The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums
-
Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community
In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
If you do not have an account, please register.
REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your InfoPLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.
Help plz :-(
- Thread starter tommyj
- Start date
sunshinesteve
JUB Addict
The risk that you may have contracted from him is virtually non existant. I can't believe that in 2007, over 20 years since the start of safer sex education, that people still do not know what courses of action they can adopt to minimise the risk of infection. Unfortunately HIV is a part of life for us all so I suggest that you(and I mean all people who dont know the boundaries of HIV infection) educate yourself so you dont expend energy worrying about these minor issues.
I hope this doesnt offend anyone, its just upsetting that people still dont know enough about this health problem.
I hope this doesnt offend anyone, its just upsetting that people still dont know enough about this health problem.
I'm confused. Are you being critical towards those of us who think it's responsible for him to hold off with sex and get tested, or those who engage in behavior that opens them up to the possibility of contracting HIV?
Assuming that neither of you had cuts in your mouths (canker sore or otherwise) at the same times and no blood was transfered from one wound to the other and assuming that he wasn't bleeding in his mouth into an open wound on your junk, the chances are pretty much zero.
But, if that's possible, then there's obviously a greater chance that you may have contracted something.
So really, your chances are very low, but I suggest that you practice more discretion with your sexual partners next time, making you sure that you actually know their sexual history or STI status and that you practice safe sex. Also, a very good practice, whether or not you're engaging in safe sex or not having sex at all is to get yourself tested every 6 months. That way, you'll always know your status for another partner.
But, if that's possible, then there's obviously a greater chance that you may have contracted something.
So really, your chances are very low, but I suggest that you practice more discretion with your sexual partners next time, making you sure that you actually know their sexual history or STI status and that you practice safe sex. Also, a very good practice, whether or not you're engaging in safe sex or not having sex at all is to get yourself tested every 6 months. That way, you'll always know your status for another partner.
So is getting hit by lightning. The fact remains that the risk is low, though again, it's never low enough to warrant not getting tested and not being more careful in one's sexual practices.
I'm sorry. Do you want an apology? I also said very very low. You may also be assuming that he's receiving, which may be the majority of the cases in San Francisco, since performing oral sex has a higher risk than recieving it. In his case, he already stated that oral sex was performed on him.
I also meant that he should be careful because he had an encounter with someone whose status he did not know about and therefore "should be more careful" and should protect himself if it concerns him. I told him what circumstances may lead to transmission. I also told him that based on his situation, the risk was low because it's true. It is relatively low, even relatively relatively low. You can always protect yourself more. His risk is low. But if he did things that scared him (such as performing sexual acts with someone whose status was unclear at the time) then yes, he has an opportunity to be "more careful".
You could be upfront and say what it is you want here. You either want me to send him into hysterics and tell him he's in terrible danger for being the recipient of unprotected oral sex or you want me to tell him he's in absolutely no danger. What do you want? Brush the chip off your shoulder, stop nitpicking, and stick to giving sound medical advice like you always do.
I also meant that he should be careful because he had an encounter with someone whose status he did not know about and therefore "should be more careful" and should protect himself if it concerns him. I told him what circumstances may lead to transmission. I also told him that based on his situation, the risk was low because it's true. It is relatively low, even relatively relatively low. You can always protect yourself more. His risk is low. But if he did things that scared him (such as performing sexual acts with someone whose status was unclear at the time) then yes, he has an opportunity to be "more careful".
You could be upfront and say what it is you want here. You either want me to send him into hysterics and tell him he's in terrible danger for being the recipient of unprotected oral sex or you want me to tell him he's in absolutely no danger. What do you want? Brush the chip off your shoulder, stop nitpicking, and stick to giving sound medical advice like you always do.
Alright.
So let's just start over and I'll ask: Is his risk of catching HIV 1/10000 if he's the recipient or the provider?
It must not be enough to give him a general idea of where his risk lies on the scale, tell him to be careful, and still get tested after giving him a generalized turn of phrase. Clearly the more important argument here is whether or not one says 1/10000 or "near zero/very very low" since you enjoyed pointing it out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, I'm sorry, lucky7. I was wrong. Your risk isn't low or near zero. It's 1/10000. As said before, please be more careful next time so you don't give yourself another scare.
So let's just start over and I'll ask: Is his risk of catching HIV 1/10000 if he's the recipient or the provider?
It must not be enough to give him a general idea of where his risk lies on the scale, tell him to be careful, and still get tested after giving him a generalized turn of phrase. Clearly the more important argument here is whether or not one says 1/10000 or "near zero/very very low" since you enjoyed pointing it out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, I'm sorry, lucky7. I was wrong. Your risk isn't low or near zero. It's 1/10000. As said before, please be more careful next time so you don't give yourself another scare.