I think that people tend to view HSV-1 as a less troublesome virus because often people become infected with it when they're fairly young and their bodies have plenty of time to build up an immunity to it, so their outbreaks during adulthood tend to be relatively mild (one or two cold sores) whereas adults who contract HSV-2 can have more severe genital outbreaks, at least at first. Initial outbreaks of HSV-1 can be quite unpleasant too (especially for children, according to this NYT article (http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/herpes-simplex/symptoms.html)), but since most people who have it likely experienced their first outbreak a very long time ago, they may not take this into account when evaluating the risk of passing it on to a partner.

Interestingly enough, one of the most serious (and fortunately very rare) possible complications of herpes, herpes encephalitis (http://professionals.epilepsy.com/page/viral_herp_enceph.html), is usually caused by HSV-1, at least in adults (in newborns, though, it's generally caused by HSV-2).

I think you're right that our collective perception of HSV-2 is a bit out of whack. I can understand why people wouldn't want to have to deal with having it, of course (I know I would much prefer not to contract either type of HSV), but I think that some of that negative association is based on the social rather than the medical repercussions.