Laddie's little helper

I object to forcing kids to be immunized "just in case" they decide to put themselves at risk of STDs or other diseases they could choose to avoid. Immunization has its own risks. In addition, I as a devoted Christian young woman would have objected to the implication that I would be soon choosing to have the sort of contact that would infect me with the disease! In fact I remember being told I should go on the Pill as a preventative measure and being very, very offended!

My option for my own children would be to educate them early and appropriately about disease, hygiene, sexual relations and safer sex (note here that I am covering all preventable diseases, the issue being prevention of nasty diseases, not making the big issue over STDs as compared to other equally distressing diseases). I would also ensure that they could talk openly to me and could come to me for help and support should they choose a path different from mine. Then, when they chose to indulge in behaviors that put them at risk (and assuming they were of an age to be responsible and we had talked about the issue) I would drive them to the shop or doctor myself and pay for what they needed, be it immunization or condoms!

...and yes, my boys would deserve the same care as my girls, perhaps more considering the careless attitude society seems to take toward boy at times.

The comments on the blog you cite mention that "STDs" might be picked up in other ways and that the categorization of diseases as sexually transmitted places a stigma on them that makes their control more difficult. Perhaps you would like to discuss that contention later?

[In the context of this post the great thing is we agree that both girls and boys should receive the same consideration, whichever way one chose to go. As for the stigma of STDs, I feel pretty passionately about that too -- for instance I don't know about the specific cancer-causing varieties of HPV, but I do know that many of the other 96 identifiable strains can be transmitted hand to hand and then (when peeing, for instance) from hand to genitals. The decision to "turn it into" an STD for purposes of opposing condom distribution wasn't terribly responsible. (I say that because an association between intercourse and cervical cancer has been known for decades yet it emerged as an issue only very recently, and was promoted as such mainly by advocates of abstinence.) The problem with that is that suddenly if one's doctor suggests a test (or a vaccination) they're not only expressing concern about your health they're also implying you're a slut! And if you then agree to testing or vaccination you're not only expressing concern about your own health you're -- tada! -- *confirming* you're a slut. Whee! Tell it to the millions of perfectly monogamous victims of cervical cancer over the ages! Thanks, Avalon. --fl]

Is sexual curiosity among children not happening? Maybe this is not the right question, because I am not talking about sexually precocious or predatory children.
I was under the impression that the HPV could be transmitted a lot more casually than other STD's and that sexual contact was not necessary.
I was wondering if there was a vaccine for herpes, would there be as much controversy, since the same herpes simplex virus causes both the oral and genital versions. Since its an STD, would people believe that more people suffer from the oral version.
I have heard arguments that 11 is too young for girls to get the HPV vaccine, but if they were even thinking of boys would 11 be not too young? I am told also that they will know when it is time for their daughters to be vaccinated, and I think have parents relationship improved that much. Perhaps I am just too cynical. This is not to say that I am for mandatory vaccinations, I am not; but so much of the argument has gotten beyond the health risk or ethics in the reasoning.

[Well, technically it's possible to get it while playing doctor as *very* young children -- I too understand it's *very* easily, and unnoticably, transmitted. Plus, of course, there's the tragedy of child sexual abuse by adults. So I don't know. Anyway, I've heard different stories -- possibly the four known cancer-causing strains aren't like the others -- but yeah, I think that *if* you're going to vaccinate it's probably worth doing before children are likely to become sexually active on their own. Thanks, Five. --fl]

I'm going to disagree with Avalon. I plan to teach my girls the value of safer sex, instilling the self-esteem and self-regard necessary to carry that out, but y'know, I vaccinated them against polio even though it's unlikely they will be exposed. The risk involved is injection soreness and possible fever versus cancer? I wouldn't give it a second thought.

[I might add that if one chose to vaccinate, choosing to vaccinate only girls would still leave an awfully large reservoir for reinfection. Thanks, Heather. --fl]

Vaccination of boys is not unheard of at all - Marie Stopes have offered it in the UK since last November "The vaccine will be available for adolescent males 13 to 15 years and females 13-26 years of age". There is a good concise explanation of HPV on their site.

It's interesting to read, as reported in the New Scientist in 2005, that Merck included in their vaccine, two strains that cause genital warts along with the cancer causing ones, ostensibly because they can cause false positives. In fact there is another reason - to encourage men to have the vaccination which can overcome some of the cultural hurdles especially in developing countries such as India.

[Yup, marketing is everything. Even in a good cause, I guess. Thanks, A. --fl]