Tall women = deep vaginas?

ShannonH

Cherished Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Posts
1,324
Media
11
Likes
379
Points
228
Location
Barrie, Ontario, Canada
Sexuality
60% Straight, 40% Gay
Gender
Male
How is age correlated to height? Granted as you go through puberty, the older you are the taller. I think all the women in the study were past that age.

Hmm I really did mean more the weight and height, but younger generations do tend to be a little bit taller, and much older people start to shrink quite a bit.
Yeah I agree 28's a too-small sample if you have this many variables to look at.
What I do like about these studies is that when people claim some kind of obvious correlation, then 28 is plenty to demonstrate that. If taller women were so much deeper that it would be noticeable you'd see a correlation in the other direction, and it would have a way higher p-value than this.
 

the_1homie

Sexy Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jul 4, 2007
Posts
359
Media
6
Likes
79
Points
348
Location
ny
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I'm only 5'1" and can take 9" easily......I have a friend who's 5'8" and says her bf's 6.5" dick hurts her in some positions.


girls definitely shouldnt share their bfs size with people...i know its off topic but that just jumped out at me
 

Magnum10x2

Mythical Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Posts
16,448
Media
2
Likes
73,878
Points
418
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Ive found no correlation to the height of a woman and the vaginal depth. Although I'm still shocked when a petite girl can take a full depth pounding.
 

ShannonH

Cherished Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Posts
1,324
Media
11
Likes
379
Points
228
Location
Barrie, Ontario, Canada
Sexuality
60% Straight, 40% Gay
Gender
Male
I'm 5'2" 98 pounds and have taken a 10.5 X 7 with some difficulty but was successful.

And yes I walked funny for a few day's.

Wow, that guy sounds like he was dealt a tough hand to play. If he's a good guy then I hope he's found someone accommodating enough to be with regularly.
 

Mumzi

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2006
Posts
469
Media
0
Likes
23
Points
163
Location
Calif
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
The vagina is very elastic.
But I've worked in L&D as a nurse, and now as a midwife; I've never examined a women in labor or not, and could not reach her cervix with my hand. My fingers are not long.
Yes, her position is helpful, she can be on her side too. I do use some pressure to reach the cervix. We tend to think of the GYN table with foot rest. But the MD is also looking for anything abnormal, and may be doing a pap.
In 20 years I've never heard of a case where a medical professional could not reach a woman's cervix.

What does that mean? I suppose it's subjective. I would assume that if the vagina varied enough, we wouldn't be using our hands to examine the cervix. I've had moms that were 5' and one that was 6'1". No problem delivering either baby, I don't remember anything different about these women. The taller one had much longer legs.

This is an interesting topic. But keep in mind that sexual stimulation and hormones can affect vaginal elasticity.
But so can age. Someone did bring up hormone replacement therapy in a former post. I am in favor. It does help. Lack of estrogen can affect the elasticity of the vagina. Can affect the thickness of the skin, and lubrication. All of which can cause vaginal discomfort- even from every day activities. So, I think it could be said that women who have lower estrogen may experience uncomfortable symptoms. One might be that the vagina is not as pliable.
 

Phil Ayesho

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Posts
6,189
Media
0
Likes
2,793
Points
333
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
I don't think there are any hard data on this, but just by personal experience I don't see any correlation. My personal dating pool skews to the much taller end of the spectrum (the shortest I've been with is 5'5", tallest about 6'2") and some of the least accommodating have been the taller ones.
Anecdotal experience isn't proof, but a pile of reliable anecdotes is at least better than urban myths. I've been with a couple girls I found uncomfortably tight: one was a 5'9" black girl, and the other a 5'7" mother, so I put little faith in those clichés that would predict they'd be 'loose'.
My LTR GF is 5'5" and can really take a pounding, though that's more to do with how fast she gets exceptionally wet, low sensitivity, and that she expects (and wants) sex to be painful.

Anecdotal would be you relating what you heard other people's experiences were.

Your personal experience is not anecdotal... it's evidence based upon the questioned criteria.


Get enough of us relating our personal experience and we have a survey, the results of which can be plotted on a graph that can verify or debunk the claim.
 

MrMXYZPTLK

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Posts
550
Media
0
Likes
135
Points
263
Age
42
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I believe it has to do with experience more than height. Because I've met a girl that can fit 5 billard balls in her vagina. She was not always able to do it nor was she born with a big vagina. She streched her own vagina so she can take big cock.
 

ShannonH

Cherished Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Posts
1,324
Media
11
Likes
379
Points
228
Location
Barrie, Ontario, Canada
Sexuality
60% Straight, 40% Gay
Gender
Male
Anecdotal would be you relating what you heard other people's experiences were.

Your personal experience is not anecdotal... it's evidence based upon the questioned criteria.


Get enough of us relating our personal experience and we have a survey, the results of which can be plotted on a graph that can verify or debunk the claim.

It's experience to me, but an anecdote to you. It's not scientific because there are no controlled conditions: I'm just relating what I remember about my past. If every woman I'd slept with was with me at least once in an MRI and recorded their height then we'd have something to compare against.
Like I said it's not a scientific measurement of anatomy, but a survey like this is at least better than just going by a cliché. Saying something isn't scientific isn't the same as saying it's without value.

This 5 billiard ball woman intrigues me, though I'd be more interested if I knew she could shoot one out. If she could make a bank shot, then you may have found the world's most perfect woman.
 

RawDog

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Posts
4,415
Media
17
Likes
243
Points
283
Location
Grinding the backstop (in Colorado)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Hmm I really did mean more the weight and height, but younger generations do tend to be a little bit taller, and much older people start to shrink quite a bit.

That's an excellent point I hadn't thought of. Glad I asked.

What I do like about these studies is that when people claim some kind of obvious correlation, then 28 is plenty to demonstrate that. If taller women were so much deeper that it would be noticeable you'd see a correlation in the other direction, and it would have a way higher p-value than this.

Another good point. A small sample is still a sample suitable enough to debunk stereotypes.
 

ShannonH

Cherished Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Posts
1,324
Media
11
Likes
379
Points
228
Location
Barrie, Ontario, Canada
Sexuality
60% Straight, 40% Gay
Gender
Male
Another good point. A small sample is still a sample suitable enough to debunk stereotypes.

Yep, you need large samples if you want more accurate numbers on the tail ends of the graph, but just to test if your data supports a simple hypothesis or not the P-value test gives useful numbers to those that know how to read them.
For a good introduction on p-values (after reading the wikipedia) xkcd gives a pretty good explanation as to how they can be abused:
xkcd: Significant

This is why I always cringe on this board when people just start really pushing that a stereotype is true because it's what 'they experienced' or 'they have a friend who's a nurse and has seen 1000s and says that..' This is fine and actually to be encouraged when there's no data available, but when we do have reliable data this is just silly. If tall women were so deep it was immediately noticeable and average folks could notice the correlation on their own (e.g. as strongly correlated as Dutch people being taller than Koreans) then the data wouldn't find a small negative-correlation p-value, it would find an undeniably high probability positive correlation between height and vaginal depth.
 

zozz77

Just Browsing
Joined
Jan 11, 2012
Posts
5
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
36
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I think however girls height has nothing to do with the depth of her vagina! This is probably a coincidence and not the rule! porn tube
 

Guy-jin

Legendary Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2007
Posts
3,836
Media
3
Likes
1,369
Points
333
Location
San Jose (California, United States)
Sexuality
Asexual
Gender
Male
A woman's height, weight, or ethnicity has nothing to do with how loose or deep her vagina is. Just like a man's height, weight, or ethnicity has nothing to do with how big their dick or their balls are. :rolleyes: I'm 5'4" and can manage an 8" long cock in my vagina.
Thread ended back here, guys.

Reminds me of some dudes thinking Asian women all have tight pussies, or black women have loose pussies. Yes, I've seen both of those posted on these forums. There was even some horribly racist guy who used to go to every thread on the topic and post "data" he had "collected" about it who I think finally got banned. Ugh.
 

ShannonH

Cherished Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Posts
1,324
Media
11
Likes
379
Points
228
Location
Barrie, Ontario, Canada
Sexuality
60% Straight, 40% Gay
Gender
Male
Thread ended back here, guys.

Reminds me of some dudes thinking Asian women all have tight pussies, or black women have loose pussies. Yes, I've seen both of those posted on these forums. There was even some horribly racist guy who used to go to every thread on the topic and post "data" he had "collected" about it who I think finally got banned. Ugh.

I can't speak for you, but I like for people to ask these questions and challenge what they believe to be true, and to do so rationally. There's nothing wrong at all with asking questions that make people uncomfortable, but the important part is understanding how to be logical in our approach to answering these questions.

I tend to find tall women very attractive, but if I said 'I haven't noticed a correlation', then in response someone posted properly gathered data showing that there's a major correlation between height and vagina depth that would persuade me. Unless a pussy's way too tight I put vaginal size so far down on my list of attractive qualities it doesn't really even register, but correlations are still neat when we find them.

The racial stereotypes are another interesting thing to look at, but just saying they're untrue because you don't want to be 'racist' is illogical too. The most frequent kind of thread on this is the 'black guys have bigger dicks' ones that pop up where everyone just goes back and forth saying 'yeah I met a black guy with a huge one so it's true' to others saying 'I saw a black guy with a small penis'. This is not conclusive of anything, and when people think this way our natural observer effect (where our preconceived notions influence how we observe events) just takes over to cement us in believing what we already think is true. If there were good data showing black guys have big dicks then I'd believe it even though some people don't like to hear that, but the data just aren't there.

So going back to tall girls, the observer effect can play a role for some people. If you want to believe that tall girls have deep vaginas, then you'll remember any taller girl who's deeper and think it validates your belief. For anyone who doesn't (or short girls who can take it deeper) your mind just rejects as an outlier. I think it's fortunate that most of women's genitalia are on the inside or obsessive men would constantly be measuring them. Since it's mostly hidden, we only really notice how good someone feels, which imho is what one ought to be noticing the most during sex.
 

mako shark

Superior Member
Joined
May 8, 2009
Posts
4,280
Media
2
Likes
2,787
Points
358
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
For the longest time I always made sure my lovers were not only taller but they had a bubble butt (more importantly). From my experiance I found that this was the easiest/sure fire way to find women that could accept my size... However my current gf is very small and can handle me in every position except doggie where an inch or two is left outside so I'm starting to change my criteria. In general terms there is some definate correlation with "pocket size" and height but I'm very very happy that I did take a chance with this one.
 

MickeyLee

Mythical Member
Staff
Moderator
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Posts
34,865
Media
8
Likes
50,321
Points
618
Location
neverhood
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
is all about nipple height to areola circumference.
troux faques.

a tall nipple, small areola = short vagina.
a short nipple, large areola = wide vagina.
fat nipple, small areola = long vagina
skinny nipple, large areola = narrow vagina.

:smile:
subtle variations in areola coloring will tell you about a woman's credit score
 

B_Nicodemous

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Posts
4,366
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
73
Sexuality
No Response
is all about nipple height to areola circumference.
troux faques.

a tall nipple, small areola = short vagina.
a short nipple, large areola = wide vagina.
fat nipple, small areola = long vagina
skinny nipple, large areola = narrow vagina.

:smile:
subtle variations in areola coloring will tell you about a woman's credit score
:lmao: