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?

if we allow a woman to come to a decison in her own time....while inlabour, while in a severely vulnerable state, while in extreme pain and while exhausted....and this decision to be made after 10 NCT classes....and the baby dies, do they then not get to sue the doctors? If the baby ends up brain damaged....do they not get to take legal action?

I think we should accept that sometimes, doctors/MW know better than a mum with all her virtous and well intentioned birth plans. Sometimes, the plan has to go out the window to ensure the survival of the child. SOmetimes, the needs of the unborn childmust take precedence over the wants of the mother.

Is it assult for a mother to not allow a procedure to take place, that subsequently leads to damage to a newborn?

There has to be an element of common sense in this. Midwives train for years, so do doctors, and they have vastly more experience in delivering babies than even the most prolific families. We should allow them to do what is best for both mother and child - and father.

I see your point mini, and agree.

Oh gosh, that's a horrible term.

I think the term "birth rape" is appropriate, personally

that is how it FELT to me, and how it affected me afterwards and still does

I was assaulted pretty brutally while having ds1 - it was a horrendously difficult birth for a number of reasons which I won't bore you with

the attitudes of some of the people who assaulted me (not all, some were just incompetent) definitely made me feel "raped" - especially the male consultant who marched into the room , smirked contemptuously at me, talked to the midwife over my head and then without warning stuffed his meaty paw up me and twisted it, ripping me - I felt it happen, and I think it was deliberate, I had been 7cm for nearly 24 hours and after he did that they told me to push - that FELT like rape. The attitude from where I was lying was "your body is OURS and we can do whatever we want with it - you are a birthing woman, not a human being"

he wasn't the only person who assaulted, belittled and dehumanised me during that ordeal

I won't go on as I would be here all day

but I think the term is entirely appropriate to what I went through!

This is the most ridiculous thing I have read for a long time. I had a v traumatic birth and hate internals but that was the only way to ensure the delivery of my baby. MWs and dos have very difficult decisions to make in fraught circumstances. I think the person writing this forgets that (barring a c-sec), one's vagina is the only escape route for a baby. Inevitable, there will be contact. To suggest that it is remotely sexual is hideous. Obviously a dumb and angry person came up with this idea.

I am angry but I am not dumb

what a stupid post

Well, Hatti, I disagree that the newborn's life should be prioritized above all else, especially if the mother doesn't wish it. I read horrific stories of this ethic being taken too far in Ireland where mothers were crippled for life by a doctor who used a very questionable practice of breaking the mother's pelvis to increase the chances of the baby surviving, would you say that's acceptable?

I know it goes against everyone's instinct to protect the newborn at all costs, but perhaps some mothers have lots of children and would rather deprive them of a sibling than a mother? I think that's a valid choice that a woman should be allowed to make without medical professionals making it over their heads, IYSWIM.

I definitely don't think your appeal to submit to authority is a valid argument Hatti.

I'm so sorry for your horrific experience stiflersmom

Sorry, but I must pop off for a bit now, but will be back later.

my arguemnt, dizietsma, is that mums are making decisions during a traumatic event (a birth that is going wrong) based on limited information cleaned from a handful of antenatal classes where natural birth is hailed as the B-all and end-all.

How many women here go into labour with the idea of a natural birth, and are screaming for drugs before 4cm? Should we then refuse them on the basis of their birth plan? a birth plan written when they are calm and logical and in control? no, of course not. Equally, we should accpt that at some point, a women may be unable to make an informed decison, so it should be taken out of her control.

When I was in having my last, a women in the next bed decided she would have a secton or she was going home. Even picked up her bag, started packing.... SHe was in transition and there was no way she was going to be able to decide anything logically.

My neighbour decided she did not want to take off her panties....the doctor eventually cut them off as the babies head crowned.

but perhaps some mothers have lots of children and would rather deprive them of a sibling than a mother?

The medical profession would not have either person die - thats part of their hypocratic oath. SUrely it is better to have 2 survivors than one death....what impact would a death or severely damaged child have on the mother in these circumstances. She would suffer...Severe PTSD. Plus massive survivor guilt.

I think it would be a very disturbed doctor that gains any stimulation from mutilating a woman during birth. In these cases, there would be multiple midwives in attendance. Are you honestly saying that all those compassionate and lovely women would allow that to happen? again, you do a disservice to midwives if you genuinely believe that.

I don't think it's remotely possible to compare the two experiences unless you've been through them both.

I had a pretty traumatic first birth, with some less than delicate treatment by the (male) consultant, ended up bruised and damaged below and didn't even give birth vaginally in the end. I still wouldn't call it 'rape', despite having felt violated.

I'm pretty sure rape victims would object. Awful, awful term and the two experiences are not in any way comparable IMO. On a par with describing breast feeding as sexual. Completely ridiculous and way off the mark.

I'm truly sorry for anyone that has been traumatised by giving birth but I firmly believe that decisions are made in order to deliver babies safely. That, for me, is the important part.

Sometimes it simply isn't possible for the woman to have the birthing experience that she wants due to positioning of the baby and how the body copes with labour. No two labours are the same.

Each of mine was very different and only one could be described as a positive experience.

I find the term disgusting, I have been raped, and I have had a forced medical procedure during birth.

After DD was born the MWS thought I had torn my cervix, so I was held to the bed by one MW, another held me legs open while a third had her arm up inside me wiping alcohol in wounds and checking my cervix. I was scrambling up the bed crying no because it hurt. As it happens my cervix hd not torn nor was I hemmoragging. So the procedure turned out to be unneccesary.

I do not see it as rape it was nothing like being raped, for one thing I gave consent to give birth, I never have consent for sex, another my partner was present to sooth and help me. Thirdly it was done because medical professionals believed my life was in danger. This experience is nothing like rape.

I still think birth assualt is bad enough - even worse is the attitude that of course they had to assualt you and of course they didn't need your consent. The doctors and midwives are delivering the baby, all the mother should be doing is not getting in the way of their job.

I think rape is a violent crime more than it is a sexual one

hence having been through what I did in childbirth, I identify with this term and think it is valid

If you don't think it fits your own experiences, fine. But I don't think you can tell me that how I felt was wrong, or that I am insulting rape victims

but then what happened to me (over a period of weeks, with more than one twisted sadistic vile HCP involved) was NOT necessary, just violent and cruel

not all midwives are lovely

stiflersmom FGM is a inhumane, painful, degrading, damaging procedure that causes peramanent painful damage. It is performed on a young girls genitals to have power over her against her wishes even though it has no beneficial qualities it is horrific. But people are not charged with rape for commiting this act why should birth be any different?

it doesn't involve penetration, that would be one difference

Its not entirely accurate as rape is defined as

'an assault by a person involving sexual intercourse with or sexual penetration of another person without that person's consent'

And presumably an internal without consent is not sexual penetration, therefore not rape???

Giving pethidine without consent or some other procedure would be assault but is clearly not rape.

You gave the definition of sexual assault which would seem to be something different altogether.

However I would say it is still assault and goes on far too often from what I hear.

Not all procedures that are done are necessary as some on here would like to believe. Some are done for convenience/habit/protocol/speed things up and because some Drs and midwives are incompetent/lazy (DISCLAIMER: Not all there are some great ones too).

Even if they are necessary, without consent is never acceptable.

My definition

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_rape

A man wouldnt be charged with rape for forcing his hand in a woman but sexual assault. Rape is only convicted if a penis is forced into a anus, vagina or mouth.

stiflersmom you aren't alone; I too had an experience which I would call "birth rape".

I won't go into the details on here because I just can't talk about it right now (reading this thread has made my heart race, I feel sick) but suffice to say, my experience triggered severe PTSD which included flashbacks of my "real" rape.
Whenever I thought of one, I thought of the other. And that's why I will label it birth rape.

To be honest, I don't see how anyone who has not suffered with birth trauma OR rape can tell me that my feelings are invalid and that I'm disgusting for using the term. You have clearly not experienced what I (and stiflersmom) have - and thank fuck for that.

I will call MY experience what I like.

I have the sick feeling and heart racing too

I don't understand why people can't just let others be when it comes to things like this. If I feel that it's an appropriate label for what happened to me, why does that bother you? I'm not insulting anyone. Just be glad you don't have a clue what it feels like, and have a bit of respect.

and I am sorry to hear that you went through a terrible time too UmYeah - PTSD is more common in women who have been butchered during childbirth than people realise, IMO.