Ostrzenski et al. has stated that ‘The anatomy of the G-spot complex was confirmed’ (BJOG 2014; DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.12707).
The term G-spot (i.e. Gräfenberg spot) was coined in 1981 and refers to an erotically sensitive spot (i.e. female prostate) located in the pelvic urethra and palpable through the anterior vaginal wall. The stimulation of the area of the G-spot may account for the reports of orgasm and female ejaculation from the urethra experienced by some women. Gräfenberg did not describe a vaginal spot in his 1950 article or an orgasm of the G-spot. Gräfenberg did describe some cases of female and male urethral masturbation and illustrated the corpus spongiosum of the female urethra: analogous to the male urethra, the female urethra seems to be surrounded by erectile tissues like the corpora cavernosa. In a recent attempt to define a so-called G-spot, Ostrzenski stated: ‘The G-spot gene has been identified’, but this is a misreading of the reference he quotes. All published scientific data point to the fact that the Gräfenberg spot does not exist: there are no ultrasonographic images or anatomical pictures of the G-spot, and the female prostate has no anatomical structure that can cause an orgasm. None of these strong arguments has ever been rebutted in the medical literature (Puppo V et al. Int Urogynecol J 2012;23:1665–9).
The claims made in numerous articles written by Addiego, Whipple, Jannini, Buisson, O'Connell, Brody, Ostrzenski, Thabet and others are worthy of debate. These authors could also be accused of using Gräfenberg's name to create an impression that their studies have a scientific basis (Puppo V. ISRN Obstet Gynecol 2011;261464:5 pp).
The use of such non-scientifically based terms by researchers and scientists serves as the fuel for the evolution of myths, which are then amplified by mass media and become popular and well accepted. Some medical professionals may take advantage of these myths and of the expectations of women influenced by the myth for their own personal benefit.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists reveals: ‘There have been an increasing number of practitioners offering various types of vaginal surgeries marketed as ways to enhance appearance or sexual gratification’. In the case of G-spot amplification, some gynaecologists have arguably invented or developed this procedure, which is both futile and unnecessary: female genital cosmetic surgery can be considered by some as female genital mutilation type IV (Puppo V. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2013;75:215–6).
The G-spot does not exist (Figure 1): it is not acceptable to claim that the existence of a G-spot has been ‘documented’ on the basis of a single cadaver dissection study. I strongly argue that G-spot amplification is an inefficacious medical procedure, and the supposed G-spot should not be identified with Gräfenberg's name.
Female sexual dysfunctions are complex but it should not be assumed that they are based on something that may not exist, i.e. the vaginal/G-spot orgasm. Female erectile organs (i.e. female penis) are believed to be responsible for female orgasm (Puppo V. Clin Anat 2013;26:134–52).
The G-spot has become the centre of a multimillion dollar business: I warn colleagues to maintain a high level of professionalism and not to be tempted by attractive but as yet unsubstantiated considerations.