Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Psychosexual: Does the G Spot Exist? Do I Care?

Yes, I know, if you're a fan of sex blogs in general, I'm a little late to the party, but I have wanted to write about this for the past week and a half, and better late than never right? Apparently, the g spot doesn't exist. A bunch of British scientists got together, surveyed a bunch of twins, and decided that since they couldn't find a significant genetic link, it must not exist. I've mentioned before that I was a psych major in college, I've done research and conducted surveys and experiments, and to be honest, I'm not sure I love way they did their research and the assumptions they based it on, but that's not what I want to talk about.

What I want to talk about is this. I DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK IF SCIENTISTS THINK THE G SPOT EXISTS. Why does it matter? (I'll go on record saying that I'm firmly in the camp that it does exist, since I'm pretty sure I have one, what with the fuck squirting orgasms that tend to result from anything poking the front wall of my vag). Reading the article, I understand what they are trying to do. The researchers cite trying to relieve the pressure on women (and men? really, to be honest I've both had experience with and heard many stories of men who have not tried to get a woman off and/or have never tried to find the g spot)to have these g spot orgasms if they don't have one, or can only cum from clitoral stimulation. I get that. But the fact is, by "disproving" the g spot, aren't these researchers being just as dismissive as magazines like Cosmo? Who the hell are they, or anyone for that matter, to tell me how to cum?

My final thesis in college was a discussion of female orgasm. I spent weeks pouring over research papers about orgasm and noticed that science has a history of telling us how to cum, who to cum with, and if we cum. People can't decide how to define orgasm. Someone decided it was a flood of specific chemicals in the brain. Someone else that it was a specific reaction in the vagina. Someone else decided there was a check list that all had to happen for a person to have orgasmed. (I can look up the references for all of these if anyone is interested shoot me an email, but the references are all scholarly articles that the general public doesn't have that much access to, so I figure it's pointless for most people) In most of the studies, the researchers had at least one person who, according to their criteria had an orgasm, but didn't report one, or conversely reported having one when their body didn't met the criteria.

For me, and I feel this is universal (correct me if I'm wrong though), orgasm is indescribable (that's why all the romance novel cliches of waves of pleasure and explosions) but it's also unmistakable. Granted, if you've never had one, you may not be sure, but if you're not sure, you haven't because when you do, you know. Does it matter that maybe your body doesn't do exactly what it's expected to if you think you've orgasmed? That lack of brain chemicals or whatever doesn't make your experience any less satisfying. Would you deny someone the experience of an orgasm because you don't think they had one? That's just douche-y. Also, if someone says they haven't cum when there bodies have done what they're "supposed to" does that matter? Does that make her satisfied? No.

This is exactly why this study doesn't matter. There is nothing more personal then orgasm. No one but you has any right to tell you how to cum or tell you that what you need to cum (as long as it's not hurting anyone who didn't/can't consent to it) is wrong. If you need one guy pinching your nipples while another licks your toes and a third eats you out, if it works for you, go for it! (and, contact me, because if you can work that shit out, you could probably help me set up with any number of my fantasies) I happen to use g spot stimulation to cum, and I also hate vibration. But, that doesn't mean I care if every other girl out there wants to use a Hitachi on herself until she cums her brains out. Like I said, whatever works for you.

So from freud's "immature" clit orgasms, to this most recent study, they can all just bite me. Sex isn't about orgasm, any more then it is about intercourse. Sex is fun and erotic and sexy and amazing, and most of all, it's all your own. So fuck these british scientists, and fuck Cosmo for telling you the latest spot that's
"sure to blow your mind", cum how you want to cum, and cum only if you want to cum, and do it however it makes you happy. So does the g spot exist? I don't know, all I know is that I like it when people hit where it's supposed to be, and really, that's all that matters.

So this is cleofaye, signing off by telling you to cum well and cum often and, as always, when you don't know ask, and when you're unsatisfied, give direction!


  1. I love your take on this! I personally think the "scientists" behind this are either 1) men, 2) old women who don't believe in such a thing, 3) a combination of both.


  2. I'm glad I'm not the only one who hates vibration! I love your opinion and completly agree with you. I'm currently a college student and last year participated in an orgasm research study. A: was one of the most fun I've ever had, and B: when I finally did read they're findings I thought that they were full of shit. I was one of several women who reported having an orgasm while according to them I didn't

  3. Great post, cleo! Love this especially: 'There is nothing more personal then orgasm.'. More people need to remember that, I think :)

    xx Dee