@AmberB22 think of cancer as rolling several dice and cancer being coming up with all 1's, the more times you roll, the greater the chance of eventually reaching this combination. Evey time a cell divides there is a risk of it becoming cancerous and less differentiated cells (like those that eventually go on to become the outer membrane of the cervix) are also at greater risk. For this reason, the rate of cervical cancer in those under 25 in the absence of HPV is very low since fewer divisions have taken place.
Smears aren't that bad in the sense that they're very unlikely to cause physical damage but they can be a bit uncomfortable and the level of discomfort differs for each person. If you're concerned, your local healthcare provider should be more than happy to discuss your concerns before the smear.
@Writersblock2 I'm having a hard time seeing why complications associated with post-screening treatment would be a reason not to get screened in the first place. In the event that abnormalities are detected, further information will always be provided (informed consent) prior to any treatment taking place.
Regarding women getting defensive over the issue, I would attribute it to the people who are against screening potentially harming others by encouraging them to not get screened. I ignored my first letter but, after being strongly advised regarding the issue, did the research and got checked at the next opportunity. Finally, regarding Angela Raffle's paper, a much more recent paper in the Lancet (Prediction of cervical cancer incidence in England, UK, up to 2040, under four scenarios: a modelling study) predicted a worrying increase in cervical cancer rates by 2040 if screening rates fall. This is likely attributable to the widespread HPV vaccine uptake pushing back the peak age of cervical cancer incidence, causing complacency through a fall in cases in those in their 20s.
Sorry to be so wordy but it's a large issue that's hard to sum up concisely.