HIV test with less time lag?

[JB.]

Such a typical premed answer. This, kids, is why you don't take sex advice from someone who a) hasn't gotten laid in months and/or is a public health advocate (or claims to be).

 

QUOTE]

 

Really? I'm married. Contrary to popular belief, married people have sex. I'm not putting myself out there as a "health advocate." When a question is asked and there is a reasonable solution to prevent contracting STDs, I'm not so sure what the problem is with suggesting it.

 

My response was aimed at the types of questions we're getting on this thread. These questions don't sound like they're coming from people in committed, monogamous relationships. Until someone is in that position, it's generally accpeted as wise to wear a condom every time regardless if your partner is on the pill. Although they don't protect from all STDs, they're the best protection besides abstinence.

 

At the time you decide to be in a monogamous relationship and want to forgo the use of a condom, get tested. Obviously there is no security that your partner won't cheat, but it's a risk many people are comfortable taking.

[JB.]

I think it's counter productive to say a comment like that after the fact, especially when you're dealing with someone who is obviously worried about it.

 

To the OP - I highly suggest you go to a sexual health clinic to find out what testing is available to you. The public health department of the city you are living in should be able to provide you with advice/support, as would a GP. From what I have read, using a traditional ELISA or rapid test, the vast majority of people will likely have seroconverted by 6 weeks. There are other tests that may be available to you that may be able to offer you some reassurance. Your best bet for learning about the testing available would be a physician. I believe some of these other tests look for HIV RNA by using a PCR and can detect the virus as soon as within 2 weeks of infection (don't quote me on this though, not as familliar with this form of testing).

 

Again, I'm not a physician nor would it be appropriate to give you direct medical advice over the internet - go see a doctor or sexual health clinic. Hope you're doing okay.

 

My response was not to the OP. I was responding to vweb who wondered if he could forgo the use of a condom if he "verified" his partner was STD free. Maybe I was reading too much into his post, but it came off very young/inexperienced. I have a younger sibling, I've seen the messes he got himself into and I would hate for vweb to get himself into a similar predicament.

[The Law]

My response was not to the OP. I was responding to vweb who wondered if he could forgo the use of a condom if he "verified" his partner was STD free. Maybe I was reading too much into his post, but it came off very young/inexperienced. I have a younger sibling, I've seen the messes he got himself into and I would hate for vweb to get himself into a similar predicament.

 

I understand. I wasn't meaning to single anybody out, just trying to remind everyone to be conscious that sometimes people slip up and not to make the OP feel bad. I didn't mean to sound like I was chastizing anyone for saying to use a condom...

[steven1984]

Hi everyone I am the OP. I am so touched by the many helpful advice I got from this thread.

 

Actually what happened that night was that 5 minutes into the intercourse I found out that my condom broke. I am so scared...

[RapidHawk]

Hi everyone I am the OP. I am so touched by the many helpful advice I got from this thread.

 

Actually what happened that night was that 5 minutes into the intercourse I found out that my condom broke. I am so scared...

 

OP, are you kidding me? For real man, are you actually serious right now or are you just playing stupid? You are totally overreacting.

 

The chances of catching AIDS from one act of UNPROTECTED intercourse with a woman who does not use heroin whose HIV status is unknown is approximately 1 in 5 million. The chance of catching it if you use a condom in this case is 1 in 50 million. Given that your condom was intact for only part of the act, the chances that you got HIV from that encounter are somewhere between 1 in 5 million and 1 in 50 million. Don't listen to that other retard who was saying otherwise, this statistic is fact. Unless you were having gay sex, or knew your partner to be HIV positive or a heroin user, you have nothing to worry about. Do not waste your time getting tested over this.

 

Were condoms your only form of contraception? Did you ejaculate into her? If you answered "No" to either of these questions, the chances that you got her pregnant are close to 0. This is what you should be more worried about, not some disease that, for heterosexuals, is basically the STD equivalent of SARS.

 

Man you're amateur. Was this your first time having sex or something? Is your concept of sex what they taught you in high school to scare you out of it? Lol. Sex is the best part of life, stop treating it like it's an unavoidable danger and enjoy it already. Don't listen to those "always use a condom" tools. They aren't actually chanting this mantra for practical reasons, it's simply a matter of principle for them, so just ignore their stupidity.

[The Law]

RapidHawk - you're entitlted to your personal beliefs, however the statistics do not support you at all and your interpretation of the data is highly erroneous on numerous fronts.

 

Hi everyone I am the OP. I am so touched by the many helpful advice I got from this thread.

 

Actually what happened that night was that 5 minutes into the intercourse I found out that my condom broke. I am so scared...

 

Steven - I can understand that you'd be feeling nervous about what happened. Many people in your position would be feeling the same thing. Did you know your sexual partner well? I'd suggest you try to stay calm and go see a doctor to get help. In the event your partner did have HIV (which again, is far from certain and depending on his or her lifestyle, might be highly unlikely) - transmission is not a for sure thing from a single isolated exposure like this. Go see your doctor or a public health clinic though, they can guide you the best.

[PhoenixFlare500]

Agreed, I think getting tested here would be really beneficial to you Steven, if only to give you some peace of mind. I also recommend doing what most educated people would suggest and continue to use protection if you don't really know your partners (even if you do it's probably a good idea, you never know if someone screwed up their pill cycle or something).

 

Wait, am I supporting condom use here? Possibly. But why? It's probably because I'm stupid. Or I'm trying to make condom companies money. Or maybe because it's a reasonable thing to do... No that can't be it.

[RapidHawk]

PS, here's my justification for the 1 in 5 million number.

 

Number of women in Canada with HIV/AIDS (2009 figure): about 13,500. Source: http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www.avert.org/canada-aids.htm

 

Canadian population size (2011 estimate): 34,616,000. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada#Vital_statistics

 

Sex ratio of men to women in canada, ages 15-64: 1.02 men per female (about 50-50). Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada#Vital_statistics

 

Number of women living in Canada: approximately 17,300,000.

 

Fraction of Canadian women who are infected with AIDS: 7.8 x 10^-4

 

Estimated per-act risk for acquisition of HIV by heterosexual intercourse (unprotected, for a man, with HIV positive partner): 0.05%. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV

 

Chance of getting HIV by having unprotected sex with a randomly selected woman in Canada: 5 x 10^-4 x 7.8 x 10^-4 = 0.00000039 = 1 in 2.5 million.

 

Given that a disproportionate number of women infected with HIV/AIDS are IV drug users, knowing that your partner does not use IV drugs will significantly reduce this risk, making the 1 in 5 million figure pretty accurate. 23% of people who acquired AIDS got it from IV drug use (source: http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/pptalk.htm).

 

LOGIC WINS!!!!

[PhoenixFlare500]

Aside from the random statistics being thrown out, let's keep in mind that HIV is not the only thing that gets transmitted during sex.

[medigeek]

PS, here's my justification for the 1 in 5 million number.

 

Number of women in Canada with HIV/AIDS (2009 figure): about 13,500. Source: http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www.avert.org/canada-aids.htm

 

Canadian population size (2011 estimate): 34,616,000. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada#Vital_statistics

 

Sex ratio of men to women in canada, ages 15-64: 1.02 men per female (about 50-50). Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada#Vital_statistics

 

Number of women living in Canada: approximately 17,300,000.

 

Fraction of Canadian women who are infected with AIDS: 7.8 x 10^-4

 

Estimated per-act risk for acquisition of HIV by heterosexual intercourse (unprotected, for a man, with HIV positive partner): 0.05%. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV

 

Chance of getting HIV by having unprotected sex with a randomly selected woman in Canada: 5 x 10^-4 x 7.8 x 10^-4 = 0.00000039 = 1 in 2.5 million.

 

Given that a disproportionate number of women infected with HIV/AIDS are IV drug users, knowing that your partner does not use IV drugs will significantly reduce this risk, making the 1 in 5 million figure pretty accurate. 23% of people who acquired AIDS got it from IV drug use (source: http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/pptalk.htm).

 

LOGIC WINS!!!!

 

I crapped on all your "points" last time, and I'll do it again.

 

You're comparing the number of hiv positive women to the number of females living in Canada when you're forgetting chicks under 17-18 are VERY unlikely to have it, and below 15 it's probably close to 0. And the number of people who are over 60 (which make up a large percentage of the population again) are very unlikely to have it.

 

And also, having sex with a slut in toronto is way different than with a slut in the middle of saskatchewan.

Oh and 20% of people who have HIV don't even know.

 

you have huge problems interpreting statistics.

[medigeek]

OP, the odds of you getting HIV from what you describe is incredibly low mainly because you didnt go in raw and keep going on and on for a long duration.

 

You didnt catch HIV (practically a given).

 

Ignore whatever this dude has to say and always wear a condom until youre in a monogamous relationship.

Rapidhawk will enjoy his herpes and gonnorhea.

[RapidHawk]

I crapped on all your "points" last time, and I'll do it again.

At best, the only thing you crapped the last time was your pants (in a fit of rage).

 

You're comparing the number of hiv positive women to the number of females living in Canada when you're forgetting chicks under 17-18 are VERY unlikely to have it, and below 15 it's probably close to 0. And the number of people who are over 60 (which make up a large percentage of the population again) are very unlikely to have it.

Look at what I wrote. I said chance of getting it from a RANDOMLY selected female.

 

That being said, there are about 3700 females aged 20-29 in Canada with HIV/AIDS (source: http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www.avert.org/canada-aids.htm). Although already likely included in this statistic, lets say for the sake of argument that there is an additional 700 (20%, just like you say) women aged 20-29 with HIV/AIDS who don't know it. This brings the total up to 4400.

 

There are approximately 2.2 million females in Canada aged 20-29 (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pyramideca2010.jpg).

 

Randomly sampling of these women, you have a 0.002 chance of selecting one with HIV/AIDS. Multiply this by the 0.0005 fraction chance of catching HIV from sleeping with one of these people (no condom) = 0.000001 chance of getting HIV from sleeping with a randomly selected Canadian female, ages 20-29. This is exactly 1 in 1 million. But once again, this is not taking into account the fact that 23% of women with AIDS use IV drugs, so you can decrease your risk by 23% by simply not sleeping with one of these people (trust me, you wouldn't want to anyway).

 

Also:

In the 2001 census, aboriginal and black people accounted for 3.3% and 2.2% of Canada's population respectively. In the same year, these groups respectively reported 6.4% and 15.2% of AIDS cases with known ethnicity. (source: http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www.avert.org/canada-aids.htm)

This means your risk is significantly cut again, by not sleeping with a native or black person. Hooking up with a black/native woman is something that no self-respecting premed should ever do.

 

And also, having sex with a slut in toronto is way different than with a slut in the middle of saskatchewan.

Source?

 

you have huge problems interpreting statistics.

 

Rapidhawk will enjoy his herpes and gonnorhea.

Ironically, the chances are that you already have herpes. Half of us do.

[RapidHawk]

To put the 1 in a million figure in perspective:

 

If you have 500 one night stands with bar sluts (HIV status unknown), you'd have a 0.05% chance of having HIV after that.

 

Long story short: forget about HIV, enjoy your sex life.

[mattg]

wow.. absolutely butchered those stats..

 

you are literally just throwing numbers together in a completely invalid way and coming to a conclusion

 

what about this: the dude is 27 years old... i'm going to assume the girl he slept with was somewhere between 20 and 35... out of the 13,500, a significant proportion of them are probably in that age group (i'm not going to pretend to know the number, and am too lazy too look it up, but i think it's a fair assumption that a few thousand are in that age group)... and out of the 17mil women in canada, probably only a few million are in that age group... that hugely increases the fraction you calculated... plus, i guarantee that the majority of the HIV-infected women are focused in large cities (i.e. Toronto, Vancouver, etc... again, i'm too lazy too look this up, but it's very likely to be true)... so this further increases your fraction (in the OP's case)... then there is the people who are HIV-infected but don't know... this further increases your fraction... the number isn't even close to what you calculated

 

not saying it's not highly unlikely... just that you are butchering your stats... with raging confidence

 

to the OP: it is beyond unlikely, but if you are worried there are antigen detection and viral load tests that you can do if you don't want to wait 6 weeks for the standard antibody test.. just go to the doctor

 

PS, here's my justification for the 1 in 5 million number.

 

Number of women in Canada with HIV/AIDS (2009 figure): about 13,500. Source: http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www.avert.org/canada-aids.htm

 

Canadian population size (2011 estimate): 34,616,000. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada#Vital_statistics

 

Sex ratio of men to women in canada, ages 15-64: 1.02 men per female (about 50-50). Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada#Vital_statistics

 

Number of women living in Canada: approximately 17,300,000.

 

Fraction of Canadian women who are infected with AIDS: 7.8 x 10^-4

 

Estimated per-act risk for acquisition of HIV by heterosexual intercourse (unprotected, for a man, with HIV positive partner): 0.05%. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV

 

Chance of getting HIV by having unprotected sex with a randomly selected woman in Canada: 5 x 10^-4 x 7.8 x 10^-4 = 0.00000039 = 1 in 2.5 million.

 

Given that a disproportionate number of women infected with HIV/AIDS are IV drug users, knowing that your partner does not use IV drugs will significantly reduce this risk, making the 1 in 5 million figure pretty accurate. 23% of people who acquired AIDS got it from IV drug use (source: http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/pptalk.htm).

 

LOGIC WINS!!!!

[medigeek]

At best, the only thing you crapped the last time was your pants (in a fit of rage).

 

 

Look at what I wrote. I said chance of getting it from a RANDOMLY selected female.

 

That being said, there are about 3700 females aged 20-29 in Canada with HIV/AIDS (source: http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www.avert.org/canada-aids.htm). Although already likely included in this statistic, lets say for the sake of argument that there is an additional 700 (20%, just like you say) women aged 20-29 with HIV/AIDS who don't know it. This brings the total up to 4400.

 

There are approximately 2.2 million females in Canada aged 20-29 (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pyramideca2010.jpg).

 

Randomly sampling of these women, you have a 0.002 chance of selecting one with HIV/AIDS. Multiply this by the 0.0005 fraction chance of catching HIV from sleeping with one of these people (no condom) = 0.000001 chance of getting HIV from sleeping with a randomly selected Canadian female, ages 20-29. This is exactly 1 in 1 million. But once again, this is not taking into account the fact that 23% of women with AIDS use IV drugs, so you can decrease your risk by 23% by simply not sleeping with one of these people (trust me, you wouldn't want to anyway).

 

Also:

 

This means your risk is significantly cut again, by not sleeping with a native or black person. Hooking up with a black/native woman is something that no self-respecting premed should ever do.

 

 

Source?

 

 

 

 

Ironically, the chances are that you already have herpes. Half of us do.

 

Such a weak level of statistical analysis... i dont even...

 

You're crunching together raw numbers, without even considering that having sex with an attractive, slutty, young girl in toronto is dimensions apart from having sex with a below average, random girl in some town in alberta.

 

There's so many factors you're not considering, it's just hilarious.

And half of us do not have genital herpes, you're confusing some 1 in 4 (not 1 in 2) statistics thrown around for people who get cold sores.

[RapidHawk]

Such a weak level of statistical analysis... i dont even...

 

You're crunching together raw numbers, without even considering that having sex with an attractive, slutty, young girl in toronto is dimensions apart from having sex with a below average, random girl in some town in alberta.

 

There's so many factors you're not considering, it's just hilarious.

And half of us do not have genital herpes, you're confusing some 1 in 4 (not 1 in 2) statistics thrown around for people who get cold sores.

 

You're totally wrong. I didn't do any of the statistics myself. I simply referenced other reputatable websites for those, including one website that you referenced yourself. The only thing I did was multiply out the probabilities. At this point, I'm not sure what you're arguing against, since you have zero case against my mathematical calculations (done flawlessly).

 

Don't believe me? Earlier I referenced a medical doctor who estimated the probability at 1 in 3 million.

 

You're in denial kid. Borderline delusional at this point.

 

As for your Toronto vs. Alberta argument. Yes, a woman is more likely to have HIV if she has more partners. But we all know you can't tell the number of partners a woman has had just by looking. So it's a moot point really.

[bloh]

Such a typical premed answer. This, kids, is why you don't take sex advice from someone who a) hasn't gotten laid in months and/or is a public health advocate (or claims to be).

 

Condoms make sex less fun. The fact is that if you are a heterosexual male having a one night stand with a woman who is not an IV drug user, your chance of catching HIV from that encounter is approximately one in five million. If you aren't having sex with a black or hispanic woman, the odds drop to about 1 in 40 million. There is no reason to be using condoms if your partner has tested negative for HIV and is on the pill.

 

As for the guy who said your partner could cheat on you, get HIV, then pass it on to you. You have a better chance of being killed by lightning than you do of being killed by AIDS in this manner.

 

OP, unless you've been railing men up the ass/getting railed up the ass, you're probably overreacting. The fact is that HIV/AIDS is for the most part, a gay man's disease that takes out a heroin user every so often.

 

Yeah I think you need to do some shadowing in an HIV clinic because you're clueless - on just about every paragraph.

[bloh]

At best, the only thing you crapped the last time was your pants (in a fit of rage).

 

 

Look at what I wrote. I said chance of getting it from a RANDOMLY selected female.

 

That being said, there are about 3700 females aged 20-29 in Canada with HIV/AIDS (source: http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www.avert.org/canada-aids.htm). Although already likely included in this statistic, lets say for the sake of argument that there is an additional 700 (20%, just like you say) women aged 20-29 with HIV/AIDS who don't know it. This brings the total up to 4400.

 

There are approximately 2.2 million females in Canada aged 20-29 (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pyramideca2010.jpg).

 

Randomly sampling of these women, you have a 0.002 chance of selecting one with HIV/AIDS. Multiply this by the 0.0005 fraction chance of catching HIV from sleeping with one of these people (no condom) = 0.000001 chance of getting HIV from sleeping with a randomly selected Canadian female, ages 20-29. This is exactly 1 in 1 million. But once again, this is not taking into account the fact that 23% of women with AIDS use IV drugs, so you can decrease your risk by 23% by simply not sleeping with one of these people (trust me, you wouldn't want to anyway).

 

Also:

 

This means your risk is significantly cut again, by not sleeping with a native or black person. Hooking up with a black/native woman is something that no self-respecting premed should ever do.

 

 

Source?

 

 

 

 

Ironically, the chances are that you already have herpes. Half of us do.

 

You're ridiculous on many fronts.

 

1. The most infectious period is right around seroconversion

 

2. Most people don't know they are infected until they end up in the hospital with an opportunistic infection and an HIV test is done as part of the workup.

 

3. Your math is just stupid and rudimentary. The entire nature of the viral transfer means you can't just randomly select females; they select themselves. The promiscuous ones are more likely to be positive by nature; I'm sure that having sex with your grandma isn't the same risk as a picking up a mid20s slut at a bar.

 

4. You can't reliably tell an IV drug user by looking at them. It only takes 1 shared needle to get it.

 

5. You don't know anyones sexual history. You have no idea if that girl you just banged had sex with a bi guy who was at the bathouse last week and took 40 anonymous loads.

 

 

The ONLY and the ONLY thing you are correct on is, that the action the OP took put him/her at very low risk. But your quantification of it makes you look stupid and everything you said beyond the general statement is very misinformed.

[Wayward son]

Hooking up with a black/native woman is something that no self-respecting premed should ever do.

 

Such comments should have absolutely no place on this forum.

[PhoenixFlare500]

Such comments should have absolutely no place on this forum.

 

Yeah that in my mind calls for a ban.

[rmorelan]

Hooking up with a black/native woman is something that no self-respecting premed should ever do.

 

wait.....what?

 

crossing the line, crossing way over the line. I am sure all the self respecting black and native women in my class would agree.

[JB.]

wait.....what?

 

crossing the line, crossing way over the line. I am sure all the self respecting black and native women in my class would agree.

 

Ditto. I am thinking we're arguing with a troll.

[The Law]

As much as we promote any discussion on premed101, we draw the line at racist language. It's clearly part of the forum rules that all members agree to adhere to upon joining and by posting on this site.

[medigeek]

You're ridiculous on many fronts.

 

1. The most infectious period is right around seroconversion

 

2. Most people don't know they are infected until they end up in the hospital with an opportunistic infection and an HIV test is done as part of the workup.

 

3. Your math is just stupid and rudimentary. The entire nature of the viral transfer means you can't just randomly select females; they select themselves. The promiscuous ones are more likely to be positive by nature; I'm sure that having sex with your grandma isn't the same risk as a picking up a mid20s slut at a bar.

 

4. You can't reliably tell an IV drug user by looking at them. It only takes 1 shared needle to get it.

 

5. You don't know anyones sexual history. You have no idea if that girl you just banged had sex with a bi guy who was at the bathouse last week and took 40 anonymous loads.

 

 

The ONLY and the ONLY thing you are correct on is, that the action the OP took put him/her at very low risk. But your quantification of it makes you look stupid and everything you said beyond the general statement is very misinformed.

 

Thank you.

 

Telling someone NOT to wear a condom is extremely dangerous advice, what an idiot.

[tooty]

You're ridiculous on many fronts.

 

1. The most infectious period is right around seroconversion

 

2. Most people don't know they are infected until they end up in the hospital with an opportunistic infection and an HIV test is done as part of the workup.

 

3. Your math is just stupid and rudimentary. The entire nature of the viral transfer means you can't just randomly select females; they select themselves. The promiscuous ones are more likely to be positive by nature; I'm sure that having sex with your grandma isn't the same risk as a picking up a mid20s slut at a bar.

 

4. You can't reliably tell an IV drug user by looking at them. It only takes 1 shared needle to get it.

 

5. You don't know anyones sexual history. You have no idea if that girl you just banged had sex with a bi guy who was at the bathouse last week and took 40 anonymous loads.

 

 

The ONLY and the ONLY thing you are correct on is, that the action the OP took put him/her at very low risk. But your quantification of it makes you look stupid and everything you said beyond the general statement is very misinformed.

 

I'm interested in working out the numbers here. I keep getting odds close to what RapidHawk showed.

 

If I am a healthy male with no open sores or lesions on my penis, who had unprotected vaginal intercourse with a 20-29 year old female of any race with any background, I'm looking at the following numbers below. We assume that, if she was HIV positive, she was unaware. We exclude the probability that she was aware and did not disclose.

 

-HIV positive females aged 20-29 in Canada in 2009 = 3711 source

-Let's assume as high as 50% of all HIV positive females are unaware. That means we're dealing with a population of 3711 females

-Population of females at 2010 was around 2.2 million source (I'm using RapidHawk's wikipedia source on the demographic statistic because it is legit)

-HIV infective risk in insertive vaginal intercourse is 6 in 100,000 acts (source UpToDate version 19.1)

-This risk has been reported to be as high as 1 in 10,000 and even 1 in 1,000 in Uganda (1) but I'm going to use the number reported in UpToDate because it deals with an appropriate demographic. Furthermore, the Uganda study grouped male-to-female with female-to-male, included incidents where the male had active lesions on his penis, and followed individuals with low and high viral loads.

(1) Probability of HIV-1 transmission per coital act in monogamous, heterosexual, HIV-1-discordant couples in Rakai, Uganda

 

 

That brings us to roughly 1 in 10,000,000. This excludes intercourse with any grandmas. And includes the probability of any high risk behavior. Canadian females were reported to have an average of 10 sexual partners in their lifetime. If the OP had intercourse with a particularly promiscuous female who had 10x the average partners, that puts his risk at 1 in 1 million.

 

If you want to be more realistic:

 

1. Statistics show that, sadly, aboriginals are overrepresented in rates of HIV infection. "During 1998-2008, women represented 48.8% of all positive HIV test reports among Aboriginal people as compared with 20.6% of reports among those of other ethnicities." (source) So the OP's odds of being exposed is less if he did not have intercourse with an aboriginal female.

 

2. If we assume that just 20% of HIV positive females are unaware, like another member mentioned, that further reduces OP's chances.

 

3. Say OP has zero judge of character. The number of IV drug users in North America in 2003 was 1.4 million (source) and the population of North America was around 500 million. Let's multiply number of drug users by 15x just in case. The OP now has a 4% chance of having intercouse with an IV drug user if he has zero judge of character. We know HIV incidence among IV drug users is higher, this 4% chance further reduces OP's chances.

 

 

 

I've tried to be as objective and conservative as I can here but it seems that odds are extremely unlikely for a heterosexual male to contract HIV through one incidence of penile-vaginal intercourse with a 20-29 year old female without protection. I'd like to stress that we're dealing with random samples and probabilities here. Of course we can be exceedingly unlucky and blindly have intercourse with a girl who had 1000 partners, used IV drugs and participated in other high risk activities, but let's get to a baseline probability first.

 

If the OP came to me as a patient with the same story, I would quote him 1 in 1-to-10 million but I would of course always recommend using protection. With a probability greater than 0, no one should screw around with HIV. No pun intended.