IF SOMEONE HAD A RISK AND NEEDED TESTING (which you did not) either test would be fine.
a test done at 6-8 weeks gives a good indication of someone's status...but 3 months is conclusive.
ONCE AGAIN...YOU WERE NEVER AT RISK. HIV TRANSMISSION REQUIRES PENETRATION.
Is there any difference in the elisa and the rapid hiv test? As I mentioned earlier, I don;t know much about these things.. I guess what I mean is the rapid hiv test more sensative that the regular test you would go get and what is the wait time on the rapid?
"He stated my condom came off, but I did not enter him."
you were NOT at risk...testing is not needed.
Did you have penetrative anal sex or not?
Is there any difference in testing for elisa or rapid hiv test? Is the Rapid any better? Don;t know much about the testing procedures?
If you didn't have penetrative anal sex you didn't have a risk.
I had anal sex with a guy, I was not the "Preformer, not recepiant". He stated my condom came off, but I did not enter him. I must of brushed up against his rectum, though. He stated he had not been with a guy in almost a year and that he took an hiv test about 9 mos ago, which was negative. This occured between 11 and 14 days ago. Is there any difference between a reg. hiv test and a rapid hiv test? Thanks for your help