Pathologising diversity
Medical websites offering female genital cosmetic surgery in Australia
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 15098306 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Kimberley Chibnall (Global and Women’s Health, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia), Karalyn Mcdonald (Global and Women’s Health, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia), Maggie Kirkman (0000-0003-0976-0260, Global and Women’s Health, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2020 |
| Volume | 22 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 64-80 |
| Publication date | 2020-01-02 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Culture Health & Sexuality (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1369-1058 • E-ISSN: 1464-5351 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/13691058.2019.1574029 |
| PMID | 30794088 |
| OpenAlex | W2915648213 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 6 |
| References cited | 27 |
Female genital cosmetic surgery (FGCS) is increasingly popular. Medical organisations report concern about adverse outcomes and inadequate clinical indications. Given the Internet's role in health decisions, we aimed to discover what was being communicated about FGCS on Australian provider websites. Thematic analysis of 31 prominent websites identified six themes: seeking aesthetic perfection; resisting natural diversity; gaining from FGCS; indications for surgery; a simple procedure; and ethical practice. Desirable vulvas were represented as 'neat' and 'youthful'. Sites promoted a discourse in which to be 'feminine' means having no visible sex organs, consistent with the historical repression of women's sexuality. FGCS was constructed as a simple and empowering solution, improving women's comfort, hygiene, self-esteem and sexual relationships. The apparent primary concern was commercial. Attention was rarely paid to ethics. Sites reinforced women's responsibility to strive for aesthetic perfection, implied that vulvar diversity is pathological, made unfounded claims for the benefits of FGCS and downplayed adverse consequences. Findings have implications for public health and medical authorities in countries where FGCS is practised and advertised. Enforcing the first do no harm principle would reduce websites' capacity to promote discourses and practices that damage women's bodies and wellbeing
Damages · Harm · Human sexuality · Political science · Public relations · Sociology · Body Image and Dysmorphia Studies · Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting Issues · Gender Studies · Genital Health and Disease · Law · Medicine · Psychology · Social Psychology
Postfeminist Digital Cultures
Aesthetic Labour
Socio-cultural representations of the vagina
From vaginal exception to exceptional vagina
Everything’s neatly tucked away’
Towards a clean slit
Selling genital cosmetic surgery to healthy women
For myself and others like me”
Female Genital Cosmetic Surgery
Masculinity and Femininity
E vulva lution
The Women Are Doing It for Themselves
Making Sex
Buying and Selling Breasts
| Unique citing works | 6 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,75 |
| Citation span | 2018 - 2025 (8) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 5 |