As runasim points out, its roots are many and not modern and not 'cosmetic' per se, and often bandied about as a joke, instead of dealing with why and how women are put at risk in order to please someone else's religious, cultural, or ego's sensibility solely.

There is a tendency in all of us to say this which is mine has more value, because she/he/ it is pristine… while the rest of you dumb clucks have shopworn goods. Or, in terms of unconscious projection: I must have the pure because of my own impurities…my proof I am in some way worthy despite my own shopworn ways.

The underlayment to this and to genital mutilation is complex. Additionally, some would take this on as a sexual fetish. Some as a paraphilia. Some as bo-mod. Some, as in circumcision project religiousity onto the practice.

There's no known science based health reason for not reconstructing, but re-fashioning from other tissue, the appearance of delicate membrane over the introitus, however.

The surgery is a scant couple centemeters from the urethra, and is not a simple stitch or two, but must be fashioned to allow three other bodily functions to proceed properly as well.

In middle eastern and african women, wherein hypertrophic scarring is common, there is risk that this surgery, depending on method, will not heal well or disfigure even while achieving some semblance of 'never had a man before.”

Also, it is way different to 'tear' a thin membrane on first coitus, than to tear open scar tissue.

For some women, however, I can see why they might take on all these risks; for some their very lives could be at stake. That's the part especially that is egregious wrong… that any women's life be at stake regarding the condition of this intimate part of her body.

There are many women of many different ages who are virginal for life… sweet and smart and for whom most everything is 'first time' …regardless of how that less than 2.5 centimeters of their bodies is configured.

That psychological configuration, seems to me, far outdistances surgical 'pretend.'

dr.e

The disproportionate role sex in general plays in various cultures has never been clearly understood, and the importance of virginity in Muslim and other cultures is just an extentsion of that, with gender differences thrown in. Why aren't men required to be virgins? What part does child bearing and having progeny play?
Answers to those questions require unraveling thousands of years of sexual history.

That these are still open questions doesn't surprise me. I am surprised by some of the reactions among Westerners. Immediately, the sexual revolution is brought up as the boogey man for comparison.
One could as well bring in the evidence from some primitive matriarchal cultures where fatherhood is of no importance and serial sexual partners are the norm.

In Western cultures, this is, IMO, a clear and unexceptional case of excesses.
Exercising is good for you, but exercising fanatically, can seriously damage the rest of your life.
Eating is a necessity, but both overating and undereating can kill you.

Similarly, promiscuity is both socially and personally disruptive. So is condemnation and punishment for any deviance from the straight and narrow.

I'd rather see everyone get off the see-saw and stop treating questions related to sex like a religion.
This is a sociological, as well as a mental and physical health issue.
Moderation and balance are sorely missing among opionators, even though that's exactly what's required.