Pain Thresholds

Pighead

Good afternoon all,
Having an argument with one of those female creatures who says that women have a higher pain threshold than men and that this is a known medical fact.She says its obvious as women need higher pain thresholds due tio the fact that they give birth.
I'm not sure i believe this "well known fact".Have searched the internet but there seems to be arguments for both sides.
Any ideas?I need this victory as she has beaten me in a number of arguments lately and i badly need a result.

TerrorFirmer

It's not genetic to have a higher threshold for pain unless there is something biologically wrong/unusual with your body.

However it seems to be genetic for women to believe they are superior to men in various areas

Kernel

MobileInfantry wrote:

It's not genetic to have a higher threshold for pain unless there is something biologically wrong/unusual with your body.

However it seems to be genetic for women to believe they are superior to men in various areas

Well, I don't think it's a question of genetics as such, more to do with the physiology of the male / female body and brain - and how the brain processes the nerve impulses that are responsible for pain recognition. I personally have always found it hard to understand the statement that women have a higher pain threshold, since it must be extremely difficuly (if not impossible) to quantify a pain threshold. True, you can measure the nerve impulses, and maybe fMRI on areas of the brain to measure how active areas of the brain become under the impulses, but as hypnosis shows, most of the pain experience is due to brain processes. So, in summation to this hungover ramble, I would say I don't have a definite answer to Pighead's question.

However, all the women I've ever met are absolute pussies when it comes to pain. That's not scientific, just based on personal observations!

dudara

Kernel wrote:

However, all the women I've ever met are absolute pussies when it comes to pain. That's not scientific, just based on personal observations!

Possibly, when it's run of the mill stuff. But we're still the ones that have to squeeze out those 8-10 lb turds that are called babies.

Panserborn

I've had this argument myself a few times. Giving birth a couple times a lifetime is nothing compared to a lifetime of kicks to the marbles

The only real way (that I can see) in which women could have a higher pain threshold is if they have less pain sensor cells OR generate less modulator molecules of pain. I don't think there is direct evidence of this but its not my area of research to be fair. It may be true that women may have an easier time accepting pain since they know they have to go through quite a bit of it while giving birth - I'm only speculating though.

Check out this link - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/02/000224080023.htm

DrIndy

Pain is a psychological interpretation as well and is not purely physiological. If you explain to a patient clearly about post-operative pain and how it will be treated, then they expect it and it troubles them less - as a result, they actually need less painkillers. If you are depressed or afraid, then perception of pain is worse.

This has been going around a while and I believe it is an urban myth. Yes, women experience childbirth and yes - the closest male experience is ****ting a (large) melon - however, a womans body is designed for this act and natural opioids are released to in the brain dampen this pain - so its physiological adaptation to dampen pain in one specific set of circumstances.

There was an objective test done with a heel clamp with many subjects to determine the veracity of this. The clamp was tightened until the person could bear no more and the results were recorded. The results were surprising - the oldest male subject could tolerate more pain than the youngest female subjects!

Anyway! Talking of childbirth pain - considering the plethora of epidurals and nitrous and caesarians given now, very few women experience the real thing......

entropi

Also on the subject, can't remember where i heard it or seen it, but no more than 2 weeks ago it was shown that men actually do have a higher threshhold than women do , even taking into account the physical labours of childbirth [ which a woman is physically built for anyway ] .

nesf

DrIndy wrote:

Anyway! Talking of childbirth pain - considering the plethora of epidurals and nitrous and caesarians given now, very few women experience the real thing......

To be honest, I'm not a fan of natural births. I don't see why it's "better" than modern treatments.

My mom nearly died giving birth to me and was hospitilised for a week afterwards (outside of the normal post birth recovery). For her next two births, her opinion was:

"**** natural birth. Give me every drug you can"

Kernel

nesf wrote:

To be honest, I'm not a fan of natural births. I don't see why it's "better" than modern treatments.

My mom nearly died giving birth to me and was hospitilised for a week afterwards (outside of the normal post birth recovery). For her next two births, her opinion was:

"**** natural birth. Give me every drug you can"

Apparently as the generations go through Caesarian sections, their ability to have natural births is reduced, until eventually women will no longer be able to have natural childbirths because their pelvis wont be able to handle it anymore... sorta a reverse evolution if you will.

Of course, each childbirth should be treated depending on circumstance. If the child is in a bad position, or the umbilical cord is wrapped in a way to prevent normal delivery then a C-section is great.

simu

Kernel wrote:

Apparently as the generations go through Caesarian sections, their ability to have natural births is reduced, until eventually women will no longer be able to have natural childbirths because their pelvis wont be able to handle it anymore... sorta a reverse evolution if you will.

How would that happen? Sounds a bit lamarckian!

Kernel

simu wrote:

How would that happen? Sounds a bit lamarckian!

Hmmm yeah maybe you are right there... I heard or read it somewhere, but having researched it there I can find no information relating to this. I know that it is always preferable to deliver a baby naturally, perhaps because the death rate is higher with C-section (although this could be a statistic that occurs because the majority of C-sections are on higher risk patients) - but I'm sure I heard C-sections could cause trouble with women giving natural birth in the future. We'll have to wait for Indy or someone to clear this up!

Panserborn

Kernel wrote:

Apparently as the generations go through Caesarian sections, their ability to have natural births is reduced, until eventually women will no longer be able to have natural childbirths because their pelvis wont be able to handle it anymore... sorta a reverse evolution if you will.

Does the evolution of human physiology go that fast and with so few (relatively speaking) c-sections?

DrIndy

simu wrote:

How would that happen? Sounds a bit lamarckian!

Kernel is onto something. We are in fact born very premature in comparison with other mammals which can all walk/see/react very well within a few short weeks of birth (or immediately) whereas we take years to reach that level. This is because we have a large brain and it is this which limits the stage of development we can be born at.

Women are more likely to die during birth if they get a C-section than naturally - hence the reluctance of obstetricians to sanction a C-section without due cause. Unless it is a breech birth - when c-section improves survival rather than pulling the baby out assfirst.

The interesting thing is small women have small babies and it is rare for a baby to be too big to fit. This is a natural adaptation.