Common and disgusting, but unfortunately not always a joke. You probably know this but for the benefit of others who may not be aware, the Husband Stitch is a real thing that used to be pretty commonly done regardless of what the woman wanted and often without her foreknowledge or consent. It’s an extra stitch or two placed when sewing a woman back up after a vaginal tear or episiotomy during labor. The purpose is to make the woman “tighter” so her husband can still enjoy having sex with her even though she’s given birth, which is staggeringly misogynistic and cruel. And it usually results in really painful sex for the woman because her vaginal opening is artificially small plus now it has inflexible scar tissue. It’s a horrific thing to do to a woman, especially after giving birth.
To add to your “for the benefit of others” explanation, this is also not a historical relic. It’s still happening.
I work with refugees and a lot of women escaping fundie warzones are living with variations of this nightmare. So much mutilation, as little girls, preteens, post-giving-birth… Infections are common, tearing is common, and sex is torture. I’ve been doing this job long enough that I recognize the walk.
Another thing to note is that the episiotomy itself is no longer a recommended procedure for routine births. The incision lengthens recovery time and brings complications of its own.
Unfortunately, medical violence is a thing and many professionals, even when saying the episiotomy is a decision for the woman, put it in such a way that the message conveyed is that the episiotomy makes giving birth easier and quicker. What is witheld is that it makes it easier for them.
Giving birth was turned into a surgical event, when it is only a phisiological one.
I was under the impression it was forthe woman’s benefit, that it is easier for a cut to heal than a tear. Is that not the case? Is the risk of tearing overblown?
I think you actually have that backward. In general, a jagged tear heals quicker than an incision because there is more surface area in contact between the two pieces, so a larger number of cells can be working to repair the tissue. That said, I’m not a doctor and it’s been 10 years since my wife and I looked into this before our first kid, so I may be misremembering.
It’s not about the surface area, a tear heals without creating a straight line of inflexible scar tissue in flexible tissue. You recover faster and better, because you distribute the new connections throughout the tissue, you don’t have this one rigid perforation to tear, so you don’t have to be healed up all the way before you can get back on your feet
In general, it’s the opposite though - a sharp cut heals much faster than a rip, there’s far less damage to repair
You recover faster and better, because you distribute the new connections throughout the tissue, you don’t have this one rigid perforation to tear, so you don’t have to be healed up all the way before you can get back on your feet
Isn’t this a function of the surface area, though?
I mean…sort of? I can’t say that’s wrong, but I also don’t think it’s the full picture
Like imagine a cut rope. Gluing the ends together joins it with a weak point, but if you unravel the ends and weave them back together, you can create a very strong connection, even without glue
Yes, the surface area in the latter is far greater, but in addition to the surface area you have the structure - the weave itself grants strength, because when you pull the rope the fibers compress against each other, making it stronger than just surface area contact
I think it’s kinda like that, surface area certainly plays a big part, but I think it’s more than that. It lets the muscles reweave themselves - as opposed to the skin and the uterus lining, which are cut in straight lines to minimize damaged surface area - they’re more like cloth than rope, you stitch them up in neat lines
Common and disgusting, but unfortunately not always a joke. You probably know this but for the benefit of others who may not be aware, the Husband Stitch is a real thing that used to be pretty commonly done regardless of what the woman wanted and often without her foreknowledge or consent. It’s an extra stitch or two placed when sewing a woman back up after a vaginal tear or episiotomy during labor. The purpose is to make the woman “tighter” so her husband can still enjoy having sex with her even though she’s given birth, which is staggeringly misogynistic and cruel. And it usually results in really painful sex for the woman because her vaginal opening is artificially small plus now it has inflexible scar tissue. It’s a horrific thing to do to a woman, especially after giving birth.
Thank you for providing additional information!
If you need that to enjoy your partner you don’t deserve them. That disgusting
To add to your “for the benefit of others” explanation, this is also not a historical relic. It’s still happening.
I work with refugees and a lot of women escaping fundie warzones are living with variations of this nightmare. So much mutilation, as little girls, preteens, post-giving-birth… Infections are common, tearing is common, and sex is torture. I’ve been doing this job long enough that I recognize the walk.
Unholy fuckery! This makes me glad to live in country, where to get an operation you need to visit 9001 doctors and get 100500 approvals.
Another thing to note is that the episiotomy itself is no longer a recommended procedure for routine births. The incision lengthens recovery time and brings complications of its own.
Unfortunately, medical violence is a thing and many professionals, even when saying the episiotomy is a decision for the woman, put it in such a way that the message conveyed is that the episiotomy makes giving birth easier and quicker. What is witheld is that it makes it easier for them.
Giving birth was turned into a surgical event, when it is only a phisiological one.
I was under the impression it was forthe woman’s benefit, that it is easier for a cut to heal than a tear. Is that not the case? Is the risk of tearing overblown?
I think you actually have that backward. In general, a jagged tear heals quicker than an incision because there is more surface area in contact between the two pieces, so a larger number of cells can be working to repair the tissue. That said, I’m not a doctor and it’s been 10 years since my wife and I looked into this before our first kid, so I may be misremembering.
It’s not about the surface area, a tear heals without creating a straight line of inflexible scar tissue in flexible tissue. You recover faster and better, because you distribute the new connections throughout the tissue, you don’t have this one rigid perforation to tear, so you don’t have to be healed up all the way before you can get back on your feet
In general, it’s the opposite though - a sharp cut heals much faster than a rip, there’s far less damage to repair
Thanks for the explanation!
Isn’t this a function of the surface area, though?
I mean…sort of? I can’t say that’s wrong, but I also don’t think it’s the full picture
Like imagine a cut rope. Gluing the ends together joins it with a weak point, but if you unravel the ends and weave them back together, you can create a very strong connection, even without glue
Yes, the surface area in the latter is far greater, but in addition to the surface area you have the structure - the weave itself grants strength, because when you pull the rope the fibers compress against each other, making it stronger than just surface area contact
I think it’s kinda like that, surface area certainly plays a big part, but I think it’s more than that. It lets the muscles reweave themselves - as opposed to the skin and the uterus lining, which are cut in straight lines to minimize damaged surface area - they’re more like cloth than rope, you stitch them up in neat lines