I was thinking today, about stretching during birth and perineum tearing and things like that, as you do, and I was also separately thinking about my lack of belly at almost 16 weeks and how maybe I won't get as big so no more new stratchmarks maybe? And then BANG just like that, with the BANG and everything, my thoughts collided and created a new thought...
Hey, is that how the universe began?
Anyway...
Thoughts collided, BANG, and new thought...
Do you think stretchy skin (i.e. no stretchmarks, or very few at least) is related to stretchy perineums? The more stretchy your skin is, the less likely maybe you are to tear? Maybe?
Mind you, this theory is NOT good news for me and my perineum if baby exists south... because I got a LOT of stretchmarks first time around, very unstretchy skin, it's like as my belly grew, the skin didn't stretch nicely, it just tore and created massive gouges that sort of resemble tiger stripes (I did consider getting them tattooed over with flames or pointy tiger stripes or something cool like that, but Jazz pinched one one day and it REALLY hurt so I've reconsidered that, and I'm NOT getting tattoos over my stretchmarks...).
So, let's talk stretchy perineums. Did you get stretchmarks? Did you tear? Is it more to do with positioning, counterpressure, doing the pant-not-push through crowning etc? What are your experiences? Is this just another crazy theory my brain has decided sounds good enough to be true...?
The OB that came and saw me after DD2 (I tore my vaginal wall, peri and had a small labial tear) had that theory too, till he saw that I had no stretchmarks!!! So I blew that theory out of the water!! I tore badly both times yet didn't get stretch marks (only on breasts)
No stretch marks with any of the girls but got a second degree tear vaginal wall tear and a small labial tear with dd1. She was crowning and they told me not to push, well my body had other ideas and out she shot . No tears with my second and third bubbas though
I went onto a few of my uni journal databases and found a couple of studies with the same theory, and apparently the results show that abdominal stretchmarks are a fair indicator of the chance of tearing.
Eeeep.
I guess that doesn't mean people without stretchmarks won't tear, it probably just means if I have a VBAC my poor perineum is likely to ... ouch ...
Nope. I have skin that has no stretch. I have stretchmarks everywhere. With DD, I got big angry ones all over my belly. My boobs are a disaster because since they started growing, my skin has sagged under the weight.
I didn't tear a mm. Not at all, anywhere DD was 8lb 9oz and had a HC of 36cm.
I think your theory is crazy but a well written and entertaining one I did not get stretch marks in pregnancy and I didn't have any stitches when DS was born... So that part kinda proves your theory... BUT... I have stretch marks for high school!? I don't know why as I wasn't over weight, but they are there even though they are faded now and with a good sun tan you can't really see them. So that kinda blows your theory out of the universe. lol
I have the deep gouge stretch marks all over my belly. My belly is now all crinkly. First birth I had some internal tearing (no idea what, just that they stitched up something up there!). No tearing on the perineum though. Births 2 and 3 (who was 10lb) were both completely tear free, not a scrape. But they were water births and I am convinced that reduces tearing.
Not a stretchmark from pregnancy in sight and pretty well 4th degree tearing. Its thought my tear happened when DD decided to shoot out into the world with her fist out to the side though FWIW it didnt hurt when it happened . Oh and I was upright to birth.
Bookmarks