A few questions

I

[H. Hunter Handsfield, M.D.]

Your risk for HIV, from the exposures you describe, is just about zero.  The risk of other STDs is extremely low, but not as low as for HIV.  Unprotected oral sex can transmit gonorrhea (uncommonly) and occasionally herpes.  Hand-to-genital contact never transmits anything. Vaginal sex with condoms is highly protective against all STDs, but less so for herpes and HPV than for gonorrhea, chlamydia, and HIV. ( I don't have any explanaton for the tingling you have after sexual exposure.  I'm an expert on STD, not on sexual functioning per se.)

Best wishes--  HHH, MD

[ryn21]

I CAN NOT COMMENT ON THE SENSITIVITY DIFFERENCES OF MALE AND FEMALE ANATOMY.  BUT I WILL HOWEVER SAY THAT YOU DONT HAVE ANY STDS.  

YOU SHOULD HAVE SENT THE $10 TO THE HURRICANE RELIEF EFFORT OR SPENT IT GETTING INTO A LOCAL STRIP CLUB.  THERE IS A MILLION OTHER USES FOR YOUR $10.

[Timoteo]

Dude, I'm just asking a few question. Lay off on telling me how to spend my money.  My concerns are valid, especially considering the risks involved.   If you want to tell how I could have spent my money better, then at least offer me an explanation of why I have no risk...okay?  Then, I'll listen up.

[ryn21]

Calm down man, it was some sarcasm to help reassure you that you are fine, as im sure the doctor and the rest of the people in here will tell you.  Sorry bro.

[Timoteo]

Question to everyone:

I have heard that anxiety can give rise to "heightened sensitivity."  For example, when people are really anxious especially over the long-run they can feel every single "noise" and tingle in the body.  Is this true?  If so, where can read about it?

[yoy]

Here is what the Doc might say-
Handjob no HIV risk or STD risk stop worrying
Oral Sex-Zero or so close to zero it does not matter risk for HIV-Other STD's would be very low risk as well
Vaginal Sex with a condom- HIV no risk, Other STD's zero or so close to zero it does not matter-
Relax

[Timoteo]

Where would the oral sex risk come from?  It is the spit/saliva juices from her mouth that will end up infecting me?  I knew I should have used a condom for her to give me a blow job!  Dang!

[yoy]

No- the saliva, alone is not infectious-it is the things in it that could be, so first to have any risk there your partner need to be infected with something.  Ok, so you are going to assume that one of your partners was infected since you don't know-
HIV has never been documented to be transmitted by oral sex to the person receiving- the sheer number of cases of HIV and you can't find one from oral.  Also, saliva has a property which seems to by itself reduce transmission.
Oral and other STDS-the risk is low-you don't give time frames for the exposures either-If it was two years ago and no symptoms that would make you think no infection.  If yesterday- any symptoms you have would be too soon.  The chances of you catching syphillis (syphilis), gonareha or chlymidia (sorry for the spelling) without symptoms at all seem remote-The experience for men is usually( for these infections) you know it when you got it.  For example, I had a friend who had was infected with Gon.  He told me about it and I said, you know I have thse strains in my udnerwear, little drips- He laughed and said, This is no drip, I need to put tissue there to catch it and it burns like hell when I urinate.  Could some other person have less noticable symtopms sure, but on average, you woudl know.
Anyway, while these things are possible, oral infections for STD like Syph, Chlam and Gon and fairly rare-so low risk-and then even if they have it you have to catch it, not all exposures cause infection again low risk- can I say No risk no and I am not a doctor, just trying to put your mind at ease.  
If you cannot get your mind to settle down, go get tested- for a young man who is sexually active, why not know for sure-test for Gon and Chlam and syph and quick and fairly inexpensive (possibly free at STD clinic and depending on your financial status) The onluy thing you have to make sure of is that your exposure was not so recent that the test won't show it.  Some infections have a longer incubation period.  So a test 1 hour after sex is worthless becasue it won't show anything.  So talk to the health care provider to know whether the timing is right.  But regardless, sound like low risk.  So, relax until the doc can verify what other members say, and if all this does not put you at ease, set up that test it will clear you head.

[freewilly]

Seems odd to ask, but is it possible to contract aids from your own hand? It seems possible, especially if anxious and with a sesitive meatus.

[JohnnyV]

Hello,

A few times on the forum there has been some debate about heterosexual HIV risk. Below is an article reviewing the figures as they could summarize them in 2004:

http://www.thebody.com/cdc/hetero_transmission.html

These statistics cover data retrieved 1999-2002, and only in 29 states. They reinforce the point that heterosexual men are at low risk in the United States, but there are some men who get infected from unprotected vaginal sex. One third of all HIV infections result from heterosexual activity, but of this 1/3, about 65% are women infected by men.

Heterosexual men account for only 1/3 of 1/3, or 1/9, of all HIV infections these days. But remember that this numbers game also exposes the fact that not all hetero men are 100% hetero, and not all gay men are 100% gay. Clearly there are some border-crosses in the mix, which is why straight women are being infected twice as much as straight men.... Heterosexual "activity" does not mean that both people in the activity are strictly heterosexual.

J

[Alias Lola]

Johnny,

How much of that 65 percent accounts for heterosexual women having sex with intravenous-drug-using men,though?  Or was that already taken into account and excluded?

[Alias Lola]

Just to clarify, I meant IDU hetero men.

[JohnnyV]

Hi,

Good question. I don't know. I'm hesitant to make too much of the racial dynamics of female HIV infections, but I think that IV drug use seems to be hitting the same communities very hard, which are also finding a higher percentage of women infected with HIV through heterosexual sex. So it's likely that a lot of their partners who infected them are IV drug users. The numbers would give me pause to assume that, though. Here's why: if 45% of new HIV infections are from male-male sex encounters and only around 10% or less are from IV drug use, then it seems that there are just so many more HIV+ males circulating who got it by having sex with men. The odds look higher that a good number of HIV+ women got infected by men who got the virus by sleeping with men.

I think we have to remember that that 1/9 of sexually transmitted cases represents men who get infected through (vaginal) sex with women. So some of the HIV+ women probably got infected by men who got infected from other women. But 1/9 is such a small fraction, it seems like a good number of HIV+ women must have gotten infected by bisexual men.

Does this make sense to you? What do you make of the numbers? I'm floundering, and trying to figure it all out because I want to be a good HIV outreach coordinator.

J

[Alias Lola]

Hi J,

You make a very good point!  I'm inclined to agree, but just wonder why the CDC can categorize new infections of MSM and MSM, who are also injection drug users, separately, but heterosexual transmission is just one category, regardless of whether or not the partner was/is an IDU.

Do I make sense?  I kind of confused myself..LOL.

But, in any event, I think you'll make an excellent outreach coordinator!!  

Good luck!
Lola