Science: There is no g-spot, so stop looking for it!

The real test is to take women who have never been told there is a g-spot. Even there you have to have a careful experimental plan because you will still get people going "oh yeah, I feel something". Even Mark Twain's Puddin'head Wilson knew that identical twins do not have identical fingerprints. On the other hand, identical twins do have fingerprints. I doubt the test was crafted well enough to make any definitive statements on the existence or non-existence of the mythical g-spot.

OK , now I am seriously pissed off. Since when do science bloggers use FOX/Faux News as a credible source for science news? Sheesh, gimme a break.

I think most females would agree that the clitoris is the main source of sexual pleasure and the supposed "G-spot" is probably an androcentric fabrication to support male penetration.

That's what I think.

That was not fox news!!!

I would prefer a different source but I did not feel like hunting one down. Probably not necessary in this case.

I suspect that the headline's author hangs around playgrounds telling the children that Santa doesn't exist, either...

Some things are worth the search. ;-)

i'm with yolande.

If twins didn't have g spots, the correlation between twins would be 100%. Perhaps it is just twins that are inaccurate in their reporting as to whether they have a g spot.

Russel, searching for what, the original paper or the g-spot?

Well, you know what they say about twins. When one twin feel something, the other twin ...

Wait a second.
So there's a research project somewhere that involves looking for G-spots in twins?
And, presumably for statistically significance the project would involve repeating the experimental procedure on numerous sets?
Hasn't Ron Jeremy already carried out this experiment?

I seem to recall seeing some blog posts last year which explained the anatomy and physiology behind the g-spot...I don't remember exactly where now, but I do most of my science-related blog reading here at Scienceblogs.

Maybe it's just Brits who don't have g-spots?

Scicurious tends to address this sort of issue.

I always thought the g-spot was a myth. Except that in the last few years, I have noticed that there's a spot and if I push on it, good things happen - and nobody needs to touch anything else.

Maybe the internal portion of my clitoris is just oddly positioned relative to my vagina. Who knows. But, SOMEthing is going on.

Roughly one point five to two inches in and up toward the lower abdomen. Firm pressure. Can be combined with clitoral stimulation and for some women it is necessary.
You're welcome.;)

I certainly hope they didn't rely purely upon a survey...

It seems rather obvious to me that the factor not being considered at all is the skill and/or attentiveness of each twin's sexual partner(s).

Um... isn't it possible that the fault lies in the twin's husband/partners? Just sayin'...

Kinda like that time the famous evolutionary biologist wrote about how women could not have vaginal orgasms. And everybody started to feel sorry for his wife.

What's interesting about this post is that I have looked everywhere I can for the source paper, but can find no trace of it anywhere (maybe I haven't looked in the correct place).
Every news article on the subject uses exactly the same wording (must be a coincidence), but not one lists a reference for the information, apart from the names of the study authors. But when you look up studies by those authors, there are a number of studies they have conducted on female sexuality using twins to determine genetic influences (here's a couple: http://www.twinsuk.ac.uk/Publicatons/2009/Burri_JSexMed_2009.pdf http://www.twin-research.ac.uk/Publicatons/2009/BurriA_JSM_Review_2009…)
but none of them discuss the "g-spot" at all. Not only that, the language used in the news articles bears no resemblance to the language in the real studies - and it doesn't sound like something the researches would say.
Methinks this is just another example of the media sensationalising and misreporting science, and highlights why you should NEVER rely on the media and should ALWAYS check your sources before commenting. But of course, I could be wrong and if anyone can provide the source for this story it would be great.

I looked for it too. I went to JSM and looked at their latest issue and the stuff in pre-publication. It might be that it is due to be issued and they haven't put it up on the website yet, waiting for tomorrow, today being a holiday.

I hate when journals do that too, give the media access to articles so they can do a hack-job on the science before any scientists can get a look at it.

No, I think this is based on an as yet unpublished paper:
"Burri, A, Cherkas, L, & Spector, T. G-Spot. Fiction or Friction. Estimating heritability and genetic influence on the G-spot in a large sample of twins. Submitted"

I couldn't find any evidence of this paper outside of Burri's CV and this page:
http://www.sexualforschung.ch/_sites/_forschungsprojekte%20aktuell/curr…
Burri's CV can be found here:
http://www.open4new.ch/_pics/CVAB_press.pdf

I'm going to withhold judgment until the paper is out.

Well, before anyone falls and hurts themselves, the REASON I give a link to a source is so that you can see what the source is. Now and then, I make a comment on a new story about a science finding. In fact, fairly often. Expect that, or move along to some blog that never does that.

Having said that, let me explain how this works. Somewhere out there there is a press release. Most but not all press releases can be found on the web if you know where to look. Press releases can be copied wholesale as articles in newspapers, and often are, which is why you see the same thing over and over again.

A press release might be for a simple announcement from researchers, with no paper. They might be for a paper that is not quite out yet, so you are unlikley to find it because it .... is not out yet. Or, they might be for papers that are out but in an obscure place. Or, maybe you did not find it yet.

I have not bothered to look for the original.

I doubt the study is bogus in the sense that it does not exist. Perhaps I did not make it clear in my post that I think the study is bogus for another reason, having to do with the logic of the putative conclusions. Clearly, I did not make it clear at all that this post .... my post on this study ... is not really about the g-spot, but rather, about something else. It's about the IQ discussion we've been having.

Yeah, I think it is category 1, not out yet. It is not about old research, probably. (Although they do that sometimes esp. in Britain.)

Looks like it's from a press release not yet on the web site, same people, and in the manner of this one:

http://www.twinsuk.ac.uk/PressReleases/EmotionalIntelligence_J%20Sexual…

which refers to this paper:
http://www.twinsuk.ac.uk/Publicatons/2009/Burri_JSexMed_2009.pdf

"Emotional intelligence and its association with orgasmic frequency in women"

Greg, one thing you don't quite explain in your series of posts on IQ is why there are people who score highly on IQ tests and have some pretty far-to-the-right-of-the-bell-curve abilities. Say, for example, individuals who score above 160 on an IQ test or can do fairly complicated mathematics in their head or who construct theories at a relatively younger age than most.

I have honestly kind of wondered if your series of posts about IQ, since they seem mostly to revolve around IQ and things such as race and sex, have some motive such as equating the study of intelligence with racialism or sexism or something such as that or doing a truly despicable thing I call 'cutting down the tall poppies'.

Greg
I must apologise. I assumed when you gave us three possibilities (regarding the g-spot) in the post, then asked us what we thought, that you were naturally asking us to comment regarding the possibilities offered. I obviously missed the subtle reference to something that wasn't in the post at all - which is why I commented in that vain - admittedly by offering a 4th possibility (that it was a media beat-up). I guess it must have been a rhetorical question - mea culpa.
Oh, and I have looked for the original press release - and it is not on the website in question.

I've had some lovers who have been highly aroused by digital stimulation in the vagina, some who dislike it, and some who could care less one way or another. I've also had some lovers who can't stand direct clitoral stimulation vs. indirect. There are some who also love stimulation of their urethra-- a weirdly taboo area, and some who hate it even if they don't give a damn about taboos. It's very confusing. Of course in the actual act it's all about *ASKING* what the person wants where, and following their instructions.

The problem (as I see it as a statistician)
isn't that G-spots may or may not exist as it is that variation in female sexual response may be too complex to say that there's a "magic button" that will lead all women into that place where orgasm consistently happens. Shoot, even during the course of a menstrual cycle I know my nerve endings differ from a rough week to rough week as to what feels good and what feels like under- or over-stimulation.

In other words, in my very humble experience, any individual woman's sexual response is far too dependent on variance in time, response, anatomic knowledge and physiology to make a clean genetic case. Some women have vaginal stimulus responses at certain times, and some don't. Some recognize it as such and some don't.

Plus hey-- has any one ever done any research on nerve ending distribution in the female genital area? Because I'm betting that the variance is very, very dependent on this at the least.

Eventually this will be resolved scientifically, but it's going to take a long time, quite a bit more sexual liberation for women, certainly more anatomic sexual knowledge for everyone, definitely political funding that doesn't have an ideological right-wing religious agenda tacked onto it and some recognition that we won't be able to pin any clear means down because standard deviation makes things a tad too variable.

FWIW, I'm a lesbian statistician that's spent about 25 years in STD research, which is as close to sexuality research in America as we'll get given our political system. I do think Britain is a bit more evolved, but only a bit. It would be interesting to see if there are any analogous studies done in Scandinavian countries.

According to the Whole Lesbian Sex Book (and from Dr. Helen O'Connell's research,) the G spot is simply the area where you can stimulate the urethral sponge. Whether or not that feels pleasurable to every woman differs considerably, but I would venture to guess that the vast majority of us women have urethral sponges and areas where they can be stimulated. Just like we all have nipples, though not all of us enjoy having them touched. Existence is not the question.

**notes to self** must be able to read Greg's mind to know that when he posts a blog about faux news G-spots he really means IQ
:S

Actually, I think there are a number of good reasons why there is an association between âemotional intelligenceâ and orgasm frequency in women, it relates to nitric oxide physiology. There is very strong coupling of energy status with reproduction, there has to be because pregnancy and lactation is very energy intensive. A lot of that coupling is through NO, which regulates mitochondria and ATP levels and a lot more. When nitric oxide synthase is inhibited, ewes do not bond to their lambs. Oxytocin is a neurotransmitter/hormone which is involved with sex, reproduction, attachment, social bonding, and a lot more. Oxytocin causes the release of NO when it activates the oxytocin receptor (as do most other growth factors and also estrogen).

Neural activity is always associated with NO release. The neural activity that is observed via the fMRI BOLD technique is actually vasodilatation, and that vasodilatation is caused by neurogenic NO release. NO is also important in synaptogenesis, and in the refinement of neural networks. This has been demonstrated in chick embryos, where the fidelity of refinement of connection of the retina to the visual cortex depends on NO.

This makes sense that NO is a mediator of the remodeling of neural networks; observed in both chick visual development and maternal bonding. NO is probably the mechanism for Hebbian plasticity.

In the context of âsocial intelligenceâ, because the archetypal social behavior in mammals is maternal bonding, a social behavior that all mammals exhibit, is mediated in large part by NO, it is likely that many other social behaviors have a large NO component also. Elaboration of the archetypal social pathway is easier than evolution of de novo pathways.

In mammalian reproduction, the oocyte is only capable of being fertilized for a certain period of time. The length of this period depends on the ambient NO level. When there are very low levels the period is short, when the NO levels are high the period is long. In discussing this with the author of the papers on this, we agreed that this was probably an evolved feature to reduce the likelihood of pregnancy when the female is under a lot of stress (and so has a low NO level because that is what stress does).

Erectile tissue is tissue that becomes engorged when it is activated by NO. This is the mechanism for erections, and also for nipples getting hard, and for engorgement of multiple tissues in both men and women. The degree of engorgement is a measure of how much NO has been produced (however Viagra produces engorgement with less NO, but that is non-physiologic). In the wild, the amount of engorgement reflects the degree of nitrergic innervation.

I have been reading about pelvic pain, and one of the striking things is how much it correlates with prior abuse, and particularly to sexual abuse. To me, this makes sense, that there would be an adaptive reduction in fertility during periods of sexual abuse. If a female is in an abusive relationship, it is better to not get pregnant and maybe this abusive partner will die or be killed, or change, and better to get pregnant another time. A reduction in NO production in the pelvic regions would accomplish this. Reduced NO would also reduce neuronal activity, refinement of the neuronal networks innervating the pelvic regions. This reduced NO also translates into a reduced blood supply, which can change the threshold for inflammation (low NO potentiates mast cells sensitivity), and I suspect pain also.

Twins do experience greater metabolic stress in utero, which might translate into differential innervation compared to non-twins, so choosing twins for this study might not have been a great choice.

However, why vaginal innervation would evolve a g spot is not clear. It may be that the g spot is an artifact of incomplete refinement of the vaginal innervation. This is pure speculation, but if the nerves innervating the vagina did not have sufficient NO to reach their targets, perhaps they aggregated at a single spot which exhibits hypersensitivity. Somewhat like how when limbs are lost, there can be a spot of hypersensitivity.

So I think there can be a g spot, but it is not genetic but developmental, and these gene guys canât find it because ur doin it rong.

yolande, they are both just properties of the phenotype of neural networks. What you use them for is a detail. Like all neural networks they exchibit a practice effect and are connected to the rest of the nervous system and physiology.

I obviously missed the subtle reference to something that wasn't in the post at all - which is why I commented in that vain - admittedly by offering a 4th possibility (that it was a media beat-up).

This is why you should ALWAYS read my mind before commenting!!!!

I totally agree that this may be a media mixup, but given the way twin studies researchers do things, this is more likely just another example of bad research. The only thing, though, I really wanted to take issue with (but I've been in a bad mood all day so I may have gone a bit father) is a proscription from posting when I don't have the original paper in hand. Even when I HAVE the original paper in hand I don't always use it or read it if I just want to give people a heads up on something.

The original press release seems to have been something emailed around to press. I do get a lot of those, but if I got this one it did not stand out among the 300 or so emails I get every 12 hours.

Y:

**notes to self** must be able to read Greg's mind to know that when he posts a blog about faux news G-spots he really means IQ
:S

Thank you, I'm glad we've reached an understanding then....

interesting to see if there are any analogous studies done in Scandinavian countries.

I've heard they have a lot of g-spots in Scandinavia.

"...The only thing, though, I really wanted to take issue with (but I've been in a bad mood all day so I may have gone a bit father) is a proscription from posting when I don't have the original paper in hand. Even when I HAVE the original paper in hand I don't always use it or read it if I just want to give people a heads up on something."

Point taken. My point was about the dangers of relying on press reports for information - but I guess I am preaching to the converted.

it's real ..it s a spongy like portion on the vaginal wall..the difference is that it varies in position

i managed to find it on all my lovers but it is true that because some women have it a lot further back they can't access it if they look for it

Mendelian. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

'Mendelian' refers to a trait that is inherited in a pattern consistent with its being encoded by a single locus with two alleles, one dominant, one recessive. Traits can be 100% heritable without being Mendelian. [Identical] twin studies only address the former.

So in this case I think you want to use the word 'heritable' or, less preferably, 'genetic', but not 'Mendelian'.

I definately have a G Spot.

OMG Karen, do you honestly think I don't know what Mendelian means?

All were pairs of identical or non-identical twins. Identical twins share all their genes, while non-identical pairs share 50 percent 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 womanâs subjective opinion.

It may be the press report, or it may be the scientists, lacking an understanding of how organisms relate to their genetics, but I don't think it's me.

My choice of "Mendelian" was to underscore the over simplistic and gene-deterministic perspective we see in most twin studies of which I'm aware.

Greg - if this is too graphic, feel free to delete it and I will post it to my less than family friendly blog...I am thinking that I really should get to writing my sexuality posts anyways and the male prostate and g-spot are supposed to be early in the series...

I find this terribly amusing, as I have two great "how-to" videos about finding and learning to stimulate the g-spot. One of them is rather irritating because while she provides excellent instruction, Deborah Sundahl is also rather big on sex woo (ie. sex magic and spiritual sex). As an atheist (and porn star) Nina Hartly has a much more straightforward attitude about it and doesn't speak in saccharine tones appropriate to a primary school teacher - which can be disturbing when you are talking about female ejaculation. Nor does Nina refer to it as "your glorious feminine fountain."

Etcetera has the right of it, it is just the spongy part of the eurethral wall. All women have it, not all women respond the same to stimulating it. Not even all women who can ejaculate respond to teh same type of stimulation or the stimulation of the same part of it. There are women who naturally ejaculate through relatively normal stimulation - usually through masturbation - but most women have to explore it to learn how to ejaculate. And many women range from it doing nothing for them, to finding it exceedingly uncomfortable.

It is very similar to male prostate stimulation. It does little to nothing for some men, some men find it too much or too uncomfortable, others really enjoy it right off the bat while still others learn to get something out of it. And it is a very similar portion of the body - though much easier to access with women. Indeed, Nina Hartley, Deborah Suhndal, Susie Bright and most anyone who is involved in sexual education who addresses the g-spot, describes it as the female prostate.

I would also note that it is really not much in the way of an argument for penetration appreciation. While it is possible for penile penetration to stimulate the g-spot, there are specific sexual positions that are necessary for more than cursory g-spot stimulation. Honestly, the best way to stimulate the g-spot is with a curved "toy" that has a ball or rounded hook on the end - the best have different sizes at either end. Once a women has learned how best to stimulate her g-spot (with or without the help of a partner) it is easier to do so with fingers as well as toys. It might be possible with a penis, but for some women the stimulation required is on the inner end of the g-spot and no amount of penile stimulation is going to do anything for it. At best, a penis is a less than ideal tool for g-spot stimulation.

This is not to say that g-spot stimulation can't make hetero intercourse more interesting and enjoyable for both partners, it most certainly can. But that is due to a heightened state of vaginal sensitivity that ejaculation can foster and for guys who really get off on pleasing their partner, the body wrenching orgasms they can help provide their partner. And of course once ejaculations have begun, minimal stimulation is needed to continue them. The effect of pre-ejaculation is a rather strong clenching against anything that is inside the vagina, making for rather intense sexual experience. Because of the nature of how this process works - women need everything pulled out for the actual ejaculation to happen, this process can go on for a long time before the male partner finally ejaculates.

The bottom line is that both women and men are not all the same when it comes to sexual stimulation. Strange as it may seem, we all have our little quirks when it comes to what we find pleasant and what we most certainly do not. That is the nature of the human body and erogenous zones. I happen to find it very pleasurable to have a partner graze their fingers across a certain part of my left butt cheek - it is extremely disturbing when someone accidentally brushes against that spot in public. But that is specific to me - most people have all sorts of spots that when touched or kissed by a lover will excite them. Most people also have spots that are extremely uncomfortable when touched or touched in a certain way. That includes various part of, and for some people any part of the reproductive organs and other sex parts.

Also, if I may add some additional science to the discussion off g-spots ...

Always follow Greg's "look both ways" rule. The clitoral organ is actually very large, much larger than most people realize. What people think of as "the clitoris" is only the tip of the iceberg, as it were. The rest of it is surrounded by tissue, and it is stimulated by movement anywhere in the general vicinity (and the vagina is in the general vicinity).

The so-called "g-spot" is anatomically obverse of the clitoris. (I oversimplify) It is not the "back" of the clitoris, but it is the closest part of the vaginal surface to the tissues that what most people think of as the clitoris are very firmly part of or attached to.

The problem I have with that explanation Greg, is that many women who ejaculate have a far more intense experience from g-spot stimulation, than they do with clitoral stimulation. That is not to say that they all prefer it - for a lot of women it is really uncomfortable or too intense. But in any case, it is a very different experience that is far more intense. I am not saying that they can't possibly be related, I am saying that there is more to it than that. Unquestionably for a lot of women, stimulating the g-spot is considerably more intense than clitoral stimulation.

Also, there is no "so called" about it. Whether or not there is another name for that particular part of the body or alternative explanations for the cause of ejaculation, in the context of sexuality and sexual education, there is a part called the g-spot. All women have a urethra and while there is variation when it comes to size and sensitivity, there is a spongy portion of the urethral wall just inside the vagina that in this context is generally referred to as the g-spot.

I should also note a word of caution for women who get into ejaculating - make sure you compensate for fluid loss with water and salt. Heavy ejaculation = dehydration...

[Anecdote]

Growing up in the west of Scotland, we did an IQ test in school around age 11 (or so) -- which was used, among other things, for 'streaming' kids into academic or vocational tracks in High School. I remember seeing the results (along with a classmate) and mine was simply 140+ (i.e. the test capped at 140 and they didn't report any higher value)

That piqued my interest in IQ tests, and I enjoyed finding and doing them when I could (pre web this was not easy!).

Our local broadsheet (Glasgow Herald) ran a seried of IQ-type puzzles over a number of weeks, which I enjoyed, and as a result of that (it was sponsored by Mensa) I took the Mensa test (I was now around 16 or so).

I took the first test at home - and scored 169. Obviously wrong, right?

I took the actual test in a test centre in Glasgow - and scored 172. I was extremely chuffed, until I realized the following:
1) I was still extremely stupid at many things (dating, common sense, actually passing exams)
2) Almost everyone touted in the local Mensa brochure as 'star members' were total wankers
3) membership cost money.
[/Anecdote]

So while IQ does correlate to success in some ways (I am now a successful consultant, and run the consulting practice for a very large company) it does not necessarily equate to 'simple' success (that inability to pass exams thing led to dropping out of college without any degree. I needed to be very lucky in finding 'the next job' without the important piece of paper. I was very lucky IT was in growth mode!)

My personal success is entirely* due to the fact that I have accepted my failings and embraced my abilities: I can think but I can't remember. Isolated fact - not a hope in hell I'll remember. Relationships between facts - I'll remember (or rebuild) in such detail it'll blow your socks off.

I can weave great stories full of fascinating little nuggets (which is 90% of consulting)... but don't ask me to answer a specific unrelated question!!

I remember what the meeting was about, and the network of politics and influence that affected the outcomes.... but rarely the names of the people there!

* mostly due to my wife giving me a good kick in the arse and telling me to focus on can rather than can't. Thanks love!

Here is a good overview of the g-spot controversy

http://www.drpetra.co.uk/blog/where-have-all-the-g-spots-gone/

Damn you yolande, I was gonna post that!

Oh well, yeah, Petra's a good source, she's an expert in sexual science stuff, and a part of the skeptical blogosphere.

I will post about this as soon as possible - with a rarity on my blog - pictures (not inappropriate pictures - informative ones). I will also link to some sites that are very keen on helping women understand this phenom.

While there are probably few of them here, there are a lot of women who experience a lot of anxiety - either because they have heard about this g-spot thing and can't make it work, or because they have not and it has worked. The latter are thankfully rare now, but due to the way it feels they have a lot of reason to be anxious about it. Many women feel like they have somehow accidentally urinated while having sex or masturbating - something that is physiologically impossible for most women, most of the time. There are mechanisms in place that make it virtually impossible for either men or women to pee during intercourse. Exceptions would be women who are about to or who have recently given birth and people who have endured some sort of trauma to their genitals or who have a slight physical abnormality.

It is unfortunate, but true - a lot of women have a lot of anxiety over this issue. A lot of people just really don't understand that our bodies are all a little different. What bits welcome what sort of stimulation varies as much as, if not more than what arouses us in the first place. Sexuality is a very complex phenom, engaging huge numbers of factors of our brains, our bodies, our cultures, our religions or lack thereof - influenced by most every aspect of what makes us who we are. Many people are turned on by very strange things - some exceedingly strange things.

Greg:

but I've been in a bad mood all day so I may have gone a bit father

And there you have an essential gender difference - usually when I've been in a bad mood all day, my kids accuse me of having "gone a bit mother."

Maybe it was just my boston accent.

(English has an "r"???)

I actually thought it sounded quite apt in its original phrasing. I'm rather fond of mistakes that turn out to be still meaningful, but in a slightly different way.

Kinda like that time the famous evolutionary biologist wrote about how women could not have vaginal orgasms. And everybody started to feel sorry for his wife.

Just (really) curious : which one ?

I can't now find the report I read a couple of years ago on the structure of the clitoris. Some researcher had found that what we think of as the clitoris was only the visible tip and that it stretched to the interior front wall of the vagina. It can be felt as a longitudinal band of tissue that gets rough and corrugated-feeling when "erect."

Maybe women vary. Maybe some just don't have orgasms, so they don't notice it.

Just (really) curious : which one ?

The most famous one. You know.

I just had to post this:
http://xkcd.com/685/

THEY DID A QUESTIONNAIRE! THAT'S NOT SCIENTIFIC AT ALL!

Maybe it was just my boston accent.

You have a Boston accent that only works on the first syllable of a word?

For the last syllable, all syllables that end in a vowel have an R at the end.

Maike -

Personally, I am fond of this one...

I often type in an accent that makes it appear that I'm a shitty writer, but that couldn't be further from the truth. I swear.

Does writing in "asshole" count as an accent?

Now that's not very nice. Are you still mad about Harry Potter?

The most famous one. You know.

Oh, I see. Never thought PZ and the Trophy Wife... nevermind... ;-)

Not at all Jose, I was referring to myself...

I am quite sorry about the confusion.

No problem. I guess I'll remove that spell I put on you later tonight. In the meantime, if you feel a terrible burning sensation under your scalp, you can ignore it. It's usually not life threatening.

Option 4: Study explains why nerds have difficulty attracting a mate.

...hat tip to Virgil Samms.

Virgil Samms? What does Virgil Samms know about the G-spot? He's too busy founding the Galactic Patrol.

(No, I don't have anything truly relevant to add...)

So is there a g spot or not, inquiring ladies want to know!

Well. It exists because, after never have experienced it before I decided to search. I read one male magazine article on finding it and that night, followed the instructions, concentrated on the sensation then was shocked to find that I had the best orgasm ever without touching the cliterous. It made me laugh hysterically . It exists! I always waited for a guy to find it for me yet in the end, I found it myself! Lol