Can HIV- top transmit HIV?

[pewinger]

Hi-

Is it possible for an HIV negative gay top man to trasmit HIV from one man to another through barebacking both without getting infected himself?

I am concerned for a friend whose partner barebacks other men in addition to him, where I know that at least one other man was poz.  My friend feels that HIV cannot be passed on this way, but I would like to know the facts.  This seems to be a disturbing trend in gay men who think they are in the clear if they only top when barebacking.

Thanks in advance!

[jkinatl2]

An HIV negative person cannot transmit HIV.

However, your barebacking friend can, and likely will, end up HIV positive if he continues to have unprotected sex with persons of unknown or positive status. He will then be likely to transmit it to his HIV negative barebacking friends, including his partner. It is certainly not AS EASY to get HIV by topping anally, but it is perfectly possible.

[Inchlingblue]

This negative top will very likely end up with HIV if he keeps barebacking when he fucks around.

Do you and your friend believe that someone is immune to HIV because they are topping?

[surf18]

this is the shit that makes me want to puke after my dx. smarten up. respect your health and play smart.and learn about this stupid ass virus.i wish i did. its not to late for negs but smarten the fuck up.

[Ann]

Pewinger, are you hiv positive yourself? Because if you're not, this should have been posted in the Am I Infected forum where we give testing and transmission advice. If you are poz (which I'm going to assume for now) this should have been posted in the Living forum, not the Treatment forum. I've moved it for you.

It never ceases to amaze me that some people think a top cannot get infected. How do they account for all the heterosexual men who are poz? (and NO, they're not all secretly bottoming) While a top's chances of becoming infected are somewhat lower, it is by no means safe for a top to bareback if he wants to remain hiv negative.

A negative man cannot transmit hiv even if he went directly from topping a positive person to topping another person. But he sure can get infected from that positive bottom he just barebacked!

Ann

[Bud Hardy]

Ann,

I have to wonder about whether an HIV negative couldn't be a vector for the virus. The caveat being  that the vector (HIV- top) penetrated another without being cleaned or disinfected first.

I don't see alot of difference between an HIV- top and a syringe. If a needle can serve as a vector for HIV, why couldn't an taineted HIV- top?

Granted the probability is very small, but I think there is a possiblity for a HIV- top to be a vector for HIV.

[elf]

Bottoms get HIV form tops, obviously not from bottoms.

[tednlou2]

Ann,

I have to wonder about whether an HIV negative couldn't be a vector for the virus. The caveat being  that the vector (HIV- top) penetrated another without being cleaned or disinfected first.

I don't see alot of difference between an HIV- top and a syringe. If a needle can serve as a vector for HIV, why couldn't an taineted HIV- top?

Granted the probability is very small, but I think there is a possiblity for a HIV- top to be a vector for HIV.

If I understand your question correctly, you're wondering whether a neg top could top someone poz and then immediately top another person and infect them without becoming infected himself.  I think this is an interesting question.  If the neg top got blood on his penis and then immediately pulled out and inserted inside another person, then I would think it would be possible to transmit HIV that way.  I know many would say this is impossible due to the HIV tainted blood being exposed to air first.  But, do we really know whether all HIV would be destroyed in the brief time in took to pull out and insert into someone else.  Would this depend whether that HIV blood had a very high viral load.  In my opinion, albeit still limited knowledge, it would seem like it would be possible for the neg top to carry viable virus to someone else without necessarily becoming infected himself.  Having said that, I doubt this would represent many infections.  

I had a question once about whether transmission were possible, if a poz guy fingered someone with his pre-cum or full ejaculate.  I was told that was impossible, because HIV is so fragile, exposure to air, yada, yada.  However, if the guy had a viral load over 1 million, for example, can we say all the virus would be killed from the time he got his semen on his finger to inserting it into someone's anus or vagina?  I'm not sure anyone can say that with total certainty.  We are still learning so much about the virus.  I don't think we can say with 100% assurance that transmissions like these are impossible.        

[jkinatl2]

ted, as someone who has studied HIV transmission theory for over twenty years, I can honestly tell you that this sort of transmission vector has been excluded.

If you have any questions about the state of the art as regards HIV transmission, please do not hesitate to ask myself, Matty, Ann, or any of the others who answer these queries (and stay on top of the research) regarding HIV transmission...

By the way, your statement "We are still learning much about this virus" is indeed accurate. However, the vectors for transmission have slowly, over long time and effort, been calculated pretty thoroughly (barring mutations that will wipe out the planet). transmission via the vector suggested is as close to impossible as science will allow.

I urge you to use this site to educate yourself.

[tednlou2]

ted, as someone who has studied HIV transmission theory for over twenty years, I can honestly tell you that this sort of transmission vector has been excluded.

If you have any questions about the state of the art as regards HIV transmission, please do not hesitate to ask myself, Matty, Ann, or any of the others who answer these queries (and stay on top of the research) regarding HIV transmission...

By the way, your statement "We are still learning much about this virus" is indeed accurate. However, the vectors for transmission have slowly, over long time and effort, been calculated pretty thoroughly (barring mutations that will wipe out the planet). transmission via the vector suggested is as close to impossible as science will allow.

I urge you to use this site to educate yourself.

I'm trying to educate myself everyday.  Maybe you can explain some things in detail.  When people say the virus doesn't live that long outside the body, just how long is that?  If it is viable for even a minute, how can we say having someone finger you with their ejaculate could not transmit HIV?  If the virus is still viable for a certain amount of time, what would be the difference between someone's penis being inside you and them putting cum on their finger and sticking it inside you?  The only difference is that the semen has been exposed to air for maybe 2 seconds at the most.  Are you saying that 2 seconds has deemed the virus totally unviable? 

And, has there been enough research to show that no one had become infected this way?  This gets tricky with many people, because many folks who are poz usually do various things sexually and not just one thing, and it gets difficult to know just how they became infected.  I have no doubt that most people got HIV through unprotected intercourse.  I'm just not sure whether it can be said that these other transmission modes are totally impossible.  I read reports from experts who say there have been a few documented cases from deep french kissing.  They do mention severe gum disease was probably the reason. 

You are saying I could have sex with a bottom, who has already been fucked by several guys and huge dildos to the point where there is anal trauma and bleeding, and I could then pull out with the blood all over my penis or condom, and stick it immediately into someone else who already has anal trauma, and not have to worry about the blood infecting that person?  That would be good to know for many people.  I'm sure many have worried about this very situation.  I'm very sincere in my questions and not trying to argue with you.  I have no agenda, but have been curious about possible modes of transmission other than intercourse.  It just doesn't make sense to me to hear a top is at great risk of contracting the virus from a bottom's mucous membranes, but having actual cum or blood stuck up your butt is ridiculous just because it came in to contact with air for a second.  Why do healthcare workers go on PEP, because a HIVer's blood splashed in their eye?  Again, I'm sincere and not being an ass.  If you could point me to studies on this, I would appreciate it.               

[jkinatl2]

Ted, I have not been ignoring your request. Life gets in the way sometimes. But I would like to ask where you want me to start?

The mechanics of an HIV infection? The structure of the virus? The receptive areas on CD4 cells and certain dendritic cells that allow HIV to bond to them? The enzymes and proteins in the mouth which break down the spiky penetrative elements of an HIV viral particle?

The difference between pH levels in the mouth, vagina, and anus? The alkaline vs acidic qualities of these mucus membranes?  Or is it the inherent softness of the science behind patient report after the fact? Or the fact that when that element is removed, the means of infection virtually disappear besides penetrative anal and/or vaginal sex?

HIV requires a very specific environment to remain viable and infectious. As a matter of fact, it can remain viable, yet lose it's ability to infect, for a minute in a large enough pool of blood. Assuming that blood is carefully controlled re: temperature and exposure to oxygen. HIV has been devilishly hard to work with BECAUSE of it's inability to remain viable and infectious for any length of time. That is why some of the greatest advancements in HIV science came from experiments carried out on space shuttle missions, effectively removing the destructive forces of atmosphere and gravity from the equation.

I just really don't know where to start when having this discussion, without simply copying and pasting the full LESSONS section regarding HIV - and even THAT is a truncated form of the technical and scientific aspects of the virus.

But I still disagree that HIV is some sort of phantom thing about which we know very little. The last twenty years have brought us up to speed in a way that the last hundred years have been unable to do. Advancements in the technology used to study viral particles, space missions, and re-forming human model studies to compensate for the flaws that result from self-report post-infection have done wonders.

If you can give me a list, I will help out any way I can.

[tednlou2]

Ted, I have not been ignoring your request. Life gets in the way sometimes. But I would like to ask where you want me to start?

The mechanics of an HIV infection? The structure of the virus? The receptive areas on CD4 cells and certain dendritic cells that allow HIV to bond to them? The enzymes and proteins in the mouth which break down the spiky penetrative elements of an HIV viral particle?

The difference between pH levels in the mouth, vagina, and anus? The alkaline vs acidic qualities of these mucus membranes?  Or is it the inherent softness of the science behind patient report after the fact? Or the fact that when that element is removed, the means of infection virtually disappear besides penetrative anal and/or vaginal sex?

HIV requires a very specific environment to remain viable and infectious. As a matter of fact, it can remain viable, yet lose it's ability to infect, for a minute in a large enough pool of blood. Assuming that blood is carefully controlled re: temperature and exposure to oxygen. HIV has been devilishly hard to work with BECAUSE of it's inability to remain viable and infectious for any length of time. That is why some of the greatest advancements in HIV science came from experiments carried out on space shuttle missions, effectively removing the destructive forces of atmosphere and gravity from the equation.

I just really don't know where to start when having this discussion, without simply copying and pasting the full LESSONS section regarding HIV - and even THAT is a truncated form of the technical and scientific aspects of the virus.

But I still disagree that HIV is some sort of phantom thing about which we know very little. The last twenty years have brought us up to speed in a way that the last hundred years have been unable to do. Advancements in the technology used to study viral particles, space missions, and re-forming human model studies to compensate for the flaws that result from self-report post-infection have done wonders.

If you can give me a list, I will help out any way I can.

There is no doubt you know more about HIV and how it is transmitted.  I hope to become just as knowledgeable some day.  Science and math were definitely not my thing.  I still get headaches when reading studies--health or financial.     

I guess I've just always wondered why people say HIV cannot be transmitted by someone fingering you with their semen or if they had someones blood on their penis and then immediately penetrated someone else.  For someone like me, still learning about the virus, it doesn't make sense that it would be highly likely to get infected from someone poz with their penis inside you (no argument there), but it would be impossible for transmission to occur if they first jacked off into their hand and then inserted the semen in your butt or vagina.  It just doesn't make sense to me there would be that big of a difference in the head of the penis being inserted slightly and jacking off into someones crack and then the semen inserted.  If this were the case, people who enjoy the physical or mental feeling of having someones semen inside them (and there are many people like this) would just tell their partners to first shoot into their hand and then insert it into their butt or vagina.  I was just saying I'm not sure doing that would be a totally impossible mode of transmission--maybe unlikely, but not totally impossible.  Another example would be of magnetic couples who want to get pregnant.  It would seem all they would have to do is have the guy first ejaculate into a turkey baster and then insert it.  Why would they worry about viral loads and sperm washing, if just being exposed to air for a minute would kill HIV.     

Why do I care about this enough to question it?  I've known guys who use condoms, but will use a strangers ejaculate as lube to have sex with the next guy--3 ways and that sort of thing.  Or, they will use condoms, but let the guy get off on their butt and then finger them with it.  It seems they believe as long as the guy doesn't usually cum inside them, they are safe.  They read things saying HIV becomes unviable once it hits the air, so they think it is safe to immediately grab the semen once someone has gotten off and then insert it in their anus for lube or play.  To me, it just seems why bother with the condom.  Maybe they and others are correct that all of the virus would be dead at that point.  It is just hard for me to believe this situation or someone having sex with a woman on her period or blood from the anus on a penis that is immediately inserted into someone else would have zero risk.  As I learn more, maybe I'll learn this does have zero risk.  I know HIV is very fragile, but I guess I wonder is it that fragile.         

[jkinatl2]

HIV is indeed that fragile. Unlike bacterial infections, which are FAR more robust, an HIV viral particle A) can only bond with specific cells, and B) can only do so under ideal conditions.  That these conditions (penetrative anal and/or vaginal sex) are so often met is the cause for the pandemic, and why HIV is regarded as an infectious, rather then contagious disease.

[Hellraiser]

In very simple terms Ted.  Exposure to oxygen very quickly renders HIV "dead" for lack of a better term.  So any time HIV is exposed to oxygen for any length of time you can pretty much assume it is no longer viable to infect.  The reasons circumcised tops are less likely to be infected by HIV is that they no longer have mucus membranes on their penis which is how HIV infects in the first place.  This does not make it impossible but indeed a lot less likely.  You still have the opening of the urethra to contend with.  If a top is not circumcised it's a whole different ball of wax.

[tednlou2]

It is good to hear my thoughts of having a baby in the future isn't completely dead.  I would just need to get off in a turkey baster first, as I would have anyway, and then insert my semen into a female friend who had offered to have a baby for me.  I'm being totally serious here.  Many use the turkey baster method to save money.  It probably doesn't have the success rate as having it done in a clinic, but many go that route, because they cannot afford the medical route.  She had offered a few years back, but I didn't think I was ready at the time.  When I found out I was poz, I thought that totally ended any possibility of having a biological child one day.  I learned about sperm washing, but read it was expensive and not many places did it.  I still don't think I'm ready now, but it is good to know we can do it ourselves safely one day regardless of my viral load.   

Thanks for all the info--seriously.  I will also tell my friends who insert semen up their butts for lube or play that they were actually correct and I was wrong.  If I were neg, I would be hesitant about doing that, but it seems they were correct that it has zero risk.  Again, I'm being serious about that, too.  I would get on them about doing that, because they believed it was totally safe.  I feel bad now about getting on them when they were actually correct and I was wrong.   

[Grasshopper]

It is good to hear my thoughts of having a baby in the future isn't completely dead.  I would just need to get off in a turkey baster first, as I would have anyway, and then insert my semen into a female friend who had offered to have a baby for me.  I'm being totally serious here.  Many use the turkey baster method to save money.  It probably doesn't have the success rate as having it done in a clinic, but many go that route, because they cannot afford the medical route.  She had offered a few years back, but I didn't think I was ready at the time.  When I found out I was poz, I thought that totally ended any possibility of having a biological child one day.  I learned about sperm washing, but read it was expensive and not many places did it.  I still don't think I'm ready now, but it is good to know we can do it ourselves safely one day regardless of my viral load.   

Thanks for all the info--seriously.  I will also tell my friends who insert semen up their butts for lube or play that they were actually correct and I was wrong.  If I were neg, I would be hesitant about doing that, but it seems they were correct that it has zero risk.  Again, I'm being serious about that, too.  I would get on them about doing that, because they believed it was totally safe.  I feel bad now about getting on them when they were actually correct and I was wrong.   

Are you serious about this ?

[tednlou2]

Are you serious about this ?

After reading what I wrote, it reminded me how it is often hard to determine the tone of text--whether someone is being a smartass, mean, sarcastic, etc.  I wasn't being any of those.  I was being sincere.