Herpes disclosure

[skeas.livejournal.com]

The recent post about herpes brought up some questions for me.

My question is: Is it always necessary for an infected person to tell a potential partner?

From a theoretical standpoint, YES! Yes, yes, yes! But consider a few scenarios:

You haven't had an outbreak since your first one--15 years ago. As most of us know, herpes is transmittable even when the infected person doesn't have a sore. However, plenty of us infected people just avoid sex/kissing when we have a sore, and the other partner is fine. Do you still let your partner know about an outbreak you had at 20, when you are now 35? Do you risk ruining the whole relationship (because people generally freak out when the word "herpes" in involved) over a nearly negligible risk?

You have oral herpes. Studies show that 80% of us have herpes antibodies, and might be carriers of the disease without even knowing it. Yet I've never, ever heard of someone fessing up before a liplock. Do you let everyone you are about to kiss know that you have oral herpes? I personally feel like everyone is aware of--or should be aware of--a certain risk that's involved with intimate behavior like kissing or sex. You could catch mono, a cold, the flu, herpes, et cetera. You do what you can to prevent it, but it's still there.

For that matter, is there a difference between disclosing about oral herpes (which you can write off under the more innocuous name of cold sores) and genital herpes? Do you have more of a responsibility to tell a partner about genital herpes? And why?

Comments

[laurapalmer813.livejournal.com]

I would tell a potential partner about genital herpes, because I'd rather have that up front. I'd rather have him leave me before we ever got intimate, than leave me after we'd been having sex and I had to fess up because I got an outbreak, because that would be a terrible betrayal of trust.

As for oral, I don't know. I'd probably tell him if I had a cold sore that he should stay away from my mouth. Otherwise I wouldn't unless it came up in conversation. I've never had one, but I think cold sores are the sorts of things that wouldn't always be on my mind.

[skeas.livejournal.com]

I'm just wondering why not telling a partner about genital herpes would be more of a betrayal of trust than not telling someone about oral herpes. Aren't they (basically) the same disease? Is it because we treat genital herpes like a terrible, incurable disease and minimize oral herpes by calling them "cold sores"?

Should we be perpetuating that? Is genital herpes truly more terrible than oral?

[laurapalmer813.livejournal.com]

Its not that I wouldn't tell - its just that I've never thought of cold sores as a huge deal, so I probably wouldn't think about it until the subject came up. I have no idea how similar they are, because I've never dealt with either one. There is definitely more of a social stigma about having a sore on your vulva than one on your lip though.

[ladylucia.livejournal.com]

Herpes Simplex Type I is more fatal in the case it spreads to your eye or brain whereas Herpes Simplex Type II is just incurable at this point but is not potential of being fatal.

[jocelina.livejournal.com]

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.

[as-she-melts.livejournal.com]

There is no difference between the two physically, and there shouldn't be a difference socially. I don't believe that stigmatizing a disease is the way to go, but I would much rather have "cold sores" demonized along with genital herpes than continue on with the uneven judgement that currently goes on. Admittedly, this is because I'm still really pissed about having some chick's "cold sores" on my vag after my ex messed around with her.

The terms "cold sore" and "fever blister" infuriate me, and we (as a society, not meant as a dig at anyone on this thread) either need to call oral herpes what it is or come up with some cute little euphemism for the genital herp. I have totally had enough of being judged for something I had no part in--yet doctors/pharmacists/friends/ignorant loud people still assume that everyone with an STD is a slutty slutty slut or otherwise did something to deserve it. The guttoral disgust and automatic judgement of people who have genital herpes comes from sex-shaming anyway--it's for the same reasons that STD/STI-free people are referred to as clean* and it's especially worse for women, who aren't supposed to have a healthy (read: fun and possibly even outside of marriage and not only for procreation) sex life to begin with. The judgement comes from a place of sex-negativity, and does nothing to consider people who were lied to, cheated on, raped, infected by people who didn't know, etc etc etc. Ending those negative attitudes would only serve to increase understanding and knowledge of how disease spreads, why it's not all that different from other diseases, and why it's not acceptable to pass judgement on those who have it. Besides, if a child can get oral herpes from an affectionate relative (and pass it to a partner through oral sex later in life... at which point it becomes... gasp... genital herpes), maybe it's time to reconsider just how "terrible" a disease it really is.

That said, NO, I absolutely do not see a difference in disclosing oral vs. genital herpes. It is the exact same virus, only in a different location. It can easily be passed from one location to the other, through oral sex or even by one individual (i.e. touching oral herpes blister, then masturbating/emptying menstrual cup/whatev).

*I realize that this is not a safe-space friendly term, but I have included it for the sake of illustrating the social stigma of STD/STI infections.

[queensugar.livejournal.com]

I just wanted to pipe up and say I agree with a lot of your frustration and concern here.

I think the social anxiety and stigma surrounding STIs can indeed be all out of proportion to the reality. One could probably write a book on the various reasons why that is... a subconscious desire to judge or "punish" sexual activity, a fear of something that is supposed to be desirable producing undesirable results, etcetera.

For me personally? Over the years, especially thanks to my time on vaginapagina, I've really come to categorize most STIs as being no different than any other bacterial or viral infection. Genital herpes is no more frightening than oral herpes; genital warts are easily treatable and rarely return; HPV itself is usually benign; chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis can be easily diagnosed and treated with regular preventative care.

In effect, most STIs are little to no different than plantar warts, the common cold, or the flu. This isn't to say that safe sex practices should be tossed by the wayside, but that the fear and stigma of STIs is entirely unwarranted, especially if one is in a position to access appropriate medical care.

The question, though, is what effect that should have on disclosure. In that case, some considerations have to be balanced. For instance, I agree that oral herpes and genital herpes should really be given the same treatment... but for the majority of people, a genital herpes infection is indeed much more frightening than oral herpes.

Taking that into account, I'd have to recognize that any partner who obtained genital herpes from me (well, I don't have HSV2, but let's say I did) might very well feel betrayed, angry, scared, frustrated, and hurt. Because of this, I'd have to choose that disclosing to them my past history with HSV2 would be the right thing to do for them as well as for the relationship; allowing another to make an informed choice is always the superior option in terms of mutual respect and empowerment.

[fivesixsevenayt.livejournal.com]

I have nothing to add to this, but just wanted to applaud you on your comment.

*Applause*

[frolicnaked.livejournal.com]

The terms "cold sore" and "fever blister" infuriate me, and we (as a society, not meant as a dig at anyone on this thread) either need to call oral herpes what it is or come up with some cute little euphemism for the genital herp.

I vote for "coochie sores" and "wiener blisters." ;)

[totheleft.livejournal.com]

i vote "vajaysores".

[frolicnaked.livejournal.com]

Hrm. I've never been a fan of the whole "vajayjay" terminology, but I like the economy of a one-word term.

What about both "vajaysores" and "coochie spots" for the female variety? That way, people can choose whatever works best for them. :)

[thesourie.livejournal.com]

i know this is old but i *love* this comment so much

[archangelbeth]

One thing is that you can get a cold sore from your Soppy Aunt Eidith smooching you when you're a baby or kid. It's not quite the same thing as "you have to be having sex to transmit it." And chances are, just about anyone you meet was exposed from a parent or grandparent, or other relative going smoochies on the baaaaby.

On the genitals, though, well... It takes a bit more "effort" to get it there in an innocuous sort of way, I guess. So there's the whole "OMG SEXXORS!" aspect to deal with.

My sleepy two cents, anyway.

[queensugar.livejournal.com]

One thing is that you can get a cold sore from your Soppy Aunt Eidith smooching you when you're a baby or kid.

Oh my god, I have a Soppy Aunt Edith?

...I think she owes me some Christmas presents, damnit!

[emilia-romagna.livejournal.com]

Uh, she gave you a Christmas present: herpes!

[frolicnaked.livejournal.com]

Okay, sure, for one Christmas. What about all the other years? :P

[llenn.livejournal.com]

but it's the gift that keeps on giving!

[archangelbeth]

C'mon, you think Soppy Aunt Edith'll give you anything for Christmas but scratchy, dry-clean clothes that don't fit right and have pictures of little bunnies and misshapen kitties on them?

You're better off stopping with the oral herpes! O:D

[jocelina.livejournal.com]

True. Last year Aunt Edith gave me a hat that looks just like a wicker trivet.

[frolicnaked.livejournal.com]

Aunt Edith always gives me pants... and we know how I feel about pants! ;)