You know how when you've been running for a long time and you really want to stop? That was the primary unpleasant sensation for me. Something between a muscle cramp and a side ache, though quite intense. Really uncomfortable, really hard work. Very distressing if you freak out about it and get frightened, but actually a pretty cool experience if you lean into it. Toward the end of labor there was some significant pain, enough to make me yell, but there was also so much going on that I was very distracted from it. You can experience some pretty significant pain and not be very badly distressed by it if you're super focused on some goal and working hard for it, and boy does childbirth have that effect. ;)
Now, you shouldn't overly generalize from my personal experiences. Every pregnancy is different, and every delivery is different. But I have always thought the characterization of childbirth as the greatest possible pain was overblown. In my experience, it was more like a major athletic event which involved some significant injury - a marathon or a boxing match or something in that neighborhood. You do really injure yourself enough that it takes some weeks to heal, but I honestly think that part of the equation is comparable to a bad sprain. Maybe a bit worse, but much more like an athletic injury than some of the horrible diseases people get.
At any rate, it is not the most significant pain I've personally experienced. That prize goes to an infected gall bladder / passed gall stone. I've also had leg cramps which I thought were more painful than childbirth, though they didn't last as long. To relate it to the original claim, I definitely think it's plausible that dysentary is worse. Internal organs dying is high on the pain scale.
(If you're curious about why I chose to avoid anaesthesia, I hadn't liked it during my first delivery. I had a long and painful labor during which anesthesia was delayed, and when I finally got it, I found it didn't much lift my distress -- I later understood that was because my pain wasn't pain exactly, it was me doing a poor job of working with my body. Aaand I was at a dumb hospital that had put me on my back, which is painful, and I didn't know any better. Anyway. I didn't see it as really relieving my discomfort, but it did confine me to bed for a couple days and robbed me of being my most alert and best self during a very important moment in my life. My second two deliveries were better experiences than my first.)
Childbirth pain is not horrible and sharp like that. It feels a lot more productive, so to speak. It's not right to use the word "pain" to describe both things actually. Without that pain, you'd have to depend upon a nurse to tell you when to push -- there would be a delay between her seeing the monitor and asking you to push. It all seemed very unlikely to work to me (but of course it works). But if you feel the pain yourself, you will know when to push.
Also it comes in waves. After each wave of "pain", you get completely pain-free rest periods. But of course towards the end when the baby actually comes out, the rest periods shorten and the pain periods lengthen so it all kind of rolls into one. Many women are not so lucky as me and have prolonged labour, lasting into days. Mine only lasted a few hours so it was fine.
I completely agree with the other person who replied to you. Personally I said no to anaesthesia because they put that in your spine -- shudder.
I don't have good numbers for birthing without any anesthesia either, but the Australian Institute of Health and Wealthfare claims that "In 2022, 4 in 5 (80%) women who had labour in Australia received pain relief"[2].
Giving birth is a "0-3 times in a lifetime" event, while sex is a much more high-frequency thing. I'm assuming even people who engage in these fetishes do that every time they have sex, but still many more times than they'd give birth.
So let's try to come up with some numbers: lets say we have 8 billion people on earth, and 1% of the adult population engages in watersports or scat, and they do so 10 times a year for 30 years of their life. That's 300 * 80M = 24B times someone eats shit / drinks piss in the next 30 years.
On the other hand, let's say we have ~4 billion women on earth, each gives an average of 2 children in the next 30 years, and 20% do that without pain relief. That's 4B * 2 * 0.2 = 2B births without pain relief in the next 30 years.
I don't think that what you're saying adds up.
Sources:
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urolagnia
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophilia
[2] https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/mothers-babies/australias-mo...
And just because someone “engages in watersports” doesn’t mean they know what urine or feces taste like.
And the question was about the number of people. You included statistics regarding the number of events. Going off your own numbers, 1% play water sports, 20% of women (10% of people) give birth without pain killers. Seems pretty clear to me.
> And the question was about the number of people. You included statistics regarding the number of events.
The poster just said "more common". It's your interpretation that this was "a question about the number of people". But that's just one of many possible framings of the question. "The number of events" is an equally valid one.
20% not having any pain relieve puts it into "fairly common" category. Yes it is a minority, but it is also rather large minority. It means that more then 20% of women who have children had at least one of them without pain relief.
Is the condescension really necessary? Also, the phrase is really overused at this point.
I feel you're severely overreacting. If everyone would act that way, this community would definitely be much a worse place. Kant's Imperative and all that.