Recently bottomed for someone HIV+

sxjTheFirst

Loved Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Posts
514
Media
98
Likes
716
Points
423
Age
47
Location
Sydney, New South Wales, AU
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I have engaged in some risky behavior when I was younger but none of them were HIV+ so I was lucky. Don't worry too much get tested etc. And try to get your sex appetite fed regularly ...speaking for myself I have done stupid stuff the more deprived of sex I was at the time. Posting craigslist ads is one of them!
 

sumyungguy

Admired Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Posts
407
Media
0
Likes
910
Points
348
Location
United States
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Wow, so glad you were smart about it and used protection, AND I'm glad you're getting tested. Even if people do use condoms its wise to get tested every so often, just to be sure. I NEVER put 100% faith in condoms. The risk of getting HIV is slim with condoms, but there is always a risk when you engage in sexual relations with anyone. Most people don't know that you can still get Herpes even with a condom, all it requires is contact with an open sore.

This guy should fry for what he did. He should have been MUCH more responsible than he was, especially for his age. Still, I doubt you have a case in court against him unfortunately, especially if you don't have HIV. Most of the HIV-criminal transmission laws are for people who know they have it and don't tell their partner and then "transmit" it. You'd have to have proof that you got HIV. I'm so hoping you don't have it, that's much more important than you winning in court.
 

sexplease

Cherished Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Posts
1,706
Media
5
Likes
257
Points
303
Location
Santa Monica (California, United States)
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
since no test is %100 accurate...

HIV test - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"...the use of repeatedly reactive enzyme immunoassay followed by confirmatory Western blot or immunofluorescent assay remains the standard method for diagnosing HIV-1 infection. A large study of HIV testing in 752 U.S. laboratories reported a sensitivity of 99.7% and specificity of 98.5% for enzyme immunoassay, and studies in U.S. blood donors reported specificities of 99.8% and greater than 99.99%. With confirmatory Western blot, the chance of a false-positive identification in a low-prevalence setting is about 1 in 250 000 (95% CI, 1 in 173 000 to 1 in 379 000)."

With this percent - not being zero (0), the FDA will never allow homosexuals to donate blood.
I have a friend who works for the FDA and she confirmed this.
 

B_Nicodemous

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Posts
4,366
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
73
Sexuality
No Response
since no test is %100 accurate...

HIV test - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"...the use of repeatedly reactive enzyme immunoassay followed by confirmatory Western blot or immunofluorescent assay remains the standard method for diagnosing HIV-1 infection. A large study of HIV testing in 752 U.S. laboratories reported a sensitivity of 99.7% and specificity of 98.5% for enzyme immunoassay, and studies in U.S. blood donors reported specificities of 99.8% and greater than 99.99%. With confirmatory Western blot, the chance of a false-positive identification in a low-prevalence setting is about 1 in 250 000 (95% CI, 1 in 173 000 to 1 in 379 000)."

With this percent - not being zero (0), the FDA will never allow homosexuals to donate blood.
I have a friend who works for the FDA and she confirmed this.

Which i think is complete supidity. Cuz everyone knows that all gays are having multipartner bareback orgies 24/7 whilst doing lines of coke with one bloody straw, and sharing IV needles, and all heterosare in totally monogomous relationships, and nerver have ever experimented with any one who has engaged in risky behavior of any sort and always wait till marriage to do the deed.:rolleyes: I know people of the straight self confirmed sluts who, while practising safer sex, still have a diff parenter each night, and they donate blood. Sheesh!
 

jdoe86

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Posts
3,344
Media
177
Likes
4,020
Points
693
Location
Sunnyvale (California, United States)
Sexuality
60% Straight, 40% Gay
Gender
Male
Please get tested ASAP and have follow-ups regularly. Most doctors will start you on a regiment of HIV meds to help prevent the HIV virus of gaining a hold in your body. I am not a doctor, but the research I've done for school has shown that this is the most effective was to lower your chances of getting infected once you've been exposed. Also, makes you wonder why he wanted to "sound" you (sounding is the act of inserting metal rods into the urethra). Was he trying to infect you? If you believe he was intentionally trying to infect you, then you need to contact your local law enforcement.
 

Dicklicker1

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2009
Posts
283
Media
7
Likes
10
Points
163
Location
Monroe (New York, United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Always protect yourself at all times, people will lie to get a free ride. Close to 95% of people will not tell you straight up that they are infected until the sex been done and a bond been formed between you and the new love.....

When I got infected, it was from my best friend and he did not give me a choice to know his health status until he was laid up in the hospital and I routinely got negative screening until he finally came clean to me and the damage been done. Now these days my partners are few and I tell EVERYONE before we engage in sex!

HIV ends by me!
And what this means, I refuse to let another person get infected because of not telling of my status!

If you BB for the first time, both of you get tested at the same time, twice to make sure you both are clean, play hard, play safe and trust is most important.

Remember, it only take one time for one girl/woman to get pregnant and one time to get infected with a STD!

I like to thank everyone for giving this young man great information and those who are new and wonder what to do will learn from this posting!
Pass it on!
 

monel

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Posts
1,638
Media
0
Likes
50
Points
183
Gender
Male
If I could I would post the news link but a German man has been cured of HIV by a bone marrow transplant from one of the 1% of the population immune to the virus. Finally real hope for a real cure.
 
Last edited:

SCSea

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2008
Posts
194
Media
0
Likes
63
Points
248
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Wow.

First. HIV is comparatively hard to catch; Hep A/B are a lot easier, Hep C somewhat easier. Not to get crude about this, but given that Hep A has a fecal/oral transmission route and Hep B is easy to catch from exposures to small amounts of blood, get the Hep A/B vaccine. Three shots, months apart, a lifetime of protection.

Now, let's talk numbers.

For about the last ten years, studies on HIV exposure in buttsecks have consistently estimated your risk of infection from a *single episode* of taking a load up your ass at 1.4%. Meaning, if 100,000 guys take a load from a known-poz guy who is not in treatment, 1400 of them will be infected.

So, just on the odds, if you'd taken his load raw, you'd be looking at a 98.6% likelihood that everything is fine.

You didn't take his load. If protection is as little as 90% effective, that would cut the rate to .14%, or a 99.86% chance everything is fine. Or, in those 100,000 guys, 140 or so would be infected.

He says he's on HAART and undetectable. There've been a bunch of studies on that case recently. The benefits of treatment are estimated to be somewhere between a 96% and 99.9% reduction in risk from a single load.

What this means to you is that of those 100,000 guys? The worst case is 6 infections, the more optimistic number is less than 1. In fact, to get a 50:50 chance of a *single* guy in a group getting infected from a single encounter with a poz guy ejaculating in their ass with a condom, you'd need something close to 250,000 guys to each be exposed. And that's with a low factor of protection. Boost the condom to 99% efficacy, and you'd be at 2.5 million safe encounters with a HAART-treated poz guy who is undetectable before you hit 50:50 odds that *one* got infected.

So,OP, you should feel OK about your odds. Test on your regular schedule, but there's essentially zero chance this was a problem.

Incidentally, these numbers aren't out of my ass:

Baggaley RF et al. HIV transmission risk through anal intercourse: systematic review, meta-analysis and implications for HIV prevention. Int J Epidemiol (online edition), doi:10.1093/ije/dyq057

Grulich AE and Zablotska I. Commentary: Probability of HIV transmission through anal intercourse. Int J Epidemiol (online edition), doi:10.1093/ije/dyq101

Now, about PEP: for *semen* from a known-poz partner, if therapy is started within 72 hours (and 24 is better!), you can probably reduce transmission risk by about 75%. But let's look at what that means....

If those same 100,000 guys each took a load from a HAART user, raw, the estimated rate of infection would be .0011%, or, 1.1 conversions. PEP would drop that rate to 0.000825. So, for everybody saying you should run out and get PEP, I'd say "Wow, is it really worth the wear and tear on your body and the substantial expense to go from a 99.9989% chance that everything is fine to a 99.999175 chance?"

It's your body, you can make your own decisions, but from what poz friends tell me about HAART, it's no picnic. One swears he thinks he'll never take a solid dump again.

Needlesticks are a whole 'nother ballgame, whether from sharing works or occupational exposures. And repeated exposures change the game, too: 1000 loads from the same poz partner would raise the risk of infection to 46.5% with HAART and 1.1% without, and it may be legit to take PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis), if you're going to be in a relationship where you take it raw with a known-poz partner who isn't great about taking their meds regularly. Studies aren't conclusive yet, but among people who take the meds near-perfectly *before exposure*, it's 99%+ effective at preventing infection. Again, side effect and expense are very real.

Play safe, have open and honest discussions about sexual health, but don't freak out too much. In urban areas, adult gay men have infection rates well over 20%. If it were easy to catch, there simply wouldn't be any uninfected gay men...or, for that matter, many gay men left at all. Odds are pretty good that someone you find attractive and interesting and enticing is gonna be poz, and not all of them are douchecanoes like this one. Don't write them all off - just the asshats.

E
 

sexplease

Cherished Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Posts
1,706
Media
5
Likes
257
Points
303
Location
Santa Monica (California, United States)
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Wow.

"First. HIV is comparatively hard to catch; Hep A/B are a lot easier, Hep C somewhat easier. Not to get crude about this, but given that Hep A has a fecal/oral transmission route and Hep B is easy to catch from exposures to small amounts of blood, get the Hep A/B vaccine. Three shots, months apart, a lifetime of protection".

You must get tested for immunization success after the course of inoculations. ~%20 of peoples immune systems do NOT recognize the inactive virus in the shots and they do not build an immunity to Hep A or Hep B.

If such is the case, have the course of shots again until your body does build an immunity.
 

Absolutfun

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
77
Media
3
Likes
41
Points
163
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Life offers very few guarantees, but I'm pretty sure that you are not at any great risk in this situation. There have been some great responses in this thread and I would encourage the OP to learn from the experience and move forward with his life. The person he had sex with is probably not doing that well emotionally and we don't know his story. Compassion is a much more powerful and healing weapon than anger and judgment. Ultimately we have to be responsible for our choices and there will always be risks involved with sex as well as crossing the street. We just have to be as educated as possible and try to be awake so we can make smart choices. Judging oneself or others really does no good, but talking openly helps someone feel safer to come out with the truth. Most people fear rejection as it is and HIV may make that even more challenging to handle psychologically and emotionally. Laws to penalize HIV-positive people will just make the situation worse for everyone. Until the HIV stigma is gone, we need to treat people with kindness first of all and do our best to understand where they are coming from. This is not an endorsement of his behavior, but a suggestion for meeting such behavior in a way that will allow for a real change.
 

BBB2.5

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Posts
9,136
Media
127
Likes
18,524
Points
468
Age
58
Location
Unadilla, Georgia, United States
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Life offers very few guarantees, but I'm pretty sure that you are not at any great risk in this situation. There have been some great responses in this thread and I would encourage the OP to learn from the experience and move forward with his life. The person he had sex with is probably not doing that well emotionally and we don't know his story. Compassion is a much more powerful and healing weapon than anger and judgment. Ultimately we have to be responsible for our choices and there will always be risks involved with sex as well as crossing the street. We just have to be as educated as possible and try to be awake so we can make smart choices. Judging oneself or others really does no good, but talking openly helps someone feel safer to come out with the truth. Most people fear rejection as it is and HIV may make that even more challenging to handle psychologically and emotionally. Laws to penalize HIV-positive people will just make the situation worse for everyone. Until the HIV stigma is gone, we need to treat people with kindness first of all and do our best to understand where they are coming from. This is not an endorsement of his behavior, but a suggestion for meeting such behavior in a way that will allow for a real change.

EXCELLENT......:biggrin1:
 

Branleur49008

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Posts
152
Media
1
Likes
26
Points
103
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Kurtis, I think you can breathe a little easy knowing that you used a condom. The best thing you can do going forward is to assume that anyone you have sex with might be positive and take appropriate measures to ensure that your risk is as low as possible. It sounds like you did just that. Don't trust casual hookups to be truthful about their status. Keep yourself protected. And if you are not sure how to keep yourself protected, you need to find out how.
 

takinbigguns

1st Like
Joined
May 5, 2011
Posts
12
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
36
Sexuality
No Response
undetectable does NOT decrease the chance of spreading the virus or contracting hiv. it is still there and just as dangerous. test every three months. talk to a counselor at the clinic you go to, that will help immensely. Im glad that you insisted on a condom. you cannot trust anyone but yourself with your life.
 

Autofellatio

Loved Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Posts
429
Media
88
Likes
535
Points
423
Location
Malaysia
Verification
View
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
WRONG. Yes...it does. Especially if the undetectable nature of the virus is due to being on medication. I hate it when misinformed people spew their crap about HIV.

While some posters have already clarified it, maybe it's best to bump the point - HIV needs to get into the bloodstream to infect a person. So for the poster who mentioned getting HIV from giving a blowjob, I think it's unlikely unless the fellator had oral ulcers or some other means for the virus to enter the bloodstream.

I apologize in advance if any of the statements that follow are erroneous - my knowledge of HIV was basic at best, coupled with a college-level education in biology. However, I have been sticking by these few bits of knowledge ever since I acquired them, and I guess there's no real harm in them, ultimately.

With regards to the virus' infectious nature, what I do recall from my biology classes is that (1) it is somewhat mutagenic in nature, and (2) it can remain dormant in a host for certain periods of time. If I recall correctly, the reason why there isn't a cure for HIV is because it keeps changing - so the vaccines/medications keep getting left behind as it mutates. Dormancy merely means that symptoms might not immediately manifest themselves (as mentioned by some previous posters, there's a window of time for medication to be most effective).

Assuming the tests for HIV are testing for a specific antigen or antibody produced in response to that antigen, it stands to reason that if the virus changed, the tests could turn out a false negative.

(Just as some extra stuff, I remember my biology teacher mentioning that the changing nature of HIV could be understood by designating it as a colored ball - a vaccine might be targeted towards a blue ball, but if the virus changes itself to another color, the vaccine would be ineffective).

So while the person might have claimed to be 'undetectable', there is a minute chance that he might still be a danger to unprotected partners (minute because the rate of viral change is probably insignificant when put against the reliability factor of the tests when considered on a small-scale basis).

Medication that can make a person undetectable, would probably reduce but not completely eliminate the risk of infection - undetectable could also mean that there wasn't enough virus in the sampled material to generate a positive result. Highly unlikely that this might happen, given the sensitivity of tests these days, I guess.

In the end, I guess that natural paranoia also comes into play - most people probably wouldn't regard the viral changes as a risk, but I do :p
 

TomCat84

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Posts
3,414
Media
4
Likes
173
Points
148
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
While some posters have already clarified it, maybe it's best to bump the point - HIV needs to get into the bloodstream to infect a person. So for the poster who mentioned getting HIV from giving a blowjob, I think it's unlikely unless the fellator had oral ulcers or some other means for the virus to enter the bloodstream.

I apologize in advance if any of the statements that follow are erroneous - my knowledge of HIV was basic at best, coupled with a college-level education in biology. However, I have been sticking by these few bits of knowledge ever since I acquired them, and I guess there's no real harm in them, ultimately.

With regards to the virus' infectious nature, what I do recall from my biology classes is that (1) it is somewhat mutagenic in nature, and (2) it can remain dormant in a host for certain periods of time. If I recall correctly, the reason why there isn't a cure for HIV is because it keeps changing - so the vaccines/medications keep getting left behind as it mutates. Dormancy merely means that symptoms might not immediately manifest themselves (as mentioned by some previous posters, there's a window of time for medication to be most effective).

Assuming the tests for HIV are testing for a specific antigen or antibody produced in response to that antigen, it stands to reason that if the virus changed, the tests could turn out a false negative.

(Just as some extra stuff, I remember my biology teacher mentioning that the changing nature of HIV could be understood by designating it as a colored ball - a vaccine might be targeted towards a blue ball, but if the virus changes itself to another color, the vaccine would be ineffective).

So while the person might have claimed to be 'undetectable', there is a minute chance that he might still be a danger to unprotected partners (minute because the rate of viral change is probably insignificant when put against the reliability factor of the tests when considered on a small-scale basis).

Medication that can make a person undetectable, would probably reduce but not completely eliminate the risk of infection - undetectable could also mean that there wasn't enough virus in the sampled material to generate a positive result. Highly unlikely that this might happen, given the sensitivity of tests these days, I guess.

In the end, I guess that natural paranoia also comes into play - most people probably wouldn't regard the viral changes as a risk, but I do :p

I appreciate your attempt at injecting knowledge into the debate, but I know what I'm talking about. Extensive research indicates that if someone is undetectable AND on medication, the risk of infection is pretty much zero. Science being what it is, it is NOT zero, but the risk would be the same as getting struck by lightning. Viral mutations have nothing to do with it.