Would you go to a club that required STD Testing

[des1re06]

Lee,

Your questions always make me think.

Con: It would be a nightmare of paperwork, and would probably close said club down shortly. The only pro I see is that it would definitely cut down on the "looky loos".

On the other hand, having a testing contact available for members would be a perk. Some folks are shy about asking their doctor for one. Just give them the number for your contact or have their business card somewhere, and you step back out of it. They can handle it in private.

As for "private groups", that's another story. If you had a private group who agreed, then it might work.

Mrs. D

[Tia Vampire]

I voted yes and I agree with everyone's replies on this one. It would depend on the type of club-private or house party, the people that attended, and where the tests were to be taken.

[highlander]

One important factor in doing the "market research" here:

Just how many folks would attend a tested club that would never go to an untested club?

My sense here:
1) the market here is just emerging
2) the long term market for tested clubs may be bigger than the market for untested clubs

[good times]

Originally Posted by highlander

Just how many folks would attend a tested club that would never go to an untested club?

Zero (0), people will go to the club that has the most compatible couples for them, and the one they like the best.

Originally Posted by highlander

My sense here:
1) the market here is just emerging
2) the long term market for tested clubs may be bigger than the market for untested clubs

My prediction, ten years from now their will not have been one club in the US, that requires testing, that will have survived one year in business.

Personally, I would not attend a club that required testing because testing is just another false sense of security measure that promotes risky behavior.

[highlander]

There is a group in the Bay Area that used to run things that were a lot like Swing Parties
(i.e. there would be sex on premises)-and folks were STD screened to attend. I'm not sure if they still do this, but the group still exists.

Now, this is NOT a swing club in the sense some one can just plunk their money down and attend a party-their screening process(and fees) are more than many swing clubs-and they sell a lot of seminar/classes(where most of their money is made).

[Chicup]

I'm rather surprised at the results of this poll, I expected it to be a lot more lopsided in favor of the no-std testing.

[highlander]

Originally Posted by good times

Personally, I would not attend a club that required testing because testing is just another false sense of security measure that promotes risky behavior.

That doesn't seem to be the case in the groups I've seen that required testing. Those folks seemed to use condom and what not more frequently than the general population.

Now the real question is is what would the data say? Until the experiment has been tried, everything is really just speculation.

[highlander]

Originally Posted by Chicup

I'm rather surprised at the results of this poll, I expected it to be a lot more lopsided in favor of the no-std testing.

I think what this says is the pro-testing folks are generally a lot more quiet than the anti-testing folks.

I think would be interesting to see is just how the habits of tested swingers vs. untested swingers might vary in terms of things like
sex acts they perform, number of partners and whether they use condoms or not.

It just isn't obvious to me what the data would show there if this experiment is ever tried.

There are quite a few things that might influence the experiment too-for example is the size of the pool of folks being tested and the chance
people are playing in that pool exclusively.

What I'm personally expecting is the pool of folks that play in clubs that require testing and are taking other precautions will be a VERY low STD group-and may be quite a bit lower in terms of incidence of STD's than the general population including folks that think they are monogamous.

[bill_n_lana]

Yes I would go BUT I would be ok with quarterly testing.
I was tested a few months ago and just the Chlamydia test/lab was 250$. Plus the costs of the other tests. I couldn't afford monthly testing.

[highlander]

I got a comprehensive screen at an AIM Foundation affiliate for $309 (http:AIM Healthcare - Home). They have affiliates in ALL major cities via some major
testing labs.

That panel included HIV, Hep A/B/C, Gonorrhea, Chlamydia, HSV and Syphilis. I got the PCR tests which are newer-and thus more expensive(the PCR HIV tests detect infection accurately 10 days after contact vs. 90 for the more commonly used tests). The G/C/HIV panel I think cost $109--and that is the one you'd need to do more frequently.

Now one thing to get about these costs:
the PCR tests are new-and are thus expensive. The costs of those tests _will_ come down. If STD testing caught on among swingers those tests might come down faster than they would otherwise-because the game for the biotech companies is economy of scale. Basically they've invested a big fixed costs in developing those tests and if they see a broader market to spread those costs over, it makes sense for them to lower prices(i.e. this works just like computer technologies). Also, there may be some deals that might be cut for bit blocks of tests. The swinger community is HUGE compared to the number of porn actors out there. The PCR tests were used early on largely in a few HIV "hot spots" and in the porn industry.


Anyhow, I suspect that for most swingers testing every 90 days is adequate especially if
you use PCR tests. Porn actors do a comprehensive screen every 6 months and a HIV/Gonorrhea/Chlamydia screen every month. That is a population that is VERY sexually active without condoms much of the time. They have different needs than say folks that visit a club once a month(and always play in a tested club that requires folks use condoms onsite). Basically that suggest a cost of $55/month per person or so for a basic testing program or $145 for the full "porn star experience".

What I tend to suggest:
Think carefully about how to divide the swinger population a bit.
One way to do this might be require a blood draw every x visits with at least an annual comprehensive screen(or 6 months for the heavy hitters). I also expect that if there is EVER going to be a problem with a club member, it is more likely to happen that first month of membership. I also think that "single" men may present a special problem and it is reasonable to have a more frequent testing program for single men than the general population. Basically single men are more likely to be actively bisexual, more likely to use prostitutes and more likely to combine risky behaviors with use of heroin, cocaine, crack or meth than the general population of swingers-may may be perfectly reasonable to require more frequent tests of that demographic. (I think some porn production companies also require tests for cocaine, heroin and meth to reduce risks here because of the statistical association of STD's and those substances).

I don't think this has to be a high paperwork sort of thing. AIM emails test data in machine readable form-basically everything could be done via a bit of software. Basically when someone walks in the door, they give their "stage name"-and the doorman looks it up-and validates their photo(or possibly ID)--they get in if they are current and if they are likely to not be current soon they get notified.

Right now, we have sex industry leaders making claims like you are more likely to get HIV from your neighbor than a porn actor. The thing is once you have tested clubs in operation and a scientific validation of that claim, it takes on a whole different level of weight. My own expectation here is that just a single club doing testing will reduce risks by a significant amount for its participants. However, if the practice catches on in a larger community the effect will be a lot larger because we'll have folks playing exclusively among a tested pool.

I would be willing to bet money that once you get a substantial pool of married couples swinging in tested clubs and making some use of barriers in those clubs that those folks will have STD rates of infection _less_ than other couples that think they are monogamous. If that kind of practice became more widely spread, I think it is the sort of thing that could actually turn around the trend we have had for an increasing rate of a variety of STD's.

[sweet_tna]

I voted no.

1) You'd have to be tested within 30 days for every visit, which means even the first visit. How would you know whether the club was worth that additional expense 'till you've tried it out?

2) Would the club do the tests in-house, or would you have to (or be allowed to) have the tests done elsewhere?

3) Even supposing outside test results were accepted and accurate, that's a lot of people handling my personal medical information.

4) Even supposing in-house test results were accurate, that's STILL a lot of people handling my personal medical information. And quite possibly a HIPAA violation in there somewhere.

5) Tests, even if accurate, are only good for the day they're taken. While the going theory is that folks who test regularly are less likely to have any STD's, it's still just that--a theory

6) Are people who test positive going to be turned away? Can we say privacy laws, discrimination, and legal nightmare?

7) What about the legal liabilities of someone claiming that they felt "safer" going to that club (ie implied guarantee) because of the testing policy and they contract an STD and sue?

No, thanks. I know the risks, and Mr. Sweet and I will make our own decisions about them.

=)

[tribbles]

Having been to the main AIM office, more than once, and had the opportunity to talk to the techs and 'talent' (porn workers), the testing doesn't stop STD's, it just lets them be treated faster. Most get something every couple of months that needs treatment.

We go and get tested and test negative every few months. With no symptoms, last time we waited a whole year. Still negative

We don't show our 'papers' and don't expect others to. We know the risks and agree to them. Just like a recent mountain climbing expedition lost people, we do what we want for fun and accept risk.

When we first started we considered a club we saw that wanted new members to be exclusive and only play within that group and to have testing. Sadly, we figure if people cheat on a spouse, why wouldn't they cheat on a sex group?

[highlander]

Originally Posted by sweet_tna

5) Tests, even if accurate, are only good for the day they're taken. While the going theory is that folks who test regularly are less likely to have any STD's, it's still just that--a theory

No test is 100% accurate. What testing does is provide different odds of STD tranmission -and how much better those odds are compared to doing nothing degrades gradually over time. Now just how different those are, I don't know, but the rules I'm using are basic statistical sampling rules.

The statistical odds of someone who has tested negative for a range of STD's acquiring one over a year is _different_ than someone who has never been tested(and for that matter someone who has tested positive and gotten treatment). For that matter the odds of someone who has just gotten tested and tested negative but has no plans of getting retested are going to be different than someone who knows another test is coming up.

Also, a record of negative tests that goes back _years_ has different statistical significance than a single test result.

We are not talking individual testing here-we are talking the testing of an identifiable group--and testing for multiple STD's. There is a potential synergy there because some STD's can act as warning signs for others(i.e. if someone gets chlamydia, they'd sit out and get a complete retest in a few weeks before joining the party again). Also, someone who is playing in a tested group has a different profile than someone who is playing in an untested group. Now would testing create a false sense of security and promote risky behaviors? Well that is question for the data. I think the exact opposite would be the case based on looking at groups like Lafayette More House that did regular STD testing of a membership group.

Anyhow, there is more than just theory here. It is clear that a program of regular testing in the Adult film industry did reduce STD's there markedly. The question is
a) how does this apply to swingers? Swingers are a different population than porn actors-their mileage may vary. I think the experiment of a tested club is worth doing and getting real data here.

b) is it worth the extra expense and effort? I honestly think that is going to vary from person to person. For some folks getting HSV or HPV isn't that big a deal. They may never notice or deal with going on anti-viral medications and having a couple weeks a year of discomfort and get on with their lives. For some folks it is a much bigger deal.

[ic7175]

We aren't club goers so I can't really answer. My guess is to say no.

However, IF there are two clubs in town, one with and one without testing, I'd be pretty hesitant about the untested club. Though I really doubt the tested club would be able to make it.

[good times]

Originally Posted by highlander

The statistical odds of someone who has tested negative for a range of STD's acquiring one over a year is _different_ than someone who has never been tested(and for that matter someone who has tested positive and gotten treatment).

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. The very next person you play with could have an std, whether you, or they, have been tested or not.

A further fact of the matter is, testing will make no significant difference to the odds of contracting an std unless a significant portion of people in your sex circle all get regular testing, and more importantly, never play with anyone who hasn't been tested. My point, and I believe the point of most of the logical thinking people here is, that is an impossible expectation in swinging. Even amongst those of us who have been tested, I have never met anyone in swinging who got tested often enough to significantly alter the odds of them, or anyone they play with, contracting an std. And to think otherwise is an extremely desperate attempt at grasping at any false sense of security one can find, in my opinion.

Anyone who has read many of my posts on the subject knows that I am a relatively outspoken critic of the dubious, largely mythical claims of the effectiveness of condoms for preventing the spread of most std's one would encounter in the lifestyle. But even I will freely admit that when dealing with a group of folks that all use differing methods of risk reduction, condoms are several orders of magnitude more effective than testing is now, or could ever be, unless it was required for all swingers. And requiring testing at one club, while the rest of the swinging community does not, or rarely gets tested, would make an infinitesimally small or, more likely, no statistical difference whatsoever.