Smear test required, no sexual history?

[Scamperscamper]

Just that really. If you've never had sex or any kind of skin-to-skin sexual contact with anyone, do you need a smear test? Can you still be at risk of what they're testing for? I always thought tests weren't recommended for virgins, but I've heard the tests have changed now and I'm not sure how they're different.

I did have a female doctor that did get down there and have a look and actually said “nice healthy looking cervix” before going on to carry out smear test which came back negative.

In fact it wasn’t the first time, another doctor said it on another smear test. Observation is along with sample testing the full test isn’t it?

the guidance is to say all women should go but I have heard that some of this is because certain women may not wish to admit to family/ have people assume they’re sexually active if found to be going for a smear. My understanding is that a virgin’s risk of HPV is extremely low and potentially zero

With my last 2 tests nurse said nice healthy cervix, and both times came back HPV pos. No abnormal cells, but I don't see what they can tell from simply looking.

Not zero. Sex does not have to take place, just genital contact. Everyone who had only rubbed genitals together would consider themself virgin. However, my own infection didn't come from any kind of sexual contact. Cervical screening takes only a few mins. Best just to have it.

They can't tell from simply looking that everything I okay, which is why they take cell samples. But they can often tell if there are things wrong which have got to a symptomatic stage.

Rape of nuns is common in war torn areas.

Not all nuns stick to their vows.

Not all nuns are virgins when they enter the nunnery.

See also
www.npr.org/2019/03/18/703067602/after-years-of-abuse-by-priests-nunstoo-are-speaking-out

My nurse said my cervix didn't look like that of someone with HPV, since all such cervixes (cervices?) she'd seen had had at least a little redness. Clearly that isn't always the case.

No, there might be something in that for teenagers, but screening doesn't start until later. Nobody's going to bat an eyelid and nobody's going to think ' Oh no, people will think I'm having sex.'

Unlikely to account for the large number of nuns found to be positive. The virus is spreading in ways we don't yet understand.

Yes, but is this really the guidance? I've seen NHS material that states the opposite i.e. that virgins do not need it.

It's true that when I was young the STI aspect was really played down so that respectable married women would go for the test.

Yes, but this research was just for one convent in Ghana. As I've posted, previous research showed LESS cervical cancer in nuns.

"Nobody's going to bat an eyelid and nobody's going to think ' Oh no, people will think I'm having sex.'"

You can't say 'nobody'. It's mainly an STI and some people might bat an eyelid at it.

And they did test teenagers when I was young. Everyone got the letter at 20, but if the doctor knew you were sexually active much earlier you could have a recommendation for a smear test at 18.

Sorry I haven't read the full thread but I thought that the current smear tests no longer check the actual cervical cells for changes but are just checking for the hpv virus? Am I wrong?

Correct

Yes, but they have the sample so I think they will look at the sample if the HPV test is positive.

I suppose this means it's only worth having the smear test to check for cervical cancer caused by HPV.

Ty, thats what i thought. Then surely if you're a virgin or have had no sexual contact, a smear test is not needed? My last smear was negative for hpv and I have had one long term partner for two decades so I'm not going again despite getting a letter telling me to book.

But in your case you're not a virgin. The virus can lay dormant so some would say you should go for the test to check.
As you can see from the thread there are different views on this. I was taken off the list after more than a decade of celibacy, but was put back on it by a gynaecologist.

I wonder if anyone knows how long it can lie dormant for?

Also, your partner could step out and catch it.

I don’t think there’s any solid evidence of how long it can be dormant or any way to test if you have a dormant strain

But they don't test teenagers now. So it's irrelevant what they did in the past. We're not Victorians and adult women aren't worried about their parents guessing they're having sex. You must be younger than me, because when I was 20 nobody got letters. I had my first smear at 22 because I'd heard on the grapevine that it was something young women should have, so I asked my GP who called the nurse in to do it there and then. I then asked how often and he said after 5 yrs and then remarked that down in England it was every 3 yrs. I had another 5 yrs later and then moved to England and had them 3 yearly but still no letters. We kept track ourselves, though sometimes if we came on for something else, GP would ask how long it had been and remind us to make appointment. We left SAE at reception for them to send us the results. Then suddenly it went centrally and letters came from NHS, as did results. The first I heard of it being caused by a virus was in 2005 when my friend, a nurse, said it was becoming apparent that a virus was a major cause. So I had smears for a great many yrs before I even knew there was any kind of link with sexual activity. Way back there would have been no stigma.

You're right. It's been the case since 2019 in England.

"We're not Victorians and adult women aren't worried about their parents guessing they're having sex."

You can't speak for every family.

I think going for an STI check can still be problematic if, for example, you are very religious and married as a virgin and your DH claimed to also be a virgin, but you can't be sure.
It's definitely true that the NHS used to play down the sexual aspect to get women to come for tests.

I just googled and found this, for migrant women, so there's still issues around it in some communities.

"A number of participants also discussed that receiving their screening results if they were still living at home was problematic as a result of being unsupported by their families. The results are posted to their home address, and they found it difficult to request the results via a different, more confidential method."

Understanding knowledge, beliefs, values and barriers towards cervical cancer screening and self-sampling amongst migrant Muslim women in Southwest London: an in-depth qualitative interview study | BMJ Public Health

I don't agree. I believe there is currently zero evidence that it spreads except by close body contact.

I know I don’t have HPV so my risks are reduced and I have been sexually assaulted in a medical situation so going to a smear test would be incredibly traumatic. For that reason I have chosen not to attend and take my (lower but not zero) chances.

You'll always get studies contradicting other studies. Obviously people having sex will be at greater risk but we can't say nuns and other non sexual people have no risk. Then you have those who caught the virus during birth. A study done found quite a high proportion of children under age 14 had HPV in vaginal tract (no evidence of abuse). There are many possible transmission routes thought unlikely but not impossible. We don't actually know how often infection occurs in these ways. It might be more than assumed. It is assumed that everyone who COULD have got their infection sexually (and that's most people) DID get it that way, but having sex doesn't give you immunity to other ways. Best just to have your smears. They're hardly a major event and we're lucky to have them.