A credit score for having sex?

[Trojan Defense]

What if there was a 4 digit number that could be used to identify, and screen prospective partners according to their level of sexual risk? You could think of it as sort of a credit score for having sex. Using it, you and another person could size up how acceptable one another's risk profiles were without necessarily knowing the intimate details of one another's risk profiles.

So if you wanted to avoid people that have stds, such as AIDs, you could ask a prospective partner if they have it (based on test results) without offending them in the process by insinuating that they do. Furthermore, if you wanted to avoid people that are likely to have stds (based on probabilities) without insinuating anything, you could do that too. Conversely, if you are a person with AIDs, or anything else, you could use this number to disclose your condition without fear of shame, or stigma as the sole purpose of this number would be to only tell whether or not two people are sexually compatible - nothing more, nothing less.

Polling Question: Would you find this useful, not necessarily as a swinger per se, but as a sexually active person?

[Chicup]

I know you are fixated on this idea, but its not a good one unless you can force people to do it, and not lie.

As long as people are liars, and they are, its useless.

[exploringRM]

I was thinking about this today, in general the risks in swinging. If people are honest they are going to tell you they have an STD or be forthcoming about facts like playing bareback If they are not honest they are not going to tell you and will not be up front about their activities/sexual credit score.

Unless you have an independent party tracking everything a person does in their life I find no benefit or validity to such a score. And when you add the fact that everyone in the chain of sexual interaction has to be honest, it's meaningless to me.

And perhaps honest is not just the main factor but the embarrassment or covertness of their activities. The "straight" guy that has unprotected anal sex with other men. The seemingly normal IV drug abuser.

And what about other lifestyle factors. People that come in contact with disease through the course of their work. (social workers, health care providers, lab workers).

[Coupleerotic22]

I can't see how it could be reliable and therefore useful. Aside form Chicup's accurate assessment about liars, there are far to many factors to make any assessment meaningful. You can become infected after one encounter and still be negative after 1000. You would also have to calculate for the extended partners, IV Drug usage, work related NSI, precautions taken, partner demographics and a host of other factors to be remotely accurate.

[Trojan Defense]

Originally Posted by Chicup

its not a good one unless you can force people to do it, and not lie.

That's the beauty of it. It'd be rather pointless to lie because it'd be virtually impossible for you to know what the correct answer was. Unlike with credit scores, where it is common knowledge what is a high score, and what is a low score, that distinction would not exist with this idea, of which I call a risk type. Each risk type would be a 4 digit encrypted version of a person's risk profile. Accompanying each risk type would be a compatibility rule, which would be an encrypted version of a person's risk threshold.

For example, if the compatibility rule for your particular risk type is that the first and third digits must not be greater than 15 when added together, then you know someone of the risk type 9999 is not what you'd consider to be an acceptable health risk. So, upon asking a person what their risk type is, it'd be virtually impossible for them to know the right answer, therefore defeating the purpose of lying.

[Chicup]

Originally Posted by Trojan Defense

That's the beauty of it. It'd be rather pointless to lie because it'd be virtually impossible for you to know what the correct answer was. Unlike with credit scores, where it is common knowledge what is a high score, and what is a low score, that distinction would not exist with this idea, of which I call a risk type. Each risk type would be a 4 digit encrypted version of a person's risk profile. Accompanying each risk type would be a compatibility rule, which would be an encrypted version of a person's risk threshold.

For example, if the compatibility rule for your particular risk type is that the first and third digits must not be greater than 15 when added together, then you know someone of the risk type 9999 is not what you'd consider to be an acceptable health risk. So, upon asking a person what their risk type is, it'd be virtually impossible for them to know the right answer, therefore defeating the purpose of lying.

I have to admit something. I have no idea what you are talking about, or at least not sure how it pertains to lying.

They would simply lie when filling out whatever sort of questionnaire you had.

Have you ever had an outbreak of cold sores? - No
Have you ever had an outbreak of genital herpes? - No
Have you ever had a outbreak of HPV? - No
Do you always use a condom? - Yes

As filled out by the HSV 1 HSV 2 HPV having I only go bareback guy.

[socolais]

In my opinion, not only would it not be useful (even if the honesty/accuracy issue could magically be eliminated) it has the potential to be harmful by misapplying it to individual encounters. Just as with the ideas in your other similar posts, the statistics are valid (best case) for significant populations and completely useless for predicting the outcome of individual events.

The people that understand the statistics will be unlikely to have anything to do with your parlor game while the remainder have an overwhelming probability of misplacing their confidence in the statistical prediction for the pending encounter.

[slevin]

I don't see the point in trying to assign a quantitative analysis to a subjective situation. You can't determine whether someone has an STD or not isn't possible with a scenario like this. Understanding their risk type isn't very useful either, because all it takes is for a low risk person to have sex with someone infected with an STD. What risk type the STD carrier is doesn't matter; I fuck that low risk person and catch an STD. It invalidates the whole point.

I wouldn't bother with it. STD test results are the only beneficial thing for this type of analysis. Even then, they are just a point in time.

[Trojan Defense]

Originally Posted by Chicup

I have to admit something. I have no idea what you are talking about, or at least not sure how it pertains to lying.

Then you must not be paying attention, Chicup. This thread is about risk disclosure, not risk assessments. If you want to talk about risk assessments, then you should visit the Online STD Risk Assessments thread. That's what it was created for.

Originally Posted by Chicup

They would simply lie when filling out whatever sort of questionnaire you had.

We are not talking about people lying when they assess risk, we're talking about people lying when they disclose it.

Originally Posted by Chicup

As filled out by the HSV 1 HSV 2 HPV having I only go bareback guy.

And I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Trojan Defense]

Originally Posted by socolais

Just as with the ideas in your other similar posts, the statistics are valid (best case) for significant populations and completely useless for predicting the outcome of individual events.

This was not a discussion thread on my ideas in their entirety, but rather on one particular aspect of them. That particular aspect would be risk disclosure - not risk assessment.

[Trojan Defense]

Originally Posted by Coupleerotic22

I can't see how it could be reliable and therefore useful... You would also have to calculate for the extended partners, IV Drug usage, work related NSI, precautions taken, partner demographics and a host of other factors to be remotely accurate.

Even though your comment is off topic, I will respond to it since you and others persist.

Do you remember how you answered my question of how do you assess std risk? You said...

Originally Posted by Coupleerotic22

Start by asking some simple questions. Are they a member of a high risk group? If yes, no need to ask any further questions, except do you have STD blood work results? [paraphrased].

Now, may I ask you what is this personal risk assessment of yours based upon?

I'll take the liberty of answering the question for you. It's based upon probabilities - but what kind of probabilities? Probabilities that were derived from populations. Yet you, and others are telling me you can't assess risk derived from populations - and yet you already are! You just don't realize it.

[Trojan Defense]

Originally Posted by exploringRM

I was thinking about this today, in general the risks in swinging. If people are honest they are going to tell you they have an STD or be forthcoming about facts like playing bareback

Finally, a comment that is on topic.

Though I have to disagree with it. If you are infected, you can be honest, and yet reluctant to disclose a truth that may result in shame, rejection, and stigma. Its one thing when the truth is no big deal, but its another when it has the potential to send your partner running, and never looking back. Conversely, if you're just trying to look out for your health, the last thing you want to is offend someone of whom you have high hopes of getting with by insinuating that they have something. I think it is because of these kinds of problems that a safer sex discussion often never takes place.

People need a more comfortable way of dealing with these things, and what I propose offers one.

Originally Posted by exploringRM

If they are not honest they are not going to tell you and will not be up front about their activities/sexual credit score.

If they are not honest, they'd have an easier time screwing people around who are not using such a system, rather than a group who is, and in doing so, is trying to be vigilant about protecting their health. For someone with no scruples, it'd just be easier to screw people over when they're not looking then, when they are. It'd be less work.

[Coupleerotic22]

Originally Posted by Trojan Defense

Even though your comment is off topic, I will respond to it since you and others persist.

Do you remember how you answered my question of how do you assess std risk? You said...



Now, may I ask you what is this personal risk assessment of yours based upon?

I'll take the liberty of answering the question for you. It's based upon probabilities - but what kind of probabilities? Probabilities that were derived from populations. Yet you, and others are telling me you can't assess risk derived from populations - and yet you already are! You just don't realize it.

We can all assess risk in populations, it just does not translate to individuals. We are in swinging LS, by definition a high risk group. That is what my personal group risk assessment is based on, so STD test is how I assess individual risk. A number based on probability does not give me an idea of an individuals risk. Like I said, this is a high risk group. All the numbers would be high. Differences within the group would be statistically irrelevant.

[Trojan Defense]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not knocking your personal approach to risk assessment. I actually like it, and think it is a bit more well thought out that some of the other answers that I've heard. Nor is this to personally single you out, as I am confident you are not the only one that does it this way.

Its just that I find the attack here on my approach a little like the kettle calling the pot black. That's because if we go back to what your answer was how to assess std risk, you said (without me paraphrasing it)...

Originally Posted by Coupleerotic22

Start by asking some simple questions.

Q 1. Are they a member of a high risk group? Intravenous drug user, homosexual, in non-monogamous relationship?

And now you are trying to downplay this answer by saying you only rely on test results, which I might add is still a matter or probability not just because it only shows a person's condition at one point in time, but also as a result of false positives, and false negatives that can occur with these tests. But anyway, I digress...

What you were just saying was...

Originally Posted by Coupleerotic22

We can all assess risk in populations, it just does not translate to individuals.

It doesn't? But what did you just say in the previous quote? You said, "Are they a member of a high risk group?" Okay, well that would be ascribing risk in populations to individuals. And furthermore, to say differences within high risk groups are irrelevant I believe is incorrect too. In terms of risk in a partner, the only thing worse than having one major risk factor is - having several! So a distinction is to be made there.

[VegasLee]

Any person that has sex with someone other then their spouse is a member of a high risk group.

How high is the risk? There is no real way of knowing no matter how many numbers are crunched. Rating will mean nothing at all. Tests mean nothing either. That test is good at the moment it is taken only. As soon as someone has contact with another human after taking the test, the results will mean nothing.

This can keep being batted around the forums in many different wordings but bottom line is the only safe sex is sex with yourself. (Only if you wash your hands before and afterwards)

No testing, ratings, stats or anything else is going to save you or limit your chances if you continue to have sex with anyone. It only takes that one "special person" and your dead.