when i first got herpes, in the early 1980s, i consulted with an MD who wrote a book about sexual infections. his advice, which is repeated in his book, is that if you are asymptomatic, you can't transmit it, and you should feel free to engage in whatever sexual escapades you wish.

based on his advice, i never told anyone unless i actually had an outbreak or was coming down with one, and then i abstained from sex.

the rest of the time, i used condoms anyway, because there's plenty of other things to contract out there besides herpes, many of them far more dangerous.

as far as i'm concerned, the only reason to tell is if you need to explain why you are not available for sex, or if you are seriously interested in someone and you think they might feel betrayed if you don't tell them in advance. but i have never felt i had a moral obligation to announce it to someone when i am asymptomatic, nor that it was anyone's business unless they could be put at risk. the medical science, at least at that time, said that i was not putting anyone at risk.

if the science has changed, then fine, that may determine different choices about when/if to tell. but those of us who got this virus in the heyday of "the scarlet letter" were given different information and certainly don't deserve this pious condemnation.

I've noticed that most letter writers fall into two camps.

1. All single people are teaming with infectuous diseases and either you've never dated as an adult (read 27+) and married young before you had much sexual experience outside of college life or you dated in extremely longterm relationships that you approach that of the married person as far as sexual experience goes

2. You've had extensive sexual experience, have gained vast knowledge about the human sexual response, have probably contracted at least one STI along the way so you realize that its not just "dirty people" who get STIs, are probably more likely to get tested regularly and with the combination of all this knowledge you've gained from multiple partners you are now (according to category 1) considered a dirty whore/whatever they call men thats considered bad and you are basically not worthy of respect and or basic life in this world.

Really, I've read thru all 25 pages of letters and this is basically where its at, just like all the other letter sections of a sexual nature.

So now that I'm several days out and most people won't read this, what can I add to this mess?

Just this: americans are completely screwed up when it comes to sex. Good ol' Douglas Wilson from the first few pages had an excellent letter but received no star. What did he say? That the only reason HSV1 is different than HSV2 is that one is sexual and one is not and therefore there exists a stigma saying one should be revealed as soon as possible and the other never is unless obviously noticeable. And what did his non-starred letter get in response? A nasty retort from someone to say that he has and STD and should just grow up and let all the close-minded people know the minute he talks to them or else he's an evil person.

For the record, I don't have herpes, as far as I know, but I have had an STI that I felt i needed to tell partners about that I might have infected before I discovered and treated it (ooooh, and curing it takes a whole one day dose of antibiotic, I'm such a dirty whore!). And you guessed it, my altruistic efforts were rewarded with ridicule and alienation, just because I thought I was doing my civic duty so that the disease wouldn't continue to be spread. I could've easily have said nothing and by the time they found out, I would've been many partners ago and probably untraceable. But no, I thought that people would be mature and thankful that I was forthcoming, even if I wasn't with them anymore, and no, I got exactly the opposite. We're talking chlamydia here folks, something very easily treatable.

So, yes, I sympathize with people who do have something "uncurable" eventhough the vast majority of these people have explained that they haven't had an outbreak in years due to medication and lessoning problems with time.

Yet the self-righteous still call them criminals worthy of jailtime!!! Seriously, do you people just never have sex with someone new? Because in all of my experiences no one has ever had a "big talk" with me about their diseases. And if its so prevalent, then it means I've been with someone by now that has had HSV2 but luckily have never become "infected" in such that I had an outbreak.

And seriously, I'd run for the hills if someone brought out a dental dam or finger cot (I actually had to look that one up!). Because if you're that freaked out by sex that you'd buy and use a dental dam/finger cot then you probably are hanging out in big-city sex clubs or other random anonymous places where sex is a transaction and not an emotional act. Or you just have severe OCD.

Bottomline to all you judgemental people out there in Salon, single people are NOT oozing with diseases. If this is the only thing that keeps you faithful in your marriage, then I feel sorry for you because your bond is not that strong.

The previous poster feels that if a person mentions dental dams, finger cots, etc., that person probably hangs out in "big-city sex clubs" or "random anonymous places."

I think this attitude is actually an "it won't happen to me, I don't go places like that" mentality, as it posits that random anonymous casual sex only in big-city sex clubs and random anonymous places where people know the deal.

I disagree. I live in a conservative town in the sheltered Midwest and I believe that online dating, in particular, has brought the "random anonymous place" to the previously sheltered masses who may be older than those who went through college during "hookup culture." I believe there are many who use online dating as a "random anonymous place" and "big-city sex club" and therefore put the online dating partner in the "casual sex, will never see them again, don't have to have 'the talk'" category.

I think maybe this topic even makes people seek out casual sex because they know already they'll have "the talk" with someone they see as a potential relationship. But for now, not ready for anything serious, so seek out casual partners and not have "the talk." After all, several posters here have said they don't have "the talk" with their casual partners. I wonder if those casual partners always know how casual they are to the other person. I say NOT. Especially in online dating.

So, I don't think people need to go to "random anonymous places" in the "big city" to encounter intentional casual sex. I think online dating IS today's "random anonymous place," even if many of my (in my opinion) naive friends don't feel as cynical about it as I do. I think people are hopping into bed right and left, people of all ages and all walks of life, and telling themselves it's not the same thing as going to some big-city sex club.

I may sound judgmental as if this virus is oh, so different from HSV-1 but I don't mean to. My point is just that you don't have to go to a club or "meat market" or the "big city" in order to expose yourself to "hookup culture." Online dating has brought it to the Sunday School teacher in the flowerdy dress next door, even though she may not realize it at first. What is my point in all this? People who don't want to be thought of as the "casual sex partner not worthy of 'the talk'" need to be more cynical and aware how others may be thinking of them. One doesn't have to put on a pinched frowny suspicious face, but I for one don't want to be that partner who is viewed in such a way. Sex itself isn't worth it. I don't want to let myself be deceived that I'm thought of as worthy of treating the same way a person who was respected would be treated. I think people are actively seeking out those who aren't "worthy" and I think some people seek them out online because I think some people view online dating as a justifiable venue for that kind of thing. Not everyone, but I think they're out there.