Surprisingly only one person on the trans surgeries sub objected to the "female centric" language used in the linked scientific observational poster of vaginas, and that person was actually downvoted. When they are reassuring themselves that they look "real enough" they tend to drop the pretense.

submitted by BettysBitterButter from reddit.com

all 9 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]MarkTwainiac 20 insightful - 1 fun20 insightful - 0 fun21 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Bugs me that what's under discussion on both that thread & the attached document are vulvas, but everyone is using the word vagina instead.

No one would call testicles a penis, or a penis testicles - or an ear an elbow, or a foot a head. But when it comes to female anatomy it seems being specific no longer matters. This ain't progress. It's like going back to the days when girls & women were taught to regard their vulvas, vaginas, clits, labia, urethras & groin area generally as an undifferentiated mass & a total mystery- and to refer to them euphemistically with general, intentionally vague terms like "the down there" or "privates."

[–]fireweed 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It bugs me too. My theory is that we chose the word "vagina" to describe the entire get-up because the actual vagina is the thing that gives men pleasure. I despise when people talk about what a "vagina" looks like. Um, unless you got a speculum, you won't know what any vagina looks like.

[–]BettysBitterButter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're right and I did it in the title here, too. All I can say is it's sorta a colloquial. But we should fix that.

[–]dandeliondynasty 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I like the attachment! I like those galleries of vulvas showing is how much variation is normal.

[–]MarkTwainiac 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

My reaction is entirely different. I don't see those vulvas as representing how much variation is normal coz they all have one glaringly and totally unnatural trait in common: no hair!

The widespread, now commonplace, custom of removing all the hair from pubescent & post-pubescent vulvas is a a very recent development, and it's indicative of conformity to a fashion/aesthetic trend, not of natural variation or diversity.

Aesthetics aside, the new custom of removing all the hair from girls & women's vulvas is not in girls' and women's best interests. Because pubic hair is there for protective purposes: during sex acts that involve friction and pounding & thrusting, female pubic hair smooths the way, acting as a sort of lubricant, whilst it also prevents girls/women from suffering skin abrasions, and it cushions the female pubic area from pain and bruising in heterosexual intercourse (and other sex acts).

Female pubic hair also acts as an important barrier that keep pathogens out of/away from the vagina and urethra.

[–]BettysBitterButter[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Agreed.

[–]crodish 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That IS really surprising. More proof that they're just getting triggered for the sake of it than actually getting triggered

[–]RedditHatesLesbians 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The attachment provided is really informative and beautiful!

[–]Shesstealthy 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes but that's because they identify as female.... and presumably don't care about transmen.