Wednesday Bubble: Designer What?!

Posted by Liz on Mar 7, 2012 in aging, appearance, sexual health | 1 comment

Rarely do I run across editorials in medical journals that catch my attention at the first sentence. However, this one wins my vote, not only for its candor but also for its attempt to clear the air, so to speak about ‘designer vaginas.’

Designer what?

You may recall that I ran a piece in early February about vaginal rejuvenation and the promise the procedure offers to millions of women who are concerned about their aging va-jay-jays.

Hold on for one sec! You may want to reconsider getting a facelift ‘down there.’ At least according to two physicians from Yale.

Burstable? You bet!

Drs. Alexandra Pencow and Marsha Guess from Yale University School of Medicine say that the purported benefits of female genital cosmetic surgery (FGCS), namely that there is a “normal or standard in vaginal aesthetics,” or that FGCS will “result in improved sexual function” are misleading. They write (in the April issue of the journal Maturitas):

“The ‘designer vagina’ sounds like the name of a ‘Sex in the City’ episode, and may evoke a variety of responses, from enthusiasm for anything that can make the vagina more modern and user-friendly, to mistrust for unproven treatments for conditions that have not been clearly defined.”

FGCS refers to surgical procedures that modify the shape, caliber or length of the vagina and external genitals for aesthetic purposes. They include:

• Labiaplasty, to reduce labial size or corrects irregularities (if the labia are too large, elongated or assymetrical)
• Vaginoplasty or vaginal rejuvenation, to narrowsthe vagina and the vaginal entrance
• Clitoral unhooding, geared towards removing the tissue surrounding the clitoris to enhance sexual and genital sensation
• Hymenoplasty, a form of ‘revagnation,’ in which the hymen is reconstructed to mimic virginity
• G-spot amplification, i.e. injecting collagen into the vaginal wall to increase sexual satisfaction/sensitivity

The physicians write that despite the lack of clinical evidence proving benefit, these procedures have increased three-fold or more in both the U.S. and the United Kingdom. They also note that the media, talk shows, women’s magazines and the Internet combined have worked to perpetuate myths about these procedures without properly explaining the reasons why they might be done other than aesthetics. Procedures such as the ones described above can be invaluable following cancer, trauma or pelvic organ prolapse to improve life quality and treat certain symptoms.

Still, when it comes to aesthetics, there is a lack of standards for these procedures to define proper follow up and outcomes. Even more important is the fact that there is no true definition of “normal.” How then does a woman who desires smaller labia or an enhanced vagina temper her expectations?

Sexuality, sexual desire and sexual satisfaction are multifacted and personal, influenced by life stressors, environment, mood, self-esteem, hormones, personality and social and partner support. The new ‘normal’ isn’t supposed to be defined by the medical community and the media, is it? Just as the Menopause Industrial Complex wants to sell you on HRT, so apparently do the Vaginal Patrol wish to convince you that your parts ‘down under’ need a nip, tuck, an ‘Occupy,’ if you will.

Designer vaginas? Evidently, they’re here to stay. The benefits, however? Hard to say.