Does the G-Spot Really Exist?
posted by Lissa Rankin Jun 21, 2010 9:08 am
filed under: Health & Wellness, Relationships & Sexuality, Uncategorized, Women's Health, anatomy, beverly whipple, clitoris, doctor, g-spot, medical school, orgasm, pleasure, vaginal orgasms, what's up down there
When you think of a sonogram, you probably think of some grainy, grey-and-white image of your baby’s hand waving at you, labeled with the caption “Hi Mom!” You probably don’t think about the clitoris. But a couple of French doctors do (leave it to the French).
Is There Really a G-Spot?
A study in Sexual Medicine called “The Clitoral Complex: A Dynamic Sonographic Study” mixes ultrasound, the clitoris, the G-Spot, and vaginal orgasms together into a sexy soup I couldn’t resist writing about. Whether or not the G-Spot exists remains controversial. One of the questions I answered in my upcoming book What’s Up Down There? Questions You’d Only Ask Your Gynecologist If She Was Your Best Friend is “Does the G-Spot really exist?” The answer:
According to the teacher in my Gross Anatomy lab, the answer is no. As we were dissecting the vagina, someone asked, “So where’s the G-Spot, Doc?” My teacher, in his thick Eastern European accent, said, “Zere is no G-Spot in ze human female.” Okay, good to know.
The rest of my medical training pretty much agreed with Professor Von Buzzkill. An expert in the field even told me that every part of the vagina has been examined under the microscope, and there is nothing on the anterior wall of the vagina that looks any different than the rest of the vagina. Therefore, the G-Spot does not exist. Period.
However, as is the case with much I learned in medical school, my patients tell me otherwise. Over the years, thousands of patients have sworn that there is a place felt through the anterior wall of the vagina that hits the oh-oh-oh spot – or, rather, is the spot. I believe in many things I cannot see, so I tend to believe my patients.
Hunting for data to validate their experience, I came across Dr. Beverly Whipple, who famously named the G-Spot after German OB/GYN Dr. Ernst Gräfenburg, who described a zone of erogenous feeling on the anterior wall of the vaginal canal. (A friend of hers suggested she name it the “Whipple Tickle”, but out of respect for Whipples everywhere, she vetoed this idea.) According to Dr. Whipple, the G-Spot definitely exists. When I asked her why some in the medical community vehemently deny its existence, she seemed baffled. She said, “I don’t know. I guess, because they can’t see it under a microscope, they think it doesn’t exist. But my career has been about validating what real women experience. And some — but not all — definitely experience pleasurable feelings when you stimulate the G-Spot area.”
Her belief runs so deep that she went on to conduct hundreds of studies aimed at validating the sexual experiences women relate. For one study in 1981, 400 female volunteers were examined. According to Dr. Whipple, a spot that empirically swells with stimulation was found in each of these women, although she admits that not all women appear to be sensitive to this type of stimulation.
So what is the G-Spot? Dr. Whipple isn’t sure. As Dr. Von Buzzkill said, no specific anatomic differences can be detected in this area. But she suspects a cluster of blood vessels, nerves, glands (including the “female prostate gland”), and part of of the clitoris may all merge to create a sensitive area that hits the spot. She believes the female experience more than the microscope, and I tend to agree with her.
Drs. Foldes and Buisson seem to agree with Dr. Whipple, theorizing that the reason some women can have vaginal orgasms is that the anterior wall of the vagina (in the location of the famed G-Spot) overlies the root of the clitoris, where the crura (legs) come together. So perhaps the reason that nobody can find an anatomic location for the controversial G-Spot is because there’s nothing special about this part of the vagina other than it butts up against a sweet spot of the clitoris.
When you think of a sonogram, you probably think of some grainy, grey-and-white image of your baby’s hand waving at you, labeled with the caption “Hi Mom!” You probably don’t think about the clitoris. But a couple of French doctors do (leave it to the French).
Is There Really a G-Spot?
A study in Sexual Medicine called “The Clitoral Complex: A Dynamic Sonographic Study” mixes ultrasound, the clitoris, the G-Spot, and vaginal orgasms together into a sexy soup I couldn’t resist writing about. Whether or not the G-Spot exists remains controversial. One of the questions I answered in my upcoming book What’s Up Down There? Questions You’d Only Ask Your Gynecologist If She Was Your Best Friend is “Does the G-Spot really exist?” The answer:
According to the teacher in my Gross Anatomy lab, the answer is no. As we were dissecting the vagina, someone asked, “So where’s the G-Spot, Doc?” My teacher, in his thick Eastern European accent, said, “Zere is no G-Spot in ze human female.” Okay, good to know.
The rest of my medical training pretty much agreed with Professor Von Buzzkill. An expert in the field even told me that every part of the vagina has been examined under the microscope, and there is nothing on the anterior wall of the vagina that looks any different than the rest of the vagina. Therefore, the G-Spot does not exist. Period.
However, as is the case with much I learned in medical school, my patients tell me otherwise. Over the years, thousands of patients have sworn that there is a place felt through the anterior wall of the vagina that hits the oh-oh-oh spot – or, rather, is the spot. I believe in many things I cannot see, so I tend to believe my patients.
Hunting for data to validate their experience, I came across Dr. Beverly Whipple, who famously named the G-Spot after German OB/GYN Dr. Ernst Gräfenburg, who described a zone of erogenous feeling on the anterior wall of the vaginal canal. (A friend of hers suggested she name it the “Whipple Tickle”, but out of respect for Whipples everywhere, she vetoed this idea.) According to Dr. Whipple, the G-Spot definitely exists. When I asked her why some in the medical community vehemently deny its existence, she seemed baffled. She said, “I don’t know. I guess, because they can’t see it under a microscope, they think it doesn’t exist. But my career has been about validating what real women experience. And some — but not all — definitely experience pleasurable feelings when you stimulate the G-Spot area.”
Her belief runs so deep that she went on to conduct hundreds of studies aimed at validating the sexual experiences women relate. For one study in 1981, 400 female volunteers were examined. According to Dr. Whipple, a spot that empirically swells with stimulation was found in each of these women, although she admits that not all women appear to be sensitive to this type of stimulation.
So what is the G-Spot? Dr. Whipple isn’t sure. As Dr. Von Buzzkill said, no specific anatomic differences can be detected in this area. But she suspects a cluster of blood vessels, nerves, glands (including the “female prostate gland”), and part of of the clitoris may all merge to create a sensitive area that hits the spot. She believes the female experience more than the microscope, and I tend to agree with her.
Drs. Foldes and Buisson seem to agree with Dr. Whipple, theorizing that the reason some women can have vaginal orgasms is that the anterior wall of the vagina (in the location of the famed G-Spot) overlies the root of the clitoris, where the crura (legs) come together. So perhaps the reason that nobody can find an anatomic location for the controversial G-Spot is because there’s nothing special about this part of the vagina other than it butts up against a sweet spot of the clitoris.
<1 of 2>More on Health & Wellness (1069 articles available)
More from Lissa Rankin (12 articles available)
Marilyn L. says
Jun 22, 2010 5:02 PM
Trudi Gray you are one funny woman.
send
Teresa P. says
Jun 22, 2010 4:50 PM
I don't think I have a G spot. My orgasms are clitoral but they are very good. My vulva is sensitive too. Having orgasms seems a quite healthy thing to do.
Thomas T. says
Jun 22, 2010 4:28 PM
The clitoral glans is homologous to the glans penis in males, and the clitoral body and the clitoral crura are homologous to the corpora cavernosa of the penis. The labia majora, labia minora and clitoral hood are homologous to the scrotum, shaft skin of the penis, and the foreskin, respectively. The vestibular bulbs beneath the skin of the labia minora are homologous to the corpus spongiosum, the tissue of the penis surrounding the urethra. The Bartholin's glands are homologous to Cowper's glands in males.
Then, why would the part the was homologous to the male prostate dissappear? My contention is..it didnt, it IS the G spot.
The science shows that, depending on the hormone balances at the time of differentiaion, (we all start as female), there are variations in the final development of both male and female.
Larger, smaller this and that in both sexes, and, sometimes a complete shamnbles with both this and that in the same person!
That is why some have a larger G spot, some a smaller one, some, one without sensation.
In males, the main source of pleasure at orgasm is at the prostate. The male ejaculation is mainly prostatic fluid. Some women, at orgasm, also ejaculate. From where? I think from the now partly developed prostate, or, the g-spot.
Does the author agree, even though her professor professed otherwise?
Martha Kauppinen says
Jun 22, 2010 3:16 PM
Yes, the G-spot exists! There was no mention in this article of an "ejaculation of water" for lack of a better description. I wonder if anyone else has had this experience along with their G-spot orgasm.
Julie F. says
Jun 22, 2010 2:52 PM
The G spot DEFINITELY exists in some way, shape or form. I'm kind of agnostic about it - I know it's there, but I don't really care to define it so. :)
Jun 22, 2010 2:26 PM
Anna W., the G-spot rarely is enough for an orgasm in most women, even if a partner actually finds it! The clitoris is the main source of sexual pleasure for most women. Which is why intercourse is not often satisfying.
Anna W. says
Jun 22, 2010 2:19 PM
Not sure about the G spot. Why do women sometimes get an orgasm and other times they don't? If there is a G spot then it would make sense that every time the G spot is stimulated, they get the orgasm reaction, which is not the case (speaking from my own experience and my friends')
Laurie S. says
Jun 22, 2010 1:43 PM
Thanks for the article Lissa. I figure that as long as we all get our rocks off then it's all good!! :)
Jane H. says
Jun 22, 2010 1:17 PM
Thanks for your open and honest discussion and post!
Juliet D. says
Jun 22, 2010 12:53 PM
@ trudi gray thanks for the laugh! It's so true.. women's magazines have stories about how to please your man in bed, men's magazines have articles about cars.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Payback Time
In Budget Crisis, States Take Aim at Pension Costs
By MARY WILLIAMS WALSH
Published: June 19, 2010
Many states are acknowledging this year that they have promised pensions they cannot afford and are cutting once-sacrosanct benefits, to appease taxpayers and attack budget deficits.
Gov. Pat Quinn said an overhaul would save Illinois’s pension system $300 million in its first year. But the fund is weakened.
Payback Time
Untouchable Benefits
Articles in this series are examining the consequences of, and efforts to deal with, growing public and private debts.
Previous Articles in the Series »Illinois raised its retirement age to 67, the highest of any state, and capped public pensions at $106,800 a year. Arizona, New York, Missouri and Mississippi will make people work more years to earn pensions. Virginia is requiring employees to pay into the state pension fund for the first time. New Jersey will not give anyone pension credit unless they work at least 32 hours a week.
“We can’t afford to deny reality or delay action any longer,” said Gov. Pat Quinn of Illinois, adding that his state’s pension cuts, enacted in March, will save some $300 million in the first year alone.
But there is a catch: Nearly all of the cuts so far apply only to workers not yet hired. Though heralded as breakthrough reforms by state officials, the cuts phase in so slowly they are unlikely to save the weakest funds and keep them from running out of money. Some new rules may even hasten the demise of the funds they were meant to protect.
Lawmakers wanted to avoid legal battles or fights with unions, whose members can be influential voters. So they are allowing most public workers across the country to keep building up their pensions at the same rate as ever. The tens of thousands of workers now on Illinois’s payrolls, for instance, will still get to retire at 60 — and some will as young as 55.
One striking exception is Colorado, which has imposed cuts on its current workers, not just future hires, and even on people who have already retired. The retirees have sued to block the reduction.
Other states with shrinking funds and deep fiscal distress may be pushed in this direction and tempted to follow Colorado’s example in the coming years. Though most state officials believe they are legally bound to shield current workers from pension cuts, a Colorado victory could embolden them to be more aggressive.
Colorado pruned a 3.5 percent annual pension increase to 2 percent, concluding that was the fastest way to revive its pension fund, which was projected to run out of money by 2029. The cut may sound small, but it produces big results because it goes into effect immediately. State plans vary widely, but many have other costly features, like subsidized early-retirement benefits, which could likewise be trimmed for existing workers.
Despite its pension reform, Illinois is still in deep trouble. That vaunted $300 million in immediate savings? The state produced it by giving itself credit now for the much smaller checks it will send retirees many years in the future — people who must first be hired and then, for full benefits, work until age 67.
By recognizing those far-off savings right away, Illinois is letting itself put less money into its pension fund now, starting with $300 million this year.
That saves the state money, but it also weakens the pension fund, actually a family of funds, raising the risk of a collapse long before the real savings start to materialize.
“We’re within a few years of having some of the pension funds run out of money,” said R. Eden Martin, president of the Commercial Club of Chicago, a business group that has been warning of a “financial implosion” for several years. “Funding for the schools is going to be cut radically. Funding for Medicaid. As these things all mount up, there’s going to be a lot of outrage.”
Joshua D. Rauh, an associate professor of finance at Northwestern University who studies public pension funds, predicts that at the current rate, Illinois’s pension system could run out of money by 2018. He believes the funds of other troubled states — including New Jersey, Indiana and Connecticut — are also on track to run out of money in less than a decade, unless they make meaningful changes.
If a state pension fund ran out of money, the state would be legally bound to make good on retirees’ benefits. But paying public pensions straight out of general revenue would be ruinous. In Illinois’s case, it would consume about half the state’s cash every year, bringing other vital state services to a standstill.
Mr. Rauh said he thinks any state caught in that trap would have little choice but to seek a federal bailout. Bigger pension contributions and higher taxes can go only so far.
Many state officials, hoping for a huge recovery in the markets, say that such projections are too pessimistic, and that cutting benefits for future workers must suffice, given laws and provisions in state constitutions that make membership in a state pension fund a contractual relationship that cannot be breached.
Lawyers, though, are raising the possibility that those laws are being misinterpreted.
By MARY WILLIAMS WALSH
Published: June 19, 2010
Many states are acknowledging this year that they have promised pensions they cannot afford and are cutting once-sacrosanct benefits, to appease taxpayers and attack budget deficits.
Gov. Pat Quinn said an overhaul would save Illinois’s pension system $300 million in its first year. But the fund is weakened.
Payback Time
Untouchable Benefits
Articles in this series are examining the consequences of, and efforts to deal with, growing public and private debts.
Previous Articles in the Series »Illinois raised its retirement age to 67, the highest of any state, and capped public pensions at $106,800 a year. Arizona, New York, Missouri and Mississippi will make people work more years to earn pensions. Virginia is requiring employees to pay into the state pension fund for the first time. New Jersey will not give anyone pension credit unless they work at least 32 hours a week.
“We can’t afford to deny reality or delay action any longer,” said Gov. Pat Quinn of Illinois, adding that his state’s pension cuts, enacted in March, will save some $300 million in the first year alone.
But there is a catch: Nearly all of the cuts so far apply only to workers not yet hired. Though heralded as breakthrough reforms by state officials, the cuts phase in so slowly they are unlikely to save the weakest funds and keep them from running out of money. Some new rules may even hasten the demise of the funds they were meant to protect.
Lawmakers wanted to avoid legal battles or fights with unions, whose members can be influential voters. So they are allowing most public workers across the country to keep building up their pensions at the same rate as ever. The tens of thousands of workers now on Illinois’s payrolls, for instance, will still get to retire at 60 — and some will as young as 55.
One striking exception is Colorado, which has imposed cuts on its current workers, not just future hires, and even on people who have already retired. The retirees have sued to block the reduction.
Other states with shrinking funds and deep fiscal distress may be pushed in this direction and tempted to follow Colorado’s example in the coming years. Though most state officials believe they are legally bound to shield current workers from pension cuts, a Colorado victory could embolden them to be more aggressive.
Colorado pruned a 3.5 percent annual pension increase to 2 percent, concluding that was the fastest way to revive its pension fund, which was projected to run out of money by 2029. The cut may sound small, but it produces big results because it goes into effect immediately. State plans vary widely, but many have other costly features, like subsidized early-retirement benefits, which could likewise be trimmed for existing workers.
Despite its pension reform, Illinois is still in deep trouble. That vaunted $300 million in immediate savings? The state produced it by giving itself credit now for the much smaller checks it will send retirees many years in the future — people who must first be hired and then, for full benefits, work until age 67.
By recognizing those far-off savings right away, Illinois is letting itself put less money into its pension fund now, starting with $300 million this year.
That saves the state money, but it also weakens the pension fund, actually a family of funds, raising the risk of a collapse long before the real savings start to materialize.
“We’re within a few years of having some of the pension funds run out of money,” said R. Eden Martin, president of the Commercial Club of Chicago, a business group that has been warning of a “financial implosion” for several years. “Funding for the schools is going to be cut radically. Funding for Medicaid. As these things all mount up, there’s going to be a lot of outrage.”
Joshua D. Rauh, an associate professor of finance at Northwestern University who studies public pension funds, predicts that at the current rate, Illinois’s pension system could run out of money by 2018. He believes the funds of other troubled states — including New Jersey, Indiana and Connecticut — are also on track to run out of money in less than a decade, unless they make meaningful changes.
If a state pension fund ran out of money, the state would be legally bound to make good on retirees’ benefits. But paying public pensions straight out of general revenue would be ruinous. In Illinois’s case, it would consume about half the state’s cash every year, bringing other vital state services to a standstill.
Mr. Rauh said he thinks any state caught in that trap would have little choice but to seek a federal bailout. Bigger pension contributions and higher taxes can go only so far.
Many state officials, hoping for a huge recovery in the markets, say that such projections are too pessimistic, and that cutting benefits for future workers must suffice, given laws and provisions in state constitutions that make membership in a state pension fund a contractual relationship that cannot be breached.
Lawyers, though, are raising the possibility that those laws are being misinterpreted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)