Pathologising diversity

Medical websites offering female genital cosmetic surgery in Australia

Dados Bibliográficos

ID15098306
AutoresKimberley 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, autor correspondente)
Ano2020
Volume22
Fascículo1
Páginas64-80
Data de publicação2020-01-02
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessNão
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoCulture Health & Sexuality (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 1369-1058 • E-ISSN: 1464-5351
EditoraInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/13691058.2019.1574029
PMID30794088
OpenAlexW2915648213
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas6
Referências citadas27

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