If you get married while in med school/residency/fellowship....

[Doctor Strange]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Obviously outside of this chart all women who have only had sex with a husband are not necessarily still married or currently sexually active. I am only referring to the women presented on column 0 of this chart. This entire chart only depicts data from women who were having sex with someone at the time of the study. Data from sexually inactive women was completely excluded from the entire report. If column 0 had contained both sexually active and inactive women, then it would have been pretty much impossible to infer their marital status.

The way that the study was designed, column 0 is pretty much guaranteed to have the highest marriage percentage in the chart. Yes, probably not 100% because there are some people who have sexual relationships with ex-husbands, but its predictably high enough that if you design your chart like this, it looks sexy and you can get a trend that is probably exaggerated leading to a significant difference between the first and last columns (how they decided their chart was meaningful). Remove the first column and the results might not still be significant.

We know that women in column 0 are either having sex with an ex-husband or a current husband because the study is designed to exclude all other options from that particular column.

Situations that make it impossible for women to be categorized in column 0:
-Any combination with a non-marital partner: Ineligible for column 0 b/c of non-marital partner
-Any combination with a marriage that began < 5 years prior: Data excluded from report b/c marriage length
-Any combination with sexual inactivity: Data excluded from report b/c sexually inactive

That really only leaves you with these options for column 0:
-Married & sexually active with current husband (eligible for stable marriage category)
-Remarried & sexually active with current or past husband (eligible for stable marriage category)
-Divorced husband, did not remarry, & sexually active with past husband (not eligible for stable marriage category)

I haven’t seen much data on the number of unmarried women having sex with ex-husbands, but I think it’s safe to assume that it’s fairly tiny and probably much smaller than the number of married women having sex with current husbands. Therefore, we can safely predict that the vast majority of column 0 women is probably having sex with a current husband, and thus is married.

Example: You are Sally. You have no non-marital sex partners and you lost your virginity to your husband Bob. You told the study that you are currently having sex with someone right now. Since you have no non-marital sex partners, that someone must be Bob. If it wasn’t Bob, then you would have a non-marital sex partner, and you would not be in column 0. So clearly you are currently having sex with Bob, but are you still married to him at the time of the study? In a logical model, yes, and the real world pretty much agrees. The overwhelming majority of people like you are predictably currently married (80.47% in a marriage that began at least 5 years ago; data for shorter marriages completely excluded). Most people have some rationale for divorce and aren’t masochists, so you can accurately predict that a much smaller crazier number of people divorced Bob, but then returned for unmarried sexy fun time (19.53%).

I don’t like comparing the predictably high percentage for column 0 to the other columns because that percentage is really just showing what percent of women who are having sex with current or ex-husbands are currently married. The other columns show what percent of women having sex with current husbands, ex-husbands, pre-, post-, and extramarital partners are currently married after inconsistently mixing them with other sexual partner categories (5 columns increase by increments of 1 sex partner, while the others increase by 4 or more). I just think that the chart is intentionally misleading and there are better ways to design a study. I wouldn't rule out a relationship because of this chart.

I don't know why you insist on arguing with a bigot who is hell bent on proving his point that American women suck (literally).

 

[malaika]

Wow you guys have alot of time on your hands. loris, medical school must not be very hard for you to have time for that

 

[thesauce]

Wow you guys have alot of time on your hands. loris, medical school must not be very hard for you to have time for that

The reputation of the difficulty of med school has been far overblown on SDN. Demonstrated by the fact that you think a med student doesn't have the time to write a few paragraphs on an online forum.

 

[Mornhavon]

.

 

[touchpause13]

This chart actually doesn’t say anything about how the number of sexual partners affects divorce rates or marital satisfaction (i.e. more classically defined marital stability).

“Over 80 percent of women who have never had a non-marital sex partner were in stable marriages.”
Translation: of women who are currently having sex and have only had sex with their husband, 80% are currently married. No ****. Who are the other 20% currently having sex with if they’ve “only” had sex with their husbands and they aren’t currently married?

It lumps all women into two categories: married for the past 5 years or unmarried. In the unmarried category, it doesn’t distinguish between widows, LGBT women (data is from 1995, pre-same sex marriage), divorced women who were previously married for more than 5 years, sex workers, etc. The report states that they excluded data from married women who had been in their current marriage for less than 5 years. Since women are getting married at older ages, this missing data is probably significant. Also this chart only includes data from women who are currently sexually active; not all married couples are sexually active during the entire length of their marriage. It also does not distinguish between non-marital partners that were pre, post, or during marriage.

Correlation does not equal causation. We can’t look at this and say that having multiple non-marital sex partners results in being unmarried at age 30+. To some degree, what could be going on is women who marry young tend to have fewer relationships before marriage so they have fewer non-marital sex partners; since they got married at a younger age, they were more likely to have been in that marriage for 5 years prior to the survey which put them into the report’s “stable marriage” category. Women who get married at an older age are more likely to have more relationships and therefore more sexual partners before marriage; if they were married close to the time of the survey, then they were excluded from the data and if they were still unmarried at the time of the survey, then they were lumped into the “unstable marriage” category.

MUCHOS variables need to be taken into consideration that affect divorce rates, marriage rates, and age of marriage. They include age, SES, educational background, cultural background, number of previous divorces, occupation, sexual orientation, etc. There is no data on the sexual background of the husbands. The report also doesn’t list total sample size & such.

TLDR: This chart is ****.

 

[touchpause13]

also this has got to be HughMyron. For real.

 

[TexasSurgeon]

Don't feed the troll, guys

 

[HriRish]

Obviously outside of this chart all women who have only had sex with a husband are not necessarily still married or currently sexually active. I am only referring to the women presented on column 0 of this chart. This entire chart only depicts data from women who were having sex with someone at the time of the study. Data from sexually inactive women was completely excluded from the entire report. If column 0 had contained both sexually active and inactive women, then it would have been pretty much impossible to infer their marital status.

The way that the study was designed, column 0 is pretty much guaranteed to have the highest marriage percentage in the chart. Yes, probably not 100% because there are some people who have sexual relationships with ex-husbands, but its predictably high enough that if you design your chart like this, it looks sexy and you can get a trend that is probably exaggerated leading to a significant difference between the first and last columns (how they decided their chart was meaningful). Remove the first column and the results might not still be significant.

We know that women in column 0 are either having sex with an ex-husband or a current husband because the study is designed to exclude all other options from that particular column.

Situations that make it impossible for women to be categorized in column 0:
-Any combination with a non-marital partner: Ineligible for column 0 b/c of non-marital partner
-Any combination with a marriage that began < 5 years prior: Data excluded from report b/c marriage length
-Any combination with sexual inactivity: Data excluded from report b/c sexually inactive

That really only leaves you with these options for column 0:
-Married & sexually active with current husband (eligible for stable marriage category)
-Remarried & sexually active with current or past husband (eligible for stable marriage category)
-Divorced husband, did not remarry, & sexually active with past husband (not eligible for stable marriage category)

I haven’t seen much data on the number of unmarried women having sex with ex-husbands, but I think it’s safe to assume that it’s fairly tiny and probably much smaller than the number of married women having sex with current husbands. Therefore, we can safely predict that the vast majority of column 0 women is probably having sex with a current husband, and thus is married.

Example: You are Sally. You have no non-marital sex partners and you lost your virginity to your husband Bob. You told the study that you are currently having sex with someone right now. Since you have no non-marital sex partners, that someone must be Bob. If it wasn’t Bob, then you would have a non-marital sex partner, and you would not be in column 0. So clearly you are currently having sex with Bob, but are you still married to him at the time of the study? In a logical model, yes, and the real world pretty much agrees. The overwhelming majority of people like you are predictably currently married (80.47% in a marriage that began at least 5 years ago; data for shorter marriages completely excluded). Most people have some rationale for divorce and aren’t masochists, so you can accurately predict that a much smaller crazier number of people divorced Bob, but then returned for unmarried sexy fun time (19.53%).

I don’t like comparing the predictably high percentage for column 0 to the other columns because that percentage is really just showing what percent of women who are having sex with current or ex-husbands are currently married. The other columns show what percent of women having sex with current husbands, ex-husbands, pre-, post-, and extramarital partners are currently married after inconsistently mixing them with other sexual partner categories (5 columns increase by increments of 1 sex partner, while the others increase by 4 or more). I just think that the chart is intentionally misleading and there are better ways to design a study. I wouldn't rule out a relationship because of this chart.

OK. I see what you are saying. The study could have been designed better. But I am still apprehensive at the thought of STRs for the heck of it/to while away time while waiting for Prince Charming. I dont judge others who do it, I just dont partake.

 

[Doctor Strange]

OK. I see what you are saying. The study could have been designed better. But I am still apprehensive at the thought of STRs for the heck of it/to while away time while waiting for Prince Charming. I dont judge others who do it, I just dont partake.

Except you have clearly shown on here that you do judge others.

 

[malaika]

The reputation of the difficulty of med school has been far overblown on SDN. Demonstrated by the fact that you think a med student doesn't have the time to write a few paragraphs on an online forum.

I am not a medical student yet and i can't find that time in my current pre-med schedule to engage in online arguments enough to write up a long term paper to prove my point unless it is something that adds to my path to medicine significantly.

So i guess i was wrong, medical students but not be really that busy after all. I can't wait to get in so that i can have alot of free time to bombard SDN with posts

 

[touchpause13]

OK. I see what you are saying. The study could have been designed better. But I am still apprehensive at the thought of STRs for the heck of it/to while away time while waiting for Prince Charming. I dont judge others who do it, I just dont partake.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

 

[mcloaf]

I am not a medical student yet and i can't find that time in my current pre-med schedule to engage in online arguments enough to write up a long term paper to prove my point unless it is something that adds to my path to medicine significantly.

So i guess i was wrong, medical students but not be really that busy after all. I can't wait to get in so that i can have alot of free time to bombard SDN with posts

Or maybe your time management struggles will intensify.

 

[malaika]

Or maybe your time management struggles will intensify.

🙄

😀

 

[loris]

I am not a medical student yet and i can't find that time in my current pre-med schedule to engage in online arguments enough to write up a long term paper to prove my point unless it is something that adds to my path to medicine significantly.

So i guess i was wrong, medical students but not be really that busy after all. I can't wait to get in so that i can have alot of free time to bombard SDN with posts

Dear god what are you doing. Life doesn’t end in med school. We still have ample time to waste on dumb endeavors like arguing on the internet.

 

[fourhumours]

My Plans for marriage so I dont need a prenup.

 

[kiwisryummy]

Medical school is just a part of life. Like a job you spend A LOT of time at. Or a sickness. But hey you marry someone and agree to honor them in sickness and in health. Med school isn't forever. But marriage is (or it should be.) Find someone who is willing to be with you through the good times and bad. Med school is tough but so is life. In the word of good ol' Ben Affleck at the Oscars, "Marriage is work." If you are going to be, or are a doctor then you are cut out for work, right? There is no "right time" in this career field. But there are "right times" in a relationship. Just do it if it feels right. And yes, get a prenup, it just takes the complication out of things and allows you and your partner to focus on each other and well, school. My plan? Well I'm screwed because I was planning on marrying Channing Tatum while in school. He got sick of waiting for me and married someone else. Sigh.

 

[TexasSurgeon]

Medical school is just a part of life. Like a job you spend A LOT of time at. Or a sickness. But hey you marry someone and agree to honor them in sickness and in health. Med school isn't forever. But marriage is (or it should be.) Find someone who is willing to be with you through the good times and bad. Med school is tough but so is life. In the word of good ol' Ben Affleck at the Oscars, "Marriage is work." If you are going to be, or are a doctor then you are cut out for work, right? There is no "right time" in this career field. But there are "right times" in a relationship. Just do it if it feels right. And yes, get a prenup, it just takes the complication out of things and allows you and your partner to focus on each other and well, school. My plan? Well I'm screwed because I was planning on marrying Channing Tatum while in school. He got sick of waiting for me and married someone else. Sigh.

To all future posters- the OP has been banned.

 

[malaika]

To all future posters- the OP has been banned.

Hmn, i wonder why?!

 

[Dbate]

Oh my gosh.


THIS THREAD DELIVERED THE LOLZ 👍

 

[Corriefangirl]

Most of my classmates married investment bankers or other physicians. Chances are you might get the better end of the "take half of stuff" deal...

Where are they finding investment bankers? 😉