iirc, penile inversion vaginoplasty (which i think is the most common technique of vaginoplasty?) takes penile tissue to create a neovagina. so, the more penile tissue you have, the better your results are likely to be.
The more tissue there is, the more depth that can ultimately be created per standard penile inversion. I know a handful of women who have gone through the process, those with smaller initial material ultimately went for zero-depth vaginoplasties because creating a sufficient vaginal canal would require a more involved surgery. Fortunately the ones who received the zero-depth are both lesbians so penetration wasn’t as significant of a desire for them as just getting rid of the nope rope.
Source? Because big if true
iirc, penile inversion vaginoplasty (which i think is the most common technique of vaginoplasty?) takes penile tissue to create a neovagina. so, the more penile tissue you have, the better your results are likely to be.
The more tissue there is, the more depth that can ultimately be created per standard penile inversion. I know a handful of women who have gone through the process, those with smaller initial material ultimately went for zero-depth vaginoplasties because creating a sufficient vaginal canal would require a more involved surgery. Fortunately the ones who received the zero-depth are both lesbians so penetration wasn’t as significant of a desire for them as just getting rid of the nope rope.
I feel the same way about circumcision as I do about surgery, sounds owchie owwie.
i mean, they have managed to figure out the owchie owwie part. they don’t do that anymore, but they know how to.
Huge even