Saturday, January 2, 2010

The Great G-Spot Debate: Not That Simple

In the minds of many, it is one of the great mysteries of science. Some say it doesn’t exist, others insist it does, and those who do still debate where it may be.

No, it’s not Atlantis. It’s the G-spot.

According to this British article’s headline, the famed Grafenberg spot is not really there. Well, until you read the article itself:

“While 56% of women overall claimed to have a G-spot, they tended to be younger and more sexually active. Identical twins were no more likely to share the characteristic than non-identical twins.”

Wait a minute. If women don’t have G-spots, how is it that over half of them say that they do?

According to the scientists who did this study, it’s all in their heads. They just think they’re getting stimulated in that part of the vagina, but it’s really just a subjective feeling.

And I’m sure “pro-G-spot” folks are saying that the other 44 percent simply never learned how to locate and/or properly stimulate themselves.

The problem with both of these perspectives is that neither takes into account how diverse is the reality of human perception and sensation. Each person’s sense of smell, touch, taste, sight and hearing can fall along a wide spectrum, from highly acute to none at all. Younger people usually have more acute senses than older; and those who use a particular sense more intensively tend to develop a greater ability to discern more subtle differences.

So why can’t the same reasoning be applied to this part of the anatomy? If so, then it should be no surprise that younger women with more sexual experience would be able to find and stimulate their G-spots better than their older and less experienced counterparts. Not to mention that our sensations and responses to stimuli can change over time and according to various circumstances.

The whole problem with this study is that it reduces this wonderfully complex reality to a simplistic yes-or-no question. As a result, the only way to accept either answer is to deny the reality of nearly half of the women in the survey. But it doesn’t have to be that way. We can see all of those experiences along a continuum, and in so doing cultivate a deeper understanding of – and appreciation for – the rich diversity of human sexual experience.


  1. Years ago, they said all erectile problems were psychological, too- shrinks made a fortune, and rarely actually helped anyone. Then as medicine actually considered the issue and explored further, they found nearly all erectile problems were in fact physical, which is why we now have all these drug and clinic ads. When institutional medicine wants to take the G spot seriously, suddenly they'll find it, just like they found the causes of ED.

  2. Actually, the drugs were introduced as an alternative to surgery in some cases.

    In fact, many of the physical causes of erectile dysfunction can be corrected without drugs. Or, they're a combination of physiological and psychosocial.

    More complexity, more diversity.

    My concern is that viagra and other medications are being overprescribed, for cases where the ED can be reversed by changes in diet and/or lifestyle. Researchers had intended these drugs as a next-to-last resort, not as an oversimplistic quick fix. (Read my earlier blog post on the subject.)

  3. All points about the drugs true- my point was merely that they used to say it was ALL psychological, but eventually learned different.