Approximately 12 hours ago I had unprotected oral sex & sex with a brothel worker for half an hour. I would speculate and say she is in her late 30s. I asked her how long she was doing this job for and she said for the past 2 months. She told me that she gets tested once a week but HIV doesn't show up until at least 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months etc so say she contracted HIV from someone last week, would it still be transmissible or is it only until it shows up in a blood test that it is contagious?
Now I know it was a stupid decision but how likely do you think it would be that I have contracted HIV from this single encounter with her? I'm not too sure if she has HIV or not, especially considering she is a brothel worker but her willingness to have unprotected sex makes me wonder how many other guys she has had unprotected sex with too. Then again, how likely would it be that brothel workers are allowed to work in a brothel with an STI, especially considering this is in Australia. Ive been doing a little research as i am extremely paranoid at the moment, and it seems as though the chances of contracting HIV even if she was positive are something like 1 in 1000 or something?
Also, would it be worthy going to get one of those PEP tablets to help me reduce the risk of getting HIV? Am i being over paranoid or?
Well HIV is not a viable risk through oral sex. In 30 years their are no reLiable reported cases of HIV in this manner and that's from billions and billions of acts every year. Unless she had blood pouring from her mouth, which she didn't then you will never at risk, so worry no more your fine. You want to test at 2 weeks for std's but that about
__________________
“Morality is only moral when it is voluntary.”
"Being defeated is only a temporary condition; giving up is what makes it permanent".
The Following User Says Thank You to Apollo123 For This Useful Post: Jerry8771 (04-08-2012)
Thank you for the reply. I also had unprotected sexual intercourse and had *** in her. How likely do you think I would have contracted something based on this?
Sorry jerry I'm on a I phone didn't se that. Well your certainly at risk and you will need to test. Due to the early time scale of the exposure you could concider taking pep, their is sticky at the top of this thread. It's somthing you would need to talk to a doctor about and it's a last resort medication
__________________
“Morality is only moral when it is voluntary.”
"Being defeated is only a temporary condition; giving up is what makes it permanent".
I know I would be at risk, however how likely would you say it would be that I have contracted something if say she was HIV+? Are the stats on my favor? Isn't it a legal requirement that these ladies get tested regularly, and if she did have something, it would make sense if they did not let her work?
Also, say she came into contact with someone with HIV last week, and she turned out HIV+, could I still get infected even though it is indetectable in her bloodstream?
Yes there are statistics knocking around the net. Statically the odds of being infected through a one time exposure with somebody who as HIV are about 1000 to 1. Personally I do not go with odds and statistics, they are for betting shops and the do not determine an HIV status. Just because the odds are so high it does not mean somebody cannot get infected though a one night stand. It does happen, I have seen it happen. If you enaged in unprotetced vaginal sex with somebody who's status is unknown you may have put yourself at risk.
A person who is newly infected is far more infectious than somebody who as had HIV for a long time. What may not be detected in a newly infected person is the HIV antibodies; it does not mean that the virus itself is not present. Viral loads are far higher in newly infected people.
Buddy there is no getting away from this; you may have put yourself at a risk of an HIV infection. Of course that risk is only there if she actually had HIV, which is not likely. As you rightly point out, sex workers do tend to take their sexual health seriously and test regularly. Sorry, there is no legal requirement for anybody to declare their HIV status to you. Buddy it is not somebody’s HIV status that puts anybody at risk. It is the actions that you took of you own free will, that may have put you at risk.
Despite the odds and the fact that transmission of HIV from a female to a male is the hardness route of all for HIV, there is a risk here mate. Yes, it is small but it is there never the less.
Kevin.
Last edited by blokecalledkev; 04-08-2012 at 05:37 AM.
Reason: typos and added.
The Following User Says Thank You to blokecalledkev For This Useful Post: Jerry8771 (04-12-2012)
Penny, I went to the Dr to get a blood/urine test for STIs and asked about it - he said they didn't have it. Anyway, my blood/urine test results came back all fine.
Thank you for the reply blokecalledkev. I have learn't a few lessons that I will not make again. Hopefully I have not acquired any HIV as a result of this encounter. In Australia, legally she would have had to inform me that she was HIV positive before having sex, however she did not and sex workers in Australia are pretty clean (according to research).
All in all, assuming that she is HIV+ and although I understand that this is a high risk behaviour that I have engaged in, would you agree in saying that I am highly unlikely to contract HIV+ based on my situation? It hasn't even been a week and already im getting flu like symptoms - I don't think its from this situation but it does make me wonder, what if.
Ok buddy whether there is or not a legal requirement in Australia for prostitutes to declare their HIV status to their clients beforehand or not is actually irrelevant at this moment in time. I don’t think there is but hey if you say there is so be it. It makes zero difference to your situation. Which is, that you had unprotected sex with somebody who’s HIV status is unknown. This has put you at a risk of an HIV infection.
Buddy, nobody online is going to guess for you, nobody online will ever do such a thing. An HIV status should never be guessed at. The only way for you to find out if you acquired HIV from this is to have an HIV test. The risk is there, mate, it may very well be small, but it is there. Regardless of the legal requirements, you have put yourself at this risk(all be it very small) and you have to now focus on determining your own status, which is now unknown.
Forget symptoms please. The fact you have got a cold means exactly the same as if you had not a got a cold. Zero. HIV is not determined by the amount or lack of symptoms a person may or may not have. It is determined one way and one way only, by an HIV test. You should have one at six weeks and then have the result confirmed at 12 weeks.
Kevin.
Last edited by blokecalledkev; 04-12-2012 at 12:41 PM.
Reason: added
Just one more thing - How many people do you know of that are HIV+ from a one time exposure through vaginal sex from female to male? Thanks once again & god bless.
Well thats impossible to answer, although the odds are in your favour, somthing like 1000 -1, and some say thats conservative. Take in mind the other person has to have HIV in the first place and that alone is very unlikley and in your country its less that 1%.
__________________
“Morality is only moral when it is voluntary.”
"Being defeated is only a temporary condition; giving up is what makes it permanent".
The Following User Says Thank You to Apollo123 For This Useful Post: Jerry8771 (04-19-2012)
Buddy it does not matter how many or how few people get HIV from a onetime exposure, ok? This has all been explained to you on another HIV forum, where you are asking the same questions.
Odds, statistic and whatever else you wish to fill your posts with will not determine your HIV status, an HIV test does. You have put yourself at risk, it is low but it is not zero. Because you have put yourself at a risk you will have to test out for HIV.
Yes it is highly unlikely you will test positive from this, but it is not impossible. No matter how many different ways you look at this and no matter how many odds and statistics you throw in, it does not alter the very fundamental and basic fact. You had unprotected vaginal sex with somebody who’s HIV status is unknown; therefore you have put yourself at a risk of an HIV infection. Just because hundreds, if not thousands, if not millions even, do the same and may not get infected does not mean that your risk is any less or greater than it was.
Kevin.
The Following User Says Thank You to blokecalledkev For This Useful Post: Jerry8771 (04-19-2012)
For every person in the world who catches HIV in that situation there are probably 100 who get hit by a bus as they're leaving the brothel (but you probably weren't too anxious about that, were you?). While it only takes one time, most people who contract HIV have multiple (tens, hundreds, thousands) high risk exposures- spouses of infected partners often remain uninfected. It isn't nearly as common and efficiently transmitted as your garden variety STDs (e.g. chlamydia, gonorrhea) which are far, far more likely, so don't forget to test for those.
The Following User Says Thank You to joggen For This Useful Post: Jerry8771 (04-19-2012)
Thanks for the replies - I will go get tested sometime in 2-4 weeks. I have also tried to avoid asking stupid questions but just one more quick one....
Assuming that she has only been recently infected with HIV (sometime in the last 12 weeks), I have read that I would be at a MUCH HIGHER (those were the exact words used) risk of contracting HIV. But how much higher would my risk be? Would it still be classified as a low or high chance of contracting HIV based on this one exposure during a time where the virus would be 'highly' more infectious? Thank you
The odds of her being recently infected and you being the one guy who gets it from her are so flipping low that it's not even worth asking! I'm no statistician, in fact I really hate math in all it's forms, but even I know the odds of that are slim to none. You're not being logical at all if you think that's what happened to you. If you really believe it is possible, you may as well go buy a lottery ticket now cause you'll win millions of dollars in the lotto before your scenario actually came true.
Assuming that she has only been recently infected with HIV (sometime in the last 12 weeks), I have read that I would be at a MUCH HIGHER (those were the exact words used) risk of contracting HIV. But how much higher would my risk be? Would it still be classified as a low or high chance of contracting HIV based on this one exposure during a time where the virus would be 'highly' more infectious? Thank you
Buddy, please stop doing this. Trying to add ifs, buts, speculation and assumptions in order to try and fine tune your risk will not happen. You have put yourself at risk, period. No amount of “what if”, “maybe that” or “lets assume this” will ever alter this.
You were advised of the exact same thing on another HIV forum, along with a threat of a suspension if you continued. This is not how it works here but members can and often do stop responding to wild speculation and assumptions.
What is not speculation nor an assumption is that you have unprotected vaginal sex with somebody who’s HIV status is unknown. What is equally not speculation is that the only way to now determine your HIV status is to have an HIV test at the appropriate time. You can speculate and assume from now until that time arrives if you wish, it will not make the slightest difference to the outcome of your HIV test. Which, as stated, in all probability will be negative.
All im going to say and its what i said before, you had a risk and you need to test, thats its mate, end of story.What is done is done and none of this speculation will change your status.
__________________
“Morality is only moral when it is voluntary.”
"Being defeated is only a temporary condition; giving up is what makes it permanent".
It has been 3 weeks, and nearing 4 weeks since my possible exposure to HIV. I will go and get tested at the 30 day mark as I have read that this is 90-95% (is this true?) accurate, which if negative, will ease my mind a lot.
As much as symptoms go, I know that you cannot diagnose HIV via symptoms but it must be encouraging (don't jinx it) that I have not yet suffered any of the common symptoms of ARS - fever, headaches, enlarged lymph nodes and night sweats. However, I have always been getting a bit of body rash and at present still have it but I have been suffering from this well before this possible exposure.
I cannot believe how much I am worrying over this considering I also had unprotected sex (not as long as this unprotected exposure though, maybe for a few minutes maximum and as I didn't feel comfortable having sex without a condom, I withdrew and told her I had to use a condom) last year with random females of unknown HIV status but didn't worry about it then (and she was from a high prevalence country of HIV when I think about it and she also had bleeding as I found blood on the condom and on the bed) but I think the main reason for concern here is obviously it was a high risk activity but I was more so surprised by her willingness to have unprotected sex with a random being me.... Just think about it, if she was willing to have automatic unprotected with me, how many other people that pay her to have sex with her was she willing to do the same thing to? (I got tested 3 weeks ago, and came back negative with all STI's although I have a red slightly elevated bump on my penis at the moment - although it doesn't look like genital herpes, it very well could be and i will need to get it checked it - I had a similar bump before this exposure to this brothel worker but fro some reason the doctor didn't test me for genital herpes or genital warts in the blood test).
Anyway, just felt like letting a few things out but as you guys point out, I would be 99.9% unlikely I think to have contracted HIV from this exposure and I will keep you posted after I get tested. If I test negative at 4 weeks, would it be a very high chance that I will test negative again at 3 months? Cheers
Best of luck with the test mate. A test of that time scale would indeed be close to the figures your quoted. If anything it will ease your mind to some extent
__________________
“Morality is only moral when it is voluntary.”
"Being defeated is only a temporary condition; giving up is what makes it permanent".
Best of luck with the test mate. A test of that time scale would indeed be close to the figures your quoted. If anything it will ease your mind to some extent
Thanks mate. And would you also agree that I am 99.9% likely to test negative. I hope you are right
