I would like to just reinforce a summary of information at this point. I seem to get entangled when I view a collection of threads. After that, its a matter of getting comfortable I would say. So, for the transmission of STIs, prior to any potential STDs, there needs to be penetration of vaginal, anal, or oral sex, practically speaking. Theoretically, it is possible in other sexual activity, but there are no known cases of other activity where transmission happens, correct? All other sexual activity, is zero risk for practical purposes? Can I safely assume, that if transmission is theoretically possible, and if it did happen, that the immune system -provided that the bacteria, virus, etc came into contact with susceptible cells and the biological processes formed an infection- would clear the infection - restricting disease? Practically speaking, if these such activities do not lead to infection, would that suggest that they are insignificant for immune action? 

Thank you.

HHH, MD

I apologize but I unfortunately do overthink and I need to have an understanding of things to feel comfortable, in anything for that matter. In my experience with healthcare providers, I have received misguided information and ones that contradicted others, also instruction that left me quite physically vulnerable to be honest. I am certainly not saying that is the case here and I am not trying to create that perception but it has put a more reliance to trust myself by understanding. That is why I inquire about specific questions that include a scientific basis. I have done other research to make these connections. I apologize again respectfully but I would highly appreciate answers to these questions. Especially the practical ones so if there is theoretical risk I understand how the body reacts. That is for my survival skills has a human and gives me peace of mind without depending on and anxiously waiting on exams after time goes by, etc. I am yet to understand and process theoretical risk especially that my bigger concern comes from places that appears risky to me on the surface. Yes, it is apparant there is a psychological factor that I do work on. Forgive me. 

Thank you Dr. Handsfield.

The most useful information about HIV/STD risk from sexual exposure is epidemiological, namely the absence of patients -- even in the busiest HIV/AIDS clinics, for example -- whose only possible exposures were such things as genital apposition without penetration, hand-genital contact, massage, and so on. We only see patients who have had "real" sex, generally meaning penetration without protection, usually with partners known to have HIV or to be at high risk. Surely you understand that if other kinds of contact could transmit HIV, there would be occasional patients without traditional exposures, but there are none. When someone claims such events or otherwise does not know the source of their infection, it almost always turns out they were being untruthful or had had exposures they didn't recognize at the time, e.g. a spouse with previously unknown risks. This is exactly the sort of evidence that allowed public health experts to reassure the public that casual contact does not transmit AIDS, back in the early 1980s before HIV was even discovered. This perspective has stood the test of time.

That's all. This definitely will have to be your last question along these lines. Future ones will be deleted with minimal or no reply and no opportunity for discussion. Please respect the forum policies on this.