I am just curious about the general attitude toward STI's around here.
Would you have sex with a new partner that confided in you they had an STI (other than HIV)?
03/30/2009
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
A friend of mine had a girlfriend who only told him she had herpes nearly half a year after they'd started having sex. By then, they'd stopped using barrier method protection and were fluid-bonded. There had been a period of time where he was seeing this girl and was still with his wife (complicated semi-poly-amorous situation) and was having unprotected sex with both. This potentially means that he could have given it to his wife as well as contracted it himself. For me, the most important thing is complete STI honesty. I don't think less of anyone because they have an STI, but I would expect them to be upfront and responsible about it. It is embarrassing for some/most, yes, but it is far worse to expose partners to STIs without informing them about the potential risk.
03/30/2009
I'd also agree that honesty is the most important issue here. if i found out that my partner had an STI, as long as we kept ourselves safe, i'd try to keep our sex life as normal as possible.
03/30/2009
I'd have to say a firm 'no.' Here's why: if the STI was treatable, I'd see no reason to have sex until my infected partner was treated and cured, since it seems like common courtesy/common sense to do so. If the STI was untreatable, there's always a chance of disease transmission even with protection, so the thing I object to in this case is "new" partner. I'd be willing to have a (still safe) sexual relationship with someone with an untreatable STI (such as Herpes) if it was a committed, long-term sort of relationship. For the short-term or new partner, the risk simply isn't worth it for me.
03/30/2009
I wouldn't care if they had HPV, just because most people have it anyway, & I got the HPV vaccine last year. Most people who have had a few sexual partners have some sort of STI whether they know it or not, and they don't always show symptoms. I would not judge a partner if they told me they had some kind of STI, & I'd probably admire them for having the courage to inform me about it. It takes a lot of trust & consideration for another to disclose that kind of information.
03/30/2009
At the risk of sounding like a cruel, heartless wench: no.
03/31/2009
I have to agree with Syntax. For a short-term or new partner, treat it if it's treatable, no sex if it's not. This doesn't mean that if the relationship developed into a much more committed relationship I would refuse to ever have sex; in a relationship like that, whether I had already known about the STI or not, I would try to have a safe, but as normal as possible sexual relationship.
03/31/2009
Quote:
Agreed.
Originally posted by
Syntax
I'd have to say a firm 'no.' Here's why: if the STI was treatable, I'd see no reason to have sex until my infected partner was treated and cured, since it seems like common courtesy/common sense to do so. If the STI was
...
more
I'd have to say a firm 'no.' Here's why: if the STI was treatable, I'd see no reason to have sex until my infected partner was treated and cured, since it seems like common courtesy/common sense to do so. If the STI was untreatable, there's always a chance of disease transmission even with protection, so the thing I object to in this case is "new" partner. I'd be willing to have a (still safe) sexual relationship with someone with an untreatable STI (such as Herpes) if it was a committed, long-term sort of relationship. For the short-term or new partner, the risk simply isn't worth it for me.
less
03/31/2009
Quote:
I agree with Syntax. It's not that I would be judging them for having an STI, it's that I have children and I want to maintain the healthiest body I can for them.
Originally posted by
Syntax
I'd have to say a firm 'no.' Here's why: if the STI was treatable, I'd see no reason to have sex until my infected partner was treated and cured, since it seems like common courtesy/common sense to do so. If the STI was
...
more
I'd have to say a firm 'no.' Here's why: if the STI was treatable, I'd see no reason to have sex until my infected partner was treated and cured, since it seems like common courtesy/common sense to do so. If the STI was untreatable, there's always a chance of disease transmission even with protection, so the thing I object to in this case is "new" partner. I'd be willing to have a (still safe) sexual relationship with someone with an untreatable STI (such as Herpes) if it was a committed, long-term sort of relationship. For the short-term or new partner, the risk simply isn't worth it for me.
less
That's not to say I wouldn't date someone with an incurable STI, I just wouldn't have sex with them until I knew I would be in a long-term relationship.
03/31/2009
I say no, but because it's not just about me - this is a rule in my primary relationship. I'm not sure what would happen if someone who had an incurable STI became really important and special to me, but I'm not really one to ponder what if about hypotheticals.
That said, I assume every new partner potentially has an STI and conduct myself accordingly. As such, I make specific choices about which acts I do and don't do with new partners.
Violet Blue's books on Fellatio and Cunnilingus have an excellent chapter on STI's (not just specific to oral sex) that I highly encourage anyone to check out. I thought I knew my stuff and I learned things...
That said, I assume every new partner potentially has an STI and conduct myself accordingly. As such, I make specific choices about which acts I do and don't do with new partners.
Violet Blue's books on Fellatio and Cunnilingus have an excellent chapter on STI's (not just specific to oral sex) that I highly encourage anyone to check out. I thought I knew my stuff and I learned things...
03/31/2009
If they told me upfront than no. There is absolutely no reason for me to risk my sexual, physical, and emotional health for someone who may not last. If this is a new relationship and even if I feel those pangs of "this could be going somewhere", there is absolutely NO reason to pursue any sort of sexual activities.
If they tell me they have herpes or gonorrhea than what else could they have that they wouldn't be so willing to tell me? If it was a treatable disease than why haven't they treated it yet? And how soon was their last sexual partner from me if they still have it? I have no interest in being with someone that sleeps around or doesn't use protection with their partners- it says to me, if they're so careless with their own health and safety, how will they be with my health and safety?
In a world full of uncertainty people need to take their sexual health seriously, if it's a partner that didn't know they had it because they weren't tested than I don't want to be with them. If they can't be bothered to be regularly tested than that's not the type of partner I want, I do not want someone who hops from bed to bed with little regard for themselves or their partners.
This is all rhetorics and being married it doesn't' really apply to me. However, if the time were to come where I wasn't with DH, I'd still take this seriously. I have PCOS which already puts me at a higher risk of endometrial and cervical cancer, I'm not going to further put myself at risk of HPV or various STI's- it would be a new chapter in my life, why ruin it with something that has the potential to last a lifetime?
My body is a temple, yes, I occasionally destroy it with fast food even though I know the dangers... but to risk a lifetime of either infertility, depression, cervical cancer, or pelvic pain caused by any various STI is not worth the risk.
If they tell me they have herpes or gonorrhea than what else could they have that they wouldn't be so willing to tell me? If it was a treatable disease than why haven't they treated it yet? And how soon was their last sexual partner from me if they still have it? I have no interest in being with someone that sleeps around or doesn't use protection with their partners- it says to me, if they're so careless with their own health and safety, how will they be with my health and safety?
In a world full of uncertainty people need to take their sexual health seriously, if it's a partner that didn't know they had it because they weren't tested than I don't want to be with them. If they can't be bothered to be regularly tested than that's not the type of partner I want, I do not want someone who hops from bed to bed with little regard for themselves or their partners.
This is all rhetorics and being married it doesn't' really apply to me. However, if the time were to come where I wasn't with DH, I'd still take this seriously. I have PCOS which already puts me at a higher risk of endometrial and cervical cancer, I'm not going to further put myself at risk of HPV or various STI's- it would be a new chapter in my life, why ruin it with something that has the potential to last a lifetime?
My body is a temple, yes, I occasionally destroy it with fast food even though I know the dangers... but to risk a lifetime of either infertility, depression, cervical cancer, or pelvic pain caused by any various STI is not worth the risk.
03/31/2009
I would consider a sexual relationship if I knew what STI and I had their doctor's assurance they had completed a full course of treatment and could be considered cured. After waiting the appropriate time (usually 6 months) I would consider a fluid bonded arrangement if they could provide documentation and/or a doctor's ok. Have done this in the past and remained STI free...I am also tested every six months for all STI and once a year for cervical screening. My partners and I take all of this very seriously and have veto'ed sex with people with uncurable STI's even if they are controlled (Herpes). As it's been pointed out life is too short to take such risks with your health.
04/03/2009
I've talked with my gyno and other doctors at length about genital herpes as part of my job as a sexuality center education volunteer, and so many of them say that even if one has herpes it doesn't mean that your partner and yourself NEED to change their sexual habits, because most of them don't. Working at a sexuality center, my colleagues and myself have to field so much misinformation from people when they come in scared, and are adamant about using condoms if they or their partner has herpes, and they don't know that condoms don't protect against herpes because it's spread by skin to skin contact. Most people that come in also don't know that just because a Pap test comes back normal it means they don't have HPV. They could have been exposed to it and it not show up yet, and the HPV test is currently only for women over 30 at this time.
04/07/2009
Certainly if the STI was treated then I would insist on my partner getting treated before I engaged in any serious sexual play. It's just logical. For more permanent STI's I would be willing to engage in sex, as long as I cared about the partner a fair bit, but I would also make sure it was safe. I think honesty is the key with any STI issues.
04/07/2009
I'm going to have to agree with Boink. I wouldn't write someone off if they had an STI, but I believe that both partners should be informed of the risks and the precautions that should be taken. What I find interesting is that the majority of people have oral herpes (cold sores), but they don't think to tell their partners. In reality, however, it is quite possible to give a sexual partner genital herpes from oral sex if you have cold sores.
04/19/2009
Quote:
A partner who has an active oral herpes outbreak or virally shedding during oral sex would not give their partner HSV-2, which is genital herpes, they would give them HSV-1 on their genitals, not 'textbook' genital herpes or HSV-2. Although if someone has a blood test for HSV-2 and it comes up positive, that doesn't really tell them anything because one can get genital herpes (HSV-2) on the mouth without ever having it on the genitals.
Originally posted by
Femme Mystique
I'm going to have to agree with Boink. I wouldn't write someone off if they had an STI, but I believe that both partners should be informed of the risks and the precautions that should be taken. What I find interesting is that the majority
...
more
I'm going to have to agree with Boink. I wouldn't write someone off if they had an STI, but I believe that both partners should be informed of the risks and the precautions that should be taken. What I find interesting is that the majority of people have oral herpes (cold sores), but they don't think to tell their partners. In reality, however, it is quite possible to give a sexual partner genital herpes from oral sex if you have cold sores.
less
04/20/2009
I'm going to be kind of ignorant and "guy-ish" on my reply to the topic.
It would really depend on how she looked really. If she was drop dead gorgeous and i deeply cared about her, meaning i would have to be head over heals for her from the beginning of our relationship then i would maybe just maybe say yes. In the long run it would depend on what STI she had and how much i cared about her.
It would really depend on how she looked really. If she was drop dead gorgeous and i deeply cared about her, meaning i would have to be head over heals for her from the beginning of our relationship then i would maybe just maybe say yes. In the long run it would depend on what STI she had and how much i cared about her.
04/20/2009
Quote:
You're right, HSV-1 only causes about 10% of genital herpes cases, which is why HSV-2 is considered "textbook" genital herpes. It is, however, still genital herpes and very possible to contract.
Originally posted by
DreamyLove
A partner who has an active oral herpes outbreak or virally shedding during oral sex would not give their partner HSV-2, which is genital herpes, they would give them HSV-1 on their genitals, not 'textbook' genital herpes or HSV-2. Although
...
more
A partner who has an active oral herpes outbreak or virally shedding during oral sex would not give their partner HSV-2, which is genital herpes, they would give them HSV-1 on their genitals, not 'textbook' genital herpes or HSV-2. Although if someone has a blood test for HSV-2 and it comes up positive, that doesn't really tell them anything because one can get genital herpes (HSV-2) on the mouth without ever having it on the genitals.
less
04/20/2009
Quote:
I don't think your answer was typical. You would factor in a lot of things besides looks. As would I.
Originally posted by
Perish
I'm going to be kind of ignorant and "guy-ish" on my reply to the topic.
It would really depend on how she looked really. If she was drop dead gorgeous and i deeply cared about her, meaning i would have to be head over heals ... more
It would really depend on how she looked really. If she was drop dead gorgeous and i deeply cared about her, meaning i would have to be head over heals ... more
I'm going to be kind of ignorant and "guy-ish" on my reply to the topic.
It would really depend on how she looked really. If she was drop dead gorgeous and i deeply cared about her, meaning i would have to be head over heals for her from the beginning of our relationship then i would maybe just maybe say yes. In the long run it would depend on what STI she had and how much i cared about her. less
It would really depend on how she looked really. If she was drop dead gorgeous and i deeply cared about her, meaning i would have to be head over heals for her from the beginning of our relationship then i would maybe just maybe say yes. In the long run it would depend on what STI she had and how much i cared about her. less
05/04/2009
Wow. I think this is an incredibly situational question. I think the most important thing is honestly in a relationship. If you are coming into a new relationship and one of the partners has an STI I believe you have a responsibility to yourself and your partner to inform your partner. From there you can look at the emotional investment, possible treatment options and decided on a course of action from there.
05/17/2009
her.royal.redness, I'm going to agree with you. It's so situational. Which one, emotional attachment/commitment, and a really clear line of communication would be so central to the situation. Even a minor fault in any of the components could break the deal, it'd have to be really worth the risk.
06/13/2009
I just want to point out that HIV is not an STI. Sexual Transmitted Infections (STI) are curable, such as some strands of HPV, Hepatitis C and B, Pubic Lice (crabs), Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, Herpes, Scabies, Trichomonasis, Yeast Infections, and Syphilis.
Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD) are HIV and AIDs, where there are treatments but NO KNOWN CURES.
Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD) are HIV and AIDs, where there are treatments but NO KNOWN CURES.
06/13/2009
Quote:
Hmm I never knew that, I thought they were interchangeable terms. It's kind of weird because a virus is still an "infection" whether it's curable or not, and all of the curable infections are likewise considered "diseases" as well. Do you know why this distinction between the two terms is made? I mean, what the reasoning behind it is? I'm very curious now.
Originally posted by
bodymodboy
I just want to point out that HIV is not an STI. Sexual Transmitted Infections (STI) are curable, such as some strands of HPV, Hepatitis C and B, Pubic Lice (crabs), Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, Herpes, Scabies, Trichomonasis, Yeast Infections, and
...
more
I just want to point out that HIV is not an STI. Sexual Transmitted Infections (STI) are curable, such as some strands of HPV, Hepatitis C and B, Pubic Lice (crabs), Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, Herpes, Scabies, Trichomonasis, Yeast Infections, and Syphilis.
Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD) are HIV and AIDs, where there are treatments but NO KNOWN CURES. less
Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD) are HIV and AIDs, where there are treatments but NO KNOWN CURES. less
06/13/2009
Quote:
I think you're taking the term too literally. There is a thread around here about the difference between the terms and someone even said that they're interchangeable in the medical community.
Originally posted by
bodymodboy
I just want to point out that HIV is not an STI. Sexual Transmitted Infections (STI) are curable, such as some strands of HPV, Hepatitis C and B, Pubic Lice (crabs), Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, Herpes, Scabies, Trichomonasis, Yeast Infections, and
...
more
I just want to point out that HIV is not an STI. Sexual Transmitted Infections (STI) are curable, such as some strands of HPV, Hepatitis C and B, Pubic Lice (crabs), Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, Herpes, Scabies, Trichomonasis, Yeast Infections, and Syphilis.
Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD) are HIV and AIDs, where there are treatments but NO KNOWN CURES. less
Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD) are HIV and AIDs, where there are treatments but NO KNOWN CURES. less
06/14/2009
I was under the impression that STI was the politically correct, all-encompassing term. That is the context under which I asked the question.
06/14/2009
Quote:
During my pathology classes, which were taught by registered nurses, we were taught the significant difference. And, as far as I am familiar with, the south east coast of Massachusetts facilities (hospitals, HIV testing facilities, etc) do not use the terms interchangeably. Pamphlets are even on my campus explaining the difference.
Originally posted by
Adriana Ravenlust
I think you're taking the term too literally. There is a thread around here about the difference between the terms and someone even said that they're interchangeable in the medical community.
06/14/2009
Quote:
Medically, an infection is different from a disease. Infections are curable (most curable closer to when the symptoms started, later on it can get harder to kill the infection).
Originally posted by
Femme Mystique
I was under the impression that STI was the politically correct, all-encompassing term. That is the context under which I asked the question.
06/14/2009
Quote:
From what I learned in my classes, Nurse Anna explained that the term infection came about as a means for prognosis identification, and it also sounds a lot less intimidating that STD. It was also confusing on just having an STD list where some things were curable, and others weren't, and this often caused confusion during Health classes (Nurse Anna used to teach Middle School health classes, and everyone bombed the tests on STD curabilities). To make the list more user friendly, the distinction between STI and STD have been making headway. Also, you can become -infected- with a virus, not necessarily an infection. It's hard, because of the language. Try taking medical language. Twice!
Originally posted by
~*SurrealisticFantasy*~
Hmm I never knew that, I thought they were interchangeable terms. It's kind of weird because a virus is still an "infection" whether it's curable or not, and all of the curable infections are likewise considered "diseases"
...
more
Hmm I never knew that, I thought they were interchangeable terms. It's kind of weird because a virus is still an "infection" whether it's curable or not, and all of the curable infections are likewise considered "diseases" as well. Do you know why this distinction between the two terms is made? I mean, what the reasoning behind it is? I'm very curious now.
less
06/14/2009
No, I would not.
06/14/2009
Quote:
Perhaps Southeast MA just does things a little differently, then.
Originally posted by
bodymodboy
During my pathology classes, which were taught by registered nurses, we were taught the significant difference. And, as far as I am familiar with, the south east coast of Massachusetts facilities (hospitals, HIV testing facilities, etc) do not use
...
more
During my pathology classes, which were taught by registered nurses, we were taught the significant difference. And, as far as I am familiar with, the south east coast of Massachusetts facilities (hospitals, HIV testing facilities, etc) do not use the terms interchangeably. Pamphlets are even on my campus explaining the difference.
less
06/15/2009