Friday, December 05, 2008

        > I have not seen any data that gives an answer to your question.

It's important to continue looking into all enquiries as premise of the program you're offering, including the enquiries you want to get and you've prepared scripts for and the enquiries that appear contrary to your own point of view. Some ideas remain the same. Some ideas change.

        > Getting tested together may be a viable prevention strategy for some. However, this depends very much on the nature of the sexual relationship. If sex is occurring spontaneously and/or anonymously, mutual health screens would not be a viable prevention strategy.
        > For those who are more intentional about their sexual relationships this can be a valid option. However, there are some pitfalls. If the relationship is to be ongoing, will it be monogamous and how do you assure that?

Ankle cuffs.

The strategy "Let's get tested TOGETHER BEFORE we have sex, for A VARIETY of STDs.", a sexual health checkup reduces ambiguity/risks and can be like anything else POTENTIAL sex partners do together. The strategy is getting tested to share information about existing infections and using the information.There's no test for mutual fidelity.

        > Also, when the HIV/STD tests are conducted, what length of time has passed since the last possible exposure?

The length of time before any latency is a lot more time, than the window period. If you don't get tested together, that doesn't provide opportunity to get information about the STDs that could've been detected. If you don't get tested together there's no opportunity to know that persons status. The words that come out of a person's mouth provide no real information about that person's status and neither does their imagination.

        > In view of these questions, mutual health screens can present a false sense of safety or security.

That's true only if you believe testing only cures aids or prevents you from getting it. It's what you do a moment after you take the test that matters. If you go on and do something irresponsible after you do something responsible getting the test it completely nullifys what you did.

There's no evidence of lack of efficacy. You wrote you haven't seen any data. To make that claim is the same logical fallacy represented by attempting to make that claim. There's plenty of evidence for lack of efficacy for so called safer sex practices and condoms. 20 years of pushing it. After all the years of the campaigns the epidemics rage on out of control, see

        > Unless, there has been some honest and open conversation prior to entering into the sexual activity, every negative test in the world cannot protect you from disease. You must first establish a rapport

rapport doesn't cure or prevent aids

        > with the partner that allows for honesty, trust and open communication.

neither honesty, trust, open communication cures or prevents aids.

        > Unless that is happening, other prevention strategies (condoms, abstinence, etc.) should be considered.

Condoms, abstinence and other prevention strategies are clearly what has not worked.

That's what the strategy getting tested TOGETHER BEFORE having sex, for A VARIETY of STDs does. It raises the standard of health for POTENTIAL sex partners. You need to know about infections to reduce the ambiguity and communicate openly.

It also changes the consciousness of the two people involved. Would a genuinely responsible person refuse to get tested for example?

No comments:

Post a Comment