Vag Capacity

#22
Some chap called Prendergass has done all the measuring for us.

A 1996 study by Pendergrass et al., using vinyl polysiloxane castings taken from the vaginas of 39 Caucasian women, found the following ranges of dimensions:[3]

  • lengths (measured using rods): 6.9 to 15 cm (2.7 to 5.9 in);
  • widths: 4.8 to 6.3 cm (1.9 to 2.5 in);
  • introital diameters: 2.4 to 6.5 cm (0.94 to 2.56 in)
A second study by the same group showed significant variations in size and shape between the vaginas of women of different ethnic groups.[4] Both studies showed a wide range of vaginal shapes, described by the researchers as "Parallel sided, conical, heart, [...] slug"[3] and "pumpkin seed"[4] shapes. Barnhart et al., however, weren't find any correlation amongst the race and the size of vagina. They were also unable to characterize the vaginal shape as a "heart, slug, pumpkin seed or parallel sides" as suggested by the previous studies.[1][5] A 2003 study by the group of Pendergrass et al. also using castings as a measurement method, measured vaginal surface areas ranging from 66 to 107 cm2 (10.2 to 16.6 sq in) with a mean of 87 cm2 (13.5 sq in) and a standard deviation of 7.8 cm2 (1.21 sq in)[6]

Wikipedia.
 
#25
I'm in IKEA right now & I've tried stuffing 54 packets of salt & pepper from there café into my rectum.

I'm stuck at 7, props to the smuggler for this one.
take them out of the catering supplies cardboad box first
 
#27
Some chap called Prendergass has done all the measuring for us.

A 1996 study by Pendergrass et al., using vinyl polysiloxane castings taken from the vaginas of 39 Caucasian women, found the following ranges of dimensions:[3]

  • lengths (measured using rods): 6.9 to 15 cm (2.7 to 5.9 in);
  • widths: 4.8 to 6.3 cm (1.9 to 2.5 in);
  • introital diameters: 2.4 to 6.5 cm (0.94 to 2.56 in)
A second study by the same group showed significant variations in size and shape between the vaginas of women of different ethnic groups.[4] Both studies showed a wide range of vaginal shapes, described by the researchers as "Parallel sided, conical, heart, [...] slug"[3] and "pumpkin seed"[4] shapes. Barnhart et al., however, weren't find any correlation amongst the race and the size of vagina. They were also unable to characterize the vaginal shape as a "heart, slug, pumpkin seed or parallel sides" as suggested by the previous studies.[1][5] A 2003 study by the group of Pendergrass et al. also using castings as a measurement method, measured vaginal surface areas ranging from 66 to 107 cm2 (10.2 to 16.6 sq in) with a mean of 87 cm2 (13.5 sq in) and a standard deviation of 7.8 cm2 (1.21 sq in)[6]

Wikipedia.
I assume Pendergrass was paying good money to do this either that or its one type of German knocking shop that I haven't yet stumbled across. Maybe an Arrse experiment in the public interest is called for. "Sorry dear, I'm going to have to take a few measurements." Prize for the one who comes up with the best excuse for getting a tape measure up her fanny.
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
#29
I'm in IKEA right now & I've tried stuffing 54 packets of salt & pepper from there café into my rectum.

I'm stuck at 7, props to the smuggler for this one.
You're looking at the right size receptacle,just not the method of insertion. I'd like to think that this bird had a bit of nous and managed to place them in a conveniently handy condom before stuffing them up her sweaty chuff!
 
#31
You're looking at the right size receptacle,just not the method of insertion. I'd like to think that this bird had a bit of nous and managed to place them in a conveniently handy condom before stuffing them up her sweaty chuff!
I'm not sticking a condom up my rear loader, that would be . . . . . . weird.

take them out of the catering supplies cardboad box first
Nah! Just needs a tube of lube.
3716236580_be44a748d0.jpg
 
#33
Some chap called Prendergass has done all the measuring for us.

A 1996 study by Pendergrass et al., using vinyl polysiloxane castings taken from the vaginas of 39 Caucasian women, found the following ranges of dimensions:[3]

  • lengths (measured using rods): 6.9 to 15 cm (2.7 to 5.9 in);
  • widths: 4.8 to 6.3 cm (1.9 to 2.5 in);
  • introital diameters: 2.4 to 6.5 cm (0.94 to 2.56 in)
A second study by the same group showed significant variations in size and shape between the vaginas of women of different ethnic groups.[4] Both studies showed a wide range of vaginal shapes, described by the researchers as "Parallel sided, conical, heart, [...] slug"[3] and "pumpkin seed"[4] shapes. Barnhart et al., however, weren't find any correlation amongst the race and the size of vagina. They were also unable to characterize the vaginal shape as a "heart, slug, pumpkin seed or parallel sides" as suggested by the previous studies.[1][5] A 2003 study by the group of Pendergrass et al. also using castings as a measurement method, measured vaginal surface areas ranging from 66 to 107 cm2 (10.2 to 16.6 sq in) with a mean of 87 cm2 (13.5 sq in) and a standard deviation of 7.8 cm2 (1.21 sq in)[6]

Wikipedia.
Well Barnhart et al certainly picked the right subject for their dissertation.
 

old_fat_and_hairy

LE
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#35
Some chap called Prendergass has done all the measuring for us.

A 1996 study by Pendergrass et al., using vinyl polysiloxane castings taken from the vaginas of 39 Caucasian women, found the following ranges of dimensions:[3]

  • lengths (measured using rods): 6.9 to 15 cm (2.7 to 5.9 in);
  • widths: 4.8 to 6.3 cm (1.9 to 2.5 in);
  • introital diameters: 2.4 to 6.5 cm (0.94 to 2.56 in)
A second study by the same group showed significant variations in size and shape between the vaginas of women of different ethnic groups.[4] Both studies showed a wide range of vaginal shapes, described by the researchers as "Parallel sided, conical, heart, [...] slug"[3] and "pumpkin seed"[4] shapes. Barnhart et al., however, weren't find any correlation amongst the race and the size of vagina. They were also unable to characterize the vaginal shape as a "heart, slug, pumpkin seed or parallel sides" as suggested by the previous studies.[1][5] A 2003 study by the group of Pendergrass et al. also using castings as a measurement method, measured vaginal surface areas ranging from 66 to 107 cm2 (10.2 to 16.6 sq in) with a mean of 87 cm2 (13.5 sq in) and a standard deviation of 7.8 cm2 (1.21 sq in)[6]

Wikipedia.
That takes all of the romance out of it!
 
#39
I'm in IKEA right now & I've tried stuffing 54 packets of salt & pepper from the café into my rectum.
Edited to correct spelling.
But you're not a seasoned smuggler.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
#40
A 1996 study by Pendergrass et al., using vinyl polysiloxane castings taken from the vaginas of 39 Caucasian women, found the following ranges of dimensions:

lengths (measured using rods):
A rod is a shade over five metres, wtf was he finding these creatures ?
...using vinyl polysiloxane castings...

Both studies showed a wide range of vaginal shapes, described by the researchers as "Parallel sided, conical, heart, [...] slug" and "pumpkin seed" shapes.
Extracting the conical castings should have been filmed purely for the comedic facial expressions.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top