© 2018 - Website designed by J.D. Netto Designs

CONTACT

Contact Eric Amaranth to schedule your Skype, phone, or in-person consultation, ask any questions you may have, or for press inquiries. Please check your email address before sending.

 

Eric cannot reply to emails with incorrect email addresses.

Please reload

Recent Posts

I'm busy working on my blog posts. Watch this space!

Please reload

Featured Posts

Vaginal Orgasm, the G-Spot, and Why I Turned My Back On Academic Creds.

March 11, 2019

The Huffington Post article, "The G-Spot And Vaginal Orgasm Are Myths, According To New Clinical Review", by Rebecca Adams draws its information primarily from two sources. The first is Dr. Gail Saltz, a clinical associate professor of psychiatry at New York Presbyterian Hospital. The second is Drs. Vincenzo and Giulia Puppo (married?), who wrote said 'new clinical review' in Clinical Anatomy titled on Wiley Online Library as: "Anatomy of Sex: Revision of the new anatomical terms used for the clitoris and the female orgasm by sexologists."

 

When I examine the findings, assertions, and conclusions of science/academic researchers, there are elements I agree and disagree with. Let's start with what I liked:

 

1. The Puppos' say that G-spot enhancement surgeries are a money-making farce which preys off of sexual ignorance and can cause totally unnecessary complications-- mostly true. The positive claims made by proponents I've talked to who have undergone the procedure say it puts a firm structure inside or behind the female prostate (a.k.a the corpus spongiosum structure surrounding the last inch and a half of the urethra) which improves sensation from G-spot stimulation, makes it easier to achieve G-spot stimulation and in some women G-spot orgasm during intercourse because the female prostate bulges down into the path of the thrusting penis, which adds more stimulation to the penis during intercourse. It is also true, as one could say with any medical procedure, that future or immediate complications can occur. I have also talked to one woman who underwent it and said she has nothing much to write home about, in her case, neither bad nor good. I advise my clients to forgo this avenue and learn the sexual skills necessary to achieve these effects without resorting to risky invasive procedures.

 

2. I agree that, technically, there is no such thing as a G-Spot defined as a single spot that functions the same way in all women. The information I present to my clients is: it is best to scientifically define the G-Spot as the female prostate. There are not one but various methods of stimulating the it. Desirable results almost always improve over time with continued practice. Finally, it's sexier to say G-spot than female prostate.

 

3. The structure and function of the penis can be traced to the same beginning as the clitoris because it was scientifically proven (with strong science, featured in a New York Times article) that the penis forms from the same tissue and enervation as the clitoris when a baby is in the womb. It's good that this news eliminated another layer of sexual ignorance and simultaneously put a spotlight on the related analog of the clitoris to the penis for its role in female orgasm. That said, the Puppo review wasn't specific to that information. It asserted that the clitoris and all of its corresponding internal erectile structure is in effect a "female penis." This is going too far. For one thing, the female clitoral orgasm has different autonomic reaction characteristics from the penile orgasm. Second, the penis has much fewer zones that can be stimulated independently of each other or simultaneously which produce erotically pleasurable sensation; plus different types of orgasm. It also follows a wide-spread trend in the academic sexology and psychology community: shocking oversimplification of female orgasm. 

 

The Puppos' assertion eliminates all usage of orgasm terms specific to their zones of origin and boils it down to down to one designation: female orgasm. That's like waking up one day and we hear on the news that we are to no longer categorize different brain functions with their own designation or purpose-- just call them brain functions. Like I've said before, I will always decry spectacularly idiotic scientists who strive to put the reality of women's sexual function and pleasure potential into a tiny box. Stuff like this is one among several reasons I would not take part solely in academic training and knowledge bases.

 

I tell my clients that the clitoris has its own form and sensation of orgasm distinct from the G-spot. There are blended pleasures that result in better, stronger, or different orgasm sensations when the clitoris and G-spot are stimulated simultaneously. There are also other orgasm-trigger and non-orgasmic erotic pleasure producing zones, plus the combinations of stimulation of those zones accompanying and supporting possibly faster, stronger, or unique female orgasms from other epicenter-zones, as I call them. I teach my clients to create these and call them a G-spot orgasm, a clitoral orgasm, etc. To place every occurrence of a woman's orgasm under one banner is a betrayal of a reality and methodology the Puppos obviously do not understand and have never experienced.

 

4. Back to what little I agree with, both Drs. Puppo and Saltz assert that there is no 'vaginal orgasm'. I agree in the sense that orgasms do not result from friction stimulation provided by a penis or dildo/sex toy during intercourse from the birth canal walls. If orgasms do happen only from vaginal intercourse/stimulation, then in my findings, these orgasms are from stimulation provided to specific orgasm trigger zones that can be stimulated via the particular form of vaginal stimulation being applied within a given woman. For example, a G-spot orgasm triggered from vaginal intercourse alone, which is possible in certain women whose neurology is capable of said climax with that form of stimulation. The vagina, the birth canal, is not the epicenter of that orgasm. The female prostate/G-spot is the epicenter of that orgasm.

 

There are women who can have G-spot orgasms and/or female ejaculation during anal intercourse, but I do not designate that an anal orgasm (the rectum can be an orgasm epicenter in some women and men in the same fashion the vagina is imagined to be capable). There are women who can have a clitoral orgasm during penile-vaginal intercourse because there is secondary friction against the clitoris during coitus. I have had sex with women who can do this and with women who can have anal sex-induced rectal orgasm and/or female ejaculations. Neither I nor those women would oversimplify those orgasms down to 'female orgasms' because their epicenters can be felt in different locations and the pleasures are distinct. There is another trend in sex therapy and education to call everything a 'female orgasm' because it hurts some women's feelings when they can't have, at present or ever, a given kind of orgasm. What about the women who can have them? They should just shrink back into the darkness from wence they came? If we throw specificity out the window, we cling to ignorance and if we do that, we never gain the ability to bring about the full erotic potential of human female sexual anatomy and capability.

 

More misinformation in these articles:

 

1. Nowhere in the Huffington Post article featuring Dr. Saltz' assertions nor in the review by the Puppos do you read a single mentioning of the presence, or lack thereof, of the nerves enervating the sexual anatomy of the clitoris or G-spot/female prostate/ urinary sponge. Years ago, I learned from another group of sex scientists that the nerve structures of the female prostate/G-spot and clitoris had been mapped out. According to them, the clitoris is enervated by the external genital nerve. The G-spot is enervated by both the external genital nerve and the pelvic nerve. This sharing of the two nerve pathways to the spine and brain that run throughout the female genitals is the reason cited for how the G-spot orgasm feels related to, but different from clitoral orgasms as well as having different types of autonomic muscle movements and pleasure sensations leading up to and at the time of orgasm. The male prostate is enervated by the pelvic nerve alone, according to certain scientific sources. The female prostate is the only orgasm trigger zone that has both.

 

I find highly dubious an anatomist, his biology department-employed wife, and a psychiatrist making big claims when they present no understanding about the central nervous system's structure and role in women's genitals. We see here how one camp of scientists discounts another. One section of Puppos' paper says it outright:

 

"The claims by Frank Addiego, Beverly Whipple, Emmanuele Jannini, Odile Buisson, Helen O'Connell, Adam Ostrzenski, Susan Oakley, Christine Vaccaro, Journal of Sexual Medicine/Irwin Goldstein, Barry Komisaruk, Stuart Brody, Chiara Simonelli, and others, have no scientific basis (Puppo, 2013a, 2014b)."

 

As I've written on in the past, when the public sees new study results, we read them and assume the source is the latest and most accurate. Sometimes this is the case, but maybe it is not. The problem is, most people make decisions based on the latest thing they've seen. I've been guilty of it too because the mind wants to shorthand facts as we go about fulfilling the core responsibilities of our daily lives.

 

So, who is right? Are Puppos and Saltz right? Are the scientists that disagree with them right? Is Eric Amaranth right?  I can speak for myself and say, if you have the time, read what each has to say. If you don't, decide which source nets you the best results for your sex life in the real world. It would be great if Dr. Saltz and the Puppos became clients of mine. A woman psychologist who wasn't a sex therapist worked with me and last I heard is having the time of her life in bed.

 

2. The worst thing I read from the Puppos' paper. I quote:

 

"Orgasms with a finger in the vagina are possible in all women, but the partner must also move the hand in a circle to stimulate all the female erectile organs (Fig. 10) (from Puppos, 2011a, 2014b). Figure 10. Stimulation of the female penis with finger in vagina can produce orgasms in all women if the partner also moves the hand (Puppo, 2011a, 2014a,b)."

 

My mouth dropped and I LOL'ed hard after reading this. There are seven total erectile tissue structures that can be stimulated independently, which Puppo refers to as, "all the female erectile organs". I presume the clitoris isn't involved in the intravaginal circling. So, I'm supposed to stir her vagina with my finger and this will flawlessly produce "female orgasms" in ALL women? How about we start with pulling this off with just one woman, then move on to all of them. (You'll noticed that you can email Vincenzo, but not Giulia.)

 

This alone is the biggest smoking gun proving Puppo's jackassery. For reasons unknown, this claim was omitted from the Huff Post article. Maybe the writer didn't read that far into it.

 

Let's give Vincenzo (let's call him Vinny) the benefit of the doubt. Once again, Vinny is very vague on how to do this intra-vaginal circling. How fast? How deep? How much pressure? For how long? Can I do it with my dick? Do I hold my dick with my hand and stir or do I clench my PC muscles and hula-hoop it?

 

Not only is this off the chain, but Vinny doesn't provide his readers with the details on how to do the technique correctly, or with variation, so that it will work with all women. The best I can possibly say about Vinny's claims is he concludes (I paraphrase) by saying all the vasocongestive (and sexually enervated) parts of a given woman's genitals have to be stimulated/addressed to maximize her erotic pleasure potential. That's true, a woman does need to try out each one and develop the function of the ones she prefers, but his circling method as he describes it in his paper that I had to pay $7 to download is definitely not the way to do that for all women. 

 

How can a academically-trained, tenured professional working at a hallowed Italian university be wrong? I submit this as another piece of evidence to explain why I chose to spend ten years doing my sex life coach training with sex coach, Betty Dodson, plus my own investigations and "research"; why I didn't spend thousands on a degree from academia just so I could fit into the big lie out there that only sex therapists and academicians should be in the business of enhancing sex lives in the real world.

 

Let's turn the focus to Dr. Gail Saltz. Her statements, in my opinion, basically mirrored Vinny's, with no mention of neurological understanding either, but she did say that the clitoral stimulation accompanied by penile-vaginal intercourse was a consistent path to female orgasm. I agree, but she did not give credit to the clitoris as the focal point of the orgasm with sexually pleasurable, penile-vaginal stimulation in a support and pleasure-blend role.

 

Throughout my mentorship years with Betty Dodson, we spent so much time trying to get through to sex therapists about the need for combining direct clitoral stimulation with intercourse; not indirect or happenstance-accidental stimulation (as I mentioned earlier, which triggers clitoral orgasm for a minority of women, but often not consistently nor throughout their lifetimes) done so that ignorant ego-driven (and Freud-influenced) men could believe it was the-penis-and-nothing-but-the-penis making her orgasm.

 

Betty told me that psychologists of the time claimed that would make hubby mad, so better to keep women's sexuality obscured than do that. The extent to which the majority of the psychology community still coddles, upholds, and fears ignorant, angry male ego in abject sacrifice of what their women clients deserve will always be for me a major disappointment in the psychotherapy and couples therapy method.

 

Dr. Saltz, who appears to me to be of the more traditional belief set, stated publicly about the usefulness of rubbing the clitoris in combo with intercourse! That is to be applauded,  but there's more that she's throwing out with the bath water. Let's look at these quotes in-particular from the Rebecca Adams article, which I will address as they appear:

 

Saltz also noted that much of the recent data on female arousal centers around how a woman feels psychologically, rather than physically -- feeling "loved," "attractive" or "safe."

 

This is complicated. She's semi-right, but oversimplifying and dragging female sexuality back into the jaws of ignorance. First of all, this is old data. Many of us already know that if a woman feels she is loved, desired, and safe with a given partner, male or otherwise, it makes it easier for her to get and stay aroused and get more aroused. That said, there are plenty of women who don't need to be loved by or feel safe with their sexy partners to get aroused by, want to fuck, and hopefully have big orgasms with them.

 

Saltz is wrong, like too many psychology-trained professionals, that the brain always trumps and is superior to the physical. Trust me. If your sex skills with the female body are strong, her female arousal will rise dramatically because of how amazing what you're doing to her feels which pulls her mind right along with her body. I tell women clients to concentrate on the high-quality foreplay their bodies are feeling (from masturbation or a partner) and don't wait to be horny to have sex. Let's get real. Women are human. If something feels good and it doesn't stop or screw up too much, lots of arousal and erotic pleasure/orgasms tend to follow. The tapestry is more varied than the traditional loved, desired, and safe model.

 

As for the women who do claim to achieve orgasm from "...G-spot" stimulation? More power to you," Saltz said. But she also said that "being so singularly goal-oriented toward orgasm may not be the most direct route to pleasure." That's a put-down to those striving for their best sexual pleasure and an admittance that she doesn't know how to guide a woman to her G-spot orgasm.

 

I could assume Dr. Saltz is not interested in learning more than she already knows and what her psychiatry training taught her. If women across the planet are going to yoga, pilates, and gym workouts day after day, with goals but also loving the trip there, you're telling me that we shouldn't ever utilize goal-orientation for a woman's sex life? She should accept what is instead of strive?

 

A quick but related tangent: when I was in college, I asked the psychology professor in charge of the human sexuality class if sexual pleasure and orgasm enhancement methods are taught in the class. He laughed and said no. I asked him how much that was covered in his psychology-based human sexuality training which would be taught to a client by a sex therapist. He said scant and basic information, if I recall correctly. I knew people needed more sex skill info, not less, and an academic background wouldn't grant me the wealth of information and competency that I wanted for myself and future clients. 

 

Saltz goes on: "The way that we talk about it in society, many women feel that [orgasm] is what they're supposed to do and that that would be the supreme success of the encounter. But most women do report that it's the closeness; it's the shared intimacy; and, of course, the physical arousal is pleasurable by itself.

 

I agree that some men pressure their female partners to have an orgasm with them (or lie about it) to appease egos that are informed by nothing but locker room talk, movies, and bad porn. However, we also can't tell all women to de-value their orgasms during partnersex, settle for cuddle sex, and whatever tip-of-the-iceberg pleasures she can get from sex that hos no setup or info for improvement. Women who are sexually skilled and/or with partners who are skilled get their orgasms, the intimate cuddle sex, and simple sexual pleasures included with the total package. Why settle for less?

 

 If you follow Saltz's advice, then women (and their partners) will  go to their graves like countless women before, completely ignorant of women's astounding, multi-faceted, sexual pleasure system. 

 

In conclusion, women should be excited over this news and pursue it as a truly adult adventure. Men should throw out the old garbage they were fed for generations and get the best info possible. I'm writing as a man who did precisely this, defied conventionality, and have had a high-quality sex life ever since. The academic world couldn't give this to me and my clients. The best lovers alive today aren't among the tenured psychology, or sexology faculty at esteemed universities. I think it would be great if they were, but their course material has to greatly change. Maybe someone will give them a grant to train with me or another sex coach.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Please reload

Follow Us