Sex researchers and “sexologists” are dismissing a recent study that has been widely distributed calling the existence of the female pleasure center known as a “G-spot” into question.
The G-spot, named for German gynecologist Ernst Gräfenberg, has been a controversial anatomical destination for the five decades since it has been discovered. The study above focused on twins (Giggity!) and involved more than 1800 British women ranging in age from 22 to 83, aiming to link a genetic factor to the presence or absence of the elusive sexual powerhouse. Researchers hoped that twins would provide similar answers to questioning about the G-spot, but the study failed to establish such similarities:
“Variation in G-spot frequency is almost entirely a result of individual experiences and random measurement error with no detectable genetic influence,” the study concluded.
Sexologist Beverly Whipple was one of the first sexperts to debunk the study, pointing out a flawed methodology in reaching the findings and citing lack of consideration for position and partners as detrimental to G-spot research:
Whipple was critical of British researchers who did not consider digital stimulation — the easiest way to achieve G-spot orgasm — only vaginal intercourse and clitoral stimulation.
For that reason, scientists did not include lesbian women in their study.
Nor were subjects asked about sexual positions: woman on top and rear entry bring more stimulus to the anterior wall of the vagina than the so-called missionary position.
“They didn’t ask what type of intercourse and would have different results,” said Whipple, now a professor emerita at New Jersey’s Rutgers University.
Study researcher Andrea Burri also admitted findings may need to be “refined,” and that failure to account for details such as “environmental factors” may have influenced the study, indicating that results need to be replicated. Burri, however, adds that the results of the study could take pressure off women who feel “inadequate” if they cannot locate their G-spot.