Is exposure to HPV inevitable?

[tribbles]

So Fuse, the kind that doesn't cause warts but may cause cancer is 'better'?

I'm confused. I'd rather have warts to get rid of than deal with cancer. Wouldn't everyone?

[N8ture Girl]

Originally Posted by tribbles

So Fuse, the kind that doesn't cause warts but may cause cancer is 'better'?

I'm confused. I'd rather have warts to get rid of than deal with cancer. Wouldn't everyone?

That is not what she said. No where did she say she would rather have cancer.

But with HPV, I figure that sooner or later you get at least one form of it. Hopefully not the kind that causes warts. In any case, most cases are cleared out of the body naturally, without any intervention, within a couple of years.

She is refering to the cases of HPV that are cleared up on their own. Most of the time one never even knows they had it. Cancer is not naturally cleared out of the body

I am not concerned with HPV in general, if it happens it happens. Do I want it? NO, but when we decided to swing, we were aware of the risks involved. When you take on swinging, or are a single playing the field it is inevitable. I think swinging is a little safer in that respect.
HPV is the least of my worries, I am far more concerned with HSV and some of the other serious STD's. IMO HPV (warts) is the lesser of the two evils.

Educate yourself.

[The Fuse]

Originally Posted by N8ture Girl

That is not what she said. No where did she say she would rather have cancer.

She is refering to the cases of HPV that are cleared up on their own. Most of the time one never even knows they had it. Cancer is not naturally cleared out of the body

I am not concerned with HPV in general, if it happens it happens. Do I want it? NO, but when we decided to swing, we were aware of the risks involved. When you take on swinging, or are a single playing the field it is inevitable. I think swinging is a little safer in that respect.
HPV is the least of my worries, I am far more concerned with HSV and some of the other serious STD's. IMO HPV (warts) is the lesser of the two evils.

Educate yourself.

Thanks N8tureGirl, I was a little late getting back. I hope any one who reads my last post would interpret it correctly. If the post is a little unclear, which I don't think mine really was, then hopefully we can at least give each other enough benefit of the doubt to assume we'd rather have warts than cancer.

[TwoAreLooking]

Originally Posted by duo33470

Is the risk we take each time we are with a new partner add to part of the excitement and addiction?

Um, no. No no no.

Just sayin'.

[TheLorax]

Originally Posted by duo33470

Is the risk we take each time we are with a new partner add to part of the excitement and addiction?

Not for me it isn't. If I could be 100% sure of never contracting an STI I would have no issue at all with having sex with multiple new partners at every opportunity. Not having to worry anout it would make it far more exciting for me. Even STIs that are treatable are not something I care for. At all. No excitement.

Just remember that life is nothing but a sexually transmitted infection ultimately ending in death!

[tribbles]

Originally Posted by Unsub

To answer your question, the strains that cause warts are different than those that cause cancer.
Here you can find what strains cause what:
Types of HPV

Originally Posted by The Fuse

No, absolutely not. Unless you enjoy playing Russian roulette. But with HPV, I figure that sooner or later you get at least one form of it. Hopefully not the kind that causes warts. In any case, most cases are cleared out of the body naturally, without any intervention, within a couple of years.

When it comes to other STDs, it's a different story.

Just seemed confusing to me.

[foozballnow]

great poem Sw Pa Couple

[The Fuse]

Originally Posted by tribbles

Just seemed confusing to me.

Sorry, just the perils of trying to do something too quickly to think it through.

Also, I am with the last few posters. The possibility of STDs is NOT PART OF THE EXCITEMENT. It is quite the turn-off.

[tribbles]

Agree it is not exciting to think of it. Truthfully, more scary. Although, I have different levels of fear for different STD's.

[foozballnow]

Although I can understand that you might fear some more than others, we avoid all of them just the same tribbles =-)

[prometheius]

An interesting article linked to a CDC study in 2010, that sums up the risks pretty well.


The Pope, Condoms and HPV: What Pope Benedict May Not Know - Yahoo! News

[highlander]

I personally think that exposure to HPV is highly likely in virtually _ANY_ sexually active lifestyle these days-including declared monogamy.

Gardisil is the conventional treatment.

I think the other thing that can be done is look seriously at ones lifestyle to make it as healthy as possible. HPV often gets cleared in healthy people. I don't think we really understand who the folks are that can't clear the virus well-and who the folks are that develop the more severe symtoms--but I'd be willing to be that getting in as good of health as you can sure couldn't hurt. Typically people that are stressed, run down and sick have more trouble clearing any virus-I'd be surprised if HPV was an exception. Similarly, think about the lifestyle choices you see in your partners-someone might be hot without being healthy.

Some STD's seem to go together. We don't have good tests for HPV in men yet. However, we do have good tests for a variety of other STD's-and it is reasonable to expect partners to have regular STD checkups and be willing to show you their results-especially for stuff that is treatable.

[cplnuswing]

Originally Posted by prometheius

An interesting article linked to a CDC study in 2010, that sums up the risks pretty well.


The Pope, Condoms and HPV: What Pope Benedict May Not Know - Yahoo! News

I'm not so sure. When I got to this part Orally, a condom placed on the tongue for oral sex may not protect against contaminated HPV tissue outside the covered area. my bullshit meter pegged out. Tongue condom? I'm familiar with dental dams, and if she knew WTF she was talking about, she would be too, instead of the tongue condom thing. Actually, just the words tongue condom give me the giggles trying to form a mental picture of that process IMO, she's basically just trying to forward her agenda, and if you read this piece carefully, look at her bio and other articles, it becomes pretty clear what that agenda is.

The CDC summary basically says correct and consistent condom use does significantly reduce STD risk but does not totally eliminate it since nothing can other than total abstinence, which is only logical common sense, but something some people are uncomfortable acknowledging to themselves. Part of the problem I think comes from the CYA language used on these things that point out what should be the patently obvious, or, if you have your tin-foil hat on, might suspect are intentionally worded in a way to state the scientific findings but qualified with some you're never safe, be very afraid scare tactics to appease the just say no crowd.

For example, from the CDC:

Theoretical basis for protection. Protection against genital ulcer diseases and HPV depends on the site of the sore/ulcer or infection. Latex condoms can only protect against transmission when the ulcers or infections are in genital areas that are covered or protected by the condom. Thus, consistent and correct use of latex condoms would be expected to protect against transmission of genital ulcer diseases and HPV in some, but not all, instances.

Really. So wearing a bicycle helmet won't keep me from breaking my arm if I fall while riding my bike? Who would have guessed that. Until they invent full body condoms, there will always be that slim chance since a physical barrier only will work on what it covers.

Condom use may reduce the risk for HPV-associated diseases (e.g., genital warts and cervical cancer) and may mitigate the other adverse consequences of infection with HPV; condom use has been associated with higher rates of regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and clearance of HPV infection in women, and with regression of HPV-associated penile lesions in men. A limited number of prospective studies have demonstrated a protective effect of condoms on the acquisition of genital HPV.

Not a huge body of research to back it up like there is for HIV, but so far so good on HPV.

[SW_PA_Couple]

Originally Posted by cplnuswing

When I got to this part Orally, a condom placed on the tongue for oral sex may not protect against contaminated HPV tissue outside the covered area. my bullshit meter pegged out. Tongue condom? I'm familiar with dental dams, and if she knew WTF she was talking about, she would be too, instead of the tongue condom thing.

You're invited to come on over to our place. I'm demonstrate my ejaculatory tongue trick for you

[highlander]

The estimates on HIV reduction from condom use range from 60-90% per encounter. The term "proper use" iMHO is a cop-out to avoid that fact that condoms break and slip--and that many people find it very hard to use condoms consistently. No other safety oriented profession would regard a 40-10% failure rate as "highly effective" when we are talking a life threatening disease. Better than nothing, maybe.

Still for some populations, even consistent reported condom use is associated with fairly high mortality. The reason condoms work for HIV so "well" is that HIV is pretty hard to get for many people.

That isn't really the case with HPV. It is widely out there-and it is pretty easy for many people to get. I'm honestly not sure what the real answer is there-but I think it is a pretty important issue.

Originally Posted by cplnuswing

The CDC summary basically says correct and consistent condom use does significantly reduce STD risk but does not totally eliminate it since nothing can other than total abstinence, which is only logical common sense, but something some people are uncomfortable acknowledging to themselves. Part of the problem I think comes from the CYA language used on these things that point out what should be the patently obvious, or, if you have your tin-foil hat on, might suspect are intentionally worded in a way to state the scientific findings but qualified with some you're never safe, be very afraid scare tactics to appease the just say no crowd.

For example, from the CDC:

Theoretical basis for protection. Protection against genital ulcer diseases and HPV depends on the site of the sore/ulcer or infection. Latex condoms can only protect against transmission when the ulcers or infections are in genital areas that are covered or protected by the condom. Thus, consistent and correct use of latex condoms would be expected to protect against transmission of genital ulcer diseases and HPV in some, but not all, instances.

Really. So wearing a bicycle helmet won't keep me from breaking my arm if I fall while riding my bike? Who would have guessed that. Until they invent full body condoms, there will always be that slim chance since a physical barrier only will work on what it covers.

Condom use may reduce the risk for HPV-associated diseases (e.g., genital warts and cervical cancer) and may mitigate the other adverse consequences of infection with HPV; condom use has been associated with higher rates of regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and clearance of HPV infection in women, and with regression of HPV-associated penile lesions in men. A limited number of prospective studies have demonstrated a protective effect of condoms on the acquisition of genital HPV.

Not a huge body of research to back it up like there is for HIV, but so far so good on HPV.