If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Tips on picking baby gender
"deja.blues" wrote in message news:dXu8j.7687$sf.2528@trndny04... "mommycom" wrote in message ... We have 3 daughters currently and my husband and I would like one more. We are crossing our fingers for a boy, but if it doesn't happen, we'll still be very happy. We are not going the medical route, just "natural" methods. Does anyone have any advice or tips? TIA! Adoption. LOL. When I was about 6 or 7 mum said in my hearing that the first baby's labour was usually the hardest. A few days later I anounced I was going to adopt my first child so I didn't have to have labour with my first. :-) Debbie |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Tips on picking baby gender
On Dec 14, 4:47 am, "deja.blues" wrote:
"mommycom" wrote in message ... We have 3 daughters currently and my husband and I would like one more. We are crossing our fingers for a boy, but if it doesn't happen, we'll still be very happy. We are not going the medical route, just "natural" methods. Does anyone have any advice or tips? TIA! Adoption. That would definitely take the guess work out of the gender wouldn't it. LOL |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Tips on picking baby gender
On Dec 13, 3:22�pm, mommycom wrote:
We have 3 daughters currently and my husband and I would like one more. We are crossing our fingers for a boy, but if it doesn't happen, we'll still be very happy. We are not going the medical route, just "natural" methods. Does anyone have any advice or tips? TIA! Thank you. Well, the sperm that makes it to the egg is what determines the gender. They say that the male-designated sperm swim faster and die out faster than the other, and the female-designated sperm swim slower and live longer. We tried the trick where we used the ovulation predictor kits to show when ovulation occurred and we made sure to have a go at *it* just prior to ovulation to get our girl and we got our girl. So if you want a boy, then targeting closer to actual ovulation might get you your boy. For example, based on my cycles back then, we were supposed to try to conceive around 11 days after the date of my last period. So at 8 days after I started testing, but we also started trying to conceive. Just like the kit said, it predicted ovulation 11 days after, but we already had some female-designated sperm sticking around working its way there from day 8. We did not try to conceive again either after ovulation was detected. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Tips on picking baby gender
Thanks for all the great information everyone! :-)
On Dec 14, 1:36Â*pm, Chris wrote: On Dec 13, 3:22�pm, mommycom wrote: We have 3 daughters currently and my husband and I would like one more. We are crossing our fingers for a boy, but if it doesn't happen, we'll still be very happy. We are not going the medical route, just "natural" methods. Does anyone have any advice or tips? TIA! Thank you. Well, the sperm that makes it to the egg is what determines the gender. They say that the male-designated sperm swim faster and die out faster than the other, and the female-designated sperm swim slower and live longer. We tried the trick where we used the ovulation predictor kits to show when ovulation occurred and we made sure to have a go at *it* just prior to ovulation to get our girl and we got our girl. So if you want a boy, then targeting closer to actual ovulation might get you your boy. For example, based on my cycles back then, we were supposed to try to conceive around 11 days after the date of my last period. So at 8 days after I started testing, but we also started trying to conceive. Just like the kit said, it predicted ovulation 11 days after, but we already had some female-designated sperm sticking around working its way there from day 8. We did not try to conceive again either after ovulation was detected. We actually tried this w/ our last 2 girls, lol. Obviously didn't work out. ;-) I think my irregular cycles, along w/ my husband's health history contributes to our low likelihood to have sons. I'm not saying that we won't try again though. Maybe fourth time's the charm for us? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Tips on picking baby gender
On Dec 14, 5:00 pm, mommycom wrote:
snip I'm not saying that we won't try again though. Maybe fourth time's the charm for us? Some research says that relatively stable attributes of a couple affect the probability they will have a boy, with high status increasing it and good looks decreasing it. http://psychologytoday.com/articles/...622-000002.xml Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature By Alan S. Miller Ph.D., Satoshi Kanazawa Ph.D. 'It is commonly believed that whether parents conceive a boy or a girl is up to random chance. Close, but not quite; it is largely up to chance. The normal sex ratio at birth is 105 boys for every 100 girls. But the sex ratio varies slightly in different circumstances and for different families. There are factors that subtly influence the sex of an offspring. One of the most celebrated principles in evolutionary biology, the Trivers-Willard hypothesis, states that wealthy parents of high status have more sons, while poor parents of low status have more daughters. This is because children generally inherit the wealth and social status of their parents. Throughout history, sons from wealthy families who would themselves become wealthy could expect to have a large number of wives, mistresses and concubines, and produce dozens or hundreds of children, whereas their equally wealthy sisters can have only so many children. So natural selection designs parents to have biased sex ratio at birth depending upon their economic circumstances--more boys if they are wealthy, more girls if they are poor. (The biological mechanism by which this occurs is not yet understood.) This hypothesis has been documented around the globe. American presidents, vice presidents, and cabinet secretaries have more sons than daughters. Poor Mukogodo herders in East Africa have more daughters than sons. Church parish records from the 17th and 18th centuries show that wealthy landowners in Leezen, Germany, had more sons than daughters, while farm laborers and tradesmen without property had more daughters than sons. In a survey of respondents from 46 nations, wealthy individuals are more likely to indicate a preference for sons if they could only have one child, whereas less wealthy individuals are more likely to indicate a preference for daughters. The generalized Trivers-Willard hypothesis goes beyond a family's wealth and status: If parents have any traits that they can pass on to their children and that are better for sons than for daughters, then they will have more boys. Conversely, if parents have any traits that they can pass on to their children and that are better for daughters, they will have more girls. Physical attractiveness, while a universally positive quality, contributes even more to women's reproductive success than to men's. The generalized hypothesis would therefore predict that physically attractive parents should have more daughters than sons. Once again, this is the case. Americans who are rated "very attractive" have a 56 percent chance of having a daughter for their first child, compared with 48 percent for everyone else.' |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Tips on picking baby gender
On Dec 14, 2:23 pm, Beliavsky wrote:
On Dec 14, 5:00 pm, mommycom wrote: snip I'm not saying that we won't try again though. Maybe fourth time's the charm for us? Some research says that relatively stable attributes of a couple affect the probability they will have a boy, with high status increasing it and good looks decreasing it. http://psychologytoday.com/articles/...622-000002.xml Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature By Alan S. Miller Ph.D., Satoshi Kanazawa Ph.D. 'It is commonly believed that whether parents conceive a boy or a girl is up to random chance. Close, but not quite; it is largely up to chance. The normal sex ratio at birth is 105 boys for every 100 girls. But the sex ratio varies slightly in different circumstances and for different families. There are factors that subtly influence the sex of an offspring. One of the most celebrated principles in evolutionary biology, the Trivers-Willard hypothesis, states that wealthy parents of high status have more sons, while poor parents of low status have more daughters. This is because children generally inherit the wealth and social status of their parents. Throughout history, sons from wealthy families who would themselves become wealthy could expect to have a large number of wives, mistresses and concubines, and produce dozens or hundreds of children, whereas their equally wealthy sisters can have only so many children. So natural selection designs parents to have biased sex ratio at birth depending upon their economic circumstances--more boys if they are wealthy, more girls if they are poor. (The biological mechanism by which this occurs is not yet understood.) This hypothesis has been documented around the globe. American presidents, vice presidents, and cabinet secretaries have more sons than daughters. Poor Mukogodo herders in East Africa have more daughters than sons. Church parish records from the 17th and 18th centuries show that wealthy landowners in Leezen, Germany, had more sons than daughters, while farm laborers and tradesmen without property had more daughters than sons. In a survey of respondents from 46 nations, wealthy individuals are more likely to indicate a preference for sons if they could only have one child, whereas less wealthy individuals are more likely to indicate a preference for daughters. The generalized Trivers-Willard hypothesis goes beyond a family's wealth and status: If parents have any traits that they can pass on to their children and that are better for sons than for daughters, then they will have more boys. Conversely, if parents have any traits that they can pass on to their children and that are better for daughters, they will have more girls. Physical attractiveness, while a universally positive quality, contributes even more to women's reproductive success than to men's. The generalized hypothesis would therefore predict that physically attractive parents should have more daughters than sons. Once again, this is the case. Americans who are rated "very attractive" have a 56 percent chance of having a daughter for their first child, compared with 48 percent for everyone else.' Thanks for sharing. Interesting article. So, according to this particular study, we're poor, but attractive. LOL |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fun Ways to Predict the Gender of Your Baby | [email protected] | Pregnancy | 0 | December 6th 07 04:25 PM |
baby tips | koko | Child Support | 0 | October 1st 07 08:25 AM |
Choose The Gender Of Your Baby | [email protected] | Pregnancy | 0 | March 11th 07 10:28 AM |
Baby Safety Tips | [email protected] | Pregnancy | 0 | July 30th 06 08:36 PM |
Gender of baby question/poll/opinion. | Shelley | Pregnancy | 38 | February 3rd 05 07:11 PM |