The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-28-2007, 05:20 PM
SSG Schwartz SSG Schwartz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Do larger women have deeper vaginas?

Inspired by this thread , I began to wonder. Now it is to the point that I am willing to ask a truly stupid question (regardless of what my first grade teacher said). I would also appreciate any posters not posting Spinal Tap lyrics until the question has been answered.

I would assume the depth of the vagina varies woman to woman, so would a baseline have to be taken and then another measurement made as the woman gains or loses weight?

Any ideas?

SSG Schwartz
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 07-28-2007, 05:32 PM
cwthree cwthree is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
I know some dimension of the vagina changes with weight. If you use a diaphragm for contraception, you're supposed to get the fit re-evaluated if you gain or lose more than 10 pounds.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-28-2007, 05:40 PM
SSG Schwartz SSG Schwartz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwthree
I know some dimension of the vagina changes with weight. If you use a diaphragm for contraception, you're supposed to get the fit re-evaluated if you gain or lose more than 10 pounds.

Thanks, Chief, but is one of the dimensions that changes depth, or is it that the penetration depth is changed because the belly gets in the way?

SSG Schwartz
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-28-2007, 05:42 PM
Full Metal Lotus Full Metal Lotus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
In my high wire days, I was with a number of women.

Larger women (Size, not weight) have a greater depth. With one "smaller"woman, I commented that I could feel her diaphram at the end of my unit.


Not bragging, just saying

FML
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-28-2007, 07:09 PM
phouka phouka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Well, like I've said in the previous post, I am just under 5' 9" and overweight. Twice, I've been told that I have exceptionally tight vaginal walls. That is, um, by qualified doctors. Once, the doctor mentioned that I had a very long vaginal vault.

Really, about that only way to measure such things is to stick something up there, and I've found that unless it's in highly romantic circumstances, I really don't enjoy it all that much.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-28-2007, 07:14 PM
Kneepants Erasmus, the Humanist Kneepants Erasmus, the Humanist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by phouka
Well, like I've said in the previous post, I am just under 5' 9" and overweight. Twice, I've been told that I have exceptionally tight vaginal walls. That is, um, by qualified doctors. Once, the doctor mentioned that I had a very long vaginal vault.
Er, did you say "thank you"?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-28-2007, 07:15 PM
SSG Schwartz SSG Schwartz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by phouka
Well, like I've said in the previous post, I am just under 5' 9" and overweight. Twice, I've been told that I have exceptionally tight vaginal walls. That is, um, by qualified doctors. Once, the doctor mentioned that I had a very long vaginal vault.

Really, about that only way to measure such things is to stick something up there, and I've found that unless it's in highly romantic circumstances, I really don't enjoy it all that much.
I just read your post in the other thread. Thanks for your input, but only by field research can we truly fight ignorance. So how does wine, roses, a bathroom scale, and a tape measure sound?

SSG Schwartz
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-28-2007, 07:18 PM
fisha fisha is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt Schwartz
I just read your post in the other thread. Thanks for your input, but only by field research can we truly fight ignorance. So how does wine, roses, a bathroom scale, and a tape measure sound?

SSG Schwartz
Don't forget the thermometer.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-28-2007, 07:21 PM
phouka phouka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Uh.... in what order? And the roses are for atmosphere, right?

And, Kneepants, by the time she was done, I wanted her bludgeoned to death and her corpse fed to the dogs in the street as a warning to others. Do not compliment a woman in that manner and then call for the "extra large" speculum.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-28-2007, 07:26 PM
SSG Schwartz SSG Schwartz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by phouka
Uh.... in what order? And the roses are for atmosphere, right?
Wine first, always wine first, then roses with the thorns plucked and waxed, for atmosphere of course, heh, heh, heh. You will then step on the scale to the sounds of the Velvet Fog, finally, a tape measure will be used.

SSG Schwartz
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-28-2007, 07:33 PM
phouka phouka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
To step on a bathroom scale in front of a man, I would have to be well and truly drunk.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-28-2007, 09:42 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 54,848
Ok, how about this: I sweep you into my arms, and then I step on the bathroom scale. Then, shortly after I set you down, I discreetly step onto the scale by myself. Drunkenness on your part is optional.

Better?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-29-2007, 10:17 AM
Koxinga Koxinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt Schwartz
Wine first, always wine first, then roses with the thorns plucked and waxed, for atmosphere of course, heh, heh, heh. You will then step on the scale to the sounds of the Velvet Fog, finally, a tape measure will be used.

SSG Schwartz
Sounds like something taken from Smoove B's repertoire.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-29-2007, 10:20 AM
chowder chowder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by fisha
Don't forget the thermometer.
And the chocolates, don't forget the chocolates

why are you now SSG Schwartz, used to be SG <<slight hijack>>

Last edited by chowder; 07-29-2007 at 10:24 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-29-2007, 10:55 AM
phouka phouka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Well, since it is for science....take me!
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-29-2007, 11:22 AM
fisha fisha is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by chowder
And the chocolates, don't forget the chocolates

why are you now SSG Schwartz, used to be SG <<slight hijack>>

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...staff+sergeant
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-29-2007, 11:23 AM
Telperien Telperien is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by phouka
Well, since it is for science....take me!
"He blinded her with science..."
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-29-2007, 01:14 PM
chowder chowder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by fisha
Thanks and congrats to SSG Schwartz.

"Sir, yes sir"
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-29-2007, 02:51 PM
phouka phouka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Hey, I remember reading that thread. Congrats, Sarge! (Must refrain from bad staff jokes.)
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-30-2007, 08:52 AM
SSG Schwartz SSG Schwartz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by chowder
Thanks and congrats to SSG Schwartz.

"Sir, yes sir"
Thanks, chowder, and FTR, I work for a living. (No, sir)

And thank you, phouka. Do not ask to see my Staff however.

SSG Schwartz
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-30-2007, 08:53 AM
SSG Schwartz SSG Schwartz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by fisha

Thank you fisha, for remembering

SSG Schwartz
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-30-2007, 08:58 AM
danceswithcats danceswithcats is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Voting anti-obamanation
Posts: 10,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Full Metal Lotus
In my high wire days, I was with a number of women.

Larger women (Size, not weight) have a greater depth. With one "smaller"woman, I commented that I could feel her diaphram at the end of my unit.


Not bragging, just saying

FML
Shagging the midgets, were you?
__________________
Crows. Keeping our highways clear of roadkill for over 80 years
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-30-2007, 10:58 AM
chowder chowder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt Schwartz
Thanks, chowder, and FTR, I work for a living. (No, sir)

And thank you, phouka. Do not ask to see my Staff however.

SSG Schwartz
Apologies.
Incidentally what are you known as ? is it "sarge" or "staff" and what's the next step up for you

Last edited by chowder; 07-30-2007 at 11:00 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-30-2007, 11:55 AM
Pullet Pullet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
For the OP:
I'm 5'10" and I've been told that I have a deep cervix. My fluctuating weight hasn't had an effect (as light as 175 pounds, currently 250 )

One med student had some trouble finding it, it fact, and had to get out the clear plastic speculum that lights up. Every OB/GYN I've been to has been incredibly gentle, though.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-30-2007, 12:44 PM
flight flight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Personal experience data point: I have been with taller/shorter and heavier/lighter women. I have "bottomed out" on about half. That half had no correlation with either height or weight. Granted, my sample size is fewer than I would like.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-30-2007, 02:20 PM
usar_jag usar_jag is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by chowder
Thanks and congrats to SSG Schwartz.

"Sir, yes sir"
Don't call him "sir." He works for a living.

ETA: I should have known that a high-speed NCO would beat me to the punch.

Last edited by usar_jag; 07-30-2007 at 02:21 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-30-2007, 02:27 PM
SSG Schwartz SSG Schwartz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by chowder
Apologies.
Incidentally what are you known as ? is it "sarge" or "staff" and what's the next step up for you
I prefer to be addressed as Sergeant. Next step is Sergeant First Class sometime in the next 3-4 years.

SSG Schwartz
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-30-2007, 02:34 PM
SSG Schwartz SSG Schwartz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Not to destroy a perfectly good hijack , but I still haven't seen any creditable evidence that the vaginal length does or does not change based upon a woman's proportions. Aside from the anecdotal evidence and field research heh of the SDMB, I guess the world may never know.


SSG Schwartz
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-31-2007, 12:13 AM
Sitnam Sitnam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Of course you can't say all bigger woman have bigger vaginas, but come on people, a 6' woman has larger hands, feet, legs, head, etc. than a 5' woman. Can't we make an educated assumption here.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-31-2007, 06:29 AM
Sapo Sapo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Since this thread has gone for long enough without a doctor chiming in, here goes the half-educated WAG of a non-specialist in any related field. With heavier women (the OP asks for weight, not height), you need more reach to get in. The vagina might remain the same length but as a woman gains weight, you get some, er, steric hindrance. You just can't get as close to the opening as you could before. That means that she could take a longer penis without the discomfort of putting pressure on the cervix.

Something similar occurs to men. The penis remains the same length as a man gains weight, but because it is anchored inside, it has to reach through more tissue and it looks smaller.

That means, of course, that in the case of a morbidly obese couple, you could have serious reach problems and only be able to get a tip in. Not fun for anyone, I bet.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 07-31-2007, 08:09 AM
Telperien Telperien is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Sapo, that's not a depth issue, though it is why morbidly obese couples are recommended to use certain positions.

The best way to measure vaginal depth would not be with penises but with dildos, since they are not attached to a person and thus could be inserted as fully as the particular vagina in question permits without his or her other body parts getting in the way.

Too bad a woman who has gained or lost a significant amount of weight hasn't yet chimed in with her experience.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-31-2007, 10:24 AM
late664 late664 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Relaxation has to be taken into account as well. If such a test would to be performed, some type of machine to measure the sensory state of the person would have to be used as well.

For example... Same female, same size, different time and days and circumstances. Simply sticking a marked dildo into her for measurement obviously won't give off consistent results. I would give personal stories and experiences with ex-girlfriends as examples, but I'd feel funny.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-31-2007, 10:32 AM
chowder chowder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
You think it bothers us if you feel funny?

Make with the stories/experiences and be quick about it
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-31-2007, 10:45 AM
late664 late664 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by chowder
You think it bothers us if you feel funny?

Make with the stories/experiences and be quick about it
Okay chowder, as you wish... (and I'll be quick)

I was in a relationship with a girl that didn't have much experience with toys... once I introduced it though, she was an awesome student. This is where the topic at hand comes in. In the beginning, of course we started out slowly. As time progressed, so did the shapes and sizes of the "testing" objects. Before anybody jumps to saying that of course the female vagina can stretch... let me say that it doesn't ALWAYS fit bigger things.

One night, she can bury a "scary-sized" dildo and make it disappear... the following night, she wouldn't be able to do the same with something 3/4 the size of it. What gives?
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-31-2007, 10:52 AM
Telperien Telperien is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
People who have vaginas know that not everything fits in there. It seems to me that people who don't have vaginas are the ones who don't get that.

What gives is that lots of rearranging goes on in the female genital regions during the process of arousal. Tissues swell up, structures move somewhat. The back part of the vagina can "balloon" (as all the books seem to put it) quite a bit when a woman is aroused. It doesn't seem like the front bits expand as much, and of course, the woman is not always going to be at the same level of arousal at every encounter. My only cites for this are being a proud woman-bits owner for nearly twenty-nine years, having female lovers, and reading a lot about the subject.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-31-2007, 10:56 AM
late664 late664 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telperien
People who have vaginas know that not everything fits in there. It seems to me that people who don't have vaginas are the ones who don't get that.

What gives is that lots of rearranging goes on in the female genital regions during the process of arousal. Tissues swell up, structures move somewhat. The back part of the vagina can "balloon" (as all the books seem to put it) quite a bit when a woman is aroused. It doesn't seem like the front bits expand as much, and of course, the woman is not always going to be at the same level of arousal at every encounter. My only cites for this are being a proud woman-bits owner for nearly twenty-nine years, having female lovers, and reading a lot about the subject.

That is EXACTLY my point. This thread is asking about the depth of a vagina in relations to a female's size, in weight or height specifically I'm not sure... but I brought up the importance of relaxation and state of being. Why it fit one night, and not the next, trust me... I KNOW, I was there.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-31-2007, 11:08 AM
Telperien Telperien is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by late664
That is EXACTLY my point. This thread is asking about the depth of a vagina in relations to a female's size, in weight or height specifically I'm not sure... but I brought up the importance of relaxation and state of being. Why it fit one night, and not the next, trust me... I KNOW, I was there.
Heh.

I get the feeling this isn't a question that is asked very much, though. I don't know why.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-31-2007, 11:41 AM
silenus silenus is offline
Hoc nomen meum verum non est.
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 40,785
My WAG, based on field research, is that there would be little correlation between size of woman and size of vagina. After all, there is no correlation in men between size and size.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-31-2007, 12:20 PM
Autolycus Autolycus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ainran
Posts: 11,449
By the twisted hairs of Satan's nutsack, we have all these dopers, and not one of us has started thinking empirically yet!? For shame.

I volunteer to fix this problem. So, what do we think is a good sample size? 1000 women? 10,000 women? Of course, on second thought, judging from past experience I dont have the credentials necessary for this experiment. Now, I am more than qualified to begin recording trials on the reverse conundrum: Do smaller women have shorter vaginas?.

I shall begin gathering experiment participants posthaste!
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-31-2007, 01:25 PM
vibrotronica vibrotronica is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Can we all just take a moment to reflect on the beauty of the term "vaginal vault"?
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 07-31-2007, 04:43 PM
SSG Schwartz SSG Schwartz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapo
Since this thread has gone for long enough without a doctor chiming in, here goes the half-educated WAG of a non-specialist in any related field. With heavier women (the OP asks for weight, not height), you need more reach to get in. The vagina might remain the same length but as a woman gains weight, you get some, er, steric hindrance. You just can't get as close to the opening as you could before. That means that she could take a longer penis without the discomfort of putting pressure on the cervix.

Something similar occurs to men. The penis remains the same length as a man gains weight, but because it is anchored inside, it has to reach through more tissue and it looks smaller.

That means, of course, that in the case of a morbidly obese couple, you could have serious reach problems and only be able to get a tip in. Not fun for anyone, I bet.

So far, yours makes the most sense. Short of a gynecologist with a lot of free time and insurance checking in, I will accept that.

Thanks
SSG Schwartz
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-31-2007, 05:18 PM
Gfactor Gfactor is offline
of the Gladiators
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 9,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt Schwartz
So far, yours makes the most sense. Short of a gynecologist with a lot of free time and insurance checking in, I will accept that.

Thanks
SSG Schwartz
This article outlines some methodological problems with measuring vaginal depth. I did find some references to vaginal depth in the the medical literature, but none dealt with the issue about which you inquired.

http://cgi.sfbg.com/entry.php?catid=85&entry_id=601
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-31-2007, 06:11 PM
CaerieD CaerieD is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Well, I asked my mother, who is a Certified Professional Midwife, what she had to offer on this topic. According to her, vaginal size has about as much in common with a woman's size--either weight or height--as penis size has in similar measurements in men (ie very little to none).

There are, however, two exceptions to this:

1) As Sapo mentioned, the bigger a woman is the more "hindrance" there is to actually reaching the vagina, requiring a greater length to reach the cervix.

2) A particularly large woman may be more difficult to penetrate, as there will be greater pressure from fat and organs when she's supine. My mother gave an anecdote about attempting to check the dilation of a client of hers who was obese and how the increased weight caused there to be less room for her to maneuver her fingers.

No cites, I'm afraid, since I'm just going off of what my mother has to say and she didn't exactly write down vaginal measurements while filling out her records on clients. While she has had many clients and many years to make these observations, they are only anecdotes and were, obviously, not based on erotic activities.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 08-01-2007, 06:30 AM
Napier Napier is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Mid Atlantic, USA
Posts: 7,937
I think there has to be some relation between someone's size and the depth of their vagina. Imagine a giant like Anna Swan (7' or so) and a very tiny person - who was the famous emaciated Mexican dwarf, Zapata or something, right?

The only conversation nearly on point that I've had with a medical professional was with a nurse (who was not alone in maintaining that nurses know more than doctors because they spend more time with patients). She insisted that there was no correlation between the size of a person and the size of their internal organs. She did not, however, know what material filled the spaces between all the regular-sized organs in really big people.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.