has been/is way off, then admit it. If you don't know, admit it. Science is usually self-correcting at its best. Religion doesn't seem to be.
That said, I do think too much bio-politics gets involved in science and often bogs down research that is much needed.
Claire533 - you make two points I find very pertinent. First, science does indeed get bogged down with politics, as any institution does. But it also is self correcting, as you also say. The poor politics that MAY (but certainly not always) hinder scientific progress are on the minds of researchers, and are topics of frequent discussion - often leading to new and better policies. Case in point, conflict of interest policies for several major universities and journals have been revised and improved recently.
science *falls down* in many ways, and serious scientists acknowledge that instead of jumping on the 1dimensional cheerleading club.
science falls down on "big goals". it has a few choice wins, for example the polio vaccine. but researchers have been working for decades on a malaria vaccine, to no solution. moreover, science has frankenstein qualities. one word: biowarfare..... how about, atomic bombs?? who will face reality?? one author on the subject is kuhn, much worth reading, who confronts intrinsic psychological obstacles of the human condition in scientific progress. but I would say, kuhn does not even scratch the surface. yes, there are serious problems with science just as there are in religion. some scientists are just as blind to their sacred dogmas/cows as some religionists/extremists...
Of course there are cost/benefit ratios to about anything, certainly to scientific work! Certainly to medicine. Even taking an aspirin! But, that doesn't mean that science is bad or should not be done. You argue that science doesn't do enough and then that it does too much, it seems to me. At least that's what I'm hearing. I agree that science can become a dogma and lead to closed minds but I haven't seen that as often in science as in religion (my opinion.) Plus, look at Newton, Galileo and on and on. Look what religion did to them, pulling us all down!
And while I'm on the subject of religion, look what it's done to human sexuality! Yikes! Talk about messed-up psychology almost all the way around! St. Augustine I'm talking about you! How dare you put your psychological pathology over on Western civilization!
I guess good way to control women (and it starts in Genesis when the prior stories and myths are reversed. Those writers need to be held accountable also---in terms of what is taught.)
But yes, religion can be used for good (I think it's not as honest as science--it's way too often touted as fact---will give an example-- but it still can be used for good) or bad or it can be benign. As science can be also. I think that science itself is more self-correcting. Religions don't call themselves "theories" (and they are just that---or they are stories of given peoples.) At least science has a theory and then that theory can be disproved or proven. The quantum field opens up new questions as we learn that the researcher alters the experiment just by BEING THERE. Wow. So you figure that in and study THAT.
The people outside the scientific arena often use science for their own ends (ie, atomic bomb)---I know that.
My father is retired now, but is a progressive minister with a doctorate--also still teaches some, BUT when he was in seminary years ago was told that this story and that in the Bible were mythology (as much is) but "don't tell your congregants that for they will not understand and will not be 'comforted.' " Yikes! That's blatantly dishonest, is not self-correcting remotely. It doesn't promote any critical thinking and if it's one thing our world could use more of, it's critical thinking.
As someone who has been engrossed in science my whole life, I fully understand its potentials and its limitations. But pulling out a few examples of what you see as downfalls does not mean the entire institution is bankrupt. Again, I think you misunderstand how it works: big goals are set because there is a difficult and complex problem that needs to be solved, and these are exactly the problems that take time and money to be seen through to the end. Politics and many other hindrances can prevent this process from progresssing. Kuhn certainly touches on this in Structures, but its been awhile since I've read it. I'd also suggest Wolpert's The Unnatural Nature of Science...science is counterintuitive to human behavior, which is why scientists must be trained. Another distinction you must learn to make is that between science and technology - science is the pursuit of knowledge (the process, the way) and technology is the application of that knowledge to serve a purpose. Atomic weapons and biowarfare are technology.
Claire533- great post below, I think your stance on science vs. religion is really fascinating, especially given your personal experience. Would you post a blog about that??
Thanks for the comments, happy to continue a calm and kind discussion.