Something that makes me angry.

[Alex Bragi]

Plastic surgery is nothing new, particularly in Southern California. It is after all land of the beautiful people. Adverisments there, however, are now offering women genital cosmetic surgery, “labiaplasty” (nipping women’s genital lips), “vaginal rejuvenation” (tightening the vaginal muscles) and “vaginal reconstruction” (tightening, shaping, sculpting).

One advertisement reads, in part: "Women experiencing sexual dysfunction or embarrassment because their labia (labia minora) are over-sized or asymmetrical. Also women who dislike the large size or shape of their labia, which may cause inelegance or awkwardness with a sexual partner.”

“Inelegant” or “awkward”! Well, hello, sex isn't always going to be an erotic version of Mills and Boon novel, now is it? Will cutting away part of the labia really make a woman more sexually attractive? Is an "over sized labia" really such a handicap? Or an "asymmetrial labia" really so ugly?

What sort of society is it where women fret about what's between their legs to the point of considering, and obviously in many cases submitting to, this type of surgery?

Sure, women worrying about their body size and shape is nothing new. Look at society's obsession with ideal body. It's turning many teenage girls into anorexics, and it's leaving a legacy of women suffering the effects of fad diets, body scarring, and leaky fake boobs.

It should go without saying, I have no problem what so ever with anyone taking full advantage of reconstructive surgery. Certainly, people who have birth defects or accidents, and women, who have suffered major changes to their bodies due to pregancy and childbirth, should certainly have the option of corrective procedures without compunction.

It seems that pharmacists, plastic surgeons, and marketing companies are getting richer every day by convincing us all that our bodies are inadequate!

Surely being able to accept yourself, love your body, and to use it confidently with your partner is what good sex and body image should be all about.

[Gurdur]

....It seems that pharmacists, plastic surgeons, and marketing companies are getting richer every day by convincing us all that our bodies are inadequate!.
I agree with all that you say, very much, but allow me to correct one thing here: it's definitely not the pharmacists, but instead the large cosmetic and cosmetic prosthesis companies getting very rich out of this.
The large pharmaceutical companies make huge bucks elsewhere (think e.g. the over-diagnosis of ADD, ADHD).

[Gurdur]

Also BTW:
AFAIK, vaginal "rejuvenation" most definitely usually does not need surgery, but instead a set of fairly simple (and free) exercises to tighten up the muscles and pelvic floor, started in say the '30's (but later is also fine) and continued; Googling should get the necessary info, and if not, any good gynaecologist.

[Western]

...?

[JoeP]

Don't worry, Gurdur knows these things.

Unless you're querying the claim Googling should get ... any good gynaecologist.That's dubious to say the least.

Alex, I don't know what the ads say but I see nothing wrong with ads. After all, people have been painting and piercing bodies for millenia; adornment and adjustment is almost part of society.

Do you think these ads are creating dislike, discomfort or fretting? Do think there's a pressure to conform implied here? That would be wrong.

[Gurdur]

Do you think these ads are creating dislike, discomfort or fretting? Do think there's a pressure to conform implied here? That would be wrong.
The large increase in anorexia nervosa, and the very large increase in unnecessary boob jobs in the USA, are both factors which seem to indicate just such a felt pressure to conform.

[JoeP]

The large increase in anorexia nervosa, and the very large increase in unnecessary boob jobs in the USA, are both factors which seem to indicate just such a felt pressure to conform.
With boob jobs, undoubtedly. But for cosmetic genital surgery?

[Gurdur]

With boob jobs, undoubtedly. But for cosmetic genital surgery?
Apparently the wave of the future. Don't look at me, I never even heard about it till Alex Bragi's post, but I believe it; the desperation for perfection and ruthless playing by the market on such fears in SOCAL seem to have the usual odd effects.

The last thing I heard about genital surgery in the USA was the rather large number of people getting clitorodectomies for their daughters on their health plans, no less in the USA, which is rather a disgusting scandal, and much the same sort of thing, if this time forced by parents on kids rather than being 'chosen' by the people themselves. Morally, I see little difference between a clitorodectomy and 'cosmetic improvement' of the female genetalia; both are operations that carry the usual operative risks, both can be considered willful mutilations, both are in 99.9999999 % of the time totally and utterly unnecessary, and having, allowing, or worst, promoting, such operations with all the usual operative risks when it's completely and utterly unnecessary is very unethical indeed.

[MooseIBe]

The last thing I heard about genital surgery in the USA was the rather large number of people getting clitorodectomies for their daughters on their health plans


My God .. are you serious? Is a clitoro-thingie what I think it is .. removal of the clitoris?

[Gurdur]

My God .. are you serious?
Yes.
Is a clitoro-thingie what I think it is .. removal of the clitoris?
Usually most of it.
BTW, my spellings of the terms may be off, since it's a while since I kept myself up-to-date.

[lisarea]

I've heard about this, and now I'm going to tell you a story that I cannot cite and may even be apocryphal.

According to something I read somewhere, various obscenity laws throughout the US have drawn some kind of line at labia size, so that photographs depicting larger labia would actually have to be airbrushed or otherwise manipulated in order to get past censors. I know showing pink was once verboten, so I assume this was some stage in that process or something. As such, pornography would tend to portray women's labia as being smaller than average, to the point that it this standard, which began as a way to avoid obscenity charges, actually became considered a physical ideal, and women started thinking that they were abnormal because they didn't look like the porn they saw.

After noticing this trend, some gynecologist wrote an article describing the phenomenon for some kind of publication (I assume it couldn't have been a medical journal), which was supposed to be illustrated with photographs of porn labia vs. non-porn labia, but the journal wouldn't print the photographs of the non-porn labia because they looked obscene.

Anyway, I can't vouch for this story, and can't even remember where I read it right now, because I gots to go do stuff. I'll try and see if I can track it down later, though.

[livius drusus]

I saw a porn star on Howard Stern once discussing her labial, erm, trimming. She sold the leftover bits. Yup. Suspended them in lucite cubes and auctioned them off in Japan.

[Adora]

The no-labia-details are extremely strict here in Australia. And there are a lot of women who aren't sure about what their girly-bits should look like, go look at their boyfriend's playboys, and get slightly neurotic about it. A women's mag tried to run an article on it, but got censored because all depictions of female genitalia have to be "healed" and have detail removed. So there was a big kerfuffle, but the evil Nazis... I mean OFLC won in the end. Cause the close of the magazine and the editor to write a very good book about sex and censorship in Australia. But most women's genitalia is slightly larger on one side than the other. I don't remember which. But the surgeons play into the "causes distress" clause that just means they're feeding the false neurosis of society about these things. They pretend they're helping, when in actual fact they're just perpetuating the myth for their own profits.

There's some other nutcase surgeries I've heard of in certain places, like women having their hymens reconstructed so their husbands-to-be don't know they aren't a virgin. Mostly Muslim countries of course.

[Alex Bragi]

Alex, I don't know what the ads say but I see nothing wrong with ads. After all, people have been painting and piercing bodies for millenia; adornment and adjustment is almost part of society.

Joe, I’ve quoted the ad (parts) verbatim.

I see painting and piercing as inexpensive, relatively painless, and almost risk-free adornment. Cosmetic vaginal surgery I view as expensive and painful, and like any surgery there’s always a certain risk involved.

Do you think these ads are creating dislike, discomfort or fretting? Do think there's a pressure to conform implied here? That would be wrong.

Let me put it to you this way—the first thing I did when I read that ad was slip my panties off and rush to find a mirror.

It's not just women who are being 'marketed' to either. Look at how our society's obsession with penis size plagues men and has created a whole industry of penis-enlargement products--everything from pumps to implants.

[raspberrybullets]

The last thing I heard about genital surgery in the USA was the rather large number of people getting clitorodectomies for their daughters on their health plans, no less in the USA, which is rather a disgusting scandal,
Parents are doing this willfully to their daughters? :damn: What on earth would possess anyone to do that?

[lisarea]

The no-labia-details are extremely strict here in Australia. And there are a lot of women who aren't sure about what their girly-bits should look like, go look at their boyfriend's playboys, and get slightly neurotic about it. A women's mag tried to run an article on it, but got censored because all depictions of female genitalia have to be "healed" and have detail removed. So there was a big kerfuffle, but the evil Nazis... I mean OFLC won in the end. Cause the close of the magazine and the editor to write a very good book about sex and censorship in Australia. But most women's genitalia is slightly larger on one side than the other. I don't remember which. But the surgeons play into the "causes distress" clause that just means they're feeding the false neurosis of society about these things. They pretend they're helping, when in actual fact they're just perpetuating the myth for their own profits.

Thank you, Adora. That's probably the story I was vaguely remembering and I just conflated it with something else to come up with the mangled version up there. No wonder I couldn't find it.

Here's (http://www.darlingbri.co.uk/journal/archive.asp?id=215) more on it. This part at the end is interesting:

As the ex-editor of this magazine commented, what the OFLC deem the acceptable face of fanny is one that only the minority of adult women have. But most pre-pubescent girls look much more like that. So maybe we have the first case in the world of a government which actually encourages child porn. As she said, "Now that's sick".

[MooseIBe]

The last thing I heard about genital surgery in the USA was the rather large number of people getting clitorodectomies for their daughters on their health plans, no less in the USA, which is rather a disgusting scandal,
Parents are doing this willfully to their daughters? :damn: What on earth would possess anyone to do that?

In some African countries it is done for religious or social reasons, and I have heard of cases where African girls in this country have been forcibly circumcised by 'quack' doctors. I have never, ever heard of a state medical outfit sanctioninng such a thing in modern times. That is criminal.

It's funny, but what Adora said about women not knowing what they are supposed to look like is true. I was WAY paranoid when i was a teenager because I thought I looked genitally um, different to other women, because what I saw when I looked in a mirror was not the same as the women I had seen in the occasionally glances of porn magazines that I had had.. women with non existent labia and a tiny little strip of pubic hair. It wasn't till i had had two or three relationships and just casually asked the men in question 'um, do I look, well, NORMAL?' that I realised that yeah, in fact, I was perfectly normal.

[JoeP]

Let me put it to you this way—the first thing I did when I read that ad was slip my panties off and rush to find a mirror.
Well that's a good thing then.

Oh, sorry, I thought you said "webcam".

[JoeP]

The last thing I heard about genital surgery in the USA was the rather large number of people getting clitorodectomies for their daughters on their health plans, no less in the USA, which is rather a disgusting scandal,
Parents are doing this willfully to their daughters? :damn: What on earth would possess anyone to do that?

In some African countries it is done for religious or social reasons, and I have heard of cases where African girls in this country have been forcibly circumcised by 'quack' doctors. I have never, ever heard of a state medical outfit sanctioninng such a thing in modern times. That is criminal.


Female genital mutilation is widespread in north (and possible west) Africa. Something to do with trying to prevent sexual stimulation and "control" the girls. I've heard it is perpetuated by the older women, astonishingly.

It is argued to be a cultural thing, so may receive government support or at least a blind eye.

[MooseIBe]

As far as I know there are a wide range of procedures that come under the heading of circumsicion .. from simply removing the hood of the clitoris - totally unnecessary but hardly the end of the world - to removing absolutely everything and then stitching it up and leaving only a tiny hole. I learned this through reading Alice Walker's book 'Possessing the secret of Joy' btw.. anyone read it?

[Godless Dave]

I have heard of clirorectomies being performed in the US on baby girls who had unusually large clitori. I saw this in a PBS documentary about arbirtary gender assignment of hermaphroditic babies. Apparently in such cases they no longer remove the whole clitoris, just cut it down to more normal size. But some people, justifiably, object to that.

[MooseIBe]

Well depends how large it is I would think... though it might be better to wait till the child was older and see how they felt about it. I saw a docu on a baby girl whose clitoris was actually a small penis though, even though she was otherwise totally female. That was operated on.

[Gurdur]

So I got it wrong --- it's spelled clitoridectomy.

[Gurdur]

Immigrant parents (usually from North Africa) in the USA and Australia have often demanded that clitoridectomies be performed on their daughters, and had it done on the health schemes.

Yes, it is completely unethical.

BTW, a bit of off-topic history: (http://www.circinfo.org/cervical.html)
Back in the 1860s the London doctor Isaac Baker Brown started performing clitoridectomies on women because the orthodox theory of nervous disease then in force held that epilepsy, hysteria and even insanity could be caused by "irritation" of the pudic nerve, brought on by masturbation, and cured by excision of the clitoris. (Amputation of the foreskin of boys had already been introduced with the same justification in mind.) Brown's technique was indignantly rejected by the British medical profession: even if the treatment worked, it was unethical and illegitimate to mutilate women's bodies in this way. One of his critics said: "this particular form of quackery is an operation which is in itself a mutilation. I will not call it an operation: it is a mutilation", which could not be sanctioned by a profession governed by the ethics of Hippocrates - "First, do no harm". (British Medical Journal, 6 April 1867).

[Shake]

Also BTW:
AFAIK, vaginal "rejuvenation" most definitely usually does not need surgery, but instead a set of fairly simple (and free) exercises to tighten up the muscles and pelvic floor, started in say the '30's (but later is also fine) and continued; Googling should get the necessary info, and if not, any good gynaecologist.
Kegeling (http://www.childbirth.org/articles/kegel.html). I believe males can do similar exercises with similar benefits.

[Gurdur]

Thanks, Shake.

[Legs]

Designer Cooch :chin:

[Adora]

Female genital mutilation is widespread in north (and possible west) Africa. Something to do with trying to prevent sexual stimulation and "control" the girls. I've heard it is perpetuated by the older women, astonishingly.
Yeah, and there were Africans who sold others with the same skin colour to the white slavers. The women may continue the practice, but you know who'd be the ones to break out the clubs if they stopped doing it.

[raspberrybullets]

In some African countries it is done for religious or social reasons, and I have heard of cases where African girls in this country have been forcibly circumcised by 'quack' doctors. I have never, ever heard of a state medical outfit sanctioninng such a thing in modern times. That is criminal.
Yes, tha'ts what I meant. I realise people have done it and still do so in some African countries, but I had not realised anyone would do it now in western society. Although, if Gurdur is right, it is the African migrants doing it. But that a doctor would sanction it and allow it, that is in itself incomprehensible. It is mutilation pure and simple and does nothing (99.9% of the time) in any way to help a girl.

I also think this idea that a girl with a too large clitoris should get it cut is preposterous. It's hardly likely to do her any harm to have it a bit bigger than normal and certainly isn't worth the risk that any surgery entails, or the likelihood of her then having a non-enjoyable sex life because of it.

I was watching a program about orgasms the other day and one of the women in it, a British woman, had had a clitoridectomy thingy when she was a little girl because when she was born her clitoris was too large. The doctors now were saying that by the time she grew up, her clitoris would not have been overly large anyway, and she ended up leading a miserable life because sex was excruciatingly painful for her. I do not see how any parent could justify doing that to their daughter and claim they want what's best for her.

[raspberrybullets]

Just to add some further info I have found out from a friend who knows this kinda shit. Clitoris reduction is generally (there may be extreme cases where people just want it smaller) in cases of disputable sexual identity where parents are forced to choose whether their child will be a boy or girl, it is generally accepted that giving them a distinct identity and letting them grow up like that is much better than letting grow up as something indistinct.

[Adora]

Except there's very little research to show this is the case. First of all, the medical community is shit-scared of doing so because they're afraid all the bullshit Money tossed about will be proven to be the load of crap it is. There's also always the issue of liability, and generally the medical community not wanting to be found to be wrong. There has been a few studies done that I know of focusing on male patients in relation to "changing back" later in life and are part of wider studies of transexuals. But none for girls, no single wide-ranging study done, and no implementation of actual follow-up procedures throughout the child's life when doctors assign sex at birth.

In other words, no evidence to back up their claims of the supposed betterment sex assignment does a child.

[Shake]

Thanks, Shake.
You're welcome.

As I recall, for men, it's the muscles you use if you want to stop your piss mid-stream. I've found this skill helpful when you have to piss in the always-too-small cup that doctors want you to fill. Usually you've made so sure that you'll have to go, that you're practically bursting by the time they hand you this tiny cup. So you fill it up, stop peeing, put the cup down, and finish into the toilet. Apparently, it also helps the male to be able to last longer before climaxing during sex.