# Paint A Vulva Picture: or Mansplaining Fail. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 8, 2019, 8:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paint-a-vulva-picture-or-mansplaining-fail/830749 "2019-03-08T08:50:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2019, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paint-a-vulva-picture-or-mansplaining-fail/830749/221 "2019-03-11T03:08:08Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Let me state it again. > > There was disbelief that anyone could be so stupid as to come up with the figure of “9” periods a year. I was not so amazed as I have known other men with some very weird ideas about what constitutes “normal” regarding menstruation. > I gave a scenario where a hypothetical “someone” might have very limited exposure and an incurious nature and grab the first per annum figure that comes to hand. That "someone " is not referring to the person in the tweet. I have absolutely no idea where he came by that figure. > I correctly said that that is not a bad thing in itself. We all get things wrong or act on bad information. Goddammit, dude, THAT IS A BAD THING IN ITSELF. Spouting off some shit you don’t know about is a bad thing. You left out of your hypothetical a key detail, which is that the dude who was spouting off was doing so in the context of sneering at women and calling them liars. You call someone a liar, you best check your data. The asshole didn’t check his data. > [@](#): > > The last part refers to behaviour that is problematic, refusing to listen and reluctance to be educated by people who know. That is the only part that is truly bad. It is not a direct reference to the man in the tweet but it is certainly the only behaviours that we know he displayed. We partly agree here: refusing to listen and reluctance to be educated is bad. But that’s not the “only part that is truly bad.” Some hypothetical asshole who hypothetically sneers at women for hypothetically lying about their hypothetical periods because he hypothetically miscalculated how many hypothetical tampons they needed for their hypothetical nine annual hypothetical periods is a hypothetical shit-for-brains, regardless of whatever hypothetical posts he follows it up with. Hypothetically. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2019, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paint-a-vulva-picture-or-mansplaining-fail/830749/222 "2019-03-11T04:04:52Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Are you referring to the case in the tweet? No, it’s “hypothetical”. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2019, 8:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paint-a-vulva-picture-or-mansplaining-fail/830749/223 "2019-03-11T08:07:52Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Goddammit, dude, THAT IS A BAD THING IN ITSELF. Spouting off some shit you don’t know about is a bad thing. “spouting off some shit”? you are introducing a particular behavioural description and value judgement that my hypothetical purposefully left out. > [@](#): > > You left out of your hypothetical a key detail, which is that the dude who was spouting off was doing so in the context of sneering at women and calling them liars. I left out of my hypothetical _everything_ that was unnecessary for establishing a basic principle because it was not in direct reference to the tweet itself. That principle that just being wrong is not a bad thing. (Good god I hope we can agree on that or we are all truly fucked) but that refusing to be educated and change your mind when presented with better evidence is a bad thing. That was it, go back and read it and you’ll see that. The hypothetical bad behaviour that I included in my hypothetical was indeed the same sort of thing (and I know we agree on that) > [@](#): > > We partly agree here: refusing to listen and reluctance to be educated is bad. But that’s not the “only part that is truly bad.” Some hypothetical asshole who hypothetically sneers at women for hypothetically lying about their hypothetical periods because he hypothetically miscalculated how many hypothetical tampons they needed for their hypothetical nine annual hypothetical periods is a hypothetical shit-for-brains, regardless of whatever hypothetical posts he follows it up with. > . We don’t partly agree here, we fully and completely agree here. You seem incapable of accepting my general principle above without conflating it with what happened in the actual incident. You want my hypothetical _to take into account_ the actual incident. It doesn’t and it isn’t meant to. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2019, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paint-a-vulva-picture-or-mansplaining-fail/830749/224 "2019-03-11T08:44:49Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > No, it’s “hypothetical”. Absent any other information I would _not_ assume it was a bad thing. I’d wait for further detail before passing judgement…wouldn’t everyone? shouldn’t everyone? I know there’s absolutely no real social jeopardy or personal downside for those jumping to such conclusions. But I think a world where a person would be slammed, decried and labelled with pejoratives _just_ (note the emphasis here) on the scanty details you give here is not healthy. So will you return the courtesy? Here is a hypothetical of mine. No additional detail allowed remember Someone has incorrect information based on their own experience, they make a calculation based on it, they share it and receive feedback and revise their calculation. is that a bad thing? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2019, 9:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paint-a-vulva-picture-or-mansplaining-fail/830749/225 "2019-03-11T09:21:00Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Absent any other information I would _not_ assume it was a bad thing. Enough said. > [@](#): > > So will you return the courtesy? Do you still think this is Great Debates, you dumb motherfucker? ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2019, 10:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paint-a-vulva-picture-or-mansplaining-fail/830749/226 "2019-03-11T10:02:20Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > So will you return the courtesy? Here is a hypothetical of mine. > > No additional detail allowed remember > > Someone has incorrect information based on their own experience, they make a calculation based on it, they share it and receive feedback and revise their calculation. > > is that a bad thing? I have no idea why you decided this was a hill to die on, but doubling down on stupidity is not making you look good. In a discussion, actually responding to the other people’s points is the courteous thing to do. It’s childish to insist on being treated better than how you treat them. Your arguments are so incoherent that no one can follow you. It’s also not courteous to troll. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2019, 10:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paint-a-vulva-picture-or-mansplaining-fail/830749/227 "2019-03-11T10:02:50Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Enough said. I have no problem believing that you are comfortable basing your knee-jerk reactions on little to no facts. I think there is absolutely no downside in understanding a situation a little better before rushing to judge and condemn. The person in your hypothetical could be a financially struggling single father with a single data point of his pre-teen daughter, desperate to understand how to budget for something he knows little about. I fail to see how assuming the man is a bad person helps anyone. I will reserve judgement. Talking time to understand the situation in no way hampers my ability to condemn where condemnation is needed. I would much rather do that then run the risk of unnecessarily slamming the father above. Your approach to this is a perfect example of the toxic modes of discussion that I think are creeping into to life everywhere. Polarised, unbending, knee-jerk, guilt by buzzword. Why will you not answer my hypothetical? Are you concerned about having to give the only obvious answer that a sane and rational person can and so unfortunately be seen to agree with me? ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2019, 10:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paint-a-vulva-picture-or-mansplaining-fail/830749/228 "2019-03-11T10:09:23Z")
So this is going well. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2019, 10:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paint-a-vulva-picture-or-mansplaining-fail/830749/229 "2019-03-11T10:16:46Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > In a discussion, actually responding to the other people’s points is the courteous thing to do. It’s childish to insist on being treated better than how you treat them. That’s just utter bullshit isn’t it? and demonstrably so. I responded directly to the hypothetical, did you miss that when you quoted me? It was the bit that you chose to remove, wierdly it was the only bit you chose not to quote. Let me help you. > [@](#): > > Absent any other information I would not assume it was a bad thing. > > I’d wait for further detail before passing judgement…wouldn’t everyone? shouldn’t everyone? I know there’s absolutely no real social jeopardy or personal downside for those jumping to such conclusions. But I think a world where a person would be slammed, decried and labelled with pejoratives just (note the emphasis here) on the scanty details you give here is not healthy. _That_, is a courteous and full response. I then asked them a hypothetical in return, how is that expecting to be treated differently? What courtesy was I shown in return? > [@](#): > > Do you still think this is Great Debates, you dumb motherfucker? So, who was the one responding in good faith and who was the one acting discourteously? > [@](#): > > Your arguments are so incoherent that no one can follow you. They are simple to follow, what is happening is that people are incapable of accepting that what they think I’m saying is not what I’m actually saying. That is their problem not mine. > [@](#): > > It’s also not courteous to troll. I have not trolled, I do not troll. What you mean is that some people don’t like what I’ve said and are uncomfortable as they slowly realise that I’ve been consistent throughout. If I’ve trolled you’d be able to show, If I was sexist you’d be able to show it, If I was defending bad behaviours you’d be able to show it. No-one has. I predict that in response to this you will take the easy route of a general insult, innuendo or anecdotal appeal to what I’ve supposedly done or said and will offer no concrete evidence or quotes of anything problematic that I’ve actually said. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2019, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paint-a-vulva-picture-or-mansplaining-fail/830749/230 "2019-03-11T10:41:18Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > I have no problem believing that you are comfortable basing your knee-jerk reactions on little to no facts. All the salient facts were in the hypothetical > [@](#): > > The person in your hypothetical could be a financially struggling single father with a single data point of his pre-teen daughter, desperate to understand how to budget for something he knows little about. Bwah-ha! Hah! Fuck off with your MRA fever dreams, you pathetic wanker! “Poor struggling single father, just looking for information” - ha ha ha! Nothing to do with the question I asked. > [@](#): > > I fail to see how assuming the man is a bad person helps anyone. No-one’s assumed the man in the hypothetical is a bad person, you ferret-brained asshole. Did a bad thing =/= is a bad person. You dumb shit. > [@](#): > > Why will you not answer my hypothetical? Why don’t _you_ stop fucking that hamster? ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2019, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paint-a-vulva-picture-or-mansplaining-fail/830749/231 "2019-03-11T11:19:11Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > All the salient facts were in the hypothetical And those are not enough on which to make a decent decision of “bad thing” so we shouldn’t. What elements of that hypothetical are known to you that aren’t available to me.? > [@](#): > > Bwah-ha! Hah! Fuck off with your MRA fever dreams, you pathetic wanker! “Poor struggling single father, just looking for information” - ha ha ha! On the basis of your scanty hypothetical alone we have no way of knowing \*anything \*meaningful about the situation on which to base a decision. What basis do you have for being so dismissive of the possible benign scenario I suggested? You seem to suggest it is laughable, why? What detail of the hypothetical are you imaging and not sharing that would help us make a more completely considered decision. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2019, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paint-a-vulva-picture-or-mansplaining-fail/830749/232 "2019-03-11T12:21:49Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > “spouting off some shit”? you are introducing a particular behavioural description and value judgement that my hypothetical purposefully left out. If you’re wrong because you didn’t do the most cursory research, BUT YOU NEVER SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT, then it’s just intellectual laziness, much like the sort you’re displaying here. Once you say anything about it, then I’ve introduced nothing new. Of course, it doesn’t serve your purpose to listen to anyone, so you’ll just whine about how I’m not representing your hypothetical accurately. And everyone will be like, Ooh, excellent point, Novelty Bobble, you’re definitely not just backed into a corner and fighting like a brain-damaged rat. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2019, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paint-a-vulva-picture-or-mansplaining-fail/830749/233 "2019-03-11T12:44:58Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > And those are not enough on which to make a decent decision of “bad thing” so we shouldn’t. No, it totally is. Once again: a man enters a discussion about female sanitary products to post, unasked for, a calculation to prove a debate point. It isn’t relevant whether his calculation is correct or as piss-poor as the actual guy. It isn’t relevant where he got his numbers. It isn’t relevant how contrite he acts afterwards The issue under discussion is whether that one particular action is a bad thing. You say it is not inherently a bad thing. You are wrong. Just make peace with the fact that you’re just so completely fucking wrong on this that you can’t even see right from where you are with a large telescope. Right is over the horizon from you. You are not in the same timezone as right. > [@](#): > > What basis do you have for being so dismissive of the possible benign scenario I suggested? The fact that it had nothing to do with my hypothetical. I specified he was posting to make a debate point, not gather information. ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2019, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paint-a-vulva-picture-or-mansplaining-fail/830749/234 "2019-03-11T12:51:10Z")
So, it looks my policy of not looking at the Dope on weekends has paid off in spades. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2019, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paint-a-vulva-picture-or-mansplaining-fail/830749/235 "2019-03-11T14:11:20Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > No, it totally is. Once again: a man enters a discussion about female sanitary products to post, unasked for, a calculation to prove a debate point. So you’ve changed your hypothetical wording now? > [@](#): > > The issue under discussion is whether that one particular action is a bad thing. You say it is not inherently a bad thing. absent of any other information it is not inherently a bad thing. Neither you nor I have enough information to make that solid judgement and be confident in it. I’m perfectly willing to be convinced that any given instance of it \*could \*be a bad thing (you know, like the case mentioned in the tweet) but it always depends on why someone does it, how someone does it, what they say, what they do, how do they conduct themselves? All of those matter, it is why we would all naturally seek to know more about what happened. Imagine I said the following… I saw my little boy killing a rabbit with a stick. He started to explain why he did it but I cut him off. “sorry son, striking an animal is always wrong in every and any circumstances and I really don’t need to know anything else about why you did it or how you did it. There is nothing you can tell me and no additional detail you can give me that will change my judgement on this, you are now an animal-murderer in my eyes” …you would think that I was being unfair and far too quick to judge. You would readily accept that, although striking an animal appears obviously to be a bad thing that there are circumstances under which it may not be. You’ve already thought of a few I’m sure. My course of action would be to find out more before I jumped to conclusions. I suggest that in a real world scenario you would do exactly the same because regardless of the internet persona you are a rational human being. Though it suits your debating purpose to take an absolutist hard-line with your hypothetical I do not think you would hold to the same principles in a real life situation. > [@](#): > > You are wrong. No, my reluctance to hold-off on judgement is by far the best position to take and not too far below the surface you know it too. It is a little more time-consuming and requires more thought, empathy and understanding so I can see why it isn’t a great fit for you but it is definitely the way to go. You end judging “bad” and “not bad” things. There really is no down side to it. Give it a go. You do realise that me not agreeing it is a “bad thing” is not the same as saying it cannot be a “bad thing” or that I think it must be a “good thing”. You have grasped the subtlety of that right? > [@](#): > > I specified he was posting to make a debate point, not gather information. \*Prove \*a debate point? \*make \*a debate point? or as an argument _tactic_? or as an argument _point_? Those are currently the four different wordings of your supposedly unchangeable hypothetical. The one you said needed no additional information. Is there a reason why you chose those different wordings? Setting out to \*prove \*a debate point is a different thing from \*making \*a argument point or having a point for _debate_. These are not insignificant changes. Some of those hint at a set mind and an underlying agenda, the others can be neutral. So which is it? I may be able to give you a more definite answer then with more detail. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2019, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paint-a-vulva-picture-or-mansplaining-fail/830749/236 "2019-03-11T14:25:59Z")
> [@Stanislaus](#): > > So, it looks my policy of not looking at the Dope on weekends has paid off in spades. Heck, our initial back-and-forth on page 1 ended up with a clear understanding of each others positions, clarifications of definitions, a banging of heads, cordial discussions and an agreement to disagree. You even were miffed (quite rightly) when you thought I implied some less than pure motives on your part and I did not hesitate for a second to set that straight. \*That \*was proper discussion and debate. Though I’m sure you enjoyed your weekend off the debate would have been of higher quality with you in it, and that’s even knowing full well that you don’t agree with me. Well-formed opinions and arguments in opposition to your own are the whole point of the board to me. Feel free to dive back in of course but it has gone a bit “Motherwell Rules” ---
**Author:** ![Charlie\_Tan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/charlie_tan/32/12582_2.png) [@Charlie\_Tan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Charlie_Tan)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2019, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paint-a-vulva-picture-or-mansplaining-fail/830749/237 "2019-03-11T14:51:16Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > 210 posts of it gets a little old, I find. Let me propose, for your consideration - Bobstinate. ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2019, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paint-a-vulva-picture-or-mansplaining-fail/830749/238 "2019-03-11T15:03:33Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Imagine I said the following… > I saw my little boy killing a rabbit with a stick. He started to explain why he did it but I cut him off. “sorry son, striking an animal is always wrong in every and any circumstances and I really don’t need to know anything else about why you did it or how you did it. There is nothing you can tell me and no additional detail you can give me that will change my judgement on this, you are now an animal-murderer in my eyes” > …you would think that I was being unfair and far too quick to judge. You would readily accept that, although striking an animal appears obviously to be a bad thing that there are circumstances under which it may not be. You’ve already thought of a few I’m sure. My course of action would be to find out more before I jumped to conclusions. Snipping by me Do you actually have a child? Is there anything you would say “don’t ever do that?” Because you can always find a use case where any particular action would be acceptable. I don’t mean after the fact, when you find your child killing an animal and… Don’t want to jump to conclusions that it is bad… But before, as in " don’t ever hurt animals, or don’t lie, or don’t kill people, or don’t steal" -because there is always a possibile scenario where it could be acceptable to do something that you’ve proscribed. So is the rational course of action to not proscribe anything, in case of unusual circumstance? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2019, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paint-a-vulva-picture-or-mansplaining-fail/830749/239 "2019-03-11T15:26:44Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Setting out to \*prove \*a debate point is a different thing from \*making \*a argument point or having a point for _debate_. Sophistry. Pure, transparent sophistry. Boy, you are \*really \*getting desperate when you’re reduced to “\*Argument \*isn’t the same as _debate_, and you don’t \*make \*argument points to \*prove \*anything.” ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2019, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paint-a-vulva-picture-or-mansplaining-fail/830749/240 "2019-03-11T15:36:22Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > absent of any other information it is not inherently a bad thing. Yes, it is. > [@](#): > > Neither you nor I have enough information to make that solid judgement and be confident in it. I do. It’s a bad thing. It’s inherently a bad thing. It will remain inherently a bad thing no matter how hard you think you can fight the hypothetical - I didn’t know you could make straw men composed entirely of smoke and shadow, but you continue to amaze. No, wait, the other thing…tip of my tongue…oh, yes, _amuse_. I now see what the appeal of court jesters was for the kings of old, for sure. I mean, it’s not exactly \*PC \*to find humour in watching a simpleton attempt the most basic of debate tasks - read sentences correctly or construct a basic logic chain - and fail miserably. But it’s the dogged persistence that renders it comedy gold, nonetheless. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paint-a-vulva-picture-or-mansplaining-fail/830749.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paint-a-vulva-picture-or-mansplaining-fail/830749.md?page=13)