Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:For the record, OP said it was TV, not HPV
Yes, but the comparison between hpv and other stds and stis is relevant here. There are posters claiming there are non sexual ways if contracting sexually transmitted diseases. If a woman's hpv is attributed to dormancy, then maybe her case of trich came from a towel. The reality is, if you have an std, you have been exposed to an std by your partner.
100% this.
Most of what we're seeing here are women that unfortunately choose to believe that their partner was faithful to them when he was not. In general, I think it's best to just accept the truth, work through it with a therapist, and figure out if you can salvage the marriage. Sticking your head in the sand and imagining you got it from the toilet seat or whatever is very 1950's.
No what we have here are women that understand science. I actually think OP's H cheated. But just so we are not spreading false information, it is very possible to get these STI's and nobody cheated.
Anonymous wrote:New poster and I haven't read all 13 pages, but my DH and I have never been with anyone else in our lives, and a couple of years ago, I had an abnormal pap and positive for HPV. It is rare, but it happened to me.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:For the record, OP said it was TV, not HPV
Yes, but the comparison between hpv and other stds and stis is relevant here. There are posters claiming there are non sexual ways if contracting sexually transmitted diseases. If a woman's hpv is attributed to dormancy, then maybe her case of trich came from a towel. The reality is, if you have an std, you have been exposed to an std by your partner.
100% this.
Most of what we're seeing here are women that unfortunately choose to believe that their partner was faithful to them when he was not. In general, I think it's best to just accept the truth, work through it with a therapist, and figure out if you can salvage the marriage. Sticking your head in the sand and imagining you got it from the toilet seat or whatever is very 1950's.
No what we have here are women that understand science. I actually think OP's H cheated. But just so we are not spreading false information, it is very possible to get these STI's and nobody cheated.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:For the record, OP said it was TV, not HPV
Yes, but the comparison between hpv and other stds and stis is relevant here. There are posters claiming there are non sexual ways if contracting sexually transmitted diseases. If a woman's hpv is attributed to dormancy, then maybe her case of trich came from a towel. The reality is, if you have an std, you have been exposed to an std by your partner.
100% this.
Most of what we're seeing here are women that unfortunately choose to believe that their partner was faithful to them when he was not. In general, I think it's best to just accept the truth, work through it with a therapist, and figure out if you can salvage the marriage. Sticking your head in the sand and imagining you got it from the toilet seat or whatever is very 1950's.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:For the record, OP said it was TV, not HPV
Yes, but the comparison between hpv and other stds and stis is relevant here. There are posters claiming there are non sexual ways if contracting sexually transmitted diseases. If a woman's hpv is attributed to dormancy, then maybe her case of trich came from a towel. The reality is, if you have an std, you have been exposed to an std by your partner.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:For the record, OP said it was TV, not HPV
Yes, but the comparison between hpv and other stds and stis is relevant here. There are posters claiming there are non sexual ways if contracting sexually transmitted diseases. If a woman's hpv is attributed to dormancy, then maybe her case of trich came from a towel. The reality is, if you have an std, you have been exposed to an std by your partner.
Anonymous wrote:For the record, OP said it was TV, not HPV
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP here- already talked with my doctor. Talking to another doctor later this week. Only real probability was a recent partner. I don't know why the type of std matters.
It matters because HPV can be in your system for years and then reactivate.
Not really. Usually your body completely clears an hpv infection or you will continue to test positive for it. By “laying dormant,” it means the hpv infection isn’t causing any precancerous cells, not that it’s undetectable. If someone tests negative for hpv and then tests positive, it almost always means they have a new infection.
That is completely wrong.
No, it’s not. As long as the hpv is in your system, even if you have no symptoms of infection and no cellular changes, you will test positive for it. For most people, hpv clears itself COMPLETELY in about two years, but in some people it can last decades. If you tested negative and then test positive a few years later, you have a new infection. FACTS.
No. It does not mean it is a new infection. It can recur years later: the same one.
Not 10 years later though.
I wish there was clear information about hpv available.These allegedly "long dormant" cases suddenly popping up, conviently coinciding with midlife crises... I have never had an abnormal pap, nor have I ever tested positive for hpv. I am faithful to my dh. If I come up positive, he's busted.
Anonymous wrote:For the record, OP said it was TV, not HPV
Anonymous wrote:For the record, OP said it was TV, not HPV
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP here- already talked with my doctor. Talking to another doctor later this week. Only real probability was a recent partner. I don't know why the type of std matters.
It matters because HPV can be in your system for years and then reactivate.
Not really. Usually your body completely clears an hpv infection or you will continue to test positive for it. By “laying dormant,” it means the hpv infection isn’t causing any precancerous cells, not that it’s undetectable. If someone tests negative for hpv and then tests positive, it almost always means they have a new infection.
That is completely wrong.
No, it’s not. As long as the hpv is in your system, even if you have no symptoms of infection and no cellular changes, you will test positive for it. For most people, hpv clears itself COMPLETELY in about two years, but in some people it can last decades. If you tested negative and then test positive a few years later, you have a new infection. FACTS.
No. It does not mean it is a new infection. It can recur years later: the same one.
Not 10 years later though.
I wish there was clear information about hpv available.These allegedly "long dormant" cases suddenly popping up, conviently coinciding with midlife crises... I have never had an abnormal pap, nor have I ever tested positive for hpv. I am faithful to my dh. If I come up positive, he's busted.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP here- already talked with my doctor. Talking to another doctor later this week. Only real probability was a recent partner. I don't know why the type of std matters.
It matters because HPV can be in your system for years and then reactivate.
Not really. Usually your body completely clears an hpv infection or you will continue to test positive for it. By “laying dormant,” it means the hpv infection isn’t causing any precancerous cells, not that it’s undetectable. If someone tests negative for hpv and then tests positive, it almost always means they have a new infection.
That is completely wrong.
No, it’s not. As long as the hpv is in your system, even if you have no symptoms of infection and no cellular changes, you will test positive for it. For most people, hpv clears itself COMPLETELY in about two years, but in some people it can last decades. If you tested negative and then test positive a few years later, you have a new infection. FACTS.
No. It does not mean it is a new infection. It can recur years later: the same one.
Not 10 years later though.