• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Abstinence only sex education credited with fall in HPV infection rates

I read the thread title and thought, wtf, that's wrong. It was the vaccine.

The idea that abstinence works is pretty much right up there with the idea that people won't pirate movies because of the FBI warning at the start of the movie.
 
I'm convinced that anyone who opposes the vaccine is a monster.

Their arguments basically all hinge on the idea that giving girls the vaccine removes consequences of sex and thus "encourages" casual, unprotected sex.

Except that:

1. You can get it even if you wear a condom.
2. There is no test for men.
3. It can have serious and potentially life-changing long term effects on women, including sterility and cancer.
4. You can get it from someone with whom you are in a committed, monogamous relationship, even if that person has had sex with only one other person. The virus doesn't distinguish between "casual" and "occasional" sex.

The only way to prevent it, really, is for only virgins to have sex with each other and never move on from their relationships once they've had sex.

And really, if you think about it, it's just insane to have a cure for a serious illness yet be opposed to distributing that cure.

highland145 said:
Did they explain the 1/3 vaccinated vs the 56% drop?
Click to expand...

I don't think it was explained directly, but I would assume it has something to do with reducing the number of "mass infectors;" people who get the virus somehow and then have sex with lots and lots of people after. Or who have sex with someone who has sex with lots of people. I remember a few years ago someone did a study on sex partners in a high school and while most people had only had sex with one or two other people, there were a few "hubs" (aka sluts, and I use that term in a gender-neutral fashion) who bagged a whole bunch of others.
 
Last edited:
AstroManLuca said:
I don't think it was explained directly, but I would assume it has something to do with reducing the number of "mass infectors;" people who get the virus somehow and then have sex with lots and lots of people after. Or who have sex with someone who has sex with lots of people. I remember a few years ago someone did a study on sex partners in a high school and while most people had only had sex with one or two other people, there were a few "hubs" (aka sluts, and I use that term in a gender-neutral fashion) who bagged a whole bunch of others.
Click to expand...
Makes sense. Ahh, the school humpers.😛
 
Here's my personal perspective on the subject.

I'm very pro-vaccine. It's my pet peeve that idiots don't vaccinate their children and are bringing back some diseases (whooping cough) that we had almost eradicated. When I still worked as a newspaper journalist I would get approached by nutjobs who wanted me to "expose the government's vaccine program that is killing people." I wanted to kick them in the teeth.

Despite being pro-vaccine, I've had to firmly refuse the HPV vaccine for my seventeen year old daughter during her last three doctor visits. The doctors and nurses have been borderline rude with their insistence that she get it. They think they know my daughter better than I know her and she knows herself.

My daughter is ungodly mature, and clear-headed for her age. She is voluntarily abstinent because she understands the consequences and hasn't met the right man yet. She isn't even looking for a serious relationship at her age because she doesn't want to complicate her last year of high school and first year of college.

She understands that the HPV vaccine would be a good idea if she was sexual active, but she purposely isn't. The protection from cancer far outweighs the slight, and so far unfounded, possibility of possible side effects. But only if she was sexually active.

Just like I wouldn't want her exposed to the radiation of an x-ray unnecessarily, why should I give her a relatively new vaccine unnecessarily?
 
Paladin3 said:
Here's my personal perspective on the subject.

I'm very pro-vaccine. It's my pet peeve that idiots don't vaccinate their children and are bringing back some diseases (whooping cough) that we had almost eradicated. When I still worked as a newspaper journalist I would get approached by nutjobs who wanted me to "expose the government's vaccine program that is killing people." I wanted to kick them in the teeth.

Despite being pro-vaccine, I've had to firmly refuse the HPV vaccine for my seventeen year old daughter during her last three doctor visits. The doctors and nurses have been borderline rude with their insistence that she get it. They think they know my daughter better than I know her and she knows herself.

My daughter is ungodly mature, and clear-headed for her age. She is voluntarily abstinent because she understands the consequences and hasn't met the right man yet. She isn't even looking for a serious relationship at her age because she doesn't want to complicate her last year of high school and first year of college.

She understands that the HPV vaccine would be a good idea if she was sexual active, but she purposely isn't. The protection from cancer far outweighs the slight, and so far unfounded, possibility of possible side effects. But only if she was sexually active.

Just like I wouldn't want her exposed to the radiation of an x-ray unnecessarily, why should I give her a relatively new vaccine unnecessarily?
Click to expand...

Because she's gonna get laid eventually. All it takes is one time. Statistics are great, but sometimes you roll snake eyes.
 
lxskllr said:
Because she's gonna get laid eventually. All it takes is one time. Statistics are great, but sometimes you roll snake eyes.
Click to expand...

Statistics have nothing to do with it. She wouldn't ride a motorcycle without a helmet, and she won't go having sex until she is both ready and protected. When the time comes she'll get the vaccine and the medical community has to respect that. If that gives them a few more years to study and prove the vaccine then so much better.
 
Paladin3 said:
Despite being pro-vaccine, I've had to firmly refuse the HPV vaccine for my seventeen year old daughter during her last three doctor visits. The doctors and nurses have been borderline rude with their insistence that she get it. They think they know my daughter better than I know her and she knows herself.

My daughter is ungodly mature, and clear-headed for her age. She is voluntarily abstinent because she understands the consequences and hasn't met the right man yet. She isn't even looking for a serious relationship at her age because she doesn't want to complicate her last year of high school and first year of college.

She understands that the HPV vaccine would be a good idea if she was sexual active, but she purposely isn't. The protection from cancer far outweighs the slight, and so far unfounded, possibility of possible side effects. But only if she was sexually active.

Just like I wouldn't want her exposed to the radiation of an x-ray unnecessarily, why should I give her a relatively new vaccine unnecessarily?
Click to expand...

I would equate this mindset to leaving your seatbelt off because you think you'll have time to put it on in the moments before a crash. Doctors are pushing for everyone to get the vaccine because they believe it is one of the most unequivocally beneficial things they can do for their patients. It's safe as houses, so to speak, and you can get HPV in ways that don't involve sex. It's literally one less thing to worry about.
 
Paladin3 said:
Statistics have nothing to do with it. She wouldn't ride a motorcycle without a helmet, and she won't go having sex until she is both ready and protected. When the time comes she'll get the vaccine and the medical community has to respect that. If that gives them a few more years to study and prove the vaccine then so much better.
Click to expand...

So you are anti-vaccine, should have said that in your first post.
 
Lazarus52980 said:
Is there something wrong with encouraging abstinence?
Click to expand...

surfsatwerk said:
There's something wrong with only encouraging abstinence.
Click to expand...

This. They can make abstinence the primary focus of sex ed for all I care. Hell, no matter how opposed I am to abstinence-ONLY sex ed, it's still true that abstinence is the most effective way of preventing STDs and unwanted pregnancy. But you have to at least present other options, and give them a fair shake.

Paladin3 said:
Here's my personal perspective on the subject.

I'm very pro-vaccine. It's my pet peeve that idiots don't vaccinate their children and are bringing back some diseases (whooping cough) that we had almost eradicated. When I still worked as a newspaper journalist I would get approached by nutjobs who wanted me to "expose the government's vaccine program that is killing people." I wanted to kick them in the teeth.

Despite being pro-vaccine, I've had to firmly refuse the HPV vaccine for my seventeen year old daughter during her last three doctor visits. The doctors and nurses have been borderline rude with their insistence that she get it. They think they know my daughter better than I know her and she knows herself.

My daughter is ungodly mature, and clear-headed for her age. She is voluntarily abstinent because she understands the consequences and hasn't met the right man yet. She isn't even looking for a serious relationship at her age because she doesn't want to complicate her last year of high school and first year of college.

She understands that the HPV vaccine would be a good idea if she was sexual active, but she purposely isn't. The protection from cancer far outweighs the slight, and so far unfounded, possibility of possible side effects. But only if she was sexually active.

Just like I wouldn't want her exposed to the radiation of an x-ray unnecessarily, why should I give her a relatively new vaccine unnecessarily?
Click to expand...

The problem is that for every person like you, who has a mature, intelligent daughter who won't make rash decisions, there are 10 parents who are living in a fantasy world and refuse the vaccine for their daughters because they're wrongly convinced that she is a perfect little angel.

And face it. She's 17. Teenagers can be the smartest people in the room one moment, then turn around and do something incredibly stupid. I'm not saying your girl is going to do this, but you never know. And she's going to become sexually active at some point. She could be a virgin until marriage and still end up with a man who unknowingly got the virus from his last girlfriend, and wind up with cancer.

I just feel like it's better to simply get it out of the way so you don't have to worry about it in the future. As I said in my previous post, the virus doesn't discriminate, and the only way to truly prevent it is for BOTH parties to be virgins until marriage. Face it, that just doesn't happen.
 
Paladin3 said:
Statistics have nothing to do with it. She wouldn't ride a motorcycle without a helmet, and she won't go having sex until she is both ready and protected. When the time comes she'll get the vaccine and the medical community has to respect that. If that gives them a few more years to study and prove the vaccine then so much better.
Click to expand...

I'd prefer your daughter decided without you in the room, and without you knowing. Kids say a lot of things, and make optimistic predictions based on what they think will please their parents, and reality ends up not matching the predictions.
 
Anyone who opposes the HPV vaccine is pro-cancer.

Paladin3 said:
Statistics have nothing to do with it. She wouldn't ride a motorcycle without a helmet, and she won't go having sex until she is both ready and protected. When the time comes she'll get the vaccine and the medical community has to respect that. If that gives them a few more years to study and prove the vaccine then so much better.
Click to expand...

It get's less effective as you age, until you're 26 years old, when it's ineffective. You're fear of your daughter's sexuality might cause her series harm. There's no reason not to give it to her now.
 
Last edited:
SlitheryDee said:
I would equate this mindset to leaving your seatbelt off because you think you'll have time to put it on in the moments before a crash. Doctors are pushing for everyone to get the vaccine because they believe it is one of the most unequivocally beneficial things they can do for their patients. It's safe as houses, so to speak, and you can get HPV in ways that don't involve sex. It's literally one less thing to worry about.
Click to expand...

Bad analogy. Having sex is a choice, and not an accident or laps of attention.
 
Paladin3 said:
Bad analogy. Having sex is a choice, and not an accident or laps of attention.
Click to expand...

On the surface, yes. However, I've seen girls who had entire relationships by accident, or at least they said so afterward. We're animals ultimately. Teenagers are experiencing the animal urge to procreate more powerfully than they ever will again. That can cause "choices" that feel an awful lot like accidents later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top