The female G-spot is a much-discussed phenomenon. For every anecdotal report of its existence, there's a denier. Sadly, for once, science doesn't really seem to help settle the matter either, with plenty of past reports suggesting its existence or otherwise. Today, the internet is awash with reports that a new study proves the G-spot is real -- but should we believe it?
The G-Spot Exists...
The study in question, called G-Spot Anatomy: A New Discovery, appears in The Journal of Sexual Medicine and was conducted by Adam Ostrzenski, director of the Institute of Gynecology in St Petersburg. It claims to shed some real light on the existence of the G-spot, through dissection of a cadaver's vaginal wall. From New Scientist:
"He found a clearly defined sac in a layer between the vagina and the urethra close to the perineal membrane. The sac was around 16 millimetres from the upper part of the urethral opening. At less than a centimetre long, it was positioned at a 35-degree angle to the urethra... Inside the sac Ostrzenski found a "worm-like" structure with three distinct regions that broadly "resemble erectile tissue — normally found in areas such as the clitoral body"."
This is enough to see many media outlets getting excited over the fact the G-spot finally exists. But whoa, steady there. First, Adam Ostrzenski has a vested interest in proving the existence of female G-Spot: he runs a Cosmetic Gynaecology practice that offers "g-spot fat augmentation" and "g-spot surgical augmentation". According to Improbable Research, he's also filed lawsuits against other academics because they disagree with him.
That's not enough to mean we should ignore his research though: it's a new and interesting study, which should have us ponder on the existence of the G-spot.
...Unless It Doesn't
Indeed, plenty of other academics already are thinking long and hard its existence, which is why there is -- in the same issue of the same journal as Ostrzenski's research is published -- a review paper collating evidence on both sides of the G-spot argument. Its concludes that the evidence "failed to provide strong and consistent evidence for the existence of an anatomical site related to the G spot".
Sigh. Two research papers, with completely conflicting opinions, in the same damn journal.
But Does It Matter Either Way?
Amidst all this G-Spot madness, there are three main takeaways.
First, it the The Journal of Sexual Medicine is, arguably, keen to get as much media coverage as possible. Nothing wrong with that, as such, but it does mean that you and I have to read bullshit reports in the mass media that don't actually present the whole truth.
Second, it the jury is still out. A review of old research is compelling, sure, but new studies like Ostrzenski's -- dubious undertones aside -- are what challenge and change our understanding of science. Based on the work to date, we just can't say one way or the other if the G-spot exists, but one day we might.
And third? We should all quit worrying about the G-spot too much. Seriously. Sexual gratification doesn't rely on the presence or otherwise of the female G-spot; it relies on relaxing, with a partner you're comfortable with, and having fun. Yes? Yes? Yes! [New Scientist, Dr Petra, Improbable Research, and The Journal of Sexual Medicine]