But it was the first part of what you said that I took issue with, not the second part. I didn't say anything about your conclusions/solutions. I objected to your premise.

You know that even back in the 1970s, not everyone even amongst the world of feminism thought that everything Adrienne Rich said was the incontrovertible truth, particularly when it came to her depiction of heterosexual relations. I think she was brilliant, but not necessarily the world expert on everything she wrote about.

If my misunderstanding of what you meant is my fault, I sincerely apologize. But since other posters here with different POVs and different sexualities to mine and to one another also "misinterpreted" what you said, maybe some of the fault is with your POV and the way you stated it. I think your characterization of my post is actually more "typical social media response" than what I said. All you did was accuse me of not understanding, of rewriting your "every word" and misinterpreting your "every sentence" like I'm a moron with deficient reading skills.

Human sexuality is complex and diverse. I simply said your simplistic portrayal of all human sexuality and all heterosexual acts doesn't ring true to me.

As someone who is not a lesbian or a gay man, but who is very close to many persons of those sexualities and knows a fair bit about the vast range of their views and experiences, I would never presume to say that het and bi people are the authorities on gay and lesbian sexuality. Nor would I suggest that gay men are the ones who best understand lesbian sexuality. So why do I and others have to accept that the views that Adrienne Rich and some lesbians have about heterosexuality and ALL human sexuality in general constitute the one and only "correct" characterization?