Abstract
There is a discrepancy between “Western” engagement with female genital mutilation (FGM) and female genital cosmetic surgery (FGCS). Despite a similar ambiguity regarding the outcomes of each, FGM is ultimately condemned, while FGCS is permitted. By unpacking the dominant "Western" discourse(s) of each, this paper accounts for the discrepancy; FGCS is constructed as a medically legitimated option for enhancing the utility of one's genitals and for liberating one's sexuality, while FGM is constructed as a threat to "Western" conceptions of genital utility, sexuality and agency. Such discourse(s) arguably illustrate the tendency to condemn the contextual "other" and take “our” contextual constructions largely for granted.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: USURJ: University of Saskatchewan Undergraduate Research Journal
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
