Tag Archives: g-spot

Ending decades of controversy, researchers find histological evidence for the existence of the G-spot

It’s one of the more… delicate issues of science and anatomy, and amidst lots of contradicting personal testimonies and surprisingly little scientific evidence, the G-Spot remains a topic of hot debate. In other words, some claimed it exists, some claimed it’s all a fairytale, but there was no “hard evidence” – one way or another.

Now, researchers have finally found histological evidence that the Gräfenberg spot actually exists – in other words, they found the tissue. The study itself isn’t very appealing – they focused the research on eight female cadavers and conducted vaginal wall dissections and ultimately G-spot microdissections.

The anatomical existence of the G-spot was identified in all women and was in a diagonal plane; 7 out of the 8 women had it in the left side, while 1 had it on the right side, so the exact location is still a matter of debate.

“The G-spot was intimately fused with vessels, creating a complex. A large tangled vein-like vascular structure resembled an arteriovenous malformation and there were a few smaller feeding arteries. A band-like structure protruded from the tail of the G-spot. The size of the G-spot varied.”, researchers write in their paper.

So what does this mean? Well, so far, there’s been plenty of anecdotal evidence to support the existence of the G-spot, but scientifically speaking, there was nothing really. As a matter of fact, a 2009 British study concluded that its existence is unproven and subjective, based on questionnaires and personal experience. Now, there is actual scientific, medical evidence to prove its existence. It’s not clear why it exists or how it developed or even what role it plays, but one thing’s for sure: the G-spot is real.

G-spot study sparks controversy

The G-Spot debate is probably never gonna end; and who can carry it out better than the English and the French? They’d fight over absolutely anything: football (as in soccer), rugby, wine vs beer, you name. Now, the most recent topic is the G-Spot (am I supposed to write this with capital letters? Absolutely no idea) study conducted by a group of researchers from King’s College in London. According to their study, the… aforementioned spot probably doesn’t exist.


What they did was they took 1800 women, all of who were pairs of identical or non identical twins. The thing is, if the identical twins are… identical, they both should have the same spot. Well, no such pattern emerged, so the conclusions were obvious. The study, coauthors said: “[the study] shows fairly conclusively that the idea of a G-spot is subjective”.

Well of course somebody had to disagree with this, and of course it had to be the French. It didn’t take long for Surgeon Pierre Foldes to come back with a reply:

“The King’s College study shows a lack of respect for what women say. The conclusions were completely erroneous because they were based solely on genetic observations”

All’s fine until here, we have a scientific debate, two counterparts with arguments that state their case in a topic still open for debate. Until that is, a group of French gynecologists claimed they found the real reason why the British study is wrong: they’re British. Yep, they claimed it was the Anglo-saxon natural tendency to try to reduce absolutely everything to absolutes, including the “mysteries of sexuality”.

Gynecologist Odile Buisson took this even further, stating:

“I don’t want to stigmatise at all but I think the Protestant, liberal, Anglo-Saxon character means you are very pragmatic. There has to be a cause for everything, a gene for everything,” she said, adding: “I think it’s totalitarian”

She also added that the G-Spot is a reality for more than 60% of all women, and anything else is “medical machismo” (gotta hand it to the French, they sure have a way with words).

Until now, there’s been no reply of the English counterpart, but I’m absolutely sure they won’t leave their study (and national pride) tainted, and we won’t have to wait long for a reply. This is just how a scientific debate can turn personal, with no real benefits for anyone; but it sure is fun.