Dr. Suzy and Doctor G Explain The Art and Passion of the G-Spot and Female Ejaculation

DoctorG.com is proud to announce the long awaited release of the DVD, Dr. Suzy and Doctor G Explain the Art and Passion of the G-Spot and Female Ejaculation. This film, shot with 3 cameras including a special overhead camera, graphically depicts the process necessary to assist a woman to an ejaculatory orgasm. Despite the wealth of material on DoctorG.com regarding the so-called G-Spot and the phenomenon known as female ejaculation, Doctor G still receives large numbers of questions from men, women, couples and singles asking how to properly stimulate the co-called G-Spot and achieve female ejaculation.

FREE ISSUE: Women's Sexual Health Journal on Cancer and Sexuality

Sexuality issues and cancer are rarely discussed. Since October is
breast cancer month, The Women's Sexual Health Foundation felt this was the
perfect opportunity to share this with you.

They have  two articles by psychotherapists who work with women with
cancer, Sage Bolte, MSW, LCSW, OSW-C and Peggy Lipford McKeal, Ph.D.
LMHC., and an article by their founder and breast cancer survivor, Lisa
Martinez.

The Women's Sexual Health Foundation

Preserving California’s Constitution

California voters will have a chance in November to protect the rights of gay men and women, and to preserve the state’s Constitution. They should vote against Proposition 8, which seeks to amend that Constitution to prevent people of the same sex from marrying.

The measure would overturn a firmly grounded State Supreme Court decision that said everyone has a basic right “to establish a legally recognized family with the person of one’s choice.” It said the state’s strong domestic partnership statute was inadequate, making California the second state to end the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage. Massachusetts did so in 2004.

Whether this important civil rights victory endures is now up to California voters. Opponents of giving gay couples the protections, dignity and respect that come with marriage are working furiously to try to overturn the court ruling through Proposition 8. It is our fervent hope that Californians will reject this mean-spirited attempt to embed second-class treatment of one group of citizens in the State Constitution.

If passed, Proposition 8 would add language to the State Constitution stating that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Supporters of the amendment complain about the “activist” judges who wrote the court decision. But the majority in the 4-to-3 ruling was acting to protect a vulnerable group from unfair treatment. Enforcing the state’s guarantee of equal protection is a job assigned to judges.

It is true that in 2000 California voters approved a ballot measure recognizing only heterosexual marriages as valid. But since then, the public has grown more comfortable with idea of marriage equality. The California Legislature passed a measure to let gay couples marry in 2005, and another in 2007. Both were vetoed by the Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who took the wrong position — that the change had to come either from the courts or through a ballot initiative.

To his credit, Mr. Schwarzenegger is now among those opposing Proposition 8. To his discredit, John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, is in favor of restoring marriage discrimination. Barack Obama opposes the initiative, as do California’s senators, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, both Democrats.

The proponents of Proposition 8 make the familiar claim that legalizing same-sex marriage undercuts marriage between men and women. But thousands of gay and lesbian couples have been married in California since the May ruling and marriage remains intact.

Similar discriminatory measures are on the ballot in Arizona and Florida. They also should be rejected.

A version of this article appeared in print on September 29, 2008, on page A20 of the New York edition.

The Great Bailout - Economics is Not an Exact Science

by Gary Schubach, Ed.D., A.C.S.

For the last three hours I have been reading articles favoring and opposing the federal "Bail-out:" compromise. MSNBC featured some thoughtful pieces such as:

• Foreclosures are key element missing in plan
• Democrats got many concessions in bailout but GOP held fast to not tying $700 billion proposal to homeowner relief
• The winners, and losers in a post-bailout U.S.

IF the bill is going to be defeated, it would have to involve an unprecedented coalition of liberal and conservative lawmakers. Dennis Kucinich has issued a short statement saying that he will oppose the vote tomorrow although his reasons and what he would do were not clear enough for me. Many conservative republicans are preparing to oppose the "Bail-out:" and I want to know why they will vote against and what they want done. I want to know how Ted Kennedy is going to vote on this and why. I thank Warren Buffett for his predictions of market meltdown and I would like to know precisely how that meltdown will effect his company, Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

I am interested in what both Oberman and O'Reilly think about about the bailout. We might have some strange bedfellows.

If this bail-out goes through, there is no guarantee that the stock market may not yet meltdown from inflation and rising unemployment. We have two becoming problems that must be resolved or they will sink the economy down the line and in their resolution we will become a better country. First the energy crisis and the patriotic duty to pull together to find cheap, abundance and ecologically benign sources of energy so that so much of our resources can stay at home to be used to design the transportation systems of the future. The other is the health care crisis which involves the largest per capita spending (including uninsureds) in the world and yet 50 million people have no coverage. Not resolving this so that health insurance is a right and not a privilege will also lead to economic "meltdown."

I don't attempt to know the right actions but instead to be able to ask the right questions. We should neither be afraid to act or act from fear.

Again I appeal to people to refrain from person attacks between now and election, stay with the issues and be certain of any claims or allegations.

Liberator Ramp Makes Cameo Appearance in "Burn After Reading"

I saw the Coen brothers new film, Burn After Reading, last night. I am a big Coen brothers fan but the main reason that I went to see the film was that I understood that the Liberator^®Ramp appeared in the film. As someone who is a Sexpert for the Liberator company, I obviously believe in the value of the product to help people get the most fulfillment possible from sex. In truth, the Liberator Ramp appeared rather inconsequentially in 3 scenes. Two of them were George Clooney entering and leaving the home of one of his lovers and the third was a long shot where you could see the Liberator Ramp on top of the bed in a way that would suggest possible rear entry position. These scenes happened very quickly and I seriously doubt most viewers of the film understood what they were seeing and what use the Ramp has. There were more elaborate sequences in which George Clooney builds a home-made version of a Love Machine that highlights a thrusting penis. Neither the chair nor the Liberator Ramp appeared in the end credits.


The Coen brothers make dark comedies and Burn After Reading was the darkest of comedies about the CIA and the culture of its employees as well as the Washington social circles in which they travel. The marital infidelity and musical beds were so complicated that even the CIA couldn't keep track of who was sleeping with whom. I clearly recognize that there is an epidemic of marital infidelity and dishonesty in relationships. I hope that the viewing public realizes that this is something that is not restricted to the Washington Beltway social scene but is occurring across the country, cutting across all political perspectives, religions and levels of culture. This lack of truthfulness is not only a tragedy but is causing untold personal pain along with serious social ramifications. When are people ever going to learn how to talk to each other honestly in relationship? - Doctor G

Can’t Find The G-Spot? You’re Not Alone: The Science of Sex

By: Brie Cadman

As much as I am inspired and impressed by modern medical and scientific advancements—nanotechnology, laparoscopic surgery, and genome sequencing to name a few—I’m also a bit shocked by the fact that we haven’t yet mastered some of the basics. Take human anatomy for instance. Yes, we’ve identified the twenty-six bones of the foot and the ventricles of the brain, but when it comes to deciphering the female urogenital tract, scientists are still at the drawing board. In fact, they have the same questions you might—does the G spot exist, and if so, where the heck is it? Do women really have a prostate, and if so, can they ejaculate?

The Hotly Debated G spot
The G spot, named after the gynecologist Ernest Gräfenberg, is an alleged erogenous zone located a few centimeters inside the vagina on the anterior wall. Its rise to popularity is usually attributed to the 1982 book, The G Spot and Other Recent Discoveries About Human Sexuality, co-authored by Beverley Whipple, a professor at Rutgers. Though the book describes how to find and stimulate this region, and sent intrepid women to try to locate theirs, it also gave the yet-to-be-classified area an almost mythical status—many have heard of it, and can generally describe what it’s supposed to do, but the majority haven’t actually seen its effects. Currently, there is no recognized part of the female anatomy labeled as the “G spot.” In fact, researchers debate as to whether it exists at all.

Part of the problem stems from the general lack of research into women’s sexual health, which has hampered the ability to make anatomic generalizations. A review published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology in 2001 states “the evidence is far too weak to support the reality of the G spot” and that “anecdotal observations and case studies based on a small number of subjects are not supported by anatomic and biochemical studies.”

Skeptics of the G spot also contend there is no neural pathway to signify a physiologic mechanism. A study published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine in 2006 took 101 vagina biopsy samples from twenty-one women and found that although nerves were located regularly throughout the vagina, there is no one location that has more nerve density than others, dispelling the notion of a single erogenous zone inside the vagina.

---

Recent research, however, indicates variation rather than absence. A study done in 2008 by Emmanuele Jannini and colleagues at the University of L’Aquila in Italy used ultrasound to measure anatomical differences between women who report vaginal orgasms (orgasm due to stimulation of the vaginal walls and not the clitoris) and those who don’t. The researchers scanned the genital area of nine women who reported vaginal orgasms and eleven who didn’t and found that those with orgasms have thicker tissue in the “urethrovaginal space.” The authors conclude that the size of this space is correlated with the ability to have a vaginally-activated orgasm; without evidence of what they call the G spot, women won’t have this type of orgasm.

However, critics on both sides of the debate question the results of this small study. G spot detractors contend that this place could just be an extension of the clitoris, which was found in 1998 by Helen O’Connell to be much larger than previously thought—the part we can see externally is really just the tip of the iceberg. Because the clitoris extends all the way into the vagina, perhaps vaginal orgasms occur because they are actually stimulating the part of the clitoris, or the glands, nerves, and tissue surrounding this area.

On the other side of the debate are the G spot believers who question why the study showed only some women to have G spots and not all.

Prostate and Ejaculation, for Women?
Part of the confusion regarding the G spot may also have to do with the unclear characterization of female “ejaculation” and the Skene’s glands. The Skene’s glands are paraurethral glands thought to be homologous to the male prostate, and are sometimes referred to as the female prostate.

Some researchers claim that the Skene’s glands and the G spot work in conjunction—or perhaps are one in the same. According to the Kinsey Institute, during sexual arousal, the vagina and the Skene’s glands swell so that you can feel them in the interior of the vagina—around the same area that the G spot is supposed to be. For some women, pressure here is pleasurable; for others it is not.

Stimulation of this area in some women can cause the Skene’s glands to produce fluid, like its homologous male counterpart. In men, the prostate produces secretions, which mix with sperm to produce semen. In some women, the Skene’s glands may produce the fluid that is the source of female ejaculate. Although it comes out the urethra, the ejaculate is not urine. Biochemical analysis shows the presence of prostatic acid phosphatase and prostate specific antigen, further indicating the role of a prostate-like structure in women.

---

However, it is estimated that only about 10 percent of women experience ejaculation, so it is unclear how the glands function—or whether they exist in significant size—in all women. Most think they are a remnant of the embryonic stage, when we had the ability to be either sex. Males went on to have a penis and a prostate, while females developed a clitoris and in some, the Skene’s gland, or female prostate.

Just for Fun
Whether you want to refer to the anterior wall of the vagina as the G spot, the clitoral urethrovaginal complex, or the female prostate, it is clear that some women derive pleasure from stimulating this area and some don’t. Unfortunately, anatomical differences are often interpreted, by the pharmaceutical industry and others looking to make a buck, as dysfunctions. Already there are G spot “parties,” where women inject collagen into their vagina supposedly to make this region larger and enhance their sexual function. Drug companies are eager to find a female equivalent of blockbuster drugs like Viagra, and part of marketing a drug means creating the apparent need for it.

While exploring this area might be fun, there’s no need to get hung up on the idea that it isn’t producing explosive orgasms. In fact, studies indicate that 70 to 75 percent of women don’t orgasm through vaginal intercourse. Even those that contend every woman has a G spot, like Beverly Whipple, aren’t trying to point to it as the crème de la crème of orgasm; rather, it seems they are trying to explain the experiences and physiology of women who do ejaculate and derive pleasure from stimulation in this region.

Long Time Coming
All the anatomical and physiology debate is ultimately good because it means more research into women’s sexual health. Scientists continue to redefine textbooks and hypotheses, trying to figure out the form and function of the female erogenous areas as accurately as possible. What they can agree on so far is that the female genitalia, like her arousal, is certainly more complex and diverse than previously thought.

First published June 2008

The Fight for Bio-Identical Hormones

by

Betty Dodson, Ph.D.

I've been using bioidentical homornes since 1995 successfully. I also recommend them to my friends and clients with no hesitation. Now Wyeth, one of the big pharmacuetical companies that makes Premerin, is trying to shut down my compounding pharmacy to deny me and millions of other women access to an alternative and inexpensive vaginal cream that supports vaginal health with minimal or no side affects. Please notify your congressional reps and let them know you support a woman's right to choose hormones customized to her body. The big corporate pirates are destroying the planet and all it's inhabitants in the name of profit.

Bio-Identical Hormones info

Bio-Identical Hormones fight

Lover's Guide: Advanced Sexual Techniques (Making Sex Even Better) Now Available in DVD in the U.S.

The world's best selling sex guide, The Lovers' Guide: Advanced Sexual Techniques (Making Sex Even Better), is now available on DVD in the United States for the very first time and from DoctorG.com. The Lovers' Guide series was the first adult guide series on video or film to present both informative and entertaining aspects of love and sex in intimate relationships together. This film, the best in the series, explores an in-depth range of sexual techniques and sensual methods to enrich your intimate life.

The Lovers' Guide: Advanced Sexual Techniques (Making Sex Even Better) is a superb educational sex video and a perfect example of how good film technique can be used in sex education. This was the first film that DoctorG.com ever carried and, in my opinion, it is still the best general sex education film ever made! That is quite a statement, but no knowledgeable person has yet disagreed with me or offered a better film. I am delighted to be the first to offer The Lovers' Guide: Advanced Sexual Techniques (Making Sex Even Better) in DVD format in the United States.

What's 'normal' sex? Shrinks seek definition Controversy erupts over creation of psychiatric rule book's new edition

By Brian Alexander

MSNBC contributor

updated 3:33 a.m. PT, Thurs., May. 22, 2008

This month the American Psychiatric Association announced the names of “working group” members who will guide the development of the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, the codex of American psychiatry.

Not surprisingly, given the DSM’s colorful history, particularly when it comes to sex, controversy erupted within days of the announcement, especially over membership of the Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders working group, which will wrestle with questions such as: Are sadomasochism or pedophilia mental disorders? Are dysfunctions like female hypoactive sexual desire disorder (low sex drive) psychiatric issues, or hormonal issues? Perhaps the most important question is whether, when it comes to many sexual interests and issues, it’s even possible or desirable to create diagnostic criteria.

At least one petition, spearheaded by transgender activists, is being circulated to oppose the appointment of some members to the Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders work group and its chair, Kenneth Zucker, head of the Gender Identity Service at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, Canada. The petition accuses Zucker of having engaged in “junk science” and promoting “hurtful theories” during his career, especially advocating the idea that children who are unambiguously male or female anatomically, but seem confused about their gender identity, can be treated by encouraging gender expression in line with their anatomy.

Zucker rejects the junk-science charge, saying that there “has to be an empirical basis to modify anything” in the DSM. As for hurting people, “in my own career, my primary motivation in working with children, adolescents and families is to help them with the distress and suffering they are experiencing, whatever the reasons they are having these struggles. I want to help people feel better about themselves, not hurt them.”

That sex is controversial comes as no surprise to Dr. Darrel Regier, the vice-chair of the APA’s DSM-V Task Force, based in Arlington, Va.

Sex, he says, in an understatement, “is an area that obviously has lots of emotion attached to it.” But the APA, he says, is doing its best to put science and evidence first, both in who it appoints to working groups and in the process it will use to create the DSM-V (so called because it is the fifth complete version). Each working group will accept input from many experts with varying views, reach a consensus on DSM content, and then put that work group’s product before the board of trustees of the APA and the APA assembly.

All that may be true, but Regier does not expect such reassurances to quell the forces already swirling around the DSM-V as it moves toward a 2012 publication date. Currently, the DSM-IV includes sex-related activities as varied as paraphilias like voyeurism, klismaphilia (erotic use of enemas) and sadism, and functional disorders like dyspareunia (pain with intercourse), erectile disorders and premature ejaculation.

'A set of scientific hypotheses'
The first DSM was issued in 1952. The idea was to create a more standardized way of talking about psychiatric disorders. As psychiatrist Dr. Gail Saltz, a TODAY Show contributor who also practices in New York, explains, the DSM is best viewed as “a language we have chosen to speak, a talking point we mental health professionals have created to communicate as well as we can with each other and with other professions.”

It is not a final arbiter of who’s crazy and who’s not. Saltz, who says she thinks the DSM can be limiting in clinical practice, prefers to take a holistic approach and look at each patient’s collection of symptoms and concerns without being restricted by the DSM’s various criteria.

Regier agrees that’s how doctors should use it, arguing that the DSM “really needs to be seen as a set of scientific hypotheses.” It is, he believes, “a living document” changeable with new research.

But if the DSM is a book of “hypotheses,” why the fuss? Does the DSM matter?

Yes. A lot.

The first reason why is prosaic. If you want your insurance to reimburse your visit to a mental health professional, you are probably going to need a DSM code signifying a diagnosis.

But the more profound reason is that it shapes how doctors, even the rest of rest of society, view sexuality.

“A psychiatric diagnosis is more than shorthand to facilitate communication among professionals or to standardize research parameters,” wrote Dr. Charles Moser and Peggy Kleinplatz in a 2005 paper published in the Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality. “Psychiatric diagnoses affect child custody decisions, self-esteem, whether individuals are hired or fired, receive security clearances, or have other rights and privileges curtailed. Criminals may find that their sentences are either mitigated or enhanced as a direct result of their diagnoses. The equating of unusual sexual interests with psychiatric diagnoses has been used to justify the oppression of sexual minorities and to serve political agendas. A review of this area is not only a scientific issue, but also a human rights issue.”

A problem for whom?
There is no shortage of opinion on what ought to be changed, deleted or included in the new DSM-V. Sandra Leiblum, formerly a professor at New Jersey’s Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and an expert in female sexual health who is now in private practice in Bridgewater, N.J., says she wants to see a revision of diagnoses of female hypoactive sexual desire disorder, other female arousal disorders and sexual pain like dyspareunia. For example, she wants language that would separate arousal disorders into genital (more biological in origin) and subjective subtypes.

Carol Queen, a sexologist, sexual rights activist and co-founder of San Francisco’s Center for Sex and Culture, believes the new DSM should stress that sexual variances are only a problem “if they are problems in the life of the person showing up” in a psychiatrist’s office “so that when somebody is eroticizing something, or doing something in a consensual way, that’s not a problem” even if it may seem odd to most of us.

She also proposes an addition, a diagnosis of “absexual” (“ab” meaning “away from”). This would include those who appear to be “turned on by fulminating against it.” Examples could include state governors who crusade against prostitution even while paying hookers for sex, and religious leaders who wind up trying to explain engaging in the sex acts they preach against.

Moser, who is affiliated with the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco, and Kleinplatz, from the University of Ottawa, argue that all paraphilias, like sexual sadism, sexual masochism, transvestism, should be removed from the DSM, insisting that “the DSM criteria for diagnosis of unusual sexual interests as pathological rests on a series of unproven and more importantly, untested assumptions.”

This does not mean, as opponents of this idea have suggested, that they somehow approve of sex between adults and children. “We would argue that the removal of pedophilia from the DSM would focus attention on the criminal aspect of these acts, and not allow the perpetrators to claim mental illness as a defense or use it to mitigate responsibility for their crimes," they wrote. "Individuals convicted of these crimes should be punished as provided by the laws in the jurisdiction in which the crime occurred.”

Most of these suggestions are inherently political, as much as the APA and most psychiatrists would wish to avoid politics. Sex exists as part of the culture, and it cannot be separated from it.

The DSM has reflected cultural shifts through its revisions and new editions. The most famous example is homosexuality. When the first DSM was created in 1952, homosexuality was declared a mental illness. By 1973, and after much heated debate and over objections from religious conservatives, the DSM-II excluded homosexuality as a disorder with the exception of one variant, and that was soon dropped in an interim revision.

Once deviant, now desirable
“Definitely a change in culture affects diagnoses,” Leiblum says. “We used to think oral-genital sex was deviant and we have embraced that. Masturbation was evidence of out-of-control behavior, now we see it as not only normative but to be encouraged.”

So if enough people start to do it, or are more public about doing it, does that mean it is no longer a disorder? “I think it probably affects the degree to which people are willing to look at scientific evidence,” Regier says.

This fuzziness is why, starting in the 1980s, the field moved toward adding the notion of “distress” to the DSM.

“We do not consider something a disorder unless there is a clearly defined description of this entity and there is clearly some significant dysfunction and distress associated with it,” explains Regier. “I would say also if there is no victim involved … this behavior is not imposing a person’s will on another person, that is a critical component when one looks at conditions in this area.”

If you aren’t distressed, and everyone is a consenting grown-up, then there probably isn’t a disorder. But things won’t be that simple for the creators of the new DSM.

“How do you make a criteria that does not pathologize low desire?” Leiblum asks rhetorically. You add the need to be distressed about it. “But then whose distress should be looked at?” she asks, referring to a sexual partner. “You can have hypertension and not feel any distress because there is objective criteria for what is high blood pressure. But there is none of that for sexual diagnoses, even premature ejaculation. What constitutes premature?”

(At a press conference Monday, the International Society of Sexual Medicine made a stab at a definition, saying premature ejaculation is "a male sexual dysfunction characterized by ejaculation which always or nearly always occurs prior to or within about one minute of vaginal penetration; and, inability to delay ejaculation on all or nearly all vaginal penetrations; and, negative personal consequences, such as distress, bother, frustration and/or the avoidance of sexual intimacy.”)

This problematic lack of clarity, Leiblum argues, is especially acute for the paraphilias. Does the criteria amount to “If it’s mine it’s OK, but if it’s yours it’s kinky? These issues need to be grappled with.”

Brian Alexander is the author of the new book “America Unzipped: In Search of Sex and Satisfaction."

© 2008 MSNBC Interactive

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24664654/from/ET/

interview

Among the Sex Wonks

Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex
by Mary Roach
W.W. Norton (2008)

Mary Roach. Photo by Phoebe Rachlis.

By Don Hazen and Tana Ganeva

AlterNet.org

April 28, 2008

It turns out there is quite a bit of variability in the distance between the clitoris and the vagina.

Princess Marie Bonaparte -- great grandniece of Napoleon and an accomplished amateur scientist -- discovered this tidbit of information in her doomed quest for the elusive vaginal orgasm. Bonaparte measured the genitals of 243 women and concluded that women with a shorter span between their clitoris and vagina were more likely to orgasm during sex.

Armed with this information, Bonaparte decided to subject herself -- twice -- to having her clitoris surgically moved.

Alas, it was to no avail. As we learn in Mary Roach's new book Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex, the princess's story did not have a happy ending. (Ironically Bonaparte moved on to psychoanalysis and became a devotee of Sigmund Freud, an arch-enemy of the clitoral orgasm).

If informational nuggets like this turn you on, then Roach's hilarious overview of sex research throughout history is for you. Bonk features hundreds of surprising and amazing facts that Roach gathered in her investigation of the science of sex. Here are just a few eye-openers: In the 1970s, Masters and Johnson observed that homosexuals were far better lovers than heterosexuals, perhaps because of gender empathy; women are more likely to have risky affairs when their hormones are peaking; rhesus monkeys climax within five seconds of entering their partner, giving new meaning to the term quickie; more than a few men throughout history have had animal testes grafted onto their genitals in the hopes of increasing their virility.

Let's be clear, though. Sex research is not an exact science, given the mysterious, unquantifiable factors like emotion, attraction and "sexual chemistry" that influence sexuality. But some things are pretty obvious, observable, and predictable nevertheless, and we find out what happens in the laboratories of sex throughout history. It is not always a pretty picture, but one that is often hilarious.

Bonk profiles the great pioneers of the science of sex, like Alfred Kinsey and the aforementioned Masters and Johnson, as well as dozens of lesser lights who undertook brave, creative, or just plain wacky experiments in their pursuit of knowledge.

And the best part in reading this book is that Roach is damned funny. Experiencing Roach in Bonk provides the "full monty" of reading non-fiction. You are titillated, you learn hundreds of new fascinating, and sometimes ludicrous things about sex and human behavior, and you often laugh your butt off. Consider the British study that found 351 terms for penis, including "the one-eyed milkman," but only three for the clitoris, which by the way doubles in size when stimulated and is far more erogenous than the penis.

Roach goes everywhere to learn about sex -- far back into history, to foreign lands, and into territory where sex is not usually on the agenda, like among people with incapacitating spinal injuries. Here Roach highlights the pioneering work of Marcalee Sipski, and we learn that men can have sex with catheters in their penises and that orgasm is sometimes achievable in people with the most serious injuries.

We spoke with Roach over the phone about the science of sex.

How has sex research evolved over the past several decades and how has sexual understanding changed as a result?

"In the '70s you had researchers like Masters and Johnson doing pure physiological sex research. When the basic processes of arousal and orgasm were figured out, or beginning to be figured out, there was less of that type of research. During the AIDS era there was a lot of research directed toward behavioral surveys and figuring out risk taking behaviors and their connection to the transmission of HIV, so a lot of money went into that area. Nowadays there's a lot more money, and a lot of sex research is devoted to coming up with therapies for sexual dysfunction, whether it's pharmaceutical or otherwise. So that's a general look at how sex research has changed since the '60s."

Much of the first few chapters are about the female orgasm and the persistent myth of the vaginal orgasm. Does the myth still persist? Do men still cling to it?

"I don't know if the myth still persists. Hopefully not. It was interesting for me to see how even figures as large as Masters and Johnson came out saying 'No! There's no such thing, it's all just indirect stimulation of the clitoris, and there's no such thing as a vaginal orgasm, the clitoris is always involved.' Then came that study by Alzate where women came in and he was sort of frictioning the front wall of the vagina and reliably producing orgasms without any contribution at all from the clitoris. To me it's silly because there's not . . . there are nipple orgasms, there are dream orgasms, there are people who can think themselves into orgasm. Kinsey met a woman who . . . stroking her eyebrows made her have an orgasm. Everybody's wired differently. So I hope people aren't still clinging to that particular myth."

What about the G spot or as you say "that other erogenous zone?" Is there research about that, and what should the lovers of women know about it?

"Clearly the front wall of the vagina is an erotic area and there still persists some sort of discussion about whether there is a separate structure. Can you differentiate the tissue of the G spot from the rest of the front wall of the vagina? There are people who bicker back and forth about that. But clearly, whether or not it's a separate structure, the front has an erogenous area. If it didn't, those rabbit-style vibrators wouldn't be the terrific sales item that they are."

You state that erections are all about blood and that impotence has moved from the realm of the psychological to the physical. What is your take on the psychological versus the physical in terms of sexual dysfunction?

"With men, clearly when you age there's an age-related change in the tissue of erectile chambers and that can be helped; Viagra is very useful for that. In somebody who doesn't have any age-related changes in their tissue and is able to get an erection while they're sleeping (which is how they determine if it's psychological or physiological), they look for nocturnal erections. In somebody who has no trouble getting an erection in their sleep, it's an indicator that it's a psychological issue. And sometimes these men are given Viagra anyway. I asked a urologist, "Why are you giving these people Viagra if it's clearly a psychological issue?" He said that what happens when somebody starts being unable to get an erection is that the anxiety sets in and then they really can't. It's sort of a vicious cycle. They try to break that vicious cycle by giving them Viagra and at the same time suggesting they have therapy. I thought, fair enough."

The belt and suspenders approach.

"Exactly. Sometimes I think it's several issues when it comes to libido and differences in a couple's interest in sex and how often they want to have sex. That's a situation where pharmaceutical solutions aren't enough. There isn't anything right now for women in terms of raising libido. There is in Europe. I think there's a testosterone patch that is available there. But even with all of these pharmaceutical solutions, I think that open communication and conversation should also play a critical part."

There's a new study out that suggests that sex takes from 3 to 13 minutes. It treats sex pretty mechanically. Of course 3 to 13 minutes is a lot longer than some monkeys take time to orgasm . . .

"Your chimpanzees take about five seconds to get there. There was a statistic that I saw that said from two to five minutes. But what they're talking about is just from penetration to orgasm, so they were leaving out, say, a 20 minute sensual massage, and foreplay . . . it could be an hour of really fantastic foreplay before you get to the part where their stopwatch starts going. So it's kind of a misleading figure. The statistic I saw, they were just talking about from the time of penetration to orgasm, not the entire sexual encounter. Hopefully your statistic also is that; hopefully that wasn't the whole thing."

Hopefully it wasn't. But part of the question is why does society still conflate sex with traditional intercourse?

"True. Exactly. So often with sex research they fail to define their terms. They'll say sex -- well, what do you mean by sex? Are you talking about the film that somebody watched beforehand? Does that go into it too? Or the oral foreplay? What are you calling sex? If you don't define it, people think 'They're just talking about the in-and-out part.' And there doesn't even need to be an in-and-out part. So we need to pay attention to how they're defining things."

At the end of the book you talk about how homosexuals are generally much better lovers because they take the time for foreplay and exploration but heterosexuals generally don't. Can you explain why?

"This was a study done in the '70s. I'm hoping that straight people have made some strides since then. Around that time there were a lot of books like the Hite Report that were very much talking about technique, in a very mechanistic way -- sex manuals and sex tips. For the first time they were putting out all of these 'Here's the way to satisfy your partner,' etc. So people were overly concerned with the mechanic aspects of sex: 'Now I need to do this for 10 seconds and now I have to rub her here.' It was all very goal-directed and not about losing yourself in the whole process of turning each other on.

"Another thing the study mentioned was the gender empathy issue. If you're both of the same gender you have an intuitive sense of what works, whereas straight people have to kind of fumble around and figure it out."

Do you think sex research encourages this sort of goal-oriented attitude towards sex?

"No. I think that women's magazines and men's magazines, which are always saying 'Five tips that will drive him or her wild' and give you a laundry list of things to do encourage that attitude. And people feel incompetent and like they are lacking something because they are not doing that. Sex research for the most part is ignored by the general public. It goes on in labs. Sex research doesn't come out and say 'here's how to have better sex' usually. Often it's in its own abstract world."

There was one Masters and Johnson study that found that the sex fantasies of gay and straight people were similar. And rape fantasies, or forced sexual encounters, rated high on the list for both groups. Do you have a sense of why that is or what that might mean?

"No. I'm just reporting what they found. I'm not a sociologist or a cultural speculator. I don't know why that is. Possibly it's tied to issues of control. They always talk about how it's people in positions of power or control that often like to be sexually rendered helpless and dominated."

Historically most sex researchers were men. Do you think this impacted the research?

"Sure. One example in the book is that when primatologists studied sexual behavior in primates other than people they just assumed female monkeys were releasing some sort of chemical that was making the males act. It never crossed their minds that the females were initiating sex. And they came up with this stuff that they called copulins that the females were supposedly releasing, which would trigger sexual behaviors in the males, and that the females had no idea and were totally passive. I spent an afternoon in a rhesus compound outside of Atlanta. The females avoid the males unless they're ovulating, and then basically they just go up to them and slap the ground like 'Check it out, I'm here, lets have sex.' But they do all the initiating of sex. It was years before the primatologists at the time, who were all male, picked up on that because it wasn't on their radar that females would be anything other than passive receptacles."

Like the young monkey that was having sex for the first time, she was a little more subtle because she had to work around the dominant female.

"Exactly. It was like an eighth grade dance where you go up to the punch table at the same time. But definitely she was taking the initiative and making the overtures. Carefully, subtly, but obviously."

For the five-second copulation.

"Exactly. For what? Is that it? You blink and you miss it. Be thankful that you're not a rhesus monkey."

Are there other examples of wider cultural misunderstandings about sexuality influencing research?

"Well, there was the case of Marie Bonaparte -- the woman who surgically had her clitoris moved. I'm assuming that her surgeon, Josef Halban, suggested moving her clitoris, as opposed to just having her try a different position or something oral. So she resorted to these drastic measures. It was an intercourse-centric view of what sex needed to be, the idea that you had to move the clitoris closer to the vagina so that missionary position intercourse could make her orgasm. I don't know if it was his personal view or the prevailing cultural view that sex is intercourse and nothing else. That's one sad example."

I got a kick out of reading the painful history of the repression of masturbation. And for men, especially, there is actually a biological reason for masturbation.

"If you let it sit around long enough the sperm start getting deformed and are not particularly useful for making their way into an egg. So I liked that Roy Levin had come up with an evolutionary explanation for masturbation -- that it in fact served a valuable purpose."

Another point in the book has to do with the role of hormones in sexual desire. You come down pretty hard on birth control pills.

"When I was working on the book a study came out about how birth control pills lower the amount of freed-up testosterone in the blood (testosterone is what drives up female libido) and what I thought was extraordinary was that this isn't mentioned as a side effect either on the product or by health providers. It's never mentioned to you when you get a prescription for the pill. When you get an anti-depressant, one of the side-effects is that it lowers your libido. But for the birth control pill, the FDA isn't concerned about libido. They're just concerned about medical risks. It seems like something they might want to mention to people."

Any theories about that?

"I think because it's considered a lifestyle issue and it's not on their list of things to check for. If it's not a medical condition, it's thought of as a lifestyle thing. It's why they don't include it for that category of drug."

The last question is something I always like to ask somebody who's on the circuit. How are people reacting to your book and what do they seem to be most interested in?

"This is an interesting book to be on the circuit with because people come up to me and ask questions as if I were a sex therapist. So I'll have someone come up to me and say 'I don't know, my husband wants to have sex with me all the time, and as far as I'm concerned I'd be happy with birthdays and holidays and I'd rather wash dishes than have sex.' So people come up to me and say these outrageous things and then they go 'Am I normal?' A guy came up to me and said 'You know I had a heart attack 10 years ago and I haven't had an erection since, but you know what, it's interesting, you don't really have to have the erection to have the orgasm and I just realized that.'

"And I said 'Yeah, isn't that something.'"