And all the vaginas are well above average

At Double X Science, Jenny Morber has an excellent piece about the wide range of diversity seen in human lady parts. "Are you normal? Yes. Are you average? No. Most likely," she writes. What follows is a fascinating tour of human biology, from the different lengths and colors of labia to the wide range of shapes exhibited by the inside of the vaginal canal, itself. Even better, all of this can change over the course of an individual woman's life, rendering "average" even more meaningless.


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

    1. 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.

  2. 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?

    1. From what I see on the tumblr blogs, I’d say that man parts win the variability crown.

      1. I’ve had an argument with a few gay friends about this, but I’ve seen lady bits so elaborate I could not easily figure out what was what (and they’re all lovely), whereas a dick always looks pretty much phallic.

      2. Umm, did you even look at a few pages from that large labia Tumblr ?

        Yes, human penises can be long or short, skinny or wide, circumsized or not, straight or with a list to the left or the right – but vulvas can be wildly free form. 

        Surprise yourself – go have a look !

          1. Sorry. those are photos of men with elephantiasis, caused by a common parasite and have zero to do with the consumption of bovine menstrual matter as cited in the article. Google Scrotal Elephantiasis for more pics…

    2. I don’t know about “special”.  Think about how many differently-shaped noses you see on an average day around town.

  3. (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.

    1. South Africans must be poor spellers and very anti-pumpkin seed vagina.

      The country is littered with signs that say “SLEGS ONLY”.  Let’s end this vaginal apartheid and concentrate on sign correction.

      1.  As a South African … bravo.

        A bit like some of the doors in public places saying “TREK PULL”.  What kind of expedition do they think I should mount to open a door?

  4. 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!)

  5. 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.

  6. 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”.

    1.  prominent breasts when not lactating

      This is ev-psy nonsense. For much of western history, small breasts were favored.

  7. 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.  

Comments are closed.