POZ Community Forums
HIV Prevention and Testing => Do I Have HIV? => Topic started by: perlagris77 on December 14, 2008, 11:45:59 am
-
Well, I don't understand why everybody say that oral sex is thorically a risk, but in reality it doesn't happen, how can be this posible?
And my other question is, am I in a risk if a guy rubbeb his penis against my vagina without condom, but the penetration was wearing a condom?
Thank you very much
Perla
-
Perla, usually we merge member threads as we like to keep all questions and comments in one so that other readers can follow the train of conversations here. But since your other entries are in the Spanish-language Forum I am going to let this one stand as is here.
Anytime you have sexual relations with another person there is "theoretically risk." But we know from many years of experience in the epidemic that the sole reliably documented sexual risks are through unprotected vaginal and anal intercourse. Yes, we do hear from time to time about someone claiming to have become infected through giving oral for example.
But under careful scientific examination these claims never seem to hold up. Among the reasons are that someone doesn't always remember details accurately or they are embarassed to tell the whole truth of what happened. And your saliva has over a dozen enzymes and proteins which serve to block HIV transmission. Of course common sense dictates that if you have a fresh, gaping wound in your mouth giving oral would not be a good idea because it could create a risky environment. However, longterm studies of sero-discordant couples who had lots of unprotected oral and only protected intercourse have resulted in not a single sero-negative partner having been infected.
If you haven't already done so, I suggest you read our lesson on Transmission. You get the basics there. There's a link to it in the Welcome thread which opens this section.
Something like frottage -- the guy rubbing his penis against your vagina without a condom is absolutely not a risk. HIV is a fragile virus that needs the particular kind of receptive setting provided by a vagina or an anus. Mutual masturbation, another common sexual activity is likewise not a risk.
Essentially it's a matter of always without exception using condoms for intercourse to protect against HIV transmission. Of course other STDs are much easier to acquire than HIV. That's why we always recommend that anyone who's sexually active ought to have a full STD panel done regularly -- at least annually and more frequently if there are troubling symptoms.
-
Thank you very much for your rapid and complete anwer. But is there not risk if the pennis had some precum and the vaginal fluids were in contact with it?
Again thank you very much.
Perla
-
Perla,
You're only at risk if he cums INSIDE your vagina, WITHOUT a condom.
Ann
-
Again, thank you very much!!!! :-*
So my last answer: After I told you what happened and described the situation with this guy, can I be completely sure that I didn't get infected if he were HVI+? or do a need to do a blood test?
Thank you. God bless you
Perla
-
Rubbing without penetration against your vaginal lips is NOT a risk. There is no need for testing over that incident. Really.
-
Thanks
I asked you that, because this year I watched on tv a "speciallist" who said that rub/frottage of genitals specifically penis against vagina is a risk of getting infected of HVI and she assured that there are a lot of people (female) that have been infected by this way, and now after this horrible experience that made me get so depresed (Thaks God I am ok), I am a little paranoiac, so I am so sorry but please tell me if what she said is true or you can assure me it was a lie and I can be calm, I promise you this is my last question about it.
Thak you
Perla
-
Ann and Andy already gave you sound advice. You did not have a risk.
-
Perla, you have received responses in both the English and Spanish Forums to your concern. If you keep coming back with the same no-risk concern you're going to end up getting a Time Out.
-
HI everybody:
I would like to know what do you think about this post I found in the forum "Positive Women". Thank you very much and happy hollydays
By Julie Steenhuysen
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Instead of infiltrating breaks in the skin, HIV appears to attack normal, healthy genital tissue, U.S. researchers said on Tuesday in a study that offers new insight into how the AIDS virus spreads.
They said researchers had assumed the human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, sought out breaks in the skin, such as a herpes sore, in order to gain access to immune system cells deeper in the tissue.
Some had even thought the normal lining of the vaginal tract offered a barrier to invasion by the virus during sexual intercourse.
"Normal skin is vulnerable," said Thomas Hope of Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine said in a telephone interview.
"It was previously thought there had to be a break in it somehow," said Hope, who is presenting his findings at the American Society for Cell Biology meeting in San Francisco.
He said until now, scientists had little understanding of the details of how HIV is transmitted sexually in women.
Hope and colleagues at Northwestern in Chicago and Tulane University in New Orleans developed a new method for seeing the virus at work. They studied newly removed vaginal tissue taken from hysterectomy surgeries, and introduced the virus which carried fluorescent, light-activated tracers.
Then they watched under a microscope as the virus penetrated the outer lining of the female genital tract, called the squamous epithelium. They also observed this same process in non-human primates.
In both cases, they found HIV was able to quickly move past the genital skin barrier to reach immune cells, which the virus targets.
Hope said the study suggests the virus takes aim at places in the skin that had recently shed skin cells, in much the same way that skin on the body flakes off.
The finding casts doubt on the prior theory of the virus requiring a break in the skin or gained access through a single layer of skin cells that line the cervical canal.
And it might explain why some prevention efforts have failed. Hope said one clinical trial in Africa in which women used a diaphragm to block the cervix had no effect at reducing transmission of the virus. Nor have studies of drugs designed to prevent lesions in genital herpes proven effective.
Hope said the findings emphasize the need for treatments such as a vaccine to prevent infection.
And it makes clear the need for the use of condoms, which are highly effective at preventing infection.
"People need to remember that they are vulnerable," Hope said. "The sad part is if people just used a condom, we wouldn't have this problem," he said.
In the United States, HIV is mostly passed among men who have sex with men. Females account for 26 percent of all new HIV cases in the United States, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Globally, HIV is more commonly spread by heterosexual sex. The virus has infected 33 million people globally and has killed 25 million.
-
Anyone who continues to post excessively, questioning a conclusive negative result or no-risk situation, will be subject to a four week Time Out (a temporary ban from the Forums). If you continue to post excessively after one Time Out, you may be given a second Time Out which will last eight weeks. There is no third Time Out - it is a permanent ban. The purpose of a Time Out is to encourage you to seek the face-to-face help we cannot provide on this forum.
-
I'll tell you what I think of it. Not much. We've already told you our evaluation of your situation. You don't have to believe us even though we're very careful in our science-based responses.
You're not going to hear anything different from us no matter how many times you return. If we thought you were at risk we would have told you so. If you choose to get tested all you will do is waste your money and collect a negative result. Maybe you need to do that for your peace of mind.
I can tell you that you can't keep coming back again and again, dirven by your anxiety, with the same problem. You'll end up getting a time out from both the English and the Spanish forums.
Maybe you ought to see a therapist or other professional to discuss the emotional aspects of your situation. We've done all we do for you here.
-
Hi:
I'm really sorry, I didn't want you to get angry. I promisse it was the last time I asked you something related to a non-risk situation.
Perla
-
I'm not angry. It's just that as a matter of policy we haven't found it's useful or healthy for someone to keep coming back again and again with the same non-risk concern.
-
Hello:
First of all, Happy Hollidays and Happy 2009 to everybody.
I have a question. Today I was talking with a friend who is dorctor and he told me taht HVI is so small taht it can pass trough the latex pores, is that true? Because he told me that is the reason, condoms are 99% safe.
Thank you very much
-
Your doctor is an idiot. HIV does not pass through pores of condoms.
-
Thak you very much, I was very worried. Kisses XOXO
-
HI again:
I had been trying to be busy for not being thinking about VHI, but the other day the same dorctor friend told me that VHI is very stronger that Hepatitis virus and that can be alive out of the guest until 2 hours, he told me that because I thought a to get a piercing or a tattoo was not a real risk and he told me it really was because the reasons I wrote, is that true? Thank you again
-
Perla,
Your "doctor" friend is WRONG. Both hepatitis B and hepatitis C are MUCH more infectious than hiv and there are more people living with hep B and/or hep C in the world than there are people living with hiv. Frankly, this "doctor's" ignorance is frightening.
It's pretty much unheard of for hiv to be transmitted via tattooing, while Hep C is much more likely to be transmitted via tats. In fact, reputable tattoo artists use universal precautions and they also use disposable, one-use needles, tubing and pots of ink to avoid transmitting hep C to their clients.
Hiv is a VERY fragile virus that quickly becomes damaged and UNABLE TO TRANSMIT once it's outside the human body.
You did NOT have a risk. Keep posting about this no-risk incident and you will be given a time out.
This is your last warning.
Ann
-
Hi everybody again:
I have just a doubt because you say that 22 days is the average time that the body takes to make antibodies against VHI, but I would like to know how many days itīs the minimum time that antibodies appear in blood. Thank you very much
Perla
-
Perla,
What does it matter where you're concerned? You never had a risk.
I'm giving you that long-over time out you've been 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