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

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]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.