Female genital cosmetic surgery: the good, the bad, and the ugly

Evacuation of a large traumatic vulvar haematoma with an intravaginal cosmetic approach

“…In addition to effective evacuation, this approach provides superior cosmetic result. Self-perception of body image, beauty and physique influence a person’s mental and social well-being 1–3. In this case report, our experience reiterates that timely surgical management can lower morbidity, and this can be achieved in an aesthetically sound manner.…”

Sculptors of African Women’s Bodies: Forces Reshaping the Embodiment of Female Genital Cutting in the West

“…Discomfort with genital appearance post-defibulation is further complicated by the fact that re-infibulation is criminalized throughout much of the west. In those nations where legislation does not explicitly outlaw re-infibulation, it is strongly denounced by professional organizations who admonish providers to refuse such patient requests, considering it a form of “medicalized female genital mutilation”; while concomitantly oblivious to the moral double-standard that condones female genital cosmetic surgery (FGCS) among consenting, wealthy women (Ahmadu, 2017 ; Baillot et al, 2018 ; Earp, 2016a ; Johansen, Ziyada, Shell-Duncan, Kaplan, & Leyed, 2018 ; Perron, Senikas, Burnett, & Davis, 2020 ), despite the lack of long-term safety and efficacy data (Barbara et al, 2017 ; Magon & Alinsod, 2017 ; Perron et al, 2020 ; Serati, Salvatore, & Rizk, 2018 ). Since both re-infibulation and FGCS are primarily performed on consenting adults, we argue that “partial” re-infibulation/“partial” defibulation 5 should be reconsidered as FGCS rather than FGC among women with otherwise healthy sexual function and autonomy in requesting vulvar reconstructive procedures (Shahvisi & Earp, 2019 ).…”