According to Dr Petra, that’s the wrong question to be asking. She makes a good case for her position, too.
Each time studies on the g-spot have been published the media has reacted as though
- these are groundbreaking studies
- the do they/don’t they have g-spots issue is the most pressing topic in sex research
- these studies require no critical attention
And in all these cases journalists – including health and science correspondents – have responded to these studies in one simple way. To frame their stories with the question ‘does the g-spot exist?’
You can expect the media to do four things with this.
1. They will trumpet that YES, THE G-SPOT DOES EXIST! even though previously they said it didn’t (and it did and it didn’t etc etc).
2. They will use this to bring up the same old debate – does the g-spot exist? But they will not critically engage with the research itself.
3. They will fail to notice that a fortnight ago they were having exactly the same discussion.
4. They will use this as another opportunity to report the story using the now well-established tactic of let’s-set-up-a-debate-with-the-ladies-about-their-orgasms.
How should we be looking at and talking about these studies? Dr Petra has some excellent suggestions on that as well, starting with the most skeptical question of “Who benefits from research like this?” The answer to that may surprise you, even if you’ve read the study. I would suggest reading the whole thing.
And to those of you who would comment with an opinion on the question in the title, it was not an invitation to a debate. I don’t actually care how you find sexual pleasure and satisfaction, as long as everyone involved gives meaningful consent.