[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=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
[/QUOTE]
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.