sexuality

The first time I remember being attracted to a girl, I must have been 9 or 10. I was taken for a boy quite often in those pre-pubescent years. I couldn't tell you why exactly, except that I often had some kind of terrible bowl cut and blue has always been my favourite colour.

My family was at a mall - Upper Canada, I believe, though it might have been the newly opened Promenade - and I saw this girl across the fountain.

I couldn't stop staring at her.

She preened, tilted her head this way and that. She readjusted her purse strap so that it crossed from shoulder to hip and emphasized her new breasts.

I couldn't stop staring.

And then her friend leaned over. Whispered something in her ear. They both looked at me; hard, near angry. The girl who fascinated me hung her purse from her shoulder again and they both turned their backs on me.

Instinctively I knew what had been whispered was a snarly "That's a girl!" Maybe it wasn't, maybe I was wrong. But the look of shame on that young girl's face made me know I had done - had felt - something even worse.

Hawkeye* posted a BBC article today, entitled The G-spot 'doesn't appear to exist', say researchers. Always interested in the topic, I clicked through.

Now, I knew I'd be mad.

I was beginning to hope that g-spot as myth was being put to rest. So to read another set of researchers naysaying what the fuck I know is going on in my body, well, there's no way my reaction was going to be calm. But I didn't think I'd be this mad.

The article is uses words like "figment" and phrases like "the idea of a G-spot is subjective" and "encouraged by magazines and sex therapists."

Alright, I thought, maybe it's the media twisting words. So I found the abstract of the article: Genetic and Environmental Influences on Self-reported G-Spots in Women: A Twin Study.

Phew, I thought. Oh aha! I thought. See! I thought. It's about the fallibility of self-report! Not about the mythic- oh.

Here's are a couple of quotes from the abstract. Written by the alleged researchers:

There is an ongoing debate around the existence of the G-spot—an allegedly highly sensitive area on the anterior wall of the human vagina. The existence of the G-spot seems to be widely accepted among women, despite the failure of numerous behavioral, anatomical, and biochemical studies to prove its existence. Heritability has been demonstrated in all other genuine anatomical traits studied so far.

A possible explanation for the lack of heritability may be that women differ in their ability to detect their own (true) G-spots. However, 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.

Allegedly highly sensitive? And you can fairly hear the acid condescension dripping off that "genuine." Nice bone to throw us there, with that "women [may] differ in their ability to detect their own (true) G-spots" before driving it home that you think we're all too easily swayed by sex therapists and fucking Cosmo to know what's happening when we put our fingers there, yeah, right there.

What is that parenthetical "true" doing there? Can women detect their own (fake) g-spots with statistical ease? Feels to me like it's just there to make sure there isn't even a whiff of having taken the g-spot seriously in the first place.

The level of personal disdain and venom that seeps through the stuffy writing is uncomfortable to read.

I'll throw them a bone and say yeah, there are probably tons of people out there who have really small g-spots that are either really hard or impossible to find. And that among those who have found them, there are probably tons who don't dig the sensation that much; or all the time; or whatever. Individual human anatomy and sexual response are both variable. Shocking.

Hey! Here's a thought.

Why don't you ask women to self-report on their appendices?

I mean my sister, whose appendix almost burst, could most certainly give you details about what it felt like and where it was. But mine's never been irritated in such a way that it's swelled up. So I couldn't tell you what it feels like. Don't think I haven't looked! My lover touches me in that general area all the time! And once I tried pressing really hard where the research says it's supposed to be. Still nothing! I will tell you, then, that I don't have one.

And if I don't have one but she does, then we're probably all making this shit up.

*Props to Hawkeye for posting it and giving me the idea for the title.

From the Desk of Megan Butcher

Dear Scientists and Journalists,

It has come to my attention that certain of you believe the urethral sponge (also known as the G-, or Graefenberg, Spot) is a matter still up for debate.

Rest assured, it is not.

To intimate otherwise is to sensationalize a topic that requires no such treatment. It is also to create controversy where none exists, for the only debate on said spot exists in news articles asserting there is a debate.

Most other reasonable creatures agree that the urethral sponge exists. Debates do ensue over how it works, where exactly it is located, if it is indeed a separate anatomical entity, why it may exist, and, if every woman does have it, whether all enjoy its stimulation to the same degree. But only spurious and uncited "experts" disagree that it exists at all.

Thus, Journalists, you are hereby politely requested to frame your articles along these lines, and relay information on the former debate regarding said spot in the past tense. To this end, I provide you with a sample sentence: "The mid- to late-twentieth century was a veritable vaginal dark age, with many otherwise intelligent people debating the anatomical reality of the g-spot."

Also, women don't "say" or "claim" they have vaginal orgasms; quite simply, they have them. This is not a fact that needs to be verified in a court of law before you can state it as such. Therefore, you may simply write "Jannini studied nine women who have vaginal orgasms and 11 women who do not..."

Lastly, I impolitely demand that you hereby and immediately desist describing this "debate" with cleverly punning words such as "climax" and "nails." G-spot orgasms are not your snide joke.

And now, Scientists, a word to you. Do not do a study of 20 women and feel that you have a definitive understanding how a certain part of their sexuality works. Rather, keep your hubris in check, and do not assert that "women without any visible evidence of a G spot cannot have a vaginal orgasm." Perhaps that is true of all 11 women in your study, but perhaps is not true of the other few billion women alive today.

Most importantly, you must call an immediate halt to the use of the word "normal." Your lab coat and clipboard do not give you the automatic moral authority to decide where this label should be placed. Clitoral orgasms are not the normal orgasm. They are simply the most usual. Women whose orgasms are, in the main, from non-clitoral stimulation are not abnormal, just unusual.

With this advice in mind, Everyone, please do continue your work. Your dedicated effort to increasing knowledge about this oft-misunderstood area is much applauded, and will be further celebrated once these issues have been resolved.

Yours truly,
M. Butcher

- Scientists' row over G spot nears a climax
- Ultrasound nails location of the elusive G spot
- Measurement of the Thickness of the Urethrovaginal Space in Women with or without Vaginal Orgasm

I had my first post-breakup sex dream last night, which involved an acquaintance of mine and an embarrassing amount of saliva.

Apparently, I am uptight to my core, since I asked said acquaintance if their girlfriend would mind. After finding out things were copacetic on the partner front, I proceeded to have an internal dialogue about whether I was being safe enough. Eventually, I decided to throw dream caution to the wind and go on down, lack of barrier be damned.

So while I wouldn't necessarily say my sex drive was back, it is at least revving a rusty purr. And actively engaging the parts of my brain needed for navigation.

Odd that, since a couple weeks ago, the thought of kissing someone made me feel a little nauseous. Now it's just the thought of dating that does that.

Feels like a mixed blessing, this revival. It's as it should be. As of valentines day, it'll be a couple months since I've had sex. My body is telling me that's getting close to long enough.

I'm not sure my brain is buying it though, and I'm not sure to whom I should listen.

Because my brain is telling me this is somewhat of a betrayal. Of my ex as a real person, certainly, but also the abject sense-memories of my love for him. Of my grief, too. Like my brain thinks the best thing to do is keep the mourning pure, and keep it on, a suffocating hairshirt.

I know, I know, that if I heard my ex were sleeping with someone who was not me, if I found out he was on the make, I would feel bitter, replaced, and so so hurt. Not that anyone ever gets actually replaced. Not that people can't be fucking one person and missing another. Still, some part of me wants to protect him from a projected hurt by not being intimate with someone else. Like that will protect me.

But what can you do. People move on. They have to. Some people maybe do it before they should, some people maybe wait too long. But bodies will call bodies.

Wow, you mean I really do exist? Aw, goldurn. That's *great*.

For women, bisexuality may not be just a phase

Though seriously, I do think it says something that we're finally worthy of research dollars. I'm not quite sure what, but I'll listen no matter.

I nearly blew a gasket listening to CBC radio last night. So near was my brain to splatting out my ears in rage, in fact, that I'm not sure I'll even be able to write about this and make any sense.

Part of the problem is that it's about the Conservatives bid to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16. It's a complicated law, before and after the proposed changes. Simply, under the new law, teenagers would still be able to have sex with each other, but if someone were sixteen and were having sex with an adult (defined as someone in a position of power or more than 5 years older), that adult could be arrested.

The age of consent for anal sex would still stand at 18, no matter your sex or orientation.

On the radio last night, Poilievre* was all over how raising the age of consent to 16 was going to prevent Internet predators. He said this ad nauseum. Like if he said it just a touch more ardently each time, we would all understand just how true it was.

"Adrian!" I yelled at the radio. "Ask him exactly how the fuck is it gonna do that?"

And also: "All Canadians agree with this law." Bullshit. This proposed change has been hotly contested amongst the sexual health advocates I know. And I mean contested, heated argument from both sides. I've been back and forth on it myself, because, damn, it's hard to argue against protecting youth from sexual predation. But in the end, no, I don't agree with raising the age of consent.

That does not mean, however, Mr. Pierre "Think of the Children!" Poilievre, that I do agree with predation of youth via the Internet. I just don't think this law is going to prevent what you say it is going to prevent. So why meddle with laws around sexuality?

That the conservatives want to do this makes me viscerally uneasy.

And also: "This will engage youth in the democratic process." Wha? Offering youth money to forage for names to put on a petition and write a 500 word essay about something they may or may not believe in, but serves your purpose neatly, is going to stimulate interest in the democratic process?

It has somehow escaped him that the more democratic action might be asking students to read the law, develop a position, distill that position into 500 clear words, write a petition outlining their position, find supporters, and present it to government in order to have their voice heard and sway some parliamentary machinations.

Faugh.

Links:
MP offers prize to teens who peddle his petition

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act

ageofconsent.ca : stop the criminalization of youth sexuality

*And a big thank you to Duff, who pointed out that Pierre Pettigrew is a former cabinet minister with nice hair and that Pierre Poilievre is the local MP eager to bribe teenagers into making his case for him.