Perspectives and Impact of a Nonconsensual Husband Stitch: A Qualitative Study

Objectives: The “Husband Stitch” is a medically unnecessary additional suture or series of sutures placed when repairing a vaginal laceration or episiotomy after childbirth, often with the purpose of tightening the vaginal introitus for the intention of enhancing the male partner’s sexual pleasure. Despite robust anecdotal evidence, there is a paucity of research on the “Husband Stitch.” The goal of this study is to advance knowledge about this practice and elucidate experiences, health impacts, and social implications of undergoing this procedure.

Methods: Ongoing data collection includes IRB-approved, semi-structured interviews with individuals 18 years or older who self-identify as having undergone the Husband Stitch without their consent. Participants are recruited from community forums for mothers, parent associations, and women’s health centers and shelters. The interview script includes 1) the participant’s memory of the Husband Stitch, 2) their perception of the procedure they underwent, and 3) the health and social impact of the Husband Stitch. Recruitment and interviews will continue until saturation is reached.

Results: Preliminary findings are reported from interviews with two participants who underwent the “Husband Stitch” in Wisconsin and Florida in 1992 and 2015, respectively. The language that the obstetrician used to describe the procedure made it clear to the participants that an additional stitch had been placed as a “favor” to their husbands. The participants experienced varying health complications. Interviewee #1 has introital dyspareunia which has worsened in recent years with menopause. Interviewee #2 experienced a short-term complication of severe perineal pain two days postpartum and a long-term birth complication of vaginal prolapse, perceived as a possible result of the Husband Stitch. Participants were told that their postpartum pain and dyspareunia could not be treated. Both participants are opposed to continuation of the “Husband Stitch” and report feelings of “shame”, helplessness, and “disgust” towards what happened to them. Neither of the women have shared their experience with members of their social network aside from their husbands.

Conclusions: This study reveals that the nonconsensual “Husband Stitch” has been performed in the United States as recently as 2015. This procedure has negative health consequences, including dyspareunia, and there is a lack of treatment options available. The women expressed social isolation, and while they have not been diagnosed with mental health disorders, expressions of shame and helplessness are DSM-5-TR criteria for depressive disorders and post-traumatic stress disorders, raising concern for mental health consequences that may result from the “Husband Stitch.” Nonconsensual practice of the “Husband Stitch” is an understudied, medically unnecessary practice that causes negative social and health consequences. Research findings will be used to inform prevention strategies and improve support for women who have undergone the nonconsensual Husband Stitch. Data collection is ongoing to better study these implications in a larger population.