I woke up one morning, earlier this week, to discover that my wife’s g-spot was gone.

Sinnjara’s disappeared too.  Gone! Poof !  Their G-spots (apparently) disappeared without a chance for me to even say goodbye!

At least that’s what I’m told.  I certainly don’t agree. You see, earlier in the week  I read an article at Salon.com with the following headline – The truth about the “G-spot”: Why it’s time to put this sex myth to bed.  To be quite honest, the article didn’t impress me, but a lot of what I see posted about sexuality at Salon is just pure drivel.  Here are the article’s opening sentences:

Take a collective sigh of relief, humanity. If you’ve been one of the countless people searching in vain for the elusive Gräfenburg spot (aka the G-spot) or wondering why you aren’t gushing like Old Faithful each time someone makes a “come hither” motion in your vagina, then search and wonder no more. Once lauded as a “magic button” and the ultimate female pleasure enhancer, an Italian scientist’s recent report claims once and for all that the controversial G-spot is nothing but a myth (with a really good PR campaign).

How could the writer, Anna Pulley, have gotten things more wrong?  I know the G-spot exists. Serafina knows the G-spot exists, and so does Sinnjara.  In fact, they know better than I, after all they are examples of women who “squirt” when their g-spot is stimulated.  How is it then that Anna Pulley can’t seem to find her’s?  Seriously!?!  From all appearances, Ms. Pulley appears to be one of the women who can’t seem to find the geography of their own body without a roadmap.  That’s a sad thing to my eyes, but all too common in a world that represses our sexual instincts and desires.

Humanity does not need to breathe a collective sigh of relief, nor do they need to hold their breath waiting for the next great scientific breakthrough on the g-spot to be (mis)reported by Anna Pulley.  All the rhetoric looks to be pure bullshit to my eyes.  My take is that the article’s headline and opening sentences are not only misleading in terms of a woman’s sexual function, they absolutely misrepresent the research too.  It’s only when going beyond the article’s first three sentences (something a lot of readers won’t bother to do) that we get to the real crux of the story.

The study — published in the journal Nature Reviews Urology by Emmanuele Jannini, Professor of Endocrinology and Medical Sexology at Tor Vergata University of Rome, Italy — found that, essentially, the G-spot is just a sensitive area that’s part of the larger pleasure center that includes the vagina, clitoris, and urethra, or as the study sexily put it, the “clitourethrovaginal (CUV) complex.”

Let’s reexamine, for just a moment, that last sentence – where it’s stated that the G-spot is “just a sensitive area that’s part of a larger pleasure center” . . .

Did these particular researchers forget (among other things) a woman’s clitoris, perhaps?  Of course the g-spot is a sensitive area that’s part of a woman’s larger pleasure center.  Anyone who knows a woman’s anatomy better than Anna Pulley apparently knows her own body would know that the g-spot isn’t the whole ballgame, it’s just part of the picture.  There are a great number of ways to bring a woman to the heights of ecstasy, the g-spot is just one of many.

And lets be quite honest, if the g-spot is part of a woman’s larger pleasure center, then it does exist!  We just have a sex researcher trying to redefine and rename the pleasure zones in that part of a woman’s body, nothing more.  Apparently some professors doing research want to get their names known by calling a woman’s pussy the clitourethrovaginal complex instead. Instead of naming the specific sensitive portions of a woman’s anatomy, the clitoris and g-spot (among others)  Emmanuele Jannini wants us to use a special name for the pussy as a whole.   To my eyes that’s not science, it’s really part of someone’s personal agenda.

The fact that Salon.com published Anna Pulley’s misrepresentation of a flawed study attempting to redefine a woman’s pussy as a “clitourethrovaginal (CUV) complex” is bad enough, but it would not have motivated me to spend time today writing to dispute the article and the research that it attempts to (mis)report.  What elicited today’s essay, is the fact that yet another link to the article was posted today on Facebook by the Science of Relationships, a website that purports to, “improve relationships by sharing research and scientific evidence in an entertaining, engaging, and user-friendly way.”  I’ve long been a fan of the Science of Relationships’ site, but may have to rethink that if they continue to push links to articles actually misreporting research, especially when that research appears to also be misguided in it’s own assumptions.

Look folks, it doesn’t take a sex researcher to tell us that there’s more to a woman’s pussy than the g-spot.  It’s not rocket science, and it doesn’t take a Professor of Endocrinology and Medical Sexology to learn. That’s something every woman should discover on her own while masturbating.  And, to my eyes it’s something that every heterosexual man should discover while giving pleasure to a female partner.   It just takes a finger or two, some time to explore, and some honest communication between partners about what feels good.  No PhD required, I promise!

Michael's Musings Welcome to the Clitourethrovaginal Complex
%d bloggers like this: