Social Inequality at School: The G-Spot

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
History of the Research and Findings
Controversy and Alternative Views
Male G-Spot
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Gräfenberg spot or G-spot was identified by a German gynecologist in the 1940s as a zone inside a vagina that has a close connection to female ejaculation and the release of fluids. Due to the limitation of technological assessment the actual proof of its existence and origin was not provided initially, but various tests of today also struggle to provide evidence. This created a great deal of controversy and speculation that is still ongoing. The research in this sphere is continued onwards as many psycho-anatomic factors are still elusive to scientists. Female arousal and sexual pleasure have been a vibrant topic since vaginal orgasms are connected with mental health, relationships, and life. Only 50% of women experience vaginal orgasm during intercourse, which attributes the knowledge of G-spot to a paramount with practical meaning.

History of the Research and Findings

The G-spot is typically reported to be tissue on the anterior vaginal wall located 5-8 cm deep. The area is described to be 2-3 cm wide. The first studies that undertook the task of locating the G-spot were conducted in 1983. Eleven women’s vaginas were palpated clockwise and were reported to have a particularly strong response to the touch in the area described above (Goldberg, 1983). However, the response was found to be significant in only four women out of eleven. Which did not let to prove the existence of G-spot but created ground for further research. The perceived existence of the G-spot was also studied. In 1990 around 1200 women survey responses were examined, and around 82% confirmed having a specific sensitive area inside their vaginas. The value of the self-reported evidence is rather low. However, the research was fueled to continue.

More recent research used ultrasonography to document the existence of G-spot. The researchers found that front vaginal wall tissue is thicker in women who experience more vaginal orgasms. It was also hypothesized that the G-spot has a relation to the clitoris and is either an integral part of it or has a physical connection with it. As this idea emerged, a new wave of studies identified that the structure of the clitoris is more complex than it was typically believed. Thus, the clitoris has been found to have nerve endings or roots located deeper into the vagina and extend to its anterior wall. Tim Spector summarised the research in this area and backed the hypothesis that G-spot may be a part of the clitoris.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging was used by O’Connell who hypothesized that female ejaculation and G-spot stimulation are related factors. The results showed that the clitoris is in fact, protracted to the vaginal front wall through its roots and argues that walls have “bulbs or triangular, crescent masses of erectile tissue” (p. 1989). O’Connell’s research was followed by Buisson and Foldès (2009) who used 3D sonography in their studies of the clitoris and the anterior vaginal wall. Special attention was paid to the movements of the clitoris during sexual arousal. It was found that the root of the clitoris moves closer to the frontal wall, which could partially explain the effect it produces on female orgasm.

The ejaculation of secretions during the stimulation of the supposed G-spot has been attributed to the Skene’s gland that has been given the term “female prostate” and accepted by the Federative Committee on Anatomical Terminology. The gland is claimed to have the connection to the G-spot that is perceived rather as a system of glands, tissue, and nerves.

Another study used eight female cadavers in order to physically verify the existence of G-spot. Ostrzenski et al. (2014) have performed a dissection of the frontal vaginal wall and documented their findings through photography. According to the findings, the tissue in the area where G-spot is claimed to be located, a vein-like vascular structure comprised of tightly-formed vessels was found. Nerve bundles were encircling the structure forming a ganglion. The researchers, however, claim that the structure does not include erectile tissue, as it was widely believed.

One of the contemporary theories in the sphere of G-spot research features an emergence of a new concept known as clitourethrovaginal complex or CUV. Jannini, Buisson, and Rubio-Casillas (2014) argue that presently, the evidence backs earlier observations and suggests that G-spot is not a stand-alone area that produces extreme sensations upon stimulation but is rather a part of a complex structure of female organs, tissues, nerves, veins, and glands. Since every woman’s genitalia have a different structure, the g-spot may not be equally susceptible to stimulation and provide an equal effect. However, there are evident and discrete relationships between the urethra, vagina, clitoris, and other structural parts of the genitalia that all contribute to arousal and orgasm, which identifies the need for further studies not only into G-spot but rather into the relationships between these multiple items (Jannini et al., 2014).

Controversy and Alternative Views

The G-spot theory and findings are widely discussed and often opposed. Various researchers, such as Puppo (2014) spent considerable time and wrote several articles explaining that G-spot does not exist. He claims that the studies of G-spot that claim to prove its existence are biased and cannot be considered real evidence. He dismantles the evidence of previous researches on the basis of the fact that they misinterpreted the original Gräfenberg’s study, which gave them the false reason to believe that their own studies have a scientific basis. As for the constructive criticism, Puppo (2014) claimed that none of the studies he examined had image proof. He also accused one of the earlier studies of Ostrzenski of having a small sample and no histologic studies done. The studies of O’Connell and later studies of Buisson, Foldès, and the new research by Ostrzenski were not commented on. Puppo (2014) claims that the interest in this topic has a financial basis and researchers promote unsafe practices while the stimulation of G-spot has no effect.

Other critics believe that research into the existence or non-existence of G-spot harms the psychological stability of women. They claim that not every woman is found to have a G-spot and many women are incapable of releasing ejaculate that is usually associated with stronger sensations. Given those facts, they note that this might produce doubts of normality in an average woman that could lead to a sense of insecurity and self-deficiency (Roberts, 2010). Others also argue that establishing solid proof that G-spot stimulation allows one to experience better orgasms is an ill-advised attempt to narrow sex practices, which should not be done.

Male G-Spot

The research into the male prostate has not been sufficient. Several studies on orgasm in men were concluded, yet no evidence of anything resembling G-spot from the anatomical point of view was not found. Interestingly, the male prostate is associated with sexual arousal and orgasm in some men. However, stimulation of the prostate glands is intricately related to ejaculation in men and, according to Levin (2018), the scientific evidence and experimental evidence are not conclusive on the matter. The whole area of men’s orgasms has not been sufficiently studied in the scientific literature. However, a strong relation between prostate and orgasm was identified in several studies. Levin (2018) reports that in patients who underwent radical prostatectomy only 5 out of 20 patients managed to have coitus with weak erection and claimed their orgasms lacked intensity. Additionally, Levin (2018) notes that the existing studies excessively use self-reported or anecdotal evidence, which further contributes to overall inconsistency and lack of evidence in the sphere of male orgasms study.

Conclusion

The examined body of research on female G-spot seems to confirm the existence of such an area. Throughout history, the concept has been surrounded with controversy due to the lack of concrete evidence. The self-reported nature of many studies in the area in fact fuels these scientific doubts. However, a few methodologically-sound pieces of research seem to have proven the anatomical validity of G-spot. In later studies, G-spot has emerged as a structural part of CUV complex the relationship within which should be studied further. The clinical significance of those studies is rather high as the number of women who regularly experience vaginal orgasms is quite low. Additionally, G-spot or CUV research furthers the anatomical knowledge about the female genitals. When male G-spot is considered, there seems to be no evidence of its existence. The research in this sphere was minimal which does not let one say for certain. Some research suggests that the male prostate could be the analog of female G-spot. Even though it is connected with male orgasms, the absence of sound experimental research does not give the reason to use this analogy.

References

Foldes, P., & Buisson, O. (2009). Reviews: The clitoral complex: A dynamic sonographic study. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 6(5), 1223-1231.

Goldberg, D. C., Whipple, B., Fishkin, R. E., Waxman, H., Fink, P. J., & Weisberg, M. (1983). The Grafenberg spot and female ejaculation: A review of initial hypotheses. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 9(1), 27-37.

Jannini, E. A., Buisson, O., & Rubio-Casillas, A. (2014). Beyond the g-spot: Clitourethrovaginal complex anatomy in female orgasm. Nature Reviews Urology, 11(9), 531-538.

Levin, R. J. (2018). Prostate‐induced orgasms: A concise review illustrated with a highly relevant case study. Clinical Anatomy, 31(1), 81-85.

O’connell, H. E., Sanjeevan, K. V., & Hutson, J. M. (2005). Anatomy of the clitoris. The Journal of Urology, 174(4), 1189-1195.

Ostrzenski, A., Krajewski, P., Ganjei‐Azar, P., Wasiutynski, A. J., Scheinberg, M. N., Tarka, S., & Fudalej, M. (2014). Verification of the anatomy and newly discovered histology of the G‐spot complex. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 121(11), 1333-1340.

Puppo, V. (2014). The G‐spot does not exist. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 121(11), 1341-1341.

Roberts, Y. (2010). The real G-spot myth. The Guardian. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!