The blogosphere was rapt last week by news that UK scientists had discovered that the G-spot is a myth. Jen has a nice deconstruction of why the reported result doesn’t tally with the headline. It got me thinking about evidence in science (and history) and how, G-spots are like Jesus.
I have primary source evidence for the existence of a G-spot. So I am biased against the report that it doesn’t exist. Equally it seems that the researchers doing the science were biased in favor of not finding it.
Let’s imagine that this is actually the truth: the G-spot is a side effect of the geometry of the female genital anatomy. When a particular patch of the vaginal wall is subjected to pressure in the correct direction, the pressure transfers through the bladder and to the posterior side of the clitoris (which is a reasonably large internal organ with a fairly small external projection – see image) causing intense sexual stimulation.
When an anti-G researcher says “There is no G-spot”, they mean “There is no distinct anatomical feature at that location of the vagina.” The pro-G person hears “You’re faking it, there’s nothing there.” Similarly if the pro-G woman says “There’s a patch inside me that gives me the most intense orgasm when it is hit just right.” This can be heard as “Not having a G-spot is like not having a clitoris – you can’t have fulfilling a sex life without it.”
But if my hypothesis is true (or some hypothesis like it), it is true that a woman can have “a patch that gives the most intense orgasm when it is hit just right” and true that “there is no distinct anatomical feature at that location”. It is false that she’s “faking it, there’s nothing there.” and false that “not having a G-spot is like not having a clitoris – you can’t have fulfilling a sex life without it”.
And that, unfortunately is the debate that atheists have all the time with believers. An atheist says “There is no God.” (or any number of similar faith-denying claims) and a believer hears “You’re faking your spiritual experiences.” A believer says “I have a personal relationship with God.” and the atheist hears “Not knowing God is like not knowing love – you can’t be fully human without it.”
I tend to believe that it is true both “there is no God” and someone can “have a personal relationship with God” and it is false that “you’re faking your spiritual experiences” and false that “not knowing God is like not knowing love – you can’t be fully human without it”.
Of course, it is true that some believers would assert that you can’t be fully human without God. Just as some G-spot-onlyists would say a fulfilling sex life requires great vaginal orgasms. There are extremes that can’t be reconciled. But I’m inclined to think that the sturm un drang of the headline grabbing extremes mask the existence of a middle ground where the interesting reality lies.