Talk:G-spot/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Link

The link to the alcoholic beverage seems to be broken. It just leads back to the same page.

Drawing

Is the drawing correct? I thought the g-spot is on the upper side of the vagina, below the urethra, and skene's gland as well as http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/grafenberg.html seem to agree. AxelBoldt 11:05, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The picture still points to the completely wrong place and disagrees with the anatomical description given in the article (picture points to dorsal, article claims ventral). Should be pointing to a point posterior to the urethra and anterior to the vagina. Could this article please get some cites from the literature? It is very unsubstantiated as it stands, especially for something widely accepted by readers of Cosmopolitan and not so much by the general scientific community. 02:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed: I got here after observing the location that I believed was incorrect. Some simple web scans pointed elsewhere. I can correct this image, but due to the sensitive nature I will not at this time, perhaps in a week. Feedback needed. Leonard G. 01:11, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I have updated the article to use the corrected Image:Fem isa 2.gif. Please clarify the lagal status of the images you have uploaded. Thanks. Rafał Pocztarski 02:32, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Any modifications to the images modified by myself are cc-sa (share alike), over any base image license, which is the controlling licence, which if not mine are generally public domain via U.S. government agency release (see Image:SFO_Landsat7_USGS122-38Comp.jpg, my composition of two public domain images. I see that few use the cc-sa, but I feel that it is the most appropriate for WP use, at least for those who do not expect acredidation for their image, which of course may not apply to an artist who makes a living from their art and for whom acredidation is an important source of leads for revenue work and commissions. The only time I use more restricted licence is where I have images of performers or demonstrators who charge for an image, where the cc-nc (noncommercial) useage seems most appropriate. (see Image:PeterhoffCourtDress.jpg - the demonstrators were charging a small fee for pictures) and performances for which admission is charged but for which picture taking is allowed - e. g. my contributions of Beijing opera illustrations.
Some of my earlier image contributitions may be more restrictive, but I am gradually relaxing the restraints to cc-sa, which simply states that if anyone further modifies the image it must be released under the same license - you modify it, anyone else may modify it or use it for any purpose, but you and they must pass the license along. This seems to me to be the least complicated and most giving of the licenses used in WP. (What the heck is Back Cover/Front Cover, etc.?)
Something to note - the changing of an image by replacement may not be seen for several days (unlike text changes) - even if you clear your browser cach or use a different browser or even a different computer. I can only presume that this is a protective mechanism to prevent vandalism via modification of images (imagine the possibilities)- but I have not found a reference to this in WP. Have you knowlege of such matters? The only way to get an instant change is to put up a new image with a new name and change the image reference in the text accordingly. Leonard G. 03:30, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The delay is caused most probably by the cluster of caching proxy servers (en.wikipedia.org seems to be using 6 servers with round-robin DNS right now) used for load balancing, which is done for performance rather than security reasons. Front- and Back-Cover Text is the text that must be printed on the cover of a book. It is irrelevant in the case of Wikipedia since it is licensed under GNU Free Documentation License explicitly without its optional features, i.e. without Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts, and Back-Cover Texts, but briefly cover text is “a short piece of text that you insist must be printed on the cover of the manual when the manual is published, even if someone else is publishing it.” [1] As for the licensing of your work, of course feel free to use whatever license seems most appropriate. While refering to Image:Fem isa 2.gif I was only asking you to add a copyright notice and a license—whatever it is, not any specific one—because currently there is no legal info and in that case the Template:Imagevio should be added. I have added Image:Fem isa 2.gif to seven articles so I feel somehow responsible for that issue. Thanks. Rafał Pocztarski 05:38, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I don't know the base image licensing - that's why I was specific about only the modifications that I made being cc-sa. So I can't really say its my problem to figure out the base license. Feel free to add the copyvio if you wish - at least the image appears more accurate now. Maybe the original G-spot inaccuracy isimilar to the mistakes that publishers put into maps - a means of watermarking the image. Leonard G. 18:23, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Depending on the original license it might not be possible to release modifications under Creative Commons ShareAlike License. For example doing so with works released under the GNU Free Documentation License would be a copyright infringement: ”You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document [...] provided that you release the Modified Version under precisely this License, with the Modified Version filling the role of the Document, thus licensing distribution and modification of the Modified Version to whoever possesses a copy of it. [...]” Since I don’t know what was the license of the original image you have modified, I temporarily used Template:Unverified. Please update it as soon as you know the copyright holder and the license this image was released under. Thanks. Rafał Pocztarski 03:03, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This is really not my problem - If the base image is a copy violation then so is my derivative work. I will try to find some old medical or anatomy texts. Remember how the modern (1960's) encyclopedias would have these great Anatomy sections? These were always the best because often they would be sold on a buy one now (cheap and always the "A" book) and offer a subscription to the remaining volumes. This article would have these great transparent overlays. WP needs something like this, which could be built up from non-copyright images - lots of work but it would really be a worthwhile project - especially if a knowledgeable group of artists, anatomists, and technicians could be formed. Often, also, the conventional anatomy sections do not include anatomy for artists, which takes a different, but still complex approach, as it is concerned with shifting body weight, muscle structure and changing definition, and physical dynamics of motion. User:Leonard G. 16:43, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Propose Move

I propose that we move this to Gräfenberg spot with G-Spot as a redirect rather than the other way around. Seems more encyclopedic. Comment in support or opposition. -SocratesJedi | Talk 19:19, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, the rule seems to be "do what is most expected, not what is technically correct". But in this case, it's just a redirect from an abbreviation, so I think it's probably OK. It's not like those cases where someone's redirected from the common name to what would seem, to the common prole, like a wrongly named entry. Kaz 21:12, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Boldly moved on 28 January since no opposition encountered in a week. -SocratesJedi | Talk 20:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I propose it is deleted it doesn't exist except in the minds of pornographers. (From 81.132.93.16)

I was kinda thrown off, but then immediatally recognized what had happened. The first line shows explains that Gräfenberg is the G in G-Spot. No one will be thrown off and this is technically more correct.
In the minds of pornographers? - perhaps sexologist would be a more appropriate term. - Leonard G. 18:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Of course it exists.--Bltpdx 09:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

amen, it does exist!

Yes it exists- completely different kind of orgasm than clitoral.

Link to commercial page

The link to www.master-your-g-spot.com/ appears to be a veiled commercial venue where they sell an "ebook" and videos. Should wikipedia be linking to commerical websites? Is there no comparable non-commerical site?

Removed all three, Wikipedia should be kept clean from these sites.

I put back the www.master-your-g-spot.com site, as it contains practical exercises and information on the g spot. While some links on the site are commercial oriented, the tone of the site is definately a hobby site vs a "vieled commercial venue" as mentioned above.

Facts

I have a problem with:

  • Many sexual advice books encourage couples unable to reach female orgasm to consider G-spot stimulation as a sexual technique.
  • It is believed by a growing number of experts that the reason stimulation of this area causes a "push out" orgasm, even female ejaculation, is that it has evolved as a trigger point for childbirth. The infant's head pushes on this precise spot during delivery, seeming to trigger the final phase of pushing/delivery. This translates, during normal sexual stimulation, into a more significant contraction of the vagina.

and

  • The stimulation of the G-spot is thought to be more intense for women beyond their thirties, because of changes in tissue structure inside the vagina allowing easier access to the G-spot. Some women believe their thirties are their sexual peak because of this reason.

Please back these claims with facts. (put a number in the text and a reference in the references sections if you want after showing me the text). Bragador 02:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok so since nobody can back these claims I have the right to remove unsourced material (wikipedia rules). The original sentences will still be here and until someone can back them, nobody shall put them back in the article. Bragador 15:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Factuality Disputed?

Their is a fact dispute tag on this page, but no recent discussion of why this tag was placed. If no one has any objection, I think this tag should be removed.--Matthew 05:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Matthew, see Bragador's comment above. Kaarjuus 23:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Not disputed anymore, see "FACTS" just above this section for more info Bragador 15:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact. The problem is that any book you can cite on the subject is treated as a commercial advertisement and deleted. Neat catch-22 eh?

It is difficult to study the g-spot scientifically because it requires a deep level of intimacy and trust on the part of the two involved the first few times until the female learns how to have them (then it gets much easier).

The above description ("push out") is extremely accurate to what I have observed personally.


http://www.isismedia.org/female_ejaculation_gspot.htm is written by sex therapist Deborah Sundahl, I suggest someone more literate than I should read it. I own a copy and have read 80% of it - I stopped after the chapters escalated into practicing. The book begins by drawing from historical information (mythological and technical), then discusses how the therapist taught ejaculation techniques, then the book moved on to discovering how the process can be learned, finally moving into practice therapy where I stopped reading (I'm not female). The earlier chapters cited historical references and modern studies and thus seems more than just a 'learn how to play with her private bits' kind of book. I'm not the author of that book, I have no commercial interests in regards this edit. BTW: the anatomical image on wikipedia does not match the image in the link (and the link is fraught with improper spelling - authenticity issue IMO). 64.140.248.180 00:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)mmmna

It exists

Some woman, like some men, have a bigger and more potent/sensitive gland. Woman who cannot orgasm would have a very small gland while woman who find it easy to orgasm have a big one. Either way, it still is there and is the centre for one of the most powerful orgasms a woman can feel. This is from my own findings, not a journal or newspaper 140.159.2.32 02:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

i have personally not experienced a "g-spot" orgasm or ejaculation (squirting) i for sure know i have had "clitoral"orgasms, multiple in fact...i can't imagine them being more intense, i have had dreams and orgasmed (is that a word?) and no spot was touched, so part may be mental....as far as a G-spot...i tried, cant find it! if my clitoris is touched for 2 min. i am done! so why bother! wouldnt want to dirty my sheets everytime anyway!!! i am happy!!!LOL!!!!!!76.169.27.168 23:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

also i would like to add...i think men and womens sexual ogans can be compared to eachother, i feel like my clitoris is a penis...the other parts are hot spots...but nothing can compare to my clitoris...i am wondering if some of theese "women" who have experienced g-spot orgasms can have a clitoral one? maybe everyone is different and the nerves end up on one side of the pubic bone or the other! what a concept!76.169.27.168 23:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've known I've had a g-spot since I was a teenager. Orgasms from there are completely different- for me my hands and feet go numb and... well it's good. And yes, I can very much so have clitoral orgasms, and WONDERFUL ones when you do both at the same time, and I'm a woman, not a "woman" (to above poster). Even if I feel I'm already satisfied I would always love to try something new, you never know what your missing.68.100.9.200 16:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Male "G-spot"?

Howcome there is no mention of the male "G-spot"? A little hint of sexism perhaps!? *GROWL!* T_T Although not technically a true "G-spot", you should still at least mention it X_X, and it wouldn't hurt to give it a separate topic either! Males aren't walking dildos, you know ^^ Vive la Revolution de Sexualite! Pardon my french, lol - Anatevka 20:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

(Please sign you "talk" edits with 4 ~'s.) So be bold and create the male g-spot article, using verifiable sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I've never heard the G-spot used in reference to the prostate, I’m fairly sure it is only used for the female area. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.10.111.57 (talk • contribs) .
(Please sign you "talk" edits with 4 ~'s.) Who said anything about the prostate? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

dbackj23: my g key is very sensitive

at the end of the article, someone has to remove that. my browser won't let me :( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.190.203.124 (talk • contribs) .

It's been fixed. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This article suffers from a lot of puerile vandalism. I propose that editing should be restricted to registered users. barfbagger 09:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What??

Why does the picture say the g-spot is in the urinal tube?????? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 145.116.15.128 (talk • contribs) .

It doesn't. It points to a spont just below the urethra and above the vagina. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

So how do we discuss anything from the books on the subject?

My girlfriend and I were so impressed with our results from Donald Hicks book on the subject that I posted summary info from it, crediting the book, and it was all removed.

What is the proper form to add this with appropriate citation.

Why would it be removed- there was no comment- it's just gone.

Inconsistency between text and diagram

Text implies the G-spot is on the front wall of vagina while line on diagram shows the rear side of vagina. Must get my eyes tested. JMcC 07:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the image shows it as being a spot between the vagina and the urethra. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually the image is misleading because the line labelled g-spot should really extend almost to the anterior vaginal wall. Right now it looks more like its pointing to the wall of the urethrea, which is incorrect. Certainly to find it in the vagina, (where most people will be looking I assume) a clearer direction should be given. pschemp | talk 04:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

joking

Quoting the article: "The finger or tongue must be approximately 1-3 inches inside the vagina for this to work. However, different individuals require different forms of stimulation." Has anyone here got a tongue that long?

Yeah. This guy.--Bjeversole 07:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

Previous article was thin on information, poorly sourced and inaccurate, it also failed to report that the G-spot in controversial and not supported by any evidence. I have attempted a general re-write of the article. Any questions, comments or concerns let me know. I also forgot to sign in before I put the edit through, sorry. Tmtoulouse 21:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

--68.100.9.200 16:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC) says she has a G-Spot, Sex therapists can teach women where it is located, why are these not considered acceptable as evidence of the existence of the G-spot? Would you need genetic evidence that an author was female before accepting a statement from her regarding her own G-spot? Where and how does this 'denial' ethic come to an end?? 64.140.248.180 00:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)mmmna

Anecdotal evidence is not scientifically sound, certainly not enough to be put into any form of encyclopaedia.--KX36 (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

BUTTSECKS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.177.10 (talk) 05:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

All the evidence that has been produced by researchers and scientist and published in scientific mediums points to there being nothing but a placebo like effect. Feel free to point me to non-anecdotal evidence if you know of any. Remember the standard of inclusion at wikipedia is verifiability. Tmtoulouse 03:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
This article is very badly POV. There is a difference between being unsuccessful at studying a phenomenon scientifically, and establishing that the phenomenon does not exist. The G-spot is a case of the first. The current article seems to be written based on the premise that all sexual reality is able to be studied in a laboratory setting. The premise itself is abhorrent, contradictory to a lot of what is known of human psychology! But furthermore, I think there is some bad science going on here, and I think this is one case where "science"-enthusiasts have gone over the top, picking and choosing things. Science is about invalidating hypotheses--and there is a difference between failing to prove the existence of a phenomenon, and proving it does not exist. The studies cited fail to come up with evidence supporting the G-spot, but do not prove its non-existence. At a bare minimum, more discussion of alternative viewpoints is necessary. I think the following article (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=3531529&dopt=Citation) is reflective of what has generally been going on in the scientific community on this topic. For now I am going to mark this as POV and request a re-write...maybe do it myself if no one else seems willing. Cazort 14:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The article never says that it does not exist, you criticism is off base. The article accurately describes the sourced material and accurately reflects the reality of the scientific consensus on this topic. If you wish to add additional material, find good WP:ATT sources and go for it. This article does not need a re-write though, and if any sourced material is removed it will be reverted. Tmtoulouse 15:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
You ask for non-anecdotal evidence and to my knowledge, and according to (Hines TM (2001) Am J Obstet Gynecol. 185(2):359-62), there have only been two vaguely scientific studies to suggest the existance of a G-spot, both of which are referenced in the article (Addiego F et al. (1981) J Sex Res 17:1-13; Goldberg DC et al. (1983) J Sex Marital Ther 9:27-37.), neither of which are good studies; with the former being little more than a single individual's anecdote being written up and the latter being a study of a mere 11 individuals and their qualitative report of when they felt the most arousal during a manual vaginal stimulation. Hines is right to conclude that "the widespread acceptance of the reality of the G-spot goes well beyond the available evidence."--KX36 (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've rearranged the article so that it differentiates between the existance of an actual nerve rich "spot" on the vagina and stimulation of the Skene's glands, also I've trimmed down some of the skepticism towards the existance of the g-spot, I think there's still enough there to communicate that its controversial.Velps 00:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Its not just controversial, it is not accepted at all by the scientific community or any solid empirical investigations. The best evidence is self-reported questionairs and a case study. In general, all the positive evidence amounts to saying "if you tactilely stimulate the anterior wall of the vagina a women usually becomes aroused." Wow deep..............anyway, I am fine with your restructuring of the article for the most part, but I have added back in a few of the source criticisms, not all. I am thinking though now that the Skeen Gland research has been made a separate sub-topic we may need to add information about why most researchers thing that the skeen gland is a definite dead end. I will think about it for a bit and see. Tmtoulouse 03:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

These statements are simply not true. Check out the following work (http://www.nursinglibrary.org/Portal/main.aspx?pageid=4024&sid=21844). There may not be scientific consensus about the g-spot, but it is erroneous to state that it is "not accepted at all by the scientific community or any solid empirical investigations" as you claim. While you all are claiming this, others are studying the "adaptive significance of the Grafenberger spot". All of the research I've read has suggested that at the forefront of modern science, we are only beginning to understand how poorly we understand female sexuality. This is no surprise, given the historically male-dominanted culture of the sciences and medicine. The writing in this article is arrogant--it's written with the idea that things are understood, and it communicates a false consensus that doesn't exist. As such I have marked it POV. I hope people can clean it up, I will when I have time if others do not. Cazort 14:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This article also leaves out the male side of the equation, although evidence is small, some have speculated upon the existance of a male g spot located near the prostate, accessible either through the rectum or between the testicles and the rectum.

This entire discussion has a false premise, viz: that "the standard of inclusion at wikipedia is verifiability" means scientifically verifiable. Wikipedia has long articles on Love and on God, despite the complete absence of any scientific evidence of the existence of either. This article is EXTREMELY AND DOGMATICALLY POV - that the only acceptable verifiability is a scientific one. It is legitimate to assert that (if true, and, as we can see below, this is itself controversial), there is no evidence that meets accepted scientific criteria. However, it is NOT legitimate to simply dismiss anecdotal evidence. There are numerous textual descriptions of how exactly to find and stimulate the g-spot, together with textual and video records describing or displaying the consequences. MrWhoohoo
I guess that's right, but it is a claim that is held by many sexologists, I think that the sexology community should have some standing even if it's disputed. I don't think that it's correct, I think it's incorrectly labeled, but since people refer to it as the "g spot", it should be mentioned in the appropriate article. Particularly in an article like this, which is loosely based on science but more on what people say. danthemango —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.49.92 (talk) 07:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how many of the somewhat dogmatic naysayers are women with, you know, vaginas? Or men who have spent time with women? Anyhow... MrWhoohoo is right that Wikipedian verifiability goes to credible, citable source material, not necessarily *scientific* verifiability (of the somewhat positivistic sort) demanded by some here. Anecdotal evidence, properly used, can be strict enough to satisfy criminal trial standards in rigorous jurisdictions, so don't be too swift to write it off. Wikipedia's own entry sledges the *misuse* of anecdotal evidence, not its *use*. And I defy anyone to verify scientifically that only scientifically verifiable phenomena exist!Deoxyribonucleic acid trip (talk) 13:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Good Article review

While this article is relatively short, it appears to address this topic thoroughly, and covers various perspectives on the topic from a neutral POV in spite of the controversy. The footnotes are well-formatted and appear to be adequate to support the assertions in the article. There are also ample internal links provided to facilitate further inquiry by readers. I think that this article is Good Article material and so I am passing it. DickClarkMises 16:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree very strongly and have reverted it back to B status. This needs further work if it is to be NPOV. Cazort 14:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I do not think you are an appropriate editor to delist this article as you obviously have a strong POV on the issue. I am reverting this change. Tmtoulouse 15:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
??? Ok. Well we'll just have to wait till we have more time; this article is crazy; i've spent the past half hour pulling up references and reading them, they don't even support the text that they are purported to support! Perhaps people haven't spotted this because they are all closed-access scientific articles not accessible outside most university environments. But I plan to come back to this article and make it more balanced either way. Cazort 15:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
With out specific examples your criticism is useless. I will await your return. Tmtoulouse 15:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Are people even reading the articles cited?

Are people even reading the articles that have been cited as references? They don't seem to support the text of this article. Not to mention the fact that they are very old and that a lot of much more recent work has been done, work that presents a very different picture from the perspective presented on this page. Cazort 15:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Care to offer specific examples? Tmtoulouse 15:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The most heavily cited article is the 2001 one by Hines and much of the article's perspective seems to rest on it. There is a letter by B Whipple and JD Perry, published in the same journal, in response to this article that presents a very different view. That article is the only one that presents any impression of a consensus view on the subject, supporting the text of the article--the others are largely inconclusive, but there are reasons to doubt its validity. There are a lot of articles I still have yet to look at, esp. "Whipple, B., & Komisaruk, B.R. (1991). The G spot, orgasm, and female ejaculation: Are they related? In P. Kothari (Ed) The Proceedings of the First International Conference on Orgasm. (pp. 227‑237) Bombay, India; VRP Publishers.", and "Whipple, B., & Komisaruk, B.R. (2000). Beyond the G spot: Recent research on female sexuality. Impotence Worldwide, 17, 11-12.".
The best approach then is to add material from the Whipple letter into the article, we don't need a "re-write" to do that. There are many good reasons to be highly skeptical of Whipple as well, and a letter does not carry the same weight as a peer-reviewed article. But those things can be worked out. What material from the Whipple letter do you want to see added? Tmtoulouse 15:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit that needs scrutiny

I am not sure if this edit is correct, and so I did not revert it. Please check it. TableManners 05:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

G-spot the same as urethral sponge

I am aware that there are claims that the g-spot is the same as the urethral sponge, but I've never seen claims that they are distinct anatomical features. From my personal experience, talking to others, and from a basic consensus of the articles that I read, it seems to me that they really are the same thing. Is there any work from the medical literature that establishes, or even suggests, that they are two different things? The urethral sponge is an accepted medical term, whereas the g-spot has been disputed. See the following article: [2]. I recommend merging the two pages and eliminating the idea that they are two separate things. Even if we can find citations saying that they are separate, these would appear to represent a minority opinion. Cazort (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Diagram

Given that the article suggests there has been no research proving the existence of the G-spot and that definitions of its location vary, why is there a diagram pointing out where it is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.245.169 (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


Answer: Because it really exists but this article is retarded and writen by someone who has never had sex with a woman, let alone palpated a G-spot.

They make specifically shaped G-spot vibrators for a reason. It's real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.21.173 (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC) They make G-spot vibrators because the hype around the G-spot is sufficient that they can make money by marketing towards it, regardless of whether or not it actually exists.--KX36 (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both sides. A diagram is necessary because it is too foolish to ignore so much common lore and belief. Even if the spot does not scientifically exist as in there is no spot with some obscene number of nerve endings and it turns out to be 100% placebo effect, it is still necessary to add a diagram of the widely held belief of its place. I have added a clearer diagram because the first is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanli121 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The current version of the diagram has a typo: "libia" for "labia" :p And it does not provide a location for the putative g-spot! Srikandi715 (talk) 09:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Srikandi715

Thanks Srikandi. I've left a message with the person who vectorised the image who can hopefully fix the typo at least. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 15:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I've corrected the diagram. I had to make a choice if I put the G-Spot in it. Since it's a debatable "point", I did not put it in. I instead located the Skene's gland (the "female prostate"), which is an existing organ and is probably the "real g-spot", but this is also debatable. The Skene's gland is located all around the vagina (so also on the back wall, but much much thinner). I could add "g-spot" in brackets in the diagram and question mark (need to find some space), but it would not be a true "scientific" diagram because based on assumptions. --Tsaitgaist (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I've made one with the G-Spot as surface on the anterior vaginal wall. Feel free to use it or link to it. --Tsaitgaist (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

They found it!

Dear all,
finally science seems to come to the conclusion that the G-spot exist. (wow!)
Here is the reference:

author = {Gravina, Giovanni Luca and Brandetti, Fulvia and Martini, Paolo and Carosa, Eleonora and Di Stasi, Savino M. and Morano, Susanna and Lenzi, Andrea and Jannini, Emmanuele A.},
title = {Measurement of the Thickness of the Urethrovaginal Space in Women with or without Vaginal Orgasm},
journal = {The Journal of Sexual Medicine},
doi = {10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00739.x},
URL = { http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00739.x },
eprint = {http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00739.x }

Unfortunately I'm not able to access the online publication and read exactly what they claim. --Marra (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

But apparently, some women don't have one. The sample size was at most 20. Can anyone access the full text of the article? Ufwuct (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good from the abstract, but I don't have access to the full text of that journal; J Sex Med seems to be a rare subscription. it's probably at least good enough for a mention on this page, the p values in the abstract were impressive, but that doesn't mean a lot without knowing the detailed methods.--KX36 (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

current definition is inaccurate and outdated

I am sad to say that the current [[Wikipedia G-spot page]/wiki/G-spot] is inaccurate and outdated. It begins with an incorrect statement that the term "G-spot" was coined by Addiego et al. in 1981. That article was the first major reference to Dr. Grafenberg's famous article (see below) but the term "G-spot" was coined by the publishers of the G Spot book in 1982. While it was a brilliant marketing choice and the term has become part of our culture, in is anatomically inaccurate and that inaccuracy is leading to a lot of the confusion as to whether is exist.

Recent extensive news coverage of an Italian ultrasound study shows how high the level of interest in this subject is. In fact, there have been several MRI and ultrasound studies conclusively showing the Female Prostate (G Spot).

The revision that I propose for Wikipedia is simple and builds on the correct parts of the current page. - Gary Schubach, Ed.D., A.C.S.

proposed revision to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-spot

The term "Grafenberg spot" was first mentioned in an academic paper by Addiego et al[1] in 1981, referring to "an erotically sensitive spot, palpable through the anterior wall of her vagina."[2] It is named in recognition of German gynecologist Ernst Gräfenberg who is claimed to have first hypothesized the existence of such an area in 1950[3]. The term, "G-spot" didn't enter public consciousness until a year later with the publication of the book The G Spot and Other Recent Discoveries About Human Sexuality.[4] After the publication of this book, many professional gynecologists publicly criticized its scholarship and accuracy.[5] In the 1980s and 1990s, there was a great deal of dispute about the reality of the G-spot in the scientific community. Most of the strong support for the claim came from books aimed at a popular audience.[6]

In 1999, the book, The Human Female Prostate, by Milan Zaviacic M.D.[7] clarified what the authors of The G Spot and Other Recent Discoveries About Human Sexuality and other scientists had always claimed, that the stimulation was coming from the nerves in the female prostate (prostata feminina) which completely surrounds the urethra. The female prostate can be stimulated through an area on the upper wall of the vagina, which is what the term "G-spot" originally referred to.

It is interesting to note that there is still a dearth of knowledge in the medical and scientific community about the term “G-spot” and whether or not it is a useful metaphor to describe the anatomical basis of the female erogenous experience of stimulation of the upper vaginal wall. The term only contributes to the confusion. A more accurate and descriptive term, such as the female prostate (prostata feminina), should make it easier for everyone to understand the issues involved and to better serve women's health needs. In fact, the Federative International Committee on Anatomical Terminology has recently agreed to adopt the term female prostate (prostata feminina), implying function as well as form in its definitive Histology Terminology. Popular and scientific synonyms such as G-Spot, Grafenberg Spot, urethral sponge, peri-urethral or para-urethral glands, Skene's glands and others are acceptable as long as the reader can understand that they are referring to the female prostate. [8]


1. Addiego, F; Belzer, EZ; Comolli, J; Moger, W; Perry, JD; Whipple, B. (1981). "Female ejaculation: a case study.". Journal of Sex Research 17: 13-21.

2. Ibid. p.15

2. [Gräfenberg,E. “The Role of the Urethra in Female Orgasm.” International Journal of Sexology, 3: 145-148, (1950)]http: www. DoctorG.com/Grafenberg.htm.

3. Ladas, AK; Whipple, B; Perry, JD [1982]. The G spot and other discoveries about human sexuality. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

4. Unknown (September 1983). "In Search of the Perfect G". Time.

5. Hines, T (August 2001). "The G-Spot: A modern gynaecologic myth". Am J Obstet Gynecol 185 (2): 359-62.

6. [Zaviacic, Milan. The Human Female Prostate: From Vestigal Skene’s Glands and Ducts to Woman’s Functional Prostate. Slovak Academic Press, 1999.]http://doctorg.com/EB-prostate.htm

7. [Schubach, Gary, The Human Female Prostate and Its Relationship to the Popularized term G-Spot, DoctorG.com, 2005.]http://doctorg.com/g-spot-truth.htm


External Links

[Female Ejaculation, Myth And Reality by Dr. F. Cabello Santamaría - Landmark paper originally presented at 13th World Congress of Sexology, Valencia, Spain (1997).]http://doctorg.com/female-ejaculation-myth-reality-1.htm

I don't have a problem with the first paragraph but the female prostate version of the story is certainly not with serious detraction and should not be presented as the "what's really going on" that portion would need serious revision and discussion of criticism and alternative perspectives. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't this page being changed?

Most of us seem to be in agreement that the current page is outdated and even factually inaccurate. I am scared to post my rewrite in the fear that I will get banned by the editor of this page. I challenge him to respond to my criticisms and proposed changes.

Gary Schubach, Ed.D.,A.C.S. DoctorG@DoctorG.com DoctorGs (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

How about posting your rewrite here so we can all review it. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
No one is going to get banned, but I do not think that there is any agreement about inaccuracies or outdated facts. Post your specific disagreements, or changes here, or as suggested above post your rewrite and we can review it. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

G-spot's existance

The article currently claims the G-spots existance was not disclosed until 1982 [3]. It also claims the G-spot was named in 1981 in honour of the person who first proposed it existed in 1944. Clearly these claims taken together don't make much sense unless we presume the G-spot was top secret research, kept under wraps akin to e.g. 1930-40s nuclear weapons research. However the g-spot was named in a journal and the Ernst Gräfenberg says he published his research. I see no evidence that any of this was secret simply no one took great notice at the time. What I expect the article/author of that section is trying to say is that the g-spot only gained wide-spread attention after the 1982 publication. If this is the case, the article needs to be re-worded so it doesn't suggest the g-spot was kept under wraps until 1982. (Note that given the existance of the g-spot is still disputed, the sentence is poorly worded whatever the case.) Also, we need a better source for the claim. Currently our source is the 1982 publication itself. While this establishes that it was published, it doesn't establish that it was the work that brought it widespread public attention. Nil Einne (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:G-spot/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article was only assessed briefly in 2007. It is unclear that it met the GA criteria then, and subsequent edits have been a mix of helpful additions and gradual deterioration. The lead is manifestly inadequate, and the article is currently unbalanced by the emphasis on the research of Emmanuele Jannini. The excessive focus on whether the G-spot "exists" (whatever that means) is unhelpful. It certainly exists as a concept and this article should document what reliable sources, of all kinds, have had to say about it throughout its history. Geometry guy 22:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC), 21:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to fix problems with the body of the article (e.g. words to avoid) so that what is left is neutral and sourced (apart from one claim, which I think needs to be sourced rather than removed for the sake of neutrality). My edits can of course be reverted if they have not improved the article. I haven't addressed the lead. This article is clearly not a GA, and I intend to delist shortly, unless someone with sources and passion for high quality neutral articles steps forwards. Geometry guy 23:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    The lead does not summarize the article, and is not neutral. Editors should also watch out for "words to avoid" adding bias to factual statements: let the reader decide!
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    One or two of the sources are not particularly good, and the article relies a bit too much on material by proponents (Whipple, Perry et al.) and detractors (mainly Hines). There's also an important statement that is unsourced and it could be argued that there's some synthesis here. Overall, though, this isn't the main problem with the article.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    There's essentially no coverage of the history and sociology of the concept (beyond its origins, and the implicit suggestion of disagreement).
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    The lead isn't neutral, but it is more important to brush up the rest of the article: neutrality will be improved by improving the sourcing and the broadness. The lead should then write itself.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    Obviously an article like this attracts vandalism, but I checked back over a year through the edit history, and found it to be very well maintained.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

The article has been delisted per above. Geometry guy 10:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Title Change

This article should be listed under female prostate, not under a euphemism.

Agreed. Especially if "G spot" is just the marketing title of a book, and FICAT has adopted the new term, as described in #current_definition_is_inaccurate_and_outdated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.61.79 (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Poor logical approach

The article as it is now beings by saying the G-spot is a place that brings great pleasure when stimulated. It then goes on to say that people think the G-spot doesn't exist. Then it says that the G-spot might be the urethral sponge or skene's gland - whose existences are undisputed, they just don't necessarily bring great pleasure when stimulated.

So either you define the G-spot as any place within the vagina that brings pleasure, which obviously varies from person to person, or you define it as an actual anatomical feature and accept that it may not bring pleasure to everyone. The article can't begin by defining the G-spot as the former and then go on to say "but maybe it's the latter!!"

Basically, I think the article has to address the fact that there are different definitions of the G-spot in the first section, because if you start it out using the first definition, then the "other approaches" section of the article is ridiculous and contradictory.

In making the "other approaches" section contrary to the initial definition, the "sensitive area" section appears more authoritative and correct, thus lending weight to the image that female sexual anatomy is an utter mystery that can never be deciphered and that women can never know their own bodies. 72.227.164.96 (talk) 04:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The article doesn't make sense and needs to be changed. On one hand, the article presupposes that the G-spot exists but then freely admits that it can not be located. It suggests that it is located one place, but then it says that it might actually be the urethral sponge. There is a definite POV here that needs to be addressed. Firstly, the g-spot has not been proven to exist using medical evidence. This is a contraversial topic and I know that will step on a few toes, but it is the truth. Secondly, any critique of the doubt of its existence that does not pertain to medical evidence should be listed as a social critique. Thirdly, we have to understand that while there are researchers who claim to have found it, those cliams are not enough to change the definition of the term and should not be considered the definitive source on the subject. The article should proceed using the opinions of the general consensus of doctors and keep social and feminist theory separate from scientific evidenceMrathel (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. This article is very confused. Obviously there is a sensitive area there in some women, but the controversy is about whether it's a distinct anatomical feature or an extension of the clit, and whether it exists in the same form in all women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.61.79 (talk) 04:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Diagram doesn't match the description

The line pointing to the 'g-spot' in the diagram, is pointing at the *posterior* (back) wall of the vagina, not the *anterior* (front), contrary to the description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.185.159 (talk • contribs)

You are mistaken. Properly locate the vagina, and you'll find your error. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No, actually the diagram does NOT match the text. Anterior on a human is the same as ventral. Either that or the article on "Anatomical Terms of Location" is incorrect. Please see section 2.3.3 of Anatomical Terms of Location. If that doesn't convince you, take a look at the description and "Gray's Anatomy" diagram of the Vaginal fornix. The posterior fornix is located closest to the, well, posterior, and the anterior fornix is situated ventrally. Krg47 (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Either way, the discussion is relatively moot given that the article states that the exact region thought to contain the G-spot is under debate... and for the diagram to label it as being in the posterior wall is to assert a fact that is not 100% verifiable.Mrathel (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It does match the text. I think you are confusing the vagina with the urethra. Kernow (talk) 01:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:G-spot/Archive_1&oldid=1152583239"