Kevin's Questions

[kevin]

I see that Valdez and Ann have been constantly stating that Male to Female HIV transmission is a significantly lower risk than Male to Male. I also read from one of the two posters that a single occurance of heterosexual unprotected sex makes the chance even lower. Will Valdez, Ann or any of the experts comment and elaborate on this?

Thanks in advance!

[Morgan]

Kevin,

Because of the mechanics of anal sex,  male to male transmission is a much higher risk than male to female (vaginal).  But they are both high risk.  It's female to male transmission that is more difficult to achieve, and is, I think, the statement they've made and you've misinterpreted.

So what's your point??

Morgan

PS. I have yet to see any risk assessment rendered by either Ann or Andy refuted by the most up to date science of hiv transmission. 

You're barking up the wrong tree.

[Andy Velez]

Kevin, by definition a woman's inner structure sexually creates a significantly larger and receptive area in which HIV can be transmitted.

Let me clarify the matter of "low risk for a single incident," which is not correct as you have indicated.

The relatively low level of risk during a single exposure through male-female intercourse is for the man. Being uncircumcised can increase the risk for a man, but even then the means by which transmission can occur is still much less than for a woman.

For a man who is having anal sex with a man, the insertive partner is at lesser risk than the receptive partner, but both are risk. 

[Ann]

Kevin,

You've not been reading closely.

I see that Valdez and Ann have been constantly stating that Male to Female HIV transmission is a significantly lower risk than Male to Male.

I've never stated that in my life and I don't believe Andy has either. What we say is that hiv transmission is difficult to achieve from a woman TO a man. In other words, it is difficult for a man to become infected through vaginal intercourse as the insertive partner.

Transmission is more difficult to achieve in general FROM the receptive partner TO the insertive partner and this is mainly because the area where transmission is likely to take place in the insertive partner - in the cells lining the urethra and foreskin - is much smaller than the area where transmission is likely to take place in the receptive partner.

Both the anal and vaginal receptive partner are at greater risk of transmission because there are many more hiv receptive cells present in the lining of the rectum and vagina. They both have a larger surface area than the urethra and they are also in more direct contact with fluids that might contain hiv.

It is not "male to male" intercourse that is more risky. It is anal intercourse that is more risky all round than vaginal intercourse. This is because the lining of the rectum is more fragile than the lining of the vagina. Trauma to the anal area will slightly increase the risk to the insertive partner because of the possibility of blood being present and this is true whether is it male/male anal intercourse or male/female anal intercourse. In other words, it is the type of intercourse - anal - that carries a bit more risk for both parties, no matter if the people involved are men or women.

As for your question about one act lowering the risk, it is purely a law of averages type thing. If you decide to play russian roulette with a loaded gun, the chance of you dodging the bullet from a single pull of the trigger are much higher than if you decide to pull the trigger more than once.

If you go around having unprotected intercourse, the more you do it the greater the chance is that you are going to end up hiv positive. However, it only takes one time to infect - and you never know when that one time will be.

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

Ann

[kevin]

So what's your point??
Morgan

I really wasn't trying to make a point. I wanted to know what valdez and ann meant when they said that male to female risk is lower than male to male.

thanks for your posts val and ann. And ann, you don't have to remind me about practicing safe sex, I do every single time. It was a just a simple inquiry for my knowledge. thanks again.

[Ann]

Kevin,

I hope you read our posts carefully this time, but I'm not sure you did. For a start, you're still writing about male to female risk being lower and we've told you it is NOT male to female that is lower, it is female to male. Big difference.

Also, you seem to insist on calling Andy "Valdez". It's not "Valdez", it's VELEZ. It's rude to misspell a person's name when the correct spelling is provided for you. Please read closer in future.

Ann

[kevin]

My apologies, Ann.

[kevin]

To all the experts [Velez, Ann, Etc.], a while back on June 15th, I had insertive unprotected vaginal sex for about 10-12 seconds. I did ejaculate probably before the 12 second mark. Yes I know it was a foolish thing and I waiting to test on the 13th week which is mid September.

Now my question is, based on the information I have given, are the odds testing negative high? She tested negative the next day, but its really hard to trust her because I know she lies.

Thanks a bunch!

[Ann]

Kevin,

Yes, the odds are significantly in your favour that your test result will be negative, especially in light of your very brief experience.

You can't go by what someone says about their test results, unless you are in a securely monogamous relationship with them and have actually tested together with them and looked at their results with your own eyes. Hiv is nothing to guess or assume about. In your case, you can ONLY go by your own test results.

I do hope you are using condoms now, and have read through the condom and lube links in my signature line so you can use them properly.

And by the way, whether you, as the insertive partner, ejaculated or not makes no difference. Ejaculation only makes a difference to the receptive partner.

Ann

[kevin]

I had unprotected vaginal sex with someone of unknown HIV status on the night of July 25, 2006. I was masturbating and she begged for me to ejaculate in her. For some reason, my hormones got the best of me, and I did penetrate her for about 10 seconds or so, just to ejaculate.

I tested for HIV last wednesday on September 6, 2006 and I will be getting my results tomorrow. It will be a 6 week test. How conclusive will this be if it is negative? I will be confirming this at the 13th week mark or later if it turns out to be negative, but I just want to know how much of a peace of mind can I get from a 6 week test.

Thanks to the experts and all!

[Matty the Damned]

Kevin,

The majority of people who test positive do so at about the 22 day mark. If as we expect you do test negative tomorrow on your 6 week test then it's an excellent indicator that you'll test negative at 12-13 weeks.

Remember though, if you receive a negative result tomorrow, you still need to have a confirmatory test done at the 12-13 week mark.

MtD