So does having more sexual partners make it more likely you get cervical cancer ?

[mummybarb]

The title is not supposed to be inflammatory, I'm generally trying to understand this.

For what it's worth, I've had plenty of partners...

Please correct my ignorance at any point in my post as I'm not fully clued up on this topic.

So HPV is a sexually transmitted disease which about 80 percent of sexually active people get at some point.

This virus can then in some people cause cell changes which can then over time become cancerous.

So most people have HPV at some point right ? But if you only ever slept with one person and that person only ever slept with you for example, wouldn't your risk of getting HPV be lower ? Than say for someone like me, who's had a jolly good time with various partners ?

I've read around on Google and think I came across something saying my theory is correct, but that's just one source. Can anyone help me understand ?

www.bbc.com/news/health-59148620.amp
So far it looks like there’s nearly a 90% reduction in cervical cancer rates for vaccinated girls.

It should be even rarer in future for current teens as since 2019 boys are being vaccinated too which will cut exposure rates as well as helping protect boys from other cancers caused by the virus.

Well maybe a silver lining to vaginismus not allowing me to have sex until I was 24.. 🙈 always felt sad about it but might have done something good.

It's not just you that you need to worry about, it's your sexual partners history too. Someone I know had the HPV virus and she had only slept with one man. Her partner was an unfaithful arse and she undoubtedly caught it from him.

Condoms don’t necessarily protect you against HPV, it’s spread by skin to skin contact rather than bodily fluids. Condoms do protect you against certain other STI/STD’s though so still a good idea, but it’s important not to spread misinformation that HPV is spread by unprotected sex, since this may make people who only have sex with condoms be less likely to take other steps to protect themselves against cervical cancer.

Depends on the HPV. Remember genital warts and veruccas are also caused by HPV but they're not the same ones that are linked to cervical cancer. Condoms won't help with transmission of warts that are not covered by the condom. The types that cause cervical cancer are more likely to be stopped by barrier methods such as condoms and dental dams. There is a huge amount of confusion and misinformation because not all information applies to every HPV - theres over 100 and the vast majority are largely harmless for most people.

The original vaccine only targetted 2 of the HPV targetting cervical cancers. Then it moved to more of the strains that were lower risk but still linked to cervical cancer. Now they're moving towards covering the ones causing genital warts too. So even talking about the vaccine effectiveness depends on which one you had.

No, I know. It’s just that the post I was replying made it seem as easy as condoms =no HPV =no cervical cancer, which is overly simplistic.

In reality, the Swiss cheese metaphor is more realistic. There are several ways to reduce your risk of cervical cancer, none of them are perfect. The more layers of protection (I’m not speaking about putting multiple condoms on here 😂) you have, the better protected you are - later first sexual encounter, less sexual partners, vaccination, condoms, smears - however, some people will take all these steps and still get cervical cancer. Just like if you stack several slices of Swiss cheese on each other, sometimes, the holes will line up.

It's mainly vaccines though, and they are incredibly effective, making all those other measures pretty unimportant.

Actually getting people vaccinated (and young enough, before sexual contact) is another matter

As an aside, how many people on this thread have ever used dental dams?

The article talks about the risk of all forms of cancer, proposing that the research the article is referring to may be picking up risky behaviours overall (smoking, drinking, iv drug use, etc) in those who had had more sexual partners. It is not at all about the risk of cervical cancer directly being impacted by more partners. It speak so correlation not causation, in any case.

*speaks of

As an aside, how many people on this thread have ever used dental dams?
I use them in work all the time for root canal treatment and moisture control not sex

Okay, but I’m too old to have got the vaccine and I’ve been with the same sexual partner (who I believe has been faithful!) since their introduction. So it’s not “just” about vaccines. In the future, maybe. And the vaccine isn’t fully effective either, so the other things definitely do help!

So ... if I test negative for HPV at my smear and they only test for HPV now why do I continue to go for smears when I have had the same partner for years?

Was it a financial decision to only test for HPV at smears? It seems to be a shift that was sneaked in without discussion and without making the changed risk profile clear.

It's complicated isn't it.
So I've only ever had 1 partner, who has also only ever been with me. However, I started having sex young and have 6 dc.
So, is my risk low or high?

Similar to the pill increasing the risk of breast cancer but breast feeding reducing it.

I suppose really it's just the luck of the draw.

Because HPV can lie dormant in your system (for years) and flare up. Just because you happen to test negative at one smear, doesn't mean you wouldn't have tested positive six months earlier, or later for example.

No, it was a health decision.

Anyone who wants the vaccine can have it, by the way, up to the age of 45. You can buy it from boots or other pharmacies.

It was a health decision which puts slightly older people who were sexually active as young adults at disproportionate risk. Those who were too old to get the vaccine should still be given a “proper” smear.

Yes of course it raises the risk, that's obvious isn't it?
FWIW I've had a lot of partners and also had HPV but it was picked up at a smear and it's now gone. As long as you have your smears it's not worth worrying about.

'As long as you have your smears it's not worth worrying about'

Sorry this is so wrong - smears don't test for cervical cancer and you can have cervical cancer with clear smears and no sign of HPV.

When did the vaccine become rolled out? If it
Worth having for older adults?

Just have safe sex and put the worry about this kind of thing out of your head imo. Everything is a risk - driving, crossing the road, using a knife to chop vegetables, drinking. You'd go out of your mind if you worried about every single little thing and life is too short.

@WoWsers16 smears test for hpv so it's not wrong.

Yes they do but the fact it says there's nothing to worry about is wrong- you should still know signs of change as you can still have cervical cancer with clear smears

You can buy it privately up to age 45. That's been a recent age extension. Whether it's worth it ... I don't know. I chose to have it, but I didn't think it would be too useful. More of a 'why not'.

I'm sexually active, lots of different partners, not tested positive for hpv (but of course they've only tested for it recently)