Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

AIBU to be absolutely horrified by this way of thinking?

185 replies

WantsToBeFree · 20/10/2012 17:36

The YouTube video above has some interesting views on "birth rape", which have scared me a bit to be honest. This guy appears to think that when a woman walks into a hospital to give birth, she has given implied consent to any examination or procedure that they may decide to perform on her. If she isn't agreeable, then she should just deliver the baby alone, at home.

WHAT?!?!?!

I understand that for some obvious things there is consent (the doctor will have to touch the genitals while guiding the baby out etc.) , but there is no implied consent for forceps, ventouse, episiotomies and c sections! These are serious procedures which can only be performed after the necessity has been explained to the mother and her consent has been obtained. Only in a minuscule proportion of cases would there be a situation where the doctor doesn't even have 2 minutes to at least get verbal consent.

And yes, I do think that even though we don't have medical degrees we have the final say in what does or doesn't happen to our bodies. I also think that it isn't unreasonable for a woman to feel violated if a procedure was performed on her without her express consent during the delivery or if her dignity and modesty were disregarded.

I think most of us realise that childbirth is unpredictable and involves intimate exposure. However, this doesn't mean that the healthcare professionals can treat us however they want and that we have to give them a carte blanche to do what they please.

I am stupefied that people (who claim to be liberals) actually think that way. Interestingly, these are the same guys who were furious when the transvaginal ultrasound was made mandatory for women seeking abortions in an American state and they called it "government sanctioned rape". Well, if the doctor can't put an ultrasound probe in my fanjo without my consent, why do they think it's Ok for him/her to put in a pair of forceps without my consent or worse, against my consent?

Even liberals are misogynistic when it comes to childbirth....

OP posts:
SaggyOldClothCatPuss · 21/10/2012 10:52

Impose it's all about context. There's a difference between emergency intervention and unnecessary or inappropriate treatment without consent.
A person who puts something inside another person, without explanation or consent, and/or for no good reason is violating that person. It may not be rape, but it is at the very least assault. Just because a woman is pregnant or in labour doesn't make her immune to assault and make permission unnecessary. In any other situation it would be totally unacceptable.

TheFallenMadonna · 21/10/2012 10:54

Saying that it isn't rape doesn't mean it's acceptable.

SaggyOldClothCatPuss · 21/10/2012 10:55

'I suppose' not 'impose'! Blush

GhostShip · 21/10/2012 10:59

The fact of the matter is it's not acceptable in the slightest, but the term 'birth rape' is absolutely shocking.

I read into all this about a year ago, hated the term then and still hate it now.

GhostShip · 21/10/2012 11:01

And I've heard one womans story where she said

'he told me what he was going to do and came at me with his rape knife'

The man was actually performing an episiotomy to prevent her from having a nasty tear.

5madthings · 21/10/2012 12:05

Prevent hervftom tearing by giving her a nasty cuy....there is plenty of evidenve yo show this doesnt always work and many women the tear more. Also tears heal better than a cut in many cases and if she didny consent then it was assault.

They generally use scissors to perform an episiotomy not a scalpel/knife.

I am more comfortable with the term assault but that doesnt mean that birth rape isnt the right te in some casrs and that it fits a legal defonition of rape.

For me as i said earlier its the 'intent' behind the actions. You would hope they are always good ie well being og mother and baby but that sadly is not always yhe case. The intent may not be sexual but it can be about power/control and a 'i am the dr i will do what i please attitude' and that assault and violation of a womans body against her wishes is like rape so the term birth rape does fit even if it makes people (myself included) uncomfortable.

GhostShip · 21/10/2012 12:16

I know how they're performed, I've seen them. If the perineum is stretched too tightly for scissors, a scalpel has to be used in some cases

I'm not saying what he did was right if she told him no (which she didnt include by the way), but he did it in her best interests. Have you ever seen a woman ripped from vagina to anus?

Birth rape doesn't fit at all. For one, it has nothing to do with the use of a penis,and two it is not in the slightest bit sexual.

Just because it involves the vagina does not make it rape. If someone gave you stitches in your arm without consent, that would be abuse. Same with the vagina. Neither is right, but neither is rape.

GhostShip · 21/10/2012 12:21

interesting read

aldiwhore · 21/10/2012 12:28

I felt utterly violated when the Dr tried to fit a heart beat 'clip' on my baby's skull. There was no real need for this, there was a strong heart beat on the monitor. I was also only 1cm dilated, and I should have been more for this clip. I was pretty much off my face and didn't know what was going on. The Dr was joing that it was tricky getting two fingers in a space for one, I was scared. My husband stopped this procedure when I became distressed.

Had the Dr explained WHY he wanted to do this, WHAT he was actually going to do, and asked 'would that be okay' - I would have said no, my DH would have said no, my midwife would have said NO. (She was present but busy helping me with contractions - the Dr did not involve her at all).

I will not use the term 'birth rape' - I've been raped, and this intrusion was no where NEAR that - but I did feel violated. If you can imagine someone poking your cervix and pushing and pushing, you kind of get the idea. Had it been necessary for my baby's well being, I'd have agreed to it definitely, but I should have been given a well informed choice.

GhostShip · 21/10/2012 12:31

Thats awful aldiwhore So sorry you had to go through that. What was he thinking?

This is why I'm fully in support of midwifery led care, to prevent doctors from ballsing things up and doing things that there's no need for.

Original poster
WantsToBeFree · 21/10/2012 12:59

GhostShip

The FBI would disagree with you, because they haven't limited rape to just sexual intent- objects are included in their definition.

Could you answer a simple question for me? If a strange man restricted me to a bed and inserted a foreign object into my vagina despite my refusal and failure to consent, but did it all without sexual intention would I not be entitled to call it rape?

I view rape as anything that leaves the victim feeling violated and traumatised. The intent of the perpetrator is insignificant to me.

OP posts:
Original poster
WantsToBeFree · 21/10/2012 13:07

GhostShip

You're quite misinformed about episiotomies- they don't prevent a woman from tearing "from vagina to bottom". In fact sometimes doctors cut women too deeply, and they end up with worse damage than if they gad torn naturally.

Secondly, midwives aren't necessarily any better or worse. My sister was held down by a midwife as the other forcibly used "finger forceps" on her. I've heard friends complaining about midwives on ward having little regard for their modesty- performing vaginal exams without closing drapes, touching breasts without asking, forcing breastfeeding....
I've also heard several people complain how their midwives refused to get them epidurals or how badly they were generally treated.

OP posts:
5madthings · 21/10/2012 13:17

there are good and bad midwives and drs just as there are good and bad people in any profession i guess. the problem with drs and midwives is the power they have when women are at their most vulnerable :(

and good point about the intent, for me if a dr was doing that to save my life/my babies life then i wouldnt see it as rape. if it really needed to be done, but the problem is lots of times things are being done when there is no need.

and yes with the drapes as i said i had someone walk into the room when i was being examined, pull the curtain back and start asking me what i wanted for my fuckign dinner! yes i felt violated! to her credit the midwife was furious and told the other member of staff firmly where to go.

an episiotomy does not necessarily stop a woman from tearing at all, can make them tear more. they used to be performed routinely as did enemas, thank god we have moved on or at least most professionals have.

GhostShip · 21/10/2012 13:51

Yes you carry on trying to justify the term 'birth rape'. It isn't justifiable. And I think it's down right disrespectful to those who have been raped. Why are you so keen to use this terminology? Say it for what it is, abuse and malpractice. Rape is sexual abuse. This isn't.

And episiotomies can prevent women from tearing, this is why they are done. Of course they can be done incorrectly, but we aren't talking about that. A controlled cut can prevent much more pain and difficulty for the woman. They shouldn't be done willy nilly, but when it is needed.

SchrodingersMew · 21/10/2012 13:54

I do believe the term is definitely applicable in some cases, definitely with forced internal exams.

I also don't think anyone who had been raped would feel bad about a person being abused in the manner some women are using the word.

SchrodingersMew · 21/10/2012 13:55

I wouldn't say "birth" with it though, that sounds like something completely different.

crashdoll · 21/10/2012 13:57

I don't think that by saying the term 'birth rape' is not appropriate means that anyone is saying that the way some women have been treated is acceptable. It's not; it's assualt and it's unethical and it's poor practice and it's plain wrong.

Incidentally, I wonder if anyone has sued their HCP and if charges were brought about and what they were.

McHappyPants2012 · 21/10/2012 14:01

OP, I have read your definition of rape, so would you say a male can not be raped. ( just curious)

GhostShip · 21/10/2012 14:01

Exactly crash doll. I'm not condoning it in the slightest, it is wrong and should not be happening. It's just the terminology.

And it's creating debates like this, which distracts from the matter at hand.

SchrodingersMew · 21/10/2012 14:02

Okay, I have just checked the definition and it is wrong. Only because there is no penis involved though.

GhostShip · 21/10/2012 14:03

Mchappy - the official legal definition of rape, in the uk, involves penis insertion

SchrodingersMew · 21/10/2012 14:04

McHappy Under UK law it says a male cannot be raped, I think that's wrong as well.

GhostShip · 21/10/2012 14:05

No a male can be raped, the law has changed to include anal and oral

A man cannot be raped by a woman though, in the laws eyes

GhostShip · 21/10/2012 14:07

Note: link is to the rape crisis website