Chances of HIV transmission from woman to man

[Secret_Admirer]

I understand that the chances of transmission of HIV from vaginal sex to a man is very low but how much is very low??.

The reason that I ask, is because I was with an SP last week and I suddenly realized that the cover has come off. I must have been inside her at least a few seconds and I am concerned about this (as I understand it will take 6 months for antibody to show). So what are the chances (lets assume the worst and say she was HIV positive). I researched many sites and the best I could come up with were transmission chances ranging from .1% to 3 in 10000 (I know chances are very low but when it comes to aids and painful death, anything more than zero is too high).

Also they were not clear whether this was the chance for transmission with an infected woman or the chance for becoming HIV for sex with a woman randomly as based on my understanding, only 1 in every 1000 woman in North America is inffected.

Many thanks.

 

[Secret_Admirer]

I got the same 0,1% of you...but, I really don't think it is a so goood idea to spread it on a board like this...

Capisce?

I am not sure that I understand what you mean . If what I said offended you, then I apologize.

The .1% change of transmission from women to a man is in a public article, (by the Public Health agency of Canada).

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/epiu-aepi/epi_update_may_04/13-eng.php

So what you say (that I am spreading on the board) is in public domain and not a top secret subject or gross claim or exageration . Please note that contrary to what you said (I think that is what you are saying), unfortunately chances of transmission from a man to a women could be much higher than from a woman to a man.

What I was not clear (I read the article a few times) was whether .1% is chances of transmission with an infected woman or with a woman randomly as only one in a thousand women in NA is infected and I asked for help to understand it. If the former is the case, then the chances would be reduced to 1 in 10 million which is virtually zero and if the latter, then as I said .1% is too high for my comfort. I asked for help for clarification purposes only not to offend anyone!!!.

The other point that was not clear from the article to me was whether this is a chance to full vaginal intercourse (lasting several minutes to half hour) or just exposure even for a few seconds.

 

[Secret_Admirer]

No,no...No need to apologize at all, to me... I am sorry to look a little bit to much concerned about the fact that, if men, all around, are perfectly knowing that they can't catch statisquely, really, (o,1%, imagine...) the HIV from a woman -infected-... from 1 vaginal intercourse... We can see a higher demand for it... The most exposed is the women, you are right...( spread on the board, for me, a maternal french speaker, just meant that you are saying something that I did, personnaly, be said to not say at large, to the population...( I use to work in an hospital...)...

I am suggesting you, to wait 2 months, and go for some specialized tests, to be sure of everything...If the girl you are been with, is able to tell you how frequently she is doing her tests, that could be good for you to tell your own doctor. Don't take any chance, and go be examinating. Even if the chance are good looking for you...Ok??? That's a conscienous advice, and be really carefull with all your others partners during all this time.

I am sorry to look a little rude, my apologies for that, but you have to be serious with that.

No you were not rude. No need to apologize. I mis-understood.

Yes, your advice is good. It is my understanding that at least a six month waiting period is needed for hiv test (for anti-body to show, God forbid), but I will check it out. In the meantime I am seeking as much info as I can from experts and professional researchers on this subject (with regard to my two questions).

 

[bumfie]

Please trust me that I know about this, and speak definitively:

You have a better chance of getting killed by a piece of the moon falling than you have of getting HIV from a female escort in hetero sex.

Your 3 in 10,000 figure is the figure cited in a lot of literature. And that 3 in 10,000 doesn't mean 3 in every 10,000 times you do it. It means 3 in every 10,000 times you have vaginal sex, unprotected, with an infected partner.

So you have to have the incredible bad luck of condom failure and an infected partner, and then being one of the 3 in 10,000. And those numbers may even be high. Experts say the published heterosexual transmission rates are probably skewed by the fact that some guys who were infected lie about how they got it...they were getting a little cock (or big cock) on the side and didn't want to reveal it.

Studies show that hetero transmission is extraordinarly, extraordinarily rare, even in bareback sex. (Not that I am endorsing that one bit) So it's just not an issue for male hobbyists. Of course, there are lots of other STDs out there.

Oh, and antibody tests: the standard wait for a 100 percent reliable result is down to three months due to improved testing. A six-week negative test is almost always reliable unless you have serious immune system problems.

You can also get a PCR test, which is expensive but gives you a virtual all-clear within a few days. You still need to confirm with a regular Elisa antibody test at three months.

 

[Secret_Admirer]

Please trust me that I know about this, and speak definitively:

You have a better chance of getting killed by a piece of the moon falling than you have of getting HIV from a female escort in hetero sex.

Your 3 in 10,000 figure is the figure cited in a lot of literature. And that 3 in 10,000 doesn't mean 3 in every 10,000 times you do it. It means 3 in every 10,000 times you have vaginal sex, unprotected, with an infected partner.

So you have to have the incredible bad luck of condom failure and an infected partner, and then being one of the 3 in 10,000. And those numbers may even be high. Experts say the published heterosexual transmission rates are probably skewed by the fact that some guys who were infected lie about how they got it...they were getting a little cock (or big cock) on the side and didn't want to reveal it.

Studies show that hetero transmission is extraordinarly, extraordinarily rare, even in bareback sex. (Not that I am endorsing that one bit) So it's just not an issue for male hobbyists. Of course, there are lots of other STDs out there.

Oh, and antibody tests: the standard wait for a 100 percent reliable result is down to three months due to improved testing. A six-week negative test is almost always reliable unless you have serious immune system problems.

You can also get a PCR test, which is expensive but gives you a virtual all-clear within a few days. You still need to confirm with a regular Elisa antibody test at three months.

Thank you very much bumfile for both informative and comforting response. It is good to know that the 3 in 10000 is the chance of transmission with an infected woman which I didn't know. As you said it so well, combining that with the fact that only one in a thousand of women are actually infected, then my chances of being hit by a truck tomorrow is much higher than becoming hiv last week due to accidental loss of gloves for a few seconds.

Again thanks for taking the time and sharing. Much appreciated.

 

[AllOverHer]

No,no...No need to apologize at all, to me... I am sorry to look a little bit to much concerned about the fact that, if men, all around, are perfectly knowing that they can't catch statisquely, really, (o,1%, imagine...) the HIV from a woman -infected-... from 1 vaginal intercourse... We can see a higher demand for it... The most exposed is the women, you are right...( spread on the board, for me, a maternal french speaker, just meant that you are saying something that I did, personnaly, be said to not say at large, to the population...( I use to work in an hospital...)...

I am suggesting you, to wait 2 months, and go for some specialized tests, to be sure of everything...If the girl you are been with, is able to tell you how frequently she is doing her tests, that could be good for you to tell your own doctor. Don't take any chance, and go be examinating. Even if the chance are good looking for you...Ok??? That's a conscienous advice, and be really carefull with all your others partners during all this time.

I am sorry to look a little rude, my apologies for that, but you have to be serious with that.

Some people do win the loto 6-49

One should NEVER wait 2 months if he thinks he got in contact with a possible HIV infected partner.

I would get my ass ASAP to a clinic and get all the info and the IMMEDIATE PREVENTION treatment available (PEP) if doctor decides he should have it. You don't fuck around with your health. He also should tell the girl to go see the doc asap.

prevention prevention people. you never know you might win the jackpot.

Divina: You should write in french on serious matters, Because people could get lost in translation. comme a dit mon amie. la langue elle pouvoir tournoyer pas seulement sur le clitoris

 

[naughtylady]

The tests currently available in Montreal require you wait 3 months to tell. You have a 72 hour window to start preventive treatments. They will make you quite ill and are generally only recommended if you KNOW your partner was of high risk, or is indeed HIV+. How did the girl react when you told her the cover came off (I am assuming you did tell her) her reaction could indicate how she regards her own sexual health.

Yes the chances are low but act as if you are HIV+ until you know for certain.

Ronnie,
Naughtylady

 

[bumfie]

PEP? Way too late. Needs to begin within 72 hours or it is useless. You will never get a reputable doc to prescribe it. Plus, as Ronnie said, the medication is horrible. (A doc who didn't know any better gave it to me after I had condom failure with an SP who failed to tell me she was on her period..I had 28 days of it, and no one deserves to have to take that stuff)

Yes, I agree that testing is a good idea after this, but the absolutely overwhelming likelihood is that you are OK.

 

[Secret_Admirer]

The tests currently available in Montreal require you wait 3 months to tell. You have a 72 hour window to start preventive treatments. They will make you quite ill and are generally only recommended if you KNOW your partner was of high risk, or is indeed HIV+. How did the girl react when you told her the cover came off (I am assuming you did tell her) her reaction could indicate how she regards her own sexual health.

Yes the chances are low but act as if you are HIV+ until you know for certain.

Ronnie,
Naughtylady

The girl was cool about it (she knew I am okay) but this doesn't say much about her health though!!!. She assurred me not to worry and she is okay (how could she know that?).

What is the point of seeing a doctor though. Doctor can't prevent it now and it is not a curable desease anyway so what is the point. As bumfie said it so nicely the chances are infinitesimal really (three in ten million based on my calculation for full vaginal intercourse). The chances of a 42 year old (me) having a heart attack within the next 24 hours and die from it is higher than that but I don't rush to cardiologist and asking for an angioplasty either!!!.

Thanks for comments and advices to everyone who commented. Highly appreciated.

 

[bumfie]

Maria: first test can be taken at six weeks, and if it is negative it is a 99 percent chance the person is not infected. You need to back it up at 13 weeks with a for-sure test. Generally, the only people who take 13 weeks to seroconvert, or begin deveoping antibodies to HIV, are people with severe immune system dysfunction. If a relatively healthy person tests negative at six weeks, you can be almost sure she or he is OK.

The 13-week test is a backup to be 1,000 percent sure.

The PCR test does not look for the antibodies; it looks for the virus itself. However, there are a relatively high number of false positives. A PCR test should be taken fairly soon after the incident, and if you take PEP a PCR test is not recommended because PEP could mask a positive result.

 

[Secret_Admirer]

This is exactly the wrong way to take it, and why the % was tell to not be told to everyone: Now, you are assuming that you are 100 % OK, right?...

The pourcentage is low, for HIV transmission, but for the others ITS, this is not the same... You have to do the entire tests, to be sure to not be the next propagator agent of anything... and you are seeing Sp`s, so, this is a consciensious way to think for everybody here to take care of your own health... Do you understand my point??? You have to not take any chance at all...ust not for yourself, but for everybody...

Now I am not assuming 100% okay. I am stating the fact that I am 99.99997% okay, right.

What happened was an accident (cover coming off). I have no intention whatsoever of having sex without a full cover. So I will not be next propagator regardless. Yes, I see SPs but the only uncover act that i do is DFK and may be Daty, both proven to be safe as far as transmission of HIV is concerned (there has not been a single case of HIV transmission for either act). I even never opt for even if I am offerred (there has been a few cases of hiv transmission that way out of God knows how many millions of acts).

If and when I decide to get married, I will test myself (and my partner) for a variety of possible deseases (hiv, hepatitis, herpes, etc.) before having any type of sex without cover. I may however, pop into a clinic in a couple of months and test myself for hiv only, just for my peace of mind but in the meantime I will be seeing SPs. First of all, the possibility of 3 in 10 million does not put anyone in danger. (the chances of her being hit and die in a car accident, God forbid, while driving over to see me is higher than that). In fact you have to combine the three in ten million to the chances of her catching the hiv which will reduce the odds even much lower. And second, I always use cover.

We can never get down to zero possibility. Even a negative hiv test will not be zero (due to test errors, human errors, etc.). There has to be a cut off level that we may regard as zero or safe and for me personally that cut off level (or the acceptable risk level) is one in a million. That was why I was asking about what I read as 3 in 10000 is with an ineffected women (which will put my chances for hiv under what I consider as totally safe that is 1 in a million) or the 3 in 10000 was with a woman randomly. And I am grateful to bumfie for his response to my question that it was the odd for vaginal sex with an inffected woman (even that odd of 3 in 10000 was for full vaginal sex not exposure for a few seconds as was my case) and that assurred me that statistically speaking I am safe and healthy as far as hiv is concerned(because that would put my risk level as 3 in 10 million or 0.3 in a million, as only one in a thousand woman in North America is ineffected. That is one-third of what I consider as zero risk level).

 

[naughtylady]

Actually you have a 25% chance of having some sort of STI like herpes, syphilis, gonorrhoea, etc. It is the chance of picking up HIV is small.

Maria>>> This is what Medecins du Monde told me. I get all my testing through them. They are the ones who go to Stella, Cactus, Sero-Zero, etc. 100% anonymous.

This reminds me, I am due to go get myself for my regular check up soon!

Ronnie,
Naughtylady

 

[naughtylady]

What frustrates me the most about this thread is the focus on HIV and the fact that most are almost completely ignoring all the other STIs out there. Many of which, while not being deadly (OK untreated syphilis is deadly but it is curable with penicillin) can be cause other serious health problems.

sibar>>> dans mon opinion, tu fait la meilleur choix que tu peut.

Ronnie,
Naughtylady

 

[Garito]

tc

````

I even never opt for even if I am offerred (there has been a few cases of hiv transmission that way out of God knows how many millions of acts).````

Do you really think it is possible for a man to catch HIV from a TC? What other things could a man catch that way? I have heard countless MERBites who frequently receive this with zero bad effects. I would suspect that DATY presents a higher risk of a man getting some infection than one receiving .

Of course, it`s a whole other discussion from the woman`s point of view, but then that is a different question for another time.

Any comments ???

 

[mdanton]

Hi. The article reads:

Analyses of data from North American and European studies of long-term heterosexual couples estimate the per-sex-act probability of HIV transmission through penile-vaginal intercourse to be approximately 0.001.3 However, the independent risk of HIV transmission through orogenital contact has been more difficult to study and is not as well understood.

It seems to me that the number 3 above is a citation and it is not part of the propability value given. The probability given is 0.001; that's one over a thousand, or 0.1%. Where is the "3 over 10,000" figure coming from?

Regards,

 

[malboro_man]

I understand that the chances of transmission of HIV from vaginal sex to a man is very low but how much is very low??.

Based on 2007 stats, Canada has cumulative HIV+ cases of about 60,000. That's about 0.6% of the population. About 10,000 are women. From what I've read, the HIV strain in North America transmits more readily via anal sex (hence higher ratio of (gay) men infected).

Recently, I've read that the strain in Africa and Asia transmit more readily via vagina intercourse. I understand that the probability of infection is low, nonetheless, the incubation period can be as long as 20-30 years. That means, there could be alot of carriers (and they don't even know it). It's possible that 2% of the population could be infected.

Get tested regularly. Quebec has the highest cases of HIV+ people. Wonder why?

 

[Jack_Bauer]

What frustrates me the most about this thread is the focus on HIV and the fact that most are almost completely ignoring all the other STIs out there. Many of which, while not being deadly (OK untreated syphilis is deadly but it is curable with penicillin) can be cause other serious health problems.

Ronnie,
Naughtylady

What frustrates me is the sheer number of posts where users continue to ask for experiences involving the exchange of bodily fluids (DATY, , etc.), as if these practises are safe.

I`d much rather see a provider who doesn`t engage in any of these practices. Not that it prevents all risks, but at least, it provides a better comfort zone for both SP and client.

 

[Time to Punt]

What frustrates me is the sheer number of posts where users continue to ask for experiences involving the exchange of bodily fluids (DATY, , etc.), as if these practises are safe.

I`d much rather see a provider who doesn`t engage in any of these practices. Not that it prevents all risks, but at least, it provides a better comfort zone for both SP and client.

Why does this frustrate you ? I would think if you wanted to practice extra safe sex with no DFK, no DATY and CBJ most sp`s would be happy to comply. If you don`t feel safe even then I would guess that using purchased services just isn`t for you, although casual encounters doesn`t necessarily reduce the risk.

Without naming names has anyone known any Montreal sp who was HIV positive other than that girl who caught it doing porn films in California ?

 

[Jack_Bauer]

Why does this frustrate you ? I would think if you wanted to practice extra safe sex with no DFK, no DATY and CBJ most sp's would be happy to comply. If you don't feel safe even then I would guess that using purchased services just isn't for you, although casual encounters doesn't necessarily reduce the risk.

Without naming names has anyone known any Montreal sp who was HIV positive other than that girl who caught it doing porn films in California ?

It doesn't. Doesn't frustrate me in the literal sense. I'm just surprised that there are a lot of requests for these types of services, despite the health risks involved.

I feel safe since I choose to hobby in a safe manner. To each his own, I guess.

 

[Kingpin1]

Based on 2007 stats, Canada has cumulative HIV+ cases of about 60,000. That's about 0.6% of the population. About 10,000 are women. From what I've read, the HIV strain in North America transmits more readily via anal sex (hence higher ratio of (gay) men infected).

Recently, I've read that the strain in Africa and Asia transmit more readily via vagina intercourse. I understand that the probability of infection is low, nonetheless, the incubation period can be as long as 20-30 years. That means, there could be alot of carriers (and they don't even know it). It's possible that 2% of the population could be infected.

Get tested regularly. Quebec has the highest cases of HIV+ people. Wonder why?

Don't even chance BBFS, a friend of mine met a girl at a bar (he is married and never cheated prior) had BB sex with her once and found out a year later. Some people do win the lottery.