Hiv question

Hi guys,i went to GL for a CBJ,was my first time.It was only a CBJ at one of the houses,the legal one. That was my only sexual encounter,i went for a HIV test 165 days after exposure,that is like 5 months odd. It was negative.

Do i need to test at 180 days? Some people say you must as some get detected only at 180 days,whereas some say you none need. Im quite confused.

Basically my questions are:

1.Do i need to test at 180 days?
2.Why do some people only get detected at 180 days? Is it cos they have a better immune system or smth?
3.The house i went to,there were only 2 girls,is it a concern?
4.Recently been having some pain on penis,could it be due to any STD? Ive been tested negative for all STDs though.

Thanks alot guys.Really appreciate your help

[samfan]

Originally Posted by anfieldheroez

Hi guys,i went to GL for a CBJ,was my first time.It was only a CBJ at one of the houses,the legal one. That was my only sexual encounter,i went for a HIV test 165 days after exposure,that is like 5 months odd. It was negative.

If a "CBJ" was your only risk of exposure, why did you even went for a HIV test in the first place? Unprotected blow job carries a low risk of transmission, and a protected BJ carries 0 risk.

Read the thread in my signature to educate yourself on HIV transmission risks through safer sex.

To answer your question, you didn't need that test in the first place, so neither do you need to re-test again.

On the other hand, safe house or not, the risks are the same. Under most circumstances, seroconversion takes place within 3 months. Unless your exposure level is high (lacerating wounds), then a 6th month re-test is recommended to be sure.

[AfA_hmor]

Originally Posted by samfan

If a "CBJ" was your only risk of exposure, why did you even went for a HIV test in the first place? Unprotected blow job carries a low risk of transmission, and a protected BJ carries 0 risk.

Dude, the fella is clearly worried and concerned about his health and/or other matters. Thats why he went for the HIV test.
Why do people go for HIV test even if its considered 'low risk'? its to ease the psychological burden. To be certain.

Condoms can break. Thats why we never say Condoms are 100% effective. Condoms are only effective if used CORRECTLY and CONSISTENTLY.

Action for AIDS simply reccomends regular testing, especially if one is sexually active with 'higher risk' partners, sex workers, one night stands, fuck-buddies, etc.. condom or no condom. Of course, no condom is very risky.

There are many benefits to knowing about one's health status, getting proper medical treatment to prevent the deterioration of health and quality of life, to prevent unintentionally infecting other people.

Samfan, i suggest you consider joining AFA as a volunteer.

Originally Posted by AfA_hmor

Dude, the fella is clearly worried and concerned about his health and/or other matters. Thats why he went for the HIV test.
Why do people go for HIV test even if its considered 'low risk'? its to ease the psychological burden. To be certain.

How true.I have never really felt like before,always am worried nowadays,its really terrible. But wad condoms do the WL use in GL? Don't tell me its lambskin condoms.Anyone got any idea? Thanks

[samfan]

Originally Posted by AfA_hmor

Dude, the fella is clearly worried and concerned about his health and/or other matters. Thats why he went for the HIV test.
Why do people go for HIV test even if its considered 'low risk'? its to ease the psychological burden. To be certain.

Yes, I know. Probably was baptized in the Frascino School of Medicine, and so my comments are rather tongue-in-cheek... or wherever it may be at the moment.

Mostly the folks who panic so much are those who are not really into the sexually active lifestyle (i.e. frequent cheonging). They go in and out of sex and start frightening the shit out of themselves. Therefore, if anyone is protected and the condom did not fail (1% probability due to improper usage or defect), then there is relatively nothing about HIV to fret about. Other STIs not inclusive.

For those seasoned cheongster, they know where they stand, and they know enough to not fret over essentially non-existing risks. These are the "pros" who know what they're doing, and do not need counselling.

Originally Posted by AfA_hmor

Action for AIDS simply reccomends regular testing, especially if one is sexually active with 'higher risk' partners, sex workers, one night stands, fuck-buddies, etc.. condom or no condom. Of course, no condom is very risky.

You won't hear any complains from me here. However, I appreciate if folks gets educated in what constitutes risky behaviours, and learn safer sex practises to reduce these risks. Test or no tests, safer sex is always the best.

Originally Posted by AfA_hmor

Samfan, i suggest you consider joining AFA as a volunteer.

I'm flattered, really. I used to be quite active in the HIV prevention front during my days at college. But due to many other commitments, I'm presently only active (occasionally) answering questions and quenching fears here.

By the way, a guy who is so fearful of getting reprimanded gave me a negative rating with a "no" and never left his nick. If you think that I'm wrong, point out my mistake and show me your evidence. I won't bite...though I may be tempted to deduct your points too...


Stay safe, be well!

So im not at risk is it? Well what if the WL had HIV and i just had a CBJ,would there be high risk?

Are my test results conclusive?

[samfan]

Originally Posted by anfieldheroez

So im not at risk is it? Well what if the WL had HIV and i just had a CBJ,would there be high risk?

Are my test results conclusive?

Bro, even if your partner was a HIV+, the chances of transmitting HIV to you through a single episode of CBJ is still nil zit nada!

Bro, don't let fear overwhelm you. Use logic: HIV cannot penetrate intact latex condom, no way , no how! So if your only exposure was a condom-covered blowjob, then there is no way the HIV virus could have "jumped" onto your poor willy!

[sammyboyfor]

Originally Posted by anfieldheroez

So im not at risk is it? Well what if the WL had HIV and i just had a CBJ,would there be high risk?

Are my test results conclusive?

In order to ease your fears, I recommend this site. It is authoritative and run by medical professionals.

Am I Infected? -- The Body: The Complete HIV/AIDS Resource

Questions such as yours have been asked and answered by the experts a thousand times over.

[AfA_hmor]

Originally Posted by samfan

Mostly the folks who panic so much are those who are not really into the sexually active lifestyle (i.e. frequent cheonging). They go in and out of sex and start frightening the shit out of themselves. Therefore, if anyone is protected and the condom did not fail (1% probability due to improper usage or defect), then there is relatively nothing about HIV to fret about. Other STIs not inclusive.

For those seasoned cheongster, they know where they stand, and they know enough to not fret over essentially non-existing risks. These are the "pros" who know what they're doing, and do not need counselling.

Actually, we find an attitude of vigilance, awareness of own vulnerability is better than a sense of complacency, 'immunity' and a know-it-all attitude.

There are many people who demonstrate a very high level of awareness and knowledge, but still convert from HIV- to HIV+ due to this complacency.

And then there are also HIV+s who couldn't care less about anyone else and continue bonking unprotected.

Life is unpredictable, all it takes is just one time, one chance. And that's it. (That's why constant vigilance and caution is prefered)

[samfan]

Originally Posted by AfA_hmor

Actually, we find an attitude of vigilance, awareness of own vulnerability is better than a sense of complacency, 'immunity' and a know-it-all attitude.

I don't want to come across as argumentative...but I believe that understanding the various parameters is very important.

I'm sure the complacency you mentioned that ultimately led to their undoing is just a small fraction of the demographic.

"Scaring" people into regular testing will lead to unwarranted anxiety attack and stress, which in my opinion, is excessive and uncalled for. It is similar in practice like telling people to abstain from sex because they have a chance of contracting an STD. (This is what religious institutions have tried and failed in doing throughout history.)

Vigilance is important, for the fact that protective measures is the only proven way to prevent transmission of STIs. That is why I always encourage folks who have casual sex to use protective measures, AND to fully understand what kind of risks they are involving themselves in. Proper education to eliminate unwarranted fear is important.

According to your posts, it appears that the AFA's stance is in encouraging regular testing. No problem with that, if the subject is involved in regular casual sex. That my friend, is not always the case for folks who frequent places like this forum to seek advise about their potential risks.

Therefore, in my opinion, for these group of people regular testing seems a bit too excessive.

Furthermore, it should also be pointed out that such testing is to be treated as a preventive measure, rather than as a true "assessment of risks". In other words, not dissimilar to activities like routine medical checkups, vaccinations, etc.

The purpose here is different from those who need screening for very real risks (e.g. broken condom). And real risks should be assessed immediately following potential exposure in anticipation for PEP to lower the chances of infection. To do so, one needs to have good knowledge about routes of transmission, or at least having the common sense to seek medical attention immediately following potential exposure.

So, I don't see education leading to problems of complacency in the general population.

[AfA_hmor]

Originally Posted by samfan

"Scaring" people into regular testing will lead to unwarranted anxiety attack and stress, which in my opinion, is excessive and uncalled for. It is similar in practice like telling people to abstain from sex because they have a chance of contracting an STD. (This is what religious institutions have tried and failed in doing throughout history.).

We don't scare people into coming for regular testing. We tell people that if they are worried about their HIV status, taking a HIV test is the only way to find out.

Originally Posted by samfan

Vigilance is important, for the fact that protective measures is the only proven way to prevent transmission of STIs. That is why I always encourage folks who have casual sex to use protective measures, AND to fully understand what kind of risks they are involving themselves in. Proper education to eliminate unwarranted fear is important.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by samfan

According to your posts, it appears that the AFA's stance is in encouraging regular testing. No problem with that, if the subject is involved in regular casual sex. That my friend, is not always the case for folks who frequent places like this forum to seek advise about their potential risks.

Therefore, in my opinion, for these group of people regular testing seems a bit too excessive.

If you are saying it is excessive to encourage people who aren't percieved to be at risk to go for HIV testing, then why did MOH get pregnant mothers to go for HIV testing and what about the HIV testing that is being offered at Changi General Hospital?

Originally Posted by samfan

Furthermore, it should also be pointed out that such testing is to be treated as a preventive measure, rather than as a true "assessment of risks". In other words, not dissimilar to activities like routine medical checkups, vaccinations, etc.

Could you clarify?
Regular HIV testing is considered one of the preventive measures because its part of the repetoir of responsible behaviors, and adopting a responsible attitude towards one's health and others around him.
It's never intended as an 'assessment of risks'.

Originally Posted by samfan

The purpose here is different from those who need screening for very real risks (e.g. broken condom). And real risks should be assessed immediately following potential exposure in anticipation for PEP to lower the chances of infection. To do so, one needs to have good knowledge about routes of transmission, or at least having the common sense to seek medical attention immediately following potential exposure.

So, I don't see education leading to problems of complacency in the general population.

Education in itself does not lead to complacency. With better knowledge, invididuals are in a better position to protect themselves about HIV and AIDS. But we tend to be more careful with how we put the message across. I.e, we have always said that BJs and Protected sex = low risk, but we don't say no or zero risk. First, because that is incorrect, and that is something we don't dare to gurantee. Second, even if its a 0.01% risk, we still want people to not be complacent or develop a sense of false confidence. We encourage people to come for regular testing, especially if they have doubts. Because a test is the only way to find out.

As mentioned before, there are some people with perfect knowledge, they know they difference between all the different HIV tests, the proper ways to use a condom, every tiny nitty gritty detail. But they still convert from HIV- to HIV+, they still catch STIs. Knowledge is one thing, the other more influential factor is the attitude.

[samfan]

Originally Posted by AfA_hmor

If you are saying it is excessive to encourage people who aren't percieved to be at risk to go for HIV testing, then why did MOH get pregnant mothers to go for HIV testing and what about the HIV testing that is being offered at Changi General Hospital?

I do not dispute the fact that diagnostic testing is generally good.

The reason why MOH requires pregnant mothers to get tested for HIV and syphilis is because they want to reduce the risks of transmission to the babies. This is good.

However, MOH is very clear in their literature about the targeted audience: high-risks individuals and women who are pregnant. This is alright, as the testing is done with the understanding that it is good to know that one is "at risks" and a proper diagnosis is required to determine their status.

I'm only concerned as to the patient's "motivation" towards getting tested. Are they worrying excessively? Are they really exposed to the virus? Are they being overtly paranoid of non-existent risks?

So, my point is, the message should be made clear that：

1. Your risks are determined by your actions. If it is negligible or non-existent, no amount of fear or self-fulfilling prophecies will make you positive.

2. If your risks are negligible, the only reason to get tested is to put your unwarranted worries to rest. You will not get a "positive" just for worrying yourself sick.

3. Regular testing for non-consistently sexually active individuals should be treated as a "preventative measure" just like using protective measures, like having vaccinated against HPV, TB, Chickenpox, and measles. If all your sexual activities were protected, HIV testing will keep you at peace, but will not protect you against infection.

4. If a suspected episode of potential exposure is assessed, seek immediate medical attention (PEP). Otherwise, taking regular HIV testing should be treated as in #3.

Originally Posted by AfA_hmor

Could you clarify? Regular HIV testing is considered one of the preventive measures because its part of the repetoir of responsible behaviors, and adopting a responsible attitude towards one's health and others around him. It's never intended as an 'assessment of risks'.

I may have confused you there. Pardon me. Regular testing is a generally good practice for regular sexually active individuals. However, it should only be considered as such. Excessive worrying and numerous tests after repeatedly negative results is due to irrational fear. Counselling is recommended.

Originally Posted by AfA_hmor

As mentioned before, there are some people with perfect knowledge, they know they difference between all the different HIV tests, the proper ways to use a condom, every tiny nitty gritty detail. But they still convert from HIV- to HIV+, they still catch STIs. Knowledge is one thing, the other more influential factor is the attitude.

Agreed. Knowing that smoking is bad for you is one thing, but quiting is another.

[alphalaw]

Woah.. ze pen mightier than ze sword. shootin like ze arrow

But itz all for ze people. bravo.

[kim_hwoarang]

blood test after 3mths is very accurate le.
so no need worry.
unless ur immune system is abnormal. haha