Subj : Re: Didn't everyone know Britney would have to have a C-section because of those skinny hips of hers?
To   : alt.fan.britney-spears,alt.gossip.celebrities,alt.showbiz.gossip,alt.music.pink-floyd,alt.tv.farscape
From : Veronique
Date : Sat Oct 01 2005 20:27:49

From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape

Well her inner pelvis canal is widened now even though not squeezing the
baby out.  The bones widen because of hormones, it might go back to normal
but not fully, usually.  So her canal is not as tight anymore after all.

Vero
<sincerequestioner@yahoo.com> skrev i melding 
news:1127769945.079705.172650@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I didn't make mention of it on the original post Doomella, but she DOES
> have a NARROW isthmus as well as those narrow hips.  Boy I bet that is
> some good stuff!  And that is a big reason I envy Kevin.  It sure isn't
> because of that "nickel" rap of his.
>
> SincereQuestioner
>
> Doomella's conjecture on a followup to Buttercup who was following up
> mslindac:
> **********************************************************************
> This isn't anything new. For years, a lot of "society" and "executive"
> women
> have scheduled C-sections (performed at a supposedly reasonable time in
>
> their pregnancy) so they can plan ahead and know that they can attend
> that
> board meeting at noon on Tuesday the 12th instead. This has been going
> on
> for quite some time, sterile as it may seem.
>
> As for the "breeder's hips" stuff, that's nonsense. For one thing,
> Britney
> doesn't have unusually narrow hips. And it's not the width of the hips
> but
> the width of the pelvis that determines whether or not a newborn can
> slither
> out without requiring a C-section. You can have very narrow hips with
> pelvic
> bones that can easily accomodate a baby's passage, or very wide hips
> and
> small pelvic bones that won't.
>

.