Talk:G-spot

Archive 1

Rewrite

Previous article was thin on information, poorly sourced and inaccurate, it also failed to report that the G-spot in controversial and not supported by any evidence. I have attempted a general re-write of the article. Any questions, comments or concerns let me know. I also forgot to sign in before I put the edit through, sorry. Tmtoulouse 21:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

--68.100.9.200 16:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC) says she has a G-Spot, Sex therapists can teach women where it is located, why are these not considered acceptable as evidence of the existence of the G-spot? Would you need genetic evidence that an author was female before accepting a statement from her regarding her own G-spot? Where and how does this 'denial' ethic come to an end?? 64.140.248.180 00:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)mmmna

All the evidence that has been produced by researchers and scientist and published in scientific mediums points to there being nothing but a placebo like effect. Feel free to point me to non-anecdotal evidence if you know of any. Remember the standard of inclusion at wikipedia is verifiability. Tmtoulouse 03:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is very badly POV. There is a difference between being unsuccessful at studying a phenomenon scientifically, and establishing that the phenomenon does not exist. The G-spot is a case of the first. The current article seems to be written based on the premise that all sexual reality is able to be studied in a laboratory setting. The premise itself is abhorrent, contradictory to a lot of what is known of human psychology! But furthermore, I think there is some bad science going on here, and I think this is one case where "science"-enthusiasts have gone over the top, picking and choosing things. Science is about invalidating hypotheses--and there is a difference between failing to prove the existence of a phenomenon, and proving it does not exist. The studies cited fail to come up with evidence supporting the G-spot, but do not prove its non-existence. At a bare minimum, more discussion of alternative viewpoints is necessary. I think the following article (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=3531529&dopt=Citation) is reflective of what has generally been going on in the scientific community on this topic. For now I am going to mark this as POV and request a re-write...maybe do it myself if no one else seems willing. Cazort 14:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The article never says that it does not exist, you criticism is off base. The article accurately describes the sourced material and accurately reflects the reality of the scientific consensus on this topic. If you wish to add additional material, find good WP:ATT sources and go for it. This article does not need a re-write though, and if any sourced material is removed it will be reverted. Tmtoulouse 15:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've rearranged the article so that it differentiates between the existance of an actual nerve rich "spot" on the vagina and stimulation of the Skene's glands, also I've trimmed down some of the skepticism towards the existance of the g-spot, I think there's still enough there to communicate that its controversial.Velps 00:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Its not just controversial, it is not accepted at all by the scientific community or any solid empirical investigations. The best evidence is self-reported questionairs and a case study. In general, all the positive evidence amounts to saying "if you tactilely stimulate the anterior wall of the vagina a women usually becomes aroused." Wow deep..............anyway, I am fine with your restructuring of the article for the most part, but I have added back in a few of the source criticisms, not all. I am thinking though now that the Skeen Gland research has been made a separate sub-topic we may need to add information about why most researchers thing that the skeen gland is a definite dead end. I will think about it for a bit and see. Tmtoulouse 03:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

These statements are simply not true. Check out the following work (http://www.nursinglibrary.org/Portal/main.aspx?pageid=4024&sid=21844). There may not be scientific consensus about the g-spot, but it is erroneous to state that it is "not accepted at all by the scientific community or any solid empirical investigations" as you claim. While you all are claiming this, others are studying the "adaptive significance of the Grafenberger spot". All of the research I've read has suggested that at the forefront of modern science, we are only beginning to understand how poorly we understand female sexuality. This is no surprise, given the historically male-dominanted culture of the sciences and medicine. The writing in this article is arrogant--it's written with the idea that things are understood, and it communicates a false consensus that doesn't exist. As such I have marked it POV. I hope people can clean it up, I will when I have time if others do not. Cazort 14:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This article also leaves out the male side of the equation, although evidence is small, some have speculated upon the existance of a male g spot located near the prostate, accessible either through the rectum or between the testicles and the rectum.

This entire discussion has a false premise, viz: that "the standard of inclusion at wikipedia is verifiability" means scientifically verifiable. Wikipedia has long articles on Love and on God, despite the complete absence of any scientific evidence of the existence of either. This article is EXTREMELY AND DOGMATICALLY POV - that the only acceptable verifiability is a scientific one. It is legitimate to assert that (if true, and, as we can see below, this is itself controversial), there is no evidence that meets accepted scientific criteria. However, it is NOT legitimate to simply dismiss anecdotal evidence. There are numerous textual descriptions of how exactly to find and stimulate the g-spot, together with textual and video records describing or displaying the consequences. MrWhoohoo

I wonder how many of the somewhat dogmatic naysayers are women with, you know, vaginas? Or men who have spent time with women? Anyhow... MrWhoohoo is right that Wikipedian verifiability goes to credible, citable source material, not necessarily *scientific* verifiability (of the somewhat positivistic sort) demanded by some here. Anecdotal evidence, properly used, can be strict enough to satisfy criminal trial standards in rigorous jurisdictions, so don't be too swift to write it off. Wikipedia's own entry sledges the *misuse* of anecdotal evidence, not its *use*. And I defy anyone to verify scientifically that only scientifically verifiable phenomena exist!Deoxyribonucleic acid trip (talk) 13:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Good Article review

While this article is relatively short, it appears to address this topic thoroughly, and covers various perspectives on the topic from a neutral POV in spite of the controversy. The footnotes are well-formatted and appear to be adequate to support the assertions in the article. There are also ample internal links provided to facilitate further inquiry by readers. I think that this article is Good Article material and so I am passing it. DickClarkMises 16:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree very strongly and have reverted it back to B status. This needs further work if it is to be NPOV. Cazort 14:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not think you are an appropriate editor to delist this article as you obviously have a strong POV on the issue. I am reverting this change. Tmtoulouse 15:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

??? Ok. Well we'll just have to wait till we have more time; this article is crazy; i've spent the past half hour pulling up references and reading them, they don't even support the text that they are purported to support! Perhaps people haven't spotted this because they are all closed-access scientific articles not accessible outside most university environments. But I plan to come back to this article and make it more balanced either way. Cazort 15:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

With out specific examples your criticism is useless. I will await your return. Tmtoulouse 15:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Are people even reading the articles cited?

Are people even reading the articles that have been cited as references? They don't seem to support the text of this article. Not to mention the fact that they are very old and that a lot of much more recent work has been done, work that presents a very different picture from the perspective presented on this page. Cazort 15:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Care to offer specific examples? Tmtoulouse 15:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The most heavily cited article is the 2001 one by Hines and much of the article's perspective seems to rest on it. There is a letter by B Whipple and JD Perry, published in the same journal, in response to this article that presents a very different view. That article is the only one that presents any impression of a consensus view on the subject, supporting the text of the article--the others are largely inconclusive, but there are reasons to doubt its validity. There are a lot of articles I still have yet to look at, esp. "Whipple, B., & Komisaruk, B.R. (1991). The G spot, orgasm, and female ejaculation: Are they related? In P. Kothari (Ed) The Proceedings of the First International Conference on Orgasm. (pp. 227‑237) Bombay, India; VRP Publishers.", and "Whipple, B., & Komisaruk, B.R. (2000). Beyond the G spot: Recent research on female sexuality. Impotence Worldwide, 17, 11-12.".

The best approach then is to add material from the Whipple letter into the article, we don't need a "re-write" to do that. There are many good reasons to be highly skeptical of Whipple as well, and a letter does not carry the same weight as a peer-reviewed article. But those things can be worked out. What material from the Whipple letter do you want to see added? Tmtoulouse 15:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit that needs scrutiny

I am not sure if this edit is correct, and so I did not revert it. Please check it. TableManners 05:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)