We're usually all for anything that encourages safer sex. And in theory, the
STFree Safe Sex License (recently reported on by New York's
Daily News) is a great idea: Test people--especially those in high risk communities--for STDs (mainly HIV), give them a card with their picture and an ID number. They can then give that card to potential sex partners, who can call to confirm the results. The idea is to encourage honest discussion about sexual history with partners, as well as regular testing.
But here's why we're not 100 percent gung-ho:
-
They test mainly for HIV (which admittedly is the mutha of all STDs),
though the card's name would suggest that all STDs are covered.
Regarding testing for other STDs, the website says, "Those Safe Sex Licenses
require an extremely frequent amount of testing. It is mostly used in
the adult entertainment industry, but can be provided to any user who
requests one." Which kinda sounds to us like they don't do them that
much. On top of that, there really isn't a viable men's test for HPV,
one of the most common STDs out there.
- HIV doesn't show up for three months (in most cases) to six months
(in rare cases) on tests, so you could get negative test results but
still be infected. Plus, if you get tested and then have sex the next
day, you could contract anything that person had and it won't
show up on the card, of course.
- It's the better-than-nothing approach: Planned Parenthood does the
testing, so we're sure they use it as an opportunity for community
education on safer sex. And the website says, "STFree encourages its
members to always use condoms in conjunction with our service. We also
inform our members that individuals can contract the virus after being
tested."
But the site also says, "Studies have proven that most people who get
tested don't return for a follow-up test." We worry a card like this
can give people a false sense of security. The company name itself is a
bit of a misnomer, automatically suggesting that card-holders are
STD-free; besides, what does "sexually transmitted free" mean exactly
anyway? And what's to prevent the more unscrupulous from using it as
merely a free-pass on condoms: "Call this number, you'll see I'm
negative, that means we don't need to use a condom." HIV prevention is
a noble and important crusade--this just seems like it might be at the
expense of other, more common STDs, and perhaps even unplanned
pregnancy.
![[Body By Glamour ad]](http://dailybedpost.com/ads/bbg-fall-275x225.gif)
FEED ME
Well, to be fair, calling the number does not provide proof that the person is negative. It provides proof of their last two test dates. Calling the hotline also offers the opportunity to learn more about HIV/AIDS.
I'm in favor of this program simply because it encourages people to a) get tested and b) talk with their partners about getting tested -- two things that don't happen enough.
I think that safe sex starts and ends with a condom or another barrier method. It's important to understand that the risks are too high these days to accredit a "safe sex" card as some sort of absolute against infection. In theory the idea is a very good one, but in execution its shortcomings overwhelm it: it only confirms the last two tests; it isn't a guarantee, since it only tests for SOME STDs; and many STD tests don't get immediate or even relatively quick results. So in the end it can be, at best, something to be cautuius about, and, at worst, another exscuse to not practice safer sex in the first place..
All this hoopla is pointless. Condoms have increased in variety and accessibility, and no longer carry the stigma of "awkward" or "uninteresting." As far as the latter, there are companies like One Condoms (onecondoms.com) putting out amazing products that do everything from heighten sensitivity to glow in the dark--hardly "uninteresting."
In the end it's all about prevention, and I can't see much being prevented if people still continue to have sex with partners that have had their history defined by a piece of paper--or, in this case, plastic.
Use a condom. Just do it.
Seems like the intention is good but this idea needs a lot of refining. It's not like an LED stock ticker on their belt that has constant updates of what sort of nasty bits this person has floating around in their body. The card doesn't really expire after a new partner. It sounds a little bit better than nothing but not even close to the standard everyone should be holding themselves to.
I was thinking the other day that in an ideal world we'd all have little real-time STD kits we could use to test potential 'partners'. But of course in an ideal world there wouldn't be STDs either...
I see Lux's point, but I worry that people (*cough*men*cough*) may see it as a 'get out of condoms free' card.
If a guy showed me one of these cards, I'd be just as skeptical as if he told me 'don't worry baby, I'm clean.' My cynical eyebrow would be raised. It's just that, in my experience, anyone who is really concerned about protecting themselves from STIs has no problems using condoms.
Bareback sex is for monogamous couples who've been tested together and have made the decision to trust eachother. For everyone else, it's condoms all the way, I think.
What about a tattoo made with ink that detects STD's. It can be like one on the Chakotay character from Star Trek - above the left eye. Then it turns red if there are STD's detected.
What about the Logan's Run concept? We can start out with a clear gem imbedded in the left palm, then when it detects STDs, it turns red.
What about instead of a breathalyzer, we can have a penalyzer?