How do we feel about the term "birth rape" to describe non-consensual procedures performed on birthing women?

[dizietsma]

F-word article on the phenomenon.

Now I know a lot of people have objections to the term, and I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the definition, but I am curious about what the distinction could be. Wikipedia explains that the UK legal definition of sexual assault is- "when a person A intentionally touches another person B, the touching is sexual, B does not consent to the touching, and A does not reasonably believe that B consents."

Now from a lot of traumatic birth stories I've read and heard, the only condition above that it might be argued is not entirely met is the condition that "the touching is sexual". Certainly I think it is not the case that MW and doctors perform violent, invasive, harmful, non-consensual procedures on women's genitals during birth because the get off on it (or at least if there are those that do get off on it, they are the Harold Shipmans, the rare, criminal, insane exceptions), but for the women experiencing these procedures on their genitals it is sexual surely? In that it involves their sexual organs being violated?

Certainly the PTSD experienced by women who have had traumatic births seems very similar to the PTSD experienced by women who have been sexually assaulted.

I'm most interested in what people who have had traumatic births think of the term, accurate or no?

I don't like that term at all. I had a awful birth.

In my mind, there is a difference between intent to commit sexual violence and a medical procedure that involves your genitals.

I think it's fucking hideous. I don't think they are comparable At All.

i think the term is a distraction - pople end up end up arguing about the terminology rather than focussing on the actual problem of women being treated like shit whilst in labour.

Ok, so the intent is important, but is the effect any different?

Yes, I agree Edgar, it is distracting.

Rape? That's a dreadful term.

agree with mini wedge. SUrely rape implies that the perpetrator achieved some sexual gratification from the act - I cannot believe this of doctors and MWs. Likewise, their intent is a key thing in law...that they intended to cause x, y z, - I rather think their intention is to safely deliver a child and maximise chances of survival for both mother andchild.

Well, I'm not so sure about the sexual gratification issue, that implies rape/sexual assault is about sex when it's actually about violence and power, surely?

Agree with Edgar.

It is an abhorrent term and that being so distracts from the real issue at hand.

IMHO if the HCP doesn't derive any sexual gratification or feeling of power, the reason is not humiliation or degradation of the patient, then as wrong and misguided and harmful their actions this term is not a fitting desription.

I don't know how to link to it but there's been a whole thread on this already. Search is your friend...

Hm, well I do disagree with you on your paternalistic idea about medical professionals "knowing what's best" for another persons body despite their expressed wishes, Maryz. I believe that if someone says you are not allowed to do something to their body then you should respect that.

Rape is also about sex, by its very definition.

MW and doctors HAVE the power at a birth - thats their job.

I think that some trauma does happen in birth - but to liken it to rape is just wrong. Its also a massive insult to professionals that bring babies into this world.

In all other medical specialties, there is trauma - if you dislocate your shoulder and they have to have it put back it. Its going to be traumatic, but thats not down to doctors, its due to the nature of the emergency. Likewise with birth.

Some women get dealt a crap hand for their birth, and if given a say, any midwiafe or doctor would not choose to hurt a woman at her most vulnerable. To compare them with a sex offender is unbelievably crass.

I was unaware of that sux, will search, thanks .

Just in case a bad birth was not enough, now that we are going to add to it the burden of it being compared with rape???

... and how would that help the women?

The trauma of a dislocated shoulder being put back is very different to the trauma inflicted on women against their will, often after being totally ignored in their wishes throughout their labouring, no? You're comparing apples and oranges Hatti.

I would like to repeat again that I'm not comparing medical professionals to sex criminals, more the system of paternalistic ignoring and belittling of women in birth is responsible for this assault. It is a fine distinction, and I can understand why a lot of you are misinterpreting it.

I think the word "rape" is such a powerful and emotive one that to deliberately misuse it in this way does more harm than good.

We already have a perfectly serviceable word for non-consensual harmful physical acts, and that word is "assault".

I absolutely agree that the way some medical professionals behave during childbirth is flat-out wrong and there does need to be a lot of effort put in to make sure they know about consent. Some of the stories I've heard on here and elsewhere make me think that the midwives and doctors involved should be up in court being charged with assault if not ABH. But rape? No. That's a whole different thing.

I don't think we should let babies die, of course not, but I do think that what happens to a woman's body in birth is her choice, no one elses, if we're talking from a strictly legal POV I am in the right on this, although I'm willing to admit it's an ethical and moral minefield.

I think your friend should have been allowed to come to the decision to have a c-section on her own, but you could argue that she really was, given that she had been "allowed" to labour for days and it was only when her husband got frustrated at her that she realized it was time to quit. This is not really what I'm talking about here anyway, as it was a consensual decision that your friend took, I'm talking about forceps deliveries and episiotomy's being forcibly done to women screaming no, surely that is not acceptable?

I also think calling it assualt is enough - by using the term rape you distract people into discussing the use of the word.

A lot of people won't even recognise it as an assualt though, as they see the medical professionals as in charge, legitimately having power over the woman, and basically being able to behave however they want.

The term rape when applied here is to me offensive for the reasons Edgar and Maryz.

Birth assault I'm sure does exist and every woman who suffers from it should, when they feel able, report it and fight to see a proper investigation performed.

I'd be of the don't let the bastards do it to anyone else brigade but easy for me to say as I've never encountered it.

So birth assault is a much better term then? I can see that. Less distracting and less misinterpretation.

I think that trying to merge two massively different events into one is I'll judged at best.

If a woman is forced to have a procedure against her will that is medical assault.

Rape is an entirely different act with completely different connotations for both the victim and the perpetrator.

Yes, both of these involve an act committed without consent but then again, burglary is committed without consent, I wouldn't try renaming that as "house rape".

I cannot stand the hijacking of a term for shock value.

Oooh, I get it cat, you think I'm full of it! LOL!