• G Spot doesn't exist

    1332331183
    himnher [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Lieutenant Colonel
    • Posts: 140
    • Joined: 27 Nov 2006

    A team of researchers have sensationally claimed that the elusive female G-Spot may not actually exist.

    After reviewing the results of 100 medical studies carried out over the past 60 years, the scientists have said none of them have evidence to suggest the G-Spot is a real part of the female body.    

    Sexual therapists, pornography and explicit magazines have been blamed for the lasting perception of the G-Spot, which originally rose to fame in the 1950s.

    The researchers now hope their claims will comfort partners who are feeling under pressure to find the zone

    The G-Spot is thought to be an area inside a female’s body which contain a high concentration of nerve endings.

    When stimulated, it is said to lead to intense feelings of sexual satisfaction and pleasure.

    As part of their study the scientists, who are from Connecticut’s Yale-New Haven Hospital in the US, studied a number of female tissue biopsies.

    They recorded inconclusive results because although some biopsies contained a large number of nerve endings, other contained a very low concentration.

    These results support the findings of previous research carried out at London’s King College which resulted in similar claims; that there is no evidence to support the theory of the G-Spot’s existence.

     “Objective measures have failed to provide strong and consistent evidence for the existence of an anatomical site that could be related to the famed G-spot,” said Dr Amichai Kilchevsky, the study’s lead researcher.

    “Lots of women feel almost as though it is their fault they can't find it. The reality is that it is probably not something, historically or evolutionarily, that should even exist,” he added.

      Ladies your thoughts please

    1332331522

    [suspended user]

    suspended user
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 4884
    • Joined: 16 Feb 2012

    As a man I dont care if you call it the G spot or the Z spot, the area referenced when stimulated, is definitely enjoyable for many/most women.

    1332331966
    SEXYGET 69 [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 5453
    • Joined: 1 Dec 2008
    1332332368
    himnher [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Lieutenant Colonel
    • Posts: 140
    • Joined: 27 Nov 2006

    SEXYGET 69 wrote:

    http://www.lovehoney.co.uk/community/forums/sex-tips-and-talk/150027-there-is-no-g-spot-girls-please-help/

    Hiya himnher! Read through this older thread. Interesting!

    SG

    Thanks for that, some great responses

    1332336460
    Lady.Gasm.X [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: General
    • Posts: 965
    • Joined: 31 Jan 2012

     I have never found pleasure from my so called 'G spot' and stimulating the walnut sized spongey spot inside my vagina makes me cringe. I have never cum through stimulation of this and I believe that this post could be very true indeed!

    Thanks for the info!

    X

    1332337516

    [suspended user]

    suspended user
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 4884
    • Joined: 16 Feb 2012

    Lady.Gasm.X wrote:

     I have never found pleasure from my so called 'G spot' and stimulating the walnut sized spongey spot inside my vagina makes me cringe. I have never cum through stimulation of this and I believe that this post could be very true indeed!

    Thanks for the info!

    X

    Mrs G likes stimulation of the spongy part and also either side of it, it doesnt bring on an orgasm but like nipple stimulation she likes it.

    1332339412
    ShaftMaster [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: General
    • Posts: 846
    • Joined: 17 Dec 2010

    himnher wrote:

    A team of researchers have sensationally claimed that the elusive female G-Spot may not actually exist.

    After reviewing the results of 100 medical studies carried out over the past 60 years, the scientists have said none of them have evidence to suggest the G-Spot is a real part of the female body.    

    Sexual therapists, pornography and explicit magazines have been blamed for the lasting perception of the G-Spot, which originally rose to fame in the 1950s.

    The researchers now hope their claims will comfort partners who are feeling under pressure to find the zone

    The G-Spot is thought to be an area inside a female’s body which contain a high concentration of nerve endings.

    When stimulated, it is said to lead to intense feelings of sexual satisfaction and pleasure.

    As part of their study the scientists, who are from Connecticut’s Yale-New Haven Hospital in the US, studied a number of female tissue biopsies.

    They recorded inconclusive results because although some biopsies contained a large number of nerve endings, other contained a very low concentration.

    These results support the findings of previous research carried out at London’s King College which resulted in similar claims; that there is no evidence to support the theory of the G-Spot’s existence.

     “Objective measures have failed to provide strong and consistent evidence for the existence of an anatomical site that could be related to the famed G-spot,” said Dr Amichai Kilchevsky, the study’s lead researcher.

    “Lots of women feel almost as though it is their fault they can't find it. The reality is that it is probably not something, historically or evolutionarily, that should even exist,” he added.

      Ladies your thoughts please

    Maybe looking at it as either a yes or no is the wrong way? Maybe the G-Spot is something like dangly ear lobes, or colour blindness? Everyone's different and some people are born with, some born without? 

    1332339438
    Clown Feet [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Lieutenant Colonel
    • Posts: 239
    • Joined: 18 Nov 2009

    Doesn't matter whether it exists or not. The main point is that your woman will tell you when what you are doing is right for her, however it may be. If you are open to learn, then you will take this as an exciting thing and not be worried you've been doing things wrong up until that point. Bodies are great things, learn to enjoy them together.

    1332341353
    Rachey 28 [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Lieutenant Colonel
    • Posts: 156
    • Joined: 19 Mar 2012

    Lol see I can honestly say i don't think i have one! Iv never found it nore has the hubby - I know we're doing nothing wrong as we still have fab sex, and i can climax no problems :0) I'm more of a clit person myself love the little clit sim's you can buy, they get me going stright away :0) xx

    1332341927
    Dee_licious333 [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 3763
    • Joined: 16 Feb 2011

    I definitely have one, same area that gets rubbed each time and its an amazing feeling. Hmm are these scientists men by any chance? hehe

    1332346028
    BashfulBabe [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 1593
    • Joined: 24 Apr 2010

    I love how they gloss over the "although some biopsies contained a large number of nerve endings" part, which basically proves that, yes, the existance of such an area is provable THRU SCIENZE!  The fact that some women have an "underdeveloped" or non-existant G-spot doesn't exactly nullify the fact that they found proof that some do!  That bears out perfectly with the number of women who can orgasm through penetration versus those who can't: some G-spots are high-concentration, some are low (and possibly some are pretty much just another lump of tissue).

    I come disgustingly easily from penetration.  I feel intense pounding in a very localised spot when I'm getting close and using a G-spot-focused vibrator or dildo.  Just because another women doesn't doesn't make mine cease to exist.  That's not science, that's barely even homeopathy!

    Yes, maybe it's true that "it is probably not something, historically or evolutionarily, that should even exist", but neither should a koala's superfluous thumb, and I don't see them claiming that that's an illusionary body part.

    1332350549
    Clown Feet [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Lieutenant Colonel
    • Posts: 239
    • Joined: 18 Nov 2009

    BashfulBabe wrote: Yes, maybe it's true that "it is probably not something, historically or evolutionarily, that should even exist", but neither should a koala's superfluous thumb, and I don't see them claiming that that's an illusionary body part.

    I'm not religious but it seems strange to me that the way to guarantee our continuation as a species. just so happens to be the most pleasurable thing two people can share together. It's like someone thought, "how do we make sure they don't die out?" and the answer was to make an orgasm the best feeling thing ever :P How could we die out then? :P Not that i believe in God or anything but if he does exist, he knew his stuff :P

    1332351026
    Laveila [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 2941
    • Joined: 8 Nov 2010

    Lady.Gasm.X wrote:

     I have never found pleasure from my so called 'G spot' and stimulating the walnut sized spongey spot inside my vagina makes me cringe. I have never cum through stimulation of this and I believe that this post could be very true indeed!

    Thanks for the info!

    X

    And there are some women who absolutely hate having their clitoris stimulated. I know it sounds strange, but it is true.  Just because you dont like it does not mean that some may not. Similar to have women who hate their nipples played with.  Every woman is completely unique and what ever is in the vagina is as unique as other erotogenous zones.

    I think that there is some more sensitive spot in my vagina. I dont care about the name, but it is far more sensitive and although I did not orgasm from the stimulation yet, I personally got very close. Does the name really matter?

    1332351030
    Catnip [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Lieutenant Colonel
    • Posts: 332
    • Joined: 11 Sep 2010

    OMG... no G spot.... Utopia lost.....*scream*

    1332358857
    ShaftMaster [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: General
    • Posts: 846
    • Joined: 17 Dec 2010

    BashfulBabe wrote:

    That's not science, that's barely even homeopathy!

    This is a phrase I will have to start using!!!!

    1332358885
    WandA [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 12180
    • Joined: 28 Nov 2007

    BashfulBabe wrote:

    I love how they gloss over the "although some biopsies contained a large number of nerve endings" part, which basically proves that, yes, the existance of such an area is provable THRU SCIENZE!  The fact that some women have an "underdeveloped" or non-existant G-spot doesn't exactly nullify the fact that they found proof that some do!  That bears out perfectly with the number of women who can orgasm through penetration versus those who can't: some G-spots are high-concentration, some are low (and possibly some are pretty much just another lump of tissue).

    I come disgustingly easily from penetration.  I feel intense pounding in a very localised spot when I'm getting close and using a G-spot-focused vibrator or dildo.  Just because another women doesn't doesn't make mine cease to exist.  That's not science, that's barely even homeopathy!

    Yes, maybe it's true that "it is probably not something, historically or evolutionarily, that should even exist", but neither should a koala's superfluous thumb, and I don't see them claiming that that's an illusionary body part.

    Hehe. I laughed.

    I very much agree with your thoughts. We do not all have wisdom teeth, I'm fairly certain that they do exist.

    I'm not so sure I agree with this bit if we're all plucking guesses out of our arses: "it is probably not something, historically or evolutionarily, that should even exist". Although sexual physiology is stupidly complicated I can at least see an intuitive, if not scientific, correlation between the existence of a G-spot and potential orgasm frequency from intercourse; and the associated evolutionary benefits such as increased pair-bonding between partners, the 'upsuck' theory (yes as sexy as it sounds) etc that the female orgasm may bring.

    I suppose to break it down -
    G-Spot = more likely to experience orgasm.
    Higher likelihood of orgasm = confers evolutionary benefits.
    It is entirely plausible that any of these premises are wrong but even if they are it still doesn't rule out G-spot existing as a biological 'accident' such as the male nipples (or perhaps the female orgasm, as some theories suggest). Regardless, it just doesn't seem as clear cut to me as it does to the expert *tongue in cheek*.

    My theory: Some women in the past evolved G-spots as a way of compensating for shitty partners - In other words, your nan didn't get the lovin' she deserved. ;)

    1332371043

    [suspended user]

    suspended user
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 4884
    • Joined: 16 Feb 2012

    WandA wrote:

    My theory: Some women in the past evolved G-spots as a way of compensating for shitty partners - In other words, your nan didn't get the lovin' she deserved. ;)

    Oh dear bringing my nan n into the discussion

    1332375636
    Alicia D'amore [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 7081
    • Joined: 2 Feb 2008

    “Lots of women feel almost as though it is their fault they can't find it. The reality is that it is probably not something, historically or evolutionarily, that should even exist,” he added.

    Don't get me started on evolutionary science ;)

    Evolutionary science is - obviously - crucial to understanding how we developed. However - certain things are largely guess work and the *reasons* for or against evolving something often cannot be accurately predicted. We can have an idea based on the environment before and after the trait has evolved - but taking something that we cannot effectively measure and saying there's no reason it could evolve is a stretch. Take *any* trait and you can come up with *some* reason why it would or wouldn't evolve - once you know *when* it evolved you can look into the environment or possible reasons but this case is very vague.

    The problem is - science is hard to interpret. I'd be interested to read the actual paper to see if the conclusions drawn in the reports of this study are the same as those drawn in the paper. When interpreting papers - first you've got to check that the study itself has been well designed - have the researchers used the most reliable methods (surveys are less good than direct measurement, direct measurement should have a clear cut off set *before* the study, you should be repeating measurements more than 3 times to cut down on human error and human bias should be removed - in medicine by double blinding). Then you have to consider whether the study is reproducible and whether it has been reproduced, you have to consider where the paper is published, you have to look at n numbers and statistical testing - whether the researchers have chosen the correct statistical test and whether they have interpreted it correctly. You have to make sure their interpretations of the results they show are fair interpretations by examining the results carefully.

    All of this means science reporting is often a bit shit - unless it's from a dedicated science journalist who knows how to investigate all of the above and more (and they actually do investigate it).

    It's difficult.

    Adx

    Post a reply to this thread

    Please sign in to post messages to the forum.