Checking attitudes about herpes

[crazykatie 139]

Which situation do you believe presents the greater statistical risk of contracting herpes?

 

1) Having intercourse (with a condom) with someone who is infected but does not have symptoms and does not know they are infected.

 

2) Having intercourse (with a condom) with someone who is infected, knows they have it, is not suffering from a symptomatic outbreak, and is on a medication (suppressive therapy).

[JustAskJulie 2,595]

I think there's an option missing.

- Both create the same risk.

[Lovethenights 35]

An appropriately treated and appropriately educated individual with healthy personal integrity who has herpes poses a low risk of transmission when barrier measures (condoms) are assiduously employed. This means they take their suppressive medications as they should and they willingly and thoughtfully abstain from sex when they note or suspect disease activity. The individual who doesn't know they have herpes can't be expected to act according to the best principles for prevention. I'd rather deal with the known case than the unknown case.

[nice_cpl_n_bama 24]

Assuming there's no deliberate dishonesty going on the person who doesn't know they are infected poses a much higher risk to because we simply aren't going to play with someone who has any sort of STD.

 

A person who knows they are infected, and is an honest, decent honorable person would tell us up front and be politely turned down.

[good times 991]

I agree with Julie, both the same risk.

[tribbles 490]

The person who does not know they have herpes is higher risk (they aren't on suppressive therapy so may shed more virus), but even so, I wouldn't risk playing with someone who does know they have it.

 

Both are a risk and each of us has to draw our lines of risk somewhere.

[crazykatie 139]

Setting aside the reduction of viral shedding resulting from suppressive therapy, you must also consider the possibility that the asymptomatic individual is in the midst of an outbreak, therefore highly contagious, and doesn't even know it....does that alter anyone's thinking?

[tribbles 490]

oh and your last question does it change what I would do?

 

Nope. Still gonna chicken out on the known risk. Even if it is SAFER.

[crazykatie 139]

tribbles: Don't get me wrong...I completely understand that there is a big difference between knowingly playing with fire and merely taking a chance at getting burned. So, I totally understand your view.

 

But, I have to admit that it has really bothered me over the last couple days that lifestyle couples would stigmatize a couple for being honest--particularly when honesty is supposed to be so highly prized. Also, I guess I expected that lifestyle couples would be better informed of the risks they are running. It has become clear to me that this simply isn't the case.

 

Certainly, you would be safer if you could know, with certainty, that every sexual partner is clean. However, the vast majority of those infected don't even know they are infected. So, statistically, every time you play with someone new, you have one chance in five of playing with someone who is infected and who doesn't even know it. And, play with the asymptomatically infected is far more likely to result in transmission than play with the knowingly infected. So, every lifestyle couple is far more likely to contract herpes from an asymptomatic carrier than from anyone who knows they have the disease. Statistically, it is not even close.

 

More telling to me, though, is the lack of response to my other posting. It is clear that hardly anyone has ever had a couple admit to having herpes either at a club or a meet & greet. Now, with one in five people suffering from the disease and between roughly one in fifteen to twenty-five people suffering from a symptomatic case of the disease, does it really make sense that no one on this board has ever had a couple disclose their condition (other than in an online ad)? The only possible explanation for no one having such experiences to share is that no one is being honest about their condition. I can't say that I blame infected couples for concealing their condition given the likely response that awaits their honesty within this community. Given what I have learned in the last 48 hours, I fully believe that most knowingly infected couples define themselves as "disease free" if they do not have an outbreak, are on suppressive therapy, and are using condoms.

 

That being said, if everyone does become infected, it will be the result of play with the asymptomatic many and not the honest and knowledgeable few.

[tribbles 490]

The only possible explanation for no one having such experiences to share is that no one is being honest about their condition.

 

I watched a thread on a different board and that was their conclusion also. For a short time, many wanted to go get blood tests and not do anyone without a clean blood test. Then that fell apart within the larger group and I gave up reading their forum. (It was a pay site).

 

But, if the risks are less with a person who knows they are infected and takes suppressive therapy and requires condoms...then maybe we won't get infected anyway cuz doing them is safe in many ways.

 

And I hate to say this about the honesty issue but....it's a nice dream that I don't see happening. I see age, weight, plastic surgery, status and weath lies all over the place here in Cali. I've even seen it said that to be accepted by some groups, just get a pic with a Jag and you are in. (I did not sneak onto a lot with a Jag with my camera yet, so I dunno)

 

You may find Ohio is different but I suggest you go look and talk to real people there. I do know that swinging Cali style and this board are worlds apart, rather often.

[good times 991]

I have been watching these discussions with interest because it points out something that I have observed that many people do that totally skews their perception of the statistics that they read on the internet. That is that even if one makes the assumption (not supported by real evidence, in my opinion) that the "statistics" are correct, and 25% of the US population has Herpes, that doesn't mean that 25% of the people you encounter in swinging are infected. Most of us, as long time married couples, are in an extremely low risk group for having STD's. Other demographic groups have STD's approaching 100%. This means to me that not necessarily that many swingers are lying or unaware that they don't have genital Herpes, as I believe very few do. So, to say that swingers in general are going to run into a play partner that have Herpes, Whether they know or not, is not as factual a statement as the broad based "statistics" would indicate.

 

If you are unlucky and do run into someone with Herpes, even if they are taking all of the available treatments, I cannot find any statistics or research that supports the assertion that you are any less likely to play with them when they are shedding the virus than someone who is not being treated or is unaware that they have Herpes. Whether someone is taking treatment or not, they can still have outbreaks and shed the virus. Some people that have Herpes may not have an active outbreak for years at a time, on the other hand, the next person who is being treated can have active outbreaks several times a year despite their treatment. That is why I can't answer this poll, because their really isn't any difference in risk between the two options given. And while it is a bummer for someone who wishes to participate in the lifestyle that has Herpes, the single digit percentage improvement that the use of condoms provides just isn't good enough for me. So, like most of the others here, I would have to decline to play with someone who has Herpes.

[StacyCat 30]

OKay, lets look at percentages.

 

About 20% of the population has HSV2. (Actually, its about 1 in 4 women, and about 1 in 5 men). About 80% of the population has HSV1. They are defined as "oral" or "genital" by their outbreak site, however, in situations where one has not had an outbreak, you are not sure of which you have.

 

Taking Valtrex or supressant therapy cuts the risk of transmission by about 50%. Using condoms cuts the risk of transmission about 50%. (It is unknown how this would stack.)

 

Also, you have to look at oral contact as well. If 80% of the population has HSV1, which normally shows up in the mouth, and they go down on you unprotected, then, hey, you can get HSV1 genitally.

 

Me, personally, in a swinging type situation, would have unprotected oral sex, and protected intercourse, with someone that did not know they had HSV2. (Even though I am actually negative for both kinds, I know most people have HSV1, that doesnt bother me at all). If someone had HSV2, I would get into a relationship with them, however, I probably would not fuck them as a one night thing. (But, I dont swing that often).

[crazykatie 139]

good times said:

I have been watching these discussions with interest because it points out something that I have observed that many people do that totally skews their perception of the statistics that they read on the internet. That is that even if one makes the assumption (not supported by real evidence, in my opinion) that the "statistics" are correct, and 25% of the US population has Herpes, that doesn't mean that 25% of the people you encounter in swinging are infected. Most of us, as long time married couples, are in an extremely low risk group for having STD's. Other demographic groups have STD's approaching 100%. This means to me that not necessarily that many swingers are lying or unaware that they don't have genital Herpes, as I believe very few do. So, to say that swingers in general are going to run into a play partner that have Herpes, Whether they know or not, is not as factual a statement as the broad based "statistics" would indicate.

 

Goodtimes, you make two points. First, you don’t (want to) believe the statistics for the general population. Second, you (want to) believe that the swinger demographic is less likely to be at risk than the general population. Maybe you are right. But, I think you are simply deluding yourself.

 

As to your first point, there is no question that medical science has not developed a fulsome understanding of the disease, principally because it is not viewed as a public health risk. To qualify as a public health risk, the disease must present some serious and long lasting threat to general or reproductive health. As with cold sores in the mouth, the disease can be an annoyance. But, generally, it provides no long lasting injury (in contrast to syphilis or gonorrhea). It is for this reason that most medical services do not even include blood anti-body testing in a normal STD screen. If you are not symptomatic, there is absolutely no medical need to diagnose or treat the condition.

 

As a result, almost all studies of the disease are anecdotal, at best. Nonetheless, the Center for Disease Control reports the following:

 

CDC said:

Results of a nationally representative study show that genital herpes infection is common in the United States. Nationwide, at least 45 million people ages 12 and older, or one out of five adolescents and adults, have had genital HSV infection. Between the late 1970s and the early 1990s, the number of Americans with genital herpes infection increased 30 percent.

 

Genital HSV-2 infection is more common in women (approximately one out of four women) than in men (almost one out of five). This may be due to male-to-female transmissions being more likely than female-to-male transmission.

 

See https://www.cdc.gov/std/Herpes/STDFact-Herpes.htm#common

 

As to your second point, I have heard and read this particular argument from a number of sources. So, you are not alone in your views. Yet, I find it somewhat counter-intuitive to believe that lifestyle couples (couples who routinely engage in sexual contact outside of a committed long-term relationship) are somehow less likely to be infected than the general population (the majority of whom are involved in some form or monogamous behavior).

 

I suspect that your view of the relative reproductive health of swingers is clouded (somewhat) by your experience. My bet is that no one with whom you have ever played has ever disclosed to you a herpes infection. What does this mean? That the community of swingers is generally less infected than the rest of society? Or, that the swingers who have the disease are not talking? You apparently presume the former. I, frankly, think you are greatly mistaken in that belief.

 

The interesting thing is that, like any condition giving rise to a stigma within a society, those who have the condition are generally aware of the others around them in a similar situation. It is only those who do not think they have the condition who are blissfully ignorant of how pervasive it is.

 

However, I think I now understand why this self delusional behavior exists. Many of you clearly believe that the risk of having protected intercourse with someone who knows that they have the disease is too great to contemplate. If you were each to seriously consider the facts regarding this disease, you would each reach the inescapable conclusion that, statistically, the risk of contracting the disease is far greater from intercourse with someone who doesn’t think they have the disease (or claims that they don’t). So, if your conduct was governed solely by your fair and impartial assessment of the risk, you would end up not playing with anyone. And, of course, that is an unacceptable result. Accordingly, you must delude yourself into believing what you each choose to believe.

 

That having been said, I completely understand that psychologically there is a big, big difference between knowingly playing with someone who is infected and merely risking the possibility of that being the case. But, the difference has nothing to do with the relative risk of contracting the disease. Rather, it has everything to do with the psychological aspects of knowing that you are playing with fire.

 

I don’t want to play with anyone who does not want to play with me. But, neither do I think that this society should continue to stigmatize people with the disease. So long as there is a stigma attached to the condition, you can expect that couples with the condition, with no outbreak and on suppressive therapy will describe themselves as "disease free" and that no one will talk openly and honestly about their conditions.

 

The next time you go to a club or a meet and greet, you should consider the odds. In each room, one in every four or five people have the disease. Even if you believe the statistics are skewed, at least one in every seven or eight people will have the disease. If the thought of playing with someone with the disease is truly unacceptable, how acceptable can the thought of continuing to play really be?

[good times 991]

As a result, almost all studies of the disease are anecdotal, at best.

Exactly my point, the opinions you read at such places like the CDC site are heavily laced with speculation and estimates that are heavily influenced by the fact that it is extremely hard to get funding to research these kinds of diseases unless you scare the public into believing they are at risk. At the same time these sites like the CDC site are extremely light on facts backed up by reputable research.

 

As to your second point, I have heard and read this particular argument from a number of sources. So, you are not alone in your views. Yet, I find it somewhat counter-intuitive to believe that lifestyle couples (couples who routinely engage in sexual contact outside of a committed long-term relationship) are somehow less likely to be infected than the general population (the majority of whom are involved in some form or monogamous behavior).

While it may seem counter-intuitive to you, it probably will not surprise you that it does not seem counter-intuitive to me. My point was actually that prior to swinging these swingers were involved in monogamous relationships just like much of the general population. So, I fail to see why they should all of a sudden become a higher risk to their play partners when they decide to start swinging.

 

I suspect that your view of the relative reproductive health of swingers is clouded (somewhat) by your experience. My bet is that no one with whom you have ever played has ever disclosed to you a herpes infection. What does this mean? That the community of swingers is generally less infected than the rest of society? Or, that the swingers who have the disease are not talking? You apparently presume the former. I, frankly, think you are greatly mistaken in that belief.

Herpes is reported to be highly contagious, so if I am mistaken most of us would already have it. You are correct that a lot of my evaluation of the reliability of these statistics is influenced by my personal experience. The fact is we are active swingers, we know literally hundreds of other swingers in our area, yet none of us have contracted Herpes from playing with others. This either means we are all extremely lucky, or that the statistics are wrong or exaggerated, I believe it is the later.

 

The interesting thing is that, like any condition giving rise to a stigma within a society, those who have the condition are generally aware of the others around them in a similar situation. It is only those who do not think they have the condition who are blissfully ignorant of how pervasive it is.

I would agree with this statement in general, as it has been my observation that most people are not interested in giving it much thought, let alone becoming educated enough to recognize these STD's when they see them. On the other hand, some of us have spent a great deal of time studying these things and I don't believe we are any less informed than someone who is afflicted.

 

However, I think I now understand why this self delusional behavior exists. Many of you clearly believe that the risk of having protected intercourse with someone who knows that they have the disease is too great to contemplate. If you were each to seriously consider the facts regarding this disease, you would each reach the inescapable conclusion that, statistically, the risk of contracting the disease is far greater from intercourse with someone who doesn’t think they have the disease (or claims that they don’t). So, if your conduct was governed solely by your fair and impartial assessment of the risk, you would end up not playing with anyone. And, of course, that is an unacceptable result. Accordingly, you must delude yourself into believing what you each choose to believe.

 

That having been said, I completely understand that psychologically there is a big, big difference between knowingly playing with someone who is infected and merely risking the possibility of that being the case. But, the difference has nothing to do with the relative risk of contracting the disease. Rather, it has everything to do with the psychological aspects of knowing that you are playing with fire.

 

I don’t want to play with anyone who does not want to play with me. But, neither do I think that this society should continue to stigmatize people with the disease. So long as there is a stigma attached to the condition, you can expect that couples with the condition, with no outbreak and on suppressive therapy will describe themselves as "disease free" and that no one will talk openly and honestly about their conditions.

This presupposes that your evaluation of the relative risk is correct. I have studied all of the material on the subject I can get my hands on, and have come to the conclusion that their is no difference in the relative risk between the two scenarios proposed in this poll. In both instances the uninfected person has no idea whatsoever whether the infected person is currently shedding the virus or not. Whether the infected person is on suppressant therapy or not makes no difference, they could still be unknowingly shedding the virus. That people choose to avoid, "playing with fire" is just the prudent way to go, whether it is stigmatization or not, the lowest risk option is to not knowingly play with infected people. I agree that the stigmatization may make some people reluctant to be forthcoming about their condition, that is one of the main reasons why I don't believe that Herpes is as prevalent as the statistics would indicate. If it were, we would see a lot more people contracting it than we do.

 

 

The next time you go to a club or a meet and greet, you should consider the odds. In each room, one in every four or five people have the disease. Even if you believe the statistics are skewed, at least one in every seven or eight people will have the disease. If the thought of playing with someone with the disease is truly unacceptable, how acceptable can the thought of continuing to play really be?

In regards to genital Herpes, I would personally be surprised if the actual statistic among swingers was more than 1 in 100. I have often wondered after reading a lot of studies on this, how they come up with these numbers. My only conclusion is the obvious, that they pick them out of thin air. The reason I say that is because none of the studies, or even all of the studies combined to date, have studied enough of the general population to come up with a statistic that is even close to being a reliable number.

[Chicup 41]

 

In regards to genital Herpes, I would personally be surprised if the actual statistic among swingers was more than 1 in 100. I have often wondered after reading a lot of studies on this, how they come up with these numbers. My only conclusion is the obvious, that they pick them out of thin air. The reason I say that is because none of the studies, or even all of the studies combined to date, have studied enough of the general population to come up with a statistic that is even close to being a reliable number.

 

Well the numbers here (which are exaggerated its closer to 18%) are real, kinda....

 

That number is the number of people who are serropositive, in other words they have anti-bodies to HSV-2 in their system. This does not mean they have herpes only that they were exposed to it at some point.

 

The EXPRESSED incidence of genital herpes 2 is 1.8-.4% of the population.

 

So your guess isn't too off. If swingers are part of the 'general' population, somewhere between 1-2 in 100 swingers will have HSV-2.

[crazykatie 139]

That number is the number of people who are serropositive, in other words they have anti-bodies to HSV-2 in their system. This does not mean they have herpes only that they were exposed to it at some point.

 

Do you think serropositive means that you are not infected and, so long as you have never had a symptomatic outbreak, you are not infected and cannot transmit the disease? What is your source for this?

 

Serropositive means that your body has developed antibodies to the virus. Your body develops antibodies in response to the presence of the virus. So, to develop antibodies, you must have had the virus within your body. That means you were infected. That is what "exposed" means.

 

Whether your "exposure" was sufficient to give rise to a recurring case of HSV 2 capable of being transmitted to others, is not easily determined. Of course, doctors can prove the positive (that you are capable of transmitting the infection) if you have an outbreak and a positive culture can be developed from that outbreak. However, since no one can predict if or when the next outbreak will occur (if ever), it is impossible to determine, with certainty, that someone who has been exposed is incapable of transmitting the disease.

 

Most doctors will tell someone who is serropositive to assume that they are not "infected" unless or until they develop an active outbreak. This isn't because you do not carry the virus or they know for sure that you cannot communicate the disease. This is becasuse there is really nothing medical science can do to treat you (unless and until it turns symptomatic). Moreover, as everyone seems to understand, unless there is an active outbreak, the risk of transmitting the disease, even in the absence of condoms, is very, very low.

 

However, for the risk adverse out there, does the play/no play equation change if the person admits to being serropositive but claims to have never suffered an outbreak and to have never been diagnosed with the disease? Don't you have to assume that everyone who tests serropositive is infected and capable of communicating the disease?

 

The EXPRESSED incidence of genital herpes 2 is 1.8-.4% of the population.

 

What do you mean by the "EXPRESSED" incidence? That someone had an outbreak, that outbreak has been swabbed, and that a positive culture has developed from that swab? What is the source of your information?

 

At any one time, between .4% and 1.8% of the population is suffering from a symptomatic outbreak of the disease capable of communicating it to others (that's what this statistic means). Of course, a far larger percentage of the population is infected with the disease lying dormant. This is because the disease lays dormant for months or even years (or maybe forever for some) between outbreaks.

 

So long as you measure the risk of infection only in terms of playing during outbreaks, than your odds of running into an EXPRESSED case of herpes (one that is in outbreak and most communicable) is about 2 in 100--probably a lot less since symptomatic sufferers are likely to stay home. And, I agree that the EXPRESSED risk is probably your better risk measure since the risk of transmission drops dramatically if there is no outbreak.

 

But, everyone needs to understand what this statistic represents. It is not a measure of the population that is infected. It is not a measure of the population that has symptomatic outbreaks. It is the measure of the population with a symptomatic outbreak at any given time. Who comprises that population changes as outbreaks subside in some people and develop in others.

 

Of course, reliance upon this statistic suggest that you would be willing to play with a couple who does not have an EXPRESSED case of the disease. Is that how those infected with herpes should view themselves? If they do not have an EXPRESSED case, then they can call themselves "disease free"?

[crazykatie 139]

Herpes is reported to be highly contagious, so if I am mistaken most of us would already have it. You are correct that a lot of my evaluation of the reliability of these statistics is influenced by my personal experience. The fact is we are active swingers, we know literally hundreds of other swingers in our area, yet none of us have contracted Herpes from playing with others. This either means we are all extremely lucky, or that the statistics are wrong or exaggerated, I believe it is the later.

 

You are so wrong. Herpes is only mildly contageous WHEN THERE IS AN OUTBREAK. When there is not outbreak, it is generally not communicable (except, possibly, via viral shedding, which also occurs infrequently). Further, condom use greatly reduces the risk of transmission--even during an outbreak.

 

I am not saying these are reasons for playing during an outbreak. I am merely saying that your conclusions concerning the disease are based upon a very bad assumption.

[good times 991]

You are so wrong. Herpes is only mildly contageous WHEN THERE IS AN OUTBREAK. When there is not outbreak, it is generally not communicable (except, possibly, via viral shedding, which also occurs infrequently). Further, condom use greatly reduces the risk of transmission--even during an outbreak.

 

I am not saying these are reasons for playing during an outbreak. I am merely saying that your conclusions concerning the disease are based upon a very bad assumption.

No, my conclusions are based on a thorough study of the available research on Herpes and its transmission. I have no idea where you got this information, but even the most enthusiastic condom proponents concede that condoms provide very limited protection for both HSV and HPV. Basically, if you cover the area that is shedding the virus with a condom, and you have not previously touched that area with your hands or other body parts (not likely), then it can serve as an effective barrier. Most swingers perform oral during foreplay without a condom, so putting a condom on for intercourse is like closing the barn door after the horse is already loose.

 

As far as how contagious it is, that is something one would only know after they get an outbreak. From what I understand, it depends a lot on the individual immune system, some folks are more susceptible than others. So, again it isn't unreasonable for people that don't have it to logically refrain from playing with those that do.

 

By the way, my comment above on the numbers one might encounter in the swinging community were based on the same generally accepted numbers that Chicup, our resident Doctor, related above. The only reason I think it would be less is because we are in a low risk demographic group, that being couples in a long term relationship.

[Chicup 41]

Lets stop beating around the bush here.

 

Sorry you have HSV-2, lower risk or not we wouldn't want to swing with you because its still a greater risk than not having it.

 

There was a period we thought we may have contracted HSV-2. It didn't make sense due to our lack of activity but the symptoms seemed to be there. If it was we decided we were done swinging, but tests turned out to be negative.

 

At best rather than playing semantic games with HSV transition rate, we would have only played with people who were HSV-2 positivity themselves.

[Tybee Swing 286]

Most of us, as long time married couples, are in an extremely low risk group for having STD's.

 

The researchers who mentioned longtime married couples as a low-risk demographic surely were not including swingers among this group. That stat would have been for the garden variety monogamous vanilla marriage.

 

The only reason I think it would be less is because we are in a low risk demographic group, that being couples in a long term relationship.

 

I truly don't understand your rationale at all in believing that swingers are in a low risk demographic group. First, you seem to be assuming that swinger couples are by-and-large coming from longterm relationships. Perhaps you're picturing most swinger couples as having been each other's one-and-only for decades, having little-to-no sex with others prior to marriage, being faithful, and then entering into the lifestyle much later, pristine and pure. In swinging, the couple mixes only with other pristine, very longterm couples who'd been monogamous all of those years. This picture seems 100% unrealistic to me.

 

In reality, many swinger couples are just dating each other, engaged, "SO's", or haven't been married that many years. Virtually all of these people had sexual histories long before they became Mr. and Mrs. Swing Couple. Many people experienced serial monogamy with different people before settling down. Many couples who swing got together after coming out of past divorces (my husband and I are one of these couples.) It's normal and typical in our culture, as well as for those of us in swinging, to have had sex with various and sundry people (each with our individual, varied sexual histories) - and I mean as Vanillas. We were "out there" when we were young and single before marriage, and in between marriages (single-again). A lot of swinger couples have threesomes from time to time, meaning that we're currently playing with singles who are still "out there" having sex with whomever. Some swingers were cheaters in marriage(s) at some point. How do any of us really know much of anything about our play partner's longterm sexual history? We don't. If we each could calculate how many sex partners we've had plus all of the people our lovers had before we were with them, that would be quite a number! When you factor in the nature of herpes and the fact that it lays dormant (outbreak-free) in so many people - possibly for decades without them realizing they have it - all the while potentially shedding the virus at unknown times, I think it's extremely easy to see just how much risk there is for anybody.

 

Swingers don't exist in their own special, unique demographic of society, and we aren't in a special group that's somehow safer than the rest of society. We are society - we really are just like everybody else. We come from all walks of life and have all sorts of backgrounds. We are just as "dirty" and exposed as everybody else in our culture. Personally, I believe we're exposed much moreso. After just one swinger convention/hotel takeover weekend, an average 30-something newbie couple could have more sex partners in two nights than the sum total of their lifetime before that weekend. Perhaps there does exist among swingers those special couples who hooked up at Prom at age 16, stayed together and 100% monogomous ever since, right until that moment 20 years later when they set foot in their first swing club, as pure as the driven snow (they are that special low risk demographic). In that moment they're virtually guaranteed to be 100% clear of having anything. But, if they take to the lifestyle like a pair of ducks to water as the rest of us swingers have, *poof*, the moment is gone. No more guarantee.

 

The vast majority of we who swing, know little-to-nothing about the sexual pasts of any of our play partners. We see Mr. and Mrs. Hottie right before us, they're attractive, nice, sexually selective, "clean"-looking and willing, and that's all we're thinking about, it's all that matters. Married and faithful for 20 years, Mrs. Hottie may have picked up herpes 22 years ago from her college boyfriend. She's never had an "outbreak" or anything like that, nothing to cause alarm or make her wonder (a couple of times thought she had a bug bite down there, and occasionally she got that "mysterious female rash"). A few times over the years, Mr. Hottie was "chafed". Herpes never crossed their minds.

 

None of us want to think about risk in the lifestyle, it's a real mood-killer. But it seems irresponsible and frankly dangerous to live in denial and pretend that being a longterm couple who swings with a variety of other longterm couples somehow improves the odds against something like herpes.

[good times 991]

I guess I am not making my point clear enough. No, I do not think swingers are in any more low risk group than the average married person in society. In fact, I am fairly certain that swingers are at slightly higher risk than your average monogamous couple ( although that is an assumption, as I know of no case were swingers were ever studied). Even totally monogamous couples are not totally safe and can contract the virus though. You can use a bathroom towel that someone shedding the virus used previously and contract Herpes. The fact is their are many higher risk groups than your average married couple, which I believe skews the numbers in these estimates of how many people on average have the disease. My point is I can't find any reason to believe that my wife and I, who only play with couples, are at significantly more risk than anyone else. It is true that some people have Herpes and never or rarely have an outbreak. Odds are, even if I played with them I wouldn't contract the virus, because the chances are, they wouldn't be shedding at the time.

 

The basic point here is that people come to forums like this and make claims like, "1 in 4 people have Herpes" like every forth person you have sex with is shedding the virus, when in fact, even the most pessimistic estimate is that 1 or 2 in 100 people you encounter may be currently shedding the virus, and my understanding is that the common cold sore (HSV-1) is included in that number. Some may live in denial, but I certainly don't. Each time I have sex with someone I am taking a risk. Fortunately, I have studied this subject enough to know that the odds are not 1 in 4, or whatever the current scare claim is, and have determined to my own satisfaction that the risk is acceptable to me. That I am comfortable with the odds does not mean I am in denial, it just means I have come to terms with the risk enough to be able to play with others.

 

The alternative is to not play at all, because you really have no way of knowing if a person is shedding the virus or not, unless they are having an obvious outbreak that you can see.

 

The only people I see that I would consider being in denial are the people who believe that once they slip that condom on they are safe. I realize that some, in fact many on this board, know that the amount of protection a condom provides is somewhere between 2% and 50%, depending on who you believe. I can't tell you how many people I have run into at clubs though that really believe that if they use condoms they are 100% safe from contracting STD's.

 

Frankly, what boggles my mind is that some people can believe that 20% of the people around them have active genital herpes, and they are still willing to play with them. For my part, if I believed that, I sure wouldn't be swinging. Fortunately for me, the actual statistics don't support that claim.

[crazykatie 139]

The basic point here is that people come to forums like this and make claims like, "1 in 4 people have Herpes" like every forth person you have sex with is shedding the virus, when in fact, even the most pessimistic estimate is that 1 or 2 in 100 people you encounter may be currently shedding the virus, and my understanding is that the common cold sore (HSV-1) is included in that number. Some may live in denial, but I certainly don't. Each time I have sex with someone I am taking a risk. Fortunately, I have studied this subject enough to know that the odds are not 1 in 4, or whatever the current scare claim is, and have determined to my own satisfaction that the risk is acceptable to me. That I am comfortable with the odds does not mean I am in denial, it just means I have come to terms with the risk enough to be able to play with others.

 

So far as I can tell, no one has claimed that one in four or one in five people are, at any given moment, contageous. However, the CDC reports that one in four women and one in five men have contracted the virus at some time in their lives.

 

Good Times: You appear to equate "having Herpes" with being capable of communicating the disease. So, is it your view that when one believes that they are not contagious (no active outbreak, no signs of viral shedding), they are not suffering from Herpes? Further, if someone is seropositive for HSV2 but has never had an outbreak (so they never had a cultured confirmation that they are contagious) can they continue to think of themselves as "disease free"?

[crazykatie 139]

Lets stop beating around the bush here.

 

Sorry you have HSV-2, lower risk or not we wouldn't want to swing with you because its still a greater risk than not having it.

 

There was a period we thought we may have contracted HSV-2. It didn't make sense due to our lack of activity but the symptoms seemed to be there. If it was we decided we were done swinging, but tests turned out to be negative.

 

At best rather than playing semantic games with HSV transition rate, we would have only played with people who were HSV-2 positivity themselves.

No problem. I completely understand and could see myself thinking the same way if the roles were reversed. I am not trying to convince you to play with me or anyone. Frankly, I'd rather play with couples who are seropositive, too. It would save a lot of talking.

 

However, the problem appears to be that the stigma associated with the disease actively prevents those who have it from being able to associate with others who have it. Very few who have the disease are willing to openly acknowledge this fact (even to others with the disease) for fear of being "outed." Consider SLS. Over twenty percent of the population is infected. Yet, no where near that percentage of profiles disclose the condition. Is it because swingers are disproportionately healthier than the rest of society? Or is there something else at work here?

 

Clearly, the stigma prevents those who might otherwise be willing to associate with one another from doing so. Go figure. I have learned so, so much in the last month...

 

I only wish to make these points....

 

First, if you are an active swinger (have played with more than seven other people/couples), statistically chances are that you have played with at least one person who is seropositive for the virus.

 

Second, by stigmatizing the disease, you all but ensure that no one will openly admit to being seropositive. No one wants to admit to being seropositive for fear that the community within which they play will learn of their condition and they will be shunned. Like Good Times, they will define themselves as not infected ("disease free") so long as they do not have an outbreak or symptoms of viral shedding. Provided that they have accurately judged their condition, they will be practically correct since they will not be contagious.

 

Please don't misunderstand me. In hindsight, I understand why it is that the stigma is unlikely to lift. And, as I said, I certainly see and understand your view.

 

Still, if you become infected, it will most likely be the result of play with someone who does not know they are/were infected and not because of play with someone who knows they have it. It is the ones that don't know they have it (or refuse to seek treatment) who are truly dangerous. They are the ones who are not on suppressive therapy, who have not been educated on the symptoms to watch for with the onset of an outbreak/shedding, and who do not pay close attention to issues of condom etiquette (like changing condoms with every play partner). If you believe the CDC (which I understand some people don't), one in four women and one in five men are infected and most don't even realize it.

 

If you are going to play, you will inevitably play with someone who has herpes. Once everyone accepts this basic proposition, it will be easy to lift the stigma. It is absolutely and undeniably true that you are better off playing with someone who knows they have it over someone who has it but thinks they are clean. But, I understand that there are those of you who are active swingers and still believe that you have never played with someone who is seropositve.

[good times 991]

Good Times: You appear to equate "having Herpes" with being capable of communicating the disease. So, is it your view that when one believes that they are not contagious (no active outbreak, no signs of viral shedding), they are not suffering from Herpes? Further, if someone is seropositive for HSV2 but has never had an outbreak (so they never had a cultured confirmation that they are contagious) can they continue to think of themselves as "disease free"?

I don't really know that I have a view regarding that, in my opinion, they either have it or they don't. On the other hand, if I play with someone and they aren't shedding the virus, then technically, from my risk point of view, it would be the same as if they didn't have the virus at all. In other words, how would I know if anyone was infected, if they had no signs and were not actively shedding the virus? I wouldn't, but do I think it would be right for someone to knowingly deceive people? No, but it wouldn't surprise me to find out it happens. That is a risk we take, but as I said before, it doesn't appear to me from the research available to be as big a risk as some would have us believe. The reason for that is, my risk is only in relation to those who are actively shedding the virus, the rest of the people I might come in contact with, whether serropositive or not, don't make any difference, because I can't contract the virus from them. So, while it might freak me out if I believed 1 in 5 of the people I had sex with had herpes, the fact is, I have less than a 1 in 100 chance of having sex with someone who can actually give me Herpes. And unlike some other STD's, if I educate myself to the signs and symptoms of Herpes, I can substantially reduce my chances of coming into contact with it even further.

 

My view is, I would not knowingly play with someone who has Herpes. Whether someone is on suppressive therapy or not doesn't make any difference to me, because either one of them could be unknowingly shedding the virus on the night I play with them, their is no way for either them or me to know if they are currently shedding or not. If, on the other hand, the drugs caused the person infected with herpes to never shed the virus, I would have a totally different view and would probably have no problem playing with them. The suppressive drugs do not work that way though, a person on the drugs can still be shedding the virus at any time. With that in mind, it is true that the person on suppressive therapy may shed the virus less often than if they weren't taking the drugs, so odds are, that I am less likely to contract the virus from them than another person who has the same outbreak frequency without the drugs. The problem is, I am not an odds player, to me, the person with herpes that is on surppressive therapy is no different than one who has it and isn't on medication, they are both a risk I do not need to take. Therefore, I don't believe these people are being stigmatized, that would presume that we believe something that isn't true. The fact is, whether one is on suppressive therapy or not, they can pass the virus, so it is not stigmatization, it is facts that drive my decision not to knowingly play with them. I agree that it is a bummer for someone who has herpes and wants to play, but the risk is there, so the best risk avoidance is to not go there.

[Tybee Swing 286]

Therefore, I don't believe these people are being stigmatized, that would presume that we believe something that isn't true.

 

Hi good times,

 

I'm not commenting on herpes or how/why we make our choices about who to play with (or not), but rather the definition of stigmatizing and being stigmatized.

 

To stigmatize a person doesn't necessarily involve believing something that's not true. Regardless of facts/truth, stigmatization is merely the act of identifying in terms of being scurrilous, reproachable, scandalous, offensive, disgraceful, infamous, contemptable, deserving of scorn. To be stigmatized is basically to have a bad reputation and to be "branded" or marked as unfavorable; to be socially ostracized or avoided.

 

This can occur with or without the presence of truth.

[good times 991]

Thanks for the definition Tybee, I stand corrected. I was looking at it more from the perspective that my unwillingness to play with someone with Herpes is not because they are stigmatized, but is because of the fact that they can transfer the virus. But I see that my reference to stigmatization is incorrect. So I guess I am stigmatizing them, doesn't change the way things are though.

[crazykatie 139]

Good times, I really appreciate your candor as, I believe, your viewpoint is shared by the vast majority of swingers who do not believe they are infected.

 

I do not find it hard to believe that the vast majority of swingers or lifestyle couples would choose not to knowingly play with someone who is seropositive. What I find frustrating is the apparent lack of understanding or realization of what the true risks are in contracting the disease and the clear and obvious prejudice within the community against those who have it. The prejudice appears to extend beyond a mere personal preference against playing with the infected. As I understand it, an individual or couple who openly acknowledges their condition can expect word to spread within their local community to the point that they should expect everyone will know they have it. Because they will be “outed,” anyone who openly associates with them may become suspect and, by virtue of the association, be shunned as well. It is this form of stigmatization that I find reprehensible.

 

OK, I get that everyone who isn’t infected wants to remain that way. What are your options? The only absolutely sure way to avoid infection is to never play outside a committed, monogamous relationship. Because of the asymptomatic nature of this disease, many people who don’t think they have it and don’t have any outward signs of infection are, nonetheless, contagious at any given time. Moreover, because the body requires time to develop sufficient anti-bodies to the virus to test positive after an initial infection, even individuals with recent negative blood tests can still be both infected and contagious. https://www.webmd.com/genital-herpes/herpes-tests-what-you-should-know#1 So, limiting your play partners to those who claim not to be infected and also claim to have recent blood tests to prove it does not assure yourself that you are playing with the uninfected (assuming they are telling the truth).

 

My point....everyone who is engaging in this lifestyle has accepted, on some level, a risk of contracting this disease. The only question is what do you consider an acceptable level of risk?

 

With that as an introduction, I want to respond to some of good time’s points.

 

good times said:

The problem is, I am not an odds player...

I think this statement reflects the thinking of a large percentage of the swinger population. It is also demonstratively not true. Good times, you admit yourself that you are and "odds player" when you write:

 

good times said:

....if I play with someone and they aren't shedding the virus, then technically, from my risk point of view, it would be the same as if they didn't have the virus at all. In other words, how would I know if anyone was infected, if they had no signs and were not actively shedding the virus? I wouldn't, but do I think it would be right for someone to knowingly deceive people? No, but it wouldn't surprise me to find out it happens. That is a risk we take, but as I said before, it doesn't appear to me from the research available to be as big a risk as some would have us believe. The reason for that is, my risk is only in relation to those who are actively shedding the virus, the rest of the people I might come in contact with, whether serropositive or not, don't make any difference, because I can't contract the virus from them. So, while it might freak me out if I believed 1 in 5 of the people I had sex with had herpes, the fact is, I have less than a 1 in 100 chance of having sex with someone who can actually give me Herpes.

At the end of the day, you acknowledge both the risks and the odds. You know that the choice you face is to play or not to play. The only way to take your odds to zero is to decide not to play. You have evaluated the information and have correctly assured yourself that, all things taken together, your personal odds of playing with an infected partner who is contagious is about 1 or 2 in 100. Against the option of not playing at all, you are willing to accept those odds. So, don’t try to tell me that you are not an odds player.

 

In point of fact, what you really don’t want to acknowledge is that you are playing the odds. And, here is how they work for you or against you. Every time you play with a new partner there is a roughly one in five chance that they are infected. So, your chance of playing with an infected person is approximately 20%. Play with two people and the odds of one of them being infected rises to 36% (the odds of them both being uninfected is 80% times 80% or 64%). By the time you have played with eight people, the odds that at least one of the eight was infected has risen to 83%.

 

Fortunately, the odds of them being infected is (as you have pointed out) much higher than the odds of them being contagious. A recent study investigated the relative risk that someone infected with herpes is actively shedding. The study was undertaken in connection with one of the suppressive drugs. https://www.natap.org/2004/HIV/051004_05.htm The incidence of viral shedding in individuals not taking suppressive medications was 3.1%. So the odds of interacting with someone who is both infected and shedding asymptomatically is roughly 00.64% (20% times 3.1%). Stated differently, you have a 99.36% chance of playing with someone who is either not infected or infected and not contagious. Pretty good odds, huh? This is why you swing and everyone else does, too. Even if you hit that one in one hundred situation, there is still a relatively good chance that with safe sex practice, you are protected!

 

Here is where it gets interesting. If a person has herpes, knows they have herpes, and is on suppressive therapy, the risk of them asymptomatically shedding (depending upon the dosage of the drugs) is between 00.52% and 00.35%. Stated differently, you have between a 99.65% chance and a 99.48% chance of playing with a partner who is actively shedding virus when your partner knows that they have it and is taking suppressive medications. Your risk of playing with a partner who is actively shedding the herpes virus is actually lower when the person knows that they are infected.

 

By the way, this analysis does not take into account the risk that the partner who does not think they are infected is, in fact, infected and having an outbreak!

 

The reality of how this disease is spread has caused one medical website to openly acknowledge the following....

 

www.medscape.com said:

But here's an interesting way to look at that risk. Let's say that Diane, who is truly uninfected (ie, HSV-2 seronegative), meets Bob who has HSV-2. Bob tells Diane about his infection. He offers to use condoms every time they have sex, take daily antiviral therapy, and agrees to try to be aware of any symptoms that may signal the beginning of an outbreak. Diane says that she just can't handle any risk, even though she really likes Bob. So she says goodbye and moves on. Then she meets Bill. She asks him right away whether he has herpes because now she's really worried about getting infected. He replies that he's "not that kind of guy" and is certain that he is not infected, only he really is (as approximately 1 in 4 adults are) but doesn't know it. Now we know that Bill is shedding virus at the same rate as Bob, but because he is unaware of his infection and doing nothing about it, he is more likely to infect Diane than Bob ever was. But Diane likes Bill's answer. She has sex with him with birth control pills instead of condoms, and within 2 months is infected with HSV-2. She's the one sitting in your exam room, waiting for the news. And the circle continues.

Let’s attack another myth....

 

good times said:

And unlike some other STD's, if I educate myself to the signs and symptoms of Herpes, I can substantially reduce my chances of coming into contact with it even further.

Simply not true. Over 70% of the time, the disease is transmitted during periods when there are no outward signs of infection. While being knowledgeable about the disease can certainly help the infected know when they are likely to be contagious, all that the partner has to go on is whether an open sore is visible on their partner. That is not enough to substantially reduce the risk of contracting the disease.

 

good times said:

My view is, I would not knowingly play with someone who has Herpes. Whether someone is on suppressive therapy or not doesn't make any difference to me, because either one of them could be unknowingly shedding the virus on the night I play with them, their is no way for either them or me to know if they are currently shedding or not. If, on the other hand, the drugs caused the person infected with herpes to never shed the virus, I would have a totally different view and would probably have no problem playing with them. The suppressive drugs do not work that way though, a person on the drugs can still be shedding the virus at any time. With that in mind, it is true that the person on suppressive therapy may shed the virus less often than if they weren't taking the drugs, so odds are, that I am less likely to contract the virus from them than another person who has the same outbreak frequency without the drugs.

It is here that you previously stated that you were not an odds taker, which notion I think I have already completely debunked...

 

good times said:

....to me, the person with herpes that is on suppressive therapy is no different than one who has it and isn't on medication, they are both a risk I do not need to take.

The question isn't whether you need to take a risk; you decide to take a risk each and every time you play. Instead, the question is: how much of a risk can you afford to take?

 

The risk that your partner who has herpes and is not on a viral suppressant is shedding is about: 1 in 32

 

The risk that your partner who does not think he has herpes actually has herpes and is shedding is approximately: 1 in 156

 

The risk that your partner who knows that they have herpes and is on a suppressant is shedding is approximately: 1 in 192 to 285

 

Of course, with safe sex practices, the odds of actually contracting the disease even if there is shedding approaches zero.

 

Still, if you can afford to take the 1 in 156 chance of playing with someone who is shedding even though they think they are clean, then you certainly should be able to afford the 1 in 192 to 285 chance of playing with someone who knows they have the disease, is treating it appropriately, and is (nonetheless) shedding. Conversely, if the 1 in 192 to 295 chance of exposing yourself to shedding with someone on suppressive therapy is too much for your taste, then you shouldn't be able to accept the 1 in 156 chance resulting from play with those who don't think they are infected.

 

Given the odds that swingers must be willing to accept just to play, there is absolutely no reasoned basis to avoid contact with the individuals and couples who know they are infected. You really are safer playing with the people who know they have the disease than you are playing with people who say that they don't.

 

But, I understand that as logical as this argument is, many of you simply don't want to knowingly play with fire. You want to believe that you are safer playing with those who do not believe they are infected because the idea that you are safer playing with someone who knows that they have the disease is fundamentally unsettling. So, you make a personal decision not to play with the infected.

 

However, your personal decisions (this comment is directed to the swinger community as a whole, not just good times)--to be irrational and ignorant of the real odds of contracting this disease--does not (in my mind) justify shunning or stigmatizing the open and honest couples playing with this disease. Yet, it appears from my research, that is exactly what is happening. The swinging community has allowed its ignorance of this disease to fuel an irrational fear that clouds all judgment. It has also fueled a prejudice which drives honest individuals underground when, I think, many of them would much rather be open and honest about their conditions.

 

I think it is wrong for this community to so stigmatize this disease that the stigma prevents people from openly acknowledging their condition--not because they are afraid that some will decide not to play with them--but because they are afraid that once they are “outed,” no one will dare risk to associate with them. That is wrong because, among other things, it raises prejudice over reason.

[crazykatie 139]

JustAskJulie said:

I think there's an option missing.

- Both create the same risk.

The risk that an individual with herpes and not on a suppressant is shedding the virus is 3.1% [approximately 1 in 32] whereas the risk with individuals on the suppressant is between 0.52% and 0.35%. [between 1 in 192 and 1 in 285]

 

See: https://www.natap.org/2004/HIV/051004_05.htm

 

So, both do not create the same risk.

 

Moreover, statistically, your risk of playing with someone who is shedding virus is higher when you play with someone who does not think they are infected than when you play with someone who knows they are infected and is on a suppressant. The risk associated with playing with someone who does not think they are infected is found by multiplying the risk that they are actually infected when they think they aren't (about 20% for men and 25% for women) with the shedding risk when not taking a suppressant (3.1%). The resulting risks are 0.77% [1 in 129] for men playing with women and 0.62% [1 in 162] for women playing with men.

[good times 991]

It probably won't surprise you that I totally disagree with your numbers above. Furthermore, many of the numbers you give above are so out of context that they are meaningless.

 

For example, you said,
 

Quote

 

"The risk that an individual with herpes and not on a suppressant is shedding the virus is 3.1% [approximately 1 in 32] whereas the risk with individuals on the suppressant is between 0.52% and 0.35%. [between 1 in 192 and 1 in 285]

 

See: https://www.natap.org/2004/HIV/051004_05.htm"

 

 

But that isn't supported or even claimed by the study you referenced. Those numbers have nothing to do with a persons risk of encountering someone who is shedding. Those numbers represent the number of days that 73 of the 169 subjects of the 16 week study were shedding the virus. Of the 169 subjects with abnormally high recurrences (at least 3 outbreaks in 6 months) of genital herpes that started the study, only 73 are included in those numbers because the rest did not shed the virus during the study, or were excluded for other reasons. Furthermore, those numbers represent the percentage of the 112 days of the study that the subjects that shed the virus were actively shedding, which does not correlate at all to my risk of encountering someone who is shedding amongst the general population, nor was that the claim made by the study. In fact, the study went on to say that although the suppressive drug studied reduced the number of days the patients actively shed the virus, it did not reduce the frequency of their outbreaks.

 

One more example,

 

You said,

Quote

"Simply not true. Over 70% of the time, the disease is transmitted during periods when there are no outward signs of infection. While being knowledgeable about the disease can certainly help the infected know when they are likely to be contagious, all that the partner has to go on is whether an open sore is visible on their partner. That is not enough to substantially reduce the risk of contracting the disease."

 

Again, a totally out of context and misleading number, it actually says that of the people in the study, having sex with a partner known to have herpes, 70% report they observed no signs of an outbreak when they contracted the virus. The previously infected partner usually went on to show signs of an outbreak within hours of the time when sex occurred and the observation was made, and the subjects of the study would have refrained from sexual activities had the signs of an outbreak been present. So it is no surprise, that among observant educated people having sex with someone known to have Herpes, that 70% of them would contract the virus during the period when their partner was shedding asymptomatically just prior to having visible signs of an outbreak. This has absolutely no correlation to what one might encounter outside of a controlled study, or when one is unaware that his partner has Herpes, nor do the researchers claim it does. The time that an infected person sheds the virus asymptomatically is far less than when they shed the virus symptomatically. So, if I am observant and knowledgeable about what to look for, the research data shows that a person having an outbreak is far more likely to be showing obvious signs of having an outbreak while shedding than not.

 

That being said, from my perspective, the following are the actual numbers important to me;

 

If I play with people who are not infected, my chances of contracting the virus are 0%. If someone has the virus, whether they are on suppressive therapy or not, the chances that they will be shedding the virus at some time in the future is close to 100%. No one can tell me for certain what the chances are that I personally may end up playing with someone on the day they happen to be shedding. So the only way I have to reduce my risk in relation to people known to have the virus is to not play with them. I realize that their is a possibility that I may end up playing with someone who has Herpes and is shedding asymptomatically, and in that sense you are correct, I am playing the odds. My only point is, that my study of the research available has proven to me that the odds aren't anywhere near as bad as your numbers above make them out to be. And no matter how you look at it, playing with someone that I know has Herpes, on suppressant therapy or not, increases my chances of contracting the virus. In that respect, for me, their is no difference in risk between someone on suppressive therapy or not.

 

The only thing I can really agree with you about is that the people who admit they have Herpes will most likely be shunned by other swingers. Unfortunately, unless they find a cure or vaccine for Herpes, I don't know of anything that can be done about that.

[crazykatie 139]

good times said:

If I play with people who are not infected, my chances of contracting the virus are 0%.

The problem is that you cannot know that the person you are playing with is not infected. Accordingly, you can never take your chances to 0% so long as you choose to play. But, of course, you don't want to deal with that point because--once you acknowledge the truth of it--you must face the reality that you will play with the infected, you just won't know it.

 

good times said:

It probably won't surprise you that I totally disagree with your numbers above. Furthermore, many of the numbers you give above are so out of context that they are meaningless.

You're right; I am not surprised. Frankly, I think your mental health depends upon your ability to ignore or reject the studies on the subject.

 

I'm not sure whether your complaint with the study is that it likely over estimated the rate of viral shedding or underestimated it. In point of fact, the study was attempting to quantify the reduction in the shedding rate when using suppressants when compared to the rate in individuals not taking suppressants.

 

If anything, the exclusion of certain subjects on the grounds that you have identified would tend to reduce the rate of shedding, both in those that were taking the suppressants and those that were not. Thus, the overall risk of potential exposure to viral shedding would be reduced. That the researchers rejected those subjects because they questioned whether they had been properly collecting the samples probably is of no difference to you. Also, the study's focus on higher risk patients would, if anything, tend to indicate a lower overall shedding rate in the general population (both for those on suppressants as well as those not taking anything).

 

So, if your point is that you think the odds are more likely 1 in 200 or 1 in 250 that your partner who does not think they have herpes actually has it and is shedding during your play, I would probably tend to agree with you. But, similarly, the associated reduction in the shedding rate of those on suppressants would mean that the equivalent odds of a person who knows that they have herpes and is on a suppressant shedding during play is more likely 1 in 300 to 1 in 400.

 

But, if one is going to make decisions about playing based upon a worst case assessment of the risk, there is no reasoned basis for rejecting the shedding rates identified in the study as they are more likely to be conservative estimates of the risk.

 

Since you didn’t like my first study, I’ll cite a second (so that you can continue to take shots at more scientific information). This one involves men and older, second-generation suppressants.

 

This study expressly discloses its findings with respect to the shedding rates of men without lesions both on and off the then available suppressants.

 

“When days without lesions were examined separately, the subclinical shedding rate declined from 2.5% on placebo to 0.6% with valacyclovir and 0.7% with acyclovir treatment.” (p.S38)

 

It should be noted that this is an older study dealing with two of the second generation suppressants, not the third generation suppressants which are now available. Still, the 2.5% unmedicated shedding rate found in this older study compares favorably with the 3.1% unmedicated shedding rate found in the later study which I previously cited. Also, the viral suppressant rates with men (using the older suppressants) compares favorably with the rates found with women (using the newer suppressants) in the newer study.

 

good times said:

And no matter how you look at it, playing with someone that I know has Herpes, on suppressant therapy or not, increases my chances of contracting the virus.

Interestingly, statistically you are wrong. If you were to choose to exclusively play with individuals who knew that they had herpes and were taking a suppressant, you will actually have a lower risk of exposure to shedding over time than you have making the decision to play exclusively with those who think they are not infected. This is because the higher incidence of shedding in those who don’t think they have the disease (and to which you would be exposing yourself) more than off-sets the limited risk of exposure that comes with playing with someone on a suppressant. Add in the potential of playing with someone who is in the midst of an outbreak and doesn't even know it, and the odds aren't even close.

 

Still, I understand that you do not accept any of the science or statistics underlying this proposition.

[good times 991]

Like your interpretation of the studies you have looked at, you have totally misread and misinterpreted the point of my posts.

 

I do not disagree or disbelieve the results of the studies I have read, in fact, I totally accept them for what they are. Unlike you though, I do not misinterpret or misapply the numbers the studies give in order to support my position. You are not alone though, most of the numbers regarding these STD's that you read on the internet are not supported by the studies they supposedly used to generate the numbers. The fact is, your numbers above are total baloney, made up to fit your version of reality. And it is numbers like these posted all over the internet that have the less informed thinking that every fifth person they meet has genital herpes, which is absolutely untrue, and their is no reputable researcher in the world that would support that claim.

 

Reread my posts, do not color what I am saying with your preconceived notions, I mean exactly what I say, no more.

 

You said the following,

 

"(quote of me) If I play with people who are not infected, my chances of contracting the virus are 0%.

 

(your response to the quote) The problem is that you cannot know that the person you are playing with is not infected. Accordingly, you can never take your chances to 0% so long as you choose to play. But, of course, you don't want to deal with that point because--once you acknowledge the truth of it--you must face the reality that you will play with the infected, you just won't know it."

 

You obviously didn't note that I said "If I play with people who are not infected"

 

Nowhere in that sentence did I mention playing with folks who were infected, nor did I mean to as it has absolutely nothing to do with my point. Like your statistics though, you reinterpret what I said to make your irrelevant exaggerated claims.

 

At first I just thought you were misunderstanding what you were reading in the studies, but it is obvious to me now that you just wish to make sure that the numbers prove your point by applying them in a way that the originators of the numbers never intended, in the hopes that no one will go check or be informed enough to know that the numbers you are giving are false.

 

To bad, because STD's are a real concern in the lifestyle, but awareness about them isn't helped by people using untruths to try and scare people by making the problem and risk look worse than it is.

[fun4Ds 1,097]

we agree with goodtimes !

[celtic239 297]

Please correct me if I am wrong but I'm under the impression that you can contract genital herpes even if you use a condom because the disease is transmitted through physical contact and not through bodily fluids.

[toomuchfun 77]

Please correct me if I am wrong but I'm under the impression that you can contract genital herpes even if you use a condom because the disease is transmitted through physical contact and not through bodily fluids.

 

It's too bad no one felt the need to answer this question when you posted it.. because EVERYONE needs to know the answer.

 

Skin on skin contact is how herpes is spread, LOTS of skin touches during sex. HSV1 or cold sores, which something like 75% of people have, can be xmitted to the genitals as well.

 

Not trying to scare, just trying to educate... if you are HSV free, and expect to stay that way, the only 100% way to do it is blood tests. Even that is not so great because it takes up to about 90 days for the antibodies to show up in your blood.

 

Good news is, herpes is just an annoyance, and really has no serious medical impact.

 

Sorry... end rant... Interested to see what others have to say on the subject.

[DnG 15]

So much to think about !

 

As I said in our ‘introduction’, we stopped going to the clubs in Miami and stopped swinging around the time that AIDs became a problem. Since we were going bareback without thinking a thing about it…[and so was everyone else at those clubs] ....it was probably the best thing we did…to stop. It was around that time [1985] that we found out that D’s son had HIV….that stopped it for her and as well for me.

 

I’ve learned a lot from this thread….that warts and cold sores are a symptom of a type of herpes and that you never get rid of the virus that causes them. As a child [gradeschool and maybe highschool] I had both warts and cold sores often. Haven’t had either of them since [more than 40 years] Does that mean I’m still capable of passing something along to someone else ?

 

I think I’ve read all of the responses to this thread and am wondering just what percent of the members of Swingersboard are participating swingers and what percent are just lurkers…like myself. I would like to get back into the lifestyle but I can appreciate my wife’s position.

[exploringRM 305]

Wife and I are a bit new to swinging and of course STDs are something we always talk about. Many people, swingers and vanilla, get cold sores at some point, HSV 1. So do we totally avoid people wit cold sores, what do others think?. (of course we would avoid anyone with active sores, but in general, during non-active periods, knowing they had a cold sore previously).

[sassycpl 15]

Well we are swingers of about 4 years and been with about 13 couples, mind you condoms used also. And Yes we got Genital Herpes from the lifestyle, which couple and when is not a given but we do have it and its with us for ever. Many of you on this forum have it or it not will get it also thats a fact. We could easily go one with out telling people like alot do or alot do cause they ahve no clue they have it same result. Sure you say I use condoms Im safe and I look for sores and dont play with people that are not clean or sleep around. Well either do we is all I can say. If your gonna swing you have to assume the other peoson has it and be willing to get it. We will never know when or which couple gave it to us either.

[SW_PA_Couple 4,023]

sassycpl said:

. . . Many of you on this forum have it or it not will get it also that's a fact. We could easily go one with out telling people like a lot do or a lot do cause they have no clue they have it same result. Sure you say I use condoms I'm safe and I look for sores and dont play with people that are not clean or sleep around. Well either do we is all I can say. If your gonna swing you have to assume the other person has it and be willing to get it. We will never know when or which couple gave it to us either.

All of this is true and anybody entering the lifestyle or actively engage should give it consideration. I too am surprised that such a small percentage of respondents to this pole seemed to think that these two "intercourse" scenarios have equal risk.

[Chicup 41]

My wife and I had a talk about this a few years ago when we thought we might have gotten HSV2 (tests negative *whew*).

 

We decided, without hesitation that even if we did have it, it was "worth it" because of how close swinging brought us and the good things it did for us and our marriage.

 

HSV2 sucks, but its not a death sentence. It would end our swinging, but not swinging isn't the end of the world either.

[sassycpl 15]

Well the good news is there are 2 or 3 good sites for singles and couples with Herpes for dating and swinging (yes swinging) all you have to do is google it. I think if more of the people that have it would use the sites they would be much happier than either not telling people or being worried about an outbreak. We are going to try some of the sites I mentioned.

[tribbles 490]

If your gonna swing you have to assume the other peoson has it and be willing to get it.

 

Early on in swinging, I would not have believed that.

 

Now I do.

 

I tell anyone who asks...I have no SYMPTOMS.

 

No freaking idea if I have any STD that has no symptoms. Just cuz we have tested negative for them last time we tested, we have been playing and having fun since then.

 

Take your chances or don't play.

 

Agree with Chicup that it's worth it since we are closer now than we ever thought possible.