Talk:Labia elongation

Confused Article seems a little confusing to me. On one hand it asserts labia elongation increases sexual pleasure for both parties, but then on the other it says it has no effect on promiscuity. Wouldn't you have sex more if it felt better? I know I'm less interested in sex when the situation requires condom use, personally, for example. It just doesn't feel as good. Well, whatever.

Next it has strong assertions re not affecting HIV transmission, but it seems common sense to me that it would. Circumcision of the penis reduces HIV transmission to males by reducing the amount of HIV infection susceptible inner mucosa of the foreskin. The process in this article basically does the opposite of circumcision. It increases the amount of moist tissue rather than decreasing it.

Comments about HIV rates and elongation rates in the general population are meaningless because too many other factors are changing at the same time. Circumcision rates in the US are going down while HIV infection rates are going up for example, despite studies proving circumcision decreases HIV transmission. You'd have to do a study that controls the other factors to come to a scientific conclusion either way for elongation. Sure increasing HIV susceptibility is a bad thing, but that doesn't mean you can just wave your hands and claim there is no possible way elongation doesn't do it.

67.189.185.11 (talk) 02:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The claimed link between circumcision and a reduction in HIV infection is tenuous at best. There's no demonstrable causative link between reduced circumcision rates and increased HIV rates.  Some might say too many other factors are changing at the same time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.234.204.166 (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment There are many articles on this subject. This only gives an overview of how it is viewed and practiced in parts of Zimbabwe. The main point to note is that the practice is not at all men-driven, as some ignorant western writers have suggested. Most men have no idea it is happening, even when they marry a girl who is a practitioner. There has been many attempts by some women's groups to link this practice with the oppression of women. In Zimbabwe this practice does not qualify as an indicator of female oppression or male dominance. For a serious contributor to the debate, there are many worthy points to note about male dominance, many of them life threatening. LE is not part of that compliment.

Perspective The compiler, Mai Chibwe was born and bred in the Zimuto Area between Masvingo and Chatsworth in the south midlands of the country. Here LE is practiced but usually a girl, once she understands what she has to do, does it unsupervised. In this area it is rare to find girls that practice mutual LE. In other areas MLE is more common.

This article was originally written in the native Shona language and translated into English for Wikipedia. The points to note are:

Assertions in the article: •	LE is a rite of passage activity with no other implications for anything else. •	LE in not instigated by me in any way. •	 Comments about LE and HIV transmission rates  do not need a study because it is a fact that HIV rates increase with promiscuity,  and promiscuity was and is discouraged within the communities that practice LE.

The article is not an academic article but simply a simple answer the what, how when, what for, and what if questions about LE as it is practiced in Zimbabwe.

Comments about lesbianism arise from the practice of mutual elongation which some girls practice in Zimbabwe. The question about mutual practice being a lesbian act was raised many times at a women’s discussion group of health issues that I used to attend in Birmingham. That is why that was included in the article.

Dry Sex is a practice which has been shown to encourage the transmission of HIV. It is when women use detergents to wash their vaginas before sex, in order to discourage sexual lubrication. It is supposed to enhance male pleasure, but the resulting damage to the lining speeds HIV transmission. Eleanor Chibwe is a hobby writer in the Shona Language 13:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is very very poor. It reads like an argument for Labia Elongation, and in all sections it warns us ignorant westerners that this practice builds self confidence for the girls. 209.195.86.136 (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Needs Rewriting and References
I stumbled upon this article while reading about the Khoisan. I was interested in their languages but got distracted by their anatomy. It is suggested in "Elongated Labia" that sinus pudoris is a genetic trait of the Khoisan and not the result of a cultural practice, as is suggested by the author of this article. Indeed, such a trait is found in other primates (see "pseudo-penis"). One wonders whether the practice of labial elongation in Zimbabwe, as with the development of click consonants in some languages of this region, developed as imitation of the original Khoisan people.

In any case, this article is not so much a description of the practice but rather an obscure and apparently anecdotal defense of it. Without the arguments against it clearly and neutrally stated, any defense seems irrelevant and is completely distracting. What for example, does lesbianism have to do with labia elongation or anything for that matter? It is not clear to me; however, it is clear that the mere existence of this practice and its inverse labiaplasty -- actually labia, nay vulva in general -- certainly strengthens my own homosexuality. And, if lesbianism is a criticism against labial elongation, unsupported assertion that the practice is not lesbianistic (and it is interesting to note that the compiler specifically suggests that in her native region mutual labial elongation is rarely practiced) nor leads to lesbianism is not a valid defense and seems absurd in any case. Those who would make such a criticism would seem unlikely to consult frequently with encyclopedias or to consider views other than their own to begin with. To others, lesbianism might be an argument for a practice. Indeed, if transmission of HIV is also criticism, a lesbianism criticism would be paradoxical, as lesbianism certainly lowers the risk of infection.

I started to edit some apparent typos and style issues, but quickly realized that there is the much bigger problem. Moreover, since I am unfamiliar with either such a practice, its particular manifestation in Zimbabwe, or the context in which the defense was written, there is not much I can do to resolve the many ambiguities of the article.

It seems rather unfortunate that this article is in such a state, given that this is a noteworthy practice in an of itself, and, moreover, in contrast to the recent western practice of labiaplasty. This article provides more information on the practice, at least in some parts of Zimbabwe, than the more terse article entitled "labia stretching" which mentions the practice in Ruwanda,

Perhaps these articles should be combined and should link to the article entitled "dry sex", because, as a (western) homosexual, I am not familiar with the practice -- actually am horrified at the very thought which evokes images of sandpaper -- and am not provided with a clear context. The practice of "milking", equally unfamiliar and horrifying, alluded to also seems to need expanding into its own article; what precisely are Zimbabwe girls told so that they can do this? Non-Zimbabwe heterosexuals, and perhaps masochistic homosexuals, would presumably be very interested. One should also consider liking these articles to genital modification and mutilation, which strangely excludes specific practices that would elongate the membrum virile. Why is it that practices to lengthen or shorten female parts are noteworthy, indeed controversial, while corresponding practices on male parts are largely unmentioned/unmentionable, except to note that "the safety and efficacy of these techniques are debated"? Labia elongation in particular calls to mind the allegedly culturally-rooted practice of jelqing, which does not have an independent entry. Why is it that men can attempt to lengthen their penes and men can help men attempt to lengthen their penes without question, but women who exercise their inalterable right to alter themselves, nay exercise their rights in general, are charged with barbarism, pathology, spreading disease, lesbianism and misogyny? It seems misogyny is a double-edged sword that can cut women in half, but will not allow them to cut themselves in half.

Finally, I must express my utter amusement that the compiler is a "hobby writer". One wonders what other interesting hobbies she has written about or whether writing is her hobby....

Reactionary Article
I checked out the references and one was a blog that's no longer functional and the other is an article to which the author is clearly reacting. Neither of the references support any of the claims in the body of the article. And neither have to do with Zimbabwe. While I do not doubt that their author's statements are true of his/her own experiences, it doesn't seem like the topic requires its own article as written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninjasinloaf (talk • contribs) 04:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting.
I grew up in the western part of Zimbabwe and was interested to note that the article describes the practice almost as we, as girls used to do it. I have worked in the sex industry and have never met a man who is bothered or even knowledgeable about the practice. http://instantmoyo.blogspot.com. I also aknow a lot of women who carry on the practice into adulthood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Instantmoyo (talk • contribs) 08:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed a whole heap of stuff
I removed a large portion of the article just now, with this edit. Sorry, but it really was blatant original research, and I couldn't see it'd ever be possible to make it appropriately verifiable and neutral.  Chzz  ► 20:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Merger discussion
This was nominated for a merger with labia stretching in 2010 by Munci but does not appear to have been discussed. This article's been around since 2006, and even this talk page since 2007. Conversely the 'stretching' article didn't show up until 2008. I think we risk losing content by merging these haphazardly.

Whether to choose 'elongation' (the intended result) or 'stretching' (the process) for a page title is something worth discussing. There are purposes besides longterm intentional elongation for which stretching could be done. One of those things could be to inflict pain, for example, when done too much. Like the difference between microtrauma causing healthy hypertrophy and macrotrauma causing muscular tears.

For that reason I think 'elongation' may be preferable since it focuses on this specific cultural intention for regulated stretching. If we are going to merge anything, it should be the contents of the newer 'stretching' article into this 'elongation' article, based on the phrasing, I think. Ranze (talk) 06:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think merging to Labia elongation makes most sense. There should definitely be only one article. Jamesx12345 (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There was no important content lost by merging/redirecting, and there obviously should not be two Wikipedia articles on the same topic. I don't mind either title. But we should go by a title that satisfies MEDMOS. Note: I've alerted WP:MED to this discussion.. Flyer22 (talk) 12:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I also alerted WP:ANATOMY to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the articles should be merged. I do however have no particular preferences towards the name. JakobSteenberg (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The articles were finally merged, by NickPenguin; see here and here. Glad that he did it, because, like I stated, there should not have been any WP:Content forking on this matter to begin with. I was going to re-post about this matter at WP:MED, but kept putting it off. So thanks again to NickPenguin. Flyer22 (talk) 01:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)