Aa
hsv-1 disclosure
I am a female in my late 20s and was diagnosed with genital hsv-1 last summer. Based on testing, it was clear that it had been transmitted to me (like so many others) through oral sex with a boyfriend.
I have had one (clear) recurrent outbreak in the past year and have done a lot of research and know all the standard lines: genital hsv-1 is associated with fewer outbreaks and less asymptomatic shedding because it is not in it's site of preference, most genital hsv-1 comes from oral sex, a significant percentage of the population has hsv-1 already (I've read 60-80%) with many acquiring it in childhood, having hsv-1 in one location reduces the chance you can get it in another location, genital-genital transmission of hsv-1 is possible but unlikely.
I understand (and am irritated with) the commonly held social standard that everyone who tests positive for any kind of hsv should disclose to any/all partners...all the time...period. This is irriating as a HIGH percentage of people have oral hsv-1, plenty of whom have no idea (including my exboyfriend who had never had a coldsore)...and there is never the expectation that someone who knows that have hsv-1 orally will disclose to partners prior to kissing. For example, if someone who knows they have oral hsv-1 (with or without symptoms) said, "I don't disclose my hsv status to partners" no one would gasp in horror or start lecturing. Even though MOST genital hsv-1 is aquired from someone with oral hsv-1, somehow the person with the less contageous (though more stigmatized version) is somehow bound by this "ethical oblication" to disclose.
I am a caring and responsible person who obviously doesn't want to pass this to anyone...though I also feel it isn't and shoudln't be viewed as traumatizing and earth shattering as people do.
So, what is my question? I want to be responsible, but I also want to enjoy a "normal" sex life the way everyone else does...including those who are ignorant about their own status or people who "just get pesky cold sores." I will obviously make up my own decision about disclosing, but am interested in what other people think:
So here it is: If I have casual sex with a guy (i.e. no long term relationship, no deep meaningful talks, etc.) and I a) make sure to avoid sex during an obvious outbreak, b) take antiviral medication to reduce outbreaks and asymptomatic shedding (which are rare as is), and c) USE A CONDOM (obviously as I would want to protect myself as well) - would it be safe to say that the risk of transmission is nearly microscopic? Yes, possible, but highly highly unlikely? Do people really feel like 100% disclosure is really the only way to be a moral and responsible person even if all efforts are made to protect this person...from this extremely common virus...which said guy statistically speaking is already likely to have?
I have had one (clear) recurrent outbreak in the past year and have done a lot of research and know all the standard lines: genital hsv-1 is associated with fewer outbreaks and less asymptomatic shedding because it is not in it's site of preference, most genital hsv-1 comes from oral sex, a significant percentage of the population has hsv-1 already (I've read 60-80%) with many acquiring it in childhood, having hsv-1 in one location reduces the chance you can get it in another location, genital-genital transmission of hsv-1 is possible but unlikely.
I understand (and am irritated with) the commonly held social standard that everyone who tests positive for any kind of hsv should disclose to any/all partners...all the time...period. This is irriating as a HIGH percentage of people have oral hsv-1, plenty of whom have no idea (including my exboyfriend who had never had a coldsore)...and there is never the expectation that someone who knows that have hsv-1 orally will disclose to partners prior to kissing. For example, if someone who knows they have oral hsv-1 (with or without symptoms) said, "I don't disclose my hsv status to partners" no one would gasp in horror or start lecturing. Even though MOST genital hsv-1 is aquired from someone with oral hsv-1, somehow the person with the less contageous (though more stigmatized version) is somehow bound by this "ethical oblication" to disclose.
I am a caring and responsible person who obviously doesn't want to pass this to anyone...though I also feel it isn't and shoudln't be viewed as traumatizing and earth shattering as people do.
So, what is my question? I want to be responsible, but I also want to enjoy a "normal" sex life the way everyone else does...including those who are ignorant about their own status or people who "just get pesky cold sores." I will obviously make up my own decision about disclosing, but am interested in what other people think:
So here it is: If I have casual sex with a guy (i.e. no long term relationship, no deep meaningful talks, etc.) and I a) make sure to avoid sex during an obvious outbreak, b) take antiviral medication to reduce outbreaks and asymptomatic shedding (which are rare as is), and c) USE A CONDOM (obviously as I would want to protect myself as well) - would it be safe to say that the risk of transmission is nearly microscopic? Yes, possible, but highly highly unlikely? Do people really feel like 100% disclosure is really the only way to be a moral and responsible person even if all efforts are made to protect this person...from this extremely common virus...which said guy statistically speaking is already likely to have?
I found this on a very well organized website on the matter of STD lawsuits. One thing you need in order to successfully sue someone is something called "burden of proof:"
Burden of Proof: To be successful in an STD lawsuit, the plaintiff (that is, the person unknowingly infected with a serious STD) must prove that the defendant (that is, the alleged “infector”) knew or should have known that they were infected with an STD. They must also prove that the plaintiff was unaware of the defendant’s STD at the time of the sexual encounter. Third, the plaintiff must show that they were infected by the defendant and no one else.
So they had to PROVE they didn't know (how one proves that is beyond me)...AND that it isn't possible that ANYONE else had given it to them. Considering that hsv stays in your body forever...you don't always get symptoms and if you do it's not necessarily a short time after infection...AND there is no way to know when the original infection occured...someone who gets genital hsv1 would have a hard time making a case. They would have to prove that they didn't have any sexual contact (oral, genital, etc) around the time they were with you...or after for that matter. They would have to prove that they KNEW they didn't have the virus before. Which is unlikely...as I might have mentioned, many STD testing sites will ONLY test people for herpes who have symptoms or who know they've been exposed. So, they would need to show proof that immediately prior to you they had a test that showed they were negative for hsv...and then after being with you (and NO ONE ELSE) they would have to prove they THEN have a positive test...making you the only person it could be.
And what someone needs to consider before filing such a suit is that when you make this accusation and take someone to court for this...the burden of proof is on YOU. Anyone, interested in trying: Good luck!
Burden of Proof: To be successful in an STD lawsuit, the plaintiff (that is, the person unknowingly infected with a serious STD) must prove that the defendant (that is, the alleged “infector”) knew or should have known that they were infected with an STD. They must also prove that the plaintiff was unaware of the defendant’s STD at the time of the sexual encounter. Third, the plaintiff must show that they were infected by the defendant and no one else.
So they had to PROVE they didn't know (how one proves that is beyond me)...AND that it isn't possible that ANYONE else had given it to them. Considering that hsv stays in your body forever...you don't always get symptoms and if you do it's not necessarily a short time after infection...AND there is no way to know when the original infection occured...someone who gets genital hsv1 would have a hard time making a case. They would have to prove that they didn't have any sexual contact (oral, genital, etc) around the time they were with you...or after for that matter. They would have to prove that they KNEW they didn't have the virus before. Which is unlikely...as I might have mentioned, many STD testing sites will ONLY test people for herpes who have symptoms or who know they've been exposed. So, they would need to show proof that immediately prior to you they had a test that showed they were negative for hsv...and then after being with you (and NO ONE ELSE) they would have to prove they THEN have a positive test...making you the only person it could be.
And what someone needs to consider before filing such a suit is that when you make this accusation and take someone to court for this...the burden of proof is on YOU. Anyone, interested in trying: Good luck!
1 Comments
I sued it wasn't as hard as you say
Oh, and the salmonella thing also doesn't stick, because there IS a reason people don't ask about health risks at restaurants. It's because there are health codes at restaurants which are formalized and required by law in order for restaurants to be up and running. There is obviously no such health inspector for people.
Without that known protection, people who have protected (and more specifically unprotected) sex with a partner and DON'T ask about the other's status a) assume that just because the person didn't disclose they don't have anything or b) understand there's a risk, but don't think it will happen to them...or c) know there's a risk and decide it's one they're willing to take. So, people who are a C, take responsibility for their own behavior. People who are a B, are clueless (as I was), but also will likely take responsibility if things go awry...and people who are an A...well, (in my opinion) those are the people who take zero responsibility for their own actions (probably have not been tested themselves) and are the most likely to sue you. Just food for thought (no pun intended).
Without that known protection, people who have protected (and more specifically unprotected) sex with a partner and DON'T ask about the other's status a) assume that just because the person didn't disclose they don't have anything or b) understand there's a risk, but don't think it will happen to them...or c) know there's a risk and decide it's one they're willing to take. So, people who are a C, take responsibility for their own behavior. People who are a B, are clueless (as I was), but also will likely take responsibility if things go awry...and people who are an A...well, (in my opinion) those are the people who take zero responsibility for their own actions (probably have not been tested themselves) and are the most likely to sue you. Just food for thought (no pun intended).
Thank you for writing. I welcome your thoughts and questions. First, I have to say, I give credit for doing research about your possible infection and for exploring/questioning.
I understand herpes can be painful...my first genital hsv1 outbreak was very painful and distressing. I do not have this discussion lightly. In fact, if you (others) read my entire stream carefully, it reflects that since my diagnosis last summer I have only had one new partner to whom I DID disclose BEFORE any sexual contact.
I understand your comparison with salmonella, however, it is quite different. My stance is that people should not jump to blame people who know (vs those who don't). The reality is that people who don't know they are infected are the ones (typically) unknowingly infecting others. I feel the misinformation and the witchtrial-esq stance approach people take to STDs are WRONG and contribute to the stigma and people not being tested themselves.
Do you think any untested person reading these forums is going to run out and say, "Hey, I've never had symptoms, but let me run out and beg my medical professional for a test. Maybe I'll find out that I have antibodies for hsv2 (or1) and I'll have to warn all my past, present, and future partners, risk legal action, risk public ridicule, etc."? Of course not. The truth of the matter is that if you did test positive for hsv1....and never had symptoms...most medical professionals would tell you not to do anything different. They'd pat you on the head, say most people get it as kids, and deny that you "have" to disclose. Heck, oral herpes are not even considered an STD...though it's what causes genital hsv1, which is still genital herpes. This nearly made my brain explode when I realized that I now have an STD...and TECHNICALLY the boyfriend that gave it to me doesn't.
By continually coming down on people who are positive who even SUGGEST not disclosing, we are fueling the fire of ignorance and accounting responsibility in the wrong direction.
I have done my research. Though I STILL have not decided if I would disclose in a CASUAL encounter (with comdoms and antiviral medication), I know MY virus. Genital hsv1 is not NEARLY as active as genital type 2...OR oral hsv1 ("cold sores"). My virus is statistically LESS contagious than the one most people consider "harmless" when they go out making out with strangers and don't think anything about it. Why don't MOST people think one thing about disclosing before kissing? True, some people don't know they have it (i.e. my ex). Some people know they have it, but don't know it can be transmitted when they don't have symptoms (still talking about cold cores). And some people (see Grace above), KNOW they have it and KNOW it can be transmitted without symptoms...but believe kissing is an "implied risk"? For the sake of argument (as someone who HAS type 1), I'm glad I have it below my waste instead of on my face. The cold sore type recurres more, is extremely painful (from what I've heard), is unsightly, and has actually more risk of medical complications (i.e. ocular herpes).
From what I've read from REAL LIFE medical professional as well as those on sites like this...genital hsv1 is actually DIFFICULT to transmit to a partner. Some providers have expressed they believe it's near impossible...possible....but highly highly unlikely. It doesn't like to be below the waste (hence it losing some of it's umpf with the reduced recurrences). It doesn't like to be there on me...and it doesn't like to be below the waste on my partner. Plus...envisioning the added protection of a condom (which, yes, is not 100% either)... I guess my point is that we are not talking about REAL risk. We are talking about a general fear of anything going on below the waste. If we were talking about people only needing to disclose if they were ACTUALLY risky...well, that would be a difficult and slippery slope.
I find the article you sited interesting...but I'm not too worried about it. Certainly if people who are married are not having these conversations there's something wrong...and there obviously was...they got divorced. Do you know that in many states sadomy is also illegal? And, yes, a woman's attorney during a divorce, dusted off this old law book and the husband ultimately was charged with something absurd and she got all kinds of money. To clarify, they participated in consensual anal sex...as many couples do...but some old random law resulted in him getting...well, screwed. Heck, people can sue a mistress for alienation of affection...also absurd...people have free will. Just because someone CAN sue, doesn't make their argument reasonable...or one that should support social standards.
Again, I will respond to any post that is respectful and actually welcomes dialogue. I appreciate your experiences and thoughts on the matter. (Sorry this was so long and wordy.)
I understand herpes can be painful...my first genital hsv1 outbreak was very painful and distressing. I do not have this discussion lightly. In fact, if you (others) read my entire stream carefully, it reflects that since my diagnosis last summer I have only had one new partner to whom I DID disclose BEFORE any sexual contact.
I understand your comparison with salmonella, however, it is quite different. My stance is that people should not jump to blame people who know (vs those who don't). The reality is that people who don't know they are infected are the ones (typically) unknowingly infecting others. I feel the misinformation and the witchtrial-esq stance approach people take to STDs are WRONG and contribute to the stigma and people not being tested themselves.
Do you think any untested person reading these forums is going to run out and say, "Hey, I've never had symptoms, but let me run out and beg my medical professional for a test. Maybe I'll find out that I have antibodies for hsv2 (or1) and I'll have to warn all my past, present, and future partners, risk legal action, risk public ridicule, etc."? Of course not. The truth of the matter is that if you did test positive for hsv1....and never had symptoms...most medical professionals would tell you not to do anything different. They'd pat you on the head, say most people get it as kids, and deny that you "have" to disclose. Heck, oral herpes are not even considered an STD...though it's what causes genital hsv1, which is still genital herpes. This nearly made my brain explode when I realized that I now have an STD...and TECHNICALLY the boyfriend that gave it to me doesn't.
By continually coming down on people who are positive who even SUGGEST not disclosing, we are fueling the fire of ignorance and accounting responsibility in the wrong direction.
I have done my research. Though I STILL have not decided if I would disclose in a CASUAL encounter (with comdoms and antiviral medication), I know MY virus. Genital hsv1 is not NEARLY as active as genital type 2...OR oral hsv1 ("cold sores"). My virus is statistically LESS contagious than the one most people consider "harmless" when they go out making out with strangers and don't think anything about it. Why don't MOST people think one thing about disclosing before kissing? True, some people don't know they have it (i.e. my ex). Some people know they have it, but don't know it can be transmitted when they don't have symptoms (still talking about cold cores). And some people (see Grace above), KNOW they have it and KNOW it can be transmitted without symptoms...but believe kissing is an "implied risk"? For the sake of argument (as someone who HAS type 1), I'm glad I have it below my waste instead of on my face. The cold sore type recurres more, is extremely painful (from what I've heard), is unsightly, and has actually more risk of medical complications (i.e. ocular herpes).
From what I've read from REAL LIFE medical professional as well as those on sites like this...genital hsv1 is actually DIFFICULT to transmit to a partner. Some providers have expressed they believe it's near impossible...possible....but highly highly unlikely. It doesn't like to be below the waste (hence it losing some of it's umpf with the reduced recurrences). It doesn't like to be there on me...and it doesn't like to be below the waste on my partner. Plus...envisioning the added protection of a condom (which, yes, is not 100% either)... I guess my point is that we are not talking about REAL risk. We are talking about a general fear of anything going on below the waste. If we were talking about people only needing to disclose if they were ACTUALLY risky...well, that would be a difficult and slippery slope.
I find the article you sited interesting...but I'm not too worried about it. Certainly if people who are married are not having these conversations there's something wrong...and there obviously was...they got divorced. Do you know that in many states sadomy is also illegal? And, yes, a woman's attorney during a divorce, dusted off this old law book and the husband ultimately was charged with something absurd and she got all kinds of money. To clarify, they participated in consensual anal sex...as many couples do...but some old random law resulted in him getting...well, screwed. Heck, people can sue a mistress for alienation of affection...also absurd...people have free will. Just because someone CAN sue, doesn't make their argument reasonable...or one that should support social standards.
Again, I will respond to any post that is respectful and actually welcomes dialogue. I appreciate your experiences and thoughts on the matter. (Sorry this was so long and wordy.)
I just found this forum because I'm looking for advice on my own possible HSV infection. I'm pretty frightened that I might be infected, to be honest. Worse, I might have had the virus transmitted to me not through sexual contact but through the sharing of smoking implements. I just found your thread and I felt compelled to comment.
"Those people who don't ask, don't know their own status, don't demand to use protection, don't demand to see their partner's test results, etc. etc. have no one to blame but themself. "
I don't understand your logic. Let's say you go eat a restaurant and you get salmonella poisoning that left you ill and cost you money in terms of medical care. You find out that the chef knew that his food was contaminated and served it to you anyway. Would you say it was your fault for not asking the chef if his food was contaminated? After all, anytime you eat certain foods you run the risk of getting salmonella ... and if you had asked, the chef would've told you his food was contaminated. It seems absurd to me. There are social and legal conventions that require that we warn people when we're knowingly putting their health at risk. It's what allows for social trust and allows society to function without people having to be paranoid and assume the worst.
People should be encouraged to ask questions and be safe, of course. But if you knowingly run a risk of affecting someone's health you should let them know. Just because it's not a big deal for you does not mean it wouldn't be for them. Based on what I'm reading, the virus reacts differently depending on a person's immune system. What might be asymptomatic for you might be a horrendously painful infection requiring thousands of dollars in retroviral medication for someone you infect. The fact that you would tell them if they ask but not if they don't seems like you're taking your particular ethical stance for self-centered reasons: so you can avoid having uncomfortable discussions or run the risk of having your overtures rejected ... unless someone calls you out. Personally (not saying this reflects widely held opinion or not) I am fairly certain I have oral HSV1 but I would be utterly devastated if I had sex with someone who could transmit genital HSV1 to me, no matter how low the risk. I'm now getting educated on this topic and would know to ask someone before hand but there are a lot of reasons someone might not ask their partner about the risks beyond ignorance or apathy. A lack of access to educational resources on the topic is one big reason.
I just googled "lawsuit HSV" and found a wealth of material on the legal topic you asked about. This comment from a Time magazine article stands out:
"These claims are being given momentum by an appellate court ruling last December in New York, a state that exerts substantial legal influence beyond its boundaries. The decision upheld the right of Jane Maharam, 56, to sue her former husband Robert, 56, on her claim that he had herpes and did not tell her. The court found that such partners have a legal duty to inform each other about their venereal diseases."
I don't know if this legal ruling still holds precedence, the Time article ("Sexes: The Cost of Kissing and Not Telling" if you want to look it up) is from 1987. But at the very least it demonstrates that federal courts have awarded multi-million dollar settlement against HSV infected people who knowingly passed on the virus in the past.
"Those people who don't ask, don't know their own status, don't demand to use protection, don't demand to see their partner's test results, etc. etc. have no one to blame but themself. "
I don't understand your logic. Let's say you go eat a restaurant and you get salmonella poisoning that left you ill and cost you money in terms of medical care. You find out that the chef knew that his food was contaminated and served it to you anyway. Would you say it was your fault for not asking the chef if his food was contaminated? After all, anytime you eat certain foods you run the risk of getting salmonella ... and if you had asked, the chef would've told you his food was contaminated. It seems absurd to me. There are social and legal conventions that require that we warn people when we're knowingly putting their health at risk. It's what allows for social trust and allows society to function without people having to be paranoid and assume the worst.
People should be encouraged to ask questions and be safe, of course. But if you knowingly run a risk of affecting someone's health you should let them know. Just because it's not a big deal for you does not mean it wouldn't be for them. Based on what I'm reading, the virus reacts differently depending on a person's immune system. What might be asymptomatic for you might be a horrendously painful infection requiring thousands of dollars in retroviral medication for someone you infect. The fact that you would tell them if they ask but not if they don't seems like you're taking your particular ethical stance for self-centered reasons: so you can avoid having uncomfortable discussions or run the risk of having your overtures rejected ... unless someone calls you out. Personally (not saying this reflects widely held opinion or not) I am fairly certain I have oral HSV1 but I would be utterly devastated if I had sex with someone who could transmit genital HSV1 to me, no matter how low the risk. I'm now getting educated on this topic and would know to ask someone before hand but there are a lot of reasons someone might not ask their partner about the risks beyond ignorance or apathy. A lack of access to educational resources on the topic is one big reason.
I just googled "lawsuit HSV" and found a wealth of material on the legal topic you asked about. This comment from a Time magazine article stands out:
"These claims are being given momentum by an appellate court ruling last December in New York, a state that exerts substantial legal influence beyond its boundaries. The decision upheld the right of Jane Maharam, 56, to sue her former husband Robert, 56, on her claim that he had herpes and did not tell her. The court found that such partners have a legal duty to inform each other about their venereal diseases."
I don't know if this legal ruling still holds precedence, the Time article ("Sexes: The Cost of Kissing and Not Telling" if you want to look it up) is from 1987. But at the very least it demonstrates that federal courts have awarded multi-million dollar settlement against HSV infected people who knowingly passed on the virus in the past.
In my honest opinion, anyone who pursues legal action against someone that "gave" them an STD needs to take a long hard look in the mirror and take some personal responsibility. Whenever you engage in a sexual interaction with someone else, you get whatever comes with that. Those people who don't ask, don't know their own status, don't demand to use protection, don't demand to see their partner's test results, etc. etc. have no one to blame but themself.
Did I know that I could get genital herpes from receiving oral sex from my boyfriend, who NEVER had a cold sore? No. And neither did he. Would I feel differently if he did know and didn't tell me? Perhaps. But the truth is that the responsibility would still lie with ME. He did not force his head between my legs. Even if he had known...I'm not going to cry and bring him to court. That's absurd. I'm a grown woman and made a choice. Period.
I would still love to hear about any case in which someone was successfully prosecuted (in civial or criminal court) for transmitting hsv-1. Whether or not it would be necessary to prove "intent to harm," the person making the acusation would AT LEAST have to prove that YOU were the one that "harmed" them (i.e. gave them type1). And the truth is that many people get it as children...and people (particularly men) are not tested until they have symptoms...even after first getting symptoms, there's NO way of knowing when exposure first happened. If there's no way to prove it, technically they are trying to say that you "harmed" them with something they very well could have already had.
You are right...I was hoping to get people's opinions because I feel the issue of disclosure needs to be discussed. I was not looking for someone to put their values of moral or sexual responsibilty on me that they are completely unable to support with their own behavior, a particular law, or statistics associated with REAL medical risk.
Did I know that I could get genital herpes from receiving oral sex from my boyfriend, who NEVER had a cold sore? No. And neither did he. Would I feel differently if he did know and didn't tell me? Perhaps. But the truth is that the responsibility would still lie with ME. He did not force his head between my legs. Even if he had known...I'm not going to cry and bring him to court. That's absurd. I'm a grown woman and made a choice. Period.
I would still love to hear about any case in which someone was successfully prosecuted (in civial or criminal court) for transmitting hsv-1. Whether or not it would be necessary to prove "intent to harm," the person making the acusation would AT LEAST have to prove that YOU were the one that "harmed" them (i.e. gave them type1). And the truth is that many people get it as children...and people (particularly men) are not tested until they have symptoms...even after first getting symptoms, there's NO way of knowing when exposure first happened. If there's no way to prove it, technically they are trying to say that you "harmed" them with something they very well could have already had.
You are right...I was hoping to get people's opinions because I feel the issue of disclosure needs to be discussed. I was not looking for someone to put their values of moral or sexual responsibilty on me that they are completely unable to support with their own behavior, a particular law, or statistics associated with REAL medical risk.
there are several people on hhp as well as herpes coldsores who have successfully sued the partners that transmitted hsv to their genitals. There are also entire forums set up for it now on the herpes dating sites too. It's why I mention it.
once again no one is telling you what you have to do. you obviously have the information you need to make your own decisions about your hsv1. you asked for opinions and information and you got it.
once again no one is telling you what you have to do. you obviously have the information you need to make your own decisions about your hsv1. you asked for opinions and information and you got it.
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the Herpes Community
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Millions of people are diagnosed with STDs in the U.S. each year.
STDs can't be transmitted by casual contact, like hugging or touching.
Syphilis is an STD that is transmitted by oral, genital and anal sex.
