Thank you fisha, for remembering
SSG Schwartz
Shagging the midgets, were you? 
Apologies.
Incidentally what are you known as ? is it “sarge” or “staff” and what’s the next step up for you
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.
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.
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.
I prefer to be addressed as Sergeant. Next step is Sergeant First Class sometime in the next 3-4 years.
SSG Schwartz
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
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.
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.
**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.
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.
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?
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. 
Heh.
I get the feeling this isn’t a question that is asked very much, though. I don’t know why.
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.
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!
Can we all just take a moment to reflect on the beauty of the term “vaginal vault”?