T O P I C R E V I E W
Member # 46007
posted 09-10-2010 10:24 AM
Wow, apparently my computer spell check doesn't recognize "vaginas." That is really sad.
But anyway. I know you guys have talked a LOT about vaginas and the myths that surround it, and I've read a lot of what you've said in the forums as well as all the articles I could find about it, but I'm still a bit confused. A couple of weeks ago I was talking to a guy friend who insisted his ex-girlfriend was "loose" and he didn't enjoy sex with her much because of it. He said it was because she used a lot of big dildos (my computer doesn't recognize that word either..heehee). Now, I explained to him that using dildos does not make any permanent change to one's vagina, because vaginas expand when you're aroused and then go back to their unaroused state when you're not, and if they stayed expanded you wouldn't be able to wear tampons, etc. But I was wondering how much variation there is in the width of vaginas (I'm sure I'm not using the correct terminology, sorry) and if she perhaps could have actually felt "looser" than other women he'd slept with, or if it was some psychological thing with him and had nothing to do with her actual anatomy. I was also talking to my current partner yesterday who said that when he was fingering me and another girl simultaneously last week, she felt tighter (he said she was also less wet, so I told him it was probably just that she wasn't as turned on as I was). He also said he noticed a difference when he had intercourse with her awhile ago; that she felt tighter (and also not as wet). Do some girls just never get as turned on as others, so their vaginas just don't expand as much? Or, again, is there some natural differences between widths of vaginas and how much they expand when you're turned on or something? Or, do kegels really make a difference? Because that does tone the muscles, which could make the vagina FEEL tighter, right? Sorry for beating a dead horse, I just really want to understand. Especially since there's so much misinformation out there and I love educating people, like my guy friends who say things like that, on the correct information, but there are some questions they ask or arguments they make I'm not always sure how to respond to. Thanks. [ 09-10-2010, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: Lilerse ]
Member # 3
posted 09-10-2010 10:38 AM
Have you read this already, which includes a visual chart?
Vagzilla! (Or, All Genitals Great and Small) You might also want to just take a look at the variation in diaphragm widths. Mind, those are for the BACK of the vagina, where width varies a LOT more, because the back is different than the opening of the canal, which is a closed tube when nothing is inside of it, period. Diaphragm sizes also very as much as they do to mostly account for changes post-childbirth. For those who have not been pregnant, you're generally going to see 65 - 75mms as a size almost exclusively. The range of sizes is 50 mm to 105 mm (which I probably don't have to tell you is not exactly a wide range). How aroused and/or relaxed people are or get absolutely makes a big difference, in both ways, really. People who are aroused and relaxed tend to have more flexible vaginal openings and canals that can feel "looser" to a partner or oneself, while at the same time, high levels of arousal, especially per the internal and external clitoris, make those tissues swell, which can create feelings of more "tightness." It doesn't make much sense to talk about if someone "never" gets as turned on as other people, though, when you're not asking about anyone who has had a given partner for a lifetime here. I'm also willing to bet no one you're asking about here is even more than 30 or 40 years old, if that. Muscle tone -- mostly that's about muscles AROUND the vagina -- also will tend to make a difference, but in younger women who have never been pregnant or given birth, that's going to tend to be moot most of the time. Also? The perception of a male partner with vaginal "tightness" is something we know as sex educators is often highly unreliable, both in the reporting and in the actual felt perception. [ 09-10-2010, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: Heather ]
Member # 46007
posted 09-10-2010 11:03 AM
Somehow I'd missed that article, thanks! It was very helpful. I'd been wondering about menstrual cups as well, since they obviously fit higher up in the vagina.
Can't there be widths of the lower part of the vaginal canal too, though, since there are vaginal walls and they have to stop somewhere? I mean is it all just muscle? But wouldn't the muscle have to end somewhere too since it's attached to the body? I am so bad at anatomy... As for the guy friend's ex-girlfriend, do you think she just got especially aroused, or do you think it was all in his head?
Member # 3
posted 09-10-2010 11:11 AM
Well, menstrual cups only come in TWO sizes, with only a difference between them of around 3 mm in diameter.
Certainly, there can be widths of the lower part of the vaginal canal, too, but to measure them, one'd need to use an instrument that expanded the vagina to its widest point. Even that would be tricky, though, since any one given vagina would be more or less flexible based on relaxation, arousal, time of the fertility cycle, the situation/context one'd take the measurement in and a host of other things. Even any one given woman does not have one "size" per her vagina that is constant when something is inside of it. However, do bear in mind that there's a point where this conversation in regards to sex becomes silly because vaginal birth requires a level of flexibility for a size of something coming out of the vagina that rarely, if ever, will be introduced in sexual activity, and certainly not in sexual activity with a penis. I feel like you might not be understanding the anatomy and musculature that surrounds the vagina. This might help: . So might this: With Pleasure: A View of Whole Sexual Anatomy for Every Body http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1472875/ I think we can't assume jack about the guy friend's ex-girlfriend, especially since we have no idea what his agenda was in telling you that in the first place, or if he was even telling the truth. I think to know or assume anything at all about that woman, we'd need to be talking with her, not an ex-sexual partner, especially not one talking to someone who they have some kind of personal relationship with. [ 09-10-2010, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: Heather ]