The G-spot remains controversial, with a study by Kings College claiming to have disproved it. However, as this comment http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ot-women-study points out, it's in a long tradition of male reseachers drawing conclusions from women's self-reporting. I liked the comment that "The biggest problem with their findings is that twins don't generally have the same sexual partner."

Meanwhile an Italian study http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...ch.sciencenews claims to have hard anatomical evidence that it exists - but only in women who have vaginal orgasms.
"Ultrasound scans revealed clear anatomical differences between women who said they experienced vaginal orgasms and a group of women who did not. The scans identified a region of thicker tissue where the G spot was rumoured to be lurking, which was not visible in the women who had never had a vaginal orgasm."

What strikes me is that they have located this "band of thicker tissue" but not determined what it is: and if it is muscle, it's entirely possible that it is thicker from use, not because these women were just blessed by Venus with an organ their sisters don't have. Which would, among other things, be consistent with the twin study even if we accept the self-reporting: twins can very well differ in muscular development depending on their lifestyles.

The study shows (if replicated - I note their sample was only 20) that there is a corellation between G-spot and vaginal orgasm, but the causal link remains unproved. It could equally be that vaginal orgasms, like PCG exercises, build up this region. More research needed - I suggest we call for volunteers