Female Genital Cosmetic Surgery

Female Genital Cosmetic surgery is an umbrella term that encompasses several types of surgeries designed to change the appearance of the genitals for non-medical reasons. These surgeries include Labiaplasty (reducing the size of the labia, either the inner or outer lips), G-spot ampliplifaction (injecting the g-spot with collagen to increase it's size and theoretically, pleasure), Mons Pubis reduction (reducing the pubic mound), clitoral hood reduction, and re-virgination (reconstructing the hymen). As stated before, these surgeries are not performed for medical reasons, rather for cultural and aesthetic purposes. The women are unhappy with the way their genitals look and/or, especially in the case of g-spot amplification surgery, are seeking increased sexual pleasure. To further clarify, when I am talking about Female Genital Cosmetic Surgery, I am not referring to trans individuals who are undergoing sexual reconstruction surgery. I am specifically referring to cosmetic genital surgery that cis women undergo for purely aesthetic reasons. The cosmetic surgeons who perform these surgeries use words like "irregular" and "abnormal" to describe the genitals that some women are naturally born with and call the results of their work "sleeker", "more appealing" "thinner" and "excellent". What I want to know is: What is so wrong with our society that the natural variety of women's genitals is defamed and criticized in favor of a standardized vulva?

Now, before I continue, I should address the argument of "choice". One could argue that if a woman chooses to alter her genitals that is her choice and her right to do so. However, choices are not made in a vacuum.Yes, a woman's right to choose is extremely important, but it is not enough to study a phenomenon on an individual level. This must be looked at from a societal level as well. What is going on in our society that has created the desire to think of one's genitals as unattractive and to go under the knife to change them? I'm all for a woman's right to choose, but when that choice is so heavily influenced by harmful misogynistic ideals, it should be analyzed.

One place to look for answers is pornography. I've said this before in past blog posts, but I should probably say it again. I am not here to bash porn. I think porn is beneficial in many ways. However, one should always be aware of how society influences porn and how porn influences society. In this instance, I want to focus on the latter. If one took a representative sample of all the female genitals depicted in pornography, one would notice a theme. All the genitalia look the same, regardless of the ethnicity, BMI, or age of the individual women. The genitalia in general are small: the labia minora (the inner lips) are always smaller than the labia majora and the mons pubis is also small. Another thing to note is that the words used to describe this type of genitalia is similar to the words one would use to describe a puppy or maybe a child: "pretty" "little" "cute," etc. So it can only be inferred that gentalia that does not match up with the pornstar's are unfeminine, huge and ugly. And these inferences are made by both men and women. And instead of attention being called to the natural beauty and variety of women's genitalia, female genital beauty is being standardized and women are being made to feel insecure about yet another aspect of their beauty. These surgeons claim to be supporters of women, but they are hurting women by causing them to think less of their natural beauty and conforming to the unrealistic standard that society has created. In Leonore Tiefer's article, "Female Genital Cosmetic Surgery: Freakish or Inevitable? Analysis from Medical Marketing, Bioethics, and Feminist Theory," she discusses one surgeon David Matlock, who after performing a labiaplasty for a video demonstration, "comments: ‘She is like a 16-year-old now’, a phrase he repeats in many videos and one that is also used by other FGCS surgeons" (469). How is comparing a woman's genitals to those of a 16-year-old supportive to women? 

Another thing to think about is the physical risks of FGCS. This is actual surgery with all the pain, complications and risks that come along with it. There can be scarring and the scar tissue could make the area less sensitive, which flies in the face of the idea that these procedures would increase sexual pleasure. A FGCS surgeon admits seeing  "typically  permanently scarred, irregular appearance of other surgeons' labiaplasty results" and of course, states that his work is nothing like that. Apparently, accidents and mistakes are quite common in FGCS procedures. Also the government does not regulate these procedures. Standardized methods do not exist and the individuals willing to perform this surgery are not willing to publicize scientific data to confirm the validity of these procedures. Also, research has not been done on the long-term consequences of these surgeries. However, you would never think so by the way it has been marketed by surgeons. It is as if they are marketing a new clothing line, not new genitalia. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology has said that there are "ethical issues associated with the marketing of these procedures and the national franchising in this field. Such a business model that controls the dissemination of scientific knowledge is troubling" (American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2007: 737). Medicine is supposed to be about the well-being of patients, not about creating and then preying on their insecurities. These surgeons site another reason for getting these procedures: sexual pleasure. Procedures like the g-spot amplification surgery and vaginal rejuvenation (tightening the vaginal walls) are specifically designed for increasing sexual pleasure while other procedures like labiaplasty are toted as ways to indirectly increase sexual pleasure by making the vulva more beautiful and pleasant-looking. However, Tiefer asks: "Does FGCS provide sexual enhancement? Consumers will want documentation of improved pleasure or orgasm after FGCS to know whether it fulfills its promises, but market-oriented FGCS surgeons are unwilling to subject their work to scientific assessment". And why would surgeons be unwilling to scientifically prove that the services they provide actually work? Maybe because they know that they actually don't.

When it's all said and done, is this just another extension of physical alterations that women will be expected to undergo? Is this another step in further cementing the idea that women's bodies are public domain and extremely susceptible to the whim of the general public? In a few years, will parents be buying their daughters new vulvas and will wives reconstruct their hymens to keep their husbands from straying? Honestly, this future terrifies me. Women, in general, are not being informed of the natural variety and beauty of the bodies they were born with and are being guilted and fooled into spending money on risky procedures to line the pockets of so-called 'feminist' genital cosmetic surgeons. If in spite of all of this, a woman still wants to undergo these procedures, I only ask that she wait until proper scientific research has been done on the immediate and future consequences of these procedures. Please, I'd rather you be safe than sorry.