What does it take for him to see a problem?

[Natja]

Just FYI, I know three people who got herpes through sex.

I have a degree in a biological science. There is no reason to fail to disclose because viruses are 'hard to catch.'

The OP and husband did the right thing for themselves. People are free to take the risk if they choose, with informed consent.

But to be honest, for me, the sex simply is not worth the risk, however minuscule. Allowing someone else that level of power over my health, for sex, is just not worth it. No one in the world is that hot.

 

[london]

As I said, I think I would disclose. However, when people discriminate against others because of false beliefs about anything, I can understand why that would make them extremely reluctant to do so. And most people contract herpes, HSV2 anyway, "through sex;" it just is quite hard to get it "through sex" in the absence of an outbreak.

I didn't say non-disclosure is right, but it's quite inevitable, when the average persons knowledge of STDs is so painfully limited. If people had a factual and realistic understanding of STDs and there wasn't all this stigma perpetrated by the ignorant but loud, we would maximize the chances of people disclosing. And I think people who need to disclose would do so with some reassurance that others were making informed choices, and not ill-informed choices based on fiction.

The fact is, the scientific fact is, herpes transmission with condoms and in the absence of a breakout is tiny. I'm more concerned about people giving me flu, because science tells me I'm much more likely to catch that and suffer morbidity than I am herpes.

 

[scarletzinnia]

My husband was well aware that the risk of him catching genital herpes was low if his potential lover was not having an outbreak. But it was still a risk he was not interested in taking, for himself, for me, and especially because one of the five people in his sexual network would have been very seriously impacted by catching it. So it wasn't worth it to him. It might have been worth it for someone who didn't give a crap about others in their sexual network potentially suffering, or someone who was completely single, with no other partners, or someone who was really, really desperate for sex, but that was not the case for my husband at all.

I also would like to point out that the word "discrimination" does not apply to sexual situations at all. That implies an ethical obligation to be fair, as is the case with jobs or education or housing. But there is no obligation when it comes to sex. No one is EVER obligated to fuck anyone else, ever. Everyone is free to make whatever decisions are right for them and their own body. If my husband had decided not to sleep with his friend because he noticed she had a really fat ass all of a sudden, that would have been fine. Sad for her, and you could have certainly called him a shallow guy for doing that, but it would have been a decision he, and anyone, is free to make. It's about desire, not obligation.

 

[WhatHappened]

It's very difficult to catch herpes... After all, its a virus that the vast majority of people will end up with like genital warts.

If it's so incredibly difficult to catch, how is it that 'the vast majority of people' end up with it?

I also would like to point out that the word "discrimination" does not apply to sexual situations at all. That implies an ethical obligation to be fair, as is the case with jobs or education or housing. But there is no obligation when it comes to sex. No one is EVER obligated to fuck anyone else, ever. Everyone is free to make whatever decisions are right for them and their own body.

Well said. It's rather sad when someone is attacked, called names, and accused of being ignorant and 'discriminatory' for NOT having sex with someone else. Such attitudes reflect poorly on the whole poly community.

Regardless of what anyone else thinks, it should have been your husband's decision whether he wanted to take that risk or not.

 

[london]

Because so many people have cold sores. Because many people carry the virus without having an outbreak. Because testing positive for HSV doesn't mean you suffer with herpes.

If I have attacked anyone for adding to the stigma of herpes, I am glad. It has nothing to do with anyone being entitled to sex, and everything to do with ostracising people with lifelong STDs.

 

[scarletzinnia]

But since what actually happened here is that my husband told his friend that he didn't want to proceed with a sexual relationship but still wanted to stay close friends with her, and SHE refused to speak to HIM for months afterwards, as I posted about earlier, what exactly is your point, London, if you really don't believe my husband was obligated to fuck her because she wanted to?

 

[Marcus]

What bothers me now is that he cannot seem to to see that his "friend" had any negative motivations towards me and our relationship... He may no longer talk to her, but he doesn't have a problem at all with her ethics, he thinks she just got upset but basically meant well.

What is your desired outcome here? You want him to hate her guts? To say mean things about her?

I am trying to let go of all this, but I just can't. I feel I need him to recognize what he was dealing with, and he just refuses. This makes me feel very unsafe.

It's important to understand that people don't respond to challenges the same. He seemed to identify that this girl was bad news and eventually cut her off. He gave her another shot, but cut her off again when it was evident that she hadn't changed to an acceptable degree. The fact that he doesn't despise her would simply suggest that he is perhaps more emotionally mature than you are.

I say, stop resenting his attitude about it and start admiring his ability to make safe decisions without being emotionally overwhelmed. Seems to me he is doing just fine.

 

[scarletzinnia]

Good questions, Marcus. No, I am not looking for my husband to "despise" this person. Let me be a bit more clear.

She told him, completely unprovoked by any interaction we ever had with her, or that he told her about, that I was abusive, controlling, and that he deserved better. He does not understand that was an attack on me and my character. He does not see that she was trying to cause trouble in our marriage at all. He does not see that she was likely angry at him too, for sexually rejecting her. He wants to see her as some well-meaning person who was just "upset."

I am very sensitive to this because someone he dated briefly in the distant past threatened me with bodily harm, and he reacted the same way. "She didn't mean it, she's a terrific person, she was just upset."

I want a zero-tolerance policy on people who seek to cause discord and extreme drama, and I want him to condemn that sort of behavior so we don't end up with yet another person like that in our lives. I do not need him to condemn the person, but I do need him to condemn the behavior. He refuses, because he doesn't want to recognize that the behavior existed, even if he did stop talking to her.

 

[Marcus]

Good questions, Marcus. No, I am not looking for my husband to "despise" this person. Let me be a bit more clear.

She told him, completely unprovoked by any interaction we ever had with her, or that he told her about, that I was abusive, controlling, and that he deserved better. He does not understand that was an attack on me and my character. He does not see that she was trying to cause trouble in our marriage at all. He does not see that she was likely angry at him too, for sexually rejecting her. He wants to see her as some well-meaning person who was just "upset."

Not to put too fine a point on it, but she's entitled to her opinion, and he's entitled to responding to her opinion however he chooses.

If hearing about the details about his relationships is distressing to you then I suggest you let him know that you don't want to hear those kinds of details anymore. "Honey, if one of your girls thinks I'm a nasty old bag, please feel free to not pass that information on"

I am very sensitive to this because someone he dated in the distant past threatened me with bodily harm, and he reacted the same way. "She didn't mean it, she was just upset."

I recommend keeping the conversations distinct so that you don't have an emotional snowball kind of reaction. Lumping a threat of violence together with someone saying they don't like you is just going to muddy the waters.

If someone doesn't like you, that's a non-issue.
If someone threatens to attack you... call the police.

 

[WhatHappened]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but she's entitled to her opinion, and he's entitled to responding to her opinion however he chooses.

And yet, most people like to feel that the person who is supposed to love them more than anyone in the world has their back and would be affected by hearing the one they supposedly love run down. She's certainly entitled to her feelings about his response.

London, whatever the reason, it simply doesn't add up to claim BOTH that the vast majority of people have a disease AND that it is extremely hard to catch. Not having sex with a person is not the same as 'ostracizing' them.

 

[Marcus]

And yet, most people like to feel that the person who is supposed to love them more than anyone in the world has their back and would be affected by hearing the one they supposedly love run down.

It just seems irrational to insist that a person respond to situations exactly according to their own personal standards. Hubby took the exact actions that his wife seems to have been insisting he take (in a perfectly non-controlling way) and yet she is STILL not happy with his actions.

She's certainly entitled to her feelings about his response.

She's entitled to her feelings as they are entitled to theirs. I don't get to tell her how she needs to feel or express her feelings any more than she gets to tell him how to feel or express his.

Very good point WH, thanks.

The only reason I'm giving my input on what she is doing is because she came to a public discussion board and expressly asked for feedback... which I'm giving.

 

[london]

If everyone takes the view the OP does, and decides not to have sex with people with herpes, they will be ostracized.

 

[london]

And the husband probably agrees with what she said.

 

[london]

My point is that she probably fucked off with ignorant, ill informed people who don't understand herpes transmission refusing to have a relationship with her and so she freaked out when it happened again. I don't necessarily think it's right but it's understandable. People keep making it about her entitlement to sex, I think she wants relationships, not just sex, but very few people have romantic relationships with no sex. So refusing sex means no relationship and why? Because she has a virus most people have or will have. '

 

[WhatHappened]

I considered posting a few figures on herpes, and experts who say, in fact, that it is highly contagious, but there's really no point in discussion with someone who is going to simply call names of anyone, even experts, presumably, who think otherwise, and throw out ridiculous accusations that to not have sex with a person is to ostracize them.

Following your logic, in fact, the only answer I can see is that in order to prevent people lying about herpes, the rest of the world is obligated to have sex with people with herpes. Hmm. What a world this would be.

Sorry, but everything you say still stinks of entitlement: people must have sex with them so they don't feel X. Doesn't this suggest that somehow or other they are entitled to sex? And if they are, that obligates someone else to provide?

Her husband doesn't want to have sex with the woman. She and her husband don't want to risk getting herpes, regardless of what you say the risk is or isn't, and it is truly stunning that we now live in a world where someone would call a person 'ignorant' for choosing not to take risks with their health.

 

[london]

If it were highly contagious, wouldn't LR's partners have it?

 

[SouthernGal]

It is not discriminatory to choose not to have sex with someone with an incurable communicable disease. It's every person's right to make their own choice. In point of fact, not sharing such important information prior to beginning a sexual relationship with someone takes away their choice and calls into question the trustworthiness of the partner withholding information. If they would fail to tell me this, can I trust them to let me know when an outbreak is starting to alert me to the increased possibility of becoming infected? Claiming discrimination is an invalid argument. Yes, some people will make uninformed choices, but that does not entitle the person with the disease to prevent their partner from making an informed decision. Period.

In answer to the original question, you can't make him see the danger posed by others. You can, however, talk to him about the warning signs, set up boundaries for specific behaviors (no asking that he leaves you, for instance), and request that he not share with you spoken opinions about you. It would be soooo nice if he chose to defend you, but that might not be his personality, or he may feel she is only venting. Regardless, there is no need for you to be hurt by it. I am very sorry you've had to deal with this, and I really feel for you.

 

[Marcus]

In answer to the original question, you can't make him see the danger posed by others. You can however talk to him about the warning signs, set up boundaries for specific behaviors (no asking that he leaves you, for instance), and request that he not share with you spoken opinions about you. It would be soooo nice if he chose to defend you, but that might not be his personality, or he may feel she is only venting. Regardless, there is no need for you to be hurt by it. I am very sorry you've had to deal with this, and I really feel for you.

Well said, SouthernGal. I would like expand just a bit on what you said about setting boundaries. Boundaries get mixed up with rules quite often and I think it's important to clarify the difference between the two.

A rule is set to govern behavior, most often including someone else's behavior. "Use condoms with all lovers besides me," or "I'm the last person you kiss before you go to sleep," are examples of rules governing other peoples behavior. "Tell me you think what she said is unacceptable and 'realize' how dangerous what she said is," would be another. Rules are made to tell everyone involved how to behave.

A boundary is essentially letting people know there is a limit to what they will endure. "Don't tell me when your girlfriends talk smack about me and you are ok with it" is a boundary. It's not telling someone what they need to do with their life, it's telling them not to tell you about it once they've done it. A boundary is personal and only regulates what someone can do with you. "Tell me if you have unprotected sex with one of your partners so I can make an informed decision," is another good example of a boundary. Instead of telling someone else what to do with their genitals, you are simply insisting that you not be dragged into their bareback decision without your knowledge.

 

[GalaGirl]

Hubby took the exact actions that his wife seems to have been insisting he take (in a perfectly non-controlling way) and yet she is still not happy with his actions.

Which actions?

• With his break-up actions, I think she's probably fine.
• With his assess all problems as "not important, not urgent" actions, I think she is probably not fine.

She's had one of his past partners threaten her with violence. We don't know how that played out, but I'm sure it wasn't fun and games.

It seems recent, so she may need and could ask for extra reassurance from him for a while on that front before she can relax again. Nobody likes being threatened.

Everything to him is not important, not urgent. That may be so, but does he know what she ranks things as? They don't seem to have a shared standard at this time.

So she's worried he's not a reliable judge of character, and she can't know if he's holding back critical info. She cannot relax, wondering if he's missing other "discernment crayons."

A full box of "discernment crayons" would include:

• IMPORTANT AND URGENT!
• IMPORTANT, but not urgent
• not important, but URGENT
• not important, not urgent (<--- that's the only one he has.)

WORRIES FOR HER:

​

Does he have all of these crayons? Can he use them to be able to know what to tell her and what to skip, in a reliable way, so she doesn't come to harm?​

WORRIES FOR HIM:

What if he does have them all? No worries. He's got them. What she going on about? How can he help her relax already?​

WORRIES FOR THEM:

Then the problem is not him with a lack of discernment crayons, but them not having a shared standard.​

If she knew she was being threatened, she could something about it. But if her husband doesn't know how to discern if/when he could raise the alert flag. or doesn't agree on what point to do it at, that's not particularly reassuring to her.

Just as everything cannot be "IMPORTANT AND URGENT" -- everything cannot be "not important, not urgent."

That's why I suggest they could spent some time talking and figuring out a discernment tool, and ultimately what their shared standards and boundaries will be.

Galagirl

 

[Marcus]

Which actions?

• With his break-up actions, I think she's probably fine.
• With his "assess all problems as not important, not urgent" actions, I think she is probably not fine.

If he broke up with her because of these things, that would seem to be an action which proves beyond any doubt that he assessed it as a legitimate issue. If that is not the reason for the break-up, then what was?

The issue doesn't seem to be that he isn't capable of responding appropriately to situations which are negative. The issue seems to be that he doesn't seem pissed off enough about it after the fact.

Not wanting to talk trash about someone is not a character flaw.

She's had one of his past partners threaten her with violence. We don't know how that played out, but I'm sure it wasn't fun and games.

It seems recent, so she may need and could ask for extra reassurance from him, for a while, on that front, before she can relax again. Nobody likes being threatened.

She didn't come in here talking about the fact that her hubby was dating someone who threatened to engage her in mortal combat. She mentioned that in passing simply to give her current issue more validity.

If it were fresh, then I can only presume we'd be talking about that, which is an actually dangerous issue, instead of the mild irritant of the current situation.

So she's worried he's not a reliable judge of character... and she can't know if he's holding back critical info.

If someone chose to date a person whom they know is not bright enough or emotionally mature enough to not put themselves and everyone around them in danger, then they'd get no sympathy from me.

I don't hold it against someone who wants to continue their association with a person who is essentially a mental child. But can they really complain when this person acts in accordance with their character?

Like the assault threat, this is not what the OP has discussed to date.

The problem is not him with his lack of "discernment crayons," but them not having a shared standard. That's why I suggest they could spent some time talking and figuring out a discernment tool, and ultimately what their shared standard/boundaries will be.

An adult and calm conversation about this issue would seem to be a logical step; a conversation which does not include assumption of being correct, demands, or irrational frustration.

Good luck with that.