I'm interpreting it within the context of the post. It's appropriate to assume the illustrator was male because OP referred to him as male. If the illustrator is female then what changes is the perspective. For instance the "terror" wouldn't be insecurity around the ability to dominate the object (performance anxiety/impotence) but rather an aversion to the vulnerability of being dominated/objectified, mixed with a simultaneous desire to please. She'd be a people pleaser who's afraid of being taken advantage of. Either way there are obvious control issues.

I wouldn't make these points if they weren't my sincerely held convictions, and I wouldn't sincerely hold a conviction if there was no valid reason to justify them. You disagree and that's great, but you haven't interpreted the symbolism or analyzed the psychology yourself. You've neither offered an alternative analysis, nor thoroughly justified your opposition. You just don't want to hear what I'm saying, and I wonder why...

I thought I clarified but let me try again. When a man draws a woman's body, especially the genitals, his drawing won't just be a representation of reality, in fact it usually isn't anywhere near realistic. But the image contains clues about the psychology of the illustrator, no matter what his skill level or his intentions. The interpreting psychologist has a certain amount of leeway in their analysis, but I think in this context the lack of hair, a small labia, and an invisible or non-existent clitoris are signs of a conservative, hierarchical, patronizing man who values order and purity and who undermines female authority (maturity) to gain or maintain self-control when interacting with women (the unknown). It depends on the context. If the context is "terror" or fear of the unknown, like this drawing, than it's one thing. If the context is "excitement" then the man isn't exactly trying to conquer his own impotence, more likely he gets pleasure from surrendering power and losing self control, perhaps he's struggling with incontenance rather than impotence. The infantlization would still be indicative of a superiority complex, because it would make his surrender to her that much more effective. Do you see a little better how it works now?

If the context is "terror" and the man draws hair, he likely has problems with disgust sensitivity. If the context is "excitement" and the man draws hair, he is likely more liberal-minded and might have problems with infidelity or promiscuity. If a man draws a visible clit and labia it means something different than if he doesn't. It really depends on so much more information than this though. I'd need to have several conversations with the artist to really nail it down. Honestly I didn't intend on doing an actual analysis, I was just killing time this morning... Now I'm wasting time because I just ate dinner.

In a therepy session, if you want to, you can use this method as a tool for reaching a better understanding of the problem and talking about potential solutions. Have someone draw a house if you're talking with them about their home life. Have them add their family to the image. Have them draw a woman/man if you're talking with them about their sex life. Have them draw the genitals, etc. It's an effective tool for exploring their perspective because unconscious things show through. Things the person might have trouble articulating with words, things they might not even know about themselves. We as a species could draw pictures before we could really speak or write. When we tap into the meaning of our pictorial representations we are tapping into older and deeper parts of our minds. Psychology is not an exact science, it is open to interpretation and that's a beautiful thing.

Biases are not a problem unless they're unjustified or invalid. Sometimes a bias can be a good thing or a correct thing. I'm not saying I'm infallible, but I know I'm good at what I do. I might not be very good at explaining it to you right now, but I can't even see your face or hear your tone so... Whatevs. I can tell you though a drawing like this has got almost nothing to do with actual nature of female genitals or all their possible variations in appearance and almost everything to do with the psychology of the illustrator.