Taking a Long Time Is Not a Fault: The Type at the Centre
One woman in this book describes years of believing something was wrong with her because she took so long, until she learned her anatomy was a recognised kind and other women had it too. That relief is what the whole typology is for. Here is the shape at the centre of the wheel, the measurement that explains it, and the clearest look at where this framework stops being checkable.
Listen
7 min 22 s
There is a short first-person piece in this book, signed only with a first name, in which a woman describes years of thinking something was wrong with her.
She took a long time. She would give up partway through because she had decided she was taking too long and her husband must be bored. Eventually she began avoiding sex. Then she read a description of an anatomy type that matched hers, and the thing that helped was not a technique. It was learning that the shape she has is a recognised kind of shape and that other women have it.
That is the clearest statement anywhere in the chapter of what a typology like this is actually for. Not classification. Relief from believing you are defective.
The type she is describing sits at the centre of the wheel.
The shape
Inner labia that are long, narrow and thin, with little bulk to them, so the overall impression is of length rather than fullness. A small hood over a small clitoris that emerges easily.
And then the feature the framework treats as definitive: the distance between the clitoris and the vaginal opening is the longest of all nine types. The book gives it as three to four fingers, against a usual two to three or fewer elsewhere on the wheel. You take the measurement by laying your fingers together horizontally just beneath the clitoris and counting how many fit before the entrance. It takes about ten seconds, needs nothing, and tells you more than a photograph would.
The book also places the sensitive area along the upper vaginal wall very far back in this type, and says it can sit beyond the reach of fingers and in some cases beyond the reach of average penetration.
What that distance actually means, plainly
The book draws a conclusion from that anatomy, and it is the most useful thing in the section, so here it is in plain terms.
When the clitoris sits three or four finger widths from the opening, and the sensitive area inside sits unusually far back, penetration on its own does not easily reach all of the relevant places at once. So intercourse by itself often does not do very much, and reaching orgasm through it alone can take a long time or not happen. The book's own heading for this passage is, roughly, why some women do not much like intercourse.
Its answer is that additional stimulation of the clitoris, by hand or otherwise, is not a workaround for a deficiency. It is what this arrangement of anatomy requires, and the book notes the same is true for plenty of women of other types too.
Nobody needs a nine-type wheel to arrive at that. But a great many women have spent years assuming the fault was theirs, and a framework that says the distance between two structures explains the whole thing is doing something genuinely kind, whatever else it gets wrong.
The centre of the wheel
The framework is a system of nine vulva types set out by Amara Charles in the book credited below and taught in her workshops since the 1990s. Eight sit at compass directions, four of those being cardinal points described in full with measurements. The ninth sits in the middle and belongs to no direction. The book says it catalyses the qualities of all of them, and that this centre type can also be paired with a direction, so the system is not strictly one of nine.
The inch figures the book gives for vaginal depth and width here, as everywhere in the chapter, are its own and have not been verified by anyone.
Where the framework stops being checkable
This type is the clearest place in the whole chapter to see the seam between the two kinds of claim the book makes, so it is worth pointing at directly.
The anatomy is checkable. A woman can lay her fingers under her clitoris and count. She can compare what she finds with a description. She can notice whether the description of what penetration does and does not reach matches her experience. Whether or not the framework is right about anything else, that much is a real measurement of a real body.
The character material is a different thing entirely. Charles describes women of this centre type as possessing the qualities of every direction by turns: emotional at times, physically appetitive at others, mentally quick, charming, playful, hard to pin down. She describes them as resourceful, spontaneous and compassionate, and as often the most privately sexual of all the types. The weakness she attributes to them is difficulty knowing what they actually want, from having so many modes available. Her summary line for the centre's temperament reads: resourceful, spontaneous, intelligent, creative and compassionate.
Read that again and notice its shape. A description made of every quality by turns is one that almost any reader can find herself in, which is the oldest known weakness of personality systems and the reason horoscopes work. That is not an accusation of bad faith. It is simply what happens when you place a type at the centre and give it everything.
Charles asserts all of it without hedging, and her stated method on these pages is anecdotal, drawn from listening to women in her workshops over many years. There is no research behind any of it, no clinician uses these types, and no textbook contains them. The book itself says a woman may have a direction's anatomy without a single one of the qualities attached to it, which is the framework conceding the point on its own behalf.
So: take the measurement seriously if it is useful to you. Hold the personality reading the way you would hold a horoscope you enjoyed.
Decide for yourself
The book's own instruction is to read the descriptions and see which one you think you are. It says directly that a type cannot simply be seen, and that identifying one means weighing internal and external features together. Nobody hands you a result, this site included. If you would rather work from the measurement than the prose, the members' quiz at /tools/labia-quiz walks through the finger-width method and gives you a ranked closeness rather than a verdict, without asking for a photograph.
And if what brought you here was the older and more common question, the one about whether the shape itself is normal, start with Are My Labia Normal? The Honest Answer. The woman quoted at the top of this article did not need a type. She needed to know she was not the only one.
Framework: Amara Charles, "The Sexual Practices of Quodoushka: Teachings from the Nagual Tradition" (Destiny Books), chapter 8, "Female Genital Anatomy Types".
Comments
Loading comments...