Would you go to a club that required STD Testing

[VegasLee]

I started this poll basically to see what people would say in the poll.

Seems the results are even except they are not really even.

Many that stated that they answered YES also posted all kinds of conditions.

The question was simple, yes or no to the following.

Would you go to a club that required you be tested every 30 days and the results of those tests would be given to the club owner/manager and you would have to pay for the test.

I personally do not believe 50% of the people would pay $150 to $300 a month to be tested. Most people complain about the cost of going to clubs so I don't see people shelling out $1800 to $3600 a year for testing.

I also do not believe anyone would agree to have medical records released to a club owner or manager. Most don't even want to give a real name.

In the last two weeks I have talked to two of our attorneys and a few doctors that come to the club weekly about this.

First the Attorneys. What they had so say I could not put on broadcast T.V. Their first response was: "Are you out of your F**king mind!"

Any club or person that did something like this would be opening their self up to lawsuits from Hell. The first time a "tested" person caught something, either in the club or outside of it the law suits would start coming fast. The expense would close any club in a matter of months just from being sued. After all, that is the American way, don't be responsible for your own actions, sue someone!

Just about every State, county and city are already trying to find ways to close swingers clubs. Doing this would do it for sure. If we demanded everyone be tested the officials could take it as we know for a fact that what we are doing could be a health danger to the general public. There are laws in EVERY STATE about endangering the health of the General Public. I know, they have tried using them on us four times in court. So far they have never had the proof to make it stick, this would do it according to the attorneys and I am going to take their word for it since they are the ones that have been defending us and winning for the last 25 years.

Now for the Doctors. One of them has been a prison doctor for the last 15 years, one works for the health department dealing with STD's and the others are just GP's here in town that go to the club and have for years.

First, they all had to stop laughing to be able to answer me with a straight face. That took time in itself.

The first answer from any of them. "A test is only good at the moment it is taken, once someone leaves the office it means NOTHING!" As soon as they have any interaction with anyone else the test means NOTHING AT ALL. That was from all of them.

Further information from them. Testing does not prevent anyone from catching anything. The only thing testing does is give you a better chance of treating something that someone has caught if they test on a regular basis since you catch it early.

Another thing they brought up is that the new "faster" tests have a 15% false results ratio. Ok, that is not good. So a club has someone tested, comes back positive, the results are false, person freaks out. Gets tested again, comes back negative, LAWSUIT commences.

The doctors in good faith said that if EVERYONE was tested, and had no sex ever with anyone outside of the group then it "might" cut down on what is already a very low rate of STD's within the Lifestyle. Now doctors that have been swingers for 20+ years know Swingers and their health better then most. They said they doubt that on the high end that more then 10% of swingers would even consider testing on a regular basis and less then 1% would agree with their life to have sex with ONLY THE PEOPLE IN THE GROUP!

The Doctor from the prison has a lot of STD experience, He states that over 75% on avg of everyone in prison has an STD at any given time. They do testing all the time and treatment. They test for early treatment purposes only. The doctor from the Health Department also has tons of experience since that is what he does there. He said no way would this ever fly anywhere and anyone that thought it would is "so far off in a fantasy land that he would like to see them receive treatment." His quote, not mine. He said he says that because if someone believes this and is that secure in it they could be a danger to their own health with the false sense of security they have believing this.

Well, I put my time and money where my mouth is. Attorneys don't talk for free. Doctors do when they are swingers. As most of you know, I like to deal in facts. Now if anyone can find some facts that make these professionals wrong then bring it on and I will be happy to discuss this but I hope this finally puts this fantasy to rest.

[highlander]

You keep making this statement, even though several have tried to explain to you that this idea is preposterous.

The fact is their is zero statistical difference between the odds of someone who has been tested contracting an std compared to someone not tested. If both people have sex with the same person, who has an std, whether they previously were tested or not makes absolutely no difference. That is like trying to claim that the std virus knows you get tested so it will leave you alone in favor of a victim who doesn't get tested. The bottom line is, testing can only tell you about your past sexual contacts, it has zero impact on your future sexual contacts.

Here is one example of a piggyback infection from a 2005 article:

Infection with one subtype of the human papilloma virus (HPV) doubles the risk of becoming infected with HIV, and infection with several subtypes more than triples it, the third IAS conference heard on July 26th.

This whole picture of how various STD infections interact seem to still seems to be emerging.

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.

The anecdotal data I found from folks that have operated group testing programs suggests it does help somewhat. I haven't seen anything like that published anywhere though.

[good times]

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.

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.

[highlander]

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.

[good times]

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.

Huh, I haven't seen anyone say that, I know I haven't. What I did say is that their is no such thing in swinging. I have been swinging for some time, and have met a lot of swingers. I have met some that have been tested, I have met none that have been tested more often than once a year. While it wouldn't surprise me if their were a few who test regularly and expect the same from their play partners, it would surprise me if they amounted to more than a hundred people in the entire US.

So, what I am saying is that if everyone who is a swinger was tested regularly it might make a difference. But the reality is they are not, and a tested person playing with an untested one is no different than two untested ones playing. Failing everyone being tested, the only benefit to testing is the piece of mind you get knowing you haven't caught anything. But currently, and as far into the future as I can imagine, getting tested will not reduce the odds of any individual swinger catching anything in the least. And to expect that at some not to distant point in the future a significant number of swingers are going embrace testing, is delusional in the extreme, it just isn't going to happen. It is just too expensive, time consuming, and indiscreet to do, and provides too little benefit for too insignificant of a problem to ever happen.

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.

You probably never will either, the fact of the matter is, you couldn't get a large enough group to be in a study to see a statistical difference. Thousands of swingers play with thousands of others every week without catching anything from one another. The vast majority of them are rarely tested, and a majority of them use no form of, so called, protection at all. So you would have to study millions over a considerable period of time to see any statistical difference. That leads to the next reason you won't see such a study. That is that the problem just isn't significant enough for a study to ever be worthwhile.

Regarding the false sense of security, that is just human nature and needs no study to prove it. The fact of the matter is, the only reason a person would get tested is to ease their mind. The only reason they would desire to only play with others who have been tested is that they feel more secure in doing so. Yet, unless all the people you play with are regularly tested, and all the people they play with are regularly tested, and so on, and so on, testing really makes no difference. So having a group, say a club that requires all to be tested, would give some a sense of security. Yet the expectation that all, or even the majority of the group are not playing outside of that group is unrealistic in the swinging world. So, common sense would dictate, that the people who are all gung-ho about the group requiring testing are obviously operating under a false sense of security.

[highlander]

I ran questions on this topic by a few folks:
1) a former member of the statistical advisory board for CDC

2) a senior epidemiologist at CDC

3) Michael Kowalski, the medical adviser to a company that is promoting sharing of STD test results securely via the internet. Those folks have a bunch of papers on the rationale behind expanding testing in "social network" populations.

The first feedback that I got was from 1) above. I asked him specifically whether a population in which people were tested, shared test results and limited contact to partners with a similar STD testing profile would have a lower incidence of STD's than a similar population with similar sexual habits and condom using habits. He thought that regular testing would be associated with a significant difference-but he wasn't aware of a good study that showed just how great the difference would be. He thought any benefits would be highly variable from population to population.

Someone I talked to said there is a technology in the works that overcomes many of the objections folks here have had to expanded use of STD testing. That technology uses DNA chips to conduct the tests. That approach is a major research project-and is the type of thing that will require some big companies to get behind it. This guy knows one of the major researchers who says they have working prototypes-but the Bush administration stalled testing. If they get some better cooperation they are 5-10 years from having an FDA approved product they can market. DNA chips lower the cost of testing enormously-you can simply take a finger prick blood sample and test for the presence of the types of DNA associated with STD causing organisms. In large scale production DNA chips should be very inexpensive-which means you might have a bank of tests as sensitive as what AIM Foundation has been doing for the porn actor community, but something that would have a 15-30 minute test turn around and would sell for $2-5/test panel. What they are hoping to promote is the idea people would routinely test every time they consider a new partner-or frequently test regular partners.

[Jeok]

We had Ponderosa Party House in Mims, FL, which had a requirement that First Attendees provide an STD-Free statement from the local Health Department. Afterwards, your word was honored, especially if you only had encounters with known members. Our local Health Department STD Test for ALL STDs only costs $20, the Test is Anonymous, with number designation & every city has a Health Department. Everyone who attended Ponderosa liked & supported this requirement and it was a selling point to those individuals objecting to Swinging as being Dangerous-i.e. newbie spouses and/or SOs. Most used condoms, except those tested on a regular basis. As a young man, I always was tested after having sex with some unknown female I picked up at some club or bar-it used to be completely free back then-doing so gave me peace of mind; I have never contracted ANY STD. Being tested, occasionaly-in this lifestyle, seems prudent to me. It doesn't cost that much in time or cash, and the peace of mind of definite knowledge you haven't caught anything from any recent encounters is Priceless. Jeok

[highlander]

The web site of the Ponderosa Party House was active from 2002-2007-so they stayed open for a while it would appear.

[highlander]

Huh, I haven't seen anyone say that, I know I haven't. What I did say is that their is no such thing in swinging. I have been swinging for some time, and have met a lot of swingers. I have met some that have been tested, I have met none that have been tested more often than once a year.

I've met two the last month that test every 90 days(and both in my area). Now, the thing is, having actual test results in hand made it a LOT easier to meet those folks(I don't think they would have given me the time of day otherwise).

While it wouldn't surprise me if their were a few who test regularly and expect the same from their play partners, it would surprise me if they amounted to more than a hundred people in the entire US.

Just the polls here suggest it is a bit larger than that. I don't think it is an overwhelming factor in the swinger community. Now, the things that are changing in this regard are better tests and better means of securely (and privately) sharing STD test results. Both those are changing gradually too.

So, what I am saying is that if everyone who is a swinger was tested regularly it might make a difference.

I think the point we are at now is the development of any kind of identifiable sub-community where there is a real emphasis on testing. Now if that happens and if it can point to any real benefits, we'll see if it catches on.

There are a few docs that are supporting the general idea-but it is clearly a minority opinion.

But the reality is they are not, and a tested person playing with an untested one is no different than two untested ones playing.

From a mathematical standpoint, that isn't true. If you have someone that tests negative for everything, and and untested person, the untested person has less probability of picking up something new than they might otherwise.
How much less? Well that is a question I'd love to see a good paper on.

Failing everyone being tested, the only benefit to testing is the piece of mind you get knowing you haven't caught anything. But currently, and as far into the future as I can imagine, getting tested will not reduce the odds of any individual swinger catching anything in the least.

What helps you reduce the odds is specifically selecting partners that don't have any diseases you don't-or using more careful safer sex measures than you might otherwise if you choose to play with a partner that is positive for anything.

And to expect that at some not to distant point in the future a significant number of swingers are going embrace testing, is delusional in the extreme, it just isn't going to happen. It is just too expensive, time consuming, and indiscreet to do, and provides too little benefit for too insignificant of a problem to ever happen.

I tend to doubt the _existing_ community of swingers will change their habits much. What I think will happen-if this happens-is we'll see changes adopted by younger folks that haven't really established their habits yet.

You probably never will either, the fact of the matter is, you couldn't get a large enough group to be in a study to see a statistical difference. Thousands of swingers play with thousands of others every week without catching anything from one another.

The vast majority of them are rarely tested, and a majority of them use no form of, so called, protection at all. So you would have to study millions over a considerable period of time to see any statistical difference. That leads to the next reason you won't see such a study. That is that the problem just isn't significant enough for a study to ever be worthwhile.

When reading papers looking for material related to this thread, I noticed a couple things:
1) conventional wisdom in public health seems to be that multiple sexual partners is one of the single highest correlations for having STD's

2) "selective avoidance" of partners perceived as being high risk for STD's seems to be a poor strategy for avoiding STD's for many of the higher risk communities.

I saw various papers published on both these points. Now there is a real question why swingers are an anomaly here?

One thing I noticed, just looking at the Red Rooster site, there are some major selective criteria going on that might be factors:
1) age-Red Rooster requests party attendees be 25 or older. Most New STD
cases are in people under 25.

2) drug use--any party house is going to tend to screen out folks that are visibly loaded or sick looking.

3) the fees. A big chunk of STD's are spreading among people that are in tough enough financial situations than requiring fees would weed them out.

For party houses that require one to be part of a stable couple, that is another factor.

Now are those really important enough factors to explain the difference we see here?

The only reason they would desire to only play with others who have been tested is that they feel more secure in doing so. Yet, unless all the people you play with are regularly tested

That sure doesn't jive with the statistics I was taught in college/grad school. Just swaying the sample towards fewer untested partners and more partners that have tested negative would tend to reduce incremental risk somewhat. How much? well that is an interesting question for which I have seen no good empirical study.

and all the people they play with are regularly tested, and so on, and so on, testing really makes no difference.

You seem in an all or nothing mentality here. When I do the math, it makes more of a difference when you move towards a closed group. however, a lot of these diseases move pretty dang slowly. Gonorrhea and Chlamydia can move towards a group like wildfire. however, even there, having a group you can contact as soon as you see a case or two makes a big difference.

So having a group, say a club that requires all to be tested, would give some a sense of security. Yet the expectation that all, or even the majority of the group are not playing outside of that group is unrealistic in the swinging world. So, common sense would dictate, that the people who are all gung-ho about the group requiring testing are obviously operating under a false sense of security.

Well the question here is do folks lie about outside encounters just because they are bore or for other reasons? My sense is if folks get the message they get more variety by telling the truth-and being responsible they'll tend to do so.

[BiloxiCouple]

Sometimes reality and fantasy just don't mix well.

[highlander]

I've sent a note to Bernard Branson at CDC who is the author of the CDC testing guidelines to see what he thinks the likely impact of expanding testing of sexually active groups.

Their current guidelines are Revised Recommendations for HIV Testing of Adults, Adolescents, and Pregnant Women in Health-Care Settings

They are suggesting things like annual testing of all adults between 15-64 and folks with multiple partners testing after each new partner. Now that is obviously impractical in the swinger community-and those guidelines were not constructed with swingers in mind. I'm trying to find any examples where anyone versed in quantitative methods has looked at the incidence of STD's among swingers and explained why incidence is different than other groups with multiple partners.

I've also sent a note to the medical advisor of sxcheck.com
to see if he had anything that backed up the likely impact of his services.

Just the fact that we have two commercial services(sxcheck.com and checktonight.com) with MD's putting their names behind them, suggests there is a range of opinion in the medical community on the likely impact of expanding testing and exchange of test results in sexually active populations.

Now, I find it plausible that even adjusting for major demographic factors and frequency of sexual activity that swingers are different than other sexually active populations-but I haven't yet seen published papers on that(I'd be interested in any references folks have here).

Anyhow there is some evidence that just expanding testing would impact spread of some STD's:


Revised Recommendations for HIV Testing of Adults, Adolescents, and Pregnant Women in Health-Care Settings
# CDC Recommends Annual Testing for All Ages 18-64
# CDC has concluded that that the best means of containing the spread of the disease is to increase the percentage of infected people who know they have HIV.

"The majority of persons who are aware of their HIV infections substantially reduce sexual behaviors that might transmit HIV after they become aware they are infected (5). In a meta-analysis of findings from eight studies, the prevalence of unprotected anal or vaginal intercourse with uninfected partners was on average 68% lower for HIV-infected persons who were aware of their status than it was for HIV-infected persons who were unaware of their status"

I tend to think that encouraging requesting of results from partners would do more-but haven't see a good reference on that yet. The big one there I'd like to see is how this works for HSV since disease is so widespread and responds poorly to condom use.

[good times]

I hate seeing you just talking to yourself here Highlander, so even though my interest has died on this subject like it has apparently for everyone else here, your post does beg an obvious question.

Has it occurred to you that if you only ask folks who's very livelihood most depends on keeping the public as paranoid as possible about std's their opinion on this, that their opinions are likely to be highly biased toward your point of view? Or were we not supposed to notice that?

[BiloxiCouple]

If this post keeps going it is going to scare me into a condom

You can crunch the numbers any way you want and get an opinion that is different with a dozen different doctors and agencies. Where does it get us in the end?

I'm still going to have sex. I don't want to use protection and I ain't gonna ask those personal questions.

[two4youinswva]

I have found the solution.

Click here for demonstration video.

[highlander]

I hate seeing you just talking to yourself here Highlander, so even though my interest has died on this subject like it has apparently for everyone else here, your post does beg an obvious question.

Has it occurred to you that if you only ask folks who's very livelihood most depends on keeping the public as paranoid as possible about std's their opinion on this, that their opinions are likely to be highly biased toward your point of view? Or were we not supposed to notice that?

Everybody has a lifestyle. It is human nature to imagine their lifestyle as having advantages relative to other lifestyles that it may not have. That is a problem that I saw with asking docs that swing about swinging. Now on one hand they have direct experience with the community-and that is a plus. On the other, you are selecting from people that are comfortable swinging with an untested population(though I wouldn't be surprised if they by and large are more careful with condoms than most swingers).

Anyhow, I generally will rely on the more quantitative papers on this sort of thing if I can find them. The former CDC stat adviser I talked to is NOT dependent on income from that area any more-and hasn't been for a while. He's also not a straight monogamous person.

Anyhow, I dislike "fear, uncertainty doubt" tactics for sales. I don't think the swinging community is a hotbed for AIDS. I'm not sure what the HSV level really is. Do think broader testing would be good for the community? Yes. do I think the existence of a few clubs that required testing and tracked their results would be a good thing? Yes. I do.

Given that the poll here says that most readers on this board are interested in the general idea, and we are seeing the emerging of some good testing infrastructure for the first time-and improvement of the tests available the question is will we see clubs trying testing? My sense is that we are still a ways from that. Even at $60/month, only some swingers are going to make the investment until there is a more obvious payoff. I'd guess that 10% of existing swingers might buy in-and a larger number of folks that are on the sidelines might participate if testing mandatory clubs were available.

Now if some public health authorities were to get behind the idea, the thing might take off. My guess is that it would be safer to swing in a testing mandatory club periodically than to enter a relationship with a partner who has a history of multiple sexual encounters and expect them to remain monogamous and rely on that as your primary safety precaution-but that is just a guess on my part.