There's a logical contradiction in feminist doctrines of female sexual enjoyment: namely that 1) penetration does not damage the vagina or vulva, and 2) that penetration is the primary source of pleasure. If sexual pleasure was the goal of feminism, then, logically (mechanically or physically) oral sex would or should be the default because 1) this does not damage the female sex organs, and 2) this is the primary source of sexual pleasure for women.

Men can make do without penetration, though there are risks to penile damage without adequate lubrication, I argue saliva is inadequate lubrication. So what's the solution? Well, vaginal discharge is the obvious solution. Ie. vaginal lubrication, applied by hand, and then used via a hand-job (say). This prevents damage to the penile organ, while also preventing damage to the vagina and vulva.

Even with high arousal and lubrication, women self-report microtears, scarring and pain from penetration. As well as inability to generally orgasm from penetration. Perhaps penetration should be reserved for it's obvious necessity: sexual reproduction. People will say that arguing that penetration damages female sexual organs is anti-women or anti-feminist, and that it's a "myth" -- however, I think it's likely that the reverse is actually the real myth (given the physics of friction and elasticity) and the nature of sexual pleasure as well as self reports of injury and changes in size that persist long term (especially after losing virginity, even if tampons are used before losing virginity). I suspect uncircumcised penises would be safer for penetration, perhaps perf3ctly safe, due to natural reductions of friction by uncut foreskin (not to mention, enhajc3d male pleasure). Unfortunately, because of religion, most men are circumcised.

I can't see promoting oral sex on women as anti-women, regardless. On the contrary, I think it is the most respectful and pleasurable form of (non-reproductive) sexuality available. I think it's important to be honest about physical reality in order to base opinions and decisions on facts rather than feelings or desires to fit-in socially. I think the view that female sexual organ damage from penetration being a myth may be rooted in a desire to fit-in with men and male views and experiences of sex or sexual desire. But since men are different from women (a biological reality, imo) there is no reason to try to make female experiences or views of sex the same as males. The most mature thing a man can do, imo, is voluntarily reduce penetration out of respect for women and a desire to not physically harm or degrade them in any way. In this way, I argue that this argument is actually not anti-women at all. In fact, the opposite.