POZ Community Forums
HIV Prevention and Testing => Do I Have HIV? => Topic started by: smores123 on November 01, 2011, 02:16:17 pm
-
I had a random hook up with another male (gay) in the back of a car. We madeout for a while and I sucked on his testicles (ball sack). I did not put the head of the penis in my mouth nor did he put mine in his. However, I am concerned about potential pre-cum. I didn't see any there but I'm worried that there could have been some around since it was dark.
Am I at risk? I am so scared!!!!
-
There is absolutely NO RISK for HIV in the incident you described.
The ONLY documented (sexual) risk for HIV is penetrative anal and vaginal sex.
-
But I had brushed my teeth before hand... any chance? I'm so concerned!
-
Absolutely no risk in your story. Your saliva has over a dozen elements and proteins which very effectively prevent the transmission of HIV if it is present, including precum.
No need for further concern nor for testing.
-
how certain are you?
-
Absolutely no risk in your story. Your saliva has over a dozen elements and proteins which very effectively prevent the transmission of HIV if it is present, including precum.
No need for further concern nor for testing.
How much clearer can I say it? No risk. Period.
-
what if my toothbrush made me bleed
-
It's never been documented and several long term studies with serodiscordant couples ( where one partner is positive and the other is negative) have never shown a single transmission through oral sex.
-
If I performed gay oral (only on the testicles and the shaft -- NOT THE HEAD OF THE PENIS) and the guy had a duo test done prior to us meeting up -- am I in the clear? I was worried about precum.
-
He was negative btw
-
Please do not start a new thread every time you have another question or thought - regardless if you think your questions are related to each other or not. It helps us to help you when you keep all your thoughts or questions in one thread and it helps other readers to follow the discussion. Additional threads will be merged.
If you cannot find your thread, click on the "Show own posts" link in the left-hand column of any forum page, under your name.
-
The only documented means of HIV transmission between two males is unprotected anal sex.
However, I am really worried that you don't understand about HIV and testing.
Did the guy TELL you he had gotten an HIV test and was negative? How can you know for certain?
And even if he showed you the test, he could be within the window period and highly infectious, and not even know it.
Rather than focus on making sure your partner is negative, why not treat ALL partners as if they were positive and wear a condom for anal sex? That's the way to protect yourself, and THAT is the only means by which you will get infected. Not precum, not giving head.
It really is, to quote a famous saying, THAT simple.
-
You're completely right. But I never wanted to have sex. So I'm okay? No testing?
-
I'll get infected only by anal?
-
You are correct in both posts. You are totally okay.
However, as a sexually active adult, I always recommend a full STD panel, including an HIV test, twice a year.
-
I hope I didn't brush too hard :(
-
Saliva contains over a dozen different elements that neutralize HIV and make it impossible to infect.
Not one, but THREE studies of long-term couples where one is HIV positive, on is negative showed ZERO infections through oral sex.
These studies used a wide variety of couples, widely varying viral loads, and NO condoms for oral sex. Only for anal sex.
This is ABSOLUTELY not an HIV situation.
-
Saliva contains over a dozen different elements that neutralize HIV and make it impossible to infect.
Not one, but THREE studies of long-term couples where one is HIV positive, on is negative showed ZERO infections through oral sex.
These studies used a wide variety of couples, widely varying viral loads, and NO condoms for oral sex. Only for anal sex.
This is ABSOLUTELY not an HIV situation.
Thank you.
Like I said - I only sucked on his testicles and I was scared of pre cum contact. I know I'm fine. I know it. I go to sleep fine but wake up needing to reassure myself. Do you guys have anything I can read to make myself feel better? I have no reason to doubt you guys as I'm sure you've never seen someone get HIV from gay oral.... Unless if you have? I'm not even sure what I did constitutes for male oral.
-
First of all I have merged your threads here. In the future please follow our rule as stated in the opening thread of this section and keep all of your entries in this same thread. Thanks for your cooperation.
It's a bit hard to follow your thread as you are back and forth and up and down with what are mostly irrelevant comments.
Let's keep it simple. Even if you had sucked the guy with his whole shaft in your mouth, your saliva has over a dozen elements and proteins which very effectively prevent the transmission of viable HIV.
So you did not have a risk and there is no need for testing nor for further concern on your part.
For future reference you need to know that someone else's test result either in writing or verbally is not the basis on which you can know anything about your own HIV status. Hopefully you will never have unprotected anal (or vaginal) intercourse. But should that happen, the only way to reliably know your status is by getting tested at 3 months after the risk.
You can stop worrying now about this recent incident and just get on with your life.
-
Thank you.
Like I said - I only sucked on his testicles and I was scared of pre cum contact. I know I'm fine. I know it. I go to sleep fine but wake up needing to reassure myself. Do you guys have anything I can read to make myself feel better? I have no reason to doubt you guys as I'm sure you've never seen someone get HIV from gay oral.... Unless if you have? I'm not even sure what I did constitutes for male oral.
No incident HIV infections among MSM who practice exclusively oral sex.
Int Conf AIDS 2004 Jul 11-16; 15:(abstract no. WePpC2072)??Balls JE, Evans JL, Dilley J, Osmond D, Shiboski S, Shiboski C, Klausner J, McFarland W, Greenspan D, Page-Shafer K?University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
Oral Dis. 2006 May ;12 (3):219-28 16700731
Oral transmission of HIV, reality or fiction? An update.
J Campo , M A Perea , J Del Romero , J Cano , V Hernando , A Bascones
Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and many other viruses can be isolated in blood and body fluids, including saliva, and can be transmitted by genital-genital and especially anal-genital sexual activity. The risk of transmission of HIV via oral sexual practices is very low. Unlike other mucosal areas of the body, the oral cavity appears to be an extremely uncommon transmission route for HIV. We present a review of available evidence on the oral-genital transmission of HIV and analyse the factors that act to protect oral tissues from infection, thereby reducing the risk of HIV transmission by oral sex. Among these factors we highlight the levels of HIV RNA in saliva, presence of fewer CD4+ target cells, presence of IgA antibodies in saliva, presence of other infections in the oral cavity and the endogenous salivary antiviral factors lysozyme, defensins, thrombospondin and secretory leucocyte protease inhibitor (SLPI). Oral Diseases (2006) 12, 219-228.
http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/2AF5DF5C-ECEF-4854-80BA-09F86B483A02.asp
http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/102255339.html
AIDS: Volume 16(17) 22 November 2002 pp 2350-2352
Risk of HIV infection attributable to oral sex among men who have sex with men and in the population of men who have sex with men
Page-Shafer, Kimberlya,b; Shiboski, Caroline Hb; Osmond, Dennis Hc; Dilley, Jamesd; McFarland, Willie; Shiboski, Steve Cc; Klausner, Jeffrey De; Balls, Joycea; Greenspan, Deborahb; Greenspan
Page-Shafer K, Veugelers PJ, Moss AR, Strathdee S, Kaldor JM, van Griensven GJ. Sexual risk behavior and risk factors for HIV-1 seroconversion in homosexual men participating in the Tricontinental Seroconverter Study, 1982-1994 [published erratum appears in Am J Epidemiol 1997 15 Dec; 146(12):1076]. Am J Epidemiol 1997, 146:531-542.
The Romero study used male/female relationships almost exclusively, with either male or female partner positive. The viral loads varied widely, as did the treatment options (or lack thereof) during the ten years of the study.
The Page-Shafer "HOT" study used homosexual males with different partners, studied both receptive and insertive oral sex.
The abstract of the study is also here:
http://www.aegis.com/conferences/iac/2002/TuPeC4872.html
An updated abstract of the Romero study is in:
Oral Dis. 2006 May ;12 (3):219-28 16700731
An earlier Page-Shafer study regarding oral HIv transmission:
Risk of HIV infection attributable to oral sex among men who have sex with men and in the population of men who have sex with men.
AIDS. 16(17):2350-2352, November 22, 2002.
Page-Shafer, Kimberly a,b; Shiboski, Caroline H b; Osmond, Dennis H c; Dilley, James d; McFarland, Willi e; Shiboski, Steve C c; Klausner, Jeffrey D e; Balls, Joyce a; Greenspan, Deborah b; Greenspan, John S b
Other relevant studies, many of which reference either/both Romero and/or Page-Shafer, among others:
http://www.aidsonline.com/pt/re/aids/fulltext.00002030-199904160-00021.htm;jsessionid=G1nGq7PY37yynzdYy7CHvpqRwHKzNFS7J3gPvGYzGKp6Tz2nvFdx!1330140564!181195629!8091!-1?nav=search&searchid=1&index=21&results=1&count=10
Note the methodology for the Page-Shafer and Romero studies, and how they differ significantly from earlier studies which relied on post-infection patient report. In my opinion, that methodology dramatically increases the validity of the report.
Studies which show the fallacy of relying on anecdotal evidence as opposed to carefully controlled study insofar as HIV transmission risk is concerned:
Jenicek M. "Clinical Case Reporting" in Evidence-Based Medicine. Oxford: Butterworth–Heinemann; 1999:117
Saltzman SP, Stoddard AM, McCusker J, Moon MW, Mayer KH. Reliability of self-reported sexual behavior risk factors for HIV infection in homosexual men. Public Health Rep. 1987 102(6):692–697.Nov–Dec;
Catania JA, Gibson DR, Chitwood DD, Coates TJ. Methodological problems in AIDS behavioral research: influences on measurement error and participation bias in studies of sexual behavior. Psychol Bull. 1990 Nov;108(3):339–362.
-
First of all I have merged your threads here. In the future please follow our rule as stated in the opening thread of this section and keep all of your entries in this same thread. Thanks for your cooperation.
It's a bit hard to follow your thread as you are back and forth and up and down with what are mostly irrelevant comments.
Let's keep it simple. Even if you had sucked the guy with his whole shaft in your mouth, your saliva has over a dozen elements and proteins which very effectively prevent the transmission of viable HIV.
So you did not have a risk and there is no need for testing nor for further concern on your part.
For future reference you need to know that someone else's test result either in writing or verbally is not the basis on which you can know anything about your own HIV status. Hopefully you will never have unprotected anal (or vaginal) intercourse. But should that happen, the only way to reliably know your status is by getting tested at 3 months after the risk.
You can stop worrying now about this recent incident and just get on with your life.
I get that but what about the people online who claim to have gotten HIV from oral sex? And why is it said to be a low risk on a majority of web sites?
-
smores,
Sometimes people don't remember exactly what they did under the influence of drink and/or drugs. Sometimes they cannot admit to themselves or others that they had unprotected anal or vaginal intercourse. Sometimes people just lie.
There have been three long-term studies of couples where one is positive and one is negative. In the couples who used condoms for anal or vaginal intercourse, but no barrier for oral activities, not one of the negative partners became infected with hiv. Not one. This has already been explained to you. Re-read your entire thread until it sinks in.
If you read the Welcome Thread (http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=220.0) 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
-
No one cleared up my brushing concern....
-
■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.
-
smores,
Sometimes people don't remember exactly what they did under the influence of drink and/or drugs. Sometimes they cannot admit to themselves or others that they had unprotected anal or vaginal intercourse. Sometimes people just lie.
There have been three long-term studies of couples where one is positive and one is negative. In the couples who used condoms for anal or vaginal intercourse, but no barrier for oral activities, not one of the negative partners became infected with hiv. Not one. This has already been explained to you. Re-read your entire thread until it sinks in.
If you read the Welcome Thread (http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=220.0) before posting like you're supposed to, you will have read the following posting guideline:
Please consider yourself warned!
Ann
How do you differentiate between people
Lying and telling the truth?
-
How do you differentiate between people
Lying and telling the truth?
We use first tier peer-reviewed science over the span of thirty years to do just that. Not only lab science, and simian studies, but following large groups of real life people to ascertain what is and is not a risk for HIV.
-
We use first tier peer-reviewed science over the span of thirty years to do just that. Not only lab science, and simian studies, but following large groups of real life people to ascertain what is and is not a risk for HIV.
Okay so I assume I am 100% safe? I can't take any doubts. I need 100% certainty!
-
In science as in life, there is never going to be 100 percent anything. Sorry about our sloppy public school system.
The only sex you can always depend on to be safe is sex with your own hand.
However, in the fifteen years past HAART that monitoring serodiscordant couples has been possible, there has NEVER been a documented case of HIV transmitted through oral sex.
You can take that for all it is worth. Here is the science:
No incident HIV infections among MSM who practice exclusively oral sex.
Int Conf AIDS 2004 Jul 11-16; 15:(abstract no. WePpC2072)??Balls JE, Evans JL, Dilley J, Osmond D, Shiboski S, Shiboski C, Klausner J, McFarland W, Greenspan D, Page-Shafer K?University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
Oral Dis. 2006 May ;12 (3):219-28 16700731
Oral transmission of HIV, reality or fiction? An update.
J Campo , M A Perea , J Del Romero , J Cano , V Hernando , A Bascones
Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and many other viruses can be isolated in blood and body fluids, including saliva, and can be transmitted by genital-genital and especially anal-genital sexual activity. The risk of transmission of HIV via oral sexual practices is very low. Unlike other mucosal areas of the body, the oral cavity appears to be an extremely uncommon transmission route for HIV. We present a review of available evidence on the oral-genital transmission of HIV and analyse the factors that act to protect oral tissues from infection, thereby reducing the risk of HIV transmission by oral sex. Among these factors we highlight the levels of HIV RNA in saliva, presence of fewer CD4+ target cells, presence of IgA antibodies in saliva, presence of other infections in the oral cavity and the endogenous salivary antiviral factors lysozyme, defensins, thrombospondin and secretory leucocyte protease inhibitor (SLPI). Oral Diseases (2006) 12, 219-228.
http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/2AF5DF5C-ECEF-4854-80BA-09F86B483A02.asp
http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/102255339.html
AIDS: Volume 16(17) 22 November 2002 pp 2350-2352
Risk of HIV infection attributable to oral sex among men who have sex with men and in the population of men who have sex with men
Page-Shafer, Kimberlya,b; Shiboski, Caroline Hb; Osmond, Dennis Hc; Dilley, Jamesd; McFarland, Willie; Shiboski, Steve Cc; Klausner, Jeffrey De; Balls, Joycea; Greenspan, Deborahb; Greenspan
Page-Shafer K, Veugelers PJ, Moss AR, Strathdee S, Kaldor JM, van Griensven GJ. Sexual risk behavior and risk factors for HIV-1 seroconversion in homosexual men participating in the Tricontinental Seroconverter Study, 1982-1994 [published erratum appears in Am J Epidemiol 1997 15 Dec; 146(12):1076]. Am J Epidemiol 1997, 146:531-542.
The Romero study used male/female relationships almost exclusively, with either male or female partner positive. The viral loads varied widely, as did the treatment options (or lack thereof) during the ten years of the study.
The Page-Shafer "HOT" study used homosexual males with different partners, studied both receptive and insertive oral sex.
The abstract of the study is also here:
http://www.aegis.com/conferences/iac/2002/TuPeC4872.html
An updated abstract of the Romero study is in:
Oral Dis. 2006 May ;12 (3):219-28 16700731
An earlier Page-Shafer study regarding oral HIv transmission:
Risk of HIV infection attributable to oral sex among men who have sex with men and in the population of men who have sex with men.
AIDS. 16(17):2350-2352, November 22, 2002.
Page-Shafer, Kimberly a,b; Shiboski, Caroline H b; Osmond, Dennis H c; Dilley, James d; McFarland, Willi e; Shiboski, Steve C c; Klausner, Jeffrey D e; Balls, Joyce a; Greenspan, Deborah b; Greenspan, John S b
Other relevant studies, many of which reference either/both Romero and/or Page-Shafer, among others:
http://www.aidsonline.com/pt/re/aids/fulltext.00002030-199904160-00021.htm;jsessionid=G1nGq7PY37yynzdYy7CHvpqRwHKzNFS7J3gPvGYzGKp6Tz2nvFdx!1330140564!181195629!8091!-1?nav=search&searchid=1&index=21&results=1&count=10
Note the methodology for the Page-Shafer and Romero studies, and how they differ significantly from earlier studies which relied on post-infection patient report. In my opinion, that methodology dramatically increases the validity of the report.
Studies which show the fallacy of relying on anecdotal evidence as opposed to carefully controlled study insofar as HIV transmission risk is concerned:
Jenicek M. "Clinical Case Reporting" in Evidence-Based Medicine. Oxford: Butterworth–Heinemann; 1999:117
Saltzman SP, Stoddard AM, McCusker J, Moon MW, Mayer KH. Reliability of self-reported sexual behavior risk factors for HIV infection in homosexual men. Public Health Rep. 1987 102(6):692–697.Nov–Dec;
Catania JA, Gibson DR, Chitwood DD, Coates TJ. Methodological problems in AIDS behavioral research: influences on measurement error and participation bias in studies of sexual behavior. Psychol Bull. 1990 Nov;108(3):339–362.
-
What about if these individuals had tiny open sores in their mouths? Also what is HAART??
-
Enough, move along.
-
Enough, move along.
Why? No one answered that question and this is all eating me up inside.
-
Have a good day.
-
Kinda rude ....
-
You haven't seen anything yet.
-
You get a stack of information confirming you weren't at risk and then you annoyed that yet another question which implies there is risk doesn't get answered???!!!
Listen buddy, you don't have to accept what we say about your not having a risk. And in fact theoreticallly nothing sexual other than with your own hand is 100% safe. But getting oral is as close as you are going to get to 100% non- risk.
If you come back with more about this issue you are going to get a Time Out from the site. HIV is not your problem. Cut out the drama and get on with your life.
-
So if I come back in 3 months and I'm HIV positive, you guys are going to completely disregard what I say or claim that I must have done more than just suck testicles or claim that perhaps I have a severe mouth condition and stick to your articles as the basis of all of your judgments despite what I have to say?
-
And those studies looked more at receptive oral sex! Instead of timing me out it'd be nice for someone to clarify my concerns. Thank you.
-
You have been warned and now I am going to give you that Time Out for 28 days.
Hang on to your pugnacious attitude if you want to, an attitude which I suspect is fear-based. You have no basis in HIV science for being concerned at this point about HIV. If you get tested perhaps the inevitable negative result will allow you give up your unwarranted concern.
If you can't let go of this unwarranted fear then perhaps it might be worthwhile for you to see a therapist or other professional and discuss the situation. We can't help you with that in this setting.
Don't make the mistake of trying to get around the Time Out by creating a new account. We'll spot that right off and it will get you get permanently banned.
Whether you believe it or not HIV is not your problem. Get on with your life.
-
And those studies looked more at receptive oral sex! Instead of timing me out it'd be nice for someone to clarify my concerns. Thank you.
This is because insertive oral sex has NEVER been considered an HIV risk!
-
Wait. I'm referring to being sucked not doing the sucking. The articles dealt more with receiving than actually giving and giving is my concern.
-
Being sucked is absolutely no risk.
There is really no way to even quantify the risk of an activity which has never been documented to facilitate HIV infection. It's like asking about the risk for frottage, or watersports, or rimming, or any of the other sexual activities that have not been linked to HIV infection.
And the studies covered both giving AND receiving oral sex - the only reason that receptive fellatio (swallowing semen) is prominent in the studies is because that it the ONLY controversial element remaining in that form of sexual expression. GETTING sucked and cunnilingus have long ago been removed from the lost of possible HIV transmission vectors.
By the way, here is the breakdown of terminology:
Insertive fellatio = getting a blowjob
Receptive fellatio = giving a blowjob
-
Oh I get it. Thanks!
So just to make sure it was clear that I was referring to GIVING the oral right?
-
Smores,
You have NOT had a risk. You've been repeatedly told this and our answers are NOT going to change.
Ann