Interview Andrea Burri
Are you done with the G-spot now?
I wasn’t really interested in the G-spot, it’s not my main research focus. But I was waiting for data for my main project so I thought “let’s do something”. So you want to know why I did it? I looked at the data that was available and I saw that we had this question on the G-spot, so I started doing my investigation and I noticed every study that had been conducted on the G-spot so far was very small, like Jannini’s (ca. 20 women sample), so there were no really large surveys (statistics surveys) that actually proved the G-spot, and even Jannini’s studies were all a bit dodgy in their conclusion. N=20 is not really representative. And the other studies were very inconclusive as well so I thought, you know, “ok, what can I do to have another approach”? So I thought genetics. Because if the G-spot actually exists, if it’s really a well defined spot that is the same in every woman, it must be genetic, there must be a genetic base to it.
Our hypothesis was actually that it does exist. So we thought, we are going to prove that it exists. But we didn’t find any heritability.
Yes you can see that in the way you asked the question: “Do you have an area the size of a 20p coin? etc.”.
Yes, we thought we were going to prove that and then, we didn’t.
What’s really bad is that everyone that commented on that study never actually read it. Because even Beverly Whipple’s comments, like why our study was flawed. Our study, for sure, is not perfect – no study is… but whoever says our study was really not very valid, like “it didn’t include homosexual women” – it’s only 8-7 people that we excluded and research shows that homosexual women differ in their sexual activity so you need to standardize. And then she said “Twins have different partners”, which is exactly what we found in our study – that it depends on external factors like partner. So the criticism really wasn’t a criticism. And I think the main criticism you could have is saying the questionnaire wasn’t very accurate, I get that. But from the rest, everyone has just been citing and citing and citing and …
Especially in France, in the press and with the GAOP counter congress...
Yes, no one invited us… It’s funny isn’t it? Research is all about proving and disproving and gaining knowledge and you should be open to it. I thought we would be able to prove it, and we didn’t. It’s not like it’s a well-established fact, like we are saying “the clitoris doesn’t exist” because obviously every woman has a clitoris. It doesn’t mean anything. How can an anatomical bit of your body be so controversial, in a time when we know so much about our bodies? If it was a well-defined area we would already know it, wouldn’t we?
The problem I have with the topic is that many women are able to have an orgasm when you touch their breast or when do other forms of stimulation. Yet they don’t have a “B-spot” (breast-spot). It just means some women are more sensitive there. And it’s the same with the vagina - some women are more sensitive and some are not.
The problem is the label “G-spot”…
Yeah, I don’t like the name. It’s such a money-making industry, that’s why it is so controversial. Because all the people who actually attacked us have conflict of interests; they make a lot of money with it, not all of them but most of them… Beverly Whipple, I admire her research but she’s been famous for many years because of the G-spot. So of course she’s not going to say “Oh yes”.
The more we go on, the more we see there is a whole debate about women sexuality as a whole. Yet when I asked an erotic publisher about it (Stephane Rose), he didn’t think the G-spot was a sale’s argument in particular, not more than any other item on sexuality.
I would say it is! Because there are no “How to stimulate your clitoris” books, so I do think there is a big moneymaking industry and it might be why the G-spot is such a controversial subject.
The whole sex industry is about money. It’s like female sexual dysfunction – They bring some female Viagra that doesn’t really work. I think it’s quite sad.
It seems the G-spot is only the tip of the iceberg. All the disagreement is because of the lack of research on female sexuality as a whole leaves room for different interpretations. In the end it’s just a conflict of definition (20p area, width, internal part of the clitoris, etc.)
But this is completely different. If it’s just an extension of the clitoris, then it’s not the G-spot. So why would you name it that way? That’s why I contradict the other person who says there is no moneymaking behind, because there clearly is.
At the end of your study you say “maybe with a more detailed definition, and further research…”
I guess the problem is, if you ask a woman “Do you have a spot in your vagina that is sensitive?” That could be anywhere. So we didn’t define the location. We didn’t say or specify whether it actually triggers orgasm, or asked how they best reached that point, so you can always improve. But the research also shows that, for some very complex subjects, people like you and me understand better if it’s a very simple, straightforward question. I don’t see the problem with this question. If someone asked me, I know what answer I would give- sensitive or not.
When the study was published, the press titled “the G-spot doesn’t exist”, whereas in your study you actually make a distinction between the “true” and the “perceived” G-spot, not saying it doesn’t exist altogether.
The problem was that we didn’t get published, so they asked us to be clearer in the formulation of the conclusion. What is clear is, although it is possible that the assessment instrument wasn’t ok and your phenotype is not accurately described, you’re not going to find heritability. But that aside, the research shows that there is no specific anatomical location, but that it’s maybe a subjective perception. Like I said, some women are sensitive behind their ears and some are not. So it wouldn’t have a specific organic or somatic place.
But shouldn’t the anatomical and psychological be tied together, like in the way you treat female sexual dysfunction? Why this distinction?
In terms of the G-spot, if it doesn’t exist, clearly the treatment approach is purely psychological.
Don’t you think that saying it’s not anatomical might be taken as an alibi not to pursue the research further?
You shouldn’t generalise – the G-spot is just the G-spot. We still don’t know why some women have vaginal orgasms and others don’t, so this question remains, whether you eliminate the G-spot from the surface or whether you don’t. Because research shows that up to 60% don’t have vaginal orgasm.
The question will remain and I think research will continue, definitely. Even if it’s just the psychological thing, even then we might start asking ourselves “So why are so many women more sensitive? Are they more capable to let go and really indulge themselves into the sexual act without restrain?” It won’t stop research, definitely not.
Research on female sexuality in France is really behind (cf. Qui a peur du point-G? d’Odile Buisson), and yet your most violent adversaries were French.
To be honest I don’t know if any French researcher is doing research on a large scale, even with regards to the G-spot, is there?
Odile Buisson and Pierre Foldes, who link it to the clitoris. Apart from them, others only comment, they don’t actually do the research themselves.
That’s why I say there must be a lot of conflict of interests, because it (the criticism) doesn’t come from a scientific point of view, it doesn’t come from the research. So there must be another motivation.
You can count how many countries do sexual research: There’s the UK, Scandinavia, the US and a bit of Australia, that’s it. So there aren’t many countries.
Also Koreans
Really? I didn’t know about that. They must know what they’re talking about!
And also Italy, with Jannini.
Yes, the other ones are generally on sex, they aren’t specific to the G-spot
Back to the criticisms of the study: The fact that 83 year old is too old?
Yes I hear that a lot, and it’s true you have to decide on where you put the limit. But an 83-year-old woman had more sex than everyone else in her life, so she knows. It’s not like we’re asking about her sexual function now, like “are you still at the top of your libido?” because clearly that would be problematic. But the G-spot is something that is either there or not there. It’s not fluctuating so it shouldn’t be a problem.
The fact that homosexuals were excluded?
They were because they have more digital penetration. You have to standardize your sample and make it homogenous. Also, they only represented 0,5% of our sample, so 8 people, so I don’t think it would have made a big difference.
The fact that it was sent by post, with a risk of misinterpretation.
Which is the same for every study. And also, do you believe they would have answered if we had called them on the phone? (No), so what can you do?
Some also said genetics is too reductive. That it doesn’t prove physiological traits but anatomical ones (cf. Odile Buisson’s example of two twins running a marathon and not performing equally).
Well, first of all, the G-spot would be anatomical and not physiological, so that argument doesn’t hold. Besides, it’s not true because everything you are – even the way you walk – is formed with genetics. It’s multi-factorial. It’s influenced by environment. So yes, two identical twins do not perform in the same way due to environmental factors, but the genetic base is the same.
That’s the point in our study: This, (drawing on a paper), is a trait, and you try to see how the variation of that trait is influenced (like whether someone can run a marathon or not). You start off with your genetic backup, which you were born with. Then you have your common environment, which is your family. Then there’s what you do (like marrying a marathon runner, and starting to run marathons).
In our study we found that whether you have a G-spot or not is just part of what you do., which eliminates genetics. Genetics is not reductive at all. Even if their argument held, it’s not an argument against our study, for we found it’s due to the environment – which is what people don’t understand.
Yes, you didn’t actually say it doesn’t exist, you said it doesn’t exist in an anatomical way but it can exist for some people due to their sexual behaviour and preferences.
Exactly - but not as an organic or anatomical entity.
Everyone knows we have a clitoris, we don’t have to prove it. If the G-spot was there, at this point, we would know it already. Maybe I’m reductionist in my thinking. I’m getting passionate now, it’s my Portuguese temper.
What do you think about other definitions, like “the female prostate”? isn’t it a bit sexist?
Yes, well, it depends. I have a bit of an ambivalent view on that. Certainly it is a little bit sexist to call it the same as they do for men. But on the other had if it’s the same fluid, and consists of the same chemical compound why would you call it differently?
If it’s different, analogical but made of something else, then I wouldn’t call it the same. But in that case, it has been called like that because it’s actually similar to the male prostate.
It was recognized as such by the Committee in 2001, which is taken as a proof of its existence by some like Deborah Sundahl.
It doesn’t prove anything.
Then why did they think they had the authority to call it the G-spot even though it wasn’t proven?
Are they any precedents of anatomical traits being recognized even though they don’t exist? I guess it’s the same with disorder and psychiatry. Like homosexuality, which was considered until the 70’s or even later like a disorder and was then removed from the classification.
So I think it is doubtful that based on a handful of very doubtful studies (Zaviacic) they would accept it and recognize it. But you have to start somewhere, as long as you keep being open-minded and accept that things can change.
Still, we are not progressing because people spend their time arguing, and talking about notions. Who cares whether it’s prostate or a 20p coin or a 10p coin? This is subsequent study. We don’t even know whether it exists. Why would you spend all your time arguing? It’s the same with gender research: homosexuality as sexual attraction, or sexual identity or non-conformity, etc.
It’s a bit too lexical!
It’s amazing the power of a word, “the G-spot”, which you then see in magazines because it sells. You were quoted saying it pressurizes women and men.
That was my quote! That was an actual real quote.
Who do you think is most responsible for this pressure? The feminine press or scientists?
I think it’s both. They both aggravate the whole debate around it. It started because everywhere you go you see “G-spot”, so women’s partners will try to stimulate and give women that orgasm. If they are not able to have them they will think something is wrong with them, like “I’m frigid”, and this keeps going…
As a researcher you also have a little bit of responsibility. If the G-spot exists that’s fair enough. You say “yes it exists, but not on every woman, and you can learn how to have it or sometimes you cannot”. There’s normal variation: some women have a lot of sex, some don’t. Why would we want to change everything and make everything uniform? But that’s another question… I think we do have a responsibility. As long as it hasn’t been proven, why would you say it exists? Especially as a sex researcher, you must be aware of the impact it has on women.
And women also try to find it, and you’re “a loser” if you don’t.
Especially according to women’s magazines…
Yes, “G-spot, g-spot, g-spot”, like all our sexuality is based on it! “Go and find it, and you will have the most fulfilled sexuality”.
In your study you say the occurrence of the G-spot decreases with age. So maybe it proves this influence of the press and what we’re told, since it really started in the eighties.
Exactly. But it could have other influences, like older women didn’t experience as much, maybe their husband weren’t as… maybe they weren’t as educated and liberated about sexuality. Yet, if the G-spot was really there and was so accessible, then they should have found it as well.
Was it difficult to finance the study?
I didn’t have any money to do it! I had a student’s grant, because I was a PhD student back then, and I already had the data, as part of a previous questionnaire on orgasm. So it didn’t cost anything.
Because that’s what O. Buisson complains about: the fact that in France you cannot get any money to conduct the research on the subject of female sexuality.
It’s really difficult everywhere, apart from the US. They are the only one.
Also legal constraints, to get volunteers…
It’s quite difficult yes. Everyone is saying: “you should do a follow-up study”! Especially now that it’s such a controversy. But it would be very hard.
You might also be fed up with the G-spot? I know Tim Spector is…
Actually I’m so fed up with the debate that I want to bring out another paper saying: “this supports our findings”. But then I don’t think I can handle it again! It’s been two years now and I still get so many emails from guys “Dear Dr. Burri, I have satifisfied 50 000 women in my life, and I can tell you the G-spot exists. In fact I can show you where it is…” “Oh my god. Thank you for enlightening me!”
Really?!
Yes really, a lot! Some people take the matter very personally.
The way I see it, the lack of agreement reveals the lack of knowledge.
Why do you think there is less research made on female pleasure than male one? Because it’s not directly linked to reproduction? Is it religious? …
I think it’s for various reasons. It started with Freud saying that the role model we should have is the man, and the woman is just a bi-product whose sexuality has no legitimacy to be called “sexuality”. It had such a huge impact that the followers like Kinsey, even Masters and Johnson, who are great pioneers, even them said the main thing is men sexuality and women function the same way. Only recently (30 years or so) have we realised women are different.
Like with female Viagra? And the fact that increasing blood flow in women’s organs has no effect whatsoever.
Yes, you have to do research like that because it would be stupid not to try it on women if it works on men. But it’s also important to acknowledge that it is different. It also has to do with how female sexuality was perceived in psychoanalysis when it all started.
Do you see yourself as a feminist?
What? No! I just have problems with very radical views and not acknowledging natural variation – that we are all different. Of course you want to enhance quality of life for everyone, but I think by trying so hard you actually ruin a lot. Everything is normal variation, it’s normally distributed; some are in the middle others are extremes. Just like some are shy and others are not. It’s the same with sexuality. Not everyone likes the same things.
I also have a problem with the fact that we try to make female sexuality the same as male sexuality. Men have a high sex drive and women must too…Why is that? We have always been different and there is a reason why we are different, so why wanting to make women like men?
This is the problem I have with female dysfunction as well. So I’m not a feminist at all.
Feminists say the G-spot might only be an argument to put vaginal penetration back in the limelight and make men “useful” again…
I believe feminists have very opinionated views on things. There is a reason why there is a penis and there is a reason why there is a vagina, and I don’t think claiming that there is a G-spot will give legitimacy to the penis. I also believe that reducing everything to the vagina is wrong.
How do you see the debate going from here? As there is still a conflict of definition no one agrees upon, which leads to different research and different results.
They all prove different things. I think we should just eliminate the word “G-spot”. Every piece of research is important; it’s all part of a big picture. You get those little mosaics. But we should stop linking it to the G-spot. Like finding that the width of the vaginal wall is associated with vaginal orgasm, like did Jannini - Why is it not the association it is? Why does it have to be something else?
Again, the label that sells…
Yes, but why would scientists do that? I do believe Jannini’s research is important and I do believe that his findings do tell us something, like “women who have vaginal orgasms have thicker vaginal walls”. This is legitimate. It could mean that women who are able to have orgasms vaginally have more nerve endings. Which is super because it tells us something about why some do and some don’t. But why does it have to do with the G-spot?
So we should just leave the G-spot and go on with research on female sexuality as a whole? Is the G-spot restraining research more than anything?
Yes, because you are trying to prove something rather than just looking at what you actually find and take it from there.
So there is not going to be a follow-up study?
I have different priorities at the moment, but I’m still flirting with the idea. Ideally it would be a large project with more precise questionnaires, also anatomical. Like Jannini’s ultrasonography. This would be The study to conduct. Maybe I should work with Jannini, using another name.
Who do you think is more likely to further the debate? The US?
I don’t think at the moment they have much interest in the G-spot. I think it will come from Europe. The usual suspects I guess: Jannini will continue conducting his studies. Hopefully someone will be inspired! I don’t know, I don’t have a bet.
It strikes me, even in sex research, how people stick to their position -like those who don’t like what I’m doing because “sex is not about genetics”. It’s stupid because you could say sex is not psychological either. You have to look at everything.
They shouldn’t be so segmented, but should collaborate and learn from each other instead.
I know! You’re in research because you’re curious and you want to know and you want to help and do. I don’t understand why they push everything away from them. I just hope people would be a bit more open and don’t believe and buy everything they’re told.
The expression “G-spot” is only 30 years old so it might disappear…
It will never die! It’s astonishing. Maybe in 100 years if we really find evidence against it. Or find something else, like the “deep spot”, or one in the ear.
I should come up with a concept, I love the concept of the B-spot. Then I could pretend “Chinese medicine has shown chakras come together in the breast”.
It can also be dangerous, like with G-shot parties where women gather to be injected. These doctors take advantage of the blur around this area.
Like the body is a machine that is supposed to work in a certain way...
Yes, I’m not very comfortable with what they’re doing with it. But I don’t think the G-spot will get worst, other things will.
What about research on female pleasure? Do you think a real female Viagra might be found?
What is wrong is that we look at everyone as in the same group, and see what’s wrong with them. What we should do is to look at women who never have these problems, and women who never have orgasms. The rest in the middle is not that interesting – whether you orgasm with one guy or not. It’s either he’s better in bed or you’re more emotionally attached to him.
I think there is still a lot to do on orgasmic dysfunction. I don’t think it will be treatable with Viagra.
What do you think is the centre of the debate? (for us to pursue our research)
For me it is, why scientist would say it exists, even though with their scientific minds they should acknowledge the evidence base is poor. For any other area, no one would give out that message.
Also to see why some people think it does and others don’t, even though they’re exposed to the same information.
I think the core of the debate may be the lack of research on female sexuality, where all the disagreement lies. And how the industry takes advantage of this disagreement.
I absolutely agree.