Member Comments are provided by individuals and reflect their personal opinions only. Under NO circumstances should you act on any advice or opinion posted in this forum. ALWAYS check with your personal physician before taking any action regarding your health! MedHelp International and our partners, sponsors and affiliates have no obligation to monitor any comments posted on this site, or the content and/or accuracy of such exchanges. MedHelp International does not endorse the views of any user.
HIV Prevention (Expert Forum)
Concerned about Receptive Anal
by worriednyc12345, Aug 08, 2009 03:44PM
I am a gay male and I had brief unprotected anal - maybe a couple minutes. The guy did not *** nor did i notice any precum when he pulled out. This was a couple years ago and i put off testing because I figured that it was a low risk because there was no ejaculation and i did talk to the guy a couple days after and he was equally upset and told me he was negative.
I'm concerned again because about a week ago I received a ******** from a guy and then a couple days after i had red irritation at the tip of my penis. Went to my doctor and she tested me for gonnareah, and all related stds. Not hiv though because it was just receptive oral and i told her i would do hiv test privately.
how conerned should i be about my brief receptive m2m anal sex experience with no ejaculation from someone that although it can't be proven and people don't know told me he was negative.
I'm concerned again because about a week ago I received a ******** from a guy and then a couple days after i had red irritation at the tip of my penis. Went to my doctor and she tested me for gonnareah, and all related stds. Not hiv though because it was just receptive oral and i told her i would do hiv test privately.
how conerned should i be about my brief receptive m2m anal sex experience with no ejaculation from someone that although it can't be proven and people don't know told me he was negative.
Doctor's Answer
by H. Hunter Handsfield, M.D., Aug 08, 2009 04:41PM
, Aug 08, 2009 04:41PM
Welcome to the forum.
As a man having sex with other men, even with relatively low risk encounters, you ought to be getting regular tests for HIV and common STDs. Intervals of 1-2 years make sense. On that basis alone, you should be tested soon. It's just common sense. In addition, all MSM are ethically obligated to know their HIV status with great confidence in order to discuss it with their potential partners before having sex, even when safe practices are planned.
OK, lecture over. What are the odds you were infected during the receptive anal encounter 2 years ago? Nearly zero: most men don't lie about HIV status, so your partner almost certainly wasn't infected; and the risk undoubtedly is reduced by lack of intra-rectal ejaculation. That said, nobody can guarantee your partner wasn't in the window period before a positive blood test -- which is when HIV is most readily transmitted, by far.
As far as being the insertive partner in oral sex (which is how I interpret the bleeped word), the risk is so low that some experts believe the risk to be zero; and all experts believe it is exceedingly low, with data from CDC suggesting an average transmission chance of once for every 20,000 exposures. (That's equivalent to receiving a ** once daily by infected men for 55 years and maybe never getting infected.)
Certain STDs, on the other hand, are fairly common after oral sex. However, it is rare for any STD to cause symptoms only 2 days later. Gonorrhea or herpes are possibilities; the others that can be acquired from a partner's mouth (like nongonococcal urethritis [NGU] typically don't have symptoms before 5-7 days and often up to 2 weeks. Some sort of physical irritation seems more likely. That said, it was smart for you to be examined. Most likely your gonorrhea test will be negative. If not, or if your symptoms persist, continue to work with your doctor about alternative causes.
As implied above, I would have advised you to have the HIV test your doctor recommended. In my opinion, there is no valid reason to have HIV testing done "privately", i.e. separate from general medical care. If the result is negative, who cares that it's on your record? Having a negative HIV test stopped being a true cause of discrmination 20 years ago. And if the result were positive, of course you doctor has to know in order to recommend other tests, treatment, etc. It is not possible to get anonymous care for HIV.
Bottom line: It is extremely unlikely you have HIV from either of the sexual encounters described here. (You don't say what if any other exposures there might have been over the past 2 years.) But for the reasons stated above, you should be tested.
I hope this helps. And please do get into the "do ask, do tell" habit. In the long run, open exchange of HIV information, before having sex with a new partner, is just as important a safe sex strategy as condoms for anal sex.
Regards-- HHH, MD
As a man having sex with other men, even with relatively low risk encounters, you ought to be getting regular tests for HIV and common STDs. Intervals of 1-2 years make sense. On that basis alone, you should be tested soon. It's just common sense. In addition, all MSM are ethically obligated to know their HIV status with great confidence in order to discuss it with their potential partners before having sex, even when safe practices are planned.
OK, lecture over. What are the odds you were infected during the receptive anal encounter 2 years ago? Nearly zero: most men don't lie about HIV status, so your partner almost certainly wasn't infected; and the risk undoubtedly is reduced by lack of intra-rectal ejaculation. That said, nobody can guarantee your partner wasn't in the window period before a positive blood test -- which is when HIV is most readily transmitted, by far.
As far as being the insertive partner in oral sex (which is how I interpret the bleeped word), the risk is so low that some experts believe the risk to be zero; and all experts believe it is exceedingly low, with data from CDC suggesting an average transmission chance of once for every 20,000 exposures. (That's equivalent to receiving a ** once daily by infected men for 55 years and maybe never getting infected.)
Certain STDs, on the other hand, are fairly common after oral sex. However, it is rare for any STD to cause symptoms only 2 days later. Gonorrhea or herpes are possibilities; the others that can be acquired from a partner's mouth (like nongonococcal urethritis [NGU] typically don't have symptoms before 5-7 days and often up to 2 weeks. Some sort of physical irritation seems more likely. That said, it was smart for you to be examined. Most likely your gonorrhea test will be negative. If not, or if your symptoms persist, continue to work with your doctor about alternative causes.
As implied above, I would have advised you to have the HIV test your doctor recommended. In my opinion, there is no valid reason to have HIV testing done "privately", i.e. separate from general medical care. If the result is negative, who cares that it's on your record? Having a negative HIV test stopped being a true cause of discrmination 20 years ago. And if the result were positive, of course you doctor has to know in order to recommend other tests, treatment, etc. It is not possible to get anonymous care for HIV.
Bottom line: It is extremely unlikely you have HIV from either of the sexual encounters described here. (You don't say what if any other exposures there might have been over the past 2 years.) But for the reasons stated above, you should be tested.
I hope this helps. And please do get into the "do ask, do tell" habit. In the long run, open exchange of HIV information, before having sex with a new partner, is just as important a safe sex strategy as condoms for anal sex.
Regards-- HHH, MD
Member Comments (3)
by worriednyc12345, Aug 08, 2009 08:34PM
To: HHH
Thank you. One follow is do you believe hiv tranmission is a real risk when only pre-*** is present?
by H. Hunter Handsfield, M.D., Aug 08, 2009 11:54PM
, Aug 08, 2009 11:54PM
There are no data on transmission rates through exposure to pre-ejaculate fluid. Logically, the risk is lower than for semen exposure, but nobody knows for sure.
