Reconsidering the Times Coverage of the G Shot
Not to be editorially outmaneuvered by New Scientist (which last week erroneously reported on the “nailing” of the location of the g-spot) this weekend’s T-Magazine from the New York Times ups the ante in the faux-sex-news-story game with a jaw droppingly ignorant profile of what they claim is the hot new vaginal cosmetic procedure; the “g shot”.
Here the Times head back to their favorite cosmetic-surgery-super-sales-guy Dr. David Matlock who is working his buns off pushing his newest invention; a collagen injection in the anterior wall of the vagina that he claims makes it easier to find and stimulate the g spot.
Like some of the other procedures Dr. Matlock hypes to any media outlet that is greedy or dumb enough to listen, there is no clinical data as to the effectiveness or possible side effects of the “g shot”. Not mentioned in the article is the fact that just last year the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a policy statement advising women against precisely these kinds of procedures due to a lack of data on safety and utility.
Instead, readers are treated to a funny little piece that seems intentionally to misrepresent the popularity of the procedure. How exactly is this construed as something other than a shameless self-promoter duping the Times (or silently colluding with them) into promoting his latest attempt to make money from sexually uninformed patients? How are we led to believe that this is a legitimate trend? Let’s see.
The legitimizing scene is set for us by the writer describing “a handful” of women waiting in an office to hear the doctor’s pitch. How many of these women actually went on to have the procedure? How many of these women are his friends, drug reps willing to do him a favor, or people the Times writer brought with her? For that matter how many women fit in your hand anyway?
Knowing what I know about setting up media opportunities, I can almost guarantee you that having a group of women in the office was what the Times editors required before approving the story. Again, who were these women? Did Campos ask if they were being compensated by the doctor for their time and participation? Did her editor? Would that have mattered since this is just a fashion piece about women and sex?
As far as the popularity of the procedure, the only proof of this comes from Matlock himself who claims that he has a six month waiting list, charges $1850 for the procedure, and sells his “G Shot Kits” in 25 countries. Did the writer bother to ascertain the accuracy of any of these claims? Which countries? How many has he sold?
It’s hard to imagine that the multi-talented Campos (in addition to filing stories for Times fashion, she also has her own line of swimsuits which promise to “change the way women feel about the beach”) is as gullible as this piece makes her out to be. Here’s what assures Campos of the popularity of this g shot procedure,
…the walls of his otherwise stark practice feature framed articles from publications around the world that scream, "I Paid $10,000 for a Designer Vagina” and "I Became a Born-Again Virgin for My Husband.”
You know, on the wall of my office I have a newspaper headline that reads “Cory Silverberg Lands on the Moon”. If Ms. Campos visited my office do you think she’d bother to notice that the headline is courtesy of the NASA Post?
This isn’t the first time the Times has hyped up a fringe procedure because it made good copy. In February 2006 the Times magazine printed this piece that claimed that vaginal rejuvenation surgery was a hot new trend. Once again they quoted Dr. Matlock and once again, without any hard statistics, editors let the writer insinuate that this was a wildly popular procedure. Only one moth later the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) released statistics showing that the procedure is incredibly fringe (representing 04% of all the surgical cosmetic procedures and .007% of total cosmetic procedures, which include things like Botox injections). It seems likely that if someone from the Times had bothered to contact the ASPS they would have shared some of these figures.
To anyone who hasn’t heard about this before, you might actually believe that this is something other than shameless self-promotion on the part of the surgeon, an easy paycheck for the “writer”, and a pathetic attempt to keep sex in the style section at least once a week by the editors. When you think of it that way it’s sort of a win-win-win-lose situation, with you the reader being the only loser. Thanks T Magazine!
Read more - NY Times: Anterior Motives
Previously - G Spot Discovered (Again), Press Are Orgasmic ; Setting the Record Straight on Designer Vaginas ; Rejuvenate your what? ; Vaginal Rejuvenation Surgery Widely Over Reported
I guess the Times didn’t have enough time (pardon the pun) to research and publish sexual awareness news/education that would actually HELP people. And if this so-called procedure actually exists and the women partaking really think their g-spot is deficient, I propose they go to the intial source of excitement—the brain. You won’t need a procedure for this one ; )
I’m glad that the Times wants to continue posting news about our sexual selves and the impact it has on our lives, but it’s sad that they are resorting to posting articles about ridiculous proceedures that the general public obviously has no understanding of instead of offering practical and (gasp) real advice and resources for people to actually better the quality of the intimate affairs.