[highlander]

Originally Posted by good times

Here (in bold) is the problem with your arguments regarding testing. The fact is their is no statistical evidence to support that claim.

That isn't really true. There are a variety of studies that have come out centered around the protocol used by AIM foundation with adult film actors. What those studies show was that a program of regular, universal testing among porn actors and sharing of results significantly reduced incidence of a variety of STD's in a population that is very sexually active and traditionally had a relatively high rate of STD's. Now, that program of testing has not eradicated STD's in that population-but it has been a significant step forward.

First of all, regarding HIV, one swinger is less likely statistically to contract HIV from another swinger than they are of being hit by lightning walking from their car to the club on a clear skied starry night. Unless you have open sores in your genital area and play with IV drug users or have anal sex without a condom, the chances of contracting HIV from another swinger is astronomical.

I've seen a lot of claims in that respect over the years. I haven't seen a lot to back it up(I'd like to see a good, journal article or two-I'm not saying that just to be stubborn). Now, that said, I think the bigger issue here having a good protocol here that does what can be reasonably done. HIV hasn't been as bad as some folks thought it might have been.

Now, personally, I consider testing VERY non-invasive compared to condoms. I actually have played VERY safely for years. The main thing here I think is not encouraging ANYONE to take risks they aren't comfortable with. I'll use condoms or provide test results. I'm actually more personally concerned with picking up HSV or HPV than I am AIDS-but if you are getting tested for one thing, you might as well get the whole battery of tests and really know where you stand.

Even if the person you are having sex with has active AIDS, the odds of you catching it without any mitigating factors is high enough for it to be a non-issue for the average swinger couple. Even the most pessimistic studies by researchers with an agenda put the odds at about 200 to 1 for women and around 2000 to 1 for men who have vaginal sex with a known HIV+ partner.

That sounds about like the conventional wisdom-but there are mitigating factors. Presence of other STD's(i.e. HSV) may change that a bit.

Back to the point though, regarding someone who has been tested 6 months ago being less likely to be HIV+ than someone who wasn't tested. The fact of the matter is, it is just as likely that they both contracted HIV 5 months before you played with them as it is that neither one of them has, or ever will contract HIV.

No, you aren't doing the math right here. The chance of them acquiring new infection _given the same behaviors_ would theoretically be about right. However, you need to be careful about assuming the behavior and partner choice of someone that knows themselves to be HIV- is the same as someone that doesn't want to know. The other issue here is the prevalence of and testing of other STD's. If someone has acquired HSV or Hep C, the chance of them acquiring HIV in the future may be greater. There are some theories about "piggyback" infection. What I'm going by here is professional experience looking at statistical markers for things in other areas.

Therefore, while I have no problem with someone who wants to get tested for their own peace of mind, that information is totally useless to me when deciding to play with them or not.

Useless or unimportant?

A few years ago their was a couple here that tried to get one of the local clubs to institute such a policy. The club owners handled it pretty well I thought. They told them that if they had some other folks that wanted the same thing, they could make a list amongst themselves thereby having a reference they could refer to to check on the test status of anyone who wanted to participate. They tried the hard sell on club patrons for a few months to try and get people to get tested and ad their names to the list, until the club owners had had enough complaints and told them to cease badgering the customers. They never did get even one other person to do it though and nothing ever came of their idea.

There is a REAL issue there. IMHO the technology and infrastructure to make this happen has only really gotten going the last couple years with the AIM
Foundation. They make their resources available to the general public(and via some national lab corporations.

One additional point here. It is a fact that both the porn industry and Nevada's legal brothel industry have used testing for some time with positive results. That said, it is important to keep in mind that their results are highly effected by the way they implement the testing. While I am not as familiar with the way the porn industry handles testing as I am they way it is handled in the brothels in Nevada. I can tell you that in Nevada, the women that work in the legal brothels are required to be tested once a week. Obviously, it would be impractical to implement such a testing program amongst swingers. Which begs the question, how much is the effectiveness of testing for risk reduction, reduced by less frequent testing. It appears to me, from reading much the same data as you have, that testings effectiveness at reducing risk is highly reduced as frequency of testing is reduced. After a few months, or sexual contact with one person, it appears to me the test results are pretty much useless.

AIM's protocol is comprehensive testing every 6 months testing for HIV, Gonnorhea and Clamydia every month. Now, their protocol is one of _universal_ testing of actors. you can't act in a film without a recent certificate( I think some producers also require a recent drug test too).
AIM also uses PCR tests with are accurate a lot sooner than some of the tests you may read about.(10-15 days after infection for HIV vs 90 days for the more commonly used tests).

Now, swingers are a different population-and a diverse one. I suspect that by testing swingers one time per year comprehensively, and G/C/HIV tests every 3 months or so, you could get results at least as good as what AIM has been getting.

you will also realize that your view is a definite minority view among the swinging community. I further submit that, as with anything dealing with research and statistics, it is possible that two people, like you and I, can read the same research and come to two totally opposing conclusions. That is why you so often see organizations with different agendas using the same research to promote and justify their apposing views.

I am VERY aware that I have a minority opinion. Honestly, I don't want to bore folks on this topic. I do cringe when I see some of the statements made
about testing though.

On this stuff: most folks don't really look at the Cuban example or the AIM studies very carefully.

My guess here is that folks that don't care about testing are already swinging.
I think there is a population out there that might swing if there were improved safety mechanisms out there-but there aren't so they stay out. It is a kind of a chicken and egg issue. I've only seen one recent swinging event that actually did check test results(a bareback event at the Ace of Hearts in Portland Oregon).

Basically there are some people that are DEEPLY attached to condoms as a safety mechanisms-and the ONLY valid precaution. There are others that just don't see a problem. And still others that just go with the flow. The fact that there are according to polls here 20-30% of folks here regularly getting tested gives me hope though