Author Topic: A Question concerning condoms (Read 9465 times)

JimHunt09 · « **on:** March 10, 2009, 10:23:01 am »

Hello to you all

Before asking my question, I thought it best to read through a few in this forum. It seems pretty clear that the experts here regard protected intercourse as a no risk situation. That's very reassuring to me, because two and a half weeks ago, I had protected sex with someone (the condom appeared to be ok, my semen was all collected within the teat and there was no slippage etc.).

I would not have worried at all, given that I was protected, however after thirteen days I woke up feeling nauseous. I had to throw up, and also had diarrhoea and then by midday I experienced sensitive skin and a temperature (the sort of uncomfortable all-over feeling when you know you've come down with something).

By the next morning, the fever, nausea and diarrhoea was gone but for these last couple of days, I've had aches and pains here and there. So, my mind began to spin into paranoia and doubt - it just seemed an odd coincidence to me that I should be experiencing this after a sexual encounter.

So, I should simply like to ask whether there ever have been any recorded incidents of transmission when a condom did not fail. I know I may be answering my own question in all of this, but I would be grateful for your expert reassurance. And are my symptoms in line with those of ARS?

Thankyou

RapidRod · « **Reply #1 on:** March 10, 2009, 10:30:49 am »

If you used a latex or polyurethane condom correctly and consistently you didn't have a risk of contracting HIV and all your symptoms have nothing to do with HIV.

JimHunt09 · « **Reply #2 on:** March 10, 2009, 10:46:57 am »

Golly, that was a swift response, thank you Rapidrod

.

I know such anxieties have no bearing in reality, but, as I'm sure you're aware from having spent time helping worriers like me, paranoia is an excellent means of seperating your mind from reality. I understand that latex/polyurethene is impenetrable by HIV and for my circumstance to be a special case is irrational and in a sense, arrogant.

My main enquiry, however, remains. So purely for curiosity and to lay this to rest, are any contributors aware of such incidences either documented or anecdotal wherein transmission has occurred after correct condom use? I assure you, I shan't needlessly keep this thread going with repeated enquiry, I should merely like a conclusion to this one.

Thank you for your time.

RapidRod · « **Reply #3 on:** March 10, 2009, 10:55:51 am »

NO!!!!!

JimHunt09 · « **Reply #4 on:** March 10, 2009, 10:58:54 am »

Fair enough.

Keep up the good work here everyone.

JimHunt09 · « **Reply #5 on:** March 27, 2009, 02:01:14 pm »

Sorry to trouble further - I continue to feel unsure on this situation. I am looking back now and wondering if there was anything that could have happened to expose me - she provided the condom, perhaps it was substandard? It just seems odd that in the whole world, there isn't a case of someone becoming infected when wearing a condom that didn't break (from what I gather).

Any further clarification?

Ann · « **Reply #6 on:** March 27, 2009, 02:30:30 pm »

Jim,

Why should it seem odd that no one has been infected when using a condom correctly, without breakage? Hiv isn't an SAS operative that can circumvent condoms. It can't even move on its own. It's a virus - and a very fragile one at that.

Condoms have been proven to prevent hiv infection. There have been long-term studies of couples where one is positive and one is negative. In the couples who used condoms for anal or vaginal intercourse, but no barrier for oral activities, not one of the negative partners became infected with hiv. Not one.

You know, women who provide condoms do so to protect THEIR health, not yours. Why would she use something sub-standard?

It didn't break. You were protected. It's time you got on with your life.

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 sexually transmitted infections together. To agree to have unprotected intercourse is to consent to the possibility of being infected with an STI. Sex without a condom lasts only a matter of minutes, but hiv is forever.

Have a look through all three 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.

Use condoms for anal or vaginal intercourse, correctly and consistently, and you will avoid hiv infection. It really is that simple.

Ann

Andy Velez · « **Reply #7 on:** March 27, 2009, 02:33:17 pm »

Feelings are not facts.

Using a condom is a fact.

We know from over 20 years in the epidemic that condoms provide very effective protection against transmission. We're not in the speculating business here.

Right now you are caught up in fears, feelings and what ifs. We've told you how we evaluate your incident. You were not at risk and there's no need for testing.

If your symptoms persist you should be discussing them with your doctor. They have nothing to do with HIV. And no, they are not "in line" with those of ARS.

Cheers.

JimHunt09 · « **Reply #8 on:** March 31, 2009, 06:38:42 am »

Ok thanks Andy and Ann.

Things have become more complicated. I started to have pain the the lower abdomen a few days ago, down to my penis. Then pain in the testicles, which are now a little swollen. No burning or discharge.
So, is it possible to have become infected with something like Chlamydia (which I suspect is what it is)EVEN THOUGH I was protected from HIV? I'm in a real state, things just don't make sense. If there was a barrier the whole time, surely no infection can get through.

I've never had unprotected sex, apart from one unprotected receptive oral last year.

RapidRod · « **Reply #9 on:** March 31, 2009, 06:50:36 am »

If you have a concern about your symptoms see your doctor. They have nothing to do with HIV.

Ann · « **Reply #10 on:** March 31, 2009, 08:32:06 am »

Jim,

Chlamydia is indeed VERY easy to become infected with - that's why it's the leading STI in most places on the planet. Also, up to 80% of women and 40% of men never experience any obvious symptoms of chlamydia, so they never seek treatment. It is possible to get chlamydia from getting a blowjob, although this doesn't happen all that often. It's more common to get gonorrhea from blowjobs.

Hiv is MUCH more difficult to transmit than most other STIs - which is why we recommend that anyone who is sexually active be screened at least once a year for ALL STIs, not just hiv. It sounds like it's time you had a routine screening. That's the ONLY way you're going to find out what's going on.

But as far as hiv goes, keep using condoms for anal or vaginal intercourse and you won't have to worry about hiv. Seriously.

Ann

JimHunt09 · « **Reply #11 on:** March 31, 2009, 09:14:45 am »

Thanks Ann

How is Chlamydia able to infect when using an intact condom if there is no transmission route for HIV? I understand that the former is far more easy to be infected with, but is the condom not a universal barrier?

I appreciate this may seem off-topic, but I ask it in relation to hiv.

Ann · « **Reply #12 on:** March 31, 2009, 09:24:39 am »

Jim,

Things like chlamydia can be transfered from genital to genital as in frottage, or genital to hand to genital. Hiv is NOT transmitted in these ways. Bacterial infections like chlamydia are MUCH more robust and able to remain viable and able to infect when outside the human body, UNLIKE hiv. Hiv is VERY fragile and once outside the human body, quickly becomes damaged and unable to infect. Condoms have been proven beyond doubt to protect against hiv infection. Bacterial STIs are a different matter altogether.

The bottom line here is that this is an hiv website, not a general STI website. If you're having discomfort in your genitals, it's nothing to do with hiv. However, it does mean that you need to have a complete sexual health check-up to find out what, if anything, is wrong with you.

Whatever may be going on with you has NOTHING to do with hiv and I tell you that with complete confidence. Go see your doctor about your symptoms.

Ann

JimHunt09 · « **Reply #13 on:** April 01, 2009, 05:09:48 am »

Before I entered the vagina, the woman gave me oral with the condom on. Is it possible that a hole was made by her teeth that went unnoticed? To be honest, intercourse didn't last long so perhaps the condom didn't have time to fully break, but the hole was enough to facilitate transmission?

I know it sounds like I'm clutching at straws but the timescales of me vomiting and having diarroeh, and now having genital discomfort are deeply worrying.

Ann · « **Reply #14 on:** April 01, 2009, 05:15:16 am »

Jim,

Yes, you are clutching at straws. Stop it. "Small holes" in a condom is a myth. Ever see a balloon with small holes? They don't work. Same thing here with condoms.

Go see your doctor. Whatever is going on with you has NOTHING to do with hiv. You didn't have a risk.

Keep posting about this no risk situation and you'll be given a time out.

Ann

JimHunt09 · « **Reply #15 on:** April 03, 2009, 01:52:00 am »

I'm going to see my doctor today. Since I didn't touch this woman's vagina, and she didn't do before handling my penis, I can only think that something went wrong with the condom. I woke up again this morning with sore testicles and I keep needing the toilet.

My HIV concern centres around the fact that HIV infection I believe is easier when there are other STDs involved. I have listened to your advice, but I think it's important that I state my logic - if there was a route of transmission for chlamydia or gohnoreoa, which could only have been a damaged condom, then that same route is open for HIV.

HIVworker · « **Reply #16 on:** April 03, 2009, 02:52:25 am »

No, you are adding 1 and 1 and getting 3. Infection of HIV is only more likely if you have an EXISTING STD infection. This is because the body is fighting off the infection and has bought more white blood cells to the genital area. If you have more target cells present for HIV to try and infect, stochastically, you are going to make infection more likely.

JimHunt09 · « **Reply #17 on:** April 06, 2009, 10:13:22 am »

I have tested a condom by putting it on and making a small nick - the condom did not split, the nick remained the same size despite vigourous movement. So I believe it is possible for ruptures to go unnoticed.

I think I've just been extremely unlucky.

JimHunt09 · « **Reply #18 on:** April 11, 2009, 01:08:20 pm »

I intend to test, but I have a query regarding skin problems. I have noticed small red pinprick dots occuring on my fingers, legs, trunk, and dark brown freckle like ones.
Is it possible that in my severly run down state right now, due to anxiety, lack of food that I may be advancing rapidly with the virus?

Are such blemishes a symptom?

Ann · « **Reply #19 on:** April 11, 2009, 01:30:10 pm »

Jim,

Anxiety and lack of food will make ANYONE feel unwell. Skin is the largest organ of the body and will reflect the state of your health, hiv or no hiv. Go see your doctor. As you've been told, you did not have a risk for hiv infection and whatever is going on has nothing to do with hiv.Go see your doctor.

I warned you ten days ago about continuing to post about this no risk situation. Test if you want to for peace of mind, but don't expect to be able to come here and wring your hands while you wait to test. You didn't have a risk and you don't need to test.

Please consider yourself warned for the last time.

Ann

JimHunt09 · « **Reply #20 on:** April 15, 2009, 09:14:03 am »

So, my test came back negative seven weeks after exposure.

A general question - if someone's immune system is particularly low in this time period, is it likely that the body will take longer to produce detectable HIV antibodies?

Ann · « **Reply #21 on:** April 15, 2009, 09:27:08 am »

Jim,

The only people who might take longer to seroconvert are those with extremely weak immune systems and if you were one of those people, you'd know it.

You don't need further testing. You ARE hiv negative as you didn't have a risk to begin with, as we've repeatedly told you.

Post one more time about this NO RISK incident and you WILL be given a time out.

Ann

JimHunt09 · « **Reply #22 on:** April 16, 2009, 01:02:02 pm »

I'm aware I face a time-out here, but I am very curious about the link between ARS and actual seroconversion. Are the two linked together? By which I mean that when (and if) ARS occurs, seroconversion is the result due to the immune system producing antibodies following acute infection? Or does antibody production occur independently?

Please note, contributors, that I do simply wish to know the facts. In terms of my status, I will rely on my 3 month test and I ask this question of you in order to understand further.

RapidRod · « **Reply #23 on:** April 16, 2009, 01:09:39 pm »

Quote from: JimHunt09 on April 16, 2009, 01:02:02 pm

I'm aware I face a time-out here, but I am very curious about the link between ARS and actual seroconversion. Are the two linked together? By which I mean that when (and if) ARS occurs, seroconversion is the result due to the immune system producing antibodies following acute infection? Or does antibody production occur independently?

Please note, contributors, that I do simply wish to know the facts. In terms of my status, I will rely on my 3 month test and I ask this question of you in order to understand further.

Then read the lesson section of this website.

Ann · « **Reply #24 on:** April 16, 2009, 01:27:48 pm »

Jim,

The hiv seroconversion illness that SOME, not all, people experieince, is caused by the process the body goes through while creating antibodies, more so than the virus itself.

I'm giving you that time out you've been repeatedly warned about. Do not attempt to create a new account to get around your time out because if you do, you will be permanently banned.

Ann

Forums Index

Welcome

Welcome to Do I Have HIV?

Author Topic: A Question concerning condoms (Read 9465 times)