[good times]

Originally Posted by highlander

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.

Actually, those studies are pretty misleading in my opinion. The reason for that is the same reason why they don't find any women in Nevada brothels with std's, the ones with std's don't get tested and left the business when testing became required. The reason this could never work in swinging is that their is no regulatory body that could require all swingers to be tested. Therefore, testing would not have the same impact on swinging as it has in those industries.

Originally Posted by highlander

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.

Actually the data is freely available by reviewing the available research. Even if you go to sites that are highly biased toward the current politically correct party line, like the CDC site, the statistics they give are pretty high. Most I have seen (grossly pessimistic, in my opinion) puts it that the average person in the US has something like a 1 in 100,000 chance of contracting HIV (some say that 1 in 100,000 is also the national average chance of one getting hit by lightning, hence my reference). If you believe like I do, that in the swinging community in which one only plays with couples like we do, the risk is lower, the odds then more than double (more in line with the odds I have seen printed when the researchers eliminated the high risk groups like IV drug users and homosexuals at less than 1 in 220,000).

Disclaimer - my numbers given above are approximations based on memory and may be incorrect. If you want to get the actual numbers you will need to go look them up.

Originally Posted by highlander

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.

I agree, but have you actually been tested for HSV and HPV? Most of the time, unless specifically requested, when a full panel of tests is ordered HSV is omitted, and I know of no test currently available for HPV in males.

Originally Posted by highlander

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.

Correct, as I stated in my post.

Originally Posted by highlander

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.

I assumed, as we are talking about typical swingers, that their behaviors would be similar. The later is not really a consideration to me as I have yet to meet someone personally who is HIV+.

Originally Posted by highlander

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.

I agree, but don't see were this would apply to your average swinger either, unless they already have some mitigating condition or std. In that case we are talking about something totally different.

Originally Posted by highlander

Useless or unimportant?

Useless, which naturally also makes it unimportant.

Originally Posted by highlander

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.

Right, I assume you do have an idea of what the odds are of all swingers deciding to participate in this program is though.

Originally Posted by highlander

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.

I suspect not, and as I have seen no data that would substantiate your suspicion, I doubt many would endorse it. Also keep in mind that we, as swingers, have sex with strangers on a much more regular basis than porn actors do. The porn actors that I know personally, typically work for as much as a week straight were they might make dozens of movies, then they often don't work again for months or years. Whereas, swingers will often have sex with different partners several times a month on an ongoing basis. Based on that, if one were to endorse your belief in the value of testing, swingers should be tested more often than porn actors, not less.

Honestly, I have to say that the other problem with comparing swinging to the porn industry is that, for the most part, we are two totally dissimilar groups. Porn stars often engage in sexual behavior that we would never consider ( I admit it, I've seen some pretty raunchy porn), and I suspect drug use in the porn industry is much more widespread than in swinging.

Originally Posted by highlander

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.

Some of us do, we just came to different conclusions based on it than you did.

Originally Posted by highlander

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

Regarding condoms, with a simple search on this forum you will find that my views about them are somewhat similar to my views on testing. You see, I am just not much of a fan of false senses of security in any form.

As far as the poll results go, I hate to burst your bubble, but I suspect that the poll results do not include those that "don't see a problem" or just "go with the flow" and probably most of the "DEEPLY attached to condoms as a safety mechanisms-and the ONLY valid precaution" crowd as well, because frankly they don't care enough about the issue to even read this thread, let alone vote in the poll.

Interesting discussion though, if it matters, I think everyone should read it.