A new documentary examining one of Rwanda’s most intimate and debated cultural traditions has ignited a thoughtful and sometimes contentious public debate about the intersection of cultural heritage, personal choice, and women’s rights.
“Her Right: Not Her Choice,” produced by acclaimed Rwandan filmmaker Eric Kabera in collaboration with HDI Rwanda, explores gukuna, a traditional practice of labia minora elongation that has been part of Rwandan culture for generations. The film presents multiple, nuanced perspectives on a practice that some view as cultural preservation and a source of sexual pleasure, while others question in terms of consent and bodily autonomy.
A Practice Rooted in Cultural Tradition and Socialization
Gukuna involves the manual stretching of the labia minora, often beginning in childhood or adolescence. The practice, which can start as early as age five to about the age of ten or at the onset of puberty in some families, typically aims to achieve elongation of two to eight centimeters and is traditionally passed down from mothers, aunts, or older female relatives to younger girls. The Kinyarwanda term gukuna imishino literally translates to “pulling the labia.”
Research indicates that between 20 and 50 percent of Rwandan women have undergone the practice. Proponents cite cultural benefits including enhanced sexual pleasure for both partners, particularly in connection with kunyaza—a traditional sexual practice often associated with female ejaculation—as well as increased social capital and adherence to cultural norms around femininity and womanhood. Some women view it as a necessary and indispensable step toward a girl’s full social life, a form of female intimacy that is scrupulously protected and managed by women, and a way to know one’s own body. The practice is also known by the term guca imyeyo (lit. ‘to cut sweeping material’).
Health Concerns and Classification in the Global Context
The World Health Organization (WHO) classifies gukuna as Type IV female genital modification (FGM), a category that encompasses all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes (e.g., pricking, piercing, incising, scraping, and cauterization). However, the classification is contentious, as the term ‘mutilation’ carries powerful negative connotations, and many Rwandan women view the practice as a positive and a modification rather than a mutilation, as no tissue is typically removed.
Health researchers have documented both immediate and long-term risks associated with the practice:
- Short-term complications: These can include pain, swelling, irritation, and infections—particularly when caustic herbs such as Solanum aculeastrum or Bidens pilosa are used to facilitate the stretching process. While some research suggests these botanicals may have beneficial bioactive compounds for medicinal use, the use of unsterile materials can alter vaginal flora and create lesions that may increase vulnerability to sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.
- Longer-term health concerns: Documented risks in medical literature include urinary tract infections, painful menstruation, potential complications during childbirth, and various gynecological issues.
Igniting a Complex Dialogue
Since the documentary’s release, social media discussions have reflected the complexity of the issue, highlighting a dialectical contrast between global human rights frameworks and the emic (insider) perspective of practitioners.
- Cultural Preservation vs. Health/Autonomy: Some participants emphasize the importance of preserving cultural practices that they argue enhance intimate relationships, maintain social traditions, and contribute to marital stability. Others focus on concerns about consent, particularly when the practice is initiated on minors who cannot provide informed agreement, as well as the documented health risks.
- The Consent Question: Central to the debate is the question of choice versus social pressure and cultural expectation. Critics argue that when gukuna is performed on children or under family pressure, it cannot be considered a free choice, denying women and girls autonomy over their bodies and sexuality. They advocate for protecting minors from irreversible body modifications. Supporters counter that the practice should not be judged through Western frameworks that may not account for African cultural contexts, where it is often perceived as a rite of passage and a positive part of sexual socialization.
The conversation has brought to the fore the historical view of the practice, noting its condemnation by the Catholic Church during the colonial era, which viewed it as a form of onanism that might lead women to find pleasure.
Moving Forward: Informed Choice and Education
The documentary and subsequent discussions reflect broader global conversations about how societies navigate the tension between cultural preservation and evolving understandings of human rights, bodily autonomy, and informed consent.
Health advocates stress the importance of education about both the cultural significance and potential health consequences of the practice, arguing that informed choice requires access to comprehensive medical information. They also emphasize the need for special protections for minors who cannot provide meaningful consent to permanent body modifications.
“Her Right: Not Her Choice” has succeeded in creating space for a nuanced conversation—one that acknowledges both the cultural importance many attach to gukuna and the legitimate concerns about health and consent that warrant serious consideration as Rwanda continues to develop and engage with global health standards.
