Would you go to a swingers club that required STD testing?

[VegasLee 1,486]

Would you attend a club that required everyone that came there to be STD tested and the results would be disclosed to the Owner/Manager of the club?

 

You would have to cover the expense of the test and you would have to be retested every 30 days.

[Chicup 41]

I voted no but it could be yes based on a few circumstances.

 

1. - If the people in the club were worth it.

 

If it was a club with 'real' swingers who we were attracted to as a whole, then it might be worth it. In that case the question would be 'Would you be willing to put up with STD testing for a really great club'. I'd vote yes there.

 

2. - If the testing was done on site. I'm just far to lazy to go every 30 days for an STD test, or anything like that.

[LikeMinds321 1,527]

Why? So that we can THINK we'd have less chance of getting cooties? So that we can FEEL better about fucking people because THE CLUB has now made our choices consist of a "cleaner lot" to choose from?

 

I can just see a club attendee getting a cootie from someone at the club and suing the club over it. The ole "I'm not responsible for myself" thing. People would think the club is somehow responsible for their health.

 

You could show me your clean test results acquired within the past thirty days but I have no idea who you fucked since getting the test. That's why this type of club would never make sense. It doesn't protect anyone. And I know you know that Lee. I think when people are new to swinging this type of club may sound comforting...like a security blanket...since STDs are usually a big fear for newbies, but a club like this would not be practical.

 

I can also see this type of club dividing swingers and getting few patrons.

[SecretAsianMan 348]

I totally agree... it's a nice theory but totally impractical as a functional club (unless you somehow could monitor everyone's activities from the moment they took these tests 'til the time they walked into the door of the club)

[Chicup 41]

LikeMinds321 said:

You could show me your clean test results acquired within the past thirty days but I have no idea who you fucked since getting the test.

 

While I don't think a club like that could ever work, I can't say I agree with the logic here.

 

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?

[JustAskJulie 2,595]

My first thoughts pretty well echoed Chicup. I'd have to know in advance who else was gonna be there and know for a fact that they were worth the effort... and even then I'm not going to go out of my way (ie to the drs office) every month to get said test.

 

But, then LikeMinds321's post... well I have to agree with that as well.

[fun4Ds 1,098]

How much are we talking expense wise, for the test?

[good times 991]

Well, since the cases where testing actually worked required 80-90% of the population effected to be tested for it to work, I would have to say, no, it wouldn't be worth the effort. Because even if one club in town decided to do it, it would still only be a very small segment of the swinging population in that town. So unless these club attendees decided they would play exclusively with people at that club, it would pretty much be a useless waste of time, in my opinion.

[LikeMinds321 1,527]

Chicup said:

LikeMinds321 said:

You could show me your clean test results acquired within the past thirty days but I have no idea who you fucked since getting the test.

While I don't think a club like that could ever work, I can't say I agree with the logic here.

 

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?

The point I was trying to make is that club patrons who don't think may consider a policy like this one as a guarantee of safety.

 

You mention that "Any thinking person knows an STD test does not guarantee someone does not have an STD..." I see "thinking" is key here. Thinkers are aware of this and don't have to be told (by a club) to get tested if it's important to them. And if who they play with also needs to be tested, they can ask for the papers. But how many really do this?

 

I wouldn't want to be a club owner and have to tell my good buddy, who occasionally handles security for me, that I won't let him in tonight because he didn't get himself tested last month...

 

or maybe I'd say, "Just this once."

[two4youinswva 3,068]

Tests? They said there wouldn't be any tests!

 

I don't know. I guess I would have to echo most of the other sentiments. If the members were players and not just watchers. If the testing was convenient, since I am a lazy bastard at times (well, not lazy, just preoccupied). If I got a free lollipop after getting tested, then yeah, we'd probably do that.

 

I think most would be interested in a club like this in theory. I just think the hassle of the testing logistics would create a big obstacle to success.

[jdavisauto 73]

No, I vote no. The club would not stay open for long. People are just not ready to take STD's test every 30 days just so they can go to a club. Even so what about the person you have sex with on day 5 or day 15? STD's are very low in swingers lifestyle, lower then they are anywhere else. No I could not belong to a club like that.

[Pepper & Drew 384]

I think the theory appeals to people, but the actual logistics are enough to render it not a good idea. When you think of the time and money to get the testing every 30 days, the club's administrative nightmare of keeping up with the information and checking ID's, and quite frankly, I'm not really sure I want a swinger club to have my medical information floating around somewhere, the idea loses its appeal pretty quickly.

 

I wouldn't go.

 

Pepper

[two4youinswva 3,068]

Pepper & Drew said:

I'm not really sure I want a swinger club to have my medical information floating around somewhere, the idea loses its appeal pretty quickly.

 

Good point. I would imagine there may be some HIPAA considerations as well. That opens up a whole new angle on the whole concept.

[JustAskJulie 2,595]

two4youinswva said:

Good point. I would imagine there may be some HIPAA considerations as well. That opens up a whole new angle on the whole concept.

 

When you consider that most don't even want a club to have their real name/ copy of their DL on file... I definitely can't see them wanting a club to have medical info on file for them.

 

And LM (I think it was) had a great point as well... who's going to police the club owners and make sure that they are actually enforcing the rules on EVERYONE including themselves? Short of everyone walking around the club with their paper in hand there is still no real guarantee, not that there really is anyway.

 

I know I'm taking a risk, but I know the risk I'm taking. I tend to agree that those who believe that asking for tests from their play partners puts them at less risk are deceiving themselves. Unless as someone pointed out EVERYONE who played got tested. But that's not going to happen, because even if there become some swinger union and everyone who went to a club had to get tested, there are many swingers who play outside of clubs or even who play with people who don't consider themselves swingers... or who pick up single guys at a vanilla bar, or whatever they choose to do. All of those others who were not in the "swinger union" would not be getting tested regularly, so all it takes is one couple to hook up with one of those and hit the club a few nights later before anything shows up on a test.

 

Then you go back to the fact that not all STDs can be tested for if there are not symptoms present and you have another conundrum.

 

Would it reduce risk, maybe? But only on a surface level. In the end I think it would provide too many people with a false sense of security.

[cplnuswing 4,713]

No, we wouldn't go. 1) We know what risks are involved and are comfortable with our approach in that regard. A 30 day old test that you are trusting someone else to administer and enforce the results of doesn't change anything on that. 2) Privacy issues. Don't like the drivers license stuff but can live with it. Medical information, no way. 3) Cost. If I am going to have to pay for it, why wouldn't I just go somewhere (dr office, clinic) that at least somewhat resolves issues 1 & 2.

 

When they get it down to you swipe your finger across a keypad and if you come back clean, the door buzzes and unlocks, fine. But, wouldn't be selecting for that club even then or trusting the handy STD finger scanner to keep me safe.

[des1re06 200]

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 167]

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 21]

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 991]

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.

 

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 21]

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 41]

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 21]

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 21]

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 16]

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 21]

I got a comprehensive screen at an AIM Foundation affiliate for $309 (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 680]

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 490]

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 21]

sweet_tna said:

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 transmission -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.

[Guest 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 991]

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.

[VegasLee 1,486]

I started this poll basically to see what people would say in the poll.

 

Seems the results are even except they are not really even.

 

Many that stated that they answered YES also posted all kinds of conditions.

 

The question was simple, yes or no to the following.

 

Would you go to a club that required you be tested every 30 days and the results of those tests would be given to the club owner/manager and you would have to pay for the test.

 

I personally do not believe 50% of the people would pay $150 to $300 a month to be tested. Most people complain about the cost of going to clubs so I don't see people shelling out $1800 to $3600 a year for testing.

 

I also do not believe anyone would agree to have medical records released to a club owner or manager. Most don't even want to give a real name.

 

In the last two weeks I have talked to two of our attorneys and a few doctors that come to the club weekly about this.

 

First the Attorneys. What they had so say I could not put on broadcast T.V. Their first response was: "Are you out of your F**king mind!"

 

Any club or person that did something like this would be opening their self up to lawsuits from Hell. The first time a "tested" person caught something, either in the club or outside of it the law suits would start coming fast. The expense would close any club in a matter of months just from being sued. After all, that is the American way, don't be responsible for your own actions, sue someone!

 

Just about every State, county and city are already trying to find ways to close swingers clubs. Doing this would do it for sure. If we demanded everyone be tested the officials could take it as we know for a fact that what we are doing could be a health danger to the general public. There are laws in EVERY STATE about endangering the health of the General Public. I know, they have tried using them on us four times in court. So far they have never had the proof to make it stick, this would do it according to the attorneys and I am going to take their word for it since they are the ones that have been defending us and winning for the last 25 years.

 

Now for the Doctors. One of them has been a prison doctor for the last 15 years, one works for the health department dealing with STD's and the others are just GP's here in town that go to the club and have for years.

 

First, they all had to stop laughing to be able to answer me with a straight face. That took time in itself.

 

The first answer from any of them. "A test is only good at the moment it is taken, once someone leaves the office it means NOTHING!" As soon as they have any interaction with anyone else the test means NOTHING AT ALL. That was from all of them.

 

Further information from them. Testing does not prevent anyone from catching anything. The only thing testing does is give you a better chance of treating something that someone has caught if they test on a regular basis since you catch it early.

 

Another thing they brought up is that the new "faster" tests have a 15% false results ratio. Ok, that is not good. So a club has someone tested, comes back positive, the results are false, person freaks out. Gets tested again, comes back negative, LAWSUIT commences.

 

The doctors in good faith said that if EVERYONE was tested, and had no sex ever with anyone outside of the group then it "might" cut down on what is already a very low rate of STD's within the Lifestyle. Now doctors that have been swingers for 20+ years know Swingers and their health better then most. They said they doubt that on the high end that more then 10% of swingers would even consider testing on a regular basis and less then 1% would agree with their life to have sex with ONLY THE PEOPLE IN THE GROUP!

 

The Doctor from the prison has a lot of STD experience, He states that over 75% on avg of everyone in prison has an STD at any given time. They do testing all the time and treatment. They test for early treatment purposes only. The doctor from the Health Department also has tons of experience since that is what he does there. He said no way would this ever fly anywhere and anyone that thought it would is "so far off in a fantasy land that he would like to see them receive treatment." His quote, not mine. He said he says that because if someone believes this and is that secure in it they could be a danger to their own health with the false sense of security they have believing this.

 

Well, I put my time and money where my mouth is. Attorneys don't talk for free. Doctors do when they are swingers. As most of you know, I like to deal in facts. Now if anyone can find some facts that make these professionals wrong then bring it on and I will be happy to discuss this but I hope this finally puts this fantasy to rest.

[highlander 21]

good times said:

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.

 

Here is one example of a piggyback infection from a 2005 article:

Quote

Infection with one subtype of the human papilloma virus (HPV) doubles the risk of becoming infected with HIV, and infection with several subtypes more than triples it, the third IAS conference heard on July 26th.

 

This whole picture of how various STD infections interact seem to still seems to be emerging.

 

Now, I was careful not to say exactly _how_ the samples would vary. This is a question for observation and measurement. I would however be surprised if the sample of folks that test regularly and play only with other folks that also test regularly is the same as folks that never test and never ask folks if they test.

 

The anecdotal data I found from folks that have operated group testing programs suggests it does help somewhat. I haven't seen anything like that published anywhere though.

[good times 991]

Here is one example of a piggyback infection from a 2005 article:

OK, but that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Because the people I was talking about were identical, except one was tested and the other wasn't. In which case their would be zero statistical difference in the odds of them contracting an std.

 

 

Now, I was careful not to say exactly _how_ the samples would vary. This is a question for observation and measurement. I would however be surprised if the sample of folks that test regularly and play only with other folks that also test regularly is the same as folks that never test and never ask folks if they test.

I would too, my point is, we will never know in swinging, because I would be highly surprised if we ever got a large enough group to agree to testing, and only play with others that have been regularly tested, to get any valid statistical data. For the reasons that Lee gave, and a multitude of others, it just isn't going to happen.

 

For most of the people I know, std's in the swinging population just isn't a big enough problem to warrant the time and money that a testing program like this would require. Couple that with the fact that the benefits of testing in preventing the contracting of an std is almost zero, unless all of the people you play with regularly also get tested regularly, and it is an idea that just will never get off the ground.

[highlander 21]

OK, but that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Because the people I was talking about were identical, except one was tested and the other wasn't. In which case their would be zero statistical difference in the odds of them contracting an std.

Well, first off, look at what I was originally talking about:

a) the population who are tested clean for a variety of STD's and select partners that demonstrate similar status

b) the untested population that select partners without regard to testing status.

 

I'd love to see a good study comparing those two populations-and adjusting for behavioral differences. Now it would have to be real carefully because simply reporting results to someone might change their behavioral patterns in subtle ways even if they didn't actively use those results for partner selection.

 

 

I would too, my point is, we will never know in swinging, because I would be highly surprised if we ever got a large enough group to agree to testing, and only play with others that have been regularly tested, to get any valid statistical data.

We already have examples of groups that have instituted STD testing programs for groups despite the best efforts of the medical and legal authorities to discourage such practices. I've seen some references to studies involving AIM and porn actors. That is a rather exceptional group though. The Rajneesh community docs published some studies of their AIDS testing program back in the 80's. Now, those results have fallen into question because of some of the other practices in that community. As I remember they were claiming that AIDS was spreading rapidly in their community despite their testing program and encouragement of safer sex practices. There were some outside studies involving different populations and use of condoms. My impression is folks just started discounting the Rajneesh results and I don't think anyone ever really sorted out quite what the issues were between the two groups(i.e. The Rajneesh group was rather young and it isn't clear how their compliance compared to the later groups that were tested, also the Rajneesh group wasn't a cross section of the population and may have included a lot high rate of bisexual men than the general population).

 

Anyhow, we still have examples of groups that have at least at some point had operational STD testing programs(Lafayette More House in California is one example-I'd be surprised if they are the only one). LMH's behavioral pattern from what I know of them is somewhere between that of patrons of swingers clubs and porn actors(but with greater emphasis on safer sex practices). I don't think any responsible scientist has ever looked at their clinical records. When I talked with those folks over 20 years ago, they said they had a periodic problem with Chlamydia and HSV despite testing for Chlamydia--but that the problem was quite a bit better with a testing program than it had been without a pre-emptive testing program(they'd never had an AIDS case even show up in their initial testing and HSV tests were available then).

 

For most of the people I know, std's in the swinging population just isn't a big enough problem to warrant the time and money that a testing program like this would require. Couple that with the fact that the benefits of testing in preventing the contracting of an std is almost zero, unless all of the people you play with regularly also get tested regularly, and it is an idea that just will never get off the ground.

 

Folks keep saying the differences between folks that test regularly and require similar results from partners is zero compared to the general population with similar behavior. I'd be very interested in seeing a valid study to that effect-and for that matter the claim that testing produces a false sense of security when it is used.

 

Anyhow, just looking at stuff like Personals ads, we have a population of folks that regularly test and expect test results from partners-despite a lot of public health folks saying this means nothing. There ought to be enough of those to construct some kind of a sample there that could be studied. One problem is going to be constructing a good control group. You could compare folks that test regularly to those that don't-but you'd have to start testing the ones that don't otherwise test, and as soon as you report results to them, there is some possibility they might be adjusting behaviors one way or another. You'd also have to survey reported sexual activity and safer sex practices here to get any real data.

[good times 991]

Folks keep saying the differences between folks that test regularly and require similar results from partners is zero compared to the general population with similar behavior.

Huh, I haven't seen anyone say that, I know I haven't. What I did say is that their is no such thing in swinging. I have been swinging for some time, and have met a lot of swingers. I have met some that have been tested, I have met none that have been tested more often than once a year. While it wouldn't surprise me if their were a few who test regularly and expect the same from their play partners, it would surprise me if they amounted to more than a hundred people in the entire US.

 

So, what I am saying is that if everyone who is a swinger was tested regularly it might make a difference. But the reality is they are not, and a tested person playing with an untested one is no different than two untested ones playing. Failing everyone being tested, the only benefit to testing is the piece of mind you get knowing you haven't caught anything. But currently, and as far into the future as I can imagine, getting tested will not reduce the odds of any individual swinger catching anything in the least. And to expect that at some not to distant point in the future a significant number of swingers are going embrace testing, is delusional in the extreme, it just isn't going to happen. It is just too expensive, time consuming, and indiscreet to do, and provides too little benefit for too insignificant of a problem to ever happen.

 

I'd be very interested in seeing a valid study to that effect-and for that matter the claim that testing produces a false sense of security when it is used.

 

You probably never will either, the fact of the matter is, you couldn't get a large enough group to be in a study to see a statistical difference. Thousands of swingers play with thousands of others every week without catching anything from one another. The vast majority of them are rarely tested, and a majority of them use no form of, so called, protection at all. So you would have to study millions over a considerable period of time to see any statistical difference. That leads to the next reason you won't see such a study. That is that the problem just isn't significant enough for a study to ever be worthwhile.

 

Regarding the false sense of security, that is just human nature and needs no study to prove it. The fact of the matter is, the only reason a person would get tested is to ease their mind. The only reason they would desire to only play with others who have been tested is that they feel more secure in doing so. Yet, unless all the people you play with are regularly tested, and all the people they play with are regularly tested, and so on, and so on, testing really makes no difference. So having a group, say a club that requires all to be tested, would give some a sense of security. Yet the expectation that all, or even the majority of the group are not playing outside of that group is unrealistic in the swinging world. So, common sense would dictate, that the people who are all gung-ho about the group requiring testing are obviously operating under a false sense of security.

[highlander 21]

I ran questions on this topic by a few folks:

1) a former member of the statistical advisory board for CDC

 

2) a senior epidemiologist at CDC

 

3) Michael Kowalski, the medical adviser to a company that is promoting sharing of STD test results securely via the internet. Those folks have a bunch of papers on the rationale behind expanding testing in "social network" populations.

 

The first feedback that I got was from 1) above. I asked him specifically whether a population in which people were tested, shared test results and limited contact to partners with a similar STD testing profile would have a lower incidence of STD's than a similar population with similar sexual habits and condom using habits. He thought that regular testing would be associated with a significant difference-but he wasn't aware of a good study that showed just how great the difference would be. He thought any benefits would be highly variable from population to population.

 

Someone I talked to said there is a technology in the works that overcomes many of the objections folks here have had to expanded use of STD testing. That technology uses DNA chips to conduct the tests. That approach is a major research project-and is the type of thing that will require some big companies to get behind it. This guy knows one of the major researchers who says they have working prototypes-but the Bush administration stalled testing. If they get some better cooperation they are 5-10 years from having an FDA approved product they can market. DNA chips lower the cost of testing enormously-you can simply take a finger prick blood sample and test for the presence of the types of DNA associated with STD causing organisms. In large scale production DNA chips should be very inexpensive-which means you might have a bank of tests as sensitive as what AIM Foundation has been doing for the porn actor community, but something that would have a 15-30 minute test turn around and would sell for $2-5/test panel. What they are hoping to promote is the idea people would routinely test every time they consider a new partner-or frequently test regular partners.

[Jeok 3]

We had Ponderosa Party House in Mims, FL, which had a requirement that First Attendees provide an STD-Free statement from the local Health Department. Afterwards, your word was honored, especially if you only had encounters with known members. Our local Health Department STD Test for ALL STDs only costs $20, the Test is Anonymous, with number designation & every city has a Health Department. Everyone who attended Ponderosa liked & supported this requirement and it was a selling point to those individuals objecting to Swinging as being Dangerous-i.e. newbie spouses and/or SOs. Most used condoms, except those tested on a regular basis. As a young man, I always was tested after having sex with some unknown female I picked up at some club or bar-it used to be completely free back then-doing so gave me peace of mind; I have never contracted ANY STD. Being tested, occasionaly-in this lifestyle, seems prudent to me. It doesn't cost that much in time or cash, and the peace of mind of definite knowledge you haven't caught anything from any recent encounters is Priceless. Jeok

[highlander 21]

The web site of the Ponderosa Party House was active from 2002-2007-so they stayed open for a while it would appear.

[highlander 21]

Huh, I haven't seen anyone say that, I know I haven't. What I did say is that their is no such thing in swinging. I have been swinging for some time, and have met a lot of swingers. I have met some that have been tested, I have met none that have been tested more often than once a year.

I've met two the last month that test every 90 days(and both in my area). Now, the thing is, having actual test results in hand made it a LOT easier to meet those folks(I don't think they would have given me the time of day otherwise).

 

While it wouldn't surprise me if their were a few who test regularly and expect the same from their play partners, it would surprise me if they amounted to more than a hundred people in the entire US.

Just the polls here suggest it is a bit larger than that. I don't think it is an overwhelming factor in the swinger community. Now, the things that are changing in this regard are better tests and better means of securely (and privately) sharing STD test results. Both those are changing gradually too.

 

So, what I am saying is that if everyone who is a swinger was tested regularly it might make a difference.

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.

 

There are a few docs that are supporting the general idea-but it is clearly a minority opinion.

 

But the reality is they are not, and a tested person playing with an untested one is no different than two untested ones playing.

From a mathematical standpoint, that isn't true. If you have someone that tests negative for everything, and and untested person, the untested person has less probability of picking up something new than they might otherwise.

How much less? Well that is a question I'd love to see a good paper on.

 

Failing everyone being tested, the only benefit to testing is the piece of mind you get knowing you haven't caught anything. But currently, and as far into the future as I can imagine, getting tested will not reduce the odds of any individual swinger catching anything in the least.

What helps you reduce the odds is specifically selecting partners that don't have any diseases you don't-or using more careful safer sex measures than you might otherwise if you choose to play with a partner that is positive for anything.

 

And to expect that at some not to distant point in the future a significant number of swingers are going embrace testing, is delusional in the extreme, it just isn't going to happen. It is just too expensive, time consuming, and indiscreet to do, and provides too little benefit for too insignificant of a problem to ever happen.

I tend to doubt the _existing_ community of swingers will change their habits much. What I think will happen-if this happens-is we'll see changes adopted by younger folks that haven't really established their habits yet.

 

You probably never will either, the fact of the matter is, you couldn't get a large enough group to be in a study to see a statistical difference. Thousands of swingers play with thousands of others every week without catching anything from one another.

 

The vast majority of them are rarely tested, and a majority of them use no form of, so called, protection at all. So you would have to study millions over a considerable period of time to see any statistical difference. That leads to the next reason you won't see such a study. That is that the problem just isn't significant enough for a study to ever be worthwhile.

When reading papers looking for material related to this thread, I noticed a couple things:

1) conventional wisdom in public health seems to be that multiple sexual partners is one of the single highest correlations for having STD's

 

2) "selective avoidance" of partners perceived as being high risk for STD's seems to be a poor strategy for avoiding STD's for many of the higher risk communities.

 

I saw various papers published on both these points. Now there is a real question why swingers are an anomaly here?

 

One thing I noticed, just looking at the Red Rooster site, there are some major selective criteria going on that might be factors:

1) age-Red Rooster requests party attendees be 25 or older. Most New STD

cases are in people under 25.

 

2) drug use--any party house is going to tend to screen out folks that are visibly loaded or sick looking.

 

3) the fees. A big chunk of STD's are spreading among people that are in tough enough financial situations than requiring fees would weed them out.

 

For party houses that require one to be part of a stable couple, that is another factor.

 

Now are those really important enough factors to explain the difference we see here?

 

 

 

The only reason they would desire to only play with others who have been tested is that they feel more secure in doing so. Yet, unless all the people you play with are regularly tested

That sure doesn't jive with the statistics I was taught in college/grad school. Just swaying the sample towards fewer untested partners and more partners that have tested negative would tend to reduce incremental risk somewhat. How much? well that is an interesting question for which I have seen no good empirical study.

 

 

and all the people they play with are regularly tested, and so on, and so on, testing really makes no difference.

You seem in an all or nothing mentality here. When I do the math, it makes more of a difference when you move towards a closed group. however, a lot of these diseases move pretty dang slowly. Gonorrhea and Chlamydia can move towards a group like wildfire. however, even there, having a group you can contact as soon as you see a case or two makes a big difference.

 

 

So having a group, say a club that requires all to be tested, would give some a sense of security. Yet the expectation that all, or even the majority of the group are not playing outside of that group is unrealistic in the swinging world. So, common sense would dictate, that the people who are all gung-ho about the group requiring testing are obviously operating under a false sense of security.

Well the question here is do folks lie about outside encounters just because they are bore or for other reasons? My sense is if folks get the message they get more variety by telling the truth-and being responsible they'll tend to do so.

[BiloxiCouple 695]

Sometimes reality and fantasy just don't mix well.

[highlander 21]

I've sent a note to Bernard Branson at CDC who is the author of the CDC testing guidelines to see what he thinks the likely impact of expanding testing of sexually active groups.

 

Their current guidelines are Revised Recommendations for HIV Testing of Adults, Adolescents, and Pregnant Women in Health-Care Settings

 

They are suggesting things like annual testing of all adults between 15-64 and folks with multiple partners testing after each new partner. Now that is obviously impractical in the swinger community-and those guidelines were not constructed with swingers in mind. I'm trying to find any examples where anyone versed in quantitative methods has looked at the incidence of STD's among swingers and explained why incidence is different than other groups with multiple partners.

 

I've also sent a note to the medical advisor of sxcheck.com

to see if he had anything that backed up the likely impact of his services.

 

Just the fact that we have two commercial services(sxcheck.com and checktonight.com) with MD's putting their names behind them, suggests there is a range of opinion in the medical community on the likely impact of expanding testing and exchange of test results in sexually active populations.

 

Now, I find it plausible that even adjusting for major demographic factors and frequency of sexual activity that swingers are different than other sexually active populations-but I haven't yet seen published papers on that(I'd be interested in any references folks have here).

 

Anyhow there is some evidence that just expanding testing would impact spread of some STD's:

 

 

Revised Recommendations for HIV Testing of Adults, Adolescents, and Pregnant Women in Health-Care Settings

# CDC Recommends Annual Testing for All Ages 18-64

# CDC has concluded that that the best means of containing the spread of the disease is to increase the percentage of infected people who know they have HIV.

 

"The majority of persons who are aware of their HIV infections substantially reduce sexual behaviors that might transmit HIV after they become aware they are infected (5). In a meta-analysis of findings from eight studies, the prevalence of unprotected anal or vaginal intercourse with uninfected partners was on average 68% lower for HIV-infected persons who were aware of their status than it was for HIV-infected persons who were unaware of their status"

 

I tend to think that encouraging requesting of results from partners would do more-but haven't see a good reference on that yet. The big one there I'd like to see is how this works for HSV since disease is so widespread and responds poorly to condom use.

[good times 991]

I hate seeing you just talking to yourself here Highlander, so even though my interest has died on this subject like it has apparently for everyone else here, your post does beg an obvious question.

 

Has it occurred to you that if you only ask folks who's very livelihood most depends on keeping the public as paranoid as possible about std's their opinion on this, that their opinions are likely to be highly biased toward your point of view? Or were we not supposed to notice that?

[BiloxiCouple 695]

If this post keeps going it is going to scare me into a condom

 

You can crunch the numbers any way you want and get an opinion that is different with a dozen different doctors and agencies. Where does it get us in the end?

 

I'm still going to have sex. I don't want to use protection and I ain't gonna ask those personal questions.

[highlander 21]

I hate seeing you just talking to yourself here Highlander, so even though my interest has died on this subject like it has apparently for everyone else here, your post does beg an obvious question.

 

Has it occurred to you that if you only ask folks who's very livelihood most depends on keeping the public as paranoid as possible about std's their opinion on this, that their opinions are likely to be highly biased toward your point of view? Or were we not supposed to notice that?

 

Everybody has a lifestyle. It is human nature to imagine their lifestyle as having advantages relative to other lifestyles that it may not have. That is a problem that I saw with asking docs that swing about swinging. Now on one hand they have direct experience with the community-and that is a plus. On the other, you are selecting from people that are comfortable swinging with an untested population(though I wouldn't be surprised if they by and large are more careful with condoms than most swingers).

 

Anyhow, I generally will rely on the more quantitative papers on this sort of thing if I can find them. The former CDC stat adviser I talked to is NOT dependent on income from that area any more-and hasn't been for a while. He's also not a straight monogamous person.

 

Anyhow, I dislike "fear, uncertainty doubt" tactics for sales. I don't think the swinging community is a hotbed for AIDS. I'm not sure what the HSV level really is. Do think broader testing would be good for the community? Yes. do I think the existence of a few clubs that required testing and tracked their results would be a good thing? Yes. I do.

 

Given that the poll here says that most readers on this board are interested in the general idea, and we are seeing the emerging of some good testing infrastructure for the first time-and improvement of the tests available the question is will we see clubs trying testing? My sense is that we are still a ways from that. Even at $60/month, only some swingers are going to make the investment until there is a more obvious payoff. I'd guess that 10% of existing swingers might buy in-and a larger number of folks that are on the sidelines might participate if testing mandatory clubs were available.

 

Now if some public health authorities were to get behind the idea, the thing might take off. My guess is that it would be safer to swing in a testing mandatory club periodically than to enter a relationship with a partner who has a history of multiple sexual encounters and expect them to remain monogamous and rely on that as your primary safety precaution-but that is just a guess on my part.

[good times 991]

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 1,098]

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 21]

good times said:

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.

 

Quote

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.

 

 

Quote

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.

 

 

Quote

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.

 

Quote

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 361]

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 21]

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 695]

 

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