[brighteyes]

No, the article focuses on something completely different: That more men are diagnosed with HPV-associated cancer than women, these days.

That's because of a huge increase in mouth and throat cancer among men, likely caused by an increase in oral sex.

Boys getting the vaccine can prevent them from getting cancer decades later, basically.

[masonic]

  can prevent them from getting cancer 

It can prevent them from getting cancers caused by the specific HPV strains included in the vaccine assuming they completed the entire 3-dose over 12 months course of treatment. It does nothing to prevent cancer from other causes.

[a2tech]

Thats really interesting. I was looking at HPV as a cervical cancer only, not a male oral cancer. I'm going to chat with a researcher I work with that was involved in the development of the HPV vaccine and see what she thinks about it.

[berberous]

Michael Douglas publicly blamed his cancer on giving oral sex, raising a lot of awareness of the issue:

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/jun/02/michael-douglas...

[burfog]

Not everybody does that.

Getting the vaccine because you might decide to sleep around (oral or otherwise) is like carrying a weapon because you might decide to get in a fight. Rape exists, but so do murderous assaults. The logic that says you need this vaccine is the same logic that says you need to carry a weapon.

[Cogito]

What? No.

Sex is a normal part of life, but even if it wasn't this is a ridiculous analogy.

If I get this vaccine I protect both myself and any future partners I may have. There is no downside (barring potential vaccine side effects).

Your statement is essentially equivalent to:

Buying condoms because you might decide to sleep around (oral or otherwise) is like carrying a weapon because you might decide to get in a fight. Rape exists, but so do murderous assaults. The logic that says you need to use a condom is the same logic that says you need to carry a weapon.

Hopefully it's clear how damaging that thinking can be?

Getting this vaccine is cheap and effective, and in no way similar to carrying a gun.

The worst part, of course, is that you can contract the virus (and the cancer) through kissing! I guess if you make sure you only ever kiss one person, and you know for sure that they have only ever kissed you, and will only ever kiss you in the future, and you and they both have never performed oral sex on anyone, or had sex with anyone else - maybe then you don't need the vaccine.

Deriding the suggestion that we should prevent easily preventable cancer (you call up images of rape and murder!) is way off base.

[burfog]

I know couples who wait until marriage for kissing.

Not that I specified "gun", but I know people who regularly carry one. It is cheap and effective, and it will protect partners too, just like condoms.

[isbwkisbakadqv]

Fair point. I don't think you need to bring in the gun analogy. If you're definitely not going to have sex, you don't need any STD prevention.

[wnoise]

One man's modus ponens is another man's modus tollens.

[flukus]

> The logic that says you need this vaccine is the same logic that says you need to carry a weapon.

Assuming both are as common, but they aren't. Most people will have multiple sexual partners and engage in oral sex, few people get murdered.

Then there's herd immunity which is great at protecting everyone, but carrying around weapons seems to have the opposite effect in makes you more likely to be murdered.