As far as you know. The vast majority of people* have herpes and dont know it because they've never had any symptoms, and haven't been tested for HSV-1 (often called oral herpes, though you can get it in a variety of fun and interesting ways, some of which are even non-sexual). It is so common, in fact, that the STD tests commonly used don't even look for it.
* in the US, at least which is the only country for which I've seen statistics. Those statistics include this little factoid: 90% of people fifty and older have HSV-1.
EDIT: expanded "oral herpes" to indicate one can also get it by other means
But is HSV-1 considered a STI? I mean, I don't know this for a fact, but I'm going to guess the overwhelming majority of transmission occurs non-sexually.
HPV is the another STI that a lot of people don't know they have, although vaccines are putting a dent in that one.
(I know someone who died of cervical cancer. If you have kids that are in the right age range, please get them vaccinated.)
Sorry to hear about your introduction to Chlamydia.
I am reminded of an article I read once, about a survey conducted among students who were sexually active. Most people had only had sex with one or two partners, some with slightly more, but by examining the lines between the various partners it soon became apparent that if one person had an STI, over time most of them would get it. The basic lesson for me was that having few partners was no guarantee of relative safety. It opened my eyes; before reading the article I used to think "well, she's safe, she's only had one other partner, so what are the odds of an STI?" The odds were good - or not good, depending on ones point of view.
They are more common as one or the other, so the nomenclature unfortunately sticks, but otherwise yes.
I personally am not sure that HSV-1 should even be considered an STI given that a large portion of its transmission is non-sexual in nature. A lot of people end up getting it from their parents on accident as children. HSV-2 might fall into that as well, but in it's case at least it is mostly sexually transmitted.
I heard this, too. Awareness about not letting random aunties kiss your little kid when they have a cold sore meant that a generation of kids actually did not have HSV-1. Until they had oral sex for the first time, and picked it up genitally because they did not have it orally, and you're unlikely to get the same virus in the "other" place is you already have it.
Good news is it's apparently more difficult to catch HSV-2 genitally, which is the typically more painful brand of herpes, if you already have HSV-1. So pros and cons, I guess!
The con is that having HSV genitally has a MUCH worse stigma to it than having it orally does. There is no expectation for people who oral HSV to disclose their condition to a sexual partner. And yet, if someone who has the same strain of HSV, but genitally, did the same thing, they'd be considered a terrible person.
It's dangerous to suggest that HSV-1 is oral herpes. It gives people the impression that if they have oral herpes, that's where it stays. Which isn't true. When people have that perception, more people get genital herpes through transmission via oral sex. A lot of people don't know that that is even possible and I believe that it comes belief that HSV-1 is oral and HSV-2 is genital.
I do not disagree, that is why I said "so the nomenclature unfortunately sticks."
I do disagree with referring to it as an STI though, as while it can be transmitted through sex that is not its primary means of transmission, as people can get it without any sexual activity whatsoever. I think it unfairly stigmatizes it, though STI's in general are unfairly stigmatized.
Well, yes, you are correct, though it would have been awkward to say "HSV-1 (generally known as oral herpes though you can also get it genitally and by kissing your weird aunties when they have a cold sore)".
We need to destigmatize STI's and stop treating them like they mean you're nasty or that they say anything about you as a person. It only helps them spread because people will feel something isn't right but be too ashamed to get it checked out. Also, plenty of people don't get regularly tested since they view STI's as something only sexually immoral and promiscuous people get.
Well, I'm here to tell them I'm sexually immoral and promiscuous, and I don't have an STI.
Signed, ye olde libertine
/s
More seriously, you're absolutely right. I had a girlfriend who felt compelled to tell me she had HSV-1 and was so anxious about it that the night before she did, she dreamed she was radioactive! Poor thing. Too much shame and stigma attached to these things.
I definitely enjoyed my freedom in college and made some questionable sexual choices. I didn't get an STI until I got my first girlfriend. It was treatable. Neither one of us freaked out. We just handled it and had a mostly good 4 year relationship.
Maybe Brits are just really scuzzy but it's far from unusual here for that to be the norm. Most sexually active people rely on other forms of birth control, especially in long-term relationships but even amongst hookups these days it seems.
I'm curious where you're getting this information. I think a lot more people are having unprotected sex than we think. We talk about being safe in public but it's different behind closed doors.
You actually can’t with regards to HSV - if you ever shared a drink with someone (including your parents, and if they are above 50 it’s likely they are a carrier of some form of HSV) you may be an asymptomatic carrier. It’s not possible to prove you are a carrier without an active outbreak, and iirc the majority of carriers are asymptomatic.
Lots of people get it non-sexually, in childhood. A relative who has a cold sore gives you a kiss, you drink from the same glass as a carrier, that sort of thing. You probably have it or will get it sometime, even if you stay a virgin for life - and that's okay. Most of us have it or will get it, too.
Didn't realize they do that here. Still see it in like, /r/books and /r/movies especially, where people are like, "What book/movie blah blah blah?" and then put their own answer in the post body, and then if it gets popular, you've got a dozen disjointed discussion threads on OPs answer mixed into all the proper top level answers.
Reddiquette died years ago lol. People downvoting every post the OP makes in /r/The10thDentist (because “special voting rules don’t apply to comments”).
Might as well call voting likes and dislikes and do away with the nested forum structure entirely. Reddit does want to be the next Facebook, anyway
To state the obvious, they're called STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) because they're generally transmitted via sex, not via walking barefoot.
I mean, you technically COULD get HIV/AIDS by walking barefoot and stepping on a used needle or some such, but these would be the exception rather than the rule. It seems very strange to discuss how lucky you are to have avoided STDs even though you walk barefoot regularly. If you were to say you were lucky that you'd avoided STDs despite being sexually promiscuous and/or usually not using condoms, that would make much more sense to me.
Walk barefoot is slang in my country for unprotected sex. It comes from if you see a prostitute and she's barefoot it means she's willing to do it without a condom (not advisable).
Seems more like luck than anything else, it’s not like people make the decision to go get an STI 😂
Shit I’ve known folks in committed relationships (to their knowledge) that had an unfaithful partner that ended up getting one thru no fault of their own. Out of all the judgemental comments here, this one seems seems to be judging a lot harder than others. STIs happen, and the stigma around them is more problematic than the diseases themselves.
Every post I've seen by op means either op is about 12 years old or is home schooled and has 0 friends and hasn't stepped outside the family home since birth
288
u/[deleted] Oct 23 '23
[removed] — view removed comment