Insightful analysis of a recently published pilot study that promises to be played and replayed in the media for months to come (and by writers and editors who know what to do with a sentence that ends in come).
The Italian study, published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine, used ultrasound technology to look at the genital physiology of twenty women, nine of whom reported having orgasms from vaginal penetration without clitoral stimulation and eleven of whom reported having never had an orgasm from
Vaginal penetration alone. Comparing these two groups the researchers found a statistically significant difference in the thickness of what is called the “urethrovaginal space” between the groups. This is the area also thought to be where the g spot is. While the study has several flaws, to their credit the authors make it clear that this is a small sample and they don’t really know what their findings mean. Here is the headline from today’s New Scientist: Ultrasound nails location of the elusive G spot
In the first paragraph they manage not only to blow the relevance of this study way out of proportion but also reveal some of the very real, and very scary, implications not only of the research but of the kind of reporting likely to follow a piece like this one. I found the article infuriating in the way it misrepresented the importance of the research for a catchy headline and first paragraph. It didn’t help that in the first sentence they link to research that is far more problematic than this current study but carries the same inane subtext; real sex is
penile-vaginal intercourse.
No comments:
Post a Comment