Is it just me, or does this not seem a terribly convincing explanation? If this sexual selection mechanism created menopause in humans, why not in other species?

>AS If there wasn’t enough to blame blokes for.
According to a ground breaking new study, the preference – among men of all ages – for having babies with younger women has caused the menopause in older women.

Menopause has mystified scientists for decades. Humans are believed to be the only species where females become infertile in later life.

Now the study claims the answer is that menopause is an unintended consequence of natural selection – where an advantageous trait is passed on through generations, or an unneeded trait is lost, in one of the basic mechanisms of evolution.

The Canadian researchers claim that, over time, competition among men of all ages for younger mates has left older females with much less chance of reproducing.

The pressures of natural selection focus on the survival of the species through individual fitness, so they protect fertility in women while they are most likely to reproduce when they are younger, while fertility in older women is an unnecessary trait.

“This theory says if women were reproducing all along, and there were no preference against older women, women would be reproducing like men are for their whole lives.” Dr Rama Singh, one of the leaders of the McMaster’s University study said.

“In a sense it is like ageing, but it is different because it is an all-or-nothing process that has been accelerated because of preferential mating.’‘

More: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/men-wanting-younger-women-to-blame-for-menopause/story-fni0dql5-1226663589355

Yes, unconvincing.

It would be easy to think of several other mechanisms that are plausible. How to test each of the notions? I don’t know.

>Menopause has mystified scientists for decades. Humans are believed to be the only species where females become infertile in later life.

I’d be looking for factors that are unique to humans. Such as our knowledge that coitus and pregnancy are causally linked. If this realisation occurred early enough in hominid evolution, it may have resulted in older women themselves deciding to refrain from sexual intercourse, to avoid having any more babies. The computational models of the sexual selection theory would equally fit this scenario.

How did they test this hypothesis?

dv said:

How did they test this hypothesis?

Dunno, but you could read the methods section…

http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1003092

I wouldn’t be blaming it on the men.

I cannot see any reason to.

It would only make sense if there were absolutely no sexual interest in women of post-menopausal ages. I contend that may not be the case.

Soso said:

It would only make sense if there were absolutely no sexual interest in women of post-menopausal ages. I contend that may not be the case.

I agree.

I would venture to guess that it has more to do with child-rearing than mating.
To successfully raise a child through the age of self reliance takes a remarkably
long time in homo sapiens. If the venture is embarked upon too late in life it reduces
the chances of producing an adult that can go on to do the same.

My guess would be that over time, a successful outcome was best secured both the
female was young and healthy enough to give birth, whose chances were further
increased when there was an older, more experiences woman present (a Granny)
as a secondary care-giver, child-tender, and teacher, as well as an all-round helper
forager, during the long pregnancy, and afterward especially in family units with
multiple young children. The presence of an older, more experienced woman who
can assist during birthing further increases the chances of success.

What I’m getting at is that Natural Selection may indeed come into play, but rather
than simple in the case of an individual, or mated pair, but for the first time, the
evolution of an entire viable family unit.

Ogmog said:

I would venture to guess that it has more to do with child-rearing than mating.
To successfully raise a child through the age of self reliance takes a remarkably
long time in homo sapiens. If the venture is embarked upon too late in life it reduces
the chances of producing an adult that can go on to do the same.

My guess would be that over time, a successful outcome was best secured both the
female was young and healthy enough to give birth, whose chances were further
increased when there was an older, more experiences woman present (a Granny)
as a secondary care-giver, child-tender, and teacher, as well as an all-round helper
forager, during the long pregnancy, and afterward especially in family units with
multiple young children. The presence of an older, more experienced woman who
can assist during birthing further increases the chances of success.

What I’m getting at is that Natural Selection may indeed come into play, but rather
than simple in the case of an individual, or mated pair, but for the first time, the
evolution of an entire viable family unit.

Thanks for providing that perspective.

>My guess would be that over time, a successful outcome was best secured both the
female was young and healthy enough to give birth, whose chances were further
increased when there was an older, more experiences woman present (a Granny)
as a secondary care-giver, child-tender, and teacher, as well as an all-round helper
forager, during the long pregnancy, and afterward especially in family units with
multiple young children. The presence of an older, more experienced woman who
can assist during birthing further increases the chances of success.<

While this is all true enough, it’s not clear how such behaviour patterns in themselves could result in the evolution of menopause.

Bubblecar said:

>My guess would be that over time, a successful outcome was best secured both the
female was young and healthy enough to give birth, whose chances were further
increased when there was an older, more experiences woman present (a Granny)
as a secondary care-giver, child-tender, and teacher, as well as an all-round helper
forager, during the long pregnancy, and afterward especially in family units with
multiple young children. The presence of an older, more experienced woman who
can assist during birthing further increases the chances of success.<

While this is all true enough, it’s not clear how such behaviour patterns in themselves could result in the evolution of menopause.

It does if you consider the length of time required for a human child to become self-sufficient. If the old girl dies so would the child otherwise it would become a burden on the rest of the tribe. Therefore and true to evolutionary process, the weak and disadvantaged die out and so would a need for old women to keep having children, as it would disadvantage all.

>Therefore and true to evolutionary process, the weak and disadvantaged die out and so would a need for old women to keep having children, as it would disadvantage all.

That’s probably what the most accepted hypothesis suggests (families with older women free to help with the youngsters were more reproductively successful than those with women dying in childbirth towards the end of their lives, or being burdened with more kids of their own, so that the menopause mutation eventually becomes selected). But it’s still a murky picture. Especially since we expect average lifespans to be considerably lower anyway early in human & prehuman history.

Bubblecar said:

>Therefore and true to evolutionary process, the weak and disadvantaged die out and so would a need for old women to keep having children, as it would disadvantage all.

That’s probably what the most accepted hypothesis suggests (families with older women free to help with the youngsters were more reproductively successful than those with women dying in childbirth towards the end of their lives, or being burdened with more kids of their own, so that the menopause mutation eventually becomes selected). But it’s still a murky picture. Especially since we expect average lifespans to be considerably lower anyway early in human & prehuman history.

c’mon bubbles.. You can do better than that.

shorter life spans = faster evolution processes.

Yes but menopause kicks in at an age when one would expect most human ancestors to already be dead.

Bubblecar said:

>Therefore and true to evolutionary process, the weak and disadvantaged die out and so would a need for old women to keep having children, as it would disadvantage all.

That’s probably what the most accepted hypothesis suggests (families with older women free to help with the youngsters were more reproductively successful than those with women dying in childbirth towards the end of their lives, or being burdened with more kids of their own, so that the menopause mutation eventually becomes selected). But it’s still a murky picture. Especially since we expect average lifespans to be considerably lower anyway early in human & prehuman history.

As with other mammals I would think hominids originally reproduced for their entire life, but as child caring lengthened due to increasing brain size, reproduction into old age would increasingly become a disadvantage for the species. However somewhere along the evolutionary process a women ceased (due to gene mutation) to reproduce at an elderly, yet still functional age. Therefore she was able to pass on her experience and assist physically, which would be a distinct advantage to her group, especially when compared to other groups where the women had children until they died and could not assist the tribe as a whole.

These other tribes therefore would not have an additional and highly functional individual(s) and so would be less successful and likely die-off or the genes from the more successful tribe passed onto them via natural selection.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

>Therefore and true to evolutionary process, the weak and disadvantaged die out and so would a need for old women to keep having children, as it would disadvantage all.

That’s probably what the most accepted hypothesis suggests (families with older women free to help with the youngsters were more reproductively successful than those with women dying in childbirth towards the end of their lives, or being burdened with more kids of their own, so that the menopause mutation eventually becomes selected). But it’s still a murky picture. Especially since we expect average lifespans to be considerably lower anyway early in human & prehuman history.

As with other mammals I would think hominids originally reproduced for their entire life, but as child caring lengthened due to increasing brain size, reproduction into old age would increasingly become a disadvantage for the species. However somewhere along the evolutionary process a women ceased (due to gene mutation) to reproduce at an elderly, yet still functional age. Therefore she was able to pass on her experience and assist physically, which would be a distinct advantage to her group, especially when compared to other groups where the women had children until they died and could not assist the tribe as a whole.

These other tribes therefore would not have an additional and highly functional individual(s) and so would be less successful and likely die-off or the genes from the more successful tribe passed onto them via natural selection.

Another advantage to the tribe is “Elders” functioning as teachers and persons knowledgeable in the
locating, processing, and administering of medicinal herbs, and other skills acquired over a life-time,
otherwise we’d be stuck endlessly “re-inventing the wheel” from the word “GO” every generation.

Teaching & Learning are a distinct evolutionary advantage, that puts us miles ahead of all other primates.

Bubblecar said:

Yes but menopause kicks in at an age when one would expect most human ancestors to already be dead.

I don’t think this is necessarily the case. Infants and young children had a high mortality rate in stone-age societies, but once they reached maturity their survival rate was high. Mature males were more likely to die from injuries due to their more active lifestyle, but women far less so and would commonly reach a reasonable age. This is reflected in human society until quite recently, only distorted by more diseases from higher density living.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

Yes but menopause kicks in at an age when one would expect most human ancestors to already be dead.

I don’t think this is necessarily the case. Infants and young children had a high mortality rate in stone-age societies, but once they reached maturity their survival rate was high. Mature males were more likely to die from injuries due to their more active lifestyle, but women far less so and would commonly reach a reasonable age. This is reflected in human society until quite recently, only distorted by more diseases from higher density living.

distorted or still evolving?

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

Yes but menopause kicks in at an age when one would expect most human ancestors to already be dead.

I don’t think this is necessarily the case. Infants and young children had a high mortality rate in stone-age societies, but once they reached maturity their survival rate was high. Mature males were more likely to die from injuries due to their more active lifestyle, but women far less so and would commonly reach a reasonable age. This is reflected in human society until quite recently, only distorted by more diseases from higher density living.

distorted or still evolving?

If disease in a premedical era has altered the death from an earlier period, when population numbers were far less and infectious disease also far less, then that is a distortion. However as the human immune system is becoming more resilient to these diseases, then that is evolutionary, but is not necessarily good for the survival of the species, as current and likely near future global events will test.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

I don’t think this is necessarily the case. Infants and young children had a high mortality rate in stone-age societies, but once they reached maturity their survival rate was high. Mature males were more likely to die from injuries due to their more active lifestyle, but women far less so and would commonly reach a reasonable age. This is reflected in human society until quite recently, only distorted by more diseases from higher density living.

distorted or still evolving?

If disease in a premedical era has altered the death from an earlier period, when population numbers were far less and infectious disease also far less, then that is a distortion. However as the human immune system is becoming more resilient to these diseases, then that is evolutionary, but is not necessarily good for the survival of the species, as current and likely near future global events will test.

Indeed there is much yet to be learnt.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

Yes but menopause kicks in at an age when one would expect most human ancestors to already be dead.

I don’t think this is necessarily the case. Infants and young children had a high mortality rate in stone-age societies, but once they reached maturity their survival rate was high. Mature males were more likely to die from injuries due to their more active lifestyle, but women far less so and would commonly reach a reasonable age. This is reflected in human society until quite recently, only distorted by more diseases from higher density living.

distorted or still evolving?

Both:
Until recently, humans took longer and longer to mature as life continued to be more complex,
and older people are dying off in droves after having reached the age where cellular division
inevitably lead to cancers of one type or another.

I read a study, “The Emperor of All Maladies” by Dr. Siddhartha Mukherjee, who claims that
given enough time, cancer becomes inevitable. It’s not a matter of “if” but rather “when”.

Possibly it’s just a time when it’s better to concentrate activities on existing children rather than enter into the risk of bearing a new child that a woman and/or her man may not be around to raise anyway.

So, the increasing difficulties of human pregnancy, and the increasing time for humans to reach maturity diminishing the relative reproductive value of late-in-life pregnancy.

Ogmog said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

I don’t think this is necessarily the case. Infants and young children had a high mortality rate in stone-age societies, but once they reached maturity their survival rate was high. Mature males were more likely to die from injuries due to their more active lifestyle, but women far less so and would commonly reach a reasonable age. This is reflected in human society until quite recently, only distorted by more diseases from higher density living.

distorted or still evolving?

Both:
Until recently, humans took longer and longer to mature as life continued to be more complex,
and older people are dying off in droves after having reached the age where cellular division
inevitably lead to cancers of one type or another.

I read a study, “The Emperor of All Maladies” by Dr. Siddhartha Mukherjee, who claims that
given enough time, cancer becomes inevitable. It’s not a matter of “if” but rather “when”.

Everybody has cancer.

Soso said:

Possibly it’s just a time when it’s better to concentrate activities on existing children rather than enter into the risk of bearing a new child that a woman and/or her man may not be around to raise anyway.

So, the increasing difficulties of human pregnancy, and the increasing time for humans to reach maturity diminishing the relative reproductive value of late-in-life pregnancy.

these are relevant points to raise.

Soso said:

Ogmog said:

roughbarked said:

distorted or still evolving?

Both:
Until recently, humans took longer and longer to mature as life continued to be more complex,
and older people are dying off in droves after having reached the age where cellular division
inevitably lead to cancers of one type or another.

I read a study, “The Emperor of All Maladies” by Dr. Siddhartha Mukherjee, who claims that
given enough time, cancer becomes inevitable. It’s not a matter of “if” but rather “when”.

Everybody has cancer.

no news was better news

roughbarked said:

Soso said:

Possibly it’s just a time when it’s better to concentrate activities on existing children rather than enter into the risk of bearing a new child that a woman and/or her man may not be around to raise anyway.

So, the increasing difficulties of human pregnancy, and the increasing time for humans to reach maturity diminishing the relative reproductive value of late-in-life pregnancy.

these are relevant points to raise.

These are not something that can be passed down through the generations. Menopause happens, it is in their genes. It is not something women can choose to do.

LOL… INDEED!
…I could have done very well without the Hot Flashes if I’d had my dr’uthers. :-/

Ogmog said:

LOL… INDEED!
…I could have done very well without the Hot Flashes if I’d had my dr’uthers. :-/

Alas or perhaps not! We cannot plan how we evolve, but only at best, influence by our lifestyle.

The pressures of natural selection focus on the survival of the species through individual fitness, so they protect fertility in women while they are most likely to reproduce when they are younger, while fertility in older women is an unnecessary trait.

“This theory says if women were reproducing all along, and there were no preference against older women, women would be reproducing like men are for their whole lives.” Dr Rama Singh, one of the leaders of the McMaster’s University study said.
————————————————————

Yeah as said, except of course that birthing a child is slightly more dangerous than concieving one…

Big headed evolutionary sexism.

The only mystery to me is why it is considered a mystery.

Young humans with living mothers and/or grand mothers are more likely to survive than those without living mothers or grandmothers, and mothers are more likely to survive if they stop having babies after a certain age.

It would be easy to set up a reasonably accurate computer model.

The only mystery to me is why it is considered a mystery.
————————————————————————

So why is this not prominent is other sepecies?

Mr Ironic said:

The only mystery to me is why it is considered a mystery.
————————————————————————

So why is this not prominent is other sepecies?

Young members of other species don’t rely on their mothers for so long.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The only mystery to me is why it is considered a mystery.

Young humans with living mothers and/or grand mothers are more likely to survive than those without living mothers or grandmothers, and mothers are more likely to survive if they stop having babies after a certain age.

It would be easy to set up a reasonably accurate computer model.

On the other hand if most men refrained from having sex with older women, this would allow the minority who did fancy older women to have offspring that they would otherwise have to compete for, so these genes would increase in number, and the “not having sex with older women” genes would decrease in number.

>On the other hand if most men refrained from having sex with older women, this would allow the minority who did fancy older women to have offspring that they would otherwise have to compete for, so these genes would increase in number, and the “not having sex with older women” genes would decrease in number.<

But you’ve just said that offspring from older women would have less chance to survive.

>The only mystery to me is why it is considered a mystery.

‘Cos, we don’t know the answer, and there are competing hypotheses. We may never know the full story, but there are many questions like that from the inaccessible past. But we can speculate and some speculations will be accepted as making more sense than others.

Bubblecar said:

>The only mystery to me is why it is considered a mystery.

‘Cos, we don’t know the answer, and there are competing hypotheses. We may never know the full story, but there are many questions like that from the inaccessible past. But we can speculate and some speculations will be accepted as making more sense than others.

I vaguely recall women are born with a certain number of eggs that develop over their fertile life. Perhaps in this area lies the menopausal evolution of Homo sapiens.

If you tend to up the nearest tree on seeing a lion coming your way this doesn’t mean lions drove the evolution of human tree climbing abilities.

Is there an advantage in having mothers competing with daughters, or grandmothers competing with granddaughters, given how long humans take to develop. You know humans are big brained, have a large cranium and in a way are born premature. Development takes a long time , lots to be learned to arrive in adult form.

transition said:

Is there an advantage in having mothers competing with daughters, or grandmothers competing with granddaughters, given how long humans take to develop. You know humans are big brained, have a large cranium and in a way are born premature. Development takes a long time , lots to be learned to arrive in adult form.

I wondered whether having children and grandchildren in similar age cohorts might increase the risk of inbreeding, but menopause is probably too late for that given the age breeding starts in traditional societies.

Would any evidence of menopause fossilize?

Menopause has quite a broad spread in humans, the ages it may start to the age of menopause proper, so am wondering if menopause is really more a fertility decline, and re that there comes for some or even many women a decline in an interest for sex.

Eggs become fewer and what are left are less reliable. Well, that the extent of my general knowledge re that, I’d have to go Wikipedia the subject to be sure.

Perhaps the extended modern life we enjoy distorts the picture a bit. Our ancestors weren’t so given to living as long as people today. Those way back, but not so far back too.

Not too much to be read into menopause characteristics I think, as it seems highly varied with a large spread, suggesting the variability may be more important than any one example.

Something similar applies to other attributes also, like physical characteristics and mental abilities. It seems recombining DNA is a dice rolling exercise, and something of a spread of attributes is advantageous and loosely selected. It keeps possibilities open within groups, and across generations.

As for men, well, I don’t have to worry about complications fo childbirth killing me. Which can be the obvious, but also may include for ancestral women the prospect of not being able look out for children and self.

transition said:

Menopause has quite a broad spread in humans, the ages it may start to the age of menopause proper, so am wondering if menopause is really more a fertility decline, and re that there comes for some or even many women a decline in an interest for sex.

Eggs become fewer and what are left are less reliable. Well, that the extent of my general knowledge re that, I’d have to go Wikipedia the subject to be sure.

Perhaps the extended modern life we enjoy distorts the picture a bit. Our ancestors weren’t so given to living as long as people today. Those way back, but not so far back too.

Not too much to be read into menopause characteristics I think, as it seems highly varied with a large spread, suggesting the variability may be more important than any one example.

Something similar applies to other attributes also, like physical characteristics and mental abilities. It seems recombining DNA is a dice rolling exercise, and something of a spread of attributes is advantageous and loosely selected. It keeps possibilities open within groups, and across generations.

As for men, well, I don’t have to worry about complications fo childbirth killing me. Which can be the obvious, but also may include for ancestral women the prospect of not being able look out for children and self.

No… but what you DO have to worry about is getting your arse kicked by some younger
more virile, highly competitive, sack of Hormones (and Male Pheromones)

Perhaps at that point in your life you (or your hormones & pheromones) need to decide
to dial it back a few clicks, and let the Sacks of Raging Hormones fight it out.

Maybe, just maybe, you’re also pretty beat up from years of burning the candle at both ends
and would welcome retiring to a more settled life with someone who could actually care
enough about you, perhaps the someone that YOU’D Cared for for years, with whom you’ve
actually bonded with beyond the raging sex during both your lives, and now you’ve actually
become friends with. Not a bad way to round out a relatively long life. Quietly content. :) <> (:

Of course it helps if The Old Girl has also gone through some sort of hormonal shift of her own.
Her pheromones have also been dialed back, so she’s no longer seen (or more to the point,
SMELLED like competition to younger more fit female sacks of hormones. ;)

Now she takes up a life of cooperation, rather than competition. Now she’s more disposed to
teaching/learning & sharing her life time supply of experiences to the benefit of the society.

Meanwhile, as time passes, her testosterone level rises at roughly the same rate that her mate’s
is falling. He’s less aggressive, and more content to be around the grandkids, and help with
cleaning the cave, while she and the other ladies are out fishing, fetching and foraging.

Again… not a bad life. :) (: kinda’ nice way to wind down when you think about it.

I guess what I’m getting at is that “MENOPAUSE” isn’t a matter of BLAME. It Just HAPPENS.
…and it doesn’t happen over night, it’s a slow steady hormonal shift for everyone involved,
and it’s not necessarily “A BAD THING”.

rich blokes normally dump the old warbird and trade in for a younger model

what is also annoying is this practice of older women cutting their hair shorter and shorter, in the end they are positively bald

I suppose that’s the competition thing dropping away, you are advertising as an older woman that you you’re looking around anymore

a truly horrendous thing I see sporadically is a woman with fairly large breasts with no bra

the breasts themselves have drooped down to the stomach

the woman herself seems to be oblivious to the swinging weight on her stomach

wookiemeister said:

what is also annoying is this practice of older women cutting their hair shorter and shorter, in the end they are positively bald

I suppose that’s the competition thing dropping away, you are advertising as an older woman that you you’re looking around anymore

.
What a load of unmitigated balderdash. Go to east Africa. Most women and all girls have short hair. All men and boys have short hair. Certain teenaged boys grow their hair long. Long hair = women is a cultural thing.

Bubblecar said:

>On the other hand if most men refrained from having sex with older women, this would allow the minority who did fancy older women to have offspring that they would otherwise have to compete for, so these genes would increase in number, and the “not having sex with older women” genes would decrease in number.<

But you’ve just said that offspring from older women would have less chance to survive.

The chance of a successful birth as a result of sex with an older but non-menopausal woman is greater than the chance of a successful birth as a result of not having sex with that woman.

Bubblecar said:

>The only mystery to me is why it is considered a mystery.

‘Cos, we don’t know the answer, and there are competing hypotheses. We may never know the full story, but there are many questions like that from the inaccessible past. But we can speculate and some speculations will be accepted as making more sense than others.

But when we have a hypothesis that is consistent with an observed phenomenon, we don’t call that phenomenon a mystery, and make up new hypotheses that are not consistent with the observations; we say that we have at least a partial answer, and continue our investigations to see if there are other significant factors.

Suppose it’d add certainty to life if it happened for every female at exactly 51.7 years, but can’t think how nature would do that.

Sorry, as for myself, I thought you were discussing this from an evolutionary pov rather than fashion.

As for rich blokes dumping their old war horse for a newer model:

How about Turn About Is Fair Play?
Modern day finances being what they are, woman have been forced into the work-place, and guess what?
They no longer feel that they’re helpless without someone who’d ever consider dumping them no matter what.

Why would they suffer through centuries of torture devices, corsets, girdles, unnaturally shaping brassieres **
being hobbled by keenly pointed toed shoes, and sleeping in curlers just to achieve piles of sticky matted hair,
with the prospect of getting dumpt in the end anyway by some self-centered dip-stick chasing his own youth?

IOW
You’ve brought on this latest twist of cultural evolution… Now Deal With It >:-p

**
There is an urban legend that the brassiere was invented by a man named Otto Titzling (“tit sling”) who lost a
lawsuit with Phillip de Brassiere (“fill up the brassiere”). This originated with the 1971 book Bust-Up: The Uplifting
Tale of Otto Titzling and the Development of the Bra and was propagated in a comedic song from the movie Beaches. ;-)

Ogmog said:

**
There is an urban legend that the brassiere was invented by a man named Otto Titzling (“tit sling”) who lost a
lawsuit with Phillip de Brassiere (“fill up the brassiere”). This originated with the 1971 book Bust-Up: The Uplifting
Tale of Otto Titzling and the Development of the Bra and was propagated in a comedic song from the movie Beaches. ;-)

The Uplifting Tale of Otto Titzling

Note that pregnancy has the benefit of no possibility of getting pregnant. It’s like a 10 month break from the possibility, but it is also a break from periods, you know that blood flow and pain resembling injury every month that punishes the girl for failing to get pregnant.

some women have periods and pain throughout their pregnancy

Arts said:

some women have periods and pain throughout their pregnancy

many have periods of pain..

>>some women have periods and pain throughout their pregnancy

Wasn’t aware of that. Be uncommon I expect? Not properly menstruation though, couldn’t see that it could be.

roughbarked said:

Arts said:

some women have periods and pain throughout their pregnancy

many have periods of pain..

And some have a period of being a pain…

transition said:

>>some women have periods and pain throughout their pregnancy

Wasn’t aware of that. Be uncommon I expect? Not properly menstruation though, couldn’t see that it could be.

There is a whole TV show called “I didn’t know I was pregnant”

http://health.discovery.com/tv-shows/i-didnt-know-i-was-pregnant

Stealth said:

roughbarked said:

Arts said:

some women have periods and pain throughout their pregnancy

many have periods of pain..

And some have a period of being a pain…

We’ve got to stop meeting like this.

There is a whole TV show called “I didn’t know I was pregnant”
—-
What’s it about?

dv said:

There is a whole TV show called “I didn’t know I was pregnant”
—-
What’s it about?

Fungi reproduction.

dv said:

There is a whole TV show called “I didn’t know I was pregnant”
—-
What’s it about?

it is a period piece.

dv said:

There is a whole TV show called “I didn’t know I was pregnant”
—-
What’s it about?

no spoilers

Stealth said:

dv said:

There is a whole TV show called “I didn’t know I was pregnant”
—-
What’s it about?

Fungi reproduction.

Oi!

There seems to be a lot of pregnancy around at the moment. I don’t know what’s causing it.

morrie said:

Stealth said:

dv said:

There is a whole TV show called “I didn’t know I was pregnant”
—-
What’s it about?

Fungi reproduction.

Oi!

There seems to be a lot of pregnancy around at the moment. I don’t know what’s causing it.

You haven’t read the sacred mushroom and the cross?

the wife of one of our very own LF’s was 20 weeks pregnant before she found out…

morrie said:

Stealth said:

dv said:

There is a whole TV show called “I didn’t know I was pregnant”
—-
What’s it about?

Fungi reproduction.

Oi!

There seems to be a lot of pregnancy around at the moment. I don’t know what’s causing it.

bloody virginal conceptions

tic

morrie said:

There seems to be a lot of pregnancy around at the moment. I don’t know what’s causing it.

Perhaps STRESS

as many plants put out sprouts and even spring into flower
in the attempt to perpetuate itself when it perceives danger or injury.

At the moment I’d guess females are responding to Financial Pressure
much the same way that our ancestors responded to war & disaster,
the “natural response” is to kick reproduction into High Gear.

Kinda’ unfortunate, much like the out-dated “Fight or Flight’” response,
dropping more kids when you’re least able to support them is a bit
counter-productive. Wot?

…or rather “Counter-Intuitive” :-/

transition said:

Note that pregnancy has the benefit of no possibility of getting pregnant. It’s like a 10 month break from the possibility, but it is also a break from periods, you know that blood flow and pain resembling injury every month that punishes the girl for failing to get pregnant.

Luckily, so does Nursing
so the woman can also delay further pregnancies (at least for a reasonable period of time)
by nursing her babe until it can be fully weaned onto a fully adult diet.

You might take notice that in most multiple-child families, prior to modern contraception,
the children are often spaced-out at 3 year intervals.

Stealth said:

roughbarked said:

Arts said:

some women have periods and pain throughout their pregnancy

many have periods of pain..

And some have a period of being a pain…

I have NO Idea what you’re talking about!

>>the children are often spaced-out at 3 year intervals.<<

Hmm, probably not. Like my grandparents on Mum’s side. I don’t recall the exact number of kids, but my maternal grandfather came from a family born in 1902, 1903,1904,1905,1906,1908 etc. And Mum’s mother came from a similar lot. This is one of the reasons that the women wore out.

There are also religious groups in this area who produce lots of kids, eschew (attention DA) contraception and the women are pretty much pregnant most of the time.

And breastfeeding does not reliably stop ovulation, by the way.

buffy said:

>>the children are often spaced-out at 3 year intervals.<<

Hmm, probably not. Like my grandparents on Mum’s side. I don’t recall the exact number of kids, but my maternal grandfather came from a family born in 1902, 1903,1904,1905,1906,1908 etc. And Mum’s mother came from a similar lot. This is one of the reasons that the women wore out.

There are also religious groups in this area who produce lots of kids, eschew (attention DA) contraception and the women are pretty much pregnant most of the time.

And breastfeeding does not reliably stop ovulation, by the way.

Maybe she was just one fecund lady ;) 2 z-scores from the mean.

Depends on what you call reliable, 99.5 to 98% effective seems fairly reliable (for the first 6 months post partum only)…

Maybe it was just the Irish immigrants. Hang on……some of them were English! It was the norm for women to have 8-10 kids in the early days in Australia. At least around the Dandenong area where my Mum’s lot came from. I’ve always found it interesting that my Mum comes from a family of two children. So does my Dad. They seem to be the first generation to stop having tons of kids. But then it was The Great Depression (my Mum was born in 1930 and my Dad in 1932). And I presume the only way to stop the pregnancies was abstinance really.

>>At the moment I’d guess females are responding to Financial Pressure
much the same way that our ancestors responded to war & disaster,
the “natural response” is to kick reproduction into High Gear.
Kinda’ unfortunate, much like the out-dated “Fight or Flight’” response,
dropping more kids when you’re least able to support them is a bit
counter-productive. Wot?”

Bit of a simplistic version of response mechanisms applied for time-sensitive situations there , but we do like our simplistic conceptual stereotypes don’t we. If we can simplify biology and make it beastly, stupid and inadequate along the way with our little appealing constructs, well, you know, no need to spell out where legitimacy goes.

buffy said:

But then it was The Great Depression (my Mum was born in 1930 and my Dad in 1932). And I presume the only way to stop the pregnancies was abstinance really.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_condoms

Also: The Meaning of Life, Python M.