Yes, my apologies for mixing up the female to male and male to female transmission rates.

I'm not American, and those figures can be heavily influenced based on socio-economic factors and past sexual histories. Assuming that 60% precedent to be true, doctors and nurses have stated previously that my background puts me at substantially lower risk than the population.

"So the 40% that you don't have herpes and are at risk for infection of a life long infection is not high enough to pass up a possible short term sexual relationship?"

Life is full of risks and rewards, and most of them are avoidable. When a person jay-walks to save the one minute of their life that it would take for the light to turn red, then they take the risk of not seeing a car and being severely injured or killed. While you may not do this, there are many examples in everyone's life where there are avoidable small risks that could result in long term consequences. The long term health effects of HSV are minimal and not of concern.

"Disclosure to partners about HSV status can reduce transmission risk by a third. In one study Out of 200 people with herpes, those who revealed their diagnosis were able to keep partners free of the disease for about nine months on average, compared to the two months it took when left secret."

Ok, but that still wouldn't change my mind in that scenario based on the aforementioned reasoning in that post. And this was a thread about the ethics behind disclosure, not on the topics that it are being derailed to now.

It is socially accepted for the "average" person not to disclose, when the average person does not know their status. According to professional medical judgement, I am at a lower risk than most of the population.