{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021708683473389355, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0028011204481792717, 'mean_word_length': 5.495454545454545, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reconstructing the hymen: mutilation or restoration?

Female genital mutilation (FGM)--previously known as female circumcision--was criminalised in many countries in the 1990s. This occurred mainly in Western nations and responded to the perception that FGM was intended to subjugate women and was an abuse of human rights. However, other female genital surgical procedures have a totally different intent and are designed to restore the integrity of the hymen, correct deformity or simply enhance the appearance of the female genitalia. Such procedures, unlike FGM, are performed on women who have reached the age of consent and who request the surgery themselves. Restoring the integrity of the hymen (so-called "hymenoplasty") can erase evidence of the sexual history of a woman. "Revirgination" may have particular importance to women contemplating marriage in cultures where a high value is placed on virginity Some commentators have equated hymenoplasty with corrective surgery intended to restore the condition of female circumcision--techniques which are prohibited by most Australian criminal statutes. However, the medical, ethical and human rights arguments against FGM are not easily extended to revirgination and other cosmetic genital surgery. This article examines whether revirgination surgery has effectively been criminalised in Australia and whether this is appropriate from a medical and ethical perspective.