Updated: Aug 31
There is some good info and long-overdue statements made in the Cosmopolitan article, "The G-Spot Doesn't Exist" by Elizabeth Kiefer. However, this blog will describe why I respectfully disagree with the article's assertion that the G-spot (G-Zone, the "G", the Goddess Spot) is not a legitimate source of sexual pleasure and orgasm for a large percentage of women.
What you're about to read is based on my over twenty years of direct sexual experience with and research on the G-Spot. I sometimes say to clients that it took me ten years to understand the G-Spot's functionality to a level that I felt comfortable with instructing others. New things appear occasionally too, so my knowledge base continues to expand.
This would be a very long blog if I told you my full G-Spot story, so I'll respond to key points made in the article:
"A teensy half-inch ribbed nub on the upper front wall of your vagina... (sex authorities) reported that it was a universal key to The Mysterious Female Orgasm...."
To say it was a universal key to female orgasm reminds me of what I and my sex coach mentor Betty Dodson faced with the clitoris vs G-Spot info wars way back at the start of my apprenticeship in 1999. Most of the women who taught G-Spot stimulation skills had a habit of proclaiming it to be a bigger orgasm than what could be had from the clitoris and, as indicated later in the Cosmo article, the way you gave a woman a "vaginal" orgasm during intercourse with a penis or dildo. As the article mentions, men (and certain women too) loved the idea because it gave the penis sole responsibility for triggering her orgasm. I've never had a problem with the concept of a cock soloing a form of female orgasm from vaginal penetration alone as long as it was, you know, legit and replicable. That was another issue Betty and I had to rein in. My bullet points:
The G is a cylinder-shaped mass of erectile tissue that is wrapped around the last two or so inches of the urethra. It is enervated, according to a science study I was shown years ago by a psychology-trained sex therapist, by branches of the pudendal nerve and pelvic nerve. It responds most consistently to palpation-style, pressure stimulation. In the case of a well-developed G (I'll explain what that means below), friction stimulation via a penis can produce G-Spot orgasm. Very high rates of friction or tugging with fingers can trigger female ejaculation/squirting but most often not accompanied by G-Spot specific orgasm. There are exceptions and variances in effective stimulation from woman to woman as well.
It is not true that the G-Spot's orgasmic intensity is always stronger than that of the clitoris in all women all the time. The clitoris has the capacity for as big or as small an orgasm as the G. In my and Betty's view, the clitoris deserves to be characterized as a key to female orgasm before the G-Spot does. Betty and I fought for this to be heard for a long time. The G-Spot is for the majority of women a more complex source for orgasm and therefore should be developed after clitoral orgasms are in the bag.
My consistent experience is you first must have enough practice sessions with your G-Spot for the G's unique pleasure to "awaken", as Tantric sex practitioners say. The next step is further awakening to the point where G orgasms occur. The G orgasm is a differentiated orgasmic ability from the clitoris. One advanced skill set I teach is combining a clitoral orgasm with a G orgasm.
Why doesn't the G work out of the box? You could say that most G's start like the eyes of people who have vision restored. The brain hasn't had to use the eyes in a long time or never used this functionality, so vision is barely present, cloudy, etc. Time has to be put in to bring full functionality online.
To facilitate this, a woman must get good quality G stimulation how-to info, what sensations to expect along the way to help chart the course, and either a good G toy for solo practice and/or partner who: commits to getting it right, and is always open to the woman's feedback of what needs to change at any moment.
Yes, there are women whose first time G sessions create immediate pleasurable feelings in that zone. They may or may not go all the way to G orgasm during that first session. Those women were always showcased in G-Spot books and it made it seem that this was much easier to achieve than it is. My best answer to why this happens in a minority of women is she was given a gift or won another version of the gene lottery. It would fit into the category of what I call sex superpowers. These are intrinsic abilities that don't need development. They work right out of the box or very soon thereafter.
You are normal if you can play with your G to orgasm the first time, or to pleasure but not the O, or neither. It's simply where a woman naturally falls along the spectrum of G-Spot sensitivity. There's a part of this article that describes women not feeling "normal" if their G's didn't work like their friend's (allegedly) did (yes, women are human and sometimes like to fib to look good socially... just like men do.) I tell my clients that worrying about being normal isn't what they should be focusing their minds on. They have to visualize and desire the extraordinary for their sex lives and bodies, not normalcy.
There is a section near the end of the article describing a couple who went to a sex therapist learn how to have a G orgasm. The woman, Beth, had heard the G climax was the end-all (there's that G-Spot superiority bullshit again) and she wanted it. Her desire wasn't the problem. The problem was the poor guidance of the therapist. She was instructed to use a doggy-style intercourse position with her man and it failed, so they gave up. My response:
The first books and how-to videos that came out on the G claimed that doggy is the best position for G stim during intercourse. This position can create increased friction on the G, but only when the penetrator knows to do an additional technique to assure that extra friction. That said, intercourse positions where the penis/dildo moves back and forth parallel to the normal line of penetration into the vagina are the least efficient at producing sufficient G stim because there is no direct pressure applied. If you want that ideal, 99% of women and their partners will have to work toward that goal over a long period of using pressure stimulation techniques and maybe never get there once other factors are introduced.
The most efficient way to do G stim, especially in beginners, is with fingers or a proper sex toy using that repeat upward pressure stim as is described in most G teaching sources. Various forms and degrees of pressure that depend on the level of arousal/erection of the G (the cylindrical mass I told you about), not friction, is the stimulation type that the G responds most favorably to. There are advanced intercourse methods to stimulate the G with the penis using a direct pressure method, but that's beyond the scope of this blog.
The first time I had sex with a woman whose G orgasmed with female ejaculation/squirting simultaneously was in female superior position. She had a very specific technique of rubbing her G zone in short quick thrusts back and forth over my cockhead; that rare but voraciously sought-after friction-only G-gasm ability. We'll call her Rachel. She was the only woman I've had sex with who could do this and do it multiple times. She told me she spent years solo-stimulating this zone because it felt great for her from the first try and that her clitoris felt less interesting. Rachel started on the "it feels good" point of the spectrum, but she wasn't immediately G-spot orgasmic until one day it happened, and then happened more and more often. Development over time and practice was required.
There is a great book called Women's Anatomy of Arousal by Sherri Winston that of course wasn't referenced by this article. Its assertions correspond most accurately to what I teach on the G-Spot and other internal erogenous zones. I went to one of her workshops too.
The article goes on to mention: What everyone can agree on is that we need more research. Women’s sexual health is vastly understudied, and the scientific hurdles are borderline absurd. In 2015, Prause tried to get a trial going at UCLA that would study orgasms in women who were, you know, actually alive. The board heard her out but wanted a promise that her test subjects “wouldn’t climax” because they didn’t like the optics of women orgasming in their labs. (As you’ve already guessed, the study wasn’t approved.)
This is an example of a good bit of evidence as to why I decided to train with Betty Dodson instead of academia. Academics are hamstrung several different ways from the start. They have proven to me over the years to be seldom capable of doing strong studies on women's sexual pleasure functionality. It's not always their fault, but I couldn't wait for academia to catch up to my mentor. I'd add to this a story on what the psychology professor in charge of teaching the human sexuality class at my alma mater said to me when I asked if his class taught established methods of sexual pleasure stimulation: No.
The last bit of this article I want to weigh in on is this:
“What would truly be revolutionary for women’s sex lives is to engage with what research has found all along: the best predictors of sexual satisfaction are intimacy and connection,” adds Debby Herbenick, PhD, a professor at Indiana University School of Public Health and a research fellow at the Kinsey Institute.
Statements like these, especially from sources of academic sex education, set back humanity developing greater sexual sophistication. They affirm the poisonous myth circulating in society: "You don't need sexual skills. You just need cuddling, affection, and love." That's like saying you don't need the cake part of the cupcake, you just need the icing, sprinkles, and candle. Icing is great, but alone it is not a cupcake. It's also a statement that condemns those who enjoy sex for its own erotic sake and the appreciation felt by many for that. It's a picket fence statement popular with the sexually ignorant and endemic to most academic sex sources.
I don't know what Debby does in her bedroom. Maybe she's a sex goddess in bed and can't talk like me without being asked to resign from her academic position. Maybe she teaches private clients high-quality sex skills too. But when I hear statements like these, I can only respond with, "You just revealed your ignorance of how to craft the enormous, reason-to-live-for pleasures and sweet intimacy that great sexual skill sets create. You failed to show them how to bake, ice, sprinkle, indulge in, and love a proper cupcake. Do better, teacher."
I thank Nagoski and Cosmo for pointing out the crap that asshole men say to women in defensive egotism, and the mad rush toward the vaginal orgasm that throws all other female sexual capabilities beneath it, but the G is real. It just takes more dedication and information to open that locket. I remember when I was at the stage when I didn't understand why when one sex skill I performed worked on one woman and didn't on another. The difference between me and those men is that I wanted to get better than I was and understand more deeply than I did.