Man gets prison for passing on STD

MagicSean

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2026598/David-Golding-gave-girlfriend-Cara-Scott-herpes-JAILED-14-months.html

A traffic officer who knowingly gave his girlfriend herpes has been jailed for 14 months.

David Golding, 28, kept quiet about the sexually transmitted infection when he began a relationship with 24-year-old Cara Scott two years ago.

Within two months she was diagnosed with the incurable condition and confronted him.

But Golding, who worked for the Highways Agency, denied he was responsible.

He only admitted the truth shortly before the relationship ended early last year.

Golding’s sentence after pleading guilty to grievous bodily harm was yesterday attacked as ‘outrageous’ by sexual health charities, which said the ‘trivial’ condition was being wrongly stigmatised.

But Judge Michael Fowler said Golding’s initial refusal to admit passing on herpes ‘placed uncertainty in [Miss Scott’s] life and caused suspicions to be cast on to others’.

He added: ‘Because it was in a relationship, it was particularly mean and an offence which amounted to a betrayal – a betrayal in a relationship in which you professed love.

The injury you caused her by this infection is at least or more serious than an injury leaving a scar because it carries continued recurrence, extreme discomfort and consequences for relationships she will have in the future.’

Golding, from Braunston, Northamptonshire, caught the disease from a previous partner.

Prosecutor Steven Evans told Northampton Crown Court that Miss Scott had become ill in September 2009.

He added: ‘Very quickly, she was diagnosed with genital herpes. It is a lifelong condition and it is incurable. On discovering this, she confronted the defendant but he denied he was responsible.

‘He told her he had been given the all-clear at the clinic when he had gone there for screening.

The couple parted in March 2010, when Miss Scott is said to have reported the infection to police.

Golding’s parents, Janet, 64, and Christopher, 59, said they were shocked at the sentence.

Mrs Golding said: ‘This is David’s first offence and we are distraught at what might happen to him in jail. He’s a good son who did not deserve this.’

Her husband said that he found the sentence ‘difficult to understand’.

The virus which causes genital herpes could cause an outbreak or lie dormant for years, during which time it is not infectious. Many people remain unaware they are infected.

Those who do display symptoms usually suffer fever, headache and tiredness and small blisters and itching.

Nigel Scott, spokesman for the Herpes Viruses Association, said Golding’s sentence was ‘outrageous’ and compared the case to prosecuting children for ‘giving their friends chicken pox’.

He added: ‘It is such a trivial infection that most people don’t notice it. It has exactly the same medical implications and consequences as an ordinary facial cold sore.’

Marian Nicholson, director of the HVA, added: ‘Many of those who are diagnosed are reluctant to disclose their status but this is because of the unnecessary stigma, not because it is serious ... emphatically it is not.’

But a spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service said the case was considered in line with its ‘intentional or reckless transmission of infection’ policy.

Can't understand those that are saying he shouldn't have been punished. He got away light in my opinion.

Red Hand

It happened in Australia a few years ago. An Irish girl and a German girl developed HIV from a guy who had AIDS/HIV and knowingly had sex with them.

Sonics2k

Well, at least the odds of him getting raped in prison are pretty low.

g'em

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

It happened in Australia a few years ago. An Irish girl and a German girl developed HIV from a guy who had AIDS/HIV and knowingly had sex with them.

HIV =/= Herpes in any way, shape or form. Actually, that's a lie, they're both viruses. The whole potentially fatal thing is fairly unique to the former though.

Will they jail people for giving eachother cold sores next?

MagicSean

g'em wrote: »

HIV =/= Herpes in any way, shape or form.

Will they jail people for giving eachother cold sores next?

I agree. I would consider the HIV case to be attempted murder. Much more serious.

So I take it you think he did nothing wrong? You would be ok if your partner knowingly passed on herpes to you.

wild_cat

Wear condoms people!!

g'em

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

So I take it you think he did nothing wrong? You would be ok if your partner knowingly passed on herpes to you.

I love it when folk add two and two together and get zebras, where did I say that? Of course he did wrong, very, very wrong, he had a moral obligation to tell her and lying about it made it more reprehensible. But jail time?

MagicSean

g'em wrote: »

I love it when folk add two and two together and get zebras, where did I say that? Of course he did wrong, very, very wrong, he had a moral obligation to tell her and lying about it made it more reprehensible. But jail time?

What would be your alternative? a stern telling off?

AhSureTisGrand

"He told her he had been given the all-clear at the clinic when he had gone there for screening."

He may well have been telling the truth here as herpes is not routinely tested for AFAIK

discus

wild_cat wrote: »

Wear condoms people!!

Genital herpes and genital warts can be passed on, even when a condom is worn. The affected area is usually the base of the penis, scrotum and in/around the pubes. Wearing a condom wouldn't really lower the chance of contracting it.

Mike 1972

He added: ‘It is such a trivial infection that most people don’t notice it. It has exactly the same medical implications and consequences as an ordinary facial cold sore.’

I find it a bit odd that a spokesperson from an advocacy group representing victims of an illness would attempt to trivialise the consequences of the illness in question ?

Most people may not notice it but others can experience quite severe complications IIRC

FetchTheGin

g'em wrote: »

I love it when folk add two and two together and get zebras, where did I say that? Of course he did wrong, very, very wrong, he had a moral obligation to tell her and lying about it made it more reprehensible. But jail time?

He knowingly infected her with an incurable condition that will affect the rest of her life. Of course he deserves jail time.

Sonics2k

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

What would be your alternative? a stern telling off?

Compensation. Forced to pay for medical expenses for the condition.

Passing on an STD is wrong yes, but throwing him in jail for something so minor compared to some of the crimes committed and don't get jail time for is just wrong honestly.

MagicSean

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

"He told her he had been given the all-clear at the clinic when he had gone there for screening."

He may well have been telling the truth here as herpes is not routinely tested for AFAIK

I doubt it. For this conviction they would have had to prove he knew.

Amirani

g'em wrote: »

I love it when folk add two and two together and get zebras, where did I say that? Of course he did wrong, very, very wrong, he had a moral obligation to tell her and lying about it made it more reprehensible. But jail time?

Surely it's a good thing that a strict precedent has been set? A sentence like this may discourage others from doing something as reprehensible as this.

hollypink

g'em wrote: »

HIV =/= Herpes in any way, shape or form. Actually, that's a lie, they're both viruses. The whole potentially fatal thing is fairly unique to the former though.

Will they jail people for giving eachother cold sores next?

I'd agree that it's nothing like HIV but I'm not sure about it being described as a trivial infection? I wouldn't consider genital herpes trivial myself. If you suffer an outbreak isn't it painful?

He added: ‘It is such a trivial infection that most people don’t notice it. It has exactly the same medical implications and consequences as an ordinary facial cold sore.’

g'em

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

What would be your alternative? a stern telling off?

I honestly don't know, but over a years' jail time seems excessive to me.

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

"He told her he had been given the all-clear at the clinic when he had gone there for screening."

He may well have been telling the truth here as herpes is not routinely tested for AFAIK

It's not tested for here anyway in routine screenings, neither is genital warts.

FetchTheGin wrote: »

He knowingly infected her with an incurable condition that will affect the rest of her life. Of course he deserves jail time.

Would you say the same if it was a cold sore? It's the exact same virus. What he did was horrific, no two ways about it, but jail time is - to me - ott .

AhSureTisGrand

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

I doubt it. For this conviction they would have had to prove he knew.

Yes but the bit I quoted wasn't strictly a lie I imagine

g'em

niallsparky wrote: »

Surely it's a good thing that a strict precedent has been set? A sentence like this may discourage others from doing something as reprehensible as this.

I do think that a severe punishment is necessary, but jail time just doesn't sit well with me. It's also setting a worrying precedent - like I said the cold sore is the exact same virus, would the same apply with that? And genital warts too? Doesn't cause the same discomfort but aesthetically it's not particuarly pleasant and it's also something that stays with someone for life. Plus in women it's linked to a much higher risk of cervical cancer so it's arguable that it's a much more sever infeciton.

hollypink wrote: »

I'd agree that it's nothing like HIV but I'm not sure about it being described as a trivial infection? I wouldn't consider genital herpes trivial myself. If you suffer an outbreak isn't it painful?

I don't think it should be described as trivial either, but it's also an incredibly common infection. and can easily be lived with. It's the social stigma that's the hardest thing to deal with for a lot of people. Folk can live with it and never know. It's not the infection that's reprehensible, it's his actions in knowingly lying about having it.

AudreyHepburn

What this man did was reprehensible and certainly warrented punishment but it doesn't sit comfortably with me that you could be jail for passing on an STD when there are murderers, rapists and child molesters walking free.

booboo88

Sonics2k wrote: »

Well, at least the odds of him getting raped in prison are pretty low.

Very low

Mike 1972

g'em wrote: »

It's not tested for here anyway in routine screenings, neither is genital warts.

Where is "here" exactly ?

I understand The case under discussion took place in the UK.

I would have been under the impression that "STD screening" would (as the name suggests) involve screening for all known detectable STD's. If this is not the case then the providers are being somewhat negligant in not informing those availing of their services.

MagicSean

g'em wrote: »

I do think that a severe punishment is necessary, but jail time just doesn't sit well with me. It's also setting a worrying precedent - like I said the cold sore is the exact same virus, would the same apply with that? And genital warts too? Doesn't cause the same discomfort but aesthetically it's not particuarly pleasant and it's also something that stays with someone for life. Plus in women it's linked to a much higher risk of cervical cancer so it's arguable that it's a much more sever infeciton.


I don't think it should be described as trivial either, but it's also an incredibly common infection. and can easily be lived with. It's the social stigma that's the hardest thing to deal with for a lot of people. Folk can live with it and never know. It's not the infection that's reprehensible, it's his actions in knowingly lying about having it.

A cold sore is visible so I don't think it falls in the same league. As for genital warts. If you know about it you have a moral, and now legal, obligation to inform your partner.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

What this man did was reprehensible and certainly warrented punishment but it doesn't sit comfortably with me that you could be jail for passing on an STD when there are murderers, rapists and child molesters walking free.

Why? Is it that people sometimes get low sentences for these crimes or are you referring to those that haven't been convicted?

g'em

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Where is "here" exactly ?

I understand The case under discussion took place in the UK

I think it's a fairly straightforward assumption to make that 'here' is in Ireland I don't know about routine screenings in the UK.

So obviouly if he's been jailed, so will the person who passed it onto him, yes?


.. And the person who gave it to her, etc.

Otherwise I don't agree at all.

FetchTheGin

Deleted User wrote: »

So obviouly if he's been jailed, so will the person who passed it onto him, yes?


.. And the person who gave it to her, etc.

Otherwise I don't agree at all.

Read the article.

He lied and knowingly passed it on. The girl has to live the rest of her life with it.

g'em

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

A cold sore is visible so I don't think it falls in the same league. As for genital warts. If you know about it you have a moral, and now legal, obligation to inform your partner.

Genital herpes is visible too and that's generally when someone who has it is at risk of passing it on, unless they're a non-visible shedder. And I completely agree that you have a moral obligation, I've said that from the beginning.

MagicSean

Deleted User wrote: »

So obviouly if he's been jailed, so will the person who passed it onto him, yes?


.. And the person who gave it to her, etc.

Otherwise I don't agree at all.

If a case could be proven that they knowingly concealed their illness I would hope so.

Mike 1972

Do those who reckon he shouldnt recieve any punishment also advocate the legalisation of biological warfare ?

g'em wrote: »

I think it's a fairly straightforward assumption to make that 'here' is in Ireland

The OP doesnt give their location. It may be a .ie site but its on the www. Its quite a regular occurance on boards from a story from abroad (particularly Britain and the US) to appear on boards only for follow up posts to not read it properly and automatically assume its talking about Ireland.

Parsley

jail time isn't going to cure the herpes. as was said earlier, get him to pay medical bills, compensation for emotional stress, blah di blah... just take a good chunk of his cash. an amount that would really hurt him.

Gummy Panda

Hmmm... I agree with G'em that jail time is a bit too harsh. I still think he should be punished though.

Compensation to the victim would be my first thought

g'em

Mike 1972 wrote: »

The OP doesnt give their location. It may be a .ie site but its on the www. Its quite a regular occurance on boards from a story from abroad (particularly Britain and the US) to appear on boards only for follow up posts to not read it properly and automatically assume its talking about Ireland.

ok... I'm not sure if that's referring to me but that's why I said "here anyway" as in I was using Ireland simply as an example, and - I assume - the UK would be comparable. The herpes virus is so commonplace that an awful lot of people would come up positive. afaik it's also a more expensive test to carry out.

Sid_Justice

I think it's rather simple analogy. A man knowingly infects another person with a deadly, incurable disease causing virus (HIV) via sexual activity is punished for attempted murder. A man that intentionally and knowingly infects another person with a less virulent but equally incurable virus (HP1/2) is punished in a similar way to serious assault.

I think the STIs tested for in a STI screen in irish STI and GUM clinics depends on the history, clinical signs and symptoms. I think it's misleading to say Herpes isn't a routine test, neither is HIV. If the signs and symptoms and history match the history of a Herpes Simplex virus then tests are performed to confirm or rule out such a suspicion.

Herpes (HV2) may be asymptomatic in a male but I would imagine an experienced clinician would not over look this infection too often. Can anyone confirm or deny my assumptions?

g'em

Parsley wrote: »

jail time isn't going to cure the herpes.

Exactly - my heart absolutely goes out to the woman involved, it must be soul-destroying for something like that to happen, especially when it's in a relationship with someone she trusts, but is jail time for him going to help her? Is she going to be compensated and given care and after support? I guess that information isn't quite the same story-seller though.

FetchTheGin

FetchTheGin wrote: »

Read the article.

He lied and knowingly passed it on. The girl has to live the rest of her life with it.

Does it say in the article that he willingly and knowingly received the infection from his previous partner?

If not, his previous partner should be in the firing line, too, as far as I'm concerned. Equal treatment.

MagicSean

Parsley wrote: »

jail time isn't going to cure the herpes. as was said earlier, get him to pay medical bills, compensation for emotional stress, blah di blah... just take a good chunk of his cash. an amount that would really hurt him.

What if he doesn't have money?

FetchTheGin

Deleted User wrote: »

Does it say in the article that he willingly and knowingly received the infection from his previous partner?

If not, his previous partner should be in the firing line, too, as far as I'm concerned. Equal treatment.

Agreed, but that really isn't the point.

pow wow

The article doesn't clarify if he knew before he had sex with her that he had the virus, just that he lied when he said he'd been given the all-clear. Not splitting hairs but 14 months is over the top so I'm not relying on the sentence as a yardstick with which to measure his intent.

As for its trivial nature, I think in the scheme of the STIs one could possibly contract, it is one of the more trivial ones. The point of the charities is that it shouldn't be stigmatised as some kind of life-limiting disease (and making it seem like that's what it is somewhat trivialises more serious STIs like HIV).

biko

Knowingly spreading HIV should be criminal. Coincidently the Swedish Institute for Infectious Disease Control said 3 years ago it wanted to decriminalise spreading HIV but fortunately it hasn't be done.

A woman in her 30s was sentenced to two and a half years in prison for infecting a man with HIV and could face expulsion from Sweden after the completion of her prison time.
The woman had a relationship with a man from the county of Västerbotten in the north of Sweden, where the two engaged in regular sex, reported the TT news agency Friday.
However, the woman failed to mention she was infected with the human immunodeficiency virus.
The woman was convicted of aggravated assault last week and was ordered to pay damages of 380,000 kronor (about $60,000) to the now infected man.
After completion of her prison time, she could be expelled from Sweden for up to ten years. **

Police in Sweden searched today for a 40-year-old American suspected of picking up women at Stockholm nightspots and having unprotected sex even though he knew he was infected with the AIDS virus.
Authorities also were trying to locate 190 women listed in the man's address book.

Ulla Andersson, an assistant in the investigation, identified the man as James Patric Kimball. She said she did not know his hometown in the United States, adding that he has been living in Sweden since 1992.

"This is a lethal man on the loose in society," prosecutor Jan Frykman said on Swedish television. "To spread a deadly sickness in this way shows a murderer's instinct."

A Stockholm court today ordered him taken into custody on suspicion of rape and assault.
Kimball came to police attention two weeks ago. Under questioning, the man said he was carrying HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, according to newspapers.

An investigation later turned up an address book in which the man reportedly listed the names of 190 women, with marks indicating he had sexual intercourse with at least 16 of them. **

However he didn't manage to spread the disease

Translation: "The hiv man James Kimball also known as Mehdi Tayeb had sex with over 130 women and two men. None of them were infected, according to the investigation done at Karolinska Institutet" http://www.libchrist.com/std/facts.html

Guess it goes to show how hard it is to actually contract HIV.

MagicSean

pow wow wrote: »

The article doesn't clarify if he knew before he had sex with her that he had the virus, just that he lied when he said he'd been given the all-clear. Not splitting hairs but 14 months is over the top so I'm not relying on the sentence as a yardstick with which to measure his intent.

I think it is safe to say he did know he had it. I would doubt a conviction of this nature would be achieved without proof he knew.

pow wow wrote: »

As for its trivial nature, I think in the scheme of the STIs one could possibly contract, it is one of the more trivial ones.

If someone cuts off my finger I'm not gonna thank them for leaving me with the other nine.

pow wow wrote: »

The point of the charities is that it shouldn't be stigmatised as some kind of life-limiting disease (and making it seem like that's what it is somewhat trivialises more serious STIs like HIV).

It is a life-limiting disease. Especially if she wants to go on and get married and have children in the future.

g'em

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Most people may not notice it but others can experience quite severe complications IIRC

Complications arising from Herpes infection are extremely rare. Only immunocompromised hosts or women who get infected while pregnant would be seriously at risk of complications. For the majority of people it's cold sore like lesions on the genitals and no more than that.

biko wrote:

Knowingly spreading HIV should be criminal.

Agreed, but it's not fair to compare and contrast HIV and HSV infection. Like pow wow said, it trivialised HIV and overly stigmatises HSV.

g'em

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

It is a life-limiting disease. Especially if she wants to go on and get married and have children in the future.

ah here, you need to do some reading How on earth is it life limiting if a woman wants to get married and have kids? It's genital lesions, it's has no bearing whatsoever on her fertility. That's the kind of scaremongering that vilifies an infection unecessarily!

If a woman becomes infected while pregnant it can cause complications (quite serious ones) but if a woman already knows she has it she may need to be monitored while pregnant in case of an outbreak but it's not cause for major concern.

MagicSean

g'em wrote: »

ah here, you need to do some reading How on earth is it life limiting if a woman wants to get married and have kids? It's genital lesions, it's has no bearing whatsoever on her fertility. That's the kind of scaremongering that vilifies an infection unecessarily!

If a woman becomes infected while pregnant it can cause complications (quite serious ones) but if a woman already knows she has it she may need to be monitored while pregnant in case of an outbreak but it's not cause for major concern.

That's not what I am referring to. I'm referring to the difficulty it would put on her relationships in the future and the extra complications that would be involved when trying for children.

pow wow

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

I think it is safe to say he did know he had it. I would doubt a conviction of this nature would be achieved without proof he knew.

Well no it isn't really. You can be sure if it had been proven he had absolute knowledge then that fact would have been reported. Also, as I said, the sentence is excessive so forgive me for not jumping on the bandwagon on this one.

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

If someone cuts off my finger I'm not gonna thank them for leaving me with the other nine.

Sensationalist much? No-one suggested she should send a bouquet and a 'thanks for not giving me HIV' card. Keeping with the sensationalism in that scenario I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking I'd be pretty glad that it wasn't both my hands that were chopped off.

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

It is a life-limiting disease. Especially if she wants to go on and get married and have children in the future.

One word: context.

Gordon

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Do those who reckon he shouldnt recieve any punishment also advocate the legalisation of biological warfare ?

Wow, is someone saying he shouldn't get any punishment at all? Who said that?

The OP doesnt give their location. It may be a .ie site but its on the www. Its quite a regular occurance on boards from a story from abroad (particularly Britain and the US) to appear on boards only for follow up posts to not read it properly and automatically assume its talking about Ireland.

lol, prepare to eat your words so yes the article is from uk, but g'em isn't talking about that if you actually... Read what she wrote! Hilarious.

Ah page two, didn't see you there.

g'em

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

That's not what I am referring to. I'm referring to the difficulty it would put on her relationships in the future and the extra complications that would be involved when trying for children.

Difficulty in relationships? Perhaps, but it depends on how well-educated the other person is about it and how aware the infected person is of it. Just because one person has it it absolutely doesn't mean the other person will get it. They most likely won't actually. And there would be no complications when trying for children. It has no bearing whatsoever on fertility. This really is just the cold sore virus we're talking about - the way you're describing it you make it sound like a death sentence!

MagicSean

pow wow wrote: »

Well no it isn't really. You can be sure if it had been proven he had absolute knowledge then that fact would have been reported. Also, as I said, the sentence is excessive so forgive me for not jumping on the bandwagon on this one.

Without proof that he knew, a conviction of this nature would not be possible.

pow wow wrote: »

Sensationalist much? No-one suggested she should send a bouquet and a 'thanks for not giving me HIV' card. Keeping with the sensationalism in that scenario I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking I'd be pretty glad that it wasn't both my hands that were chopped off.

I reckon it's a sound analogy.

pow wow wrote: »

One word: context.

A nice word. Don't see it's relevance to the quote though. Perhaps you could actually put it in some context?

MagicSean

g'em wrote: »

Difficulty in relationships? Perhaps, but it depends on how well-educated the other person is about it and how aware the infected person is of it. Just because one person has it it absolutely doesn't mean the other person will get it. They most likely won't actually. And there would be no complications when trying for children. It has no bearing whatsoever on fertility. This really is just the cold sore virus we're talking about - the way you're describing it you make it sound like a death sentence!

Trying for children would carry a risk of passing it on to the father would it not?

pow wow

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

I reckon it's a sound analogy.

Oh dear. It really isn't.

Mike 1972

Mike 1972 wrote: »

I find it a bit odd that a spokesperson from an advocacy group representing victims of an illness would attempt to trivialise the consequences of the illness in question ?

Most people may not notice it but others can experience quite severe complications IIRC

Herpes isn't an illness.

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Where is "here" exactly ?

I understand The case under discussion took place in the UK.

I would have been under the impression that "STD screening" would (as the name suggests) involve screening for all known detectable STD's. If this is not the case then the providers are being somewhat negligant in not informing those availing of their services.

Well, that's the problem. Herpes isn't really detectable. They can do blood tests, but they're not at all reliable, as the vast majority of people will test positive for either HSV-1 or HSV-2 - both can cause cold sores and genital herpes. The only way to know for sure is to test open sores and that's impossible if the person doesn't get outbreaks, or isn't currently having an outbreak. Herpes is difficult to diagnose.

Sid_Justice wrote: »

I think it's rather simple analogy. A man knowingly infects another person with a deadly, incurable disease causing virus (HIV) via sexual activity is punished for attempted murder. A man that intentionally and knowingly infects another person with a less virulent but equally incurable virus (HP1/2) is punished in a similar way to serious assault.

I think the STIs tested for in a STI screen in irish STI and GUM clinics depends on the history, clinical signs and symptoms. I think it's misleading to say Herpes isn't a routine test, neither is HIV. If the signs and symptoms and history match the history of a Herpes Simplex virus then tests are performed to confirm or rule out such a suspicion.

Herpes (HV2) may be asymptomatic in a male but I would imagine an experienced clinician would not over look this infection too often. Can anyone confirm or deny my assumptions?

It's overlooked all the time. The majority of herpes cases are never diagnosed because the person has no symptoms or doesn't recognise the symptoms. I don't think people really get this. If you've ever been sexually active, you might well have herpes and not know it. I had a cold sore pop up out of nowhere a few years ago and my GP said I'd probably had the virus for years. If I unwittingly passed it on to an ex-boyfriend through oral sex, should he be able to drag me into court now for giving him herpes?

g'em

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Trying for children would carry a risk of passing it on to the father would it not?

You mean unprotected sex? If someone has HSV they will either be symptomatic or asymptomatic. If you're asymptomatic then you won't know you have it unless you are tested, i.e. you're a shedder, and in this case you can pass it on without ever knowing you had it in the first place. Incredibly unfortunate. If you are symptomatic then in all likelihood you won't pass on the infection unless you have visible lesions so you avoid sex during those times.