hippyherpy

I hope you guys understand that having a dialogue about this stuff can only prove your point more. I'm not trying troll or be combative. I'm trying to understand my new circumstance. I'm not an expert in this yet, and I get mixed messages about how to move forward from a lot of different sources. For example, I might not have become aware of the HSV / herpes "connection" posted above if I hadn't started this thread or hadn't kept probing on the nature of all of this stuff. As far as HIV goes, Dr. Corey was talking about it within the context of researching transmission of HIV within the male gay community. This is significant because that population has a much higher likelihood of HIV than most heterosexuals would. So when it's stated that herpes raises the chance of transmission three times- that's only if you are in a high risk population. It doesn't really apply to people who aren't likely to be having sex with other people who HIV. For someone like me, a heterosexual man who isn't having sex with high risk HIV populations, it's not the case that having herpes is going to make me three times more likely to be infected by HIV. Do you see what I'm trying to say? To be clear, I now know that if I were to have anal sex with someone who had HIV, that I would be three times more likely to get HIV than if I didn't. And that's fine with me because I'm not into dudes and don't particularly enjoy anal with girls any way.

Where did you find that it says they stay around for ever?

Dr. Larry Corey says here that those T cells stick around for 20 weeks after an outbreak but he doesn't say they are there permanently. Where do you find the stat the said they stay around forever?

In some areas of the country it's 25%- like cities like NYC. 3xmore likely to catch HIV if you are sleeping with high risk populations but you shouldn't be doing that anyway if you are worried about HIV.

In some areas it's 25% of people. That's a lot. There are lots of things that people don't talk about before they have sex with each other. Family mental health or other problems that an accidental pregnancy might pass on. There are people out there doing the hook-up life style, they aren't asking about all that stuff. -- On that note- saying blanket things like having herpes ups your risk of catching HIV x3 is not really helpful and fear mongering. From what I know, it only ups that risk if you have outbreaks and are having sex with high risk HIV population people without condoms. It's open sores that it makes a higher probability. You are overstating the general risk. That's a big difference from having sex without breakouts, using condoms, and not sleeping around with high risk populations or doing high risk sexual act or sharing needles etc.

This chart says it's higher chance transmitting from male to female, so that doesn't make sense with what you just posted. https://herpesopportunity.com/downloads/herpes-opportunity-disclosure-handout.pdf At what point would it be ok for you not to disclose? What percentage of people would have to have HSV 2 for you to say it's ok? If 90% had HSV 2, like what is the case for HSV 1, then the laws would be different about disclosure for HSV 2. To me that would mean that they only we have to disclose has to do with the percentages of people who are infected, not the actual virus itself. I do disclose, and I've had successes. But I've also had rejections that were based on disclosing. If those rejections are based on a false stigma, or false stats.. well, that doesn't sit well with me. And if it's the case that my non-fatal, generally non-problematic virus has an almost impossible transmission rate because of the precautions I take, that matters too. I'm starting to think that maybe we can't make generalizations about transmission. Especially since, as you've noted, this thing seems to work differently in different people. For example, I'm pretty sure that your rate of transmission would be a lot higher than my based on what've you said. Maybe a great deal different. Maybe even as big as the supposed difference between HSV 1 and HSV 2 transmission rates. Maybe even bigger. And it would make sense that the people who have it really bad are going to come to this website. Not saying that there experience is irrelevant, but it might be different enough from mine to be significant.

I don't care if you think it sounds selfish. A lot of people would agree with me. If they didn't have to add this one thing on top of the situation, they wouldn't. Look at it this way, if almost everyone in the world had herpes, There wouldn't be any laws about disclosure and nobody would feel the need to disclose. Guess what- we are getting to a point where almost everybody in the world actually does have herpes. Would you care about disclosing if say 90% of people in the world had HSV 2 as opposed to the 25% that do now?

I've gotten done rejections right before we were about to have sex and I know it would have happened had I not mentioned that I have herpes. You sound like a very atypical case. You've got a lot of other health stuff going on.. can't be talking for everyone who has herpes based your extremely unique situation. I've already had sex with girls using condoms and Valtrex. I haven't had any break outs since my first. The girls have gotten tested, and not one has yet to tell me they got herpes. You make it sound like you'd want to tell people you got this even if you didn't have it. If I didn't have to tell people, I wouldn't. Why do you care if I'm interested in finding answers to my questions? It's the definition of odd that 1 out of 233 would pass it on, and I want to know why that happened and why the numbers are so low. It's very significant.

I'd think that if such a small percentage of those taking meds and using condoms passed on herpes, there would be a lot more examination into why. It's such an anomaly that there might be some explinations for why 1/233 or whatever it was passed the virus along. I wouldn't be surprised if it was user error. I'm very skeptical of it just being "bad luck". There's got to be an explanation of why tiny amount of people, out of thousands passed it on. This is very important, because if is due to user error, then we can't base our stats on a few bad eggs who did not put a condom on right, possibly fingering or touching genitals with hands that have touched infected genitals, or accidentally skipping a day of taking meds or whatever. I doubt these tests were done in a lab where they had lab technicians making sure protocol was followed perfectly. We have to just go by the word of mouth of the test subjects that they did everything correctly. Who are these people who transmitted using meds an condums in the test? Also- if it is the case of user error, I think those of us who take meds every day and use condoms shouldn't have to disclose unless we are having unprotected intercourse. And since transmission from genital to mouth of HSV 2 is essentially non-existent, that shouldn't be an issue either. I'm all for disclosing if I have to, but I'd rather not have to if I don't, especially if it's based on a few out of thousands of people who don't know how to put a condom on right or are lying about following procedure or whatever. Yes, I know condoms can break.. still something seems off about the statistics.

It is rare to pass if you are taking meds and using condoms. It's an epidemic because most people don't know they have it and aren't taking all the precautions. We would probably see the rate of transmission in the world drop tremendously if everyone who had either type of herpes was taking preventative meds. I've had some successes but I've also butted up against some rejections due to herpes disclosure where I've had girls tell me things like "arghh why did you tell me that" etc. right before sex. The risk to them would have been the same, but I get cockblocked by the stigma.

Well then I'm getting mixed messages here. If herpes is really that bad, then it makes sense that people are going to stigmatize it. I'd be curious to know for how many people it is bad vs other number of people for which it is mild like mine was or Asymptomatic.

It would seem that a lot of people are getting genital HSV 1 now yet HSV 1 is still called cold sores and doesn't have the stigma that HSV 2 has. Do people with HSV 1 genital have to disclose? Isn't stigmatizing one form but not the other helping to spread genital herpes in general? By having "harmless" herpes and a "bad" one, the people with HSV 1 maybe aren't going to take precautions to stop the spread. If the two herpes were joined under "genital herpes" and not distinguished as type 1 or 2, wouldn't that be better overall for everyone? What are the rates of genital to genital transmission of HSV1?

Most people who have herpes aren't taking daily Valtrex and using condoms to prevent transmission, so unlike them, my potential to pass it on is closer to impossible than possible. 98-99% is a very significant probability. To me it translates into "we can't say impossible because there are some cery very rare instances where it does get passed on, but it's extremely low possibility." I don't say impossible when I disclose, but it I don't see any problem telling people it's almost impossible.

I hear that. If the first outbreak is so bad, then doesn't that mean there is some validity to the stigma?

@hippyherpy bro, lol... You gotta learn to watch how you word things. You give advice to females very insensitively and it's not taken well. You can't tell people they're whining, we all feel things differently and that's shaming them, which we don't do here. Please be more conscious of your wording. I hear what you are saying and I'm not trying to shame anyone. Sim more interested in moving forward in a positive way because there's nothing can be changed either herpes. What's done is done and it is a waste of time and energy to complain having gotten it. There's no way to get past in then to just accept it and move on with life. I understand that it's new - it's still new for me. Life is just not fair in general. That's the point if my post.

@hippyherpy bro, lol... You gotta learn to watch how you word things. You give advice to females very insensitively and it's not taken well. You can't tell people they're whining, we all feel things differently and that's shaming them, which we don't do here. Please be more conscious of your wording. I hear what you are saying and I'm not trying to shake ante. Sim more interested in moving forward in a positive way because there's nothing can be changed either herpes. What's done is done and it is a waste of time and energy to complain having gotten it. There's no way to get past in then to just accept it and move on with life. I understand that it's new - it's still new for me. Life is just not fair in general. That's the point if my post.

Life is "unfair". We get old. We get cancer or things like that which are a lot worse than herpes. Don't whine about getting herpes. It's just a reminder that we aren't here forever and that you have to make the most if your time while you are alive. Also, a lot of people have herpes. Probably a bunch of people you know have it but they haven't told you about it. Do what you need to do to keep your partners as "safe" as possible and get on with your life.

It's not a bad thing. I think the "sin" is to ignore the reality and try impose a false concept on to what is actually there.

Good. I get tired and I'm not sure if it's from the V. Mods- I can't find the thread I started called "forum lounge". Did it get moved?

And I say lucky in quotes because my actual experience with herpes has been almost a non-issue as far as the physical effects. It's the mental adjustments that have and are taking some extra energy to get used to- being cool with telling partners about it etc. - essentially taking on the entire weight of the social stigma.

My thoughts on having herpes are that it's very surprising that I didn't get it sooner considering how many partners I've had- probably around 250, and considering that a lot of them were situations where we didn't use condoms. But, what does that say about the prevalence of this virus? In my case it means I would have been sleeping something like 70 people who probably had it based on the statistics. Something doesn't make sense. Unless I was "lucky" to not have gotten it sooner? It seems like I was on an inevitable crash course to get it. One of the reasons why I was shocked to find out I had it was because the more people I slept with and the more I would get tested and not come back positive for any STDs, the more I thought that the prevalence of STDs in general were a myth. I was living proof it would seem- it took hundreds of girls for me to catch HSV.

Anyone here get a lethargy or malaise after taking Valtex or Lycine?

Instead of starting threads for topics that don't really need it, we can use this one as a place to have general discussions on any subject related to herpes. Kicking it off.. I was thinking about what it would mean for disclosure if a vaccine became available to the non-infected. Wouldn't the responsibility be with them at that point? Also, would a vaccine essential eradicate herpes after a couple generations? If everyone got vaccinated, it wouldn't get passed on anymore.

I heard rumors that it was bad for the liver from someone who manages a medical facility. I hope not. I drink regularly.

Does Valtrex cause liver damage? Maybe not on it's own, but can it increase the potential when combined with alcohol consumption. Also, is it possible to keep up preventative treatment with Valtrex by either halving your dose over time - taking a 500mg pill every other day or cutting the pills in half- 25omg every day. Is there a difference between those two? Is trying to take 500mg over two days futile to the achieve the desired effect?