26 replies to this topic

[hankhavelock]

I've done a bit of research on this matter as it seems to be on every body's minds. The best resource I've so far found about these matters is a website: www.thebody.com.

According to them the probabilities (risks) of being infected by HIV by a SINGLE unprotected sexual encounter with an HIV+ sex partner are:

Penile/vaginal:
Risk for the receiver (woman) (man is HIV+, woman is HIV-) 1/1000
Risk for the penetrator (man) (man is HIV-, woman is HIV+) 0,5/1000

Penile/anal:
Risk for the receiver 5/1000
Risk for the penetrator 0,7/1000

Penile/oral:
Risk for the receiver 0,5/1000
Risk for the penetrator 0,05/1000

Receiver=the "bottom" receiving sperm vaginally/anally/orally
Penetrator=the "top"

These numbers seem low BUT remember that HIV does, indeed, get transmitted so bare backing presents a risk.

For further information check out www.thebody.com

H

[bigtom1983]

Thanks for taking the time to look up about this topic, maybe now people can stop asking about the risk's.

Am a catholic, so using condoms is against my religion.

Well thats my excuse anyway

[hankhavelock]

Am a catholic, so using condoms is against my religion.

Well thats my excuse anyway

HAHAHAHA... you're really a BAD, BAD boy, bigtom... ;-)

[drhoneytongue]

Such nice round numbers!

Unfortunately, virtually all the data is based upon questionaires on past behaviour, and relies heavily on honest answers. They do not stand up to proper statistical and epidemiological scrutiny.

Real epidemiological studies and control studies are not possible, neither are prospective studies of behaviour, for ethical reasons. They do not take into account many other factors such as concurrent diseases, type/ duration/ vigorousness of sex involved, time of previous encounter, cut/un-cut, general body condition, viral load donation, other measures of hygiene, other behaviour at the time, etc..

In short, most of the statistics provided would not be considered worth publishing in a proper peer-reviewed medical or health journal.

Studies that have passed rigorous statistical and epidemiological review, and have been accepted into such journals, do show higher rates than you quote.

I can understand people wanting to quantify the risk, to justify their own behaviour, but it is very simplistic to think that these numbers reflect actual risk.




And their own small print:
Information provided by experts is general only and should not be used for diagnosing or treating a health problem or a disease, or relied upon as legal or other professional advice. This information is not a substitute for professional advice or care.

For reliable, accurate information, these sites are recommended.
http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/

[hankhavelock]

Dr Honeytongue... I believe you but thousands wouldn't... :-)

These are the numbers as I could find them. I also contacted CDC for a more coherent list, unfortunately they didn't reply.

If you have newer numbers or a better way to look at these (low) risk-factors then please enlighten us all.

But please, be SPECIFIC! Don't get into a looong explanation as to why this and that is unreliable. Come up with some facts if possible.

Thanks a lot!

H

[patrick]

Father Tom,
Bless me father it's been bloody years since my last confession, but I was wondering,given that:
a. Shagging out of wedlock (or in my case within wedlock, but not with herself) is a mortal sin.
b. Shagging a ladyboy is a mortal sin, well Father Daly never actually mentioned this, but let's face it, it fucking has to be.
c. Shagging with a condom is a mortal sin.

The penance for each offence has to be at least 3 Our Fathers & 10 Hail Mary's. Is it possible for the collective penance to be concurrent?
Like when I asked the magistrate to take two more sheep into consideration, he gave me six months for each sheep, but fuck me I got out in just six months for the lot
That's what I call value for money!
BTW will you still be at Big Dogs on the evening of the 16th and will you still be dressed as a priest?
I won't be there until about 0.030,so you maybe defrocked by then, how will I recognise you?

[drhoneytongue]

Hank

I gave you the reasons:
Real epidemiological studies and control studies are not possible, neither are prospective studies of behaviour, for ethical reasons. They do not take into account many other factors such as concurrent diseases, type/ duration/ vigorousness of sex involved, time of previous encounter, cut/un-cut, general body condition, viral load donation, other measures of hygiene, other behaviour at the time, etc..


CDC will probably not reply, as they deal in real epidemiological data.

The low figures you have are pooled, anecdotal data, compared to higher incidences in more controlled, evidence based studies. There are just too many variables to consider. If you look at some of the studies referred to on the Insite, (http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite ) that have been published in medical journals, they are much smaller samples, and refer to very specific sets of sexual practice. And in those studies, transmission rates are higher.

The data on thebody.com is often unsourced, or obtained from anonymous questionaires, or the source is not even cited.

Here is a direct quote from one of the answers on that site:
The risk of transmission from a male to a female during a single act of vaginal intercourse is 0.1 - 0.3%, or somewhere between 1 and 3 transmissions for every 1000 acts of vaginal intercourse. These are statistics from large studies of individuals who are at different stages in their disease and can be missleading if one interprets these numbers to mean the risk of a single act is very low. For example their are well described instances where a particularly infectious male infected many women who only had one episode of vaginal intercourse. It is very likely that one of the most important predictors of transmission is the viral load of the infected individual.
http://www.thebody.c...ed/Q179677.html

This is the author himself, and he says the data can be missleading!

If you are happy with that level of reliability, believe those figures. I'm not and I don't.

You want accurate data, but studies to provide accurate transmission are ethically not possible to do.

This is a porn website, not a medical/ epidemiological forum, and I can appreciate that people want simple numbers.

But it is just not that simple.



dht

[rayton]

those figures seem very low to me- surely much higher in reality if u take into consideration the amount of people that actually have hiv.

[udrees]

as it is written in wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS

Estimated per act risk for acquisition of HIV by exposure route
Exposure Route Estimated infections per 10,000 exposures
to an infected source

Blood Transfusion 9,000
Childbirth 2,500
Needle-sharing injection drug use 67
Receptive anal intercourse* 50
Percutaneous needle stick 30
Receptive penile-vaginal intercourse* 10
Insertive anal intercourse* 6.5
Insertive penile-vaginal intercourse* 5
Receptive oral intercourse* 1 §
Insertive oral intercourse* 0.5 §
* assuming no condom use
§ source refers to oral intercourse
performed on a man

[whitestalion]

there is no easy way to deal with this topic, but as i know people here and abroad who "dabble" in the "hidden delights" of lb's, (myself included) it has come to my attention that there are HIV+ girls here, from what i have been told, from LOS (but i will say that there are probably local and other nationality's too), who, when, where, don't know how they got here (Australian gov immigration can be pretty hard!).
eitherway, unless your highly confident of the "lucky" lb, use caution!, there are some here spinning stories, their pasts clocked in mystery, be wary, be careful, if in doubt ask on the forum for advice, and try to get a pic (on your phone if need be) of the lb your asking about as some of them have 1001 names, and there are probably 1000+ guys here that know them by different names!.
A pic never lies (except in the event of facial plastic surgery!).

[drhoneytongue]

Hank,

After some personal correspondence and investigation, and other expert opinion from a specialist HIV site; I wonder if you would care to follow up your original post? Especially with the regard to the difficulty of providing accurate figures?

Regards

dht

[BKKtime]

Does it really matter though? I will not take the risk if it's only 1 in 10000. If you consider my age and how many times I will have sex with a ladyboy again( I can only hope) then chances will become too high too soon anyway. I use a condom every single time, GG or Ladyboy. And even more so in LOS. I hate to say it, but when 1 out of every 100 persons is infected you can be damn sure that rate is even higher among prostitutes and again even higher among LB prostitutes. This way it doesn't seem to be worth the risk now does it? I am even so scared of HIV that I prefer Philipines over LOS, even though LOS is safer, more developed so more pleasant to stay and there are cuter ladyboys there.

The height of numbers doesn't matter. When you know you can contract HIV by having unprotected sex then who cares if it's 0.5% or 1%