As a heterosexual woman with a fulfilling sex life, I have never ascribed to the notion that all male-female sex is rape. Obviously. Shouldn’t be too surprising to know I’m offended by it.

But the idea that being reductive is the antithesis of liberation is a fascinating point. Thanks for sharing it.

Laura - “No it’s not, you twit,” made me laugh out loud. But did you say that out loud? Time for a little sex ed for the preschool teacher, I’m thinking.

Tammy - Well, there you go. You’ve come up with the only sensible use for that thing that seems possible. I’d be curious, too. Moreover, I’d like to know how many of them, after they figured out what it was, went “eeww.” ‘Course, these are teens. They’d probably do that with a model penis, too…

The vulva clutch is so unnecessary.

How liberated would the vulva be then?

Wouldn’t that then be much like the already-disdained-by-many sex act, in which women are *always* taken advantage of, penetrated, stuffed, by men? What about marriage, which has widely been regarded as a form of prostitution?

When we are reductive with the vulva, particularly consigning it to being a money-holder, we are not liberating it. We are subscribing to patriarchal values that say that the vulva is more important than the woman– but only in a very utilitarian sense, and only as long as it is willing to serve that purpose.