And all the vaginas are well above average


30 Responses to “And all the vaginas are well above average”

  1. Smart E Pantz says:

    Of course, some women think theirs are better than others.  Images perfectly fine, lyrics NSFW-ish.

  2. Bradley Robinson says:

    I can accurately report that all of the vaginas are well above average at Triple X Science as well.

    • Their mailing address is a high class nightclub for the gentry at Biggleswade with International cuisine and cooking and top line acts, and not a cheap clip joint for picking up tarts. That was right out! I deny that completely.

  3. chaopoiesis says:

    The article implies human lady parts are special in their degree of variability. But are they subject to more variability than other human parts? 

    And if so, why?

  4. Ladyfingers says:

    I dunno, I’m not satisfied with my sample size yet.

  5. GawainLavers says:

    (I can’t be the only one hoping that my vagina looks like a pumpkin seed instead of a slug.)

    Unless your interests are exclusively mechanical (self-assembled or not), then I’m guessing a slug is going to serve you better than a pumpkin seed.

  6. HarveyBoing says:

    Of course, releasing an article like this on April 1 can be very confusing to some of us. :/

    (Especially right on the heels of some Einstein-based satire…also a bit confusing if one hasn’t read the anti-sexist tirades that preceded it).

    (And yes, I know…it’s my problem. Still…it’s confusing!)

  7. Preston Sturges says:

    I think there is someone for everyone, and they can probably be found on Craigslist.

    If someone (male or female) wrote on Craigslist “I have an incredibly hairy butt,” they would probably discover they are quite popular.  They question is whether they are comfortable with that relationship, or if they would someday say “You only like my freakishly hairy butt!” and then go searching for a partner who is disgusted by them instead.

  8. Boundegar says:

    Ladies.  Are you normal? Yes. Are you average? No. Most likely.
      –Old Spice Guy

  9. MonkeyBoy says:

    One reason for the variability is that most variations are free from selection by evolution – i.e. they are not functional. The functional variations in lady parts may be only to  partially seal away the vagina and urethra to protect them from bugs (both microscopic such as bacteria and macroscopic such as insects), while not being too good a seal as to enclose and protect infestations.

    Many aspects of the differences between female and male anatomy can be seen to result from sexual selection – e.g. relative hairlessness, prominent breasts when not lactating, small waist to hips ratio. These visual cues have been used by males in selecting a “good” wife.

    Given that (as far as I know) all cultures cloth the lady parts and that usually a man is only allowed to see them after he is married sexual selection may have had little role in their appearance. The only exception to this I can think of is in cultures where rich men can have harems and reject women for “not looking right down there”. Given that rich people are the most “reproductively fit”, harem rejection may have shaped some genotypes though I have never heard of a king (aka. sultan, emperor) with a preference for “beautiful c**ts”.

  10. feetleet says:

    This feels pedantic. This readership isn’t going to flinch at what freshman biology would render shmobvious. Flasher at a nudist colony. Wagging works both ways.  

  11. senorglory says:

    Lake Woebegone after hours. Meow.

Leave a Reply