Do We Still Believe There Is a G-spot? The never-ending search to find, literally, a spot, a magic button delivering a unique orgasmic experience produced evident harm for the whole field of sexual medicine

Do We Still Believe There Is a G-spot? Daniele Mollaioli, Andrea Sansone, Elena Colonnello, Erika Limoncin, Giacomo Ciocca, Linda Vignozzi & Emmanuele A Jannini. Current Sexual Health Reports, July 27 2021. https://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11930-021-00311-w

Abstract

In the field of female sexuality, the existence of the so-called “G-spot” represents a topic still anchored to anecdotes and opinions and explained using non-scientific points, as well as being overused for commercial and mediatic purposes.

Purpose of Review: The scope of this review is to give an update on the current state of information regarding the G-spot and suggesting potential future directions in the research field of this interesting, albeit controversial, aspect of human sexual physiology.

Recent Findings: From evolutionary, anatomical, and functional points of view, new evidence has rebutted the original conceptualization of the G-spot, abandoning the idea of a specific anatomical point able to produce exceptional orgasmic experiences through the stimulation of the anterior vaginal wall, the site where the G-spot is assumed to be. From a psychological perspective, only few findings to date are able to describe the psychological, behavioral, and social correlates of the pleasure experience by G-spot-induced or, better, vaginally induced orgasm (VAO).

Summary: Recent literature suggests the existence of a G-spot but specifies that, since it is not a spot, neither anatomically nor functionally, it cannot be called G, nor spot, anymore. It is indeed a functional, dynamic, and hormone-dependent area (called clitorourethrovaginal, CUV, complex), extremely individual in its development and action due to the combined influence of biological and psychological aspects, which may trigger VAO and in some particular cases also female ejaculation (FE).

Conclusions

The topic of the G-spot is to date, most likely, a unique controversial aspect of human gross-anatomy. There are three main reasons for it (Fig. 1). The first was choosing the wrong name. Although it recognizes the debt to Ernst Gräfenberg who pioneered the studies on human vagina, it should be said that the term “spot” following the initial of his last name produced a holy grail: a never-ending search to find, literally, a spot, a magic button delivering a unique orgasmic experience, which — this is absolutely true — does not exist. Unfortunately, the conundrum on the existence of such a spot has been very largely discussed by non-scientific media and, on many occasions, by review articles based on opinions. This produced evident harm for the whole field of sexual medicine.

Fig. 1

An infographic explaining the three reasons to abandon G-spot definition. Firstly, the term “G” and “Spot” are surpassed by new evidence highlighting a dynamic organization between the structures of female genitalia (clitoris, urethra, and vagina). Secondly, a conceptualization of the vagina as an “inert tube” should be abandoned due to its high sensitivity to hormone action and active role in sexual pleasure and orgasm; Finally, the anatomical-functional structure of female genitalia cannot be considered universal but extremely variable in its functioning owing to the action of hormones, cognitive, and emotional status and even partner’s characteristics

There is a second element which produced skepticisms. In several gynecological settings, the vagina has been considered no more than an inert tube for delivering babies. Some surgeons base their wrong assumption on the idea that the vagina, designed for this purpose, must be then poorly innervated and almost not sensitive. Of course, this position ignores the role of the numerous hormonal and neurotransmitter changes during the last hours of pregnancy and delivery. An excellent representation of the ignorance of some gynecologists has been well represented by the symphysiotomy, or Zarate’s operation [84], and by the episiotomy itself [85, 86]. The two operations are very rarely needed, and the large majority of these interventions done in the past were based on ignorance, misogyny, and prejudices against female sexuality. Nowadays, the argument that the vagina is just a fibromuscular channel, sexually inert, is no longer tenable. In other words, if the vagina is a sexual organ, particularly responsive in its anterior wall, the G-spot, or however it is called, is a reality.

The third reason generating the controversy can be found in the characteristics of the main actors of this anatomical region. The clitoris, urethra, female prostate, and vagina are exquisite hormone-dependent areas in their size, gross anatomy, histology, and function [87]. Moreover, nothing is more fluctuating than (steroid) hormones in females. Is this sufficient to admit that this region is definitively not universal in its anatomic and functional structure? Is this enough to admit that the findings denying the G-spot in a single or few cases are, at the very least, inconclusive? The surprising variations from woman to woman in referring to and experiencing arousal and orgasm, the dramatic differences in the same woman regarding the same experiences according to the various phases of the menstrual cycle or the reproductive/perimenopausal/postmenopausal status may suggest more humility when deciding that the G-spot does not exists (but also that every woman must have it).

But there is another, although para-scientific, argument which should be considered when attempting to answer the question embedded in the title of this article. The Italian version of Amazon is currently selling around 1000 different vibrators, 218 of them claiming to be able, due to shape and functionalities, to directly stimulate the G-spot. Shall we consider the fact that one out of every four buyers looking for a G-spot sexual aid is a victim, totally influenced by the wrong mediatic messages? If those tools do not work for the simple reason that the G-spot does not exist, their market would crash rapidly. The fact that it is a prosperous market, and that the haptic stimulation of the debated region is considered a plus of these tools [88], would suggest that the CUV area should deliver some pleasure, if not orgasms, when properly stimulated.

Despite all these reasons, it seems evident that the questions about the existence of the G-spot have not yet been definitively answered, as well as the question of the nature of FE and the existence of more than one female orgasm. However, it is important that the topic is finally addressed in a scientifically appropriate way, as the most recent studies [49] have improved our understanding of the complex anatomy and physiology of the female sexual response. On the other hand, the other aspects influencing the perception and the orgasmic experience connected to the G-spot remain in most cases anecdotal or understudied.

This intriguing topic, which finds explanatory roots in several disciplines (anatomy, physiology, psychology, sexology, history, evolution, anthropology, and sociology), will have to be studied for a long time with an even more scientific approach. However, we have here to conclude that the G-spot surely exists and is present, developed, and active on a tremendously individual basis. However, it is not a spot, and to reduce the risks of misinterpretations and vacuous discussions, it cannot be called G anymore. It is indeed a functional, hormone-dependent area, which may trigger VAOs and in some cases also FEs, well defined as CUV.