What the science says about the G-spot

What the studies say overall

There is no consensus on this topic, and most anatomical studies do not find a distinct structure (Hoag et al., 2017; Aydın et al., 2020; Pan et al., 2015). One systematic review concludes that there is reliable scientific and clinical evidence supporting the existence of an anatomical structure for the G-spot (Ostrzenski et al., 2019).

Three other reviews reach the opposite conclusion: one considered the proof too weak because the observations were based on very few people; another concluded that the data suggest the G-spot does not exist; and a clinical anatomy review notes that the distal part of the anterior vaginal wall appears to be the most sensitive in the vagina, but that the existence of an anatomical G-spot remains unproven (Hines et al., 2001; Puppo et al., 2012; Pan et al., 2015).

Studies that have looked for the structure directly do not find it either.

In the dissection of thirteen female cadavers, beneath the anterior vaginal wall there was only the urethra and its lining, with nothing corresponding to the G-spot, and a histological analysis in women operated on for prolapse found nerves and vessels distributed fairly evenly, with no area of concentration next to the urethra (Hoag et al., 2017; Aydın et al., 2020).

Another review, on the anatomy of the clitoris, points out that the origin of vaginal eroticism may not be due only to clitoral stimulation.

There is more agreement on what surrounds the myth.

A clinical gynaecology guideline notes that high-quality data supporting the effectiveness of cosmetic genital surgical procedures are lacking, and in surveys of healthcare professionals and medical students in Portugal and Saudi Arabia, most considered that "G-spot augmentation" is not justified on medical grounds (Obstet Gynecol, 2020; Vieira-Baptista et al., 2017; Iqbal et al., 2021).

A review on spinal cord injury proposes including stimulation of the vaginal wall in self-exploration, alongside that of the clitoris, the cervix and the nipples (Courtois et al., 2017).

Where they disagree

The disagreement is over whether the G-spot is an anatomical structure in its own right. One systematic review argues that it is; three other reviews and the dissection and histology studies do not find one (Ostrzenski et al., 2019; Puppo et al., 2012; Hoag et al., 2017).

What does seem to exist is an especially sensitive area of the anterior vaginal wall, and that is not the same as a distinct organ (Pan et al., 2015).

Limits of the evidence

The anatomical studies are small: the dissection was done on thirteen cadavers and the histological analysis on women operated on for prolapse, who may not represent everyone (Hoag et al., 2017; Aydın et al., 2020). The reviews summarise those same studies, which are few.

The surveys of professionals collect opinions, not proof of effectiveness, and there are no trials comparing stimulation techniques (Vieira-Baptista et al., 2017; Iqbal et al., 2021).

The studies, one by one

We have gathered 10 verified studies. Each summary is our own; the quotation in inverted commas is taken word for word from the original abstract, in English.

Other topics in the library

• Clitoral stimulation11 studies
• Vibrators9 studies