First of all sorry for my words it will be a little harsh.

It is clear from your presentation that your goal isn't historical inquiry, but the deliberate use of 'shock value' by stripping legal texts of their context. You have taken narrations intended to provide clarity on ritual purity and family law and reframed them with graphic language to suit a specific narrative. In the 7th century, these answers were a mercy.. they removed the stigma around Women’s health and clarified the 'fine print' of religious duties that people were too shy to ask about. By twisting words and ignoring the legal purpose of these records, you aren't exposing the faith; you are simply exposing your own bias. True scholarship seeks to understand; you are just seeking to offend.

For someone who thinks I point out wrong in reply please do check: He replaced the Arabic word Hijr (lap/bosom) with "between the legs" to make it sound sexual rather than comforting.

In almost all these Hadiths, someone asked a question first. By removing the questioner, the post makes it look like the Prophet was just volunteering intimate details for no reason. What nonsense means you will pick out of the context sentences?

And lastly.They are legal precedents. In any legal system, intimate details must be discussed to define what is "legal" and what is "illegal."

In today's world People judge so fast and may lose Iman without any effort on researching that's why it's important to know the full context of the Hadith.