Surgery story goes too far

Re: “Intimate Makeover” [March 13]: So now women are nipping and tucking their genitalia to avoid looking like “freaks.” It’s no surprise, really; encouraging women to obsess about their supposed shortcomings has made some doctors very, very rich.

But please, don’t use feminism to defend this nonsense. Clitoral tucks have about as much to do with feminism as foot binding or cosmetic rib removal.

If women feel pressured to “repair” themselves after childbirth so they can resemble porn stars, that’s not empowerment, it’s servitude.

BONNIE SLOANE

Los Angeles

*

As if there were a dearth of things that a woman has to be worried about, she can now be concerned with how her vagina looks. Instead of offering women higher pay, job security, better child care and healthcare, we as a society say, “For $8,000 you can have a pretty vagina!” I’m sorry, but is having a normal-looking vagina really a health issue?

ERICA N. TIMMERMAN

Los Angeles

*

The article cites author Judy Norsigian asserting that women who have these surgeries are taking risks to adhere to standards of feminine beauty that are “dictated by a society in which men are fixated on barely pubescent girls.”

What is offensive has nothing to do with men’s standards of female beauty. I would not argue that point. What is offensive is the statement that “men are fixated on barely pubescent girls.” Not “attracted to,” which is problematic on its own, but “fixated on,” qualitatively different and more troublesome conduct. Not “young women” or “younger women,” but “girls,” and “barely pubescent” ones at that. This attributes to all men, without supporting evidence, a predilection for behavior that society considers abhorrent, perverse and, at its extent, criminal.

Even if it were a direct quote, it is patently offensive on its face and based on a foul stereotype, no better than a racial or ethnic slur.

DAVE SALDANA

Pittsburgh