While participating in this thread about condoms in porn, I went and did a little research into STD screening, incubation times and tests. I don’t know how prevalent the idea is that screen tests will keep you safe without condoms, but in the interest of fighting ignorance, here it is - screening tests will not keep you safe from STDs without condom use, even if you are religious about getting tests for yourself and potential partners. Some infectious diseases are contagious before they are detectable on a screening test, some diseases like genital warts and herpes have no reliable tests while they are not in the active stage, but are still contagious, and no screening tests are 100% accurate.
Thank you. This is something that people do need to be reminded of. I tell my soldiers at least once a week about using condoms and monogamy, but some believe it won’t happen to them. Thank you for the stats.
Mmmm. Having done the research on herpes, I think your information may be inaccurate. There are blood tests that can accurately identify not only a herpes infection, but also if it’s HSV I or HSV II. The test accomplishes this by identifying antibodies in the bloodstream, so if the infection is new and no antibodies have been produced yet, it is not reliable. The window on that, however, is around 10 days.
They cannot, however, tell you where the infection is located. While HSV I is considered primarily oral, it can show up on the genitals. HSV II is usually referred to as genital herpes, but it can infect the mouth and other mucosal tissues.
Condoms, BTW, are not necessarily effective protection, as the virus can be shed by skin not covered by a condom, and the infection site does not have to be vaginal or penile. It can occur on the outer lips of the vagina, the scrotum sack, the inner thighs, the peraneum (sp?), and the buttocks. And the final kicker is that a person with a latent herpes infection, no sores, no symptoms, and no blisters, can still shed virus all over the place.
I did read that; it looked like the tests for herpes basically can’t tell you if you’re getting a positive because you had a cold sore as a kid, or because you’re a raging genital herpe factory. In other words, don’t be basing your sexual activity on it.
Ah yes. According to the dermatologist who lectured to my med school class, herpes outbreaks of the buttocks are particularly prevalent among women due to the practice of spooning (with a dude who has genital herpes).
Somehow I dont think anyone is going to start using full body condoms for cuddling based on this news but I do think people should be aware of how easy it is to get infected.
Meh. I don’t think anyone ever thinks they’re completely safe, do they?
For me, it’s a risk/benefit analysis: “Okay, we’ve been exclusive for a year, we’ve both passed STD screening, and a failure of oral BC isn’t a ‘kill myself now’ scenario.” When these conditions are met, I think the risk is low enough to go without the extra hassle/expense/taste of condoms.
Not 100% safe, but it’s not 100% with condoms, either. It’s acceptable, for me.
Yup. My interest in starting this thread was aimed at people who might be thinking that screening replaces condoms in high-risk behaviour, and that screening is 100% certain. Not sure how many people actually think that, but after hearing from a few different sources about how testing in the porn industry is their version of protection, I thought it wouldn’t hurt to fight a little possible ignorance.
but I do think people should be aware of how easy it is to get infected.