It depends on the man. Very few women have orgasm with a circumsized man, while most (if not all) women experience terrific orgasms through sex with an intact man.
Peace,
mangeorge
I dunno about “most women” (as per thread title), but one very important one does indeed have vaginal orgasms (i.e., from penetration). But I don’t think she’s typical.
{Typical? Heck, when the stars are aligned correctly, she has also been known to reach orgasm from having her nipple sucked (yes, small breasts, if you’re a veteran of that thread).}
None of my former partners had this kind of consistent strong orgasm without some type of clitoral stimulation. And she says her friends find it very odd. And they’re jealous as hell. 
And I’m a lucky dog. 
Small breasts have nothing to do with that. Trust me. And some of us don’t need the stars to be aligned.
Please take this in the spirit it was intended. I tend to sound peevish when I’m tired, even if I don’t feel that way - and I’m too tired to edit
Speaking from the physician side, I can’t assign much weight to the fact that “anatomists haven’t located the G-spot”. In order to “locate it” one would have to have a pretty good idea what you were looking for, and having never found it, we simply don’t.
We could be looking for a few dozen or hundred apparently unremarkable sensory end-organs that happen to be wired a certain way in their connection to the pelvic plexus or the brain. Those sensory end-organs may or may not turn out to be different from others, but until we have located, isolated and studied them extensively, we wouldn’t know. Also, other physiological reactions (like local engorgement or paracrine chemical lrelease - both of which have been detected, but not consistently, and are there fore not "proven) might make local “ordinary” neurons or sensory end organs more sensitive or significant.
A PET scan probably wouldn’t be particularly useful. I think that we’d agree that the minimum functional description of the G-spot would be sensory, so it would not need to involve more than a few dozen neurons (one neuron can have a dozen or more end-sensors). Trying to pick out changes in metabolism of a few dozen cells is far beyond the foreseeable capability of a PET scan.
Neurons are especially tricky, because their geometry is very strange. The cell body of many neurons are in ganglia or nuclei containing millions of neuron cell bodies, while their end effectors [the “working element”, like a motor end plate or sensory end-organ) can be as much as a meter away. connected by an axon that can be fairly inert metabolically. The neuron’s cell body contains almost all its mitochondria (where most energy production takes place, Mitochondria are usually but not always near where most energy use takes place)
In the spirit of disclosure, I did some research on energy transport in axonal energy transport off-and-on in the 70’s/80’s, and have written papers with theories that are not “mainstream”. That’s not to say that any expert has ever told me they were ‘crackpot’. It’s just that it’s easy to prove a mechanism is completely possible in biochemical and physiological terms, but I’ve never been able to think of a ‘killer’ experiment to conclusively prove that they actually occur. This is much more more the rule than the exception in scientific research.
My father and I often exchanged articles on the anatomy of sexual response, limiting ourselves to peer-reviewed articles in distinguished journals. (He was a professor of anatomy for almost 50 years, and often livened his medical school lectures with these papers) Our discussions were often rather heated, perhaps an extension of similar arguments we had when I was a teenager (It’s no accident that my degrees are in fields that change rapidly, like molecular biology, while he’s always been more interested in fields that change at a glacial pace, like anatomy), so I’ve had a fair amount of feedback from him, his colleagues, his post-docs and his students with prior scientific backgrounds in related fields
Here are some fairly recent, strictly anatomical, discoveries in the field of sexual anatomy to illustrate why I don’t weigh the “anatomical search” heavily:
- The vagus nerve is one of the twelve cranial nerves (nerves that go directly to the brain). For centuries, it has been taught that it only goes as far as the diaphragm in humans, with a tiny branch to the gallblader, just below the diaphragm. Every medical student traces its path and branches in dissection.
The vagus is also one of the two “primary highways” of of the parasympathetic nervous system, which is very important in physiological sexual arousal.
About ten years ago, it was demonstrated that the vagus sends fibers (which can only now be detected by biochemical means) to the complex abdominal and pelvic neural plexi (an amorphous network of invisibly tiny fibers that partly control your internal organs etc.) These fibers have unmistakably sexual effects in some individuals.
I can’t go into the details right now, but this newfound route of vagal fibers may have great significance in otherwise puzzling, but well-known sexual phenomena. Quadriplegics with high-level spinal transection (e.g. completely severed, so they have no sensation or movement at or below, say, the nipples) can have orgasms, often in response to stimulation of regions (e.g. shoulders) whose nerves were not considered to carry “primary sexual signals” of the type associated with orgasm
Certain drugs can have a side effect where patients have orgasms when they sneeze or have other primarily vagal effects. In some cases, it was shown that this did NOT occur primarily because of CNS (brain/spinal cord) effects
- The role of pheromones in many animals is well studied. In insects, they are potent enough to be used in extermination or insect control. Farmers routinely use an aerosol spray to make their sows instantly receptive to mating. Etc. etc.
There has been a fair bit of experimental evidence for some (albeit weak, compared to most mammals) pheromone-like response in humans. [I wouldn’t reply to the "human pheromone spams, though. Even if they weren’t peddling junk, the variation and complexity of in strength and response make it almost as likely that you’d repel your intended as attract them].
However, many anatomists claimed that a human pheromone response was impossible, because centuries of search have never found any pheromone sensing organ (called, among other things, “Jacobsen’s organ” in other mammals, and the “vomeronasal organ” [VNO] in humans), even though it had been readily located and well characterized in other mammals
Then, about 7 years ago, it was announced that the VNO had finally been located in humans – in pretty much the same spot inside the nose where everyone had always expected it to be. It just turned out to be very small and difficult to find. AFAIK, we still can’t locate it consistently in all dissections
To summarize:
-
we don’t know exactly what we’re looking for. Dr. Grafenberg’s description and theories are not gospel. He could be wrong about exactly what it is, how it works, what structures may be associated with it, but it’s entirely possible that the G-spot exists, functionally, in many people even if his descriptions are mistaken. The large number of women who report it is fairly strongly suggestive, IMHO.
-
Substantiated anatomical findings have emerged after being apparently ruled out because what appeared to be exhaustive searches turned out to be less than exhaustive. This has specifically occured in the field of sexual response [one may speciulate why], and especially when there is substantial human variation.
-
Locating a good baseline “working G-spot organ” would be tough. Would you find a woman with a strong G-spot response and remove it? Hardly (in some cases, you might not survive the attempt) You can’t wait until she dies of old age and dissect her (it might well change or atrophy with age). Dissecting the fresh pelvic regions of young accident victims with strong G-spot-like responses would pose obvious procedural and funding difficulties [Do you really want to be asked about the G-spot response of your tragically departed bride in your hour of loss?] especially when there are far more important and pressing uses for bodies donated to science - like transplants and life-saving research.
actually…cosmo magazine did a study with several women (and doctors) and determined that ALL women have a G-Spot…
Medicine is serious business.
Though I believe the G-spot “exists” (i.e. a substantial qualifying response is present in a significant proportion of the female population, though not neceessary a majority), I can absolutely guarantee you that there is absolutely no paper in any major peer-reviewed journal that asserts that all women have a G-spot response. Heck, I can easily prove that such an assertion is false: I know women who have never shown any such response (and not for lack of experimentation and effort)
Doctors are entitled to their personal opinions, but that doesn’t make it science. Even peer-reviewed articles in the best journals, if perfectly conducted ands free of all external bias or hidden variables will be wrong at least 5% of the time (the statistical standard for publication in the best journals is p=.05, and almost all medical papers have several results, each with a 5% chance of being irreproducible or mistaken)
“A study with several women (and doctors)?” That rather makes me laugh. Who could consider that definitive evidence unless they a) weren’t a woman or doctor; b) didn’t know many women or doctors well; and/or c) didn’t think twice about what constitutes “proof”? I very much doubt your statement is true on any level., because I doubt even Cosmo would make such a bald, unsupported and easily disproved statement. Care to provide a cite? The date of the issue would suffice.
I’m sure you’re being humorous, but anyone who relies on Cosmo for medical facts desrves what they get. Indeed, anyone who READS Cosmo deserves what they get. Am I being snobby and elitist? No. If you don’t think you deserve what you get for relying on ANY single source, whether the New England Journal, Jack Chick comics, ot the “DRY PAINT - PLEASE SIT” sign on the bench in front of the Candid Camera studios-- well, let’s just say that your problem is much deeper than your choice of magazines.
100% of all women have G-spots? How, praytell, could any scientific study prove that when 100% of all women aren’t even born with vaginas?
If you can’t distinguish something that we know indesputably and obviously is there, then I’m not putting a whole lot of faith in you discovering something that is difficult to find even if you know what your doing and might not even be present in your sample group.
Personally I’m with CrazyCatLady, I don’t care if it can or can’t be proved to exist, something there works for me and it feels pretty distinct from my clitoris.
Doesn’t that refer to MRI rather than PET imaging?
Good point.
While it wouldn’t settle the “G SPOT” issue isn’t there now a company that has been featured on HBO Real Sex that makes machines that excel at penetration of all sorts? Couldn’t we connect a hundred women to the machines (paid volunteers) and measure their galvonic skin responces ect, to determine when and if they ever have orgasms from penetration alone? The difficulty would be in getting a “random” sample that in any way approximated the population of women as a whole. Maybe it’s possible that women could have O’s from penetration alone, but men simply are not capable (on average) of lasting long enough to facilitate this occuring.
Let me guess, you’re not circumsized are you?
The spirit of Jack Dean Tyler roams the land!
I wonder if you could do circumcisions with a 1920s Style Death Ray.
I can only speak about one woman, but yes, at least some of them can.
Experience would suggest that they can at least do circumcisions on a 1920s Style Death Ray.
My husband is circumsized and I have orgasms with penetration, without clitoral stimulation…and if I don’t have a G-spot, well, I’ve found my ‘happy place’. Since I didn’t (have o’s just with penetration) until I met him, I believe it 's his anatomy.
That, and I like to pick on those who are.
Ever read some of the “circumcism” threads here? More fun than a barrel o’ monkeys.
In direct words, I was kidding.
I love a nice ‘feel’. If you do it long enough I might even get the big O
It depends on the alignment of the stars of course.
Sometimes … other times need not apply.
That is true for me, unfortunately. But ces’t la vie.
Summary:
AMEN CrazyCatLady … nuff said.
During the big El Nino a few years back the meterologist on a local tv station (channel 7?) was talking about the Red Tide. He said it was caused by orgasms in the water. 
Is that what you all mean by the “Big O”? Forget fireworks, lets change the weather.
BTW; the rest of the news team played dumb, mostly, but you could tell thet’d been laughing.
Peace,
mangeorge
There is a thread right now on the foreskin-restoration list, regarding variations in human genitalia (specifically, why some women have a clitoris large enough that it can be seen to look like a miniature penis). Here is one fellow contributed:
“In the fetus they develop from the same tissue. The glans is the same but smaller surrounded by the hood (foreskin) and the crura of the the clitoris are like the corpus cavernosa but wrapped around the vaginal opening. A large clitoris looks like a miniature penis because it’s essentially the same structure.”
Which I believe comes from this site: http://the-clitoris.com/n_html/n_develop.htm
If this is true, that some of the tissue that would become part of the penis, becomes the tissue that surraounds the vaginal opening, that would explain why very shallow penetration.or very slow, is far more stimulating (to me) than deep penetration. In fact, deep penetration, and ‘pounding away’ as one poster so gently put it, does very little for me. It all becomes a blur of sensation, which shortly becomes chafing, and then dry, and then I’m done whether I reached orgasm or not. There’s just not a whole lot of ‘specific sensation’ nerves in there, unlike with external tissues. I frequently reach orgasm from penetration alone. But position (and often, change of position) is vital. Some positions do nothing for me at all, no matter what type of penetration (shallow, deep, rapid, slow) is used.
As for the ‘g-spot’, I have heard that the clitoris is actually quite a large organ - long, I mean, and buried as deeply in the pelvic cavity as is the base of the penis. It is said to split into a ‘V’, go on either side of the urethra, and the roots end up against the anterior wall of the vagina. Which matches my experience with the few times I’ve experienced what I would call ‘g-spot stimulation’.
As for the circumcised vs uncircumcised debate, I have heard that uncircumcised men tend to use a different technique - gentle and slow - compared to circumcised men, who tend to need to ‘pound away’ to get the stimulation they need for orgasm. For women who prefer gentle and slow, there would seem to be an advantage to uncircumcised partners.
Pretty huge fact you’re stating there. Cite? Ladies, please…anyone who has posted into this thread so far, reply to this assertion?
Is this, in fact, a fact?
Cartooniverse