It's true that the British study fails if g-spot sensitivity (whatever that means) is uncorrelated to genetics. That's a legitimate critique of the study.<p>However, the claim that they've seen the g-spot on scans is silly, at least based on the pubmed literature I've found. Several different studies, each with a small sample size, observe <i>different</i> physical features they interpret to be a g-spot.<p>To claim it's been observed is nothing but data mining.