Thread: Women with petite bodies and childbearing.

I have heard that women with petite bodies tend to have more troubles in childbirth. A big baby's head is trying to emerge from a small pelvic girdle. Is this true? It seems that women with larger body types have less complications in childbearing. I have heard some men refer to these women as "breeders". In many human cultures, petite women are most attractive to men but the paradox is that these women will face more difficulties in labor. It's an irony of nature that most visually attractive women based upon the opinions of many men are not the best suited for motherhood, supposedly. If I'm not correct, please chime in.

You have heard....

Please cite your source,

If it's random chauvinistic conversations that you are referring to, then it should be actively ignored. Also it seems you may be substituting your personal preferences for "societies preferences"

Here is a source about pelvis shape and size. It indicates that women can have a doctor check their pelvis for childbearing ability.

https://postpartumtrainer.com/small-pelvis-pregnancy/

Women may have a pelvis that has a significant risk of needing a C section to deliver the baby. I may have been mistaken to assume that a petite body automatically means a pelvis too small or not ideally shaped for labor. The above site says that a man should not be too much taller than the woman he is about to impregnate. The baby might then be too large to vaginally birth. Planned pregnancies must consider the height of the man in relation to the woman and the size and shape of a woman's pelvis. Couples that don't have the ideal body sizes and/or pelvic types/sizes for easier labor of the mother might find it prudent to adopt children in need of a home than to to reproduce their own babies.

Short women can give birth naturally as long as their pelvis is adequate, and their baby is proportional in size.
Maternal height becomes an issue if the male partner is much larger than the woman.
I often see petite women who are 5 feet tall and weigh 100 lbs with partners who are over 6 feet and 200 lbs.
This is a recipe for having an infant that is too large for you and CPD.

I'm no medical doctor and that's my disclaimer. It might be wise to consult with your physicians about all this if planning to bear children.

I have had human sex ed and health and safety classes from elementary school through high school. (1970's and 1980's) A woman's pelvis type and size was not addressed with regard to safe childbearing nor was a man's relative height to the woman addressed.

Originally Posted by AmbroseJohnson

I have heard that women with petite bodies tend to have more troubles in childbirth. A big baby's head is trying to emerge from a small pelvic girdle. Is this true? It seems that women with larger body types have less complications in childbearing. I have heard some men refer to these women as "breeders". In many human cultures, petite women are most attractive to men but the paradox is that these women will face more difficulties in labor. It's an irony of nature that most visually attractive women based upon the opinions of many men are not the best suited for motherhood, supposedly. If I'm not correct, please chime in.

From a quick web search it seems this may be largely an unfounded myth:
- The hip joints in any case loosen as birth approaches, so the degree to which this occurs may be just as important as the original size of the hip girdle,
- the perceived width of hips may be to do with body fat on the hips rather than the size of the hip girdle itself, and
- the front to back distance may be just as significant as the width of the hips.

So I think you need to provide a reliable source for this idea if you want to substantiate it.

But in any case, the studies of female attractiveness to men that I have come across suggest that men like women with distinctively female hips, i.e. hips that are significantly wider than the waist. The fashion for skinny women is something else, driven I suspect by the way they carry clothes, and nothing to do with sex appeal.

(Not that it is very relevant, but that is certainly what I find attractive in women: androgynous hips are not sexy to me.)

In any case, medical doctors in obs/gyn/fertility probably know best as to which female bodies are best suited to childbirth. Not every woman is naturally suited to childbirth. Women should prudently have doctors assess their ability to deliver naturally by vagina. An extensive battery of family history medical questions should also be asked of a man and woman considering breeding together. Heights and weights of each partner should be noted. Perfect babies have two perfect parents that fit together like hand in glove. Every medical effort should be made to ensure healthy mothers and healthy babies in human breeding. Genetically-strong fathers-to-be with healthy sperm are also needed in healthy human infant breeding.

Are you mansplaning to the forum the basic steps that women thinking about having a child ALREADY are doing?

While at the same time attempting to sneak in another promotion of eugenics as a "good" idea.

I'll be blunt, no one should ever be told you CAN NOT have/attempt a child simply due to someone elses opinion of that persons genetics.

Biology doesnt DO "perfect", and that is something you need to come to grips with. Your perfect genetics and perfect child are a pipe dream never to happen.

Fit together like a hand and glove? This is suspiciously close to the lines of reasoning that certain WWII axis powers used when promoting their eugenics programs......


I would HIGHLY suggest you take a long hard look at your position if you want to stick around the forum

So, doctors should not advise prospective parents to not make babies based on family medical history? If not for perfection, I would like the human species to gravitate toward being as healthy as possible.

Nazi Germany "eugenics" was based on race, color and whatnot. My notion of "eugenics" is based purely upon health and welfare.... the reduction of world suffering. I have Dupuytren's disease and have been told it might be genetic even there is no person I know of in my family tree that has this rare illness of the hands. With this attained knowledge, I can't ever make a baby of my own in good conscience. I could adopt chidlren in need if I were to have the economic means to do so. Speaking of adopting children in need, I don't condone the purposeful bringing of children into economic poverty also. There is no excuse for this in the 21st century world.

Originally Posted by AmbroseJohnson

In any case, medical doctors in obs/gyn/fertility probably know best as to which female bodies are best suited to childbirth. Not every woman is naturally suited to childbirth. Women should prudently have doctors assess their ability to deliver naturally by vagina. An extensive battery of family history medical questions should also be asked of a man and woman considering breeding together. Heights and weights of each partner should be noted. Perfect babies have two perfect parents that fit together like hand in glove. Every medical effort should be made to ensure healthy mothers and healthy babies in human breeding. Genetically-strong fathers-to-be with healthy sperm are also needed in healthy human infant breeding.

What ridiculous, dystopian fascist nonsense.

Doctors already advise couples that have medical conditions, or carry genetics, that involve risk to them or their offspring if they reproduce. But that only applies in highly exceptional cases. The overwhelming majority of the population is perfectly capable of bringing healthy children into the world and it is their basic human right to do so.

It is noteworthy that you have yet to cite a single reliable source, for any of the dubious notions you have come out with. But it's time for the Christmas Cranks - and trolls - to come out of thw woodwork, so we're fairly used to this of ignorant stuff appearing on the forum at this time of year.

. I have Dupuytren's disease and have been told it might be genetic even there is no person I know of in my family tree that has this rare illness of the hands. With this attained knowledge, I can't ever make a baby of my own in good conscience.

Get the surgery for Dupuytrens, worked for me. AFAIK I’m the only one of several family members/relatives to have the genetics for it. Didn’t know it when my two kids were born and they’re fine. Not as rare as you think. My oldest turned 40 this year and no signs.

Don’t we all carry cancer genes? Idk

Keyword is genetics. Are you advocating a government mandated genetic check for all babies, find those carrying bad genes and then what?

Originally Posted by AmbroseJohnson

So, doctors should not advise prospective parents to not make babies based on family medical history? If not for perfection, I would like the human species to gravitate toward being as healthy as possible.

Nazi Germany "eugenics" was based on race, color and whatnot. My notion of "eugenics" is based purely upon health and welfare.... the reduction of world suffering. I have Dupuytren's disease and have been told it might be genetic even there is no person I know of in my family tree that has this rare illness of the hands. With this attained knowledge, I can't ever make a baby of my own in good conscience. I could adopt chidlren in need if I were to have the economic means to do so. Speaking of adopting children in need, I don't condone the purposeful bringing of children into economic poverty also. There is no excuse for this in the 21st century world.

So, again you feel you get to dictate to others if they are allowed to reproduce. Your basis for eugenics is in many ways the same basic concept that was used by WWII eugenicists, "impure" people are a detriment to the species as a whole, utterly ignoring that the proportion of people that fall into their definition of unworthy is the minority proportion, and at 7+ billion humans we are NOT anywhere near extinction due to genetics level.