CityofAngels

I saw an email in my inbox a little while ago, and I thought, "uh oh, the powers that be have finally had enough of me, they're going to kick me off now." But it wasn't that. Let me just say that I only try to add my perspective in an honest, respectful manner. I am truly moved and inspired to see so many people here who are so strong. It gives me hope that I can overcome anything that I may experience in the future. Thank you for that. This is truly a first-class site.

I'm glad that for most people on this forum, heroes is not a big deal. I would agree with what Dancer says to a point: individuals have a choice to see different things as significant or not. Often, however, the choice to see e.g. Herpes as insignificant takes a long time for many people to grasp, and many on here can attest to that. I will grant the point that most on here who have herpes choose not to see it as a significant issue. Yes, I choose to see it as a significant issue. We're I to become infected through some unfortunate chain of events, perhaps I would come to see it as insignificant. Ultimately this whole discussion speaks exactly to my point: people's experiences will color how they see events. And I do not think we can so easily divorce the conclusions some make (that herpes is not significant) from the paths and experiences leading up to them. Yes, I choose to view heroes and indeed all sexually transmitted infections as significant, and that is why I am scrupulous about taking extensive precautions before becoming intimate with someone new. For me, my choice is entirely acceptable and rational, and there is nothing that I'm "not getting," there's nothing that I'm "missing," and it is not the case that if I just "evolved a little more" I would see things differently. To me, individual value-judgments are subjective preferences. One can more criticize a person for thinking sexually transmitted infections are a significant and weighty matter, than they can criticize them for liking apples instead of pears.

@seeker Yes seeker, I would date a woman I otherwise felt very strongly about *if* there were a safe and effective herpes vaccine available. However, I disagree with some others that herpes either is or is not a "big deal." To me, categorically claiming that genital herpes "isn't a big deal" begs the question against the objection that there is no objective, hierarchical ordering of life events from "major" to "minor." What I mean is that that claim assumes something that it needs to prove: that herpes always and everywhere is not a "big deal" for everyone. It is that point that I believe is fundamentally unprovable. I believe this for the following reason: Different individuals will experience and process events differently. All of our reactions are diffracted through the prism of our personalities, dispositions, character traits, beliefs, and prejudices. People can and will respond in entirely different ways to completely different life events. Some people will view herpes as an extremely significant life event that is also enormously distressing. Others will view a diagnosis as perhaps inconvenient, but not ultimately significant. Moreover, some people who view a herpes diagnosis as very significant will also view other life events that other HSV-positive people consider significant, as not nearly as important. For example, an individual who views herpes as a very serious and grave concern may view a serious car accident as disruptive, for sure, but ultimately a fleeting concern that will not impact them in any serious and long-term manner. Conversely, someone who thinks herpes is not very significant may view a serious car accident as extremely grave and worrisome. Such an accident might cause that individual to experience serious and long-lasting consequences. And there is absolutely no way to assess or determine which event is "really" more serious than the other. As said, these evaluations are hopelessly dependent on an individual's subjective perspective and frame of mind. For one who orders and ranks life events differently from another person, there is ultimately no way to prove that they are "wrong," or "misguided" for thinking herpes is a "big deal."

@seeker I will look at the article that you sent, but I can tell you that what you are talking about is very, very complicated and cutting-edge. Some speculative uses of different viral vectors to "neutralize" an original virus are in existence, but again, their are experimental and not likely to see clinical trials or mass production for a long time. I will comment in greater detail later.

@forgivenessandpeace Yes, if there were a safe and effective vaccine that had gone through the rigors of clinical trials, that was proven to prevent herpes transmission, then I would date someone with herpes.

No I would not date someone who has a sexually transmitted infection that is at the moment incurable. I am as knowledgeable about STIs as anyone, but I see and have read about the adverse psychosocial consequences that herpes entails for many people, whether or not their grief is disproportionate to the actual "threat" that herpes poses. I also know my own psychology better than anyone, and I know that I would have serious difficulty-at least in the immediate term- coming to terms with a herpes diagnosis. Psychologically speaking, it would be enormously disruptive for me. Thus, it is not something I choose to risk. This is just a personal choice.

Also please note this is a simplified treatment of the issue purely based on considerations from mathematical probability. As I said above, the reasons why some individuals contract herpes after a relatively short amount of time, and while others can go years without contracting it, are myriad.

I believe the logic might go something like this: Firstly, the odds of a woman contracting genital herpes are significantly higher than that: around 10% without either suppressive therapy or condom usage. Consequently, many more women have genital herpes than men. For women of any ethnic group, around 25% will have genital herpes. For men of any ethnic group, the figure is roughly 10%. There are many factors that go into determining someone's overall risk to genital herpes, among them immune system function and prior exposure to HSV-1 (although those are only 2 such factors). The transmission rate of 4% per year from man to woman is admittedly low--for any individual given year. However, the probabilities are cumulative, meaning that they increase from year to year. Think of it this way: if you flip one quarter once, the probabilities are 50/50 that it will come up heads or tails. Let's say it comes up tails. Flip it again. The odds are still 50/50 that for that individual instance, it will come up tails. But the odds of getting a *sequence* of tails-tails are only about 1/4. Same with genital herpes. The probability that a man will contract it in any given year are only about 4%. Yet the probability that he will have a *sequence* of year after year in which he does not contract it, is somewhat less. Now, people will tell you they have know individuals who have been together for what, years and decades, who have never contracted it from their partner. That is not a counterargument to my point. The fact that some individuals can go years or even decades without contracting herpes from their partner can be entirely accommodated within the concept of mathematical probability. In fact, according to statistics it is bound to happen. Yet the point is, such occurrences are extremely rare, as are the occurrences in which a person contracts herpes from a one-time occurrence, or a small but fixed number of sexual encounters. Hope this helps.

@myfiercecalm I agree with all of the other comments on here. Unfortunately, the original nurse you spoke to was profoundly uneducated. I am studying to be a geneticist, and I took many, many courses on disease pathology, so I do know a few things about disease. Certain diseases can and do go into remission. While this is theoretically possible for any disease, it would be an extremely rare event for something like HSV-2. Also, from a medical standpoint it is completely unclear what "remission" would amount to here. Does it mean the virus has completely left the body? To date, I have not heard of that in the medical literature. Does it mean it is still present within the body, although now dormant? That of course is what commonly happens, but antibodies basically always form as the body's way of "fighting" the infection. This is an automatic immune response. Indeed, if no antibodies were present at any time, and the infection was still present, then you would be experiencing quite frequent and severe outbreaks. Yet that is not the case here. To put it simply and crudely, HSV in either of its manifestations does not simply "go away." By far the most likely scenario is that your first test was a false-positive, and that your second test more accurately registered no antibody response because you have no antibodies. Moreover, you have no antibodies because you likely do not have HSV-2. I believe the odds that the Western Blot will come back negative are firmly in your favor.

One think I like about this forum is that individuals so often discover that they are so much more capable and able than they previously thought. I've read many posts in which people who formerly lamented being H+ have not only come to terms with their diagnosis; they are now stronger and psychologically much healthier than they were previously. It seems that while individuals may have had confidence and healthy self-esteem previously, they now have these things in much more abundant quantities, and they "reach" much deeper into each person. Truly inspiring.

An encouraging post, Ihaveittoo1975. While I disagree with the assertions concerning politics and society in the United States, I believe this post will be very encouraging for all of those who are H+. Nicely done.

Thank you whitedaisies. I have to go to bed for the evening, maybe I'll catch you on here some other time...

Hello there whitedaisies...you didn't like my answer?

An interesting question. To the extent of my knowledge, those who well and truly have no outbreaks whatsoever are very few and far between. A study conducted by Anna Walt et al. gave an initial figure of 20% who claimed not to experience any outbreaks. On further examination, 75% of those 20% actually did experience outbreaks, only they were not recognizing them as such because of the atypical presentations of symptoms. So only about 5% of those in Wald's study never experienced a detectable outbreak. Again, to the limits of my knowledge, the frequency and severity of outbreaks depends on a very large array of factors, only one of which concerns the body's overall immune function. Scientists generally start with the most probable "local" explanations for an occurrence, and only bring in more fundamental explanations when there is a documented suspicion of genetic involvement. For example, when scientists want to explain why one billiard ball moves when hit by another, s/he uses laws involving mass and momentum, as opposed to more exotic and "high-powered" theories like general relativity. Now, the factors that determine immune system function are likewise enormous and complex. There *may* be a genetic role here, but it would not in and of itself exclusively determine individual responses to the herpes simplex virus. Medical research involving manipulation of an individual's genetic profile is active and ongoing, but still in its infancy. Certain gene therapies are available, although at fabulous cost. Moreover, they tend to be for diseases that are relatively simple in terms of the number and extent of genetic mutations involved. My bet is that there will likely be a cure for genital herpes before any gene therapies become available. It is much simpler, although still enormously complex, to research a cure that flushes the virus out of the nerve cells in which it is hiding, rather than gene therapy based on a still-hypothetical role of genetics in modulating an individual's response to the herpes simplex virus. Unfortunately, as far as diseases and conditions go, herpes is definitely not that glamorous in the medical field. That is both a good and a bad thing. It is "good", because it reveals the opinion of educated and trained professionals that genital herpes is truly not a significant condition deserving of the attention and stigma that it receives. It is "bad" in that herpes is relatively low on the list of research priorities of most researchers and clinicians, although active work is still being done in the field.

@seeker Well said. I think there is an important life lesson to draw from this: do not under any circumstances put yourself in a situation that increases the likelihood that something dangerous will happen. Easier said than done, but a lesson that can help people avoid a lot of unnecessary heartache and legal trouble.

@seeker What the man in question did was completely abhorrent. Yet the likelihood that sickoflifelessons would prevail in court on a rape charge is unfortunately slim to none. I say this because at this point there must be convincing evidence that the man in question raped you. Now, I and everyone else on here believe you. That is not the question. But the legal question centers not so much on what actually happened, as what you can prove happened in a court of law. Is there any physical evidence of a rape? Did you contact the police or go to a hospital after the rape? This is especially important in the hours after the offense in question, as the quality and quantity of evidence tends to deteriorate rapidly. If you were to press charges, the man would likely claim that the sex was entirely consensual, and it would come down to his word against yours. Moreover, he would likely claim that as evidence of your consent, you let him walk home with you and invited him into your apartment and even into your bedroom. Moreover, the fact that you were clearly intoxicated can work against you as well as for you: he might claim that you actually did consent to sex willingly and knowingly, that it is only because you were intoxicated that you don't remember doing so. Seeker, I sympathize with your viewpoint. While I never believe that a woman is responsible for a rape--ever--and that "no" means "no"--always--unfortunately many women put themselves in compromising situations that make it all to easy for a man of malevolent intentions to take advantage of the woman. If you can grasp the concept of "increasing the likelihood" of an act, which does not imply a corresponding increase in responsibility for the rape, then you understand what I am trying to say. Sickoflifelessons is in no way responsible for the rape; yet it still stands that certain of her actions made it much easier for that rape to happen (getting severely intoxicated, inviting the man up to her apartment and into her bedroom, laying on the bed, etc.).

@inka Yes, it is a silly law. I want to amend what I stated earlier. First, regardless of whether the woman in question transmitted herpes to the man in question, she could unfortunately still be prosecuted for the mere act of having sexual intercourse with the man, knowing she had herpes. Yet the odds of that happening are basically zero, for the reasons stated above. There are three levels of scrutiny that the United States Supreme Court recognizes in cases involved the Equal Protection Clause: the rational basis test, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny. Each refers to the level of scrutiny that various state and federal laws receive based on a variety of factors. At the lowest level, states must show a rational basis for a law. A law banning intercourse for those who have a sexually transmittable infection would, unfortunately, likely survive rational basis scrutiny. But it would not survive strict, or even intermediate, scrutiny, because it burdens the exercise of what most take to be a fundamental right: the right to freely associate with those with whom we choose to associate. Sexual intercourse would likely fall under this category, and despite the ideological differences on the Court, a decision of 8-1 or 9-0 would be likely. Yet again, this situation is unlikely to ever see the inside of a courtroom, for the simple reason that there is a lack of evidence tying the woman in question to the man's contraction of genital herpes. Even if there weren't, he is likely guilty of sexual assault, a fact which will surely temper any hypothetical zeal on his part to prosecute the woman in question.

No, that was not a typo. In several states, it is illegal for anyone with a sexually transmittable disease like herpes to engage in sexual intercourse with another individual. In those few states, consent is not an affirmative defense to the action, meaning that, say, person A can be prosecuted for engaging in sexual activity with person B, even if person B knowingly and willingly consented to the sexual act in question. That said, prosecutions for such things are probably basically nonexistent, and it is highly doubtful that the law would survive even minimal constitutional scrutiny in court. Also, it is extremely difficult to prosecute an individual for knowingly transmitting a sexually transmitted infection to another, simply because the burden of proof is so high, and the prosecution must prove that person B did not have herpes before coming into contact with you. That is an extremely high burden of proof, and unless the man you engaged in sexual activity with not only knew, but had documented proof of, his negative herpes status, you will be fine. Civil suits are more difficult, because the burden of proof is much lower. If, say, a criminal trial requires evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, then a civil trial only requires a preponderance of evidence, basically meaning it is more likely than not that he contracted herpes from you. The chances that he will engage in a civil action are basically zero. One, it is not at all clear that he contracted herpes, which would be extremely unlikely under the present circumstances. Two, he took advantage of you in a way that is skirting dangerously close to sexual assault. Given your repeated verbalizations of your desire not to have sex, an assault case is indeed possible. He knows this. You can remind him of it in the very unlikely event that he decides to press forward with a legal case. Criminally, you are absolutely fine. Civilly, the case is somewhat closer, but based on the totality of facts and circumstances, the likelihood of a civil trial, much less a verdict in his favor, is near zero. Good luck.

Thank you all for the insightful comments. I was pleased to see that so many respected my views on this matter. To the woman who calls herself "WCSDancer2010": Thank you for your comments. I regret if my use of the term "healthy" caused any offense. While I do view sexual health as an important and essential component of my overall definition of "healthy," I do not thereby wish to imply those with genital herpes cannot thereby be healthy in any substantial and significant sense of the term. I can and do rest assured that I made the "right" decision concerning the pursuit of a relationship with the woman in question. Speaking personally, I know when a decision I have made is "right" when it arises out of a standpoint of calm, considered, rational reflection that is neither dominated by nor a reaction to anger, sadness, or hurt, or any other powerful emotion that might unduly sway my thinking. I also believe that most issues concerning our health are within our own purview and power. I tend to view such decisions as a series of choices that we either make consciously or default on making. Taken singly and jointly, these decisions have the power to determine the long-term trajectory of our mental and physical health. Yes, there is certainly a probability that an otherwise healthy individual will be stricken with cancer, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, or what have you. Many times, however, these outcomes are the result of a cumulative series of habits, practices, actions, and decisions whose weight and significance grow over time by accretion. While I may develop any of these and other debilitating conditions months or years from now, I can rest content that I am doing everything I can to minimize the risk that such a scenario might actually be realized. I am pleased to see that so many on this forum are similarly conscientious about their health and well-being. To the individual who calls himself or herself "Newlook2013": Yes, I fully agree the gentleman in question did a great disservice not only to his then-partner, but to himself as well. To me, he was operating under the misconception that his reason for not pursuing a relationship with "mazedaze818 " was illegitimate, or, shall we say, less than commendable. It is that proposition that I categorically reject. He would have done a greater service to himself and to his then-partner by being honest. Yes, his rationale would have been more hurtful to "mazedaze818," but I'm sure she would have at least appreciated his honestly. In addition, he could also rest content knowing that he had been honest and that there was nothing "wrong" with the decision he choose to make. Based on her posting, I believe that "mazedaze818" is certainly honest enough to have assured him of this. Alas, perhaps approaching the issue in this manner required greater insight into his own conduct, and emotional maturity, than he could muster, as "WCSDancer2010" implies. Only time will determine whether he is able to grow sufficiently to embrace a different view.

Hello mazedaze818, I recently read your story with interest and regret. I wanted to add my opinion because I am in a similar situation: I am negative for both strands of herpes, although a woman I was dating recently disclosed to me. I interpret the events of your experience somewhat differently from others who have commented on this thread. While I fully understand that everyone who has commented is well-intended, I do believe that certain comments contain rationalizations of your then-partner's reaction that are not quite accurate. You wrote: "We made plans for him to stay the weekend and I asked him over with the plan to have a sit down discussion, I couldn't put it off any longer. He showed up I was crazy nervous and decided to wait a bit before we talked about it...in the event that his reaction was negative, I wanted to enjoy being with him in that blissful ignorance for just a little longer. The night was great, I felt super connected to him, we talked about him not wanting me to date anyone else, we cuddled under a blanket outside and looked at the stars...essentially it was one of the most romantic nights I've ever had." To me, this suggests that there is no question that the gentleman you were dating was interested in you romantically, and not "just" sexually. You talk about moments of remarkable shared intimacy, "super" connections, and also, the fact that he did not want you to date anyone else. It was one of your most romantic nights, and I believe that, contrary to what he later told you, it was similarly romantic and intimate for him as well. What I believe is this: the man did genuinely want a romantic relationship with you, but ultimately chose not to get involved because he did not want to put his health at risk by risking acquiring genital herpes. I believe he felt guilty about his decision, and to put the best face on things, he said that he "only" wanted a sexual relationship with you. I believe he did this to make you feel better about the fact that he no longer wished to pursue a relationship. While I understand his reasoning, I also feel that he undercut his credibility by approaching the conversation with you in this manner. To me, it seems highly improbable that you could have experienced the intimate moments you did experience with him, while also not getting a sense that you were both on the same emotional "wavelength." Being a man, I feel that it is generally apparent when a man "only" wants a sexual relationship, as opposed to a romantic relationship. Either he was acting the entire time, or he genuinely wanted these things as well. I believe the latter is the correct interpretation. I also recently refused to pursue a relationship with a woman who disclosed to me. Contrary to what others are suggesting on this thread, it was not because I "just" wanted sex with her. I made an all-things-considered judgment that my health was too valuable to me to risk in an active sexual relationship with my then-partner. Indeed, I could not rationalize deliberately and knowingly putting my health at risk in such a situation. I am a very healthy 35 year-old. I am physically fit, and I exercise as well. I am very proud of my health, and I similarly wish to be with someone who is healthy. What your then-partner failed to realize is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to be with someone healthy, someone who does not have a communicable sexually transmitted infection. To be sure, having herpes does not make one "dirty," or "tainted." Far from it. People with herpes are and can be just as attractive, if not more so, than they were prior to their infection. It is just that, for those who do not wish to risk acquiring this condition, that decision is completely normal, rational, and acceptable. I think it is unfortunate that some on this website feel that they need to impugn the motives of those of us who refuse to get involved with someone who has herpes. Speaking for myself, I was not interested in just "hooking up" with my then-partner (I loathe that phrase). I wanted a relationship with her. Yet I also wanted to be as healthy as I always was. The risk of acquiring genital herpes was not worth it to me. This is difficult to hear, no doubt, but I believe that in order to attain the most well-rounded perspective, individuals need to hear it. Also, I feel that there is nothing "wrong" with "just" wanting a sexual relationship with another person. If two people are honest and clear about their intentions with each other, than engaging in a relationship "just" for sex is normal and natural. Not everyone who wishes to have sex wants to be in a serious, long-term, committed relationship all of the time. Sometimes we just have physical needs and urges that need to be satisfied. I believe that some on this website condemn this need because they mistakenly believe that having genital herpes boxes them into a corner: they must either have a serious, long-term intimate relationship, or no relationship at all. I believe this to be in error. I believe that for one who is confident and at peace with his/her diagnosis, a primarily sexual relationship is definitely still an option. Yes, disclosure demands a level of intimacy and vulnerability that is usually reserved for more serious relationships. But it doesn't have to be. If handled deftly, disclosure can be simply one guidepost on the road to an otherwise normal, contented sexual relationship. I am sure I will receive a lot of criticism for my views, but I believe these things needed to be said. I wish you and others on this forum well.

I also had another question. I am thinking of getting the Western Blot for herpes. I've read that it's a really good test. They said that the Western Blot measures something like 14 proteins for HSV, and a standard IGG antibody test that is commercially available measures just gg-1 and gg-2. Is that true? A standard commercial test for hsv-2 just looks for one protein?

Thanks for the explanation. Yeah all three times it went away on its own, and I know herpes goes away on its own most of the time, unless it gets infected. So that had me a little worried. But I read there is something else, another condition called "Intertrigo" which can cause rashes, and sometimes *they* go away on their own too. It's pretty confusing. But next time I see it or feel it I'm going right to the doctor.

Ok, so I'm confused again about whether I'm experiencing genital HSV-2 symptoms (I'm a guy). I got a few rashes over the past 6 weeks. Now, they are in the folds of my skin in the groin area, and they look pretty uninteresting and uneventful. There are no blisters or lesions or open sores or anything like that. BUT each of the three times there was an area of redness. It wasn't blotchy looking, it wasn't circular like you see with erythema sometimes (the characteristic "bull's eye" rash). There was no pattern or shape to it. It was just a normal patch of skin, that was colored red. Oh yeah and two were on one side of my groin, and one was on the other side. But even so, two of them on opposite sides were pretty close to my midline. How can I tell if this is a mild herpes outbreak, or just coincidentally the appearance of a little redness in my groin, maybe from sweating, working out, etc? Thanks!

Hey, I'm a guy and have been dating this girl for the past year. I don't have herpes or anything like that, been tested last year for all STDs, including herpes simplex 1 and 2. Was negative for everything. So this post is really about her and what kind of risk I might be facing. She has been getting what looks like a little rash around her upper left lip, and it comes and goes. It appears red, definitely red, irritated, and it looks once in a while like the skin is peeling a little bit. Almost always in this one spot. Like I said, comes and goes. We weren't worried about it, but it's really been unsightly and a pain in the *** for her. We both read up on it and thought it might be oral herpes, although it has never really appeared like little blisters like they say oral herpes does. Also, she has never had any symptoms inside her mouth. This has always appeared on the outside, around the upper lip in that one spot. But anyway, she went to her general doctor, and got a HSV-1 test, and it was negative. So now we really don't know what it is. So I read a little more, and one website said that the other type of herpes, HSV-2, can infect the mouth area too. I didn't know that, so now maybe I am thinking she has oral HSV-2? They said it is really, really rare, but that it can happen. I mean, I'm no doctor or anything, but if its possible then maybe that is what is causing it? Thing is, this rash around her lip comes and goes really frequently a lot of the time. It will be there, heal in a week or two, and just as it looks like she is almost completely over it, it starts up all over again. Sometimes it stays for a couple of weeks, which is a long time in my opinion. I mean, I don't kiss her or anything while its really bad, but only after it looks like it has started to heal. Is it HSV-2? Should she get tested for that, too? What's the chance I could get it from her just by kissing?