07.01.2010 - 12:16 p.m.

I think it most amusing when empirical professionals of 'standing' completely fail to appreciate the real world on the basis of their empirical research, some shortsighted numpty (even without knowing their name you can safely assume it's a man or collection of men) at Kings College has decided that because the G spot has no genetically identifiable component then it doesn't or can't exist, you've just opened a door and crossed the threshold, you've entered the twilight zone.

One assumes within this shadow world that lies between the boundaries of scientific hard numbers on one side and, well, actual reality on the other side, all things are possible. In science world it can't be possible yet in the real world it is possible, now we end up with a quantum superposition where something both is and not is at he same time, that noise you can hear/not hear is Schrodingers cat spinning/not spinning in his death box. Here's and a link to the completely non-hysterical beeb who are looking more and more like the Daily Wail every day, and for good measure here's one to another source.

I would like to have been a fly on the wall when the lead researcher announced his 'discovery' to his wife (now there's an assumption) "guess what darling we've genetically disproved the existance of the female G spot, where's your emancipated femi-god now eh ? what's that, i'll be sleeping in the spare room from now on ? ah well, it's the price of scientific progress"

Sounds awfully like more patriarchal bullshit to me, were i available for such labours i would offer to visit the wives and daughters of all the researchers and introduce them to their G spots (i consider myself more enlightened than the average male on a great many levels, sounds a little smug but i've made the effort) and see how they like that, obviously there's a varying hit rate because everyone's different, but underlying 90% of female physiology there's a place that Grafenberg found and now a bunch of white coated retards say can't exist because it doesn't show up on their charts.

"But" they wail "we tested 1800 women including twins of varying degrees, so our sample size is statistically relevent, and we think it's subjective instead of actual" clearly what they meant to say was "the spot exists physiologically as a subsequence of the larger differentiated internal structures and organisation in the genital region but not everyone has learnt how to use it to best effect"

On a related matter, a note about that Susan Quilliam, we've all read her books and celebrated author and blah blah blah, but i know for a fact that she's not above nicking someone elses partner (and he wouldn't be described a 'catch' under any circumstances), which takes the shine off her halo of oestrogen infused superiority, not only does she nick but she's got low standards too, you go girl, you'll find the bottom of the barrel one day, "you have plenty of other ways to get pleasure" she's quoted as saying, yeah, probably ending up in a cat fight on a housing estate.

People are retarded on the whole, preferring to believe in what they think sounds right instead of what is right, and fundies bang on about how we're created in the image of the maker, i defy anyone to stand in a queue in Walmart / Asda and not snigger at the thought of an overweight god with pit stains wearing tracksuit bottoms and smelling of tobacco infused with hints of dog.