The 80beats blog at Discover blogs is reporting on a French/British argument over the female G-spot. Personally, I’d assume that the French, who are supposed to be the world’s best lovers are right. (Have I mentioned that I’m half French? My Mom was born in Paris.)
The Brits did a study of 902 twin pairs – some of which were monozygotic (identical) twins, and some of which were dizygotic (fraternal) twins. Twin studies are important in research, because it is one way to have a genetically-informed sample without having to do actual analysis of the DNA. Identical twins share 100% of their DNA, and fraternal twins share 50% of their DNA, and therefore the genetic relatedness between fraternal twins is the same as between regular siblings.
The Brits say:
If the G-spot did exist, then genetically identical twins would have been expected to both report having one. However, no such pattern emerged [The Telegraph]. As a result of the study, coauthor Tim Spector said, the study “shows fairly conclusively that the idea of a G-spot is subjective.”
The French argument:
The angry French gynecologists said they’d found the real problem with their British counterparts: that they’re British. The King’s College study, they said, had fallen victim to an Anglo-Saxon tendency to reduce the mysteries of sexuality to absolutes. This attempt to set clear parameters on something variable and ambiguous, they said, was characteristic of British scientific attitudes to sex [The Guardian].
Gynecologist Odile Buisson went even further in blaming national sex attitudes for supposedly leading the British researchers astray: “I don’t want to stigmatise at all but I think the Protestant, liberal, Anglo-Saxon character means you are very pragmatic. There has to be a cause for everything, a gene for everything,” she said, adding: “I think it’s totalitarian” [The Guardian]. She also told The Telegraph that the G-spot is real for upwards of 60 percent of women, and that saying anything else is “medical machismo.”
As it happens, I believe the French are right on this one, at least in principle if not in the rationale. But I went to find the original paper. Because I don’t automatically trust The Telegraph, or The Guardian (or really, any popular press, when it comes to sensational headlines). And my institution doesn’t have access (THAT, however, is a rant for a different time). The lab at King’s College seems to have it on their website, but the file was corrupt. Luckily, I am crafty and managed to get myself a copy of the PDF anyway.
Sci takes this paper down quite beautifully, but I have a few more bones to pick with it.
But let me re-iterate the problems that Sci brought up:
1. The average age of the women questioned was 55 years. Given that women are supposedly at their sexual peak around age 30, and given that the average age for menopause in the Western world is 51, this seems like pretty poor sampling.
2. Bisexual and homosexual women were excluded from the study, because “of the common use of digital stimulation” in such populations. I’m sorry, but since when did the existence of the G-spot vary according to the manner in which you try to find it? And since when do heterosexual women only use penises for stimulation?
3. Bad definition of the g-spot. They asked women “Do you believe you have a so-called G-spot, a small area the size of a 20p coin on the front wall of your vagina, that is sensitive to deep pressure?” Are all women anatomists now as well? Would you ask people “Do you believe you have a so-called hippocampus, a small area of cortex located deep within the temporal lobe, roughly occurring in the shape of a seahorse?” Whether or not they believe it, they certainly have one.
Figure 1: Hippocampus. Look at it upside down and you’ll see the seahorse shape.
Also, terribly pointed language. “so-called”?! And what about “believe”? Perhaps, if the study had been titled “Genetic and Environmental Influences on the Belief of the Existence of G-Spots in Women: A Twin Study.”
Also, how many women have systematically explored the entire front wall of the vagina searching for the location and relative size of a location that could bring them to orgasm, and then also varied the pressure with which they stimulated it? That is the study that needs to be done.
Okay, here is my beef:
They assumed that the twins – whether or not they were identical or fraternal – had 100% shared environments. How many 55 year old women do you know that have 100% shared environments? How about 100% shared sexual partners? Or sexual preferences? Or masturbation styles? or, or or? This is, like, Intro Psych stuff, friends. Until we know more about the genetic and anatomic basis of orgasm, I don’t think the conclusions of this paper can be made. They say: “we postulate that the reason for the lack of genetic variation—in contrast to other anatomical and physiological traits studied—is that there is no physiological or physical basis for the G-spot.”
My prediction is that once we know more about what causes female orgasm, we’ll be a closer to having some answers about the G-spot. I think there’s a gene-environment interaction occurring.
Figure 2: Gene-environment interaction.
Image from Pinel, J.P.J. (2009). Biopsychology: Seventh Edition.
The gene in question involves serotonin (a neurotransmitter) regulation in the brain. The probability of a major depression episode changes depending both on your genotype (the combination of short and long versions of the gene), and the number of stressors in the environment (along the x-axis). With few environmental stressors, there is no difference in the probability of depression for the different groups. Only with more life stressors is there significant variation in depression, with the short/short group being more vulnerable, and the long/long group being more protected. One can imagine two identical twins, genetically identical (let’s say, sharing the S/S version of the gene). One has only a few life stressors and one has many life stressors, and therefore they have different depression-related experiences.
So too with the female orgasm and g-spot, I think. We just need to figure out which genes and which environmental variables are important.
Reference:
Burri, A., Cherkas, L., & Spector, T. (2010). Genetic and Environmental Influences on self-reported G-Spots in Women: A Twin Study Journal of Sexual Medicine DOI: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01671.x
No comments:
Post a Comment