![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Ah ha! I'm stuck awake way too early on a Saturday morning without my external hard drive that has all the files and projects I'm currently working on. And because it's so fricken early on a Saturday morning, the internet is not sufficiently entertaining me. What a great time to post about a couple of websites currently cluttering up my browser as open tabs!
First we have http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65M6NX20100624 - a news story that says that STD rates are higher for swingers than prostitutes.
The reason, they suspect, is because swingers are too afraid to get tested or admit to their doctors who could then advise them on how to maintain proper safety practices for the multi-partnered.
Higher than prostitutes.
As in, prostitutes, who know they're doing something dangerous, and are marginalized, discriminated against, and criminalized, have fewer health problems - prostitutes with their high numbers of anonymous stranger-partners.
(Keep in mind that this study was done in the Netherlands and prostitution is legal, so prostitutes can admit to their doctors that they need medical care for their profession but swingers are still marginalized)
What this says to me is that education, proper safety procedures, and openness and honesty are integral to safer sex. Openness and honesty are the keys to being safe, and lack of such is more dangerous than just the number of partners. This also says to me that society in general has their priorities all fucked up and that monogamy is still more highly valued than practiced.
The number of sexual partners is not the most important factor in a person's health risk profile. Using proper safety procedures, and exchanging accurate medical information between partners and with medical practitioners are more likely to keep you safe than just reducing the number of partners.
This part wasn't mentioned in the article, but the porn industry (those production companies that comply with the AIM foundation - a self-regulated medical facility for the porn industry) has a lower HIV incidence rate than the general public, in spite of non-mandatory use of condoms. I don't have the link off-hand, but some academic researcher actually did a study in preparation for the upcoming legal battle dealing with mandatory condom use, and found that their practice of regular HIV testing, and open test results resulted in lower incident rates.
If your partner is HIV-free, you can't catch HIV. People who have been tested for HIV, and who have the lab results to prove it, are more likely to be HIV-free than people who have not been tested. Your chances of catching an STD go significantly down with regular testing and open test exchange practices. Having 3 partners who have been tested negative for STDs are less likely to give you something than having a single partner who has not been tested simply because 3 partners who don't have anything can't give you anything while a single partner *can* because he might have something and you wouldn't know it to protect against it. Monogamous partners are less likely to use proper precautions because they believe themselves to be monogamous, but either they are unaware of the presence of other sexual partners, or they are not accounting for past partners. Your chances do not go up with numbers of partners. Your chances go up with shoddy practices, like not using protection and not getting tested regularly.
Even monogamous people should require test results of their partners prior to engaging in sexual activity, and regularly just as a matter of regular health maintenance. Only a small portion of people who catch an STD got it from a cheating partner. The majority caught it from ignorance. Get tested, be honest with your health providers, and exchange test results with potential and current partners.
**EDIT**
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
emanix ade a point in the comments below that the title of this article SHOULD have been "Prostitutes have HALF the STDs that straight people have!" The article focused on how high the STD rate was with swingers, most likely as a scare tactic to reinforce the idea of punishment for immoral behaviour, but they neglected to emphasize that professional sex workers in this study are actually SAFER than either swingers OR regular heterosexual people.
Speaking of STDs, here's the latest on the HPV research front.
http://www.physorg.com/news196855852.html
"A cluster of carbon nanotubes coated with a thin layer of protein-recognizing polymer form a biosensor capable of using electrochemical signals to detect minute amounts of proteins, which could provide a crucial new diagnostic tool for the detection of a range of illnesses, a team of Boston College researchers report in the journal Nature Nanotechnology.
...
The detection can be read in real time, instead of after days or weeks of laboratory analysis, meaning the nanotube molecular imprinting technique could pave the way for biosensors capable of detecting human papillomavirus or other viruses weeks sooner than available diagnostic techniques currently allow. As opposed to searching for the HPV antibody or cell-mediated immine responses after initial infection, the nanotube sensor can track the HPV protein directly. In addition, no chemical marker is required by the lebel-free electrochemical detection methods."
That pretty much summed it up. Carbon nanotubes are being used to detect HPV immediately, rather than waitng for the body to develop the antibodies or destroyed cells on the cervix. And soon after reliable early detection methods are developed, early treatments will come. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to detect HPV before it does any damage and eradicate it before it replicates enough to become problematic?
First we have http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65M6NX20100624 - a news story that says that STD rates are higher for swingers than prostitutes.
The reason, they suspect, is because swingers are too afraid to get tested or admit to their doctors who could then advise them on how to maintain proper safety practices for the multi-partnered.
Higher than prostitutes.
As in, prostitutes, who know they're doing something dangerous, and are marginalized, discriminated against, and criminalized, have fewer health problems - prostitutes with their high numbers of anonymous stranger-partners.
(Keep in mind that this study was done in the Netherlands and prostitution is legal, so prostitutes can admit to their doctors that they need medical care for their profession but swingers are still marginalized)
What this says to me is that education, proper safety procedures, and openness and honesty are integral to safer sex. Openness and honesty are the keys to being safe, and lack of such is more dangerous than just the number of partners. This also says to me that society in general has their priorities all fucked up and that monogamy is still more highly valued than practiced.
The number of sexual partners is not the most important factor in a person's health risk profile. Using proper safety procedures, and exchanging accurate medical information between partners and with medical practitioners are more likely to keep you safe than just reducing the number of partners.
This part wasn't mentioned in the article, but the porn industry (those production companies that comply with the AIM foundation - a self-regulated medical facility for the porn industry) has a lower HIV incidence rate than the general public, in spite of non-mandatory use of condoms. I don't have the link off-hand, but some academic researcher actually did a study in preparation for the upcoming legal battle dealing with mandatory condom use, and found that their practice of regular HIV testing, and open test results resulted in lower incident rates.
If your partner is HIV-free, you can't catch HIV. People who have been tested for HIV, and who have the lab results to prove it, are more likely to be HIV-free than people who have not been tested. Your chances of catching an STD go significantly down with regular testing and open test exchange practices. Having 3 partners who have been tested negative for STDs are less likely to give you something than having a single partner who has not been tested simply because 3 partners who don't have anything can't give you anything while a single partner *can* because he might have something and you wouldn't know it to protect against it. Monogamous partners are less likely to use proper precautions because they believe themselves to be monogamous, but either they are unaware of the presence of other sexual partners, or they are not accounting for past partners. Your chances do not go up with numbers of partners. Your chances go up with shoddy practices, like not using protection and not getting tested regularly.
Even monogamous people should require test results of their partners prior to engaging in sexual activity, and regularly just as a matter of regular health maintenance. Only a small portion of people who catch an STD got it from a cheating partner. The majority caught it from ignorance. Get tested, be honest with your health providers, and exchange test results with potential and current partners.
**EDIT**
emanix ade a point in the comments below that the title of this article SHOULD have been "Prostitutes have HALF the STDs that straight people have!" The article focused on how high the STD rate was with swingers, most likely as a scare tactic to reinforce the idea of punishment for immoral behaviour, but they neglected to emphasize that professional sex workers in this study are actually SAFER than either swingers OR regular heterosexual people.Speaking of STDs, here's the latest on the HPV research front.
http://www.physorg.com/news196855852.html
"A cluster of carbon nanotubes coated with a thin layer of protein-recognizing polymer form a biosensor capable of using electrochemical signals to detect minute amounts of proteins, which could provide a crucial new diagnostic tool for the detection of a range of illnesses, a team of Boston College researchers report in the journal Nature Nanotechnology.
...
The detection can be read in real time, instead of after days or weeks of laboratory analysis, meaning the nanotube molecular imprinting technique could pave the way for biosensors capable of detecting human papillomavirus or other viruses weeks sooner than available diagnostic techniques currently allow. As opposed to searching for the HPV antibody or cell-mediated immine responses after initial infection, the nanotube sensor can track the HPV protein directly. In addition, no chemical marker is required by the lebel-free electrochemical detection methods."
That pretty much summed it up. Carbon nanotubes are being used to detect HPV immediately, rather than waitng for the body to develop the antibodies or destroyed cells on the cervix. And soon after reliable early detection methods are developed, early treatments will come. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to detect HPV before it does any damage and eradicate it before it replicates enough to become problematic?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 7/10/10 07:44 pm (UTC)From:However, the risk of partners is unrelated to whether you have them serially or in parallel.
I just don't want people to use testing as a complete substitute for protection if they are going to have a very large number of casual partners. Also, testing is great, but there will always be intervals. So, if you want to have a lot of casual sex, barriers are really, really awesome. You can choose not to - it's a risk assessment and everyone gets to make their own. But it is an easy way to increase the safety of the activity. Testing also increases the safety.
no subject
Date: 7/10/10 08:16 pm (UTC)From:The AIM foundation uses a version of the HIV test that is less than a 30 day window, which is a huge benefit over the more typical 3-month window that many clinics use. A porn star is required to get a test done once a month, and they're not allowed to work until that test has been completed and sent to the producer. That's what has prevented the spread of HIV within the industry from those very small number of actors who contracted it from partners who are not part of the industry. AIM has been successful in quarantining and tracing back to Patient 0 with very few incidents of transmission among other actors, and that number has reached 0 incidents per outbreak as the testing methods have gotten quicker and better.
The testing method is particularly applicable for people who have the same partners over a duration of time in a more or less "closed" system - one that does not introduce anyone new without benefit of the test results - and so is often acceptable for poly families. If the group is fairly stable in who the partners are, then a rotating schedule of regular testing among the participants can mostly cover all those windows (in the event something new was introduced unknown to the rest of the group).
It's a slightly higher risk factor than a group who always uses latex barriers properly with everyone for every act, but it's no *more* dangerous than a monogamous dyad who does not use condoms, and often it's significantly *less* dangerous than that same monogamous dyad if they haven't been tested prior to engaging in a sexual relationship and/or do not continue to get tested regularly.
You are correct, the risk of partners is unrelated to whether you have them serially or in parallel, and that's a great way to put it. Other factors are more relevant than *just* the total number of partners.
no subject
Date: 7/10/10 08:29 pm (UTC)From:I agree with you pretty much completely. I just worry that we'll forget the real lesson of the AIDS epidemic. Which I feel is that whenever you have a lot of unprotected sexual contact among large numbers of people, you create a good environment for a new STD to evolve. Testing can never protect us from that (at least, not without some really high tech testing methods that can test for evolving dangers, certainly nothing like what we have now). So,I don't want people to ever encourage that sort of breeding pool.
Basically, it's all about reasonable risk assessment. Risks don't care about your moral system. They don't care if you're in love or not in love, whether you had sex with a good person or a jerk, whether it was committed or a one night stand. They care about what you do. And yeah, it's not nearly as simple as only having sex with one partner will protect you, and certainly not one partner at a time in the current popular serial monogamy model. But testing does make things much safer. Barriers do make things much safer. You can look at all of your options and see which ones make sense to use in your circumstances.
In general, people need to learn to do risk assessment. Humans are very bad at it for more abstract or long-term dangers. But good risk assessment makes for choices that decrease your risk or allow you to take reasonable risks for what you decide you want.
no subject
Date: 7/10/10 11:55 pm (UTC)From:Second: Oh, science journalism, how I hate you. D:
no subject
Date: 7/12/10 12:34 pm (UTC)From:(and of course no mention of poly folk, who will no doubt get tarred with the same brush as swingers, but more likely have a lower rate due to conscious attitudes. Bah)
no subject
Date: 7/12/10 02:42 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 7/12/10 05:24 pm (UTC)From:Yes, that's a HUGE point - being "straight" (however they're defining it in that study) does not keep you safe. Being conscious, and conscientious, and open about health risks does (at least, safER).
I'm sure poly folk will also get tarred with the same brush as swingers, and that was primarily the focus of my own post, because I also believe we would show to have a lower incident rate due to our conscious attitudes, if we could ever get a freakin' study done.
Unfortunately, what we *do* have in common with the swingers is how much of our population is in hiding and is not honest with their doctors. I would hypothesize that those poly people who are honest with their doctors are the same ones that get checked regularly and therefore have lower rates, but those who are not honest do not get checked regularly (I've had doctors try to talk me out of testing until I emphasized, or exaggerated, the number of people I was sexually active with) and probably have similar incident rates as the swingers.
I bring up the scenario of AIM often, because I saw hard numbers, and even when I can't remember the actual numbers, I am very familiar with the scenario so I can make a good comparison to drive home a point. I really like your angle, with the "legal prostitutes have HAVE the STDs as straight people", and I think that's the kind of shocking soundbite that can be used to drive home that same point. I'm going to add it to my collection, to whip out the next time someone asks me, accusingly, about safe sex.
no subject
Date: 7/12/10 05:54 pm (UTC)From:I don't know how well educated docs are about poly in the US, I guess it would vary from state to state as well. I've had a heck of a time getting UK ones to pay attention to the important facts. The last time I got tested here they made a great fuss over the fact that I had a bisexual male partner, whereas actually my straight male primary partner was engaging in more slutty behaviour with far more people, but I gave up on explaining it in the end and just stated 'I'm getting tested' over and over until it sank in. When people are plainly following a rote system and not using logic, it's tempting just to give up trying to educate.
no subject
Date: 7/12/10 06:08 pm (UTC)From:So I immediately launched into my safe sex lecture, which stunned her that I was educated about STDs and prevention. So she thanked me for the discussion, saying she suspects probably more of her patients are polyamorous than she knows and it benefits her as a doctor to have been told about "the lifestyle" and that we're not a bunch of skeezy, unsafe hedonists (well, some are hedonists, anyway) that are a menace to society.
Not all doctors I talk to have this reaction, but if I can only reach a few, who will then treat thousands of patients in their lifetime with this new understanding, I think I have done us all a good service.
I've had a couple who I just had to give up on explaining and repeat "I want to get tested. I'm paying for it, so give me the fucking test already". Those are the ones who make polys in hiding from their doctors, be in hiding.