For a really interesting discussion about this, you should check out: The G Spot and Other Discoveries about Human Sexuality It's a really good and detailed history of some of the things Betty Dodson is discussing and a "scientific" study about the "G-Spot" using a larger sample.

Well at least the doctor quoted at the end helped save the article.

Dunno, if you noticed, but there's a column on the right of the page that lists a bunch of other orgasm articles. There's one from 2002 called "Secrets of female orgasm revealed." It's research done by the same doctors from "Female G spot 'can be detected'" who say they want to give drugs to women who have trouble reaching orgasm.

Have male orgasms ever gone through this kind of scientific scrutiny?

II can't help but think of late 19th century scientific "discoveries" about orgasms being proof of hysteria, doctors bringing women to orgasm to prove it, and then proceeding to remove parts to "cure" her of her "hysteria." Hense the term hysterectomy, yay!

Show me the "groundbreaking" articles about male orgasms, penises, and prostates.

..Drugs to women not reaching orgasm?

Personal experience does in fact not mean anything. As they say: "the plural of anecdote isn't data".

Marissa / "Show me the "groundbreaking" articles about male orgasms, penises, and prostates."

Erm. Viagra?

I happened to watch Oprah the other day when Dr Oz was on. They took questions from the audience and one woman asked about her ability to have multiple orgasms (in excess of 10 each time) when having sex. Apparently many of the females in her family were capable of this and wanted to know if it was okay or normal, etc. I believe that the doctor said it could be an inherited ability, something to do with the brain (sorry, I don't remember the entire exchange). The Dr assured her there was nothing wrong with her. Oprah asked her "So what's the problem?"

I'm fucking sick of the g-spot nonsense. If the following conversation ever occurs again, I WILL shoot someone.

"How many times are you gonna come, baby?"
"Once. And not by you scratching my fucking vagina."
"Is that good?"
"No. It's called a fucking clit, asshole."

*Gets up to leave*
*Never answers another phone call*

Marileec, Viagara was originally prescribed for other reasons, and the current purpose was discovered after men revealed this "side effect."

Andrea, just because some women don't experience pleasure that way doesn't mean you should dismiss it as "nonsense." The nonsense is all the pseudo-science examining every aspect of female sexuality as if it is a problem to be solved and as if there is one solution for all women.

But we're all different, and for some of us the "g-spot", while annoyingly named, is not nonsense.

I, for one, want to smack the next person who thinks my clit is a magic button.

Honestly, the snarkiness of my previous comment aside, I really, really resent the expectations that this g-spot hullaballo has created. Now men have even more reason to not go down. "You can get off with my dick now, can't you? What about your g-spot?" FUCKING HELL. I DON'T HAVE ONE. FUCKING SEX TOY COMPANIES AND MOVIES AND PORN AND MEN AND WOMEN I KNOW PUT PRESSURE ON THIS FUCKING G-SPOT TREND AND IT REALLY, REALLY GETS ME.

And if I ever hear again that I just need to get a well-lubed curved "g-spot tickler" or a caring partner's finger and you'll find it I promise!!! I'm going to lose it.

"Andrea, just because some women don't experience pleasure that way doesn't mean you should dismiss it as "nonsense."

Right. Not everyone experiences pleasure from touching their G-Spot. Its simply a 'bump' about two inches inside your vagina. Its also used to female ejaculate (which is not a ficticious rumour). However, I completly see Andreas point. Sounds like the 'vagina scratcher' is a shitty lover and uses female sexuality like its a reflection on himself. Immature people can generate unrational pressure on the woman which is like saying 'come on...perform!'

Thats fucked.

Gopher III, I think that was what I would have liked to say had I not been blinded by my ranting :)

Okay, I have no idea why I typed "Gopher III." I've seen comments from you many times, and I know it's GopherII, but who knows what just happened.

Dude. The reason doctors have a hard time "buying" the G spot is because you have to be AROUSED for it to exist. The G spot happens when the erectile tissue surrounding the urethra (urethral sponge) becomes swollen and engorged as a result of arousal, and the sponge can be felt through the wall of the vagina. If you're not aroused, however, you're not going to feel pleasurable sensations in that spot, and the person with their fingers in you sure as hell ain't going to feel anything.

And really, how many of us are aroused when we're at the gynecologist? No wonder they can't "find" it.

On a completely self-promotional tip, I'm currently in the process of writing a multi-part series on female ejaculation for an online magazine called "Empowerment 4 Women." The first article details the history of female ejaculation, and there's some interesting shit about the G spot in there. It will be available at http://www.empowerment4women.com/ in March under the "Sexuality" section. I think their server is down now, though.

Will their next great finding maybe be that women should be asked by their partners what works for them? Every woman experiences things differently. I have to say, I'm with Geek. My clit is not the place to go to get me off - way too sensitive, it just ends up hurting after a few seconds. Why do so many men seem to think that all women work the same way (or should) and therefore they already know what to do? (although I have to say, I really love my g :) I can manage one clitoral orgasm if I'm really gentle, but my vaginal orgasms are stronger and considerably more numerous. Like the lady on Oprah numerous.)

GopherII and Andrea, I think the problem is male attitudes towards female sexuality, not which spot is better. Being told that we should enjoy one particular thing because it's "normal" is frustrating no matter what the fashionable thing to enjoy is.

The fact that too many men are going to think that women should respond to PIV sex and nothing else is a problem because it is a product of a culture that tells men our sexuality is designed for their pleasure. That shouldn't mean we have to deny that PIV sex can also be enjoyable.

The problem isn't the existance/nonexistance of this particular "spot," it's the attitude of the scientists, the so-called science reporting in the media and the overal cultural attitudes towards female sexuality.

I don't understand why doing the science is wrong (aside from the validity of this particular study). I mean we all support breast cancer research, why wouldn't we want a better mapping of the vag? Yes the vagina is used for sex but there are more reasons to want to know functionality and disfunction, or just mapping the variation among women.

And Cherry62: Dr. Oz is knowledgeable but he panders a whole lot of quack medicine (as does Oprah)
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=10

Marissa wrote:
II can't help but think of late 19th century scientific "discoveries" about orgasms being proof of hysteria, doctors bringing women to orgasm to prove it, and then proceeding to remove parts to "cure" her of her "hysteria." Hense the term hysterectomy, yay!

Actually, the words "hysteria" and "hysterectomy" both come from the Greek word for womb, "hystera" (linguist nerd here, sorry.) It's true that people thought that hysteria was caused because of issues with the womb, hence the name, but orgasms didn't prove the existence of the medical condition - doctors would GIVE women orgasms to "cure" their hysteria.

You know, because of course women's own personal experiences don't prove diddly squat.

Plenty of people have personal experiences of faith healing. Should science accept that uncritically?

From Niobe:
And Cherry62: Dr. Oz is knowledgeable but he panders a whole lot of quack medicine (as does Oprah)
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=10
---------------------------
I rarely watch the Oprah show and I had never seen a show with Dr Oz before. I'm not much of a fan of Oprah so I take her (and her "experts") with a big grain of salt. Dr Phil is a perfect example of her so-called "experts".

From Niobe:
And Cherry62: Dr. Oz is knowledgeable but he panders a whole lot of quack medicine (as does Oprah)
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=10
---------------------------
I rarely watch the Oprah show and I had never seen a show with Dr Oz before. I'm not much of a fan of Oprah so I take her (and her "experts") with a big grain of salt. Dr Phil is a perfect example of her so-called "experts". I just thought the woman with the multiple orgasms was kind of a funny problem to have (she claimed that having that many orgasms was exhausting and I guess I could understand that).

Benquo, that's a bad analogy and you're either being obtuse or deliberately provocative if you don't get that Vanessa was criticizing the fact that women's actual experiences are discounted until a bunch of men have to decide something is real, and then it is an OMG! Groundbreaking Discovery!

Plenty of people have personal experiences of faith healing. Should science accept that uncritically?

Basically what I was thinking, if a little snarky :-)

It's not that scientists don't trust women, or any other group. Science relies on empirical evidence. I've read about any number of studies that conclude perfectly obvious things - but in science it doesn't count unless you've applied the scientific method to it, had it peer-reviewed, and published it.

And occasionally that scientific process surprises you.

Andrea -- something to bear in mind is that it's not the fault of women who have G-spots that some men are lazy jerks. Don't transfer your anger from someone who rightly deserves it to someone who doesn't.

jgr4, the problem is that it's not presented that way. A good way to say it respectfully could be, "Scientists have confirmed that the G-spot, commonly experienced by many women as a route to sexual pleasure and orgasm, can be seen with an ultrasound."

But we don't get this from the media. We get "mysterious" and "supposedly." Scientists get to "discover" things that at least some women have always experienced.

We get quotes like this: " For the first time, it is possible to determine by a simple, rapid and inexpensive method if a woman has got a G spot or not."

Rather than actually listen to women and respect our experiences, we must be told it is okay now, to experience this or that, because some scientists can show it's biological. Because scientists can show a difference between women who experience vaginal orgasms and women who don't, that makes it okay not to!

...sorry that became a rant.

@Geek

I understand your annoyance at the usage of language like "mysterious," but it IS a major discovery. The important science is not that they have developed the test, but rather that we now have a physical explanation for the G-spot phenomenon.

We scientists question all subjective experience as a matter of policy, especially in the absence of a physical explanation. In this case, female sexual experience has not been singled out for special (mal)treatment.

MrMorden, it's quite possibly the media that is the culpret here, not the scientists. But understand that there is a long, ugly history of scientists ignoring women's actual experiences in the name of "objectivity" that led to some really ugly consequences. There are a lot of assumptions that go into the methodology and conclusions of the scientists' observations.

@Geek

But understand that there is a long, ugly history of scientists ignoring women's actual experiences in the name of "objectivity" that led to some really ugly consequences.

Source? I'm not much familiar with the history of science outside of physics.

What's so crazy about all this is that for a long time, the value of the clitoris and clitoral stimulation was completely ignored or ridiculed. Kinsey's declaration that clit orgasms were "immature" and a result of arrested sexual development and that the only kinds of orgasms that completely sexually functional women had were vaginal, was popular opinion for a long time - obviously because it praised the use of the mighty penis, and the concept that dick wasn't necessary for female sexual fulfillment was too offensive to be legitimized.

This is such an interesting contrast to current attitudes where we're actually debating the merits of G-spot and vaginal stimulation. The clit is now the holy grail.

What's so unfortunate in all of this is that science continues to be used to justify sexual oppression of women, no matter what they're trying to prove. Female sexuality is so fluid and expansive that anything that creates a "normal" standard is pretty dangerous. Whatever the medical community is saying, women's voices are lost, and those trying to dissent or share their differing experiences are often ridiculed or ignored.

Booourns.

Great quote to choose, Geek:
"For the first time, it is possible to determine by a simple, rapid and inexpensive method if a woman has got a G spot or not."

We might be able to come up with something a little more inexpensive than an ultrasound. . . *snicker*

Let's be fair. It was Freud who said clitoral orgasms were immature.

@Kimmy

Yeah, that sounds more typical of Freud and Kinsey.

As I understand it, Kinsey was a great fan of the clitoral orgasm. My boyfriend thinks highly of him (of course, my boyfriend is a philosopher by trade who specializes in the morals of aesthetics and sexuality, so he's a bit weird).

I use to be so hung up on having a vaginal orgasm that I virtually ignored my clit (so did my partner for that matter). Unfortunately, I never had an orgasm vaginally through intercourse. Once I learned to concentrate more on my clitoris, I found out that I could orgasm both clitorally and vaginally (different partner though). Now I orgasm both ways, and I can't be happier.

andrea - in total agreement as far as guys thinking that every woman can now get off from intercourse because of the magical g-spot. it does seem like most men with a reasonable degree of sexual experience do know better though, so i'm hopeful.

as far as it not existing--i was ready to write the existence of the g-spot off to marketing of sex toys, etc, basically a big myth, until i found it. not kidding, it took me six years, but i finally did. clearly everyone is not the same, but you might not write it off just yet.

and to clarify, that was freud who said clitoral orgasms were "immature", NOT kinsey.

"The important science is not that they have developed the test, but rather that we now have a physical explanation for the G-spot phenomenon."

Mr.Morden,
All they did was show it on ultrasound. There had been many other experiments showing the validity of the G-Spot AND female ejaculation. This isnt the first time its been shown. I wonder why the scientists did not look up previous data?I dont see how they believe merely showing the G-Spot on ultrasound confirms anything any woman who had a speculum and a mirror couldve already known.Annie Sprinkle routinely does a show in which she showcases her G-spot by using a speculum. I think youre reading into it too much. If you read the book, "Female Ejaculation and the G-Spot," it shows several scientific examples of experiments confirming the G-Spot. Kinsey, Masters and Johnson and a slew of other innovative sexologists had already been investigating and validating it. I've been recently reading about this in the book, "What Wild Ecstacy."

"But understand that there is a long, ugly history of scientists ignoring women's actual experiences in the name of "objectivity" that led to some really ugly consequences."

Geek,
Absolutely. I'm reading "The Second Sex," and Beauvior illustrates a test that was conducted by an Ivy school in which scientists 'witnessed' the spoiling of meats by a woman who was on her period. Today we know thats complete nuts!

"Source?"
Mr.Morden,
Billions, just look on the internet, or in any womens medical source which usually gives a brief background about womens health. Most of womens health and science has been generated by misogyny and ignorance.

"Kinsey's declaration that clit orgasms were "immature" and a result of arrested sexual development and that the only kinds of orgasms that completely sexually functional women had were vaginal"

That was Freud, not Kinsey.

"Most of womens health and science has been generated by misogyny and ignorance."

Another example is the 1873 book, "Sex in Education," by the retired Harvard Medical School Professor Dr. Edward Clarke. He believed women would have physical harm if tehy were to educate themselves because he believed that they didnt have the mental competencies of men.The book was highy influential and impacted society and the so-called "educated" peoples.

Wow. I've learned more about women from reading this line of comments than I have learned in my three years of trying to both satisfy and "satisfy" them. Very informative.

Now, if only someone would give me directs to where the damn thing is.

jstein, god help you if you don't know where the clitoris is. But half the fun of having a g-spot is exploring to find out where it is.

My bad 1000 times over. It was Freud, not Kinsey, who dubbed clitoral orgasms as "immature." I've had a very long, hard week and it was a total douchy slip up. The two are no where near the same. Jesus, I feel like a total turd.

However Kinsey was not without his faults. Kinsey, despite his own personal observations and documented research, denied the existence of female ejaculation. He dismissed it as "forcefully ejected vaginal lubrication" (though vaginal lubrication comes out of the vagina and ejaculate exits the body via the urethra). It was literally a case of "I see it, I know it's happening, but I don't want to believe it, so it doesn't exist."

While this is slightly off topic, it's relevant because a) the G-spot and squirting are often related and b) female ejaculation has faced almost as much scrutiny as female ejaculation, despite the overwhelming amount of evidence proving their existence.

I think one of the things that irks me most about the way G-spots are discussed in the media/among friends is that everyone seems to agree that G-spot orgasms are deeper, longer-lasting, and ultimately better than clitoral ones. This kind of dialogue isn't out there for the clitoris. It is really, really tough not to just sit, wonder, and cry because I can't experience this thing that all sources say is infinitely better and more fulfilling than what my body can do.

Also, as far as this being mainly about the medical industry's history of not trusting women, I agree wholeheartedly, but on the level of personal experiences, the G-spot orgasm is preferred, revered, and where the pressure (pun intended!) is placed the most on women, NOT the clitoris.

MrMorden, see what GopherII said. And for medical-specific source, I recommend Woman: An Intimate Geography by Natalie Angier. You can get it used for under 2 bucks on Amazon.

" I recommend Woman: An Intimate Geography by Natalie Angier. "

I LOVE that book! I'm waiting for her to write more books about womens health.

I looked it up to double check her name when I posted and she does have another book coming out soon. Unfortunately it's not about women's issues, but it looks fascinating nonetheless. It's about the importance of science, which is unfortunately in need of defending now. I love her writing style and I'll be picking up this book.
The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science

I could have told them G-spots existed from the time I was 10.

"If a woman spends all her time worrying about whether she is normal, or has a G spot or not, she will focus on just one area, and ignore everything else."

Oh shit... now I'm in danger of forgetting about my clitoris?

This might be sort of a weird question, but I've never been able to find my G-spot, but I certainly do ejaculate...from clitoral stimulation. So, female ejaculation isn't always inseparable from the G-spot, is it? Or am I just a weirdo?

None of us are weirdos. So far of all the "theories" and even personal examples on this and a couple other feminist blogs, no one has expressed something that I can identify with. Because we're all different.

Amanda, she obviously didn't say "forget," she said "ignore."

I agree with Andrea. Yes, clitoral orgasms are now acknowledged but all my life the media told me sex is THE way to have the most fun and gives the impression that if a woman is not interested in sex, she is not interested in anything sexual. The clitoris is rarely mentioned. So then it feels weird at first to realize I am interested in having orgasms but not sex.

Y'all are being too nice to Andrea, who is committing the same sin against others as has been committed against her. She's high-handedly dismissing other womens' experiences with g-spot orgasms just as she feels her own experiences have been dismissed.

“Why do so many men seem to think that all women work the same way (or should) and therefore they already know what to do?�

I think this thread demonstrates that women are guilty of this, too.

In fact, my experience has been that women are more inclined to think that one size fits all than are men. Well, across all age groups—it is true that young men are notoriously prone to the "one size fits all" mindset about female sexuality.

But older men, who are more experienced, usually have discovered the great variety of female sexuality. Straight women, in contrast, have very limited experience of female sexuality and tend to make normalizing judgements on the basis of their personal experience.

On websites where there's questions and answers about sexuality, I've witnessed some interesting interactions where a number of women will make normalizing assertions about clitoral response and there will be surprise by those making such assertions that experience and opinions vary widely.

Personally, I think these normalizing assertions are pretty damaging to womens' sexuality and self-image. Women who are easily orgasmic tend to overestimate how easily other women orgasm, often making those women feel like there's something wrong with them.

Also, with regard to technique and orgasm, I believe there's a still a sexist subtext that orgasms are something that is done to a woman by her partner. We still use language like "he gave me an orgasm". Note that men typically do not use the equivalent language.

Thus, there's a confluence of factors that conspire to continue to make women feel as if they are sexually inadequate or broken. The supposed externality of orgasms implies that a lover with good technique is sufficient for any woman to have an orgasm—an overemphasis on technique that implies that if this criteria is met but a woman doesn't have an orgasm, there's something seriously wrong with her.

The truth of the matter is that a great many women are anorgasmic, especially young women, and whether or not this is necessariy the case, it's certainly true that this lies within the current norm of female sexual response. It's also true that there is wide variety in sexual response vis a vis anatomy—it's not the case that all or even most women will have an orgasm from direct clitoral stimulation, or from stimulation of the g-spot, or from any other particular thing. One-size-fits-all assertions about female sexuality are harmful to women.

Keith Ellis, please don't place the blame for many women's lack of knowledge about sexuality on women. I am pretty sure that women's assumptions about other women are not the only cause of the problems many women have with sex. How on earth can any woman in this culture be expected NOT to believe in a one-size-fits-all sexuality? Even if she knows that her body is fine and her sex life is great, pressures from many sources can easily give her doubts. Do you think that confusion shown by women on sex advice forums is indicative of a problem with WOMEN?

"But older men, who are more experienced, usually have discovered the great variety of female sexuality. Straight women, in contrast, have very limited experience of female sexuality and tend to make normalizing judgements on the basis of their personal experience."

So are you saying that old men know more about women's bodies and personal experiences than women themselves?

And, I do apologize for sounding dismissive of other people's orgasms. Believe me, I understand whole-heartedly that many women have fabulous orgasms with their G-spots. Really, how could I not?

I see two problems here.

First, there's the bad translation between media and scientists. I've seen so much of it that whenever I see a lot of comments about how evil male scientists are, I automatically assume that the people making them have never discussed any of this with a real scientist. There's a huge, huge gulf between what makes it into news stories and what scientists studying anything actually say. I see no evidence that any feminist here called up the scientists who did the work to ask about it and what their assumptions were. I'm not trying to be disrespectful or anti-woman, but dammit, as someone who studied science and is interested in it such reductive thinking drives me crazy.

This is NOT to say there isn't an ugly history of science about female sexuality. Christ on a cracker nobody can deny that.

But the story doesn't really give much idea of the kind of work these folks were doing. Or who was involved, when a google search of the names would yield quite a bit, I think.

Dang it, the writer of the piece may have been uninformed, but that says nothing about the people doing the study. It drives me nuts when people can't seem to see the difference.

More to the point, reading the comments I can't come up with a way to study any of these questions at all that would pass muster with you folks. I can't. So, how would any of you design a study to find out how women experience orgasm at all?

Asking about experiences is a start, but it tells you nothing whatsoever about physical mechanisms, it just doesn't. Any more than asking women with breast cancer about how the lump felt tells you anything about the mechanism of cancer.

On top of that, much of the research referred to in the news story was likely related to that on vaginal pain. I'm not absolutely sure of this, but there's been a lot of recent work on the subject and it would surprise me not at all that the same people were working on the problem.

Science is a tool, like a screwdriver or a hammer. The existence of a tool-- and a powerful one-- doesn't mean everyone who uses it does so correctly. The past use of that tool in an anti-woman way doesn't mean that everyone forevermore must be assumed to take that position if they study anything women-related.