# Talk:G-spot

the description below the first pic is wrong and why he/she doesn't use the original pic WhiteHat018 (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

What about mentioning that the glans of the penis can also stimulate the G-spot very well? Mankind would be extinct if women were not stimulated by the penetration of the penis at the G-spot. It can't be that in the evolution of man the G-spot developed so that women would buy sex toys in 2020. Why not mention the positions in which it works, instead of mentioning one position, in which it sometimes doesn't, although that is not true for everyone. Sciencia58 (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
It has been my experience that (the existence of) the g-spot is located by feeling (with my fingertip) a distinctly puffy region in the identified area of the anterior vagina wall. By rubbing the puffy area causes obvious arousal. In women who don't appear to have this puffy area, there is no obvious arousal noted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.136.86 (talk • contribs) 

We need reliable medical sources to make any changes. Crossroads -talk- 18:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

..no it isn't? No one colloquially refers to the G-spot as the Gräfenberg spot. Of course it isn't at all inaccurate to report that it's named after him, but it's inaccurate to imply that people actually call it that outside of niche medical reports and funny college papers. Maybe a bad romcom novel-turned-movie about two doctors. Dunno.
Recommend changing the language to "scientifically known as the Gräfenberg spot." Aiviphoria (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with using "factitious" in the short desc. Factitious = "artificially created or developed." That doesn't sound NPOV to me. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)