Quote:
Originally Posted by JustAskJulie  I don't think anyone is using the limitations to encourage people to NOT get tested, more trying to get the point across that a negative test is not an end all be all and therefore an insurance policy that the person you are playing with isn't carrying something. |
All a single negative test HIV does is reduce your chances of getting infected relative to what you could expect from a partner that hadn't been test.
Now, there are some other factors here:
A partner with a negative test result that regularly asks for test results from other partners is a bit different from someone that has a negative result that plays without asking for test results.
A partner who is negative for all STD's-and has been tested regularly for years, is different than a partner who has just one negative test results.
Now the thing is, there haven't been good, statistically valid studies on all the nuances here. What we do know is :
1) Cuba, which emphasized testing in their AIDS prevention program has a much lower HIV rate than Puerto Rico which emphasized condom--despite the fact Cuba is a MUCH poorer country with fewer resources
2) The AIM Foundation claims to have significantly reduced rates of STD's in the porn actor community by a program of universal testing--even though we have some cases of actors acting with actors they know are HIV positive(just being extra careful in that case).
We've had folks here claiming testing is "useless" or "means nothing". Now this is contrary to
EVERYTHING I have seen in academic statistics and using quantitative methods in professional work.
My personal gut feeling here:
There was a big push for US public health to come up with a program rapidly back in the 80's-and that program was promotion of condom use. Now the thing is, at best, promotion of condoms has slowed spread of AIDS, not reversed its incidence. We've also had an increase in some other STD's.
Now, for the swinger community, this is like the Titantic heading towards that iceberg. Folks get REAL hysterical around STD's and are likely to look for scapegoats.
I don't care if mass testing isn't "cost effective" for the general public. I think swingers have a HUGE incentive to do whatever they can if it will mean they can clearly show swingers as a low STD incidence population. Frankly, if Porn Stars can do it, so can we.
The polls I've seen here suggested something like 20-30% of swingers here get regularly tested and/or exchange test results. That could quite plausibly get doubled with a little effort. I'd LOVE to see some clubs/web sites that
required periodic test results for participation.
My honest expectation is that swinging couples that regularly get tested and swing with other such couples may be at less risk for STD's than many populations than
think they have a monogamous partner. I don't have proof to back that up-I also don't expect for government backed scientific institutions to do the kinds of scientific studies swingers need for our community.
Now, what AIM Foundation shows is that a LOT can be done with no governmental support. The AIM Foundation was built by some prominent porn stars-and swingers. It is the only medical institution I have seen that is really focused on serving an extremely sexually active population-and I think it deserves our careful attention and support.