If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Researchers in Great Britain have fueled more G-Spot controversy by stating that there is no such thing as a G-Spot. Try telling that to many women, but here is the thing. The research design is a little questionable. I’ve never been one to totally believe that the G-Spot is an actual anatomical region, for various reasons which I’ve blogged about, but to say that this pleasure zone doesn’t exist, as an area, is fallacious – at least to me.
According to one report, the research was conducted on identical twins:
After carrying out the widest ranging research ever undertaken into the elusive G, the team at King’s College London reckon the sexual pleasure zone could be a figment of some women’s imaginations – or something dreamed up by magazines or sex therapists.
The way they carried out the research involved identical twins. Identical twins share all their genes, while non-identical pairs share 50% of theirs. If one identical twin reported having a G-spot, this would make it far more likely that her sister would give the same answer. But no such pattern emerged, suggesting the G-spot is a matter of the woman’s subjective opinion. So it’s all in the mind and nothing physiological at all according to them. I get the reason for using twins, but the findings then fail to take into account different sexual technique, and unless both twins had the same sexual partner, how would they know if they were having the same type of sex?
Perhaps location relies more on technique than assertion. If the G-Spot is a spot that is also dependent on the (internal part) clitoris, then it won’t be a specific area. Research has been divided. Some researchers claim to have located it – anatomically- while other researchers claim otherwise, based on their subjects. If more researchers are claiming the latter than the one group of researchers could be overstating their research.
But why can’t we just focus on the pleasure? Do we need a bunch of warring researchers to validate what many of us experience sexually? I think not.
Essin Em reviews the sex accessory called the G Pop. Visit the blog to read the full review:
I mean, I’ve seen crops that look like lollipops. And lollipops that look like they shoul be inserted (but really shouldn’t be, because that’s just asking for a yeast infection). But in all my sexplorations, I have never seen a dildo that looks like this. A lollipop for your G-Spot.
[source]
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed.Related posts:
Finally, a voice of reason appears. Thanks Dee for the tour. If anyone is interested in an explanation of why this “war” continues and what it is all about, scoot over to http://www.esybron.org and find The G Spot
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by sexyhandmade, Dee. Dee said: New blog post: The G Spot Myth…Revisited https://dirtysexyprettyfun.com/2010/01/16/the-g-spot-myth-revisited/ [...]