Hello, I love you, let's get tested for AIDS

[LFM2]

I'm in healthcare, but neither of us get tested. I don't see a reason for it really except to say that I didn't have XYZ disease on ZYX day. That's all that is going to prove. We have however, studied STDs (I taught STDs classes to promiscuous juveniles where I worked) and know the implications.

Like GT said,

we would much rather play with someone who had never been tested but was knowledgeable of the risks, than someone who believes that if their play partners are tested they are somehow safer than someone who hasn't been tested.

[MapleSwingers]

Originally Posted by VegasLee

...thinking they don't sell condoms in Las Vegas or maybe that was just your way of taking shots at me...

You are right it was a cheap shot. Altough I disagree with you, I should have respected your honesty and refrained from commenting in that way...will not happen again.

[Beachswinger]

While AIDS is eventually fatal, it is a disease that is not that easily spread by vaginal or oral sex as long as there;s no open sores or cuts on the skin making contact with the partners bodily fluids. AIDS virus can only live in a 92-110 degree heat range. Anything else, it dies quickly.

The really scary germ out there is Hepatitus C. There's no cure and no real treatment to contain its effects on the victim or his/her partners. Unlike AIDS, Hepatitus C as well as B are real tough germs and can survive for days outside a human host in harsh conditions. That's why it's so dangerous to be accidentally stuck by a used hypodermic needle at places like the beach, etc. It even survives light-moderate exposures to seawater !

Beachswinger

[highlander]

Claiming that test results mean "nothing" after someone has contact with someone else is just plain statistically inaccurate. The significance of the test results does degrade over time. However, the chance of someone who has a 6 month old test result showing up HIV+ in 6 months is still less than someone who is untested.

Porn film actors get tested ever 30 days for HIV, Chlamydia and Gonorrhea-and do a set of more extensive tests every 6 month. Chlamydia and Gonorrhea spread really fast. HIV doesn't spread fast-but obviously the consequences are more severe(the tests used by porn actors are also more sensitive than those that are used by the general public and show HIV+ status a few days after infection). More importantly, the entire population of Porn actors gets tested and much of the sexual activity of porn actors is with each other(or a stable partner who is also only active in that particular population).

The AIM Foundation protocol for testing porn actors isn't perfect. However, it does appear to be working a lot more effectively than a lot of detractors would have predicted.

I'd be very careful of using the limitation of testing as a reason to encourage folks not to test or request test results from partners.

[JustAskJulie]

Originally Posted by highlander

I'd be very careful of using the limitation of testing as a reason to encourage folks not to test or request test results from partners.

I don't think anyone is using the limitations to encourage people to NOT get tested, more trying to get the point across that a negative test is not an end all be all and therefore an insurance policy that the person you are playing with isn't carrying something.

[highlander]

Originally Posted by JustAskJulie

I don't think anyone is using the limitations to encourage people to NOT get tested, more trying to get the point across that a negative test is not an end all be all and therefore an insurance policy that the person you are playing with isn't carrying something.

All a single negative test HIV does is reduce your chances of getting infected relative to what you could expect from a partner that hadn't been test.

Now, there are some other factors here:
A partner with a negative test result that regularly asks for test results from other partners is a bit different from someone that has a negative result that plays without asking for test results.

A partner who is negative for all STD's-and has been tested regularly for years, is different than a partner who has just one negative test results.

Now the thing is, there haven't been good, statistically valid studies on all the nuances here. What we do know is :
1) Cuba, which emphasized testing in their AIDS prevention program has a much lower HIV rate than Puerto Rico which emphasized condom--despite the fact Cuba is a MUCH poorer country with fewer resources

2) The AIM Foundation claims to have significantly reduced rates of STD's in the porn actor community by a program of universal testing--even though we have some cases of actors acting with actors they know are HIV positive(just being extra careful in that case).

We've had folks here claiming testing is "useless" or "means nothing". Now this is contrary to EVERYTHING I have seen in academic statistics and using quantitative methods in professional work.

My personal gut feeling here:
There was a big push for US public health to come up with a program rapidly back in the 80's-and that program was promotion of condom use. Now the thing is, at best, promotion of condoms has slowed spread of AIDS, not reversed its incidence. We've also had an increase in some other STD's.

Now, for the swinger community, this is like the Titantic heading towards that iceberg. Folks get REAL hysterical around STD's and are likely to look for scapegoats.

I don't care if mass testing isn't "cost effective" for the general public. I think swingers have a HUGE incentive to do whatever they can if it will mean they can clearly show swingers as a low STD incidence population. Frankly, if Porn Stars can do it, so can we.

The polls I've seen here suggested something like 20-30% of swingers here get regularly tested and/or exchange test results. That could quite plausibly get doubled with a little effort. I'd LOVE to see some clubs/web sites that required periodic test results for participation.

My honest expectation is that swinging couples that regularly get tested and swing with other such couples may be at less risk for STD's than many populations than think they have a monogamous partner. I don't have proof to back that up-I also don't expect for government backed scientific institutions to do the kinds of scientific studies swingers need for our community.

Now, what AIM Foundation shows is that a LOT can be done with no governmental support. The AIM Foundation was built by some prominent porn stars-and swingers. It is the only medical institution I have seen that is really focused on serving an extremely sexually active population-and I think it deserves our careful attention and support.

[good times]

Originally Posted by highlander

Claiming that test results mean "nothing" after someone has contact with someone else is just plain statistically inaccurate. The significance of the test results does degrade over time. However, the chance of someone who has a 6 month old test result showing up HIV+ in 6 months is still less than someone who is untested.

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

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. 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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by highlander

I'd LOVE to see some clubs/web sites that required periodic test results for participation.

I got a chuckle when I read this, it is too bad you don't live in Reno, then their could be two people that had this desire in one town.

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.

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.

Don't get me wrong here, I have no illusions that I am going to convince you here that you are wrong. Based on your posts on the subject here, I have no doubt you truly believe this, just as our friends at our local club did. The only reason I even comment is that maybe, at the least, 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.

[VegasLee]

First off, don't believe everything you read on the Internet.

You stated that you have read here or other places that 20% to 30% of swingers are tested regularly and exchange results.

After 30+ years of being in the Adult Business and in the Lifestyle I will personally say that is BS. First, what is Regularly? Once a year, twice a year, every couple of years? Also, in the Swinging side of things I can say for fact that I have never had anyone ask me for test results or show me theirs. I also can say for a fact that I know of no swinger that has ever told me that they have been tested or have asked anyone to be tested or knows of anyone that has been tested. I see 800 to 1000 Swingers a week so I have a pretty good base to work off of.

AIM has a good program for the Porn industry. One of the problems as you stated is they are knowingly letting infected people work in the industry. I don't care how careful you are, that is a chance they are taking that should not be allowed under any circumstances.

You also have to look at numbers of people in each category. The porn industry has less then 5% of the people involved there that are in the Swinging Lifestyle.

Tests are ONLY good until the person has sexual contact with another person after they have taken the test. In reality, it is not even good then. A person can be a carrier and not show positive on a test for months or even years.

I never tell anyone NOT TO TEST. That is a personal choice but I also after all these years of seeing results of testing and not testing advise people not go be led into a false sense of security.

If you are going to have sex with people, you are ALWAYS taking a chance of becoming infected with something. It may be a small chance but still a chance.

Life is a chance, you have to chose how you wish to live it.

As good times pointed out, you will not get a club or it's members to go along with any type of testing program. Hell, you can't even get people in this Lifestyle to agree what the Lifestyle is.

MOST are not going to go to their doctor and ask to be tested for STD's. They are not honest enough with their doctor to do this.

[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

[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.

[highlander]

First thank you for the reply.

I've established a space on yahoo groups for swingers that are getting STD tested and want to share results.
Yahoo! Groups

Originally Posted by good times

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.

testing of Swingers is harder. What could be required is STD testing of patrons of commercial swing club establishments that maintain a business license. That is something a local government might theoretically do-but there may be some legal issues there.

Here's the thing: we have this gradual creeping of of various STD's. It is happening slowly. Right now, the risk isn't that great(whether it is acceptable or not depends on your perspective). However, what is clear is that the risk, over time is growing. When Penicillin came out, some docs were talking that syphilis might go the way of smallpox. It hasn't-and in fact has been growing the last two decades. Promotion of condoms hasn't reversed that trend-and there is no compelling case that promotion of condoms will reverse that trend. There is a new liquid condom that is now in testing-and that may
gain some widespread use-but it is years away. The big recent advance that is available now is better testing. The PCR tests are a big deal-and we have clear evidence that when used in a community they can over time reduce STD incidence significantly.

Is it cost effective? Maybe, Maybe not. However, I would MUCH rather be proactive here and get a testing protocol in place that was coming out of the swinger community(and for that matter the community of sex workers) than wait to have regulations imposed by governmental authorities. What history has shown us is that when that happens, it typically doesn't involve a lot of sympathy for minority lifestyles(i.e. One of the big Nazi issues was getting rid of syphilis).

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).

I think your odds are overly optimistic. The CDC figure had some data behind it. Now, I would suggest that there is an incidence of bisexual men and IV drug users even among stable couples-as well as men that frequent sex workers outside of swinging. How high is this? my honest guess is that in clubs that are exclusively for couples it is pretty low--but I have no figures to back that up. Now, if one is going to a commercial swing club that admits single men-in an area like San Francisco or Portland, I think you might be surprised just how many bisexual men or IV drug users show up there. Many of these folks won't announce themselves. Can we really spot such folks by talking to them for 5 minutes in a club situation?

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.

I _have_ been tested for HSV(and was negative, something that surprised me a bit). AIM Foundation does HSV testing. the test is still fairly new, but they are doing it.

There is a test for HPV that some doctors use on men(the HPV DNA test which uses PCR technology I think). It is NOT FDA approved for use in men-that use is an "off label use". The accuracy in that context may be a bit limited(I've seen figures that claim it would spot only 94% or so of the male carriers). The cost I saw was $235.00-which is almost as much as a comprehensive panel at AIM Foundation.

What AIM Foundation is doing is acting as an experimental site for the use of Gardisil in men. That may make more sense. My understanding is that some folks can clear themselves of HPV, but there is a problem with sexual active folks of reinfecting each other.

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+.

I would suggest that many HIV+ folks don't broadcast that fact.

I used to know a nurse in the bay area that was involved in explaining test results to folks. It really bothered her the attitudes she saw there.

I think most folks would inform their partners of this status.

However about 20-30% of the folks that are HIV+ don't know it, they simply haven't been tested-and some of those are folks in earlier stages of infection when they are most contagious.

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

Right now, the battle I think it just creating some spaces where swingers that
are interested in STD testing can communicate with each other. The next step may be establishing a few clubs that have an STD testing protocol in place. I expect this to be a real minority interest for some time.

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.

Actually, all the porn actors I've known well were also swingers. Now, I know that isn't necessarily an accurate sample, that is just the ones I've known.

Now, the swingers comfortable with testing and the general swinger population may be rather different here. Both populations are pretty variable to. There are swingers that only swing say 1-2 times per year on vacation.

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.

What I will admit, is there is a much more variable population with swingers than porn actors. I'd still suspect that less frequent testing is ok for folks that might be going to clubs/parties 1 time per month or so-and particularly if they are only swinging in clubs where there is a testing protocol in place.

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

I still think there is a good indication that swingers would get better results
from a testing protocol. Basically porn actors usually test tested only while
acting(on a monthly basis). Now, as you pointed out, a lot of folks drop in and out of acting. I can imagine a club protocol that goes something like this:
you get tested either every 4 months or every 8 visits, depending on whichever comes first. For larger commercial clubs, having a staff member take a vocational ed course (2 days) that would let them draw blood for samples, isn't that big a deal. The club could become a test center.

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

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.

We might actually be able to look at the numbers and agree with the odds. My main point here is I want to see a trend in the opposite direction and see at least one identifiable community of swingers that has a clearly lower STD risk than the general population.

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.

there is always sample bias. What I think is there is a population that is staying out of swinging specifically because of the perception (right or wrong)that swinging carries too much STD risk.

Now, what is "too much" risk? Well that is a highly personal decision. We might agree on the risk level in numbers and have very different attitudes on what that means.

I can believe that if the numbers were actually available, there would emerge data that showed that couples and singles that swung in clubs with a testing protocol were at less risk for STD's than the general population including less sexually active populations.

There is an article titled "More sex is safer sex". Basically the point that this mathematician makes is that what matters in terms of STD transmission is not just average number of partners, but distribution of parters. If you have a situation in which most men have their outside contacts with a few prostitutes and most women with a few "super studs" you have more incidence of some STDS than if you have a more even distribution of partners.

Another factor is "compartmentalization". In swinging, you sometimes have folks going to the same club almost exclusively for at least some period of time, so there is a pool of folks they are choosing from(even if they don't know many of those folks very well). A lot of time, these epidemics are pretty dang local and affect specific pools of people(i.e. specific zip codes).

One of the only swing clubs I've known that had a testing protocol in place was in the SF bay area(this was in the 80's). The big one they had problems with was Chlamydia, which spread so fast that as soon as they saw a single case, they knew they had a problem and they had to put out an alert to all members. Now they got to the point where from their perspective, this wasn't that big a deal. Basically the first case they saw, they'd get everyone retested-and that months party would be a bit curtailed in the activities.

[rdy46227]

Some observations....

1. Cuba has a testing program, and when they identify AIDS people, they are segregated from the population. This definitely reduces the spreading of AIDS, though at the cost of personal liberty. 60 minutes did an episode quite a while back on the situation.

2. Waiting 6 months for AIDS to show in a test isn't necessary. The standard test can take 6 months to show AIDS, but there are others that are much quicker. My spouse, a drug biochemist, had us take a viral load test which showed in days, not months.

[highlander]

Cuba has backed off their quarantine program. They still do near universal testing-and they still have a much lower HIV rate than the US.

The viral load test for HIV is available from aim-med.org--they call it a PCR test there.