Hayley Davies Said an IUD Injured Her Partner—What the Evidence Shows

Hayley Davies’s account dates to July 2024, when PerthNow’s account of the incident recorded her claim that a sexual partner suffered a penile wound, that she experienced cervical pain or injury, and that she went to hospital to have her intrauterine device removed. The article establishes what Davies publicly described, but it does not independently verify the cause or clinical severity of either injury.

The status of the story has not materially changed: the available public record contains no hospital documents, examination findings or statement from the partner or a treating clinician. The central claim therefore remains a first-person account, while current medical guidance supplies an important qualification—an IUD normally remains inside the uterus, so the description of a partner directly striking the device cannot be accepted as a clinical explanation without an examination.

What Davies’s account establishes

Davies described pain during intercourse and noticing her partner’s injury afterward, when they entered a shower. Her version attributes both injuries to the IUD and links her hospital visit to its removal. Those are consistent elements of the published account, not independently documented medical findings.

Several facts needed to determine the mechanism are absent. The public material does not identify the device as a copper or hormonal model, establish whether it was correctly positioned, describe the length or condition of its threads, or explain what clinicians found before removing it. It also provides no diagnosis for the partner’s wound.

That evidentiary gap matters because removal after an incident does not establish what caused the preceding injury. The device could have been removed because it had moved, because Davies was in pain, as a precaution, or for another clinical reason. Selecting among those possibilities without records would turn speculation into fact.

The same limit applies to claims that the partner lost part of his penis. The account describes torn tissue in graphic, informal language, but it does not document an amputation, permanent loss of length or another lasting anatomical change. A reference to a piece of injured tissue is not sufficient to establish that someone permanently lost part of an organ.

Why the alleged IUD mechanism is uncertain

An IUD is positioned in the uterus, beyond the cervix. Two thin threads pass through the cervix into the upper vagina, allowing the user to check the device and a trained clinician to remove it. During intercourse, those threads—not a correctly positioned device itself—are the part a partner could potentially encounter.

Official NHS guidance on IUD complications says a partner should not normally feel the threads during sex and advises a clinical check if they can be felt and cause a problem. It also identifies movement or expulsion as possible complications and lists persistent or worsening lower-abdominal pain, very heavy bleeding, fever, unusual discharge, pregnancy concerns, or threads that feel different among reasons to seek urgent advice.

This guidance does not demonstrate that Davies’s experience was impossible. It shows that “hitting the IUD” is not a complete anatomical diagnosis. Establishing whether the device had shifted, whether part of it was exposed, or whether the injuries resulted from force or another form of trauma would require an examination and, in some circumstances, imaging.

The distinction also affects contraceptive protection. Changed or missing threads can indicate that a device has moved or come out, although there are other explanations for threads becoming difficult to feel. Until its position has been checked, a person cannot safely infer from the presence of an IUD alone that it remains correctly placed.

A penile wound is not necessarily a penile fracture

The expression “broken penis” is often used loosely, but penile fracture has a specific medical meaning. It is a tear in the tunica albuginea, the tough tissue surrounding the erectile chambers, usually caused when an erect penis bends suddenly and forcefully. The injury is called a fracture even though the penis contains no bone.

Mayo Clinic’s clinical explanation identifies immediate pain, a popping or cracking sound, rapid loss of erection, swelling and discoloration as characteristic signs. It states that suspected fracture requires prompt medical care and is often repaired surgically because lack of treatment may lead to curvature or erectile dysfunction.

None of the publicly available details about Davies’s partner establishes that pattern. The story does not document a popping sound, sudden loss of erection, swelling, discoloration, urethral injury, an examination or surgery. A cut, abrasion or other surface wound can be serious, but it is not automatically a fracture.

Conversely, the absence of those details in a media account does not prove that they did not occur. It means the injury cannot responsibly be classified from the published narrative. The defensible description is limited to a penile wound that Davies attributed to contact involving her IUD.

What the story can—and cannot—tell readers

The account supports three limited conclusions: Davies experienced pain during the encounter, observed an injury to her partner, and sought hospital care involving removal of her IUD. It does not establish the position of the device before removal, the precise cause of either injury, a penile fracture, or permanent loss of penile tissue.

The medically relevant point is not the most graphic version of the story but the symptoms it describes. Severe genital or pelvic pain during intercourse, significant bleeding, rapidly developing swelling, a cracking sensation, altered IUD threads or difficulty urinating can indicate injuries that require prompt professional assessment. Their cause cannot be diagnosed reliably from appearance or a creator’s retrospective account alone.

Personal testimony can accurately communicate pain, fear and a hospital visit without supplying the evidence needed for a clinical conclusion. In this case, Davies remains the identified narrator of a real public account, but the alleged role of the device and the extent of her partner’s injury should remain explicitly attributed to her version of events.

Also read:

• Mother and adult film actress explains her reasons for being nude at home around her teenage son
• A woman who instructs on machine learning and calculus via Pornhub shares her motivations for doing so.
• Argentina’s President Milei Implicated in $LIBRA Scam: Forensic Evidence Shows $5M Payout Agreement