I looked up "G-spot" on Wikipedia. The first sentence:
"The...G-spot, is a controversial term used to describe the area of the female vagina that might contain an erogenous zone…”
“Controversial”? "Might contain”? Wikipedia wasn’t helpful about why, so I looked into a little bit.
I'll mention the original finding in some detail, then some related articles and what seems weird to me about such “controversy”.
The scientific "search for the elusive G-spot" began in 1950, when Ernest Gräfenberg published an article on the topic, (link), although the term wasn't coined, in his name, until later. Gräfenberg's concern is with therapeutic issues relevant to female orgasm. His thesis: the startlingly high percentage of women who do not have vaginal orgasms coupled with the "evidence" (which I'll mention below) discussed suggests that, "...the anterior wall of the vagina along the urethra is the seat of a distinct erotogenic zone and has to be taken into account more in the treatment of female sexual deficiency" (pp.3-4 here link).
As you can see, the goal is to better understand (and in turn, better treat) “sexual deficiency”.
So, what "evidence" does he have in mind? Two arguments:
1) "Even when there was a good response in the entire vagina, this particular area [the G-spot area] was more easily stimulated by the finger than other areas of the vagina." (p. 2 same link)
This argument is straightforward. Assuming that there is relatively greater "erotic" sensitivity in this area, the area constitutes a good candidate for an erogenous zone distinct from the rest of the vaginal wall.
2) And regarding what's nowadays commonly called "squirting", he writes, "Occasionally the production of fluids is so profuse that a large towel has to be spread under the woman to prevent the bedsheets getting soiled. This convulsory expulsion of fluid occurs always at the acme of the orgasm and simultaneously with it...I am inclined to believe that the "urine" reported [by Kinsley] to be expelled is not urine, but only secretions of the intraurethral glands correlated with the erotogenic zone along the urethra in the anterior vaginal wall." (p.3 same link)
The idea here is that: stimulation of the “G-spot”, an area of the vaginal wall near intraurethral glands, can be stimulated to the point of producing a distinct effect (“squirting”) from clitoral orgasms. A prediction is hence borne out: (in general) if all women have a G-spot, then all women can squirt. And note that the title of the article is "The Role of Urethra in Female Orgasm".
WHY THE CONTROVERSY?
Gräfenberg didn't cite any non-anecdotal evidence for arguments (1) or (2). This has been one major criticism.
Argument (2) seems to have been the focus of studies in the 80's and early 90's (see link, and references 10 and 17 on the wikipedia link). There was a number of tests conducted testing the prediction just mentioned. Apparently the findings are all very inconclusive.
Now, suppose that we had conclusive evidence that Gräfenberg was mistaken in thinking that this G-spot area is correlated with “squirting”. Even so, because so many women believe, on the basis of personal experience, that G-spot stimulation can be more pleasurable than other areas of the vaginal canal, then, absent “outweighing evidence”, there’s still good reason to think that the G-spot is an erogenous zone. Lack of consensus about the 80’s and 90’s studies on female ejaculation isn’t cause for panic or controversy about the existence of the G-spot (or that it’s an erogenous zone). To debunk the view that the G-spot area is an erogenous zone, one needs evidence against (1), not just (2); moreover, they’d need to explain (to some extent) how it is that so many women are mistaken.
So, I don’t see that the controversial findings surrounding (2) warrant the view that the G-spot’s existence is controversial.
TWO FINDINGS ABOUT ARGUMENT (1)
In 2006, evidence was found that there isn't a greater distribution of nerve endings in the putative G-spot area than in any other area of the vaginal canal (link). If this is true, then this is decent initial evidence that there's no G-spot. I know nothing about this topic, but this seems like a legitimate reason for doubting the soundness of (1).
More recently though (2008), another study using ultrasonography tested 20 women during orgasm. In the abstract (link; I don’t have access to the whole article) the authors write:
"Results: The urethrovaginal space and distal, middle, and proximal urethrovaginal segments [parts/areas of the G-spot] were thinner in women without vaginal orgasm. A direct correlation between the presence of vaginal orgasm and the thickness of urethrovaginal space was found. Women with a thicker urethrovaginal space were more likely to experience vaginal orgasm..."
"Conclusions: The measurement of the space within the anterior vaginal wall by ultrasonography is a simple tool to explore anatomical variability of the human clitoris-urethrovagina l complex, also known as the G-spot, which can be correlated to the ability to experience the vaginally activated orgasm."
I don’t know what to make of these two findings, other than that the data is extremely limited and in conflict. Here’s one thing that might be right though.
While it's true that the "scientific" evidence regarding (1) is far from conclusive, it doesn't follow that the TOTAL evidence regarding (1) is equally inconclusive. Why?
Non-scientific personal and testimonial evidence are acceptable to rely on UNLESS there is “outweighing” evidence supporting the opposing conclusion. For instance, the mere fact that I've heard a number of women give detailed descriptions of the differences between clitoral and G-spot orgasms is good, initial evidence that there is such a thing as the G-spot. Controversial and inconclusive scientific evidence to the contrary (the nerve-ending finding) fails to supply GOOD reason to think that such women are mistaken. It’s quite easy for me to distinguish between sensitive and less sensitive areas of my cock. If this is ANYTHING like a woman’s experience of distinguishing between a touch of the G-spot area and another area of the vaginal wall, each during arousal, then I’m inclined to think that women aren’t mistaken about what they’re feeling.
I would be profusely baffled if someone said to me, “Actually, that area on your cock that you think feels better than other places really isn’t any more pleasurable than any other part”. If you’re a woman, maybe being told, “Actually, that area in your vaginal canal that you think feels better than other places really isn’t any more pleasurable than any other part” is equally baffling.
So my (putative) point is: absent GOOD scientific evidence, I don’t see that one should have to lower their confidence by much (if at all) that there’s a G-spot (this could easily be mistaken though, I’m not particularly confident about it).
QUESTIONS (if you made it this far lol)
You’re welcome to post about anything of course, but here are some things I’m particularly curious about.
A: Suppose there aren’t more nerve endings in the G-spot area. If you’ve experienced a difference in sensitivity and pleasure in that area, do you think that you might be mistaken since there’s no more nerve endings there than other areas of the vaginal wall?
B: Does the fact that this is a controversial issue seem stupid/dumb/ridiculous to you?
C: Does anything you’ve just read change your opinion about whether or not there’s such a thing as the G-spot? How so?