Colombian singer Greeciy and her partner had the joyous occasion of having a son together two years ago. But in early April, the singer took to TikTok to share that after that birth in 2022, she was given “extra stitches” without her (or her partner’s) knowledge to repair a vaginal tear, something that has caused her considerable pain ever since. Greeicy is yet another survivor of a longstanding, deeply harmful practice known as “the husband stitch.” Greeicy’s story isn’t the only one to make the news in recent years. In Los Angeles last year, OB/GYN Dr. Barry Brock was sued by more than 100 women for a host of violations, including performing the husband-stitch.
As women come forward with their stories, a question emerges: How much is this harmful practice carried out in the US, and how can we protect women from being subjected to it?
In many reported cases, the husband stitch is proposed by the male doctor as a ‘favour’ to the husband or the couple. However, as Greeicy details, the husband- stitch can cause severe physical and emotional harm, including pain during urination and penetrative sex. Further, there’s no evidence that the procedure has any medical benefits. Yet, despite advocacy from anti-FGM advocates, who are often survivors, civil society organizations, and service providers, to recognise the ‘husband-stitch’ as a form of female genital mutilation or cutting (FGM/C), it is not uniformly addressed under anti-FGM/C laws. The World Health Organization recognises FGM/C as “all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons;” the injury to the genitalia caused by the extra-stitch when husband stich occurs could fall within the WHO’s definition and classification of four types of FGM/C, especially type 4 (which includes all other types of harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes not specificed in types 1, 2, 3). Yet, there has often been an avoidance and no recognition of including the husband stitch as a form of FGM/C.
One reason for this oversight is that there is a huge gap in collecting data on its prevalence in the US and elsewhere. What is known is largely anecdotal. Further, even as women do share their experiences, out of the 41 states that do have laws against FGM/C in the U.S., only in 7 of those states do the laws apply to adult women.
There are concerns raised by advocates that if FGM/C laws were applied to adults, it might blur clear lines drawn in the context of consent and who is able to give consent. Especially since FGM/C is commonly practiced among minors and consent, ideally, is not legally allowed as a defence for the act, as minors are too young to be able to give consent. Adult women are indeed able to consent; however, as is in cases of sexual and other forms of gender violence, most women are undergoing these harmful procedures without giving consent or with coerced consent. Often, they do not know that they were subjected to the harmful procedure until after it is done. The distinction involving consent could easily be addressed in the creation of comprehensive laws, where provisions could be made to distinguish between different circumstances and the type of FGM/C occurring.
However, legal reform will only occur when accompanied by change at the level of our communities. Similar to other forms of FGM/C in the U.S., we have to first publicly acknowledge that the husband-stitch is occurring and is not an urban myth. Secondly, we need information collection to develop solutions that are rooted in the real experiences of women and can address the root causes of the issue, such as misinformation, prioritising male pleasure, and patriarchal medical violence.
One concrete step that governments—at all levels—can take is to prioritize education and public awareness about the husband stitch. This effort must be embedded in laws and policies and introduced early through schools through the curriculum, healthcare systems, training programs for medical professionals and judges, and community programs. Mass communication campaigns should focus on the harmful impacts as well as the myths, misinformation, and cultural misconceptions that surround it. Equally important is holding medical practitioners accountable—whether under existing FGM/C laws or through broader legal protections that uphold women’s rights to bodily autonomy, freedom from discrimination, and protection from exploitation for male sexual gratification. While right now, husband-stitch may be considered medical malpractice, the gendered dimension of the crime is missed. Framing it solely as a medical error overlooks the societal attitudes and power dynamics that enable such violations to occur. This is not just a case of negligence or poor medical judgment—it is a form of gender-based violence that targets women precisely because of their perceived reproductive role and subordination within patriarchal systems.
A gendered dimension would ensure that this crime is treated as one that impacts a woman’s lifelong health, and as such, comprehensive laws and policies should be developed that target prevention and impose penalties that reflect the severity of its impact. Women who’ve survived this “stitch” are showing the way to a more just future for those giving birth. Their stories deserve more than a nod and a pat on the head. Doctors who carry out this procedure have to be stopped in their tracks, and the culture that allows them to behave with impunity has to undergo a crucial, necessary shift.
About the Authors:
Shivangi Misra is an international human rights lawyer, serves as a Global Legal Advisor at Equality Now, and is a Public Voices Fellow on Advancing the Rights of Women and Girls with the OpEd Project and Equality Now.
Mariya Taher, an award-winning social activist, has worked in the gender-based violence field for fifteen years in teaching, research, policy, program development, and direct service. In 2015, she cofounded Sahiyo, an organization with the mission to empower Asian and other communities to end female genital cutting/mutilation (FGM/C). She was named one of ten 2023 L’Oreal Paris Women of Worth nonprofit leaders and is a Public Voices fellow on Advancing the Rights of Women and Girls with The OpEd Project and Equality Now
