Book review from ignorant man - Page 2

[Greaseball]

I say that if a man wants a tighter pasture, he can get his penis enlarged. "They" recommend vaginal tightening surgery for women if after 6 months, it's still too slack (probably according to her partner); why not male genital alteration surgery instead?

[KKmama]

Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head; he probably has a small penis.

FWIW, I read the review, and I *seriously* doubt he's really a dr. I think "troll" would be a better term for him...

[Mothra]

My eyes are popping out of my head. I just gasped so hard that I scared my 2yo.

This is one of the reasons why I refuse to have male ob/gyns. I KNOW that not all of them think this way, but it is a risk I'm not willing to take. What a freak show.

[Mothra]

Everyone go and click "no" next to the question that asks if the review was helpful to you!

[majazama]

[QUOTE=MelKnee]Well, he probably has to assume that all men want tighter to console himself on his tiny penis.
QUOTE]
s

[Greaseball]

I wonder if there really is such thing as a stretched vagina, or if it isn't just men trying to get back at women for saying their penises are small. "No, it's not me, it's you!"

[pamamidwife]

Originally Posted by Greaseball

I wonder if there really is such thing as a stretched vagina, or if it isn't just men trying to get back at women for saying their penises are small. "No, it's not me, it's you!"

: : : :nana:

[QueeTheBean]

Originally Posted by Rach

oh my god. I feel ill. That review made me physcially ill. I feel almost..violated!

I also feel physically ill.

This book changed my life. It put me on the road to having the most fabulous birth experience imaginable.

While I was reading it, I used to tell DH "if even HALF of what she writes about is true, it is horrifying!!!"




She wanders off muttering "pelvic floor . . . .g#$@%%*$&$fat "

[Piglet68]

the opinions of a man who puts such a high priority on a "tight" vagina mean very little to me. what a pathetic excuse for a man.

[Greaseball]

So, the book is really that good? I was thinking about getting it but I wonder if it would tell me anything I haven't already learned from other books. I've read:

• A Woman in Residence, Michelle Harrison MD
• Mal(e) Practice, Robert Mendelsohn MD
• Birth as an American Rite of Passage, Robbie Davis-Floyd
• Open Season and Silent Knife, Nancy Wainer Cohen
• Immaculate Deception, Suzanne Arms
• Spiritual Midwifery and Ina May's Guide to Childbirth, Ina May Gaskin
• Unassisted Childbirth, Laura Shanley
• Our Bodies, Our Selves

So I wasn't sure if I could learn anything more from yet another birth book.

[georgia]

The book *is* great, and I've read most of those on your list. I've checked it out at the library and borrowed it from my mw. The last thing I can afford right now is another book Henci's other book, Obstetrical Myths vs. Research Realities is also fantastic (and scary!)

All the best,

[cottonwood]

Henci's book has a level of detail I haven't seen in other books, but if you're already planning a homebirth there probably isn't much in there that is going to be relevant to you personally. It's really directed at the stupid unnecessary routine procedures done at hospitals. Basically she reviews all the medical literature in depth, provides summaries and sources, and explains the risks involved with induction, cesareans, routine monitoring, episiotimies, etc.

Someone asked if vaginal birth does change the vagina... I'm inclined to think that natural vaginal birth normally does not. But how would we know? Most women have managed births, so it really hard to say anymore what normal natural birth looks like, and what its effect is on the body. Personally, I haven't had instrumental births, episiotomy, or iatrogenic tearing, and my vagina feels no different to me (nor to my husband) than it did before I had children.

[mamaschiff]

never mind the huge slice across your abdomen and muscles and uterus from a c-section. And what about women who want large families, each c-section decreases the amount of children you may be able to have. Ugh!

[Tanibani]

Sadly, many women DO experience trauma to their pelvic floor from.... from tearing (vagina to anus), prolapse issues, etc...

(I suffered a 2nd degree tear to my vagina and 3rd degree tear to my anus. Also my vagina is much looser as a result.... DH has mentioned it and Kegel's has helped. Though interestingly I blame the PITOCIN drip - which apparently weakens the pelvic floor! And how hard I pushed (coached) and the pressure I felt to get the baby out to avoid the Csec. Do I regret having a vaginal birth? Hell no. I would not choose a C-sec unless it was medically necessary.)

But I completely blame HOW women end up giving birth - worst position position (flat on their backs, knees pullled up) with COACHED pushing by hospital staff. Watching a Baby Story is downright depressing when it comes to birthing the baby.

That's what this "expert" doesn't get. It's not "natural" or "vaginal" birth that is the problem, it's "medically managed" birth.

And that's what many women don't understand and those same women are demanding C-secs to "prevent" these issues. They hear that other women didn't have a recovery that was "so bad" (many don't) and think they'll be OK... and accept the risks.

There is a long thread somewhere on this topic and the moms are demanding their right to a C-sec.

[Greaseball]

I've tried to find the thread, but can't. I typed "tightness" into the search thing but didn't see it. You're probably not allowed to post it...but is there a better keyword?

[tinyshoes]

Originally Posted by Faith

So, can I ask a really stupid question? *Does* having babies make you looser? What about a lot of babies?

Firstly, I'd like to offer the idea that being pregnant could change the strength of the pelvic floor muscles, which is what we're talking about when we're talkin' about "tight"...since the vagina is a "potential space" between the posterior portion of the bladder and the anterior portion of the rectum.

Pregnancy can compromize the pelvic floor because the uterus, housing baby and fluid and placenta for months and months, is pushing the abs to the sides of the woman, the weight is placing strain on her back, which has to work harder/differntly because the abs aren't doing their usual thang, thus all the key body parts that are used to keep the trunk stable are compromized:
-back
-abs
-pelvic floor

So one of these areas can suffer because one of these areas cannot do its job the way it does it when unpregnant. This is why the occupational therapist I see for my pelvic floor weekness also TREATS WOMEN WHO HAVE HAD C-SECTIONS for weakness in their pelvic floors. And check this out: my OT, specializing in the pelvic floor, just passed me off to one of her partners in the clinic, because a main reason why my pelvic floor was sloppy is because it was working overtime, compensating for weakness in my hamstrings, good lord, who would've known that?!?!? The other reason is, by KEGELING, things are snappy, sassy, and happy in my neitherregions. {Because my weak hamstrings make my pelvis work harder to keep my body upright and happy and carrying around my kids all day...that makes my pelvic floor permanently 'stressed' and therefore unable to calm down and strengthen up (my OT likened this to trying to build a bigger bicep by lifting a weight if your arm were always lifted above your head, weak, stressed muscle twitching about.)}

Secondly, I am a fundamentalist when it comes to my credo that vaginas were made to birth babies.

Just as I am a staunch believer that I can count on my body to defecate properly, creating poop that is not too big to expell, signaling to me when it is time to go take a dump, following my instincts on when and how to push the poop out of my body, I am a beliver that women can birth babies vaginally, desipte what a scissor-happy OB might say (and c-sec mamas, I am not even going to bother caveating this 'cause you know I luv U and understand that there are indeed reasons that are not CPD or FTP that may require obstetrical intervention for the safety of mom 'n' baby.)

What's more, I belive that, like my butt, my vagina will recover from the temporary state of baby in birth canal...when given the oppertunity to birth in a natural, non-interventive state.

Tanibani & blueviolet, I couldn't agree more with the medical vaginal births resulting in crazy traumas to the crotch...VAGINAL births don't result in it, messing with a vaginal birth results in vaginal trauma, just like sticking a Q-tip in your ear can result in ear trauma (it's not your EAR'S FAULT)...but people do these things 'cause that's what people have done for the past 70 years.

If I had to choose between my Worst Nightmare of a Vaginal Hospital Birth and a Standard Cesarian Birth, I'm not sure which I'd pick...I'm truly not sure......because a cesarian birth is surgical, but what happens to many vaginal birthers in hosptials these days is dehumanizing.

And of course, properly-executed kegels are the anwer to increasing 'tightness'...no need to seek out a 'greener' vagina for transplant, mamas, in case any of you are secretly IMing that cool surgeon guy who wrote that awesome Amazon review!

[Xenogenesis]

Originally Posted by Greaseball

"Furthermore, as a man, I know that vaginal childbirth can induce permanent and undesirable changes in the vagina...If this were a perfect world, I suppose men wouldn't care about such a thing, but the fact is they do. Women can ignore this, but only at their own peril. Men, being men, generally don't feel comfortable enough to discuss this with their partners if it's a problem. Instead, they'll often look for a greener (can I say tighter?) pasture."

This is a common perception from a man who has had his foreskin amputated. The enveloping sensation of the (movable) foreskin around his penis is gone and he seeks it from the barrel of the vagina, and some not understanding this, ultimately blame the woman when it is "his" anatomy that has been permanently and undesirably changed. Circed or not, this is not a viable "excuse" to look for "tighter" pastures. Someone should inform him about loosening up some of that skin on his penis with manual stretching excercise so that he can somehow perhaps begin to repair a bit of his damaged organ. Or protect himself from further keratinization. Otherwise he might be headed straught for impotency.

And tell him his wife's yoni is %100 fine and she is perfect just the way she is.

Results will vary depending on the degree of damage:

The Joy of Uncircumcising!
http://www.norm.org/joy.html

"the penile glans is continually being scratched and as we age the penile glans surface dries and thickens. It is this process that decreases sensitivity, making sex less pleasurable and orgasm harder to achieve."
http://www.manhood.mb.ca/

The Vulnerability of Men:
"Even though they rarely will discuss the issue, they are keenly aware that they have been surgically altered in a very private way."
http://www.stopcirc.com/vincent/vuln...ty_of_men.html

[tinyshoes]

OMG, Last Minute, that is the coolest, most novel, & intriguing perspective I've heard in a long time, and my favorite part about your fresh insight is the plausibility of it. Here I am, all WHOOO empowered woman, and yet I neglect to think of the man's potential for his defective anatomical contribution to the "Dysfuncion of Looseness." (I neglect, 'cause it ain't the vagina's fault ANYWAY.)


It takes two to tango...

[Tanibani]

Last Minute, thank you for posting that. I was going to ask FranklySpeaking to come over from the circ board to say the same thing. He explained it best on this thread:

Circing just the tip of the foreskin

Sarah: You are absolutely right. The ridged band (Taylor's band) is like the vaginal sphincter. It is there for a purpose and it is sexually sensitive. Just the same as if you removed the muscles around the vaginal opening, removing the ridged band leaves the area sexually insensitive to that stretching sensation and will leave it loose and "sloppy." Once it is removed, it also loses it's function of stimulating the glans. You see, the glans is primarily a pressure sensitive organ and the ridged band stimulates the glans with that pressure. That pressure sensitivity is why circumcised men like a tight vagina and the foreskin is exactly why a tight vagina is less important to intact men. They are self stimulating via their preputial sphincter. That is not to say that some tightness is not important at all, just less important.

The male penis is a remarkably well designed organ to do it's intended purpose and there really aren't any superflourous parts. Just as we could do well with one less finger on each hand, a man can reproduce and enjoy it without all of the parts but we are better off with all of our fingers and all of our penis.

I love anti-circ activists.

Tinyshoes - LOVED your post... you are absolutely right that PREGNANCY already affects the pelvic floor... and Csection doesn't guarantee a pre-pregnancy vagina. :

PS Greaseball, nope that thread I referred to is not at MDC. And you are right, I can't post the link.

[LavenderMae]

Last Minute, RIGHT ON!!! I thought about that too when I read this guys opinion.