On the Rising Trend of Elective Cosmetic Labiaplasties

First post in a loooong time - who knew a MA would keep me so busy! This piece is for one of my MA classes and on the rising trend of labiaplasties as a gender equality issue.

Vulvae and labia are possibly one of the only parts of a cis-gendered woman’s body that we see more frequently in media than in real life. Yet they are body parts which receive an incredible amount of scrutiny and are the cause of a great deal of distress for many young people who worry that their labia aren’t ‘normal’. This paper will examine the rising trend of labiaplasties and look at why this is a gender equality issue. It will also explore what, if anything, is being done to promote labia of all shapes and sizes as being ‘normal’.

Why are people going under the knife to alter their labia?

It is important to differentiate between elective cosmetic labiaplasties (and other cosmetic gynaecological surgery) and reconstructive gynaecological surgery which takes place to reduce pain and discomfort after female genital mutilation (FGM). O’Regan states that “labiaplasty is a procedure which trims the labia minora (the inner lips of the vulva) to fit neatly within the outer lips”, which is predominantly done for aesthetic reasons.  


The rising trend in elective, cosmetic labiapasties can be attributed to a number of factors, most notably the presentation of labia in the media. Labia and vulvae are considered ‘crude’ in a way that penises and testes aren’t, and so are rarely portrayed in mainstream media or ‘shown off’ among friends. As such, many young people will have a very limited pool of vulvae to compare their own vulvae to. Therefore, if the source is misleading or not representative of all types of vulvae, insecurity may arise among young people in particular as to whether or not their labia are ‘normal’, or they may be led to believe that there is only one type of ‘normal’ vulva. 
One of the most common sources of depictions of labia is soft porn magazines, or ‘lad mags’. According to Drysdale , Australian soft porn magazines digitally alter the vulvae and labia of models in order to make their genitals look ‘healed to a single crease’ – that is, so that the labia minora are almost completely, if not fully, covered or enclosed by the labia majora. These digital labiaplasties are routinely carried out because Australia’s classifications guidelines state that “realistic depictions [of genitalia] may contain discreet genital detail but there should be no genital emphasis”. While this seems vague, Drysdale notes that as far as the classification board is concerned, inner labia are “too rude for soft porn”. This practice of digital labiaplasty isn’t unique to Australia – Calabrese et al’s study found that in US Playboy magazines, over 80% of vulvae pictured had no visible labia minora, with a further 15% showing very small and ‘neat’ labia minora, largely hidden by labia majora. Only 7% of photos actually showed visible inner labia. Calabrese notes that the models’ genital areas “emulate those of a Barbie Doll”. 

If soft porn magazines are to be believed, this is what most vulvae look like

The rising rate at which people are seeking labiaplasties “may reflect a narrow social definition of normal, or a confusion of what is normal and what is idealised”. As such, we can see that this is an issue of gender inequality due to lack of representation of the diverse range of ‘normal’ vulvae and labia. This happens not only in the soft porn industry, which is targeted for the most part at men, but also in more mainstream media and society. There is a fear that a lot of people are being “duped by the media and by unethical doctors who are preying on their insecurities”, that the sexual objectification of their bodies is leading them to have concerns over the way their genitalia look. 
Vulvae and labia are simply not something that are seen as appropriate topics of conversation – the stigma and shame associated with having a vagina remains a barrier to communicating worries or uncertainties people have with the way their labia look. As such, finding out what is ‘normal’ is considerably difficult, particularly in comparison to the range of dialogue which surrounds what is ‘normal’ in terms of penises and testes. 


However, there is a growing awareness surrounding the different types and sizes of vulvae and labia, and projects like the Great Wall of Vagina are creating an environment in which discourse surrounding labia and vulvae is becoming more socially acceptable. Projects like this, as well as simply having open conversations about the way our bodies look, challenge our perceptions of normality.

A panel from the Great Wall of Vagina, showing the variation in labia shapes and sizes

However, as the documentary The Perfect Vagina (2008) shows, there are still, and will possibly always be, people who are still deciding that that a labiaplasty is a procedure they want or need. It is important to note that controlling other people’s bodies would be problematic in itself. We cannot deny people the ability to alter their bodies, particularly if their mental health is being affected by the way they look, even though these feelings may stem from false representation of how their bodies ‘should’ look in the media. Goodman et al come to the conclusion that while a person definitely has the right to choose a labiaplasty, it should be an informed and counselled choice, and the NHS advises that young people in particular should be advised on solutions other than surgery in response to concerns about their genitalia.



While the reasons people choose to undergo elective cosmetic labiaplasties may vary, one of the core factors is a feeling of non-conformance, of being somehow different. This is often brought on by the narrow, if even present at all, representation of vulvae and labia in the media, and the lack of discourse surrounding the wide range of ‘normal’ labia due to stigma and shame. However, although labiaplasties themselves are a gender equality issue, to deny someone their right to bodily autonomy should they make an informed choice to have the surgery would also be a gender equality issue. As such, we need to promote a greater range of ideas surrounding ‘normalcy’ when it comes to vulvae and encourage positive discourse about labia and vulvae in order to both reduce the rate at which people are having labiaplasties, and ensure that those who continue to have them are making an informed, and therefore empowered, choice. 

On the Menz - EWTS Conference Part 2

TW: Transmisogyny, MRAs

I want you to imagine something for me. Imagine you are attending a conference entitled ‘empowering people of colour’. For the entire weekend, the discussion is about people of colour and how they’re discriminated against, and how they might overcome this. At the feedback session at the end, people, both white people and POC wonder why white people weren’t thought about, that white people need empowerment, even that to empower POC, white people need to be empowered also. There would be outrage.

Now, back to reality, and you’re attending an empowering women conference and a similar thing happens. You hear ‘what about the men?’ and ‘to empower women, we also need to empower men’. There is no outrage, only agreement. The few people who are a bit pissed off (and rightly so) are effectively told they’re not ‘real’ feminists, and there’s a ‘omg you obviously hate men!!’ attitude.

Had the Empowering Women through Secularism conference ended 30 minutes earlier, I would have left the hotel delighted. I would be able to say no, despite popular belief, atheist/secular spaces are safe and comfortable places for women, it was great. Alas, the feedback session did happen, and it began with the older woman who berated me and the other girl (her name is Anna, she’s a ledge) on Saturday (see On the Menz Part 1), saying we need to consider the men. That the suicide rate for Irish men is 4 times higher than for Irish women (a hugely important and legit issue) and that 90% of US inmates are male (quite irrelevant and also, not sexism because men commit more crimes, and more violent crimes, than women, so obviously will be more represented than women in prison).

Men are most definitely harmed by the patriarchy. I’m well aware of this. I took a ‘Men in Contemporary Society’ sociology module last semester and got an A. One of the reasons more men commit suicide than women is because they’re not encouraged to have support systems or talk about their feelings, because that’s a ‘feminine’ trait, and ‘feminine’ is synonymous with ‘bad’ and ‘weak’. Men are, for the most part, not given paternity leave. Again, this is due to what the patriarchy views as ‘feminine’. Women take care of children; it’s what they do, so why would men even want to do it? These, and many other legitimate men’s issues, are serious things which feminism also seeks to make right. But they do not belong in an empowering women conference. In order to make things better for men, we need to empower women in order to make ‘feminine’ traits (like feelings *gasp*) not a ‘bad’ thing.

Things went from bad to worse as the second person to give feedback took the floor. I’m not sure if she was one of the organisers, but I am fairly certain she was a volunteer, as she was in charge of handing out microphones during the weekend’s questions from the floor bits. She said that she was angry at the “misandrist language” used on Saturday (by myself and Anna, presumably), and then said (quoting a flag seen at Pride the day before) that if trans* rights are human rights, we should all “become transgender”.

Let that sink in a moment.

At an EMPOWERING WOMEN conference, someone used ‘misandrist language’ as though misandry was a legitimate thing. I, for one, would love to be told about the power structures and institutions women have which allow us the ability to oppress men. I would hand my CV in tomorrow.

On the weekend of Pride, at a conference about empowering women which seemed to forget that trans* women are also women and completely ignored the trans* community, members of the trans* community were fetishised.  Members of the trans* community, who arguably have fewer human rights than any other group, were part of a joke, made to be something that’s totes cool and fun to be! This is not ok, in any sense of the word.

This idea, that ‘we’re all human, let’s ignore differences’ was reiterated by many members of the audience who lamented that men were not discussed enough during the weekend. Yeah, we are all human, but not all of us are treated human or allowed to fully participate in society. To use the ‘we’re all human’ phrase ignores these disproportional disadvantages. An excellent metaphor is a running track. Those on the outside lanes have starting points farther away than those on the inside lanes, to ensure that everyone runs the same length. By saying ‘we’re all human, let’s give everyone attention’, it effectively makes all the starting points at the same point. For the sake of ‘equality’. Some people and groups need extra attention and support in order for society to be even a tiny bit equal. This is portrayed very well in the picture below. While the short person gets more boxes than the tall person in the right frame, it creates a more equal situation than when all three get the same number of boxes in the left frame.

Overall, the conference was amazing. I met some utterly fantastic people and I learned so, so much. But I would not go to a similar conference again, unless it was organised by a feminist organisation. A friend turned down a ticket because she feels that secular/atheist conferences tend to not be overly friendly and comfortable spaces for women. This was my first and only conference of this sort, and from this alone, I feel that she is right.

My experience was not one shared by everyone in the room. Many people, both in the conference and on twitter using the conference tag afterwards, believe that it was acceptable to bring up men’s issues in this space, and that I was overreacting when I got upset. Beinga relatively new user of twitter I was shocked at the way in which I was attacked by people who weren’t even at the conference who sought to invalidate my experience. Having had to talk myself into coming at all on Sunday morning, I was already not in the best place mental health-wise. Perhaps my reaction, which was to nearly cry down the back of the hall in sheer disbelief, was not the most dignified reaction I could have mustered. But it’s what happened. It’s how my body tried to deal with everything. But my experience is still valid. My concerns are valid. I can only hope that the conference organisers agree.