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 ?

I said it's not worth worrying about. I didn't say there is nothing to worry about. I literally had HPV picked up by a smear so I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with me about.

I think HPV isn't something the GUM clinic screens for.

It only came known through a smear test. Tricky as it doesn't always show up.

Out of interest what is the rational for excluding over 45s?

@ArcticSkewer thanks for replying. I've had the same partner for 12 years so I guess it wouldn't make sense to have it. I assume if I had it now there's nothing I can do to kill it as such. Have never tested positive for it a smear test by I could still have it I suppose.

Can you have a ‘full’ smear that actually tests for cancer if you go privately?

I do think we are muddling up so I apologise -

My point is that even with clear smears you can still get cancer so there is always a worry even with clear smears. HPV or not. :)

I don't know for sure but I think it's just a combination of the time it takes for hpv to lead to cancer, and that most sexually active people would have been exposed previously by middle age.

It seems to work more effectively as well in younger people but I think that's true for most vaccines.

As it's still fairly new, perhaps it will be licensed for over 45s in future. Plenty of STIs in the over 50s so it's not like safe sex is always happening at that age

Depends. Many people my age and under (28) are vaccinated against HPV.

@ArcticSkewer that makes sense sort of, I am still having a lot of sex and partners and over 45 😍

living our best lives!

@WoWsers16 'nothing to worry about' which was said by you and 'not worth worrying about' are 2 very different things!

Ok then

I’m too old to be vaccinated as well and I’ve also had high risk HPV a year or so ago. I genuinely am confused still - does it / can it go away and come back? Is it actually Herpes? Can my DH get it?

Could it be from him- as I’ve only been with him for the past twenty odd years?

Good question op. This baffles me too.

That is absolute bullshit. There's no evidence to suggest either of your claims

Apparently so.

Once you reach a certain age (can't remember but I'm mid-50s and haven't been called for one for a good while).

The less sexually actively you are with multiple partners, the less risk.

Not my words but the smear-test nurse at my GP.

Not sure I follow the logic of restricting to under 45s. Is the suggestion that any HPV caught now doesn't have long enough to cause the cell changes that lead to cancer?

I can understand on a population/cost effectiveness restricting the program to under 45s but isn't it rather ageist not even permitting over 45s to buy privately?

I assume condoms protect against HPV? So if you've had sex with 100 men but used condoms with them all then your risk factor is less than someone who has had unprotected sex with 5 people?

They give about 70% protection, which if you have sex with someone multiple times, isn't much.

The person who had sex with 5 people is still at auch lower risk.

Not necessarily - the person who had sex with 100 people could have had sex with 100 virgins, so their risk would be low.

The person who had sex with 5 people who have each had sex with 100 people, all of whom had 100 sexual partners each, so their risk would be high.

In what weird scenario have you concocted where a woman has sex with 100 virgin men 😂

Coming up with the must ridiculous scenario does not invalidate the general principle that a lot of sexism partners= higher risk, condoms or not.

It's just the licensing. It's not licenced for over 45s, or wasn't last time I checked. It costs £450 for the 3 course jabs. Noone checks your birth certificate so go ahead and buy it if you want to. I don't know the ins and outs of extending licenses to over 45s, could literally just be a lack of demand so the companies can't be bothered.

What was incredibly sexist as opposed to ageist was the government refusal to give it to teen boys for years.

Why are you asking? As someone who's just finished treatment for CC I find this a bit offensive. For the record I've had three partners.

@JlL2013 I wondered the same. The more generic STD/STIs its quite obvious that you will be at risk if you sleep with multiple people but at least you can be treated easily for most of them.

I don't know what OP is trying to get at. It's the cell changes not the HPV per say that's the issue.