No. 2 worked for me.
Wow, I guess it's already past time to make plans to punch Jamee Gregory.
From #1: at least now I'll have the pleasure of going with a reason to be unhappy
Yeah, you show 'em, dude.
Apparently people have lost the ability to decline an invitation.
How hard is it to decline an invitation? You don't decline the save-the-date business, of course, but in April when she gets the real invitation, this shouldn' t be hard. Check 'no' for attending, write a note that congratulates the couple and expresses the appropriate amount of sorrow for missing their happy day, and send a gift.
I have a friend whose last name is a mashup of letters from her parents and older half siblings. It's pretty fly.
3 - I seriously considered making that excerpt #4.
I already feel traumatized because I don't like to leave my garden on Long Island in June.
The threshold for trauma has been lowered considerably. Is leaving one's garden the new rape?
7 - It is if you're a narcissistic socialite asshole.
4. When Cala sends us all save-the-date cards, we now know what to do.
Modern Love: 50 True and Extraordinary Tales of Desire, Deceit and Devotion.
Am I allowed to say that the dog thing pretty much seals the issue on the whole name-change issue altogether? People. Just forget it. We've moved on.
People. Just forget it. We've moved on.
Yeah, until the kids arrive. Kid surnames are the post-feminist naming battleground.
Gonerill, I love you and all but I keep confusing your handle with the HPV vaccine.
Not that you should change it or anything. Just had to say it.
Do we want to know why Becks is so familiar with the HPV vaccine? Why, yes, I think we do....
I'm not allowed to take the HPV vaccine. I'm too old and assumed to be a sullied dirty whore.
You're older than me. So, no. The cutoff is 27.
My roommate said it has something to do with physical changes in the cervix at age thirty or thereabouts, that would make the vaccine pointless. Not sure where she got that info.
My roommate said it has something to do with physical changes in the cervix at age thirty or thereabouts,
Maybe it's the Derb factor.
The CDC says the vaccine is currently being studied in men, and in "older" (27+) women. So it just hasn't been approved yet for these populations. It's not actively disapproved, AFIK.
Where are our public health professionals when we need them? Cryptic Ned?
12: Sure, but at least let's get rid of the wedding nonsense. God knows it's not like there aren't enough second marriages around that kids having a different last name isn't something we're all used to.
21: omg! t3h unfair!! my cervix is still hott!
24: Yeah, but you're still under thirty. Seriously, wouldn't it be great if the actual thinking (if only in choosing the populations to test first) were that "after thirty, you're not going to get much action anyway"? I could live with the insult for that level of humor.
I've heard that the real reason is that they assume you've gotten enough action to have acquired the virus already. Don't know it that's true, though.
it s/b if, obviously. 40 ounces is a lot of malt liquor.
26: Yeah, I wondered about that. Would it be appropriate for someone over 27 who was still a virgin. (I'm pretty sure that my 47 year-old roommate has never had sex. I doubt she ever will though, so she's probably got decent protection against cervical cancer. I have to say that I don't think she's even been kissed.)
26: That seems dangerously wrong to me. For one thing, there are many strains of the virus. For another, like any virus, just being exposed doesn't mean you're going to get it. And as I understand it, some people's bodies manage to clear the infection (? someone give me the correct terminology) quickly and completely.
I'd believe that people who are older are much more likely to be exposed, but that they are so likely to be infected that it isn't worth it? I dunno.
And, you know, some folks just get lucky, and are also pretty darn choosy about their partners, and might actually reach the grand old age of 27 without having been exposed.
Regardless, I think drug companies' interest in their bottom line will cause the vaccine to be approved for everybody, sooner rather than later.
Here's the follow-up, which addresses some of those issues.
I think part of the "under 27" thing is just about the cost/benefit analysis.
Most of it, I think. The vaccine is apparently hugely expensive, and there's no clear evidence (yet) that it helps people over 27.
26: What Teo links to notes:
"Most sexually active women get HPV at some point and chances are high that someone our age has already acquired at least one strain."
Leaving aside whether women over 27 should be eligible for the vaccine, there seems to be an increasing fear over contracting it. Or rather, any of the number of its strains.
As 42-year-old woman, I've just tested positive for HPV. Well, what? Word is that many of us are or have been positive at one time or another, quite probably symptom-free, and in most cases the immune system knocks it out before it's even diagnosed.
None of which is to say that the vaccine shouldn't be as widely disseminated as possible. Just that we should notch down the fear a little bit. Biographically speaking.
As I understand it, the deal with HPV is that it's linked to cervical cancer (quite strongly, apparently), and even if there are no symptoms it can be easily transmitted sexually.
As I understand it, the deal with HPV is that it's linked to cervical cancer (quite strongly, apparently), and even if there are no symptoms it can be easily transmitted sexually.
See your own linked post:
"The vaccine is for 4 types of Human Papilloma Virus (HPV). These 4 types cause most, but not all cervical cancers (about 70%), and so it provides some protection against that as well as HPV-associated genital warts."
Again, leaving aside the question of the vaccine, there are a many types of HPV.
Which means that merely saying that 'HPV is (strongly) linked to cervical cancer' is overly scary. Depends on what type you've contracted; up to 70% of women, from what I've read, are positive for HPV at some point in their lives, but the immune system knocks it out. It is not perpetual, in other words.
Sexually transmitted, certainly. Now that we've become more aware of all this, we should all be tested for HPV regularly.
If 4 types of HPV cause 70% of cervical cancers, that sounds like "strongly linked" to me. Otherwise I don't understand your objection.
HPV can cause cervical cancer, yes; but *most* strains of it are benign. And I *think* (subject to correction here) that getting one strain actually keeps you from getting others? So if you can be vaccinated, awesome; but if not, if you've already got a non-cancer strain, it's almost as good as.
I think.
Anyway, for most of the people commenting here, cervical cancer isn't a big threat: it's usually caught quite early and is rarely fatal, except for women who go years without health care and don't catch it until it's quite progressed.
I think Martha's point (if I may speak for Martha) may be that cervical cancer is strongly linked to HPV, not that HPV is strongly linked to cervical cancer.
Having just found out about a 31-year-old friend who will be unable to have biological children due to cervical cancer, caught at a routine Pap just after she came back from her honeymoon, I'm inclined to see this as a fairly big deal. Keeping in mind that cervical cancer is relatively less common than other reproductive cancers.
37:
See wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hpv
Over 100 types of HPV. Roughly 30 sexually transmitted. 4 types strongly linked to cervical cancer, according to some information.
Now, I do not know whether, when one is tested for HPV, all 100 types are tested for. And this is something that I'll surely be asking my gynecologist about. Perhaps they only routinely test for the 4, or half-dozen, or 30, problematic ones. Perhaps I know nothing about how these things are done (likely).
My objection is that if testing positive for HPV means that you have one of the 100+ types, this does *not* necessarily mean you are at high risk for cervical cancer: it just means you should have further testing.
I think Martha's point (if I may speak for Martha) may be that cervical cancer is strongly linked to HPV, not that HPV is strongly linked to cervical cancer.
Fair enough. I should note that I don't actually know anything about any of this, living in monastic loneliness as I do.
And B. makes a good point in 39. Look, I'd love it if every woman I know had decent health care and annual Pap smears. If everyone did, the vaccine would be less important.
But if even the educated, upper-middle-class women I know sometimes skip a year due to job transitions/arbitrary insurance requirements ("You can't have TWO physicals in one year!" -- no matter that they were Jan. 5 and Dec. 29), I can't imagine what the Pap rates are for women living in poverty or even just sans health insurance.
And to Witt:
I did see (after I'd sent off a comment) that you'd already mentioned some of things I wanted to point out.
It is something to be taken seriously, like any other cancer-screening testing, especially when risk-factors are present.
All all y'all men-folk are going to be getting colonoscopies, right?
Martha's right on the limits of the vaccine. But the hype is easy. Cervical cancer is iirc, one of the more asymptomatic cancers (like ovarian cancer.) If you're not getting regular exams, it's the sort of thing that can sneak up on you.
Plus, at anything past Stage 0, treatment is pretty much at least a radical hysterectomy. That's pretty sucky.
Hell, if I was single, I'd pay the 300 bucks just to get inoculated against warts.
all y'all men-folk are going to be getting colonoscopies, right?
Yep, starting at age 40.
And then post the pictures on the internet, right? The Unfogged colon collection.
If Unfogged is still around in 18 years, sure.
47: But being married, you've already got 'em?
Plus, at anything past Stage 0, treatment is pretty much at least a radical hysterectomy. That's pretty sucky.
Um. For cervical cancer anything past Stage 0 (is this a technical term?) involves radical hysterectomy?
I don't know what Stage Zero is. I imagine I'll find out.
For what it's worth, I hope I haven't freaked people out with my disclosure. You don't know me, so I'm not sure. I have annual physicals/pap smears, and did not test postive for HPV last year. A recent development.
Cala, I hope what you say about hysterectomy assumes one who does not have regular tests. It didn't quite sound like that, to wit, your: "Plus, "
Hey, Martha, if you'll email me I'll forward on to you the (very long and detailed) email I got from an ob/gyn-reader who sent me a ton of info about HPV and abnormal paps back when I had an abnormal pap myself.
But briefly, the most relevant section (I think) from a link she sent me is this:
If I tested positive for HPV, what does this mean for me?
Weird. Ok, the answer is below:
Most HPV infections go away without treatment because the immune system finds the virus and either gets rid of it or suppresses it to the point that it never returns to cause problems. Cell changes that may eventually lead to cervical cancer only occur when this does not happen and HPV stays for many years. Even though HPV is found in cervical cancer, most people testing positive for HPV are not at risk for getting cervical cancer because they have the virus for only a short time (months rather than many years). Therefore, women with a normal Pap who test positive for HPV will usually be tested for HPV again in 6-12 months. Testing positive a second time does not mean that there is great risk of cervical cancer, or even of cell changes that may lead to cervical cancer, but it does mean that further evaluation will likely be recommended.
Here's a link about the stages of cervical cancer.
But an HPV diagnosis or abnormal cells doesn't necessarily indicate cancer; as B says, the body is pretty resilient at squashing an HPV infection.
And again, most types of HPV don't cause cancer.
That wasn't me in 55, also, btw. I was quoting from a pamphlet my ob/gyn friend sent me.
Let's just bold that: most types of HPV don't cause cancer.
55:
BPhD, your email address isn't readily apparent from this space. I'll send something to some address for you. Thanks for this information so far: it conforms to what I've so far understood.
I'm tickled by the fact that a hating-on-Sunday-Styles post has detoured into a women's-health help session.
But on the topic of the NYT, what did folks think of this article?
As a condition of his work for the federal government, Andrew A. Zucker was willing to be fingerprinted and provide an employment history. But then he was asked to let federal investigators examine his financial and medical records, and interview his doctors.
Dr. Zucker was not tracking terrorists or even emptying the trash at the Pentagon. He was studying how to best teach science to middle school students. He was stunned at the breadth of the request for information.
But most types of HPV do in faxt indicate the presence of a giant whore. Repent! The second coming of Jesus is at hand!
I'm tickled by the fact that a hating-on-Sunday-Styles post has detoured into a women's-health help session.
Dude.
Not to be too serious here, but we can give you HPV too!
bwahahahahahaha.
Really. You give me HPV, I give you HPV, we all trade it around together, and you fuckers don't even fucking know you have it.
ahem,
Not to be too serious here, but we can give you HPV too!
Yeah Witt, keep an eye on your uterus.
Or cervix, or whatever inflamed meaty bits you've got.
I think Martha's point was that this is not exclusively a women's health issue. Which, fair point -- I have certainly griped at enough campaign workers when they try to tell me about Senator so-and-so's position on "women's health" (Is it different than men's health? I always want to ask).
Be that as it may, I submit that this thread did indeed become a women's health discussion.
Bah, HPV does very little to guys. But god is getting back at us for this. The clinical trials for a herpes vaccine is only working on women. I wonder it they've nailed down a mechanism for this yet.
Paging Cryptic Ned...
Bah, HPV does very little to guys.
Except that you can give your women cervical cancer.
Oh. So pay attention.
But yes, gswift is doing his Manly Comments Only thing.
Witt, what do you want? Was the original thread more interesting -- what was it about, uh, wedding invitations?
Also, don't men get the whole genital warts thing? Which, not cancer, but still worth avoiding.
Except that you can give your women cervical cancer.
Oh. So pay attention.
All I'm saying is that this *is" pretty much exclusively a women's health issue in the sense that it's women that bear the consequences.
Also, don't men get the whole genital warts thing? Which, not cancer, but still worth avoiding.
See 47.
to gswift, genital warts are really manly.
If you know what's good for you, you will not send me e-mail with "save the date" in the subject line. Subject lines are for subjects. Tell me what it is you want and I can decide what to do with it. "Save the date" is equivalent to writing your event into my diary without telling me. Grr.
Uh, gswift? You're pro-circumcision for health reasons but cancer of the dick elicits a "bah"?
In this country, penile cancer accounts for about 0.2% of all cancers in men. It is especially rare in circumcised men
That's pretty much 'bah' territory.
At least one article claims that circumcised men are *more* likely to get it. And in any case, given that HPV seems to be the leading causal factor, I wouldn't say "bah" to HPV if I were a guy.
I would. For example, I say "bah" to the risk of stroke accepted by taking the birth control pill, and that's far higher than the risk of getting penile cancer due to HPV. It's not 0.2% of exposures to the virus; it's 0.2% of all cancer, and concentrated in groups with lowered immune systems.
This isn't to say that HPV shouldn't be taken seriously by men, just that the factors driving a reason to be serious about it are a) warts and b) might give my partner HPV, and it's a lot more risky for her.
I see no reason to say it's not 'bah' territory; is the logic if we argue it's a serious risk for men, they'll care about HPV? They should be caring about it anyway because of the risk to women, not because if they also contract an autoimmune disease, their dick will fall off.
I'm not arguing it's a serious risk. It was kind of a throwaway comment, meant to tweak gswift.
HPV flees before the power of my circumsized cock.
My ears are burning. I think you guys fleshed the whole thing out, but I'll just throw my bones in again. For one, I don't remember if I mentioned this in the post, but the person who gave me all that information was a Planned Parenthood clinic doctor (no health insurance, it's easier to get appts).
It's true what was said above - cervical cancer is strongly linked to HPV, not the reverse. Most HPV, as I understand, is fairly benign. We old whores are not advised to get the vaccine because if we've been sexually active, we probably have it. My doctor said I wasn't *barred* from getting it, but it was so expensive that it just didn't seem to make sense to pay to "prevent" something I likely have already contracted.
Also, while I wholeheartedly agree about getting yearly exams, it's worth noting that this vaccine is actually being encouraged for girls as young as 12 years old - witness the legislation being pushed for schools to require the vaccine in middle school. This is key, because most of us don't start going to the gyno until we get our periods or later, which could be as late as high school for some - and that's just for the parents who actually don't freak and *take* their daughters to the doctor.
Also worth noting: my doctor said they wouldn't have it available for at least another year. I'm not sure how widely available it is otherwise, but it sure sounds like it's gaining steam. As long as it doesn't eventually get linked to some terrible side-effect, I'll be signing up my future daughter.