Quote:
|
Originally Posted by crazykatie Good Times: You appear to equate "having Herpes" with being capable of communicating the disease. So, is it your view that when one believes that they are not contagious (no active outbreak, no signs of viral shedding), they are not suffering from Herpes? Further, if someone is seropositive for HSV2 but has never had an outbreak (so they never had a cultured confirmation that they are contagious) can they continue to think of themselves as "disease free"? |
I don't really know that I have a view regarding that, in my opinion, they either have it or they don't. On the other hand, if I play with someone and they aren't shedding the virus, then technically, from my risk point of view, it would be the same as if they didn't have the virus at all. In other words, how would I know if anyone was infected, if they had no signs and were not actively shedding the virus? I wouldn't, but do I think it would be right for someone to knowingly deceive people? No, but it wouldn't surprise me to find out it happens. That is a risk we take, but as I said before, it doesn't appear to me from the research available to be as big a risk as some would have us believe. The reason for that is, my risk is only in relation to those who are actively shedding the virus, the rest of the people I might come in contact with, whether serropositive or not, don't make any difference, because I can't contract the virus from them. So, while it might freak me out if I believed 1 in 5 of the people I had sex with had herpes, the fact is, I have less than a 1 in 100 chance of having sex with someone who can actually give me Herpes. And unlike some other STD's, if I educate myself to the signs and symptoms of Herpes, I can substantially reduce my chances of coming into contact with it even further.
My view is, I would not knowingly play with someone who has Herpes. Whether someone is on suppressive therapy or not doesn't make any difference to me, because either one of them could be unknowingly shedding the virus on the night I play with them, their is no way for either them or me to know if they are currently shedding or not. If, on the other hand, the drugs caused the person infected with herpes to
never shed the virus, I would have a totally different view and would probably have no problem playing with them. The suppressive drugs do not work that way though, a person on the drugs can still be shedding the virus at any time. With that in mind, it is true that the person on suppressive therapy may shed the virus less often than if they weren't taking the drugs, so odds are, that I am less likely to contract the virus from them than another person who has the same outbreak frequency without the drugs. The problem is, I am not an odds player, to me, the person with herpes that is on surppressive therapy is no different than one who has it and isn't on medication, they are both a risk I do not need to take. Therefore, I don't believe these people are being stigmatized, that would presume that we believe something that isn't true. The fact is, whether one is on suppressive therapy or not, they can pass the virus, so it is not stigmatization, it is facts that drive my decision not to knowingly play with them. I agree that it is a bummer for someone who has herpes and wants to play, but the risk is there, so the best risk avoidance is to not go there.