A couple months ago a gay man performed oral sex on me (I'm female). His penis touched the outside of my vagina at one point but there was no penetration or ejaculation, I'm not sure about pre-cum (he was flaccid throughout the experience). I don't think either of us had any open sores anywhere. My psychologist told me that I could have gotten HIV from this. What are the chances?

I called the gay man and he said that he tested negative last fall and that he's always very safe when he's with someone. I know him fairly well and I believe him, he thinks that my shrink is crazy for suggesting this. I wasn't worried until my psychologist scared the life out of me.

I guess I'm just looking for some reassurance here, it's only been 2 months since this happened, I don't know if I should even worry about getting tested.

You should be ok... But the only way to get it off your mind is to be tested. not to see if you have hiv but to see if you don't. if you dont get tested you will aways think that you might have it. thats not a good way to live. good luck to ya.


A couple months ago a gay man performed oral sex on me (I'm female). His penis touched the outside of my vagina at one point but there was no penetration or ejaculation, I'm not sure about pre-cum (he was flaccid throughout the experience). I don't think either of us had any open sores anywhere. My psychologist told me that I could have gotten HIV from this. What are the chances?

I called the gay man and he said that he tested negative last fall and that he's always very safe when he's with someone. I know him fairly well and I believe him, he thinks that my shrink is crazy for suggesting this. I wasn't worried until my psychologist scared the life out of me.

I guess I'm just looking for some reassurance here, it's only been 2 months since this happened, I don't know if I should even worry about getting tested.

wow i would get a new shrink. what you did was considered a very low risk activity. i say low risk as in you have about the same chances as winning the lottery. known transmission with a + person is 1/500-1/800. that is with a positive person. so that is pretty darn low, and that number is off of a HIGH risk activity like unprotected vaginal or anal sex, not oral. when you add it up the numbers are statistically insiginficant. i think that he was more perplexed as to the encounter (way to go girl) and didn't know how to react. tell him to get more a little smarter on HIV before he tells someone they could have gotten HIV from such a low risk activity! :D

Thank you so much for the response, I feel far more relieved now than I have in the last couple days since seeing my shrink. In fact, a friend of mine is going to call him to tell him that psychologists shouldn't scare people like that, that he needs to get his HIV transmission facts straight, and that he's sick of hearing me freak out about it.

LOL also thx for the "way to go girl" - you're right, my shrink was completely perplexed by the whole episode. (So is our entire circle of friends but that's beside the point).

Thanks again, I feel sooooo much better now!!!

wow i would get a new shrink. what you did was considered a very low risk activity. i say low risk as in you have about the same chances as winning the lottery. known transmission with a + person is 1/500-1/800. that is with a positive person. so that is pretty darn low, and that number is off of a HIGH risk activity like unprotected vaginal or anal sex, not oral. when you add it up the numbers are statistically insiginficant. i think that he was more perplexed as to the encounter (way to go girl) and didn't know how to react. tell him to get more a little smarter on HIV before he tells someone they could have gotten HIV from such a low risk activity! :D


The thing that I find confusing about this statement is that people always say that "Chances are so-and-so if you had sex with a "KNOWN HIV+ person". I really don't think this statement is correct, because what if that person is positive and you (or they) DON'T know it? That doesn't change the fact that the person is infected with HIV just because they aren't known to have it. For instance, say that Female X had unprotected sex with bi-sexual Male Y, who had found out that he was HIV positive BEFORE having sex with Female X, but didn't tell her for whatever reason. Then say that Female A had unprotected sex with bi-sexual Male B, who was in fact HIV positive but didn't find out until after the sexual encounter. In both situations, the Female's chance of being infected with HIV would be the same, but just because one of the males didn't know that he was HIV+, a doctor would tell Female X that her chances of having contracted it were lower than Female A, although they actually have the SAME chance. Can anyone explain why the CDC uses this statement so often???

i am sorry but your statement was confusing to me. the number are based off of statistics. each encounter with a known positive person does NOT share the same risks as newly infected people have a much higher viral load therefore making transmission easier. however, when i say easier, it really isn't that easy. you have to engage in HIGH risk activity and even then your transmission rate is not 100%, not even close. did you know in africa that males who are uncircumsized have a higher rate of infection? it is almost a 20% guarentee. but here the statisctics are much different. please think logically about it. with the millions and million of people in the US only 40,000 new cases are discovered every year. i know that there are people out there that have it and don't know it, but you can't speculate on that. the fact is that if HIV was as transmittable as making out, oral sex, fingering, kissing ect.... the world would be infected. think about it. yes people get infected, they do but why oh why waste your life thinking you have this because of a skin rash? i think it is pretty insulting to those whom do have HIV/AIDS who wish their only problem was dry flaky skin. sorry to be so blunt.