Does hsv1 need to be disclosed?

People with hsv1 and not disclosing either don't care about who they could infect, are scared they will be rejected, or uneducated on what the virus is (whether it because it's become a normal way of life for everyone around them, or cause they literally don't have enough information - ignorance though is not an excuse)

I wish you educated yourself before replying.

First of all HSV1 is not an STD or STI. Therefore it has nothing to do with the laws that punish you for intentional spreading of infection.

Second - globally up to 80-90% of people have HSV1. It means it's irrelevant. People who don't have it should actually bother if they choose so, not the majority of humanity who have it.

Third - only 30% of people with HSV1 get any outbreaks ever. Most people never experience any symptoms.

So again, it's up to uninfected people to bother about this issue, because by default most people do have it and it's not an STD. No mentioning HSV1 you have is absolutely fine and acceptable.

I work in the legal field on the front line. HERPES is considered an STD in WA State and also an infectious disease. You can press charges criminally and sue civilly

lmaoooo. it is not against the law. You're grouping HIV with HSV and they're quite different. It is an ethical and moral decision, not a legal one. major eye roll...

kanker sores is HSV 1. my children get them and they haven't had sex.... so it isn't a sti or an std. it can be transmitted this way, yes. but pretty much the whole world has it. so stop trying to say its law. bc you're all being ignorant. does my 3 year old have to tell my father she has "herpes" before she gives her grandpa a kiss? I don't think so.

I am a legal professional and in my state it IS against the law to knowingly expose another person to a contagious or infectious disease with the intent to deceive or fraud. I find it humorous that there are so many uneducated opinions about what is law and what isn't .

Common sense says that HIV and HSV are different. However, every state in the US has statutes that govern laws regarding Sexually transmitted diseases and contagious infectious diseases.

If you understand the law, you would know the difference.

I recently put a sex offender in jail because he had Herpes and he knew that he did. He never disclosed this to his girlfriend who has a compromised immune system and she is recovering from cancer. She has never had a prior STD and he gave 2 previous partners Herpes as well.

While state statutes are not applicable to every situation, in many cases, it is. Furthermore, there are personal injury and punitive damages for knowingly exposing, not just transmitting, STD's outside of HIV. A woman in Oregon won $900,000.00 settlement from contracting Herpes from her partner.

Depending on the state you live in, this information varies.

Did you go to law school in my state too? Major eye roll.

Tasha, we need to be careful here and make sure we're not spreading (no pun intended) deficient information. As is often the case, you're using the word "herpes" as if it's a one-size-fits-all word that indicates an STI. This has been an ongoing issue in society due to a lack of education on the subject of herpes and STIs in general. So often the word "herpes" is meant to indicate "genital herpes". While it is true that genital herpes is categorized as an STD, oral herpes is not. Oral herpes is commonly transmitted from oral-to-oral contact (i.e., kissing) and is mostly transmitted via HSV-1. While HSV-1 can be transmitted through oral to genital contact, it's rare. Genital herpes is usually transmitted via HSV-2 (and can vary rarely cause oral herpes). Without knowing the details, I'm willing to bet the case(s) you were involved with involve HSV-2

The problem is, as is the case in much of biology (as we've seen take place with COVID-19), biological organisms don't fit nicely into criminal and civil law. Needless to say, there are clear cases where STDs are transmitted and legitimate cases can be made where a defendant violates various Health and Safety Codes. This is often true of genital herpes, and several cases have been found in favor of plaintiffs accusing defendants of knowingly or unknowingly transmitting genital herpes. However, transmitting oral herpes is not transmitting an STD (by CDC definition). I only know of one case (in California) where HSV-1 (common cause of oral herpes) was involved to make a civil case against a defendant. The defendant knowingly had HSV-1 and transmitted it via oral to genital contact, causing the plaintiff to contract genital herpes (now an STD). While this is a rare transmission, it can happen. Though there has never been a successful case in The US made—citing Health and Safety laws—from oral-to-oral herpes transmission, that I know of. Though I welcome any information anyone has there.

I think the issue here is just how easily HSV-1 can be transmitted orally. It would be very difficult to prove someone contracted oral herpes from someone unless they could prove they were HSV-1 free up until a certain point, and from that point on the person never came into any kind of oral contact with another personal other than the defendant. And oral contact could simply be sharing a bottle of water. Yes, a case can always be made, but cases "can be made" concerning anything and are only as strong as the actual case being made seems to a judge and/or jury.

On a personal note, however, I'm worried that the case above, involving HSV-1, sets a bleak precedent. Until the stigma of herpes is removed, if cases involving transmission of known HSV-1 become more common, this might lead to less and less people getting tested, which is a negative thing. While one lesson in the above case is to, yes, disclose any HSV diagnosis before performing oral sex, many will also take the "lesson" to mean: don't get tested for STDs. In fact, many doctors don't test for HSV-1 or 2 with routine STD panels because both are very common. Many people with either don't even know they have it until tested. This is especially true with HSV-1 where it's thought that anywhere from 50-90% of the population is carrying the virus. While I don't advocate this line, it's almost like saying: you likely already have HSV-1, so don't bother getting tested because what you know can hurt you.

i genital herpes but not oral. i agree with you that "its up to the uninfected people to bother with the issue." i only had one outbreak, its harmless and a ton of people already have it, so no need to disclose, thank hiu for affirming!

Again, please educate yourself before replying.

1) gHSV1 and oHSV1 are the same exact virus, there is no "less infectious" at all.

2) Condoms have NOTHING to do with HSV virus. Literally, no condom ever stops HSV virus from passing. So if you have protected sex you can still get HSV1 or HSV2 from genitals or mouth.

3) If you have oral HSV1, not having sex has nothing to do with it. It passes via kisses in that case, not sex. If you have oral sex - then yes indeed, you can pass HSV1 to someone's genitals.

4) Outbreaks make the risk higher, but unfortunately no outbreak doens't mean you can't pass it to anyone. In fact most of the infection passes with people don't have any outbreaks.

5) Since 80% of people have it, I don't think it should be a question or an issue at all. At some point this will become 100% and there would be no point to even test for it anymore.

Since HSV1 evolved orally, it sheds about 3 times less often genitally than orally. So OHSV1 is more contagious than GHSV1 not because they're different illnesses but because it is outside of its preferred site so can do less damage genitally.

how is hsv2 different? i have it and had one outbreak.so i have no requirement to disclose either. theres no difference and it isnt a "entirely different" issue. you say that due to projecting shame as its sex related but so is oral herpes, except that spreads through kissing and oral sex, no difference. i dont have oral herpes but i can get it from sex. i have gential herpes and its spread a similar way, so i dont disclose