POZ Community Forums
HIV Prevention and Testing => Do I Have HIV? => Topic started by: AM on March 26, 2008, 11:54:20 am
-
Hi all
on HJ--one thing confuses me a bit. When we make a blanket statement like Mutual Masturbation/ Hand Jobs being safe sex activities, do we account for the variable of fresh drops of blood from the giver's hand entering the urethra od the receiver? Does this not constitute transfer of body fluids? Is it not also quite quick to minimize air time?
Thanks
-
AM,
Along with reading the Transmission Lesson linked to in the Welcome Thread (http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=220.0), make sure you read the forum posting guidelines also found in the Welcome thread.
If you want your questions answered, you'll have to start your own thread.
By the way, make sure you READ the Welcome thread and Transmission Lesson before posting again.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Ann
-
Hi all
Thanks Ann--I have been reading the forum for a while. Because I did not see the following addressed specifically, I thought I would ask.
on HJ--one thing confuses me a bit. When we make a blanket statement like Mutual Masturbation/ Hand Jobs being safe sex activities, do we account for the variable of fresh drops of blood from the giver's hand entering the urethra of the receiver? That is a mucous membrane so a receptor site. Does this also not constitute transfer of body fluids? Is it not also quite quick to minimize air time?
Thanks
-
AM, I've split your previous question into your current thread. Please keep all ofyour comments in this same thread. Thanks for your cooperation.
HIV is a fragile virus and one that's not easily transferred. We would have known long before today if masturbation, including in relation to the concern you have expressed, presented a risk. Just consider for a moment how even complex it would be for blood to be gotten into the urethra in that setting as contrasted with an unprotected penis inside a vagina or anus for a period of time. Masturbation is one of the most common of sexual activities. There has never been a confirmed case of transmission in that manner and I don't expect you to make history by becoming the first.
-
so Andy..."take a chill pill is your advice" :-X
No need to do any 13 week testing you advise?
and one should not be too terrified/cautious of repeating the same activity short of gushing blood from someones hand--in which case the person themselves would likely take a rain check.
AM
-
A chill pill would be a very good idea. No testing at 13 weeks is necessary. No testing at all.
How many people other than Dracula and his acolytes are going to have sex while blood is gushing all over the place? You are worrying needlessly.
Time to get on with life.
-
Thanks Andy, Ann and the rest. This site is managed very professionally I might add. :) I have been trying to find an intellectual base line to all the information out there for a while now.
Sites say hand-to-genital transmission is not possible. Well duh!, on any normal hand all you find at best is bacteria. Some sites create an exception clause to open cuts on the hand others don't. A CDC related site informed a concerned writer who was worried about a hand job from a pro with vaginal fluid on her hand that his risk was 0 because "airtight transmission" is required. Then there is another site that says open wound to open wound transmission is possible and you go wait a minute--that is not airtight !!
It's been hard for me to get clear consensus of the web. Which is why i was getting frustrated with blanket statements.
Did i mis-inform, mis-educate myself in the above sequence? Can you educate me as to where I went wrong in the above, because i must have. I am sure the purpose of information is to educate not confuse :)
warm regards
-
I'm not confused. You're the one who's indulging yourself in an awful lot of what ifs. We've answered your question and told you that we don't think you had a risk nor is testing necessary. If you want to play around with surfing the net to find quasi-information that will feed your fears, that's your choice and believe me you will find fuel for your fears. All to no good purpose of course.
But I/we are not willing to indulge you in a back and forth about this issue. We addressed your specific concern and told you what's up. Theoretically transmission could occur through a freshly opened significant wound if significant amounts of semen or blood or other bodily fluid were pouring in. Theoretically. In the real world of HIV it doesn't happen. Period.
Stop this drama and get on with your life is my suggestion.
-
wasn't calling you confused Andy nor challenging you with other information. Hardly--in fact very grateful for your time. Apologies for that confusion, do read my note carefully--it is directed at me not anyone else.
to you in am grateful, thanks again
I was merely trying to ensure that i was educating myself correctly and understanding the facts correctly. But perhaps, you are right, I am pushing that envelope.
regards
AM
-
Didn't think you were calling me confused. Was just saying that I am quite clear about what I have said to you.
And yes, get on with your life. At best it's too short to be spending making yourself unnecessarily unhappy and worried.
-
u guys, Andy, Ann, MtD, RapidR, Jan--are just simply amazing. Your patience and persistence with all that have clear anxeity, gulit, issues is amazing. It is commendable how much time you spend responding over and over to the same themes.
it's an honor to know you folks--virtually
BTW in reading many threads, i see an increased fear over escorts etc. My take is that the professional higher end folks are more educated, careful, and paranoid of their sexual health than anyone else..and in fact more safe than a one night stand at bar with someone looking very domesticated. But that is just my point of view
BTW Jan, in NZ now---lovely land you have :)
warm regards
-
AM,
People are not "safe". Activities are - at least they are when we're talking about using condoms. It doesn't matter if someone is "domesticated" or "wild" - the use of condoms for anal or vaginal intercourse makes them both equally as safe.
Ann
-
very good point. I guess I was saying that just because someone is a sex worker does not mean they are high risk, if they practise safe activities, and & real professional ones always do so, something civilians may compromise on just based on a perception. So our writers and readers should not be terrified just because they are with a sex worker. Same point, different articulation :)
-
Ann,
Saw your comment on another thread that the OraQuick can return false negatives under 3 months. Also understand that under current testing guidelines a 6 or 8 week negative is very unlikely to change.
My qs--is an almost 10 week (2 months 1 week) Oraquick negative most unlikely to change at 12 weeks or is it just not valid at 10 weeks, period.
AM
-
AM,
As you were never at risk in the first place, your (nearly) ten week negative is conclusive. You do NOT have hiv.
Even if there had been a risk, your result would be most unlikely to change. But, you did NOT have a risk. Your result is conclusive. You do NOT have hiv!
Not one person has ever been infected through mutual masturbation and you weren't going to be the first. You do NOT have hiv!
Use condoms for anal or vaginal intercourse, correctly and consistently, and you will avoid hiv infection. It really is that simple! Read through all three condom and lube links in my signature line so you can use them with confidence.
You do NOT have hiv.
Ann
-
I know Ann.
My question was an HIV awareness question as to whether the Oraquick was valid under 12 weeks and was it subject to the same generally accepted seroconversion guidelines. I guess there can be a downside to have a different thought in the same thread :)
AM
-
AM,
When there actually has been a risk, the window period is three months regardless of what type of antibody test is used.
The window period does not apply to you and your handjob because handjobs are NOT a risk for hiv infection.
Ann
-
Folks~
Anything coming out of the International AIDS conference in Mexico, that adds more color or clarity into transmission, tests, window periods, etc?
The only news articles that I see coming out re-state statstical evidence, they also seem to talk about a new preventive gel being researched, vaccines...etc
AM
-
Hello Folks
At an awareness meet yesterday in the bay area, there was this ambiguity on why it is stated that condoms are 99.9% effective in the prevention of HIV, when manufacturers should state, condoms used correctly and consistently and that don't fail are 100% effective in the prevention of HIV.
The latter is a more forceful & pointed message to the public not only in use but way of use.
The only reason I could offer was that one could legally then debate what is correct and consistent and no one wants that battle, so better to pay safe from a label perspective and leave an element of ambiguity to play with in the 99.9% number.
regards
-
learned folks
I have learned much from you all and wanted to validate the following
condom on, no break, woman bleeds (not menstrual), blood on base of penis and some on condom, pull out, go remove condom, wash penis with soap and water.
My learning--condom protected me from direct exposure to blood while INSIDE the body, and if there was any transient expose to blood while removing condom or washing--since it was outside the body and in minutest of quantities and diluted with water--no risk period.
Have i learnt well?
do advise
-
AM, it's a rule of the website that members keep all of their entries in one thread. I've merged your previous ones with your latest question. Thanks for your cooperation regarding this rule.
The important thing in your latest situation is that the head of your penis was covered during intercourse. That she was menstruating, blood at base of your penis and on the condom are irrelevant and absolutely not risks for HIV transmission.
There's no need for testing nor was there any risk.
-
Thanks Andy. Had forgotten to use same thread even if a completely new subject line. Will adhere. No offense intended.
Your reply to the first part of my question is as i anticipated.
Though if i may push the second part of my qs, that any exposure of blood to head of penis during removal of condom and/or washing penis presents no risk as well, that would be great if you could comment on that. By the way it was not menstrual, punctured cervix I am told. no rough sex, just a small woman I presume.
While this is not a Hep forum, I presume I should not fear Hep C as well?
cheers
-
HIV is unable to reproduce outside its living host (unlike many bacteria or fungi, which may do so under suitable conditions), except under laboratory conditions; therefore, it does not spread or maintain infectiousness outside its host.
-
AM,
That woman must have been in terrible pain if you punctured her cervix (or any other area inside her vagina), and all you're worried about is yourself? If she wasn't in terrible pain, someone is winding you up and she just had her period. Believe me, I'm a woman and I know full well how that cervical damage is painful. VERY painful.
You did NOT have a risk. You would only have had a risk if this incident happened while you were not wearing a condom. Hiv is not transmitted during the process of removing the condom. End of story. You did not have a risk.
Ann
-
Yikes Ann..i am not so terrible. She was in no pain, except a ouch from her at the moment she got hurt. The blood was minute and stopped as soon as it could, she seemed fine and apologetic. And I constantly urged her to get a warm bath, rest and follow-up. After a MD visit that is what I was told. In any case, no harm.
-
OK. Time to get on with your life.