Continue reading »]]>

So for those of you who don’t follow the blog on Facebook (and, shameless plug, you should ), the past two days have consisted of sporadic and (hopefully) entertaining installments of my picture series Letters to Rush (from reasonable people). (Oooh, look at that-I italicized it like it’s in a museum or something). I think this is some of the most fun I’ve had with the blog, because it is empowering to make light of crazy, nut-job, sex-hating speech and not take it to heart. It feels insane sometimes to have to advocate so hard (HA!) for something that seems as natural as providing people the information they need to make informed, healthy sexual decisions, so it’s nice to take a break once in a while.

Here is the (more or less) complete collection for your enjoyment.

I’m hoping to do another satirical campaign sometime in the near future so – keep your eyes open! Keep fighting the good fight, people.

Continue reading »]]>

I spent last week having a bit of a hiatus from the blog, which provided me ample time to think about whether I wanted to write something regarding Rush Limbaugh’s abominable personal attack against Sandra Fluke. In case you’ve somehow missed this, Fluke is a Georgetown University law student who delivered an impassioned and important speech to Democratic House Representatives about why affordable contraception is important, using personal examples of the damage she has seen wrought from the current cost-prohibitive nature of certain birth control pills that are often prescribed for reasons other than contraception. Rush Limbaugh, paid spokesperson for the nation’s right-wing crazies and spawn of the Pillsbury Doughboy and a hive of intolerant fire ants, responded by calling Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute,” who was asking the good people of our nation to pay for her sex life (since asking for coverage for contraception, in Limbaugh’s “mind,” equates to having “so much sex she can’t afford it”). He went further, even suggesting that since she wanted the government to pay for contraception, she should be required to release sex tapes so that “we can all watch.”  Yes, all that really happened.

He has since “apologized,” or whatever the appropriate term would be when a 10-year-old boy trapped in a 61-year-old’s body is smacked on the wrist in the form of losing endorsement dollars and forced to walk across the playground and mutter something that sounds contrite while staring at the ground.

Now, I wasn’t sure whether or not I actually wanted to dignify all of this with a comment. For one thing, Rush Limbaugh is simply an entertainer. He is paid (and gets attention) by saying things that normal people find shocking and inappropriate, whether they agree with the sentiment or not. He’s always been that way. The man is openly racist, sexist, homophobic, and hateful of anyone underprivileged  – and he gets paid to talk about it. Am I shocked he called someone a “slut” on national radio? Sure. Am I really? Eh…

But the thing that sticks with me is that Sandra Fluke made an elegant argument about contraception as prescribed for conditions other than, well, contraception. The Pill has many medical benefits beyond allowing women to control their fertility, and it was in an attempt to avert the issues of female sexual liberties that Fluke constructed her argument. It was a safer choice. Do I wish someone had made a case for the value of contraception merely as contraception? Yes I do. But Fluke didn’t do that, and I understand why. It’s because she’s getting a law degree. She wants to have a career. She went before the House to speak about something she believed in, and this pompous, privileged hate-monger has mangled her words in attempt to sexualize and therefore undermine her. Will Rush survive this backlash? Unfortunately, I think he will. But Sandra Fluke, regardless of whether or not she is an “activist,” how now been forever linked with this jackass and his caustic livelihood. Her professional career will always be colored by the fact that Rush Limbaugh used her as an example to all women who dare to speak up about contraception, even when discussing it outside of the context of sex.

So I created this in honor of Sandra Fluke. Because in my opinion, the best way to combat syndicated crazy is with some good old-fashioned laughs.

 Letters to Rush, from reasonable people:

Keep your eyes peeled for these – I’ll be releasing them on the Facebook Page today and tomorrow. If you like, share ‘em! Plus, if you have suggestions, comment on the blog or on Facebook! I’d be happy to make a million of these.

Continue reading »]]>

Welcome back after my week-long hiatus from blogging! I felt strangely free but also really disconnected from the world.

Today’s Sex Question Monday is just a fun one. Is there one song that immediately gets you in the mood for sex? How about immediately out of the mood?

Anything sung by Adam Sandler would probably make me horny but confused.

Continue reading »]]>

Oh Rick Santorum. You are insane. Your views seem to be stuck in the ’90′s–the 1890′s, that is. You are ineloquent. You are a homophobe. You are ignorant. You don’t believe in privacy, and despite your claims of conservationism, you are all for the government regulating our personal sex lives. You don’t seem to believe in science, seeing as you think global warming is a myth, that homosexuality is contagious, and that the theory of evolution is inaccurate. You, a man who has lived comfortably his whole life, asserts that “suffering is a part of life” and condone condemning the poor and the elderly to suffer with your rabid desire to dismantle both Medicare and Medicaid. Yes, you are nothing more than a man-shaped bread bowl of  crazy chowder. And yet, with yet another eye-roll-inducing interview, you’ve actually won me over.

The man himself, waxing eloquent about “sex specialness.”

Not that I’d ever vote for you, of course, but that I finally see the silver lining to your very existence (besides the hilarity of your Google problem).

In a recent interview, Rick Santorum decided it would be appropriate for him to discuss his views on sex. Instead of summarizing his thoughts, I’m just going to let the man speak for himself:

One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea… It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal… but also procreative.

That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure.

Sounds insane, right? A man who wants to be the President of the United States of America (and therefore have the world’s largest and arguably most dangerous military at his fingertips) thinks it’s his business to tell you how to make your sex life “special.” Never mind that there are actual professionals who have trained for years to help you do that, Rick Santorum thinks that he’s the only person standing between America and complete sexual anarchy and “unspecialness.” What evidence does he have? I don’t know – I guess the Bible? We’ll just have to trust him.

So why am I actually happy that ol’ Santory has come out and said this stuff? Well, if you take away the ignorance, homophobia, and overall “holier than thou” attitude, what Santorum has done here is actually pretty important. He has come out and said that he’s not just against abortion. Or access to sexual health care. Or Planned Parenthood. Or contraception. He has now made it official – he is against people having sex in a way that he doesn’t think is “special.”

This is such a fucking relief.

Of late, the insane attacks on women’s rights, abortion, Planned Parenthood and more have seemed relentless and extreme. We’ve faced increasing cuts to Planned Parenthood, even from fellow women’s health organizations. We’ve seen numerous states attempt to push through “personhood” laws or laws requiring medically unnecessary ultrasounds before abortions. Santorum has finally been open about what all this is – it is not just about “the right of the unborn.” We are witnessing an epic war on sex.

Good thing, too, because I certainly can’t be trusted to decide when sex would be special to me.

This explains it. Restricted access to abortion. Abstinence-only education. No access to affordable contraception for anyone. I mean, we all know it. But Santorum had the gall to actually say it. He wasn’t pretending to care about embryos’ rights or women’s mental or physical health. He simply thinks he can do a better job than we can running our own sex lives. He, and only he, knows when it’s specialest.

I hope that we can all take a minute and appreciate this. Finally, someone’s being honest about his motives. They’re crazy motives, but still. In a land of hand waving, smoke screening and deception, Rick Santorum thinks that he can come out and say that we shouldn’t be trusted to make our own sexual decisions, and he still thinks he’s electable. In a country in which 98% of PRACTICING Catholic women have at one point used contraception, he thinks that we’ll all roll over and say, you know what? You’re right Rick. Please tell me how to have a meaningful sex life. I’m sure you know best.

I am pro-choice, pro-access to affordable contraception, and pro-Planned Parenthood. But more importantly, I am pro-sex. I think people should be trusted to make their own decisions about sex, provided that they are given medically accurate information (ie not abstinence only). This is the fight I’ve been fighting all this time, and I’m glad Santorum has finally decided to step into the ring. He seems willing to re-frame this debate to be about our rights to make our own sexual decisions, and I can’t wait. Because I think everyone, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum, can appreciate a potential attack on their sexual liberty. And, also, a pretty obvious insult to their intelligence. I know when sex is special, Rick. Belieeeeeve me. I can tell.

Continue reading »]]>

Happy Tuesday all! Here is yet-another Sex Question Monday Tuesday, seeing as yesterday was a day devoted to honoring the Presidents and sleep.

Today, we’re talking about faking orgasms. Have you faked them? How do you decide when to take them? And on the flip side, have you ever been faked on? How can you tell?

And then of course the great philosophical question – is there a benefit to faking orgasms?

Do you really mean that sheet-grasping?

Continue reading »]]>

I personally don’t like the word “rant.” I think it has something of a dismissive connotation – you only need to rant to make yourself feel better. This is why today’s post is not a rant, but rather a cogent diatribe directed against the increasingly obvious affronts to women in the government and the media. Our politicians don’t appear to be concerned about our opinions or experiences and this sentiment has recently been echoed in the popular media.

I’m sure you are all familiar with the recent controversy over Obama’s healthcare legislation including a clause that required employers to provide contraceptive coverage free-of-charge for female employees. This is, in my opinion, a no brainer. More access to contraception leads to a few great things: fewer unplanned pregnancies, fewer abortions, and less worries for sexually active couples (read: happier workers). Of course it was not to be without objection, as key Republicans and a group of Catholic Bishops claimed that this coverage was a violation of religious freedom (even though churches and strictly religious organizations are already exempt). The Obama administration adapted the policy to reflect their objections, and the policy now exempts any religiously affiliated institution from providing coverage to their employees. However – insurance companies will now have to step up and offer free contraception coverage to the workers of these institutions, thereby offering a pretty damn good compromise.

Opponents to birth control and sex don’t see it that way, however, and there has been a push to extend this exemption to every business owner who has a religious opposition to providing birth control. Additionally, the Catholic Bishops fired back that the compromise was unacceptable because the “cost of providing those services was born somewhere.” (Ha – born. I get it).

In a hearing on the matter, Republican House member Darrell Issa (who is the chair of the House Oversight Committee) organized a two panels of religious leaders to speak before the House Oversight committee. He denied the Democrats their chosen representative for the committee, a female student at Georgetown Law, because he claimed that this hearing was about “religious freedom,” not contraception, therefore a woman’s perspective wasn’t needed. Two Democratic congresswomen left the room in protest. Now, in popular media this event is being mischaracterized. It is being described as a panel to determine birth control benefits for women, and Issa is being skewered for actively omitting women. This isn’t what happened. This panel was titled: “Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?” It is not billed as “Do women need birth control?” What is egregious is not the absence of women on the panel (in fact, two women were included on the second panel). What is egregious, in my opinion, is completely removing the “religious freedom” aspect of this discussion from the actual real-life context in which it lies. What is egregious is the absence of doctors, public health experts, women’s health experts, and reproductive rights representatives, not simply “women.”

The infamous “where are the women?” panel

I don’t think it matters which side of the issue you support. What’s important is that women are being treated as though they are merely a battlefield for a political debate, instead of the sentient, relevant, voting human beings that we are. Yes, freedom of religion is a part of our Constitution and thus should be considered (note that I say considered not consecrated) when laws are being written and approved. However, to act as though a woman’s opinion has no bearing on a debate surrounding contraceptive coverage for women is to make a mockery of legislation and instead turn Congress into a national stage upon which the well-connected get to preach their values in a vacuum completely removed from society.

What we are discussing here is NOT simply the question of should the administration be allowed to tell enormous, religiously affiliated institutions to provide coverage that goes against the religious beliefs associated with the institution, but rather how far does “religious freedom” actually go, and should it allow employers to deny their employees health coverage that the government sees as comprehensive because it violates their beliefs?

This is about women being given the opportunity to have access to free birth control, which has been designated a part of “comprehensive health care” by the Institutes of Medicine, and whether or not an institution can opt out of offering this option to its employees because the faith of the institution (and not necessarily the employees) views this as a sin. Mind you, no one in the administration is forcing anyone to use this benefit, but the objection is around the idea of an affiliated institution offering a service that is counter to their underlying beliefs. Of note is the fact this this is not only about birth control – this would allow religious organizations to prohibit coverage of vasectomies or sterilizations within consenting couples who no longer want to have children.

As surprising as this is, I can see both sides of the issue. I think in the end all people should be offered a standard definition of health care regardless of where they work, and religions should trust their faithful to make their own decisions regarding contraception. It would be beyond the pale for a Christian Science-affiliated institution to make the case that because all modern medicine is against their religion, they should be exempt from offering all employees any type of health care, and to me this is just a logical extension of this line. Someone has to decide what comprehensive health care is, and I believe that should lie with the government and medicine and not religion, which is based on a text that was written before effective birth control was even on the horizon. However, I can see how a religious institution would be resistant to the government essentially instructing them to condone what they believe is a sin. The nitty-gritty of this issue is not the point, however. What is the point is politicians using women’s bodies as a battlefield for their ideologies while simultaneously shutting out their opinions.

This wouldn’t be an issue if many people, many of them women, felt that contraception was unimportant. The population would side with the doctrine of religious freedom, and the administration would cave. However, this is an extremely important issue for many, many people (many of them religious). The ability to have a satisfying sex life without the worry of an unintended pregnancy can be extremely important. Women, the people who bear the brunt of the reproductive consequences of unprotected sex, are being forced out of this discussion because including the opinion of women would bring this issue from the theoretical realm of “religious freedom” and into the very real realm of “many women want and even need access to contraception, and here is why.” We are not only discussing religious freedom. This debate is in the context of women’s reproductive rights. We are weighing a perceived breach of religious freedom with the right of American citizens to expect comprehensive health care regardless of where they are employed.

Denying women the right to speak on this issue because it’s “about religious freedom” is ignorant and demeaning. It is NOT only about religious freedom. It is about religious freedom in the context of reproduction and contraception. It is about religious freedom versus the astronomical cost of birth control that is suffered quietly by women and their partners of ALL RELIGIONS. It is about our country waking up to the reality that while a vocal, vocal minority of people are against the right to sexual expression, the majority of us aren’t (and that includes many people of faith). And that we support the right to choose whether or not to have sex. And that the resistance to this fact in the name of “religious freedom” has caused this country to have one of the highest rates of unwanted pregnancy and new HIV infection in the developed world. So don’t tell me this is only a debate about religious freedom. My body will not be your battlefield upon which to preach your beliefs. Religious freedom does not exist outside of the context in which it is being challenged. To omit women’s voices on the issue of reproductive health and to focus only on the religious side of the debate is to remove this discussion from reality and the nuance of real life. This is not only about how outraged religious leaders are. This is also about the right of the American people to expect comprehensive health care from their employers, regardless of whether they work for a religiously affiliated institution. It’s an interesting debate, and I hope that someday soon we actually have it.

Continue reading »]]>

I recently received a reader question that I am more than happy to answer:

What are your favorite sex/sexhealth/relationship blogs?

There are so many incredible blogs that address these issues that I could never reference all of them. However, here are a few of my personal favorites:

http://www.metanotherfrog.com I love this site for so many reasons, and not just because they’ve let me guest post a couple of times. Unabashedly sex-positive, incredibly creative and fun, plus they have connections with some of the best sex positive writers and thinkers around. Their following is growing rapidly, and for good reason. A great blog with a great message, they’ve got to be one of my all-time favorites. Also, you would be remiss not to follow them on Twitter (@metanotherfrog). Their Oh-So-Sex-Positive Weekly newsletter is typically the highlight of my week.

www.uncommonappetites.blogspot.com Caveat – SO not safe for work. However, if you want a no-holds barred look into a really healthy, loving, and sexually adventurous marriage look no further. This young couple artfully documents their sex lives in an incredibly inspiring way. They also respond to reader questions. I’m all about this blog right now.

www.scarleteen.com Full of honest, well-researched, and teen-friendly sex ed. Great site.

http://max-logic.com Max is a great writer who’s not afraid to go there. She addresses reader questions and issues on her mind with a refreshing frankness. She also writes (or hosts writers who write) elaborately sexy stories that will really brighten up your day. I mean really. For down-to-earth, no nonsense advice about sex, love, relationships, and much else, she’s well worth a look.

www.kinkacademy.com This site requires a subscription to view the videos, but I find that even just perusing the topics can be inspiring and very encouraging. It’s always nice to see what other people enjoy.

Now, for feminist/women’s issues, I have another group of sites I frequent. I know this wasn’t your question but I’m going to list them anyway.

www.rhrealitycheck.org A great site devoted to keeping an eye on reproductive rights.

http://www.womensmediacenter.com Excellent site that monitors sexism in the media. The extent of it will make your skin crawl. Also great to follow on Twitter since they host a weekly feminist discussion with the #sheparty hashtag: @womensmediacntr

www.doublex.com Slate’s online women’s blog – some great writers contribute.

Those are my current favorites, but there are always more blogs to check out. If you have some personal favorites, give a shout in the comments!

Sex blogs specifically

Continue reading »]]>

A few weeks ago, Jezebel published a review of a study recently published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine. The study’s title is: Is the G-Spot Truly a Distinct Anatomic Entity? The post on Jezebel mistakenly reported the study as concluding, once and for all, that a distinct anatomical area in the anterior (read: front) wall of the vagina that is extra-sexually-sensitive does not exist. The author of Jezebel’s post rejoiced, claiming that instead of facing pressure to find that one perfect “spot,” we women can now appreciate that instead we have a sexually relevant “zone.” Aren’t we just so gosh darn lucky?

Having read the study in its entirety, however, I can’t imaging coming away from it with such a chipper attitude. The science isn’t wholly objectionable – the authors detail the findings of representative studies from their collection and do a decent job of presenting results on both sides of the issue. They detail three studies that found a higher level of nerve concentration during biopsies of the anterior wall of the vagina, but counter with one study that was unable to replicate these findings. They discuss that women who report having g-spot orgasms also report being “higher than average” in terms of sexual sensation. They actually conclude with the interesting and agreeable proposition that: “Whether the G-spot actually exists is probably less interesting than the search and desire for its existence.” Their overall conclusion? “The distal part of the anterior vaginal wall appears to be the most sensitive region of the vagina, yet the existence of an anatomical “G-spot” on the anterior wall remains to be demonstrated. Objective investigative measures…still fail to provide irrefutable evidence for the G-spot’s existence.” So essentially, there appears to be a sensitive area of the vagina, but not an identifiable “spot” that causes pleasure.

I don’t have a problem with that conclusion. I think, in fact, that it would be a nice break for people to stop thinking of sex in terms of “pressing the right buttons” and instead appreciate that changes in blood flow, breathing, mood, arousal, or even the temperature of a room can change which parts of the body want which type of stimulation. Okay, fine, so there isn’t a “G-Spot” with a subtle neon sign over its mysterious facade, just waiting for the right touch. My problem instead lies with the sexism and absolute lack of understanding of female sexuality that oozes from this study.

Medical and academic study of sexuality (specifically female sexuality), has long been tarnished by this notion of female “hysteria.” In fact, “hysteria” used to be the medical diagnosis for any type of female sexuality at all (for a wonderful review of the history of hysteria and how vibrators were originally created for physicians to “treat” it, you have to check out The Technology of Orgasm by Rachel Maines). Fortunately most of science and medicine has progressed into a more accurate understanding of female sexuality, but this study appears to be taken right out of some archaic text.

For one thing, the authors appear to possess no understanding of how female sexuality works. To counter the idea that the G-spot exists, they cite studies that assess female sexual function after surgeries that repair pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Women reported a higher rate of orgasm after surgery for these conditions. The authors claim that this is “interesting,” given that these procedures disrupt nerve innervation to the vagina. It isn’t until after two paragraphs of puzzling over this phenomenon that they even mention that “improvement in sexual function may be due to relief of coital incontinence and, consequently, improving self-image and confidence.” Let that sentence sit for a second, and then let’s break down what it means.

The authors are saying that the fact that women report having more orgasms after surgeries that repair urinary incontinence probably means that the G-spot doesn’t exist, given that these surgeries will likely cause lasting nerve damage to the anterior wall of the vagina. Does anyone else see how crazy that is? We are talking about women who elected to have surgery because they suffered from a bladder control issue. You try having an orgasm while being worried that you’re going to pee all over your partner. Are you serious? Of COURSE they had more orgasms after the surgery, G-spot be damned. Nowhere in the colloquial dialogue about the G-spot is someone trying to claim that having a functional (and anatomically distinct) G-spot would impair the clitoris’s ability to cause orgasm. I’m sorry, but this is such a fundamental misunderstanding and reductionist approach to female sexuality that I am tempted to stop writing.

Okay, no, I won’t though.

The authors decided that it was important to include a section in their scientific literature review entitled: Media and the G-Spot: Its Impact on Sexuality. They might as well have titled it “If You Tell Women They Have a Special Sex Button, They’re Going to Believe You No Matter What.” Here is a quote from this section of the paper:

“The public is both interested in, and in need of, more information regarding sexuality, especially as it relates to improving sexual performance and pleasure. For now, information regarding the G-spot, often disseminated by the media, serves to fill this primal need by attracting public attention.”

Yikes. An interest in improving the quality of our sex lives is a “primal need” that is sated simply by the media “attracting public attention” to sexual ideologies, regardless of their veracity? Personally, I’d like to believe that many people are interested in improving their sex lives because they want to increase their quality of life, and that of their partner(s). To imply that people are simply absorbing what the “the media” tells them about sexuality without doing some field tests of their own is quite condescending.

Today’s book club is focusing on our primal need to talk about sex, but not actually learn anything!! Thanks, Media!

Additionally, all the terminology used in this study to describe the G-spot, especially towards the conclusion of the study, is nothing short of derisive of women who know they do have a G-spot. They authors refer to the G-spot as a “mythical location” that “likely doesn’t exist.” They do mention briefly that “reliable reports and anecdotal testimonials of the existence of a highly sensitive area in the distal anterior wall demand further consideration,” but don’t qualify what “reliable reports” are. Certainly not the copious stories of women in “the media,” reporting their own pleasurable experiences with the G-spot. I would have to disagree with them on this sentiment. No, my assertion that I have a G-spot does not warrant much further investigation, and certainly not by a group of scientists who don’t understand female sexuality and don’t seem to want to.

Part of the issue here is the terminology of “G-spot.” The G-spot was popularized in a time when female sexuality was still relatively taboo and not quite understood. The reason that we still have gaping knowledge in the anatomy of female pleasure was that until the twentieth century, female sexual desire was a medical diagnosis that required treatment by a physician.  So we wound up with a popularized term before the study of this “newfangled” female sexuality caught up to our understanding of male physiology.

The dismissal of female sexuality in the not-so-distant past cannot be dismissed, even by scientists who feel they are above petty cultural biases in their Ivory Towers. I’m a woman, and I have a G-spot. Do I know what it is? Not really. Do I need to? Not really. Especially not if it means being ridiculed for appreciating this “mythical spot.” We have, in medicine, science, and culture, reduced female sexuality to something so diminutive. We talk about the clitoral glans as though it is the “clitoris,” when in reality the clitoris is a long shaft that forks and runs almost parallel to our labia for a while. What we ignore is how female sexuality naturally fluctuates over a lifetime and how complicated it can be to have an orgasm. Our measures of “sexual function” are so derivative, and don’t capture anything at all about what female sexuality actually means to the women who possess it.

So do I have a special little button right on the wall of my vagina that lights up when it’s pressed by fingers or a toy or a penis? No, I don’t. I don’t need a bunch of scientists to tell me that. But do I have an area that is exquisitely sensitive to touch most of the time that is located on the wall of my vagina? Yeah, I do. Does every woman? Not necessarily. If your MRIs and autopsies and self-report studies can’t make heads or tails of this, that many women have a sensitive area that we are allowed to refer to as a G-spot because that is the definition of a G-spot, then stop wasting your money. You can tell me there’s “no evidence” for my G-spot until your grants run dry, and I’ll still get off that way. Sorry. I guess I’m just one of those damn complicated, hysterical women. If scientists can’t take what women say about their own sex lives seriously, then I think they should stick to animal studies. Rats, after all, don’t succumb so easily to pressure in the media.

This is not to say for a second that the pressure from the media to have a G-spot can’t be detrimental. Pressure to be a certain way sexually is a problem across the board (look at men and penis size, for example). It is good to try to take some of the pressure off of the women who are told by the media that there is something wrong with them for lacking a “G-spot.” But trying to use scientific jargon to undermine the women who do report having a G-spot is not the way to go. It doesn’t have to be a “distinct anatomical entity” to  be referred to with a more respectful than “mythical location.” Women are taught that a G-spot is a sensitive area in the vagina. For those of us who have one, that’s exactly what it is. For those who don’t, that’s still what it is. Being derisive and dismissive of female sexual experience isn’t going to help clarify human sexuality for anyone. It’s just rude.