Would you go to a club that required STD Testing

[BiloxiCouple]

Originally Posted by two4youinswva

I have found the solution.

Click here for demonstration video.

I loved the video!!! That is what the fear mongers would have us do!!!!

[good times]

Highlander,

If you are so desperate to validate your point that you put any significance whatsoever in a poll that only 43 people (as of this post) out of all the people that come to this site every day even bothered to vote on, then you are totally delusional.

Get a grip on reality man, most swingers don't even use condoms unless the person they really want to play with insists. Oddly enough, I have had many playmates that are in the medical profession, they ranged from "will use condoms if we have to" to "if you insist on condoms count us out". Haven't met one in person yet that required condoms for play though. Seriously, I am not trying to be insulting to you, but listen to some folks with experience in the lifestyle, they will tell you your idea will never fly, not a chance, no way, no how. It just isn't going to happen. That is the bottom line. So, if the only way you will play is with regularly tested people, and you can find some, go for it. But don't be surprised if the rest of us in the swinging community think you are nuts. Fact is, if I was as paranoid about std's as you seem to be, I sure as hell wouldn't be swinging.

[fun4Ds]

I have held out voting a while so I could get the input.

I voted yes as a hypothetical decision. I haven't been to that tested door yet. Its the only way to keep the option open for now. We might like to visit that hypothetical club for our own reasons. I am pretty sure whatever test might be performed has already been done by my own doctor. I cant imagine going through all that, at the door of a club. Those tests were done for me, my own comfort. I didn't get tested for or because of the lifestyle. So I have way less fear of what I believe to be the unknown results at the door.

So now that leaves me just wanting to get in the club. To do that I pay a fee. Its still just a matter of cost... Thats it. We really hate to see a fee of more than 50 bucks.. The price of the test is right there with the rules and dress code in this hypothetical club.

Now for me to envision this I am hoping this test will be a q-tip oral suave given by a hot nurse with lots of clevage...Hey, its my hypothetical club.. If she starts reading all these facts and findings to me... I would probably be staring at her boobs because what she is saying is irrelevant to why we want to get in anyhow.

This poll is about a simple question yes or no. That means in reality I have a choice of are we going in, or not. We like clubs and they are there for a reason. For people like us to get out and party when we want to and can.

For me, The guy who wants in the door its about. Is this club worth going into ? What kind of theme or crowd are dealing with and would we fit in ? How much is it? What can we wear ? Is our friends in there ? What are their rules ?

The testing seems low on the list. 10 bucks and 10 minutes if all the above were answered yes...

I don't need to debate my reasoning... I am just the guy and his wife at the door. Keep the entrance as simple as possible... make it complicated and probably our kind of people aren't in there.

[highlander]

Originally Posted by good times

Highlander,

If you are so desperate to validate your point that you put any significance whatsoever in a poll that only 43 people (as of this post) out of all the people that come to this site every day even bothered to vote on, then you are totally delusional.

I'm well aware of the concept of sample bias(I used to work at a major polling research institute). That said, I was personally surprised at the results of this poll-even accounting for Lee's observation that when it comes down to paying for a test, a lot of folks wouldn't do it(even at $60/month which is where I'd put a private, shared results, testing program with existing technology/services).

What I observe here is a difference between people willing to talk about this
topic and the poll results-and what appears a difference between some of the rank and file here and the community leadership.

Get a grip on reality man, most swingers don't even use condoms unless the person they really want to play with insists.

That is true of most people. Most sex acts even among people that are relative strangers don't involve condoms. In fact, in Chicago, most acts of street prostitution don't involve condoms according to one study I saw.

Oddly enough, I have had many playmates that are in the medical profession, they ranged from "will use condoms if we have to" to "if you insist on condoms count us out". Haven't met one in person yet that required condoms for play though.

One of the funnier online stories I heard was from a guy that claimed to be an MD about having sex with a nurse in a hospital while both were working in an AIDS ward-and having an offer of unprotected anal sex. It apparently freaked him out a bit. I never met this guy in person-but his story seemed pretty consistent.

Seriously, I am not trying to be insulting to you, but listen to some folks with experience in the lifestyle, they will tell you your idea will never fly, not a chance, no way, no how. It just isn't going to happen.

That makes it an interesting challenge then doesn't it? Remember, I've actually known real life groups that were non-monogamous that did require STD testing as a group(i.e. More University in the Bay Area, Kerista commune, Rajneesh folks). Maybe it takes a charismatic cult leader to get folks to do this sort of thing. I'd like to think it doesn't.

That is the bottom line. So, if the only way you will play is with regularly tested people, and you can find some, go for it. But don't be surprised if the rest of us in the swinging community think you are nuts. Fact is, if I was as paranoid about std's as you seem to be, I sure as hell wouldn't be swinging.

My great grandfather, and herbalist, used to treat STD's back before the days of penicillin. His protocol was use of snakeroot soon after contact-which is something you still see being suggested in the natural medicine community today. Did it work? I don't know. However, in those days if it didn't, the best conventional medicine would offer was stuff like mercury pellets in the skin. There was another effective drug before pennicillin(in the 1920's or so which was a bit leater), but it required a lot of injections and few folks completed them and it never really caught on.

Anyhow, my grandfather grew up in a household where a typical Sunday morning was a line of mine that had been out whoring the night before and were desperate for some help-and given the likely outcome, I can understand the willingness to go outside the realm of conventional medicine there.

What we are dealing with not is nothing like the syphilis epidemic-yet. I'm not sure which way the wind will blow. What I will say is that even if we get into a situation just as severe as my great-grandfather's day, we'll have plenty of folks playing without condoms-and those will include medical folks.

Anyhow, I tend to see the act of testing and sharing results as something that goes a bit beyond personal responsibility. What some folks miss is that porn actors and swingers are living the dreams of a lot more folks than ever participate. That is the type of thing that inspires envy and emulation.

Even if Lee is right here-and the STD rate(including HSV/Herpes) is VERY low among swingers--and there is simply "no problem", that doesn't mean that these practices are going to necessarily inspire safer behavior in the community at large-and that is the kind of thing that can combine with envy and feeling threatened in positions of moral authority to do stuff to take up a lot of Lee's time in court.

I wish I could see things that made what is going on here a bit clearer from a scientific angle. I find it plausible that just the fact that clubs like the Rooster cater to folks over 25(according to their website), exclude many loaded or obviously sick folks and charge an admission fee might account for much of the lower level of STD's there-I'm not sure how much though.

I learned a few things that were a bit surprising to me while researching for this thread. I was surprised at just how many people appear to lie about test results according to the studies I saw. I was also surprised at just how concentrated transmission of STD's are among the least sexually experienced population(a big chunk of folks pick up an STD with their first sexual experience).

Anyhow, I think that if the right testing technology were created and stuff like liquid condoms got a bit further developed, swinging regularly could actually be safer from an STD standpoint than walking down the street. Even the extreme outliers among us have limited sexual needs-and if someone is playing in a tested club(or a tested porn set) all the time-they aren't out someplace that is a more dangerous environment(at least for that moment). I'm not the "paranoid" one acting like we are only dealing with fast moving STD's like Chlamydia and Gonorrhea for which testing is of limited use-and I'm not a condoms are the panacea type when I see legitimate evidence suggesting condoms are of limited effectiveness around stuff like HSV.

I have been willing to turn down play options from folks that thought sharing of test results was too much to ask-and I've made sure I had condoms around in my space. I've seen first hand just how hard it is to assemble a testing required group. I suspect the job is better suited towards someone younger, better looking and/or more charismatic than I am. I also think that my own willingness/ability to forgo play to put together a testing required group is limited. Now, that said, I don't regret having tried-and continuing to try.

[cupl4fun]

We would prefer a club like this. We read a book that had a resort like this (fiction) and wished it was real. While it's no 100% guarantee of no disease it does seem like it would reduce the risk though and we're all for that. It wouldn't have to be every thirty days unless you went at least once a month. You would just need one within thirty days of attending. We'd actually prefer this. Yeah it's a little more leg work but we were willing to drive 450 miles to go to a club so we don't mind the leg work, especially when it comes to a little more safety.

[highlander]

I can see something like this flying for a swinger resort like Hedonism II. Folks plan those kinds of vacations pretty carefully-and the costs of testing isn't that much compared to the rest of the vacation package.

I checked a vacation package for a Hedonism resort and for 5 days, it was $2500 for two people.

I find it very plausible that some folks might prefer such a vacation for $3100 and have some assurance that other guests at their destination were tested STD-(particularly when you consider there is already a pool of folk that are already testing regularly and would just have to have results faxed).

A lot of technical advances start out on the high end and then gradually filter down.

I'm not sure what the smaller high-end swingers resorts are like--but there sure seem to be a bunch of them around.

[BiloxiCouple]

I haven't seen a dead horse beaten in a long time. I think it is about due.

[good times]

Here is another one for you.

[walrus0115]

Simply from an economic standpoint I would like to see more STD testing offered to the swinging community. As a rule, NO protection is 100%. We have an opportunity here as a subculture to promote testing.

This may not be in line with the Club idea, but anonymous testing at the club for a minimal fee will certainly do two things:
1. Those with positive results will most likely see treatment.
2. As a result of more testing the costs and stigma of testing will drop.

I believe as a community concerned about sexual health it is incumbent upon us to promote testing along with safe sex. This opinion is not meant as a "free ticket" for unsafe sex but rather a duty to bring testing to wider audience and make it more available.

[highlander]

Here's the thing: testing is not exactly inexpensive. "Free" testing you see is in fact typically subsidized by public health funds. Some of the less expensive private testing resources I've seen are from home-bio-test.com

They sell instant test kits for some of the more common STD's for $20-35 per disease. Porn actors test monthly for HIV, Chlamydia, gonnorhea--and semi- annually for everything else. So the instant tests for G/C/HIV are about $85. The annual Porn star quality "everything"(includes syphillis, hep a/b/c, HIV 1/2 also and requires a blood draw) test was $410 at aim-med.org last time I checked.

There are some technologies in the pipeline that would dramatically reduce costs to about $5 for a batter of tests. The thing is we have a chicken and egg issue here because those costs won't go down until the numbers go up.

[Trojan Defense]

Originally Posted by Chicup

Any thinking person knows an STD test does not guarantee someone does not have an STD, but if you took a random group of people who never had an STD test and a group who had a clean STD test 30 days ago, which group would you say has a higher probability of having an STD?.

Probably the most reasonable thing I've ever heard Chicup say, might I add.

[Trojan Defense]

Originally Posted by highlander

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.

It may be a bit early to be getting into this, as many details remain unclear, but if you look at the threads that make up my ideas collectively as I post them, they support the development of such a community. They lend themselves to a strategic approach of that end. I won't say exactly how just yet, but bit by bit, they set the stage for recruiting, and retaining members for such a community.

Originally Posted by highlander

Here's the thing: testing is not exactly inexpensive... There are some technologies in the pipeline that would dramatically reduce costs to about $5 for a batter of tests. The problem is we have a chicken and egg issue here because those costs won't go down until the numbers go up.

Naturally, we'd want the biotech companies to do well so that they will continue to invest in the research and development of better tests. However, if there were enough of us in favor of testing, we could try to negotiate with them for some sort of short-term concession with the promise of a future payoff. We could make the case, that while we want them to do well, we need lower prices in order to get more people on board with the idea of testing, and that what is in our interests, is ultimately in theirs. If they were to cooperate, then it could be a win-win for both the community, and them.

[highlander]

The politics here are a bit tricky. The 'official' word from public health and medical authorities in the US is that testing can do basically nothing to prevent spread of aids. Those are based largely in the analysis of gay men that "serosort" and seek out partners with the same HIV status as themselves. The problem is that those guys are in situations where they are testing infrequently and many of them aren't accurately reporting their results to each other.

I think the problem started with some of the MD's that were reporting results out of the Rajneesh community in Oregon. That community attempted to use testing early on in the AIDS epidemic-and they weren't making it it work very well. Looking back there were clear reasons:they were using tests a lot worse than what we have today, their testing intervals were infrequent to what would be needed to work, they also had a demographic group that was rather high risk in some key respects-and included quite a few very sexually active,young gay/bisexual men from those places where we are seeing things like a 5% conversion rate every 6 months. However, at one point the only stuff getting into the medical literature was from the Rajneesh docs(And they really did have some well trained docs in the community).

What AIDS came up, some public health strategy was necessary _fast_.
The two strategies that came up were the US emphasis on attempting to maximize condom use-and the approach we saw in Cuba that emphasized universal testing for HIV of their entire population every 6 months. What was also going on in Cuba was a rather good public health program(at least by 3rd word standards)-which meant simultaneous containment of a variety of other STDs.

The problem is that once any bureaucracy has made a major public health decision, they are loath to ever admit a mistake. There have also been serious questions on just how accurate the Cuban claims are. I personally think the Cuban medical authorities are more accurate in their claims than US medical authorities.

Anyhow, fast forwarding, we now have much better tests than we did 25 years ago. We've also had hundreds of thousands of Americans die. The big shift in US technology has come from drug companies that have greatly prolonged the lives of people with HIV. We also have individual organizations like AIM that have shown that by frequently testing for a variety of STD's and treating those STD's that can be treated, they can transform what was a rather high risk group for STD's to one that is at lower risk than the general population-despite a low frequency in use of condoms. However AIM has had enormous legal problems with public health in LA because the AIM approach flies in the face of what the LA public health authorities think they "know".

There are also some prominent US epidemiologists that are publicly advocating ramped up-and sometimes mandatory STD testing in the USA-claiming it is the only practical way to actually reverse the increase in the rate of HIV in the US. However, those folks appear to making that stand at the cost of seriously alienating many of their peers.(the ones I've seen were nearing retirement before they made those kinds of statements publicly).

Right now, some of the best instant tests for HIV and other STD's are made in the US. They cannot be legally sold as over the counter items in the US because of FDA regulations. They are in fact obtainable from France where those are an over the counter item-but that is a kind of "grey market" transaction(companies like Home Bio Test will ship to the US but this isn't technically legal). I have heard of a company that was backed by some gay VC types in Silicon valley that was attempting to go into clinic trials with a test that would be much better-and it was blocked from going into clinical trials for what appear to be political reasons.

A really high end club might be able to require use of AIM's testing services. I don't think that there is any other service that has the testing quality and secure delivery methods you really need. We've seen cases of folks doing stuff like forging results on a doctor's stationary or getting someone else to take a test for them. The instant tests from Home bio test are good enough and cheap enough, we might get folks to start using them. Tests for HIV, Gonorrhea and Chlamydia are $85. However, anyone that "sells" those tests is going to be in a potentially tricky legal situation. The only way I see around this legal problem is for a club to actually train someone on staff to do blood draws and do their own testing-but that may create its own legal problems and the logistics as a hassle.

One idea I have had is to create a web site for folks where they could get someone to vouch for their results without disclosing their identity-or just getting a pool of folks to start doing that on sites like Swing lifestyle. The big wild card is Herpes-which is fairly common in the lifestyle community like it is in the general population-and is frequently not disclosed. Anyhow, the basic idea of a web site like that might get around many of the legal problems-because folks aren't selling anything-just observing what each other are doing.

[Trojan Defense]

Originally Posted by highlander

A really high end club might be able to require use of AIM's testing services. I don't think that there is any other service that has the testing quality and secure delivery methods you really need.

Maybe. Although the idea of such a club just popping up somewhere, and being an overnight success seems like a rather remote possibility without some things falling into place first. Its easier for me to see this happening through a progression of events. Say it starts out with those of us for testing network with one another more, eventually we organize house parties. Once we grow too big for house parties, then perhaps we could go to operators of swing clubs, and ask them if our people could reserve their facilities for a night or two out of the week, (provided we could get enough RSVPs). Eventually one or two nights out the week wouldn't be enough, and then I think that's when it'd become apparent there is sufficient demand for the kind of club that we are talking about, and once that happens, that's when I believe we'll start seeing such clubs.

So I think one of the big questions here is, how is that suppose to happen? In order to answer that question, we've got to figure out how to make our numbers grow. I think you said it best when you said we've got at a chicken and the egg issue here. Testing costs will not go down until our numbers go up. However, our numbers won't go up until testing costs go down. So what to do (finanically speaking)?

Well, if we had a small group that was just big enough to have a voice, sort of like a union, then maybe we could negotiate for lower prices using collective bargaining power. Maybe we could negotiate with the biotech companies like I mentioned before. Maybe we could negotiate with service providers like AIM. Maybe we could negotiate with both of them with the goal of having the lowest cost of testing services anywhere. That would help draw people in. Furthermore, maybe we could negotiate from within our own support base for paying members to subsidize the cost of testing for those who are not able to pay, and still have the lowest cost of testing anywhere. Would it be a long shot? Sure, but those are some ideas.

Another idea is if through a series of proposed initiatives, we could demonstrate to biotech companies an accelerated growth in the testing market significantly beyond the original projections of their analysts, it may be of some interest to them. Maybe of enough interest to offer some level of support. Naturally some skepticism is to be expected. So if we had some sort of past accomplishment to point to, such as assembling a sizable group of pro testing people, we could suggest they test our claims with a token of support. They have nothing to lose. If we can produce results, great, if not, then they can withdraw their support having only made a relatively insignificant incursion against their bottom line. And as a gesture of goodwill, we could maybe even assist them in the development of these advanced tests in the works by helping to recruit people into their clinical trials. Whether or not all that could work, I don't know, but its an idea.

The question of from where the money comes from seems like one almost philosophical in nature, to which I think the simple answer is, from those who have it. If you think about it, it is those who have the deepest pockets that makes the most difference in that regard, and who's pockets would be deeper than that of the biotech companies (or at least deeper than those who can not afford the tests)? Between people needing tests, AIM, and the biotech companies my guess is that its the biotech companies who are capable of the greatest difference. Appealing to their interests (if possible) may be a good way of serving our own.

Originally Posted by highlander

The instant tests from Home bio test are good enough and cheap enough, we might get folks to start using them. Tests for HIV, Gonorrhea and Chlamydia are $85.

Perhaps the quality of the tests are good enough, but I don't know about the price. I'm sure some people wouldn't mind paying that much, like those who live out in California. Those people may think $85 is pocket change. However, people living in say, South Carolina, a place with a relatively much lower cost of living, may have a different attitude.

What might be helpful here is a cost benefit analysis. Meaning compare the cost of testing to the cost of medical treatment for stds, or something like that. If such an analysis supports testing, then we could make the case to those who "think" they can not afford to get tested that they can not afford to not get tested when considering healthcare costs. If the analysis does not support that conclusion, then we could use that as one of the talking points if we were to ever negotiate with biotech companies for lower prices.

As for those who really can not afford testing as opposed to those who just "think" they can not afford testing, I think there should be some sort of subsidy to help those folks out.

Although it may be that we have no other choice but to accept the cost of testing for what it is, I'd like to think a better solution exists - one that furthers the development of our community.

Originally Posted by highlander

However, anyone that "sells" those tests is going to be in a potentially tricky legal situation. The only way I see around this legal problem is for a club to actually train someone on staff to do blood draws and do their own testing-but that may create its own legal problems and the logistics as a hassle.

Yeah, I'm thinking it'd probably be best to leave the clubs to do what they do best, and the clinics to do what they do best. That way liabilities could be avoided. As for anyone too lazy to get tested just because it's not offered on site at a club, I think they just need to get off their lazy butt, and go to a clinic. Although, it might not be a bad idea to put a clinic, and a club next door to each other to appeal to said lazy person. In fact, if there ever were clubs like we are talking about, I'd think it'd make perfect business sense for a clinic to locate itself next to one.

And if I'm not mistaken, some of AIM's offices are in relatively close proximity to the porn studios they serve. So there ya go.

Originally Posted by highlander

One idea I have had is to create a web site for folks where they could get someone to vouch for their results without disclosing their identity-or just getting a pool of folks to start doing that on sites like Swing lifestyle.

Sounds good. Apparently, we think along the same lines. Although I haven't gotten around to discussing it in the forums, I've had numerous ideas that are along those lines. Things like mapping sexual networks, contact tracing, serosorting, partner notification, etc.

Originally Posted by highlander

The big wild card is Herpes-which is fairly common in the lifestyle community like it is in the general population-and is frequently not disclosed.

Yeah, that one might be tricky.

Originally Posted by highlander

Anyhow, the basic idea of a web site like that might get around many of the legal problems

As I see it, a dedicated website may not only help get around legal problems, but also logistical ones as well, and could potentially integrate itself in various ways, not into just sites like Swinglifestyle, but also social networking sites, like Myspace, in order to reach a larger crowd.

[highlander]

The right way to think of costs:
figure $22/month of out of pocket cost for people with insurance(I am assuming quarterly testing for HIV/gonorrhea/chlamydia-and an annual comprehensive screen covered by insurance or done at a free clinic).

I don't think you can use free clinics for EVERYTHING-the reason is that they usually aren't set up with the idea of giving reports that can be shared-and are usually more set up to assure confidentiality. You need to move with the idea that you will have 3rd party validated results-and at least some of the testing is stuff that simply can't be faked(if you scale this, sooner or later some folks will use something like photoshop to fabicate a letter from their doctor).

Those costs are really is less than stuff like swing party door fees for most folks in any part of the country. For a bit more, a membership based group might offer free testing for ladies/couples that didn't have medical insurance. The way I think this would work:
you would have to set up a meeting with a member that was local who would witness the test and validate results-that doesn't even require disclosure of identity(just posting a picture someplace and having another member validate that is really who took the test).