Movement to Change the Legality of Herpes

Starting a new movement with this thread to change the legality of herpes.

Look at Usher. Should have just disclosed to those women now they get millions from him over the biggest BS nothing burger virus in the world.

Just imagine how many people in the entertainment industry have herpes. All the sex that gets thrown at you when you are famous.

If every famous person just came out and said, "yeah we have herpes and it a isn't a big deal" you'd quickly see people not giving a crap about this. In fact, of bet that you'd have fans of these famous people trying to get herpes just to be like their role models.

Having herpes just means that you aren't a nun, cloistered away from sex. Anyone who is having sex with more than on person these days is bumping uglies with herpes. That's a guarantee.

It's time that they make new laws about this. You shouldn't be able to take someone to court over herpes anymore.

Let's get some legislation passed on this.

Hear yee, hear yee!!!

I think it might help if both oral herpes and genital herpes were referred to as herpes. Typically, in the U.S., only genital herpes is referred to as herpes, and the definition becomes even more narrow (genital herpes caused by HSV2) when statistics for genital herpes are given by medical sources. This is not the case with HPV which also has different strains and can infect people both genitally and orally. With HPV, people have become aware of how common it is, and I think part of that is because all types and locations of HPV are included when statistics are given. That is not to say some people don't still fear HPV, but many consider it an unavoidable risk not worth dwelling on, given the prevalence.

If more people were aware that 1) oral herpes is herpes and, 2) either type can be spread to either location, and 3) symptoms, when they appear, are visually indistinguishable regardless of type and location, and 4) roughly 80% of adults are infected with HSV, would it seem as scary? I suspect it would still feel scary to some people but would be better put in perspective by others. Maybe it would also help people better understand what it means to have genital herpes since people are generally aware of what "cold sores" means but have only seen pictures of significant primary outbreaks as an example of genital herpes.

Edit to add: Perhaps even better if all types/locations were referred to as HSV, much like HPV. The word "herpes" seems to be synonymous with herpes ulcers in the minds of many people, leading many to believe no symptoms = no herpes. Similarly, when I was young, HPV was routinely referred to as "genital warts" even though that was just one strain of HPV and many people with that strain do not express symptoms.

This thread is about actually getting legislation done, not non-legal stuff.

I understand. But I do think these things are related. Have you ever heard of anyone suing for contracting oral herpes? Maybe it's happened, but I've never heard of it. I think the way "herpes" is officially communicated about by government health agencies makes a difference in social perception and this difference in perception influences this legal disparity.

It isn't my intention to derail the thread, so I won't comment further, just wanted to explain the thoughts behind my earlier comments.

Is it discrimination then?

I don't know. There is certainly a greater stigma when the infection occurs in one location vs. another, even when the infection is caused by the exact same virus and can be transmitted to/from either location, as is common with HSV1. The difference in location-based stigma seems to influence societal expectations around disclosure, IMHO. My medical doctors do not make this distinction in stigma or treatment or disclosure guidance, but I do notice a clear societal distinction. With government agencies, the distinction seems to often be HSV1 vs. HSV2 which is likely a byproduct of the fact that blood tests don't reveal location of infections, so their data would not allow them to effectively separate oral and genital herpes without assuming oral = HSV1 and genital = HSV2. Most recently they have continued reporting "genital herpes" statistics with the stats for HSV2 and then they add that it is likely a greater number of people have genital herpes as some genital herpes is caused by HSV1. They don't guess at the more inclusive number of genital herpes cases. That could be resolved by dismissing location as such a vital factor in reporting overall prevalence of HSV, IMHO.

Speaking to your point about legality, it would be nice if medical professionals and the legal system were on the same page about this. I have yet to encounter a doctor who is not poorly informed about the variety of ways in which genital herpes can present, as well as how it can be transmitted to partners outside of a temporary situation where a person with herpes sees an obvious herpes ulcer on themselves. If I'd followed my diagnosing medical professional's advice rather than doing my own research, I would think I was only "exposed" rather than infected, and I would not find it necessary to disclose.

I think it is discrimination. Genital herpes seems way more "taboo" than cold sores!!! Am I correct in saying that if it wasn't for cold sores, there would be no genital herpes??

@Katidid Prior to becoming sexually active, people are vulnerable to contracting oral herpes, almost always caused by HSV1. Upon becoming sexually active, those who have not yet contracted HSV1 orally are vulnerable to contracting it either orally or genitally.

Most often, genital HSV1 is contracted through oral sex from a partner with oral HSV1. Less frequently it is contracted through intercourse. This is likely because the HSV1 virus tends to shed more often from the mouth than from the genitals and because more people have oral HSV1 than genital HSV1.

Risk of contracting HSV2 begins when people become sexually active and is almost always acquired through genital-genital contact, though oral infection happens infrequently.

Ok, got it. I know I sort of intruded on the thread. You would think I'd know every last detail being a 35 plus year veteran! Thanks

It takes 2...I don't think it should be a legality issue if one person either asks or puts the inflection on the table prior to sex....but who am I? Lol

There are so many reasons why you shouldn't be able to sue for herpes.

Not only is it rampant, but it is also very difficult or impossible to verify where or when it was contracted, and who was involved. Anyone who has slept with more than three people has likely had sex with someone who has herpes.

One added issue is that I would expect such high profile stories to make more people reluctant to get to tested, even when they have symptoms. As it is now, only 12% of people who are HSV2+ have been tested and diagnosed, usually as a result of having obvious symptoms. I strongly suspect that number will decrease if people determine the potential risks of having a diagnosis outweigh the potential benefits.

Whatever happens, I hope the medical community will become more aware of the complexity involved in testing and diagnosis and educate their patients accordingly. I feel like medical recommendations and societal expectations are completely at odds at this point.

Yes because herpes stigma is based on lies. Being able to sue someone over lies doesn't make sense.

Hey, how do you find out which laws a country has about herpes disclosure? For instance in Europe its common that herpes is not under the std information law, in US and Canada it is. How is it in South America where many countries have 30-50% HSV2?

I would agree that better education on herpes is important for society as a whole.

Many people (myself included) contracted from someone who didn't know they had it. Worse, there are people who never disclose. And yet still worse, it is uncommon to test for.

I honestly believe that with erosion of social stigma, and better education and testing, herpes would not be so prevalent.

I have read some posts where people stated they wish everyone had it so there would be no stigma. While I had the same thought occur, and get the perspective, I would disagree.

I think everyone should be aware that you can contract the virus and show no conclusive or obvious symptoms, and should test regularly as part of the normal battery of STD tests. When 50% of the population is aware they have it, and the other 50% understand they have probably shared a drink with / shad sex with / kissed someone who has herpes, the stigma would dissolve. More importantly, people would be afforded the opportunity to take precautions to prevent accidental transmission.

Maybe you are on to something positive about disclosing. Or maybe just making it a law would ruin careers and divide families. I think education and setting the standard that it is part of a normal gammut of tests would be better.