Conclusion
My advocacy to end FGM was ignited in 1977 by an article in the sixth issue of
EMMA, the German feminist magazine. ‘Klitorisbeschneidung’ (clitoridectomy) headlined a two-page spread that prompted the arrival of mailsacks full of letters to the editors in Cologne from astonished and angry West German readers avid to help. After all, the text ended with a fervent request. A Sudanese informant said: ‘Here no one talks about it. The radio and press are silent. We’re dependent on an outcry from abroad.’ Thus, invited to lend our support, many of us did and still do. But is this all? Are we, that is, those not born into societies that cut, wholly outsiders to the devastation caused by ‘ritual abuse’? In the mid-1990s, when most Western audiences had never yet heard of FGM and little published information could be found, I spotted a book in Blackwell’s titled
Painful Sex. Eagerly taking it from the shelf, I thought, at last! But nothing doing. It discussed dyspareunia, or the ‘painful sex’ experienced by women who had never been cut nor otherwise had their genitalia systematically abused. It spoke to my own experience, however, and was relevant indeed, for silence not only smothered betterment of women’s status in Sudan but also vestiges of the Victorian ‘close your eyes and think of England’ ideology; that is, prudery in the West that suppressed needed discussion wherever we look. This is why Erin Quinlan’s 2022 article for
Cosmopolitan, ‘The Sublime Genderf*ckery of the “Grow Your Clit” Movement’, relates to our theme.
1 Quinlan (2022). Erin Quinlan, ‘The Sublime Genderf*ckery of the “Grow Your Clit” Movement’, Cosmopolitan, US edition, Issue 3, 4 May.‘The notion of optimising the human body for some desired benefit – brighter moods, genius brainpower, a healthier gut biome – has fuelled trends like cryotherapy, UV light boxes, and keto diets’, Quinlan notes. ‘Now, led by a phalanx of online enthusiasts, the biohacking boom has come for the clitoris. In public forums like the subreddit “Grow Your Clit” which some 29,000 people have joined since its founding in 2019, members share anecdotal advice’ (ibid.). Social media sites offer ideal fora for narrating stories about hormones to encourage clitoral growth. Doctors whom Quinlan interviewed for this article mentioned growing attention to the subject from readers.
Seemingly far from accepting blades against vulvas as a patriarchal social norm, such a clitoris-positive movement nonetheless throws down the gauntlet to male dominance. Not unlike courageous FGM survivors who risk flashbacks to undergo repair, seekers of fat and ‘twinkling’ clits are their own Pygmalion, captains of their ship, sculptors of their fate. This is the agency feminists desire, utopian as it may seem.
Thus, in their 2015 review of the evidence for clitoral surgery, Abdulcadir, Rodriguez and Say wrote: ‘Women who request clitoral reconstruction should be informed about the scarcity of evidence available. Additional research is needed on the safety and efficacy of the procedure to identify long-term outcomes and which women might benefit.’ Their critique, however, appeared more than a decade ago. Since then, considerable progress has ensued, judging by reports from satisfied patients. Naturally, the story has another side; not every woman restored is spared discomfort. But Dr Foldes embraces the value of their telling. After all, he contends that ‘reconstructive surgery is born of sympathetic listening. And the aftermath? It belongs to women and their words. They are the ones who must now speak out about what they have always silenced, their hopes of recovery – and recovery of hope’ (quoted in Prolongeau 2011:231).