|
|
No ejaculation - lower risk?
#8179 - 08/09/00 06:22 PM
|
Reply
|
Quote
|
|
|
Hi there
Does anyone know or has heard of any evidence to suggest that heterosexual unprotected sex without ejaculation lowers the possible risk of infection? I am currently going out of my mind with worry due to a one-time incident with a guy whose status I do not know.
You guys that post on this board seem pretty clued up, and I would really appreciate any info. I am at 10 weeks and am due to go for my test in 2. In the meantime I just sit and worry, cannot eat, study or enjoy anything. All I can think about is the fact that I may have got HIV from this one stupid incident.
Good luck to you all
From a very worried, very alone person
Post Extras:
|
|
|
|
if you are sure that no ejaculation came inside you then there is no risk, but next time take care. Sleep well and enjoy your time.
Post Extras:
|
|
|
|
Pre-cum has alot more HIV in it than ejaculated semen. They both are bad news. Of course ejaculation means more of a chance of infection because there is more cum, but the pre-cum is MUCH MUCH MUCH MORE POTENT.
Post Extras:
|
|
|
|
Do you mind me asking where you got this info from? Only I was told that pre-cum had a lower HIV concentration...
Post Extras:
|
|
|
|
A counselor at the health center where I got tested told me. I asked her where she got HER info. She got it from a few HIV docs in town. I took that as enough proof.
Post Extras:
|
|
|
|
Hi 'Silly Girl'
I had a similar situation arise and I was wondering where you got your info regarding precum containing lower amts of HIV. I posted back in June with the title "Millisecond Slip" and also conversed with someone who had a situation similar to ours who said the HIV hotline told her it was very low risk. :)
Post Extras:
|
|
|
|
did you show any symptoms of any sort within the 10 week period?
Post Extras:
|
Previous
Index
Next
Flat
Threaded
