AIBU to think a 14 month sentence for passing on herpes is thin end of wedge?

[Cheria]

This article has really annoyed me. Herpes is a common virus. Her ex- boyfriend denied passing it on, and lied so is a twunt, of course, but jailing him for 14 months?

With all the STDs tehre are now, some of which are really serious, is this not the thin end of the wedge? Herpes, for me, is a nuisance, but there is no way I would want the person who gave it me to go to jail. It's not AIDS FFS.

Suing someone over this is just opening the way for so many revenge cases. It's worrying that the judicial system is wasting time on this. Disclaimer: if he had knowingly infected her with AIDS it would be a different story.

myob, sorry im not quite sure what you mean. If someone caught type HSV2 from having oral sex with somebody who had genital herpres and then passed on a coldsore to another person. If you have type HSV2, then you pass on HSV2, not HSV1. The different strands remain different, regardless of where on your body you get them. Does that make more sense?

So if someone passes HSV1 (coldsore) onto someones genitals, its still HSV1. If someone passes HSV2 (GH) onto someones mouth its still HSV2.

As i stated earlier in the thread it is all about 'consent', you cannot consent to something if you have no prior knowledge of it. So the Court wouldnt focus so much on whether the person intended to infect you. They would focus on whether you consented to sex, knowing that person was infected. (obviously the two are closely linked)

With HIV it is assumed that no one would consent to having unprotected sex with an HIV sufferer. The same principal could apply to any STD, no one would consent to sex knowing the GH was active, no one would consent to unprotected sex knowing the person had gonorrhea etc, etc. So the fact that the 'victim' has this STD in the first place is a factor.

It would then have to be proven that the sufferer was the source of the STD, that they hadnt taken appropriate precautions to contain the spread etc, etc. Extremely hard to prove with GH, unless the person admits to it.

I would imagine it would cause the same amount of embarrasment and stress to both parties concerned, as they would both have the STD and be under investigation.

Im no legal expert! just my thoughts, based on what i have read

Lait, as i have stated throughout the thread, i am just giving my opinion, same as everyone else. I am not a legal expert, i dont make the Law, i just try to understand it, same as everyone else.

As i stated as far as i am aware HSV1 is not considered an STD. I could be wrong.

"HSV-1 and HSV-2 can be found in and released from the sores that the viruses cause, but they also are released between outbreaks from skin that does not appear to have a sore. Generally, a person can only get HSV-2 infection during sexual contact with someone who has a genital HSV-2 infection"

HSV1 as i understand it can be passed in other ways ie sharing a cup etc not just through sexual contact. Hence why i said the Law only covers HSV2.

CLAW3, everything that applies to HSV1 also applies to HSV2. They are both contractable in the same way they both cause the same symptoms.

wibbly - arrggghh you're talking shit - read the thread properly. We're no longer talking specifically about this case, but about a law that says a person can be prosecuted for passing on one type but not another, despite the fact that either can be causght on face and genitals and either can be sexually transmitted. And the fact that it opens the door to the possiblity that in bitter break ups this could be used as a revenge tactic when the person knew from day one. Very hard to prove either way.

Most telling to me in all of this is the fact it is those with us that have been given this 'incurable' virus (some recklessly, some unknowingly) the very people you are all vigoursly defending, are telling you, that it really isn't that big of deal. Bar one who is still clearly find it hard to deal with, none of the many people on here that have it are bitter and twisted about it. That's because, despite what you've read and believe, it really isn't the end of the world. Not nice of course but not the worse thing that could happen by a long shot.

You are clearly not interested in the views of those that actually have had it passed on to them so continue believing and perpetulating the hype and hysteria if you want. Given how very common it is there is a good chance one day you will know first hand, and then maybe after the shock dies down, you will see things differently.

Either way we are all going round in circles now - even I'm bored so the rest of MN must be!

she also continued to have sex with him once she did know, she was not concerned untill they broke up.

Lait, ok im wrong.

Hear hear myob.

Claw3, you are wrong.

HSV on the genitals is an STI. Whether it's type one or type two. It is called genital herpes. On the face it is usually called a coldsore. Identical virus. The law seems to be concerned with where the virus is contracted, rather than the type of HSV virus.

The reason this is bullshit is because nobody would prosecute my H for eg if he gave DS HSV1 facially through kissing him. DS doesn't consent to contracting HSV1, he's only 3. H knows he has HSV1. Of course he'd never kiss him with an outbreak but according to this law he should wait until DS is gillick competant in order to give him a kiss, ever, and allow DS to decide whether he wants to take the risk. See why it's bollocks? When the virus is passed to thje face, it's nothing, but when it's passed to the genitals, it's a criminal act.

Wibbly - there is around a (wait, I'm shit at maths) 17.5% chance you already carry the herpes virus without knowing it....

Eric, from what i have read HSV2 is generally transmitted through sex, HSV1 is generally not.

Or in other words HSV1 mostly infects oral mucosa, but can infect genital mucosa. HSV2 mostly infects genital mucosa, but can infect oral mucosa.

I assumed based on this fact, the precedent was set.

I based my opinion on the facts that i had read. Lait has already told me that i am wrong, which resulted in my comment "ok, im wrong"

Fair dos :) I hadn't spotted that. As I'm sure this thread has shown, people who have HSV1 or 2 are quite keen to stop misinformation from spreading and educate people where possible. That's why I jumped on you.

What about someone who deliberately concealed evidence of a contagious disease which had no sexual connotations? The mum who covers up her dc's chicken pox and takes him to playgroup, thus causing the death of an immuno-suppressed child or birth defects in a baby carried by one of the staff. Would she also be liable to a prison sentence?

I have raised similar to that cory and it seems that only sTDs are covered by the law.

myob, well said!
I suggest everyone read the Private Eye article - it's excellent.

I also read that although HSV2 can be transferred to the mouth, it cannot be passed on mouth to mouth, sharing a cup etc. So the only way to get HSV2 of the mouth, is engaging in oral sex with someone who has GH, is this true?

Im not sure if that is stricktly true or if it just makes it less possible as the virus does not live airborn at all and only on surfaces such as cups towels etc for no more than seconds and relys upon friction of the skin rubbing together for a prolonged time which you are less likely to get from kissing to the extent you are from oral sex. that is just my educated guess.

its not assault. are you serious? prison over cold sores? i give up...

i had a mouth ulser when i was 10 and i had a vaginal birth (twice) and i wasnt screwing anyone at 10.

I read the only way to pass on HSV2 to children is during birth or in cases of abuse.

So if you cannot pass on HSV2 to children, doesnt this mean it is exclusively sexually transmitted? im

you can pass it on, so easily and this is why we cannot be putting people in prison over it.

whats happening to the world, next itl be jail for passing on a sickness bug, "well you didnt tell me you were ill yesterday, so i didnt consent".

utter, utter, utter SHITE!!!!!

cory and festi

The law says you can be prosecuted for intentionally (not accidentally) infecting someone with any disease, if that disease is one with serious and perhaps life threatening consequences.

It's not limited to STDs at all. So if, for example, a person has meningitis, and intentionally infects another person with it (somehow), then they could be prosecuted.

Re the chickenpox example you give, cory, it would depend on whether the mother intended to infect someone else and whether chicken pox is seens as a sufficiently serious disease.

Knitted i read the only children diagnosed with HSV2 are those who are born to a mother who is suffering with it at the time or those who are suspected or have been abused.

HSV1 is a different story and it is common for children to have.

its cold sores people. i swear there will be a day very soon where we will have to reports of every tiny ailment weve had to each.

now if this guy shagged her in order that she get the virus maliciously, thats something else. but not telling some onne you have had it before? MOST people have had it at some point.

I think you need to read the link Knitted, he gave her the virus maliciously "so that no one would want her" etc, etc. It is also impossible to have had it before, you have herpes forever is the short version.

Anyhow its been an interesting debate, im off to get some housework done.

Claw: if a parent has HSV2 on their face (which would still be called
'cold sores'), they could infect their child with it by kissing them. The child would then have HSV2. There need be no abuse involved.

You can't tell which type of HSV it is by looking at it, and anyone with cold sore could have either type. They're more likely to have HSV1, but that doesn't mean they can't have HSV2.