A thought experiment... the strategy of let's get tested TOGETHER BEFORE we have sex.

that's definitely an interesting intervention strategy...one that i don't think has made its way into the public health paradigm yet. however, where sti/std's proliferate is when promiscuity becomes a factor, since those little buggers have no other means to spread. i'm guessing that those who test prior to beginning the sexual portion of their relationship are going to be more committed though, which is going to reduce risk factors for spread to near-0. i don't have statistics, but i'm inclined to think that you see higher incidence rates in those who are not in relationships.

I've always planned on getting tested together before sex...

HIV test gives you your status with a 2-3 months delay. so if you test negative it means you were negative 2-3 months ago.

so your strategy for HIV would be ineffective. unless the pair wants to wait another 2-3 months and get tested again, provided neither has sex for this period.

::maniacal laughter::

you can totally count me in on the whole waiting 3 months to bone my boyfriend. (sarcasm)

sounds like a great plan.

re: A thought experiment... the strategy of let's get tested TOGETHER for A VARIETY of STDs B4 sex.

> you can totally count me in on the whole waiting 3 months
> to bone my boyfriend. (sarcasm)

Just like we don't wait 3 months to give somebody
a blood transfusion. we give it asap when they
need it.

re: A thought experiment... the strategy of let's get tested TOGETHER BEFORE we have sex.

When blood is needed, is it better to test blood
after the transfusion or before transfusing?

Re: A thought experiment... the strategy of let's get tested TOGETHER BEFORE we have sex.

well, the blood's always tested prior to transfusion into the patient (that is, after the blood industry finally gave in in the 80s). however, you need to keep in mind that testing blood for the banks removes human behavioral risk factors, so it's a difficult comparison.

re: A thought experiment... the strategy of let's get tested TOGETHER for A VARIETY of STDs B4 sex.

> so your strategy for HIV would be ineffective.

No, it wouldn't be ineffective. Just like testing
the blood wouldn't be ineffective.


> unless the pair wants to wait another 2-3 months and get
> tested again, provided neither has sex for this period.

Well, if you use the same strategy for blood
transfusions you'd end up with a lot dead people
waiting to see if the blood turns positive for
human immunodeficiency virus.

Re: A thought experiment... the strategy of let's get tested TOGETHER for A VARIETY of STDs B4 sex.

i did not invent or imagine what i said.

read more on HIV/AIDS. i rest my case.

Please keep in mind that HIV testing (both regular and rapid) is a test for antibodies to HIV. It can take up to three months for those antibodies to develop. What does that mean? That you can test HIV negative and still be HIV positive. ;)

Re: A thought experiment... the strategy of let's get tested TOGETHER for A VARIETY of STDs B4 sex.

> That you can test HIV negative and still be HIV positive. ;)

No, the testing of blood confirms that
that's just not the case. Which is why
when the blood comes up negative they use it.

Re: A thought experiment... the strategy of let's get tested TOGETHER for A VARIETY of STDs B4 sex.

You're actually wrong. I know because I'm HIV-positive and I work in HIV prevention. Yes, there is a assay to test for the presence of HIV in blood... it's called a viral load test. However, it's is much more expensive and your generic HIV test is an anti-body test.

justchad> I know because I'm HIV-positive and I work in HIV
> prevention.

dsaklad> How reliable is the advice of a person positive
for human immunodeficiency virus and working in
prevention?

At first I took offense to the response of >, and then I thought for a moment and decided to respond as if the question is valid.

I have many friends who are HIV positive including a past lover who was/is positive (I'm negative). I have also volunteered for many years at an HIV testing and STD prevention organization.

So based on my knowledge and experience, I will absolutely respect and value the opinion of justchad>.

And if you don't mind dsaklad>, I have a question for you. Assuming you and your bf/partner of 3 months? go in together for testing and one of you test positive, what then?

re: A thought experiment... the strategy of let's get tested TOGETHER for A VARIETY of STDs B4 sex.

> At first I took offense to the response of dsklad, and then I
> thought for a moment and decided to respond as if the question is valid.

He wants to respond but can't admit to the validity of it
so he makes it a thought experiment.
And indirectly denigrates the question at the same time.


> I have many friends who are HIV positive including a past lover who
> was/is positive (I'm negative). I have also volunteered for many years at
> an HIV testing and STD prevention organization.

> So based on my knowledge and experience, I will absolutely respect and
> value the opinion of _

And at the end people continue to get infected and die.
And that includes people who work at human immunodeficiency virus counseling centers.


> And if you don't mind dsaklad, I have a question for you.
> Assuming you and your bf/partner of 3 months? go in together for testing
> and one of you test positive, what then?

Well like anybody else I'd have a decision to make.
One I could end the relationship.
And two I could continue the relationship .
Which is what exactly happens in relationships all the time.
People end them and continue them.
People don't like a new haircut.
People don't like how much attention has been paid to another person.
They decided to move.
They decided to do something new in their life.
Make a list.
People have ended relationships.
Friends have had relationships ended by their partners.
And so on.
For this assignment you will be given 4,000 years to complete it.
All the wood in the state of Maine will be dedicated for your list of responses.

Great in theory, unrealistic in practice. This is for the same reason that a lot of people bareback; it's more "spontaneous". I feel like the gay community is more aware, but in general, it doesn't work. I'm not going to get tested with someone if they're a one-time fuck.

I think a more realistic idea is to get tested together before having unprotected sex. That could almost work.

Yes, I see people even romanticizing this idea, getting tested together. And if it got to that point, where getting tested together was like a public announcement of going steady, then people would want it, and it'd take off. But until there is that sort of cultural-emotional reaction, it'll stay a tiny minority.

10% doing this still means 90% that don't. And those 10% are probably the ones most interested in playing safe anyway. Negligible change in infection rates, I suspect.

re: A thought experiment... the strategy of let's get tested TOGETHER for A VARIETY of STDs B4 sex.

> Great in theory, unrealistic in practice. This is for the same reason
> that a lot of people bareback; it's more "spontaneous". I feel like the
> gay community is more aware, but in general, it doesn't work.

What doesn't work?
Where they referring to bareback? And from bareback you can't get acquired immune deficiency syndrome,
is that what doesn't work?


> I'm not
> going to get tested with someone if they're a one-time fuck.

Has anybody ever contracted the virus from a one time encounter?
Could you be that person at some point in the future?


> I think a more realistic idea is to get tested together before having
> unprotected sex. That could almost work.

If they did it, wouldn't they learn something important about themselves?
Suppose one of them had syphilis?, which is important.
Would that be something important to know?
How about heterosexual couples having children?
Would that be important to know so they don't pass
the disease on to their children?


> Yes, I see people even romanticizing this idea, getting tested together.
> And if it got to that point, where getting tested together was like a
> public announcement of going steady, then people would want it, and it'd
> take off. But until there is that sort of cultural-emotional reaction,
> it'll stay a tiny minority.
>
> 10% doing this still means 90% that don't. And those 10% are probably the
> ones most interested in playing safe anyway. Negligible change in
> infection rates, I suspect.

You can say that it would save some people's lives no matter what percentage did it.
and that some percentage of people died from acquired immune deficiency syndrome
Which category of risk do you want to put yourself in?...
less risk?... more risk?...

terrible idea

This is a bogus STD/HIV prevention method that doesn't take into account the reality of the lives of many, many men who have sex with men. You can't go get tested with the guy you meet on manhunt for the night. You can't get get tested with the guy you met in the fenway in the bushes. Not only that if you are someone who has multiple sex partners you can't possibly know your status at all times - and considering it can take a different amount of time for HIV antibodies to show up for different people this method is entirely flawed. You'd have to both get tested together at least 6 weeks after your last partner, and then wait 6 more weeks, get tested again - and how realistic is that?
This method is clearly just promoting sexual monogamy and puritan values.

re: A thought experiment... the strategy of let's get tested TOGETHER for A VARIETY of STDs B4 sex.

> terrible idea
> This is a bogus STD/HIV prevention method that doesn't take into account
> he reality of the lives of many, many men who have sex with men.

Are there men who do not know they have a
sexually transmittable infection, men who have
not been tested?


> You can't go get tested with the guy you meet on manhunt for the night.
> You can't get get tested with the guy you met in the fenway in the bushes.

EXACTLY !

In those examples, "met" being a euphemism for
having anonymous sex.


> Not only that if you are someone who has multiple sex partners you can't
> possibly know your status at all times -

In this democracy that person and their sex
partners do have the freedom to choose this
course of action of getting tested TOGETHER
for A VARIETY of sexually transmitted infections.

On the other hand nature gives us
the powerful biological imperative
Here are the 3 SEX RULES
SEX RULE number 1.
Sex is more important than dying.

SEX RULE number 2.
Sex is more important than killing somebody.

SEX RULE number 3.
If people could change their sexual behavior
we wouldn't be here.


> and considering it can take a
> different amount of time for HIV antibodies to show up for different
> people this method is entirely flawed. You'd have to both get tested
> together at least 6 weeks after your last partner, and then wait 6 more
> weeks, get tested again - and how realistic is that?

Well, nevertheless the chances of having been
infected in the last month or so are very small
compared to the chances of having been infected
in the past. The reality is that there are men
who have sex with men who do not know they are
carrying an infection or infections
for a longer time. We know that because
these diseases are epidemics.

Please make known any study with evidence
of a flaw for the strategy of let's get tested
TOGETHER for A VARIETY of sexually transmitted
infections BEFORE we have sex and share the
results with each other.


> This method is clearly just promoting sexual monogamy and puritan values.

The strategy of let's get tested TOGETHER for A
VARIETY of sexually transmitted infections BEFORE
we have sex can be done by any number of
potential sex partners. For example, the free
sexuality of Friedrichshof and among some
collaborators of this discussion for whom it
reduced the ambiguity of multiple sexual
opportunities, among collaborators of this
discussion not practicing mutual fidelity openly
with their partners.


References
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Lister
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semmelweis

re: A thought experiment... the strategy of let's get tested TOGETHER for A VARIETY of STDs B4 sex.

> This is a bogus STD/HIV prevention method that doesn't take
> into account the reality of the lives of many, many men who
> have sex with men.

Neither does wearing condoms, neither does any method you can name. They're all bogus. And they're all bogus because of human nature. They all have failings. Sex is a powerful urge.


> You can't go get tested with the guy you
> meet on manhunt for the night.

Sure you can. Who says you can't? Is there a law against that? Or are you referring to natural law which completely takes over your mind, eliminates your rational faculties and concern for your personal risk? The law that drives you to have sex no matter what the risk. But it's not true that you can't go get tested. There's no law again it except the natural law that has control of your life. It certainly had control of the lives of some people who became infected and died from acquired immune deficiency syndrome.


> You can't get get tested
> with the guy you met in the fenway in the bushes.

Sure you can. There's no law against that. The natural course of events that leads you to became infected and die from acquired immune deficiency syndrome. Many people do in one variation or another whether it's the weeds, the fenway, manhunt. Wouldn't it be a reasonable assumption that there are people who have never been in the woods, weeds, fenway, manhunt who got infected and died?


> Not only
> that if you are someone who has multiple sex partners you
> can't possibly know your status at all times -

But you can at least know it at one moment in time with at least one of those partners. And once you know the status of each of your partners you can then make a risk assessment and go from there. Again everybody should be free to become infected with human immunodeficiency virus and die from acquired immune deficiency syndrome. I'm not against that. The important question is knowing the status of your partner or partners.


> and
> considering it can take a different amount of time for HIV
> antibodies to show up for different people this method is
> entirely flawed. You'd have to both get tested together at
> least 6 weeks after your last partner, and then wait 6 more
> weeks, get tested again - and how realistic is that?

Well we could say how useful has any method of reducing the aids epidemic been given human nature? Obviously many people who know all of these things about so called safer sex are becoming infected and dying from acquired immune deficiency syndrome or becoming health care system burdens. Care for acquired immune deficiency syndrome is particularly expensive. Cancer generally strikes at random except for those people who smoke. It's akin to smoking. It's an urge that comes built in with you and you can't resist it. You could call it an addiction. It's a powerful force. We know that smoking rates are down in first world countries but there's still tens of thousands of people who die every year from smoking related cancers. And in general everybody knows this but they do it anyway. That's the same with sex. It's a driving force, makes you do things that put your life at risk.


> This
> method is clearly just promoting sexual monogamy and
> puritan values.

You can say that but doesn't make it true. Let me make it more explicit: Get tested with every one of your sexual partners. There is nothing monogamous or puritanical about that statement. Period.

I can tell you, as a primary care doctor, I have seen NO ONE attempting to utilize this strategy. Unfortunately, the only STDs which can easily be tested for are HIV, Hep B, Hep C and syphillis.

re: A thought experiment. the strategy of let's get tested TOGETHER for A VARIETY of STDs B4 sex.

> I can tell you, as a primary care doctor, I have seen
> NO ONE attempting to utilize this strategy.

Well, Dr. Joseph Lister at some point could see NO ONE washing their hands before going into the operating room.

re: A thought experiment... the strategy of let's get tested TOGETHER for A VARIETY of STDs B4 sex.

If you're available we can come by to get tested together for a variety of sexually transmitted infections before we have sex of course that is if he wants to too.

> However, I have yet to see anyone come into my office asking for this...

Why would they come into your office? They would probably go to a public health clinic.

And you are only one doctor working in this area. Do you say global warming doesn't exist because yesterday in your backyard you recorded a record low temperature? You don't determine the temperature of global warming by the temperature in your backyard on any one day. Medical protocols evolve from experience, from practice, from what works. You can't say what the accepted protocols will be in the future. And given the rapid evolution of testing technology you certainly don't know what will happen with testing in this area. For all we know, it could become a personal protocol. You hand your partner a little stick. They press it against their tongue. At any time the virus could mutate into a form that could be transmitted into the air and survive. Or it could be transmitted by touch.


> Unfortunately, the only STDs which can easily be tested for are HIV, Hep B, Hep C and syphillis.

haven't defined easily...

More at http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976912987

More at
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976912987

My bf and I actually did this - not together spatially, but temporally. And having gotten our clean papers, we proceeded to practice safe sex. A year later, we repeated the tests. We were still both negative, and we still practice safe sex (after 3 1/2 years together).

Preventing the spread of STDs is only as difficult as you want to make it.

re: A thought experiment. The strategy of let's get tested TOGETHER for A VARIETY of STDs B4 sex.

> not together spatially, but temporally

Does that mean you both got tested but at a different time and at different places?


> safe sex

What you mean is... SAFER sex since there really isn't anything as "safe sex"


> Preventing the spread of STDs is only as difficult as you want to make it.