sgl@psuvm.UUCP (03/28/85)
Howdy net.parents,
My wife and I are **FINALLY** ready (if there is such a thing) to have
our first child and would like the first one to be a boy. (so he can protect
his sisters and play catch with me and carry on the family name and all of
those other important reasons) Now mind you it's not important enough to
consider any drastic measures like biogenetics or hormone pills, just given
a choice we both would like to buy blue baby clothes first.
My question is what methods have any of you more experienced baby makers tried
to determine the gender of the child and how successful did they appear (ie:
did they work for you?) Some of the more popular suggestions I've heard are
variations in the love making position (missionary -> girl, doggy style -> boy
:perhaps because of snips and snails and puppy dog tails?:), variations on
the time of the day of love making (night -> girl, morning -> boy), frequency
of love making (often -> girl, seldom -> boy), time of conception relative
to ovulation (same day as ovulation -> boy, all others -> girl). I suppose
the list goes on.
I realize, of course, that there is no scientific merit in any of these methods
and the entire thing is biologically determined, but often times wive's tales
are not to be scoffed at entirely. Anyway, I think it might be fun to see if
anyone has heard of these or others and what results they've experienced.
Steven G. Liptak
sgl@psuvm.bitnet
-or-
liptak@gondor.uucpkolwicz@aluxz.UUCP (kolwicz) (03/31/85)
As it turned out, we have two girls. It is indeed interesting that:
1. We play catch regularly.
2. They take care of themselves quite well, thank you.
3. If they choose to carry on their name, that option exists.
(However, how important is it, really?)
An interesting thing happens when you see your child born - you turn into
a parent. Implicit in this state of being is (among many other things)
the fact that it really, really doesn't matter what sex your child is.
Especially in this day and age.
Admittedly, you will not appreciate this until your baby arrives. Rest
assured though, that you will feel quite differently once you have the baby.
Fortunately, short of sorting out your sperm under a microscope,
there is nothing you can do to increase the probability
that conception results in a male baby. In fact, the odds are slightly
in favor of a female being born.
Kevin Kolwicz
AT&T Bell Labs, Allentown PAcarlton@masscomp.UUCP (Carlton Hommel) (03/31/85)
In article <1660SGL@PSUVM> Steven G. Liptak writes: >My question is what methods have any of you more experienced baby makers tried >to determine the gender of the child and how successful did they appear (ie: >did they work for you?) The following is reprinted from _Understanding Pregnancy and Childbirth_, Sheldon H. Cherry, M.D., Bantam Books, 1977, $1.95 p 3. Available in the finer second-hand book stores, and recently republished. The references to ovulation refer to a day determined by using the Basal Body Temperature Method. Although doctors now know how sex is determined, they still have not developed a method of predetermining sex at conception. As a father of four daughters, I know this firsthand. There is a theory that sex can be controlled by certain techniques, and while none of these techniques have been proved scientifically valid, they result in no harm for the adventuresome couple who might want to try them. The theory suggests that X, or female- producing sperm cells, swim faster and live longer than the Y, or male-producing sperm. FOR A BOY 1. Your husband should abstain from intercourse for the five days preceding ovulation. 2. You should have intercourse on the day of ovulation. 3. Your husband should try for deep penetration at orgasm. 4. You should douche directly before intercourse, using a solution of two tablespoons of baking soda to each quart of warm water. FOR A GIRL 1. Your should cease intercourse two to three days before ovulation and not resume until two to three days after ovulation has occured. 2. You should douche with an acidic solution of two tablespoons of white vinegar per quart of warm water prior to intercourse. 2. You should avoid orgasm. 3. Your husband should try for shallow penetration at orgasm. Good luck! It may not work, but it will be fun trying. Alana's friends tried this, and suceeded in getting a boy after four girls. However, Glenna complained that after all that baking soda, she expected to give birth to a batch of cookies. We didn't do any of this, but are expecting our first son. Carl Hommel Wife: Turn of the tv. We go make baby now! Husband: But Hill Street Blues is on!
kolwicz@aluxz.UUCP (kolwicz) (04/01/85)
Whoops! I went and checked, and contrary to my previous posting,
the odds are slightly in favor of you having a boy. Consider:
YEAR Male Births Female Births M/F Ratio *
---- ----------- ------------- ---------
1960 2,179,708 2,078,142 1.049
1970 1,915,378 1,816,008 1.055
1980 1,852,616 1,759,642 1.053
On the other hand, from 1970 to 1978 the ratio of males to females
in the entire U.S. population was 0.95 (that's the statistic I was
recalling, albeit incorrectly.) The ratio is probably still 0.95 or
so - the 1970-78 statistics were all I could get my hands on quickly.
Maybe there IS a way to favor a male birth - however, there's nothing
wrong in winding up with girls. **
* Source: "The World Almanac and Book of Facts", Doubleday.
** Except that maybe you'll be guilty of selective memory, occasionally.
Kevin Kolwicz
AT&T Bell Labs, Allentown PAdavid1@rduxb.UUCP (Rick Nelson) (04/01/85)
> > Howdy net.parents, > My wife and I are **FINALLY** ready (if there is such a thing) to have > our first child and would like the first one to be a boy. (so he can protect > his sisters and play catch with me and carry on the family name and all of > those other important reasons) Now mind you it's not important enough to > consider any drastic measures like biogenetics or hormone pills, just given > a choice we both would like to buy blue baby clothes first. > > My question is what methods have any of you more experienced baby makers tried > to determine the gender of the child and how successful did they appear (ie: > did they work for you?) Some of the more popular suggestions I've heard are > variations in the love making position (missionary -> girl, doggy style -> boy > :perhaps because of snips and snails and puppy dog tails?:), variations on > the time of the day of love making (night -> girl, morning -> boy), frequency > of love making (often -> girl, seldom -> boy), time of conception relative > to ovulation (same day as ovulation -> boy, all others -> girl). I suppose > the list goes on. > > I realize, of course, that there is no scientific merit in any of these methods > and the entire thing is biologically determined, but often times wive's tales > are not to be scoffed at entirely. Anyway, I think it might be fun to see if > anyone has heard of these or others and what results they've experienced. > > Steven G. Liptak > > sgl@psuvm.bitnet > -or- > liptak@gondor.uucp There are books available on how you can supposedly increase the odds of having a boy or girl. It has to do with the woman's diet, making her body more or less alkaline. I don't know the details, but I was fortunate enough for my wife to have had 2 boys. A couple that I know that read the book and tried it, wanted a boy first and had one. They wanted a girl second and had a boy. I don't know if they continued to try to determine the sex of the third, but they did finally have a girl.
mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig) (04/01/85)
> > Fortunately, short of sorting out your sperm under a microscope, > there is nothing you can do to increase the probability > that conception results in a male baby. In fact, the odds are slightly > in favor of a female being born. > > Kevin Kolwicz > AT&T Bell Labs, Allentown PA Not true. In terms of live births, there are slightly more males born than females. However, after that it is all downhill for the guys, as death due to just about everything (most diseases, accidents, suicide, crime, etc.) claims more males than females. I'm not sure where the ratio reaches 1:1 (I seem to vaguely recall somewhere in the teens), but the ratio of males to females is significantly in favor of the females by age 40, and the gap widens dramatically as you look at older and older groups. Mark Modig ihnp4!sftri!mom P.S. What's wrong with a girl, anyway? My father-in-law took my wife hunting and fishing with him a lot when she was growing up, so I don't think one has to have a boy just to have someone to play catch with and go camping overnight with. To this day, my wife regularly catches more fish much more easily than I do-- which is fine with me, since otherwise we'd probably starve when we go camping.
ped@ahuta.UUCP (p.davidson) (04/01/85)
REFERENCES: <1660SGL@PSUVM> I saw an article once that said statistcally 95% accuracy, you can have a boy by doing the following: I did save the article and I will see if I can find it for you 1) The father should refrain from ejaculation for several days. It seems the male spermazoa increases with time. 2) You should plan or try for the conception to be either shortly after her period is over or before it begins (can't remember which). The reason was that during one of these times the fluides of the women are acid vs caustic, and one of them tends to destroy the male spermazoa. 3) The position does count because in some positions the path the sperm must swim is shorter. Male spermazoa swims faster, so it could reach the end first, but also dies quicker, so it has to have a shorter path.
stanwyck@ihlpa.UUCP (Don Stanwyck) (04/01/85)
According to my mama, the medical expert (pathologist type of medical), there are good ways to influence (though there is no way to guarentee short of aborting after amniocentisis checks) the sex of your offspring to be. Due to the base/acid balance of the female, and the different swimming speeds and lifespans of the X and Y sperm cells, the following is a rule of thumb: Intercourse between ovulation and 12-18 hours after ovulation produces boy - else girl. This is because Ys swim faster than Xs, but live less time due to incompatability with the pH of the womb. It is possible to get pregnant due to intercourse 24 before to 48 hours after ovulation, with very slight probabilities before/after that range. Since Ys tend to die with a few hours of intercourse, while Xs live up to 48 hours (a few longer), for best results you need to pin down the time of ovulation. This can be done fairly well through the proper use of a Basel body thermometer (available at your local drugstore). Good luck - we now have two - a boy (10/82) and a girl (8/84), with which we are quite pleased.
rs55611@ihuxk.UUCP (Robert E. Schleicher) (04/02/85)
> > Fortunately, short of sorting out your sperm under a microscope, > there is nothing you can do to increase the probability > that conception results in a male baby. In fact, the odds are slightly > in favor of a female being born. > > Kevin Kolwicz > AT&T Bell Labs, Allentown PA I've seen the results of a couple of studies that showed definite "changing the odds" by following the techniques that other net postings have listed (ie., tracking cervical mucos and body temperature to determinbe the exact day of ovulation, douching with baking soda, dietary changes, etc.) In one such (somewhat non-scientific, admittedly) study, approximately 75-80 out of 100 couples conceived the sex that they were attempting to conceive. The other result was that trying to have a boy is somewhat more "causable" than trying to have a girl. Basically, certain specific conditions are highly amenable to conceiving a boy, while the the conditions that tend to favor a girl also tend to favor no conception at all. (Basically, boys predominate right at the time of ovulation, while girls get more prevalent as you move farther away from the exact time of ovulation.) While not fool-proof, I think it's incorrect to dismiss these techniques as some form of hocus-pocus. It's also true, though, that no one should have a child unless they'll love whatever sex child they get equally as much. Nonetheless, if you've already got one or more kids of a particular sex, there's nothing wrong with trying to shift the odds a little. Bob Schleicher ihuxk!rs55611 . :wq
michael@nvuxd.UUCP (M.CAIN) (04/02/85)
I seem to recall that the statistics going back for
years and years consistently show that 51% of births
are boys, and that statistically, the mortality rates
for boys is also higher.
I understand that this slight edge may be due to the
fact that Y-type sperm swim slightly faster than the
X-type. I do know that this difference in speed is
used to seperate the two types of sperm in the cattle
industry to guarantee the sex of calves produced by
artificial insemination.
Michael Cain
Bell Communications Research
..!{bellcore,ihnp4}!nvuxd!michaelsct@lanl.ARPA (04/02/85)
> > My wife and I are **FINALLY** ready (if there is such a thing) to have > our first child and would like the first one to be a boy. (so he can protect > his sisters and play catch with me and carry on the family name and all of > > My question is what methods have any of you more experienced baby makers tried > to determine the gender of the child and how successful did they appear (ie: > did they work for you?) Some of the more popular suggestions I've heard are We had a girl first and wanted a boy for our second child so my wife bought some books on the subject. They all seemed to have the same message: the probability of having a boy is increased if you have sex during ovulation. I don't recall the exact window but it was based on the woman's temperature. The temperature gave an indication as to when ovulation was occurring. We stuck to the procedure and did end up with a boy. I can't recall what the probabilities were but there are a lot of books in the library on the subject. However we did run into one instance of a contradiction between two books where one said to do the exact opposite of what the other said. I will have to consult my wife to recall how we resolved that dilemma. Steve Tenbrink Arpa: sct@lanl.arpa
dennisg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Dennis E. Griesser) (04/02/85)
In article <1660SGL@PSUVM> sgl@psuvm.UUCP writes: > >those other important reasons) Now mind you it's not important enough to >consider any drastic measures like biogenetics or hormone pills, just given >a choice we both would like to buy blue baby clothes first. > >My question is what methods have any of you more experienced baby makers tried >to determine the gender of the child and how successful did they appear (ie: > >I realize, of course, that there is no scientific merit in any of these methods > The net has already responded with the standard set of techniques. They are fairly easy to do, but come with no warranty. For prospective parents who want better odds, you could try artificial insemination (using the husband's semen). With no other preperation, this process results in "a marked preponderance of males." If the semen is allowed to sit for awhile, the heavier X sperm settle. The lower third if the sample "contains 80% X sperm." If you REALLY want to slant the odds, you could use a centrifuge.... All of these methods are based of reported differences between X and Y sperm. Note that OTHER researchers claim that there are NO differences between X and Y sperm in "size or mass, shape, or electric charge". As to sex ratios: male female sperm production 100 100 conception 160 100 implantation 120 100 birth 105 100 All of this information appears in "Human Sexuality", fourth edition, by James McCary and Stephen McCary. Published by Wadsworth, copyright 1982. Standard disclaimers apply.
rsellens@watdcsu.UUCP (Rick Sellens - Mech. Eng.) (04/02/85)
In article <237@aluxz.UUCP> kolwicz@aluxz.UUCP (kolwicz) writes: >An interesting thing happens when you see your child born - you turn into >a parent. Implicit in this state of being is (among many other things) >the fact that it really, really doesn't matter what sex your child is. >Especially in this day and age. I half agree, before my son was born I wasn't sure whether I would prefer a boy or a girl, but now that we've got him I wouldn't want anyone else. Still, boys and girls are different, and I expect it would be a richer experience to have some of each if you get the chance. I would also suggest that if it matters to you what sex your child is, then it matters, period! It might be nicer if it didn't, but we can only go so far in changing who we are. >Fortunately, short of sorting out your sperm under a microscope, >there is nothing you can do to increase the probability >that conception results in a male baby. In fact, the odds are slightly >in favor of a female being born. >Kevin Kolwicz >AT&T Bell Labs, Allentown PA For some strange reason my wife and I were wondering about this the other night, so I looked up some statistics in the 1985 World Almanac. (That useful little book of bizarre information.) It gives birth statistics for the US broken down by sex. The numbers showed that there were about 5% more boys born each year than girls. On the other hand, women make up a larger portion of the population because they live about 9% longer. Rick Sellens UUCP: watmath!watdcsu!rsellens CSNET: rsellens%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet ARPA: rsellens%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
era@hao.UUCP (Edward R. Arnold) (04/03/85)
Try a book titled something like "Your Baby's Sex: Now You Can
Choose", from your local public library. I believe the author's
last name is "Shettles".
Ed Arnold
NCAR/SCD (Nat'l Ctr for Atmospheric Research/Scientific Computing Div.)
USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307-3000
BELL: 303-497-1253
UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70}!hao!scd-sa!era
--
Ed Arnold
NCAR/SCD (Nat'l Ctr for Atmospheric Research/Scientific Computing Div.)
USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307-3000
BELL: 303-497-1253
UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70}!hao!scd-sa!eramcal@ihuxb.UUCP (Mike Clifford) (04/03/85)
> > Howdy net.parents, > My wife and I are **FINALLY** ready (if there is such a thing) to have > our first child and would like the first one to be a boy. (so he can protect > his sisters and play catch with me and carry on the family name and all of > those other important reasons) Now mind you it's not important enough to > consider any drastic measures like biogenetics or hormone pills, just given > a choice we both would like to buy blue baby clothes first. > > My question is what methods have any of you more experienced baby makers tried > to determine the gender of the child and how successful did they appear (ie: > did they work for you?) Some of the more popular suggestions I've heard are... EARLY APRIL FOOLS JOKE, right? Mike Clifford
essachs@ihuxl.UUCP (Ed Sachs) (04/04/85)
> We stuck to the procedure and did end up with a boy.
And right you should. Most of these procedures will work at least
50% of the time :-).
--
Ed Sachs
AT&T Bell Laboratories
Naperville, IL
ihnp4!ihuxl!essachsir524@sdcc6.UUCP ({) (04/05/85)
Tried to replay via mail. Sorry, no path to your machine.
---------------------------------------------------------
The only guaranteed way for your first child to be a boy is to adopt.
Most agencies have special needs kids ( over 3 years ) for whom you can
actually make a selection based on sex, as opposed to infants where you
go with the luck of the draw. Just think, when your second(home made)
is born - built in big brother.
UUCP ihnp4\ ----!sdcsvax!sdcc6!peterw
akgua \ Peter Woodbury
decvax / Deep Sea Drilling Project (A031)
dcdwest/ Scripps Inst. of Oceanography
ucbvax/ UCSD, La Jolla CA 92093
------ 619-452-3526
--
UUCP ihnp4\ ----!sdcsvax!sdcc6!peterw
akgua \ Peter Woodbury
decvax / Deep Sea Drilling Project (A031)
dcdwest/ Scripps Inst. of Oceanography
ucbvax/ UCSD, La Jolla CA 92093
------ 619-452-3526jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) (04/06/85)
There are statistically more boys than girls born, but nore girls survive because females of the species are healthier and sounder physiological (that's why there are so many more old ladies than old men). Also women don't usually go off to war and get blown away, gut that's another story. Now, about making boys or girls. There are two distinct types of sperm. Those carrying Y (boy) chromosomes are small and fast, but not hardy. Those carrying X (girl) chromosomes are large and slow, but very hardy. Artificial insemination tends to produce many more boys than girls because screening techiques are used to filter out defective sperm, which also tend to filter out alot of the X-bearing sperms. My personal reaction is to take whatever you can get, and not try to determine the sex of your child. My parents didn't want kids - I am an accident in life. They wanted a boy - I am female. BUT, they treated me wonderfully and I had the best of both worlds. My dad taught me to shoot a gun, ride a horse and hold my likker, and my mother taught me to cook and sew. I have been married five years and still use my father's family name (I refused to change it). And I hate pink. The only thing, in other words, that you can't do with a daughter that you can with a son is have a pissing contest. So there. -- jcpatilla "'Get stuffed !', the Harlequin replied ..."
adm@cbneb.UUCP (04/06/85)
We had a girl and wanted our second (and last) to be a boy. I purchased a book entitled "The Preconception Gender Diet" (I don't recall the author and have already given the book away to a co-worker with two young daughters ready to try for number three). The premise was that through diet alone, you could affect the acidity level of the woman's vaginal area so that X-sperms or Y-sperms would predominate. After reading the book, I understood why I had a girl first (it was more like my usual diet). The author claimed she could raise your odds from 50-50 to 80-20. The girl diet was bland (NO sodium or potassium) while the boy diet was spicey (lots of sodium and potassium but NO magnesium or calcium). I remember having to have bacon or sausage for breakfast every day. The book included 2 months worth of recipes and diet plans. You should start the diet a month before you begin trying and continue it until pregnancy is confirmed. I did not follow the diet religiously, but stuck to the basic premises and did take a potassium supplement daily (purchased from a health-food store). I did have a healthy 9 lb 12 and 1/2 ounce boy 9 months later. Good luck!!!! Audree Thurman AT&T Bell Labs Columbus, OH 43068 cbosgd!cbneb!aud
cate3@cadtec.UUCP (Henry Cate III) (04/07/85)
Seeing the statistics posted by Dennis Griesser: > male female > birth 105 100 stired a memory of a friend saying that after World War II the percentage changed just a bit, more males were born. The claim was somehow "mankind" reacted to losing thousands of males. Did that perecentage of males born go up after WWII? Is this docuemented somewhere? Henry III UUCP: {nsc,csi}!cadtec!cate3 Cadtec Corp San Jose, CA 408 942 1535 x384
jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA (John Purbrick) (04/10/85)
> The > claim was somehow "mankind" reacted to losing thousands of males. > Did the percentage of males born go up after WWII? Alternative explanation (see earlier postings): it's said that infrequent intercourse favors the conception of boys. Here you have all the GI's stuck on troopships for weeks (leaving aside their abstinence--or not--among the gratefully liberated or conquered foreign women!), they come home to their womenfolk--what better example of "infrequent intercourse" could you want? Sure, that wouldn't apply everywhere, but it might distort the statistics a little. John Purbrick decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!mit-hermes!jpexg jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA
ajs@hpfcla.UUCP (ajs) (04/11/85)
Re: selecting baby's sex Having one daughter already, I recently had cause to ask my wife's Ob/Gyn the very question. His answer in a nutshell was that all the "simple" sex pre-determination methods have been "debunked" (his word), that they do not in fact produce statistically significant differences, and that the only sure method now available is the relatively new (and expensive) sperm column separation technique, which requires artifical insemination (no, thank you). Alan "sorry to disappoint you" Silverstein
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/19/85)
> > Seeing the statistics posted by Dennis Griesser: > > > male female > > birth 105 100 > > stired a memory of a friend saying that after World War II > the percentage changed just a bit, more males were born. The > claim was somehow "mankind" reacted to losing thousands of males. > Did that perecentage of males born go up after WWII? Is this > docuemented somewhere? > > Henry III UUCP: {nsc,csi}!cadtec!cate3 > Cadtec Corp San Jose, CA 408 942 1535 x384 I don't have any documentation, but I have heard that this, too, and also that it is a general phenomenon associated with war (which is concomitant with large-scale male loss). If true, then the solution to the original question is easy: We should have a war! Yes, yes, I know: ":-)" -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Danger signs, a creeping independence" |
dennisg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Dennis E. Griesser) (04/20/85)
According to McCary's text, the ratio of male babies to female DID rise in the years after world wars I AND II. McCary passes along the explaination of Ashley Montagu (1964): During wartime, people marry at a younger age. The young mothers, being strong and healthy, provide fertilized ova -- the greater number of which, as said before, are male -- a good chance for implantation and survival. So they tend to give birth to a higher percentage of males. Furthermore, since these young mothers are seperated from their husbands, the enforced spacing between births is longer than usual, leaving the woman in a strong- er physical condition to carry the next pregnancy to term and thereby increasing the likelihood of a male. My own idea about the reasoning hinges on another theory that states that the parent under greater stress at the time of conception will tend to shift the odds in favor of reproducing his or her sex. [I remember mention of this theory in my Human Sexuality class, but can't come up with a reference. It's based on pysiological manifestations of stress, coupled with the conception environments that favor various genders.] In any event, quite a few men are stressed during a war, so those men favor conceiving males! As to which theory is "right", or which factor carries the most weight, take your pick.
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (04/22/85)
In article <1914@sdcrdcf.UUCP> dennisg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Dennis E. Griesser) writes: > During wartime, people marry at a younger age. The young mothers, being > strong and healthy, provide fertilized ova -- the greater number of which, > as said before, are male -- a good chance for implantation and survival. > So they tend to give birth to a higher percentage of males. Furthermore, Women do not produce fertilized ova, it takes a man to fertilize an ova. The sex of the child is determined by which male sperm fertilized the egg, and not by any characteristic of the egg. -- Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower