Author Topic: Question about my testing and exposure (Read 5359 times)

kyle67 · « **on:** January 30, 2012, 10:58:17 pm »

Here is my story in brief, and with only the facts:

I am a 20 yr old male, from canada. After being sexually involved with around 10 men over the last few years (giving unprotected oral, receptive protected anal) I smartened up and got full std/hiv testing done.

I tested (rapid) negative at 4, 8, and 14 weeks since my last exposure when i had this testing done (end of august). Was under the impression this was conclusive, especially considering as far as I knew all the guys I had been with were HIV-neg and I never received unprotected anal. Just recently have been reading that 6 months is conclusive, not 3? Looking for your advice on this matter.

Also, since this testing the only sexual activity I had been involved in is:
- performing oral sex on a man without ejaculation, pre-cum was however present and got in my mouth.
- was rimmed and fingered by another guy, had minor fissure-like tear on the edge of my anus.

So to sum it up, my questions are:
1. Is my 14 week negative test result conclusive?
2. Am I at risk for contracting hiv from precum in my mouth, or from being rimmed/fingered.

Thankyou so much.

RapidRod · « **Reply #1 on:** January 30, 2012, 11:11:50 pm »

Quote from: kyle67 on January 30, 2012, 10:58:17 pm

Here is my story in brief, and with only the facts:

I am a 20 yr old male, from canada. After being sexually involved with around 10 men over the last few years (giving unprotected oral, receptive protected anal) I smartened up and got full std/hiv testing done.

I tested (rapid) negative at 4, 8, and 14 weeks since my last exposure when i had this testing done (end of august). Was under the impression this was conclusive, especially considering as far as I knew all the guys I had been with were HIV-neg and I never received unprotected anal. Just recently have been reading that 6 months is conclusive, not 3? Looking for your advice on this matter.

Also, since this testing the only sexual activity I had been involved in is:
- performing oral sex on a man without ejaculation, pre-cum was however present and got in my mouth.
- was rimmed and fingered by another guy, had minor fissure-like tear on the edge of my anus.

So to sum it up, my questions are:
1. Is my 14 week negative test result conclusive?
2. Am I at risk for contracting hiv from precum in my mouth, or from being rimmed/fingered.

Thankyou so much.

You never had an exposure.

jkinatl2 · « **Reply #2 on:** January 30, 2012, 11:24:46 pm »

Since 2004 the window period for HIV testing has been three months, not six.

Sadly, there's much misinformation out there.

Keep wearing a condom for penetrative anal sex and you will avoid HIV. It's really that simple

kyle67 · « **Reply #3 on:** February 03, 2012, 02:57:09 pm »

So just to clarify, do i need to be re-tested?

If I do not need re-testing, this would mean that my 14 week rapid test is conclusive and I am not at risk for contracting hiv from precum in my mouth or from being rimmed/fingered. Correct?

thankyou, this forum is amazing.

jkinatl2 · « **Reply #4 on:** February 03, 2012, 03:35:45 pm »

No one has EVER gotten HIV from being rimmed or fingered.

And yes, you are reliably HIV negative.

Ann · « **Reply #5 on:** February 04, 2012, 04:47:01 am »

kyle,

You do not need further testing because even if you did have a risk (you did NOT have a risk), your fourteen week test would be conclusive.

You do not have hiv. Use condoms for anal or vaginal intercourse, correctly and consistently, and you will continue to avoid hiv infection. It really is that simple!!!

Ann

kyle67 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 04, 2012, 09:16:56 pm »

Ann thankyou so much for your response! i recognize i'm being way too much of a worrier.. but just to confirm - even the rapid (point of car) test would be conclusive at 14 weeks?

and no chance of contracting hiv from precum orally? or fingering/rimming?

Ann · « **Reply #7 on:** February 05, 2012, 07:38:28 am »

Kyle,

Any hiv test - rapid or otherwise - is conclusive from twelve weeks onward. You are conclusively hiv negative regardless of your risk factor. You do not have hiv.

Theoretically, there's a remote chance of infection from the things you're worrying about, but also theoretically, you could find a bag containing a large amount of money lying on your doorstep tomorrow morning. Is either going to happen? No.

You did not have a risk for hiv infection.

Ann

edited for awful spelling

kyle67 · « **Reply #8 on:** February 06, 2012, 06:26:20 pm »

A friend and I were masturbating each other:
1. he ejaculated and it landed all over his pants.
2. he continued to masturbate me, there was lots of precum on the tip of my penis.
3. i think the tip (urehtra) of my penis may have just grazed a bit of the semen on his pants after he came. this was about 30 seconds after he came.

Is there a chance that (assuming he was hiv +) the virus could have got into my urethra and infected me?

thank you

Andy Velez · « **Reply #9 on:** February 06, 2012, 07:06:11 pm »

Kyle, I've merged your threads here. In the future please follow our rule and keep anything you want to same only in this same thread. Thanks for your cooperation.

As for your latest concern, there was absolutely nothing HIV-risk in your mutual masturbation experience. No matter what details you throw into the mix, mutual masturbation is not a risk for HIV. Period. There's no need for testing nor for further concern on your part.

The only confirmed risks for the sexual transmission of HIV are unprotected vaginal and anal intercourse. As long as condoms are consistently used for those activities every time you will be well protected.

kyle67 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 13, 2012, 05:02:28 pm »

andy, ann and other moderators - you're reassurance and advice is so helpful. i think i speak for so many people when i say that you've brought me such a great deal of peace of mind.

i'm wondering why some websites still say that pre-cum containing hiv can be infectious if it gets in the mouth.

Is this because theoretically , the logic is there to support that if the pre-cum got in a fresh cut in the mouth, it could happen? Or is it because doctors really believe getting pre-cum in the mouth accounts for some of the cases of hiv-transmission?

just something that's been on my mind.. since having pre-cum in my mouth is the only "theoretical" and "remote" chance of infection i've had since my last hiv tests.

jkinatl2 · « **Reply #11 on:** February 13, 2012, 05:36:56 pm »

Quote from: kyle67 on February 13, 2012, 05:02:28 pm

andy, ann and other moderators - you're reassurance and advice is so helpful. i think i speak for so many people when i say that you've brought me such a great deal of peace of mind.

i'm wondering why some websites still say that pre-cum containing hiv can be infectious if it gets in the mouth.

Is this because theoretically , the logic is there to support that if the pre-cum got in a fresh cut in the mouth, it could happen? Or is it because doctors really believe getting pre-cum in the mouth accounts for some of the cases of hiv-transmission?

just something that's been on my mind.. since having pre-cum in my mouth is the only "theoretical" and "remote" chance of infection i've had since my last hiv tests.

There are a lot of reasons why many sites offer misinformation. Some of the reasons are innocent, like simply referencing outdated information - remember, in the early days/years of the pandemic doctors were speculating on everything from "microscopic cuts" to kissing. Fortunately, the advent of the life-saving meds in addition to the advances in science which allowed us to "see" HIV and track it's process made transmission theory firm up from the realm of the speculative.

However, that old, obsolete information does not simply vanish when it's disproven. It lingers on the web, in old archives, in journals. And more often than not, HIV/medical sites are not overseen by researchers or updated with any regularity. Some of the sites have gone unchanged for over ten years - which is forever in the world of HIV transmission theory research.

It's intellectual/professional laziness perhaps, or an unwillingness to correctly maintain a scientific website.

And, of course, some sites have motives that are far from innocent, and profit both metaphorically and literally from an atmosphere of unwarranted fear.

I have long fought tooth and nail about the inclusion of "theoretical risk" in a data and science-based website. Of COURSE there are "theoretical" risks! There is a theoretical risk that HIV will someday evolve/mutate into a contagious, airborne virus or be weaponized as such. There is a theoretical risk that an asteroid will hit the earth and wipe out humanity.

PURE science ALWAYS allows for theoretical risk. Which is why the notions of 0% and 100% are laughable in terms of pure science. They simply aren't to be found.

But the thing about parsing theory is, until a documented and proven instance of an event happens, it's pure speculation - the scientific equivalent of speculative fiction if you will. It's of use to researchers and those pursuing scientific data, but absolutely worthless in terms of real-world situations.

The 14 years since the advent of effective HIV therapies has brought a world of information to the field of HIV transmission theory. And ALL of it has narrowed, not widened, the real-world transmission risk factors.

IF giving fellatio is indeed a risk factor, it must be a remote one indeed since not a single post-HAART study has managed to document a case, aside from the notoriously unreliable patient report.

As a matter of fact, there are three notable long term studies of serodiscordant couples on record - couples in which one partner was HIV positive, the other negative. These couples were tracked for three, five, and fifteen years - and the criteria of the study was that the couples used condoms for penetrative anal/vaginal sex, but NO barrier for oral sex of any kind.

There were NO infections associated with oral sex in any of the studies.

*edited for typo

kyle67 · « **Reply #12 on:** February 13, 2012, 05:44:03 pm »

jkin- thank you for such a thorough response! that really puts things into perspective.

So you would agree that given my 14 week negative tests, and single experience of giving head without ejaculation since then, I am conclusively hiv neg?

jkinatl2 · « **Reply #13 on:** February 13, 2012, 05:45:30 pm »

Quote from: kyle67 on February 13, 2012, 05:44:03 pm

jkin- thank you for such a thorough response! that really puts things into perspective.

So you would agree that given my 14 week negative tests, and single experience of giving head without ejaculation since then, I am conclusively hiv neg?

I would not even recommend testing over such an incident in the first place.

kyle67 · « **Reply #14 on:** February 13, 2012, 05:52:21 pm »

"such an incident" meaning the oral without ejaculation?

i haven't tested over that, and don't plan to, since everyone on here is saying that it's essentially not a risk at all.

the 14-week neg tests i mentioned were after previous (and also apparently non-exposure activities) which i was involved in a while ago.

jkinatl2 · « **Reply #15 on:** February 13, 2012, 05:54:23 pm »

Quote from: kyle67 on February 13, 2012, 05:52:21 pm

"such an incident" meaning the oral without ejaculation?

i haven't tested over that, and don't plan to, since everyone on here is saying that it's essentially not a risk at all.

the 14-week neg tests i mentioned were after previous (and also apparently non-exposure activities) which i was involved in a while ago.

Yes, I was referencing all your listed incidents. The oral, rimming and the fingering.

Use a condom for penetrative sex and you will avoid HIV infection. I wish it were more complicated than that. People seem to want/expect it to be. It isn't. It really is that simple.

kyle67 · « **Reply #16 on:** February 13, 2012, 05:59:43 pm »

awesome, thank you so much for the discussion! all the best.
kyle.

Forums Index

Welcome

Welcome to Do I Have HIV?

Author Topic: Question about my testing and exposure (Read 5359 times)