When looking at the results of Thai surgeons, I get the impression that the vaginal entrance is hole-like because the joining of the left and right labia below the vagina - the posterior fourchette - is missing. On the other hand, US and European surgeons do not omit the fourchette and thus the vaginal entrance usually looks better. I wondered why don't the Thais make the fourchette as well, given that they are usually better in the look of other parts of the vulva?
Then I looked up some pictures of vulvas of South-East Asian genetic women and I have the impression that the fourchette is sometimes missing or insignificant in them, in comparison to European women, though I'm really not sure about this. But maybe that could be the reason why Suporn, Chettawutt etc. do not make the fourchette: they are making a South-East Asian vulva, not a European one!
One more detail suggests in favour of this theory: Suporn uses the penile skin, which is hairless, for both labia minora and majora. European women tend to have a lot of hair on labia majora, but South-East Asian women tend to have much less (everywhere). So using hairless penile skin can be ok when building a South-East Asian vulva...
This is all just a theory, I'm not criticising anybody. What do you think?
