POZ Community Forums
HIV Prevention and Testing => Do I Have HIV? => Topic started by: digiwillie on August 21, 2006, 05:00:56 am
-
I went out some 4 weeks ago and did a darn stupid things and got myself involved with a call girl. We had protected intercourse and I make doubly sure that the condom was intact at the end of the session.
However, I am worried now that I realised during the session I was fingering(insertion into) her virginal and anus with my finger which had a few paper cuts on them. I didn't realised that there were paper cuts then, as there were no prior bleeding and I did not even felt any pain/burning sensation during the session or before/after the session. I have been worried sick in the last 3 weeks, have had sore throat and flu like symptoms. And I have also taken a Oraquick test at 14 days, which turn out negative.
In the past 3 weeks, I have been reading a lot about HIV and visited many sites. And of course, been looking up mostly on material relating to fingering. Basically, I understand that fingering w/o cuts is not an "at risk" activity, but there seems to be a varied views regarding fingering w/cuts. Some say no risk, some say theoritical risk and some say low risk. Others say, you only need to have a little blood and you are at risk, other says chop off the finger and your are still alright. I am really confused and this is making me even more worried.
I remember there was some virginal fluid present during the fingering as well. Could someone pls assess my risk? DO I need to be tested in the first place? Many Thanks.
-
digi,
Fingering, no matter what sort of spin you want to put on it, is NOT a risk for hiv infection. Not one person has ever become infected this way - cuts or no cuts - and you will not be the first. Please read through the Welcome Thread (http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=220.0) and follow the Lessons links.
You did the right thing and used a condom - because unprotected intercourse is where the real risk lies. You should be using them with anyone, not just sex workers. You need to be using condoms for anal or vaginal intercourse, every time, no exceptions until such time as you are in a securely monogamous relationship where you have both tested for ALL STIs together. To agree to have unprotected intercourse is to consent to the possibility of being infected with a sexually transmitted infection.
Have a look through the condom and lube links in my signature line so you can use condoms with confidence.
Although you do not need to test over this specific incident, anyone who is sexually active should be having a full sexual health care check-up, including but not limited to hiv testing, at least once a year and more often if unprotected intercourse occurs.
If you aren't already having regular, routine check-ups, now is the time to start. As long as you make sure condoms are being used for intercourse, you can fully expect your routine hiv tests to return with negative results. Don't forget to always get checked for all the other sexually transmitted infections as well, because they are MUCH easier to transmit than hiv.
You did not have a risk from fingering.
Ann
-
Thank you Ann for the very prompt response.
When fingering, I meant actual insertion of the finger into the anus/virginal and if the finger had a paper cut, wouldn't this be similar to penile intercouse, where there is broken skin on the penis?
-
Thank you Ann for the very prompt response.
When fingering, I meant actual insertion of the finger into the anus/virginal and if the finger had a paper cut, wouldn't this be similar to penile intercouse, where there is broken skin on the penis?
No Willie, it makes no difference. For the record HIV doesn't gain entry through broken skin on the penis. The site of infection is within the male urethra. Thus fingering is not similar to "penile intercourse".
MtD
-
Hi Matty,
When you say "..it make no difference", you mean the risk involve with fingering with cuts is not difference to having penile intercourse. That is both activity are of the same level of risk? Pls clarify, I starting to have cold sweat, just by reading.
-
digi,
It makes no difference that you had cuts on your finger - hiv is not transmitted in this manner. Hiv needs to bump into specific cells in the body in order to infect and as Matty told you, these are found in the lining of the urethra, but not cuts.
Fingering is NO risk.
Unprotected intercourse is VERY RISKY. Intercourse with a condom is NO risk as long as the condom is used correctly and does not break.
You had NO risk. Not one person has become infected through fingering - cuts or no cuts - and you will not be the first.
Ann
-
Thank you all for the much prompt reply.
If I have been understanding what I have been reading correctly. Broadly speaking, the HIV is introduced into the body system via the mucous membrane or directly into the blood system. The human skin comprises of the outer epidermis (can be as thick as 1.5mm) layer, inner layer - dermis (where there are blood vessel, glands, nerves and etc are). There is no presence of mucous membrane on the skin and thus technically no risk here from fingering.
There would however be a theroritical risk, if (big if) a cut on the finger has penetrated the inner layer dermis and cut some tiny blood vessels, allowing the HIV to be introduced into the blood system. On the other hand, if the cut is very superficial and it is at the outer layer of epidermis, where there is no pain felt (no nerves at epidermis layer), no blood (no blood vessels at the epidermis layer) on the cut, the HIV would not have any vector for transmission, as the cut have likely not penetrated the dermis layer. That is the HIV cannot be introduced into the system.
Going back to the question of a cut which has penetrated the dermis layer and damaged some blood vessels. And should sperm/vaginal fluid from a HIV+ individual comes in contact with the blood/cut, via fingering (insertion into) in the vaginal/anus, how would this risk be mitigated. Of couse, the amount/concentration of the HIV virus, amount blood as well as the resistant level of the individual will play a part. This is the part where I am very uncomfortable able, despite the reassurance from all the kind souls here.
Though, there have never been any documented case of transmission via fingering cuts/or no cuts. I think this question will continue to be asked by panicky individuals (like myself) in this forum or any other forums. While it reassuring and comforting to hear from people that no one have tested poz via fingering. I think providing us with a slightly more scientific/clinical answer, would go along way in reducing the anxiety level.
Many thanks to Ann and Matty, you guys really are my pillar of comfort....
-
If you had an active bleeding lacerated finger, you wouldn't be fingering anyone. No only would you not be doing the guy/gal wouldn't let you do it. Rid yourself of the stupid thinking.
-
Coming to 4 weeks post exposure in a couple of days. How indicative would a Oraquick test be then. I know it is not conclusive, just wanted to have some guage, eg like 6 weeks is 97% so what is 4 weeks?
-
That's the thing with "theoretical" risk. It's impossible to quantify, since it has not been documented in the human animal. And in the case of HIV infection through fingering, has not been manipulated in the lab, or in studies using simians and primates. And the preponderance of evidence is GROWING, not shrinking, in the study of HIV transmission vectors. As a result, I suspect that we are on the cusp of doing away with the "theoretical risk" assessment, as the preponderance of evidence accumulates in the favor of hard, quantifiable science.
To answer your latest query, most people seroconvert with in a month and a half of legitimate exposure, with the average being 22 days.
However, no one has ever gotten HIV from fingering. It is simply not a legitimate transmission vector.
-
Thks JK.
I found one of your earlier post on a similar topic to be most refreshing and helpful. In line with that posting, am I correct to say that if the blood vessels on the surface of the skin in not damaged, the HIV virus would not be able to access directly the bloodstream of the person, right? And you also mentioned that the HIV virus attached itself to CD4 cell and another type of cell dinitric (sp), are these also not present on a minor cut (ie no bleeding).
If the above is true, then the theoritical risk is viturally non existence. I hope I am reading you correctly.
-
I would go so far as to say that "theoretical risk" as an HIV transmission answer, is quickly becoming obsolete. At best, it's a CYA policy from a period where the science was not as profoundly quantifiable as it is today.
We've come so far in HIV transmission science, in no small part to the multiple long term serodiscordant studies and their straightline scientific agreement with primate/simian studies and test tube work. Rather than expanding HIv transmission vectors, we have scientifically narrowed them through time.
Unfortunately, not everyone is interested in keeping current on the research, especially where the data suggests that sexual expression can be fulfilling without any risk of HIV. Take, for example, oral sex. More and more sources are acknowledging that it presents a vanishingly low risk. But many places are quick to point out the other STDs that can be transmitted through oral sex. It's as if by removing HIV as an issue, some authorities are frightened that they will be seen as giving a stamp of approval to human sexual expression. You don't see that sort of knee-jerk negativity anywhere else.
And sadly, it's the layman, often the frightened and stressed-out layman, who suffers from such a judgmental perspective.
Fifteen years ago, you could probably get away with claiming that "science is still figuring out HIV and it's vectors." But today? Not nearly so much. And the prejudicial assumptions imposed on science by theocratic governmental agencies simply fail to hold water anymore.
What started out in the mid 1980's as speculative has, here in 2006, become far more quantified. And our ability to make risk assessment with authority and confidence has grown, for those who have the time and energy to actually study the science and keep up.
-
HI JK,
Could you pls refer some more progressive HIV/AIDS research sites, where the material are more updated. Many Thks.
-
Could you pls refer some more progressive HIV/AIDS research sites, where the material are more updated.
Digi,
You are already ON that site. This is the ONLY site I know of that sticks to the up-to-date, quantifiable science. The sites we use to glean that science from are ones that provide the studies published in scientific/medical journals. Unless you've been trained to read and understand these studies, (as I and others here have) chances are you'll only end up scaring yourself even more. Besides, many of the sites we use are only accessible by people who have paid for subscriptions or have access via an educational institution, as I have.
The Transmission Lesson on this site was written by Tim Horn (with input from JK, myself and Andy Velez). Tim has also written for sites such as ... well, read it for yourself on the About Us (http://www.aidsmeds.com/AboutUs.htm) page. Tim has the very special talent of taking all the scientific/medical jargon and translating it into layman-friendly, accurate and easy to understand language. You would be hard pressed to find better, more understandable hiv information anywhere on the internet or beyond.
Our main goal in this forum is to empower people with the knowledge they need to stay hiv negative. If something was risky, we'd tell you. We want you to have a long and healthy, hiv NEGATIVE life.
You didn't have a risk. Use condoms for anal or vaginal intercourse and you will continue to avoid hiv infection. It really is that simple!
Ann
-
Sadly? You are at the only consumer-level site I have been able to find that meets your criteria. Where do I go for my information? Medical journals and scientific papers, available online and off. Scientists with a proven track record for ethical and reputable publication. And even then, it's the preponderance of evidence that has the slightest chance of forcing a paradigm shift so far as I am concerned. One study is simply that. Three studies is far more compelling.
One of the things I am proudest of in my life is my participation on this site. It's like falling in love with someone who loves you right back. And I confess to a degree of hero worship insofar as the moderators and leaders/owners of aidsmeds is concerned. They share my thirst for science, and they understand what it takes to convey that information to a woefully misinformed (in many cases, disinformed) public.
People sometimes ask me why I don't go to another often-referenced website and correct that information. The thought of making that effort exhausts me. I have found a place.... to the best of my ability to asertain, the one place... where my talents and my ethics are well-utilized. To spread out through cyberspace and try to "change" other sites' perspectives to match the scientific model would be a waste of resources.
You were very fortunate to find aidsmeds.com, and to benefit from Tim Horn's excellent understanding of the scientific process.
As was I.
-
People sometimes ask me why I don't go to another often-referenced website and correct that information. The thought of making that effort exhausts me.
Me too.
Ann
-
Dear JK, Ann, Matty and Rod,
Thanks you for the alway prompt and reassuring replies. I know I am probably starting to seem like a bug! But you guys probably also understand the hell that I am going thru'. "IF" and "WHAT IF" are like swimming in my mind the whole day, including sleeping time. My wife complains that I have been waking her up for the last few nites with my mumbling in the nite.
I can't help but read some of the recent post on fingering and one of the points emphasized was that the HIV can only infect when it is in the body and the vaginal fluid would not be infectious if the open cut was oustide of the body. When I mentioned fingering, I meant inserting the whole finger into the vaginal, much like during penile intercourse. In general, wouldn't fingering be insertion rather than just at the outside of the vaginal (try not to be graphical as possible)? During insertion, would the cut be more likely to be exposed to the more infectious cervical fuild?
Appreciate some clarifications.
-
How about this?
To date, there is NO evidence that HIV has EVER, in the 25 year history of the pandemic, been transmitted through fingering. Millions of people, hundreds of thousands of case studies, and gobs and gobs of research on primates, simians and test tubes have NEVER made HIV transmit through that vector. If you managed to accomplish this, then frankly, I think HIV would be the least of your worries. Figuring out what species you were would be a priority, I think.
-
You don't pass HIV from fingering period. For a cut to be an issue it has to be a major laceration of which you didn't have.
-
Hi,
Just wanted to let you guys know that I tested negative after 4 weeks. Not such a big deal I guess, considering the average seroconversion is 22 days. But I feel very much reliefed. I will test 6 wks and then at 13 wks again.
-
digi,
You do not need further testing. As you had no risk, your test is conclusive as it stands at four weeks.
Ann
-
Finally, took my 12 weeks test (actually just short of 3 days)... and guess everyone was right, I have been worring for nothing. Once again thank you for all the help and advise given.
-
Dear Mods, pardon me for posting in someone else thread.
Scared in SA - I would like ask in the stats below, Receiver/Performer means Receptive and Insertive partners respective or what ?
Receptive partner of gay anal sex 1 in 1,250
Insertive partner of gay anal sex 1 in 122
Receptive partner of straight vaginal sex 1 in 1,000,000
Insertive partner of straight vaginal sex 1 in 111,111
Receiver of penile oral sex 1 in 1,250
Performer of penile oral sex Negligible
Receiver of vaginal oral sex Negligible
Performer of vaginal oral sex Negligible
-
Digiwillie,
You know you're not meant to be posting in someone else's thread and the stats you've posted are rubbish. They mean nothing.
Stay in your own thread and keep your opinions to yourself. You've been reported.
MtD
-
Digiwillie,
You know you're not meant to be posting in someone else's thread and the stats you've posted are rubbish. They mean nothing.
Stay in your own thread and keep your opinions to yourself. You've been reported.
MtD
Matty,
Read carefully pls, I have not stated any opinions or views, I merely ask for some clarifications. Having lingering doubts definitely does not help me or users of tis forum.
-
Digiwillie,
Post your concerns in your own thread. Stop hijacking SA's. If you can't find your original thread click on the "show own posts" in the left hand column of any page.
Please don't reply in this thread again.
MtD
-
digi,
I've removed the posts you made in someone else's thread and placed them here (along with the responses you got), in your own thread, which is the ONLY place you should be posting in this forum.
Please read our Welcome Thread (http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=220.0) and pay attention to our forum posting guidelines, particularly the one that states:
Only those Moderators and members who are authorized to answer questions in the Am I Infected? forum are permitted do so. Unauthorized responses may be deleted without permission of the poster. Repeatedly posting replies of this nature may result in a Time Out or permanent ban, at the discretion of the Moderator Team.
Thank you for your cooperation.
The receptive partner always means the person into whom a penis is being inserted. The insertive partner is the person who is inserting their penis into someone else.
Ann