Reply

Abstract

To the Editors:The basic point of my original article seems to have been missed by Whipple and Perry and by Chalker. Whipple and Perry note that there are numerous papers on the G-spot in the literature. How nice. There are also numerous papers in the literature on, say, psychoanalysis, ESP, cold fusion, and similar topics. The number of papers is not the issue. Their relevance to the specific topic of my original paper is. The original paper was aimed directly at the point that there is no histologic verification of the type of neural innervation on the anterior vaginal wall that would be necessary if the G-spot is an anatomically real area. I have no doubt that were there among the papers that Whipple and Perry make reference to even one that conclusively showed such innervation, either in the anterior wall or in the paraurethral area, they would have cited it specifically. That they did not do so suggests that none of the aforementioned papers address the anatomic point.The same can be said for Chalker's comment. Nowhere in that comment do we find the slightest indication of any evidence of the sort of neural innervation that would support the claims of G-spot proponents. Perhaps such innervation does exist and simply hasn't yet been found. I doubt it, but that is a possibility. But the way to settle the issue is to conduct the studies, not to discuss irrelevant matters. To the Editors:The basic point of my original article seems to have been missed by Whipple and Perry and by Chalker. Whipple and Perry note that there are numerous papers on the G-spot in the literature. How nice. There are also numerous papers in the literature on, say, psychoanalysis, ESP, cold fusion, and similar topics. The number of papers is not the issue. Their relevance to the specific topic of my original paper is. The original paper was aimed directly at the point that there is no histologic verification of the type of neural innervation on the anterior vaginal wall that would be necessary if the G-spot is an anatomically real area. I have no doubt that were there among the papers that Whipple and Perry make reference to even one that conclusively showed such innervation, either in the anterior wall or in the paraurethral area, they would have cited it specifically. That they did not do so suggests that none of the aforementioned papers address the anatomic point.The same can be said for Chalker's comment. Nowhere in that comment do we find the slightest indication of any evidence of the sort of neural innervation that would support the claims of G-spot proponents. Perhaps such innervation does exist and simply hasn't yet been found. I doubt it, but that is a possibility. But the way to settle the issue is to conduct the studies, not to discuss irrelevant matters. The basic point of my original article seems to have been missed by Whipple and Perry and by Chalker. Whipple and Perry note that there are numerous papers on the G-spot in the literature. How nice. There are also numerous papers in the literature on, say, psychoanalysis, ESP, cold fusion, and similar topics. The number of papers is not the issue. Their relevance to the specific topic of my original paper is. The original paper was aimed directly at the point that there is no histologic verification of the type of neural innervation on the anterior vaginal wall that would be necessary if the G-spot is an anatomically real area. I have no doubt that were there among the papers that Whipple and Perry make reference to even one that conclusively showed such innervation, either in the anterior wall or in the paraurethral area, they would have cited it specifically. That they did not do so suggests that none of the aforementioned papers address the anatomic point. The same can be said for Chalker's comment. Nowhere in that comment do we find the slightest indication of any evidence of the sort of neural innervation that would support the claims of G-spot proponents. Perhaps such innervation does exist and simply hasn't yet been found. I doubt it, but that is a possibility. But the way to settle the issue is to conduct the studies, not to discuss irrelevant matters.