Reply With Quote
Tell us about it...
I disagree.
G-spot... what G-spot?
January 23 2012 at 07:27am
By TAMARA COHEN
REUTERS
London - It will come as some relief to men – though perhaps not to their wives.
The elusive female G-spot may not actually exist at all, according to scientists.
After reviewing 100 studies conducted over the past 60 years, experts have concluded that there is no evidence for the fabled centre of female sexual pleasure after all.
Research leader Dr Amichai Kilchevsky, a urologist from the Yale-New Haven Hospital in Connecticut, blamed pornography, magazines and sex therapists for ruthlessly promoting the idea.
While he admitted the concept merited further attention and that ‘modern investigative techniques’ might help, he said he hoped his conclusion would take the pressure off couples who had not located it.
‘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’, he wrote in the Journal of Sexual Medicine.
His findings support those of researchers from King’s College London, who questioned 1,800 women in one of the largest studies on the subject and concluded that there was no evidence for the existence of the G-spot. The British team suggested in 2010 that the idea made both men and women feel inadequate about their sex lives.
The G-spot is said to be a small area of the female body where nerve endings are concentrated, with the capability to provide intense pleasure.
A separate study in 2008, which used ultrasound imaging to look at the vaginal wall, said women who reported having orgasms had thicker tissue around what is considered the G-spot area than women who didn’t. However, Dr Kilchevsky’s team said other imaging studies couldn’t confirm this.
He added that results from tissue biopsies were inconclusive, with some studies reporting more nerve endings in the ‘G-spot area’, while others found fewer in the same place.
‘Lots of women feel almost as though it is their fault they can’t find it’, Dr Kilchevsky said. ‘The reality is that it is probably not something, historically or evolutionarily, that should even exist.’
The G-spot was named in honour of German gynaecologist Ernst Grafenberg, who claimed to have discovered the elusive erogenous zone in 1950.
http://www.iol.co.za/lifestyle/love-...spot-1.1217729
Tell us about it...
the thought of that smelly rotten snatch makes me shutter
You've had sex??????
Haven't been here in a while....does the OP still resemble a vile pig?
Kthxbye
Let's find it together, Ash.
rofl ashbeigh getting her paint dominated within the first couple of posts
the g spot is only a couple inches deep
ashbeeigh is to gspot as mouse is to employed.
It's not an ON button, but it sure seems to help things along with some women.
With what, exactly?
The article/study isn't quite as simple as your thread le suggests. It merely says that the "g-spot" doesn't correspond to any specific identifiable anatomical feature shared by all women. There's still an understanding that some women have an area of increased sensitivity along the vaginal wall. Which, to my knowledge, has been the common assumption for quite some time.
Basically, what the study does is confirm that an inability to have an orgasm from vaginal stimulation isn't necessarily the result of an impatient or untalented lover. Or the woman being uptight, for that matter. Rather, that some women just aren't as sensitive as others.
The article I read a couple of days ago about the same study was more clear about the distinction between a g-spot and a more generalized g-area. The former would describe a specific thing that all women have, which this study dismisses, while the latter refers to a more individualized combination of thinner vaginal tissue, increased nerve endings, the location of the Skene's gland, and the location of the inner structure of the clitoris.
I agree with this.
. Whatever. This is obviously why I rarely post here anymore.
I can't find it. Is it higher up than my colon?
Yeah. Probably best to avoid discussion forums if you don't want to discuss things.
It wasn't your comment CF. I would be happy to discuss our differing opinions, but any of my opinions would get bogged down with all the name calling that I've posted below ...
Lololololol
I'll find it for you Ash.
Lololololol
You too CF
Oh. I skipped by all that without reading it.
meh, i suppose "the search continues"
Ok. Finally worked past the colon. Can it be farther than my ce ?
Quick! Someone call the wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhmbulance!!!!
Pretty sure mine is in my brain.
Like CuckingFunt alluded to, not all women were created physiologically the same... I read a study back in 2009 about the differences in female genitalia as imparted by the gradual isolation of certain gene pools... IIRC the females of the Zulu tribe the researchers were studying developed increased sensitivities to intercourse and could orgasm more frequently from coitus than their typical anglo-american counterparts (though I would argue that such data would be rather difficult to categorize given the taboo and bias surrounding "orgasm talk")... This finding was surprising to the research group considering their study's focal point was actually geared toward determining if centuries of FGM (female genital mutilation) had deprived these tribeswomen of any sexual pleasure whatsoever...
So back on topic, it's likely that some women may have a G-spot while others may not (or they may have a lesser developed one)... it depends on their genetics... This actually makes sense considering we know that female clitori, like male penises, come in all shapes, forms and sizes... therefore, it wouldn't be a stretch to suggest that the extent of the sexual arousal produced by the stimulation of said organs also varies depending on ones genetics... and we haven't even discussed the brain's key role in sexual stimulation...
Based on those observations, the article would be incorrect if it tried to make a broad assertion that research supported that no such stimulative area existed... it doesn't matter if 1,800 women were involved in their study... in this case, a large sample size is not nearly as important as keying-in on the genetic aspect of the issue and obtaining a test group of women with far more genetic variation... After all, they're talking about ALL women...
Last edited by Phenomanul; 01-24-2012 at 03:35 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
