It's tempting to oversimplify the "cylinder" approximation of vaginal shape since our dicks tend to be closer to cylinders in approximation (having a consistent girth/width/diameter) but apparently that isn't the face for foids.
I think a lot of us just wrongly assume that because we have "key in lock" metaphors in mind, so if we look at human external genitalia and see it is roughly equidiametered it's seductive to think human internal genitalia follow that pattern and is also equidiametered.
SCIENCE has proven me wrong
academic.oup.com
In layman's terms, the narrowest (1.0295276 inches) part the "introitus" refers to the entrance
The references to the "vaginal fornices" and "cervical os" are a bit harder to wrap my head around because in reading about these I've found contrast between both "internal os" v "external os" and also "posterior fornix" and "anterior fornix"
Anterior>Posterior is just front>back so I guess that's a line. Interestingly the vagina only gets that wide when a foid is aroused and the womb's pulled up, otherwise the womb sits low occupying that space.
Probably is referring to "external os" as a point since that's where you enter the cervix and the cervix would get tight past that point.
The problem with referring to it as a point of measurement at ALL though is that the cervix is actually mobile (a tunnel within a tunnel) so with the location of the external os changing as a foid gets aroused it doesn't exactly make for a fixed point of reference when describing changes in diameter as one goes deeper.
At best I figure they assume it a fixed point of refernece becausse they hopefully control to only meausre foids when either unaroused or aroused so that it's at a consistent position.
Anyway, point being that the tight part (2.6cm is a little over an inch in diameter) is the entrance, and then it's all downhill from there:
Compared to male girth averages from https://www.getroman.com/health-guide/normal-penis-average-size/
Based on the data curves it seems like the average-girth "hits air" about halfway down the tunnel.
It is possibly perhaps that diameter "averages out" via tissue deformation though. When you have a consistent 1.16501418 pushed through 1.0295276 that difference in diameter of 0.13548658 inches would stretch the tissue outward and then that might lead it to push some of that tissue further up.
Not sure how to explain this except it's like "the tissue wants to rebound toward the center because there's stuff on the other side pushing it back" and since it can't do that where the penis is occupying it can only do that further up.
Having trouble finding a proper analogy except maybe how when you push a small height of snow this eventually builds up to a high height of snow.
So I guess if it works that way, the wider your dick is (the more tissue it can displace at the tight entrance) the narrower the vagina gets further in, which can help compensate for it's natural widening which if viewed in isolation wouldn't be tight enough to give good stimulation?
Cliff's notes: my initial theory could be wrong based on a new theory: girth deformation probably normalizes vaginal diameter, making it more uniform/consistent as one goes deeper in than it may initially seems based on initial scientific measurements seen in the first study I linked to.
If you're circumcised you have less girth than you were destined to have by birth and the Jews are to blame for this and it would be completely moral to sever and recycle jew dicks into stem cells to adhere to our own and double them in size, to restore us not just to our destined size but LARGER to make up for lost time. If we can do liver/kidney transplants this should be a piece of cake by comparison.
I think a lot of us just wrongly assume that because we have "key in lock" metaphors in mind, so if we look at human external genitalia and see it is roughly equidiametered it's seductive to think human internal genitalia follow that pattern and is also equidiametered.
SCIENCE has proven me wrong
Baseline dimensions of the human vagina
Abstract. BACKGROUND: Vaginal anatomy has been poorly studied. This study aimed to measure baseline dimensions of the undistended vagina of women of reprod
academic.oup.com
In layman's terms, the narrowest (1.0295276 inches) part the "introitus" refers to the entrance
The references to the "vaginal fornices" and "cervical os" are a bit harder to wrap my head around because in reading about these I've found contrast between both "internal os" v "external os" and also "posterior fornix" and "anterior fornix"
Anterior>Posterior is just front>back so I guess that's a line. Interestingly the vagina only gets that wide when a foid is aroused and the womb's pulled up, otherwise the womb sits low occupying that space.
Probably is referring to "external os" as a point since that's where you enter the cervix and the cervix would get tight past that point.
The problem with referring to it as a point of measurement at ALL though is that the cervix is actually mobile (a tunnel within a tunnel) so with the location of the external os changing as a foid gets aroused it doesn't exactly make for a fixed point of reference when describing changes in diameter as one goes deeper.
At best I figure they assume it a fixed point of refernece becausse they hopefully control to only meausre foids when either unaroused or aroused so that it's at a consistent position.
Anyway, point being that the tight part (2.6cm is a little over an inch in diameter) is the entrance, and then it's all downhill from there:
mid-lower vagina (27.21 mm) = 1.0712598 inches
pelvic flexure (27.97 mm) = 1.1011811 inches
cervical os (32.52 mm) = 1.280315 inches
vaginal fornices (41.87 mm) = 1.6484252 inches
Compared to male girth averages from https://www.getroman.com/health-guide/normal-penis-average-size/
we get 1.16501418 inches as the diameter if you plug that circumference into a circle calculatorMichael Martin said:
Based on the data curves it seems like the average-girth "hits air" about halfway down the tunnel.
It is possibly perhaps that diameter "averages out" via tissue deformation though. When you have a consistent 1.16501418 pushed through 1.0295276 that difference in diameter of 0.13548658 inches would stretch the tissue outward and then that might lead it to push some of that tissue further up.
Not sure how to explain this except it's like "the tissue wants to rebound toward the center because there's stuff on the other side pushing it back" and since it can't do that where the penis is occupying it can only do that further up.
Having trouble finding a proper analogy except maybe how when you push a small height of snow this eventually builds up to a high height of snow.
So I guess if it works that way, the wider your dick is (the more tissue it can displace at the tight entrance) the narrower the vagina gets further in, which can help compensate for it's natural widening which if viewed in isolation wouldn't be tight enough to give good stimulation?
Cliff's notes: my initial theory could be wrong based on a new theory: girth deformation probably normalizes vaginal diameter, making it more uniform/consistent as one goes deeper in than it may initially seems based on initial scientific measurements seen in the first study I linked to.
If you're circumcised you have less girth than you were destined to have by birth and the Jews are to blame for this and it would be completely moral to sever and recycle jew dicks into stem cells to adhere to our own and double them in size, to restore us not just to our destined size but LARGER to make up for lost time. If we can do liver/kidney transplants this should be a piece of cake by comparison.
Last edited:
