By Peggy Post. Both people should be willing to have blood tests and medical checkups and to exchange the results. For a number of reasons, people may lie about test results, so a literal exchange of records is not only reasonable but advisable.
Related Topics
dsak ...@zurich.csail.mit.edu
By Peggy Post Both people should be willing to have blood tests and medical checkups and to exchange the results. For a number of reasons, people may lie about test results, so a literal exchange of records is not only reasonable but advisable.
Emily Post's Etiquette 17th Edition 2004 page 75, Chapter Six Dating, Part Two Relationships BJ1853.P6 2004 395---dc22 ISBN 0-06-620957-9 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0066209579/ http://www.harpercollins.com/global_scripts/product_catalog/book_xml....
Roedy Green look...@mindprod.com.invalid
The other thing to understand it can take up to 6 months after infection for a test to turn up positive. You must go without any unsafe sex for 6 months prior to a test to be sure you are safe.
Looking at heterosexual divorce court, cheating is very common. If you rely on monogamy as your only protection, you are trusting your partner with your life.
Bush crime family lost/embezzled $3 trillion from Pentagon.
Complicit Bush-friendly media keeps mum.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/mckinney_grills_rumsfeld.htm
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
See http://mindprod.com/iraq.html photos of Bush's war crimes
dsak ...@zurich.csail.mit.edu
The myth of waiting six months is that getting tested today can detect exisiting sexually transmitted infections from that much longer period of time, all the years before any window. The myth is using latency as an excuse to avoid getting tested together today. Getting tested together today also gives you both a benchmark. You both can always get tested together again later. If there is a change in test results that can help in determining the treatment for infection. It can help pin down how long the infection has been going on.
See also a collaborative blog about the strategy of getting tested together before having sex http://NotB4WeKnow.EditThisPage.com
dsak ...@zurich.csail.mit.edu
Monogamy doesn't help if you're already infected.
If you're infected it occurred sometime in your past.
Is it really six months now?
If it was the case why would the blood supply institutions accept your blood with one test? Do they hold the blood for six months?
The strategy sets an example for truth telling in a relationship.
If somebody approaches somebody about doing this it's like a hammer coming down on the relationship. They're going to find out something about their personal integrity and the other person's.
Do they actually care about the sex or do they care about the life of the other person? Does the other person say that's an excellent idea? Does the other person immediately say you've got AIDS and run in the other direction? and you've made an important discovery about this other person.
dsak ...@zurich.csail.mit.edu
They can do an experiment to determine the power of doing this on their potential sex partner. Notice their own internal state. Notice the reaction of the other person.
Roedy Green look...@mindprod.com.invalid
It is not a myth. It happened to me and caused me to jeopardize my partner. I am not saying, don't get tested. I am saying don't rely on that test result to have unsafe sex with your partner.
I am calling for prudence. You are spreading false security. In a proper universe you should be locked up for attempted murder.
Bush crime family lost/embezzled $3 trillion from Pentagon.
Complicit Bush-friendly media keeps mum.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/mckinney_grills_rumsfeld.htm
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
See http://mindprod.com/iraq.html photos of Bush's war crimes
Roedy Green look...@mindprod.com.invalid
I went to an HIV support group. The only person who advocated telling your partner was me. That means nearly everyone will lie. If you rely on your ability to play lie detector, you are putting your life at risk.
These laws that punish a few people who get caught lying give everyone else a false sense of security.
We know from your many other posts your intent toward gays is malice, not saving their lives. But you are stepping over the line with these posts with intent to kill.
Bush crime family lost/embezzled $3 trillion from Pentagon.
Complicit Bush-friendly media keeps mum.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/mckinney_grills_rumsfeld.htm
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
See http://mindprod.com/iraq.html photos of Bush's war crimes
dsak ...@zurich.csail.mit.edu
Does testing kill, by the way? I'm not sure myself, but can you tell me if there is any definitive data on how testing kills people?
People lie, all the more reason to get tested together and share your results. A definitive document handed to you by medical personnel with an indication of your positive or negative status is the only way to circumvent or get around lying. If you have another method to get around lying, please share it with me...
Don't rely on your ability to be a lie detector.
Rely on competent medical personnel. I see we are in 100 percent agreement on this facet of human nature.
These laws What laws are you referring to?
that punish a few people who get caught lying give everyone else a false sense of security.
Can you give me any single example of a case history of this?
We know from your many other posts your intent toward gays is malice, not saving their lives. But you are stepping over the line with these posts with intent to kill.
Could you explain to me how testing would kill anyone?
Are there any competent researchers investigating the death rate for testing?
If you want to maintain you hiv status are there any number of tests that would cause it to become positive?
Has anybody who has donated blood as a consequence of donating blood, not receiving a transfusion, but donating blood?
dsak ...@zurich.csail.mit.edu
Has anybody who has donated blood become positive as a consequence of donating blood?
Roedy Green look...@mindprod.com.invalid
What I am saying is that the testing procedure you are telling people to risk their lives on is unreliable. You are advocating risky sexual behaviour. You are no different that anyone else who tries to trick people into thinking barebacking is safe. Your motive is mayhem. You have demonstrated many times in past you hate gay people.
The test cannot be trusted because it cannot detect infections as old as 6 months.
Further it has a 0.3% false-negative rate in high risk populations.
Think about what that means. The odds of you and I having the same birthday are lower than you getting a false-positive. Do you risk your life on odds that bad?
Further, the test cannot be trusted because someone's status is only as old as their most recent sexual encounter.
If your partner cheats on you, and infects you, there is NOTHING, no amount of remorse, money or legal action that will undo that.
Bush crime family lost/embezzled $3 trillion from Pentagon.
Complicit Bush-friendly media keeps mum.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/mckinney_grills_rumsfeld.htm
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
See http://mindprod.com/iraq.html photos of Bush's war crimes
dsak ...@zurich.csail.mit.edu
People lie, all the more reason to get tested together and share your results. A definitive document handed to you by medical personnel with an indication of your positive or negative status is the only way to circumvent or get around lying. If you have another method to get around lying, please share it with me...
Don't rely on your ability to be a lie detector.
Not according to years of testing donated blood.
And I don't believe there is any significant risk to getting tested. There is a possibility of getting a bit of contamination from the needle used to draw blood. But I think its very, very low.
The testing strategy is not a sexual behavior and not an advocating of sexual behavior. It is a testing strategy to determine if you are infected with any of a variety of STDs. Finding out if you have a disease doesn't give you the disease. Also, talking about a disease doesn't give you the disease. Drinking contaminated water can result in cholera. Testing for cholera doesn't cause it.
I'm confident that testing for STDs doesn't cause STDs.
Getting tested is not a trick. Its a test. You can decide to have a test or not. Possibly I could trick you into getting tested--but only because you don't seem to be all that sharp.
Its a widely respected motive to determine the spread and extent of a variety of STDs. Testing doesn't cause mayhem except in the most irrational or mentally deranged.
This means, to me, that you are an imaginary mind reader.
If that were the case then it wouldn't be used to test donated blood.
It means that the high risk group in question is a very dangerous group of people to have sex with--especially when you have no idea of their HIV and other STD status.
As far as I know doctors/medical people/scientists, etc, don't test for birthdays.
Its not clear to me that you understand either risk or what you are talking about.
Finally, something we agree on. And all the more reason to get tested before you even think of having sex with the person in question.
I think, by some quirk of accident or fate, that you've found another point we agree on.
Roedy Green look...@mindprod.com.invalid
I have never been given such a document. I tested negative once and positive the second time. Are you sure such things exist?
Further, the test, if positive warns you to be extra careful, but if negative proves little other than you were careful long ago.
There nothing to stop the a partner from having an unsafe quickie on the way home. Relying on tests is tantamount to suicide. You should be arrested for counseling suicide.
Bush crime family lost/embezzled $3 trillion from Pentagon.
Complicit Bush-friendly media keeps mum.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/mckinney_grills_rumsfeld.htm
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
See http://mindprod.com/iraq.html photos of Bush's war crimes
Don Saklad dsak...@gnu.org
|| A definitive document handed to you by medical personnel with || an indication of your positive or negative status is the only || way to circumvent or get around lying.
| I have never been given such a document.
Ask for one during your next test.
| I tested negative once | and positive the second time.
| | Are you sure such things exist?
Do once and second exist?
Could you clarify?
| Further, the test, if positive warns you to be extra careful, | but if negative proves little other than you were careful long | ago.
Apparently you, and somebody else, were not very careful.
Do you suppose things might have turned out differently if you and the partner who infected you had gone for a test first?
Perhaps that person would have rejected you outright--and you would be negative today.
| There nothing to stop the a partner from having an unsafe | quickie on the way home.
I suspect most people would reject anyone who asks them to go for a mutual test. They would immediately feel selfconscious and/or guilty about their behavior.
I suspect that's what makes you project your own feelings onto me with statements like those below...
| Relying on tests is tantamount to suicide.
You can make whatever claims you want. Modern medicine is based on testing--a large part of why it works so well.
| You should be arrested for counseling suicide.
Let me know what happens when you take the above claim to authorities who have the power to arrest me.
My advice to you, when going to said authorities, would be to keep an eye out for two or more very large men wearing white outfits and carrying a straightjacket.
Roedy Green look...@mindprod.com.invalid
I won't ever have another. They use an antibodies test for screening, and viral load and CD4 tests for treatment.
I could see why a doctor would be reluctant to give such a paper. It would be misinterpreted to mean "this person is safe for barebacking" which it does not mean.
It would be irresponsible to do that.
Bush crime family lost/embezzled $3 trillion from Pentagon.
Complicit Bush-friendly media keeps mum.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/mckinney_grills_rumsfeld.htm
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
See http://mindprod.com/iraq.html photos of Bush's war crimes
dsak ...@zurich.csail.mit.edu
| I won't ever have another. They use an antibodies test for | screening, and viral load and CD4 tests for treatment.
| | I could see why a doctor would be reluctant to give such a | paper. It would be misinterpreted to mean "this person is safe | for barebacking" which it does not mean.
| | It would be irresponsible to do that.
Does the document explicitly say anything about barebacking?
I always thought these sexually transmitted diseases tests were to determine whether you had any of the stds not to determine the sexual practices through which you got them.
How come you're so obsessed with barebaking?
Roedy Green look...@mindprod.com.invalid
What change does knowing status make?
If you don't know, you use safe sex.
If you do know you may forgo safe sex (i.e. barebacking) if you are very confident there is no risk.
The main reason to get tested in to get started on treatment as necessary. That further reduces risk of infecting anyone in safe sex encounters.
However, I believe the original poster was under the delusion that, (or possibly was maliciously promoting the notion that) a single negative test of both parties was a green light to throw away the safe sex guidelines. It is not, for three reasons: 1. it can take up to 6 months for antibodies the test is based on to show up after infection.
2. you are only as safe as your partner's last encounter. Cheating is a fact life in the human species. Risking your life on your partner's fidelity is not something you should do lightly.
3. There are false negative tests.
Bush crime family lost/embezzled $3 trillion from Pentagon.
Complicit Bush-friendly media keeps mum. Rumsfeld confesses on video.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/mckinney_grills_rumsfeld.htm
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
See http://mindprod.com/iraq.html photos of Bush's war crimes
dsak ...@zurich.csail.mit.edu
| What change does knowing status make?
Potential sex partners getting tested together can decide not to have sex if an infection is detected.
dsak ...@zurich.csail.mit.edu
The correct term is always... safer There's never zero risk.
Roedy Green look...@mindprod.com.invalid
I think that would be rare to avoid sex if both were positive, though it certainly can break up a relationship if one tests positive and the other negative.
Bush crime family lost/embezzled $3 trillion from Pentagon.
Complicit Bush-friendly media keeps mum. Rumsfeld confesses on video.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/mckinney_grills_rumsfeld.htm
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
See http://mindprod.com/iraq.html photos of Bush's war crimes
Roedy Green look...@mindprod.com.invalid
Yes, you are correct. see http://mindprod.com/ggloss/safesex.html http://mindprod.com/ggloss/safersex.html On the other hand, the term "safe sex" is what most people use when referring to guidelines to reduce risk of infection.
Bush crime family lost/embezzled $3 trillion from Pentagon.
Complicit Bush-friendly media keeps mum. Rumsfeld confesses on video.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/mckinney_grills_rumsfeld.htm
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
See http://mindprod.com/iraq.html photos of Bush's war crimes
"Manuel" branto1...@yahoo.ca
Of course, dear.
My advice to worshipers of the god Monogamy is as follows: "Be faithful so you don't develop a guilt complex. Nevertheless, consider your partner as an outright cheating rascal." Manuel
Roedy Green look...@mindprod.com.invalid
Anyone who trusts the results of his partner's HIV test with his life needs an evening of Jerry Springer and Maury Povich reruns watching person after person collapse in shock to discover their perfectly faithful mate strayed repeatedly.
And these guests are people who publicly vowed monogamy and for whom the problem of paternity adds extra incentive.
Bush crime family lost/embezzled $3 trillion from Pentagon.
Complicit Bush-friendly media keeps mum. Rumsfeld confesses on video.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/mckinney_grills_rumsfeld.htm
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
See http://mindprod.com/iraq.html photos of Bush's war crimes
"Manuel" branto1...@yahoo.ca
Dear Roedy, you should at least comment my saying.
BTW, do you think Belinda and her former boyfriend used to wear condoms?
Do you think she was an outright cheating rascal?
Manuel
Roedy Green look...@mindprod.com.invalid
Who is Belinda? Straights generally are still being pretty cavalier.
They seem to think HIV goes to the brain and checks out your fantasies before deciding whether to take up permanent residence.
Bush crime family lost/embezzled $3 trillion from Pentagon.
Complicit Bush-friendly media keeps mum. Rumsfeld confesses on video.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/mckinney_grills_rumsfeld.htm
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
See http://mindprod.com/iraq.html photos of Bush's war crimes
dsak ...@zurich.csail.mit.edu
There is no test for mutual fidelity.
Get tested together today not tomorrow for sexually transmitted infections.
Many people do not know they have an infection.
Many people do not have symptoms and carry an infection to another person.
Testing that detects an infection gives people information that can be used to cure and prevent p***ing along further infections.
Here's a collaborative blog about the strategy of getting tested together before having sex http://NotB4WeKnow.EditThisPage.com
| To Top |