AIBU to be absolutely horrified by this way of thinking?

[WantsToBeFree]

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....

That's what I meant, sorry if I wasn't clear.

Okay, so it cannot be called that by definition but I don't think it is looked at as serious assault at many people seem to think it's all in good intentions. Regardless of what the intentions are no one should be forced to do anything they do not wish (actually in some cases I don't believe that) and having someone forcibly insert anything into your vagina or refuse to remove it is in my eyes, very serious assault.

It is assault, I agree. But it isn't sexual assault or rape. It's horrific that women are going through this. No wonder tocophobia is on the rise :(

Shrodinger, you're preaching to the choir. On this thread, we've all agreed it is a very serious issue. I worry that people risk not getting taken seriously when they use that term.

Agreed crash doll. Like I said before it distracts from the matter at hand, which is one that certainly needs addressing.

I think there needs to be more education for pregnant women about thier choices in pregnacy and birth.

It wasn't till a year or so a a go that I knew I could refuse an induction, ok with my son I was 42 weeks pregnant, but I could of been monitored daily until I went into labour. I thought I didn't have a choice as I was overdue and the baby was more priority.

Agreed ^ but this is what the midwives should be doing. Empowering women with knowledge and choices.

I don't remember being asked for consent for my emergency caesarian, but as it was an emergency where they needed to rush me into theatre as my baby was losing his heartbeat, I don't think they needed consent? All doctors were very kind and calm towards me, even in the emergency. Great doctors, I'm very thankful!

McHappyPants

Are you confusing me with someone else? I posted the FBI definition which now includes men as rape victims. Yes men can be raped and it's a shame more countries don't recognise that.

GhostShip

You didn't answer my question- If a man restricted me and forced a foreign object into my vagina against my will but didn't attempt sex, would you tell me it wasn't rape?

And lastly- episiotomy DOES NOT prevent tearing. Women often tear much beyond the cut. Al, recent research indicates that episiotomies don't prevent tearing- they're done when tearing seems imminent anyway, and mum is having a tough time pushing.

I'm not saying we have to call it birth rape - I just don't understand why it's all OK as long as the intent isn't sexual. The intent usnt as important as how the action makes the victim feel. If she/he feels violated, it's rape in my eyes.

You are not reading the responses. Not one person has said it's OK.

It is not ok.

However I belive rape is done in malice, where HCP act in the best interest of the baby. However the mum to be should be treated with respect and dignity..... And not like a baby machine.

I wouldn't worry. As having just watched the you tube thing. Well as much as I needed to until I realised its AMERICA. We live in BRITAIN !

McHappyPants

No, not all HCP's act in the best interests of mothers and babies. They often act in the best interest of their trust budgets, their hospital policy and in case of private doctors, perhaps their own bank balance.

And like I said, to me the intention is irrelevant if the victim is left feeling humiliated and violated.

Wantstobefree - in a word, no it isn't. Just because it involves your vagina does not make it rape.

And re. episiotomies, I've done a LOT of research into them (I want to be a midwife) and they DO prevent tears. Obviously they're on the decrease now because we introduced better controlled pushing and breathing techniques, but they still do happen and happen for a reason. Some women scream for them to be performed because they can feel theirselves being stretched and have said the relief is enormous. Let's not turn this into an episiotomy debate anyway...

And not ONE person has said what is going on is right. It is completely and utterly wrong. But the terminology 'birth rape' isn't right, shouldn't be used, and as you can see it distracts from what it important

These threads always make me feel so lucky that I had such a positive experience during labour. I had a lot of complications but the midwives and the consultant were fantastic. When I had my internal examinations they didn't ask for consent, they just told me they needed to examine me to see how things were progressing and apologised for any discomfort. Although, having said that, each time I was told I needed to be examined I replied 'Okay', so I guess that would be classed as consent really. I am certain they would have stopped if I had said no. It is sad to think that some women have such bad experiences they end up emotionally scarred.

GhostShip

Right, so you think rape is only sexual. Fair enough. I think it's anything that leaves a man or woman feeling violated and humiliated irrespective of the perpetrators intent. Thankfully, more and more cow tries are forming laws that agree with this way of thinking.

Please post some valid research that states episiotomies prevent tears. You do realise that an episiotomy cut is essentially like a tear? So it's actually laughable to use it to prevent tears. All research states that episiotomies don't prevent severe tearing. But it seems you are adamant to believe what you have decided is correct. Yes some women are relieved when it is performed, but then it's purpose changes- it's a way to give her relief and help her push, not necessarily a way to prevent tears.

Excuse the typos, I'm on my phone,,...

Ghost ship, you have not answered my question.

How is it possible to be more raped then being fisted in public for no medical reason.

And, I reiterate, with no pain relief.

Wantstobefree - so if I kick a man in the balls, and he is left humiliated, is that rape? Nope.

And can I just add that episiotomies should not be done routinely, but when the woman needs one. There's many studies but all of them provide conflicting evidence. If you've been at the business end of birth it's quite obvious even to a novice like myself when someone is going to tear and need extra help. A controlled cut IMO is much better than a spontaneous tear.

Hmmm no answer I see

I didn't see your question Pombear, what is it your asking me your post doesn't make sense.

The fact of the matter is your definitions are wrong. It is not rape.

And why you feel the need to link rape to medical abuse and malpractice I do not know.

Just because it involves your vagina does not make it rape.

I think it's anything that leaves a man or woman feeling violated and humiliated irrespective of the perpetrators intent.

You're wrong and thank goodness the law doesn't contain wishy washy statements like that.

I wish people would stop distracting from the matter in hand which is that medical professionals need to not assume that coming to a hospital to give birth means they consent to any treatment. As someone who has not given birth, I'm horrified at these stories and how poorly women have been treated at the hand of those supposedly in a 'caring' position.

Maybe if it had involved your vagina you would think differently.

No, I wouldn't.

To be fair, rape does have a rather narrow definition in law. That's not to say that other sexual assaults are viewed less seriously or given less harsh sentences - they're not (necessarily).

It is a matter of definition and what constitutes rape vs sexual assault. Not a matter of severity and harm caused. Both can and will cause equal trauma for the victim. They're just called (n law) different things.

Ghost you are funny. How can you possibly know that?

FWIW I think you would make a shocking midwife if you cannot even understand why a women might consider herself raped if she was violently attacked in her genitals for no medical reason.

And rape is about power not sex so sexual intent is an incorrect argument.