metoo4 , that is exactly what I meant, she still is not taking HIV related drugs. ... and no, she was never a user. Play is safe and use 6 months as your guide.
Ronnie,
Naughtylady
Ronnie,
Naughtylady
Last edited:
Hiv Risk
- Thread starter robertpal
- Start date
Well, if you don't mind me weighing in here, I work as an HIV educator.
The risk of contracting HIV for a guy who is out on the fox hunt is very, very, very small. The ladies are more at risk of getting it from you since there's much more available exposure space inside them than there is on you...basically, you are only going to be infected through your urethra or any open penile sores (yuck). And that assumes you are having unprotected sex, which of course is something you almost certainly are NOT doing.
A condom break gives you a very, very small risk of contracting HIV if your SP is HIV-positive. Again, that's because there is really not much available space on your johnson for you to get it as the insertive partner.
There has never been a documented, proven case of someone getting HIV from receiving a BJ. (You can get other STDs from an unprotected hummer, though). DATY is only a theoretical risk...as in it is conceivable that it could happen if you had open sores in your mouth and your HIV-positive female partner was discharging blood into your mouth. Not very appetizing.
A blood test at three months post last possible exposure is conclusive unless you have a severely compromised immune system (as in that you just had an organ transplant or are having chemo, in which case why are you out pooning?) or if you are an IV drug user. In those cases you should test out to 6 months post last exposure. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control, which sets America's policies on such matters, amended their stance on this last year, changing the conclusive test time from six months to three months except in the circumstances I cited above.
A negative result on a PCR test taken at 28 days post exposure is considered a virtual lock on not being infected, but still should be confirmed with a blood test at three months.
Hope this helps. Be safe out there, even though the risk is tiny.
bumfie
The risk of contracting HIV for a guy who is out on the fox hunt is very, very, very small. The ladies are more at risk of getting it from you since there's much more available exposure space inside them than there is on you...basically, you are only going to be infected through your urethra or any open penile sores (yuck). And that assumes you are having unprotected sex, which of course is something you almost certainly are NOT doing.
A condom break gives you a very, very small risk of contracting HIV if your SP is HIV-positive. Again, that's because there is really not much available space on your johnson for you to get it as the insertive partner.
There has never been a documented, proven case of someone getting HIV from receiving a BJ. (You can get other STDs from an unprotected hummer, though). DATY is only a theoretical risk...as in it is conceivable that it could happen if you had open sores in your mouth and your HIV-positive female partner was discharging blood into your mouth. Not very appetizing.
A blood test at three months post last possible exposure is conclusive unless you have a severely compromised immune system (as in that you just had an organ transplant or are having chemo, in which case why are you out pooning?) or if you are an IV drug user. In those cases you should test out to 6 months post last exposure. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control, which sets America's policies on such matters, amended their stance on this last year, changing the conclusive test time from six months to three months except in the circumstances I cited above.
A negative result on a PCR test taken at 28 days post exposure is considered a virtual lock on not being infected, but still should be confirmed with a blood test at three months.
Hope this helps. Be safe out there, even though the risk is tiny.
bumfie
Last edited:
it's amazing how wrong u guys are
remember statistics are only statistics...you could still turn up positive after 6 months. very unlikely but possible. Also, i don't believe a negative pcr test is 100% accurate at one month. Serology is near 100% at 3 months and almost impossible at 6 months, but pcr is only like 50-75% accurate at one month. At 41 days, according to many research studies, pcr is 97.5% accurate. Window period is usually 2 weeks to 12 weeks but can always be longer. A european study showed that out 200 people having continual sex with a HIV positive person, 30% of women got HIV and 20% of men got HIV over 18 months. They all used condoms for every encounter...hmmm..it's true that per encounter isk is like 0.05% but imagine if u have like 30 encounters, ur risk has already gone up to 1.50%, and remember one encounter is enough. When you really think about it, it's scary with all the pneumonias, lymphomas, and other stuff associated with HIV. IT's not just aids that is bad, HIV too.
just my two cents...
i am a born again virgin and hope to remain that way for a while
remember statistics are only statistics...you could still turn up positive after 6 months. very unlikely but possible. Also, i don't believe a negative pcr test is 100% accurate at one month. Serology is near 100% at 3 months and almost impossible at 6 months, but pcr is only like 50-75% accurate at one month. At 41 days, according to many research studies, pcr is 97.5% accurate. Window period is usually 2 weeks to 12 weeks but can always be longer. A european study showed that out 200 people having continual sex with a HIV positive person, 30% of women got HIV and 20% of men got HIV over 18 months. They all used condoms for every encounter...hmmm..it's true that per encounter isk is like 0.05% but imagine if u have like 30 encounters, ur risk has already gone up to 1.50%, and remember one encounter is enough. When you really think about it, it's scary with all the pneumonias, lymphomas, and other stuff associated with HIV. IT's not just aids that is bad, HIV too.
just my two cents...
i am a born again virgin and hope to remain that way for a while
Robertpal:
You are absolutely dead-on right that statistics are only statistics. The fact that the risk is extremely tiny is of little comfort to the person who becomes infected.
A PCR at one month is not 100 percent accurate, but it's really, really close. The test is so sensitive that there is a real risk of a false positive result, in which case an ELISA blood test is used to confirm. I have dealt with people who have received false positives on PCR tests. In the U.S. (not sure how it is in Canada), the PCR is not federally approved for diagnostic purposes, so it's hard to get a doc to give you one. They're available on the Web from a couple reputable places.
At any rate, a negative PCR at one month MUST be confirmed with a blood test at three months.
I've never heard of that European study, but I find it really dubious. Latex condoms used correctly are considered extremely effective against HIV transmission, and I have spoken with several serodiscordant (one partner poz, one negative) couples, both gay and straight, who have been having protected sex for years without the HIV- partner being infected...and, in some cases, they have had occasional unprotected sex.
But you are very, very right in reminding people that despite the risk being very low, it only takes one encounter. However, I would say that you are taking a much, much larger risk having unprotected sex with a "nice" woman you meet than you take when you have protected sex with an SP. After all, the SP has had the sense to have protected sex. I've yet to hear one say "Hey...let's go bareback!"
Best,
Bumfie
You are absolutely dead-on right that statistics are only statistics. The fact that the risk is extremely tiny is of little comfort to the person who becomes infected.
A PCR at one month is not 100 percent accurate, but it's really, really close. The test is so sensitive that there is a real risk of a false positive result, in which case an ELISA blood test is used to confirm. I have dealt with people who have received false positives on PCR tests. In the U.S. (not sure how it is in Canada), the PCR is not federally approved for diagnostic purposes, so it's hard to get a doc to give you one. They're available on the Web from a couple reputable places.
At any rate, a negative PCR at one month MUST be confirmed with a blood test at three months.
I've never heard of that European study, but I find it really dubious. Latex condoms used correctly are considered extremely effective against HIV transmission, and I have spoken with several serodiscordant (one partner poz, one negative) couples, both gay and straight, who have been having protected sex for years without the HIV- partner being infected...and, in some cases, they have had occasional unprotected sex.
But you are very, very right in reminding people that despite the risk being very low, it only takes one encounter. However, I would say that you are taking a much, much larger risk having unprotected sex with a "nice" woman you meet than you take when you have protected sex with an SP. After all, the SP has had the sense to have protected sex. I've yet to hear one say "Hey...let's go bareback!"
Best,
Bumfie
Last edited:
Stay Home and Masturbate!
Statistics also show that when you get behind the wheel of your car and go out on the highway, there is a good chance you will get killed (moreso than catching HIV from an SP during safe sex). But will that stop you from commuting to work?
If you want to eliminate any risk of HIV, it's very simple: stop hobbying, stay at home and masturbate with a surgical glove, which is bathed in alcohol before and after.
Statistics also show that when you get behind the wheel of your car and go out on the highway, there is a good chance you will get killed (moreso than catching HIV from an SP during safe sex). But will that stop you from commuting to work?
If you want to eliminate any risk of HIV, it's very simple: stop hobbying, stay at home and masturbate with a surgical glove, which is bathed in alcohol before and after.
Last edited:
Fishies
RobertPal's study has a piscatorial scent associated with it. (which is a marked improvement over what, if Kevin is to be believed, he produced during his encounter with DC's Ashley).
Apparently, at the beginning of the study, the researchers knew that one of the partners was already infected with HIV. Did they hide this information from the other partner? If not, how many of us, in the pursuit of free? sex and/or scientific advancement, would sign up to see if we can contract AIDS? Since capital punishment doesn't exist in most countries of Europe, where did they get the death row inmates to volunteer? Perhaps, they found some eager Russian Roulette players who wanted to go out with a different type of bang.
RobertPal's study has a piscatorial scent associated with it. (which is a marked improvement over what, if Kevin is to be believed, he produced during his encounter with DC's Ashley).
Apparently, at the beginning of the study, the researchers knew that one of the partners was already infected with HIV. Did they hide this information from the other partner? If not, how many of us, in the pursuit of free? sex and/or scientific advancement, would sign up to see if we can contract AIDS? Since capital punishment doesn't exist in most countries of Europe, where did they get the death row inmates to volunteer? Perhaps, they found some eager Russian Roulette players who wanted to go out with a different type of bang.
One question I would have for Ronnie regarding this is exactly when this happened. As recently as several years ago, six months was the standard window period. However, improvements in testing protocols have cut the window period substantially. Most blood tests, including the rapid OraQuick test, can detect infection within six weeks.
At this point, it's rare that someone would test negative at six weeks and then test positive. The three-month window is just to catch the unfortunate stragglers, and testing beyond that is recommended only for cancer patients, organ recipients and IV drug users, all of whom have severely compromised immune systems.
Not trying to be a know-it-all here, folks; just trying to help out.
At this point, it's rare that someone would test negative at six weeks and then test positive. The three-month window is just to catch the unfortunate stragglers, and testing beyond that is recommended only for cancer patients, organ recipients and IV drug users, all of whom have severely compromised immune systems.
Not trying to be a know-it-all here, folks; just trying to help out.
Why bathe the glove after? Or do you imply to bathe the "tools"... Ouch!!EagerBeaver said:
Doing it with a glove, will hairs still grow in my palm?
Ok, just letting it go loose now... Sorry!
Koenig>> no, you don't have to worry about meeting her!
bumfie>>I met her about 3 years ago. She was already positive at that time. She one told me it takes atleast a year to get over the tears and the anger; to be able to start living your life again, so I would guess at least 4.5 years ago. BTW>> you imput as an HIV awareness educator is appreciated!
Ronnie,
Naughtylady
bumfie>>I met her about 3 years ago. She was already positive at that time. She one told me it takes atleast a year to get over the tears and the anger; to be able to start living your life again, so I would guess at least 4.5 years ago. BTW>> you imput as an HIV awareness educator is appreciated!
Ronnie,
Naughtylady
Last edited:
HIV resistance
Naughtylady,
Did you hear something about the mutant chromosome CCR5 delta 32? 10% of the people from european origin have that chromosome that make them HIV resistants. It may be the case of your friend.
W.
Naughtylady,
Did you hear something about the mutant chromosome CCR5 delta 32? 10% of the people from european origin have that chromosome that make them HIV resistants. It may be the case of your friend.
W.
Last edited:
I have no idea why. I just know she told me at 3 months she tested negative and then positive at 6. Could be that, or just that testing has improved since then.
Ronnie,
Naughtylady
Ronnie,
Naughtylady
Earvin "Magic" Johnson
Earvin Magic Johnson, former NBA basketball superstar, has also shown resistance. He has been HIV positive since 1992, and I saw him on TV doing commentary the other day on the NBA playoff games. He looks quite healthy and robust and his weight is good. He probably is not getting too many s these days, but at least he is alive and watching his kids grow up, which is a far cry from what seemed like a death sentence when he dramatically announced back in 1992 that he was HIV positive.
Earvin Magic Johnson, former NBA basketball superstar, has also shown resistance. He has been HIV positive since 1992, and I saw him on TV doing commentary the other day on the NBA playoff games. He looks quite healthy and robust and his weight is good. He probably is not getting too many s these days, but at least he is alive and watching his kids grow up, which is a far cry from what seemed like a death sentence when he dramatically announced back in 1992 that he was HIV positive.
Last edited:
Ronnie:
I am truly sorry for your friend and her diagnosis. The fact is that testing has advanced dramatically in past five years or so. As I said earlier, it was only in the last 18 months or so that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control accepted three months as the window period and that a negative test at three months is the golden ticket for virtually everyone. It was not that unusual a few ago to test negative at three months and then positive by six.
But as Eager points out in his post about the basketball star, there is a lot of hope for people who do wind up testing positive. I deal with people who have had HIV for 20 years and have not progressed to AIDS, thanks to vast improvements in treatments. At this point HIV infection is considered a chronic illness, like diabetes, rather than the death sentence it was in the early days of the epidemic.
And Ronnie, thanks for your kind words. I just didn't want to come off sounding like a blowhard here. I do know what I'm talking about on this subject; I don't consider it something to joke about or something on which someone should pass on faulty information.
cheers, Bumfie
I am truly sorry for your friend and her diagnosis. The fact is that testing has advanced dramatically in past five years or so. As I said earlier, it was only in the last 18 months or so that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control accepted three months as the window period and that a negative test at three months is the golden ticket for virtually everyone. It was not that unusual a few ago to test negative at three months and then positive by six.
But as Eager points out in his post about the basketball star, there is a lot of hope for people who do wind up testing positive. I deal with people who have had HIV for 20 years and have not progressed to AIDS, thanks to vast improvements in treatments. At this point HIV infection is considered a chronic illness, like diabetes, rather than the death sentence it was in the early days of the epidemic.
And Ronnie, thanks for your kind words. I just didn't want to come off sounding like a blowhard here. I do know what I'm talking about on this subject; I don't consider it something to joke about or something on which someone should pass on faulty information.
cheers, Bumfie
Ronnie:
Did you friend work as a SP after she was tested positive? Does she still work, once in a while?
Did you friend work as a SP after she was tested positive? Does she still work, once in a while?
Big Daddy,
Have you read this thread? Ronnie never said her friend was an SP. She said her friend's HIV was the result of a rape.
Have you read this thread? Ronnie never said her friend was an SP. She said her friend's HIV was the result of a rape.
karposi's sarcoma
it's a red brown discoloration of the upper maxillary gum line. probably not as bad as that other thing.
it's a red brown discoloration of the upper maxillary gum line. probably not as bad as that other thing.
Test results
How long does it take to get test results? The reason I bring this up is that even if someone shows you recent clean test results, unless you are the only person she has had sex with since the test was done, the results are worthless. If she has had sex with even one person it is enough to pass on an infection. It really does come down to the luck of the draw so to speak.
How long does it take to get test results? The reason I bring this up is that even if someone shows you recent clean test results, unless you are the only person she has had sex with since the test was done, the results are worthless. If she has had sex with even one person it is enough to pass on an infection. It really does come down to the luck of the draw so to speak.
Similar threads
