The G-Spot is back in the public eye thanks to the inexorable rise of Violet Blue (now an ‘O’ magazine contributor) and her new book “The Smart Girl’s Guide to the G-Spot
I’d hoped to talk to Violet about the book, but getting no response from Violet or her publisher I began to read further and now, the question I thought Violet would quickly put to rest, seems the only one worth asking.
Does the G-spot she writes about, that of “earth-shaking, bed-breaking, gale force climaxes” which “Any girl can (use to) unleash her own awesome orgasmic superpower”, exist?
Before I’m accused of being a Neanderthal misogynist I’ll clarify.
Ernst Gräfenberg, for whom the G-spot is named, made very modest claims indeed for the ‘erotic zone’ he discovered. For one, he didn’t call it the G-Spot, and simply described an area of erectile tissue that when swollen created a small sensitive bump in the vaginal wall. He said it was a ‘primary erotic zone’ and mentioned it was hard to stimulate in the missionary position.
It was immediately controversial. The G-Spot suggested there were two types of orgasm. The ‘immature’ clitoral orgasm any woman could experience and which didn’t have to involve the penis, and the ‘mature’ vaginal orgasm which could be experienced during penetration which was ‘deeper’ and more satisfying. Gynecologists refused to consider the G-Spot a fact without physical evidence, and feminists saw it as a huge step back for sexual politics for the very same reasons many men embraced it.
Fifty years on feminist orthodoxy has changed to the point where writers like Violet Blue are advocating views diametrically opposed to their forbears without a trace of irony.
Pleasure from vaginal stimulation as experienced by some women is undisputed, but the magic ecstasy-machine G-Spot which sells books, not the considerably more humble medical one described by Gräfenberg, is harder to explain.
The best evidence in favor for the magical G-spot comes from Italy, where in 2002 14 dead women were found to have concentrations of an enzyme called PDE5, whose absence is key to triggering male erections, in the area where the G-Spot is supposed to be. If the G-Spot contained a concentration of PDE5 it could be responsible for removing barriers to pleasure when aroused and if the Italians were right women taking Viagra, which blocks PDE5, should orgasm more easily and powerfully than those who don’t. Unfortunately every study looking at the effects of Viagra on women has failed to find a reliable effect and if PDE5 is responsible for the ’super orgasm’ it’s a lot more subtle than at first thought. Complicating matters further, the part of the vaginal wall under discussion also contains the Skene’s glands (also claimed to be responsible for ‘female ejaculation’ but not found in all women) and part of the clitoris (the most obvious candidate for orgasm in response to direct stimulation). Both are currently unable to support the theory of a G-Spot orgasm which is any ‘better’ than a clitoral one.
We know there’s something happening for some women around the G-Spot but we’re not sure what lies at its core (the nerves of the vaginal sphincter, Skene’s glands, the clitoris, erectile tissue?) or how it works. There’s no credible evidence the G-Spot is the ’super-clit’ many pop-sex writers claim, and the science which supports the G-Spot also suggests not all women have the organs and tissue we think it may be made of. If, as is currently thought, about two-thirds of women only orgasm in response to oral or digital stimulation of the clitoris, and women who’ve had the G-spot area removed surgically report the same sexual sensitivity before and after the operation, how important can the G-Spot be?
At best we have an area of increased sensitivity which only some women have, and which can’t be adequately explained. A lucky bonus which is capable of providing pleasure to some. Not a hidden organ every woman has and which opens the door to new avenues of sexual understanding.
Just as Gräfenberg said back in 1950.
Until the science is straight how are self-proclaimed experts backing their claims of a universal sexual turbo-charger? If they’ve only got anecdotes and other pop-sex authors on their side should we be listening to advice without evidence?
Aside from the great myth of the “mature orgasm”…
Whether or not the G-spot exists as some sort of explainable, anatomically definitive structure seems irrelevant and over-analyzed to me. People could debate whether or not the frenum area of the penis is really anything medically special, but in my cocksucking experiments, most men like this area stimulated. I see the G-spot as much the same as the frenum.
I like my G-spot area stimulated. My favorite sex toys are structured to stimulate this area, such as this dandy from Tantus: http://www.tantusinc.com/images/products/faerie-amethyst.jpg Is this region of my vaginal canal a vestigial organ? A part of my interconnected erectile tissue? Something to do with the Skene’s gland? It doesn’t really matter to me what its true medical definition is, so long as people are enjoying it.
There are about 2500 folks at Literotica having a lot of fun going GSpotting science or no science — Read some of the delightful anecdotal stories from people’s bedrooms describing all sorts of new found pleasure.
http://forum.literotica.com:81/showthread.php?t=70892
Science it ain’t. Most science in this area is conducted on cadavers - damn hard to get one of those to orgasm.
We didn’t know that the clitoris had arms that extend down both size of the vulva and is at least twice as large as usually shown in anatomy texts until around ten years ago. The urologist who discovered that suggests the GSpot may owe some of its sensitivity to the proximity of the previously undiscovered structures of the clitoris and erectile tissue near the urethra.
“Both are currently unable to support the theory of a G-Spot orgasm which is any ‘better’ than a clitoral one.”
Who exactly is trying to support the theory that one is better than the other? I can’t imagine Violet is saying that at all.
And why is this whole notion of a the GSpot and orgasms induced by stimulation thereof such a bugbear for you Sam? I don’t understand. I thought you were a man who condoned and applauded the pursuit of pleasure.
On a personal level, like the lovely Furry Girl, I enjoy both kinds of orgasms, they feel different but both are very enjoyable, perhaps I should invite a scientist in to make up a third in my bedroom. (Perhaps I should invite Furry Girl!)
I for one say Yay to Violet and others who promote pleasure.
Furry - Fair comment, though there’s no long-term value in saying ignorance can be bliss, and if we don’t know the facts, writing books on the subject seems premature.
Ell - There are no bugbears here, just an unwillingness to accept anecdotal evidence (for anything). I have a hard-science background and I don’t see why standards of evidence should be so ephemeral in an area as important as sex. If there isn’t ‘another type’ of orgasm, or there are 5, is worth knowing. If we were to take people’s reports on face value and ignore the scientific method we’d all believe in Nessie, UFO contacts and ghosts. I don’t.
I’m not saying “ignorance is bliss” per se, it’s more a matter of, “I’m sure medical researchers will figure it out, and until then, sit back and enjoy the ride.”
I’ll be interested to know about it when science does establish some sort of a true answer, but I’ve seen this debate come up before, and it just seems like wasted energy. Vestigial organ? Skene’s gland stimulation? I’ve seen people so intensely insistent on their own idea of what the G-spot is, and it just strikes me as a weird thing for anyone to get up in arms about when we don’t have a real medical explanation yet.
Sam, Sam, Sam. You know by now that science ain’t gonna win this one. We’ve been through this topic before. (smile!)
I for one don’t object to whatever people want to do to themselves, or to each other as long as consent is possible and present. This g spot stuff draws from the same deep well as chiropractry and homeopathic “medicine”. As men trained in science, we can’t help trying, but some fights we can’t win.
That said, the book is ludicrous. A majority of women don’t get anything out of “g spot” stimulation. Books of this type do the same thing that the old vaginal versus clitoral orgasm stuff did, they make lots of women feel like there is something wrong with them. Nothing interferes with healthy sexuality like feelings of inferiority or freakishness.
Do what you want, but don’t use it to sell books that do more harm than good in the long run.
As always, JMHO.
Marcus - Thanks for the support. It’s just worth mentioning that not everyone in the porn sphere is as anti-evidence as books like this appear to be.
Don’t get me started on Chiropractic or Homeopathy…
Furry - I hear you but that’s a little like the ‘God in the gaps’ argument. I.e. until we have scientific evidence otherwise insert whatever you want to believe. Can’t we settle on a ‘currently unknown’?
In that case of course, books like this aren’t really appropriate.
So Sam, I need to know your personal take on this.
When you are with a lovely lady and she moans delicately into your ear, “Baby rub my g-spot,” what do you do?
Goodness me Marcus could you get any more condescending if you tried? Spare us the good men of science spiel. I can almost see you in some stuffy Victorian study, pacing, hand at your waistcoat. The good men of science couldn’t even adequately describe a cunt for anatomical purposes for around the last four hundred years because they were too busy trying prove that female genitalia was a mere reflection of male genitalia.
I think your piece isn’t very well researched Sam, plenty of science exists, like the good men of science, you’re just not looking for it. Science is turning its gaze to understanding our experience of sexual pleasure, I’m sure we’ll all be better for the effort and the attention.
Your readers might enjoy Bev Whipple’s chat with Norman Swan talking about some of her recent work — it’s quite fun.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2007/1878728.htm
In the meantime, as far as I can tell VB’s book tells women there might be something more they could enjoy, go explore the range of responses you can have, have some fun, go play. I can’t see any crime in that.
Next you’ll be telling me that I can’t orgasm from having my nipples tweaked.
AAG - I rub away. I’d lick her elbow if she asked me to. If she loves it great, but it wouldn’t (and hasn’t) removed my desire to know what the g-spot really is and how it works. As always anecdotal evidence isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.
Ell - You’re taking this personally I fear. Marcus isn’t saying people can’t feel pleasure, he’s just questioning the existence of an anatomical hotspot with - and this is the kicker - the ability to produce orgasms which are greater than those produced by clitoral stimulation.
That’s what VB’s book says - even if you only read the back cover. It’s very different from the ‘try it you might like it but if you don’t no-bother’ that you’re saying it is and that’s entirely my point. The whole ’super-orgasm’ thing which people tie to the G-spot is where it stops being a real thing and enters the speculative, anecdotal arena.
Beverly Whipple has done some interesting work but is one of the principle promoters of the G-spot who makes money writing and talking about it. Worth remembering.
I’ve seen this argument play out a million times in the past 30 years. An orgasm is an orgasm is an orgasm, wherever you have to stimulate to get it. If it feels good to you, do it. My first ex got them from nipple play, from butt play and from sex. My second ex got them from kissing or playing wth other women or from playing with a wand, but rarely from sex. I never say any difference in the response.
My point, plainly and simply, is that this seems to me like a rehash of the old vaginal versus clitoral argument. By telling women that this “g spot” produces super orgasms, you make women who don’t respond to the stimulation feel inferior or different. Making money by spreading this type of message strikes me as problematical. If you want to spread your gospel at least do it free on the internet, not by taking every penny you can from others seeking to improve their sex lives.
For the life of me I don’t see condescension in that.
Marcus - I agree. It’s not about saying what feels good for other people, it’s the attempt to prematurely wrap anecdotes and unanswered questions in theory and then sell it as ’science’ to an unsuspecting public which bothers me.
An orgasm is an orgasm is an orgasm is hogwash. Perhaps without the benefit of having experienced a range of orgasms you’d be hard pressed to describe the difference Marcus?
Women don’t need protecting from information.
Ms Whipple has written 160 research papers on sexuality, I’m going to hazard a guess that she knows more than you Sam on the topic.
As a therapist, I’m in there every day dealing with the consequences of misinformation about sexuality.
I do, however, admit that faith, whether in an all powerful, all seeing, all knowing God or in the super orgasm, is the antithesis of science, which tries at least to always leave room for the disproving of a hypothesis.
I tremble before the prowess of someone who has “published over 160 papers about sexuality”.
This is my last word about the subject. Caveat Emptor.
The G Spot exists in my book, because I do believe that an orgasm is not an orgasm. Unless a guy knows where to hit that special spot, I’m not having any fun!
Veronica - I disagree. A pancake is a pancake. There’s lots of other good stuff you can make with batter but it’s not a pancake. There’s lots of other fun and pleasurable sexual feelings but to say there’s no definition of what an orgasm means we don’tknow what we’re discussing and therefore there’s no chance to learn anything. Intense sexual pleasure and orgasm aren’t the same thing.
Ell - If I found 161 papers which disagree with Whipple would you change your mind? Publishing papers isn’t any proof of knowledge unless those papers are in the right journals for the field and backed by corroborating evidence of their veracity. You don’t judge science by who’s published the most, you judge it by the results of peer review. In fact the more papers which follow an original piece of work and agree with it the better.
You don’t back a researcher like a horse.
She might be 100% right, but you can’t tell me to believe her simply because you want her to be. Data beats ideas every time and until the data’s available she’s at best someone with the right idea. The G-spot is an idea that for all the enthusiasm has very little supporting data which suggests it’s as sexually significant as the clitoris, let alone having even greater capabilities.
If the data was in - as it is on gravity, evolution, male ejaculation and other well understood phenomena - I wouldn’t bother to ask the question.
> If the data was in - as it is on gravity, evolution, male ejaculation and other well understood phenomena - I wouldn’t bother to ask the question.
Them’s fightin’ words. Aren’t you aware that in Americaland, the vast majority of people still don’t believe in evolution?
Furry - now you’ve just depressed me