I have a brief intermission from training; why use it for anything but blogging? Admittedly, this is merely a rehashing of a comment I posted on Tony’s site, but whatever, you know you need your Being Amber Rhea fix. </hubris>
You’ve heard of the proposed HPV vaccine, yes? If so, you’ve probably also heard that certain Christian wingnuts are opposed to it*. Their reasoning? Get ready for some truly bass-ackwards bullshit. They claim that if people get vaccinated for HPV, they will see it as a license to fuck, fuck, and fuck some more.
Now, I don’t know about you, but when I got my tetanus vaccine, I didn’t see it as a license to go dance on a bed of rusty nails.
An HPV vaccine would be particularly useful because approximately 80% of the population is exposed to HPV at some point in their lives, and most people who have it go their entire lives never knowing they have it, because they don’t have symptoms. Without symptoms, HPV is almost impossible to test for. (Gah! I ended a sentence with a preposition!) So people spread it to others without even knowing they have anything to spread in the first place. Furthermore, it is possible to contract HPV without overtly sexual contact, since it’s spread by skin-to-skin contact. But the religious wackos wouldn’t be interested in hearing about the less juicy aspects of communicable infections.
Here’s one of my favorite explanations about the religious right’s position on the HPV vaccine, from the Family Research Council. This was written as part of a “defense” against allegations that their group espouses wholesale opposition to the vaccine.
While we welcome medical advances such as an HPV vaccine, it remains clear that practicing abstinence until marriage and fidelity within marriage is the single best way of preventing the full range of sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies, and negative psychological and emotional consequences that can result from sexual activity outside marriage.
Okay, that’s great, sweetie. (Aside: someone named Amber wrote that press release. Nice.) But let’s step out of your insanely simplistic worldview for a second, okay? You can be as pure as the driven snow until your wedding night, and end up contracting HPV from your husband, who never knew he had it. Even if he was a Virgin Soldier until he married you, maybe he and a high school girlfriend let their hormones get the better of them ten years ago and engaged in some “heavy petting,” and bam, he got HPV. I won’t even go into all the other everyday scenarios, like people getting remarried after a divorce, or asinine debates such as whether those who cheat on their spouse don’t deserve the same standard of medical care, because it’s just boring to repeat all that stuff after a certain point.
(I should also mention that this vaccine would only prevent the strains of HPV that can lead to cervical cancer. There are hundreds of strains of HPV, most of which cause no symptoms. Some strains, known as “low-risk” HPV, can cause genital warts in a small percentage of infected people; this vaccine would prevent only “high-risk” strains. This concludes your excessively long parenthetical statement.)
Let’s face it: these religious right folks are anti-sex, and that’s all there is to it. There’s something deeply disturbing about their obsession with sex and their reactionary desire to rid the world of it altogether. It doesn’t matter that all the things they claim will lead to more unwanted pregnancies, more STIs, more (gasp!) pre-marital sex - e.g., comprehensive sex education; access to contraception; safe and legal abortions; etc. - have been shown, over and over again, to decrease all these things, whereas abstinence-only education and a lack of access to contraception increases them. But then, common sense and a basic understanding of causation and correlation is lost on such folks, so what can you do.
* This article, like many written by someone with a religious agenda, is at best grossly oversimplified and at worst downright misleading in its description of HPV. That should come as no surprise, since FUD is a favorite tactic of these groups; but it never fails to piss me off, because it only serves to perpetuate the cycle of ignorance in the general population.
READ ME: Disclaimer
12 Responses to "You Have Premarital Sex, You Get Cancer!"
You might have if it felt sooooo good. ;-)
Here I go getting all sensationalist quoting Orwell, but it certainly reeks of 1984. Ignore reality and human instinct, and paint anyone with desire as dirty. If you commit crimesex, you deserve what you get.
That’s why Christians shouldn’t be in charge of public health, plain and simple. I am tired of reading bullshit like this… I wish “the Christians” would just keep their opinions to themselves, and leave the rest of the world alone. Then we can fuck fuck fuck all we want in peace. Damn.
And the shitty part?? Preventing HPV would actually benefit, I don’t know, say EVERY ONE??? Why not tell that to those women that die of cervical and uterine cancer every year! Oh, and Amber, you are so right about 80% of the population… that is scary. Unfortunately, with gay men, it is estimated that it is most likely closer to 100%. Whose best interest do these people look out for, really? UGH!
(Sorry for the rant… just tired of hearing about the conservative backlash on anything that isn’t what they decide is “good”)
The id wasn’t meant to be starved.
Someone on the Ruthless forum coined the religious reich’s position on this issue perfectly:
“Die, slut.”
I see your point, Duane. Those Christians, believing horrible things like they do. Why, in our tolerant pluralistic society, they should just shut up!
“Modern Pluralism: We want diversity, until we actually get some!”
Amber, you have definitely provided a good “fix” with this latest post. There is much to interact with! :-)
The FRC says that they “welcome medical advances such an HPV vaccine”, but you want to interpret this as a disingenuous support for HPV vaccines? Why? Because they also believe that the “best” way to prevent the various unwanted complications that sex can bring is to confine your sexual activity to marital relationships. I don’t see what the problem is here. The FRC likes vaccines that can help people, but also wants people to know that there is an even more effective way to protect yourself from these sorts of problems. It’s not a hard positon to understand; the language seems plain enough. So how is it, Amber, that they are actually NOT in favor of these “medical advances like a HPV vaccine”?
You call their view “insanely simplistic,” but it’s not clear why. I mean, it might be “simplistic” to expect all people to actually do what they advise, but what’s simplistic about giving the advice in the first place? If you ask me the best way to avoid lung cancer, I’ll mention (among other things) not smoking cigarettes. Of course, our society is full of people that DO smoke cigarettes, and even if I told every one of them about the “abstinence option” many of them would still smoke anyway. I know all of this, but I still believe that if you seriously want to avoid lung cancer, you shouldn’t smoke cigarettes. If you care what my position is.
Am I being “simplistic?” Insanely so?
FRC says that “abstience +” (abstinence outside marriage, fidelity inside marriage) is the “best” way to avoid things like STDs and unwanted teen/single pregnancies. You then “correct” them, Amber, by pointing out that even abstinent people can still contract HPV. But how is that a response to the FRC’s belief that abstience is “best”? They didn’t say it was a “guarantee that nothing bad will happen to you, ever”. They said it is the “best” way to avoid STDs. That still leaves room for abstinent folks sometimes getting HPV.
And finally, religious right folks “are against sex, that’s all there is to it.” Sure, if you think that someone who objects to buffet-line gorging is against “eating.” (Don’t press my analogy too far; I’m not comparing premarital sex to “gorging.” What I am pointing out is that being opposed to particular manifestations of some activity is not the same thing as (nor does it entail or imply) being opposed to all manifestations of the activity.)
It wouldn’t be a problem if that was really all there is to their position. However, the ultra-conservative (according to the current latest definition of that word, but I digress) do not want teenagers to get the HPV vaccine. The recommendation from organizations such as the CDC is that this vaccine should be given to teenagers around the time they enter high school. Just like other immunizations that they already get, it is one more that kids will get. It would be a pre-emptive strike against HPV - like the current pre-emptive strikes against measles, mumps, tetanus, diptheria, etc. The Religious Right doesn’t have a problem with those vaccines (as far as I know, anyway) - but they don’t want the HPV vaccine to be something that people “just get,” because they think it will encourage teenagers to have premarital sex. (Even though all the data suggests otherwise.)
That is what I object to. So if all they were doing was saying, “Great, get this vaccine, but by the way, we want to remind you again that the best way to protect yourself is to be abstinent” then it wouldn’t be a problem. But they are actively working to prevent people from getting the vaccine.
Also - I’m not sure what your quip to Duane about modern pluralism was supposed to mean. Please explain. (Duane works in public health, btw; just an aside.)
Is this the FRC’s position? Or just the position of certain nefarious, but thusfar unnamed, “ultra-conservatives”? If the former, then why didn’t you quote a statement from the FRC that states the position you are actually obejcting to? If the latter, then why are you picking on the FRC when they don’t hold to the position that you are attacking.
You cited something, rebuked it, and then when I asked some follow-up questions about your rebuke claimed to be upset about something completely different than what you originally cited. You are upset at the “real” position of these characters, which (apparently) isn’t reflected in the passage you cited from the FRC. This is confusing for your dear readers (or at least for me). :-)
As to my comments to Duane, I just can never help myself when I see modern “liberals” or “progressives” or whatever say things like “That’s why Christians shouldn’t be in charge of such-and-such,” and “I wish “the Christians” would just keep their opinions to themselves.” I don’t like Christians’ opinions on the issues, and so I frankly wish that Christians simply wouldn’t participate in the political process.
We are a melting pot, but certain metals just don’t mix. Or so say the “liberals” who love to talk about diversity and “open dialogue.” But then when certain people start talking, it is stated openly that things would probably be better if they just sat down and kept quiet. Traditionalists who frequent the on-line discussion community see this sort of thing all the time. It’s hypocritical, and it’s hilarious.
Here ya go:
An influential group like the FRC coming out in public against something is actively working against it. Plain and simple.
In the clinical trials, they’re claiming this vaccine is 100% effective. As you’ve admitted, abstinence is LESS THAN one hundred percent effective against HPV, since there are other known methods of transmission. I think that’s the part I find disingenuous.
100%, really? That’s impressive. I’m not an expert on vaccin(ology), but would this be a first to be so effective?
Anyway, the main position of the FRC shouldn’t need to adjust much (if at all) even if the HPV vaccine IS 100% effective. There are a whole array of “complications” that can accompany sexual activity, and the FRC is claiming that the best (most effective) overall approach to avoiding all of them is “abstinence +”. If it turns out that one particular “complication”–HPV–actually has a 100% effective vaccine, then that’s great for that one particular complication. And the FRC says that they are all for the development of vaccines.
Your citation from the FRC was helpful though, Garrett. Though it illustrates the original ambiguity in Amber’s post. If she was objecting to this part of the FRC’s position all along, then why didn’t she post that quote in her original post? Anyway, we’re all on the same page now (I think).
I also, by the way, don’t agree with the FRC’s worry that a vaccine “could be potentially harmful because they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex.” (Although notice how qualified that statement is–could, potentially, might) If we have a vaccine that is highly effective at preventing one STD, then it doesn’t seem very likely that the overall effect of giing that vaccine to everyone will include much of an “incentive” or “license” to engage in sexual activity. The FRC does seem like it is being silly here.
Well, the claim I saw was 100%; I’m sure that will be adjusted downward somewhat as it sounds a little improbable to me… I was just pointing out that if it’s true, abstinence would be worse at fighting HPV.
Exactly. The idea that thousands of teenaged girls jumped out of bed and shouted “Hot damn, there’s an HPV vaccine; I’d better start fuckin’” is comical and unrealistic. (But if it’s true, please give me their addresses.)
And even if there were a magic bullet that fought all of the (physical) sex “complications”, and even if it were shown statistically that such a [pill|shot|whatever] would cause people to become more sexually active, what’s the point? Should we decry our technical advances because they might cause us to be free to do more things?
Would the FRC speak out against motorcycle helmets because people’s silly reliance on the helmets puts them in great danger, compared to not riding a motorcycle at all?
(Yes, I brought that analogy up again.)