Let me assure you if you're anything like me the only that will assure your mind is a neg test result at 6 weeks - 3 mths. You will continue to have the what ifs no matter how many of your questions are answered. Just go look at the doc forums, the people keep questioning and questioning..its insanity. Its normal to have this fear but nothing you can do but get a test , which I am sure will be negative.
Sorry to take up this thread again and invading it! just want to know if Vaughany is sure in what he is saying:
"Did you have a HUGE, GAPING, PROFUSELY BLEEDING wound as trivial cuts and scrapes do not pose a risk for hiv. "
&
"HIV does not enter through tiny scrapes on the skin."
I have seen Teak also saying something like that in following thread: "That untill the cut is not so big which needs a stitch, it would not have even minute chance to get exposed"
Can some one more please comment? I am somehow had same exposure and the information in my own thread is not well discussed.
This is my last "what-if" !!
Thanks!
HIV does not enter through tiny scrapes on the skin. It enters through the mucous membranes on the head of the penis. If the head of the penis was covered completely, the sex was protected.
Thanks for your reply! Sorry for another question. Is there any explanation on that? Why small (2mm) cuts, quite open, red and burning are not a possible route for the virus while entering vagina? What's the difference between them and urerta?
How about the lenght of ARS fever?
Did you have a HUGE, GAPING, PROFUSELY BLEEDING wound as trivial cuts and scrapes do not pose a risk for hiv.
as long your head of penis was covered, then your are in the clear..
you cant get hiv by the method you suggested..