If you have the same taste in blogs that I do (aka you’re obsessed with sex), you’ve probably been inundated with posts about how a new study has proven that G-spots don’t exist! Isn’t that shocking! Do you believe it? I’m not afraid to admit that I’m having trouble believing it. I’ve had a lot of sex in my adult years and I’ve also watched a lot of porn and I definitely think there are significant pleasure spots. Even when you watch videos on sites like https://www.ujizz.xxx/, when penetrated to a certain point, there’s certainly pleasure there so I’m definitely unsure!

The scientists at King’s College London who carried out the study claim there is no evidence for the existence of the G-spot – supposedly a cluster of internal nerve endings – outside the imagination of women influenced by magazines and sex therapists. They reached their conclusions after a survey of more than 1,800 British women.

Well, I’ll be damned. I was fairly certain from personal experience that G-spots do exist, but I can’t argue with scientists, can I? I guess I’m going to learn the facts here now, aren’t I! They must have carefully inspected all 1,800 of those British women (what a lucky grad student!), right?

In the research, 1,804 British women aged 23-83 answered questionnaires. All were pairs of identical or non-identical twins. Identical twins share all their genes, while non-identical pairs share 50% of theirs. If one identical twin reported having a G-spot, this would make it far more likely that her sister would give the same answer. But no such pattern emerged, suggesting the G-spot is a matter of the woman’s subjective opinion.

And what was that questionnaire? Just a single question:

“Do you believe you have a so called G spot, a small areas the size of a 20p coin on the front wall of your vagina that is sensitive to deep pressure?”

…Alright boys and girls, it’s time for a lesson on why this is “Bad Science.”

Questionnaires are always a bit subjective and iffy – especially when asking someone about their anatomy. If you ask people how many chambers their heart has, and some say 3, that doesn’t mean they’re actually missing a chamber. Simply asking people if they have a G-spot doesn’t confirm it’s existence or lack thereof. I can’t believe that this study would rely on opinion rather than medically examining females to see if it is there or not. Because many females and males alike will agree in it’s presence, especially product testers for sites like www.Lovegasm.co I feel.

The fact that they didn’t see any correlation in identical twins just illustrates that personal opinion about the existence of a G-spot is not genetically determined. Their initial logic that genetically identical twins should have identical sexual responses is flawed. Sexual response has a huge environmental component, which the study finds but apparently ignores:

While 56% of women overall claimed to have a G-spot, they tended to be younger and more sexually active.

That makes perfect sense. Finding the G-spot isn’t easy. It usually takes a patient partner, sex positions other than missionary, or specialized sex toys – all of which are more likely to be found in younger, sexually active people. Some may look to sites like Loveplugs to find something that works, as they may need further stimulation to achieve anything with their G-spot.W hat’s more likely: that these women are partaking in activities that make them more likely to find their G-spot, or that the majority of women are all delusional about a specific area that causes intense pleasure? I don’t know about you, but if I’m going to hallucinate a pleasure button, I’m going to put it somewhere I little easier to reach.

A quote from the researcher also sends up a red flag for me:

Andrea Burri, who led the research, said she was anxious to remove feelings of “inadequacy or underachievement” that might affect women who feared they lacked a G-spot.

Yep, it’s always great to go into research with an agenda and preconceived result in mind!

This all may be the result of bad science reporting, which is always a likely cause, since the actual paper is coming out next week. I’ll look forward to reading it and seeing if it’s also so strident in its claims.