Log in

View Full Version : Extras Girls and HIV



Pages : 1 2 [3]

xdamage
09-12-2009, 08:23 AM
I'm pretty sure that people who have decided it won't happen to them cannot be convinced with statistics. They will take the risks because they tend to choose what they want in the short term, don't believe the odds against them will happen, and only later regret the choices if the risk back fires.

I honestly would not have sex with someone who had HIV though it would be tragic to fall in love and then find out your lover was infected. But it is rather nice to be STD free so when you do have sex with someone you actually like, you can both enjoy it without having to worry about being sick tomorrow.

The problem with taking a risk with prostitutes (I mean mostly those who are not using protection themselves) is their odds of having HIV are relative to how many times they are playing russian sexual roulette. Even if a condom lowers your risk to a very low .1% (vs the estimated 1-2%), your odds are more like 0% having sex with people who don't have STDs. The ration between .1% and 0% is, well effectively infinite. Given the importance of a quality sex life over quantity to me, I choose safety. I'd rather have safe, good sex less often (or with less people), then a lot of high risk sex with a lot of people I don't care about, but that is me.

I think if it is someone who weighs this differently they are going to do whatever they want and take the risks for what they perceive as the benefits of having more partners (even if those partners are high risk of being infected themselves).

princessjas
09-12-2009, 09:46 AM
Smart. Studies of serodiscordant partners show that in just a one year period a fair number of seronegative partners were infected. While the studies don't have hard stats, I'm fairly certain at least some of those HIV neg partners were probably being careful to stay that way. ;)


I honestly would not have sex with someone who had HIV though it would be tragic to fall in love and then find out your lover was infected. But it is rather nice to be STD free so when you do have sex with someone you actually like, you can both enjoy it without having to worry about being sick tomorrow.

The problem with taking a risk with prostitutes (I mean mostly those who are not using protection themselves) is their odds of having HIV are relative to how many times they are playing russian sexual roulette. Even if a condom lowers your risk to a very low .1% (vs the estimated 1-2%), your odds are more like 0% having sex with people who don't have STDs. The ration between .1% and 0% is, well effectively infinite. Given the importance of a quality sex life over quantity to me, I choose safety. I'd rather have safe, good sex less often (or with less people), then a lot of high risk sex with a lot of people I don't care about, but that is me.

Golden_Rule
09-12-2009, 04:43 PM
ETA - If you have repeated sexual intercourse with these "dancers" you really, really need an HIV test. Rates of transmission even with perfect condom usage are not 0%, more like 2% *. If you have unprotected sex, even with only a few of the girls, I'd say it's likely you are infected. Please, please for the love of god get tested!

EVERYONE whose had sex with multiple partners in circumstances where they are unsure of their past histories should be tested. My own practice is to get tested every time I go in for my diabetes testing, whether I have been active or not, as it keeps it from being an insurence issue from stopping/starting/stopping, etc. So that means I get tested 3/4 times a year for EVERYTHING. I'm getting blood drawn anyway and the previous testing is authorized due to occupational exposure risks, but if I stopped and started again they'd realize I am retired and no longer in need for that reason.


I'd like to point out that your 2% and "you are likely to be infected" comments to Earl are uncalled for in light of a lack of hard data to back words like that up. Scaring people without facts isn't funny.

Golden_Rule
09-12-2009, 04:54 PM
...but it is in such tiny assed quantaties that sexual contact-infected fluid meets mucous membrane- is basically the only thing to worry about, barring the rare case in which the universe seems to smite someone down.)

You see, it is when you say stuff like the above that makes it obvious that while you might have a passing knowledge you haven't learned all there is to know about HIV.

Having been in a form of employment where people tend to bleed on you from time to time I made it my business to become informed.

While fluids present in the sexual organs of men and women [semen, vaginal secretions] have a higher percentage of the virus present than many other bodily fluids, the most potent form of transmission is by blood. Like that which occurs in the sharing of needles, or being bleed on open skin or mucus membranes by an infected person.

In short if a male is forced to choose between fucking an HIV infected prostitute sans condom or being bitten by one with a badly bloodied mouth so hard that she breaks the skin; he is, statistically, better off taking his chances in the former.

princessjas
09-12-2009, 06:35 PM
You see, it is when you say stuff like the above that makes it obvious that while you might have a passing knowledge you haven't learned all there is to know about HIV.

Having been in a form of employment where people tend to bleed on you from time to time I made it my business to become informed.

While fluids present in the sexual organs of men and women [semen, vaginal secretions] have a higher percentage of the virus present than many other bodily fluids, the most potent form of transmission is by blood. Like that which occurs in the sharing of needles, or being bleed on open skin or mucus membranes by an infected person.

In short if a male is forced to choose between fucking an HIV infected prostitute sans condom or being bitten by one with a badly bloodied mouth so hard that she breaks the skin; he is, statistically, better off taking his chances in the former.

I certainly have more than a passing knowledge, though I don't claim to know everything. READ all my posts before making such a rude judgment please. I was responding to Earl's situation regarding sexual contact, while on cold meds might I add, and whoops left out blood. Here is a snip from my first post in this thread:


Blood to blood transmission is most efficient in lab settings but irl needle sticks and the like don't guarantee transmission....not even close. I believe about 1 in 1,000 healthcare workers with infected sticks contract the disease. The rates of transmission provided are over the course of the individual studies. Of course, transmission rates are higher when the viral loads are higher during the first 2 mos of infection and during late stage chronic infection.

And of course a bite from a bloody mouth that broke the skin would cause much more mixing of blood than the refered to needle sticks, causing a much higher rate of transfer. I referenced needle sticks because well, I have family in healthcare and therefore thought of those, but didn't really think of bites. (Most people don't really worry about being bitten, but I do understand why a cop would.)

princessjas
09-12-2009, 06:47 PM
EVERYONE whose had sex with multiple partners in circumstances where they are unsure of their past histories should be tested. My own practice is to get tested every time I go in for my diabetes testing, whether I have been active or not, as it keeps it from being an insurence issue from stopping/starting/stopping, etc. So that means I get tested 3/4 times a year for EVERYTHING. I'm getting blood drawn anyway and the previous testing is authorized due to occupational exposure risks, but if I stopped and started again they'd realize I am retired and no longer in need for that reason.


I'd like to point out that your 2% and "you are likely to be infected" comments to Earl are uncalled for in light of a lack of hard data to back words like that up. Scaring people without facts isn't funny.

The 2% number was actually what several studies quoted as an estimated number, well actually I think a few were 1.9ish and a few were 2.2ish. I really don't recall exactly, but I'll do a search tomorrow and post the links if you'd like.

The likely to be infected was just my opinion yes, but I qualified it with IF he is having regular unprotected sex with the hookers in Paterson. The info I found said Paterson had the highest rate of infection in NJ. I briefly worked in Paterson and know most of the dancers WERE hooking and were also drug users, which ups risk. I don't think my statement was out of line at all. If he used protection I mentioned he should still get tested, but didn't say he was likely to be infected. Making sure people are informed of the risks is a GOOD thing. Too many people become infected, don't know it and spread it to others for years before discovering they are seropositive.

ETA - Good for you for getting tested on the regular. (that is sincere and not sarcastic btw) More people need too. I get tested every year when I have my yearly Gyno visit even though I have only had 1 partner for the past 10 years. It's just a smart thing to do. For one thing you live longer and healthier if you are positive and start treatment earlier.

Golden_Rule
09-12-2009, 07:31 PM
I certainly have more than a passing knowledge, though I don't claim to know everything. READ all my posts before making such a rude judgment please. I was responding to Earl's situation regarding sexual contact, while on cold meds might I add, and whoops left out blood. Here is a snip from my first post in this thread:

I didn't mean any offense by it but you were taking a hard line and leaving out something as monumental as the blood reference was.. well, exactly what I implied it was, indicative of a lack of knowledge on the topic. I do see though that later on you made reference to it; filling in the missing info.

BTW, if you had any reason to think it was rude on my part I sincerely apologize as it wasn't my intent to be so.

wishing well...

princessjas
09-12-2009, 07:45 PM
I didn't mean any offense by it but you were taking a hard line and leaving out something as monumental as the blood reference was.. well, exactly what I implied it was, indicative of a lack of knowledge on the topic. I do see though that later on you made reference to it; filling in the missing info.

BTW, if you had any reason to think it was rude on my part I sincerely apologize as it wasn't my intent to be so.

wishing well...

Sorry, I'm just cranky cause I've been sick as hell with H1N1 for a week. I did leave blood transmissions out of that post and that was a stupid mistake I can't really believe I made, cause misinformation is what I was trying to fix in this thread.

If you go back through all my earlier posts, I hope you can see I really do know a bit about it. With Earl, I really was just trying to point out that his blanket statements to the effect of "HIV isn't in my community" and "Isn't something I worry about cause I don't assfuck" were scary and incorrect. I had tried to show in my first posts that it isn't super contagious and sorta felt responsible for pointing out that there ARE risks with unprotected paid sex because of that. Didn't mean to use scare tactics, I was just messed up on NyQuil and cranky....and well HIV prevention/education is something I'm really passionate about.

Earl_the_Pearl
09-12-2009, 09:35 PM
I'm pretty sure that people who have decided it won't happen to them cannot be convinced with statistics. They will take the risks because they tend to choose what they want in the short term, don't believe the odds against them will happen, and only later regret the choices if the risk back fires.
I can tell your stories of things I was mandated to do that makes contacting a pussy as dangerous as kissing the Popes ring.

xdamage
09-12-2009, 09:45 PM
I can tell your stories of things I was mandated to do that makes contacting a pussy as dangerous as kissing the Popes ring.

To be fair to you EtP... I agree. The bottom line is you know the risks as well as you want to know them, it is your life, and up to you now to choose. And yes, you likely do have some painful memories that nobody here can judge you for. Honestly I don't care too much if guys want to take risks with prostitutes as long as it doesn't effect me too much. The only way it does is:

1.) If it adds to our ever growing public health care costs.

2.) It's sucky to infect others, so good morals to try and let others choose the risk of getting HIV for themselves. Basically, the test is not just for you but for anyone else in your future (if you are taking risks).

Earl_the_Pearl
09-12-2009, 09:47 PM
Scaring people without facts isn't funny.
I haven't been scared sense 1970 in a jungle near Pleiku.

xdamage
09-12-2009, 09:50 PM
I haven't been scared sense 1970 in a jungle near Pleiku.

And it is appreciated... that people like yourself did what needed to be done which in turn ... the rest of us benefit from.

Earl_the_Pearl
09-12-2009, 10:05 PM
Honestly I don't care too much if guys want to take risks with prostitutes as long as it doesn't effect me too much. The only way it does is:
Prostitutes; describe your terms. None of my girl friends have ever set a specific amount for a specific act for a specific time. I take extreme umbrage with your term for my very special friends.

Golden_Rule
09-13-2009, 01:13 AM
Sorry, I'm just cranky cause I've been sick as hell with H1N1 for a week. I did leave blood transmissions out of that post and that was a stupid mistake I can't really believe I made, cause misinformation is what I was trying to fix in this thread.

If you go back through all my earlier posts, I hope you can see I really do know a bit about it. With Earl, I really was just trying to point out that his blanket statements to the effect of "HIV isn't in my community" and "Isn't something I worry about cause I don't assfuck" were scary and incorrect. I had tried to show in my first posts that it isn't super contagious and sorta felt responsible for pointing out that there ARE risks with unprotected paid sex because of that. Didn't mean to use scare tactics, I was just messed up on NyQuil and cranky....and well HIV prevention/education is something I'm really passionate about.


No issues on this end.

Myself, I've been through the blood born pathogens courses and refresher material any number of times. Its part of the "Right to Know" training POSHA requires all officers across the US to take. Then, figuring the life I save might be my own, I made it a point to read up on anything coming out of the AMA, CDC, the GMHA and any respected medical publications, like JoAM. Even though I am out of it now I still keep up with the data out of habit.

xdamage
09-13-2009, 06:32 AM
I think Jas is being reasonable in trying to arm EtP with facts even if the facts lean toward conservative figures, she is not suggesting he do something dangerous, but rather to consider the risks a bit more conservatively. At worst it will cut into EtPs fun somewhat, but on the flip side it might save his life too (and/or a long slow painful decline that AIDs patients go through). In the end her intent is good even if the exact risk figures are debatable.

princessjas
09-13-2009, 07:36 AM
Two different articles that show that my 2% estimate wasn't just an overly inflated guess. Please only link actual scientific articles if you wanna counter. I just picked the first two I found. Everyone should realize that the risk is lower than the effectiveness rates. 2 diff figures, but the actual risk rates are written in much more difficult to understand language, but I encourage everyone to take a read through (I believe in these 2 they are listed as right under 2%, many of the articles I found the other day though had closer to 3-4% thus my 2% estimate).

ETA - Realize these studies are done with couples who are questioned about "proper" condom usage and are only included if they are really textbook about usage, putting it on correctly, etc. A drunk guy in a bar is most likely going to have a less effective rate (like actual data vs perfect usage data), my guess would be somewhere between the two listed effectiveness rates in the first article.

Article is from Science Direct http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00258-4

I can't figure out how the crap to link a doi text though.


Copyright © 1997 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

Effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV transmission

References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.

Steven D. Pinkertona, and Paul R. Abramsonb

a Center for AIDS Intervention Research, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, U.S.A.

b University of California, Los Angeles, U.S.A.

Available online 9 June 1998.

Abstract
The consistent use of latex condoms continues to be advocated for primary prevention of HIV infection despite limited quantitative evidence regarding the effectiveness of condoms in blocking the sexual transmission of HIV. Although recent meta-analyses of condom effectiveness suggest that condoms are 60 to 70% effective when used for HIV prophylaxis, these studies do not isolate consistent condom use, and therefore provide only a lower bound on the true effectiveness of correct and consistent condom use. A reexamination of HIV seroconversion studies suggests that condoms are 90 to 95% effective when used consistently, i.e. consistent condom users are 10 to 20 times less likely to become infected when exposed to the virus than are inconsistent or non-users. Similar results are obtained utilizing model-based estimation techniques, which indicate that condoms decrease the per-contact probability of male-to-female transmission of HIV by about 95%. Though imperfect, condoms provide substantial protection against HIV infection. Condom promotion therefore remains an important international priority in the fight against AIDS.

Author Keywords: HIV prevention; condoms; effectiveness; meta-analysis; Bernoulli model

Article Outline
• References

http://www.iglesia.cl/iglesiachile/especiales/weller.doc
Quote is from the 2nd page, but the entire article is fascinating. I took the easiest to understand data.


Reviewers' conclusions: This review indicates that consistent use of condoms results in 80% reduction in HIV incidence. Consistent use is defined as using a condom for all acts of penetrative vaginal intercourse. Because the studies used in this review did not report on the "correctness" of use, namely whether condoms were used correctly and perfectly for each and every act of intercourse, effectiveness and not efficacy is estimated. Also, this estimate refers in general to the male condom and not specifically to the latex condom, since studies also tended not to specify the type of condom that was used. Thus, condom effectiveness is similar to, although lower than, that for contraception.

xdamage
09-13-2009, 09:01 AM
^^^

Yep and exact figures aside, a worse matter is complacency.

Side story -

I remember my dad and mom fighting about AIDS back when I was a kid, one of their many fights about anything and everything. But this one stood out in my mind because it is the first time I as a little kid had heard about this mysterious diseased that kills people.

He, being the scientific type, calmly tried to explain that it was caused by a virus, what a virus was, that a virus could spread, and that because it was a virus, in time would become a general problem for everyone. That it was just another STD but this one eventually kills.

She (screaming, since that was her way, to scream at the top of her lungs when challenged, and throw a temper tantrum), that it was a Homo-Sexual disease, a punishment from God! My mom was also the type who, coming from a farming background, dismissed science as mostly worthless, just a bunch of silly people that could never agree on anything, and tended to like to attribute things to religion. But anyway...

This is one of those many memories that I'll never forget and probably was a key factor in how I think in general. The fact of course is that he was right, she wrong. In time the disease did appear in the heterosexual population. Even so long ago there was scientific information available, but a lot of people for various reasons, ignore it.

The problem was even then and still now, because scientists debate the details, because the scientific process can't be perfect when it comes to social studies and trends, it becomes all too easy for people who don't want to believe it can happen to them, to throw out the baby with the bath water, to just ignore all of the studies and the general gist of the matter (which is that even with a condom you can still get HIV), cross their fingers, and do what they are going to do anyway.

Blazoboy
01-15-2010, 01:31 PM
And FYI Earl those stats are very very out dated, while Blacks and homosexual males are still at a higher risk, one of the largest growing groups of HIV patients is White females 18-25. Google it, it's true.

Wow, is that so not true.

Instead of trusting google, why not go to the definitive source? Try going to the CDC.gov



If you are a white, straight male who does not shoot up and/or share needles you made up less than 3% of the people infected. 5.95% of the survey would be described as white females who do not use or share needles. Unfortunately, that category of people INCLUDE those who are engaged in sex with people KNOWN to have HIV. That isnt my definition its the CDC's

The take away from reading the data to me is clear. If you are a heterosexual male who doesn't shoot up and you are sexually involved with a female who is heterosexual and doesn't shoot up, your odds of contracting the disease are next to nil.

Argue all you want but the numbers do not lie. This has always been and still is very much a disease that is primarily contracted through high risk sexual activity of GAY MEN. Almost 61% of all infected are Gay men, Men who abuse Injection of drugs (implies sharing a needle) and both.

That is NOT a condemnation of judgement of any lifestyle. The math of the data makes it crystal clear that the largest group of people being infected is the group just described. The only debates I have heard of have more to do with the risks associated with certain activities. There has been a RAMPANT political agenda associated with this particular disease. I wish to steer far clear of any such debates and look strictly at the data and make my own conclusions as should any intelligent person.

Case in point... you will not find a single scientific source that will say that deep kissing is a transmission method for contracting HIV/AIDS. There are 0 reported cases of HIV contracted from a man going down on a woman. Finding FACTS... ei VERIFIED CASES of a woman contracting HIV from giving head or a man contracting it from a woman giving head is an exorcise in futility.

I will say it again... HIV is not easily contracted as advertised. Clearly that is not to say there are no risks, there are... they are less than you dying in a car accident....Unless you fall into those high risk categories.

Kellydancer
01-15-2010, 03:12 PM
This is a disturbing thread. I'm not sure whether to feel sorry for the guys admitting they had sex with hookers or to laugh at them for being stupid. The one about the air mattress was hysterical. Seriously, unless you are in a monogamous relationship you should be using protection and getting tested often. Remember: you are having sex with everyone that person had sex with. Sure sex is fun, but not so much fun if it causes your death, is it?

Btw, HIV isn't the most common scariest disease that can be transmitted. Yes, it can cause death, but there is another one that is even more common and can cause death (just not a death sentence if caught). That is HPV and very common. HPV often is minor but in other cases can lead to cancer. I know because I was diagnosed with it a few years ago. In my case it was removed and so far hasn't returned (and probably won't) but many people have it and don't know. I don't do drugs and never prostituted. The doctor said it's likely I got it from a monogamous relationship. I know many who never worked in the industry who got it, including several coworkers (all white collar people). I've heard studies that say cervical and prostrate cancer are on the rise because of this. So even though you might be lucky and not get AIDS, you might get HPV and if not caught, could still lead to death.

alice_island
01-16-2010, 04:31 AM
^^^i'm glad you pointed this out.

i remember having to inform a friend of mine back in 2002 what hpv was and she was a sex worker at the time. she had never even heard of hpv and had no idea that herpes can be transmitted even with condoms. i'm glad i got to spread the news, which i hope other women she knew heard about. and even the gardasil vaccine doesnt protect against all strains of the virus, which seems to mutate frequently.

this virus took the life of my best friend's mom and other women i have known. i did know someone who developed prostate cancer in his early 30s and perhaps it could have been caused by this. it really disturbs me how little educated people are (and definitely less before gardasil came out).

Blazoboy
01-16-2010, 11:27 AM
This is a disturbing thread. I'm not sure whether to feel sorry for the guys admitting they had sex with hookers or to laugh at them for being stupid. The one about the air matress was hysterical. Seriously, unless you are in a monogamous relationship you should be using protection and getting tested often. Remember: you are having sex with everyone that person had sex with. Sure sex is fun, but not so much fun if it causes your death, is it?

Btw, HIV isn't the most common scariest disease that can be transmitted. Yes, it can cause death, but there is another one that is even more common and can cause death (just not a death sentence if caught). That is HPV and very common. HPV often is minor but in other cases can lead to cancer. I know because I was diagnosed with it a few years ago. In my case it was removed and so far hasn't returned (and probably won't) but many people have it and don't know. I don't do drugs and never prostituted. The doctor said it's likely I got it from a monogamous relationship. I know many who never worked in the industry who got it, including several coworkers (all white collar people). I've heard studies that say cervical and prostrate cancer are on the rise because of this. So even though you might be lucky and not get AIDS, you might get HPV and if not caught, could still lead to death.


Prostate and Cervical Cancers are on the rise because of better screening tools and early detection NOT AIDS!!!

Kellydancer
01-16-2010, 12:53 PM
^^^i'm glad you pointed this out.

i remember having to inform a friend of mine back in 2002 what hpv was and she was a sex worker at the time. she had never even heard of hpv and had no idea that herpes can be transmitted even with condoms. i'm glad i got to spread the news, which i hope other women she knew heard about. and even the gardasil vaccine doesnt protect against all strains of the virus, which seems to mutate frequently.

this virus took the life of my best friend's mom and other women i have known. i did know someone who developed prostate cancer in his early 30s and perhaps it could have been caused by this. it really disturbs me how little educated people are (and definitely less before gardasil came out).

As educated as I am, I never realized this was a common disease until I was diagnosed with it. I was always careful and selective (I used condoms even in monogamous relationships) and it still happened to me. Luckily in my case it never resulted in anything (I never had any herpes or any warts that I am aware of) but I wonder what would have happened if I let it go. Would it prevent me from ever having kids if not caught? How about affecting relationships. It's things like that I never thought about. The obgyn told me that almost all the younger women she gets in have it, it's that common.

1st_samurai
01-16-2010, 02:42 PM
This is a disturbing thread. I'm not sure whether to feel sorry for the guys admitting they had sex with hookers or to laugh at them for being stupid. The one about the air mattress was hysterical. Seriously, unless you are in a monogamous relationship you should be using protection and getting tested often. Remember: you are having sex with everyone that person had sex with. Sure sex is fun, but not so much fun if it causes your death, is it?

Btw, HIV isn't the most common scariest disease that can be transmitted. Yes, it can cause death, but there is another one that is even more common and can cause death (just not a death sentence if caught). That is HPV and very common. HPV often is minor but in other cases can lead to cancer. I know because I was diagnosed with it a few years ago. In my case it was removed and so far hasn't returned (and probably won't) but many people have it and don't know. I don't do drugs and never prostituted. The doctor said it's likely I got it from a monogamous relationship. I know many who never worked in the industry who got it, including several coworkers (all white collar people). I've heard studies that say cervical and prostrate cancer are on the rise because of this. So even though you might be lucky and not get AIDS, you might get HPV and if not caught, could still lead to death.

At least HALF of all sexually active people get HPV at some point in there lives. Most of the time the virus "clears" from your system within 6 months. You have to be unlucky to die from cervical cancer resulting from HPV.

Kellydancer
01-16-2010, 03:07 PM
My obgyn told me it was very common and I tend to believe her over anyone else with this. Yes, many times it does clear, but in other cases (mine for instance) it did not and I had a LEEP procedure. Of course you'd have to be unlucky to die from cervical cancer, you'd be unlucky to die from any cancer but it does happen.

princessjas
01-16-2010, 06:07 PM
At least HALF of all sexually active people get HPV at some point in there lives. Most of the time the virus "clears" from your system within 6 months. You have to be unlucky to die from cervical cancer resulting from HPV.

Unless there is some new information I'm unaware of this is dangerously incorrect info. HPV is like Herpes, you have it for life. You may have long periods without a flare-up, but you will always have it and therefore may at any time have another outbreak. (I haven't kept up with HPV the way I have HIV tho, so I dunno if there is new info available.)

mediocrity
01-16-2010, 06:11 PM
Unless there is some new information I'm unaware of this is dangerously incorrect info. HPV is like Herpes, you have it for life. You may have long periods without a flare-up, but you will always have it and therefore may at any time have another outbreak. (I haven't kept up with HPV the way I have HIV tho, so I dunno if there is new info available.)

"While there is no cure for HPV, the good news is the infection often clears on its own. If it does not, and treatment is needed, there are many HPV treatment options. Plus, as more people are vaccinated with the new HPV vaccines, the rates of HPV infection may be greatly reduced."

Half and half. It does clear itself sometimes, but that is unrelated to getting cancer from it.

"Persistent HPV infections are now recognized as the major cause of cervical cancer. In 2007, it was estimated that 11,000 women in the United States would be diagnosed with this type of cancer and nearly 4,000 would die from it. Cervical cancer strikes nearly half a million women each year worldwide, claiming a quarter of a million lives. Studies also suggest that HPVs may play a role in some cancers of the anus, vulva, vagina, and penile cancer (cancer of the penis) (2).

Studies have also found that oral HPV infection is a strong risk factor for oropharyngeal cancer (cancer that forms in tissues of the oropharynx, which is the middle part of the throat and includes the soft palate, the base of the tongue, and the tonsils) (2, 3). Researchers found that an oral HPV infection and past HPV exposure increase the risk of oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer, regardless of tobacco and alcohol use, two other important risk factors for this disease. However, combining HPV exposure and heavy tobacco and alcohol use did not have an additive effect (3)."

Blazoboy
01-17-2010, 08:34 AM
Unless there is some new information I'm unaware of this is dangerously incorrect info. HPV is like Herpes, you have it for life. You may have long periods without a flare-up, but you will always have it and therefore may at any time have another outbreak. (I haven't kept up with HPV the way I have HIV tho, so I dunno if there is new info available.)

Not true. There are over 200 know types of HPV many of which display absolutely no symptoms. About 34 are transmitted through sex. HPV infection is a cause of nearly all cases of cervical cancer;[3] however, most infections with these types do not cause disease.

Most HPV infections in young females are temporary and have little long-term significance. 70% of infections are gone in 1 year and 90% in 2 years.[4]

*4^ Goldstein MA, Goodman A, del Carmen MG, Wilbur DC (March 2009). "Case records of the Massachusetts General Hospital. Case 10-2009. A 23-year-old woman with an abnormal Papanicolaou smear". N. Engl. J. Med. 360 (13): 1337–44. doi:10.1056/NEJMcpc0810837. PMID 19321871. PMID 19321871

Clara_M
01-21-2010, 02:34 AM
And yeah...I've gotten the "I can tell YOU are clean" BS before too. Really dude?Doctors trained to look for these things cant tell without testing..but YOU are the special one who can tell just on sight. Have fun with your STD's X-ray man.

Actually, it's pretty easy. When he gets that "No, are out out of your forking mind you perv" look on the girl's face, that's when he knows she's clean. It's a pretty reliable method :-).