Talk:Husband stitch

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Husband stitch. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine: Society / Reproductive Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force (assessed as High-importance). This article has been marked as needing an infobox. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. improve its quality .

Sexology and sexuality Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing an infobox. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

All the sources on this topic are fairly poor. Of the better of the lot most say that the practice is an urban legend. Reading what is out there this appears to be the case. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for a good ref that this is still being done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A story in The Independent. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SV found some decent sources to support the position that the procedure exists which I have added. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC[[

@Doc James: I'm still unsure about this. I've looked up the best source's source, and that source's sources, and it doesn't lead to anything solid:

• Dobbeleir et al. 2011 is a reliable medical source. For the "husband's stitch", it cites Green 2005.
  • Green 2005, p. 170, refers to the stitch and attributes the information in-text to a Dr Robert Stubbs of Toronto, and cites Sager 1999; Braun & Wilkinson 2001; Loy 2001; and Lightfoot-Klein 1991. Looking at those:
    • Sager 1999 is a student essay, written for the UBC School of Journalism, about designer vaginas. It quotes Dr. Robert Stubbs of Toronto, but he is speaking in general about cosmetic surgery, not the husband stitch.
    • Braun and Wilkinson 2001 mention the husband stitch, citing Kitzinger 1994, the book by Sheila Kitzinger, the midwife, that we cite. Kitzinger mentions it (p. 71), saying that "some U.S. obstetricians" do it, but she doesn't cite a source.
    • Loy 2001, I can't find, but it's an essay called "Pushing the Perfect Pussy", and it was published in Jenda, a non-medical source.
    • Lightfoot-Klein 1991 (
      PMID 2030446
      ), I can only see the abstract, but it's an article about FGM. Lightfoot-Klein is an independent researcher, a non-medical source.

So we have a trail of citations, but we're really none the wiser. I'm thinking of writing to a few gynaecologists for advice. Pinking Ekem again in case he can help. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes agree User:SlimVirgin. Nothing really strong here thus why I think it is important to keep the "purported" in the first sentence.

Hard to write a decent article with so few decent sources. Put the concept appears to have gained traction in the popular press so good for us to cover it neutrally to make up for how uncritical the popular press is.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am an attending Ob/Gyn at a major university in the US, and teach the subject to residents and medical students, and I have never heard of doing this. There are some women who desire "vaginal rejuvenation" or vaginoplasty, sometimes due to perception of vaginal laxity, but I have never heard of it being done intentionally during episiotomy repair. In fact, placing an extra tightening stitch would be counterproductive as the perineum already has an inherently high risk for wound breakdown and adding additional tension would only increase this risk. D.c.camero (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The opening paragraph more or less implies the factual existence of the husband stitch, only further down are we told that there's no evidence for the medical community undertaking this battery.

Suggestions:

• Change them opening paragraph
• Add a section about why this myth has taken on such importance
• Add a section about more scientific explanations for post partum pain than the husband stitch

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.239.143 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As written, this is a weird double negative - are they saying it does or doesn't happen? Either way, it should probably be rephrased, or dropped altogether due to the weasel word "many." 2601:18E:C180:7B60:11C5:2358:CFD7:AC78 (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The same article has the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists not deny that the “husband stitch” is a procedure that happens, a gynecologist and obstetrician state that she has completed the procedure a few times and a nurse midwife along with some other physicians state that they are most familiar with it as an urban legend. Yet in the Wikipedia article, only the last is mentioned and it being seen as an urban legend is portrayed as a view held by many medical practioners, instead of the ones interviewed by the company that wrote the article. The section about it being a joke is unnecessary because, again, how can something exist but also simultaneously be a myth or a joke? There is no err in whether or not the procedure itself is a myth, it is in how often it is actually done on this day (and where and by whom) and whether or not it could be a considered a form of female genital mutilation.

This is all sourced from a single article by a lifestyle news company tailored to fathers. The medical perspective section should be improved either with more sources or completely rewritten with less bias, in both the sources and written content. 2001:14BA:A301:3A1C:0:0:0:1 (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]