Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I came across this blog post about a study out of the UK about whether women really have g-spots or not, the results of which apparently set off a few French scientists. Here's how the study was done:
The Brits did a study of 902 twin pairs - some of which were monozygotic (identical) twins, and some of which were dizygotic (fraternal) twins. Twin studies are important in research, because it is one way to have a genetically-informed sample without having to do actual analysis of the DNA. Identical twins share 100% of their DNA, and fraternal twins share 50% of their DNA, and therefore the genetic relatedness between fraternal twins is the same as between regular siblings.
The problem is that they just asked the women in the study if they believed they have one. And then concluded this based on the results of that survey:
If the G-spot did exist, then genetically identical twins would have been expected to both report having one. However, no such pattern emerged [The Telegraph]. As a result of the study, coauthor Tim Spector said, the study "shows fairly conclusively that the idea of a G-spot is subjective."
And the response from French scientists:
The angry French gynecologists said they'd found the real problem with their British counterparts: that they're British. The King's College study, they said, had fallen victim to an Anglo-Saxon tendency to reduce the mysteries of sexuality to absolutes. This attempt to set clear parameters on something variable and ambiguous, they said, was characteristic of British scientific attitudes to sex [The Guardian].Gynecologist Odile Buisson went even further in blaming national sex attitudes for supposedly leading the British researchers astray: "I don't want to stigmatise at all but I think the Protestant, liberal, Anglo-Saxon character means you are very pragmatic. There has to be a cause for everything, a gene for everything," she said, adding: "I think it's totalitarian" [The Guardian]. She also told The Telegraph that the G-spot is real for upwards of 60 percent of women, and that saying anything else is "medical machismo."
The author of the blog being quoted then points out a few obvious problems with this methodology:
But let me re-iterate the problems that Sci brought up:1. The average age of the women questioned was 55 years. Given that women are supposedly at their sexual peak around age 30, and given that the average age for menopause in the Western world is 51, this seems like pretty poor sampling.
2. Bisexual and homosexual women were excluded from the study, because "of the common use of digital stimulation" in such populations. I'm sorry, but since when did the existence of the G-spot vary according to the manner in which you try to find it? And since when do heterosexual women only use penises for stimulation?
3. Bad definition of the g-spot. They asked women "Do you believe you have a so-called G-spot, a small area the size of a 20p coin on the front wall of your vagina, that is sensitive to deep pressure?" Are all women anatomists now as well? Would you ask people "Do you believe you have a so-called hippocampus, a small area of cortex located deep within the temporal lobe, roughly occurring in the shape of a seahorse?" Whether or not they believe it, they certainly have one.
Also, terribly pointed language. "so-called"?! And what about "believe"? Perhaps, if the study had been titled "Genetic and Environmental Influences on the Belief of the Existence of G-Spots in Women: A Twin Study."
Also, how many women have systematically explored the entire front wall of the vagina searching for the location and relative size of a location that could bring them to orgasm, and then also varied the pressure with which they stimulated it? That is the study that needs to be done.
Okay, here is my beef:
They assumed that the twins - whether or not they were identical or fraternal - had 100% shared environments. How many 55 year old women do you know that have 100% shared environments? How about 100% shared sexual partners? Or sexual preferences? Or masturbation styles? or, or or? This is, like, Intro Psych stuff, friends. Until we know more about the genetic and anatomic basis of orgasm, I don't think the conclusions of this paper can be made. They say: "we postulate that the reason for the lack of genetic variation--in contrast to other anatomical and physiological traits studied--is that there is no physiological or physical basis for the G-spot."
Yep, sounds like a pretty bad study.
It all reminds me of a joke I used to do in my stand up act: "It took me over a year to find my girlfriend's G spot. Turns out her best friend had it the whole time."
Comments
The study is terrible, and the objections by the French scientists are even worse.
Posted by: Wes | February 3, 2010 9:25 AM
I really can't decide whether the Brits or the French are the biggest idiots in all this. Whenever I lean toward the Brits, that whole "I think the Protestant, liberal, Anglo-Saxon character means you are very pragmatic. There has to be a cause for everything, a gene for everything" intrudes into my attention, but when I lean toward the French, I recall that the Brits seem to think that all women are anatomists.
This is like one of those posts in which you report on how to lunatic wing-nuts are having a tiff and ask us which one we root for.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | February 3, 2010 9:30 AM
Well, so much for the "surrender-monkey" stereotype. Now we'll be stuck with the "angry French gynecologists" stereotype for, what, a generation or so? Hey, can we send some angry French gynecologists to fight the Taliban?
Posted by: Raging Bee | February 3, 2010 9:34 AM
Raging Bee, if you do, I will make no move to stop you.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | February 3, 2010 9:39 AM
Oh, I have no problem here: as obnoxious as the "angry French gynecologists"* are, they're right, and the British study is pure crap. It's not just crap, it's highly disappointing, since the British used to be ahead of us Yanks in the sexual-enlightenment sweepstakes. Could there possibly be a right-wing ideological agenda at work here?
-------------------
* I wonder if there's a way I can keep that phrase on my clipboard forever. It'd make a great name for a punk band...
Posted by: Raging Bee | February 3, 2010 9:40 AM
Of course there's no G-spot, because there's no such thing as a female orgasm. It's a lie made up by feminists to try and destroy traditional marriage. Women raised to believe this myth can't help but be disappointed when they fulfill their marital duty. They've been told it's going to be this wonderful experience. Instead find it's just a quick way to end up sticky and annoyed. I've seen it many times, the crying, the recriminations, the baseless assertion that our neighbor Steve knows how to do it right. As if it's my fault I couldn't summon some nonexistent phantom.
So not being able to get at home what she's been told to expect from sex, she goes seeking it elsewhere. Next thing you know she announces she pregnant. Nine months later there you are, holding your brand new baby and wondering why he was born with an afro, all because some man-hating feminists are out to get you. Don't believe the lie ladies. Stay faithful to your husband. And when it comes to the bedroom, just lie back and think of England.
Posted by: Abby Normal-Poe | February 3, 2010 9:42 AM
Since no one has linked to xkcd yet, I guess I will: http://xkcd.com/685/
Posted by: Alan B. | February 3, 2010 9:50 AM
Uhm... no, Raging Bee, the French Gynecologists are not right, except in the most trivial sense. What they are doing is the equivalent of telling someone that they are wrong in believing that 2+2=5 because the Number Pixies fought a pitched battle with the Adding Trolls long ago in which many died and much suffering was had, until the Wise Equalizer pacified them, by passing on to them the Covenant that held that 2+2=4.
Sure, they get the right result that time, but you certainly cannot discount the monument to idiocy they have built while doing so.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | February 3, 2010 9:51 AM
How, exactly, were the AFGs wrong here? Their blithering about the "Protestant, liberal, Anglo-Saxon character" was an uncalled-for bit of stereotyping, but other than that, they're right about the British study being crap. So where's the "monument to idiocy?" (Damn, my clipboard runneth over with arch phrases today!)
PS: in all fairness, Abby's Poe-ing does raise a good point, which is that part of the Brits' (explicitly admitted) agenda was to make women feel a little better about not finding the G-spot that most other women allegedly have. Fact is, for whatever reason, some women find their G-spot and some just don't. It does exist, but not as obviously as the clitoris.
Posted by: Raging Bee | February 3, 2010 10:01 AM
I think "coddling sodomites" is an even better name for a band than "angry french gynecologists."
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 3, 2010 10:01 AM
> Do British Women Have G-Spots?
Yes.
(Happily married) :-)
Posted by: David Durant | February 3, 2010 10:05 AM
I know.I'm immature. But just imagining what a group of "angry french gynecologists" might be like is cracking me up.
Posted by: JB | February 3, 2010 10:20 AM
I would really like to see their methodology, because, if they selected all their subjects from certain sections of British society, then their results aren't surprising. Certain other sections of British society would get very different results, I'd imagine, so a broad cross-section is needed for the results to have any validity, even as a study into how many women (or their partners) have successfully found the G-spot, rather than the existence of it, which is what this effectively is.
Posted by: Zmidponk | February 3, 2010 10:30 AM
What, 51+ year old British (or French for that matter) women NEVER have sex? Really?
51+ year old British (or French for that matter) women ALL have early onset Alzheimer's preventing them from remembering ANY past occasion when they had sex?
Also love this:
Didn't realise that Erwin Schrödinger was a Frenchman. Science is about finding ACTUAL data & hypothsising ACTUAL causes for the distribution of that data. It's a shame that the French are so 'postmodern' that science is too 'totalalitian' for them.
'So called'? Well yes, because in real science you don't know stuff until you've proven it, Pretty basic really, Big fat French Fail. - Dingo
----
PS the British study study is still shit though,
Posted by: DingoJack | February 3, 2010 10:36 AM
Determining the existence of the g-spot by asking people if they think they have one makes as much sense as determining the existence of appendix by asking people if they think they have one.
Posted by: catgirl | February 3, 2010 10:39 AM
I think that's stretching it a bit. I can confirm the existence of my tongue by looking at it, biting it, pinching it with my fingers, etc. I can't confirm the existence of a g-spot to quite that extent, but I can amass evidence for (or against) its existence by using those sexual techniques intended to stimulate it, and seeing if they give more satisfaction than those which don't.
Of course, the better way to test for a g-spot would be to examine my physiological and psychological responses in a lab setting while performing those techniques, and comparing them to the responses of other women tested under such conditions. But that doesn't make my own testimony on the subject useless.
Posted by: Gretchen | February 3, 2010 10:51 AM
If the G spot really exist, I don't understand why it can not be found during dissection of a cadaver.
Posted by: Hathor | February 3, 2010 10:56 AM
Hathor - Apparently, according to Odile Buisson after menopause all nerve bundles in the female's body disappear without trace. That's why women over 51 have no skin sensation, sense of smell, hearing, balance, sight etc. - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | February 3, 2010 11:01 AM
Rumor has it that the clitoris can be found WITHOUT a GPS. Stick with something that you know will work.
Posted by: carey | February 3, 2010 11:07 AM
Well I know my girlfriend's got one. But she's not British, so maybe that's why.
Posted by: Uncephalized | February 3, 2010 11:29 AM
What a treasury of memorable phrases today-
I think I may do a cross stitch of "Sticky and Annoyed."
Posted by: JuliaL | February 3, 2010 11:31 AM
Uncephalized - Does that make you a 'G-Man'? :) - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | February 3, 2010 11:32 AM
Well, a huge problem is that we don't even have a good definition for a g-spot. It's most likely not a separate anatomical feature, but an area with a higher concentration of nerves. What's important is the physical response that these nerves cause, which involves the brain and cell signaling pathways, and it's not so easy to see on a cadaver.
Posted by: catgirl | February 3, 2010 11:36 AM
Dang, catgirl beat me to the an actual explanation.
(Did I just say that?)
So I'll return to just making semi-snarky comments: I'm going to stay away from Angry French Gynocologists, and stick to Coddling Sodomites.
Posted by: Uncle Glenny | February 3, 2010 11:40 AM
I have to say that I'm rather skeptical about this whole "episode". Accepting any description of science primarily from the media is always fraught with danger.
For example, unless you know what the study was attempting to achieve, how on earth can you say that it was poorly designed? That's about as scientific as the French deciding to play on ridiculous stereotypes, as opposed to actually discussing scientific findings. Anyone convinced by that surely doesn't understand what science even is.
So, rather than coming to bogus conclusions based on what a newspaper says, here is the abstract:
So, as an exploratory study, I really don't see what the problem is? Why people appear to believe that one study settles everything is a mystery. But that's the attitude that so many appear to have.
And by the way, here was one part of the French response:
Oh well, that settles it then. As long as you believe it, it's true. Or something.
To be fair, this was taken from the newspaper, so I can only hope that the basis for believing that the study was poorly designed is more nuanced than that. And I have no doubt that it is possible to increase sexual pleasure with "practice" and experience. But as it is, the French objections are hardly scientific. It's almost as if they want people to just accept what they say, rather than to test it, which is how real science is conducted, and if you don't accept it they decide to call you names until you do.
Posted by: Damian | February 3, 2010 11:55 AM
For a serious assessment of the paper and surrounding issues: the "reality" of the G Spot and the mainstream media
Posted by: Damian | February 3, 2010 12:15 PM
I had major doubts the moment I saw they had eliminated lesbian and bisexual women. Because of course someone actually using her (or his, let's be fair) hand to explore and please her partner won't notice nearly as much as a man using his penis and probably not thinking that much about details of the woman's internal anatomy.
Posted by: Vicki | February 3, 2010 12:32 PM
F*cking Frenchies! No, actually I'm sure France has lots of sane people. But fighting bad science with Woo? Are you sh*tting me? If science isn't about empirical facts, IT AIN'T F*CKING SCIENCE. Brayton and others had good quibbles; this French one is a monstrosity.
-
Posted by: CS Shelton | February 3, 2010 1:06 PM
In fairness to the AFGs, I'd like to point out that the British study was an actual scientific endeavor, and should therefore be judged as such (and the judgement is, it's fatally flawed in many ways, as the post cited by Damian in #26 above describes). The AFGs' reported response, on the other hand, was nothing but off-the-cuff answers to reporters' questions, and one cannot expect it to have the rigor we rightly expect from a full-blown study.
Posted by: Raging Bee | February 3, 2010 1:43 PM
Having read more about this, the French and the British scientists actually agree, at least in part. The study says that there is a "subjective" element to the belief in the G-spot. And of course, the French actually agree, as per the quote in my first post!
But unless the French have serious scientific evidence to conclusively show the G-spot exists — and according to sci at neurotopia, it hasn't been established, despite what some might say — how do they know that it is the G-spot, and not simply an increase in pleasure with experience, practice, and, as they say themselves, "cultivation"? That doesn't show what they appear to be claiming that it does.
Also, the criticism of the age of the women in the study may be valid. But is it not possible that women of that age were chosen because they have had the greatest chance of differing experiences, practices, partners, etc? I mean, it's not as if they wouldn't remember believing that there was a G-spot, simply because they have been through the menopause.
To be fair, sci at neurotopia hadn't read the paper, so wouldn't have known the details of the study. But I am in full agreement with the conclusions of sci's post about the media reaction:
The reason that this annoys me is because it is exactly the kind of thing that we all complain about — rather than accurately explaining what the (rather uninformative) study is about, and elucidating on how it either informs or doesn't inform this area of research, they instead use a fake and misleading controversy, which does science and the public a disservice.
I don't want to be too critical of the French scientists (do we even know that they are researchers?) as I only have the newspaper quotes, but if those quotes are anything like accurate, I'd be more than a little unimpressed. Some of them sound a little too close to kind of woo that we hear from people like Deepak Chopra for my liking.
Posted by: Damian | February 3, 2010 2:04 PM
But just imagining what a group of "angry french gynecologists" might be like is cracking me up.
They probably all look like this.
Posted by: Spirula | February 3, 2010 2:06 PM
thank you Alan B for the xkcd link. it is the first thing i thought of when i read the blog headline.
Posted by: rob | February 3, 2010 2:24 PM
So both the British and the French managed to fail miserably in their discussion on the G-spot? That's pretty funny. Sounds to me like the only real success surrounding the issue of the G-spot has been in comedy.
Posted by: pough | February 3, 2010 2:27 PM
Obviously this study didn't include enough women who had experienced the rapturous effect of a freedom tickler.
Posted by: Dr X | February 3, 2010 2:51 PM
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I love this fucking ridiculous debate. I will address this further later, but the notion there is no g-spot is absolutely absurd. The only real question is mechanics and exactly what is being stimulated.
The spongy wall of the urethra, just inside the vagina is the part that is stimulated to produce female ejaculation. There is some argument about how exactly that works out - whether it isn't just stimulating the inner bits of the clitoris that are directly above the urethra at that point. But for fucks sake, a great many women, when they stimulate and work at that particular spot, will eventually begin to ejaculate - it is mainly an issue of getting to know what you like.
Some women will never ejaculate, no matter how much you try. Others will find the sensation produced by said stimulation very uncomfortable. Guess what? People's bodies are different - they react differently to different things. The same is true of men - not all men react the same to prostate stimulation. Some don't get anything out of it, others just really don't like it.
That doesn't mean our prostate doesn't exist.
I really need to bust out my reviews on the how-to sex videos.
Posted by: DuWayne | February 3, 2010 2:55 PM
@Julia 21
If you do, post a pic!
It's funny, that's the second sewing type project my comments have inspired recently. A friend of mine is making a "blue footed boobie" pillow this post. My understanding is that the foot will be bird-like.
Hmmm, should I be concerned that my words drive women to reach for sharp objects?
Posted by: Abby Normal | February 3, 2010 3:25 PM
Damian: you wrote that its bad news to extrapolate science from mainstream media, and you're right. that's why i found the original paper. the bit i have the most trouble with is this (from the abstract):
what the investigators are looking at, for one thing, is not genetic variation, its phenotypic variation. and phenotype is affected not only by genotype but by environment. and the assumption that twins (whether MZ or DZ twins) have 100% shared environment is a pretty bad assumption. especially since they're looking at adults and not kids (who, even still, don't have 100% shared environment). the only instance, ever, of twins having 100% shared environment is inside of their mother's womb. so, my big problem is a theoretical one, the other methodological problems (bad sampling, poor questionnaire design, etc), in my view, just make it worse.
Posted by: Jason | February 3, 2010 4:26 PM
OK, did anyone else think of this:
protestant french ticklers
Cheers...
Posted by: Chris Caprette | February 3, 2010 7:39 PM
My adviser is Elisabeth Lloyd, who wrote "The Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of Evolution". I figured she'd know a thing about this, so I ran this study past her. After laughing for a while, she gave me a Cliff's Notes version of her understanding of the current science on the issue. So here's some expert opinion, for what it's worth:
She said that the growing consensus is that there is a G-Spot, and that it's an evolutionary byproduct. An evolutionary byproduct is a non-adaptive trait which persists in a population because it is genetically connected to some other trait that is adaptive.
Male and female reproductive organs start out, during embryonic development, as the same tissue, and differentiate later on. The tissue associated with the G-Spot in women is homologous to the tissue that forms the prostate gland in men. The prostate in men is clearly adaptive, but in women the tissue doesn't have a specific function. As a result, the variation in the trait in women is flat--if you lay out the spectrum of possibilities ranging from no g-spot at all to highly sensitive g-spot, roughly the same number of women will be in each category. This is usually a sign of an evolutionary byproduct, because an adaptive trait will give a strong curve, with far more individuals around the mean than at the extremes.
Since the g-spot is so variable, and since it can only be found by quite a bit of sexual exploration, a large number of women won't have it (or have only a very weak one), while many who do won't be aware of it due to their sexual history (maybe they don't masturbate very often and their partners don't manually stimulate them).
Since the study in question doesn't have adequate controls for sexual history, and doesn't take into account the fact that the g-spot will be more variable than an adaptive trait (evolution matters!), their conclusions don't show the nonexistence of the g-spot at all.
Posted by: Wes | February 3, 2010 8:14 PM
Oh, I should also add: She laughed even more at the pathetic objections from the French gynecologists quoted in the Guardian article.
Posted by: Wes | February 3, 2010 8:17 PM
Eeet ees veery zimple: Ze Eenglish wimmen are zimply too freegid to be able to find ze G spot.
Posted by: Angry French Gynecologist | February 3, 2010 8:37 PM
Very interesting, Wes. Thanks for the report. I actually have her book, but have yet to read it. Maybe I should push it up on the list.
Posted by: Gretchen | February 4, 2010 8:11 AM
I know.I'm immature. But just imagining what a group of "angry french gynecologists" might be like is cracking me up
Posted by: sevgililer günü hediyesi | February 4, 2010 8:55 AM
Raging Bee wrote:
Maybe so, but surely we can ask that it not be full to the very brim of gibbering, knuckle-dragging idiocy. That's what I was talking about before: the quoted response could not have been more stupid if it had been crafted as a joint endeavour by Pat Robertson, Joseph Farah and Pat.
Posted by: valhar2000 | February 4, 2010 11:20 AM
Thanks Wes, that was very informative. I was under the impression that the G-Spot was part of the clitoris (the whole thing, not the little bit of it that sticks out), and homologous with the male penis. Good to know.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | February 4, 2010 11:23 AM
Dammit, Wes totally beat me to it...Though I do have a couple of minor caveats.
While there is a growing consensus (one that I happen to think is very likely accurate), it is by no means a certainty. There is also the possibility that by stimulating the spot referred to as the g-spot, one is actually stimulating the clitoris, which is directly above it.
I don't particularly by that for a couple of reasons. First, the experience of female ejaculation sounds virtually identical to what happens when one stimulates the prostate of some men. Second, the clitoris has nerve endings that extend down the walls of the vagina. Unless there were a concentration of them at/around the g-spot, it is unlikely that clitoral stimulation is the cause - i.e. ejaculation would be likely to happen - at least occasionally without first stimulating the g-spot.
Also, I have to take exception to the notion that it is hard to find - the problem is that it takes some work to find what sort of stimulation is most effective. The best place to start, is reaching inside and running the finger along the spongy, bumpy tissue until you reach teh end of it. Curve your finger around the end, start there and work your way forward - using very gentle rubbing motions. Go very slowly and give each bit of it some fair attention - rub from side to side as well. While that may not get things going, that doesn't mean it won't happen, though it may not. If nothing done was painful, using firmer strokes or even using a toy (curved with a ball or stud on the end is best), now that you know exactly where the end is.
This is not the least difficult to find and whether it eventually causes ejaculation or not, I sincerely doubt that there are women who don't have it at all. I could be wrong, but having seen no evidence to suggest this, I would tend to assume that some women's are just inactive rather than absent...
The other issue, is that while there is no doubt that some women do not have a sensitive g-spot, while others have one that is weaker, there is no evidence that some women simply don't have one.
Posted by: DuWayne | February 4, 2010 11:27 AM