Your risk is pretty low, since penetration was protected. Its still possible, but without symptoms, I don't see a big need to test.
You wouldn't get symptoms of HIV in 3 months - you'd test positive if you had it. It could be years and years before you'd get symptoms of HIV, and what you did is really low risk for HIV - I wouldn't worry about that at all.
Oh and you'd get symptoms of other things - discharge, sores, etc - typically within a few days to a few months.
So if I got a HIV test few days after the encounter, they would be able to give me an answer? or just STD test?
HIV can take up to 3 months to become positive, and you won't know 2 days later. If you test now, you'll have to test again in a few months.
An STD test at 2 days is also too early. It can take a week to show a positive on gonorrhea, chlamydia and NGU testing, 6 weeks for syphilis, and 4 months for herpes.
In your honest opinion, does it seem like I'm in risk of either STD or HIV?
If so, which would I have risked more by my actions? STD or HIV?
I'd say very very low risk of HIV - you had protected sex, and most people don't have HIV. In the US and other developed countries, its less than 1%.
I'd say an std is more likely, but still pretty low risk, as I said before.