Hello, welcome back and all that jazz. So, while the start of the semester naturally brings a lot of feelings—excitement, annoyance, anxiety—I am especially hopeful it'll bring is questions. Not a lot of you wrote to me over winter break, which is fine and unsurprising. But pleeeease, as the semester gets underway, start sending your sexy questions to me at sex@dailycardinal.com.
In the meantime, I do have something I'd like to mull over for this welcome-back column: the G-spot. The G-spot was in the news over winter break, and alas, it was in the news for apparently not existing. That's right, folks, according to researchers at King's College London, female-bodied individuals do not have any such erogenous zone known as the G-spot, and if they think they do, well, it's just a figment of their lady imaginations.
The study, published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine, interviewed 1,800 women, all pairs of twins. The authors hypothesized that if in fact the G-spot existed, identical twins (who have identical genes) would show more agreement about having G-spots than non-identical twins, i.e. it would be more likely for identical twins to report having G-spots. When it was no more likely for both identical twins to claim G-spots than for fraternal twins (though 56 percent of the overall sample reported having them), the researchers concluded the ""G–spot"" is, in fact, a myth.
Mmmkay. Before I get into the reasons, I think this study and its conclusions are poppycock, let's take a crash course in G-spot 101. The G-spot is a round-ish, raised ridge of tissue approximately two inches inside the anterior (front, toward the belly button) wall of the vagina. In most female-bodied people, it is significantly more prominent in arousal. Technically, the ridge of tissue results from the paraurethral tissue, a little wad of tissue that protects the urethra, the tube you pee out of. When stimulated, some women (not all) find it orgasmically pleasurable and may ejaculate as a result. Though this watery ejaculate is expelled through the urethral opening, it is chemically distinct from urine.
So that is a brief primer on the history (mythology?) and anatomy of the G-spot. Now, let's dive into the study, starting with the sample. 1,800 twins. It's a good-size sample—but maybe not when you're looking to extrapolate your results to some 3 billion people worldwide. The authors take into account a moderate number of demographic characteristics, including age (22-83), social class and education level. That's great, but one (not that there aren't several) flaw in the sample is the explicit exclusion of sexual orientation: ""Women who reported that they were homo- or bisexual were excluded from the study because of the common use of digital stimulation, which may bias the results.""
What the authors of the study meant to say was, ""We didn't include the gays because (zomg!) they use their fingers and their toys and all sorts of other stuff that is way more ideal for G-spot stimulation than a dick, and so they'll probably be more likely to believe in the G-spot or have already found theirs and we didn't want that to screw around with our goal of proving the G-spot doesn't exist.""
And beyond the faulty sample, the self-reported identification of one's pleasure zones was the basis for ""determining"" the G-spot's existence. Study author Tim Spector opines, ""Women may argue that having a G-spot is due to diet or exercise, but in fact, it is virtually impossible to find real traits.""
Uh, while I have never heard anyone attribute their G-spot orgasms to their diet or their gym routine, the real problem with that statement is that the authors didn't actually make any effort to find ""real traits."" The question asked, ""Do you believe you have a so-called G-spot?"" First of all, they asked women if they believed they had G-spots, not whether G-spots existed. They didn't do any kind of physical exams or testing. They didn't observe women masturbating or having intercourse. While it's great that the study listened to women's opinions about their bodies (to some extent, since over half of the women actually did report having a G-spot), it's lazy science to claim something is ""virtually impossible"" to find when you don't put forth any effort to look for it.
Finally, though I have made my case for why I don't buy this singular study's conclusions, my ultimate conclusion is this: In what ways does and/or should this study matter? For the women who have found their G-spots, it's unlikely the revelation that all this pleasure is just fantasy will deter them. For the women who are concerned about finding their G-spots, perhaps it comes as a kind of reassurance; Andrea Burri, another author of the study, argues, ""It is rather irresponsible to claim the existence of an entity that has never been proven and pressurize women, and men too.""
However, reassurance for this second set of women should come with the recognition that bodies, sexualities and pleasure zones vary tremendously—not at the expense of the G-spot's existence. Lots of women (and men) have not found the clitoris, but that doesn't mean we should scrap the entire idea. Lots of women (and men) have not experienced an orgasm, but that doesn't mean it's a figment of the imagination.
For better and for worse, the genes, biology, and physiology of sex remain largely a mystery. But when we're squirming in ecstasy or squealing with pleasure, the precise genetic mechanisms and neural pathways underlying those squeals generally tend to be the last things on our minds.
Want to share your thoughts on the G-spot or ask Erica other sex-related questions? E-mail her at sex@dailycardinal.com.
