Desire Resort Forums

I am a health care provider in the US. And I got to thinking. I would like peoples feedback and input on this....

What if Pearl offered an onsite service for rapid STD testing, performed by medical professionals. For a fee, you can be tested for STD titers... HIV, Hepatitis, Herpes type I and II, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and trigamonis. Couples would have to opt in to doing the testing on their very first day of their visit. Then once completed, and if everything is negative, they get a green bracelet to wear for the rest of their stay indicating they have a very recent negative STI result. Obviously, I know that there are still risks of transmissions and safe sex should still be used.... But I think that new people in the lifestyle would welcome this extra step of safety.

okay.... start telling me how much this would kill the vibe.....
go

If you decide to do this, post here first so I can go for one last trip before this shit show happens.

So, I have sex with an infected person the day before my trip to Desire. First day, you test me for STD and, since it takes time for the shit I caught the night before to register on tests (up to six months I thought), you give me a green bracelet telling all others, that I'm "All Clear".

WTF?

What kind of health care provider are you? Have I got this scenario all wrong?

Offering the testing? Sure. The bracelets, though, not such a good idea. Mostly because of stds that had been recently contracted and not showing up on testing yet.

Frankly I saw way too much unprotected sex going on at desire anyway. Seems to me those that are going to have unprotected sex are going to do so regardless and those that insist on protection are also going to do so regardless of a bracelet.

Education can also go on during the testing. And yes, 6 months post exposure to HIV is appropriate diagnostics. As I said nothing replaces protected sex. But even protected sex comes with risks. Would you not rather have protected sex with someone that just testing negative for STDs as opposed to someone that just tested positive????? I would! Also, many people at desire are just vacation style (like my wife and I). So the test done there would be appropriate and accurate since it would have been more than 6 months since shacking up with another couple.

Do you say there would be a "Shit Show" because tons of people would find out they have an STD during their vacation??? How would it become a shit show?

oooo... by the way.... I juat re-read my original post. I think there was a misunderstanding. The "opt-in on the first night" was to prevent exposure on day 2 at pearl and testing negative on day 3. Must "opt-in on the first night" meant you had to do it on arrival if you choose to do it. otherwise you can not be tested.

goldfish1 wrote:Education can also go on during the testing. And yes, 6 months post exposure to HIV is appropriate diagnostics.

I'm not an expert by any means but my understanding of the testing window (from the time you are infected to when it would show up on a test) is that it ranges from at least a week to as much as 12 weeks depending on the disease.

So someone could get infected anywhere within that window and yet not test positive in a test on their first day at Desire. So having a green band could actually fool someone into having sex with me because they think I'm "safe".

As I said nothing replaces protected sex. But even protected sex comes with risks. Would you not rather have protected sex with someone that just testing negative for STDs as opposed to someone that just tested positive????? I would!

I would but that's not what we will have here. We won't have a choice between negative and positive, we will have a choice between "probably/maybe negative" (depending on several factors - please see the End User Agreement with your test results) and "have no idea". That's virtually the same situation we have now without the bands. What have we gained?

Also, many people at desire are just vacation style (like my wife and I). So the test done there would be appropriate and accurate since it would have been more than 6 months since shacking up with another couple.

But how do *I* know you haven't shacked up with someone else in six months - is there a wrist band for that? Basically, I would have to ask "How valid is your green band?"

Do you say there would be a "Shit Show" because tons of people would find out they have an STD during their vacation???

No, I think it's a bad idea because it tries to put a black (green) and white indication on a situation that is neither. STD tests give the person being tested useful information (and I would never argue against having more information) but it doesn't really tell anyone else anything actionable. The only way this information would be useable is if it went the other way - a band for testing positive. Would anyone argue for that because that's what you are going to create.

Anyone *without* a green band is now suspect. Did they fail or did they just not get tested? Do I do a body shot off a gal who doesn't have a green band?

What if I test negative (and let's say I truly haven't been exposed) and then I do a body shot off a lady who doesn't have a green band. Do I have to take off my green band or can I keep it on?

Imagine the questions on this board from newbies contemplating going and finding out about the green bands.

That's my definition of a "shit show"

TandD wrote:

goldfish1 wrote:Education can also go on during the testing. And yes, 6 months post exposure to HIV is appropriate diagnostics.

I'm not an expert by any means but my understanding of the testing window (from the time you are infected to when it would show up on a test) is that it ranges from at least a week to as much as 12 weeks depending on the disease.

So someone could get infected anywhere within that window and yet not test positive in a test on their first day at Desire. So having a green band could actually fool someone into having sex with me because they think I'm "safe".

As I said nothing replaces protected sex. But even protected sex comes with risks. Would you not rather have protected sex with someone that just testing negative for STDs as opposed to someone that just tested positive????? I would!

I would but that's not what we will have here. We won't have a choice between negative and positive, we will have a choice between "probably/maybe negative" (depending on several factors - please see the End User Agreement with your test results) and "have no idea". That's virtually the same situation we have now without the bands. What have we gained?

Also, many people at desire are just vacation style (like my wife and I). So the test done there would be appropriate and accurate since it would have been more than 6 months since shacking up with another couple.

But how do *I* know you haven't shacked up with someone else in six months - is there a wrist band for that? Basically, I would have to ask "How valid is your green band?"

Do you say there would be a "Shit Show" because tons of people would find out they have an STD during their vacation???

No, I think it's a bad idea because it tries to put a black (green) and white indication on a situation that is neither. STD tests give the person being tested useful information (and I would never argue against having more information) but it doesn't really tell anyone else anything actionable. The only way this information would be useable is if it went the other way - a band for testing positive. Would anyone argue for that because that's what you are going to create.

Anyone *without* a green band is now suspect. Did they fail or did they just not get tested? Do I do a body shot off a gal who doesn't have a green band?

What if I test negative (and let's say I truly haven't been exposed) and then I do a body shot off a lady who doesn't have a green band. Do I have to take off my green band or can I keep it on?

Imagine the questions on this board from newbies contemplating going and finding out about the green bands.

That's my definition of a "shit show"

Okay.... all great points. Now forget about the brackets gompletely. Do you think optional on site STD testing with confidential results and education would be a successful business venture at pearl?

goldfish1 wrote: Do you think optional on site STD testing with confidential results and education would be a successful business venture at pearl?

NO or Original Resorts would be offering it

And no because it just opens up Original Resorts to a ton of potential liabilities.

This same kind of issue came up on a discussion about whether or not they should supply toys and safe sex materials - condoms, dams, whatever.

Right now, they have a form of plausible deniability. They provide a place where sex *might* happen but they don't supply toys, lube, condoms, etc. - anything that might be involved in STDs or reproductive issues. As soon as they wade into that area, they open themselves up for law suits when something "fails". To be clear, I don't know for a fact that this is why they don't supply these things but it certainly makes sense to me.

STD testing would be the same kind of thing to me. Two "cleans" f**k and somebody catches something - whose fault is it? Yeah, they could have signed a liability waiver but when has that ever stopped a rabid lawyer. Just too much hassle for Desire in my opinion.

Not to mention that even raising the issue by making testing available throws a giant bucket of cold water on the whole vibe. Yes, we all know it's out there and we each have to come to terms about what the risks are and what we are comfortable with. I guess you could make an argument that it should be brought out in the open more - like what is happening with sexual harassment these days - but I think it would definitely kill (or severely wound at least) the vibe.

I think it would tend to make it seem like the place is "swingers only" and that would cut off a large portion of the people who go there.

TandD wrote:And no because it just opens up Original Resorts to a ton of potential liabilities.

This same kind of issue came up on a discussion about whether or not they should supply toys and safe sex materials - condoms, dams, whatever.

Right now, they have a form of plausible deniability. They provide a place where sex *might* happen but they don't supply toys, lube, condoms, etc. - anything that might be involved in STDs or reproductive issues. As soon as they wade into that area, they open themselves up for law suits when something "fails". To be clear, I don't know for a fact that this is why they don't supply these things but it certainly makes sense to me.

STD testing would be the same kind of thing to me. Two "cleans" f**k and somebody catches something - whose fault is it? Yeah, they could have signed a liability waiver but when has that ever stopped a rabid lawyer. Just too much hassle for Desire in my opinion.

Not to mention that even raising the issue by making testing available throws a giant bucket of cold water on the whole vibe. Yes, we all know it's out there and we each have to come to terms about what the risks are and what we are comfortable with. I guess you could make an argument that it should be brought out in the open more - like what is happening with sexual harassment these days - but I think it would definitely kill (or severely wound at least) the vibe.

I think it would tend to make it seem like the place is "swingers only" and that would cut off a large portion of the people who go there.

It seems weird that patrons at desire are so open to everything.... but one suggestion of providing a 'safer sex' practice shakes the roof off everyone. And I dont care how you argue this.... this practice would be safer than no testing. At least it would identify positve STD people. And that is some thing desire can not do now.

I think the issue comes down to personal responsibility vs location responsibility.

Lifestyle clubs, private homes, resorts and hotels all provide an opportunity and a setting for Lifestyle activities. However, within those settings Lifestyle activities between consenting adults are private and most engaged in Lifestyle activities seem to prefer to keep it that way. That and as TandD pointed out, as soon as you make it a "location responsibility" then that location is opened up to significant potential liabilities.

goldfish1 wrote:It seems weird that patrons at desire are so open to everything.... but one suggestion of providing a 'safer sex' practice shakes the roof off everyone.

Really ?!? Four people have responded.

goldfish1 wrote:At least it would identify positve STD people. And that is some thing desire can not do now.

Are you going to force such people to reveal it? Brand them? There are unscrupulous people everywhere, no guarantees about anything. And are you saying Desire should be identifying STD positive folks? That's their responsibility?

goldfish1 wrote:And I dont care how you argue this.....

And here we get to the crux of the matter. You posited a thought, received a few well-thought out answers, and simply ignored the points made, no counter other than "yeah, but..." Give you credit for one thing, you stick to your guns.

goldfish1 wrote:It seems weird that patrons at desire are so open to everything.... but one suggestion of providing a 'safer sex' practice shakes the roof off everyone.

Everyone? I think there have been a total of four unique responders to this question so far. Hardly *everyone*. In fact, I think there are three "for" and two "against" (the testing aspect anyway - haven't seen anyone in favor of the bracelets after OP agreed with some points I made).

Also, let's not conflate "open to everything" and "agreeing with a bad idea". I can be open minded and still disagree with a proposal.