to get annoyed when people tell me I'm lucky to have had such a quick labourr?

[MrsHelsBels74]

I was severely traumatised by the birth of my son. It was very quick & there was no time for any pain relief. Yet people tell me I'm lucky I wasn't in labour for 30+ hours etc.

AIBU to want to tell these people to fuck off as they weren't there & have no idea what it was like? I don't think there is such a thing as an easy birth, however you do it it's hard work & very few people get the birth they actually envisaged?

I think there's a real shock to the system if you give birth under an hour. I can't imagine what it must be like sitting there one minute having a cup of tea and the next (seemingly) it's all over with. I wouldn't think it was good. I'd rather have a bit of a buildup.

I've had one 36 hours (no breaks) and one 4. Both no interventions but both challenging but for different reasons.
I couldn't say which I preferred. They were certainly very different from each other but both resulted in beautiful babies so they were fine at the end of the day.

I've had sections, no labour, but I would never assume quicker means easier. I've had friends who've had nice, quick births. Another friend had quick labours that resulted in horrible tears. There are so many aspects to a delivery.

I think YABU.

DS1 was 1hr 45
DS2 was 1hr 5

That's first contraction to delivery. Second stage with both of them was only a few minutes. No pain relief either time.

It was very, very intense, and not at all what I would choose to do for fun. But the first time I had a pretty good idea that things were happening fast, and the second time I knew it for certain. I therefore knew that it was going to be over very soon and I would take that any time over hours and hours of wondering how much longer.

There's a big range of experiences with labour, but most of them fall somewhere between "quite painful" and "really fucking miserable". As long as there are no complications then I think a short labour has to be better than a long one for the very simple reason that it is over quicker.

I had quick labours with no pain relief or complications-I count myself very lucky.

I suppose what is kind of funny is that I don't really know for sure how long my labour was. I wasn't convinced I was in labour until I got to the hospital, and was still convinced I would be sent home, then they told me I was 8cm dilated. This was about 10pm & by 11:30 he had arrived. I'd probably been in labour most of the day though without realising it. So the hospital part was fairly quick (though not in Worra's league) but no idea how long the whole process was.

I thought both my labours were fine tbh, first time was induced on a drip and very painful, gas and air made me sick and I had an epidural. About 9 hours in length.
Second was at home for about 7 hours having not too bad contractions, got to hospitol and baby born within the hour no pain relief.

I'm just saying this because I didn't feel traumatised and would hope that most women at least thought that their births were 'ok.' I'm not into competitive birthing at all, some have it easy and some have it extremely hard but I would hope that most people were sort of inbetween.

Its sad that most people you know felt traumatised by birth :(

Precipitous labour is less than 3 hours. I had previous precipitous labour written all over my notes last time. I didn't think the 4.5hr labour was especially fast but maybe that was because I'd had a 2.5hr one before!

See my second birth sounds a lot like yours op, I thought I was really really lucky to get that far at home without feeling too much pain. I was convinced they were going to tell me was 1 or 2 cm and to go home!

It was much preferable to my first with which I needed so much intervention.

But like someone said upthread, its how you felt about it that counts, not what others think. Although I do believe that in most cases it must be better to be quick than have all that pain for days on end like some people have, no?

DS1 took 18 hrs but was a natural birth in the sense that he eventually made his way out and all was well. I did have gas and air followed by pethidine. DS2 took 5hrs 22min but got stuck and I ended up with big episiotomy and ventouse. There was no time for anything other than gas and air and a bit of local because I progressed so fast and then DS was going to be born "any minute". So a slower labour need not be worse than a quicker one. I appreciate that both could have been worse too.

I'm with you MrsHelsBels74 - went to the docs at 8.30am for routine check, was told I was 3cms but wasn't convinced I was in labour as I was only having braxton hicks so went to work, 11am my waters broke, went to hospital on doctors orders and was pushing by 3.20pm. I enjoyed the delights of a warm bath and some gas & air for about 20 minutes until I had to start pushing and then they took it off me. All in all I was in labour for 5 hours.

I consider myself extremely lucky to have had such an easy labour and birth and I really loved my experience. And whilst it was no picnic (nobody wants anything that large coming out their fanjo), I really feel for ladies who have horrendous experiences, no matter how fast or slow they are.
My friend was in labour for 36 hours, pushing for 4 and ended up with a section. Sounds utterly brutal and I feel the same about my other friend who had one contraction at 11pm and by midnight she was delivering her newborn baby girl on her doorstep. Her husband and brother in law had to catch her. And whilst she was obviously grateful the baby delivered safely, she said she doesn't remember anything of the experience because her body went into shock.

When I have my second, I pray for a 5 hour labour, nothing shorter and nothing longer thanks!

OP, when people exclaim how lucky you are, tell them "yeah, it might have been quick but you didn't end up tearing from your arse to your lady garden" - that should shut them up. But mostly people will assume shorter delivery = better.

I had two quick labours, people tell me I'm lucky, it pisses me of.
So I tell then all about how I have a third degree tear and it took close to four hours to repair the damage.
They soon change their minds, and I feel I've done my bit in explaining that quick births aren't always a good thing!

Yanbu

OP, unless you ended up with horrible interventions, nasty tears etc I really don't think you can class your labour as traumatic.

I had a precipitous labour after a few hours of on and off contractions. No time for pain relief other than half a paracetamol. I'd planned a waterbirth in a birthing unit, I got the local dgh up on a bed flat on my back with 3 pushes and a 2nd degree tear. Not what I'd planned but certainly a lot better than 36 hours of long drawn out pain ending up in a instrumental/Csection.

I consider myself to be very lucky compared to what other women have been through and unless you ended up with birth trauma I think you probably were as well.

I think YAB a little U. Lots of people have no pain relief for hours longer than you. I had two puffs of gas and air for my 2nd and was in labour for about 15 hours, all told. I think they all really hurt - even people who go to epidural have usually put up with hours of agony before that - so people saying you are lucky to have had that experience for a short period of time is fair enough.

Tears are fickle and not necessarily a given with 'short' labours. My second stages were about 25 and 20 mins, with about 15-16 hours build up. I tore with DS as he was big and still exited bloody quickly; some people dilate in the blink of an eye and then spend a more average amount of time pushing.

My labours were 2 hours 52 mins and 2 hours 53 mins respectively (obviously my body takes exactly that time to expel a baby).

First one I had loads of morphine and gas and air but it hurt like a bastard due to syntocin drip. Second time no fecker examined me until I was ready to push (I knew I was in labour, only I wasn't screaming so they didn't believe me). I got one or two glorious puffs of the gas and air before DD2 made her entry.

I still feel slightly lucky to have had relatively fast labours though.

YABU, long labour is just as painful, but for way longer and with likelihhod of more intervention.
Give me the 2 short ones over the really long one any day. In fact I would rather give birth twice at 5 hours each than once at 27 hours.
Which is how it went for me. And yes, the scars still hurt.

yanbu

i also had fast labours. at least it was over quickly, but of course, no pain relief.

well i'm not doing it again so i guess that chapter is over.

good luck for your birth. i do think it's easier second / third time round as you know what's happening.

I had a quick first labour and I do feel luck it was quick

Even it had been horrendous I would still feel lucky it was quick!

Rather horrendous and quick than horrendous and long!!!

They aren't taking anything away from your experience, just commenting on that a quick labour is usually pretty preferable to long labours

Both my DDs arrived quickly (and early): DD1 was 55 minutes from start to finish and I had had medication to stop the contractions so that they could get me enough time to have the second steroid injection - but she still arrived!

When we were at the ante-natal class for DD2, DP made a comment about me being 'lucky' to have such a short labour. The midwife gave him what for in front of everyone - I had gas and air, went into shock, DD1 had a brain haemorrhage and was rushed to NICU as soon as she arrived. I didn't know if we had a girl or a boy and didn't get to see her for several hours and didn't get to take her out of her incubator and hold her for 9 days.

DD2 was 25 minutes from start to finish. It was Christmas Eve and consultant wanted to send me home to wait. Midwives said fro me to hang about and NICU insisted I had steroid injection for lungs. Luckily she had made it to 35 weeks so coped better with quick birth and we had a cuddle before she was taken to NICU.

I certainly can't say I enjoyed my labours or feel lucky that they were so short but then, I am not saying I would want to go through a long labour either.

DP has never made a similar comment since! Others have but I usually just nod or else remind them of what we went through afterwards!

I don't get annoyed. I had 2 fairly quick labours, dc 1, 7 hours, pretty bad. Dc 2, 3 hours, absolutely brutal. But I think Im lucky that it was over in a relatively short period of time. I cannot imagine how it would be for those who have to go through days of it. I think I'm lucky tbh.

My DD's are, 27, nearly 17 and 15. I had long labours with the first two and opted for no pain relief because there were side effects and it could impair bf,from what was available at the time. The pain relief has got better.

My third was over in 8 hours and it was a breeze compaired to my first two, so, tbh, 'they' are right to a point.

Purely for this part:

"I'd probably been in labour most of the day though without realising it"

I can understand why people tell you that you were 'lucky'.

... and best of luck with the new baby OP, try not to be too nervous about the birth :)

I had a fairly quick labour, (4-10cm in 2hrs, 1hr pushing), and it had some pros and cons. Cons were
mw didn't believe how far on I was, nearly sent me home before examining me,
My body was in shock, I was shivering and puking
I felt out of control.
Very painful
DD was born superman style which is more common in fast birth and I tore forwards not backwards

Pros were it didn't last long
I wasn't fatigued from endurance type labour
I didn't need interventions or have any big complications.

I don't know if this makes me lucky or not? Relatively so I suppose.