dreamergrl Posted May 30, 2008 Posted May 30, 2008 Men can be.. but by giving herpes to a pregnant woman who doesn't have it and then giving it to the baby thru birth This is why pregnant women are tested for STDss prior to giving birth. I personally believe with how common so many STDs are, a pregnant women should be tested through out the 9 months (perhaps at each trimester) because if they show no symptoms, certain diseases need to be in your system long enough to show up in blood work.
Star Gazer Posted May 30, 2008 Posted May 30, 2008 Isn't the reduction of likelihood worth the reduction of potential risk of neonatal damage? The damage isn't neonatal. You make it sounds like the baby can be harmed before birth. Not so. The baby is only harmed, if at all, as it passes through the vaginal canal during birth if, and only if, the woman is having an outbreak.
Star Gazer Posted May 30, 2008 Posted May 30, 2008 The structure of the two viruses are nearly identical, so it makes sense that having one would make you less susceptible to the other. No one said that you would be immune he said that you would be less likely to get the other one. Well, seeing as 80-90% of the population has HSV-1, and there are 1.6 MILLION new infections of HSV-2 each year, I'd say that theory can't possibly be correct. http://www.ashastd.org/learn/learn_statistics.cfm
Star Gazer Posted May 30, 2008 Posted May 30, 2008 It's not nearly either, they share 50% of the same DNA. Right, only 50%. We share 98-99% of the same DNA with chimps, and while we're similar in certain ways, look how very different we are! I mean, I for one don't like bananas...
Art_Critic Posted May 30, 2008 Posted May 30, 2008 The damage isn't neonatal. You make it sounds like the baby can be harmed before birth. Not so. The baby is only harmed, if at all, as it passes through the vaginal canal during birth if, and only if, the woman is having an outbreak. It can be SG... It is possible for a pregnant woman who has genital herpes to infect her baby. Usually this occurs at the time of delivery as the baby passes through the birth canal, but in rare cases, it can occur during gestation, if the infection spreads from the vagina to the womb. http://yourtotalhealth.ivillage.com/herpes-risk-newborn.html While it is rare it still can happen neonatal.
Star Gazer Posted May 30, 2008 Posted May 30, 2008 I'm not going to argue every single little detail with you, AC. Is it POSSIBLE? Sure. ANYTHING is possible. That said, I don't read or accept ivillage.com as an authority on medical issues.
Art_Critic Posted May 30, 2008 Posted May 30, 2008 I'm not going to argue every single little detail with you, AC. Is it POSSIBLE? Sure. ANYTHING is possible. That said, I don't read or accept ivillage.com as an authority on medical issues. How about this one.. Neonatal herpes is the term used when a baby develops symptoms of herpes infection before he/she is born or within the first 6 weeks of life. It may occur when the baby is still in the womb (intra uterine/congenital infection) (<5%), during delivery (85%), or after delivery (less than 15%). The estimated rate of neonatal herpes is one case in 2,000-5,000 deliveries a year, resulting in approximately 1,500 to 2,200 infants with the disease each year in the United States. http://www.herpesguide.ca/facts/neonatal_herpes.html
Star Gazer Posted May 30, 2008 Posted May 30, 2008 Sure ANYTHING is possible, it's possible that a person who is regularly tested for STDs and is negative for HSV every time, and is not promiscuous, and is selective in choosing partners, and has his/her partners tested for STDs, including herpes...has herpes. EXACTLY! That's what I've been saying ALL ALONG. NO ONE is safe. NO ONE can be certain they and/or their partner are in the clear.
Art_Critic Posted May 30, 2008 Posted May 30, 2008 I'm not going to argue every single little detail with you, AC. Is it POSSIBLE? Sure. ANYTHING is possible. That said, I don't read or accept ivillage.com as an authority on medical issues. You are willing to argue every other little point about herpes throughout this thread when you are right but when you are wrong you don't want to argue the point and just dismiss me...
macon Posted May 30, 2008 Posted May 30, 2008 "TBF, it's honestly impossible to have a sane discussion with you because every time you respond you go off on a tangent and falsely extrapolate on what people write." I absolutely agree with this. That's why I'm giving up now. I think all reasonable points have been made, but there is no way Trialbyfire is going to accept facts or experience from anyone. Hopefully some others who read this thread will get through the tangents and learn some useful information - but I think it's getting so clogged now with attack/defence that we've lost the point of what we were trying to convey in the first place. As a final point I would urge people who read this thread to educate themselves. Realise that HSV is something that the majority of people on the planet carry somewhere on their bodies, be it genitally or orally. If you've ever had a coldsore on your mouth, even as a child, that's HSV. You are as likely to spread that to someone through oral sex as someone with genital herpes is. When no symptoms are present the risks are minimal - in both cases. HSV is really not the big scary thing we're led to believe - it is our reactions to it that make it such a big deal. The physical effects for most people are nothing in comparison to the mental effects caused by society's stigmatising of this virus. The fact that the majority of the population play host to it should make us stop and think. Practicing safe sex is very important, but it cannot protect you 100% from all STDs - HSV and HPV being two I can think of. Looking after your body by practicing safe sex while being honest and respectful to others is all you can do. The majority of people with genital herpes do not have symptoms, and therefore do not know they have it - these are the people who are most likely to spread the virus if they don't practice safe sex. But, as I've already pointed out, it is possible to get STDs even if you do practice safe sex, so let's stop morally judging others and deal with facts rather than fear.
dreamergrl Posted May 30, 2008 Posted May 30, 2008 Sure ANYTHING is possible, it's possible that a person who is regularly tested for STDs and is negative for HSV every time, and is not promiscuous, and is selective in choosing partners, and has his/her partners tested for STDs, including herpes...has herpes. Exactly! It doesn't matter who you are, or what your sex life is like, assuming you do anything involving kissing or more - your at risk!
Star Gazer Posted May 30, 2008 Posted May 30, 2008 You are willing to argue every other little point about herpes throughout this thread when you are right but when you are wrong you don't want to argue the point and just dismiss me... I was wrong regarding transferring to a baby pre-childbirth. Yes. About everything else, I wasn't. I argue RELEVANT points, AC. I also back it up with reputable citations.
Star Gazer Posted May 30, 2008 Posted May 30, 2008 "TBF, it's honestly impossible to have a sane discussion with you because every time you respond you go off on a tangent and falsely extrapolate on what people write." I absolutely agree with this. That's why I'm giving up now. I think all reasonable points have been made, but there is no way Trialbyfire is going to accept facts or experience from anyone. Hopefully some others who read this thread will get through the tangents and learn some useful information - but I think it's getting so clogged now with attack/defence that we've lost the point of what we were trying to convey in the first place. As a final point I would urge people who read this thread to educate themselves. Realise that HSV is something that the majority of people on the planet carry somewhere on their bodies, be it genitally or orally. If you've ever had a coldsore on your mouth, even as a child, that's HSV. You are as likely to spread that to someone through oral sex as someone with genital herpes is. When no symptoms are present the risks are minimal - in both cases. HSV is really not the big scary thing we're led to believe - it is our reactions to it that make it such a big deal. The physical effects for most people are nothing in comparison to the mental effects caused by society's stigmatising of this virus. The fact that the majority of the population play host to it should make us stop and think. Practicing safe sex is very important, but it cannot protect you 100% from all STDs - HSV and HPV being two I can think of. Looking after your body by practicing safe sex while being honest and respectful to others is all you can do. The majority of people with genital herpes do not have symptoms, and therefore do not know they have it - these are the people who are most likely to spread the virus if they don't practice safe sex. But, as I've already pointed out, it is possible to get STDs even if you do practice safe sex, so let's stop morally judging others and deal with facts rather than fear. Great post.
Trialbyfire Posted May 30, 2008 Posted May 30, 2008 Macon and tanbark, both of you need to review your own behaviours previous to making accusations. The situation is very pot, kettle, black. I could wax eloquent with examples of such but more importantly, we all have different perspectives and are providing facts from these different perspectives. The reality is that there are two camps. Those that are attempting to convince others that it's not a big deal to contract STDs and those who don't want to contract them. In minimalizing the impact of STDs, the risk is that people won't take it as seriously as it really is, thus causing the spread to increase rapidly through irresponsible behaviours. Fact: Herpes can cause neonatal encephalitis.Herpes is a danger to people who have compromised immune systems which includes but isn't exclusive to, people with cancer, AIDS, severe burns or taking immunosuppressant medications.While HSV-1 usually resides in the mouth, it can be transferred to the genitals. The reverse holds true for HSV-2. In either situation, both viruses more than often not, loose much of their impact.If you have either virus, it is less likely that you will acquire the other in the same location, since your immune system has already built up resistance.To expand on what another member stated previously, those of you with STDs may lose some of your options for people who will sleep with you but the only people who can make you lose your value, are yourselves. There's no one who's universally attractive. To expect that people will be okay acquiring a disease they don't have by minimalizing it, isn't realistic or effective.
macon Posted May 30, 2008 Posted May 30, 2008 "Macon and tanbark, both of you need to review your own behaviours previous to making accusations. The situation is very pot, kettle, black. I could wax eloquent with examples of such .... " I don't believe I've made any 'accusations'. I think you are ill-informed and you make statements that twist the facts - especially in relation to medication and how much people may or may not need, and how much it may cost them. You also ignore facts that pertain to the majority (for example, that the majority of people play host to the HSV virus) and focus on facts that apply to a tiny minority (for example, in the case of foetal transference rates) while ignoring what occurs in the majority of instances. In this way I think you are spreading misinformation. "In minimalizing the impact of STDs, the risk is that people won't take it as seriously as it really is, thus causing the spread to increase rapidly through irresponsible behaviours. " I am not "minimalizing" (I think you mean 'minimising') the impact of STDs - I am trying to present a real picture of what HSV is. I'm sorry if its impact is less dramatic than you wish it to be. I also, at no time, have advocated anything other than SAFE SEX - a fact you seem to be ignoring also. "To expand on what another member stated previously, those of you with STDs may lose some of your options for people who will sleep with you but the only people who can make you lose your value, are yourselves. " I have never encountered a man who did not want to have a relationship with me because of this. I think I probably choose to be around people who are open and educated - perhaps this is why I have never had an issue. When I come to a forum like this I am really concerned by the misinformation and judgement passing around so easily. Yes, people like you cannot directly destroy the value of an individual - but with your ill-informed judgements and by passing misinformation you can certainly contribute to the atmosphere of stigma that surrounds STDs - and in that way you indirectly affect the value of us all. "There's no one who's universally attractive. To expect that people will be okay acquiring a disease they don't have by minimalizing it, isn't realistic or effective." Again, I have no 'minimalized' (?!) this disease. I have tried to present a realistic picture, rather than the one you are presenting. Of course there is no one who is universally attractive to everyone - I don't see that that has anything to do with the arguments I've been presenting. As someone else here said, you are ignoring what I've actually said and instead you're putting words in my mouth that are yours, not mine.
Replicant Posted May 30, 2008 Posted May 30, 2008 In minimalizing the impact of STDs, the risk is that people won't take it as seriously as it really is, thus causing the spread to increase rapidly through irresponsible behaviours. Very well said. In North America there really is no excuse for this, we have the tools, the technology (And the supposed 'know how') to prevent such staggering numbers of infected cases. Yet when it comes down to it, it's the personal irresponsible behaviors that become the primary reason it's not under control and those advocating others not to take diseases so seriously just contributes to why it's reached epidemic levels and continue to worsen.
tanbark813 Posted May 30, 2008 Posted May 30, 2008 The reality is that there are two camps. Those that are attempting to convince others that it's not a big deal to contract STDs and those who don't want to contract them. Actually the two camps in this thread are: Those who would date people with herpes and those who wouldn't. No one in this thread wants to contract herpes or other STD's. It's like trying to argue with monkeys on here sometimes.
macon Posted May 30, 2008 Posted May 30, 2008 I think there's also a distinction between those who want to present the reality of HSV, through experience and/or education, and those who do not.
Trialbyfire Posted May 30, 2008 Posted May 30, 2008 Very well said. In North America there really is no excuse for this, we have the tools, the technology (And the supposed 'know how') to prevent such staggering numbers of infected cases. Yet when it comes down to it, it's the personal irresponsible behaviors that become the primary reason it's not under control and those advocating others not to take diseases so seriously just contributes to why it's reached epidemic levels and continue to worsen. Thank you. I do agree. I have noticed something else within this thread. The camp that is pro-STD appears to love to negate through character assassination. The camp that is anti-contraction, negates the minimalization of the STDs.
Art_Critic Posted May 30, 2008 Posted May 30, 2008 I wanted to post a link that I found helpful and other posters may also.. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=hstat If you type in herpes into the search box the info that is displayed is very informative. I got the link from another web forum I frequent that deals with the drug industry (if you google cafe and pharma ). This thread is supposed to be about whether or not we would date someone who has herpes and it seems to have turned into people who have herpes telling the people who don't have that we are ill informed about a disease that we don't want to contract and that we don't know what we are talking about because we don't have herpes.. I find that logic absurd... I don't have to own a gun to know that it can kill or that it can have horrible consequences on life if used improperly. I don't feel that I should have to have a medical degree in herpes in order to make an opinion to whether I want the disease or not.. The absolute worst argument that I have seen on this thread is that since you don't have herpes then you cannot know anything and you should therefore only believe what is posted by people who have herpes. What I do know about herpes and STD's has kept me free of them for 45 years to date so I'm guessing that I know enough.. I was taught safe sex as a child by a mother/nurse that dealt with Aids patients on a daily basis. I was also taught about testing and how important it is and how important knowing your partner and asking them to be tested is.. It is a shame to me that some posters instead of asking someone to explain a post or position that they call you ignorant or ill-informed. I have seen that word used by some posters who have herpes so many times in this thread that you can not count them all.
tanbark813 Posted May 30, 2008 Posted May 30, 2008 I have noticed something else within this thread. The camp that is pro-STD appears to love to negate through character assassination. The camp that is anti-contraction, negates the minimalization of the STDs. Jesus Christ. Again, no one here is "pro-STD". Secondly, A_C, for example, who you would classify as "anti-contraction" used insults as well. But after 40 pages of having information fall on deaf ears, character assassination is just more fun.
macon Posted May 30, 2008 Posted May 30, 2008 "that we don't know what we are talking about because we don't have herpes.." If you read what I actually said you'll see the words "experience and/OR education". I assume you understand that means I don't believe you have to HAVE it to be EDUCATED about it. "The absolute worst argument that I have seen on this thread is that since you don't have herpes then you cannot know anything and you should therefore only believe what is posted by people who have herpes." Who presented this argument? I actually haven't seen it here! One little point, though, since the majority of people carry HSV it is likely that the majority of people posting in this thread have some strain or another - even you. "It is a shame to me that some posters instead of asking someone to explain a post or position that they call you ignorant or ill-informed." You have not asked people to explain posts, or replied with respect. I believe you actually told me at one point to "stop whining"! I do believe you are ill-informed - I do believe you are presenting misinformation. I'm sorry that you find that so difficult to deal with that you have to put words in my mouth.
Replicant Posted May 30, 2008 Posted May 30, 2008 I think there's also a distinction between those who want to present the reality of HSV, through experience and/or education, and those who do not. Yeah the reality is that it's a disease in which there is no cure. Regardless of education, experience and what multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical companies are telling you about suppressive control medications. All you are doing is twisting what you know, as if to make the disease exist on an entirely different level. Successfully conveying your thought process to your SO whom doesn't know is falsely gaining their acceptance to this. The irony is you damn well know you are putting others lives at risk to contract HSV, sure education provides you with an alibi in case the other person does become infected but it's done in such a way that you almost advocate the safety of a incurable disease. Everyone against this topic is either: Uninformed, ignorant, uneducated etc etc.. Which is total BS, because if numbers of HSV1-2 is really in the tens of millions do really exist in the USA alone. What does that say for a first world countries choice of thinking/control and the legion of advocates in this thread who advocate it's acceptance!?
macon Posted May 30, 2008 Posted May 30, 2008 "I have noticed something else within this thread. The camp that is pro-STD appears to love to negate through character assassination. The camp that is anti-contraction, negates the minimalization of the STDs." I am not pro-STD at all (what does that mean?!) - I am pro-education and pro-reality. I'd also say I am pro-safe sex and anti-contraction - again a fact which you choose to ignore again and again and again and again and again .....
Recommended Posts