This is a topic on which science is divided. One systematic review concludes that there is reliable scientific and clinical evidence supporting the existence of an anatomical structure for the G-spot.
The main limitation
The anatomical evidence rests on small studies and on reviews of those studies. The surveys of professionals collect opinions, not proof of effectiveness, and there are no trials comparing stimulation techniques.
In practice
You do not need to locate a specific spot to enjoy yourself: the studies do not present it as a requirement.
What kind of studies there are
Syntheses of studies 1
Descriptive or expert opinion 4
We classify each study by its design. A synthesis of many studies or a randomised trial supports firmer conclusions than a survey or an expert opinion. The design does not tell you whether a result is good or bad.
What the studies say overall
This is a topic on which science is divided. One systematic review concludes that there is reliable scientific and clinical evidence supporting the existence of an anatomical structure for the G-spot.
Another review, on the anatomy of the clitoris, points out that the origin of vaginal eroticism may not be due only to clitoral stimulation, but does not rule it out either.
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.
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.
Where they disagree
The disagreement is over whether the G-spot is an anatomical structure in its own right or an area related to the clitoris. The studies gathered here do not resolve it, and there is no consensus.
Limits of the evidence
The anatomical evidence rests on small studies and on reviews of those studies. The surveys of professionals collect opinions, not proof of effectiveness, and there are no trials comparing stimulation techniques.
The studies, one by one
We have gathered 5 verified studies. Each summary is our own; the quotation in inverted commas is taken word for word from the original abstract, in English.
What they found: Reliable scientific and clinical data support the existence of an anatomical structure for the G-spot. (Ostrzenski et al., 2019)
Population Post-mortem and in vivo studies on the G-spotJournalClin Anat
Verbatim quotation from the original abstract (in English)
“The findings indicate that there are reliable scientific-clinical data to support the existence of an anatomical G-spot structure.” Ostrzenski et al., 2019
What they found: There are no high-quality data supporting the effectiveness of cosmetic genital surgical procedures. (Obstet Gynecol, 2020)
Population Women considering cosmetic genital surgical proceduresJournalObstet Gynecol
Verbatim quotation from the original abstract (in English)
“Women should be informed about the lack of high-quality data that support the effectiveness of genital cosmetic surgical procedures and counseled about their potential complications, including pain, bleeding, infection, scarring, adhesions, altered sensation, dyspareunia, and need for reoperation.” Obstet Gynecol, 2020
What they found: Most participants considered that there is never or rarely a medical reason to carry out "G-spot" augmentation (71.0% [409/576]). (Vieira-Baptista et al., 2017)
Verbatim quotation from the original abstract (in English)
“Most participants considered that there is never or there rarely is a medical reason to perform: vulvar whitening (85.9% [502/584]); hymenoplasty (72.0% [437/607]); mons pubis liposuction (71.6% [426/595]); "G-spot" augmentation (71.0% [409/576])” Vieira-Baptista et al., 2017
What they found: Most participants considered that G-spot augmentation is not justified on medical grounds. (Iqbal et al., 2021)
Population Healthcare professionals and medical students in Saudi ArabiaJournalRev Bras Ginecol Obstet
Verbatim quotation from the original abstract (in English)
“The majority of the participants considered that vaginal rejuvenation, "G-spot" augmentation, clitoral surgery, and hymenoplasty are not justifiable on medical grounds.” Iqbal et al., 2021
What they found: Self-exploration in women with spinal cord injury should include vaginal G-spot stimulation, as well as stimulation of the clitoris, the cervix and the nipples. (Courtois et al., 2017)
Verbatim quotation from the original abstract (in English)
“Self-exploration should include not only clitoral stimulation, but also stimulation of the vagina (G spot), cervix, and nipples conveyed by different innervation sources.” Courtois et al., 2017
