A thought experiment: The strategy of "Let's get tested BEFORE we have sex"

[teh_nathan]

Source: http://community.livejournal.com/queerottawa/169046.html

A thought experiment...
Any ideas?... suggestions?...

A few of us with personal experiences have been discussing a thought experiment... the strategy of potential sex partners getting tested TOGETHER for a VARIETY of sexually transmitted infections and revealing their results to one another BEFORE having sex

Public health officials have not been observing the phenomenon of this strategy. Informally, clinicians for example like those at Dartmouth College Health Service student medical services have seen same sex and heterosexual couples who say we haven't had sex yet and we want to know more about what could happen before we begin the sexual part of our relationship.

Journalists have not observed the phenomenon other than the syndicated Ann Landers' columns recommending the strategy for potential couples concerned about their sexual histories.

Here's a collaborative blog:
http://notb4weknow.blogspot.com

Questions of interest include...
- How widespread is the phenomenon going on of the strategy of let's get tested TOGETHER for a VARIETY of STDs BEFORE we have sex?...
- Besides reducing ambiguity for the respective sex partners doing the strategy, what would be the effects on the epidemic?...
the effects on transmissions of human immunodeficiency virus?...

if 1% of the population did the strategy?...
if 10% of the population did the strategy?...

If a percentage of the population did the strategy,
at what level could the course of the epidemic change?...

. What related studies are going on now or proposed?...
. What related reports have come out?...
. What media have covered or mentioned the strategy?...

All adversarial comment welcome! Even comments if you've actually tried the strategy...

 

[luminum]

As obvious as all the answers to your questions are (fishing?), the strategy means little to people who exist outside the sphere of comprehensive safe sex information. There's no excuse for being well informed about sexual transmitted infections and diseases and still taking the risks that expose one to them.

But the larger parts of the epidemics in STI's and STD's exist in locations where the sexual health and prevention industries are struggling to implement and disseminate and habitualize safe sex practices. So whittling down the issue to a single and somewhat condescendingly phrased statement/question is almost ignorant (which I doubt you are).

One could also ask if the theory of having sex after marriage and only in the final committed relationship with a partner would have any effects on the epidemics of STI's and STD's, but everyone knows that. The reason why no one addresses it is because it's not only rediculously obvious, but also unrepresentative of the practices and probable actions of the larger demographic.

So the answers to your questions are everything you would probably want them to be, but don't forget that we're working in a context where not everyone is going to have a clinic at their convenience, going to know about having to check for STI's and STD's, or going to care about checking for that matter, because not everyone grows up in a city or even a country that teaches them about sexual health.

 

[Soilwork]

Good gravy, how lame.

Sorry, but anything in life worth doing means taking a risk.

Just learn the best ways to protect yourself and have sex without a doctor's note.

 

[teh_nathan]

luminium: No, I'm definately not that but I posted this on the reasoning of "I agree with it, let's see who else does".

I didn't write it, I'm not that eloquent by far...writing isn't exactly my specialty. My writing is severely limited to "I agree with this" or "I don't agree with this" and expanding on that as needed.

 

[Nonimus]

Pfft! That's why god made condoms.

 

[teh_nathan]

Nonimus: Saying "That's why God (well man really) made condoms" shouldn't be meant as "Oh I have condoms, I have a free license to fuck anyone with a dick and legs".

That's why I support the post above. Use a little smarts (that's the brain in your head, not the brain in your dick)...think things through...

 

[Nonimus]

Well I'm not gonna fuck anything with a pussy n legs and I don't fuck anything with a dick and legs - i have standards (and not just in beer consumption)

Tell you what, I'll read what you wrote again, then consider it whilst I'm occupying the throne.

 

[Nonimus]

Ok, my first impressions remained - this is way too 'Big Brother' for my liking - in fact in my opinion it reduces relationships down to a cred-card type system - is this gonna be on our driver's licences or something? A little piece of paper we wave around in a nightclub?

I'll stick to the good old fashioned 'accountability' i.e. If I'm gonna have sex with someone then I'll take the precautions neccessary to keep myself and my partner safe.

 

[star-warrior]

Hmmm.... When I heard about the so called pre-nuptial agreements for modern marriages, I thought WTF? But someone here on the forum already having lost custody of his kids says that the battle won't be over yet, since the ex is contesting the pre-nuptial agreement...

Anyway, who knows what you partner gets up to between the test and your having sex together. Or whether he or she will be knocked down by the No.32 bus tomorrow. If you distrust each other from the outset, don't bother.

 

[teh_nathan]

It's nothing to do with distrust. If you want to call me distrustful because I would absolutely insist on testing first then you're way off.

I call it staying safe, taking precautions..in this day and age, with AIDS & STIs, you can never be too careful. I'd rather NOT fuck anything with a dick and legs like some in this forum would. Some would even call me a "prude" for that.

If some people here are going to label me as distrustful and paranoid, fine by me...people are going to toss labels around anyway if they don't like something, nothing I can do to stop them. You forget the most important thing: I don't give a rat's ass what anyone here thinks of me. I'll keep my values and morals, thanks...and I'd rather keep them than be a magnet for AIDS/HIV/STI's.

I haven't had sex with anyone in a little more than three years and I've had the chance, trust me. I'd just rather get to know someone first. If I'm taking that much of a risk, I'd rather get to know the person. A lot of people just don't get that. It's a trust issue for me (I've had my trust betrayed before on other things so I'm not too trusting of anyone) and it's their loss, not mine. I don't do the random picking up guys thing - it's tasteless and I'd have no idea what I'm getting into. It doesn't mean I lack the ability to "have fun" (I'm sure someone would think that too).

If you were the one who's been screwed over by many different people at different points in your life, also too nice and too trusting of people and they turn around and stab you in the back, you'd be "distrusting" and "paranoid" too.

I'd rather be "distrusting" and "paranoid" than to let people walk all over me...constantly be at risk for AIDS/HIV/STI's, etc etc. It's better to be careful than to be careless.

 

[teh_nathan]

So basically what people are flaming and trolling about in my post is basically:
"Gee, you take all the fun out of gettin' hot'n'sweaty with someone by making it sound as if everyone is (at least potentially) crawling with nasty germs."

So I say back: How do you know who isn't?

Life, sex and relationships included, is not without risks. Appropriate testing is an excellent tool.

Even HIV-negative partners in long-term relationships should give each other a present by getting tested together to ensure that they are both still negative. It is a sad but all too common phenomena where one partner has sex outside the relationship and brings HIV back home.

Is sex more important than dying?
Is sex more important than murdering somebody?

Food for thought.

I can think with my brain and not let my bodily urges get the better of me. In fact, I can ignore them most of the time because I don't need to have sex to make my life complete, it is not the be all and end all and who I have sex with/why/when isn't a huge part of my life...not to say it isn't fun and all that, it's just not worth the risk. When I get into a relationship, I'll decide if it's worth the risk then.

 

[teh_nathan]

As if I really have to explain this (apparently, I do): I posted this because I found it interesting, food for thought, blogging material, etc. To attack me, my point of view, how I choose to live my life, etc because I posted this is rather childish and to those who do that: Grow up. Honestly, it's pretty sad to attack people just because you don't agree with something being said. We all have differing opinions. Suck it up and deal with it.

I shouldn't have to feel afraid to post things because the big bad trolls/drama queens/etc of JUB will eat me.

I post what I want. If you don't like it, tough shit. I'm under no obligation to listen to anyone's opinion (unless I like & respect you).

 

[Nonimus]

All adversarial comment welcome! ..

*Small Print: However I will jump up and down on my soap-box if you do....

 

[BenF]

It takes 3 months for HIV Antibodies to show up in blood post-exposure.

It will take 18 months for HIV to be ruled out in both partners.

It makes the suggestion pointless and futile in that respect, but not with respect to the legion of other STDs that are available.

Use condoms.

 

[teh_nathan]

BenF46: Point. If I were with someone, I'd get tested every three (four? something like that) months until such time that we can completely rule out HIV.

 

[BenF]

Or just do what most gay men seem to do; look your potential shag up and down and think "Yeah - they look pretty honest".

 

[luminum]

Might I also suggest that by the nature of your responses, you have every reason to be careful, but that instead it appears that whatever happened to you has thrown you past prudence and into complete distrust?

 

[drhladnjak]

Everybody needs to balance their own levels of risk and convenience. The difference in risk between getting tested regularly while taking precautions (e.g., using condoms, not having oral sex with open sores, being choosy about partners, etc.) and waiting to have sex with somebody until the testing results have come back negative is negligible whereas the difference in convenience in those two scenarios can be substantial. The fact of the matter is that while the first scenario is more risky than the second, the difference isn't nearly as big as the difference between either one and never getting tested while throwing all caution to the wind (e.g., barebacking, having lots of anonymous sex partners, etc.).

Testing before having sex pretty much rules out most forms of quick and one night stand style sex, which is something a lot of guys aren't interested in giving up for only a small reduction in risk of serious illness (remember, most non-HIV life threatening STDs like syphilis can be fairly easily cured so long as they're detected early). Now, for those who only do long-term relationships, waiting to get tested isn't really a big hit to convenience (you're already waiting a while), so the small reduction in risk might be worth it for the piece of mind.

 

[star-warrior]

You said this was a thought experiment, a hypothetical discussion if you will.

 

[star-warrior]

It's nothing to do with distrust. If you want to call me distrustful because I would absolutely insist on testing first then you're way off.

Ok. It's nothing to do with distrust.

I'd rather be "distrusting" and "paranoid" than to let people walk all over me...constantly be at risk for AIDS/HIV/STI's, etc etc. It's better to be careful than to be careless.

Ok. It's has something to do with distrust.

Must be a nice piece of cake you're eating.