The average human vagina

(and vulva, too!)        

by Jenny Morber          

Do you secretly suspect that your vagina is above average? It may be, but how would you know? Though ladies share a lot, one thing that we tend to keep to ourselves is the appearance of our female anatomy. (Which we hardly ever see anyway. Pop quiz ladies: could you recognize your own in a line-up?) So how do you know if your lady parts are normal? Fortunately, researchers are on the case.

Before we dig in, let’s take a minute to define some terms. ‘Vagina’ and ‘vulva’ are not two words for the same anatomy. The word vagina (DXS explainer here) is derived from the Latin word for “sheath”. It is the internal cavity within the female body*. (A high school anatomy teacher was recently investigated for using this word in an anatomy class. Because, of course, 10th -graders don’t have vaginas, aren’t interested in vaginas, and certainly have no need to know what vaginas are. Vagina: it’s not a dirty word.)

Vulva denotes the external female genitals – the lady parts that you see when you stand naked in front of a mirror. The vulva includes several components, including the labia majora (outer lips), labia minora (inner lips), mons pubis (the bony protuberance), clitoris, the opening of the vagina, and others. Wikipedia describes the labia majora and labia minora as the vulva’s “double door” that protects the vagina, which makes me imagine a stately entrance to a library. It’s a nice mental image, if perhaps not the most accurate.

So, are you normal? Are you average? Yes. No. Most likely. It turns out that there is so much variation among female anatomy that doctors, surgeons, and researchers find it difficult to define exactly what normal is – or even if it exists. And a few at least have been trying.

The Vagina

Pelvis_113721In 1991 a group of three researchers published a paper that described a method for casting a mold of the vagina using material more commonly used to make dental impressions. In short, liquid polymer goo is injected into a willing woman’s vagina with a kind of caulk gun. She waits ten minutes. Then with the help of KY, squatting and pushing, and the string from a tampon that was inserted before the material dried, the mold is removed. Though this paper included only two participants, a few years later the same researchers (plus a couple of others) published another study that examined vaginal molds of 39 women. In these women, all Caucasian, vaginal lengths ranged from almost 7 to almost 15 centimeters (2.75–6 in) with diameters between 2.4 and 6.5 cm (~1–2.5 in). A later study classified the diversity of vaginal shapes: conical, parallel sides, heart, slug, and pumpkin seed. (I can’t be the only one hoping that my vagina looks like a pumpkin seed instead of a slug.)

And if you are thinking that maybe you really ARE above average because you have evidence that a seven inch penis can fit in yours, please remember that these studies are performed on women who are not sexually aroused. The vaginal wall lengthens during arousal as increased blood flow pushes the cervix and uterus upward. How do we know this? Well, MRI sex videos help (NSFW).

To me, the most interesting paper to use the mold technique compared vaginal shapes among 23 African-American, 39 Caucasian, and 15 Hispanic women. The researchers found that the Hispanic ladies’ vaginas were wider overall, longer in the back, and shorter in the front than the vaginas of the other women. The study also noted that the Caucasian women had a much larger vaginal opening than did the African American women. Fascinating.

Of course, molds don’t always perfectly capture the likeness of the intended object. In 2006, a group of doctors and researchers employed MRI scans in an attempt to better quantify the normal vagina. Again they found that “No one dimension characterized the shape of the human vagina.” Vagina quantification fail.

Until these studies, knowledge of female pelvic anatomy was largely based on old descriptions of a few female cadavers. I for one am a little disturbed that it has taken so long for basic female anatomy to become interesting enough for serious study. But we haven’t even gotten to the best part yet. Next up, the human vulva.

The Vulva

If you are like me (and according to the research, you likely are if you were born with a vagina), what you know about the appearance of the human vulva comes from caring for infants and children, self-study, and porn. It turns out that these are not the richest sources. Just like the vagina, the human vulva is wonderfully diverse. Some vulvas have tiny labia minora. Some have very long labia minora. Some have tight labia majora, and others have “phat lips.”

In 2005, after getting consent from premenopausal women who would be under general anesthesia for other reasons, a group of researchers examined the appearance and dimensions of 50 women’s genitalia. The authors measured clitoral size, labial length and width, color, vaginal length, distance from clitoris to urethra, and distance from the bottom of the vagina to the anus. The paper’s results state, “A wide range of values were noted for each measurement. There was no statistically significant association with age, [number of vaginal births], ethnicity, hormonal use, or history of sexual activity.” Once again, female genitalia are too diverse to be neatly quantified.

(You may note a discrepancy between this study, which found no association between race and vaginal length, and the one discussed above, which did. The authors do not discuss the discrepancy or even cite the previous study. Possible reasons for the discrepancy could include a smaller sample set in this work (50 women instead of 77), or differences in methods. Here, researchers inserted a vaginal swab to measure length, and remember, these participants were under general anesthesia.)

Obstetrical_examination_(1822)The authors observe, “In general, there are surprisingly few descriptions of normal female genitalia in the medical literature. In contrast, measurements for male genitals are widely available and were published as early as 1899.” And perhaps most shocking: “…even some recent text books of anatomy do not include the clitoris on diagrams of female pelvis. ” In 2005!

Complicating things for the researchers is that female genital appearance is not static. The vulva changes several times during a woman’s life. We aren’t supposed to look at age 35 like we did at age nine. But often, media sources give women the opposite message. Where do many women get ideas about how their lady parts should look? Porn, of course.

In 2011, a paper in the Journal of Sex Research took a look at how female genitals are portrayed through magazine pornography. Using a coding system to evaluate physical characteristics, the authors (helped out by undergraduate females) examined 647 centerfolds in Playboy magazine. Between 1953 and 2007, the visibility of the mons pubis and labia majora increased, hip sizes and BMI decreased, visibility of pubic hair decreased (due to shaving and waxing), and only two photographs displayed visible labia minora, both pink, and neither prominent.

A closer look at multiple images in Playboy between 2007 and 2008 found similar results. The authors point out the “striking parallel between Barbie dolls and Playboy magazine models in terms of their portrayal of female sexuality.” They caution, “Playboy photographs have the potential to condition readers to experience sexual arousal in response to viewing or fantasizing about girls and young women.” Keep in mind that as of 2011, Playboy magazine’s national circulation exceeded 3 million copies a month, and over 19% of subscribers were female. Playboy magazine at least seems to be asserting that there is such a thing as a normal vulva, and it looks like that of a pre-pubescent girl.

Women are getting the message. Surgeries for labia reduction doubled in the UK between 1999 and 2005. In a retrospective study of six women who had undergone cosmetic labial reduction, the authors remarked, “A theme that was present for all the women was that of ‘normality’, which was returned to throughout the conversations, with the women feeling as if their genital appearance prior to surgery was ‘odd’, ‘weird’ or made them ‘freaks’.”

Another study published this year examined online advertisements for female genital cosmetic surgery and found scanty reference to appearance diversity, minimal information on risks and outcomes, and no mention of other ways to manage body dissatisfaction. On websites that featured before and after images, in all cases the “before” pictures represented normal labia. In response to claims that these surgeries can improve comfort, the authors remind us that “…both men and women may experience genital discomfort, but only women are encouraged to have their external genitalia excised as a solution.” And the anxiety is trickling down: Research has documented normally developing girls as young as nine requesting labia reduction surgery.

Also worrying is that there are few medical standards and little oversight for these procedures. Websites advertising female genital cosmetic surgeries often cite increased sexual satisfaction as a benefit, but there is little evidence to suggest that they improve sexual function. Instead, surgeries on areas such as the labia and clitoris may cause damage to the vascular and nerve supply. Because a surgeon who performs labia reduction surgeries can earn as much as $250,000 a month, the practice is becoming riddled with inexperienced doctors. In one article, a surgeon estimates that 20% of his business comes from correcting mistakes made by other practitioners.

Still, many women report satisfaction after their surgeries. In a questionnaire-based survey of nearly 170 women, 89% percent of responders who underwent labia reduction surgery were happy with the esthetic result, and 93% were happy with the functional result. Large labia minora can cause real problems, both psychological and physical, including irritation, pain, chronic infection, and sexual difficulties. Many women have spoken positively about their surgeries, testifying that they are more confident in new relationships and less preoccupied during sex.

Other women are pushing back against the stereotype that we should all look tight and trim and homogeneous. There is now a “labia pride” movement that works to expose women to real genital diversity so that they do not judge themselves by unrealistic standards. I had no idea how much variation there could be until I visited the website of the Large Labia Project and saw the vulva drawings of Betty Dodson (both NSFW). Who knew that vulvas came in so many colors, shapes, and sizes? Men, too, are speaking up in favor of more flower-like lady parts. Some men prefer longer labia. In Making the Cut, an article on labial surgeries, one man tells the author, “The lips, for me, are a huge turn on.”

Let’s recap. Vaginas and vulvas are so diverse as to defy quantification. Normal doesn’t exist. Porn promotes images of women whose genitals look like pre-pubescent girls. These images have sadly been internalized by members of both sexes, but we no longer have to look to porn to find images of genitalia other than our own. So ladies, stand up and be proud: most likely your lady parts are both normal and extraordinary. Vaginas (and vulvas too!) are wacky, wonderful and in no way average.

[Jenny Morber is a freelance science writer and editor with diverse and eclectic interests. She holds a PhD in Materials Science and Engineering with a focus on the intersections among nanomaterials, magnetism, and biotech. She lives and works (along with her vagina) in Fairfax, VA.Follow her on Twitter @JRMorber.]

Image credits: homepage and thumbnail, Wikimedia Commons. Exam image in post, also Wikimedia Commons. Pelvic MRI image, (c) Nevit Dilman, via Wikimedia Commons (click to view interactive image), Creative Commons Share Alike license.

*We had a line in here comparing the vagina to an upside-down sock, but it turns out that the wide variety of sock shapes–some have toes!– could lead to confusion, so we deleted it.

50 thoughts on “The average human vagina

  1. Excellent article. Nice to see some demystifying of the subject!

    It’s especially heartening to see the discussion on body-image. I don’t have anything against plastic surgery in general, but it ought to be for the right reasons. For every person who thinks they “don’t look right”, there’s at least one person out there who thinks that first person looks better than anyone else.

    It’s silly to change one’s appearance just to match some ideal manufactured by corporations to sell us more stuff. And that’s just as true for one’s genitals as any other body part.

  2. And the genitals change greatly over your lifetime, within a cycle and during pregnancy – like swollen and tumescent labia is normal especially near the end of pregnancy. Indeed, the coloring changes as well – women with more births tend to get darker labias after each birth both from higher vascularization but also from the hormones of pregnancy (see “The Curse”, good book btw).

    Got to say, making casts of a vagina is pretty meaningless since it changes so much – your cervix itself goes up and down during one’s cycle which changes the basic shape of the cavity. The vagina is itself a snore, it is merely a hole, the parts that support the vagina (cervix, muscles, labias, etc..) are vastly more interesting.

  3. Pingback: The Average Human Vagina | vancouverpillowtalk

  4. While an interesting article, it is troubling that vaginas and vulvas are relegated to being purely in the domain of women. There are men who have vaginas and vulvas, there are women who don’t have either. Although this article is interesting, some gender neutrality or a nod to trans* identities would have been welcome.

  5. Rodger, I hear you, but frankly, regular old women with vaginas are still getting short shrift as evidenced by the fact that clitori have been left out of scientific drawings of women’s anatomy as recently as 2005, so I’m going to have trouble getting up in arms that the trans community was not specifically called out in this article. I see no reason why men with vaginas, or vagina-less women, can’t also benefit from the information in this article.

  6. This was a really great read. I don’t have a vagina, but I learned a lot about them. Many thanks, Jenny. Keep up the good work.

  7. Pingback: Found while foraging (April 2, 2013) | Inspiring Science

  8. “Porn promotes images of women whose genitals look like pre-pubescent girls.”
    i’ve always maintained that a culture that eroticizes the absense of 2ndary sexual characteristics should not be surprized by an increase in pedophilia:-\ and this is nothing new: barbering is the oldest profession;-)

  9. I have long thought that a years-long timelapse study of the development of individual human bodies — male and female — would be absolutely fascinating and possibly an excellent teaching tool. As adults, we remember some of the salient points of how our own bodies changed, but I doubt most of us have a good sense of exactly when and how those changes took place. (And I don’t just mean sexual characteristics — it’s a truism that growing feet presage a height spurt, for example, but I don’t think anyone has ever attempted to make that visible.)

    And I suspect that few of us had a chance to see the intermediate stages in the opposite sex’s development.

    Little chance of this happening in the next several decades — it would immediately be denounced as kiddie-porn because the subjects would by definition start as underage/prepubescent — but I think it’s worth doing when and if the climate changes, for scientific, educational, and, yes, artistic reasons.

  10. Great article. I have always thought I had a nice looking vagina. After seeing “the great wall of vagina’s” posted by my friend Mark Griffo, it turns out I am right.

  11. Pingback: Friday Sex Links! | Sex with Timaree

  12. Pingback: Hire Jim Essian - Friday Roundup: The “R.I.Pebert” Edition

  13. Pingback: 10 Weekend Reads | The Big Picture

  14. Pingback: I’ve got your missing links right here (6 April 2013) – Phenomena: Not Exactly Rocket Science

  15. Pingback: Epicene Cyborg

  16. Pingback: Where are the standard deviation and/or percentiles for vaginas?

  17. So what you’re saying is that statistically insignificant samples cannot produce a meaningful bell curve? Oh, well thanks for that.

  18. Pingback: linkfest – 04/07/13 | hbd* chick

  19. Playboy isn’t really porn.

    Playboy is more a pictorial fantasy of pubescent boys who have some idea what’s down there but little actual experience and don’t want their preconceived notions disturbed.

    Real porn (not explicit sex or play with dildos) shows the females in more or less realistic poses of readiness for sex and shows the females varying vaginal parts quite clearly and differing in appearance.

    So, Ladies, if you want to check out what other ladies’ parts look like to compare, don’t use Playboy or any other magazine that has more written word than pictures. You may be surprised and pleasantly so to find you’re not all that out of the norm. (unless of course that’s what you’re striving for.)

  20. Honestly I don’t think women are a good source of information (besides their physical attributes). If you’d like to know diversity then just ask men. We surely see more vulva and feel more vaginas then women do. I know men with hundreds of partners and even though it may seem excessive, they know best the differences. We can tell you best the diversities and general differences between race, age etc. (just as I expect a women to be way more knowledgeable with the diversities of a penis than men will be)

  21. The Journal of Sex Research may have chosen Playboy magazine because the sample set started earlier (1953) than Hustler magazine (1974), or that it (now) has a significant female subscription base, but everyone knows that only Hustler shows Female Anatomy.
    “It showed explicit views of the female genitalia, becoming one of the first major US-based magazines to do so, in contrast with relatively modest publications like Playboy.” (from the Hustler Wiki) The photograpy is very clear, open, and high quality close ups of anatomy therefore most men know EXACTLY how beautiful your Vulva actually is -> Thanks medium-core Porn!

  22. Pingback: Assorted News and Random Links at Erosophia

  23. According to some Eastern literature (Hindu Ayurvedic and Tantric, as well as some teachings of Kalachakra (Tibetan “Tantra”)) there are aggregate classifications for 7 types of labia which, although not posed strictly, also indicate generalities of length, width, and aperture.

    I do not disagree with the point of the article at all- particularly because I think the consciousness about this is severely lacking in every way in our culture… I just hope to present a broader viewpoint and to raise a hand for the fact that these things have been very well studied even though the knowledge and apparently the tradition of reverence for Women has been scattered to the wind.

  24. Pingback: Vrouwmenschen en wetenschap | skepfile·be

  25. Since there is no such thing as biological race, I was curious as to what the researchers thought the relationship might be between a category that is political and anatomy.

    • We discussed that and decided to report it as the researchers decsribed it. It remains common in the literature for researchers to reference race and to stratify populations using “race” as a factor. We do not know what the researchers thought about it.

  26. “Vaginas and vulvas are so diverse as to defy quantification.Normal doesn’t exist”….yet when it comes to the size of a guys schlong.Sex Researcher types/Doctors etc (often women) will ad nauseum tell errrr talk down to guys on what a “normal penis size” is and what is “average”.Hmm…so when it comes to female gentalia the kid gloves go on,when to comes to the males the kid gloves come off.Women in the blogosphere of sexual academia or whatever have zero problem (at the drop of a hat) pointing out what a guy is supposed to look like or be sizewise.Even trying to apply the whole ‘racial’ thing as well-which again is poo-pooed above when race is brought up in regards to women.Hypocrisy and poor methodology,asinine studies/surveys etc…wow they must be the gospel.Ive RARELY scratch that ive NEVER heard another guy even mention whether an ex gf were tight,loose…etc etc yet i have heard countless women go on and on about penis size like some kind of sexual nazis trashing.slamming and destroying dude’s on somethingthey can’t change-g figure.

  27. I have not seen any other female genitalia up close except for my daughters during diaper duty and bathing. I was shocked and somewhat horrified by those hangy things in some porno stills. I understand there is an audience for that . So be it. There is also an audience and concomitant dedicated sites for the puffy everything enclosed thing which I thought was de rigeuer and is our genetic blessing. Some GUY referred to someone’s “meat curtains”. Gag me. I state that the differences range no more widely than those in the male display. And cosmetic surgery is in some cases a religious dictate for the penis.

  28. Pingback: The lovely Corrine

  29. God bless femin and her body anatomy why should you use dirty wods in comments

  30. Check out Femalia from Down There Press, published 1993! for images of real live vulvas.

Comments are closed.