The different studies did systematically agree on the existence of the G-spot, but there was no agreement on its location, size, or nature

Vieira-Baptista P, Lima-Silva J, Preti M, et al. G-spot: Fact or Fiction?: A Systematic Review. Sex Med 2021;9:100435. Oct 2021. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S205011612100115X

Introduction: The G-spot, a putative erogenous area in the anterior vaginal wall, is a widely accepted concept in the mainstream media, but controversial in medical literature.

Aim: Review of the scientific data concerning the existence, location, and size of the G-spot.

Methods: Search on Pubmed, Pubmed Central, Cochrane, clinicaltrials.gov and Google Scholar from inception to November 2020 of studies on G-spot's existence, location and nature. Surveys, clinical, physiological, imaging, histological and anatomic studies were included.

Main Outcome Measure: Existence, location, and nature of the G-spot.

Results: In total, 31 eligible studies were identified: 6 surveys, 5 clinical, 1 neurophysiological, 9 imaging, 8 histological/anatomical, and 2 combined clinical and histological. Most women (62.9%) reported having a G-spot and it was identified in most clinical studies (55.4% of women); in 2 studies it was not identified in any women. Imaging studies had contradictory results in terms of its existence and nature. Some showed a descending of the anterior vaginal wall, that led to the concept of clitourethrovaginal complex. In anatomic studies, one author could systematically identify the G-spot, while another group did not find it. Studies on innervation of the vaginal walls did not systematically identify an area with richer innervation.

Conclusion The different studies did systematically agree on the existence of the G-spot. Among the studies in which it was considered to exist, there was no agreement on its location, size, or nature. The existence of this structure remains unproved.

Key Words: G-spotGräfenberg SpotOrgasmSexual FunctionClitorurethrovaginal Complex

If giving money to the Red Cross increases well-being, does taking money from the Red Cross increase ill-being?

If giving money to the Red Cross increases well-being, does taking money from the Red Cross increase ill-being? – Evidence from three experiments. Frank Martela, Richard M. Ryan. Journal of Research in Personality, Volume 93, August 2021, 104114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2021.104114

Highlights

• A small sum of money donated to Red Cross in a button-pushing activity increased participant well-being.

• Similar sum of money detracted from a donation to Red Cross in a button-pushing activity did not increase ill-being.

• Participants might compensate their negative impact by emphasizing the positive impact they are having towards science.

Abstract: Does having a negative impact on others decrease one’s well-being? In three separate pre-registered studies (n = 111, n = 445, & n = 447), participants engaged in a button-pushing activity for 4 min in three conditions: earning money for themselves (~60c), also earning money for the Red Cross (~15c), or also reducing the money distributed to the Red Cross (~15c). The results of the individual studies and a meta-analysis across them showed that positive impact increased well-being, but even though participants were aware of the negative impact they were having, there was no increased ill-being in the negative impact condition. In Study 3 we examined whether participants in the negative impact condition are mentally compensating by emphasizing the positive impact they are having towards science.

Keywords: Antisocial behaviorIll-beingProsocial behaviorProsocial impactWell-being

5. General discussion

In this series of studies we set out to examine whether engaging in behavior that has negative social impact would lead to ill-being in a fashion mirroring the positive effects of engaging in behaviors with positive social impact. More particularly, in three studies, we examined participants who were exposed to similar dosage of positive impact and negative impact effect – in this case donating money to the Red Cross or taking money away from the Red Cross – to examine whether prosocial impact would increase well-being and antisocial impact increase ill-being.

First, findings from our initial study showed that although the manipulations were effective, effect sizes were modest. We thus moved to larger samples in Studies 2 and 3. In line with previous findings (e.g., Martela and Ryan, 2016a, Martela and Ryan, 2016b, Martela and Ryan, 2020), the zero-order correlations in both studies revealed that beneficence satisfaction and frustration were associated with increased well-being and ill-being, respectively. Also in line with previous research (e.g. Aknin et al., 2013, Martela and Ryan, 2016a), these studies demonstrated that engaging in prosocial behavior increased participants’ sense of vitality (Study 2), situational meaning (Studies 2 & 3), and positive affect (Study 3). Meta-analysis across the three studies confirmed these positive effects on positive affect, vitality, and situational meaning. However, even though we used three different indicators of ill-being and two sufficiently powered studies, we found no evidence that the negative impact condition increased people’s ill-being, either when examining the studies individually or when conducting a meta-analysis across them. Instead, people in the negative impact condition, as compared to the neutral condition, experienced more prosocial impact, vitality, and meaningfulness in Study 2, and more situational meaningfulness and a sense that they were helping science in Study 3. The meta-analysis across three studies confirmed both these positive effects of being in the negative impact condition on well-being indicators as well as showing positive effects on both beneficence satisfaction and frustration relative to participants in the neutral condition. Perhaps partially explaining this result, findings in Study 3 showed that participants in the negative impact condition also reported feeling that they contributed more towards science than participants in the neutral condition. In recognizing the potentially negative impact they were having, the participants might have consciously or unconsciously focused upon the positive impact of their activity, perhaps to mitigate any feelings associated with their negative impact.

Feeling one is harming others is arguably hard to integrate (Martela & Ryan, 2020; Ryan & Deci, 2017), leading people to engage in defenses and rationalizations (Simler and Hanson, 2018, Tsang, 2002, Weinstein et al., 2012), as well as attempts to repair harm where possible (Legate et al., 2015). The psychological well-being dynamics in antisocial situations thus might be more complex and less straightforward than often thought – this could also explain why so little research on the topic has been previously published. The present results thus emphasize the need for more research in the future to further identify the defense mechanisms that might lead participants having an antisocial impact not suffering from it but instead even having a higher well-being because of it.

Certain limitations need to be acknowledged. First, all samples were gathered within one country and through the same online channel, Mturk, making it important to replicate the findings in other samples and cultures. Second, well-being was measured using self-reports, calling for future research utilizing others ways of measuring it. Third, one of our key findings was negative – we didn’t find any effect of antisocial behavior on well-being and ill-being indicators raising the question as to the adequacy of the research design. Yet arguing against this, manipulation checks showed that participants realized that they were having a negative impact in the negative impact condition, and on the other side of the ledger, the positive impact condition demonstrated that the paradigm could in principle cause differences in well-being. Minimally, what this study thus appears to show is that the same “dosage” of impact, which when positive is capable of increasing participants well-being is not enough, when negative, to increase participants ill-being to a similar degree. This led us to look for and find that participants might be compensating for the negative impact by emphasizing the positive impacts the same activity was causing. We hope this research spurs more inquiry into the potential asymmetry of impact on well-being and ill-being from beneficial and harmful results of one’s actions.

Open practices

Preregistration: All three studies were preregistered at OSF.

Data: The data for all three studies is publicly available at: https://osf.io/5h4cr/?view_only=641468da56d24730b92f1b4a3b666f8e.

Stereotypes about men’s lower sexual self-control uniquely predict attitudes about women’s mundane (but potentially sexually arousing) behaviors, like public breastfeeding and immodest clothing

Moon, Jordan W., Val Wongsomboon, and Barış Sevi. 2021. “Beliefs About Men’s Sexual Self-control Predict Attitudes Toward Women’s Immodest Clothing and Public Breastfeeding.” PsyArXiv. September 2. doi:10.31234/osf.io/67vh9

Abstract: Why do some people have negative views toward mundane behaviors such as women breastfeeding in public or wearing revealing clothing? We suggest that moral opposition to these behaviors may partly stem from their perceived effects on men’s sexual responses. We hypothesized that (a) people would stereotype men as having relatively less control of their sexual urges (i.e., lower sexual self-control) compared to women and that (b) stereotypes about men’s sexual self-control would uniquely predict attitudes about women’s mundane (but potentially sexually arousing) behaviors. Five studies show that (a) people stereotyped men (vs. women) as lacking sexual self-control (Study 1) and (b) endorsement of this stereotype was associated with opposition to public breastfeeding and immodest clothing (Studies 2-5). The effects hold even after controlling for potential confounds and seem specific to relevant moral domains, although women (vs. men) tend not to view these behaviors as moral issues.

Effects of perinatal gonadal hormones on human sexual orientation; women with isolated deficiency reported lower androphilia & higher levels of bisexuality; seems there is a role of perinatal estrogens in organizing sexual orientation

Evidence that perinatal ovarian hormones promote women’s sexual attraction to men. Talia N. Shirazi et al. Psychoneuroendocrinology, Volume 134, December 2021, 105431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2021.105431

Highlights

• Studied effects of perinatal gonadal hormones on human sexual orientation.

• Participants were typically-developing or had isolated GnRH deficiency (IGD).

• Women with IGD reported lower androphilia and higher levels of bisexuality.

• There were no consistent differences between the two groups of men.

• Results suggest a role of perinatal estrogens in organizing sexual orientation.

Abstract: Ovarian estrogens may influence the development of the human brain and behavior, but there are few opportunities to test this possibility. Isolated GnRH deficiency (IGD) is a rare endocrine disorder that could provide evidence for the role of estrogens in organizing sexually differentiated phenotypes: Unlike typical development, development in individuals with IGD is characterized by low or absent gonadal hormone production after the first trimester of gestation. Because external genitalia develop in the first trimester, external appearance is nevertheless concordant with gonadal sex in people with IGD. We therefore investigated the effects of gonadal hormones on sexual orientation by comparing participants with IGD (n = 97) to controls (n = 1670). Women with IGD reported lower male-attraction compared with typically developing women. In contrast, no consistent sexuality differences between IGD and typically developing men were evident. Ovarian hormones after the first trimester appear to influence female-typical dimensions of sexual orientation.

Keywords: AndrophiliaGynephiliaIsolated GnRH deficiencySex hormonesSexual orientation

Religions “in the wild” are the varied set of religious activities that occurred before the emergence of organized religions with doctrines, or that persist at the margins of those organized traditions, & that mostly focus on misfortune

Deriving Features of Religions in the Wild—How Communication and Threat-Detection May Predict Spirits, Gods, Witches, and Shamans. Pascal Boyer. Human Nature volume 32, pp 557–581. Sep 14 2021. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12110-021-09410-y

Abstract: Religions “in the wild” are the varied set of religious activities that occurred before the emergence of organized religions with doctrines, or that persist at the margins of those organized traditions. These religious activities mostly focus on misfortune; on how to remedy specific cases of illness, accidents, failures; and on how to prevent them. I present a general model to account for the cross-cultural recurrence of these particular themes. The model is based on (independently established) features of human psychology—namely, (a) epistemic vigilance, the set of systems whereby we evaluate the quality of information and of sources of information, and (b) threat-detection psychology, the set of evolved systems geared at detecting potential danger in the environment. Given these two sets of systems, the dynamics of communication will favor particular types of messages about misfortune. This makes it possible to predict recurrent features of religious systems, such as the focus on nonphysical agents, the focus on particular cases rather than general aspects of misfortune, and the emergence of specialists. The model could illuminate not just why such representations are culturally successful, but also why people are motivated to formulate them in the first place.