First off, I think skin tearing during birth would have more to do with skin than with body size, when not concidering the more important factors about the birth such as birthing at mom's own pace, not forced on mom's back, no directed pushing, no episiototmy.
With that, I'm a 5' 7" 115 pre-preg and 117 between pregs, and my homebirth midwives did some pelvic measurements on me at 37 weeks, and both applauded my AMPLE birthing hips, which are 35 inches around non-pregnant.
The circumference around a woman's hips are NOT an indicator of the size of the true pelvic outlet through which the baby passes.
I know a very small mama who has had two babies, and for her body (and indeed just like her mother) she goes into labor "early" and births "small" babies--I put this stuff in quotes, because it is obvious that her wise body makes 'em and then knows when it's best to birth them, babies small but full-term & mature by any measure.
|originally posted by badomama
I've heard that small-framed women are less likely to be able to have an intervention free birth without tearing (a lot).
Since most births occur in hosptials, and most births are interviened with, so both small- and large-framed women are less likely to have intervention-free births...and the bad
perineal tears are the ones that extend from episiotomies.
One last thing: mamas here today are the product of genes with hips that can birth a baby, no matter what her dress size!