POZ Community Forums
Main Forums => Living With HIV => Topic started by: audioholic on September 20, 2007, 10:43:55 pm
-
hey guys. . . this is my first post in this thread. . . posted a few times earlier in the other. . .
alright heres the question. . .
my fiance and i (a guy) were laying in bed cuddling and one thing led to another and. . . .
well, hes the top. but he fucked me sans condom. . . . the doc said we could do it pretty safely
if i were on meds, but. . im not. . .
what are the chances of giving it to your partner if your on the receiving end?
any help would be appreciated. . ;D
-
Pretty safely? Your doctor needs a kick up the bum.
Tops can and do get infected. Any one of a number of our members will tell you that. Whilst the bottom is at greater risk from an infected top, there is still a real and present risk from positive bottom to negative top.
If your partner wants to stay negative then he should be using latex condoms and water based lube when he cornholes you, irrespective of whether you take meds or not.
MtD
-
listen to the damned one... dont be foolish!
-
You desperately need to find a new doctor, STAT.
-
i think i mis-represented what my doc said. . . . . :-\ :'(
he just said the chances would be far greater not that it would be safe. . . .
my bad on that. . hes like one of the best in my area :D
alright. . well, we use condoms every other time and have for the past year. . . . . . . . dont really know what heppend or what we were thinking. . .
i know he still has a risk of getting it and all but does anyone know the actual odds?
-
well, hes the top. but he fucked me sans condom. . . . the doc said we could do it pretty safely
if i were on meds, but. . im not. . .
That's what you said, so if you misrepresented him your doctor should be pretty annoyed with you about now.
i know he still has a risk of getting it and all but does anyone know the actual odds?
There are no "actual" odds. All we know is that fucking a positive someone up the arse without a condom is a real risk for contracting HIV. If you want to reduce your partner's chances of remaining HIV negative to a set of "actual odds" then all I can say is I'm glad I'm single.
Have the best day.
MtD
-
If the odds were 1 in a 1,000 or 1 in 10, isnt that kinda a big risk to be taking with another persons life? Huge risk or tiny risk, theres still a risk. Use a condom ;)
-
Sorry but all I can say to all of this is WOW. Education, is really deficient.
-
It's that "invicible" behavior again. "The chances are so low". "I won't cum in you". "I have anti-bacterial". "I've never got anything from topping" ...
You're responsible too. Don't let him enter without a permit. It's cheap and will protect you both.
Milker.
-
we will and have been for the past year (using condoms). . . .
kinda stupid of us to have let one slip. . . . .
i just hope hes still ok . . . . . .
like ur advice milker. . thnx
-
i know he still has a risk of getting it and all but does anyone know the actual odds?
Hi, and first, welcome to the forums.
As for the odds, one time is enough, it is really all it takes. And several of us here can attest to that.
Pat
-
Dude, your an Idiot!.. Anyone who has sex unprotected while positive or with someone positive is a complete jackass and has complete disregard for human life. Might i suggest that you go dig a hole in the ground and go bury your stupid ass in it. Unbelievable.....Im speechless.. I seriously think guys like you should be put in prison.
~MORTON SALT
"Im king of all salt"
-
Dude, your an Idiot!.. Anyone who has sex unprotected while positive or with someone positive is a complete jackass and has complete disregard for human life. Might i suggest that you go dig a hole in the ground and go bury your stupid ass in it. Unbelievable.....Im speechless.. I seriously think guys like you should be put in prison.
~MORTON SALT
"Im king of all salt"
um ok. Both of them knew his status. I don't know you got infected but if it was from sex you also are an idiot, jackass, have a complete disregard for human life, and maybe you should bury your stupid ass in that hole and be put in prison.
Well all made a stupid mistake, we all knew the risks. Now let's try to minimize the future risks of his partner rather than giving that speech.
Milker.
-
the doc said we could do it pretty safely
if i were on meds, but. . im not. . .
Your doc is right. If you were on meds and had an undetectable viral load, the transmission risk would be very slim indeed, the risk being comparable to a deep kiss. There is not a single documented case worldwide where someone with an undetectable VL has infected his/her partner. That doesn't mean it's impossible, but it's just very unlikely. Or, as you put it, "pretty safe" vs. "completely safe". No reason to not disclose, though.
-
There is not a single documented case worldwide where someone with an undetectable VL has infected his/her partner.
So if i'm undetectable i can fuck without worrying about infecting anyone? Cerrid hello?
Milker.
-
Good grief....When the viral load is declared "undetectable," it is undetectable only via the measurements of the laboratory assay test on peripheral blood ONLY. Most such tests cannot and do not measure down to ZERO. More importantly, the virus may still be present in other bodily fluids, such as semen, or in anal and oral mucosa.
-
So if i'm undetectable i can fuck without worrying about infecting anyone? Cerrid hello?
Milker.
Your doc is right. If you were on meds and had an undetectable viral load, the transmission risk would be very slim indeed,.......... That doesn't mean it's impossible, but it's just very unlikely. Or, as you put it, "pretty safe" vs. "completely safe". ......
-
It has been proven that a man who has an undetectable viral load in BLOOD test, CAN and often DOES HAVE a detectable viral load in their semen.
Having an undetectable viral load is definitely NOT a license to bareback!
Ann
(who thought people knew this shit!)
-
It has been proven that a man who has an undetectable viral load in BLOOD test, CAN and often DOES HAVE a detectable viral load in their semen.
Having an undetectable viral load is definitely NOT a license to bareback!
Ann
(who thought people knew this shit!)
Does one have seminal ducts in their rectum ? ???
Grass
(who will never ever engage in unprotected penetratvive sex with a negative person)
-
Does one ejaculate semen from their rectum ?
Grass
(who will never ever engage in unprotected penetratvive sex with a negative person)
No, but it stands to reason that if an undetectable amount of virus in the blood doesn't necessarily mean there is an undetectable amount in the semen, other bodily fluids that have been shown to be infectious (such as rectal mucus) may also not be undetectable just because the blood is undetectable.
Ann
(who detects a smart-arse) ;)
-
No, but it stands to reason that if an undetectable amount of virus in the blood doesn't necessarily mean there is an undetectable amount in the semen, other bodily fluids that have been shown to be infectious (such as rectal mucus) may also not be undetectable just because the blood is undetectable.
Ann
(who detects a smart-arse) ;)
The basic question was: to what degree is rectal mucus in a poz person with an undetect. viralload infectious ?
All replies, yours included Ann !!, have been focused on viralload in sperm, thus derailling the question.
-
I agree with Ann, you would think that everybody already knew this shit. Also no-one has mentioned that if one is on meds and the other not, you can build up a resistance to the Hiv meds that your partner is taking and when the time comes they might not work for you. also even if you both are positive you can still take the chance of reinfecting your partner (so why take that chance?) also i read somewhere that it is harder for a man that isn't circumcised to become infected.(has any one else heard this as well?)
Paulette
-
also i read somewhere that it is harder for a man that isn't circumcised to become infected.(has any one else heard this as well?)
Paulette
I have heard of a different version of your theory
-
The basic question was: to what degree is rectal mucus in a poz person with an undetect. viralload infectious ?
All replies, yours included Ann !!, have been focused on viralload in sperm, thus derailling the question.
I understand and back up Grasshopper's comment. I reserve my comment, my experience and present relationship practices with my 12 year "negative" partner because 98% of the persons here will jump on me like red ants on sugar. Besides, I would not like to set an example to other couples...this is just my partner and my own preference and choice. No more comment on this...
-
also i read somewhere that it is harder for a man that isn't circumcised to become infected.(has any one else heard this as well?)
Paulette
Did you write that correctly? You think a foreskin offers greater protection?
-
I read somewhere that it is harder for a man that isn't circumcised to become infected.(has any one else heard this as well?)
Paulette
Philly; I think I know what she means. I also read somewhere (magazine or internet) that circumcised men where less likely to contract some venereal diseases than uncircumcised men (including hiv). Something about the foreskin's temperature underneath being a hive for bacteria that can harvest some diseases. I think there was also a study made in Africa that backed up this statement. I read that a few months back...if it's true or not, who knows. ???
-
Philly; I think I know what she means. I also read somewhere (magazine or internet) that circumcised men where less likely to contract some venereal diseases than uncircumcised men (including hiv). Something about the foreskin's temperature underneath being a hive for bacteria that can harvest some diseases. I think there was also a study made in Africa that backed up this statement. I read that a few months back...if it's true or not, who knows. ???
Yes, but in my reading of her post she's mixed it up entirely and wrote the reverse, which is why I asked her to clarify what she stated. Using the word "harder" and "isn't" skirts close to a double-negative.
So let's clarify if she believes that foreskin offers less or more protection for an infection.
-
The cut vs uncut debate still rages on, with the cut men coming out on top so far in the transmission reduction stakes. There's been a few articles in the AM News section in the past year about various studies.
Some quarters are calling for circumcision for all. Personally, I'm not convinced it makes a big enough difference. What worries me is the danger that too many cut men will think they're invincible. We've already been talking about how invincible many tops are to begin with.
Ann
-
Yes, but in my reading of her post she's mixed it up entirely and wrote the reverse, which is why I asked her to clarify what she stated. Using the word "harder" and "isn't" skirts close to a double-negative.
So let's clarify if she believes that foreskin offers less or more protection for an infection.
Yes I heard the opposite of what she said tho. And no, i'm not going to remove my foreskin when adding another temporary layer just does the trick (woah play on words woohoo :o)
Milker.
-
http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/5CB1DACF-6D08-48DD-A3C9-A10CBB6A5EED.asp
Circumcision is an HIV prevention tool.
-
Perhaps Cerrid and Grasshopper would care to enlighten us as to how they have managed to have their rectal mucosa tested for the presence of HIV.
-
Perhaps Cerrid and Grasshopper would care to enlighten us as to how they have managed to have their rectal mucosa tested for the presence of HIV.
Nope, I'm not THAT gullible.
edited for typos
-
Perhaps Cerrid and Grasshopper would care to enlighten us as to how they have managed to have their rectal mucosa tested for the presence of HIV.
I'm afraid you miss the point. It is well known that, even if the VL in blood is undectectable, the same is not necessarily true for semen, rectal mucosa. There's a strong relation, but the numbers are not always the same. There's no discussion about that. However, based on the medical evidence that there isn't a single reported case where someone who's on meds has infected his/her partner, it seems as if the viral concentration in these body fluids, when suppressed, is not high enough to cause an infection.
There's also virus in saliva, in detectable amounts, mostly hidden in the T4 cells. But as the concentration is very low and there are no documented cases where someone was infected by kissing a pozzie (luckily), it is concluded that kissing is "safe". Or as we call it, a "theoretical risk". The same is true for feces and urine, indicating that (among other factors) there is a critical viral threshold concentration needed to cause an infection.
The higher the VL, the higher the transmission risk. The lower the VL, the smaller the risk. This has been proven in numerous studies. As the VL is never zero, even with a perfect working HAART, the risk is never zero. There is no 100% safety in medicine, nowhere. There's always a remaining risk of transmission (even it's very small) and this has to be taken into account when engaging in these actions. Undetectability is not a free ticket to bareback and shouldn't be viewed as such!
BTW: There's no need to jump on me personally. I'm just interested in a scientific discussion, so let's keep it factual. While I know that my views are a bit different from others, it's the opinion of doctors and public health officials who prefer to base their recommendations on medical evidence rather than on assumption and speculation, politics and ideologies.
-
Dude, your an Idiot!.. Anyone who has sex unprotected while positive or with someone positive is a complete jackass and has complete disregard for human life. Might i suggest that you go dig a hole in the ground and go bury your stupid ass in it. Unbelievable.....Im speechless.. I seriously think guys like you should be put in prison.
~MORTON SALT
"Im king of all salt"
Very constructive and useful response.
-
Your doc is right. If you were on meds and had an undetectable viral load, the transmission risk would be very slim indeed, the risk being comparable to a deep kiss. There is not a single documented case worldwide where someone with an undetectable VL has infected his/her partner. That doesn't mean it's impossible, but it's just very unlikely. Or, as you put it, "pretty safe" vs. "completely safe". No reason to not disclose, though.
Whatever statistical value 'very unlikely' ends up being, its still possible. Regardless of disclosure, is 'that feeling' (barebacking) worth putting someone's life at risk?
Someone always ends up being the statistic.
J
-
Cerrid said: "However, based on the medical evidence that there isn't a single reported case where someone who's on meds has infected his/her partner, it seems as if the viral concentration in these body fluids, when suppressed, is not high enough to cause an infection."
I echo Cerrid's reply (above) on this topic. I also see it that way. And besides, I've never heard of any common test saying that the rectal mucosa inside a person has more, less or the same amount of viral load than semen? There is always a risk, but I have never heard of a negative person getting infected by penetrating a positive "undetectable" bottom (unless he has a small cut, scratch or abrasion on his penis or anything that can provide entrance to his bloodstream when barebacking and that is a "maybe").
"The higher the viral load, the higher the risk...the lower the viral load, the lower the risk." The risk factor will always be there and we all should be conscious of that, but in the end, it's a decision that the persons involved should take and we should not scold or criticize another persons choice in this matter when they know the facts. Advice is good about using condoms, but without a single case reported on transmition between a negative partner and an "undetectable" healthy bottom, then we should not blow this issue out of proportion and label this kind of relationship as "taboo" or "forbidden". It is happening out there at this moment even in long term couples.
I hope I'm not misunderstood here and I hope my opinion is not conducive to unprotected sex when being in this situation, this is just the way I see it as a positive "undetectable" loyal partner in a 12 year old relationship with a still "negative" loyal partner. (and yes, I feel comfortable using the word "loyal"). :)
-
Cerrid:
Do you have a link or any other proof to support your contention that "there isn't a single reported case where someone who's on meds has infected his/her partner"?
-
Of course I do. There's an official statement by the head of the AIDS section of the Swiss Federal Health Office made in a published interview, and another statement by the German federal public health authority who I asked this question myself. Both check the scientific papers and both are not aware of any reported cases. However, as these statements are in German, they're probably not comprehensible for you.
Therefore, I suggest and encourage you pose the same question to your own local or federal public health authority, like the CDC. Ask them yourself whether they are aware of any documented cases. The more statement of experts we collect on this issue, the better.
-
Hey Grass, post #19 shows you asked: "Does one ejaculate semen from their rectum ?" ... If a cumdump bottom has different anonymous poz loads up their rectum then yes they can expel that semen (which is not their own) onto whoknowswhere. I'm not saying the original poster is doing that I'm just saying
-
Hey Grass, post #19 shows you asked: "Does one ejaculate semen from their rectum ?" ... If a cumdump bottom has different anonymous poz loads up their rectum then yes they can expel that semen (which is not their own) onto whoknowswhere. I'm not saying the original poster is doing that I'm just saying
In that case the entire topic would have been about wether it's safe to dip your dick into someonelses jism
-
http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/C9C1593C-BF72-47B1-B1CE-4EC80FF3EB85.asp
This recent study seems to contradict the assertions of the Swiss and German authorities, particularly the claim about "undetectable" viral loads conferring non-infectivity.