Strollerderby : hormones

School Says No Touching - Ever

JeanneSager — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:01:00 GMT

Want to make a bunch of middle school kids with their hormones a ragin' really crazy?

Tell them they can't touch other. No high five. No bumping fists. No noogies. And definitely no holding hands - nope, not even locking pinky fingers.

Administrators at a middle school in Connecticut have put out a strict no touching policy in an attempt to cut down on "horseplay" among the students.

In theory, I get it. Kids in middle school are rough on each other - and the kid who was kicked in the groin at the school a few weeks ago was in some serious hurting (I'm a girl, and even I think about the kick in the 'nads and cringe).

But middle school kids don't live in a theoretical world. They're at an age when they literally crave touch. They are starting to get an itch for sexual exploration - even though they're not ready for sex (no matter what they think). So they tickle. They hold hands. They hug. And since they're still little kids, they also tussle, slap five, roughhouse.

Some of them take it too far, obviously, which is where discipline comes into play. Lay down common sense rules, and kids respond. If they don't, they face the consequences. Like punishment for kicking a kid in the groin.

If they weren't respectful enough of the rules NOT to get violent, is a no touching rule really going to stop them? Or is it just going to make a roiling mess of pre-teen hormones go beserk?

Part of the socialization of school is learning to respect one another's personal space. When a pre-teen boy gets too close to a pre-teen girl, she should be developing the wherewithal to tell him to back off. Boys too should be learning where the lines are drawn. Because in the real world, there is no "no touching" rule. We walk past our co-workers, and thanks to years of growing up around other kids, now when we can put our hands on their shoulders to scootch past to get a the coffee machine, now NOT to put our hands on their butt when we do it.

You know where the no touching rule is going to put most of these kids? In detention.

Image: VariousandSundry

They Say: Want to Know If Baby is Cute? Ask a Woman on the Pill

Jen Chaney — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 18:50:00 GMT

From the Dept. of Scientific Studies That Probably Don't Mean Anything comes this piece of breaking news: Premenopausal woman -- especially ones who are taking the pill -- are better at recognizing cute babies.

Psychologists at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland reached this conclusion after a study in which they showed photos of infants to a group of men and women, both young and old. The images were of various baby faces, each one carefully altered to demonstrate subtle, differing degrees of cuteness. Apparently the younger women, in particular the ones taking oral contraceptives, were more adept at identifying the facial features that lend themselves to adorability. In other words, hormones make all the difference, and that could explain (in part) what helps moms connect with their children.

Of course, the immediate question that came to my mind was: Does this mean that ugly kids can't bond with their mothers? Then came the next, perhaps more important question: Who is defining what "cute" is? That's obviously subjective, to some degree. I mean, a baby with eyes in the back of his head would, empirically, probably be seen as not so cute. Benjamin Button as a baby? Yeah, also not cute. But for the most part, we all perceive attractiveness differently, which makes me wonder how one can do a study around the issue. And apparently, I'm not the only one.

"It’s tough to know what to make of these findings without knowing the ways in which cute babies differ from uncute babies,” psychologist Steven Gangestad of the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque told Science News.

To be fair, before conducting the study, the researchers did use an independent rating system to help them come up with the look of the "average" cute face.So there was an attempt to make this less subjective and more scientific. But I'm still not convinced that we should take this data terribly seriously.

All that said, the next time a girlfriend looks at your newborn and doesn't rave over how adorable he is, there is no need to take personally. Just assume she's not on the pill and, therefore, doesn't know what she's talking about.

Image: Science News

Should Dads Cosleep?

Miriam Axel-Lute — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:00:00 GMT

Can dads sleep safely with their infants, or should that be left to moms and their "natural protective instincts"? The photo I posted with my report on the British study saying cosleeping doesn't increase risk of SIDS (reposted here) generated some passionate back and forth on this topic in the comments.

On the one hand, the official word from many cosleeping advocates is that it should only be the mom (and only a breastfeeding mom at that, yo). In fact, they even say that a cosleeping baby should not be placed between mom and dad, but between mom and a bedrail. Folks taking this position generally say that breastfeeding mothers are more "tuned in" to their babies, aware of their location, instinctually place them in a safe sleeping position, and wake in tandem with them throughout the night. Ccertainly if you are breastfeeding, one of the points of colseeping is having the breastfeeding mother right there to increase lactation and nursing frequency and duration.

On the other hand, I haven't actually seen any studies of specifically dads and cosleeping, but I've certainly known plenty of dads who describe for themselves perfectly my own experience of being hyper-aware of the presence and location and motion of their infants, even as they sleep. Is it possible that advocates on the defensive against "cosleeping = death" hysteria are being overcautious/biased on this one?

It's worth noting that dads, at least engaged ones, do actually go through hormonal changes themselves as they begin to parent, including modestly increased levels of prolactin, the lactation hormone. (I'd wager this probably also happens for non-bio moms in queer couples.) It's not like we're talking random person off the street here. But it's also not biological motherhood either.

What do you think? Is the only-moms-should-sleep-next-to-baby thing an acknowledgement of basic biology, or just more sexism trying to sneak in under the cloak of science?

Photo by davef3138, via Flickr.

More by this author:

They Say: Obese During Pregnancy? Hatch a Republican!

Kate Tuttle — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 19:30:00 GMT

In a recent post in her "The Wild Side" blog, New York Times writer Olivia Judson posits an interesting -- if infuritating -- theory aboout the relationship between pregnancy weight gain and a baby's future political instincts. Judson extrapolates from a recent study linking strong conservative viewpoints with certain temperamental tendencies (strong startle reflex, etc.), and factors in reseach suggesting about obesity during pregnancy to pose this question: does the obesity epidemic, in which up to one third of all pregnant women are now obese, portend a new generation of conservatives? As Judson writes, "the study found that people who support warrantless searches, wiretapping, military spending and so on were also likely to startle at sudden noises and threatening images. Those who support foreign aid, immigration, gun control and the like tended to have much milder responses to the stimuli."

Pregnant women who are obese during pregnancy -- the article leaves it somewhat unclear as to whether this includes only women who go into pregnancy obese, or also those who gain a lot of weight during pregnancy -- provide their fetuses a different hormonal environment than those who carry a typical amount of weight during pregnancy. And, Judson suggests, those hormonal differences can produce children who are jumpier, more intense, and therefore more likely to tend toward strong conservative political viewpoints into adulthood.

Of course, it's studies like this that tend to drive pregnant women of all political persuasions nuts. As if we needed another reason to worry about how much weight we've gained! As a mother who gained nearly 60 pounds with one pregnancy, and only about 35 with the other, I worry that I may have unwittingly spawned siblings whose votes will cancel each other out.

On the other hand what's fascinating to me about this idea is that it begins to acknowledge the role that environment -- not post-birth, but pre-birth -- might play in how a child grows. As a woman who has always taken pregnancy to be the best possible excuse to treat myself extremely well, I find that idea empowering. Knowing that my own mother was extremely slim throughout her child-bearing years (including modest 20-pound weight gains with each of her three pregnancies), I feel relieved that my brothers and I are all voting the same way this (and apparently every) election. Just looking at my family -- all of us politically liberal, but also all of us jumpy and intense -- makes me question pretty much every bit of Judson's conclusions.

Evangelical Teens' Very Active Sex Lives

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 21:00:00 GMT

In this week's issue of The New Yorker, there's a cartoon that made me laugh so hard I spit out my tea. Although it's not technically Bristol Palin's unborn child speaking, it easily could be. Two kids are sitting on a stoop and one says to the other, "I was an abstinence-only baby."

An article by Margarot Talbot in this same New Yorker tackles the issue of evangelical teen pregnancy in a more serious vein. Even for someone who is already convinced that abstinence-only sex education doesn’t work, these statistics are shocking.

Although 74 percent of white evangelical teenagers are opposed to premarital sex, more evangelical teens are sexually active than almost any other major religious group, including mainline Protestants, Jews, and Mormons. The average age for an evangelical to lose her virginity is 16. And half of these kids are not using protection. Compare that with 69 percent of non-evangelical teens who report using contraception every time they have sex.

The reason for this high percentage of unsafe sex among evangelical teens likely stems from shame at being sexually active—if you carry around condoms or suggest using one, you could give the impression that you are looking for sex. Furthermore, abstinence-only sex ed. teaches that condoms are not effective protection against STDs and pregnancy.

As we’ve seen in the widespread conservative support for Bristol Palin’s plans to get married and have a baby at age 17, for many evangelical parents, a teen daughter becoming pregnant is not a problem—so long as she keeps the baby and marries the father. This is a perfectly valid attitude based on a personal moral belief. The problem is that this retroactive problem solving often does not lead to happy families.

The states with the highest divorce rates and the highest teen pregnancy rates are all red (where people are, obviously, more likely to be evangelical conservatives than social liberals). The states with the lowest divorce and teen-pregnancy rates are all blue.

Many are arguing, even within the evangelical community, that if Christians want to preserve a commitment to abstinence until marriage, they must do more to encourage happier, younger marriages, since delaying sex until age 25 or 30 is just not realistic.

A large part of encouraging young Christians to have happier relationships is offering them more realistic attitudes toward sex. If hormonal teenagers are taught, for instance, that masturbation is sinful, they are more likely to have less engagement with and control over their bodies. Similarly, teen girls who are taught that they can always become "born-again virgins" if they "accidentally" have sex before marriage are not likely to embark on a responsible sex life. And such guilt-addled, unrealistic attitudes toward sex are likely to cause problems for couples well into marriage.

Photo: Mary Ellen Mark/The New Yorker

Could Sex on TV Lead to Teen Pregnancy?

New Test Gives Women a "Fertility Roadmap"

Shannon LC Cate — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 17:00:00 GMT

A new study published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism shows that measuring levels of the hormones AMH, FSH and inhibin B combined with a woman's age, can predict the timing of menopause. The hope is that this information can give women more specifics about the timing of their individual "biological clocks" and allow them to plan pregnancy accordingly.

The Guardian reports that although these hormones have been measurable for some time, the data was insufficient to connect exact levels to exact timing of fertility drop-off.

Perhaps this is the end of wondering why some women go on having babies with ease into their early forties and others seem to have all kinds of difficulty conceiving after 35. I'd much rather have a test that can pinpoint individual odds of conceiving than public service announcements telling women they'd better get home and start having babies before it's too late.

They Say: Moms Shut Down Infant Brains During Birth (It's a Good Thing)

Miriam Axel-Lute — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:17:00 GMT

Ah, oxytocin, how we love you. Or how you make us love others. Or something. But that's not all. Oxytocin, the hormone associated with social relationships, including maternal-infant bonding, lust, and trust, now has a different kind of role to add to its resume:

Science blogger Ed Yong explains that apparently the flush of oxytocin that is released when a fetus's head starts pushing on the inside of the cervix in labor sends a "chill-out" message to the newborn brain, causing it to not respond for a while to the neurotransmitter known as GABA, which pre- and post-birth usually keeps all those nerve cells firing away at rapid pace, learning and growing.

My first reaction to this was wonder if this was a way of softening the psychological drama of leaving the warm, soft, wet womb and its constant heartbeat and heading out into this big bad world.

That may be a side effect, but the researchers seem to think it's a little more pragmatic than that: When a baby brain is all zen on oxytocin, it needs a lot less oxygen, which means it's at much less risk of damage from a temporary oxygen deprivation, one of the most common dangers of birth. Handy.

It's cool to know your hormones are that on the ball. It also seems like oxytocin is powerful enough on so many fronts that even if you do need to plan a c-section for some reason you might want to wait until labor starts to give you and your kid that hormone hit. (Waiting for labor, as I learned from my friend who recently insisted on it, is apparently exceedingly rare. Perhaps that's a post for another time.)

In the meantime, I wonder if large enough doses of oxytocin would chill out my brain for a while?

More by this author:

Anything to Conceive

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:00:00 GMT

Cindy Chupack tried visualizing sperm with her husband’s face on them. She tried standing on her head. She tried electroacupuncture, which involved attaching spark plugs to the needles. She tried going on vacation with her husband and just enjoying sex for a while, you know, like they used to before they started racing her biological clock. She tried IVF, suppositories, hormone injections.

She tried an all-red meat diet, and then, when she read somewhere that red meat actually hinders pregnancy while she had a steak on the grill, she ate her stale gingerbread house in her frustration and hunger.

Like many women, Chupack, who recently wrote about her conception adventures for O Magazine, began the whole procreating process relatively late. It was not until she was 40 that she fell in love with the right man and had real longings for children—which was just fine by her, but not so fine by her body.

But, also like many women, Chupack will not give up trying. If you think that the gingerbread house incident put her over the edge, well, you’ve probably never tried to conceive.

Image: John Cuneo/O Magazine

Putting Swollen Ankles into Perspective

Amy Kuras — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 19:34:00 GMT

I'm one of those people who firmly believe pregnancy sucks. I've been lucky, both times, to experience mild nausea, major insomnia and swollen ankles and that's about it. And yet, oh did I complain.

Had I read this article in the New York Times on cancer during pregnancy, I hope would have been shamed into shutting right up. Because as uncomfortable and sometimes outright miserable as pregnancy is, the prospect of facing your own mortality, the possibility of harming your baby, and the hell that is cancer treatment all at once is something no one should have to go through.

But they do – as women conceive children later in life they are also running into disease that tend to strike people later, such as cancer, during their pregnancies. Also, the normal life cycle of a woman's childbearing years has changed. It used to be that girls started their periods around 13 to 15 years of age and then went into menopause in their late 30s – now, puberty can begin as early as 9 years old and menopause typically occurs around age 50. Exposure to hormone shifts for longer might be causing more cancer.

Interestingly, while doctors typically suggest therapuetic abortion because it makes the cancer easier to treat aggressively, cancer treatment while pregnant is possible. Even the most pessimistic studies show that chemo causes birth defects in 14 to 19 percent of cases, and other studies show them in only 4 percent.

In any case, it's a terrifying thing to face and the women profiled just amazed me. Anybody who thinks women are weaker just isn’t paying attention.

Pregnant Woman Attacks Bartender

Kelly Mills — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:34:00 GMT

This is a super extreme case, and I'm totally not justifying this woman's actions at all, so make no mistake about that. I don't think anyone would recommend drinking in pregnancy to the point where the bartender cuts you off, or getting violent and seriously hurting someone as a solution, so what happened here is totally not right. But when I read the story, I couldn't help but think about how people are always giving you dirty looks for drinking coffee or tsk-tsking about what you do when you are pregnant, and how the hormonal rage makes your eyes cross, and so on...

Anyhow, a bartender refused to give a pregnant woman another drink because she'd had enough already, and when the woman sassed back, the bartender told her she wasn't supposed to be drinking anyway. The woman flew into a rage and smashed a bottle over the bartender's ear, then smashed a glass on her head and tried to climb over the bar to attack her and had to be restrained by another person. The bartender had to go to the hospital for serious injuries. So if you think you overreacted when you growled at the Starbucks barrista who refused to serve you your morning latte, hey, there's worse.

Lots of People Are Abused As Kids--So Why Do Only Some Develop Depression?

Kelly Mills — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:02:00 GMT

Sadly, having a hard-knock life and being abused as a kid is not entirely uncommon. But only some people develop serious depression out of this, while others seem reasonably unscathed. How come? Researchers looked at genetic variations to see how regulation of the stress response could make a difference. If your nurture fails, can nature help you out?

Some adults had a genetic variation that seemed to protect them from developing moderate to severe depression, and it all comes back to stress hormones. Abuse can trigger a sort of tsunami of certain hormones, which makes folks more likely to be truly blue as grownups. However, some people had a variation that protected against the hormone rush, and that appeared to be a saving grace when it came to depression. Ideally this research will lead to individualized treatments for folks, but for now, there's always the hope that where family fails, genes will take over.

I Think I Going To Post On Pregnancy Memory Loss--Did I Do It Already?

Kelly Mills — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 22:28:00 GMT

In general I hate to concede anything to "pregnancy brain"-- it reminds me of when you are in a fight with someone and they ask if you are on your period or something. But some researchers just did a study on memory loss during pregnancy, and they found that "pregnant women do experience a slight loss of memory--and in many cases, the forgetfulness continues after birth." It seems that the memory loss is subtle, but most pronounced on new or unfamilar stuff, like why you thought getting pregnant was a good idea in the first place.

So what causes this little knocked up amnesia? Researchers don't know, but it could be hormonal or the fact that you have a teensy weensy lifestyle change that might cause you to shift a little in your steel trap mind. Sleep disruption and preoccupation with baby life could be factors. I'm definitely voting for sleep loss as a big culprit. The study also found that the memory problems can persist for up to a year after the birth of your angel, and maybe beyond but the research didn't go past the one-year period. Ah, whatever you were trying to remember probably wasn't important anyway.

Supportive Homelife During Preschool Means Girls Hit Puberty Later

Kelly Mills — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:32:00 GMT

If you'd like the Barbie dolls to be the only young things in the house sporting boobs any time soon, I guess it's time to work on being supportive and happy and economically good, because researchers say your parental investment during the preschool years will make a difference. According to a new study, girls who grow up in households with marital conflict, depressed dads, and less supportive parenting hit puberty earlier than peers in stable, supportive homes. The idea is that early childhood experiences can influence sexual maturation rates in girls, and early puberty has been linked with mood disorders, substance abuse, teen pregnancy and reproductive system cancers. It has also been tied to earlier instances of eye rolling and the phrase, "Oh my gawd, you are ruining my life!"

There's other factors involved in the age of onset of the hormonal roller coaster. "Children whose mothers had started puberty later (a genetic factor), whose families were better off when the children were in preschool, whose mothers gave them more support when they were in preschool and who had lower Body Mass Index when they were in third grade developed secondary sexual characteristics later than their peers." Crap, I don't even remember when I hit puberty. Yesterday, I think? I should mention that some of the results of this study come from mother-daughter reports of development, never my favorite method, but oh well. And to think, all this time I've been worried about getting organic milk when I should have been trying to be more loving and well-off. It figures.

New Study Shows You Can Get Knocked Up When You Least Expect It

Kelly Mills — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:22:00 GMT

A new study has found what many of those who stared at the home pregnancy test in horror already knew: There's a big ol' window when you can get pregnant. People were previously told that the fertility window for trying to concieve (or trying not to conceive) was between days 10 and 17 of a woman's cycle. But guess what? Turns out that was only true for 30 percent of women. "In fact, the researchers found, there is hardly a day in the menstrual cycle during which some women are not potentially fertile." Ooops! Hey, it wasn't that fancy dinner, a few too many glasses of wine, and a movie with Johnny Depp that did this to you, it was misinformation.

The deal is that even women with cycles so regular you could set a clock by 'em sometimes have late ovulation. So 70 percent of the women were fertile outside days 10 to 17. Which means if you wanna get pregnant, you should go at it like rabbits for three weeks, and good luck to you. If, however, the thought of another child makes you break out in hives, well, be extra careful and consider multiple guarentees against expanding your family.

Short People Make Themselves Sick

Madeline Holler — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:02:00 GMT

As if short people don’t have enough problems – the pant lengths, the nicknames, the unpredictable belligerence and defensiveness. A big study of them in the U.K. has determined that short people are likely responsible for much of their own misery.

Men who were shorter than 5 foot 4 inches, and women under 5 feet reported poorer health than their more average to tall counterparts, according to the study. Just a couple of inches more in height apparently made all the difference. Those who were even just slightly taller reported they were happier and healthier in comparison.

The survey didn’t bother with checking how healthy any of the participants actually were, just how well the little guys thought they were.

The endocrinology group behind the study takes these findings seriously. Since even just a bit of extra height boosted the physical and mental well-being of both men and women, it has implications on decisions to treat children who suffer conditions that will slow or stunt their growth. Hormone treatments could have a huge positive effect on their well-being as adults.

Pregcellent: Love-Fest Or "Ugh, No Way"

Kelly Mills — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:40:00 GMT

Hormones are a funny thing, and no, not "ha ha" funny, so don't even think about laughing because we are feeling a little emotional right now and we don't need that kind of crap... Okay, hormones. They make some pregnant ladies cringe at the thought of sex, while others find the libido goes to a whole new level. And some (a few of the bloggers here, in fact) just get really into porn for a change. While we sometimes find the logistics of pregnancy bump-and-grind amusing, we're curious about your bedroom habits. Or kitchen habits, I guess, if it's like that.

So where did you or do you come down on the issue? Were you in the "I want it all the time now" camp, or was your romping limited to a particular trimester? (By the way, I'm curious if anyone had the big love yen during the first trimester, because sweat and nausea don't mix that well.) Or did you say, "Good god, don't touch me, that's how we got into this mess in the first place"? I've even heard of some ladies in a bind: they wanted it, but their partners got weirded out by the bun in the oven lovin' thing. How about you?

Do Some Moms Love More Than Others?

Madeline Holler — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:52:00 GMT

You know how the love your feel for your child, especially the newborns, is inexplicable, other-worldly, spiritual, so incredibly unfamiliar that you catch yourself describing it as “magical”?

Well, get over yourself. That love is chemical, plain and simple. At least that’s what scientists concluded from this study on oxytocin “the hormone of love” and the mother-child bond.

Oh, great. They have not only taken the mystery out of love, they’ve quantified it. No I love you more! No I love you more! Quit arguing and submit blood samples!

A summary of the study:

Animals with no oxytocin showed slower pup retrieval, and less licking and self-grooming than those with moderate to high levels. But these are rats. Let’s get to humans.

Plasma oxytocin levels in pregnant women were measured during the first and third trimesters and after the first month post-partum. They also observed mom and baby behavior in four areas: gaze, affect, touch and vocalization. Attachment was rated stronger for mothers who gazed mostly at their child, showed “positive energy” toward the kid, maintained a constant good touch, and spoke in “motherese,” the high-pitched, widdle boo-boo baby talk (that is natural and therefore nothing to be ashamed of) way of speaking to little ones. Then moms completed a bond-related survey.

Researchers compared the bonding reports with the behaviors, establishing what a strong mother-child bond looks like. Then they compared the oxytocin levels with the differing bonding behaviors.

The study found that high levels of the hormone in the first trimester predicted strong showings of those attachment behaviors. Mothers with high levels of the hormone across pregnancy and in the post-partum month also showed more of the gaze, touch, and babytalk behaviors too. (They were also more likely to report being preoccupied with thoughts of checking on the infant, the infant’s safety when they are not around, and the infant’s future.)

I am not ashamed to say I had more than enough oxytocin coursing through me during pregnancy and after. I cried watching “The Apprentice” (who knew Donald Trump’s speech and hand gestures could be so moving?). At Wal-greens, a week after my second daughter was born, it became crystal clear that Dusty Springfield was singing “The Look of Love” on behalf of my newborn and me, serenading us right there in the store! Also, I am a shameless babytalker even in my pre-maternal civilian life. And trust me, my pup retrieval was instantaneous. My tongue had blisters from all the licking and self-grooming.

But oxytocin isn’t the “love hormone” just for moms and babies. It’s also the one that makes getting it on so fun. So we all have this hormone whether we’ve been pregnant or not – fathers, adoptive parents, babysitters too. That’s the study I’d like to see – the one that involves reports of bonding in adoptions measured against the new parents’ own blood levels. I bet there’s a lot of licking and pup retrieval in adoptive families too. Did the researchers take oxytocin levels of non-pregnant women to compare with? Because I'd like to know if the hormone production increases with a kid in your life, whether or not you've been pregnant.

Test Taking Ability Correlated With...Finger Length?

Kelly Mills — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:04:00 GMT

When someone pulls out a ruler to measure a part of your body, do you start to feel inadequate? Now kids can share that pain. A recent study found that the finger length of kids between the ages of six and seven correlated with performance on standardized academic tests. Boys with short index fingers compared to their ring fingers did well on math tests, and girls with same-length index and ring fingers did well on verbal tests. No word yet on what my very long middle finger means, aside from the fact that other motorists seem to be bothered by it.

The digit length is believed to be linked to hormones, which play a role in brain development. Testosterone purportedly influences mathematical and spatial ability, while estrogen is argued to affect the areas of the brain used in language. Finger length serves as a marker of prenatal hormone exposures, and potentially inborn academic abilities. Curse you, hormones! I blame everything on you.

So instead of doing flash cards, this year we will be working on finger stretching. Because I want my child to have the brightest possible future at Harvard.

Pregnancy: 2nd Trimester the Feel-Good Trimester

Rachael Brownell (Redsy) — Thu, 03 May 2007 20:52:00 GMT

Waves of euphoria. Peaceful loving feeling, Honeymoon period. Feelings of fullness and love and peace.

When I hear women talk about these things regarding pregnancy or breastfeeding, I tilt my head and think "huh" (when I'm in a good mood) or "what a farkin lunatic" (when in a bad one). Nevertheless, I know there are plenty of nice ladies out there who enjoy pregnancy like it was the culmination of life's mysteries. To say I'm a "cranky" pregnant lady is like describing the Iraq War as a "diplomatic disagreement." Just ask my ex-husband. Kidding kidding. We're still married.

According to this article, there are many reasons to love the 2nd trimester of pregnancy. Like the drinking and the loving. No no. That's not what she says. Actually she suggests daydreaming, relishing the libido, and fitting in the fitness. I think reading this article is a great idea if you're a cheerful pregnant lady. But if you're cranky like I was, I think swearing and eating potato chips will be much better for your soul.

Study: Teen Moodiness is Due to.....Hormones (Duh!)

Karen Murphy — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:06:00 GMT

Well this certainly explains a lot. Not that we didn't already know that teenagers are often moody, and at times for no apparent reason, and that it's been explained away for years as having to do with hormones. But here's a closer look. At least, it explains a lot for teenage mice. Apparently, though, a hormone called THP (also called allopregnanolone) that normally has a calming effect on adults and young children, has the opposite effect on teenagers. Uh, teenage mice, that is. The THP is released in the body several minutes after a stressful event, and normally has a tranquilizing effect (I think I need more of this), but in adolecsence, there are more receptors present that accept the hormone in brain cells, and as a result there is an anxious rather than calming effect when the THP moves into place in the brain.

In other words, what is calming for adults and younger children drives teenagers nuts. Hmm. I think I see that. Not that this information changes anything, but it does help to understand what is going on.