0685: "G-Spot"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
kirkjerk
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 3:37 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby kirkjerk » Wed Jan 06, 2010 2:49 pm UTC

Heh.

My Doctor mentioned there's a line of thinking that the G-spot might "just" be the back part of the same structure that the clitoris is part of... so it certainly seems plausible that Y(Girlfriend's)MMV, that the access to and pleasure derived (or the opposite w/over-simulation, even) will vary greatly.

G!
http://kisrael.com/ - quotes and links daily

DSDM
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:14 am UTC

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby DSDM » Wed Jan 06, 2010 2:56 pm UTC

The search for the G-Spot involves an epic hunt, indeed.

User avatar
Kelly
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:04 pm UTC
Location: Eureka

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby Kelly » Wed Jan 06, 2010 3:22 pm UTC

I wonder if these scientists have taken personal performance into account, or perhaps their test subjects lack...... motivation? O.o

User avatar
neoliminal
Posts: 626
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:39 pm UTC

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby neoliminal » Wed Jan 06, 2010 3:42 pm UTC

Two points:

1. I can see the research going something like this. "Oh" "ah" "OHHHHH" "Oh me yarm" "OOHHH" (Did we find it yet Miss?) "No, keep looking." "OH" "AH" "OHHHHHH"... "KEEEEEEP LOOOOOKING!!!" "Oh me yarm".

2. My wife would beg to differ with the findings. In fact she begs quite often to differ with these findings. As a matter of fact there is a lot of begging about that particular spot and the results have been... measurable.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0073YYXRC
Read My Book. Cost less than coffee. Will probably keep you awake longer.
[hint, scary!]

The Troubadour
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 3:55 pm UTC

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby The Troubadour » Wed Jan 06, 2010 3:56 pm UTC

Okay; the study involved scientists who went woman to woman asking if they had a G-spot. That was the study?! Good scientists.... "If we haven't found it, it doesn't exist!" Good scientists.... that just means they haven't explored their bodies successfully.

I've found TWO. Per woman.

LarrySDonald
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 2:20 am UTC

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby LarrySDonald » Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:16 pm UTC

The research seems extremely unrigorous. Which is often par for the course, because anything in the field will get lots of attention, good and bad, just for being done at all.

I'd say there is definitely something going on with the spot. People innocent enough to not have preconceived ideas about what is going on report various sensations from having it stimulated, some good and some bad. Much more so then, say, rubbing the left side of a heel or the left eyebrow (or whatever control unconnected to whatever kinks the person has). Hence, something. Good, bad or indifferent is a personal opinion.

InsaneInDaUsername
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:13 pm UTC

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby InsaneInDaUsername » Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:21 pm UTC

Scientists in Italy claim to have located the G spot. Ultrasound revealed women who believed they had a G spot had a thickening in one are of the vagina wall


That is a direct, word for word quote from BBC Focus Sciance and Technology magazine!
The Italians always were good with women! 8)

First Post...How'd I do?

User avatar
neoliminal
Posts: 626
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:39 pm UTC

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby neoliminal » Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:54 pm UTC

InsaneInDaUsername wrote:
Scientists in Italy claim to have located the G spot. Ultrasound revealed women who believed they had a G spot had a thickening in one are of the vagina wall


That is a direct, word for word quote from BBC Focus Sciance and Technology magazine!
The Italians always were good with women! 8)

First Post...How'd I do?


Get an avatar rookie.

(good post... but you need a link)
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0073YYXRC
Read My Book. Cost less than coffee. Will probably keep you awake longer.
[hint, scary!]

Broklynite
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 3:16 pm UTC

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby Broklynite » Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:29 pm UTC

I've been seeing the whole G-Spot thing popping up again and again lately (no pun). I have no idea why. But an article I recall reading sometime in the last 2 months or so was rather interesting. They said that their belief was that there was indeed a G-spot and thought that they could explain it. Rather than some mystical, mythological creature attached to an organ or nerve ending we cannot seem to find, they studied placements and angles to cause the maximum pleasures and believe that the G-spot is actually the root-end of the clitoris. Essentially, you're just stimulating the clit from below, but the nerves stimulated aren't generally stimulated from external stimulation.

Don't ask me where I read it- if I could remember, I would link it. But this explanation makes a whole lot more sense to me than any other I've heard. And yes, I'm aware of how dubious the proof "I know I read it somewhere recently, i simply cannot remember where" is.

Edit: Doing a quickie google search, it seems as though this isn't the newest of ideas. So make of it what you will.

Broklynite
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 3:16 pm UTC

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby Broklynite » Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:37 pm UTC

The Troubadour wrote:Okay; the study involved scientists who went woman to woman asking if they had a G-spot. That was the study?! Good scientists.... "If we haven't found it, it doesn't exist!" Good scientists.... that just means they haven't explored their bodies successfully.

I've found TWO. Per woman.


Y'know, to be fair- most scientists tend to be less....out there than other professions. As someone who both is a chemist, and does actually date, have girlfriends, drink, smoke, etc. (in other words, lead a perfectly normal and enjoyable life) it often causes me frustration to no end trying to drag my friends and coworkers out to have a good time, even something so small as going to a movie. Frankly, if I bring into my head the image of some of my coworkers studying female sexual anatomy, the idea of anything but laughable results is- well, laughable. Not that they are dumb, but when people with little if any experience with sex or sexuality study it....Well, to be fair, they're, I think, just as bad as hypersexed people who have a different partner (or two or three) a night and tend ot believe in all kinds of mystical mumbo-jumbo sexuality stuff.

User avatar
The Boz
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:52 pm UTC

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby The Boz » Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:52 pm UTC

Research fails, and I am immeasureably happy about it.
MAKE LOVE, NOT SPAM!

Capt. Obvious
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 5:55 am UTC

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby Capt. Obvious » Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:20 pm UTC

The science was poor, to say the least.

The methodology was to ask identical twins (using non-identical twins as a control) who both thought they knew where the G-Spot was on their own body where. Since the placements differed, obviously it was merely psychological.

Of course, the fingerprints of identical twins are also different. So, the same methodology can be used to prove that fingerprints don't exist.

User avatar
justaman
Posts: 498
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:53 am UTC
Location: in ur walls eatin' ur internets

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby justaman » Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:46 pm UTC

Capt. Obvious wrote:Of course, the fingerprints of identical twins are also different. So, the same methodology can be used to prove that fingerprints don't exist.

Incorrect analogy, the location of the fingerprints is not dependent on the pattern. Better analogy: Asking where they thought their moles are and on finding different locations using it to disprove the existence of moles.
Felstaff wrote:"deglove"? I think you may have just conjured the sickest image within my mind since I heard the term "testicle pop".

User avatar
Iridos
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 6:58 am UTC

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby Iridos » Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:56 pm UTC

Aww, I thought the point about the G-point was never if it really existed or not, but how much fun you could have on a personal basis searching for it... and searching ... and searching...

I.

User avatar
creaothceann
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:44 am UTC
Location: Germany

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby creaothceann » Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:10 pm UTC

Ocker3 wrote:From anectdotal evidence, the G spot can be found only after a woman has become well aroused via other means, there is no magic On button for orgasm (at least not in the pelvic region of most women), it's much more like a keyboard, to do most of the useful things, you have to hit a number of keys in a way that works with that particular program. Which makes it more of an art than a science, there are just too many variables involved.

Here's some more than anecdotal evidence regarding the subject matter: redtube.com/2325 (nsfw)

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 2998
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby Eebster the Great » Wed Jan 06, 2010 10:18 pm UTC

creaothceann wrote:
Ocker3 wrote:From anectdotal evidence, the G spot can be found only after a woman has become well aroused via other means, there is no magic On button for orgasm (at least not in the pelvic region of most women), it's much more like a keyboard, to do most of the useful things, you have to hit a number of keys in a way that works with that particular program. Which makes it more of an art than a science, there are just too many variables involved.

Here's some more than anecdotal evidence regarding the subject matter: redtube.com/2325 (nsfw)

I didn't click the link, but I'm guessing "NSFW" is a bit of an understatement here, and I'm not sure I would call it "evidence."

It might be worth a review, though . . .

tesseraktik
Posts: 218
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:14 pm UTC
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby tesseraktik » Wed Jan 06, 2010 10:24 pm UTC

I once got an e-mail reporting that "with bigger dick you can pleasure HIDDEN SECRET SPOTS INSIDE FEMALE VAGINA!"
My conclusion is that there is a G-spot, but most women are in on the plot to keep it secret!
Also, because size apparently matters in pleasuring these HIDDEN SECRET SPOTS INSIDE FEMALE VAGINA, I'm guessing the G-spot is either really far in (like, at the far side of the uterus), or wrapped up in some extra dimensions (I favor this explanation, as it would explain why the pills I ordered from those guys doesn't seem to have done anything for me in the three dimensions we normally perceive).

I'll be sure to post my findings on arXiv, once I've had a chance to test them.*

*Don't hold your breath; I registered for an account on Wookiepedia, today.
Last edited by tesseraktik on Wed Jan 06, 2010 10:25 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
ni'o mi nelci le zirpu sovmabrnornitorinku
Spoiler:
++$_ wrote:What's a "degree"?

EDIT: I looked it up on Wikipedia. Apparently it's some ancient Babylonian unit for angles :/

appleguru
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:47 pm UTC

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby appleguru » Wed Jan 06, 2010 10:25 pm UTC

creaothceann wrote:
Ocker3 wrote:From anectdotal evidence, the G spot can be found only after a woman has become well aroused via other means, there is no magic On button for orgasm (at least not in the pelvic region of most women), it's much more like a keyboard, to do most of the useful things, you have to hit a number of keys in a way that works with that particular program. Which makes it more of an art than a science, there are just too many variables involved.

Here's some more than anecdotal evidence regarding the subject matter: redtube.com/2325 (nsfw)


LMFAO... "It's going to seem like I am being too rough with her... but... This is where babies are born.... She can take it."

WOW. I can't believe I just watched that. Definitely NSFW btw.

Also, fwiw, the "squirting" in that video actually seemed real; seemed to just be her orgasm expunging the excess lube that he used...

User avatar
FCN
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 7:47 am UTC

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby FCN » Wed Jan 06, 2010 10:59 pm UTC

Randall, get out of my vagina!
Spoiler:
LuNatic wrote:
Dear FCN,
You are:
a) Terrible, but in an awesome way.
or
b) Awesome, but in a terrible way.
I'm having difficulty deciding which.

HighLowSplit
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 2:39 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby HighLowSplit » Wed Jan 06, 2010 11:29 pm UTC

Whoever wrote the BBC article must have had a great time writing that headline
Can you tell the difference between Glenn Beck and a Hobo? Find out!

http://glennbeckorhobo.com/

User avatar
Vieto
Posts: 1558
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:44 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby Vieto » Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:57 am UTC

Am I the only one who finds it funny that the Solar Panel researcher also hasn't found the g-spot? :P

1055
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:12 am UTC
Location: Cambridge, MA

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby 1055 » Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:15 am UTC

I can positively report finding the G-spot in the lab. Do NOT tell my old adviser. Incidentally, I have switched to solar cell research since then.

Cipherz
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:22 am UTC

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby Cipherz » Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:24 am UTC

EROGENOUS ZOOOOONNNNNEEEEEEE!

Nice woody word : ). Anyone else think of Monty Python? I loved that skit dearly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T70-HTlK ... re=related

User avatar
ManaUser
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 9:28 pm UTC

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby ManaUser » Thu Jan 07, 2010 7:19 am UTC

Seems to me this is just another example of a mildly interesting study that got misrepresented and blown out of proportion by the media. Even setting aside the validity of the questionnaire, all they proved was that the g-spot is not a genetic variation. In other words, they ruled out the possibility that's some kind of physical organ that some women have and some lack. A rather far-fetch hypothesis in the first place, IMHO. But as we just learned, that's science for you.

Alzhaid
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:00 pm UTC

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby Alzhaid » Thu Jan 07, 2010 7:47 am UTC

"The Gräfenberg Spot, or G-Spot, was named in honour of the German gynaecologist Ernst Gräfenberg who described it over 50 years ago"

If that has existed for only 50 years when history began thousands of years ago, I tend to believe that in fact it doesn't exist. Some women do have orgasms when stimulated "there", but I bet there must be other women who have orgasms when they are stimulated, let's say, in their nose or other spots, and nobody invented a new name for that.

Wait, just in case, the Alzhaid-Spot is located in the nose and creates powerful orgasms! Now prove that it doesn't exist! Ha! :mrgreen:

Ocker3
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:58 pm UTC
Location: Australia

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby Ocker3 » Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:02 am UTC

Sorry, you'll need to pick a new letter, the A spot has already been described, and I am on a life-long quest to prove it's existence. Think the G spot, but a lot further in (having macro digitalusitis is of use here) [I feel you should invent one new phrase at the start of every new year]
"why change something that's broken in a way that you know it's broken" - Brett McGrath

vole-in-hand
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:27 am UTC

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby vole-in-hand » Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:18 am UTC

Regrettably, I also have yet to discover the G Spot.

You're not alone, BBC. You're not alone.

tinaisrad
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:00 pm UTC

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby tinaisrad » Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:11 pm UTC

No one has noted the amusing timing of this comic right after the "We Get It" comic. I notice that they aren't shouting "I have a girlfriend, and have found her g-spot" in "We Get It."

BTW, whether there is a g-spot or not, me and most of my female friends certainly are more likely to have an orgasm if you stimulate the area traditionally understood as the g-spot.

Alzhaid
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:00 pm UTC

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby Alzhaid » Thu Jan 07, 2010 1:41 pm UTC

me and most of my female friends certainly are more likely to have an orgasm if you stimulate the area traditionally understood as the g-spot.


Yeah I'm sure it's much more likely to happen than stimulating the nose I mentioned before :mrgreen:

I need to find another suitable spot so I can be as famous as that Ernst Gräfenberg guy... I think there must be tons of spots that can lead you to an orgasm and they don't have a letter assigned yet... And I'd like to find one that could belong to both genders, so my spot will become more popular!!

purpleshoes
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:33 pm UTC

Information for lay researchers. Snort.

Postby purpleshoes » Thu Jan 07, 2010 2:21 pm UTC

It seemed wise, given the range of this discussion, to return to first principles as far as parameters for - with a straight face - lay researchers.

1) The g-spot is traditionally understood to be a pad of erectile tissue at the front wall of the vagina, and, as other commentators have noted, part of the larger structure that includes the clitoris. If you're a dude, you might be either helped in this or put off ladies altogether by thinking of the whole structure as a kind of internal peen (if you've ever seen pictures of ladies who have taken a lot of steroids, you'll note that if women take testosterone the clitoris eventually evinces and forms a micropenis. This is because the head of a penis is basically a large clitoris anyway.). Gentlemen and ladies who like ladies traditionally look for the base of the clitoral stalk by inserting two fingers into the vagina of one's (already excited, otherwise you're just hitting flaccid erectile tissue) research partner and crooking them towards the front of the body in the traditional "come here" gesture. It shouldn't be more than a couple of inches up.

It helps to keep in mind that most women have their really sensitive bits placed well out of the way of any babies that might emerge, since those suckers do a lot of damage. So the g-spot may in fact be behind the pubic bone, or otherwise obscure. If you go to an adult toy store or toy website and start looking for g-spot vibrators, you will notice that there's no way in hell a normal-shaped penis will hit that thing directly. Sorry. On the other hand, if you have a really weirdly shaped penis, this may be a fun bonus.

2) If your special lady co-researcher doesn't respond to any and all gentle prodding in that area with earth-shaking orgasm, it doesn't mean that she doesn't have a clitoral stalk with nerve endings somewhere near the front wall of the vagina. It just means she does not, in fact, like it like that. Remember that gentlemen don't always reach, you know, the heights of passion when someone just pokes vaguely at the base of their penis; it doesn't mean they don't have a penis.

In conclusion, go forth and fornicate, I mean, advance science? (What can I say, I like to provide straightforward information in case I'm talking to anyone who went through sex ed in the Bush years). Also, don't do research by sending out a survey of whether or not women like it like that, ooh yeah, you know what I'm talking about. Those surveys traditionally have huge, huge problems with people censoring their self-reporting.

naetoru
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:02 pm UTC

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby naetoru » Thu Jan 07, 2010 3:07 pm UTC

I find it funny that they know what they want to find, but don't really seem to know what to look for.

User avatar
faunablues
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 3:14 am UTC

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby faunablues » Thu Jan 07, 2010 4:25 pm UTC

I don't really see how one can question the existence of a method of stimulation that many women swear by. If there were no G-spot, then why all the G-spot vibrators? Now, whether or not all women like that stimulation, of course not, but that doesn't mean that the "spot" doesn't exist.

I remember hearing in a human sexuality class that (at least at the time) the idea was that G-spot stimulation caused some stimulation of the bladder (which might be uncomfortable for some women... hence some women not liking it), which can lead to female ejaculation from skene's gland. And there was some sorta study about the ejaculate from said gland being different in composition than urine. Or something.

Broklynite
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 3:16 pm UTC

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby Broklynite » Thu Jan 07, 2010 4:36 pm UTC

[quote="faunablues" If there were no G-spot, then why all the G-spot vibrators?[/quote]

Pardon me, but that's like saying "If there is no God, then why are there all these believers?" I believe you have mistaken human motivation for science.

User avatar
purly
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 5:54 pm UTC

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby purly » Thu Jan 07, 2010 5:35 pm UTC

If there was no point in history where a lack of ability for vaginal orgasm led to being eliminated from the gene pool prior to reproduction, then it's possible that a percentage of women will be incapable of it.

Of the women that are capable of it, it's possible that it works differently for subgroups of them because of variation. There may be no universal "spot", but rather multiple possible ways to vaginally stimulate a woman.

purpleshoes
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:33 pm UTC

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby purpleshoes » Thu Jan 07, 2010 5:42 pm UTC

If there was no point in history where a lack of ability for vaginal orgasm led to being eliminated from the gene pool prior to reproduction, then it's possible that a percentage of women will be incapable of it.


Purly, let's not forget that getting pregnant as often as biologically possible historically has bad reproductive outcomes for humans - what with our relatively small hips and relatively large-brained, helpless babies - while recreational sex seems to have multiple beneficial functions among social animals. So while we're inventing evolutionary justifications, let's throw in that it's entirely possible that there are evolutionary benefits to privileging other sexual contact over penis-in-vagina intercourse. Bonobos, and all that.

User avatar
psion
Posts: 1089
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:33 am UTC

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby psion » Thu Jan 07, 2010 5:45 pm UTC

tesseraktik wrote:I once got an e-mail reporting that "with bigger dick you can pleasure HIDDEN SECRET SPOTS INSIDE FEMALE VAGINA!"

Cervix.

User avatar
purly
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 5:54 pm UTC

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby purly » Thu Jan 07, 2010 5:49 pm UTC

purpleshoes wrote:
If there was no point in history where a lack of ability for vaginal orgasm led to being eliminated from the gene pool prior to reproduction, then it's possible that a percentage of women will be incapable of it.


Purly, let's not forget that getting pregnant as often as biologically possible historically has bad reproductive outcomes for humans - what with our relatively small hips and relatively large-brained, helpless babies - while recreational sex seems to have multiple beneficial functions among social animals. So while we're inventing evolutionary justifications, let's throw in that it's entirely possible that there are evolutionary benefits to privileging other sexual contact over penis-in-vagina intercourse. Bonobos, and all that.


Except that we're talking about humans. Humans don't follow ape evolutionary models. The single nuclear family is argued (in 'Our Inner Ape' by Frans De Waal) to have been advantageous because it caps male aggressive jealousy by making paternity clear, which prevents the kind of widespread infanticide you see in chimps. Remember that bonobo females have a body that can handle single-motherhood in the wild, and the argument is that human mothers did not have that advantage. So for bonobos, being polyamorous was possible and the selective advantages of it led to the social structure they have. The lack of interbreeding in humans due to monogamy leaves the possibility for our sexual bits to function differently, depending on what your ancestry is, and variation. I think the theory is that "you want it to work different, but not so different that it doesn't function." All that really matters is that a female reproduces. How would lack of vaginal orgasm prevent that reproduction? In theory, there is no need for ANY female orgasm. It may be that females who lack the ability to orgasm reproduced less (perhaps their husbands got bored and stopped having sex with them), but I don't see how it would prevent them from reproducing.

What possible evolutionary benefits are you proposing? Because for much of human history, sex has been shoved into a closet by religion.

(Well I suppose there was the libertine movement, a la the writings of The Marquis De Sade. If you were a member, maybe you had an economic advantage that somehow helped your offspring? But he advocated clitoral stimulation, anal sex, and oral sex, to prevent pregnancy. So there was no selection for vaginal orgasm.)

User avatar
Kendo_Bunny
Posts: 528
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:56 pm UTC

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby Kendo_Bunny » Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:59 pm UTC

I talked to an anorgasmic lesbian about this the other day. She swears by it's existence, even if it doesn't do much for her personally.

Not all women are capable of G-spot orgasm, but it seems a large percentage of women do have one.

purpleshoes
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:33 pm UTC

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby purpleshoes » Thu Jan 07, 2010 7:18 pm UTC

Except that we're talking about humans. Humans don't follow ape evolutionary models. The single nuclear family is argued (in 'Our Inner Ape' by Frans De Waal) to have been advantageous because it caps male aggressive jealousy by making paternity clear, which prevents the kind of widespread infanticide you see in chimps. Remember that bonobo females have a body that can handle single-motherhood in the wild, and the argument is that human mothers did not have that advantage. So for bonobos, being polyamorous was possible and the selective advantages of it led to the social structure they have. The lack of interbreeding in humans due to monogamy leaves the possibility for our sexual bits to function differently, depending on what your ancestry is, and variation. I think the theory is that "you want it to work different, but not so different that it doesn't function." All that really matters is that a female reproduces. How would lack of vaginal orgasm prevent that reproduction? In theory, there is no need for ANY female orgasm. It may be that females who lack the ability to orgasm reproduced less (perhaps their husbands got bored and stopped having sex with them), but I don't see how it would prevent them from reproducing.

What possible evolutionary benefits are you proposing? Because for much of human history, sex has been shoved into a closet by religion.

(Well I suppose there was the libertine movement, a la the writings of The Marquis De Sade. If you were a member, maybe you had an economic advantage that somehow helped your offspring? But he advocated clitoral stimulation, anal sex, and oral sex, to prevent pregnancy. So there was no selection for vaginal orgasm.)


While I have a great deal of respect for Frans de Waal's work with nonhuman primates, I disagree entirely and fundamentally with the project of using one's contemporary human culture (which is, by definition, neither the only human culture to exist today nor the only human culture to exist throughout history) as a template for human evolution. Patrilocal nuclear families have, along with other patterns of family formation, arisen at many points throughout history in response to the specific needs and cultural priorities of people at the time. Ascribing them to the evolutionary needs of the human organism in general, as opposed to the specific balance of human needs of the humans in the times and locations where they've arisen, seems thoroughly flawed. In general, the success of human motherhood and infant development to this day is reliant on aid from female relatives - there are outcome studies that show that the involvement of the maternal grandmother is a strong predictor in infant success. It doesn't matter if a female human gets pregnant - it matters if she doesn't miscarry, survives childbirth to lactate, lactates successfully for about a year (in the absence of goats or formula), and manages to keep the child alive - usually through direct supervision - until age 5, when the most vulnerable years have passed. This requires, among other things, a mother who is not distracted by persistent physical or social trauma.

Furthermore, you're discounting the role of female sex-seeking behavior in primates with concealed ovulation, to the degree that I always find personally alarming when it comes up. Women who enjoy sex tend to seek it out, while women who do not enjoy sex tend to avoid it as much as possible, decreasing their chances of fertilization among the many myriad things they might potentially do. Unless you think John Norman is a historian, I don't see any way that this wouldn't start influencing reproductive outcomes.

If you do think John Norman is a historian - and people who argue against the necessity of female arousal and orgasm often seem to - then this will be lost on you, but the well-being of a mother directly influences the well-being of her child. Sex is a powerful drive and creator of pleasure that can create and strengthen social bonds. Therefore it influences survival directly.

User avatar
purly
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 5:54 pm UTC

Re: "G-Spot" Discussion

Postby purly » Thu Jan 07, 2010 7:44 pm UTC

purpleshoes wrote:Women who enjoy sex tend to seek it out, while women who do not enjoy sex tend to avoid it as much as possible, decreasing their chances of fertilization among the many myriad things they might potentially do.


No, you're right. But this doesn't prevent women who don't enjoy sex from reproducing. (And either religion or prostitution could give anorgasmic women reasons to have sex that could lead to reproduction.) Additionally, an inexperienced woman may simply have sex to try it. If they are impregnated prior to discovering that they don't enjoy it, and they reproduce, then they pass "it" on. (Assuming you can prove that being anorgasmic is hereditary through the mother, I suppose.)

It does increase the probability that women who enjoy sex will reproduce though, which may impact the percentage of females who enjoy sex in the overall population. Of course, what with birth control, this might not be the case in the future.

But this raises an interesting question: how could our current Westernized social structures be redefined in such a way that women with better orgasms are more successful and anorgasmic women stop reproducing? Hypothetically of course. The obvious answer is for men to verify that their mates can orgasm prior to reproducing with them...
Last edited by purly on Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:02 pm UTC, edited 3 times in total.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 46 guests