@97 "here is an obligation to disclose clearly, in ways people understand, and not pout that they didn't understand your preferred euphemisms for "I have herpes"

If "cold sore" was actually a individualized or cultural euphemism, I'd agree. Like Coke vs pop vs soda. But, its an actual term used in this country nationwide. Maybe, as some people have stated, not crystal clear. But, certainly not obfuscating the fact.

@97:

There is an obligation to disclose clearly, in ways people understand, and not pout that they didn't understand your preferred euphemisms for ... whatever ... important information you find makes it harder to get laid if clearly disclosed.

This, to loud applause.

We don't know the STI status of the male partner. Wouldn't this then, apply to his treatment of her? If we are arguing what is a shameful act, We cannot do that in this situation, without examining the males shameful acts as defined by you.

100% agreed. But in this case the LW hasn't said that so it's a pointless hypothetical. If your question is "does this extend to every adult regardless of gender?" then the answer is a loud, clear, and unequivocal "yes".

@100 You meant to address that at me. And, should I point out that you equated this, @61, to domestic violence and sexual assault? Crimes where there is clearly a victim who didn't necessarily ask to be beat up or raped.

And THAT was in response to my first comment that was aimed @39 who actually used the term "victim blaming"?

Then you later, @65, called her a predator, which usually implies prey.

@99, she has HSV2. Again, you are positing a scenario other than the one we're talking about.

I do want to point out that though a person can be sued in CIVIL court for not disclosing they have herpes and then giving or to someone. There is no CRIMINAL law against it. I also want to say it is VERY hard to prove it is a CIVIL case, if the complainant has no history of HSV testing and any partners they had around the time of acquisition have no testing history as well.

@105: No, I said a man who did it would be called a predator. It was a noting of an unfairly applied gender distinction, not a seeker-imposed designation. Truth be told I think that a lot of our language is unfairly gender-applied, just different words used to slag the different genders in different contexts, but it's still slagging.

@106: both viruses share 50% of their DNA, they physical symptoms, if there are any are exactly the same. The treatment options (valtrex, acyclovir) are exactly the same. If I got a blister on my nethers. whether HSV1 or HSV2 it would be indistinguishable without a swab test. SO CLEARLY, this is not the same the same for the purposes of this argument.

@106: It clearly says she has HSV1 in the genital region.

Oh, you mean a cold sore, right? HSV1=cold sore, HSV2=genital herpes, right?

@101 I apologize. I misread, and thought you were creating a hypothetical where the LW was a boy and the girl was the receiver of the disease.

But, I think the advice should be tempered as if they both wrote in. Is she culpable? Yes. Is he? Yes. Is she a predator, villain, or bad person? Not completely for this set of actions. Is she a good person for her set of actions? Pfft.

English is not my first language and I know that a cold sore is herpes.

@97: I may have not clearly said what I intended to say. What I wanted to say was that you'd be exposed to it and make it clear that prevalence is really high.

BTW, one thing that no one has considered is that the there is probably a more than 50% chance (depending on where they live) that the 18 year old already has antibodies against HSV1 so he's not at risk for anything from the woman...

Re 106, 109, 110, 111: I erred in noting it as HSV1, having slipped and missed that as I read the bit about "cold sores in the genital region"; I thought she was being euphemistic. And, to be frank, I am reconsidering my position regarding this LW. I stand by my comments on the morality of disclosure (yes, including HSV1 ... any sex partner should know that you get cold sores) but the more that I think about it the more that I'm sure that her level of disclosure was adequate. I still think she should have refused unsafe sex (hell, as noted by others, for her own purposes at least) because, so far as she knew, she was infected and he was not: do not harm (etc) as noted above. If he has HSV1, different rules apply about unprotected sex.

Re 113: I can't speak for your linguistic experience, but I know that in learning French I can, on occasion, understand things more clearly than native speakers because, if you aren't operating in idiom you get the precise technical meanings of the words and aren't distracted by words (like cold sore and HSV1 or HSV2) which use colloquialisms to denote multiple things; I note it in my ESL clients, too. FWIW.

@114: Absolutely true about the idioms, plus the benefit of getting more explicit information about STIs and HSV-related infection versus schoolyard misconceptions that substituted for or interfered with fact.

So, for whatever reason - maybe it reminded me of the hot, hot, unsafe encounters I had in my long ago and far away youth from which I somehow emerged unscathed - and in spite of the knowledge of infection, this letter gave me a funny feeling in my danger area. My brain does not approve.

LW probably wouldn't have misled him if she hadn't been told repeatedly that her infection is not a big deal. To her it's not, and to Dan it's not, and to most reasonable people with the facts, it's not, but he wasn't given the chance to decide if it's a big deal to him.

She knowingly and selfishly made this judgment for him. It's easier to say "I have herpes" than "I sometimes get cold sores, but I get them genitally," and she knew exactly why she chose to say it that way.

Okay, those of us with a little mileage all have a 'boy, was I lucky!" moment of which we are not proud. Maybe it was a disease that didn't take root or an unplanned pregnancy. But beating this dead horse isn't going to suddenly put a condom on his dick and un-do the deed. After 110+ comments, maybe it's all been said. It was dumb, we've castigated both parties, time to get on to the rest of the day.

1) The young kid is a moron who should have asked what "cold sores on my genitals" means. It's likely he's engaged in past risky behavior that put the letter writer at risk for other diseases and his future partners almost certainly should be careful with him.

2) The letter writer did a terrible thing. Regardless of whether the kid should have known that she was *technically* admitting to having herpes, she should have said "I have herpes." Euphamisms are not OK in this context. If you like/trust someone enough to fuck him, you should like/trust him enough to use the the actual words for the disease so he knows exactly what he's getting into. She was wrong.

@118: I concur. I think we've covered every iteration of dumb and blame here.

Calling the 18-year-old a moron may sound harsh, but it's accurate. Let me be clear: I don't absolve her of her wrongdoing in this. I don't deny that there is a large gap in maturity between 18 and 28, and that 18-year-olds need to be handled with a bit of extra care by any older people who fuck/date them. She should have been clearer in her disclosure and she should have been more insistent on condom use.

What I'm saying, though, is that she doesn't have all the blame or accusations of monsterhood either. A lot of people making these "reverse-the-gender" comparisons are conveniently leaving out the fact that he insisted pretty hard on not using the condom. He may "only" be 18, but he behaved stupidly even for what should be expected of18-year-olds, and that's what we mean when we call him a moron. When I was 18, if someone I was about to sleep with said "I have {something}, but on my genitals," that would at least be enough to prevent me from insisting (multiple times) on condom-free anal sex. It wouldn't matter whether or not I recognized which STI, exactly, {something} specifically referred to.

Anyone who knows of the existence of STIs in general should know to use a condom with people who mention having {something} on their genitals, whether their word choice was "herpes," "cold sores," or "chaswozzers." Whatever her word choice, it should still be pretty obvious to any nonstupid 18-year-old that she wasn't just giving him some fun trivia about her junk. If he, at 18, didn't at least view that as a prompt to err on the side of condom use, then he was exhibiting stupidity; not innocence.

Again: she was irresponsible too, but comparing her to a predator is just ridiculous and puts way too little responsibility the younger adult there. We shouldn't expect as much from 18-year-olds as we should from 28-year-olds, but we shouldn't expect nothing of them either.

@121 THIS. ALL OF IT.

Also, I just want to state, for the record of everybody else that you and I are not sock puppets, because the similarity of our statements almost totally sounds like we are. And while stating that sounds like an admission to sock puppetry, it really isn't.

@121 THIS. ALL OF IT.

Also, I just want to state, for the record of everybody else that you and I are not sock puppets, because the similarity of our statements almost totally sounds like we are. And while stating that sounds like an admission to sock puppetry, it really isn't.

Damn, double post.

Wait, oh FUCK! Ignore this! It's not what you all think!

Okay, 122-124: effin' brilliant.
Two (or four?) thumbs up.

@124 <3

Mr Misanthrope:
My issue with her is exactly that she did use a euphemism.

Euphemisms are used to obfuscate. That is what she did. No-one used to call sores on the genitals "cold sores" until it was known that cold sores and those pesky genital thingies were caused by the same virus.

(Btw, I don't agree that the "clap" is a euphemism, I think it just is the older, more colloquial term.)

Regarding the stupidity/ naivite/ moronity (?) of the 18yo: he is a complete idiot. However, reading how many of the commenters here think that him refusing a condom for anal was what put him at risk for getting HSV, I think too many people don't understand that HSV and HPV are transmitted by skin contact, not by insertive sex.

@127: "reading how many of the commenters here think that him refusing a condom for anal was what put him at risk for getting HSV, I think too many people don't understand that HSV and HPV are transmitted by skin contact, not by insertive sex"

Of course it is transmitted by any contact in the wider anogenital region, but the condomless anal sex puts him into contact with a much greater surface area and the possibility of bleeding on top of everything.

"skin contact, not by insertive sex" is a very silly phrase.

@124 lol

@127 When does a euphemism become a colloquialism? How does it? By common usage, I'm sure. And, "cold sores" is a quite common substitute for "herpes" at least in the worlds I run in. YMMV.

Also, euphemisms aren't always to obfuscate. If I say dick, cock, johnson, pee-pee, or something else, I'm sure you know quite well that i'm talking about penis. Same with va-jay-jay, woo-woo, and whatever other euphemisms there are, you know I'm talking about vagina. Frequently, they're to ease, soften, or otherwise stylize a conversation from the clinical.

And, BTW, saying you have anything in the genital area is always a red flag for an STI.

"Also, euphemisms aren't always to obfuscate."

How about this, it's often less a charming euphemism than it is a "weasel word". Context is everything, and here it was used to minimize.

That said, I've probably said everything I can say on the matter too.

And....the battle between the 'OMFG! You have a DISEASE!!!! Stone anyone who doesn't have a scarlet D on their chest!!!' and the 'chill out. If you're gonna have sex, you're gonna take a risk' folks rages on for over 100 comments. Again.
If you don't want to take a chance on catching HSV1 (I disagree with the above- canker sores, cold sores, genital herpes, oral herpes- all caused by the herpes virus, and many of us had HSV1 as small children) or HSV2, HPV, HIV, Syphilis or Gonorrhea, DON'T HAVE SEX WITH ANYONE BUT YOURSELF.

@132 Canker sores are not caused by the herpes virus.

Educate thyself.

Gah. Aside from the LW's question...all I keep thinking is "You two idiots had genital-contact/insertion sex w/o a condom and w/o jointly getting tested for EVERYTHING."

I started having sex long before I was 18. I demanded and provided the barriers. Sheesh.

@133: This is why I am sad.

Just out of curiosity, how many of you guys were hot 18 year- olds who were also wonderful and charming? I sure wasn't, and I'm still not, though I'm working on actually building some muscle and not going out of my way to never talk to guys who show an interest in me.

LW here - I used "cold sore" because that is what it is, it's HSV1, most commonly known as cold sores because they are usually on the face. I told him about it while he was hanging out and I was working from home during the afternoon, both fully clothed - no horniness to obsfucate his judgement. I told him the risk of transmission was low because I was on therapy, because it is. Statistically, he is more likely to already have it (or end up not being positive anyways) than for me to give it to him over 3 days without an outbreak while on therapy. And yeah, "herpes" has a stigma that is unwarrented. I guess should have told him before I paid for the trip, but honestly, it is such a small part of my life that I forgot until a day or two before. So I thought a face to face conversation was best. I should have insisted on condom use, but he was also rubbing his bare cock all over me several times the day before we had anal and the day after. I also had already given him a blowjob before I disclosed - it was unprotected and he didn't request a condom - thats a really good way to get herpes too. I thought he was being stupid when he turned down a condom for anal, but he said several times over the trip, "I'm an adult," so I was letting him choose the risk level he was comfortable with. I may have herpes, but I'm smart (baller job, 4.0 degree in math, national merit finalist), considerate (vegan for the animals, don't drive for the earth), giving (paid close to 400 for the plane ticket, drugs, all expenses), and fucking HOT as hell (5'11, 34D, blonde, size 6, triathlete, blue eyes, big smile). And I am still valuable and worthy of love and affection despite my STD status, esp. since almost everyone already has it too.

I think canker sore is a stupid word. I didn't hear the word until high school. In my family, we called them mouth ulcers. The latter is much more descriptive, and suggests a remedy (i.e. baking soda solution and avoiding consumption of acidic beverages).

Dumb American English.

The fact that so many commenters seem to confuse HSV1 on the genitals with "genital herpes" (which usually means HSV2) shows why LB said "cold sores." And, a question: if LB occasionally got cold sores on her mouth, how many of you would be up in arms over her telling 18 that she got cold sores on her mouth, as opposed to having "oral herpes"? And how many of you would be furious about her giving a blowjob without a condom? There's no difference in transmission risk between oral sex from someone who has HSV1 on their mouth and vaginal sex with someone who has HSV1 on their genitals.

The fact that so many commenters seem to confuse HSV1 on the genitals with "genital herpes" (which usually means HSV2) shows why TBG said "cold sores." And, a question: if TBG occasionally got cold sores on her mouth, how many of you would be up in arms over her telling 18 that she got cold sores on her mouth, as opposed to having "oral herpes"? And how many of you would be furious about her giving a blowjob without a condom? There's no difference in transmission risk between oral sex from someone who has HSV1 on their mouth and vaginal sex with someone who has HSV1 on their genitals.

@137: For what it's worth, most of the comments here have been nitpicks or commenting on specific things that may have been handled better, not casting aspersions on your total worth as a human being.

@140: "if TBG occasionally got cold sores on her mouth, how many of you would be up in arms over her telling 18 that she got cold sores on her mouth, as opposed to having "oral herpes"?"

You could just explain that you have oral HSV1.

She was calling calling them cold sores because HSV-1 usually is referred to as ‘cold sores.’ Saying she got cold sores genitally is perfectly accurate. You can tell from her letter that she sensed he didn’t understand it though, and not clarifying was her mistake.

The 18-year-old’s mistakes include not asking for clarification, and insisting on barebacking a stranger. Those are his responsibilities regardless of her age.

She was trying to disclose without bringing up all the stigma attached to the word herpes. This does not make her a ‘cunt’ any more than it would make a black man disclosing in this way a ‘nigger.’

@128:
""skin contact, not by insertive sex" is a very silly phrase. "

You are right, of course, that it is a silly phrase. Blame it on red wine and me not being a native speaker.
I meant "not ONLY insertive sex". It still sounds clunky.

@137:
Yes, if you describe the situation as you do here, it does sound different to in your original letter.

But then you started to describe yourself as smart, considerate and yada, yada, yada.
The size of your boobs, your being vegan, and your GPA have nothing to do with you having herpes and with your way of disclosing/ kind of disclosing it.

The situation was poorly handled—at least according to the original letter (now revised by the LW @137).

But what I'm getting is that the 18yo beau is a bit of an irresponsible douche, who feels entitled because he's "gorgeous". This attitude is encouraged and rewarded by the LW, who later uses her own "hotness" (@137) as a supporting argument for the correctness of her actions.

While it's nice that there are cute people in the world, I wouldn't mind if more of them died off from consequences of their "the-world-is-my-oyster-because-I'm-beautiful" attitude. And it would be a satisfying counterpoint to natural selection if this were due to fatal STI's.

LW here again - @144 and @145, I wasn't saying that I'm so hot that I don't have to disclose. I was trying to use objective evidence that I am still a valuable person worthy of love, that I'm completely date-able, and more than fuckable, despite having HSV1. It would be stupid for me to sit back and remove myself from the dating pool for a tiny thing like a rash that almost everyone has or will get in their lifetime. I'm charming, and sweet, and outgoing, and genuine, and passionate, and witty and funny - it would be a shame to the world if I just curled up in a ball and never left the house again.

Birthday Present Boy still says he had a great weekend and he also admits that he was being stupid for not being more curious about my status before fucking me without a condom.

"I was trying to use objective evidence that I am still a valuable person worthy of love"

HSV1 is a pretty minor thing to get worked up about in all contexts, but you'd still be a person worthy of love even if you were less conventionally-attractive straight D average making minimum wage. Just be conscious of others and you'll do fine, no upsell necessary.

People aren't shaming you because you have herpes, FF. People are criticizing the way you handled the situation and particularly the lateness and obliqueness of your disclosure given his relative youth and immaturity. Having Herpes doesn't make you a bad person or undateable. It does require honest and complete disclosure on your part. Because like it or not, your sex partners deserve the opportunity to make an informed choice about the risks of sleeping with you. Maybe if you took a declination for what it is - a risk management decision - it would be easier for you to see it not as a personal judgment of your worth as a person.

I heard lots of shame up there about having herpes. I also made a spreadsheet analyzing the opinions in the comments, and the reaction is mixed on whether I did a horrible job disclosing, an adequate but not optimal, or a perfectly fine job disclosing. The biggest consensus is that birthday present boy is an idiot. Which is probably true, and I also understand his feelings being angry. Obviously, I got herpes from someone at some point, and he never told me that he had it before he gave it to me. He knew he got cold sores, but hadn't had one in 20 years, and didn't go down on me. It was random and unexpected and we were doing low transmission stuff. It sucked, and I got over it.
Next time, I'll still say cold sores, but follow up to check that my partner knows what that means. But if there is a plane involved, I still might not say anything until he gets to me. I told him before he came, "hey, no pressure when you get here. I think you are really cool and I'm attracted to you, but if you get here and we dont click or if one of us decides that we don't want to have sex, its ok." I really thought he understood when I said "cold sores." During the first conversation, he acted like he wanted to get off the subject, looked me in the eye and said "It's not a big deal" and smiled, so I didn't press it. After I disclosed, he could have said, "What does that mean, can you give me more info?" and then could have said, "this is a weekend fling and herpes is forever and even though the risk is low it's just not worth it." And, disappointed, I would have been like, "ok." But he didn't follow up with anything. I really was trying my best.

"During the first conversation, he acted like he wanted to get off the subject, looked me in the eye and said "It's not a big deal" and smiled, so I didn't press it. After I disclosed, he could have said, "What does that mean, can you give me more info?" "

That's why it's generally easier to give more info to begin with. People have a way of blocking out information and getting mad at you for not giving them "full disclosure" (even if it should be obvious) to begin with.

"I also made a spreadsheet analyzing the opinions in the comments"

Oh gosh, don't do that.

but I'm smart (baller job, 4.0 degree in math, national merit finalist), considerate (vegan for the animals, don't drive for the earth), giving (paid close to 400 for the plane ticket, drugs, all expenses), and fucking HOT as hell (5'11, 34D, blonde, size 6, triathlete, blue eyes, big smile).

It seems to me that a 28-year-old with a 'baller job' and '4.0 degree in math,' would view high school accomplishments ('national merit finalist') as something of the distant past, probably no longer worth including on the CV, formal or informal. It just rings a bit false with me, not that it really matters.

And don't we already have a commenter who's tall, thin, young, brilliant, blonde, with huge tits, perfect body/personality and a 'baller' STEM job? Is there room for two? Or is that just the preferred sockpuppet profile for fat, hairy, middle-aged neckbeards?

Ah. Ignore me.

Yeah. Nowhere in FF's letters/posts do I see an acknowledgment of the campfire rule or the fact that you and he were operating on different levels of emotional maturity, even though you refer to him as a boy the first time you mention him in your original letter.

You don't get to treat him like an equal. He wasn't. Regardless of his past experiences or how mature he was for his age or how immature you are for yours. If your takeaway from this thread is that he was an idiot, you've got some problems. Like lack of empathy. Lack of maturity. Lack of acceptance of personal responsibility.

You're 28 years old. You ought to be able to say the word herpes. Sound it out. Practice it. And be more responsible. After reading your posts, I stand by my initial opinion. You are a bad person. You weren't trying your best to give him, a hormonal immature young man, the information he needed to make an honest assessment of whether to have sex with you. You were trying your best to seduce him into still having sex with you while disclosing just enough about your condition to not alarm him while preserving your ability to say AFTERWORDS "But I told you I had HERPES".

Your posts are mostly efforts to justify yourself, as is your spreadsheet. Reasonable people can differ, but if morality and ethics are objectively determinable, as I believe, there is one answer to your question, which remains the right answerregardless of whether 0%, 5%, or 90% of the posters here agree.

No. I did my best. And it wasn't perfect. Next time, I'll do better. And I told him that I was deeply sorry. Sleeping with me wasn't a condition of his visit and I communicated that before he came up. I told him while we were sober and clothed. He told me that he wanted to be treated like an adult. And he is really mature for his age, he's following his dreams and confident, and sometimes he makes stupid choices (sorry for the idiot comment - I was using earlier language).

I'm not going to say, "Hey I've got this scary horrible lifelong disease that terrible and painful and if you get it no one will ever have sex with you again so only touch me with a 10 foot pole if you hate getting laid." That would be stupid.

I genuinely thought I was clear. I genuinely tried to protect him and disclose. I could have said nothing - there was a good chance I would never see him again - but I wanted to be honest, as I am with EVERY partner (even the major douchebags - which he's not - lots of the comments say he is). I chose those words carefully, at least I was trying to. I did my best. That's all I can do.

I cared about him, and I definitely didn't want to hurt him or cause drama. I wanted to follow the campsite rule. I wouldn't have written in if I didn't care that my actions affected someone. You may think I'm a bad person. But the worst that could come out of this is he gets HSV1 (which he isn't even sure of). And the best is that he starts ALWAYS USING A CONDOM. (And that I resume insisting on condoms as I had done for the prior 11 years.) I think it's a net gain in his life. My conscience is 99.9% clear. I can move on.

And thanks for all your comments! I appreciate them in my quest to be a better person, better lover, and better partner!

@FunFact- Guess I should have read through the comments before posting! Sounds like you have a handle on how to negotiate a situation like that a little better in the future. I had to laugh at the idea you made a spreadsheet to analyze the comments!

Like, nothing in my heart said, "Hurt this boy. Use him all you want for your own desires."

Everything in my heart said, "Show him the funnest weekend ever. Give him everything he wants. Be the best thing that's ever happened to him."

Those were my only goals. And my execution was flawed, for which I'm sorry and would change if I could. Dan says that doesn't make me a bad person. I'm cool with that.

153: You seem to be confusing an 18-year-old with an infant. The campsite rule doesn't include wiping people's asses for them.

Granted, it's not reasonable to expect an 18-year-old to show the same knowledge and maturity of a 28-year-old. It is perfectly reasonable, however, to expect them to show the same levels of knowledge and maturity expected of other 18-year-olds, and that includes expecting him to know better than to bareback a stranger who just got done telling him about having "sores" (of ANY kind) on her genitals. And once you stop exaggerating this younger guy's youth and start holding him to 18-year-old standards rather than 8-year-old standards, the LW looks less like the villain you make her out to be and more like a MILDLY irresponsible lover.

Using a colloquialism to describe one's STI is not an act of deceit, and your attempts to conflate it as such just make you look shrill, not moral. Sure, it would have been better for her to use the clinical term, but 1) I sincerely doubt he heard "cold sores" and thought "candy," and 2) not every act is split neatly between "shining perfection" and "vile cruelty." Her actions fall under "mild negligence," his fall under "mild idiocy" (yes, even for someone who has only just entered adulthood). Find another moral crusade.

@159: I'm gonna have to agree.

And FunFact: Your self-description is a bit bizarre, but the situation as laid out here doesn't make you a bad person. Just, as Bonefish said, mildly negligent.

Not to exonerate the letter writer, but 18 or 28 or 48 or 88, WHO HAS UNPROTECTED SEX WITH A STRANGER?!! Also, so he maybe got herpes. Did she, I dunno, maybe get HIV from barebacking someone she doesn't know? This kid knows how condoms work and he was completely willing to put her at risk as well by not putting one on. It is very telling that she refers to him as an "18 year old boy" and herself as a "28 year old woman" as if their ages are in any way indicative of past experience. I've met 28 year old virgins and 18 years olds with a litany of STIs. Frankly, they're both irresponsible adolescents and I can only hope that this experience taught them BOTH a lesson.

@159 So, I just had some candy on my gentials. But, I'm in suppression therapy to make sure the candy doesn't come back.

@162: Wasn't that how she got him in the van?

Welcome to Slog, FunFact.
If you stop by L.A. and need a bit of the no-strings, I'm a down with love boy.

He may have gotten herpes from another girl he's had sex with - bareback seems like a trend for that young fellow - and for all we know, have exposed the letter writer to HSV2!

I'd love to hear the follow-up to this situation...

And yeah, even people in their 20s and 30s have no clue cold sores are caused by herpes. I watched a couple make out on the subway a couple of days ago, and the girl had a big fresh sore going on. Ugh.

@165: "He may have gotten herpes from another girl he's had sex with - bareback seems like a trend for that young fellow - and for all we know, have exposed the letter writer to HSV2!"

Yeah, I definitely thought of that. I'm sure she's not the only woman who's fallen for his "just the tip, just to see how it feels" lines.

Observation: Your GPA, National Merit Finalist status, job, and car ownership category do not make you worthy or unworthy of love. How you treat other people does.

@ Almost everyone -

Oh for goodness sake. Okay, quick bit of medical information:

The letter writer said she had HSV-1, not HSV-2. HSV-1 is cold sores. That is the common name for the disease. It's not a euphemism any more than the word "dog" is a euphemism for Canis lupus familiaris.

HSV-1 usually presents around the mouth. However, that is not always the case. It can sometimes present below the waist. However, even in those cases it is still HSV-1. Cold sores.

HSV-2 is the disease people think of when you say "herpes." It typically presents in the genital region. However, it sometimes presents around the mouth. When it presents around the mouth, it is still HSV-2.

And while only about 20% of the population carries HSV-2, roughly 80% of the population (some estimates range all the way up to 90%) carries HSV-1. HSV-2 is a sexually transmitted disease, meaning that sex is its primary mode of transmission. HSV-1, on the other hand, is not. (Remember that the flu can be transmitted during sex as well but that doesn't make it an STI either). In fact, the majority of people infected with HSV-1 are infected during childhood by their parents.

~*~

@ 22 - Anal sex is more likely to allow for the transmission of STIs than vaginal sex. However, it is more likely to allow for transmission TO the RECEPTIVE partner. (The reason for this is simply that the vagina is a more hostile environment for diseases than the anus.) So no, the fact that this was anal sex does not render the study irrelevant or suggest that the results would be significantly different in this case.

@ 85 - Cold sores (regardless of location) = HSV-1
Genital Herpes (regardless of location) = HSV-2
Canker Sores (aka mouth ulcers) = Neither. Canker Sores are idiopathic. Generally simple canker sores are associated with tissue damage inside the mouth and/or stress. Complex canker sores are associated with various other health conditions such as vitamin deficiency and Crohn's disease.

This is what happens when you fuck a stranger in the ass, Larry!

@168: Are you quoting the right posts? I don't understand what you're arguing with.

I'm not usually on the chick's side, but I'm on the chick's side.

much ado about very little

A couple of thoughts on older persons who want to have sex with the barely legal:

First, there's a reason the campsite rule does not read in its entirety, "Anything's okay so long as your intention was for them to have a good time."

Second, it's tricky to judge someone's maturity via their willingness to go along with anything you suggest. When telling you 'no' becomes a sign they're not as mature as you thought, your standards need a little work. Sex fuzzes judgement: as the older person it's your job to acknowledge and overcome that.

Wow, boredom brought me back here ... but you know what? My two cents. Please don't fuck 18 year olds, please don't import 18 year olds. You can't even take them to the bar, you can't introduce them to your friends without drama. and It's not necessary. Especially if you are going to fall HARD for them. Try at least making the cut off 21, 22 and he might be through college!

That and you are overly obsessive, and you try to make everyone happy, the slogging community up to and including said 18 year old. (Could that be why you didn't explicitly say "herpes"?) Yeah be SLIGHTLY more mindful next time, BUT tell everyone to fuck off. Don't worry about being so polite, and don't worry about offending the 18 year old. There are a number of things that can scare off 18 year olds post getting off. (Tell him you are late on your period! ) He could be masking his anxiety about hooking up and blaming you for "herpes". If that's the case, tell him to grow a pair, and that's all you have to say.