It sometimes takes longer to get to the sex when you’re not paying for it. Sad, I know.
Yeah, but it’s not all Arizona “SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS!” It’s more like “oh, I got my test results back, here they are…(roots around in purse)” and he volunteered his, since we were at his house.
But again, this may strike older generations as strange…this isn’t strange for my friends in their early 20’s. We grew up with the fear of AIDS struck into us. I went to USC for my first two years of school (2004-2006), and there’s a Rainbow floor of one of the apartment complexes on campus. Nearly every door had someone’s recent HIV test results taped on the front. So I mean, that’s where I’m coming from.
I would have a problem if after being tested, a woman did not trust me enough to be honest about the results. Trust is one of the cornerstones of a relationship.
Last time I had one I did it in Spanish, which made it flowery and sexy. So I think Spanish is the key.
Well, we found out that the County offers free STD testing on Mondays. I offered to go with him and be tested too, as **MtgMan **and **WhyNot **suggested - to ease him of some awkwardness in going, and we’ll probably go to lunch afterward 
So we’re going next week to take care of it.
I assume they will mail us the results, or we’ll have to go back the following week to get them in person. I fully expect my results to be clean (I was tested a year ago and nothing has changed), so I have no reason to NOT show him the papers, Cubsfan. I would find it highly suspicious if someone refused to show it to me - if it’s clean, what’s to hide? And if it’s NOT clean, I would not want to be in a relationship with, or have sex with, someone who would knowingly keep that from me, as **DocCathode **said.
It strikes me as being extremely untrusting towards someone you care about enough to have sex with. If you want to go without protection, it’s only sensible and reasonable to ask for a test. If you insist on going with, asking for a test is overkill and would strike me as a comment on both my character and her level of trust in me.
Do you have a reference for your claim that they are not reliable, or that reliability varies between genders? Because I’ve never heard that and can’t think of a reason why antibodies wouldn’t show up in a male’s bloodstream if he had the virus.
The **old **Tzanck test for herpes which stained a smear sample and looked at it under a microscope wasn’t very reliable, nor was the **old **blood test, which often confused herpes I & II with other herpes family viruses, like chicken pox and Epstein Barr, but the new type specific blood and DNA tests are pretty good. They are limited in what they can tell you, though.
The DNA test looks for pieces of herpes virus DNA, which can be sort of a crapshoot - you can collect samples all day and not find any viral fragments, just because they’re so dilute in the body, so false negatives are a real risk.
The antibody tests (blood tests) can tell you if you have been exposed to the herpes virus and your body has reacted to fight it off, but not if you have a current infection. It’s possible, although not really yet known, that some of us “beat” the virus like we all beat cold and flu viruses, and so we show positive antibodies but won’t ever develop symptoms. It’s not yet known if these people can spread the virus, and it’s not known whether or not these people may develop contagious sores someday down the line; the virus can “hide out” in your body for years. Personally, I wouldn’t rule out sex with a person with a positive antibody test who has no symptoms and never has, but that’s a personal choice based on my own comfort zone. It’s still theoretically possible to catch herpes from someone who’s never had a sore.
It also takes your body a few weeks to develop antibodies to the virus, so you can be infected and spread the virus before an antibody (blood) test shows a positive result, much like HIV.
I swear, WhyNot, you are just like Wilson from Home Improvement.
Seriously? Are you completely unaware that many STDs don’t produce any symptoms? A person could have chlamydia, as an example, for years without knowing. Asking a person to be tested doesn’t mean I think he’s a bad person, it means I don’t want chlamydia.
With regard to tubal ligation, it is of course more invasive, with a longer recovery time than vasectomy. It’s also less reversible, so it’s only for the very sure. The benefit, of course, is your complete peace of mind. Mine (ten years ago) was done laproscopically through my navel (a spot I never really contemplated the extreme sensitivity of before that surgery, I must tell you), but I was back at work the next day, with just that bit of soreness around the incision area for maybe a week.
I’m not entirely sure what this means, but I always liked Wilson, so I’ll take it as a compliment!
Maybe I wasn’t clear. IF the partner insists on condom use every time, I feel that insisting on testing as well is overkill. Condoms, when use properly, eliminate almost all risk of transmission of STDs. To me this makes logical sense. When the relationship is taken further and they wish to go without protection, then it is perfectly reasonable to double check. Asking for both right off the bat strikes me as neurotic.
And as has been explained previously, condoms are ineffective against infections that are transmitted by skin to skin contact, such as herpes and HPV.
You may find my insistence on remaining healthy neurotic, I personally would find your insistence on not taking an hour out of your life to protect my health (and yours) troubling.
It’s also been noted in posts above that the tests for them are not entirely reliable either. It is about how much risk you want to assume. The OP asked for opinions on the etiquette of the discussion and I have given mine. I don’t insist on paperwork with every partner I’ve ever had, nor will I. You can never be entirely certain, and I accept that in engaging in sexual activity I open myself up to some risk. That can be minimized by proper condom use. A lot of the joy in sex is the spontaneous nature of it. Planning everything out and going to a clinic would certainly put a stop to a lot of that. I’ll take my minimal risk and enjoy life.
Hey, you won’t find many people who are more “Yay, sex!” than I am. And I understand and agree that spontaneous sex is both a little risky and sufficiently fun that it’s worth it if both partners are willing to assume that risk*.
But the OP isn’t talking about random hookups, she’s talking about a committed relationship. That, IMO, requires testing, since from my perspective a large part of the appeal of a committed relationship is ditching the damned condoms.
*Of course, I also understand that part of enjoying life is not having to avoid sex for a month while you deal with your STD.
snip.
Agreed. The OP asked if it would be unreasonable to ask him to get tested. Since she didn’t seem like she was entirely certain that she wanted to au natural right off the bat, I put in my two cents. If they want to go without barriers then of course it’s reasonable to get tested.
I’m mostly familiar with the Western Blot antibody test, which was an improvement over the older ELISA (ELIZA?) blood test which couldn’t distinguish between types I and II, but the Western Blot could. Are there newer antibody tests than the Western Blot? It was pretty new in 1998 as far as I can recall.
Yes, but you have to request them. Ask for a “type-specific herpes test”.
Good to know they’ve made advances in that area. Even with the Western Blot, IIRC, if you already had a Type I infection with the resulting antibodies, it wouldn’t necessarily be able to detect and distinguish a more recent Type II infection. Also IIRC, the ELISA test wouldn’t distinguish between them at all.