Talk:G-spot/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---


The link to the alcoholic beverage seems to be broken. It just leads back to the same page.

---

Is the drawing correct? I thought the g-spot is on the upper side of the vagina, below the urethra, and skene's gland as well as http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/grafenberg.html seem to agree. AxelBoldt 11:05, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The picture still points to the completely wrong place and disagrees with the anatomical description given in the article (picture points to dorsal, article claims ventral). Should be pointing to a point posterior to the urethra and anterior to the vagina. Could this article please get some cites from the literature? It is very unsubstantiated as it stands, especially for something widely accepted by readers of Cosmopolitan and not so much by the general scientific community. 02:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed: I got here after observing the location that I believed was incorrect. Some simple web scans pointed elsewhere. I can correct this image, but due to the sensitive nature I will not at this time, perhaps in a week. Feedback needed. Leonard G. 01:11, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I have updated the article to use the corrected Image:Fem isa 2.gif. Please clarify the lagal status of the images you have uploaded. Thanks. Rafał Pocztarski 02:32, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Any modifications to the images modified by myself are cc-sa (share alike), over any base image license, which is the controlling licence, which if not mine are generally public domain via U.S. government agency release (see Image:SFO_Landsat7_USGS122-38Comp.jpg, my composition of two public domain images. I see that few use the cc-sa, but I feel that it is the most appropriate for WP use, at least for those who do not expect acredidation for their image, which of course may not apply to an artist who makes a living from their art and for whom acredidation is an important source of leads for revenue work and commissions. The only time I use more restricted licence is where I have images of performers or demonstrators who charge for an image, where the cc-nc (noncommercial) useage seems most appropriate. (see Image:PeterhoffCourtDress.jpg - the demonstrators were charging a small fee for pictures) and performances for which admission is charged but for which picture taking is allowed - e. g. my contributions of Beijing opera illustrations.
Some of my earlier image contributitions may be more restrictive, but I am gradually relaxing the restraints to cc-sa, which simply states that if anyone further modifies the image it must be released under the same license - you modify it, anyone else may modify it or use it for any purpose, but you and they must pass the license along. This seems to me to be the least complicated and most giving of the licenses used in WP. (What the heck is Back Cover/Front Cover, etc.?)
Something to note - the changing of an image by replacement may not be seen for several days (unlike text changes) - even if you clear your browser cach or use a different browser or even a different computer. I can only presume that this is a protective mechanism to prevent vandalism via modification of images (imagine the possibilities)- but I have not found a reference to this in WP. Have you knowlege of such matters? The only way to get an instant change is to put up a new image with a new name and change the image reference in the text accordingly. Leonard G. 03:30, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The delay is caused most probably by the cluster of caching proxy servers (en.wikipedia.org seems to be using 6 servers with round-robin DNS right now) used for load balancing, which is done for performance rather than security reasons. Front- and Back-Cover Text is the text that must be printed on the cover of a book. It is irrelevant in the case of Wikipedia since it is licensed under GNU Free Documentation License explicitly without its optional features, i.e. without Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts, and Back-Cover Texts, but briefly cover text is “a short piece of text that you insist must be printed on the cover of the manual when the manual is published, even if someone else is publishing it.” [1] As for the licensing of your work, of course feel free to use whatever license seems most appropriate. While refering to Image:Fem isa 2.gif I was only asking you to add a copyright notice and a license—whatever it is, not any specific one—because currently there is no legal info and in that case the Template:Imagevio should be added. I have added Image:Fem isa 2.gif to seven articles so I feel somehow responsible for that issue. Thanks. Rafał Pocztarski 05:38, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I don't know the base image licensing - that's why I was specific about only the modifications that I made being cc-sa. So I can't really say its my problem to figure out the base license. Feel free to add the copyvio if you wish - at least the image appears more accurate now. Maybe the original G-spot inaccuracy isimilar to the mistakes that publishers put into maps - a means of watermarking the image. Leonard G. 18:23, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Depending on the original license it might not be possible to release modifications under Creative Commons ShareAlike License. For example doing so with works released under the GNU Free Documentation License would be a copyright infringement: ”You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document [...] provided that you release the Modified Version under precisely this License, with the Modified Version filling the role of the Document, thus licensing distribution and modification of the Modified Version to whoever possesses a copy of it. [...]” Since I don’t know what was the license of the original image you have modified, I temporarily used Template:Unverified. Please update it as soon as you know the copyright holder and the license this image was released under. Thanks. Rafał Pocztarski 03:03, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This is really not my problem - If the base image is a copy violation then so is my derivative work. I will try to find some old medical or anatomy texts. Remember how the modern (1960's) encyclopedias would have these great Anatomy sections? These were always the best because often they would be sold on a buy one now (cheap and always the "A" book) and offer a subscription to the remaining volumes. This article would have these great transparent overlays. WP needs something like this, which could be built up from non-copyright images - lots of work but it would really be a worthwhile project - especially if a knowledgeable group of artists, anatomists, and technicians could be formed. Often, also, the conventional anatomy sections do not include anatomy for artists, which takes a different, but still complex approach, as it is concerned with shifting body weight, muscle structure and changing definition, and physical dynamics of motion. User:Leonard G. 16:43, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Propose Move

I propose that we move this to Gräfenberg spot with G-Spot as a redirect rather than the other way around. Seems more encyclopedic. Comment in support or opposition. -SocratesJedi | Talk 19:19, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, the rule seems to be "do what is most expected, not what is technically correct". But in this case, it's just a redirect from an abbreviation, so I think it's probably OK. It's not like those cases where someone's redirected from the common name to what would seem, to the common prole, like a wrongly named entry. Kaz 21:12, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Boldly moved on 28 January since no opposition encountered in a week. -SocratesJedi | Talk 20:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I propose it is deleted it doesn't exist except in the minds of pornographers. (From 81.132.93.16)

I was kinda thrown off, but then immediatally recognized what had happened. The first line shows explains that Gräfenberg is the G in G-Spot. No one will be thrown off and this is technically more correct.
In the minds of pornographers? - perhaps sexologist would be a more appropriate term. - Leonard G. 18:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Of course it exists.--Bltpdx 09:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

amen, it does exist!

Yes it exists- completely different kind of orgasm than clitoral.

[edit] Link to commercial page

The link to www.master-your-g-spot.com/ appears to be a veiled commercial venue where they sell an "ebook" and videos. Should wikipedia be linking to commerical websites? Is there no comparable non-commerical site?

Removed all three, Wikipedia should be kept clean from these sites.

I put back the www.master-your-g-spot.com site, as it contains practical exercises and information on the g spot. While some links on the site are commercial oriented, the tone of the site is definately a hobby site vs a "vieled commercial venue" as mentioned above.

[edit] Facts

I have a problem with:

  • Many sexual advice books encourage couples unable to reach female orgasm to consider G-spot stimulation as a sexual technique.
  • It is believed by a growing number of experts that the reason stimulation of this area causes a "push out" orgasm, even female ejaculation, is that it has evolved as a trigger point for childbirth. The infant's head pushes on this precise spot during delivery, seeming to trigger the final phase of pushing/delivery. This translates, during normal sexual stimulation, into a more significant contraction of the vagina.

and

  • The stimulation of the G-spot is thought to be more intense for women beyond their thirties, because of changes in tissue structure inside the vagina allowing easier access to the G-spot. Some women believe their thirties are their sexual peak because of this reason.

Please back these claims with facts. (put a number in the text and a reference in the references sections if you want after showing me the text). Bragador 02:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok so since nobody can back these claims I have the right to remove unsourced material (wikipedia rules). The original sentences will still be here and until someone can back them, nobody shall put them back in the article. Bragador 15:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factuality Disputed?

Their is a fact dispute tag on this page, but no recent discussion of why this tag was placed. If no one has any objection, I think this tag should be removed.--Matthew 05:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Matthew, see Bragador's comment above. Kaarjuus 23:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Not disputed anymore, see "FACTS" just above this section for more info Bragador 15:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact. The problem is that any book you can cite on the subject is treated as a commercial advertisement and deleted. Neat catch-22 eh?

It is difficult to study the g-spot scientifically because it requires a deep level of intimacy and trust on the part of the two involved the first few times until the female learns how to have them (then it gets much easier).

The above description ("push out") is extremely accurate to what I have observed personally.


http://www.isismedia.org/female_ejaculation_gspot.htm is written by sex therapist Deborah Sundahl, I suggest someone more literate than I should read it. I own a copy and have read 80% of it - I stopped after the chapters escalated into practicing. The book begins by drawing from historical information (mythological and technical), then discusses how the therapist taught ejaculation techniques, then the book moved on to discovering how the process can be learned, finally moving into practice therapy where I stopped reading (I'm not female). The earlier chapters cited historical references and modern studies and thus seems more than just a 'learn how to play with her private bits' kind of book. I'm not the author of that book, I have no commercial interests in regards this edit. BTW: the anatomical image on wikipedia does not match the image in the link (and the link is fraught with improper spelling - authenticity issue IMO). 64.140.248.180 00:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)mmmna

[edit] It exists

Some woman, like some men, have a bigger and more potent/sensitive gland. Woman who cannot orgasm would have a very small gland while woman who find it easy to orgasm have a big one. Either way, it still is there and is the centre for one of the most powerful orgasms a woman can feel. This is from my own findings, not a journal or newspaper 140.159.2.32 02:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

i have personally not experienced a "g-spot" orgasm or ejaculation (squirting) i for sure know i have had "clitoral"orgasms, multiple in fact...i can't imagine them being more intense, i have had dreams and orgasmed (is that a word?) and no spot was touched, so part may be mental....as far as a G-spot...i tried, cant find it! if my clitoris is touched for 2 min. i am done! so why bother! wouldnt want to dirty my sheets everytime anyway!!! i am happy!!!LOL!!!!!!76.169.27.168 23:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

also i would like to add...i think men and womens sexual ogans can be compared to eachother, i feel like my clitoris is a penis...the other parts are hot spots...but nothing can compare to my clitoris...i am wondering if some of theese "women" who have experienced g-spot orgasms can have a clitoral one? maybe everyone is different and the nerves end up on one side of the pubic bone or the other! what a concept!76.169.27.168 23:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've known I've had a g-spot since I was a teenager. Orgasms from there are completely different- for me my hands and feet go numb and... well it's good. And yes, I can very much so have clitoral orgasms, and WONDERFUL ones when you do both at the same time, and I'm a woman, not a "woman" (to above poster). Even if I feel I'm already satisfied I would always love to try something new, you never know what your missing.68.100.9.200 16:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Male "G-spot"?

Howcome there is no mention of the male "G-spot"? A little hint of sexism perhaps!? *GROWL!* T_T Although not technically a true "G-spot", you should still at least mention it X_X, and it wouldn't hurt to give it a separate topic either! Males aren't walking dildos, you know ^^ Vive la Revolution de Sexualite! Pardon my french, lol - Anatevka 20:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

(Please sign you "talk" edits with 4 ~'s.) So be bold and create the male g-spot article, using verifiable sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I've never heard the G-spot used in reference to the prostate, I’m fairly sure it is only used for the female area. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.10.111.57 (talk • contribs) .
(Please sign you "talk" edits with 4 ~'s.) Who said anything about the prostate? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism

dbackj23: my g key is very sensitive

at the end of the article, someone has to remove that. my browser won't let me :( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.190.203.124 (talk • contribs) .

It's been fixed. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This article suffers from a lot of puerile vandalism. I propose that editing should be restricted to registered users. barfbagger 09:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What??

Why does the picture say the g-spot is in the urinal tube?????? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 145.116.15.128 (talk • contribs) .

It doesn't. It points to a spont just below the urethra and above the vagina. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So how do we discuss anything from the books on the subject?

My girlfriend and I were so impressed with our results from Donald Hicks book on the subject that I posted summary info from it, crediting the book, and it was all removed.

What is the proper form to add this with appropriate citation.

Why would it be removed- there was no comment- it's just gone.

[edit] Inconsistency between text and diagram

Text implies the G-spot is on the front wall of vagina while line on diagram shows the rear side of vagina. Must get my eyes tested. JMcC 07:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the image shows it as being a spot between the vagina and the urethra. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually the image is misleading because the line labelled g-spot should really extend almost to the anterior vaginal wall. Right now it looks more like its pointing to the wall of the urethrea, which is incorrect. Certainly to find it in the vagina, (where most people will be looking I assume) a clearer direction should be given. pschemp | talk 04:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] joking

Quoting the article: "The finger or tongue must be approximately 1-3 inches inside the vagina for this to work. However, different individuals require different forms of stimulation." Has anyone here got a tongue that long?

Yeah. This guy.--Bjeversole 07:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)