Dr. Hive -- Talk to me about HPV vaccine

[Katy]

54 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

I'm not finding any reliable information about reports actually linked to HPV at all. Just some stuff saying maybe it is on the rise, and hey, maybe it's from HPV vaccine although we have nothing to actually indicate any connection, anymore than we can connect it to smart phones or skinny jeans or anything else. 

 

The study I read months ago was out of South Africa. I don't know how reputable studies from South Africa are. It was multiple incidents of girls (maybe 3?) with previously typical menstrual cycles who went into ovarian failure within weeks of the vaccine. I think they were also questioning some newer formulation of the vaccine. At the time I spent about two hours googling and only found more questions. The study DID NOT say there was a cause or even a correlation, simply that it hadn't been studied and it should be in the future because these multiple incidents were statistically unlikely. If it's been disproved since then I'll gladly change my open question about it, but everything I saw at that time said they hadn't included that as something to either rule in or rule out, and that further study was needed. Obviously there could also be multiple other environmental factors that haven't been identified - it was the timing that rated the article.

I probably had an additional question in my head because I personally know two young women who went into ovarian failure at 17 and 23. Both had been vaccinated. One of them is the person who brought this study to my attention. She is from a very pro-vaccine family. The other has some autoimmune stuff going on (graves disease and something else they haven't diagnosed yet) so that may be a coincidence. Typically "medical studies" I see shared on Facebook are easy to disprove within minutes with a quick google search, but at the time this wasn't.  It just wasn't addressed in the literature at all other than mentioning isolated incidents. Perhaps it has been now, idk.

[Scarlett]

1 hour ago, texasmom33 said:

Not to my knowledge. What matters, or at least what did when I was in research, was which strain you contracted. There are over 100 strains, but only 16 or so, if I recall correctly, are known to be cancer causing. I’ve been out of research seven years now (eek!) but try to stay somewhat abreast, but some new discoveries may have passed me by  

 

Do you know off hand how many of those 16 strains that cause cancer are covered under the vaccine?  My memory is that it is 3 but I would like to know for sure.

[Bluegoat]

2 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Do you know off hand how many of those 16 strains that cause cancer are covered under the vaccine?  My memory is that it is 3 but I would like to know for sure.

 

I think it might be more now than when it came out.  Or there are other versions that cover more?  I can't remember the details.

[BeachGal]

Nine are known to cause the majority of hpv-related cancers and diseases according to this site.

https://www.gardasil9.com/hpv-facts/what-is-hpv/?HPVTypes=true

My son got the Gardasil 9.

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, texasmom33 said:

I do not.

I will tell you that as a 30 year old something adult when it became available I got the vaccine myself and paid out of pocket because I didn’t meet the protocol, but personally I felt it was worth it. 

Wait I thought 30 years old was too old.  ?

[Scarlett]

17 minutes ago, BeachGal said:

Nine are known to cause the majority of hpv-related cancers and diseases according to this site.

https://www.gardasil9.com/hpv-facts/what-is-hpv/?HPVTypes=true

My son got the Gardasil 9.

https://www.webmd.com/children/vaccines/hpv-vaccine-what-you-need-know#1

 

This site says it protects against 4 strands and 2 of them cause 70% of the cervical cancers.

[Lady Florida.]

24 minutes ago, texasmom33 said:

To be covered by insurance. 

That's why a lot of pediatricians recommend getting it while your child is younger. Our pedi said even if I knew ds wasn't sexually active (and unless you control every moment of your child's life you cant be 100% sure) it should be given. Many (most?) insurance companies won't cover it after age 18, some as low as age 16, because they can't be sure at that age a person hasn't had sex yet. They don't want to cover a vaccine if the chance is there that a person already contracted the disease.

[Scarlett]

2 minutes ago, texasmom33 said:

Yep. And that really chaps me, because personally, I think every person is entitled to it if they want it. It's not like it's going to hurt something if by chance you were already infected, and I personally have wondered if the vaccine, even post-infection, might have some sort of retarding effect on future development. I have no idea if it does, but I say, hey, if anyone wants it, young or old, have at it. Insurance companies are the devil when it comes to this stuff. 

But, to jump back on my soapbox for a moment, despite doing a stellar job (enough to really knock down the teen pregnancy rate) educating people about birth control and other things, sex ed in this country is largely a disaster as far as people being aware of actual disease risk and how you can and cannot contract said diseases. People really have no idea how easy they are to contract, how hard they are to detect, and how prevalent they are in society. It's staggering. I've seen numbers that most women think that a Pap smear can detect STDs, so they don't inform their doctor or ask for further testing if they're sexually active, which is so wrong it's not even funny. Paps detect cervical changes. That's it. 

Hopefully, this isn't too political, but I'll say this and then I'll really shut up this time. If you are the mother of a gay or bisexual son, I would do everything in my power to get them to get this vaccine. They are honestly at the HIGHEST risk level there is STD wise, and that includes HPV, simply because as a group they exhibit the highest risk behaviours. As scientists,  if we watched that population and knew what was going on at a disease level, we'd know what was going to be going on in the general population a few years down the pipe. I think people tend to think of these diseases and vaccines in relation to heterosexual situations only and well, that's just not the case. They're equal opportunity viruses. You might hear the most about cervical cancer, but the other cancers are real and deadly. There is much less shame in talking about cervical cancer than there used to be, but most people aren't going to talk about their anal cancer, you know? So make sure ALL of your teens are informed, regardless of sexual orientation. 

Okay, now I'm really, really done soapboxing. ?

I enjoy your posts on this stuff because you have the knowledge and you are easy to understand.  

[Bluegoat]

1 hour ago, texasmom33 said:

Yep. And that really chaps me, because personally, I think every person is entitled to it if they want it. It's not like it's going to hurt something if by chance you were already infected, and I personally have wondered if the vaccine, even post-infection, might have some sort of retarding effect on future development. I have no idea if it does, but I say, hey, if anyone wants it, young or old, have at it. Insurance companies are the devil when it comes to this stuff. 

But, to jump back on my soapbox for a moment, despite doing a stellar job (enough to really knock down the teen pregnancy rate) educating people about birth control and other things, sex ed in this country is largely a disaster as far as people being aware of actual disease risk and how you can and cannot contract said diseases. People really have no idea how easy they are to contract, how hard they are to detect, and how prevalent they are in society. It's staggering. I've seen numbers that most women think that a Pap smear can detect STDs, so they don't inform their doctor or ask for further testing if they're sexually active, which is so wrong it's not even funny. Paps detect cervical changes. That's it. 

Hopefully, this isn't too political, but I'll say this and then I'll really shut up this time. If you are the mother of a gay or bisexual son, I would do everything in my power to get them to get this vaccine. They are honestly at the HIGHEST risk level there is STD wise, and that includes HPV, simply because as a group they exhibit the highest risk behaviours. As scientists,  if we watched that population and knew what was going on at a disease level, we'd know what was going to be going on in the general population a few years down the pipe. I think people tend to think of these diseases and vaccines in relation to heterosexual situations only and well, that's just not the case. They're equal opportunity viruses. You might hear the most about cervical cancer, but the other cancers are real and deadly. There is much less shame in talking about cervical cancer than there used to be, but most people aren't going to talk about their anal cancer, you know? So make sure ALL of your teens are informed, regardless of sexual orientation. 

Okay, now I'm really, really done soapboxing. ?

 

You know, what I find interesting is that people tend to think of conservatives, or the religious right, being responsible for repressing information on sexual issues.  But the progressive-left does it in other ways - they tend to be very uncomfortable with anything that might indicate people should think about curtailing their sexual activities, or that some people might be more susceptible to some diseases than others.

[SKL]

2 hours ago, texasmom33 said:

Yep. And that really chaps me, because personally, I think every person is entitled to it if they want it. It's not like it's going to hurt something if by chance you were already infected, and I personally have wondered if the vaccine, even post-infection, might have some sort of retarding effect on future development. I have no idea if it does, but I say, hey, if anyone wants it, young or old, have at it. Insurance companies are the devil when it comes to this stuff. 

But, to jump back on my soapbox for a moment, despite doing a stellar job (enough to really knock down the teen pregnancy rate) educating people about birth control and other things, sex ed in this country is largely a disaster as far as people being aware of actual disease risk and how you can and cannot contract said diseases. People really have no idea how easy they are to contract, how hard they are to detect, and how prevalent they are in society. It's staggering. I've seen numbers that most women think that a Pap smear can detect STDs, so they don't inform their doctor or ask for further testing if they're sexually active, which is so wrong it's not even funny. Paps detect cervical changes. That's it. 

Hopefully, this isn't too political, but I'll say this and then I'll really shut up this time. If you are the mother of a gay or bisexual son, I would do everything in my power to get them to get this vaccine. They are honestly at the HIGHEST risk level there is STD wise, and that includes HPV, simply because as a group they exhibit the highest risk behaviours. As scientists,  if we watched that population and knew what was going on at a disease level, we'd know what was going to be going on in the general population a few years down the pipe. I think people tend to think of these diseases and vaccines in relation to heterosexual situations only and well, that's just not the case. They're equal opportunity viruses. You might hear the most about cervical cancer, but the other cancers are real and deadly. There is much less shame in talking about cervical cancer than there used to be, but most people aren't going to talk about their anal cancer, you know? So make sure ALL of your teens are informed, regardless of sexual orientation. 

Okay, now I'm really, really done soapboxing. ?

There was an early study that showed a significant increase in cancer if you got the vax after you already had HPV.  I have heard that later studies did not have that result, but the question is out there, and it could be a factor in the age cutoff.  But also if (as we often hear) HPV is so ubiquitous that practically everyone has it by their mid-20s, there doesn't seem to be much public health bang to vaxing people after that.  There are still other ways to address the risk of cervical cancer and we are still advised to continue those regardless of whether we have the HPV vax.

[klmama]

Just now, SKL said:

There was an early study that showed a significant increase in cancer if you got the vax after you already had HPV.  I have heard that later studies did not have that result, but the question is out there, and it could be a factor in the age cutoff.  But also if (as we often hear) HPV is so ubiquitous that practically everyone has it by their mid-20s, there doesn't seem to be much public health bang to vaxing people after that.  There are still other ways to address the risk of cervical cancer and we are still advised to continue those regardless of whether we have the HPV vax.

Do you know if there was any correlation found with having had other HPV strains, such as those that cause plantar warts, and increased cancer risk upon getting the vaccine?

[SKL]

1 minute ago, klmama said:

Do you know if there was any correlation found with having had other HPV strains, such as those that cause plantar warts, and increased cancer risk upon getting the vaccine?

No, I don't know.  Given how new the vax is, I hope researchers are watching this sort of thing.

[klmama]

4 hours ago, Lady Florida. said:

This post has reliable information. The website is my go-to for reliable science based information about health issues. Most of the reporting about the link to the vaccine comes from the American College of Pediatrics, which is most definitely not reliable.

Why do you say the American College of Pediatrics is not reliable?

[Lady Florida.]

34 minutes ago, klmama said:

Why do you say the American College of Pediatrics is not reliable?

They are not a science based group but are a group with an agenda. As texasmom said, to say more gets political, but science shouldn't be political. Their name is often confused with the American Academy of Pediatrics and I doubt that's a coincidence. The name was chosen to sound similar. 

[SKL]

25 minutes ago, texasmom33 said:

I'd like to see that study if you can find it, as everything I've seen in the last decade does not indicate as such. They haven't shown that it increases clearance rate that I know of, but I haven't seen a single study that would indicate the cancer rate is higher, so I'd like to see that if you can find it. It's been approved for well over a decade now, so there are a ton of studies on it at this point. 

I disagree about the bang for the buck. Cost studies have shown otherwise, particularly in high-risk populations, as it's not only cervical cancer people should be concerned with. Here's an example. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S147330991070219X

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1473309914710734

Not addressed to you specifically SKL, just an aside. When we are addressing from a public health perspective, we have to acknowledge at the end of the day that people's sexual behaviors vary greatly from 1) how they identify and 2) what they admit to participating in (until things get really terrifying health wise and suddenly everyone becomes much more forthcoming), so part of where this all breaks down is people see this through a single focus like this: Teens--heterosexual sex--- cervical cancer. But it doesn't work that way in a real-life situation, and at the end of the day, most parents are clueless as to the sexual behaviors of their teen and adult children, and I think it would behoove more people to realize that, when considering all of the possible outcomes. I'm not yelling at everyone to vaccinate, but rather saying, this is not a straightforward disease that only affects the cervix. It affects many other systems and if history serves as any warning, more and more is going to become apparent from this and other viruses, so if anything, people should use it as a terrific launching point to talk to their kids about sex. ALL kinds of sex, and that yeah. Some sex is a LOT riskier than other types and nope, that condom isn't going to save you, so let's talk about real risk and real ramifications. That's why I think it is SO completely, unbelievably important for parents to have these ongoing conversations with their kids, until they're are pretty much launched. Telling them once at 13 isn't going to cut it, and what a 13-year-old thinks they will find themselves doing at 16 usually isn't spot on. 

 

I read it on the CDC website a few years ago.  I did not keep a copy or a citation.  However, the CDC of all places should not be considered a hack website.  ?  I don't know if it is still on there or not.  Like I said, they were not able to duplicate the result in later studies.  However, I also think that even scientists are affected by bias and sometimes see what they want to see, and report accordingly.  So to me, I think the original result raised questions that I hope they are continuing to address. 

But then, one of my peeves is that there is not enough interest in identifying what groups of people are better off not vaccinating (due to individual or group risks), and making sure they don't get vaccinated.  In other words "this vax is safe for most people" is an incomplete answer.  It doesn't tell me whether it's safe for my kid.

FTR I'm not anti-vax, I'm pro-informed decision.

[BeachGal]

4 hours ago, Scarlett said:

https://www.webmd.com/children/vaccines/hpv-vaccine-what-you-need-know#1

 

This site says it protects against 4 strands and 2 of them cause 70% of the cervical cancers.

 

The site you linked is discussing the HPV4 vaccine. The Gardasil 9 is the HPV9 vaccine and protects against 9 types of HPV.

[Scarlett]

Just now, BeachGal said:

 

The site you linked is discussing the HPV4 vaccine. The Gardasil 9 is the HPV9 vaccine and protects against 9 types of HPV.

Oh I see.  So why would anyone use the hpv4 instead of the Gardasil 9?

[BeachGal]

Young, sexually actively gay/bi men should also make sure their meningitis vaccines are up to date, and should seriously consider the Bexsero vaccine as well (meningitis B) since meningitis is cropping up among gay men in some cities. Better to be safe.

[BeachGal]

5 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Oh I see.  So why would anyone use the hpv4 instead of the Gardasil 9?

 

I’m not sure. We were only offered the Gardasil 9.

 

[cintinative]

On 5/12/2018 at 7:06 PM, samba said:

We have always vaccinated. My dd followed a typical schedule. With my ds we spread out the vaccinations because he has Down syndrome and I was concerned about a possible overload. We have chosen not to do HPV because both kids have or are predisposed to autoimmune conditions. We don't need any exacerbating situations. My dd is 18 now and I decided that she is informed enough to make that decision for herself. So far she is not interested in getting it.

 

 

Thanks for sharing this. I have similar concerns. Both my husband and I have autoimmune diseases (mine is neurological and very rare, he has one diagnosed and a possible second one) and my oldest son has Celiac disease (another autoimmune) and my youngest has asthma (technically yet another autoimmune).  I am concerned to trigger something else in them.  Even saying the risk is very low does not mean a whole lot when you are dealing with a neurological condition that only has 1400 new cases a year.  

OP, I really appreciate you opening this dialogue. I know that we will be asked this summer/fall about our boys and I am just not sure. 

[SKL]

40 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Oh I see.  So why would anyone use the hpv4 instead of the Gardasil 9?

They quit giving the HPV4 vax maybe 3 or 4 years ago and replaced it with Gardasil 9.  Not sure what all the changes were.  I assume one change was to increase the # of strains it protects against from 4 to 9.  Not sure whether they also addressed any safety concerns.  The rate of injury with HPV4 is much higher than what is shown for HPV9, but that could be due to a lag in reporting since HPV9 is very new.

PS I am NOT an expert, I'm just repeating what I read recently on one of the official government websites.  (I think it was the CDC site again.)

[SKL]

I don't disagree with teaching kids all about prevention, and very factually.  That's not what I was focused on in my posts.  It was a good point, though, as I see some of those following the thread learned some new info about risks other than HPV.

Just today I saw a news story about STDs rising rapidly in California.  No idea what that's about.

[klmama]

1 hour ago, Lady Florida. said:

Their name is often confused with the American Academy of Pediatrics and I doubt that's a coincidence. The name was chosen to sound similar. 

Yes, it's confusing all right!  I thought you meant the American Academy of Pediatrics. Now off to look at the other one. 

[kbutton]

2 hours ago, texasmom33 said:

In the case of this particular vaccine, and not vaccines in general, I think it is harder to do this as no one has any idea what groups those kids might end up later, if that makes sense. Short of genetic testing for perhaps some mutation that makes one react to vaccine ingredients, I don't know how they'd do that.

It's all about risk at the end of the day and what people want to gamble; which is always easy to say on the academic or clinical end and a lot harder to swallow when it's your kid and you have to make the call, which I get. My main point in all of my posts has been that people significantly underestimate how the virus is transmitted and infection rates in general for all STIs, not just HPV, and that there is more risk on that end that people give credit. They need to quit thinking in a simple clinical "vaginal sex" mindset, to be quite blunt, and that's one place I think parents AND the sex ed industry, in general, have failed. The sex ed seem to be more about promoting healthy self esteem that realistic sexual health, imo,  whereas parents give a couple of talks, tell the kid to always wear a condom and/or use birth control pills and respect consent and that's all there is to it. So we as a society tend to fall on both ends of extremes whereas most kids need the info that falls in the middle. 

 I honestly am super conservative, believe it or not, but when it comes to this stuff, I think a lot of people- not saying anyone here, but in general- use the idea of "well my kid would never do that/catch that/be that" and "they know to use a condom/not have sex with risky partners" etc. as an excuse to simply dismiss it at hand.  And I get it- it's intimidating to thread though if you aren't accustomed to it. So I think for that reason, this thread is great.

But there is never going to be a vaccine that is 100% safe. Ever. It just doesn't work that way, so again, it is going to come down to how much risk one can stomach compared to how much risk one perceives, if that makes sense. 

Have you made sex ed recommendations in the past I should look for? I am thinking if you had a thread with list of topics to cover and a general pointer to where to get kid-friendly information, it would be super popular. :-) 

Or if anyone else has links...

I got enough information for my situation growing up (and some pretty realistic stats from public health officials in school--my local area had nearly no HIV at the time but TONS of other STDs of all kinds), but I am sure there are things I would not think to include. 

[Bluegoat]

15 hours ago, SKL said:

I don't disagree with teaching kids all about prevention, and very factually.  That's not what I was focused on in my posts.  It was a good point, though, as I see some of those following the thread learned some new info about risks other than HPV.

Just today I saw a news story about STDs rising rapidly in California.  No idea what that's about.

 

It might not always be among the people you expect, either.  Around here, one of the major groups getting them is seniors, especially living in seniors homes.

But it seems like it's young people too.  My young cousin, who is about 22 now, came to me twice within six months when she was 20 to help her get a prescription for chlamydia.  My sense is that while there is a group of teens/early 20s really waiting for sexual activity, among that age group that is sexually active, it's almost without any real sense of boundaries.  

 

[Janeway]

The shot is not good for life. And if you are not up to having a very serious talk about what causes HPV with your child, then I do not think the child should receive it. it is not a shot to protect against cancer. It is a shot to protect against a sexually transmitted disease. My children know exactly what causes HPV and it is their choice. A choice is not a real choice if not fully informed. And since the HPV shot is for sexual health, it must needs to be the person's body, that person's choice. I know a lot of people, maybe even most people, think it is ok to lie to the child and say the shot protects against cancer and is no different from protecting against measles and then just do the shot. But you would not try to slip a depo shot past your child without your child knowing what it is for, or an IUD, so why would you try to slip in an HPV shot without the child knowing what it is, what causes it, etc.

[Lecka]

Because I got it for 9-year-olds and I think it is just another immunization.  It is not equivalent to birth control.  

Right now we have insurance such that it is free.  I don’t know if that will be the case 2-3 years from now when my husband changes careers.  I want to get them all the free health care I can while we have such good coverage.  

Just to show other considerations.  I just see it as another vaccination like any other, and I don’t pick and choose vaccinations based on how likely I think it is for my kids to get that particular disease.  I just do the recommended ones for them.  

[mamaraby]

3 minutes ago, Janeway said:

The shot is not good for life. And if you are not up to having a very serious talk about what causes HPV with your child, then I do not think the child should receive it. it is not a shot to protect against cancer. It is a shot to protect against a sexually transmitted disease. My children know exactly what causes HPV and it is their choice. A choice is not a real choice if not fully informed. And since the HPV shot is for sexual health, it must needs to be the person's body, that person's choice. I know a lot of people, maybe even most people, think it is ok to lie to the child and say the shot protects against cancer and is no different from protecting against measles and then just do the shot. But you would not try to slip a depo shot past your child without your child knowing what it is for, or an IUD, so why would you try to slip in an HPV shot without the child knowing what it is, what causes it, etc.

First off, since it protects against HPV, several strains of which cause cancer, yes, it does protect against cancer.

Secondly, nice strawman. Literally no one in this thread is talking anout sneaking it past our children nor neglecting to educate our children about their sexual health or about how to protect against sti. Since health to me encompasses the entire body and all its systems, yes, it is just like the measles shot.

[Lecka]

Frankly I have not discussed any diseases with my kids or how they could be spread, for any shots they have had.  I don’t even know what some of these diseases are.  I don’t know how they are spread.

I assume by coughing on people or getting a blood transfusion, but I don’t really know and I am not really interested. 

That is just the case for me.  I tell my kids sometimes we get shots at the doctor.  

 

 

[Bluegoat]

1 hour ago, Janeway said:

The shot is not good for life. And if you are not up to having a very serious talk about what causes HPV with your child, then I do not think the child should receive it. it is not a shot to protect against cancer. It is a shot to protect against a sexually transmitted disease. My children know exactly what causes HPV and it is their choice. A choice is not a real choice if not fully informed. And since the HPV shot is for sexual health, it must needs to be the person's body, that person's choice. I know a lot of people, maybe even most people, think it is ok to lie to the child and say the shot protects against cancer and is no different from protecting against measles and then just do the shot. But you would not try to slip a depo shot past your child without your child knowing what it is for, or an IUD, so why would you try to slip in an HPV shot without the child knowing what it is, what causes it, etc.

 

You seem to be making a leap that anything related to sexual health can only be done with the consent of the individual, even if the individual is a child.  I can see why someone might get that idea in this crazy time of recommendations we ask consent before changing a diaper, but I think it's a faulty premise.  

[Arctic Bunny]

I feel as though I have been following this thread closely, but wonder if I’ve missed something. Is there any proof of negative side effects of the vaccine?

I have really appreciated this whole topic!

[Bluegoat]

11 minutes ago, arctic_bunny said:

I feel as though I have been following this thread closely, but wonder if I’ve missed something. Is there any proof of negative side effects of the vaccine?

I have really appreciated this whole topic!

 

No.

[SKL]

29 minutes ago, arctic_bunny said:

I feel as though I have been following this thread closely, but wonder if I’ve missed something. Is there any proof of negative side effects of the vaccine?

I have really appreciated this whole topic!

Yes.

[Arctic Bunny]

18 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

No.

 

1 minute ago, SKL said:

Yes.

That just made me LOL!

Still divisive and undecided, then.... I will stay tuned!

[Bluegoat]

1 hour ago, arctic_bunny said:

 

That just made me LOL!

Still divisive and undecided, then.... I will stay tuned!

 

My understanding is that there are reports of negative side effects, the kind that are collected about all vaccines.  But nothing that has been scientifically linked.

[Lady Florida.]

46 minutes ago, arctic_bunny said:

 Is there any proof of negative side effects of the vaccine?

 

Nope. 

[SKL]

I agree that however politically incorrect some find it to be, kids are entitled to the fact that STDs are STDs.

I have always told my kids what they were being vaxed for since they were little.  It would be weird to keep it from them as middle schoolers.

My kids are curious about sexual stuff and ask me all kinds of questions.  There isn't going to be a black hole where it comes to a vax against an STD.

And while it's true we don't know what our kids are going to choose in the future, they can still opt to get the HPV vax later if they feel it is right for them.  Just like they can take birth control pills or whatever if they feel that is right for them.  It's not like their fate is sealed when I decline it at their middle school check-up.

[Sneezyone]

14 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

I have to quibble with this a bit, because the fact is that sexually transmitted diseases come from sexual contact.  Explaining plainly to children that no sexual contact of any sort will protect them from sexually transmitted diseases, and that everyone they sleep with puts them at risk because of everyone *they* may have slept with, isn’t particularly challenging.  

 

It’s ground level basics that you’re not just sleeping with the partner, but every partner they have come into contact with.  By the time the kids are hitting sixth or seventh grade this isn’t that difficult to discuss, especially in a homeschool setting.  And that the very best way to protect themselves against the risks associated with the diseases and infections is a monogamous relationship with monogamous, clean partner.  And that unless they’ve had a significant lapse between partners AND tested cleanly after that period, it’s best to assume they’ve been exposed to something.

 

I mean, that was my sex ed when I was a kid and teen.  Is that really not being talked about these days?  Is it really so stigmatizing to let kids know that their risk of an STD, outside of an assault, is vanishingly small if they have no sexual contact of any sort and their partner also clean?  My husband and I have zero STDs and essentially zero risk of one precisely because we went into his relationship clean and have remained so.  Abstinence and monogamy of both partners really can and should be discussed if it isn’t.  One can have discussions of safe sex practices AND abstinence, they aren’t mutually exclusive.

At least in our circles, virginity isn’t really that rare.  And safe sex practices between long term relationships exist, too, if we are talking remarriage. It really is a thing.  It bothers me deeply when we are supposed to have sex discussions and omit that he single biggest risk factor to contracting these diseases and infections is sex - which, outside of assault, is completely avoidable.  And that before ANY partner one should demand current clinical evidence they have nothing to pass on to you.

 

Have we really hit the point as a society where the above isn’t PC to discuss? I take my sexual health status very, very seriously and want my kids to do the same, but that includes being really frank about what behaviors are risky and what behaviors are protective, does it not?

 

The problem is that STDs are not just passed through anal or vaginal penetration which is what most kids think when you euphemistically say ‘sleep with’ or ‘have sex’. STDs can be transmitted in ways that fall far short of that. And, yeah, I think it’s pretty unusual for even ‘virgins’ to have never swapped spit with someone else. I wish someone had been more thoughtful with my preteen self about all of these issues. I might have been spared years of pain and infertility if my parents hadn’t been so damned uptight about BCPs. By the time I was 18, the PCOS damage was done.

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Arctic Mama said:

Again, who is defining sexual contact with kids as just penetrative?  Not me.  And for the record, my spouse hadn’t ever kissed someone outside his mama until we were engaged.  It is a thing, though it seems every eighteen or twenty five year old virgin is being taught to think they’re completely weird for their lack of ‘experience’.  Gee, I wonder what conversations have been had in their sexual education that they think their lack of contact makes them a complete weirdo...?

 

Maybe because you said everyone they ‘sleep with’ puts them at risk. There are lots of behaviors short of what occurs in bed that pose risks. And, yeah, never having been kissed prior to marriage is a small population of people. That’s just a fact not a judgment of weirdness.

[Sneezyone]

Just now, Arctic Mama said:

I don’t disagree that life happens.  But I do disagree that we should not be honest about risk factors.  What you’re seeing isn’t the only sexual reality for young people, and I’m not sure you actually get that not every kid is going to drink and part and have casual sex or shoot up drugs... significant swaths or the population do NONE of those.  I’m not one of the parents who pretends that doesn’t exist, but I do darn well educate my kids on risky behaviors and their consequences and practical avoidance/safety.  These things aren’t mutually exclusive.

 

Married sex is risky too. It needn’t be casual at all. What’s with the idea that doing all the right things yourself protects you from all ills? It doesn’t. And what does drinking, perfectly legal for adults over 21, have to do with this?

[SKL]

6 minutes ago, texasmom33 said:

I don't disagree that no sex is a protection against STDs. However, I don't know how realistic it is long term to expect it. It's one thing to take that tact, but it's another thing to shield them from what to do if they don't end up following that chosen path.  I can't see telling my child not to marry a person because that person at one point or another had sex with someone. Or more than one someones. What you describe, although possible and yes, something a lot of people would like to have, isn't always feasible though. And I think it lends itself to a lot of "soiled goods" projections that hit women especially hard.

On top of just everyday life and sexual temptation, people get molested, people get raped, people get addictions or mental illnesses that can at points cause them to go into behaviors that their spouse didn't sign up for when they were thinking of "for better, for worse". At the end of the day, you can only control YOU. And yes, we and our spouses take vows and make commitments and I'm certainly not one sitting and waiting for the shoe to drop and my dh to cheat. But you know what, it happens. It happens A LOT. And I don't think there is anything wrong with preparing kids for that, and I don't think preparing for that makes me someone who is worshipping at the alter of PC'ness. But you know what? I spent years working in the area I did and I saw the teens and what happened to the teens, and I think that it is far more likely that most people are going to have more than one sex partner in their life than not, because crap happens sometimes. You tell a 15 year old boy they have HIV because they ran away from home, and had no other way to provide for themselves but selling themselves to married adult men, and I guarantee it will change the judgment level on a lot of this. 

 

But how is it different than telling these same people that they got syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, or AIDS as a result of sexual behavior?  I mean it is what it is.  Sometimes reality is uncomfortable.  But knowing how these things happen can and does help prevent some of it from happening in the future.

[Sneezyone]

 

EXACTLY!!

How’d that courtship business work out for Anna Duggar?

Doing all of the right, prescriptive things is no guarantee of safety from STDs.

[Bluegoat]

13 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

Yeah, and I, too, am okay with them making that choice for themselves when they’re teens.  That’s a discussion we have, too.  After all the groundwork is laid, I’m not making choices about their sexual health when they’re at an age they can do so.  But I AM making the calls prior to that.

 

I can see if someone generally gives teens the choice about their vaccinations, this would make sense.  And there are guidelines around ethical practice and mature minors, which is why minors are able to access sexual health care for example, without parents.

I think though that a lot of parents are ultimately making their teens health care choices, either directly, or because the teens follow their advice.

[Bluegoat]

4 minutes ago, texasmom33 said:

You know what I think bothers me about the abstinence/courting stuff at the high level? It's prescriptive. If you do this, and you don't do this, then you will be GREAT. Nothing bad will ever happen to you and you don't have to worry about STDs, and you don't have to worry about infertility and you don't have to worry about all of the other issues that surround this. You and your spouse will be in a perfect little bubble of security because you did ALL OF THE THINGS RIGHT. Bad things only happen to bad people and if they'd have listened none of this would happen, so they're only reaping what they sowed.

And it's the parents pushing this down to the kids because kids are kids and they don't know. They don't see around the corner yet like we can. So yes, it bothers me, and I am Christian, and I believe in the sanctity of marriage and monogamy. But people are fallen, and they're born sinners, and I just really don't understand why we can't teach to hope for the best, but plan for the worst. 

ETA- I'm not pushing the vaccine FTR. But rather the talk around it. I have no issue with kids making the decisions as they get older, but i do think that brings its own challenges with insurance and other things mentioned by PP upthread. Of course everyone's situations are going to vary, but I can't get past the feeling of judgment that if you get your kid the vaccine you're a) taking their autonomy and b) expecting them to do something sinful so to speak. 

 

I can see both sides of this.  I know that some groups end up with negative messages around sexual purity.  But I do think we've adopted a culture where the expectation and the narrative is that we are meant to have access to risk free sex - like it is almost a right.  And if we don't find it is the reality, that is a sort of failure of society or technology or nature that somehow we need to fix.  

I think with the emergence of things like antibiotic resistance STDs, we may need to see people returning to a sense that moderation, and care, are actually good things around sex - in the same way that we know they are good things around food.  Not always easy, not that people will always succeed, but that it is actually something to cultivate.  The goal isn't to produce foods with no content so we can eat endlessly, nor is it to create a sexual culture where you actions are totally divorced from the results of those actions.  That will never give us people that even know how to think about taking care of themselves or others.

[SKL]

3 minutes ago, texasmom33 said:

You know what I think bothers me about the abstinence/courting stuff at the high level? It's prescriptive. If you do this, and you don't do this, then you will be GREAT. Nothing bad will ever happen to you and you don't have to worry about STDs, and you don't have to worry about infertility and you don't have to worry about all of the other issues that surround this. You and your spouse will be in a perfect little bubble of security because you did ALL OF THE THINGS RIGHT. Bad things only happen to bad people and if they'd have listened none of this would happen, so they're only reaping what they sowed.

And it's the parents pushing this down to the kids because kids are kids and they don't know. They don't see around the corner yet like we can. So yes, it bothers me, and I am Christian, and I believe in the sanctity of marriage and monogamy. But people are fallen, and they're born sinners, and I just really don't understand why we can't teach to hope for the best, but plan for the worst. 

Kids tend to be black and white, but I don't think most parents are talking the way you imply above.  Factually you don't have to worry about STDs or pregnancies (or some other problems) "for now" if you haven't had sexual contact.  I don't see people teaching that being a judgmental prude today guarantees a lifetime of excellent health and happiness.

The lessons I would teach my kids about STDs would be the same whether or not they got the HPV vax.  The vax addresses such a small range of issues compared to all the risks of sexual contact.

Some of the arguments here seem to be similar to saying that since my kid might have sex, I will put her on birth control pills the day she gets her first period just in case.  If I don't, knowing the risks, it will be my fault if my kid gets pregnant, and any complications of the pregnancy and birth are also my fault.  What a terrible selfish person I was not to do the right thing and put her on birth control pills.  (And there may be some people who do that.  I seem to remember hearing of some, though the memory is vague.)  I don't care if other parents make that kind of choice, but it doesn't feel right for my family.

[Sneezyone]

13 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

How’d it work out for me and dozens of other couples in my life?  I hate the term, but the proof is in the pudding for lots of us. Making wise and careful choices with our hearts and bodies makes a material difference in our emotional and physical health.  And stuff happens - which we also deal with as wisely and carefully as we can.  Because God commands us to do so.

 

Obviously the fact that I teach these things together is lost here.  We’ve now jumped the shark to argumentum ad Duggar, which is right up there with Hitler in these discussions.  Because of course all bible believing conservative Christians who hold to high ethical standards are bigoted, repressed idiots who must also be hiding all manner of sexual filth in their shiny white closets, and the Bible can’t be intelligently applied to modern life and sexuality, as though sex is anything new under the sun and God can’t speak to that anymore.  Okay then.

 

I invoked that particularly well-known instance because she is someone who, like you/your friends, espoused the view that doing all the right things would make her golden. And yet, I imagine that some Gardasil protection under her chastity belt might have come in pretty handy. It’s not either/or. We can enjoy the protection that religious fidelity brings AND guard against things beyond our control. That’s all. They’re not mutually exclusive. Using those medical protections is not an indication of immorality or a lack of religious fidelity. Sometimes it’s plain old good medicine.

[SKL]

Actually I took a peek at the teen pregnancy statistics to see if there was any logical risk comparison between future HPV-related cancers and teen pregnancy.  Yeah, there isn't really much comparison - apparently 30% of girls will be pregnant at least once by age 20; 50% of teen mothers never graduate from high school ... etc. etc.  So now I really want to know why all the parents who consider the HPV vax a no-brainer are not also putting their girls on birth control.

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, SKL said:

Actually I took a peek at the teen pregnancy statistics to see if there was any logical risk comparison between future HPV-related cancers and teen pregnancy.  Yeah, there isn't really much comparison - apparently 30% of girls will be pregnant at least once by age 20; 50% of teen mothers never graduate from high school ... etc. etc.  So now I really want to know why all the parents who consider the HPV vax a no-brainer are not also putting their girls on birth control.

 

If you’re asking me, DD and I have discussed and plan to do both. 5-year implant beginning @ age 16. Even if she abstains or marries, she doesn’t want to risk conception through rape or having an oops baby as a newlywed. 

[Sneezyone]

4 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

Why do you think gardasil would make a difference there? Is it now a talisman against pornography of all STIs?  And if not, why are you sure that vaccine would make sense for her or some other married wife?  And how do we know she DIDN’T have it, for that matter?

 

Risk assessment doesn’t demand we all draw the exact same conclusion.  

 

Protection is protection. I’m not going to stop wearing a bike helmet because I could fall and break my leg instead. It’s just an example, a hypothetical. Your risk tolerance is obv. greater than mine and that’s ok.

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

No.  My risk tolerance isn’t higher, my risk profile is different.  BIG difference there.

 

That is INCREDIBLY tacky and offensive. You don’t know anything about my risk profile.