Female genital cosmetic surgery

Chapter 2

Factors influencing increased demand for FGCS

The sociocultural norms that are believed to influence women’s perceptions of ‘normal’ are considered to be significant in driving the climb in this group of procedures.1,25–27

Not only does modern culture classify the minimalist vulva, where the labia minora do not extend beyond the margin of the labia majora, as ‘good’, but also the protruding labia as ‘bad’.27, 28–31

Currently available research indicates that perceptions of ‘normal’ versus ‘desirable’ may be skewed and disparate, resulting in a narrow definition of normal.29–31 Labiaplasty has also been intensively marketed as an unproblematic lifestyle choice for women.1,14,18,20,27,32

There is little doubt that today’s digital age is changing the way we acquire information and communicate. As a result, people are influenced by information and digitally-modified images found on the internet. Despite access to these images and the plethora of internet-based pornography, there is little firm knowledge regarding female genital structure, function and vocabulary within the community.33 Pornography mostly depicts digitally-modified images that portray women’s genitals with no labia minora protrusion, thus potentially skewing young women’s (and men’s) perceptions of what is considered normal.32,34,35,36

Australian censorship laws prohibit the publication of illustrations of the labia minora and the clitoris.32,35 Vulvas are invariably made to resemble that of prepubescent girls, with pubic hair removed and a single crease placed between the labia majora,29–32 which contributes to the general lack of knowledge and understanding about female genital diversity.

A recent study from South Australia’s Flinders University revealed that women who had greater exposure to images of female genitals were more likely to consider labiaplasty. Of the 351 women aged 18–69 who were surveyed as part of the study, 17% were interested in having labiaplasty.27

Most women who are contemplating any form of FGCS are likely to seek information from provider websites. These sites often describe aesthetically pleasing or desirable genitalia as the neat single slit. The quality and quantity of clinical information in FGCS provider sites is poor, providing erroneous information in some instances.14,28,29,34

Health professionals are influenced by similar sociocultural forces that skew preferences for desirable versus normal.10,37,38 It is important to be mindful of this when addressing women who present requesting FGCS or have concerns regarding their own appearance (also refer to Appendix 1 for information on the Australian media code of conduct on body image).

People have limited formal education in the areas of female genital anatomy and its variations10,33 and, to date, there is no evidence-based research that outlines what its normal spectrum is considered to be.

The most common complaint is protrusion of the labia minora beyond the labia majora.10,11,37 Given the paucity of textbook images that provide measurements and ranges of anatomical diversity, GPs who do not perform regular gynaecological examinations as a part of their routine practice may not feel comfortable stating that something is considered normal.

General practice and other medical training curricula do not currently include education in the area of genital anatomy and its diversity. With the absence of formal training, it is not surprising that GPs, surgeons and other health professionals are influenced by the same kind of sociocultural forces that skew preferences for normal versus desirable.10,34

Women have few opportunities to see other women’s genitals throughout their life due to the fact the region is concealed, for the most part, behind pubic hair and there is little opportunity along the educational lifespan of women (and men) to become better informed. The inherent lack of understanding of the diverse normal platform that exists in the community is, therefore, quite understandable.

Recent studies have shown that women have limited knowledge regarding the names and function of genital parts and the diversity of appearance.11,23,24,31

Grooming and fashion trends are believed to influence women’s attitudes to their genital region. Practices such as ‘Brazilian’ waxing involve removal of most or all pubic hair, exposing sensitive genital tissue and areas that could not be seen prior to hair removal.11,24 This practice is now extending to permanent hair removal via laser treatments.

Tight-fitting clothing and sportswear tend to give definition to the genital area, and poorly-fitting undergarments, such as G-strings, cover a minimal portion of the mons pubis. These factors can create the feeling that women’s genital size should be small and discrete.

Fashion that depicts genital contour has resulted in the evolution of new terms like ‘camel toe’ and ‘outie’, which appear in popular media. While women often comment that wearing these items can feel uncomfortable, they remain popular fashion items.

Few will dispute that the request for Brazilian waxing and genital hair removal has gradually become commonplace over the past 20 years. The results from a phone review of the course work undertaken by Australian beauty therapists during their training indicate they receive little formal training regarding all aspects of genital anatomy.39 Given women are more likely to visit their beauty therapists than their GP, supporting this frontline group through the provision of information regarding genital anatomy and teaching them how to talk with women who might express concern at their appearance could also be a useful way of addressing women’s lack of knowledge and provide reassurance.

  1. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and British Society for Peadiatric and Adolescent Gynaecology. Joint RCOG/BritSPAG release: Issues surrounding women and girls undergoing female genital cosmetic surgery explored jointrcogbritspag-release-issues-surrounding-women-and-girls-undergoing-female-genital-cosmetic-surgery-explored [Accessed March 2014].
  2. Bramwell R, Morland C, Garden A. Expectations and experience of labial reduction: a qualitative study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2007;114(12):1493–9.
  3. Australian Government Department of Human Services. Medicare Item Reports statistics/mbs_item.jsp [Accessed 20 January 2015].
  4. Australian Government Department of Health. MBS Reviews: Vulvoplasty Report, 2014 [Accessed January 2015].
  5. Liao LM, Creighton SM. Female genital cosmetic surgery: a new dilemma for GPs. Br J Gen Pract 2011;61(582):7–8.
  6. Iglesia CB, Yurteri-Kaplan L, Alinsod R. Female genital cosmetic surgery: a review of techniques and outcomes. Int Urogynacol J 2013;24(12):1997–2009.
  7. Lloyd J, Crouch N, Minto C, Liao LM, Creighton S. Female genital appearance: “normality” unfolds. BJOG 2004;112(5):643–6.
  8. Basaran M, Kosif R, Bayar U, Civelek B. Characteristics of external genitalia in pre- and postmenopausal women. Climacteric 2008;11(5):416–21.
  9. Davison SP, Baker C, West J. Labiaplasty and labia minora reduction. Medscape 2014 article/1372175-overview [Accessed May 2015].
  10. Andrikopoulou M, Michala L, Creighton SM, Liao LM. The normal vulva in medical textbooks. J Obst Gynaecol 2013;33(7):648–50.
  11. McDougall LJ. Towards a clean slit: how medicine and notions of normality are shaping female genital aesthetics. Cult Health Sex 2013;15(7):774–87.
  12. Alter GJ. Labia minora reconstruction using clitoral hood flaps, wedge excisions, and YV advancement flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011;127(6):2356–63.
  13. Pardo J, Sola V, Ricci P, Guilloff E. Laser labioplasty of labia minora. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2006;93(1):38–43.
  14. Rouzier R, Louis-Sylvestre C, Paniel BJ, Haddad B. Hypertrophy of labia minora: experience with 163 reductions. Am J Obstet Gynaecol 2000;182:35–40.
  15. Liao LM, Taghinejadi N, Creighton SM. An analysis of the content and clinical implications of online advertisements for female genital cosmetic surgery. BMJ Open 2012;2(6):DOI:10.1136/ bmjopen-2012-001908.
  16. Choi HY, Kim KT. A new method for aesthetic reduction of labia minora (the deepithelialized reduction of labioplasty). Plast Reconstr Surg 2000;105(1):419–22.
  17. Balmforth J, Cardozo L. Designer vaginas. Journal of the Association of Chartered Physiotherapists in Women’s Health 2006;99:72–7.
  18. O’Connor M. Reconstructing the hymen: mutilation or restoration? J Law Med 2008;16(1):161–75.
  19. O’Connell HE, Eizenberg N, Rahman M, Cleeve J. The anatomy of the distal vagina: towards unity. J Sex Med 2008;5(8):1883–91.
  20. Tiefer L. Female genital cosmetic surgery: freakish or inevitable? Analysis from medical marketing, bioethics, and feminist theory. Fem Psychol 2008;18:466–72.
  21. Chase C. Re: measurement of pudendal evoked potentials during feminizing genitoplasty: technique and applications. J Urol 1996;156(3):1139–40.
  22. Diamond M, Sigmundson HK. Sex reassignment at birth: long-term review and clinical implications. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1997;150:298–304.
  23. Schober JM, Meyer-Bahlburg HF, Ransley PG. Self-assessment of genital anatomy, sexual sensitivity and function in women: implications for genitoplasty. BJU Int 2004; 94(4):589–94.
  24. Schober JM, Alguacil NM, Cooper RS, Pfaff DW, Meyer-Bahlburg FL. Self-assessment of anatomy, sexual sensitivity, and function of the labia and vagina. Clin Anat 2015;28:355–62.
  25. Ostrzenski A. Cosmetic gynecology in the view of evidence-based medicine and ACOG recommendations: a review. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2011;284(3):617–30.
  26. Goodman MP. Female cosmetic genital surgery. Obstet Gynecol 2009;113(1):154–9.
  27. Sharp G, Tiggemann M, Mattiske J. Predictors of consideration of labiaplasty: an extension of the tripartite influence model of beauty ideals. Psychology of Women Quarterly 2014;DOI: 10.1177/0361684314549949.
  28. Fatah, F. Should all advertising of cosmetic surgery be banned? Yes. BMJ 2012;345:DOI: 10.1136/bmj.e7489.
  29. Keil A, Greenhalgh, S. Genital anxiety and the quest for the perfect vulva: A feminist analysis of female genital cosmetic surgery. Women and the Body 2010 [Accessed March 2014].
  30. Howarth H, Sommer V, Jordan FM. Visual depictions of female genitalia differ depending on source. Med Humanit 2010;36(2):75–9.
  31. Howarth C, Temple-Smith M, Simonis M, Hayes J. What are young women’s views on ‘normal’ and ‘desirable’ vulval anatomy? Melbourne: General Practice and Primary Health Care Academic Centre, University of Melbourne; 2013/2014 (research pending publication).
  32. Barlow J. Cleo Magazine: Stop digitally altering images to change appearances #RealGirlsCleo magazine-stop-digitally-altering-images-to-change-appearances-realgirlscleo [Accessed March 2013].
  33. Women’s Health Victoria. Women and genital cosmetic surgery genital-cosmetic-surgery-issues-paper.pdf [Accessed March 2013].
  34. Cain JM, Iglesia CB, Dickens B, Montgomery O. Body enhancement through female genital cosmetic surgery creates ethical and rights dilemmas. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2013;122(2):169–72.
  35. Australian Attorney-General’s Department. Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing. Guidelines for the classification of publications 2005 [Accessed October 2014].
  36. Hungry Beast – Labiaplasty 2010, television program, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Sydney.
  37. Michala L, Liao LM, Creighton SM. Female genital cosmetic surgery: how can clinicians act in women’s best interests? The Obstetrician and Gynaecologist 2012;14(3):203–6.
  38. Reitsma W, Mourits MJ, Koning M, Pascal, van der Lei B. No (wo)man is an island – the influence of physician’s personal predisposition to labia minora appearance on their clinical decision making: a cross-sectional study. J Sex Med 2011;8(8):2377–85.
  39. Simonis M. Addressing young women’s desire for genital beauty. Australasian Sexual Health Conference, 2013.
  40. Paarlberg KM, Weijenborg PT. Request for operative reduction of the labia minora; a proposal for a practical guideline for gynecologists. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 2008;29(4):230–4.
  41. Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Guidelines for Gynaecological Examinations and Procedures C-Gyn 30 [Accessed October 2014].
  42. Women’s Health Victoria. Labia Library
  43. Werner P. 101 vagina: One hundred and one women, one hundred and one stories. Melbourne; Philip Werner; 2013.
  44. Blank J. Femalia. San Francisco: Last Gasp paperback; 2011.
  45. Liao LM, Michala L, Creighton SM. Labial surgery for well women: a review of the literature. BJOG 2010;117(1):20–5.
  46. British Society of Paediatric and Adolescent Gynaecology. Position statement: Labial reduction surgery (labiaplasty) on adolescents [Accessed March 2014].
  47. World Health Organization. Eliminating female genital mutilation: An interagency statement [Accessed October 2014].
  48. Vaughan C, White N, Keogh L, et al. Listening to North Yarra Communities about female genital cutting. Melbourne: The University of Melbourne; 2014.
  49. Australian Government Attorney General’s Department. Review of Australia’s female genital mutilation legal framework: Final report female%20genital%20mutilation%20legal%20framework.pdf [Accessed October 2014].
  50. Avant. How FGM legislation applies to cosmetic procedures cosmetic-procedures [Accessed October 2014].
  51. Department for Victorian Communities. Voluntary Media Code of Conduct on Body Image. Melbourne: Department for Victorian Communities; 2008
  52. Shaw D, Lefebvre G, Bouchard C, et al. Female genital cosmetic surgery. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2013;35(12):1108–14.
This event attracts CPD points and can be self recorded

Did you know you can now log your CPD with a click of a button?

Create Quick log