[highlander]

Originally Posted by good times

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.

Well, first off, look at what I was originally talking about:
a) the population who are tested clean for a variety of STD's and select partners that demonstrate similar status
b) the untested population that select partners without regard to testing status.

I'd love to see a good study comparing those two populations-and adjusting for behavioral differences. Now it would have to be real carefully because simply reporting results to someone might change their behavioral patterns in subtle ways even if they didn't actively use those results for partner selection.

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.

We already have examples of groups that have instituted STD testing programs for groups despite the best efforts of the medical and legal authorities to discourage such practices. I've seen some references to studies involving AIM and porn actors. That is a rather exceptional group though. The Rajneesh community docs published some studies of their AIDS testing program back in the 80's. Now, those results have fallen into question because of some of the other practices in that community. As I remember they were claiming that AIDS was spreading rapidly in their community despite their testing program and encouragement of safer sex practices. There were some outside studies involving different populations and use of condoms. My impression is folks just started discounting the Rajneesh results and I don't think anyone ever really sorted out quite what the issues were between the two groups(i.e. The Rajneesh group was rather young and it isn't clear how their compliance compared to the later groups that were tested, also the Rajneesh group wasn't a cross section of the population and may have included a lot high rate of bisexual men than the general population).

Anyhow, we still have examples of groups that have at least at some point had operational STD testing programs(Lafayette More House in California is one example-I'd be surprised if they are the only one). LMH's behavioral pattern from what I know of them is somewhere between that of patrons of swingers clubs and porn actors(but with greater emphasis on safer sex practices). I don't think any responsible scientist has ever looked at their clinical records. When I talked with those folks over 20 years ago, they said they had a periodic problem with Chlamydia and HSV despite testing for Chlamydia--but that the problem was quite a bit better with a testing program than it had been without a pre-emptive testing program(they'd never had an AIDS case even show up in their initial testing and HSV tests were available then).

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.

Folks keep saying the differences between folks that test regularly and require similar results from partners is zero compared to the general population with similar behavior. I'd be very interested in seeing a valid study to that effect-and for that matter the claim that testing produces a false sense of security when it is used.

Anyhow, just looking at stuff like Personals ads, we have a population of folks that regularly test and expect test results from partners-despite a lot of public health folks saying this means nothing. There ought to be enough of those to construct some kind of a sample there that could be studied. One problem is going to be constructing a good control group. You could compare folks that test regularly to those that don't-but you'd have to start testing the ones that don't otherwise test, and as soon as you report results to them, there is some possibility they might be adjusting behaviors one way or another. You'd also have to survey reported sexual activity and safer sex practices here to get any real data.