Checking Attitudes About Herpes

crazykatie · 06-20-2007, 04:35 PM

Which situation do you believe presents the greater statistical risk of contracting herpes?

1) Having intercourse (with a condom) with someone who is infected but does not have symptoms and does not know they are infected.

2) Having intercourse (with a condom) with someone who is infected, knows they have it, is not suffering from a symptomatic outbreak, and is on a medication (suppressive therapy).

***JustAskJulie*** · 06-20-2007, 05:31 PM

I think there's an option missing.
- Both create the same risk.

Lovethenights · 06-20-2007, 05:53 PM

An appropriately treated and appropriately educated individual with healthy personal integrity who has herpes poses a low risk of transmission when barrier measures (condoms) are assiduously employed. This means they take their suppressive medications as they should and they willingly and thoughtfully abstain from sex when they note or suspect disease activity. The individual who doesn't know they have herpes can't be expected to act according to the best principles for prevention. I'd rather deal with the known case than the unknown case.

nice_cpl_n_bama · 06-20-2007, 07:29 PM

Assuming there's no deliberate dishonesty going on the person who doesn't know they are infected poses a much higher risk to because we simply aren't going to play with someone who has any sort of STD.
A person who knows they are infected, and is an honest, decent honorable person would tell us up front and be politely turned down.

**good times** · 06-20-2007, 07:37 PM

I agree with Julie, both the same risk.

tribbles · 06-20-2007, 09:42 PM

The person who does not know they have herpes is higher risk (they aren't on suppressive therapy so may shed more virus), but even so, I wouldn't risk playing with someone who does know they have it.

Both are a risk and each of us has to draw our lines of risk somewhere.

crazykatie · 06-20-2007, 09:49 PM

Setting aside the reduction of viral shedding resulting from suppressive therapy, you must also consider the possibility that the asymptomatic individual is in the midst of an outbreak, therefore highly contagious, and doesn't even know it....does that alter anyone's thinking?

tribbles · 06-20-2007, 10:09 PM

http://www.stdfriends.com/
http://www.mystdspace.com/
http://www.stdfriendfinder.net/

oh and your last question does it change what I would do?

Nope. Still gonna chicken out on the known risk. Even if it is SAFER.

Now here is the 'good news', once we all get infected, and know it, we can all meet at sites like the above to keep playing.

crazykatie · 06-20-2007, 10:50 PM

tribbles: Don't get me wrong...I completely understand that there is a big difference between knowingly playing with fire and merely taking a chance at getting burned. So, I totally understand your view.

But, I have to admit that it has really bothered me over the last couple days that lifestyle couples would stigmatize a couple for being honest--particularly when honesty is supposed to be so highly prized. Also, I guess I expected that lifestyle couples would be better informed of the risks they are running. It has become clear to me that this simply isn't the case.

Certainly, you would be safer if you could know, with certainty, that every sexual partner is clean. However, the vast majority of those infected don't even know they are infected. So, statistically, every time you play with someone new, you have one chance in five of playing with someone who is infected and who doesn't even know it. And, play with the asymptomatically infected is far more likely to result in transmission than play with the knowingly infected. So, every lifestyle couple is far more likely to contract herpes from an asymptomatic carrier than from anyone who knows they have the disease. Statistically, it is not even close.

More telling to me, though, is the lack of response to my other posting. It is clear that hardly anyone has ever had a couple admit to having herpes either at a club or a meet & greet. Now, with one in five people suffering from the disease and between roughly one in fifteen to twenty-five people suffering from a symptomatic case of the disease, does it really make sense that no one on this board has ever had a couple disclose their condition (other than in an online ad)? The only possible explanation for no one having such experiences to share is that no one is being honest about their condition. I can't say that I blame infected couples for concealing their condition given the likely response that awaits their honesty within this community. Given what I have learned in the last 48 hours, I fully believe that most knowingly infected couples define themselves as "disease free" if they do not have an outbreak, are on suppressive therapy, and are using condoms.

That being said, if everyone does become infected, it will be the result of play with the asymptomatic many and not the honest and knowledgeable few.

tribbles · 06-20-2007, 11:24 PM

Quote:

The only possible explanation for no one having such experiences to share is that no one is being honest about their condition.

I watched a thread on a different board and that was their conclusion also. For a short time, many wanted to go get blood tests and not do anyone without a clean blood test. Then that fell apart within the larger group and I gave up reading their forum. (It was a pay site).

But, if the risks are less with a person who knows they are infected and takes suppressive therapy and requires condoms...then maybe we won't get infected anyway cuz doing them is safe in many ways.

And I hate to say this about the honesty issue but....it's a nice dream that I don't see happening. I see age, weight, plastic surgery, status and weath lies all over the place here in Cali. I've even seen it said that to be accepted by some groups, just get a pic with a Jag and you are in.

(I did not sneak onto a lot with a Jag with my camera yet, so I dunno)

You may find Ohio is different but I suggest you go look and talk to real people there. I do know that swinging Cali style and this board are worlds apart, rather often.

**good times** · 06-20-2007, 11:30 PM

I have been watching these discussions with interest because it points out something that I have observed that many people do that totally skews their perception of the statistics that they read on the internet. That is that even if one makes the assumption (not supported by real evidence, in my opinion) that the "statistics" are correct, and 25% of the US population has Herpes, that doesn't mean that 25% of the people you encounter in swinging are infected. Most of us, as long time married couples, are in an extremely low risk group for having STD's. Other demographic groups have STD's approaching 100%. This means to me that not necessarily that many swingers are lying or unaware that they don't have genital Herpes, as I believe very few do. So, to say that swingers in general are going to run into a play partner that have Herpes, Whether they know or not, is not as factual a statement as the broad based "statistics" would indicate.

If you are unlucky and do run into someone with Herpes, even if they are taking all of the available treatments, I cannot find any statistics or research that supports the assertion that you are any less likely to play with them when they are shedding the virus than someone who is not being treated or is unaware that they have Herpes. Whether someone is taking treatment or not, they can still have outbreaks and shed the virus. Some people that have Herpes may not have an active outbreak for years at a time, on the other hand, the next person who is being treated can have active outbreaks several times a year despite their treatment. That is why I can't answer this poll, because their really isn't any difference in risk between the two options given. And while it is a bummer for someone who wishes to participate in the lifestyle that has Herpes, the single digit percentage improvement that the use of condoms provides just isn't good enough for me. So, like most of the others here, I would have to decline to play with someone who has Herpes.

StacyCat · 06-21-2007, 12:34 AM

OKay, lets look at percentages.

About 20% of the population has HSV2. (Actually, its about 1 in 4 women, and about 1 in 5 men). About 80% of the population has HSV1. They are defined as "oral" or "genital" by their outbreak site, however, in situations where one has not had an outbreak, you are not sure of which you have.

Taking Valtrex or supressant therapy cuts the risk of transmission by about 50%. Using condoms cuts the risk of transmission about 50%. (It is unknown how this would stack.)

Also, you have to look at oral contact as well. If 80% of the population has HSV1, which normally shows up in the mouth, and they go down on you unprotected, then, hey, you can get HSV1 genitally.

Me, personally, in a swinging type situation, would have unprotected oral sex, and protected intercourse, with someone that did not know they had HSV2. (Even though I am actually negative for both kinds, I know most people have HSV1, that doesnt bother me at all). If someone had HSV2, I would get into a relationship with them, however, I probably would not fuck them as a one night thing. (But, I dont swing that often).

crazykatie · 06-21-2007, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by good times

I have been watching these discussions with interest because it points out something that I have observed that many people do that totally skews their perception of the statistics that they read on the internet. That is that even if one makes the assumption (not supported by real evidence, in my opinion) that the "statistics" are correct, and 25% of the US population has Herpes, that doesn't mean that 25% of the people you encounter in swinging are infected. Most of us, as long time married couples, are in an extremely low risk group for having STD's. Other demographic groups have STD's approaching 100%. This means to me that not necessarily that many swingers are lying or unaware that they don't have genital Herpes, as I believe very few do. So, to say that swingers in general are going to run into a play partner that have Herpes, Whether they know or not, is not as factual a statement as the broad based "statistics" would indicate.

Goodtimes, you make two points. First, you don’t (want to) believe the statistics for the general population. Second, you (want to) believe that the swinger demographic is less likely to be at risk than the general population. Maybe you are right. But, I think you are simply deluding yourself.

As to your first point, there is no question that medical science has not developed a fulsome understanding of the disease, principally because it is not viewed as a public health risk. To qualify as a public health risk, the disease must present some serious and long lasting threat to general or reproductive health. As with cold sores in the mouth, the disease can be an annoyance. But, generally, it provides no long lasting injury (in contrast to syphilis or gonorrhea). It is for this reason that most medical services do not even include blood anti-body testing in a normal STD screen. If you are not symptomatic, there is absolutely no medical need to diagnose or treat the condition.

As a result, almost all studies of the disease are anecdotal, at best. Nonetheless, the Center for Disease Control reports the following:

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDC

Results of a nationally representative study show that genital herpes infection is common in the United States. Nationwide, at least 45 million people ages 12 and older, or one out of five adolescents and adults, have had genital HSV infection. Between the late 1970s and the early 1990s, the number of Americans with genital herpes infection increased 30 percent.

Genital HSV-2 infection is more common in women (approximately one out of four women) than in men (almost one out of five). This may be due to male-to-female transmissions being more likely than female-to-male transmission.

See http://www.cdc.gov/std/Herpes/STDFact-Herpes.htm#common

As to your second point, I have heard and read this particular argument from a number of sources. So, you are not alone in your views. Yet, I find it somewhat counter-intuitive to believe that lifestyle couples (couples who routinely engage in sexual contact outside of a committed long-term relationship) are somehow less likely to be infected than the general population (the majority of whom are involved in some form or monogamous behavior).

I suspect that your view of the relative reproductive health of swingers is clouded (somewhat) by your experience. My bet is that no one with whom you have ever played has ever disclosed to you a herpes infection. What does this mean? That the community of swingers is generally less infected than the rest of society? Or, that the swingers who have the disease are not talking? You apparently presume the former. I, frankly, think you are greatly mistaken in that belief.

The interesting thing is that, like any condition giving rise to a stigma within a society, those who have the condition are generally aware of the others around them in a similar situation. It is only those who do not think they have the condition who are blissfully ignorant of how pervasive it is.

However, I think I now understand why this self delusional behavior exists. Many of you clearly believe that the risk of having protected intercourse with someone who knows that they have the disease is too great to contemplate. If you were each to seriously consider the facts regarding this disease, you would each reach the inescapable conclusion that, statistically, the risk of contracting the disease is far greater from intercourse with someone who doesn’t think they have the disease (or claims that they don’t). So, if your conduct was governed solely by your fair and impartial assessment of the risk, you would end up not playing with anyone. And, of course, that is an unacceptable result. Accordingly, you must delude yourself into believing what you each choose to believe.

That having been said, I completely understand that psychologically there is a big, big difference between knowingly playing with someone who is infected and merely risking the possibility of that being the case. But, the difference has nothing to do with the relative risk of contracting the disease. Rather, it has everything to do with the psychological aspects of knowing that you are playing with fire.

I don’t want to play with anyone who does not want to play with me. But, neither do I think that this society should continue to stigmatize people with the disease. So long as there is a stigma attached to the condition, you can expect that couples with the condition, with no outbreak and on suppressive therapy will describe themselves as "disease free" and that no one will talk openly and honestly about their conditions.

The next time you go to a club or a meet and greet, you should consider the odds. In each room, one in every four or five people have the disease. Even if you believe the statistics are skewed, at least one in every seven or eight people will have the disease. If the thought of playing with someone with the disease is truly unacceptable, how acceptable can the thought of continuing to play really be?

**good times** · 06-21-2007, 02:12 PM

Quote: