A credit score for having sex?

[Trojan Defense 15]

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 41]

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

 

As long as people are liars, and they are, it is useless.

[exploringRM 305]

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 1,419]

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 15]

Chicup said:

it is 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 41]

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 696]

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 1,374]

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 15]

Chicup said:

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.

 

Chicup said:

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.

 

Chicup said:

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 15]

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 15]

Coupleerotic22 said:

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...

 

Coupleerotic22 said:

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 15]

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.

 

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 1,419]

Trojan Defense said:

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 15]

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)...

 

Coupleerotic22 said:

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...

 

Coupleerotic22 said:

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 1,486]

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.

[LikeMinds321 1,527]

Trojan ~

 

The bottom line is, we're not buying what you have to sell.

 

You can push all you want, but if what you have to market isn't of interest to the public, you have to face that.

 

R.I.P.

[Coupleerotic22 1,419]

Trojan Defense said:

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)...

 

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...

 

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.

 

"Are they a member of a high risk group?" was a rhetorical question in a separate post. It is rhetorical because we are swingers - by definition a high risk group. So I rely on test because I am a swinger and having sex with other swingers. Test are as close to accurate as you can get, and they are not fail-safe. If I simply decided not to have sex with swingers based on the fact they are high risk, swinging wouldn't be much fun, because we are all in a high risk category.

 

To use your credit score analogy, if I walk into a swingers social and try to use this assessment, then no one in the room is going to have a very high credit score, unless they are brand new to swinging.

 

You are also mixing scoring and actuarial data. My credit score is a measure of my actions and how they were reported. My life insurance is based on the risk groups I fall into, many based on things outside my control.

 

I may fall into the risk group of heart disease, but that is not a predictor of a heart attack, only the potential.

 

A credit score is a predictor because it is based on MY behavior not the some group I belong to.

 

So unless you are proposing the everyone sign on tho a database and report who they had sex with and under what conditions, then it is not much of an individual predictor. Good luck on the reporting mechanism.

 

To answer your original "Polling Question: Would you find this useful, not necessarily as a swinger per se, but as a sexually active person?" NO

[good times 991]

+1 to what Chicup, VegasLee and Likeminds said. I know you have yourself convinced that these ideas of yours are good ones, and you obviously believe they have merit. Good for you, as for me, they are the most ridiculous proposals I have ever heard regarding std/sti risk reduction, mitigation, or awareness.

 

Bottom line, as I pointed out in your other thread. Their is currently no way to come up with such a rating. It is absolutely impossible, the necessary data does not exist, nor will it in our lifetimes.

 

Once someone gets the tri-coder developed so we can scan a potential mate for all possible diseases, then it will be possible. Until then, you takes your chances, or you self satisfy.

[socolais 696]

Let's try this from a different perspective. Let's assume you already have your infaliable data store, refined query set, and impressive GUI. What are your instructions for the customer wanting to utilize this application at the next swingers party? What need does this tool satisfy? What value does the customer percieve from its response?

[highlander 21]

VegasLee said:

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 simply isn't true. Porn actors under AIM's testing protocol have a lower rate of STD's than the general population. That makes them by statistical definition a lower risk population-unless you are saying AIM's figures are false.

 

This idea that tests mean "nothing" except at the time of test is BAD statistics. I know you heard it from an MD someplace-and most of those folks have _minimal_ statistical training compared to economists or statisticians(yes, I did take the kinds of statistics courses where those kinds of guys are too damned scared to show their faces). The _right_ way to think of it is the test means the _most_ right after the test and then gradually degrades(and just how much it means at the time of the test depends on what kind of demographic group we are talking about). Condoms aren't 100% either. One source at UCSF put their effectiveness at about 90%.

 

The impression of monogamy isn't really protection either. Most women that get HIV get it from a partner whose risk factor wasn't promiscuity but IV drug use. Most gay men that get HIV get it from a regular partner-and I bet a lot of those folks thought that guy was monogamous.

 

Anyhow, I think AIM has it pretty much right requiring monthly testing for porn actors for multiple STD's. My personal math suggest that approach is at least as effective as condoms alone for that community we are talking about. It isn't foolproof-but nothing is. If someone wants the ultimate in safety, they can be celibate.

[appliancesex 66]

That makes them by statistical definition a lower risk population-unless you are saying AIM's figures are false.

 

i was under the impression that porn actors are only tested for hiv. if this is correct, i wouldn't go around saying that they are the lower risk population.

 

instead of all this high tech statistical stuff, why don't we just ask people to wear an arm band? that would be so much easier.

 

omg. it can be color coded too! sort of like a security level. then when, at the club we could look over at a chart and be like, 'hmm, what's pink again?'

[socolais 696]

highlander said:

.... Most women that get HIV get it from a partner whose risk factor wasn't promiscuity but IV drug use. Most gay men that get HIV get it from a regular partner-and I bet a lot of those folks thought that guy was monogamous.

 

How can we be confident of the infection source?

[slevin 1,374]

i was under the impression that porn actors are only tested for hiv. if this is correct, i wouldn't go around saying that they are the lower risk population.

 

instead of all this high tech statistical stuff, why don't we just ask people to wear an arm band? that would be so much easier.

 

omg. it can be color coded too! sort of like a security level. then when, at the club we could look over at a chart and be like, 'hmm, what's pink again?'

 

They publicize the HIV testing, but they also test for chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis. I don't believe they test for herpes.

[highlander 21]

i was under the impression that porn actors are only tested for hiv. if this is correct, i wouldn't go around saying that they are the lower risk population.'

 

That is not correct. In studios following the AIM testing protocol, actors are tested for HIV, Gonorrhea, and Chlamydia every month-and in addition, HSV(1 and 2), Syphilis, Hep A/B/C every 6 months. They also receive some basic education on how to spot other STD's like BV, crabs and trich.

 

They do have some incidence of Gonorrhea and Chlamydia-it is just lower than that for the general population. I personally think the reason their program works as well as it does in their population(which has some behaviors that are considered high risk) is because the typical duration of a case of treatable STD's among porn actors is going to be low compared to the generational population. That also means that HIV is going to be less transmissible per act than the general population.

[highlander 21]

How can we be confident of the infection source?

 

There are DNA tests that can trace source of infection. As I understand it, HIV mutates slightly each time it is passed from one person to another-and the HIV viruses in each person aren't entirely uniform. I've seen folks talk about using this to do things like trace the course of infection.

[appliancesex 66]

highlander said:

That is not correct. In studios following the AIM testing protocol, actors are tested for HIV, Gonorrhea, and Chlamydia every month-and in addition, HSV(1 and 2), Syphilis, Hep A/B/C every 6 months. They also receive some basic education on how to spot other STD's like BV, crabs and trich.

 

hmmm. I did not know that. Maybe we should only swing with people who do porn?

[highlander 21]

appliancesex said:

hmm. i did not know that. maybe we should only swing with people who do porn?

 

Well ANYONE can use AIM's services. They charged $410 for a comprehensive test last time I checked--and $195 for their monthly panel(Gonorrhea, Chlamydia, HIV).

 

I haven't seen a good published study on just how testing compares to condoms. My personal calculations suggest that what AIM is doing is more effective than condoms alone--and that even quarterly testing does something similar in lower risk groups. If folks want a more safety, they can use testing in conjunction with condoms-because they work differently and are more effective together than either alone. Condoms may also provide protection against diseases that we don't understand well(or that aren't tested for in men like HPV).

 

A lot of insurance plans will cover annual STD checks. I personally don't think the additional cost of $285/year for quarterly testing beyond that is any big deal. For that matter, $1045/year or even $2145/year wouldn't be a big deal if it were something that gave someone entre to an appreciative safer pool of partners. Hell, I know a disabled lady on SSI that manages to get quarterly testing done. I think it would work a lot better if it were done in a club situation where there was a mutual partner notification agreement.

 

The big omission I personally think that AIM has made is not including testing for drugs that are popular with IV drug users-but that may be because of cultural considerations.

 

Is all this stuff perfect? Maybe not. However, I think if there were a move towards periodic testing, sharing results upon request with partners and partner notification, and having test results witnessed by other folks well known in the community if folks are using the instant tests, the swing community could move towards demonstrating a rate of STD's that would be substantially lower than the rate for people who tell their partners they are monogamous.

 

What the AIM experience shows is that a very sexually active group can reduce its STD rate substantially by partner notification and rapid treatment of those diseases that can be treated.

[Trojan Defense 15]

What are your instructions for the customer wanting to utilize this application at the next swingers party?

 

This idea was not conceived with swingers specifically in mind. As a result, this idea is not applicable to swinger parties. Instead the application is to random offline encounters, which would be more geared to serial daters, than swingers, though that's not to say a person couldn't be both. Another possible application is to high end escorts, and their clients, of which again, a swinger could be either or.

 

So in a way, this could be thought of as a risk disclosure mechanism for illicit sexual encounters, where discretion and confidentiality is a must.

 

What need does this tool satisfy? What value does the customer perceive from its response?

 

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".

 

Let's say you get off work one day, and you head to an upscale club. Sitting at the bar all by herself is an attractive woman wearing a flashy red dress, while sipping on a martini. Real classy lady. She catches your eye, and you're feeling rather confident in yourself, so you approach her. Before becoming too invested in the interaction with her, you ask her what her risk type is. She tells you, and you mentally run that number against the compatibility rule of your risk type. Turns out your position on std risk is compatible with hers, so you continue to get to know her, and eventually close the deal without ever having a really awkward conversation. Good for you.

 

Little did you know that she had herpes, but since it does not matter to people of your risk profile, your risk type and accompanying compatibility rule did not disqualify her. However, if she had AIDs, then it might have. Using this system she doesn't know your exact criteria for sex, nor do you know her condition, if she even has one to start with. All you know is, are you, or are you not compatible with one another based on how you feel about std risk. That's because built into these risk types is the concept of plausible deniability, meaning if you are not compatible with someone then it could be for any given number of reasons. Neither you, nor her, need concern yourself with the exact reasons as the bottom line has already been determined. If it is discovered that you are not compatible with someone, then you can then direct your attention to someone who is before investing too much in the interaction of the person you weren't compatible with.

 

Also worth noting is that I refer to this number as a "risk type" because the word "type" connotates compatibility, which is in terms that I think people should be thinking about these things. The question of "What's your risk type?" could be thought of as comparable to "What's your phone number?", "What's your sign?", "What's your type?", etc. - sort of like a pick up line.

[slevin 1,374]

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 1,086]

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 21]

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 21]

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 1,374]

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 21]

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 15]

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.

 

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 15]

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 1,419]

Trojan Defense said:

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 21]

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 1,419]

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 15]

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 2,774]

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."

[Coupleerotic22 1,419]

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 1,419]

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.

[highlander 21]

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.

 

Over 60% of the risk for HIV infection in the US associated with presence of HSV2, HPV, Chlamydia or gonorrhea. The last two are especially contagious.

What that means is that presence of those diseases is fairly highly correlated with number of partners _for any particular pool of partners we want to talk about_. One _huge_ question for HIV:

if we factor out the treatable STD's--and say HSV2 in its most acute phase just how big a risk are multiple heterosexual partners for HIV infection?

What happens when we adjust this for age?

 

Why is this relevant:

partner pools have _wildly_ different risks of treatable STD's associated with them. Someone that has had 30 partners and has never had chlamydia or gonorrhea may have a VERY different risk profile than someone who

has had 10 partners and had those diseases on multiple occasions.

 

the model of "more partners->more risk" is tricky. it works _much_ better with highly contagious STDs. With HIV, most of the risk to heterosexual women at times has come from IV drug users. It isn't that HIV can't spread sexually-it just takes some specific conditions that are relatively rare outside of places like africa and some of the poorer communities in the US.

[Coupleerotic22 1,419]

highlander - would you agree that swingers, based on the fact they have multiple partners are at a higher risk for treatable STI's? Especially considering some STI test do not automatically test for all STI's, so STI's that are rarely tested for would be spread more easily due to the lack of knowledge.

 

Would you agree that comparatively, swingers risk score would be higher than the general public as a whole, based on multiple partners, and the fact that IV drug users are statistically such a small portion of the overall general public?

 

Would you agree that swinging is a fairly closed community, meaning we tend to communicate known dangers such as IV drug users, those know to have STI's?

 

If you believe that to be true would it not also be true that swingers would have generally similar scores on a risk factor score card, with a few anomalies here and there?

 

I think most swingers believe the medical community would place us in a higher risk category because of non-monogamy and multiple partners. I also believe most swingers think we are not as high a risk as the medical community might believe because we tend to take more precautions and ask more questions of our sex partners than the vanilla world.

 

That said I do not think the risk factor fluctuate wildly among long term swingers. Medically speaking we are a higher risk group. Functionally speaking we are more active in the prevention. Regardless, from the medical community stand point I think swingers would generally be classified as a high risk group.

[highlander 21]

Coupleerotic22 said:

highlander - would you agree that swingers, based on the fact they have multiple partners are at a higher risk for treatable STI's? Especially considering some STI test do not automatically test for all STI's, so STI's that are rarely tested for would be spread more easily due to the lack of knowledge.

Swingers tend to be an older population(say median age in the 30-40's). Chlamydia and gonorrhea tend to be concentrated among younger people(late teens early 20's). Those diseases are pretty common on some college campuses for example. There is some evidence that younger women are more biologically vulnerable to those diseases.

 

That Dutch study claimed that 10.4% of the swingers visiting Dutch STI clinics had and STI compared to 10% of the general public. That corresponds roughly to what the general public have in the UK according to this article.

 

I know the basic model we are taught on STI's says more partners-> more risk. That doesn't clearly fit the data above. It may be that swingers are more likely to just get treatment when they have a problem(or they just get treated more frequently)-or those that are most vulnerable/unlucky just drop out of swinging.

 

Quote

Would you agree that comparatively, swingers risk score would be higher than the general public as a whole, based on multiple partners, and the fact that IV drug users are statistically such a small portion of the overall general public?

The figures plumley used for his model of HIV was something like 1.7% for white men and 4.7% for black men for IV drug use.

It isn't obvious to me what the level of IV drug use among swingers is-and equally important how that relates to IV drug use since their last test.

 

That is a small group-but it is huge portion of the risk to a heterosexual woman.

 

Quote

Would you agree that swinging is a fairly closed community, meaning we tend to communicate known dangers such as IV drug users, those know to have STI's?

There is a BIG variation there between folks that are in stable couples and go to house parties vs. people that go more to larger settings. I think you are right that in the house party/small club setting the communication level is pretty high.

 

Quote

If you believe that to be true would it not also be true that swingers would have generally similar scores on a risk factor score card, with a few anomalies here and there?

I think you'd probably find that with an honest scoring mechanism, a fairly small group-like 5-10% would represent 80% of the risk due to genetic and lifestyle factors that have little directly to do with swinging(as I previously mentioned, alcohol use, tobacco use, meth/cocaine use all have huge effect on how vulnerable someone is to HIV-and nobody has really studied their interaction with each other and with other known co-factors like other STI's)

 

One major source of variation is just how frequent folks test. I know a few folks that test quarterly-but once a year is more usual-and there are folks running around that simply never test.

 

If we are doing a risk factor score, someone with 5 years of clean tests has a whole different profile than someone that has never been tested.

 

 

Quote

I think most swingers believe the medical community would place us in a higher risk category because of non-monogamy and multiple partners. I also believe most swingers think we are not as high a risk as the medical community might believe because we tend to take more precautions and ask more questions of our sex partners than the vanilla world.

The thing is:I don't think the epidemiology of swingers has been studied well enough to tell us much. The real important question is what kinds of approaches make specific sense for the swinger community vs. the general public. I tend to think that because swingers are more matter of fact about these issues there is potential to reduce the rate of STD's in the swinger population well below that of the general public.

 

 

Quote

That said I do not think the risk factor fluctuate wildly among long term swingers. Medically speaking we are a higher risk group. Functionally speaking we are more active in the prevention. Regardless, from the medical community stand point I think swingers would generally be classified as a high risk group.

The conventional medical wisdom is that swingers ought to be a high risk group. The data suggests swingers are about the same as the general population. What we know from the AIM experience with frequent testing, is that it is possible to take a VERY sexually active and higher risk group to a frequency of 20% that of the general public. AIM does that with monthly testing. I think quarterly testing would have a similar effect among swingers if there was an identifiable community of swingers that got serious about sharing test results with good authentication, periodic testing and automatic partner notification.

[Trojan Defense 15]

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.

 

My reply was that it is a work in progress. What part of "work in progress" is unclear?

 

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... more often than not, all the loan officer looks at is the score...

 

That is the point. If your credit score is below a certain level, there is no need for the loan officer to do any additional legwork (unless he just wants to waste his time); however, if your credit score is acceptable, then he needs to do some additional fact checking to make sure everything adds up. Same goes for this idea. It functions as a time saver.

 

3. I assume that we would be reduced to a number.

 

That depends on what they were looking to get out of the interaction, and just what kind of risk do you represent. Were they really looking for friendship, or were they just looking for a sex partner? If you really want to be friends with someone, you don't need to have sex with them. If they were just looking for a sex partner, and didn't want to catch an std, then who could blame them for that? I wouldn't either, but that only applies if you are an unacceptable health risk. If you are an acceptable health risk, what's stopping them from getting to know you better, and becoming friends? Another point of interest here is even if your credit score wasn't good, who's to say it couldn't change in time? Being rude to people isn't exactly a winning strategy, regardless of what you're looking for. It is quite possible you will cross paths with these people again whether you have sex or not.

 

4. I assume that all swingers would have a poor score.

 

I think Highlander already addressed that one.

 

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... 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.

 

Your personal life experiences are not neccessarily applicable to what we are talking about.

 

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.

 

As stated earlier, I said it was a work in progress. I may have to go back to the drawing board a few times to work out some flaws before finally getting it right, but that's not an uncommon thing in innovation.

 

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.

 

The Wright brothers also didn't have internet forums back in their day. If they did, they might have used it as a means of exchanging, and building upon ideas. Technology can be a wonderful thing when put to good use.

 

Is there a tone if frustration in my post? Definitely.

 

Your frustration? What about my frustration? I'm trying to make things better, and people are telling me that I can not.

 

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... just go out and make the system work and prove us all wrong.

 

I might just do that.

[Trojan Defense 15]

Alura said:

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

 

I wouldn't put too much stock in any poll taken here. Though if I did, I don't think those are necessarily bad numbers. Even small percentages count for something when put on large enough of a scale.

 

Alura said:

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

 

The only one that I have said is making incorrect assumptions is CoupleErotic22.

[Trojan Defense 15]

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.

 

Well, among those that have posted, that might be interested in such a system, I've yet to see anyone (except for Highlander), suggest how it might work. All I've seen is how a bunch of critics think it could never work - not how it might work. Attacking ideas that are still in their infancy is not exactly the most constructive criticism I've ever received.

[Alura 2,774]

Trojan Defense said:

My reply was that it is a work in progress. What part of "work in progress" is unclear?

 

The "progress" part.