[shellbell]

I am wannabe midwife (one day) and I advocate women having babies in a healthy way. I have a friend who is an LPN who looks at things very different from me. We have had many friendly debates. When I told her that lots of internal exams late in pregnancy is inadvisable because they can cause the strep bacteria to colonize, she argued that if that was true then it would also be inadvisable for a woman to have her husbands penis inside her late in pregnancy, because it would do the same thing as an internal. Anyone ever think about this? Any thoguhts?

 

[CEG]

I think my husband dreams about a time when we can have sex and his penis will not just reach my posterior pregnant cervix, but also go inside it to feel how dilated it is

I think that is every man's dream.

Seriously though, I think there is a big difference between a penis that has been there before and a gloved hand that is reaching all the way up to your cervix and dragging with it your own bacteria and any amount of unknown bacteria.

My personal feeling is that my body's natural makeup is capable of taking care of things that come off of a penis that is free of infection, etc. If my water were broken I would probably abstain from sex, but it I were in a hospital I am sure I could expect to have my cervix checked.

 

[shellbell]

Thanks!! That all makes sense. For the record... I wasn't telling her that internals are "bad"... we knew of someone who was refusing to get any internals (barring any troublesome situation in which the homebirth midwife thought one was necessary) and she thought that was a bad idea. When I explained why people opt not to get them, she came back with her argument, saying that if that were true, it would make no sense for doctors and midwives to suggest sex to encourage labor.

 

[CEG]

Quote:

Originally Posted by shellbell Thanks!! That all makes sense. For the record... I wasn't telling her that internals are "bad"... we knew of someone who was refusing to get any internals (barring any troublesome situation in which the homebirth midwife thought one was necessary) and she thought that was a bad idea. When I explained why people opt not to get them, she came back with her argument, saying that if that were true, it would make no sense for doctors and midwives to suggest sex to encourage labor.

Some internals are bad, though. I mean in some places they just do one every hour- I guess to see if they have a reason to do a c-section yet. I actually have a doula client whose doctor told her having sex would delay her labor. I would love to know his logic for that. I think my husband is half in love with my midwife for her continually telling us to have sex at the end of my last pregnancy.

 

[maxmama]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CEG Some internals are bad, though. I mean in some places they just do one every hour- I guess to see if they have a reason to do a c-section yet. I actually have a doula client whose doctor told her having sex would delay her labor. I would love to know his logic for that. I think my husband is half in love with my midwife for her continually telling us to have sex at the end of my last pregnancy.

There was a study that came out this spring that correlated frequent sex in late pregnancy with an increased length of pregnancy. The difference was almost statistically insignificant though -- something like 39.3 weeks v. 39.9 weeks.

 

[Arwyn]

1) Penis = friendly, known object. Internal exam = unfriendly, unknown. Also, most women choose not to have sex after labor has started - but that's when most vaginal exams take place.

2) Sex after rupture of membranes IS contraindicated, as are ANY vaginal exams or anything going up and in (baths don't count).

3) Infection isn't the only reason vaginal exams are avoided by many - there's also the issue of privacy, of needing to get into uncomfortable unphysiologic positions to do the checking, of the physiolocal reaction of sexual tissues to foreign touch (tense up, pull away - not exactly desired in birth), of the psychological reaction of being taken out of internal laborland and into a more clinical, numerical space... etc, etc.

 

[CEG]

Quote:

Originally Posted by maxmama There was a study that came out this spring that correlated frequent sex in late pregnancy with an increased length of pregnancy. The difference was almost statistically insignificant though -- something like 39.3 weeks v. 39.9 weeks.

Wow, that's interesting. I would love to see what the two groups were. I wonder if the people who were still having sex were more overdue and trying to induce labor. I will have to look it up. Thanks for the info.

 

[chandasz]

Seman also contains antibiotic properties..... and prostaglandins. I'm sure a gloved hand does not

 

[Ixcuina]

And I would imagine that an internal is bringing any germs right up to and around the cervix specifically. Sex does not do this.

Though I have to admit, when GBS+ with my 2nd (and planning a homebirth)..I did decide to avoid sexual intercourse those last few weeks just in case the act could help to push the bugs a bit deeper into the vaginal canal (supposedly the bacteria tends to hang out in the lower 1/3 of the canal).

I asked my midwife about this and she had never heard anything about avoiding sex if one was GBS+...it was just a gut feeling I had about it. And I believe in following my gut

Anyhow, I eventually tested negative after re-testing every week (and following an herbal protocol). The re-tests were also separate rectal and vaginal swabs. I know this is a scenario that is not very likely to happen in working with an OB (retests and separate swabs).