To get annoyed when people say I had an easy labour?

[g1nthemystery]

AIBU that every time someone hears that my labour lasted 3 and 1/2 hours it really annoys me that they always say something like "oh a nice/easy one/lucky you/I'm jealous" you get the idea.

Does anyone else have this? My labour was pretty horrific - I went straight from no labour to suddenly established labour. It was agony, I had no time for drugs, and it happened so quickly that there were multiple complications right at the end.

The whole episode left me and DP pretty traumatised - DP went from wanting 3 kids to just the one simply because he never wanted me to go through it again!

Usually I reply along the lines of: "not really."

I get every labour is different and difficult in their own ways, guess I'm just irked that people assume I got off lightly and am somehow lucky because it happened in less time.

I've given birth three times and once was it three hours from start to finish and another was 50 hours. I understand what you are saying and thinking .... but no, sorry. If you have a long drawn out labour you would swap it for your short but painful one in a flash. Sorry but it's true. It doesn't make labour easy but you did get the better end of the deal. Just ignore any comments you don't like. They don't matter anyway.

I had two very straight forward and pretty "easy" births (pah!) but my first labour of 9 hours, with 20 min second stage was a lot more pleasant than the second one of 3 hours with 5 min second stage. First one was far less intense and overwhelming, even though dh missed it, the mw's were only there by chance and my heavily pg friend had to be an emergency birth partner. Second time around it progressed so fast the MW's didn't arrive until 15 mins before dd and that's because I was pretty much crossing my legs and dh annoyed the crap out of me (even though he really held it together when faced with possibly being the MW!)

If it was traumatic for you, everyone else can fuck the fuck off! Hugs

I've had 5 babies. 2 were easy (though one more than the other, number 5 was more painful but still fairly easy, kid 2 was really a piece of piss), 1 was so-so(eldest) , 2 were scary as hell(Kids 3 and 4).

How long they took really doesn't mean bog all!

Much hugs.

My shortest was under 2 hours and my consultant gave me a lecture about how shorter, more intense labours aren't always a good thing- like I'd done it on purpose!
With my 3rd labour, I was 9cm dilated within half an hour and i was bloody terrified!
There is no "easy" unless someone else is doing it for you.

People ask? Do they? I get they might do if your baby was born last week. I've got children myself .. Nobody has ever been the slightest bit interested in my labour. Only on MN eh?

1st labour = 4.5 hours
2nd labour = 3.5 hours

Both quite horrific, even though On paper they looked straightforward. No stitches, no time for pain relief, no intervention. I was intense shock during the first one and had recurring nightmares about it for years. I was in too much pain to make any Kind of noise, I literally just went into deep shock. Never had a long labour so not sure that would be any better. At least with the second one I knew what was coming.

28 hours of indescribable pain, no pain relief and c-section versus 3 hour labour? Nope. I'll take the short one thanks.

I do feel lucky that my labours were quick. 4 hours and 1 1/2 hours. They were both very intense and I couldn't have coped with much longer! Just gas and air. There were complications post natal with the first but still feel lucky. They weren't easy but I wouldn't have wanted to have Been in labour for days.

*ThisUsername
*
Yeah, they do. Probably because it wasn't that long ago and he was early so still looks a little smaller.

28 hours with no pain relief, indescribable agony with a c-section at the end versus 3 hour labour. Nope. I'll go for the short one ta.

Excuse my nosiness JackShit how come you never had any pain relief with a labour that long? Was it your choice or were you never offered any? [I'm genuinely curious]. for you though. It sounds shit.

No-one else can know how 'bad' someone else's labour is. My first labour was 52 hours of agony. My second labour was 1 hour 45 minutes of agony. I, personally, MUCH preferred the short one - over and done with!

From what everyone has said here, and from my own personal experience, I think it's a matter of perspective.
To some people, a short labour while traumatic, may be preferable to a very long drawn out labour.
With my first birth, I was at the hospital for over 24 house with contractions three minutes apart or less for the whole time. With my second, I arrived and delivered within and hour and 40 minutes, but I had laboured at home before going in.
Would I swap either of these? I don't know....
I know that the second birth was 'easier' than the first because I didn't have to deal with intense pain for such a long time, but I can certainly see where you're coming from.

I had 2 very easy labours. First was 4 hours from first twinge to being settled on the ward with a sleepy feeding baby (8lbs 6 baby), second was 2 hours for same thing(9lbs 6 baby). I didn't have any interventions, tears or stitches (no pain relief either thanks to allergies and severe hg meaning I couldn't tolerate the gas and air mask) so fast but easy labours do happen.
But surely it's down to the individual, someone else with my labours may have had a completely different emotional/psychological reaction.

If you say it was hard or traumatic then it was, regardless of what others think, as it was your experience. Likewise no one can tell me my pregnancies weren't that hard when I found them both extremely difficult.

I had a v fast labour and while it was an "easy" labour as far as labour goes, a few people have commented on how luck I am that the baby just fell out!

3 hours here waves

Your body is not designed to have a fast labour.
It was my first (and only). Everyone tells you it takes HOURS.

Lying fuckers. I got myself ridiculously worked up as I thought I was being a wuss being in agony in a short space of time.

It was brutal! Your body goes into shock.

I ended hooked up on every machine going, alarms bellowing, a fucking audience of about 50 docs etc.

DS lungs full of Mucus for months ages, which made him vomit up his feeds worse than should happen. He was bloody starving bless him.
The act of labour forces the mucus out of their lungs during the slow decent... Lots of c section babies have the issue too I believe.

Anyhoo, I'd happily punch anyone who told me it was easy!

Both my labours were very long - 44 hrs and 72hrs. Both ended with inductions. Although the length of time and being in and out of hospital was tiring and emotionally draining the pain was not severe until the inductions. The induced contractions were intense and agonising. For me length of labour wasn't a good measure of how hard it was. I'd have done twice as long to avoid the induction.

Same, 2 hours of manageable contractions at home alone in the bath. Went to hospital to be told I was 4cm and should probs go home - refused and then 2 hours later she was born.

Midwife told me I'd be there for hours and hours, looked pathetically at me while I remember the contractions being so painful I thought I would die and couldn't carry on for hours to come - turned out she was crowning.

Her waters went as I was pushing too.

Have also had the "easy labour" and "she fell out" comments

My first labour was 4 1/2 hours, second labour was one hour twenty minutes, third labour was one hour ten minutes and my last labour was 14 hours. My last labour was by far the easiest and least painful. I guess because the contractions are much more intense and continuous to dilate your cervix in such a short time period. The rapid labours felt like one long continuous contraction. However, I will say that I was more tired after the longer labour than the others.

Oh and I wasn't allowed pain relief either

Very similar to mine primary. Just because it was my first they didn't think I'd give birth for ages. Only one midwife had a feeling I'd be giving birth soon (thank god for a shift change otherwise I would have been sent home by the first midwife we met!) and she appeared more sympathetic. Everyone else looked at me like I was being a baby, which worried me cos I really didn't think I could handle anything worse, and if this was just early days I was in for a rough ride.

To PP with super long labours, the point of the thread isn't that short is worse than long, it's that short certainly doesn't mean easy.

Well as someone who had an easy peasy (y'know, as these things go) 12 hour labour then an utterly horrendous 37 minute one, I would say the duration of labour is only one small factor in how easy/hard the birth actually is. Still DDs are 3.5 and nearly 1 now, so I don't find the subject comes up that often any more. No-one should judge anyone else's experience of birth IMO.

8Days - thanks for pointing this out - I think my initial point has become a little hazy. All labours are hard and difficult in their own ways - it's just that shorter labours seem to be seen as automatically easier or more desirable than longer ones and that's what bothers me. It does some times feel like you're being written off.

Primary and 8Days - I was dismissed by the triage line as not being in established labour because it was my first too. They told me to make a cup of tea and have a bath as it was likely days away, ha. Being my first I believed her as I didn't know different Luckily DP ignored her and bundled me in the car.

It is insensitive to judge how "easy" someone else's labour is.

DS1 gave me 40 hours of regular contractions. I was already tired before hospital accepted us in for an all nighter. Delivery was 13 hours after being accepted onto labour ward. By the early hours, the MW decided that progress was too slow and broke my waters sending my contractions through the roof. I didn't get chance to mentally adjust, the pethadine came out and that didn't agree with me, locking me in with the pain. He was born at lunchtime the following day by EMCS as our condition were both deteriorating from exhaustion, and we ended up on HDU and neonatal.

DS2 was kinder. 10 hours from the first backache and less than 4 hours after realising I was in labour. Despite them both being back to back, the contractions felt very different and I didn't recognise the feeling. He was born less than 3 hours after being admitted. I had enough time to mentally deal with the labour. We did have a hairy ending as there was a panic over monitoring and we were rushed into theatre for either a rough CS or rough forceps. Rough forceps won. Probably the better outcome for me mentally as I'd struggled to deal with many aspects of DS1's birth including all that labouring ending in a paniced CS. Physically, it was more painful and in many ways a longer recovery. In the immediate aftermath, I felt much better and able to cope with a newborn, it was the pelvic floor damage/ SPD combination that took many months to settle.

I get that a short birth isn't necessarily easier, but if there are traumatic factors, the exhaustion of a long labour doesn't help mentally processing or physical recovery. (I get that a rapid birth would be mentally and physically shocking) On my personal experience of two births I'd take the short one anyway!

I think I've contradicted myself!

What I mean is no one else can judge it for you, but I can understand the perception that a long labour is harder, therefore shorter is associated with easier.