{"title":"关于女性生殖器的论述","authors":"Jordan Wellsch","doi":"10.32396/USURJ.V5I2.448","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":351398,"journal":{"name":"USURJ: University of Saskatchewan Undergraduate Research Journal","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Discourse(s) of Female Genitalia\",\"authors\":\"Jordan Wellsch\",\"doi\":\"10.32396/USURJ.V5I2.448\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":351398,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"USURJ: University of Saskatchewan Undergraduate Research Journal\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-08-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"USURJ: University of Saskatchewan Undergraduate Research Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.32396/USURJ.V5I2.448\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"USURJ: University of Saskatchewan Undergraduate Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32396/USURJ.V5I2.448","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
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.