Now let me get this straight. I'm a woman, disease-free as far as I know. I'm supposed to wait until an emotional bond has developed and I know it's not just casual sex. I'm supposed to help this attraction develop along by having long make-out sessions during those early dates before we know if it's heading to bed. I'm supposed to stay out of "hookup culture" in order to avoid those who don't care about me enough to inform me if they have something.

And yet, if I don't put out by the third date, I'm a frigid, prissy Rules girl and if I have a long make-out session that doesn't end in sex that same night I'm a cockteaser.

These things do not seem to add up. Three dates are NOT long enough to form that bond or to tell if an emotional bond has a chance of forming or it's just for fun. I believe a lot of people use the excuse that if I had "casual sex" I deserve not to be told, I was asking for a disease. Sorry, that's what I think some people think. I think a lot of people put people in "relationship" category or "casual sex" category and don't respect the people in their "Casual sex" category enough to inform them and let them choose to protect themselves.

And yet, if I don't put out by three dates, I'm a frigid, cockteasing, prissy Rules girl.

I don't get it. These do not seem to add up. Does this really add up for anybody?

if so, how? Pretend I'm a complete dummy (because I obviously am) and use really short sentences.

Are people having the long make-out session on the first date and "The Talk" on the second and getting tested before the third date, presenting their results on the third date? I highly doubt it. I can believe an emotional bond can form quickly, but I believe it's a big risk. I believe any horndog is willing to put on an act for 3 dates in order to get laid, and would put their partner in the "casual sex" category and not care if they caught something or not. The person who posted "if they're whoring around they obviously don't care so why should I" ... I do not think that person is in a small minority. I think that person is possibly the rule not the exception. Maybe I don't deserve romance and relationships because I'm so suspicious but I am that suspicious!

Why is sex on the first date "casual sex" but sex on the third date is supposed to be enough to tell if there's an emotional bond? When is all this time "determining if a bond is forming and leading to sex" supposed to happen? In three dates?

Of course this would all make sense in the way things made sense about 15 years ago if the "Three-date" rule was b.s. But I keep hearing it. I wish I had real statistics on this.

This is for the Anonymous who said that he got tested and found out that he wasn't the carrier who had given Herpes to his wife.

Others have stated repeatedly that there IS no test if you aren't having an outbreak.

Which is it?

I never realized (till today) what many of you are saying, that a person can be a carrier and not know it, and that there's no test?

Did the letter writer say she was a woman? I missed it. Anyway. I have a male friend in the same situation, and he's asked me the same question (late at night, depressed, miserable, and horny, after he told the truth and the gal blew him off). He said, "If I hadn't told, I'd be getting laid right now. Why do I get punished for doing the right thing?" And I said, yeah, that sucks... but still you have to do the right thing. Herpes isn't usually serious, but it can be serious, especially for a woman. It's more than just a cold sore. You cannot, cannot, do that to other people.

Everyone posting on this subject is so darned polite! Yay Salon readers and the rule of civility, but really, it makes my head spin that no one has said what surely a lot of people are thinking: I hate you people. The disease-spreaders, I mean. The ones posting about how the chance of asymptomatic transmission is very low, justifying their criminal behavior against the very people they pretend to love (or at least like enough to have sex with). You do not have the right to expose other people without telling them. Stop it. Stop it. Stop it. It's because of schmucks like you that the problem exists in the first place. Everyone go get tested, stop making excuses for the people who don't know what's living in their own groins, then everyone tell the truth about it. Please.

I have genital herpes I (contracted from oral sex with someone who was getting a cold sore). The worst part was the initial outbreak, and the initial shame associated with having a "life-long" STD. Two months later, after doing some research, my self-esteem recovered fully. I have never been rejected based on the virus, and I have always told people in advance. Condoms are always used. No one has contracted it.

The best way to ensure you aren't rejected is to not sound apologetic. Don't apologize! You didn't mean to catch this disease, and if you're up front and careful, you won't be passing it on.

yes, asshole, you have to tell him. Are you that stupid?

I am a 38 year old woman, single or in long-term, monagamous relationships for the last sixteen years. Regardless of my relationship status, every year I have a complete physical, including GYN. I get tested for HIV, HPV, HSV, anything they can test for, for three reasons: first, there's no such thing as 100% protection against STDs; second, you never know how long you can carry something before becoming symptomatic; and third, knowledge is power. I want to know if I need to take extra measures to take care of myself, and I want to know if I need to take extra measures to take care of someone I might share intimacy with.

I would hate myself if I passed a communicable disease on to someone else because of my own ignorance. Because that's what we're talking about, folks. They're not called "communicable inconveniences" or "social nuisances". They're called diseases. Some of them have no cure. Some of them kill you. I have a right to protect myself against them, and you will never convince me that someone carrying a sexually transmitted disease has no obligation to tell their prospective sexual partners about it BEFORE any contact takes place.

As I said, I am 38 years old. I am "clean", although in the past I did have chlamydia. I have no idea whether I contracted it from my then-present partner or whether I got it from a previous partner and it was asymptomatic for a period of time. I attribute my health status to sheer luck, and the fact that I have had "the talk" with virtually every single sex partner that I have every had. By and large, the answer was that they were "clean". If they were not, in fact, clean, they probably genuinely did not know they carried anything. I'm sure there were some fibbers in the bunch, but fortunately I also am a firm believer in condoms.

Oddly, the ones who were honest and confessed to having something (usually herpes), I did not sleep with. Not because I didn't care enough to take the risk, but because, without fail, they all had a chip on their shoulder about it. Some of them even tried to bully me to sleep with them, citing statistics about how large a percentage of the population had it anyway and how small a chance I had of catching it. The line that ALL of them use is "I've never given it to anyone", which is, at best, laughable, and at worst, irresponsible and dangerous (unless they have kept in regular contact with and have the current health status of all of their past sexual partners). No, it was their casual attitude towards my health that was a far bigger turnoff than the disease. Men like DouglasWilson and the guy who has herpes but thinks you can't catch colds from people who have no symptoms make me sick. They are too wrapped up in their own drama over carrying a STD to put the health concerns of their partners where it belongs - ahead of their own.

I'd bet that if you gave anyone living with a STD the chance to do it all over again, they would go back in time and not have sex with the person who gave it to them. I'd bet that 100% of them would much rather live life without a STD. So how could any of them even think of exposing another human being to that risk without their knowledge and consent?