Even as the controversies surrounding female genital mutilation grow, and the practice becomes less acceptable, voluntary genital reconstruction is becoming increasingly more common. Women want to reshape their external genitalia to give them a ‘clean’ appearance, with hidden inner labia and outer labia that could appear in a magazine. In fact it’s girly magazines that have caused women to be concerned about their genital appearance. Women are told that the airbrushed symmetry and lack of variation is what men consider beautiful, and want to change their bodies to match. Research suggests that most women undergoing this surgery have been talked into it by their partners, who want the look of a Playboy model lying next to them in bed.
Genital plastic surgery can also involve tightening of the vaginal opening, either after childbirth or to accommodate a partner with small penis size. Data is controversial, however, on whether this actually increases the woman’s own sexual pleasure – since the surgical procedure damages nerves and muscle and can also cause local scarring. This vaginal rejuvenation is not a new procedure. Women have been tucks to tighten their vaginas after child birth for many years.
Virginity has always a been a cultural asset for women, and even in the 21st century little has changed. Surgical recreation of the hymen, for example, is growing in popularity as an elective procedure throughout the world. Once the domain of women in the Middle East who risked serious repercussions if they did not appear virginal in their marriage bed (Since the hymen can be damaged in non-sexual ways, hymenoplasty could prevent women from being wrongly penalized for a lack of virginity.), it is now becoming a fashion trend. Women choose them as a gift to their husbands, or to mislead a future spouse. Apparently, the appearance of purity is worth not only major surgery, but also the re-association of sex with a not insignificant amount of pain.
What do these voluntary procedures have to do with the horrors of female genital mutilation? In Sweden, legislation designed to prevent the second, had the unintended consequences of also criminalizing the first. The superficial similarities of the procedures have also led some scientists to question whether the paternalistic protection of poor African women, while allowing rich Western women to choose a similar procedure is actually institutionalized racism. This seems extreme, but it seems reasonable to ask if when women consent to the practice of FGM it should still be disallowed. The argument is usually made that they are conditioned by their cultures to think that the procedure is necessary for them, or their daughters, but the vast majority of women who choose to undergo labioplasty are also responding to societal pressures. Yes, women undergoing voluntary surgery are trying to enhance their sexual lives rather than damage them, but women undergoing FGM are strengthening their familial ties, which they may, quite reasonably, consider to be far more important.
There are more than 130 million women in the world whose lives have been irreversibly damaged by FGM, who experience unnecessary physical and emotional pain, and it is a shame that vanity has made it possible to question the condemnation of a practice that is so hazardous to women. Governments around the world have denounced FGM with good reason, in order to protect the girls and women who are their most vulnerable citizens, and outreach groups continue to try and find ways to help individuals who believe in the practice find a less dangerous alternative. It remains the responsibility of individuals and governments to determine how to draw the line between respect and protection, even if it may turn out to be at the expense of choice.
