Quote:
Originally Posted by highlander  Here is one example of a piggyback infection from a 2005 article: |
OK, but that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Because the people I was talking about were identical, except one was tested and the other wasn't. In which case their would be zero statistical difference in the odds of them contracting an std.
Quote:
Originally Posted by highlander Now, I was careful not to say exactly _how_ the samples would vary. This is a question for observation and measurement. I would however be surprised if the sample of folks that test regularly and play only with other folks that also test regularly is the same as folks that never test and never ask folks if they test. |
I would too, my point is, we will never know in swinging, because I would be highly surprised if we ever got a large enough group to agree to testing, and only play with others that have been regularly tested, to get any valid statistical data. For the reasons that Lee gave, and a multitude of others, it just isn't going to happen.
For most of the people I know, std's in the swinging population just isn't a big enough problem to warrant the time and money that a testing program like this would require. Couple that with the fact that the benefits of testing in preventing the contracting of an std is almost zero, unless all of the people you play with regularly also get tested regularly, and it is an idea that just will never get off the ground.