Talk:G-spot

G-spot has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 10, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
October 19, 2008	Good article reassessment	Delisted
April 30, 2010	Good article nominee	Not listed
November 2, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
April 19, 2014	Good article reassessment	Kept
Current status: Good article

Spoken Wikipedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles

Sexology and sexuality High‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anatomy: Gross Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

Women's Health Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3

why the first image about g-spot doesn't use the orgin

the description below the first pic is wrong and why he/she doesn't use the original pic WhiteHat018 (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stimualtion

What about mentioning that the glans of the penis can also stimulate the G-spot very well? Mankind would be extinct if women were not stimulated by the penetration of the penis at the G-spot. It can't be that in the evolution of man the G-spot developed so that women would buy sex toys in 2020. Why not mention the positions in which it works, instead of mentioning one position, in which it sometimes doesn't, although that is not true for everyone. Sciencia58 (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has been my experience that (the existence of) the g-spot is located by feeling (with my fingertip) a distinctly puffy region in the identified area of the anterior vagina wall. By rubbing the puffy area causes obvious arousal. In women who don't appear to have this puffy area, there is no obvious arousal noted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.136.86 (talk • contribs)

We need reliable medical sources to make any changes. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"also called the Gräfenberg spot"

..no it isn't? No one colloquially refers to the G-spot as the Gräfenberg spot. Of course it isn't at all inaccurate to report that it's named after him, but it's inaccurate to imply that people actually call it that outside of niche medical reports and funny college papers. Maybe a bad romcom novel-turned-movie about two doctors. Dunno.

Recommend changing the language to "scientifically known as the Gräfenberg spot." Aiviphoria (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Short desc

I disagree with using "factitious" in the short desc. Factitious = "artificially created or developed." That doesn't sound NPOV to me. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]