Genital herpes in long-time monogomous relationship?
M.L.S.
posted:
>Is it possible to get genital herpes if the only sexual relationships (oral
>sex, or any kind of intercourse) have been w/ one other person (spouse) and
>THAT person has never been w/ anyone else either. IOW, though both partners
>may have kissed others, neither ever had any genital contact w/ anyone
>except each other?
>Could one/both of us have contracted oral herpes from kissing someone else
>many years ago (married 15 years now), then transferred it to the other's
>genitals thru oral sex throughout our marriage?
>Thanks,
>Sandman
Hi, Sandman. In order for the genitals to pick up either of the two
Herpes viruses (HSV1 or HSV2) those genitals *have* to come into
direct contact with the infected region of another body. You can get
genital herpes from receiving oral sex from an orally infected person,
or you can get genital herpes from genital contact with a genitally
infected person, but you cannot get genital herpes just from kissing
an orally infected person, or from kissing the genitals of a genitally
infected person. In those two cases you only risk getting HSV orally.
But, yes, if either one of you have had HSV orally for any number of
years (and oral HSV is very, very common) you could have transferred
it to the genitals via oral sex strictly within your monogamous
relationship. And then, once either one of your genitals are
infected, the possibility of it spreading genitally exists.
It is also possible, say, if you yourself are experiencing an oral
outbreak, and you touch a sore, get virus on your finger and then
immediately scratch yourself down below, it's theoretically possible
to transfer the HSV to the genital region, a process known as
autoinnoculation, which I assume to be rare, but not by any means
completely unknown.
Hope this helps,
Mike
M.L.S.
posted:
>Thanks for the reply MLS.
You're entirely welcome.
>When you say "those genitals *have* to come into direct contact with the
>infected region of another body", does the infected region have to be an
>outbreak too? Or even asymptomatic?
Not necessarily. During outbreaks, of course, there are literally
millions of the viruses around the disrupted area, and that is the
time of greatest risk. But there is also what's known as asymptomatic
shedding, when virus makes it way to the surface of the skin but in
unsufficient numbers to disrupt the epidermis. It is thought that
asymptomatic shedding occurs about 3% of the days of the year, but
guesses range from 2 to 5%, so, like 7 to 18 days out of 365. How
much virus may be shed that way, no one knows, and it probably depends
on the person and other factors, and since on one knows exactly how
many viruses it takes to infect a person (again, probably depends on
the individual and other circumstances) it's hard to assign risk to
the whole thing.
What *is* known from studies is that couples where one is infected and
one isn't, and who refrain from sex altogether during OutBreaks, but
don't necessarily use condoms or any of the antiviral meds the rest of
the time have an overall yearly transfer rate of about 9%. How
frequently they have sex I dunno, say once a week, maybe less.
Regular use of condoms cuts that rate at least in half. Taking
Valtrex or Acyclovir cuts *that* rate in half again.
But the thing you're interested in right now is, could it have
happened to you, and the answer is yes.
>Also, is it possible that one or both of us contracted oral HSV many years
>ago, but neither of us has ever had any outbreaks until me now?
Yes, again. Most people, and it can't be stressed enough, most people
with either HSV1 or HSV2 do not show any symptoms, or have symptoms so
mildly that they are overlooked or mistaken for something else.
Estimates range, in the general population, that from 70% to 90% of
the people with HSV aren't aware of it. In the recent study that came
out in September (and I'll dig up the links and follow up with that
after I send this) when people in the study were told what to look for
in the way of HSV infection, even then only about 50% could tell they
had the disease.
And can the disease suddenly make itself known after lying quietly for
a number of years? Yes, indeed. For the people who are going to have
overt symptoms the general trend is to show expression in from three
days to three weeks, but that is only generally. Also for most, the
frequency and severity of OutBreaks diminishes over time, but that
again is only a general trend and doesn't apply to everybody. The
virus has the ability to go "latent" at any time including right away,
and nobody is really sure what causes it to surface or resurface when
it comes out of its latent periods, though stress (any and all kinds
of stress, physical, mental, emotional) is often cited. So, it is
entirely possible that either you or your partner have had a long term
latent infection that has, for some unknown reason, decided to make
itself known at this time.
>Thanks again for your help at this anxious time.
>Sandman
You're welcome, again, and I understand, but do you mind if I ask you
a hard question? Are your questions because either you or your spouse
has some doubts about the other's faithfulness? If so, just let me
say that herpes can drive you crazy that way, because it can remain
hidden or unnoticed for years. If that's what's troubling you, you've
got to find the answer through faith in each other and honesty, a
willingness to talk. Meeting HSV isn't easy, but I hope that you and
your long time spouse can face it together.
Take care,
Mike
mishaisacat
"Sandman" <the_sa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:khTD9.10306
> It's really less important HOW it happened than learning to live w/ it,
> isn't it?
>
I'd be really careful about using the 'line' above. It would set off
damning alarms in my head if I heard it. And in this case, I'd also have to
say no, learning to live with it isn't nearly as big a deal as how you got
it. Not even close.
In fact, I heard something very similar from the guy who gave me herpes.
The instant I found out I had it, I drove straight to his house, do not pass
go, to tell him because I was worried about him (ah, niavity!). He listened
very carefully and calmly, almost sensitively, but I'd expect that someone
who'd recently had unprotected sex with me would have been a little more
concerned, both for me and himself. When at last I'd explained it, he only
looked at me lovingly and said, "Well, I still love you, and as long as I
love you and we can work it out, it doesn't matter where it came from, so we
don't need to worry about that." Alarms went off in my head: "He doesn't
need to know where it came from because he knows; he just doesn't want me to
know."
WARNING: Heavy Moralizing about to Happen! Don't read if you don't want to.
I respect your desire to maintain your marriage at any cost, but have to say
that treating your wife like an idiot incapable of making decisions for
herself isn't the way I think you should go.
Yes, that was inflammatory, and I should explain. I believe that 1) when
you lie to someone, you are in essence saying they are stupid (idiotic)
enough to believe you. A lie is an insult to intelligence. And 2) I'm only
speaking for myself here, but I'd much rather be with someone who makes
mistakes (it was 2 years ago, and don't you think you're wife wife also
feels like she's invested something in this 20+ year relationship that would
be hard to turn back on, even if she found out?) than someone who is capable
of lying to me or keeping secrets from me without any guilt. And I guess 3)
this is a decision she should make, that you shouldn't guard her from. If
you're open and honest and show true commitment to staying with her and are
just as pained that this happened as it must be for her, then there's a good
chance she'll stay, that things will be tough, but that she'll stay, but
that's a decision that belongs to her, not to you. If you tell here, I
think there's a chance she might stay, but if you continue to lie, I think
you're screwed, metaphorically.
Moralizing over! I hope it works out for you and your wife.
jesseca
Sandman
from my original MEDICAL intent. And seeing most of you have said, "we
don't judge out here", I'm hoping you'll all do me a big favor then?
Unfortunately, my wife was up for several hours in the middle of the night
last night, worrying/crying about this. She's also taken to combing the web
for more info - desperately hoping to find some less frightening cause of my
symptoms. We both keep saying "ok, no more reading til we get the results",
but it's easier said than done.
This has gotten me even more scared now. I'm quite worried that my wife
will find THIS thread in her random web searches! And, morally correct or
not, the last thing I want to happen is to have to confront more than the
HSV w/ her.
Would you PLEASE all go to Google Groups and REMOVE any of your replies to
my post? (I have already submitted requests to remove all of my posts under
this topic.) If I haven't listed a link to your posts below, then it's
because they haven't yet been archived to Google. I'll check back here todo
so over the next day or two, as necessary.
You can find an "Automatic Removal Tool" link at:
http://groups.google.com/googlegroups/help.html#9, under "How can I remove
articles from Google's archive?"???
To remove articles, you need to login to Google Groups w/ the same email
address you used when posting. All you need to do after that is paste the
URLS I've supplied below into the "Enter the full Google Groups URL of the
post you would like removed:" field and confirm the delete request on the
next screen.
If you don't use a real email address when posting on newsgroups, then
please follow the instructions on the page under "Messages posted with an
e-mail address that is no longer valid". This method will require a bit
more effort than the automatic. If you cannot do the Automatic Removal,
then please reply to me to give me permission to do so on your behalf the
second way.
I'm very sorry for the inconvenience, and I greatly appreciate you helping
me to bury this.
Thank you,
Sandman
P.S.
Here are the URLs to auto remove:
M.L.S.:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=n8pstu45bjf
fa6uq7pmmlplr1ilhhv8f4j%404ax.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=rumttug3hku
00e91csqf1bh9cc4osa9rrf%404ax.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=o75vtuouj3h
460t6ft2bnbcc2h8m5190eq%404ax.com
arlynsg:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=J9SD9.27340
3%24r7.4976505%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=kfWD9.27388
9%24r7.5002187%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=X7SD9.27339
5%24r7.4974886%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
Sandman
Nobody else reply to this thread anymore. I'd like it to die and be removed
from the "internet" ASAP.
Thank you,
Sandman
P.S.
If anyone knows how to expedite its removal from this newsgroup (i.e. a
moderator?), please email me directly. Thank you.
Sandman
Do you plan to remove your post from Google, as I requested?
Greatly appreciated,
Sandman
"mishaisacat" <mishaisaSP...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:arqq4b$4av$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
Angela
say.
Otherwise I see no reason why she should be required to remove her own post.
Honestly, I do not think it can be done depending on the news server you are
using.
Maybe Jessica doesn't post through google.
I don't see why you even asked her to remove her post in the first place.
Angela
"Sandman" <the_sa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a2DE9.26488$wc2.1...@news2.east.cox.net...
M.L.S.
>Do you plan to remove your post from Google, as I requested?
She's under no obligation to do so.
And you just quoted everything she said. And then what you said and
everything before was re-quoted by someone else.
You're going to have to tough it out.
Actually, you are quite lucky that the crowd that was here before,
isn't here now. Everybody now is being extremely nice.
Mike Soja
Sandman
are archived to Google each day.
Please help me out here folks. I have enough to worry about w/ this, and,
right or wrong, I'm choosing not to confess my shameful act to my wife.
Thank you.
"Angela" <Yosh...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:8ODE9.24536$ji1....@news1.central.cox.net...
Sandman
remove all of MINE from Google.
Please folks, I'm not asking anyone to remove these because they're
offensive or I'm trying to take away anyone's right of free speech.
If this is truly a "support" group, I'm asking for some support. It's not
that hard to do at Google and only takes a couple minutes.
Thank you very much.
"M.L.S." <mso...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:cg36uu0ig9ok8e3qf...@4ax.com...
Angela
post through. There is no way for me to go to the cox server and have my
posts removed. sorry. If I were you I would stop posting to this thread and
just let it go. If you are worried then perhaps you should use a different
name. There are lots of free e-mail accounts where you can use a different
name if your wife knows the "Sandman" name. You are right . . . this is a
herpes support group. We support folks with herpes and that's about all we
do.
Angela
"Sandman" <the_sa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:RqKE9.29462$wc2.1...@news2.east.cox.net...
Loop
I've been a lurker here for a while, and I want to thank all of you
for the excellent source of information on this baffling disease.
Sandman, you may be putting your wife at risk of complications from
many other diseases NOT JUST HSV. Yes, it happens all the time.
Depending on what you read either one in five or one in four have HSV,
as you know. One in four also have HPV. And, is not routinely
screened during a woman's yearly pap smear. (And, like HSV, it is also
easy to transmit from skin not covered by condoms.) Evidence of
irregular pap smears occur usually after pre-cancerous already cells
exist on the cervix, usually related to HPV exposure. Chlamydia is
also rampant -- I don't know the statistics -- it is silent and
symptomless in women and is implicated in pelvic inflammatory disease,
infertility and other problems. It is not routinely screened in
yearly exams, either. And here is a biggie: one in ninety two men
between 27 and 39 have HIV. That statistic rises to one in thirty in
the NYC metro area. Estimates are as high for other urban centers
like LA and SF according to Gay Men's Health Crisis. That's not one
in thirty gay men, that's one in thirty MEN. And women are getting
HIV at an alarming rate because they are sleeping with those men.
Also, because they often don't practice "safe sex" within their
supposedly monogamous relationships. I must stress the fact that HIV
is not just an inner city, homosexual or drug-related problem. All
you have to do is look at newsgroups about women with HIV to realize
that the majority got the disease from their long-term partners who
strayed.
The bottom line is simple, Sandman: unprotected sex isn't just YOUR
issue. Your wife needs to be screened for a variety of STDs based on
your exposure, NOT just be pacified by the fact that it is possible
for HSV to lie dormant for years before showing its ugly head. Why?
Because doctors don't consider monogamous thirty-something white women
at risk for STDs. And if you insist upon lying, your wife (and her
doctor) will have no reason to screen for other diseases that you
might have come in contact with. I got HSV-2 from my ex. My sister
got chlamydia and HPV from her husband. A good childhood friend had a
hysterectomy last year at age 38 due to cervical cancer, implicated by
HPV that SHE got from her supposedly monogamous husband of 15 years.
We all had doctors who thought we were "low risk" for any STDs. I am
amazed that these things aren't discussed more openly because the
numbers don't lie!
And neither should you.
Look up the statistics yourself, and please make a decision based on
what is in the best interest of your wife's health, not your status
quo.
I apologize for the long post, but I feel that this is an issue of
vital importance.
shinysneakers
Just thought I'd let you know that Google is the usenet archive and thus
posts can be removed from the archive whether or not you post through
Google. You are correct though that there is no way to remove your posts
from your ISP's new server. Those are removed only by the ISP at whatever
rate they wish to do so. Removing posts from Google would prevent users
without knowledge of newsreaders and local news servers from viewing the
posts since they would not be discovered in a Google search.
I am not suggesting anyone should or shouldn't request to have their posts
removed from the Google archive, I was just trying to provide some info on
how this darn mystical world of the internet works. :-)
Shiny
Angela wrote:
> I don't post through google. So, I can't remove something that I don't
> even
> post through. There is no way for me to go to the cox server and have my
> posts removed. sorry. If I were you I would stop posting to this thread
> and just let it go. If you are worried then perhaps you should use a
> different
> name. There are lots of free e-mail accounts where you can use a
> different
> name if your wife knows the "Sandman" name. You are right . . . this is a
> herpes support group. We support folks with herpes and that's about all
> we do.
>
> Angela
>
<snip>
Anonymous
Thank you to all who have already removed their replies from Google's
archives.
Seeing I don't have my results back yet, I'm not sure yet what course I'll
take. I am certainly heeding the many, well-intended suggestions about
totally coming clean w/ my wife should I indeed have an STD. I love her too
much to put her at further risk, and hopefully we've a solid enough
relationship to withstand both the STD AND the admission of guilt on my
part. You are right, my primary concern s/b looking out for HER health (as
well as mine).
OTOH, if my results come back negative, then I'd really wish this thread was
never started, and we can get back to our life.
Please reconsider my request to remove your replies from Google. If it
seems too bothersome, please feel free to email me, giving me permission and
I will forward your requests.
Thank you.
Earley Gal
never started, and we can get back to our life.
>
do realize that it's possible to come back negative yet still have the virus,
yes?
eg
Anonymous
Yes, I just had a culture done. If it can come back negative and still have
the virus, then why do they bother w/ it, instead of just going right to a
blood test?
"Earley Gal" <earl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021126212225...@mb-fc.aol.com...
shinysneakers
rather than sending you to a lab. That is my best guess.
You asked for the culture to be typed, right?
Shiny
M.L.S.
<anonymous...@yahoo.com> posted:
>No, I did not realize that. :(
>Yes, I just had a culture done. If it can come back negative and still have
>the virus, then why do they bother w/ it, instead of just going right to a
>blood test?
A culture is a direct test for the virus, and, if sufficient material
is gathered for the test, and the procedure is done properly, cultures
are very accurate, give quick results, and are generally cheaper than
the blood tests. The usual problem is that people wait too long (or
can't get an appointment) and most of the overt viral activity is over
by the time they get to the doctor, meaning that little virus is
gathered on the swab.
The problem with blood tests is that they look, not for the virus
(which usually isn't in the blood), but for the antibodies that form
to fight the virus, and those antibodies can take some time to form.
The Western Blot, the gold standard blood test, can show false
negatives up to sixteen weeks after infection, because it takes that
long for the body to gear up to fight HSV, to manufacture enough
antibodies that the test can detect 'em.
Also, with a culture, when the lesion is swabbed and the test run, you
know that the results (HSV1 vs HSV2) pertain to the area that was
swabbed. With a blood test, you could have HSV1 in your big toe for
all you know (presuming you didn't have other evidence to suggest it
was located say Orally). Many blood tests (mine, for instance) show
both HSV1 and HSV2. Since I've never had a definite oral outbreak, I
really don't know where my HSV1 is. <shrug> And I don't care. My
Kundulinin flow is like Niagra no matter.
Take care,
Mike
Tim Fitzmaurice
> No, I did not realize that. :(
>
> Yes, I just had a culture done. If it can come back negative and still have
> the virus, then why do they bother w/ it, instead of just going right to a
> blood test?
Becuase a blood test doesnt tell you if lesion X happens to be formed by
virus Y.......it gives a lot of information that allows an informed guess.
Plus its only recently that really really good type specific tests have
been easily available. Also blood work needs a time lag for the detected
antibodies to be raised to a high enough level in the blood after first
infection - effectively being a false negative itself if you test
before that time lag is up.....in that time you could have had a
culture done and if positive typed giving you the answer you need.
Tim
When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart
ICQ: 5178568
April
Well said!
yelxol
> Hi people,
(in part)
> ... One in four also have HPV. And, is not routinely
> screened during a woman's yearly pap smear.
... which is libelous, since HPV is the cause of cc.
(And, like HSV, it is also
> easy to transmit from skin not covered by condoms.)
You are certainly correct: (Sex Transm Dis 2002 Nov;29(11):725-35
Do condoms prevent genital HPV infection, external genital warts, or
cervical neoplasia? A meta-analysis.)
Evidence of
> irregular pap smears occur usually after pre-cancerous already cells
> exist on the cervix, usually related to HPV exposure.
Actually they are ALL 'related' to HPV. 99.8% of cc victims are diag.
w/ HPV (23 specific strains), w/ a +/- 1% error rate, which = 100%
statistically
> And here is a biggie: one in ninety two men
> between 27 and 39 have HIV. That statistic rises to one in thirty in
> the NYC metro area. Estimates are as high for other urban centers
> like LA and SF according to Gay Men's Health Crisis. That's not one
> in thirty gay men, that's one in thirty MEN. And women are getting
> HIV at an alarming rate because they are sleeping with those men.
Actually, these numbers are 'clinic-based', and it is certainly
understandable that it is widely believed that clinic-based data
present a biased picture of the community. (Int J STD AIDS 2002
Nov;13(11):775-80
Do clinic-based STD data reflect community patterns?
Howards PP, Thomas JC, Earp JA
Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7435, USA.)
> My sister
> got chlamydia and HPV from her husband. A good childhood friend had a
> hysterectomy last year at age 38 due to cervical cancer, implicated by
> HPV that SHE got from her supposedly monogamous husband of 15 years.
Were these two men assayed and present with HPV 16 - or one of the
other 23 strains that has been shown to cause cc?
Thanks.
And good health to you all.