Useful Reference -- Youth Sex & cancer

From: nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Reply-To: like.excess@sex.org
Date: Mon, Dec 10, 2001 1:33 PM

(Y'know, I wonder why it is that they *never* teach
children of the fact that when women have sex before
they are physically ready, it increases their chances
of developing cervical cancer in their 30s and beyond
by as much as 30%. The more sex the higher risk.
Isn't that as important as venereal disease? Or is
it only because men don't get cervical cancer? Or
just maybe because many men fantasize about having
sex with underage females? Are women over 30 worth
less than young teenagers?)

http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

--
$
There is no nu-monet there is only Zuul.
$
The Anti-Limerick, by nu-monet:

There was a young man with an orange,
Who kept that there orange for a month,
It didn't turn silver,
It turned kinda purple,
And that there was one spoiled orange.
$
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Useful Reference
From: "Rev. Magdalen" <magdalen@attbi.com>

I've been a female all my life, and been going to female doctors, and males
who doctor females, for female sex-related issues for over ten years now,
and I have never heard of this "fact" you're speaking of. There are no
brochures about it, no one ever told me about it when I WAS a hot-to-trot
teenager, and no one has ever asked me how much sex I had then as I approach
thirty. I think perhaps it may not actually BE a fact at all. One would
think that if that were true, it would be prominently displayed in the "Just
Say NO to Sex" pamphlets (which I read every time I go to the doctors). My
female doctors have often given me forbidden knowledge that the AMA would
kill them if it knew they had told me -- things they know work, but aren't
allowed to say work. I think that if this too much sex = cervical cancer
risk were true, they would have warned me. Plus, it just doesn't make any
sense. It's like that one snope about how wearing a bra gives you breast
cancer. There's no scientific relationship between rubbing and pressing on
a body part, and getting cancer there. If there was, the entire female
population would have been wiped out during the Age of Corsets.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Useful Reference
From: nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>

From The National Cancer Institute website:

http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/3_20.htm

"...HPVs (Human Papillomaviruses) are now recognized as
the major cause of cervical cancer..."

"...Behaviors such as beginning sexual intercourse at an
early age (especially age 16 or younger) and having many
sexual partners increase the chance that a woman will
develop an HPV infection in the cervix..."

> There are no brochures about it, no one ever told me
> about it when I WAS a hot-to-trot teenager, and no one
> has ever asked me how much sex I had then as I approach
> thirty.

(I should have specified "the more sex (at an under age,
with those who more typically carry the virus) the higher
risk." Sorry. My omission. The NCI did the same thing.)

> ...One would think that if that were true, it would be
> prominently displayed in the "Just Say NO to Sex" pamphlets.

(Again, "Just Say NO to Sex if you are not physically mature
and are having sex with a lot of older men who are themselves
at risk for carrying HPV.")

> I think that if this too much sex = cervical cancer risk
> were true, they would have warned me...

Well, ask them about the HPV-cervical cancer connection as
it relates to your horny teenage years and find out if you
*may* be in an elevated risk group. (All this would mean
would be to take a little extra time and care to insure
that you don't get cervical cancer, or if you do, it's
noticed and taken care of with all due speed.)

> >
> > http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm
> >

Oh, and last but not least, the question remains: Since
the HPV-cervical cancer connection is known to exist, how
come teenage girls *especially* are not told about it?

I think there's a weird Madonna/Whore attitude about
underage girls in this society. The culture idolizes
lust for them at the same time as the law threatens
horrific penalties for consummating that lust with them.

How schizophrenic!

Jon-Benet posing seductively for the camera is good, but
just because she's been trained to be a sex toy doesn't
mean she should do it for real! She may be hunching like
a puppy, and isn't that cute, but she shouldn't hunch on
the leg of the photographer.

A thoroughly sick situation.

--
$
There is no nu-monet there is only Zuul.
$
The Anti-Limerick, by nu-monet:

Subject: Re: Useful Reference
From: Tesla Coil <tescoil@irtc.net>

>
> A thoroughly sick situation.

On the contrary. As you see from the above link,
in most states, it's perfectly legal to fuck an
agreeable 16 year old. It's when you photograph
or draw pictures of them fucking or looking too
agreeable about fucking that you're the worst
kind of criminal who exploits children...

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2256.text.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Useful Reference
From: nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>

I think my point is a general growl and rant about
how society tries to "sexualize" children before
they are physically, emotionally, or psychologically
ready. They are fed a constant stream of propaganda
that their peers are very sexually active and that
*they* must be unattractive or undesireable because
they aren't. (Along with the sales pitch of what to
buy to become sexually attractive.)

Just because teenagers masturbate frantically does
not mean they are ready for a sexual encounter and
definitely does not mean they are ready for a sexual
relationship.

I would guess, though it would be next to impossible
to say for sure, that the average teen thinks they
are "abnormal" because they are still unattached
virgins halfway through high school. In truth, the
minority who have even experimented with sex, prolly
didn't like it very much, as it was so heavily laden
with ulterior motives, weird expectations and fear as
to have been almost unpleasant. More relief that they
were no longer "abnormal" then any great pleasure or
intimacy. "Phew! Done with that!"

But you can't say for sure, because everyone lies
about sex. The filthy polls taken by deviants hoping
to twist public policy are incredibly cynical exercises
in manipulating the fears and neuroses of teenagers:

How often do you have sex? (Answer one only):
1) Once or more a day.
2) Three times a week or more.
3) Between two and three times a week.
4) Between one and two times a week.
5) Several times a month.
6) Just a few times a month.
7) Once a month.
8) Every other month.
9) Once every few months.
10) Once every six months.
11) Once a year.
12) Never. I'm a loser.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Useful Reference
From: "Rev. Magdalen" <magdalen@attbi.com>

>
> Just because teenagers masturbate frantically does
> not mean they are ready for a sexual encounter and
> definitely does not mean they are ready for a sexual
> relationship.

I don't know about that. The Lord and I were just having a discussion about
this the other day, and we decided that it might possibly be true that
teenagers are more capable of handling sex than anyone else on the planet,
because they view it as the completely carnal satisfaction of raging
hormonal desire within them. It's us old fogies that have a skewed view of
it -- seeing it as the cement that holds a relationship together, or some
kind of spiritual bonding, or even as a mark on the bedpost in some kind of
twisted game. With teenagers, it's just "doin it". In the nordic
countries, they think it's fine for teenagers to have sex all the time, and
their society is less violent than ours and perhaps better in some ways.
Though not in the consumption way. Man, we've got the whole WORLD beat in
consumption.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Useful Reference
From: "Rev. Magdalen" <magdalen@attbi.com>

>
> A thoroughly sick situation.

Sure, I know about HPV, they have plenty of pamphlets about that at the
doctor's. So in a sense, we're both right. Except I'm more right. Because
it's NOT the SEX, it's the sex without condoms with HPV infected people.
Sex itself does NOT cause cancer. They're just saying that teenage girls
are more likely to not use protection and end up with HPV. I think what
society should do about THAT is to start forcing young men to get tested for
STDs. It's absolutely frightening the attitude young men have these days --
they're like "I'd rather not know".

And, they need to come up with a better condom. Everybody hates those
clammy rubber things. Except rubber freaks.

And, I guess it would help if there was universal health care. I suppose
your average teenage boy doesn't have a hundred dollars to blow on STD
testing. Go see what the statistics are for teenage HPV in a place like the
Netherlands, where health care is free.

But all of this is MOOT because SWEDEN will CURE CANCER with its STEM CELLS
any day now!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Useful Reference
From: nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>

That's based on the assumption that condoms can stop the
30 transmittable types of HPV. Before kneejerking, in
that this is not the usual dumbshit argument, please let
me explain:

It goes back to the "washing your hands after you go to
the bathroom" routine, which is also never fully explained
to children. On the body there is a "coliform" bacteria
zone that ranges from the knees to the navel, front and
back. That zone has got far more pathogenic bacteria than
the rest of your skin, and it can't be easily sanitized.

It's not the going to the bathroom that's the problem, it's
touching the "coliform" or "fecal" zone that spreads disease
among children and from children to adults, by the hands,
the #1 disease transmitters. Or, as a doctor friend of mine
once said, "Stool gets everywhere."

Now, each person has their own personal mix of bacterias
in their coliform zone. Unique to them, almost like a
fingerprint. Their immune system is used to it. Often
they pick up a new bacteria, but their immune system can
usually deal with it, without them getting obviously ill.

But, when two people have sex, all that rubbing of their
thighs and stuff causes them to exchange dozens of alien
bacterias, or different strains of the bacteria they already
have. A whopping septic infection that is hard for their
immune system to deal with.

Now, we need to digress to examine the female body. Heh heh.
Whoever was responsible for the design that put the anus
*right next* to the vagina was not thinking. It's the same
problem if the anus was located next to the mouth (do not
try to visualize this.) This makes it very easy for females
to get "yeast" infections, especially from an alien bacterial
culture, and very especially if she was a virgin.

Now take this all one icky step further. Assume that her
first partner has already had multiple partners. His coliform
culture is close to being a "super" culture because of all
the strange bacteria (and viruses) he has rubbed up against.
Her poor immune system may have to *simultaneously* deal with
dozens or hundreds of new bacterials, strains, and viruses!

--
$
There is no nu-monet there is only Zuul.
$
The Anti-Limerick, by nu-monet:

Subject: Re: Useful Reference
From: nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>

Rev. Magdalen wrote:
>
> I don't know about that. The Lord and I were just
> having a discussion about this the other day, and
> we decided that it might possibly be true that
> teenagers are more capable of handling sex than
> anyone else on the planet, because they view it as
> the completely carnal satisfaction of raging hormonal
> desire within them.

That is what is driving it, but think of the evil, awful
social stuff *propelling* it. Remember the loathsomeness
of high school in EVERY OTHER WAY; *could* it be possible
that SEX was the ONE high point when EVERY OTHER FUCKING
THING WAS WRONG, PAINFUL AND HUMILIATING?

Remember, *real* high school wasn't like "Grease", it was
more like "Fast Times at Ridgemont High", except it wasn't
California, the kids weren't acting and weren't even good
looking, intelligent or witty; all adults mistreated and
suspected you; and you were all hormones and nerve endings.
The scriptwriters were French.

Your teachers were overworked and boring. You were
terrified of having to go to "work"--people kept asking
you what you wanted to "do" when you graduated. You
craved alcohol and drugs and tobacco, and felt nihilistic
and ignored.

Sex wasn't fun, it was scary. Your whole ego was invested
in it. It could break you. You were afraid of STDs, unwanted
pregnancy, Alanis Morisette-style humiliation and abandonment.
Love was like next to impossible. Except you wanted it more
than anything. It would never come up to your standards and
would make relationships disappointing.

Yes, you. JUST you. Everybody else was having fun and
great sex, enjoying the "best times of their life" and
making "memories and friends that last a lifetime." Gosh,
I bet they just can't wait to have their first reunion!

--
$
There is no nu-monet there is only Zuul.
$
The Anti-Limerick, by nu-monet:

Subject: Re: Useful Reference
From: "Rev. Magdalen" <magdalen@attbi.com>
> Now take this all one icky step further. Assume that her
> first partner has already had multiple partners. His coliform
> culture is close to being a "super" culture because of all
> the strange bacteria (and viruses) he has rubbed up against.
> Her poor immune system may have to *simultaneously* deal with
> dozens or hundreds of new bacterials, strains, and viruses!
>

Ok I don't even know where to START with this one. I think you have some
serious emotional issues about germs. Get help before you start wearing
kleenex boxes on your feet. Yes, we do all have personal colonies of
microscopic friends that live on us, but that is not dangerous at all, and
virgins have just as many as anybody else. Virgins do not get more yeast
infections than experienced women, that is crazy talk. The yeast infection,
like cancer, has nothing to do with the sex, it is most usually caused by
improper ventilation, stress, the bad nutritionals, etc. As for the
virgin's first sexual encounter being a shock to her system because she's
suddenly coming in contact with another human being's thighs and skin for
the first time, that too is crazy talk. Unless they live in Afghanistan,
all virgins have touched plenty of peoples' skins. Contact sports, swimming
pools, hot tubs, exercise equipment, doorknobs, group hugs, shared drinks,
handshakes, public telephones and toilets, massage therapy, medical care,
secondhand clothing, shared tents at summer camp, a variety of
sexual-experimentation games, such as "spin-the-bottle," and of course --
being born and nursing all expose virgins of both sexes to plenty of
bacteria. And that's ok. It's completely normal and you should stop using
it as a justification for your desire to put chastity belts on young horny
sluts so that they won't hurt the feelings of young guys that are horny but
not "emotionally ready" for sex, whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.
It's kind of like saying, I'm not "emotionally ready" for peeing, if you ask
me. It's not this big emotional thing related to love unless you make it
that way in your mind. There's plenty of paraplegics with loving spouses,
even though they can't have sex. And there's plenty of horny sluts that
don't love anyone and just want that Ungh!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Useful Reference
From: "Rev. Magdalen" <magdalen@attbi.com>

"Kopi Luwak" <kopi@plopmail.com> wrote in message
news:0pdb1ucetc89nuv6mlcgmleumikmtvc4k2@4ax.com...
> Rev. Magdalen wrote to %newsgroups% /n/n:
>
> > My
> >female doctors have often given me forbidden knowledge that the AMA would
> >kill them if it knew they had told me -- things they know work, but
aren't
> >allowed to say work.
>
>
> share!

Well, if you have vaginal irritation or broken skin, nothing works better
than a poultice of fresh comfrey. Seriously, it's better than any
over-the-counter meds.

Also, if you take Alleve, or its generic equivalent, during your period, it
will end more quickly. However, I was later told by someone else that too
much Alleve will kill you, so be very careful with that.

Many pregnant women ought to be out of work lying on their backs from seven
months on, instead of running around showing off what superwomen they are,
and it is a cruel male conspiracy that prevents this.

This knowledge-sharing is not an isolated phenomenon! You may have heard of
that network of women that gets together an buys one of them suction
machines to suck out all the menstrual stuff in one quick operation so they
don't have to go through the whole ordeal for days and days. I think every
woman ought to get one of those and they should be easy to use on yourself,
it's insane that the best they can come up with after five millenia is
cotton wads you stick inside yourself to soak up the drips.

But one more thing I learned from the female doctors is that Depo Provera =
no more periods for most users. Some people say they can't use it because
it makes them gain weight, and some people have had other side effects, but
it's a step in the right direction and a proof that if they wanted to, the
Con could do away with periods.

They keep periods around as a way to reinforce the differences between men
and women -- as neatly demonstrated by Nu-monet here who wants to believe
that it is actually physically dangerous for a young girl to have sex at the
age when she is most likely to be going crazy from horniness. Notice he
does not mention that boys, too, can get the HPV (although because they
don't have cervixes it is less dangerous for them) as well as all the other
nasties out there! No, his concern is to stop the media from forcing these
innocent virgin girls from wanting sex. HA! You have NO IDEA what HORNY
LITTLE SLUTS we women can be! Of course, everyone is different, and there
are always those who don't have a strong sex drive, but if you DO have a
strong sex drive, the teenage years are INTENSE!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Useful Reference
From: Arbane the Terrible <arbane@attbi.com>

nu-monet wrote:

> Now take this all one icky step further. Assume that her
> first partner has already had multiple partners. His coliform
> culture is close to being a "super" culture because of all
> the strange bacteria (and viruses) he has rubbed up against.
> Her poor immune system may have to *simultaneously* deal with
> dozens or hundreds of new bacterials, strains, and viruses!

Are these the 'cooties' I've heard so much about?

--
"Remember, the plural of 'moron' is 'focus group'."
-- James A. Wolf
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Useful Reference
From: nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>

Rev. Magdalen wrote:
>
> Ok I don't even know where to START with this one.
> I think you have some serious emotional issues about
> germs.

Will you please QUIT OVERREACTING. I was trying to be
rather clinical about the whole thing, and if you have
any questions or are utterly horrified about what I
wrote, please ask your doctor.

1) I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask children
(especially) to wash their hands after they go to the
bathroom and before they eat. Is it not so? Washing
of hands *does not* disinfect them, for the most part.
It just *reduces* the growth matter on which bacteria
can live. Matter which is easily xmitted through touch,
carrying the bacteria from one child to another.

2) A physician friend told me that yeast infections
are common after women have their first heterosexual
intercourse. He would reassure them it was due to a
"normal" reaction to a foreign bacteria culture rather
than her boyfriend having given her gonorhhea, which
is often what she assumes.

3) As far as touching other people's skins go: again,
don't panic. The skin is covered with bacteria, most
of which are not harmful. However, the coliform zone
(from knees to navel) bacteria have a higher percentage
of "harmful" bacteria. As we get older, yes again,
our native bacteria culture changes and adapts, almost
like an ecosystem of diverse flora and fauna. AND SO
ALSO does our immune system. This is why children's
communicable diseases have a different methodology
than those of adults as far as prevention and treatment.

Please, please talk to an expert before saying I am full
of shit again. I am not trying to be confrontational
here, but you are not making it very easy.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Useful Reference
From: "Chas. M. Bee" <c-bee1@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Reply-To: c-bee1@uiuc.edu
Date: Tue, Dec 11, 2001 5:22 PM
Message-ID: <3C168718.6DB24799@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>

"Rev. Magdalen" wrote:
>
>
> Many pregnant women ought to be out of work lying on their backs from seven
> months on, instead of running around showing off what superwomen they are,
> and it is a cruel male conspiracy that prevents this.

Until the family leave bill passed, right? Now it would seem to be
personal choice.
>
> This knowledge-sharing is not an isolated phenomenon! You may have heard of
> that network of women that gets together an buys one of them suction
> machines to suck out all the menstrual stuff in one quick operation so they
> don't have to go through the whole ordeal for days and days. I think every
> woman ought to get one of those and they should be easy to use on yourself,
> it's insane that the best they can come up with after five millenia is
> cotton wads you stick inside yourself to soak up the drips.
>
> But one more thing I learned from the female doctors is that Depo Provera =
> no more periods for most users. Some people say they can't use it because
> it makes them gain weight, and some people have had other side effects, but
> it's a step in the right direction and a proof that if they wanted to, the
> Con could do away with periods.

I'm betting a lot of the women around here wouldn't want to force
their bodies into such an "unnatural" state - of course, this *is* a
university town; YMMV.

But yes, it should be easily done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Useful Reference
From: nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>

Rev. Magdalen wrote:
>
> ...They keep periods around as a way to reinforce the
> differences between men and women -- as neatly
> demonstrated by Nu-monet here who wants to believe
> that it is actually physically dangerous for a young
> girl to have sex at the age when she is most likely
> to be going crazy from horniness.

EXCUSE FUCKING ME. AHEM. THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE
WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE THAT IT IS ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY
DANGEROUS FOR A YOUNG GIRL TO HAVE SEX AT THE AGE WHEN
SHE IS MOST LIKELY TO BE GOING CRAZY FROM HORNINESS.

I gave you the damn link. Now if you want to believe
that they are a bunch of fascist males who want to
oppress girls' horniness by warning them that they may
get CANCER, fine. But don't say that it is MY bugaboo.

I'm sure that they LIVE just to supress young girls'
horniness. They don't give a CRAP about cancer.

If you wish to believe that horned toads cure warts and
menstrual blood buried under an old oak tree on the full
moon connects you with the goddess, fine also.

But don't tell me I am full of shit for supporting the
scientific viewpoint. In fact, I fully support the use
of old wives' tales, home remedies, chiropractic and
Xtian Science in place of modern medicine. Why?
Because I also believe in Darwinism.

Which means that I am also perfectly willing to let
dumbshits kill themselves and their children through
ignorance and horniness.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Useful Reference
From: "Rev. Magdalen" <magdalen@attbi.com>

"nu-monet" <nothing@succeeds.com> wrote in message
news:3C168822.552E@succeeds.com...

>
> I gave you the damn link. Now if you want to believe
> that they are a bunch of fascist males who want to
> oppress girls' horniness by warning them that they may
> get CANCER, fine. But don't say that it is MY bugaboo.

Well you brought it up, you're the one promoting it, saying that you agree
that what the data shows is that young girls should avoid sex. And as I
have pointed out, the data you are talking about, presented in this way IS
an attempt to stop young girls from having sex, not an attempt to prevent
cancer. If they really wanted to prevent cancer, they should tell girls to
use condoms, not have sex with men if the visible symptoms of HPV are
present, and get a yearly PAP smear, which easily detects the early cell
changes that lead to cancer. Not just say "Don't have sex". Besides,
waiting until you're older doesn't decrease your chances of catching
anything! I think the real reason why teenage girls get more HPV is that
they get more sex! If older women got as much sex, they'd get more
infections too!

Anyway, sorry if I touched a nerve or anything, but you have to know when
you post a sex-related link that it's going to cause controversy!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Useful Reference
From: "Rev. Magdalen" <magdalen@attbi.com>

"Chas. M. Bee" <c-bee1@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:3C168718.6DB24799@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu...
>
> I'm betting a lot of the women around here wouldn't want to force
> their bodies into such an "unnatural" state - of course, this *is* a
> university town; YMMV.

You lose your bet. God, you just think you know ALL ABOUT women, don't you.
News flash: periods are NOT enjoyable!! And there's nothing "natural" about
having a period every month for years and years-- in a state of nature in a
primitive society, women rarely have periods because they are constantly
either pregnant or lactating, which retards the return of periods for up to
two years, at which time it's time to have another baby. Thankfully, we've
progressed as a species to the point that constant childbearing is no longer
necessary for species survival, and just as men often have their kidney
stones broken down by doctors, rather than the natural method of pissing
them out in one huge hunk, women should have the option to have that gunk
removed in one easy twenty-minute procedure!

> But yes, it should be easily done.

Well thank you, O Man, for your permission!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Useful Reference
From: nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack

Rev. Magdalen wrote:
>
> Well you brought it up, you're the one promoting
> it, saying that you agree that what the data shows
> is that young girls should avoid sex. And as I
> have pointed out, the data you are talking about,
> presented in this way IS an attempt to stop young
> girls from having sex, not an attempt to prevent
> cancer.

http://cancercare.harvard.edu/cancercare/pastworkshops_papil.html

(the following I snipped a little and CAPITALIZED
what I consider the important points.)

Human Papillomaviruses and Cervical Cancer

"...It is well-established that virtually all cervical cancers,
which will affect an estimated 12,900 women in the U.S. this
year, are associated with the human papillomavirus (HPV)...

The types of HPV associated with cervical cancer and other
cervical abnormalities, which include genital warts and
precancers, are very common in sexually active individuals.
This is because, SHORT OF ABSTINENCE, THERE IS NO WAY TO
PREVENT HPV TRANSMISSION. CONDOMS AND OTHER BARRIER METHODS OF
CONTRACEPTION DO NOT PROTECT AGAINST HPV INFECTION as they do
for HIV, chlamydia, and some other sexually transmitted
diseases..."
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Useful Reference
From: "pater nostril" <hotfoot@nospaminame.com>

Health hazard or not the Sunday paper said that orgasms are good for men!
They help prevent heart attacks!

More sex please!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Useful Reference
From: "Rev. Magdalen" <magdalen@attbi.com>

"nu-monet" <nothing@succeeds.com> wrote in message
news:3C16C2D8.4474@succeeds.com...

>
> The types of HPV associated with cervical cancer and other
> cervical abnormalities, which include genital warts and
> precancers, are very common in sexually active individuals.
> This is because, SHORT OF ABSTINENCE, THERE IS NO WAY TO
> PREVENT HPV TRANSMISSION. CONDOMS AND OTHER BARRIER METHODS OF
> CONTRACEPTION DO NOT PROTECT AGAINST HPV INFECTION as they do
> for HIV, chlamydia, and some other sexually transmitted
> diseases..."

Well, I believe that's why scientists are hard at work right now working on
the vaccine for HPV.

Any study that comes to the conclusion that in order for them to get
results, they have to stop people, especially teenagers, from having sex, is
a waste of money. It's not going to happen and there's no sense laying a
lot of guilt onto impressionable young people for something their hormones
drive them to do.

You sure are mad about this! It's only Usenet! Neither of us are going to
have any impact on teenagers, scientists, cancer, or HPV! Relax!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Useful Reference
From: nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack

Rev. Magdalen wrote:
>
> Well, I believe that's why scientists are hard at work right
> now working on the vaccine for HPV.

Which I'm pretty convinced won't work as such. First of all,
HPV isn't a single virus, it's a whole bunch of different ones.
Along with "a cure for..." the common cold and cancer, vaccine
alone just can't do the job. Colds and cancers are also many
and manifold. This doesn't mean you shouldn't try for a vaccine
cure, just that vaccines are probably not the only solution--but
a *part* of the solution.
The second problem is that HPV is so integrated in the human
species that you can prolly never be rid of it, or even reduce
it to manageable levels.
The third problem is that there is a trigger mechanism between
HPV and cancer. An HPV infection alone is not enough to cause
cancer, so there is another ingredient as of yet unknown.

The flip side of the coin is not abstinence, which is basically
ignoring the problem. It is also a situation of degrees: to
include such things as "hazard reduction" (though condoms won't
*prevent* HPV, they can *reduce* the risk of infections; washing
hands after you go to the bathroom *is* a good idea.) "Proper
Preventative Medicine and Prompt Treatment" (such as getting
regular PAP smears and not delaying cancer treatment for six
months because of embarassment.) And lots of other very normal
health and safety stuff that most people do anyway. And "Risk
Assessment" (one of my points), which is *notifying* people when
they engage in "at risk" behavior that they should pay extra
attention to that aspect of their health in the future (which
applies just as much to coal miners watching out for 'black lung'
as for women in the 'time window' for cervical cancer paying
more attention to having regular PAP smears while they're in the
time frame most likely to develop that problem.)

> Any study that comes to the conclusion that in order for them
> to get results, they have to stop people, especially teenagers,
> from having sex, is a waste of money.

Ironically, I don't think that was really my argument. I tried
to put it in terms, not of kids who wanted sex and were told not
to have it; but kids who *themselves* thought they were not ready
for it, but were *browbeat* into it, by their peers, teachers,
the culture, etc.

Not that "You shouldn't have sex", which I agree is a pretty
senseless argument, but, "Don't be coerced into sex before
you're ready, be it from your friends, your parents, or your
culture."

Prolly my greatest disagreement with you was a point you made
later in your arguments. If I understood you correctly, you
said that "emotional maturity" doesn't matter (correct me if
I'm wrong). Now *that* I would disagree with, as anyone who
is not emotionally mature can really feel pain after being
forced into an emotional situation they're not ready for yet.

I think a child *can* be very deeply and emotionally damaged
by coercion into sex as much as by being caught in an adult
war, a nasty divorce, or abusive parents. Some may get along
fine, but some may be crippled for years, in all sorts of ways.

--
$
There is no nu-monet there is only Zuul.
$
The Anti-Limerick, by nu-monet:

Back to document index

Original file name: Useful Reference - converted on Thursday, 20 December 2001, 03:30