Avoid c-sections!

#41

I have narrow hips and I have had super easy deliveries. I could feel them coming apart with my first child even through the epidural. They hurt going back together too! But with subsequent pregnancies it's been fine. If your body can do it that's good, I wouldn't have a c section unless it was absolutely necessary because generally your body knows what to do!

#42

Lol I meant to say soon! Haha stupid auto correct, I don't know what it will be yet.

#43

Well then I guess autocorrect has chosen a name for you in case it's a boy..

#44

Haha I can't imagine what my husband will say to that!

#45

Too lazy to find links. My guess is closer to 75%

#46

No, I found the c-section more painful than vaginal births. The pain of vaginal birth is totally different, it felt natural.

The C-section felt like a unnatural injury inflicted in war. And picking the baby up and straining on the toilet was terrible. This pain goes on for weeks and the scar tissue is sensitive for a few years.

No way I was going through that again, that's why I opted for vaginal delivery my next two times, cos there wasn't a proper medical reason for it, apart from the scar tissue being at risk of rupture. I had to be monitored throughout my next two labours incase it does. Well, I missed being monitored on my first labour oops

#47

My first labour after C-section lol

I was shit at maths with the timing of the contractions and me being deaf had a factor in me not being quite clued on with what was happening to me.

I had the contractions and I thought "Oh it takes ages." So I had my afternoon nap, when I woke up my waters broke.

My husband then phoned the midwife who yelled at him to tell me to get off the toilet! She phoned the ambulance.

Off I went, when I got to the hospital. I was 9 and half cm dilated! I had to start pushing as soon as I got into my labour room.

No pain relief, no time, bloody terrible. 4 and half degree tear. Fuck awful

#48

might be handy for when you need your offspring to take down some jew who is witchcrafted with protection against anyone born of a woman's vagina, tho

#49

I'm not sure that you realize what his point is. Because I don't think there was any bait and switch here.

And he is raising a legitimate point.

Women who are genetically predisposed to have wider hips have an advantage in childbearing, generally speaking. They tended to dominate the gene pool, because they could have more children without dying, passing this onto their daughters - this also allowed increased head size of children, allowing higher IQ.

This was a crucial genetic adaptation in the development of our species. But modern medicine has reduced the need for it - it will now become much less common in the gene pool, and women will have narrower hips with every passing generation.

We are not concerned with individuals here. We are thinking about the aggregate effect it will have on the gene pool in the future. And it is an effect that we should probably worry about.

#50

There is no absolute scientific research to determine your claim. It's been a much debated subject but nothing as a be-all complete determination.
I can only go by the fact that I have 7 healthy, strong and intelligent children and I'm still slender, with relatively narrow hips.

If you have citations for verification, go ahead and prove it.

However, there is definitely a a correlation of higher promiscuity among women with bigger asses and wider hips, according to some studies.

#51

Actually, there is lol http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38210837

It's pretty self evident, but it seems that you are taking this personally for some reason. This doesn't have anything to do with you personally.

#52

Nah. Not really. But myths are myths.
This is an article that has nothing to do with what I just said.

#53

Have your kid without the medical establishment or government even knowing, none of their fucking business.

#54

There is clear scientific evidence in the article;

More mothers now need surgery to deliver a baby due to their narrow pelvis size, according to a study.

Researchers estimate cases where the baby cannot fit down the birth canal have increased from 30 in 1,000 in the 1960s to 36 in 1,000 births today.

Historically, these genes would not have been passed from mother to child as both would have died in labour.

And

Dr Philipp Mitteroecker, of the department of theoretical biology at the University of Vienna, said there was a long standing question in the understanding of human evolution.

"Why is the rate of birth problems, in particular what we call fetopelvic disproportion - basically that the baby doesn't fit through the maternal birth canal - why is this rate so high?" he said.

"Without modern medical intervention such problems often were lethal and this is, from an evolutionary perspective, selection.

"Women with a very narrow pelvis would not have survived birth 100 years ago. They do now and pass on their genes encoding for a narrow pelvis to their daughters."

#55

Fine. I have no doubt a woman with a very narrow pelvis would have a lot of problems.
At least science has made it easier for those who need it.
I didn't.

Your point is..?

#56

Thank you that link that led me to this beautiful video.

Not nigger or shitskin in sight! Promotes marriage, proud of whiteness etc.

I certainly be showing this to my daughters.

#57

I don't think I am going to enjoy that video, not my cup of tea I guess.

#58

It's not gory the slightest, very romantic in fact.

#59

I was just kidding, men usually don't particularly enjoy menstruation talk. We tend to avoid that subject.

#60

Here's a link to the booklet "Very Personally
Yours" that accompanies the video at the bottom of the story.
It's in a printable .pdf file.