Anatomical Question [possibly TMI?]

Question for you medical types. My apologies for the strangeness of the question.

Often, there is a very visible bulge in the groin of some women, when wearing certain clothing. Certainly it is related to the female genitalia, but I’m curious as to what is producing the effect.

In short: What exactly am I looking at here?
http:/ /www.flickr.com/photos/32435358@N04/3029976179/

Note: I think this should be safe for work, but I’ll break the link just in case.
Thanks for your consideration.

-Q

Her outer labia.

ETA: Technically, labia majora.

The Mons Pubis or pubic mound is a fatty pad that lies above the pubic bone in women, and tends to define the shape of the groin down the sides of the vulva. In the case of your pic, the very tight fitting shorts just accentuate the mons and down to the vulva, and the fact that there is very little fat anywhere else down there (they look like well muscled thighs) emphasises the shape.

Nothing unusual. Just a womans form as defined my a really tight pair of pants.

Si

Thank you kindly for your straightforward answers. I read through the topics in your links.

Most often, the bulge I’m talking about is distinctly triangular in shape. Is there any way to explain what causes this? I suppose the answer may be more related to the realities of the textile of the garment (spandex, I believe), than to anatomy. I’ve always assumed that it had something to do with the degree to which the stretch-material “cuts” into the crotch. The red example I posted above, the full shape of the pubic mound is fully visible. In other examples (such as http:/ /www.flickr.com/photos/32435358@N04/3031004248/ ), There is little if any definition in the larger upper area. Only the very point (what I can assume is the tip of the bottom tip of the labia majora) shows. Would it be correct to say that the difference is a result of the material, design of the short, etc, or is it due to anatomical variation?

*Sorry if this topic seems strange. From the lurking I’ve done on your board so far, I’m amazed at the variety of topics and answers. None too banal, nor peculiar.

Not to be TMI but that might not be anatomical. Even athletes occasionally need hygiene products.

Search on “camel toes” and see what comes up. Have fun.

As said above, it’s simply the amount and shape of the mons (pudendum was an older word) and the shape/prominence of the outer labia; the “twat” in other words. Highly variable: some woman have groins as flat as a Barbie doll with a scarcely adorned introitus to the vagina; others are so pointy you wonder if it’s prehensile.
:wink:

Camel Toe

I believe it is mainly due to anatomical variation, although clothing can play a part. (hence the camel toes other posters have advised searching on) Female sexual anatomy, while comprising the same parts, can often vary in appearance from woman to woman. Some women’s bits are flat-looking or even almost bony in outer appearance, while others have rather plush vulvae with a more, er, mountainous mons veneris. I’m guessing that an athlete would probably not be using sanitary pads, but tampons instead, which would lessen the chances that what you see in an athlete in uniform is the puffiness of a pad rather than the shape of the woman’s personal anatomy.

So if anatomical variation is the likely answer, then that would suggest that if the two women in the examples above were to swap shorts the apparent shape of their pubic mound would remain the same, yes?

Also another question: In the examples given, the women are athletes – volleyball players to be precise. Would they have considered (or noticed) that the shape of their vagina is visible to those around them? I suppose it’s a somewhat obvious question, but it does seem rather strange to me. In my country, women are much more modest (or at least careful about their appearance).

Thank you for your replies.

The landscaping of the…um…hedges might also contribute to the diameter of the bulge.