sexuality
Memo: The G-Spot
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
On the Make
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.
Props from the Academy
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.
Splat
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
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.
