A credit score for having sex?

[slevin]

Originally Posted by Trojan Defense

The perceived value is disclosure with confidentiality.

It allows two random strangers in an offline environment to quickly and effectively evaluate one another's position on std risk in terms of "compatible" or "not compatible", before developing an invested interest in one another. Secondly, in the event that two people are not compatible, another compatibility rule could be used to see if their differences can't be worked out in terms of "negotiable" or "non-negotiable".

I still fail to see how this will be helpful at all. What I really care about is whether they have an STD or not; seeing a test result is the only way to know whether they are STD free. Even then it's a diminishing return based on how long ago that test was. Seeing some kind of credit score that tries to quantify risk doesn't seem useful to me. Especially since people can just simply lie about it when filling in the form. You say you can catch those liars, but I find that disingenuous as a dismissal of the issue. It is the secondary issue, after whether this is even relevant at all.

Either I'm not as smart as I like to think I am, you're not explaining yourself very well, or this idea really doesn't make sense.

[PB&J]

Originally Posted by slevin

Either I'm not as smart as I like to think I am, you're not explaining yourself very well, or this idea really doesn't make sense.

Honestly, I have no clue how this is supposed to work, and less clue about how it would be useful.

[highlander]

What I think he's saying:
someone could input information on themselves and get an estimate of what their risk is with various practices--and what they could change to improve their odds. They could also input data for a potential partner and show how that would change their risk profile.

The thinking out there today is really pretty crude. The thing is people who think they are monogamous are still at risk.

What I suspect here:
there are a lot of minor variables that greatly influence someone's risk in subtle-but measurable ways- ways. For example:
cocaine/heroin use is higher among smokers than non-smokers.

If someone smokes, they tend to be limited to choosing partners more frequently from a pool that smokes. Just by quitting smoking, I can believe they measurably change their risk factors by quitting smoking. I don't think anyone has studied this closely-but some of these one could take a pretty good guess at. I saw one paper that looked at how taking vitamins regularly delayed HIV infection progressing to AIDS. I wouldn't be surprised a bit if it also lowers the chance of infection---but I haven't seen that studied. I also suspect that folks that only swing with stable couples they know have a rather different profile than folks that swing in more anonymous situations. I don't think that sort of thing has been addressed yet.


What is clear is that risk varies by factors like drug use, geography and recent STD history-that could be done right away. In my opinion, folks deserve accurate and precise information on where they stand-and what they can do to improve their situation. I think that once something basic got up there would be more interest in the finer points.

[highlander]

Originally Posted by slevin

seeing a test result is the only way to know whether they are STD free.

That is certainly one of the best indicators-that is not absolute proof however. It just puts the odds in your favor-just a bit differently than using condoms consistently does(condoms uniformly reduce risk from all encounters. Testing is better except for folks recently infected)

The right way to think of testing:
at the time of testing, the test is pretty meaningful-but that gradually degrades the longer you get away from the test. A six month old test means rather little compared to one done last week-and how much less it means depends on the kinds of risk factors that a system like the guy that started this thread proposed to quantify. That is still a work in progress(I'm actually discussing some of these issues with a professional researcher).

[slevin]

Originally Posted by highlander

That is certainly one of the best indicators-that is not absolute proof however. It just puts the odds in your favor-just a bit differently than using condoms consistently does(condoms uniformly reduce risk from all encounters. Testing is better except for folks recently infected)

The right way to think of testing:
at the time of testing, the test is pretty meaningful-but that gradually degrades the longer you get away from the test. A six month old test means rather little compared to one done last week-and how much less it means depends on the kinds of risk factors that a system like the guy that started this thread proposed to quantify. That is still a work in progress(I'm actually discussing some of these issues with a professional researcher).

You stopped my quote one sentence too early; that is exactly what I meant by diminishing returns over time

[highlander]

Originally Posted by slevin

You stopped my quote one sentence too early; that is exactly what I meant by diminishing returns over time

Now, the next thing to get:
just how much the returns diminish is influenced by how high risk the pool we are talking about is--but it is something we can measure with basic variables. Young, homosexual drug users in the Bay area have a VERY different risk factor than do say older Canadians on vacation in Florida. There were studies with pools of young homosexual men in California converting at the rate of 5% every six months. I haven't seen a breakdown on how that works if we adjust for drug use--but it is pretty clear that drugs like Meth are associated with much higher risk.

What that means according to _my_ numbers:
"safe" sex for young homosexual men really needs to include testing, condoms and other precautions if we are really to get a handle on that disease in that community. HIV in other communities can be handled much more easily. Chlamydia is pretty dang intractable-and it comes in spurts--but folks like AIM have done a LOT to contain that in the porn actor community;

[Trojan Defense]

Originally Posted by slevin

Either I'm not as smart as I like to think I am, you're not explaining yourself very well, or this idea really doesn't make sense.

I may not be explaining myself well. Though the basic idea is simple - risk disclosure in the form of a number. Exactly how it works beyond that is yet to be determined, as the idea is still a work in progress. However, a prominent public health official that I had contacted told me that it might work, and that he would present it in a national survey to public health, and non-public health people alike to see what they think of it.

Originally Posted by slevin

I still fail to see how this will be helpful at all. What I really care about is whether they have an STD or not; seeing a test result is the only way to know whether they are STD free. Especially since people can just simply lie about it when filling in the form.

Okay, how about this. How about if it is used not in place of other methods of disclosure, but alongside of them, to help people become more forthcoming about information they would otherwise not volunteer, such as an hiv positive status.

What if in the event that through this number a person claims a condition that is not a dealbreaker, and what if it can be verified through the use of say a mobile phone app that shows when, and for what a person was tested for, (and possibly a risk calculation based on that among other things). In such a case, you have test results that have been authenticated, and the role of the number that I propose, is to help you get to that point.

[Trojan Defense]

Originally Posted by highlander

What is clear is that risk varies by factors like drug use, geography and recent STD history-that could be done right away. In my opinion, folks deserve accurate and precise information on where they stand-and what they can do to improve their situation. I think that once something basic got up there would be more interest in the finer points.

I'd have to agree with Highlander on that note. The technology is out there for us to assess risk based on such factors; we've just got to figure out how to implement it.

[Coupleerotic22]

Originally Posted by Trojan Defense

I may not be explaining myself well. Though the basic idea is simple - risk disclosure in the form of a number. Exactly how it works beyond that is yet to be determined, as the idea is still a work in progress. However, a prominent public health official that I had contacted told me that it might work, and that he would present it in a national survey to public health, and non-public health people alike to see what they think of it.



Okay, how about this. How about if it is used not in place of other methods of disclosure, but alongside of them, to help people become more forthcoming about information they would otherwise not volunteer, such as an hiv positive status.

What if in the event that through this number a person claims a condition that is not a dealbreaker, and what if it can be verified through the use of say a mobile phone app that shows when, and for what a person was tested for, (and possibly a risk calculation based on that among other things). In such a case, you have test results that have been authenticated, and the role of the number that I propose, is to help you get to that point.

I guess what I am not getting, and I would image others as well, is this, how are you going to get accurate data. I can only see a few methods.

1. Self disclosure - what is any different about self disclosure now, it is easy to lie and I don't see any incentive for someone to tell the truth if the would not in the current state of affairs.
2. Disclosure by sexual partners - even if you could get sexual partners to disclose this information, which you couldn't at a level to be effective, it still would not cover aspects such as IV drug use and potential job related exposures (unless companies were willing to face law suits for disclosing personal information).
3. Disclosure from medical professionals - Dr / patient privileged?!? Not to mention that still only covers medical status not activity - no different that have blood test results.
4. 24th century big brother monitoring device - okay, back to reality now.

TO sum up why I (maybe others) think this idea is one for the junk pile:

1. Data - there is simply no method to collect data that is reliable enough for this system to be effective
2. Risk = status. That is a false statement. Someone can be in a high risk group and be clean or a low risk group and have HIV.
3. Why would I want to trust a system over my own methods of checking blood test, getting to know someone, and trusting my instincts about their truthfulness
4. In a room full of swingers - everyone is going to have a a crap score, because we sleep with multiple partners - unless they are newbies. So we are back to blood test, getting to know someone and using common sense

Further more, I don't think I would want a relationship with someone that put their stock in this system.

1. They have reduce me and my wife to a number - nice way to start a relationship. How about this, try getting to know me, ask for blood test results, engage in conversation, ask me questions, observe my behavior. Novel idea.
2. They are putting their trust in a system with so many inherent flaws as to be useless - if they are not being more careful than that, then they are too high a risk for me (kind of like the guy that says he can look at someone and tell if they are HIV positive - I would run away from them as fast as my legs could go)
3. And what about the idiot how looks at his great risk factor/credit score and decides he doesn't need to get regular blood test. Don't kid yourself into think that wouldn't happen. And he becomes a greater risk out of a false sense of security.

In theory a great idea, in practice it doesn't fly. SO far all I have seen from the proponents of this idea is how great it would be to have this system NOT how to address the specific problems of making it work.

Many great theoretical idea's never make it past the "you know what would be great" stage because they are impractical, I think this one falls into that category.

[highlander]

One site that trojan defense pointed me to:
STFREE.com

This service allows folks to authenticate STD test results without disclosing their identity to a potential partner. They also keep a _history_ of results-because a history of clean results means a LOT more than one recent, clean test.

The sad fact is that people can lie about their test results or testing frequency. They even get confused about what they tested for. This simple system eliminates that problem.

I'd personally like to see it tied with drug tests also since IV drugs are a major risk factor for HIV-and even non-IV use of coke/meth appears associated with increased vulnerability to HIV.


I wouldn't assume all swingers are "high risk". The correlation between HIV and multiple partners is pretty weak(adjusted odds ratio of 1.09 per partner for those with fewer partners)-weak enough that other factors like consistent condom use would clearly overcome it. We have identifiable populations of non-swingers that are clearly at much higher risk.

[Coupleerotic22]

Originally Posted by highlander

The sad fact is that people can lie about their test results or testing frequency. This simple system eliminates that problem.

Hardly. an extra $50 bucks and some takes the test for you, using a fake ID, that cost maybe $25, assuming you don't have the skills to make it yourself.

I am not against the idea of a system that works, and I am not just being cynical. But you have not addressed the issues I listed in my previous post.

This system does very little to eliminate the problem as you state above. Frankly, I trust my own judgment and investigation over a systems like this. Systems, by their very nature, are built to be overcome, if they are not easy to overcome, then they are expensive, far more expensive than most people are willing to pay.

There is just not a silver bullet for this problem.

[Trojan Defense]

Originally Posted by Coupleerotic22

I am not against the idea of a system that works, and I am not just being cynical.

You say you are not just being cynical, and that you are not against a system that works, yet you are. You are making incorrect assumptions about a system of which you know little of.

Originally Posted by Coupleerotic22

Frankly, I trust my own judgment and investigation over a systems like this.

One incorrect assumption that you make is that this is necessarily a substitute for getting to know someone. Rather than being a substitute, it could be a supplement. You could use it to quickly determine risk-based compatibility. If they meet your criteria, then you could subject them to the same methods of vetting that you would without this system. If they didn't meet your criteria for a sex partner, and that's all you were interested in (meaning you had no interest in friendship), then you could still waste your time if you wanted to, or you could move on. Your choice.

Originally Posted by Coupleerotic22

They have reduce me and my wife to a number - nice way to start a relationship.

Another incorrect assumption. If all you can see here is a number, instead of what it signifies, then you are missing the whole point of it. Its not to reduce people to numbers. Its to facilitate risk disclosure. You can still be friends with someone who represents an unacceptable health risk if you want to. It is your choice.

Originally Posted by Coupleerotic22

In a room full of swingers - everyone is going to have a a crap score, because we sleep with multiple partners - unless they are newbies.

Again, another incorrect assumption. Having many partners does not necessarily put a person at great risk. It is possible for someone with few partners to be a greater risk than someone with many partners.

Originally Posted by Coupleerotic22

And what about the idiot how looks at his great risk factor/credit score... and he becomes a greater risk out of a false sense of security.

A well designed system would account for this. Futhermore, If high risk people are significantly reducing their risk, while low risk people are only marginally increasing their risk, that is not a bad thing in the grand scheme of things. Particularly if taken into account with the theory of sexual economics.

Originally Posted by Coupleerotic22

In theory a great idea, in practice it doesn't fly.

They said the same thing to the inventor of the airplane, which makes about as much sense as saying the world is flat. We now know those things are untrue, however, the pioneers and innovators of those times had to go against the established way of thinking in pursuing their ideas. Likewise, I suspect it will be the same plight for those who lead the way in the development of these systems.

[Alura]

Well, the vote seems to be 23 "Nos" to 7 "Yesses," Trojan Defense.

But a more telling statistic is that almost all who disagree with you have been labeled by yourself as making "an incorrect assumption."

Also, to compare yourself favorably with "the inventor[s] (there were at least two) of the airplane is quite laughable.

Do you have interest in any issue besides STDs?

Alura

[Coupleerotic22]

You say I make wrong assumptions.

Wrong assumptions:
1. How the system works. Possibly true, but all I can do is make assumptions. I clearly pointed out and asked exactly how the system would work. And still no answers have been given.

2. I assume that people will use it as a substitute for doing their own leg work. Absolutely, it is human nature. If people can have an easy substitute for doing time consuming and complex activities they will choose the easier route almost every time. Your analogy of a credit score is a perfect example. Credit scores can be adversely affected by incorrect data and tangent events. But, more often than not, all the loan officer looks at is the score. So your assumptions flies in the face of behavior we see every day in the real world.

3. I assume that we would be reduced to a number. You assume that people would see a poor score and still interact with the person to get to know them better. Again, that is not human nature. The LS culture is looking for sex, has a high degree of concern over STI, and regularly makes judgment calls on who they spend time getting to know based on superficial elements. Let us assume your system would work and identify a large variant of score within the LS. In that culture most will not waste their time getting to know someone with a low score. They will never know their name or what they like, just that they have a score of X. I would say that is true in the vanilla world as well. So Beth, who loves to do threesomes, just became that women with a risk score of 131. You are kidding yourself if you don't think that is true.

4. I assume that all swingers would have a poor score. Every single risk determinate list I have seen, non-monogamous relationships and the number of partners ranks at or near the top of the list. Many of the other factors are in direct corollary, such as skin to skin contact, alcohol use and as mentioned in another post smoking. So yes, I maintain this to be an accurate assumption. Would the number be as low for this group as say, IV drug users, no, but it would be much worse than the general population as a whole.

5. You say a well designed system would account for the "idiots" that look at their own good score and become a greater risk to others. Okay, but we have not really seen a system, let alone a well designed system. I work with systems everyday, I cannot count the times I have been told we the system accounts for this or that, and the system did not.

6. Your role as the inventor of the sex risk airplane. Yes, people scoffed at the airplane, particularly early on, because technology and knowledge did not exist for centuries after the concept of flight was proposed to make it happen. When the technology did exist, a number of inventors were racing against the clock to be the first to achieve powered flight. Maybe the technology to overcome the flaws in this proposal exist, if so then address it. Again I asked and there has been no answer.

One more thing, Wilbur and Orville did not run around telling people how great flight would be and trying to convince them it was possible, they simply went out and did it. Since you have, at least indirectly, compared yourself to the Wright brothers, maybe it is time for you to roll up your sleeves and make it work and be less concerned that I, and many others, don't think it will.

Is there a tone if frustration in my post? Definitely. You spent an entire, lengthy post, addressing my thoughts on a relationship and have totally ignored what I and others have siad about why the system wouldn't work. You have been given many opinions, attacked assumptions while making some pretty flawed ones yourself and continue to push a system that as far as anyone can tell is nothing more than a theory. So if you would like to gain some traction on this topic I suggest you address the concerns and issues that have been put forward with actual methods, not counter opinion. Or better yet just go out and make the system work and prove us all wrong.

[Coupleerotic22]

I have to add. I have yet to see anyone say they would not be interested in a system that gave them real and solid information, that was reliable, was not intrusive and was simple to use.

All of the negatives I have seen come from what people believe are the inherent flaws to the proposal. None of which have been adequately addressed.