By Damilola Amoo
The practice known as the “husband stitch” has been identified as a harmful and unethical procedure that mirrors elements of Type II Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). It involves adding extra sutures during the repair of vaginal tears or episiotomy after childbirth—beyond what is medically required. This practice is neither necessary nor medically justified. Yet, reports indicate that some healthcare providers, including midwives, nurses, and doctors, still carry it out in clinical settings, particularly immediately after childbirth.
Historical references to the procedure date back to as early as 1885, with further documentation appearing in medical literature by the 1920s. While the term itself may not have been widely known, the practice has existed for decades—often unspoken, misunderstood, or normalized within maternal care.
This issue was brought to the fore during a recent episode of Eve’s Lounge, where guest speaker Elizabeth Ogunbamowo, a researcher with Dubawa, shed light on the disturbing realities surrounding the procedure.
Women who have undergone the so-called husband stitch have reported severe and prolonged pain. In many cases, the vaginal opening is stitched tighter than its natural state—even beyond what is typical prior to childbirth. This raises serious concerns, especially as such procedures are performed in hospitals—environments expected to uphold the highest standards of care and ethics. “For many women, what should be a moment of healing after childbirth becomes the beginning of prolonged pain and trauma.”
The intent behind the husband stitch is often framed as enhancing sexual pleasure for the male partner, with little to no consideration for the woman’s comfort, health, or consent. Accounts from affected women reveal traumatic experiences, including complications such as tearing during intercourse due to excessive tightening. One account described severe tearing extending toward the perineal area as a result of the procedure.
Medical experts and researchers have further noted that some women later require corrective procedures to reverse the damage caused by the husband stitch—an indication of the harm it inflicts rather than any supposed benefit. “Husband stitch did not provide the solution it was intended for; rather, it brings more pain. It should be recognized as a form of FGM.”
Fundamentally, this practice constitutes a violation of women’s rights and bodily autonomy, aligning with broader concerns around gender-based violence. It reflects deep-rooted gender biases that prioritize male satisfaction over female well-being. As such, there is a growing call for the husband stitch to be formally recognized as a form of FGM.
With the global commitment to eliminate FGM by 2030, it is imperative that awareness be raised about this lesser-known but damaging practice. Stronger advocacy, stricter medical regulation, and increased public education are essential steps toward its complete eradication.
As conversations like this gain momentum, silence can no longer be an option. The medical community, policymakers, and the public must confront this practice for what it is—not a harmless tradition, but a violation. Ending it requires more than awareness; it demands accountability, enforcement of ethical standards, and a firm commitment to protecting the dignity and rights of every woman.
By Damilola Amoo
Convener, Eve’s Lounge
