Actually, this has been debated for years."There is a G-spot!""No there isn't!""Is so!""Is not!"Yada, yada, yada.How about ... There is a G-spot, but it's less sensitive in some women, more so in others, and a number of other factors come into play.This is definitely worth a post of my own -- stay tuned.
I noticed that all they did was to ask the women about it. Did the researchers take into account that some women may have a G spot and not be aware of it, simply because no one has ever done anything to make them aware of it? I would never have been aware there was a major nerve where the ear meets the jaw if I hadn't been struck there.
Okay, so here's the post I promised. Hope it adds to the discussion.
I am pretty sure there was a fanous play some years back that was called 'No G-Spot Please We're British', or something like that anyway. . .
I;m curious about why they chose non-identical twins for their study, too ....
@hafidha:This is standard practice for trying to see if there is a biological and/or genetic factor at play.Fraternal twins are intermediate between identical ones and non-twin siblings, because fraternal twins share the same prenatal environment.If the same percentages of fraternal twins and non-twin siblings shared the same trait, but at a lower rate than identical twins, this would point to a strong genetic component but a weaker in utero influence.Still, as I discuss in my own blog post, this is much more complex than whether G-spots exist or not. There's also varying degrees of sensitivity, experiential knowledge, and so on.It's like saying: "Well, since the majority of people actually don't detect a burnt almond scent in cyanide, then those who say they smell it must be imagining it." Discounting the experience of people who can detect that scent ignores an important piece of the puzzle (that the ability to detect the scent is rooted in a gene which only certain people have).
Desmond - thanks for the explanation. I think I was confused by the article's explanation (which talked about shared genes, not shared uterine environments). Silly journalists.
Post a Comment