Intresting article on oxytocin

What science can tell us about sex.
User avatar
Mrs Weller
Queen bed
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 6:41 am
Date of your marriage (past or future): May 13th, 2006
Gender: Female
Location: UK

Intresting article on oxytocin

Postby Mrs Weller » Tue Nov 11, 2014 3:26 am

What are we doing to our selves. God gave us this special hormone why are we messing with it? ... ive-birth/

I am dyslexic and writing scares me.

User avatar
King bed
Posts: 735
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 1:54 pm
Date of your marriage (past or future): June 7th, 2013
Gender: Male
Location: Yarvil, OH

Re: Intresting artical on oxytocin

Postby cbmike » Tue Nov 11, 2014 6:24 am

I would certainly take this article with a huge grain of salt. Even if the basic premise is accurate (which seems to be essentially that modern equipment has made our oxytocin production susceptible to genetic drift), I would suspect it would take a very long time before we literally became incapable of giving birth considering our population size and the probable frequency of that ability. The main expert quoted in the article also has a habit of being more than a little alarmist, and spouting such gems as

Michel Odent wrote:...witnessing childbirth can ruin the sexual attraction between a couple and lead to them becoming just good friends and thengetting divorced. Some men end up suffering from a widely-unrecognised male equivalent of postnatal depression, he added. Others end up playing golf or computer games – or even walking out and never returning – as they try to avoid their new reality. A few end up with schizophrenia or other mental disorders, he said.
There's one thing I know, and this is it.

User avatar
Under the stars
Posts: 4078
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 8:29 am
Date of your marriage (past or future): August 13th, 1983
Gender: Male

Re: Intresting artical on oxytocin

Postby txtwindad » Tue Nov 11, 2014 6:31 am

Yep, looks like rubbish to me. Built around a core bit of truth. Lots of assertions without any data to back it up. The unneeded use of scheduled c sections and pitosin drips do seem like a bad idea though. But isn't it marvelous that those measures are available when medically necessary.
 "Baby, Baby go and fetch some water,
Pour it on me so's I don't melt.
Can't you see you've got me burnin' hotter
Than a black vinyl car seat in ..." Two Tons of Steel

User avatar
Under the stars
Posts: 4071
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 12:15 pm
Date of your marriage (past or future): January 1st, 2004
Gender: Male
Location: USA

Re: Intresting artical on oxytocin

Postby padsnd » Tue Nov 11, 2014 8:39 am

Yeah. I was going to say something similar about the article. I do believe that scheduled c-sections as a means to "plan" things better for convenience is a bad thing. I have heard of couples wanting a particular birthday or not wanting to deal with childbirth or whatever. I find all of those to be dangerous reasons to mess with normal processes.

But, that only tells half the story..,

Modern medicine has made these things possible. The benefits of them have greatly changed the mortality rate of women related to pregnancy and childbirth. In developing countries without these techniques, pregnancy, delivery, and the post recovery still carry some pretty significant risks to the life of the mother. WHO's latest numbers are 289,000 deaths per year--almost all of which would not result in death with modern techniques.

I also question the statistics methodology. He compares two hospitals. What other variables apply here?

For example: In my city we have two hospitals. A is a trama center; B is not. In terms of staff, patients, rooms etc., A is about ten times the size of B. A has delivery rooms and then they move a person to other rooms after birth. They have a NICU. B has a dozen or so rooms that are set up to deliver the baby and have the mother and father stay in that same room until the baby goes home. So, many parents like the idea of B's approach. B also touts a much higher percentage of natural births. But, the numbers are rigged a bit. As a friend used to say, "Figures lie, and liars figure."

Because A has a NICU and a trama center, it is more likely to have a higher number of c-sections because people with complicated pregnancies are directed there before they even get to delivery. If a woman has preeclampsia, she will be immediately sent to A. Additionally, B operates on a policy that any complications during labor result in transport to A--unless the mother is not okay to transport. If they let one go long enough before transporting that it is not safe to transport, someone has explaining to do. So, B rarely has an "emergency". In fact, the delivery nurses at B regularly have their babies delivered at A. They aren't equipped for the emergency so the deal with them appropriately by letting A handle them, Their marketing crew though fudges the details to make it spin into a "our percentages are lower" thing.

So, what are the other variables between these two hospitals? Are the mothers with complicated pregnancies directed to the hospital that performs more advanced techniques? Are the other complications perhaps a factor or an indication of another factor that explains the symptoms he attributes to the procedure?

Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

Return to “The Science of Sex”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users