Health/Ethical Issue dealing with HIV.

[Rijaal]

From May to June 26th, I dated an HIV positive man, and ever since then I think I might be over reacting to any chance of possible exposure to semen from anyone. Basically, on Saturday I was masturbating with a date. I used soap as lube and climaxed, then I helped jerk him off, and while he jerked off, he touched my cock two or three times and rubbed it, maybe getting a minuscule amount of precum on it (I couldn't see it but it's possible a small amount got on there) A few minutes later I put on my boxers, and we lied back in bed for a few minutes or so, then I got my second wind or so to speak. Then I jerked myself off again, rubbing my penis, which was covered by the bedsheets and the boxer shorts. Well, basically I caused a brush burn (i noticed scabbing a few hours later) as a result of doing that. Now I'm wondering, is it possible that if he had HIV (he says he's negative but I guess something happened with my last boyfriend where I end up treating everyone like they are positive), it could have entered my blood stream as a result of the friction? Or am I at a low risk?

Also, I had jerked off with another guy before, and after I cleaned up, I might have gotten some of his semen on my slightly chaffed skin because I accidentally grabbed a paper towel he had discarded when he cleaned himself. Was that a low risk situation also?

Should I just keep my cock in my pants for 3 months until I can be sure I didn't catch anything from those two exposures? I kind of think I should take a break from dating until I am sure.

 

[Brer Fox]

If he was indeed positive, there is a theoretical risk that you could have contracted the virus. Rubbing yourself raw created a direct route into your bloodstream, and pre-cum may or may not have a sufficient level of virus to infect through such a route (it depends on what doctor you ask, Dr. Feelgood or Dr. Hatefags). My guess is, however, that if you couldn't even see it, I have a lot of doubts there was enough to seal your doom. In fact, you are almost certainly safe due to the fact the fabric would have absorbed any 'minuscule' trace.

Even though I am an obsessive fatalist about the disease, it is still obvious that if HIV were transmitted this way, we would all have it. The so-called specialists I have researched tend to agree that once HIV-containing fluids hit the air, the virus quickly dies out. So your little cock-wiping situation is probably low risk as well.

However, these are both examples of the shit situations that make sex with guys just not worth it for me. If you had red-flags waved by these scenarios, you are probably the sort that plays such things over and over in your head like me. Sorry you have to go through that. As far as stopping dating, there is no reason. Not no reason like "There is no reason because you can have a worry-free sex life," I mean no reason because every time you are with a guy you are going to be running the same risks no matter what, so either go celibate and guarantee peace of mind, gain a taste for vagina, or keep your gay sex life and worry your way between testings.

 

[jamiefireboy]

either go celibate and guarantee peace of mind, gain a taste for vagina, or keep your gay sex life and worry your way between testings.

My thoughts on this:
- celibacy is certainly a way to reduce the chances of getting HIV. But from your post, I can tell you worry - I'm guessing that celibacy wont bring you peace of mind, just you will worry about something else. Tackle the worrying as well as (maybe) the sex issue

-'gain a taste for vagina'. Do you even realise that most HIV transmission on Earth is contracted through straight sex?

- 'keep your gay sex life and worry your way between testings' - sensible advice, minus the worrying bit

Its actually quite difficult to contract HIV. From the following site I cherry pick some words of comfort http://www.aidswindsor.com/aids_how1.php

[It has to be in]sufficient quantity;

The concentration of HIV determines whether infection may happen. In blood, for example, the virus is very concentrated. A small amount of blood is enough to infect someone. A much larger amount of other fluids would be needed for HIV transmission.

A study of over 2,000 health care workers has been underway for several years to assess the risk of their exposure to people with AIDS. Over 1,000 of these workers had a needle stick accident with a needle that had been used on a person living with AIDS. The rest had some sort of mucous membrane exposure, such as being splashed in the face with blood or vomit.

Of all these people, only 21 show signs of being infected with HIV (as determined by the antibody test). One of these people was a nurse who had multiple needle stick accidents, including one where she tripped and fell on the depressor of a syringe full of blood, and the entire contents entered her body. Another was a lab worker who was working with a test tube of infected blood which broke and cut his finger, exposing the infected blood to his bloodstream. This study shows that AIDS is a difficult disease to get, and even the intimate exposure of these health care workers was not enough to infect them, except in the most extreme cases.

Please stop worrying - get tested but until the results day try not to let the thought enter your mind

 

[Brer Fox]

"-'gain a taste for vagina'. Do you even realise that most HIV transmission on Earth is contracted through straight sex?"

Very true, the sheer numbers do not even bear comparing. However, they also only serve to reinforce my statements. According to the CDC, in the United States during 2006 (Because most of us are not living in the African bush, so get that out of your mind), the new diagnoses of HIV in this country among gay males is 67%. This would be astounding even given the fact that gay men made up at least half of the population, but is elevated to staggering when you realize that 67% of all diagnoses are falling upon a population that only makes up a census statistical 4%, or a "Kinsey-generous" 10% of the population. They even have a special site dedicated just to them, and one to women... where is the one to 'heterosexual males?' Hm, that's funny...

What is more is that, ruling out the other populations, (one that includes, oh yeah, gay sex as a risk factor), males only experience 16% infection rate for what is considered high-risk heterosexual contact. Note when the CDC refers to heterosexual contact it gets the high risk with gay males it is insinuated it is any contact whatsoever. And that 16%? I have a mind to think at least half of those are men on the down-low who kissed and didn't tell.

So let's review: in males 67% of new infections stemming from 4-10% of the population, 16% stemming from the other 90-96%. The verdict? Not only is there an extremely disproportional chance you are going to run into a gay male with the virus, it is like shooting fish in a barrel. We are not talking about women, we are talking about the one sticking the dick in the hole. As far as females are concerned, for all intents and purposes you can just look at them as gay bottoms.

Also, not surprisingly, the amount of female-to-female contact is... oh wait it's not there! that is because it is gosh darn impossible to get it from oral-vaginal sex, there aren't AIDS-filled loads flying all over the place and mystery pre-cum escapades, and since condoms are much less likely to fail during vaginal sex unless you are fucking a 96-year old dried up virgin, you are unlikely to get it that way. Heterosexual sex is done sans-condoms far, far more than the gay community, and if condoms were used every time I bet the stats would be next to or at zero. They are probably doing something stupid like having sex on the woman's period, which would equate to a gay top plowing into a gay bottom with a sandpaper condom.

Look at an HIV-positive forum sometime, and try to find a man who got it from exclusive contact with women. If you get fatigued, I will help you out: It's really fucking hard.

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm

 

[jamiefireboy]

BrerFox: Firstly an interesting curiosity of statistics. Would you say you have an average number of feet? I got 2, hope you have 2 too. But we both have an above average number of feet. Given that there are more people in the world with less than 2 feet than there are people with three feet, the statistical mean number of feet is 'dragged' down by people that have less than two feet (amputees etc). Does this not maybe illustrate the slight inherent flaw in just interpretting statistics?

Very true, the sheer numbers do not even bear comparing. However, they also only serve to reinforce my statements. According to the CDC, in the United States during 2006 (Because most of us are not living in the African bush, so get that out of your mind), the new diagnoses of HIV in this country among gay males is 67%. This would be astounding even given the fact that gay men made up at least half of the population, but is elevated to staggering when you realize that 67% of all diagnoses are falling upon a population that only makes up a census statistical 4%, or a "Kinsey-generous" 10% of the population. They even have a special site dedicated just to them, and one to women... where is the one to 'heterosexual males?' Hm, that's funny...

Why forget the African bush, the original poster didn't say where he was from and this might be relevent? I think the statistic is a totally disproportionate because it doesn't actually take into account the fact that gay men are very much more likely to frequent HIV testing clinics than straight men due to social awareness/cultural history concerning HIV and because straight men believe that HIV is a 'gay' disease. Here in the UK and Ireland, the rate of infection is higher for straight people than gay people...Hmm Now that is funny given the vaginas safety! Also a special site dedicated to them and to women, but not heterosexual males - same thing - how many 'manly' men would visit such a site? Where there is no real demand for such a thing, your not going to see one are you?

What is more is that, ruling out the other populations, (one that includes, oh yeah, gay sex as a risk factor), males only experience 16% infection rate for what is considered high-risk heterosexual contact. Note when the CDC refers to heterosexual contact it gets the high risk with gay males it is insinuated it is any contact whatsoever. And that 16%? I have a mind to think at least half of those are men on the down-low who kissed and didn't tell.

Same thing, the statistic is only based upon how many gay/straight people actually submit to tests. Its meaningless otherwise. Also you say infection rate - but the site is not talking about rates its talking about diagnosis or detection - which is totally different.

So let's review: in males 67% of new infections stemming from 4-10% of the population, 16% stemming from the other 90-96%. The verdict? Not only is there an extremely disproportional chance you are going to run into a gay male with the virus, it is like shooting fish in a barrel. We are not talking about women, we are talking about the one sticking the dick in the hole. As far as females are concerned, for all intents and purposes you can just look at them as gay bottoms.

Let me do some math:

300 million people in America. 1.185 million with HIV. Lets be reallll generous and say all those people with HIV are gay (Theyre not). So 300 million people in all, that is 30 million gay people if 10% is accurate (probably overestimate). so 1.185/30 runs at approximately 4%. or 1 in 25. Then apply the probability of contracting the disease (its not 100% even bareback, not that I would ever do such a thing). However, lets say its not 1 in 25, but 1 in N - that doesn't mean that if you sleep with N number of people , or even N squared number( ! ) you are going to necassarily contract the disease.
For me the probability is safe enough and again it is not completely random - there is risk but its acceptable as long as youre safe and in control. I still have to drive and fly and eat food and live my life - everything I do contains a risk of death at some point - are you going to find all the odds ?

Look at an HIV-positive forum sometime, and try to find a man who got it from exclusive contact with women. If you get fatigued, I will help you out: It's really fucking hard.

Magic Johnson?

First of all brerfox, I want make it clear Im dont want to get into an argument - I want to maintain a pragmatic, objective discussion.

I am not arguing for one moment that the statistics are not alarming, but I've noticed something from reading your other posts - you are wayy too dependent on statistics. You are describing male to male relations and intercourse as a completely stochastic process - as if we are all just flipping coins or rolling dice. It is a lot more complicated than that.

All I'm saying is that forcing yourself to like vagina because some dimensionless ratio sort of indicates something something something really indicates that youre not tackling the real problem at hand which is fear and worry of the unknown.

 

[jamiefireboy]

yeah its just annoying when stats are thrown in arbitrarily with the numbers somehow 'speaking for themselves'.

The most laughable example is/was on the GodHatesFags website where it proudly stated that '48% of all paedophiles are gay!!!!!!111'. So....52% (the majority) of paedophiles ..aren't gay?

 

[lil_Diablo]

. Here in the UK and Ireland, the rate of infection is higher for straight people than gay people...Hmm Now that is funny given the vaginas safety! Also a special site dedicated to them and to women, but not heterosexual males - same thing - how many 'manly' men would visit such a site? not tackling the real problem at hand which is fear and worry of the unknown.

Usually when straight men get the disease, it is from sharing needles to inject drugs from either a women prostitute (or HIV infected woman), an african or bi/gay man.

Once the straight man has it, he infects women. Probably lots of women, and other drug/needle users.

 

[Rijaal]

I was also wondering if cum to blood would contract hep C like in the cases I described.

 

[jamiefireboy]

I was also wondering if cum to blood would contract hep C like in the cases I described.

it is also possible, but again given the exposure i wouldn't get too worried

you should get vaccinated against hep b though in any case as an active young gay man

 

[jockboy01]

The most laughable example is/was on the GodHatesFags website where it proudly stated that '48% of all paedophiles are gay!!!!!!111'. So....52% (the majority) of paedophiles ..aren't gay?

Well, that statistic itself is wrong. There are many papers out there that show that gays are no more likely to be pedophiles than straights. Besides, who puts any stock in a website with such a ridiculous name?