The swedish law against female genital mutilation (FGM) prohibits procedures that removes parts of the female genitalia and thereby makes permanent changes in the body. The problem with the wording of the law is that it may also apply to the western phenomenon cosmetic genital surgery. This paper therefore examines if cosmetic genital surgery should be covered by the swedish law against FGM, by making a critical comparing analysis. The paper begins with comparing FGM with cosmetic genital surgery to prove that there are more similarities than differences between the procedures. By using the theoretical perspectives universalism and postcolonialism, the paper then examines why, particularly in the West, there is a different approach to FGM than to cosmetic genital surgery, regardless of the similarities of the procedures. Further the paper also examines consent and why consent to FGM is seen as illegitimate while consent to cosmetic genital surgery is seen as legitimate. On basis of the critical comparing analysis the paper then argues: that the procedures cosmetic genital surgery and FGM are very much alike; that cosmetic genital surgery is accepted over FGM because it is more familiar in the West and; that consent should be as illegitimate when given to cosmetic genital surgery as when given to FGM. Thus the conclusion of the paper is that cosmetic genital surgery should be covered by the swedish law against FGM.