HPV vaccine is slut serum, says IWF.

As an update to Madeline’s post on the CDC’s recommendation of the HPV vaccine to young girls, we’re not surprised to find that the Independent Women’s Forum thinks this attempt to eliminate the disease will only trigger a much more serious epidemic: slutosis.
Fuck saving women’s lives, we need to save these girls’ souls! Barf. This argument is baseless. When I went to the doctor for shots when I was young, I didn’t know or care what the hell it was for; all I knew is that it hurt like a mofo. What do they think the doctor’s going to do, give her a condom instead of a lollipop when she leaves the office?
Thanks to PseudoAdrienne for the link.

Join the Conversation

  • DT

    OMG I love the term “slut serum.” If only I could find a way to work in to conversation…
    Seriously, these people are crazy.

  • Sylke

    Lovely. I wonder if they call domestic abuse “ask-for-it-itis.” Fekking nutters.

  • Ann

    From the IWF statement on HPV:

    If you think 11 sounds young for sex, how about age 9–the recommended age in some cases?

    This is totally absurd. Vaccination against HPV doesn’t mean we think 11 and 12-year-olds are sexually active– it’s just an acknowledgment that they probably will be someday. (Unless they grow up to work at IWF, of course.)
    And as Time magazine pointed out, giving kids tetanus shots isn’t saying, “Okay! Go run on a bed of rusty nails now!” To the kids who receive it, the HPV vaccine won’t be different than any other shot.

  • EG

    What is especially idiotic is that IWF seems to missing the point of a vaccine, which is that you have to have it before you’re exposed to the disease in question. The point of vaccinating girls as young as 9 is that when they’re at that age, we can be reasonably certain that unless they’re being sexually abused, they are not sexually active, and thus have not yet been exposed to the virus. The whole idea is predicated on young girls not being sexually active.
    Twits. They’re utter twits.

  • Seriously

    What I want to know is how would groups like the IWF (and others who oppose the HPV vaccine on such totally nutso grounds) would react if researchers announced tomorrow that they had an effective HIV vaccine?
    Would that also lead to the horrible epidemic known as slutosis?

  • prairielily

    I didn’t read this until now, because everytime I visit that site, I feel like throwing up. I prefer to pretend such people don’t exist.
    I’m not sure if they do this everywhere, but I had my Hepatitis B shot in three doses in Gr. 6. It seems very simple and practical to me to give the HPV vaccine at the same time. Hep B… HPV… they sound pretty much the same to most kids. (I was a nerd, so I did know exactly what all my shots were for, but I also would have understood that being protected against HPV didn’t mean I was protected against the myriad of other nasty germs out there.)

  • http://civilliberty.about.com Tom Head

    Seriously writes:
    What I want to know is how would groups like the IWF (and others who oppose the HPV vaccine on such totally nutso grounds) would react if researchers announced tomorrow that they had an effective HIV vaccine?
    I’m pretty sure they would have exactly the same objections. Anything that kills teenagers for having sex–HPV, HIV-AIDS, Jason Voorhees–helps them make the case for abstinence. Human life, in and of itself, means nothing to these people.

  • the_becca

    Here’s something that hit me the other day: what if these people’s daughters, despite being the good god-fearing future housewives we all know they are (heh), are ever a victim of rape and contract HPV that way?
    Why are STDs viewed as something that you could just avoid if only you weren’t such a stupid slut? Even if you buy into that point of view (which I adamantly don’t), there’s still the possibility of contracting it despite never having consented to sex (or contracting it from a less-virginal husband who never bothered getting tested, etc etc). How does the right account for that??

  • manda

    I wonder what the lovely ladies at the IWF would do if one of their board members walked into a meeting and announced they had cervical cancer. Not because she was an evil whore who had sex when she was an unmarried teenager, but because her husband screwed around and brought HPV back to her.
    I certainly wouldn’t wish that on anyone – not even someone whose position on something like this I find disgusting. I wonder, however, if it would make any of them rethink their position.

  • Sherry

    No, I think they are right. The threat of STDs and death is needed to stop teenagers from having sex. Oh, wait that doesn’t work.nevermind.

  • http://www.brentrasmussen.com Alon Levy

    It’s less about deterrence and more about punishment: you have premarital sex, you get a fatal disease.

  • http://civilliberty.about.com Tom Head

    I don’t think they see a difference between deterrence and punishment. For them, it’s all part of God’s plan.

  • Erin

    Maybe we should just line the teenagers up in front of a firing squad. Wouldn’t that be easier and more efficient?
    On a less bitter note, a conservative lady I know had quite a few partners when she was younger. When she “found Jesus again”, she started the crusade against sex…. Sometimes I wonder how many of these IWF women also sowed their wild oats at one time or another. Hypocrisy is hard to avoid sometimes.

  • paulibus

    I am a big fan of Alternet.org, and I saw the ad for Feministing on their web page. It looked like an interesting site so I checked into it discovering this post on the HPV vaccine in the process. I followed your link to the IWF article. I wanted to see for myself that the claim you make that “Independent Women’s Forum thinks this attempt to eliminate the disease will only trigger a much more serious epidemic: slutosis” was true. The link, apparently provided by PseudoAdrienne, takes one to an IWF archived article that addresses this subject, and does appear to oppose use of the vaccine, but it makes no such statement, nor does it ever use the phrases “slut serum”, or “slutosis.” A search of the IWF web site yields no results for this statement, nor does it yield any results for these two phrases. I did a search on Google for the phrase “slut serum,” and received 39 hits, 27 of which refer to postings on this web site, the remainder appearing to be irrelevant, and not one associated with IWF. I repeated the search for “slutosis” with similar results.
    While I agree with your position, and believe it to be true that the “abstinence only” movement is endangering women’s health, I find that there are entirely too many statements being made that purport to bolster a certain claim, but do not stand up to scrutiny. This is a very serious accusation that supports your position nicely, but appears to be unfounded. I have always followed the old journalistic precept that statements such as this are to be verified by at least 3 independent sources. This claim does not sustain, and you should not be making it. There is enough truth out there for everyone.

  • Vanessa

    The terms “slut serum” and “slutosis” was not intending to quote IWF, I was merely humorously referencing to the fact that IWF does, in fact, think that giving girls the vaccine condones and will increase promiscuity.

  • Nani

    I am a 54 year old survivor of cervical cancer; I was treated traditionally with cryogenic conization (which didn’t work), and laser conization (which did, the first time — I had the option of further conization if the cancer cells had appeared yet again). My uterus, scarred at the cervix, is still intact, as are my ovaries, which the first (male) gynecologist with whom I consulted was intent on removing, along with my uterus. Other than a few stray cancer cells showing themselves in a pap few months after the last conization, I have been cancer free since 1986. I severely curtailed my own sexual activity after this, in order to be “responsible” (both to myself and to future female partners of any partners I had). In other words, I know firsthand the devastation this diseaes wreaks.
    That being said (ie, that I am very much aware of what it’s like to have a cancer caused by an STD, and I wouldn’t wish it on my daughters or anybody else’s), I am wary of dictates for universal vaccinations. I haven’t gotten the feeling recently that the “powers that be” in the megalithic pharmaceuticals industry always have the best interests of their patients (male or female, but particularly, as usual, female) in mind, and I can imagine, on this one, those in the “bottom line” departments of those huge corporations rubbing their hands together and salivating at the thought of a mandate to immunize ALL girls. Oh, the bucks they’ll rake in!!!!
    I know HPV is an epidemic. I know that some strains of HPV cause cancers, and when not detected early enough, those cancers can be lethal. I also am living proof in the 99 percent cure rate with treatment (early or not… mine was not an early detection). And as my dear Egyptian physician told me when I voiced my fears of “spreading” HPV — “so much depends on the immune systems of the people, whether they’ll get it or not.”
    I don’t feel comfortable with the government holding the fear of death by cancer (or simply the fear of contracting an “icky” STD that might cramp our sexual style — even that carries a huge emotional charge for some people) over us as yet another way of controlling what we do with our bodies, or allow to have done to those of our own children.
    I urge caution. And discernment.
    Posted by: Anonymous | July 4, 2006 11:45 AM

  • This Guy

    To say one shouldn’t vaccinate against HPV to control the slut population is the same as saying we shouldn’t cure Aids in order to control the homo population. Rediculous. The bigger more important picture is the eradication of diseases and virii that ail humankind. I wouldn’t make this a girl issue, i would make this a human issue.

  • GamesOnline

    Lovely. I wonder if they call domestic abuse “ask-for-it-itis.” Fekking nutters.games