|
Re: A question about sex
From: Laura (anonymous@obgyn.net)
Wed, 27 Sep 2000 22:07:05 -0500 (CDT)
Well, from personal experience I can say it doesn't work in my case. I
had pre-eclampsia and eclampsia with all three of my children and
toxemia with my first and third and I swear I have never been with
another man and all three of them look just like their father..LOL.. My
husband and I had also been having sex for about a year before we got
preg. with our first son.. Even still there could be something to your
theory.. This is just one case out of 1000's I am sure.. But I agree
it is interesting :)
t Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Gury wrote:
>
>Hello,
>
>In islam, women are expected to be in waiting period of three months
>after divorce before they can get married again. A muslim wrote the
>following saying that it is for health reasons(though the Quran does not
>mention any *health* reasons). Can you agree or dissagree with it,
>please? And can you give any health reasons why a woman
>should not be with another man until three months is passed?
>
>[There are several good medical reasons I believe that God has asked
>women to wait "three cycles" before
> remarrying --
>
>1) the uterus "learns" the genetic makeup of a man's sperm and "best"
>accepts embryos created by that
>same man ; WITHOUT enough time to RESET medical problems
can happen.
>
>I will try to make this as simplistic to understand as possible.
>Basically, there have been studies to show
>that when a woman is rountinely having intercourse with one man her
>uterus "primes" itself to the man's
> genetic makeup.
>
>WHY is "priming" important? Well, for those who do not know, an early
>embryo (blastocyst) actually
>implants DEEP into the uterine wall -- and HALF of its genetic makeup is
>TOTALLY FOREIGN TO HER BODY.
>
>When bacteria invade our bodies, our immune systems attack it. It has
>been a puzzle to immunologists --
>WHY doesn't a woman's body DESTROY an invasive embryo with cells that
>are COMPLETELY foreign to it?
>
>It turns out that there are special "immune" cells in the lining of the
>uterus called large granulocytes that
>some immunlogists think LEARN to ignore just from the presence of a
>man's sperm in the uterus. Then,
>when a new embryo actually forms, it "TAKES" better -- ie, the uterus is
>less likely to reject it.
>
>This is further supported by the FACT that DISEASES of pregnancy that
>are DIRECTLY RELATED to how well
>the uterus "accepts" the placenta have a HIGHER INCIDENCE in women who
>got pregnant while having SEX
> WITH MULTIPLE PARTERS; examples include
>
> 1) "pre"-ecclampsia 2) ecclampsia
>
>These diseases of pregnancy are due to an inability of the placenta to
>TAKE WELL to the uterus -- as a
>result the fetus suffers and sends out distress calls; the body's
>response is to RAISE BLOOD PRESSURE
>(women with these pregnancy diseases have HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE) to try to
>get blood to the baby!! The
>theory is that uterus's that are not PROPERLY primed by a man's sperm
>(Rather, they are primed by the man
>she USUALLY sleeps with). So a woman was having intercourse with one
>man mostly but cheated and got
> pregnant by another man --OR--
>
>(my therory) one who did NOT CHEAT but did not WAIT THREE CYCLES for her
>uterus to shed the lining
>already primed by one man's sperm. No one has proven that three cycles
>is a magic number but I'd be
>willing to bet it is the perfect amount of time for her lining to RESET
>and be ready for another man.
>
>NOTE: this also proves why polyandry is not such a hot idea [I'd be
>willing to bet a study of women who
>practice polyandry would have TWICE the incidence of pre-eclampsia and
>Ecclampsia than other women]
>and why the Qur'an doesn't condone it (it amazes me the accuracy of this
>beautiful book Qur'an)
>
>2) Most ABORTIONS (as high as 95% by some sources), if they will happen
>at all, occur in the FIRST
>TRIMESTER. Keep in mind that bleeding in the first trimester of
>pregnancy may not represent a new "cycle"
>at all but the body trying to rid itself of a pregnancy gone awry ...
>this is a time when the body needs rest
>as it is making a critical decision (and certainly the uterus is not
>ready for another potential pregnancy)
>
>3)Vaginal bleeding does not always represent a "cycle." So one cycle is
>probably not enough to "prove"
>pregnancy. But really this is a stupid point. Even if a woman is
>pregnant, this is a moot point in terms of
>intercourse I think. So what if a woman is pregnant ... intercourse
>with a pregnant woman has no serious
>medial complications .. unless a woman suffers from a condition caused
>cervical incompetence. Of course,
>sexually transmitted diseases are always a risk to a baby but if we
>follow our qur'anic rule of monogamy
> then we should be OK there!!
>
>I'm not an obstetrician but I found the topic of "pre-eclampsia"
>interesting in medical school and did some
> research on it ... tell me what you all think of my theory!]
|
|
![[ Women's Health Forum ]](http://www.obgyn.net/images_women/wh-forum.gif)