Vaginal Orgasms and G-Spot Theory

In my research on matters prurient, one item which has always aroused my interest is female orgasm. There are so many myths rumors and legends about this - and taboos, and cultural and religious strictures on discussing it, that just narrowing down one specific aspect of it to research was difficult for me. But while researching what to research (how's that for meta?) I came across multiple medical journal articles which talked about different kinds of orgasms in women.

Sexuality researchers categorize orgasm into two major types. The clitoral orgasm is the kind most people are familiar with. Most women can achieve one of these through clitoral stimulation (with a vibrator, finger, partner's body part, etc...). For many women this is what they think of when they contemplate orgasms.

However, according to multiple researchers there is a second kind of female orgasm. It is called a vaginal orgasm and is generated by stimulating the g-spot (named after sex researcher Ernst Gräfenberg) which lies on the anterior wall of the vagina, behind the clitoris. This type of orgasm, which can be generated by vaginal-only stimulation, is described as being stronger and more powerful than the more well known clitoral type.

But controversy has surrounded g-spot related claims. Some doubt the existence of such a place because many women don't seem to be capable of vaginal orgasms, and cadaver research hasn't uncovered any corresponding increase in nerve distribution in the corresponding physiological regions. (I doubt they'd have had any luck making those cadavers climax even if they could find a corresponding high-nerve spot to stimulate.)

Yet for women who have vaginal orgasms, and those who experience other g-spot phenomena such as female ejaculation (a subject due its own article), there is little doubt that they have a place that will take them places.

Two recent articles in New Scientist magazine discuss the work of sexologist Emmanuele Jannini, MD. His team has been working on trying to identify the g-spot and they found that in a group of women who experience vaginal orgasm, they have a corresponding increase in thickness on the anterior wall of the vagina. Or as they put it in the summary:

The measurement of the space within the anterior vaginal wall by ultrasonography is a simple tool to explore anatomical variability of the human clitoris-urethrovaginal complex, also known as the G-spot, which can be correlated to the ability to experience the vaginally activated orgasm.

Many of these sex studies have very small sample groups. I'm not sure why that is, but rather than lament the frailty of studies based on small groups I choose to lament the lack of massive interest in research which could lead to well documented methodologies to make women happier in bed. Why is this not being researched more thoroughly?

Still, back in 2002 Dr. Terrence Hines published a paper called, "The G-Spot: A Modern Gynocological Myth," that is critical of the research methodologies on g-spot studies up to that point. Whether Dr. Jannini's research will hold up to scrutiny, or whether Dr. Hine's point of view is still valid remains to be seen.

Jannini's work did lead to this observation by Indiana University professor Elisabeth Lloyd in a Guardian UK article:

Elisabeth Lloyd, a professor at Indiana University and author of The Case of the Female Orgasm, said scans should now be conducted on a larger group. "There's been controversy over which parts of the female anatomy might be the G spot, and what the role of it might be," she said.

Lloyd said only 20% to 25% of women had vaginal orgasms during sex. "It has never been explained why that is the case; it's a mystery. This paper doesn't totally explain it, but it might do partially, and that could help us understand what those numbers are about."

On the bright side, recent follow-up work by Dr. Jannini seems to point to the possiblity that currently non-vaginally orgasmic women can be trained to become vaginally orgasmic. This, however, being contingent on whether or not you've secretly got a g-spot or not. Jannini's research involved taking women and scanning them with his g-spot finder technique, then asking those women who seemed to have g-spots if they had vaginal orgasms. Then, that subset that reported they didn't were instructed on how to try - and some of them were able to do so after the training. None of the women who didn't seem to have a g-spot were able to achieve this vaginal orgasm. (Read that whole article at New Scientist.)

So - is there really a g-spot? For some, it appears that the answer is "yes." The easiest way to find out is probably through experimenting. But if you don't happen to have that thickened anterior wall, there's always the clitoris. Nothing wrong with the clitoris.

Hamster Porn - or Any Male Cruelty

We've all heard the story before. A man (perhaps a famous actor?) goes to Emergency Room with an embarrassing problem. He's got this rodent stuck in his butt. Apparently, this is the result of a strange fetish called "Hamster Stuffing" - but also known as "Rodent Ramming," "Gerbil Jabbing," a "Fuzzy McButtstuffin," or a "PETA Enema." Admittedly I made up all those names - but that's because the whole "Hamster Stuffing" idea is also fictional.


The "famous actor" in the FICTIONAL story is most often Richard Gere. But the story predates Mr. Gere's "involvement" and is probably at heart an anti-homosexual urban legend, frequently tinged with AIDS and meant to cater to those who suspect that "whatever the gays are up to" is probably worse than they'd even imagined. Of course there are some amusing variations on the tale (well, mildly amusing) that involve the hamster being blown out explosively by a methane explosion - but aside from the slapstick nature of that particular variant the story is more salacious than humorous. Once again Snopes.com provides an informative analysis of the tale.

In "The Encyclopedia of Urban Legends," Jan Harold Brunvand traces this tale back to 1984 when it was attributed to a Philly news anchor as well as the unfortunate Mr. Gere. Poor Mr. Gere's name got involved when some jerk faxed fake news stories all over Southern California claiming he'd been involved in "the incident."

But there was no incident. And how can we know? Well the first way is that if there were any pleasure to be milked out of having a rodent crawl around in one's lower bowels, we'd have pictures of it all over the Internet. If you're brave enough to turn off your Google search filters and actually try and find pictures or video of "gerbil stuffing" you'll be either relieved or disappointed (or perhaps a little of both) to find there aren't any.

But could it even be done? The story usually involves a tube being inserted to allow the gerbil/hamster/mouse past the sphincter. Stranger things have made their way into the lower GI.
Per everyone's favorite skeptical investigator - The Straight Dope Things retrieved (per medical journals) from folks rectal regions include:

A bottle of Mrs. Butterworth's syrup, an ax handle, a nine-inch zucchini, countless dildoes and vibrators including one 14-inch model complete with two D-cell batteries, a plastic spatula, a 9-1/2-inch water bottle, a deodorant bottle, a Coke bottle, a large bottle cap, numerous other bottles, a 3-1/2-inch Japanese glass float ball, an 11-inch carrot, an antenna rod, a 150-watt light bulb, a 100-watt frosted bulb, a cucumber, a screwdriver, four rubber balls, 72-1/2 jeweler's saws (all from one patient, but not all at the same time, although 29 were discovered on one occasion), a paperweight, an apple, an onion, a plastic toothbrush package, two bananas, a frozen pig's tail (it got stuck when it thawed), a ten-inch length of broomstick, an 18-inch umbrella handle and central rod, a plantain encased in a condom, two Vaseline jars, a whiskey bottle with a cord attached, a teacup, an oil can, a six-by-five-inch tool box weighing 22 ounces, a six-inch stone weighing two pounds (in the latter two cases the patients died due to intestinal obstruction), a baby powder can, a test tube, a ball-point pen, a peanut butter jar, candles, baseballs, a sand-filled bicycle inner tube, sewing needles, a flashlight, a half-filled tobacco pouch, a turnip, a pair of eyeglasses, a hard-boiled egg, a carborundum grindstone (with handle), a suitcase key, a syringe, a file, tumblers and glasses, a polyethylene waste trap from the U-bend of a sink, and much, much more.

Wow. And if that list isn't convincing enough - what about this fabulous photo from the medical website "The Radiological Pic of the Day" (sadly on hiatus for lack of submissions - stupid HIPPA laws...) :



But none of these incidents directly addresses the real question - could you put a hamster or a gerbil up your butt? Probably. But it would be unwise to do so. And not just because the animal would interact poorly with the other wildlife already present in most people's colons!



No, it turns out that rodents have sharp and powerful teeth and could rip their way out of your bowels and into your abdomen where they would doubtless give you a nasty case of peritonitis in addition to the internal bleeding.


So even though you might be able to get a cardboard gerbil launcher put together and inserted into your butt - and even if you could construct a small plunger to force the gerbil out of the tube and into the bowels - it is a VERY BAD IDEA TO DO SO.



And even putting other household objects in the bung hole is dangerous and should be avoided. Although medical journals and other sources indicate that the majority of these cases are performed by the mentally ill or the intoxicated, though some were clearly things being stuffed away prior to a jail visit. In one small study (probably not a big enough study to draw good conclusions from) around 20% of the patients who had to go to the ER ended up with either a temporary or permanent colostomy.

On the other hand, if you have to have something up your butt (for whatever reason) there are a variety of reasonably safe latex products which should suit the bill. If you find yourself having these kinds of anal urges it is probably best to get one of these products prior to your next drinking binge or bout with mental illness. I'm no doctor, but if I absolutely had to recommend something to stuff in your butt I'd recommend a rubber or latex butt-plug. (But find out if you have a latex allergy first!!! That's a terrible place to discover your allergy.)

And remember this too: Extended use of even the safest inserted anal-devices can lead to permanent rectal incontinence - per the doctors. (That means your poop door won't stay closed on its own, folks. That's no good.)



Sources:
http://www.snopes.com/risque/homosex/gerbil.asp
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/celebrities/a/richard_gere.htm

http://www.surgerychannel.com/colonresection/index.shtml
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/10/pulling_it_out_of_your_ass.php

What will make my penis bigger?

I hate spam. Hate it. I'm sure lots of people do - but as a webmaster I have lots of catch-all e-mail addresses that point to various domains I own and manage. The result is that I collect all of the spam from the various guess-bots out there throwing unsolicited advertising my way. And what must spammers think of the average Internet user out there?

As near as I can tell, they assume we're all male, we all want to get high, and we all want bigger dicks.

Well, I'm male. I admit that I wouldn't mind getting high were it not for all the health and legal issues that can lead to. And yes, I'd love to have a bigger dick.

The "high" issue can wait for another article - but what about this "penis enlargement" thing?

Is there some way to get a bigger penis? Could ANY of the crap that spammers send me (and the rest of you) actually get you a bigger penis?

The skeptic would like to see more evidence, but the OBVIOUS observation is this: If penis enlargement drugs and equipment worked, every guy would already have an enormous penis. We'd be toting them around in wheelbarrows. If an attractive person walked by we'd tip over. We'd need so much blood to maintain our erections that we'd nearly lose consciousness when aroused, maintaining only enough clarity of mind to perform basic thrusts.

If something like this really worked - REALLY worked - would you need to get it from an unsolicited e-mail? Wouldn't you be able to buy it at Wal-Mart? Or have it issued to you by your doctor when you turn 18?

Penis enlargement drugs and tools don't "really" work - except as a means to separate the male from his cash.

Are there exceptions? Only if you consider an "erection" to equate to "enlargement." We do know that certain drugs (available by prescription) can improve or enable an erection. But that's not what most spammers are advertising.

Let's look at an example of recent marketing:


Hmmm. It's certainly suggestive: giant pole, line of women wanting to sit in lap, etc...

But what is "Natural Male Enhancement?"

The ingredients are a blend of herbs, and are marketed as an herbal remedy. But the commercials have the look and feel of a high-end pharmaceutical. Why's that? Because the guy who marketed Enzyte is a tricky dude.

His name is Steve Warshak and he got sent to the jail house. His scam was simple: Offer a free sample of the product, and then automatically (and deceptively) enroll you in a monthly-fee subscription program. And he did lots of other stuff too. Got 25 years. They don't do hard labor anymore, do they?

Skeptics are the natural enemy of herbal remedies because those remedies are allowed to be marketed outside of clinical trial programs. In other words, they're allowed to be sold as "cures" without any scientific proof that they work.

Does Enzyte or any herbal remedy give you a stiffer, firmer, better quality woody? Well, it depends. Do you think it will? Because in a sexually health adult, a lot of our sexual efficacy is tied directly to our mind's perceptions. If you believe in the power of herbals to give you mighty wood, then perhaps they will. But there is no science (that I could dig up) which supports the hidden advertised service in these products - in other words, no science supports any pills giving you a larger penis beyond what a normal erection would provide.

OK - but what about penis pumps, you may ask?


Surely if they work for Austin "Danger" Powers then they'll work for you, right?

Sorry, lads. There's just no science behind it. Like our friends the herbal stiffeners, Mr. Penis Pump can only provide a psychological boost (and a temporary erection in the pump). There is no medical evidence (according to my research) that these things will actually provide an increase in penis size. But that doesn't mean they're not amusing. So pump away, little soldiers. Pump away.

In the mean time, if you're wondering if your wang is wondrous or wan, why not check out this article on average penis size?

Oh, I almost forgot to answer the titular question:
Q: What will actually make your penis larger?
A: An erection.

A Seminal Event in Urban Legends

There is an urban legend that goes like this:

"Did you hear about [popular rock star]? He got sick and had to be rushed to the hospital. They had to pump his stomach and they found out it had a gallon of semen in it!"

I heard this story in the late 1980's and even though I was no skeptic back then, I still thought the story sounded fishy. I didn't have the resources like www.snopes.com to look up the facts, or the proper reference materials to work out the logistics of such a ridiculous claim.

But I do now. And while Snopes does a nice job of explaining that yes, this is an urban legend, I think a little "show your work" might have been in order. Let's do it here. Right here - right now!

What are the logistics of such a fellatious feat? What do we need to know to figure out whether this story is even possible?

If we go with the most common version of the story that I've heard, we're dealing with a gallon of semen. Snopes mentions 7 ounces, 1 gallon and 10 gallons.

OK, then what's the capacity of the human stomach?

According to my research the human stomach can hold around a liter of food, but can be distended to hold up to 4 liters. (A discomfortable thought.) It turns out that 1 gallon is equal to 3.79 liters - which is very close to the maximum capacity of a stomach. If our story were true, this seems the most likely quantity of man juice. (10 gallons has to be discarded as a hypothesis because it exceeds the maximum possible stomach capacity.)

How big are these numbers?

7 oz = .21 liters = 14 tablespoons
1 gallon = 3.79 liters = 256 tablespoons

According to my research on semen volume, the average ejaculation contains about 5cc of semen.

If the 7 oz story were correct, that would equate to 210 cc - or 42 loads of sploodge.

If the 1 gallon story were correct?
1 liter = 1000 cc
3.79 liters = 3790 cc
3790/5 = 758 ejaculations worth of semen.

If each man came but once into [famous rock star]'s mouth - that's a lot of guys to have to keep a pretty shocking secret. (And it's a long wait in line, too.)

We can presume the real premise of the story is that [famous rock star] is secretly gay and has these huge man orgies where he gives mouth-service to a long line of gentlemen callers. (Snopes calls it a "sour grapes" story.)

Mathematically, the story is just silly. 758 guys didn't stand in line for this. If each oral service session that [famous rock star] had to give lasted a mere 5 minutes, it would take more than 2 and a half days of non-stop sucking. (758 x 5 = 3790 minutes ... 3790 min/60 = 63.16 hours ... 63.16/24 = 2.63 days)

I don't care how dedicated you are, nobody can stay awake sucking cocks for 2.6 days. You have to stop to sleep every now and then, and sooner or later your mouth would get dry or you'd need to go take dump... It's just not feasible.

758 men would probably have difficulty standing in line for 2.6 days too. Of course they could come in shifts.

OK - what if it wasn't other men's sploodge? Like what if [famous rock star] did drink a gallon of semen, but it was his own? Is that possible? Well, based on the 5 cc baseline, if [famous rock star] masturbated once per day into a gallon container, he could achieve the required 758 ejaculations in just over 2 years. Not a completely impossible task, but one wonders whether the 5 cc average could be maintained with a daily ejaculation? (Thanks to alert reader Jeremy for catching my previous math mistake.)

So, the bottom line is that we can safely presume this story to be false, because if it were true over 2.6 days the semen being ingested would be digested and there wouldn't be a gallon of the stuff to pump out at the ER.

But what if it were just 7 oz? That's still 42 loads of sploodge. At 5 mins per blowjob, that still takes [famous rock star] 3 and a half hours of marathon blow job delivery. I suspect there might possibly be people out there who could blow 42 guys in a setting - but [famous rock star] is not one of them. Next time you hear this story or any version of it, you can say, "that story is logistically unlikely to be true." After all, just because you think [famous rock star]'s music sucks, it doesn't necessarily mean that he himself sucks.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

See any errors? Have any comments? Let me know!

Welcome! You've got male!

Hello,

This is a blog where I will be discussing skepticism as applied to adult concepts. This blog is not for children - though it may occasionally be childish. What do I mean by adult concepts? Well, mostly I mean things that have to do with sex. Perhaps these topics are being discussed elsewhere? That's OK. I'm going to discuss them here too.

Until I get my first article put together, piece out.

-DS