Originally Posted by poetesss
Originally Posted by fourlittlebirds
Sometimes the husband isn't inside it with her, and that's not ideal; it might even cause problems. She might make that choice anyway for various reasons, just as a woman might make the choice to have a midwife there for various reasons, and that's valid. But neither choice is in itself the way birth is just "meant to be".
so where is this definition of the way birth is "meant to be" coming from? If a woman made that "choice" as you term it to have a midwife, for example, why is this choice considered less than ideal? Who's setting these ideals anyway? Seems awfully subjective to me.
If someone wants a UC I'm all for it
but I find the idea that it's the way birthing "should be" a little off putting, kwim?
Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding your intent.
I know this is an old thread, but I never answered this and wanted to clarify. No, I wasn't making a judgment as to whether attended or unattended birth is more ideal. I was asserting that attended birth is not inherently more ideal than unattended birth.
My quote above was in direct response to another poster's question:
|If sex is not meant to be alone, is birth also not meant to be alone?
She was asking whether it's possible that it's true that "birth is meant to be attended by others". My response was that no, it's not
the way birth is just meant to be, that is, the ideal expression of birth; for the mother to be alone with the baby is also a perfectly valid expression of normal physiological and spiritual birth. I put "meant to be" in quotes so as to make it clear that I was referring back to her question where she used that wording.
It might help too to see the quote in context. I wrote:
|In conception the essential dyad is the woman and man. As a heterosexual and monogamist, I'm pretty partial to keeping the sex act to that essential dyad. But many people are able to become sexually aroused, with their genitals fully and normally functional, in other configurations. In birth the essential dyad is mother and baby. It is natural and normal for it to remain so throughout the act. Nothing else is needed for it to be complete and whole in a biological and spiritual sense. But it's also possible to have other people involved and still have the body continue functioning normally. The key in this happening in both sex and birth is that anyone outside of the essential dyad be inside the experience also. Ideally, this should happen in midwifery. I get this feeling from reading a book like The Red Tent, and I think that it's the romantic vision of midwifery in our culture, but almost never the reality. It's probably similar with women having others attend a UC. Sometimes the husband isn't inside it with her, and that's not ideal; it might even cause problems. She might make that choice anyway for various reasons, just as a woman might make the choice to have a midwife there for various reasons, and that's valid. But neither choice is in itself the way birth is just "meant to be".
There's nothing in there that implies that solo UC is the only valid form of birthing -- in fact I was trying to express the opposite belief, that while something that is outside of the essential dyad may not be necessary
(in the case of normal birth, anyway,) it may still be desirable for one reason or another.
In fact, in my own last birth while I know that it would have been different and certainly with less risk of distraction and inhibition if I'd birthed solo, my husband was with me and his presence was a tremendous gift and was part of one of my favorite memories of any of my births. For me, that was as ideal as it could get; I even used the words in my birth story, "it was finally the way it was meant to be." So no, I wasn't saying that attended birth isn't meant to be, only that it is not THE way (the only way) it is meant to be.