[Question #13016] Exposure risk
 |
3 months ago
|
Hello I broke up with my partner of 2 years so I went on a few dates. Found this girl, we chatted for a while and ended up having sex. It was protected at first but in the heat of the moment I pulled the condom off and had intercourse unprotected for a few minutes. She hasn’t had sex in 3 years and is healthy. She and I are both 20 but I asked her when she was tested and she never has been. But has only had 1 sexual partner 3 years ago which I whole heartedly believe she was very sincere. All though her never testing has me a bit concerned. So questions are as follows. What are my exposure risks? Should I at all be worried about hiv? I’d assume within three years she’d have some symptoms are not be very healthy. She and I both live in a pretty middle to high class area with good doctors and such. So what would my exposure risks be. And is it worth testing?
 |
H. Hunter Handsfield, MD
3 months ago
|
Welcome back to the forum.
You describe a partner at very low risk of any STI. Having had only one sex partner and presumably no symptoms afterward, it wasn't important for her to be tested. And most STIs she might have acquired would have been cleared by her immune system or would now be inactive and not likely to be transmitted. The chance someone like her has HIV is probably under one chance in a billion.
Even with no condom, there is no reason for you to be tested on account of this event. However, you could discuss mutual STI testing with her. Statistically she is at far higher STI risk from you than you are from her; and indeed based on your previous forum question a month ago, it is more likely you are infected than she is. You might find she is nervous about having had unprotected sex with a guy she just meant and would like the reassurance that you don't have anything. If you go this route, I would advise only testing for gonorrhea, chlamydia, HIV and syphilis. You can expect you both would have negative results, but you might sleep better afterward. This isn't intended as definite advice -- but it would be a courtesy to her. (This doesn't mean I have changed my mind about your risks at that time -- the chance you have something remains near zero. But if her sexual history is accurate, the chance you have something is higher than hers.)
I hope these comments are helpful. Let me know if anything isn't clear.
HHH, MD
--- |
2 months ago
|
Follow up question do condoms essentially my chance of hiv 0? Assuming it was used correctly.
|
H. Hunter Handsfield, MD
2 months ago
|
Condoms are not 100% effective against HIV but pretty close. Your "used correctly" comment is important. But condoms do break sometimes, even when properly used.
But condom performance is irrelevant in your situation, since you had several minutes of exposure before using the condom. As we discussed, there is no realistic chance your partner has HIV anyway and you don't need testing for HIV except maybe for reassurance.
--- |
2 months ago
|
Ok cool gotcha. I’ve started to see someone else. And we had fully protected intercourse. She had claimed to test 2 weeks prior but I’m just an anxious guy. The condom didn’t break as I always check it afterwards. The only reason I’m slightly worried is she has a bit of a checkered past. But as far as I understand it even if she had hiv the chance would be less than 0.001 percent with a condom that was used properly and didn’t break. I’m fairly certain I know what your answer will be already. But reassurance from a doctor is always nice. I think at this point I just need therapy haha.
|
H. Hunter Handsfield, MD
2 months ago
|
If "checkered past" translates to commercial sex work (mostly unprotected), injection drug use, partnerships with MSM or injection drug users, it would be reasonable to be concerned. But in the US, the average sexually active woman -- with say 10-20 male partners over the years -- is extremely unlikely to have HIV. And with a condom I would say no worries at all.
---
Should you test (which sort of is what you're asking)? From a medical/risk standpoint, no. But reassurance alone is a valid reason for testing. If you're going to fret or lose sleep over it ("I'm just an anxious guy") and would be more reassured by a negative test than by going only on statistical probabilities, feel free.
That completes the two follow-up comments and replies included with each question and so ends this thread. I hope the discussion has been helpful. Best wishes and stay safe.