contracting HIV after intercourse?

[CanadianGuy]

So you were the bottom and the sex was done without a condom? The risk is quite high up there (if he is seropostive for HIV). Probably just below an unprotected ejaculation into your anus and sharing a needle.
If his penis just touched your anus unprotected and did not actually penetrate, the risk is significantly lower. I am a little confused by what sexual activity you engaged in.

 

[KaraBulut]

The answer lies in whether there was any exchange of body fluids.

If there was an exchange of fluid (cum or precum) that came in contact with the anus, there is a slight risk. Ths risk is less than if an infected top ejaculates into the rectum, though.

On thing that gets missed in these types of contacts that occur without a condom is HPV (genital warts). This is spread by skin to skin contact. If the top is infected, it can be transmitted to the bottom. If the bottom is infected, he can transmit HPV to the top.

Lesson learned: always use a condom.

 

[KaraBulut]

Do I have reason to worry?

The risk is low but as with all of these situations, get tested for your own peace of mind.

 

[jockboy01]

assuming no abrasions in your exterior skin, your risk is extremely low.

 

[CanadianGuy]

depends on if he's cut or not. uncut men usually have a high number of hiv cells near the head and if you've just been fucked you're leaving yourself open for infection. the risk isn't VERY high during intercourse if it was unprotected. the risk when he rubbed the head on ur anus is VERY minimal but still a risk

Uncut men have a higher number of HIV cells? Well someone clearly has NO idea what they are talking about. I assume you are refering to the [flawed] studies in Africa on HIV infection and circumcision status. I really am not going to get into these studies in depth but what they were saying is that the specialized cells in the foreskin may increase the risk of someone getting HIV in heterosexual sex. These studies were done with foreskins from dead people. There have been several problems indicated with these studies (not to mention the fact that they were done in Africa so it may not be wise to transfer any of the findings to a very very different place like North America). Also, one has to look at the rates of HIV in countries around the world and see that the USA has one of the highest in the first world... funny enough it also has the highest circumcision rates in the first world.
But no, there has never been a study saying men who have their whole penis (foreskin and all) have more "HIV cells". I am not even sure what one would mean by an HIV cell. I guess a cell infected with HIV? Clearly you have no idea of the basic workings of HIV. At least take a basic course in biology course before you give such information.

 

[luminum]

^ this is correct.

While I won't comment on the flaws of the studies, I do know that they are contested (much like research in general) and Canadian is correct to state that we should be wary of research being transplanted to different populations of study.

However, that research, and the opinion of some individuals in the field, is that cellular linings on the inner lining of the foreskin are more conducive to attachment by HIV. That means that according to the research, uncut men are more likely to contract HIV than circumcised men. This had lead to a movement where programs are initiated in African countries to circumcise men with some studies demonstrating a reduction in new cases (incidence) of HIV.

However, it is poor health policy to use surgical procedures as prevention. You don't surgically remove tonsils and appendixes if they're fine. The better procedure is to educate and create interventions that reduce risk sans surgery.

So no, infected uncut men do NOT have more HIV cells than infected cut men. Some research merely shows that when having unprotected sex, uncut men may be more susceptible to contracting HIV than cut men. But I would mention that having unprotected sex is the larger risk for both and being cut is little protection.

Anyway, to this poster's question, as noted by others, if he did not cum in you and you had protected intercourse, your risk is low. The risk factor is that you may have had an open cut (or smaller) on your anal ring that could have transferred HIV from his semen or precum into your bloodstream. If you didn't, then your risk is probably 0. If you're not sure, then you probably didn't feel any cut, so you may not be at any significant risk. But regardless, if you're unsure, it doesn't hurt to get tested. Even if you know you didn't have a cut, it might not hurt to get tested and have that peace of mind.

 

[CanadianGuy]

No, what you said was "uncut men usually have a high number of HIV cells near the head". That is a direct quote. Uncut men would not have more "HIV cells" unless they were in fact seropostive for HIV.
Funny you say my "lack of education" when I just completed my degree in a topic pertaining to the one at hand last week. Everything I indicated was correct and has been backed up by research (some done by some of my friends at my University. They are currently playing around with an HIV vaccine with some moderate success - pretty interesting and exciting stuff!)
I was rude in my post and I am sorry for that. I take it that is why you tried to insult me on my "lack of education". I just get upset with information that is so misleading like that. I have been involved in numerous health promotion and education programs in the past few years and one of the problems we find with those who are less educated is that they often take misleading or unclear information the wrong way. For example, a woman believing a birth control pill will prevent her from getting STDs clearly misinterpreted what we were trying to teach her. Likewise, they have been finding some INCREASES in HIV among circumcised men in Africa because they are taking the information they are getting to mean that circumcision means they will not contract HIV and they do not have to wear a condom (not to mention the fact that they will now have an open wound for a few weeks in which HIV could easily be passed to them and their partner(s)). It is just dangerous to spread such information and it needs to be done in the right way. I get very passionate about health promotion initiatives since it has been such a large part of my life for the past 4 years while I was completing my undergrad degree.
Again, I am sorry if I was rude to you at all; however, I assure you I am formally educated in what I speak about.

 

[Puzuzzu]

People here are passionate about penises. lol.

 

[luminum]

understood, and your apology is much appreciated, though i offer one as well for undermining your intelligence, maybe i didn't word it correctly, but i have heard of many studies that say there are high levels of HIV cells located under the foreskin of uncut men

Perhaps what you heard was incorrect or miscommunicated. HIV does not linger on the exterior surface of the body, it only exists in bodily fluids. It may be that post-coitus, any remaining semen (and thus HIV) will remain between the head of the penis and the foreskin. However, as mentioned before, what you are citing sounds more like the studies that suggested that cells that are more receptive to HIV during possible infection exist on the inner surface of the foreskin.

 

[decaf]

The risk of HIV infection in receptive anal intercourse is 0.8-3.2% with a known positive partner. Immediate administration of anti-retrovirals will reduce the risk of infection by 80%.

Notably, although the number seems low, the risk is still significant.

Settled.