[crazykatie]

Good times, I really appreciate your candor as, I believe, your viewpoint is shared by the vast majority of swingers who do not believe they are infected.

I do not find it hard to believe that the vast majority of swingers or lifestyle couples would choose not to knowingly play with someone who is seropositive. What I find frustrating is the apparent lack of understanding or realization of what the true risks are in contracting the disease and the clear and obvious prejudice within the community against those who have it. The prejudice appears to extend beyond a mere personal preference against playing with the infected. As I understand it, an individual or couple who openly acknowledges their condition can expect word to spread within their local community to the point that they should expect everyone will know they have it. Because they will be “outed,” anyone who openly associates with them may become suspect and, by virtue of the association, be shunned as well. It is this form of stigmatization that I find reprehensible.

OK, I get that everyone who isn’t infected wants to remain that way. What are your options? The only absolutely sure way to avoid infection is to never play outside a committed, monogamous relationship. Because of the asymptomatic nature of this disease, many people who don’t think they have it and don’t have any outward signs of infection are, nonetheless, contagious at any given time. http://www.herpesweb.net/general/facts/general.htm Moreover, because the body requires time to develop sufficient anti-bodies to the virus to test positive after an initial infection, even individuals with recent negative blood tests can still be both infected and contagious. http://www.webmd.com/genital-herpes/Herpes-Tests So, limiting your play partners to those who claim not to be infected and also claim to have recent blood tests to prove it does not assure yourself that you are playing with the uninfected (assuming they are telling the truth).

My point....everyone who is engaging in this lifestyle has accepted, on some level, a risk of contracting this disease. The only question is what do you consider an acceptable level of risk?

With that as an introduction, I want to respond to some of good time’s points.

Originally Posted by good times

The problem is, I am not an odds player...

I think this statement reflects the thinking of a large percentage of the swinger population. It is also demonstratively not true. Good times, you admit yourself that you are and "odds player" when you write:

Originally Posted by good times

....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.

At the end of the day, you acknowledge both the risks and the odds. You know that the choice you face is to play or not to play. The only way to take your odds to zero is to decide not to play. You have evaluated the information and have correctly assured yourself that, all things taken together, your personal odds of playing with an infected partner who is contagious is about 1 or 2 in 100. Against the option of not playing at all, you are willing to accept those odds. So, don’t try to tell me that you are not an odds player.

In point of fact, what you really don’t want to acknowledge is that you are playing the odds. And, here is how they work for you or against you. Every time you play with a new partner there is a roughly one in five chance that they are infected. So, your chance of playing with an infected person is approximately 20%. Play with two people and the odds of one of them being infected rises to 36% (the odds of them both being uninfected is 80% times 80% or 64%). By the time you have played with eight people, the odds that at least one of the eight was infected has risen to 83%.

Fortunately, the odds of them being infected is (as you have pointed out) much higher than the odds of them being contagious. A recent study investigated the relative risk that someone infected with herpes is actively shedding. The study was undertaken in connection with one of the suppressive drugs. http://www.natap.org/2004/HIV/051004_05.htm The incidence of viral shedding in individuals not taking suppressive medications was 3.1%. So the odds of interacting with someone who is both infected and shedding asymptomatically is roughly 00.64% (20% times 3.1%). Stated differently, you have a 99.36% chance of playing with someone who is either not infected or infected and not contagious. Pretty good odds, huh? This is why you swing and everyone else does, too. Even if you hit that one in one hundred situation, there is still a relatively good chance that with safe sex practice, you are protected!

Here is where it gets interesting. If a person has herpes, knows they have herpes, and is on suppressive therapy, the risk of them asymptomatically shedding (depending upon the dosage of the drugs) is between 00.52% and 00.35%. Stated differently, you have between a 99.65% chance and a 99.48% chance of playing with a partner who is actively shedding virus when your partner knows that they have it and is taking suppressive medications. Your risk of playing with a partner who is actively shedding the herpes virus is actually lower when the person knows that they are infected.

By the way, this analysis does not take into account the risk that the partner who does not think they are infected is, in fact, infected and having an outbreak!

The reality of how this disease is spread has caused one medical website to openly acknowledge the following....

Originally Posted by www.medscape.com

But here's an interesting way to look at that risk. Let's say that Diane, who is truly uninfected (ie, HSV-2 seronegative), meets Bob who has HSV-2. Bob tells Diane about his infection. He offers to use condoms every time they have sex, take daily antiviral therapy, and agrees to try to be aware of any symptoms that may signal the beginning of an outbreak. Diane says that she just can't handle any risk, even though she really likes Bob. So she says goodbye and moves on. Then she meets Bill. She asks him right away whether he has herpes because now she's really worried about getting infected. He replies that he's "not that kind of guy" and is certain that he is not infected, only he really is (as approximately 1 in 4 adults are) but doesn't know it. Now we know that Bill is shedding virus at the same rate as Bob, but because he is unaware of his infection and doing nothing about it, he is more likely to infect Diane than Bob ever was. But Diane likes Bill's answer. She has sex with him with birth control pills instead of condoms, and within 2 months is infected with HSV-2. She's the one sitting in your exam room, waiting for the news. And the circle continues. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/489964

Let’s attack another myth....

Originally Posted by good times

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.

Simply not true. Over 70% of the time, the disease is transmitted during periods when there are no outward signs of infection. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...indexed=google While being knowledgeable about the disease can certainly help the infected know when they are likely to be contagious, all that the partner has to go on is whether an open sore is visible on their partner. That is not enough to substantially reduce the risk of contracting the disease.

Originally Posted by good times

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.

It is here that you previously stated that you were not an odds taker, which notion I think I have already completely debunked...

Originally Posted by good times

....to me, the person with herpes that is on suppressive 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.

The question isn't whether you need to take a risk; you decide to take a risk each and every time you play. Instead, the question is: how much of a risk can you afford to take?

The risk that your partner who has herpes and is not on a viral suppressant is shedding is about: 1 in 32

The risk that your partner who does not think he has herpes actually has herpes and is shedding is approximately: 1 in 156

The risk that your partner who knows that they have herpes and is on a suppressant is shedding is approximately: 1 in 192 to 285

Of course, with safe sex practices, the odds of actually contracting the disease even if there is shedding approaches zero.

Still, if you can afford to take the 1 in 156 chance of playing with someone who is shedding even though they think they are clean, then you certainly should be able to afford the 1 in 192 to 285 chance of playing with someone who knows they have the disease, is treating it appropriately, and is (nonetheless) shedding. Conversely, if the 1 in 192 to 295 chance of exposing yourself to shedding with someone on suppressive therapy is too much for your taste, then you shouldn't be able to accept the 1 in 156 chance resulting from play with those who don't think they are infected.

Given the odds that swingers must be willing to accept just to play, there is absolutely no reasoned basis to avoid contact with the individuals and couples who know they are infected. You really are safer playing with the people who know they have the disease than you are playing with people who say that they don't.

But, I understand that as logical as this argument is, many of you simply don't want to knowingly play with fire. You want to believe that you are safer playing with those who do not believe they are infected because the idea that you are safer playing with someone who knows that they have the disease is fundamentally unsettling. So, you make a personal decision not to play with the infected.

However, your personal decisions (this comment is directed to the swinger community as a whole, not just good times)--to be irrational and ignorant of the real odds of contracting this disease--does not (in my mind) justify shunning or stigmatizing the open and honest couples playing with this disease. Yet, it appears from my research, that is exactly what is happening. The swinging community has allowed its ignorance of this disease to fuel an irrational fear that clouds all judgment. It has also fueled a prejudice which drives honest individuals underground when, I think, many of them would much rather be open and honest about their conditions.

I think it is wrong for this community to so stigmatize this disease that the stigma prevents people from openly acknowledging their condition--not because they are afraid that some will decide not to play with them--but because they are afraid that once they are “outed,” no one will dare risk to associate with them. That is wrong because, among other things, it raises prejudice over reason.