Saturday 26th July 2025
Blog Page 1385

The Rise of the Designer Vagina

0

Last November, the X Factor judge and TV personality Sharon Osbourne caused quite a stir by revealing the latest in her long string of cosmetic surgeries. Deviating from the Botox injections, skin peels, tummy tucks and rhinoplasties favoured by her peers, Mrs Osbourne instead chose to undergo an altogether more intimate procedure: labiaplasty, or vulval reconstructive surgery. This case highlights a startling trend in modern medicine – the inexorable rise of cosmetic genital surgery.

The number of labiaplasties performed on the NHS has increased fivefold in the past decade, with more than 2,000 taking place in 2010. Far more procedures are thought to be performed each year in the private sector. Most reconstructive vulval surgery is undertaken to address long-term problems such as discomfort during sex or exercise and hygiene issues. Nonetheless, there is growing concern amongst practitioners that crushing social pressures and perverse expectations of “normality” are driving young girls to request surgery on aesthetic grounds alone. Many doctors and social commentators have now broken silence on this issue, declaring that the rise of the designer vagina may reflect an unhealthy negative bias amongst women towards their genitalia, fuelled by an internet porn boom and emerging fads such as “vaginal steaming” and the infamous “vajazzle”.

The burgeoning status of this issue has led the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) to publish a paper clarifying best practice guidelines for doctors and surgeons in this field. Perhaps the most striking point raised by the authors was the fact that cosmetic genital surgery is ultimately performed blind; the evidence for the efficacy of labiaplasty and its long-term consequences is scant at best. Women concerned by the appearance of their genitalia may therefore be electing to go under the knife despite the medical professionʼs profound ignorance of likely post-operative outcomes.

The report provided by RCOG also recommends that labiaplasty should not be offered as an NHS service in the absence of legitimate medical grounds for intervention. The authors instead advocate psychiatric treatment for patients with significant concerns about the appearance of their genitalia. This may go some way towards addressing the problem, but several concerns remain, not least the risk that patients might simply be shunted into private healthcare, exposing themselves up to an utterly opaque and poorly regulated industry. Ultimately, if we are to truly understand the rise of the designer vagina at home and abroad, we must first ask uncomfortable and probing questions about the central involvement of society. Could our fascination with internet pornography, and our bizarre obsession with achieving “normality”, be driving young girls to request risky, life-changing surgery?

Would you ever get a labiaplasty? Join the debate at bangscience.org

Freddy the Fresher: 7th Week Hilary

0

In Oxford, £300 will buy around 180 coffees from the Missing Bean, 60 entries to a club night at Cellar, or full sub-fusc.

This is the fee that Freddy must pay the Judas College decanal team or face “suspension or the possibility of expulsion”. For Freddy, who had spent years with his spotty nose to exam papers, this wasn’t an option. But neither was paying the fi ne – unless he was content to go without food for the rest of term. And he had grown to enjoy, and even need, food. He had pleaded with the Dean to make an exception, implored him to consider fi nancial circumstances before issuing penalties. But it fell on deaf ears: “£300, Frederick – that’s the price you have to pay for your behaviour.”

Only four of the protestors – including Freddy – had been fi ned; most had managed to escape like rats through the kitchens. The other three – an Etonian, a Paulina and the son of a Russian oligarch – all paid off their fines and slipped back into their existence. But this wasn’t quite so easy for Freddy.

After a week of struggling to come up with way to raise the money – a bake sale! Tutoring! Selling my body! – he had resigned himself to rustication and a life of poverty until his early death.

Enjoying his last few days amidst the Dreaming Spires, Freddy decided to do a library crawl, looking at his old haunts. The SSL, where he had fi rst met Bernadette, the Gladstone Link toilets, where they had make-up sex, and on to the Vere Harmsworth, setting of many a sun-drenched existential crisis.

Running his hands along the spines of the various presidential autobiographies – feeling the shaft of Nixon’s smooth cock of a tome – he spotted an unattended desk on which was a MacBook Air, a stack of Philip Roth novels and a dark, leather wallet.

Freddy edged closer and looked around furtively. Nobody else was on this floor. He picked up the wallet and looked inside. £20, £20, £20, £20, £20, £20, £10, £10, £10, £10. In total, £160! My salvation!

Freddy removes the cash from the wallet and stuff s it into his pocket. He looks at the driving license inside the wallet and sees that it belongs to his friend Nick, the fi nalist. Guilt creeps over him and he pauses for a moment,
unsure of how to proceed.

His pause is a moment too long. He feels a hand on his shoulder and hears a voice, whispering, close to his ear: “Take it. I’ve been embezzling it from my JCR anyway…”

Freddy’s story will be continued in Trinity term.

Creaming Spires: 6th Week Hilary

0

Mother Teresa obviously had a penchant for amphetamines. Her long-suff ering kindness, her unfl inching love for humanity – tell-tale signs of a MDMA recreational user. And, without wanting to compare myself too directly to Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, this weekend saw my sex life take a pill-poppin’ departure.

It is Friday night at 3am. I float out of Cellar, pupils dilated and teeth grinding. My compassion knows no bounds: I’d like to teach the world to sing. As I leave the club, hugging a bouncer on the way out, my eyes alight on a stumbling wreck of a young gentleman, with whom I decide to converse.

‘Sam’, unfortunately, is just pissed. His slurred speech and solipsism are the antithesis of my hyper-lucid and hyper-benevolent state, but, to my ecstatic eyes, he is enchanting. I am enraptured by his South African roots and PhD in Dutch philosophy. I want to discuss these things in intricate detail, whilst admiring the silver glimmer of the sky’s myriad galaxies and gently touching my own hair. Sam, on the other hand, wants cheesy chips and sex. It is a match made in heaven.

I bunk him back to Cowley, merrily interpreting his comatose silence as a prolonged intellectual pause. I gaze lovingly upon his angel face. He’s the one. I want him to meet my housemates and my family and my tutor and my landlord. We shag joyfully, every drunken grope transformed to silken caress.

At this point, however, my aura of ecstasy begins to ebb. Sam reveals the existence of a longterm girlfriend, and my come-down begins to hit. He bemoans his infidelity and promptly falls asleep; I lie awake, my high transformed into an abyss of self-abhorrence. The bedroom is a hellish jail filled with hatred and despair; his face is a gargoyle sent to torment me. Why didn’t I leave him at Chicken Cottage? Sam the Greek god reverts to a slightly hungover young man, and I am bereaved. Everyone knows drunken one-night stands look less attractive the morning after, but it is around 5am that the high hook-up stops being star-spangled marriage material. Next time, just say no.

Review: Great Gatsby

0

Last year, F Scott Fitzgerald’s Jazz Age classic of flappers and bootleggers hit the mainstream, first through Baz Luhrmann’s flamboyant film production and then though the staged 8-hour retelling of the novel itself, Gatz. Now it has come to Oxford. Jay Gatsby is played by Percy Stubbs, who has nailed the art of staring into the distance. He acts convincingly as the mysterious millionaire, though perhaps the copious amounts of stage make-up are a bit unnecessary in the cosy setting of LMH’s Simpkins Lee Theatre.

The role of Nick is divided in two: older Nick, the narrator (Henry van Oosterom) and younger Nick, the actor (Keelan Kember). Both act well and the narration of Fitzgerald’s florid prose is particularly engaging. This reminiscing narrator occasionally melts into the audience when he perches on a second-row
seat, puffing away on his e-cigarette. During the climactic confrontation between Tom, Daisy, and Gatsby, the poignant performance of Daisy (Hannah Schofield) particularly stands out. If anything she is too likeable as the heroine whose ‘voice is full of money’.

Jordan, superbly played by Kimberly Sadovich fits my vision of the character perfectly and Colm Britchfield, though he only makes sporadic appearances on stage as the minor roles of Michaelis and Mr McKee, is very amusing. Unfortunately, though, this staging of the twenties is not quite as roaring as one might have hoped. This is the fault of the limits on rehearsal time and budget inherent to a student production. The occasional slips of accent and memory lapses can be attributed to first-night jitters. What can’t be excused by first-night jitters is the length of the play, which, at a running time of two hours, is a little long. Gatsby it certainly is. Great, almost.

Preview: Pterodactlys

0

In a cosy, wood-panelled nook of Magdalen College, five people move slowly around on the orders of director Kieron Ahem. Under his instruction, they gradually transform into the five members of the dysfunctional family whose interactions are plotted in Nicky Silver’s quirkily named production Pterodactyls. There’s something rather therapeutic about party group warm-ups, so I’m feeling pretty open-minded towards the small company when the acting starts. 

For a while, it’s unclear where small, flying dinosaurs come in. I watch a snippet of a scene in which daughter Emma (Ellie Lowenthal), introduces her new fiancé Tommy (Ali Leveret) to her mother Grace (Kaiya Stone). The two young lovers are full of fantastically mushy star-struckness: “Sometimes I say your name over and over again – no one can hear me but I don’t care”. They are saved only by their equally insistent status as hypochondriacs: “I’ve got this terrible toothache!”/“I’ve lost sensation in my hip”, which takes their mutual egocentricity by the hand and drags it into the realms of cynical humour.

The end of the scene is slightly flat, as he three sit in chairs and converse as though in a waiting room; I’m not sure what they might be waiting for, but a few more stage directions will iron this flaw in time for the opening night. The second scene, between father Arthur (Josh Dolphin) and son Todd (Tom Dowling), or “Buzzy” as his father insists on calling him, is more powerful. Arthur attempts to reminisce fondly about Todd’s young acting career in a school play – but it transpires that said play was Pinter’s The Birthday Party, and Todd played the rapist.For all Arthur’s insistence that Todd is “the most important person in the whole world”, there’s a tragic lack of communication between the two of them, probably not helped by the fact that Todd spends the majority of the scene on hands and knees messing around with a bag of bones.

That’s where the dinosaur comes in, by the way. As the household paraphernalia disappears throughout the play, Todd will apparently construct a dinosaur on stage. I daren’t ask what the dinosaur “means”, but I don’t think I need to. It’s probably one of those hugely symbolic structures best seen
first-hand.

Focus On: New Writers

0

The OUDS New Writing Festival is an opportunity for the latest and greatest
student playwriting talents to get their works performed at a professional working theatre (The Burton Taylor Studio). Each Hilary any current student can submit a script, the best four of which are picked out by world-leading playwrights, including in the past Michael Frayn and Meera Syal, and are produced for a live audience. Recently I caught up with some of the nominated
playwrights, and their student directors, to find out more about their experience of the competition and production process.

At first glance the shortlist seems like a who’s who of our very own ‘Know Your Thesp’. Although OUDS portray this as a competition of raw talent, these people are hardly complete novices in student theatre terms. Take Jamie Biondi, who already has a burgeoning list of plays on a curious range of subjects: “I’ve written a play about salmon, a play about a dead dog, a play about a storm, a play about gods interacting with men, a play that puts Orpheus and Eurydice in a hospital in Manhattan, and this one about a lovers’ suicide”. 

Having studied in the United States under renowned playwrights Donald Margulies and Deb Margolin, Jamie is now reading for a MA on the works of Arthur Miller and Tennessee Williams. Despite this academic grounding, Lovers’
Suicide is his fi rst play put into production, and this experience he describes as both terrifying and exciting. “It’s a scary thing to hear your own thoughts in other people’s mouths… But I’ve tried to be as involved with the rehearsal
process as possible.” 

The input of his chosen director Holly Isard has been particularly powerful, and often hilarious: “I’ve really learned a ton about the play from Holly’s input and that of the actors, and I’m incredibly grateful for being so openly welcomed into the rehearsal room to be a part of the creation of this strange piece of text. “One particular highlight was in one of the many flirtatious scenes between Gabe and Anna when Holly was trying to teach our actors
how to flirt and ended up revealing that her own style of flirtation involves a frightening amount of getting down on one knee, rolling round on the floor, and shimmying her shoulders”.

Asking Biondi to sum up his play reveals a self-deprecating sense of humour which refreshingly shows that he doesn’t take himself  too seriously. “This is a play about suicide that isn’t really about suicide. It’s more about love. It’s about trying to reconcile the disconnect between the solitary nature of dying (and especially suicide) and the necessarily interpersonal nature of love.”

Sami Ibrahim is best known for his directing, most recently in Normal and last year’s You Maverick. He also directed a new piece in last year’s festival. Although he’s written comedy sketches, Man Who Loses is his first attempt
at a full-length drama. He describes his style, influenced by Peter Barnes and Peter Greenaway, as, “Anything that mixes puerile humour with something nice and dark.” As a director himself, Sami has tried as much as possible to
keep out of the production process: “I’ve directed new writing before… and, every time the writer came to rehearsals, I always felt a bit on edge, like I was trampling all over his work, so I didn’t want the director, Livi Dunlop, to feel
the same pressure.”

Livi seems not to feel any pressure, however. For her the Festival is so valuable because it allows a relatively inexperienced director to develop their own rehearsal technique without having to focus on any of the administration that comes along with putting a production on. She admits to some surprise when I ask about her thoughts on Ibrahim. Her first impression was that of “a soft-spoken guy in a white cardigan,” which contrasted sharply with the content of his writing. This content is readily admitted by Sami as part of his preferred genre: “I guess the gist of it is I like things that are cruel, cold and fi lled with portent, with a crude sense of humour. I did his [Peter Barnes’]
play ‘Laughter!’ for Cuppers last year: it’s a farce about Nazi bureaucracy and the holocaust – it’s brilliant.”

Building on this dark comedy idea, “Man who Loses” is based on the true story of George Price, a geneticist who converts to Christianity before committing suicide. It has apparently been a learning experience for the cast as well. According to Dunlop, “the play is quite… graphic in parts, and my actress for whom English is her second language has had her vocabulary broadened quite significantly!” Helena Jackson, another Festival director, has been wowed by the diversity of the writing talent. “We’ve got one very naturalistic play, one slightly less so, another surrealist and mine is quite stylized with a hint of physical theatre,” she says.

One of the perks of the festival has been “the opportunity work with a writer to hand and not simply from a script, because you can see and feel the characters developing around you; for instance, a character in mine who started out calm and sympathetic has developed into a sarcastic and terribly unfunny person who is staunchly resisting any of our moves to convert him back.’ 

It’s been a marathon, not a sprint, but Jackson has stuck with it to the end. “The script has changed so much since the start; sadly I sort of naively decided to print out the entirety of each draft; my printing bill has soared to about £30 and I could wallpaper my room with the abandoned drafts, but it’s all part of the process”.

Interview: Jerry Springer

0

Jerry Springer has courted controversy for decades – but from the outset it is his charisma that I am struck by. He greets me with a warm handshake and an easy-going smile; needless to say, I am instantly charmed when he takes my coat for me with a witty “Some Americans have manners.”

Springer does not have the imposing presence you would expect of a household name in every Western society, nor that of the self-proclaimed “father of the destruction of Western civilisation.” Throughout our conversation, I am set at ease by his ceaseless humility; he gushes about the excitement he felt before giving a speech at the Oxford Union back in 1998, and consistently refers to The Jerry Springer Show as “our show”, rather than his own.

Springer certainly views himself as someone who has been incredibly lucky with his lot in life. He tells me that he didn’t audition for the show but was assigned to it; when I put to him that he was head-hunted, he replies, “This is a head they didn’t want to get!

“The show has done well but, honestly, anyone could do what I do. It’s true, I always koke about it – what do I do? I say ‘Come on out!’, ‘You did what?!’ and ‘Coming right back!’”

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%9314%%[/mm-hide-text] 

He clearly didn’t envisage that the show would catapult him to international super- stardom when he first undertook it. I ask him whether he thinks that the show is not as controversial now as it was. “Well I think what was shocking back then is that we had never seen something like it on television,” he replies. “We know those things happen – all you have to do is read a daily newspaper. But we’ve not seen it on television before because television, particularly in England, tended to be very proper. When I first started you didn’t even have commercial television: it had censors all over it. But now, because of technology and the internet, everything is out in the open.”

Can this shift be seen as a change for the better, or should television be regulated, I wonder? “Well the question is irrelevant because the whole world is becoming more open,” he says. “There is a trend aided by technology that leads to the democratisation and liberalisation of society. So whether it’s politics, the media or your personal lives, everything is visible.

“There is more that you reveal about yourself on Facebook than will ever be revealed in a television show. So it doesn’t even matter if I say it’s good or bad – it’s unstoppable. Dictators are falling because people can go on their cell phones and topple governments.”

I question whether the show is exploitative, but I’m met with an absolute rebuttal. Interestingly, Springer sees his work as a network anchor as more exploitative than hosting a talk show. “Journalism and news exploit people – and we did that every day. The news always does stories about people without ever asking their permission or ever saying ‘If this story hurts your marriage or hurts your career, or puts you in a bad light or embarrasses you in front of your children then we won’t run it.’ On our show it’s purely voluntary. You decide to be on, so the word ‘exploitation’ is knocked out straight away.”

He runs me through the set up of the programme. Guests get to decide what they do or do not want to talk about and are allowed to use fake names or wear disguises. He stresses that the guests are given a list of twenty-one possible surprises and have to agree to each of them as a possibility before they can go on. “If there’s something you don’t want to be told on national television then you’re not on the show. Imagine if some reporter called up and said ‘We’ve got this story about you but if this hurts you we won’t run it.’ You’d be laughed out of the newsroom. So exploitation is what news does but certainly not what our show does.”

Where some have deemed that the show is exploitative, others have claimed its danger is in its potential to corrupt. Residents of Connecticut, for instance, opposed the show relocating to their neighbourhood for fear that it could “morally corrupt the town”.

Springer has no time for this idea. “Our show is stupid. I’m not suggesting that this improves the culture; this is just a one hour escape from life but it’s certainly not damaging to someone… You’re not going to be corrupted by watching a one hour television show.”

Springer has previously stated that The Jerry Springer Show isn’t something he himself would watch. When I ask why, he responds, “Because I’m seventy years old. It’s aimed at you, your age group. When I was in college there is no question that I would have watched this. Us guys, we’d get together and we’d hoot about it.

But your tastes change. We don’t aim it at older people; it’s a young person’s show. Young people are much more
open about their lives and they don’t take everything so seriously.

“The guests get angry but they get angry because their girlfriend has been cheating on them or their boyfriend has been cheating on them. I’m not saying the anger is not legitimate because it is – but the next day they’re dating someone else. It’s not life changing.”

He notes that his show does not offer pregnancy tests and claims “the reason the show has lasted twenty three years is because whoever comes on the show knows that I’m never gonna yell at them.” With this in mind, I ask for his opinions on Jeremy Kyle. “Well I’m not going to comment on any of the other shows, everybody does what they want,” he states. “Besides, I don’t see the show that much. I’m sure he’s good at what he does but I have no idea. I know that other people have shows – but I don’t even watch my show!”

Humble as ever, he attributes the appeal of the show to his guests, rather than himself or the premise. “The stories are always the same. What makes the show interesting, or why people keep watching is not the subject matter but the personality of the guests. And as many people as you have, you have personalities. That’s what makes it fascinating.

“There is nothing new on television. Human behaviour has not changed in at least three thousand years. There is nothing that has ever been on our show that is not in the Bible. There is nothing that has ever been on our show that is not in literature, that is not in Shakespeare. “We are social beings and we are always fascinated by how human beings behave. Thousands of years ago people would gather in the town square and discuss what is going on in the neighbourhood. Three thousand years later the neighbourhood is now global, because of technology. Nothing is new.”

“And when we say that television is aiding the deterioration of society, we are so self important. Let me tell you: we had a holocaust before anyone had a television set. You want to talk about the deterioration of western culture? A very sophisticated western culture called Germany exterminated six million people in my lifetime when nobody was watching television.” The knowledge that Springer’s parents were Jewish refugees and many family members died in the Holocaust adds weight to these already impossibly heavy words.

I proceed to ask about his opinions on Jerry Springer: The Opera, a British musical based on his show which received 55,000 complaints when broadcast on BBC Two. “It’s a serious opera,” he says. “It’s about me but I have nothing to do with it so I can’t say that I created this great opera or whatever. My mom would have been proud; she would have said, ‘Oh my God, Gerald, you’re an opera! You got culture.’”

He adds, “The controversy was not so much when it opened but when the BBC decided to air it. It shouldn’t have been on television because of the language – it was sacrilegious.” Regardless, he speaks glowingly of its humour and seems to enjoy the idea that he could bring Jesus and the devil “together at the end with a final thought,” as he does in the production.

As the room fills with students desperate to meet Springer, we wrap up. He proceeds to pose for an endless number of photographs, alternating between warm smiles, peace signs, and nimbly extending his leg to ensure that his quirky orange sneakers are in frame. Happily, despite being swarmed by eager Oxonians, he still takes the time to pose for a photo with his completely star-struck interviewer.