Worried about Possibility....?

[Starsky]

I am a male and had sexual activity with a sex-worker woman.
What I did;
Fingered her
Kissed her

What she did
Kissed me
Rubbed her vagina on my penis through a panty
Gave me a hand-job

What we did is probably low risk activities for HIV transmitting.
But my concern is that I had a minor rash on my finger (no blood or big scabs present, almost healing stage) when I fingered her. And she was wearing a teeth braces and in my experiences in braces, they cut your inside mouth. And I deep kissed her...

I am worried that these above condition may increased a chance of me getting HIV if she is HIV positive(possibility of her having because she's a sex worker). I did have a HIV test before and so I have a basic information in mind. My stupid mistake is that I engaged in this activity again knowing those points. I regret terribly and will get a test anyway, when the time is right but I'd like to know more professional opinion the activity I had. I thank for all your advice.

[Matty the Damned]

Starsky,

Fingering, kissing, frottage and handjobs are all no risk activities when it comes to HIV transmission.

Nothing you did with the woman in question has placed you at risk of being infected. You do not need to be tested.

It also doesn't matter that the woman is a sex worker.

Please take the time to read our Welcome Thread and follow the links to our lessons on HIV transmission.

MtD

[Starsky]

MtD
Thank you for your comment.
Well, how about if she was 100% HIV positive and that I engaged on these activities with my finger cuts and her mouth having a fresh scar, let's say.... would that bring more possibilities?

[Matty the Damned]

100% HIV positive?

Listen Kiddo, a person is either HIV positive or she isn't. There is no in between.

Even if the woman in question had HIV, you would not have been at risk of infection. Not even with finger cuts and scars in mouths and all of that.

HIV is a fussy, fragile virus. It is transmitted through unprotected anal and vaginal sex, sharing contaminated needles and syringes and in some cases from HIV positive mother to her unborn baby.

I should also tell you that no matter how you try to ask the same question our answers will not change. We have pretty stiff posting guidelines around here. I suggest you read our Welcome Thread and familiarise yourself with the rules.

MtD

[Starsky]

MtD

OK, "100% HIV Positive" is a wrong way of expression, sorry, my first language is not English but I understand why you thought my phrasing was inappropriate. Positive or Negative, that's that. I get it.

I did read through Welcome Thread and the basic rules, (and again, perhaps I'm not understanding them perfectly due to my english skills but I think I do get it mostly).

And I appreciate your firm way of explanation to my concern.
it's just that looking through HIV related sites for my concern, I guess it's depends on it's language or country perhaps due to different cultre, some of the "Possibility" can be referred from "Should really worry" to "Don't worry AT ALL"(like your comment). So that is why i posted my concern. Because either having cuts or some blood exposure sounds like increasing possibly to me and sort of says so on the site I see in my own languege (though obviously I am not a doctor and my way of thinking is naive on the matter).

However, I guess the reason for your conclusion is that HIV virus is very week and sensitive virus that it can't surpass to my blood stream easily even with those above conditions.. is that right way to understand your comment?
As I can see that you have been answering many post(most much more frightened than me), guess you can understand why I question several time. I am sorry, but I hope you can understand that information on the net can be seen quite different between countries.

[Matty the Damned]

And I appreciate your firm way of explanation to my concern.
it's just that looking through HIV related sites for my concern, I guess it's depends on it's language or country perhaps due to different cultre, some of the "Possibility" can be referred from "Should really worry" to "Don't worry AT ALL"(like your comment). So that is why i posted my concern. Because either having cuts or some blood exposure sounds like increasing possibly to me and sort of says so on the site I see in my own languege (though obviously I am not a doctor and my way of thinking is naive on the matter).

However, I guess the reason for your conclusion is that HIV virus is very week and sensitive virus that it can't surpass to my blood stream easily even with those above conditions.. is that right way to understand your comment?
As I can see that you have been answering many post(most much more frightened than me), guess you can understand why I question several time. I am sorry, but I hope you can understand that information on the net can be seen quite different between countries.

That's exactly what I mean. HIV is fragile and requires particular conditions to be transmitted. The sexual behaviours you've been engaged in simply don't provide those conditions.

MtD

[Starsky]

Sorry to come back again, just another question. Let's say if my rash on my finger(that I inserted on woman) was some kind of alergy or some kind of skin virus, herpes,,? Would that increase my chance of being infected?

I am thinking of taking the NAT screening around on the 16th day past my incident...
I thank all the advice.

[RapidRod]

You can put enough spin on fingering to come up with a risk.

[Starsky]

Ok, sorry, my english is not that good,,, the way you phrased it means,

"however, or whatever I describe my act of fingering (even with my finger skin condition), the risk is very very low.."? with the hint of sarcacism...? . Am I understanding you correctly?

[jkinatl2]

No one, to date, has ever been documented as having gotten HIV through fingering. You are not at all likely to defy almost thirty years' worth of scientific study and become the first.

[Starsky]

Thank you, OK, so "not one by fingering" means including all the guys who may had similar condition to my hand, I assume. Probably even the guys who may had worst scars than me...? That's relieving.

The thing is I was very drunk at the time and I am perfectly sure that i didn't have unprotected sex, however I am not too certain to which extent I got myself involved in the activity that I mentioned above, some I did quite rough, some was done to me roughly. Let alone the place's hygine may also be questioned as well. Place probably had different customers every hour...
Hope you can understand that I am very much worried as the members you have been advising, and being naive about the specific and details of HIV make us more worried. Because to the people who has not a specific scientific knowledge about HIV may lead to think that "HIV it's a virus= meaning its a microscopic small, and would get into anywhere, even a sweat hole if there's a chance,,,," that sort of thing. Even with air,, I know that's a very stupid idea but I think some of us do feel to that extent when paranoid.

I am thinking of taking NAT test anyway, for my own relief, do you think around 16 days is enough? I guess longer wait the better but quite anxious...

[Matty the Damned]

Starksy,

We have given all the advice we can. If you choose not to heed that and get tested anyway that's your choice.

NAAT testing is certainly not indicated in your case. If you want peace of mind arrange a standard HIV antibody test.

The result will be negative.

MtD

[Ann]

Starsky,

What you need to know about hiv transmission is very, very simple.

Sexually speaking, hiv is transmitted during unprotected anal or vaginal intercourse.

It is NOT transmitted through rubbing through panties.

It is NOT transmitted through kissing.

It is NOT transmitted through fingering.

Never has been, never will be.


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


If you read the Welcome Thread before posting like you're supposed to, you will have read the following posting guideline:

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.

Please consider yourself warned!

Ann

[Starsky]

--One more post, sorry,, please bare with me..

Sorry, I don't mean that I don't take your advice. I truly sincerely appreciate you guys comments and they mean a lot in this nerve wrecking moment. The thing is I have a wife and child and very much ashamed of what I did and would certainly not like them to suffer because of my stupid mistake, which I truly truly regret. If there is any suffering at all, it should be down to me, and want to make sure that is down to me only. That is why I keep my question, though I also admit that I am quite paranoid.

So you think NAT test isn't worth it? I know and hope that I will get negative as you say but I really want to know the result soon. Of course I will follow with the antibody test when the time come as well. When I searched on the local clinic, they say that screening period could be after 12days the earliest. I know these days differ by each clinic and the system they use.
Though you are sure that it will be negative, you don't recommend NAT? Wouldn't that result be somewhat of reference to me?

Sorry for my asking, MtD, your answer is always firm and solid which is very comforting, but how come? you are a doctor or scientist I presume? Please don't be offended by my questioning. May be there is a profile of you already and I am missing.

Won't continue my loop of questions, and thank you for your advice.

>> Just saw Ann's comment, thank you very much as well. I know I am being paranoid as most of the posters here. I am sorry, please just let me post this once and be all. Thank you for reconfirming, very comforting. The thing is as I mentioned before, OK, I live in Japan and the information here really opens up so much possibilities I think it's just because they are "theoretically possible" they leave it as "possible". I have asked other doctors here, and they all say, "it's a low risk but should really get checked". Which is a complete different attitude than your firm response(which I prefer). I think doctors here would like to avoid responsibility of "theoretically possible" options so when actually happening, they all can say I warned you. that's why they never say, "Don't worry, forget it because you didn't have unprotected sex= you are safe". I guess it's OK for them to have their badge protected but this kind of answer just confuses us and puts us in more worries. you know?! It's quite annoying and wish if you ever attend those HIV conference, you mention that to Japanese docs
Hope you can understand why I ask for your firm advice.. they really help..

[Ann]

Starsky,

You can test if you like, but you most certainly do NOT need to test over your experience with the sex worker.

If your test comes back positive, it's from some incident of unprotected anal or vaginal intercourse in your past, not from anything you did with the sex worker. You did NOT have a risk with the sex worker!

Hiv isn't a punishment for going to a sex worker outside your marriage.

Keep posting about this no risk situation and you WILL be given that time out you have been warned about.

Ann