Dating Nurses?

[Top Gun]

Everyone here is talking about nurses, but has anyone ever considered drug reps? Those women tend to be the youngest and hottest around!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Trogghunter]

What defines 'dating'? I'm very up front with my intentions and am about to start residency at a major university. Still young enough for the undergrad crowd, maybe I should stick to that?

 

[DD214_DOC]

I had quite a bit of luck with tourists in Waikiki. Then again, I'm also not a socially-incompetent troll so the doctor thing probably didn't matter much. The psych thing sure helped, though.

 

[yesno]

Which hospitals have hot young nurses?? Any in nyc? I am not impressed with nurses in nyc...

 

[yesno]

Everyone here is talking about nurses, but has anyone ever considered drug reps? Those women tend to be the youngest and hottest around!

where do u meet drug reps as a resident? Ive seen it on surgery or some subspecialties. But I dont see anythign that a med resident or intern could get his hands on. Also quite a few drug reps are 30+

 

[colbgw02]

I had quite a bit of luck with tourists in Waikiki. Then again, I'm also not a socially-incompetent troll so the doctor thing probably didn't matter much. The psych thing sure helped, though.

Everyone has luck with tourists in Waikiki.

 

[Mad Jack]

What defines 'dating'? I'm very up front with my intentions and am about to start residency at a major university. Still young enough for the undergrad crowd, maybe I should stick to that?

A man is rarely too old for the undergad crowd if he's got game. I know a couple guys who are dating girls 10-15 years their junior, and a couple that push it to the 20 year mark. Personally I prefer women closer to my own age because they are significantly less likely to be out of their minds and "finding themselves."

 

[Mad Jack]

The only fiscally safe birth control: anal

 

[Mad Jack]

If you can't date multiple nurses, there is something wrong with you. They are some of the most desperate women around.

Most of the attractive nurses I worked with were married. The ones that weren't were almost universally baby-crazy though, and looking to find a guy ASAP.

 

[Top Gun]

where do u meet drug reps as a resident? Ive seen it on surgery or some subspecialties. But I dont see anythign that a med resident or intern could get his hands on. Also quite a few drug reps are 30+

Didn't you ever have drug reps cater lunches during noon conference? In my residency, we sometimes did. And actually, even some of the 30+ drug reps tend to be rather attractive in my opinion.

 

[mvenus929]

Didn't you ever have drug reps cater lunches during noon conference? In my residency, we sometimes did. And actually, even some of the 30+ drug reps tend to be rather attractive in my opinion.

My med school (and all affiliated clinics) banned drug reps from campus. So, no, no residents got drug rep lunches during noon conference. The only time med students saw them was doing a community based rotation like family medicine. I think this is the movement for a lot of institutions.

My program gives us lunch every day anyway, so I don't know what benefit there would be for a drug rep to cater lunch, but I don't know if the institution has a policy against it or not.

 

[Promethean]

There is a reason the drug companies hire eye candy. They are professional bait and they know what they are doing. They will keep your interest as long as it seems like it might pay off for them, but the only goods they are going to deliver are pharmaceutical samples and snazzy pens. (They do have great pens.)

If you are looking for a long term relationship, go for a nurse if you want. Even if the relationship doesn't work out, if you were a gentleman about it all, there won't necessarily be hard feelings. But if you are looking to hook up, don't crap where you eat. Nurses talk, and you will be labeled a womanizer or worse. This isn't the 60s and 70s anymore, and young women are not going into nursing to get their doctorate level MRS. degree. But there are a few who didn't get the memo, and they will throw themselves at residents in a most appalling fashion. Residents talk, too, and those young ladies quickly get a reputation. Definitely avoid any nurses that have dated doctors before. They are on a mission, and if you go there, everyone will hear about it.

I also endorse everything said above about bringing your own contraceptives, if you must indulge. I know at least three oopsie babies from short flings between RNs and MDs. Think of child support as an extra, unexpected student loan payment, with a term of at least 18 years, which gets higher as your income rises over time. Is a rotation of fun on the side worth that?

 

[atomi]

I also endorse everything said above about bringing your own contraceptives, if you must indulge. I know at least three oopsie babies from short flings between RNs and MDs.

If you're a male, bank some sperm and get a vasectomy. It's not financially feasible for a lot of people, but it's really not that expensive and gives you peace of mind. Most health plans will cover the procedure too.

 

[colbgw02]

If you're a male, bank some sperm and get a vasectomy. It's not financially feasible for a lot of people, but it's really not that expensive and gives you peace of mind. Most health plans will cover the procedure too.

Most men will eventually settle down. For those of you who take the above advice, please report back to SDN after you've tried to explain the above to your significant other.

 

[Promethean]

Most men will eventually settle down. For those of you who take the above advice, please report back to SDN after you've tried to explain the above to your significant other.

Well, if you don't have the kind of relationship with another adult where you can honestly discuss your pre-marital social lives and the ways you chose to protect yourself and your future, then why lie small? Tell her you had a cancer scare and wanted to preserve fertility for when you met The One. Then you can get some sympathy sex out of it as well.

 

[colbgw02]

I never expected the discussion not to occur (i.e. lie). On the contrary, I would like to hear how women react to hearing that their SO was such a man ***** that he felt he required a vasectomy to prevent fathering a child out of wedlock. I'm not expecting naivete, but I think there is an ignorance-is-bliss and plausible deniability component when it comes to the sex life of one's SO before settling down. Let's face it, lots of men sleep around, and comparatively few father illegitimate children. That means that having a vasectomy at this stage represents an unusual and drastic measure. It also shatters that ignorance-is-bliss possibility as well as complicates the women's own child bearing. I suspect it won't go over well, but in the interest of science, I'd like to hear from those who actually employ this method.

 

[Promethean]

I never expected the discussion not to occur (i.e. lie). On the contrary, I would like to hear how women react to hearing that their SO was such a man ***** that he felt he required a vasectomy to prevent fathering a child out of wedlock. I'm not expecting naivete, but I think there is an ignorance-is-bliss and plausible deniability component when it comes to the sex life of one's SO before settling down. Let's face it, lots of men sleep around, and comparatively few father illegitimate children. That means that having a vasectomy at this stage represents an unusual and drastic measure. It also shatters that ignorance-is-bliss possibility as well as complicates the women's own child bearing. I suspect it won't go over well, but in the interest of science, I'd like to hear from those who actually employ this method.

Wow. Man *****? Really?

I would think well of someone who had the foresight to know that he didn't want any accidental children and took responsibility for that decision. A vasectomy isn't all that drastic. Men don't have as many birth control options that are safe, effective, and nonsurgical. There isn't a male pill to take, or an implant, etc. The only options are fallible condoms or snip snip. If someone is really committed to not having offspring that they aren't ready for, this is a reasonable way to go about it.

I think it makes all the more sense to someone who is going through extended professional education. "Well, Honey, I didn't want to wind up a father while I was in school/residency, etc, because I didn't want to be in a position where I couldn't really be there for my kids." If your S.O. isn't able to handle that conversation, maybe she isn't the right one after all.

 

[colbgw02]

Wow. Man *****? Really?

I would think well of someone who had the foresight to know that he didn't want any accidental children and took responsibility for that decision. A vasectomy isn't all that drastic. Men don't have as many birth control options that are safe, effective, and nonsurgical. There isn't a male pill to take, or an implant, etc. The only options are fallible condoms or snip snip. If someone is really committed to not having offspring that they aren't ready for, this is a reasonable way to go about it.

I think it makes all the more sense to someone who is going through extended professional education. "Well, Honey, I didn't want to wind up a father while I was in school/residency, etc, because I didn't want to be in a position where I couldn't really be there for my kids." If your S.O. isn't able to handle that conversation, maybe she isn't the right one after all.

Let's invert this: say you find someone with whom you want to settle down and have a family, and then she tells you she had her tubes tied while a young woman in medical school because she didn't want to get knocked up. Can you not see how that might be a relationship killer? Try to keep in mind that the breadth of BC options available to the sexes is not the relevant point here, but rather the severity and generally irreversible nature of these procedures (yes, they should be considered irreversible).

Or, better yet, just try out this idea and report back to SDN.

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

I also endorse everything said above about bringing your own contraceptives, if you must indulge. I know at least three oopsie babies from short flings between RNs and MDs. Think of child support as an extra, unexpected student loan payment, with a term of at least 18 years, which gets higher as your income rises over time. Is a rotation of fun on the side worth that?

When someone you hooked up with a couple of years ago subsequently has an oopsie baby with someone else...you definitely feel like you dodged a bullet...

Not that I would know anything about that.

 

[Winged Scapula]

Wow. Man *****? Really?

I would think well of someone who had the foresight to know that he didn't want any accidental children and took responsibility for that decision. A vasectomy isn't all that drastic. Men don't have as many birth control options that are safe, effective, and nonsurgical. There isn't a male pill to take, or an implant, etc. The only options are fallible condoms or snip snip. If someone is really committed to not having offspring that they aren't ready for, this is a reasonable way to go about it.

I think it makes all the more sense to someone who is going through extended professional education. "Well, Honey, I didn't want to wind up a father while I was in school/residency, etc, because I didn't want to be in a position where I couldn't really be there for my kids." If your S.O. isn't able to handle that conversation, maybe she isn't the right one after all.

How about you let a woman tell you how this would play out? I have a male friend who had a vasectomy at 28 with the above "reasoning":

I'd venture that most women would think the following about this vasectomy (as I've seen them think and I've thought about my friend):

1) you're a man *****
2) you're a man ***** who simply doesn't want to wear condoms (never mind the STD issue; this is the deal with my friend)
3) you are selfish and don't think about the issues this will create for future partners
4) you underestimate the effective methods that do exist
5) you are impetuous and fail to think about the possibility of changing your mind in the future
6) you're having an unnecessary surgery with real,potential complications

I can get behind the idea of having a vasectomy for someone who absolutely believes they will never want to have children but not for this idea that it's a temporary birth control solution.

 

[atomi]

Most men will eventually settle down. For those of you who take the above advice, please report back to SDN after you've tried to explain the above to your significant other.

Any woman who has a problem with you having a vasectomy and having banked sperm is not worth being with. She has an agenda. PERIOD.
You want to have kids? Guess what, you still can. You have millions of frozen sperm. Why would she possibly have a problem with this? Well, I can only think of one single reason.

I never expected the discussion not to occur (i.e. lie). On the contrary, I would like to hear how women react to hearing that their SO was such a man ***** that he felt he required a vasectomy to prevent fathering a child out of wedlock. I'm not expecting naivete, but I think there is an ignorance-is-bliss and plausible deniability component when it comes to the sex life of one's SO before settling down. Let's face it, lots of men sleep around, and comparatively few father illegitimate children. That means that having a vasectomy at this stage represents an unusual and drastic measure. It also shatters that ignorance-is-bliss possibility as well as complicates the women's own child bearing. I suspect it won't go over well, but in the interest of science, I'd like to hear from those who actually employ this method.

Seriously? That is completely absurd to insinuate that a man who chooses to have a vasectomy out of wedlock only does so so that he can go around hooking up without condoms. It's an incredibly responsible decision and provides peace of mind to all types of men, whether they are married, in a relationship, a "man-*****," or even a virgin. It is a completely logical and incredibly responsible form of birth control that few men have the guts to undertake, because like you they consider it "drastic." They'd rather roll the dice and hope they aren't in the 3% of men who will father a child with 100% perfect use of a condom. For other men, that risk is not acceptable and they'd rather control when and if they have children. For other men, they have no desire to ever have children. And you are putting these people down? Come on.

 

[atomi]

I'd venture that most women would think the following about this vasectomy (as I've seen them think and I've thought about my friend):

1) you're a man *****
2) you're a man ***** who simply doesn't want to wear condoms (never mind the STD issue; this is the deal with my friend)
3) you are selfish and don't think about the issues this will create for future partners
4) you underestimate the effective methods that do exist
5) you are impetuous and fail to think about the possibility of changing your mind in the future
6) you're having an unnecessary surgery with real,potential complications

1) Invalid conclusion. You can be a man ***** and wear condoms too.
2) What about a man who doesn't want to wear condoms? Why does he have to be a *****? Furthermore, why does he have to want to not wear condoms? This argument is assuming that men are doing this so they can hook up with random people without protection vs. not using protection in an established relationship.
3) If it's selfish to take away the woman's ability pull the famous "whoopsie I forgot the pill" trick, then yeah, I guess that's true. I have watched quite a few honest, decent men get suckered in by girls who do this, so it makes me kind of angry.
4) Stuff with 97-98% effectiveness? Yeah, I guess that's valid if you only have sex 20-30 times in your life. 97-98% effectiveness starts to lose its appeal with you are sexually active pretty much daily for 20 years.
5) Hence the concept of paying for cyro. If $300 a year to have the option to have kids seems like a bad deal, then maybe you shouldn't have children.
6) It's an incredibly easy and quick surgery with very few potential complications. Hormonal birth control, on the other hands, is screwing with your body's natural chemistry.

Back to my original point, if a you tell a woman you've had a vasectomy and she balks, something's up. They only valid retort is "I would like children one day," to which you can say "I have enough banked sperm for 5-10 children." There isn't a valid, logical response to that. She has another reason she's not telling you.

 

[atomi]

Let's invert this: say you find someone with whom you want to settle down and have a family, and then she tells you she had her tubes tied while a young woman in medical school because she didn't want to get knocked up. Can you not see how that might be a relationship killer?

This would be a valid argument if she did not have any alternative means of getting pregnant. As a man, this is possible through sperm banking. It's not really that practical for women. But for men, sperm banking is incredibly effective. So it's an invalid argument.

Edit: It seems part, if not all, of your argument is that having a sterilization procedure done takes away the facade that your partner was not sexually active before you met her. As we grow up, we become more secure with these things and understand that people have had life experiences before us. To get upset that the partner you meet in your early 30s can't possibly be a virgin because you he/she disclosed a sterilization procedure is being very insecure and unrealistic. There is a wide, WIDE, spectrum between virgin and *****. And people who have sterilization procedures fall all over that spectrum.

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

1) Invalid conclusion. You can be a man ***** and wear condoms too.
2) What about a man who doesn't want to wear condoms? Why does he have to be a *****? Furthermore, why does he have to want to not wear condoms? This argument is assuming that men are doing this so they can hook up with random people without protection vs. not using protection in an established relationship.
3) If it's selfish to take away the woman's ability pull the famous "whoopsie I forgot the pill" trick, then yeah, I guess that's true. I have watched quite a few honest, decent men get suckered in by girls who do this, so it makes me kind of angry.
4) Stuff with 97-98% effectiveness? Yeah, I guess that's valid if you only have sex 20-30 times in your life. 97-98% effectiveness starts to lose its appeal with you are sexually active pretty much daily for 20 years.
5) Hence the concept of paying for cyro. If $300 a year to have the option to have kids seems like a bad deal, then maybe you shouldn't have children.
6) It's an incredibly easy and quick surgery with very few potential complications. Hormonal birth control, on the other hands, is screwing with your body's natural chemistry.

Back to my original point, if a you tell a woman you've had a vasectomy and she balks, something's up. They only valid retort is "I would like children one day," to which you can say "I have enough banked sperm for 5-10 children." There isn't a valid, logical response to that. She has another reason she's not telling you.

You can argue until you are blue in the face that you think those responses are invalid or illogical.

She is telling you, from experience, how women have actually reacted.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Back to my original point, if a you tell a woman you've had a vasectomy and she balks, something's up. They only valid retort is "I would like children one day," to which you can say "I have enough banked sperm for 5-10 children." There isn't a valid, logical response to that. She has another reason she's not telling you.

Uhh, yes there is. A) IUI is expensive, especially compared to just sex. B) Sperm don't freeze all that well. C) Keeping them frozen is also expensive. D) It gets you a limited number of tries because even IUI with normal sperm/female isn't 100%, in fact the last I looked its about 14%. This can be increased to 24% if the woman takes clomid. So each 4 samples should net you 1 pregnancy IF she's willing to go on drugs, you'll need closer to 6-7 samples if not. This doesn't account for the normal miscarriage rate which is between 10-20% per implantation.

Accept the reality that many many woman aren't going to like the idea of you getting a vasectomy in your 20s so you can go bang lots of girls.

 

[Promethean]

So,

You can argue until you are blue in the face that you think those responses are invalid or illogical.

She is telling you, from experience, how women have actually reacted.

Sure. Some women have reacted that way. You can't please everyone, and you don't need to.

I wouldn't want to date someone who didn't understand or accept my choices about my own body and reproductive health. I certainly am not going to live my entire life trying to never make any major decisions that could potentially be objectionable to a hypothetical member of the opposite sex. I would think that women would find that concept easier to grasp.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I certainly am not going to live my entire life trying to never make any major decisions that could potentially be objectionable to a hypothetical member of the opposite sex. I would think that women would find that concept easier to grasp.

You would be thinking incorrectly.

 

[Winged Scapula]

Uhh, yes there is. A) IUI is expensive, especially compared to just sex. B) Sperm don't freeze all that well. C) Keeping them frozen is also expensive. D) It gets you a limited number of tries because even IUI with normal sperm/female isn't 100%, in fact the last I looked its about 14%. This can be increased to 24% if the woman takes clomid. So each 4 samples should net you 1 pregnancy IF she's willing to go on drugs, you'll need closer to 6-7 samples if not. This doesn't account for the normal miscarriage rate which is between 10-20% per implantation.

Accept the reality that many many woman aren't going to like the idea of you getting a vasectomy in your 20s so you can go bang lots of girls.

Exactly. Why is everyone ignoring the fact that this will require your future partner to undergo a surgical procedure to get pregnant or the very least, use the ever so romantic turkey baster to achieve conception?

I get that some of you guys are very angry and bitter about this. But that doesn't mean that you can say that women who find this choice objectionable are somehow wrong or selfish; it's just their preference to conceive the "old-fashioned way" without needing multiple tries, surgical procedures, or ingesting fertility drugs. You might not like that reaction and you are free to choose a different partner but I'm just telling you from experience what I've seen my friend go through.

Finally it's a bit rich to have American men claim that they should have the freedom to do with whatever they want with their fertility when the same is not afforded to American women.

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

it's just their preference to conceive the "old-fashioned way" without needing multiple tries, surgical procedures, or ingesting fertility drugs.

You may still need multiple tries the old fashioned way...but at least then you're having fun!

 

[Promethean]

Exactly. Why is everyone ignoring the fact that this will require your future partner to undergo a surgical procedure to get pregnant or the very least, use the ever so romantic turkey baster to achieve conception?

I get that some of you guys are very angry and bitter about this. But that doesn't mean that you can say that women who find this choice objectionable are somehow wrong or selfish; it's just their preference to conceive the "old-fashioned way" without needing multiple tries, surgical procedures, or ingesting fertility drugs. You might not like that reaction and you are free to choose a different partner but I'm just telling you from experience what I've seen my friend go through.

Finally it's a bit rich to have American men claim that they should have the freedom to do with whatever they want with their fertility when the same is not afforded to American women.

Woah. I am all in favor of full reproductive rights for everyone. Men and women. Either should be able to get vasectomies, or tubal ligations, or any other form of birth control (or lack thereof) that they may desire. Also, I don't think that women who have a preference are wrong or selfish... they have every right to look for partners who share their values. By the same token, it is no more acceptable to slut shame a man for using the birth control method of his choice than it is to do that to a woman.

EDIT: Also, your "future partner" isn't required to do anything. She chooses. She chooses to partner with someone who has had a vasectomy, or she doesn't. If she does, then she is also choosing whatever that may imply for her chances of having offspring with him.

My point was that it is no more acceptable to tell a man not to do something to his own body because some woman he might someday meet might object to it than it ever was to tell a woman the same regarding future men. I don't think it is acceptable to tell women not to live in their own bodies and use them as they see fit because what will her "future husband" think. The sentiment is equally paternalistic and intrusive, no matter what gender it is being applied to.

 

[Winged Scapula]

Woah. I am all in favor of full reproductive rights for everyone. Men and women. Either should be able to get vasectomies, or tubal ligations, or any other form of birth control (or lack thereof) that they may desire. Also, I don't think that women who have a preference are wrong or selfish... they have every right to look for partners who share their values. By the same token, it is no more acceptable to slut shame a man for using the birth control method of his choice than it is to do that to a woman.

I was not specifically referring to you nor was I stating that I believed that men who wished to do this are man ******.

I agree that everyone should have equal reproductive rights. But some of the posts above minimize the effect on the future partner or derogate those who might find the practice objectionable.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

My point was that it is no more acceptable to tell a man not to do something to his own body because some woman he might someday meet might object to it than it ever was to tell a woman the same regarding future men. I don't think it is acceptable to tell women not to live in their own bodies and use them as they see fit because what will her "future husband" think. The sentiment is equally paternalistic and intrusive, no matter what gender it is being applied to.

Because it was said poorly. The whole issue here is you're making what is essentially an irrevocable decision at a fairly young age. I'm not going to tell you not to get a vasectomy because it might piss off your future wife. I'm going to tell you not to get a vasectomy because its permanent and you don't want to make decisions like that lightly or too early in life. If you're 23 and have 4 kids already then go nuts (pun intended). If you're 27 with no kids, you'd be a fool to do it unless you were 1000% sure you never wanted kids no matter what.

 

[atomi]

She is telling you, from experience, how women have actually reacted.

I have no doubts at all that some women would react this way. These would not be appropriate partners for me.

There is no end difference, logically, between a planned pregnancy using planned sex or a planned pregnancy using IUI. Both are planned and both achieve the same result. To reject one because another is more "natural" is silly and is based on irrational emotions instead of logic. IUI is simple. Not a big deal at all. At least, not compared to the big deal that is a child. If you're going to say, "you know what, I'd rather be with a man with whom I can have children without the very minor inconvenience that is IUI (or a vasectomy reversal, which would be no inconvenience at all for her, just $$ for the man)," then sorry, your priority is not the man, it is having kids and having the option to make this happen whenever you want. Again, not an appropriate partner for me. A man can choose to bank as much sperm as he wants. Statistically enough for 10+ babies if he wants, taking into account all variables.

Finally it's a bit rich to have American men claim that they should have the freedom to do with whatever they want with their fertility when the same is not afforded to American women.

Both women AND men should have the freedom to decide when or if they want they want to be fertile. It's clear by comments in this thread that there is strong objection by women towards men who take control of their fertility in their own hands and lock it securely in a sperm bank to use when and if he AND his partner desires. This is the man's the choice, and it should be met with no less derision than a that of a man towards a woman who has an IUD. I am for 100% equality on the issue of reproduction. The proposed method requires 100% consent between both parties before a child enters the picture. Other methods allow the female the option to override the man's wishes and become pregnant without his knowledge. If you can put aside emotion, you will see that my argument is infallibly rational.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I have no doubts at all that some women would react this way. These would not be appropriate partners for me.

There is no end difference, logically, between a planned pregnancy using planned sex or a planned pregnancy using IUI. Both are planned and both achieve the same result. To reject one because another is more "natural" is silly and is based on irrational emotions instead of logic. IUI is simple. Not a big deal at all. At least, not compared to the big deal that is a child. If you're going to say, "you know what, I'd rather be with a man with whom I can have children without the very minor inconvenience that is IUI (or a vasectomy reversal, which would be no inconvenience at all for her, just $$ for the man)," then sorry, your priority is not the man, it is having kids and having the option to make this happen whenever you want. Again, not an appropriate partner for me. A man can choose to bank as much sperm as he wants. Statistically enough for 10+ babies if he wants, taking into account all variables.

You're a fool if you think that a) a vasectomy reversal is no big deal (or even that successful, only works about 50% of the time) or b) that IUI is simple, pleasant, or a one shot works type of deal. See my previous post on the subject.

 

[atomi]

I'm going to tell you not to get a vasectomy because its permanent and you don't want to make decisions like that lightly or too early in life.

This is blatantly false. And it also ignores the caveat put forth from the very beginning of banking a sufficient quantity of sperm prior to the procedure. All arguments such forth have either ignored this caveat or ignored the important point of banking sufficient quantities of sperm.

Uhh, yes there is. A) IUI is expensive, especially compared to just sex. B) Sperm don't freeze all that well. C) Keeping them frozen is also expensive. D) It gets you a limited number of tries because even IUI with normal sperm/female isn't 100%, in fact the last I looked its about 14%.

So much fail in all of this. An IUI is NOT IVF. Its in the 3 figures range. Less than the cost of a television. This is a CHILD we are talking about. Are you really going to make the cost argument? Sperm freeze remarkably well. They can last 50+ years and pick up right where they left off after being unfrozen. It's quite remarkable. Keeping them frozen costs about $300 per year. Again... really? It gets you a limited number of tries. This is true. This is why it is important to bank a sufficient quantity of sperm. Fertility specialists are not idiots. They are highly educated and rely on evidence to tell you what you need to do to statistically make sure you keep open the doors you want to.

Stop being so close-minded to the idea and you will understand how much sense it all makes.

 

[atomi]

You're a fool if you think that a) a vasectomy reversal is no big deal (or even that successful, only works about 50% of the time) or b) that IUI is simple, pleasant, or a one shot works type of deal. See my previous post on the subject.

LOL at ignoring everything in my post except for the one minor detail you could attack. Yes, vasectomy reversal is not 100%. That was not the point of my post at all.
An IUI is a speck of sand on a beach compared to birthing a child and raising him/her to adulthood. To not be willing to undergo a few tries of IUI to achieve pregnancy because it's too much work is not rational. If I were a woman, I would much prefer this minor annoyance to knowing that my husband and I could wind up pregnant at any time and have to have a baby when we weren't planning on it. But clearly that's just me.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

This is blatantly false. And it also ignores the caveat put forth from the very beginning of banking a sufficient quantity of sperm prior to the procedure. All arguments such forth have either ignored this caveat or ignored the important point of banking sufficient quantities of sperm.



So much fail in all of this. An IUI is NOT IVF. Its in the 3 figures range. Less than the cost of a television. This is a CHILD we are talking about. Are you really going to make the cost argument? Sperm freeze remarkably well. They can last 50+ years and pick up right where they left off after being unfrozen. It's quite remarkable. Keeping them frozen costs about $300 per year. Again... really? It gets you a limited number of tries. This is true. This is why it is important to bank a sufficient quantity of sperm. Fertility specialists are not idiots. They are highly educated and rely on evidence to tell you what you need to do to statistically make sure you keep open the doors you want to.

Stop being so close-minded to the idea and you will understand how much sense it all makes.

Dude, I've been through all the infertility stuff with my wife so I would bet I know this stuff much better than you do UNLESS you're an REI.

You're right, compared to IVF, IUI is pretty cheap. Still runs about 6-800 depending on your local doctors. Also, statistically speaking, it takes 4-6 trials of IUI (depending on whether your wife takes the drugs and how well she responds to them). Now we're talking over 2 grand. Compared to free for the normal way, this just seems silly to me.

This also all assumes that your future wife won't have any fertility issues of her own in which case IUI may not be an option. It ALSO assumes that you have normal sperm to begin with, because the more abnormal they get the less they tolerate freezing.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

LOL at ignoring everything in my post except for the one minor detail you could attack. Yes, vasectomy reversal is not 100%. That was not the point of my post at all.
An IUI is a speck of sand on a beach compared to birthing a child and raising him/her to adulthood. To not be willing to undergo a few tries of IUI to achieve pregnancy because it's too much work is not rational. If I were a woman, I would much prefer this minor annoyance to knowing that my husband and I could wind up pregnant at any time and have to have a baby when we weren't planning on it. But clearly that's just me.

I'd agree with your last part EXCEPT that female birth control works very very well if you do it right. I can understand (though not really agree with) not trusting girlfriends and one night stands to take their pills like they are supposed to. I would worry about that less with a wife.

I guess my whole issue with this boils down to this one simple thing - why risk having problems having a kid when you don't need to? Yes, modern ART is very good but as someone who's been through it - I wouldn't wish this on anyone, especially just because they wanted a vasectomy.

 

[Shikima]

I love how threads de-evolve!

 

[Promethean]

Because it was said poorly. The whole issue here is you're making what is essentially an irrevocable decision at a fairly young age. I'm not going to tell you not to get a vasectomy because it might piss off your future wife. I'm going to tell you not to get a vasectomy because its permanent and you don't want to make decisions like that lightly or too early in life. If you're 23 and have 4 kids already then go nuts (pun intended). If you're 27 with no kids, you'd be a fool to do it unless you were 1000% sure you never wanted kids no matter what.

Whatever your reason, it is still imposing your opinions on someone else's body. This is the same paternalism that made me have to struggle to find a physician willing to help me enact choices that I made about my body earlier in my life. I was told that since I didn't have kids yet, they weren't comfortable helping me. What if I changed my mind? Well, what if I did? It is my body, and my choices, and my regrets to have. I determined for myself that the benefits outweighed the risks, and that was the right choice for me.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Whatever your reason, it is still imposing your opinions on someone else's body. This is the same paternalism that made me have to struggle to find a physician willing to help me enact choices that I made about my body earlier in my life. I was told that since I didn't have kids yet, they weren't comfortable helping me. What if I changed my mind? Well, what if I did? It is my body, and my choices, and my regrets to have. I determined for myself that the benefits outweighed the risks, and that was the right choice for me.

It is also a physician's right to not do something if they think there's a decent chance you'll come back down the road ticked off at them. Just because I'm a doctor doesn't mean I have to help you (outside of emergency conditions).

Edit: That came off meaner than I meant it to sound. I'm glad you found someone who would help you, but I understand why so many wouldn't jump at the chance. Most urologists and OB/GYNs that I have known have gotten burned by doing something like this for a young patient only to have them come back a few years later and be pissed off about it.

 

[Promethean]

It is also a physician's right to not do something if they think there's a decent chance you'll come back down the road ticked off at them. Just because I'm a doctor doesn't mean I have to help you (outside of emergency conditions).

Edit: That came off meaner than I meant it to sound. I'm glad you found someone who would help you, but I understand why so many wouldn't jump at the chance. Most urologists and OB/GYNs that I have known have gotten burned by doing something like this for a young patient only to have them come back a few years later and be pissed off about it.

Fair enough. I don't think that doctors should be forced to practice in a way with which they are uncomfortable. That won't stop me from calling it paternalistic when it is.

I can see it from the side of the doctor, and I do think that there is a role for a doctor to counsel someone not to make a rash decision with lifelong consequences, and to refuse to help them if they do seem immature and incapable of making that choice. But immaturity is not a specific age, and it is not reflected by the number of children one has or has not yet had.

 

[Promethean]

I love how threads de-evolve!

I would say that the current discussion is actually the result of evolution, as it is of greater merit than "Hey, guys, should I shag the RNs?"

 

[atomi]

I guess my whole issue with this boils down to this one simple thing - why risk having problems having a kid when you don't need to? Yes, modern ART is very good but as someone who's been through it - I wouldn't wish this on anyone, especially just because they wanted a vasectomy.

Fair enough, but in the end it's about choice, and men who make this choice should not be looked down upon. Having a vasectomy is obviously not right for all men. But for some men, even young men, it is the right choice and allows them to have normal sex lives that were previously dysfunctional due to excessive worry over causing an unintended pregnancy. My main issue with this thread is when people started trying to label young men who get vasectomies as automatically promiscuous and selfish. For some men, and I'd argue more than you think, this could not be farther from the truth. They do it out of genuine concern for their relationship and any future relationship. I agree that it may not be the best choice for the man whose number one life goal is to be a father, but for men who tend to feel like they don't want children, it is a very reasonable alternative and makes a very good trade off between risk reduction and keeping the door open for an unexpected change of heart. The fact that you have had fertility issues makes your comments more understandable (why would anyone be risking at all what you tried so hard to achieve). But still, it is a profoundly responsible choice, and the fact that women turn their noses up at it because it takes birth control out of their hands really grinds my gears. Arguing against it by saying IUI is expensive and does not 100% guarantee a pregnancy is (1) convenient and (2) weak at best.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Fair enough, but in the end it's about choice, and men who make this choice should not be looked down upon. Having a vasectomy is obviously not right for all men. But for some men, even young men, it is the right choice and allows them to have normal sex lives that were previously dysfunctional due to excessive worry over causing an unintended pregnancy. My main issue with this thread is when people started trying to label young men who get vasectomies as automatically promiscuous and selfish. For some men, and I'd argue more than you think, this could not be farther from the truth. They do it out of genuine concern for their relationship and any future relationship. I agree that it may not be the best choice for the man whose number one life goal is to be a father, but for men who tend to feel like they don't want children, it is a very reasonable alternative and makes a very good trade off between risk reduction and keeping the door open for an unexpected change of heart. The fact that you have had fertility issues makes your comments more understandable (why would anyone be risking at all what you tried so hard to achieve). But still, it is a profoundly responsible choice, and the fact that women turn their noses up at it because it takes birth control out of their hands really grinds my gears. Arguing against it by saying IUI is expensive and does not 100% guarantee a pregnancy is (1) convenient and (2) weak at best.

I don't think women dislike the idea because it takes birth control out of their hands (though I'm sure this is true for some). I think its because you're either saying "I don't want kids no matter what" or "I want kids but only if you are willing to undergo a decently invasive procedure and work up to do it". We can argue back and forth about how good/bad IUI is, but the perception is what it is.

And yeah, I'm sure there is an issue with women thinking that only men who sleep around a lot would want this. I'm sure this isn't always the case, but I'm sure that sometimes it is.

 

[captaincrunch]

For everyone's reading enjoyment, Slate had an article back in 2012 endorsing the vasectomy/sperm bank idea. Maybe it isn't so crazy after all.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...new_study_young_men_bank_your_sperm_now_.html

 

[ThoracicGuy]

For everyone's reading enjoyment, Slate had an article back in 2012 endorsing the vasectomy/sperm bank idea. Maybe it isn't so crazy after all.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...new_study_young_men_bank_your_sperm_now_.html

Just because its in a webzine doesn't make it a good idea...

 

[gutonc]

For everyone's reading enjoyment, Slate had an article back in 2012 endorsing the vasectomy/sperm bank idea. Maybe it isn't so crazy after all.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...new_study_young_men_bank_your_sperm_now_.html

And I'm just going to leave this one right here for a different POV on vasectomy. It's from a slightly more reputable source.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

And I'm just going to leave this one right here for a different POV on vasectomy. It's from a slightly more reputable source.

Note to self: no vasectomy

 

[Arcan57]

While the main finding was statistically significant in that study, the effect size is stupidly small.