back
8 comments
> For the sake of women and men everywhere, here’s hoping this shape won’t be ignored any longer.

What is the point of painting this as some sort of marginalization of women or greater injustice? First of all, I don't know anyone that isn't aware that the clitoris has this structure. Second of all, it impacts absolutely nothing anybody does; nobody is ignoring this structure due to a patriarchal obfuscation of anatomy.

What's this new information about the clitoris? Oh, it extends internally and has some interaction with the vagina? What an impactful new piece of information, as up until this point apparently people were not particularly concerned with stimulating the vagina...

I feel like this is the equivalent of being like "we just found out that taste buds actually continue being able to taste as food goes down your throat. It's about time we stop ignoring these taste buds." By doing what, continuing to eat food and swallow it?

Who is ignoring this inner clitoris? What is anybody supposed to do differently?

> I don't know anyone that isn't aware that the clitoris has this structure

I commend you for conducting extensive surveys of your peers' knowledge of the internal anatomy of the clitoris!

I meant to to suggest that "I already consider this to be a very well known pop-sciencey fact."
So are you saying it would be just fine if the vast majority of people had the mistaken scientific belief that the clitoris is much smaller than it really is?
I think manual stimulation is typically of the vulva (bizarrely referred to as the “vagina” in America popular culture) not the vagina itself.
I don't think referring to the whole package down there as the "vagina" is strictly an American thing, I don't know anyone from anywhere that says "lick my vulva baby".
Seems like an odd metonym -- how would this usage have evolved? Maybe an English thing?
It [1] looks a lot like the AirBnB logo.

[1]: https://static.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/Image/Cli...