Misnomer

"Birth Canal"

Webster says that a canal is a "a duct, tube, passageway", (ex: Alimentary canal) so I suppose in that respect, there is no techincial quibble.

However, typically, when one envisions a canal, one thinks of water. A body of water wide enough for a seafaring vessell to pass through, presumably, without being squeezed in a manner much like a navy bean being sucked through a drinking straw. This expanse is also presumably wide enough that said vessel does not cause structural damage to such a degree that the owner of the aforementioned canal, declares an embargo on any and all canal traffic, ever, until the end of time. Nor does it alter the dimensions of the canal so significantly, that smaller, more streamlined vessels flounder about, seeking purchase, lost and adrift.

Not so the human "Birth Canal".

For that reason, I am submitting the following to the kind people at Webster's:

Dear Sirs,

I submit that the term "Birth Canal" is an egregious and misleading misnomer. I would like to respectfully request that the term be revised as follows:


"Birth Crevice"

I introduce the following visual aid to illustrate the great disparity in marginal boundaries and serve as further evidence to support my claim:



Suez Canal

VS.

Birth Canal






Thank you for your kind consideration.

Yours Truly,

B. Antagonist,
Canal/crevice owner and operator

(Dedicated to the shocking number of childbearing bloggers who feel the need to share all the gory details of their birth experience(s) with the www at large. Sheesh...I didn't even look at my own placenta.)