I've read in numerous posts that the chance of HIV transmission from female to male is 1/8000? I know HIV transmission is harder from male to female but how is it that so many women are infected? I even heard someone say the other day that number of women with HIV is rising. I'm not doubting the 1/8000 chance, but I have a problem understanding statistics so could someone explain it to me? Also, when a girl performs oral sex on a guy, the risk is low. But when the girl gets semen in her mouth and swallows, the risk is obviously higher. So, if I performed oral sex on an HIV+ guy, and swallowed his semen, would I for sure get HIV? One more thing, when the semen is in the mouth and swallowed, is that just as risky as unprotected vaginal/ anal sex or is a little less risky than that? Just a few questions I had that I figured could only get answered on here...

Hi, I just asked a similar question to yours. I wouldn't worry about becoming infected with HIV through oral sex. I think the odds are pretty slim! I don't get the odds thing either, you think HIV would be more common if you'd have to sleep with someone 8000 times statistically to get the disease! Are most people infected through needle use then, or anal sex?

"I know HIV transmission is harder from male to female but how is it that so many women are infected?"

The way women are MADE is what makes it so much easier. When HIV first was recognized, it was prevelant in the homosexual male community. Now, after MANY years of it spreading, and largley due to drug use with needles, it has made its way everywhere. Women are MORE likley to recieve it because semen can live in our bodies, we can have abrasions and tears inside our body we dont know about, making a way for HIV to enter the bloodstream.

"I'm not doubting the 1/8000 chance, but I have a problem understanding statistics so could someone explain it to me?"

Its not i in 8000 for ALL men, it is only 1 in 8000 for a vaginal encounter that a man could catch it from a woman. Up the odds if she is high risk. Up them even more if she is DEFINTLEY positive.

"So, if I performed oral sex on an HIV+ guy, and swallowed his semen, would I for sure get HIV?"

Noone has ever sited a case on ANY site I have so far found that has concluded an oral sex encounter as causing HIV transmission. So, no, you would not for sure get it. Its possible, but not probable.


"One more thing, when the semen is in the mouth and swallowed, is that just as risky as unprotected vaginal/ anal sex or is a little less risky than that?"

I dont think that the specific oral sex act has ever been broken down into wether or not there was semen, or if it was swallowed, but as I said just before, the risk is SMALL, slim to none.

As far as the risks, protected sex, and oral sex is VERY small. Anal sex is VERY risky, and vaginal sex is in the middle. Naturally, the LESS you are exposed to fluids, the better.

Feel free to ask questions anytime. If you leave this forum HIV negative and EDUCATED you will be MUCH better than when you got here! http://www.healthboards.com/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
Good Luck and Be Safe

Its not i in 8000 for ALL men, it is only 1 in 8000 for a vaginal encounter that a man could catch it from a woman. Up the odds if she is high risk. Up them even more if she is DEFINTLEY positive.

These statements are incorrect. The study that the 1/8,000 figure is based on included 72 HIV-positive women who were having sex with 72 HIV-negative men over 10 years. One man got HIV in the 10-year study, and the person who conducted the test suspects IV-drug use in even that one transmission.

The chance of a man getting HIV from a random unprotected vaginal-sex encounter is 1-in-50 million, based on the CDC's figures of liklihood of transmission (1/8,000) and the number of people who have HIV. (Far fewer women have HIV than do men.)

I got the 1 in 8000 figure from a reliable site, ill see if i can find it tonite. And, although its true that more men HAVE HIV than women, it IS on the rise in the female population.

It is 1/800 per contact with a known positve individual! The risk is even lower if the perosons status is unknown! this is According to Dr Nancy Padians study!

I KNOW I just read it somewhere a few days ago, that the 1 in 8000 was one time POSSIBLE exposure. I havent heard of the study sited. BUT I dont want to pass around wrong information, and I cant seem to find my source. So I respectfully retract my statment untill i can find it. Sorry for any confusion, Im still looking. Thanks guys! http://www.healthboards.com/ubb/smile.gif

The 1/8,000 odds are based on the fact that one partner IS INDEED infected w/ HIV. The random odds of being unlucky enough to actualy come into contact with an HIV+ individual is WAY to high to even calculate, unless you engage in high risk behavior such as needle sharing, and homosexual sex. Think about it this way, the CDC reports app. 1 million cases of HIV in the USA. Only 10% report heterosexual sex as route of transmission. Thats only 100,000 cases. 40% of those are female. Thats 40,000 women infected through hetero sex. Now estimate the odds of running into 1 of only 40,000 women in the ENTIRE country. Pretty slim odds. Now of course im just throwing out random numbers that are not entirerly accurate. Im just trying to make a point that we all may worry about this thing a bit to much. I would be willing to bet, if everyone one of us on this board took the test, we would ALL be negative. O, and one more thing im sure everyone already knows but i feel it necessary to repeat. The 1/8,000 odds are referring to female to male transmission. Unfortunatly male to female transmission is 8 to 10 times more efficiant.

[This message has been edited by Maximo (edited 09-20-2003).]

Maximo, for the statistics you're referring to is for a male /female sex act with or without a condom?

Kemo

Those stats refer to unproteccted sex. If used correctly, condoms all but eliminate the chance of infection. Not a 100%, but pretty damn close.

I know tha tnothng in life is 100% but where will those decimal percentages missing to get to 100% be due to if a condom is properly used? Virus could penetrate condom or any other thing like that?

just wondering...

Kemo

As you said, nothing in life is 100%. Several things could increase the risk of exposure even when condoms are used properly. Such situations could possibly include the presence of another STD, a weakened immune system, early/primary infection in partner which makes them more likly to pass on HIV. And im sure theres more.

[This message has been edited by Maximo (edited 09-20-2003).]

Found my site, and indeed I was wrong. My apologies. I must have read it wrong. I am glad there are people on this board who pay attention enough to correct mis-statments! I will pay MUCH more attention next time! LOL!

That said, Condoms are not 100%, but if you use them correctly every time, they are pretty close. STDs and HIV can not penetrate a condom, UNLESS you use Lambskin condoms. They CAN be penetrated by viruses. Part of what can contribute to them not being 100% is slippage, and breakage. And not being properly put on. But if you use a condom, correctly, it is ALMOST 100%.

------------------
Good Luck and Be Safe

Maximo's post is dead-on. To follow up on it, of those 10 percent who claim heterosexual transmission, it is rational to assume that AT LEAST SOME (if not most or all) of them are lying about how they got HIV. I don't inject drugs, but if I did, I wouldn't tell some stranger. Same with men who dabble in receptive anal sex.

The CDC unfortunately relies on new infectees' word about how they got HIV. In the early '90s, there were rigorous screening processes, and because of them, you could essentially count the number of heterosexual transmissions on two hands. When the screening processes were deemed "insensitive" and eliminated, the heterosexual-transmission numbers shot way up.

Not trying to start crap, just underlining the point that it's very, very unlikely to get HIV from heterosexual sex, especially if it's a one-time thing and especially if you're a guy.

But then again...these are factors outside the condom factor. They are elements that should be considered but how are they related to the effectivness of a condom?
I would believe that condom (except with slipage or breakage) should be evaluated for its capability of protection. The outside factors, will always be present but the condom effectiveness, could, or should not be impacted by that, right?

Kemo

Im not really sure i understand your question. I mean if your referring to JUST the condoms effectivness that would be difficult to answer. You would have to factor in the conditions that the condom was used for and factor in the possibilities associated with that behavior, if that makes any sense.

Maximo, so let's imagine a man having sex with an HIV positive woman but using a condom for vaginal sex.

In that scenario, what level of protection could we expect from the condom usage?

I read that in studies done with couples where the woman was positive and the men negative, all the data that showed men being infected were related to some kind of bad thing happening to the condom like breakage or similar. But I also hear that condoms are not 100%..

I guess that when we're dealing with statistics it is a kind of nail one issue since you can always bring new factors into account.

The 1/8000 number is a best case scenario with hypothetical factors that are "guestimated" by the researchers, because it is obviously extremely difficult, costly, and in some cases ethically unfeasible to carry out an actual LIVE test. Because of this, it's mostly likely closer to 1/800. Second, this 1/800 figure involves one person who is hiv+, not the general public as a whole. Third, why does this figure create a false sense of hope? Well, you might be glad to realize that your one time "mistake" carried only a 1/800 chance of infection, but please note that you were probably not the only person making this "mistake" : about 800 other people around the world were making the same "mistake." And out of that 800, 1 will draw the short end of the straw. Figure in the world's population at 4.5 billion(?), and you can quickly see why an epidemic is taking place. The 1/800 figure doesn't necessarily apply to one person (meaning you), but the chances that an infection will occur for every 800 people having sex with hiv+ people.

Peace, the numbers you state are not even close to correct. The CDC and many other studies have concluded that the risk of heterosexual transmission is at least 1/3,000 and that may even be too low. And that does not include the entire population. These odds represent the chances of infection if one partner is indeed infected. Calculating chances for the populatin as a whole would be something crazy like 1/several billion. I am of course referring to female to male transmission. Male to female transmission is much more efficient. HIV is VERY hard to contract. Thats why there is only about 75,000 reported cases of HIV that report heterosexual sex as route of transmission. And many believe a good deal of those are not truthful about sex lifes. I mean if i got HIV from injecting drugs, i sure as hell wouldnt admit it, would you?

I really don't see how determing statistics in relation to HIV is even possible. It really scares me when people (like the one above) say there's a one in 50 million chance of a man contracting HIV from a woman. Those numbers are probably more along the lines of the chance of catching HIV through oral sex than through unprotected intercourse! In reality, there are too many factors to even determine the chances of catching HIV. Different sex acts pose different risks, each unprotected sexual encounter increases your risk, having an STD increases your risk significantly, being of a certain race or sex increases your risk, living in a city as oppossed to a rural area increases your risk, smoking ciggarettes increases your risk! I don't see how anyone can possibly accurately determine the chances of someone contracting HIV. If your at the point where you have to use numbers like this, you should really get yourself tested.

As for the original poster, oral sex is low risk. It seems odd that it is... but that's the truth...

The only statistic I agree with is the 1 in 100 americans are infected.