Herpes...

[DGrey]

Originally Posted by ShellyM

I have a question and I hope someone has an answer. Is there a difference in a canker sore and a cold sore?

From my understanding, a cold sore develops outside on the lips or surrounding area and a canker sore develops on the inside, typically from a cut or something similar.

E

[imsnowman]

Canker sore
Cold sore

[Thrax]

Originally Posted by ShellyM

I have a question and I hope someone has an answer. Is there a difference in a canker sore and a cold sore?

Apparently, yes. I didn't do much research on it, but the following is from the Mayo Clinic website ( http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/canker-sore/DS00354 ). I figured the folks there might know what they're talking about:

"Canker sore: Small and out-of-sight, but painful, persistent and annoying. That's what canker sores, also called aphthous ulcers (aphthae), are for people who experience them. These shallow ulcers in your mouth can make eating and talking uncomfortable. They may occur on your tongue, on your soft palate, inside your cheeks or lips, and at the base of your gums.

Canker sores differ from cold sores in that they occur on the internal soft tissues of your mouth and aren't contagious. Conversely, cold sores almost always start out on the lips and don't often spread to the soft tissues of your mouth. In addition, cold sores are caused by a form of the herpes virus, making them extremely contagious.

Canker sores are common, but the cause in many cases is unknown. Canker sores can occur at any age, but often they first appear when you are between 10 and 40 years of age.

Most of the time, treatment isn't necessary for canker sores. Pain usually decreases after several days, and canker sores typically heal within one to three weeks. Occasionally canker sores can develop that are larger than 1 centimeter in diameter or last longer than two weeks."

I've had canker sores before, but never have had a cold sore...knock on (or touch) wood. Haven't had any canker sores recently, but within the last decade or two they've appeared occasionally but usually vanished pretty fast. I credit that to clean living...

Thrax

[MulderNScully]

Man, this is really hitting home because Bren and I have a friend who is a single female and is aware of us being in the lifestyle. She doesn't want to get sexual with us (don't want to risk loosing our friendship), but even if we did we wouldn't because of no fault of her own she contacted the herpes virus by a former boyfriend of hers. She now has the symptoms described early in this post and is getting the care and treatment she needs, but that's not the issue really. The issue is she wants to check out the lifestyle and the club as a vouyer of sorts, but not a participants. We talked about the implications till nearly 1:30 am this past Monday morning.

I read one person on here saying a condom is your best bet...I agree, condoms is a good line of defense but if you are another woman who want to have oral sex with a woman who has contacted herpes I'd say a dental dam would be appropriate too. You can still be sexual, but also cover all the basis where this lifestyle pertains too. My advice: Check with your doctor or get some good direction from either Planned Parenthood or other sexual health outlets which deals frankly with issues of sexual health.

Mulder
(of MulderNScully)

[Paramour2_99]

How is it that the two of you can have the frame of mind to be swingers and you both have communicable deseases?

[MulderNScully]

No, no, no!!

Scully and I don't have the herpes virus or anything else. Our friend does but she's only curious about the lifestyle; we haven't, nor would we, play with her on any level because of that (along with the fact she is a good friend of ours). If for any reason we didn't make that clear please forgive us. We wouldn't knowingly pass on any STD onto another couple/single in the lifestyle without first briefing them. This is just wrong!

[OttawaCuple]

Originally Posted by MulderNScully

No, no, no!!

Scully and I don't have the herpes virus or anything else. Our friend does ...

MulderNScully, I would assume Paramour2_99 is responding to MC_alter's post as they were the ones who said they had HSV & HPV ( :rollseyes this is what happens when people don't specify which post they are responding to)

Originally Posted by MC_alter

My wife and are new to the lifestyle and we both carry genital herpes and HPV. At this point we have avoided having to out our issue by engaging in soft-swing only.

MC_alter, what do you mean by "soft-swing"? There are many definitions, but The Swingers Board dictionary defines it as "The term used to describe same-room sex, watching/being watched, or any sexual encounter up to, but not including intercourse, with someone other than your spouse." Not including intercourse CAN mean all forms of oral sex, and oral sex can be VERY risky when you're talking about herpes.

Originally Posted by MC_alter

we have genital herpes but we both have never had a cold sore. I have heard mixed accounts of whether or not there are actually separate strains of oral and/or genital herpes or if they are all the same virus. Assuming we have the strictly genital variety, would it be possible that we could transmit the virus to someone orally to genitaly, and vice versa? I know that people with oral herpes can easily transmit to gental, as oral is often both oral and genital, but what if it is strictly genital? Is this the case, or is it that we both have been lucky enough to never have a cold sore?

MC_alter, there is no such thing as a "strictly genital variety" Go to herpes.org for verification of this fact. Yes, it is possible to transmit "genital herpes" of either strain to the mouth although it is more rare than transferring the other way around. This information is also found on the herpes.org website).

Originally Posted by Paramour2_99

How is it that the two of you can have the frame of mind to be swingers and you both have communicable deseases?

Paramour2_99, although some people would not call them swingers, there are MANY couples who are members of swingers clubs who simply enjoy watching and being watched and have no intention of every ever having oral or genital contact with anyone but their own partner. My husband and I fall into that category - we call ourselves voyeur/exhibitionist swingers. As the website for one of our local swingers clubs says, "Many couples who have joined are just looking for a little extra excitement to spice up their own monogamous relationship while others are active in a swinging lifestyle. Some couples are exhibitionists, others are voyeurs, some are into fetish wear. Yet they all share one thing in common. They are all open minded, fun loving, courteous and tolerant of everyone."

BTW, if you like statistics, The Complete Herpes Information Center is another good site. Based on the statistics listed there, here's something to think about: If 80% of the 1 in 4 adult Americans who have genital herpes are unaware they have it (that adds up to 20% of all adult Americans, BTW!!!!), what percentage of swingers do you think have genital herpes but are unaware they have it??

MrsOttawaCuple

[good times]

Originally Posted by OttawaCuple

BTW, if you like statistics, The Complete Herpes Information Center is another good site.

Personally, I would be highly skeptical about anything I read on that sight or any sight like it because many of their so-called "facts" just are not true.

The problem with statistics is that most of the time they are not true. At the best, they are educated estimates but usually not even that. The fact is, in the case of STD’s; some self-appointed expert that has an agenda usually generates them. Then others repeat what these self-appointed experts say until it becomes the accepted "conventional wisdom".

Let’s face it; if you believe these statistics and are worried about contracting Herpes then you should not be swinging. Even the most optimistic of "experts" say that condoms only provide a "slight amount" of protection from Herpes. In reality, it is safest to assume that condoms provide no protection from Herpes.

If you get cold sores or fever blisters, you are much more likely to give yourself genital Herpes than you are to get it from a sex partner.

Do I worry about contracting Herpes? Yes, but I don't lose a lot of sleep over it. First off, I don't believe that every fourth person I talk to has it, as the "statistics" would indicate. Secondly, I use my eyes, if a person has cold sores or the signs of herpes on or near their genitals; I am not going to have sex with them. In the end though, their is no way for me to know for sure, so I have to decide for myself if I am willing to take the risk. Furthermore, while I admire the people who have the integrity to tell people that they have an STD up front, I am going to assume that people will not tell me and keep myself educated and my eyes open. In my opinion, safe sex is staying sober and aware, using good judgment, and paying attention to details.

This is one of the reasons I would not play with someone who does not do oral sex (the other reason is that I like it). Oral as foreplay is a good opportunity to get down there and get a good look.

[edmustang]

Finally! Someone else who has a skeptical attitude about statistics in general!

In graduate school I took an intro to research class, and at least half of the class was about how to do statistics. I'm here to tell ya folks, you can make statistics say whatever you want. Throw in a bit of an agenda, phrase the question a certain way (yes, it makes a difference, even with pure numbers), stir, and pull out whatever preconceived answer you want.

Unless the researcher is extremely honest and consciencious, the stat is pretty much useless. After all, 43.4% of all statistics are just made up.

[niceNHcouple]

Thats really is something to chew on, Good Times. I think it is wise to evaluate each person/persons on an individual basis. My wife and I have been with one couple a few times over the last 2 years and that has gone great. We are starting to find a few couples who are still willing to meet us so that is positive news there.

Thanks for the education.

Irene and Moe

[Menage_a_Trois]

Originally Posted by good times

I am going to assume that people will not tell me and keep myself educated and my eyes open. In my opinion, safe sex is staying sober and aware, using good judgment, and paying attention to details.

This is one of the reasons I would not play with someone who does not do oral sex (the other reason is that I like it). Oral as foreplay is a good opportunity to get down there and get a good look.

Dito

I have to agree 100% with Mr. Goodtimes! It's is our responsibility as individuals to do what is in our best interest - and that means exactly what Goodtimes has stated here, EYES wide open and all senses on full alert to the possibility of this. But I too will not lose sleep over it and oral is the best why to check things out up close and completely personal. That is safe sex.

Another excellent post Mr. Goodtimes!

The Other Mrs. Menages

[seattlecpl06]

Originally Posted by herpescpl

How do you find other couples who like to swing that have the herpes virus? I can't believe that no swingers have the virus, since 1 out of every 4 adults in the United States have herpes according to some major health organizations. Please respond!

We're looking for this same thing, herpescpl. I think most people with the virus are just not honest about it.

To be fair, statistics show that most people who are HSV-2 positive simply don't know that they have it (since for many people, like me, it NEVER produces any symptoms!). Also, since most people (85-90%) are HSV-1, often they think "oh, it's just cold sores. At least I don't have HERPES!" Which, of course, is dead wrong.

I think that people who have HSV-2 and are honest about it are more likely to be truly safe sex than people who brag that they're completely clean. Statistically, not having ANY type of herpes simply isn't likely. A bit of simple probability math shows that the odds of being infected with one of the two common types is a staggering 88-92% (depending on which HSV-1 figures you use -- (1 - (85/100)) * (1 - (20/100)) == odds of not having ANY herpes).

So the bottom line is that people who are honest with others and themselves, and get screened for EVERYTHING -- in other words, the honest portion of the swinger community, I'd bet -- are probably the safest sex around. Unlike simply promiscuous singles, swingers are more likely to actually KNOW what they do and don't have, instead of just guessing or wishful thinking.

Good luck in your search, herpescpl!

[seattlecpl06]

One more thing... even though I used it myself, am I the only one who's a little offended by the use of the word "clean" to describe being STD-free? I'm cleaner than almost anyone I know. I just happen to have HSV-2, which produces no disfigurement, no odor, and nothing whatsoever visible to the naked eye. I'm certainly not "dirty."

I guess maybe "STD-free" is a better term.

[puddles]

Originally Posted by edmustang

Finally! Someone else who has a skeptical attitude about statistics in general!

In graduate school I took an intro to research class, and at least half of the class was about how to do statistics. I'm here to tell ya folks, you can make statistics say whatever you want. Throw in a bit of an agenda, phrase the question a certain way (yes, it makes a difference, even with pure numbers), stir, and pull out whatever preconceived answer you want.

Unless the researcher is extremely honest and consciencious, the stat is pretty much useless. After all, 43.4% of all statistics are just made up.

My God, Yes!!!!!
At some point in the recent evolution of medical science, the practitioners of a discipline called Epidemiology took over the "high ground" of credibility. This means reducing diseases to numbers. It has its uses (in costing disease, or understanding outbreaks), but lacks any finesse - a crude tool at best, a source of falsehood more often. Most of the great medical advances were drawn from case studies - the close observation of real people. Statistics was just one way of looking at the results, not the only way, far from the best way for most purposes. Consider a hypothetical example - you are testing a drug that statistically does not outperform placebos, indeed does more harm than good, but that, in a small minority of specific cases, gives significant relief to people who have been helped by no other drug. Statistical analysis won't pick up this detail (and therefore, in this hypothetical case, the drug will have been proven a failure, and be discarded) UNLESS YOU ARE ALREADY AWARE OF IT.
Most medical research is funded by people with something to sell and something to hide (e.g. most nutritional research is funded by the food processing industry). How does this help us when it comes to STDs?
If I wanted to learn about herpes - how it might affect me, how I might catch it, the risks and effects - I'd listen to people who live with it, and I'd consider other medical advice in that light. We've all, I'm sure, had the experience of listening to a doctor pontificate, while thinking to ourselves "If you actually had this disease yourself, you'd never have said that" or "No-one who has actually taken this drug themselves would ever prescribe it to another human being". Only an idiot, after all, would let an expert contradict their own experience.
As for relying on statistics, that's just a form of gambling.

[seattlecpl06]

I'm sorry, I just don't buy this "STD's are a conspiracy made up to sell condoms" theory that seems to be floating around.

I'm sure that financial interest plays some role (it would be foolish to believe otherwise), but STD's are a very real and very common problem. I know too many people with them or who've been affected by them for it to be a myth. My doctor reports the same and he hasn't made a dime off of condom sales from me.

I hate condoms. They cut 50% of the feeling of intercourse for me, and are horribly impersonal. But I think it's dishonest to use my dislike of condoms to try to "prove" that all of the overwhelming data showing they are effective at significantly reducing the risk of many STD's, so I'll just say that I don't like them. I have to wear them, but I don't have to like them. Others may and do choose differently, but that's none of my business.

Statistics are a useful tool, but they have to be understood in context, with testing methodolgy considered, as well as bias and so on. This doesn't mean they're useless. It just means that they need to be used with care and understanding of the complexities involved in trying to reduce a complex set of empirical data to a simple rule or number.