Dating in Med School for a Girl? Disturbing Trend?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Eokpar02 said:
I have been pepper sprayed before and it had no effect on me besides inducing light coughing and some burning of the eyes.

A stun gun (almost surely illegal if you live in the mid-Atlantic/northeast), screaming or yelling, or some competence in fighting (Krav Maga) will be far more useful in a scenario where you have a clear and pressing threat to your safety. Any reasonably athletic male would have thrown you headfirst on concrete by the time you are in a position to deploy your pepper spray.

Also, what about my post makes you want to carry pepper spray? I didn't say anything about forcing myself on the opposite sex.
Click to expand...
Wow! That is a lot of red flags!
Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Eokpar02 said:
I have been pepper sprayed before and it had no effect on me besides inducing light coughing and some burning of the eyes.

A stun gun (almost surely illegal if you live in the mid-Atlantic/northeast), screaming or yelling, or some competence in fighting (Krav Maga) will be far more useful in a scenario where you have a clear and pressing threat to your safety. Any reasonably athletic male would have thrown you headfirst on concrete by the time you are in a position to deploy your pepper spray.

Also, what about my post makes you want to carry pepper spray? I didn't say anything about forcing myself on the opposite sex.
Click to expand...

I like how this post was already horrifying in its original form, and then you edited it to double down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9 users
charmiedermie said:
Your misogynistic scenarios are alarm bells for you needing gender sensitivity training. Badly. Most men have not experienced being pepper sprayed by women for good reason.
Click to expand...

1. According to who was I pepper sprayed by a woman? I was pepper sprayed at a protest by a male police officer. The dearth of reading comprehension on this forum always amazes me. You are sexist for assuming that the only people willing to commit assault with a weapon (pepper spraying another person is assault, barring it being a situation of legitimate self defense). How dare you assume my assailant was a woman?

2. You don't know what misogyny is. I outlined why pepper spray isn't an effective weapon when you are in fear for your life: it doesn't incapacitate the person being sprayed and it just makes them madder. I outlined better self defense tools (yelling, a stun gun or self defense courses). That isn't misogyny; its reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
touchpause13 said:
Wow! That is a lot of red flags!
Click to expand...

What red flags? I spoke the truth, pepper spray is useless in many scenarios because it depends on the disparate effects on the victim. It also opens you up to legal culpability if the person suffers damage to their eyes. I gave recommendations for real self defense tools/skills.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Eokpar02 said:
1. According to who was I pepper sprayed by a woman? I was pepper sprayed at a protest by a male police officer. The dearth of reading comprehension on this forum always amazes me. You are sexist for assuming that the only people willing to commit assault with a weapon (pepper spraying another person is assault, barring it being a situation of legitimate self defense). How dare you assume my assailant was a woman?

2. You don't know what misogyny is. I outlined why pepper spray isn't an effective weapon when you are in fear for your life: it doesn't incapacitate the person being sprayed and it just makes them madder. I outlined better self defense tools (yelling, a stun gun or self defense courses). That isn't misogyny; its reality.
Click to expand...

You're the same guy who implied they were going to smack a poster in the mouth then did this same backtrack song and dance.

You know exactly what you're implying with your posts, but then you love to throw down this mix of victim card/reading comprehension blaming
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
charmiedermie said:
Your misogynistic scenarios are alarm bells for you needing gender sensitivity training. Badly. Most men have not experienced being pepper sprayed by women for good reason.
Click to expand...

Also, what the hell is gender sensitivity training? Is that when you learn how to reach the g spot or massage the clit? If that is the case, I should be teaching the class!
 
SouthernSurgeon said:
You're the same guy who implied they were going to smack a poster in the mouth then did this same backtrack song and dance.

You know exactly what you're implying with your posts, but then you love to throw down this mix of victim card/reading comprehension blaming
Click to expand...

If you could read my post, all I said was she may want to use something else if she is in fear of being attacked by another person. The only implication was what I explicitly wrote: pepper spray will cause more problems than it will solve.

You obviously aren't the sharpest scalpel in the OR; I didn't backtrack at all. I stand by my original response: pepper spray doesn't work and there are better options.

I have never pulled a victim card but I do always say people lack reading comprehension. I said I was pepper sprayed and she said I was pepper sprayed by a WOMAN. Something I never wrote. That is bad reading comprehension.

Regardless, your reply is dully noted.
 
Last edited:
sidefx said:
If you've "never been so insulted in your entire life", you have been living an extremely sheltered life. Don't be so melodramatic. I too disagree that guys are only after sex, because I know that I am personally after a lot more than that. But I'll be damned if I am going to get offended because some random stranger over the internet types out a sentence that doesn't resonate with me. He's entitled to his opinion, and I honestly couldn't care less if that opinion is different than what my experience is. We are cultivating a society of hypersensitivity where we are encouraged to become offended by even the most trivial of slights, and quite frankly it's ridiculous. Time to get over the fact that people are going to say things that you don't like and not get all bent out of shape about it. It amazes me how some people can even function in the world when seeing a stranger on the internet state that "men are only after sex!" is considered an affront of the highest magnitude.
Click to expand...

sidefx meet hyperbole. hyperbole meet sidefx
 
Eokpar02 said:
1. According to who was I pepper sprayed by a woman? I was pepper sprayed at a protest by a male police officer. The dearth of reading comprehension on this forum always amazes me. You are sexist for assuming that the only people willing to commit assault with a weapon (pepper spraying another person is assault, barring it being a situation of legitimate self defense). How dare you assume my assailant was a woman?

2. You don't know what misogyny is. I outlined why pepper spray isn't an effective weapon when you are in fear for your life: it doesn't incapacitate the person being sprayed and it just makes them madder. I outlined better self defense tools (yelling, a stun gun or self defense courses). That isn't misogyny; its reality.
Click to expand...
Referring to the strengthening of your pimp hand (known for pimp slap), "moist pink walls of glory", and about throwing women headfirst onto concrete by their attackers (and your glee in that) is misogyny.
Eokpar02 said:
Also, what the hell is gender sensitivity training? Is that when you learn how to reach the g spot or massage the clit? If that is the case, I should be teaching the class!
Click to expand...
I doubt you'd ever be able to find those areas on your own even with classes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
charmiedermie said:
Referring to the strengthening of your pimp hand (known for pimp slap), "moist pink walls of glory", and about throwing women headfirst onto concrete by their attackers (and your glee in that) is misogyny.

I doubt you'd ever be able to find those areas on your own even with classes.
Click to expand...
charmiedermie said:
Referring to the strengthening of your pimp hand (known for pimp slap), "moist pink walls of glory", and about throwing women headfirst onto concrete by their attackers (and your glee in that) is misogyny.

I doubt you'd ever be able to find those areas on your own even with classes.
Click to expand...

You are just exposing your stupidity. The post where I wrote "pimp hand" and "moist pink walls of glory" was an attempt at humor, dummy. I never said I would throw a woman headfirst on concrete. I said I would throw someone deploying pepper spray on me. You don't even know what misogyny is.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Screw this. I'm going home.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
*Comes back after leaving off on page 9* ... *skips to 15 after reading that*

:wtf:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I think my IQ dropped by reading 2 pages of this thread
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
PremedSurvivor said:
I've noticed a trend-- and this might be just at my school-- but it bothers me all the same.

I'm fortunate enough to attend a top 10 medical school; I worked so hard to get to where I am that I never really put much thought into dating. I figured I could simply make up for lost time while at medical school.

What I didn't account for is that the vast majority of guys in our class are taken (we're all about mid-20s). That itself is fine- what's more disconcerting, is that most of these guys have long-term relationships with women in much less rigorous professions (i.e. art, high-school teachers, nonprofit work etc.) No disrespect to these professions, and I'm sure they can be fairly challenging because I've worked in some of these fields, but I all in all I see very few of these guys dating women in medicine. From the handful that are, they rarely ever date girls in med school (i.e. there are some in pharm). There's a stark difference in our class with the guys being taken and the girls-- good-looking, clever, and talented-- being single.

In all honestly, it seems like being accomplished has actually HURT our chances, whereas being in medical school has seemingly helped the guys. How do we address this?
Click to expand...

Any relationship will be difficult to obtain if expectations are the highest priority. Enjoy your freedom now and date anyone who match your interests, drives, and relationship values. Recall: no expectations, high openness
 
famoussquamous said:
It's not so much her "value" as a human being that gets called into question, it's more about her viability as a long term mate. There's been several studies that have shown that women with fewer sexual partners before marriage are more likely to stay married, report higher marital satisfaction, and were less likely to cheat on their spouse.
Click to expand...
Haha are you talking about that terrible chart that was so obviously flawed that I actually felt obligated to stop lurking on sdn and create an account just to tear it apart? In addition to ignoring a variety of factors (married women who weren't currently sexually active, widows, sexually active lesbians who couldn't get married, etc.) the people responsible for that chart, The Heritage Foundation, intentionally designed their chart so that the first column of their graph would equal 100% regardless of the data collected which guaranteed that their results would be significant (they used a jackknife analysis).
The percentage and other estimates in the charts were subjected to a rigorous “jackknife” analysis to gauge the statistical significance of the differences of the extreme values. All of the charts presented have differences that are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level. That is, in all cases, the percent reported on the left side of any given chart is statistically different from the percent reported on the right side of the chart.
Click to expand...
Why was the first column guaranteed to be 100% (or close to it if there was a small minority of currently unmarried women who were sleeping with ex-husbands)? It was a measure of how many of the women who had only ever had sex with their husbands and were currently sexually active were still married at the time of the study. If women are currently having sex, and they've only had sex with their husbands, then they must also be currently married. Either that, or they're part of a very small minority that is having sex with an ex-husband. You don’t even need to collect data; that’s just a standard logic puzzle.
Women who are shown as having zero voluntary non-marital sexual partners have been married to all the men with whom they have had sexual intercourse; some of these women may have had pre-marital intercourse with men they later married, but at some point they have married all the men with whom they have been voluntarily sexually active.
Click to expand...
The researchers restricted the data to women over 30 years old and then defined a stable marriage as a current marriage that had lasted five or more years. Regardless of the number of their sexual partners, ALL data from women who were currently in marriages that had existed for less than five years were excluded from the chart.
By selectively defining terms, excluding data, and very slyly designing the chart, the end result was that the researchers concluded that currently sexually active women with zero non-marital partners were statistically more likely to be in a stable marriage than women with more non-marital sex partners.
This chart covers sexually active women over the age of 30. Women were defined as having a stable marriage if they were currently married and had been in that same marriage for at least five years. Women who had more non-marital sex partners were less likely to have stable marriages. Over 80 percent of the women who had never had a non-marital partner were in stable marriages. By contrast, only 30 percent of the women with five non-marital sex partners were in stable marriages.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
loris said:
The researchers restricted the data to women over 30 years old and then defined a stable marriage as a current marriage that had lasted five or more years. Regardless of the number of their sexual partners, ALL data from women who were currently in marriages that had existed for less than five years were excluded from the chart.
By selectively defining terms, excluding data, and very slyly designing the chart, the end result was that the researchers concluded that currently sexually active women with zero non-marital partners were statistically more likely to be in a stable marriage than women with more non-marital sex partners.
Click to expand...

So, what you're saying is that women are doomed if they have sex and don't marry that person?
There's research and then there's this.
 
fancymylotus said:
Teepee, were both out of luck. Our successful careers make us admirable but not attractive, and we're never going to be able to find men who love us ;(
Click to expand...

Had a meniscus tear repaired last summer by an orthopod and she was gorgeous (anesthesiologist guy was cute too).
 
TorMed said:
Had a meniscus tear repaired last summer by an orthopod and she was gorgeous (anesthesiologist guy was cute too).
Click to expand...

I don't want a gorgeous male obgyn delivering my baby princesses. I need someone who I'm not going to feel bad about yelling at
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
fancymylotus said:
I don't want a gorgeous male obgyn delivering my baby princesses. I need someone who I'm not going to feel bad about yelling at
Click to expand...
See my concern is more the bleeding and pooping all over myself plus the whole episiotomy thing
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
CyrilFiggis said:
Not as gross as what happens if you don't get it done. I saw a woman come in post home-birth with a tear....
Click to expand...
I don't know you but your name and avatar means I automatically like you for the Archer reference and hate you for your choice in character
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
WildZoo said:
I don't know you but your name and avatar means I automatically like you for the Archer reference and hate you for your choice in character
Click to expand...
I has the exact same thought
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
loris said:
Haha are you talking about that terrible chart that was so obviously flawed that I actually felt obligated to stop lurking on sdn and create an account just to tear it apart? In addition to ignoring a variety of factors (married women who weren't currently sexually active, widows, sexually active lesbians who couldn't get married, etc.) the people responsible for that chart, The Heritage Foundation, intentionally designed their chart so that the first column of their graph would equal 100% regardless of the data collected which guaranteed that their results would be significant (they used a jackknife analysis).

Why was the first column guaranteed to be 100% (or close to it if there was a small minority of currently unmarried women who were sleeping with ex-husbands)? It was a measure of how many of the women who had only ever had sex with their husbands and were currently sexually active were still married at the time of the study. If women are currently having sex, and they've only had sex with their husbands, then they must also be currently married. Either that, or they're part of a very small minority that is having sex with an ex-husband. You don’t even need to collect data; that’s just a standard logic puzzle.

The researchers restricted the data to women over 30 years old and then defined a stable marriage as a current marriage that had lasted five or more years. Regardless of the number of their sexual partners, ALL data from women who were currently in marriages that had existed for less than five years were excluded from the chart.
By selectively defining terms, excluding data, and very slyly designing the chart, the end result was that the researchers concluded that currently sexually active women with zero non-marital partners were statistically more likely to be in a stable marriage than women with more non-marital sex partners.
Click to expand...



I wasn't even referencing that study although I know the study in which you are talking about. The actual study I was looking at was a very recent study done by a non-religious university (UVA) in which they showed that the number of premarital sexual partners you've had correlates with unhappier marriages:

http://nationalmarriageproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/NMP-BeforeIDoReport-Final.pdf

"
According to researchers, the 23 percent of participants who only had sex with their spouse prior to getting hitched reported higher quality marriages versus those who had other past sexual partners as well.

They claim this finding is especially true for women, writing in the report, "We further found that the more sexual partners a woman had had before marriage, the less happy she reported her marriage to be."

On top of that, researchers say that participants who lived with an S.O. -- who did not become their future spouse -- also reported unhappier marriages"

I know this idea doesn't fit into the popular notion that having lots of sexual partners is harmless and even necessary for long-term relationship success, but the data clearly flies in the face of this. Furthermore, I have yet to see a reputable study that reports absolutely zero link between number of sexual partners and marital satisfaction, so there obviously is a link even if you don't think there is.

Look I'm not gonna go back and forth with you guys on this. Just know that many men, especially those from "traditional" cultures, don't want to settle long-term with a loose woman, and no amount of shaming and claiming "m-m-muh double standards/slut shaming" is going to change that. Like I said earlier, women are free to have their preferences in what they want in a man (right height, "right" race, right income, etc) and men are free to have their preferences. The fact that so many of you are so angry at the fact that men with sense don't want to settle with a female that has had a lot of sexual partners is almost comical.
 
famoussquamous said:
I wasn't even referencing that study although I know the study in which you are talking about. The actual study I was looking at was a very recent study done by a non-religious university (UVA) in which they showed that the number of premarital sexual partners you've had correlates with unhappier marriages:

http://nationalmarriageproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/NMP-BeforeIDoReport-Final.pdf

"
According to researchers, the 23 percent of participants who only had sex with their spouse prior to getting hitched reported higher quality marriages versus those who had other past sexual partners as well.

They claim this finding is especially true for women, writing in the report, "We further found that the more sexual partners a woman had had before marriage, the less happy she reported her marriage to be."

On top of that, researchers say that participants who lived with an S.O. -- who did not become their future spouse -- also reported unhappier marriages"

I know this idea doesn't fit into the popular notion that having lots of sexual partners is harmless and even necessary for long-term relationship success, but the data clearly flies in the face of this. Furthermore, I have yet to see a reputable study that reports absolutely zero link between number of sexual partners and marital satisfaction, so there obviously is a link even if you don't think there is.

Look I'm not gonna go back and forth with you guys on this. Just know that many men, especially those from "traditional" cultures, don't want to settle long-term with a loose woman, and no amount of shaming and claiming "m-m-muh double standards/slut shaming" is going to change that. Like I said earlier, women are free to have their preferences in what they want in a man (right height, "right" race, right income, etc) and men are free to have their preferences. The fact that so many of you are so angry at the fact that men with sense don't want to settle with a female that has had a lot of sexual partners is almost comical.
Click to expand...
Tsk tsk. Taking a correlative result and assuming causation without looking at other related factors. Come now. We can do better than that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
WildZoo said:
@touchpause13 Didn't this study come up in the sexual partners thread? I feel like it did.
Click to expand...
yes it did. and it was refuted there. I don't have the energy to re-hash out all the reasons it sucks, but feel free to link the thread
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Found MJ's lovely rebuttal
Mad Jack said:
There is a lot that goes into whether one cheats or not, and whether their marriage will be happy or not. It's pretty clear that infidelity makes marriages unhappy (feel free to google all you like on that one, there's literally thousands of research papers on the effects of infidelity on marriage- it is among the worst things that can happen in a relationship, falling just behind losing a child in its effects). Therefore, if a successful marriage should be a person's primary goal when looking for a partner, then women should select men that are the least likely to engage in infidelity. Men with more sexual partners are both more likely to cheat and more likely to report dissatisfaction in marriage. Attractive men, men in high-ranking positions, ones that live in cities, and ones that cohabitate are more likely to engage in infidelity. Furthermore, high income couples are found to be more happy than those with low incomes. Therefore women should clearly select for men who have as few sexual partners as possible, are successful but not high ranking and live in outside of major cities, are average looking, and make more money than the female. Any guy with more than a few sexual partners, a position of power, not enough money, a guy that wants to cohabitate with her prior to marriage, etc etc should be removed from the running as husband material.

Seriously, you can't use one thing such as "number of partners prior to marriage" as an indicator of marital satisfaction. There's so much else that goes into it. Maybe the ones that had more partners got married later and had stressful careers, while the ones with only two or less partners got married earlier and were stay-at-home moms that had few other stressors in their life. Maybe there is a strong religious or social component that also affects happiness in the women with less sexual partners. Maybe the majority of the lower partner cohort was younger, on average, and thus had less time to reach a state of dissatisfaction. Maybe the group with a large number of partners was a smaller cohort, and thus could not be said to be representative of the general population, and maybe those that were in samples large enough to be statistically significant with less sexual partners had not yet reached a duration of marriage at which unhappiness results.

I'm very familiar with this study- there were only 418 participants that got married throughout the entire study, and the average duration of marriage was not that long at its conclusion, as the study was only conducted for five years. The oldest marriages studied are likely only 4 years in duration, and most of them significantly less. The ones that are longer in duration are more likely to be the ones in which the woman is older (and likely probably has more sexual partners), as women are more likely to marry in their late 20s and early 30s than in their late teens and early 20s. Thus these relationships are probably longer in duration than those of the ones with fewer partners, and less likely to be happy, as it is time that wears on a marriage more often than what past you bring with you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/21/more-sexual-partners-unhappy-marriage_n_5698440.html
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3214800.html
http://nationalmarriageproject.org/reports/
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
WildZoo said:
Tsk tsk. Taking a correlative result and assuming causation without looking at other related factors. Come now. We can do better than that.
Click to expand...

What's sad is that you didn't even read the study yourself, since they address many of the "arguments" Mad Jack "disputes" and the power of the sample is strong enough to at least conclude that their linked somehow. Many of the categories in the UVA study control for "outside" factors that may influence the results.

The fact is that you can't find one reputable study that shows that there is absolutely NO correlation between number of sexual partners and marital satisfaction. Also since there are many studies saying the same thing it would be intellectually dishonest to conclude that they're absolutely unrelated is quite foolish. Again, back up your arguments with studies and data instead of "m-muh feelings". Even if you disagree with someone you should at least be able to back up your points.

http://www.researchgate.net/publica...d_Women_A_Study_of_Married_Lithuanian_Couples

http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/...tween_premarital_sexual_behaviour_and.13.aspx
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
famoussquamous said:
What's sad is that you didn't even read the study yourself, since they address many of the "arguments" Mad Jack "disputes" and the power of the sample is strong enough to at least conclude that their linked somehow. Many of the categories in the UVA study control for "outside" factors that may influence the results.

The fact is that you can't find one reputable study that shows that there is absolutely NO correlation between number of sexual partners and marital satisfaction. Also since there are many studies saying the same thing it would be intellectually dishonest to conclude that they're absolutely unrelated is quite foolish. Again, back up your arguments with studies and data instead of "m-muh feelings". Even if you disagree with someone you should at least be able to back up your points.

http://www.researchgate.net/publica...d_Women_A_Study_of_Married_Lithuanian_Couples

http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/...tween_premarital_sexual_behaviour_and.13.aspx
Click to expand...

Who are you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
famoussquamous said:
What's sad is that you didn't even read the study yourself, since they address many of the "arguments" Mad Jack "disputes" and the power of the sample is strong enough to at least conclude that their linked somehow. Many of the categories in the UVA study control for "outside" factors that may influence the results.

The fact is that you can't find one reputable study that shows that there is absolutely NO correlation between number of sexual partners and marital satisfaction. Also since there are many studies saying the same thing it would be intellectually dishonest to conclude that they're absolutely unrelated is quite foolish. Again, back up your arguments with studies and data instead of "m-muh feelings". Even if you disagree with someone you should at least be able to back up your points.

http://www.researchgate.net/publica...d_Women_A_Study_of_Married_Lithuanian_Couples

http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/...tween_premarital_sexual_behaviour_and.13.aspx
Click to expand...
Wrong. I did read the part of the study that pertains to this particular discussion (didn't have time to go through the whole thing). That's why I recognized i from the other thread :rolleyes:
They bring up the idea of selection effects and also state that they can't prove a causal relationship. Which is exactly what I said. I never stated there was no correlation there. I'm saying that the conclusion you are drawing from it is dubious, as I also believe the conclusions that the researchers state are dubious. Please point out to me where they addressed other factors such as career (personal income was addressed but that's not the same thing), age, or marriage length. I don't know about you but I'm not inclined to trust conclusions about the long-term happiness of a marriage based on the first 4 years at most.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Status
Not open for further replies.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

V
dating a medical school classmate?
2
Replies
56
Views
7K
Osteosaur
Osteosaur
I
  • Locked
residency dating/long distance
Replies
16
Views
2K
GoSpursGo
GoSpursGo
S
Popular user aka Michael Mehlman alludes to sexual harassment & assault in his dating blog.
Replies
17
Views
9K
acapnial
acapnial
ice_bucket
Does adding a date after initial VSLO submission affect the review timeline?
Replies
0
Views
220
ice_bucket
ice_bucket
readmypostsMD
Dating in med school
2
Replies
95
Views
16K
MedicineZ0Z
M
Top