Anna Grofik

Anna Grofik

Braun-Review of FGCS

            In this article, the topic of ‘vaginal rejuvenation’ through cosmetic procedures is discussed and its functionality is questioned. This article attempts to prove that positive outcomes and satisfactory results such as sexual or psychological changes should be questioned and not be taken as proof of the surgeries’ benefits. The article argues that to discern the advantages or disadvantages of this practice is difficult seeing as though there are no adequate studies on the subject. The reasons for this surgery that predominate are aesthetics and functionality. Aesthetic reasons are primarily dissatisfaction with a certain aspect of vulval appearance. Pertaining to functionality, many women get these surgeries due to psychological concerns such as ‘sexual and social embarrassment’ in addition to discomfort or irritation. The author states that distinction between functionality and aesthetics as the driving forces of these surgeries is impossible. Braun solidifies the role of these two forces in vaginal cosmetic surgery when she states, ‘Psychology provides a moral justification for cosmetic surgery, rendering it acceptable’. FGCS is also influenced by the opinions of sexual partners and other women, defeating the idea that this surgery is an individual choice. Some compare FGCS to Female Genital Mutilation, save the fact that ‘Western women freely choose FGCS’. The article argues however that free choice is taken away through social control in agents of advertising and the media. I agree with Braun in the idea that FGCS is not a free choice. To have this surgery is a personal choice, but the motivations behind it are not rooted in the individual, they are socially constructed. This article also discusses the ideal vulva in this surgery, using diction such as ‘neat’, ‘contained’ or ‘tight’. These constrictive words form the backbone of many other feminine ideals of appearance. The justification for these surgeries is based on the ubiquitous cultural concept that an ideal exists and anything that differs from that is abnormal and in need of correction.

The Women Are Doing It For Themselves

            This article discusses the debate surrounding female genital cutting with regards to the notion of autonomous choice. Braun raises the question that many critics of the practice have; how can FGCS be acceptable in the western world when ‘FGCS procedures can be seen to violate standard Western laws that prohibit FGM’? I thought that Braun made an interesting point when she wrote, ‘Western women are framed as superseding the influence of culture, as making free, empowered and authentic ‘choices’ to undergo FGCS. In contrast, the question of choice is elided for women from cultures where FGM is practiced.’ It’s ironic that the idea of choice divides a line between the moral and immoral in two practices that are, in reality, both genital cutting. I agree that genital cutting is judged closely in relation to the culture that surrounds it. While it may seem backward in places other than the western world, western culture and its concepts of autonomy and empowerment render the practice acceptable instead of a form of oppression. I agree that female genital cutting is conformity, not free choice. This article frames the perfect patient as a woman who is ‘doing it for herself’. This is laughably misguided because its based on the premise that this choice is completely free from external influence. I don’t believe that any woman wants to mutilate her genitals for her own sense of well-being. The article also discusses the media, namely the pornography industry, in the framing of this ideal sought after through surgery. This agent of social control creates the ‘guise of free choice’; the choice to undergo genital cutting is directly motivated through cultural influence.

Video

       This talk discusses the way our realities are socially constructed and the fact that the way we understand our realities is directly related to the way we see them in the first place. It also discusses the relation between the language of progress and the way we view women. More progress is associated with less clothing and vice versa. In addition, the act of veiling is debated as oppression of women and the word veil itself implies that it should be unveiled. However, the meaning of and attitude towards veiling depends on the context. The idea of choice is key in deciding whether or not veiling is oppressive. The fashion show in Pakistan was seen as progressive because the scanty clothing the models were wearing broke our previous assumptions of what women in a Muslim country would look like. The glorification of skinniness in models also contributes to this idea of progress in our ideals of beauty. The idea of liberating women through clothing is based in an oppressive concept of what women should look like. The talk also discusses female genital mutilation and the growing number of women receiving female genital cosmetic surgery for aesthetic reasons. An overlap exists between these two practices. The stated benefit of FGCS however is that it helps women’s self esteem and that women are entitled to this procedure. However contributing factors that lead to this surgery are the male opinion and a gateway to ‘get a man and keep him’. The context surrounding these procedures directly affects the way we view it.