Talk:G-spot/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Facts 

message: 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)
replies: text:  Not disputed anymore, see "FACTS" just above this section for more info Bragador 15:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factuality Disputed? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  It exists 

message: 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)
thread_title: vandalism

message: 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)
thread_title: What??

message: 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)
replies: text: No, the image shows it as being a spot between the vagina and the urethra. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Inconsistency between text and diagram

message: 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)
thread_title: joking

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  ??? 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)
replies: text:  With out specific examples your criticism is useless. I will await your return. Tmtoulouse 15:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article review

message: 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)
replies: text: I reverted it. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit that needs scrutiny 

message: 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: .  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)
thread_title:  G-spot the same as urethral sponge 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Diagram 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  They found it! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  current definition is inaccurate and outdated 

message: 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)
replies: text: How about posting your rewrite here so we can all review it. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why isn't this page being changed? 

message: The article currently claims the G-spots existance was not disclosed until 1982 . 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)
thread_title:  G-spot's existance 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Poor logical approach 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Diagram doesn't match the description