Jump to content

A Hypothetical Question


Recommended Posts

If you had HIV/AIDS and also had a longterm partner (uninfected) who said they'd still have sex with you, would you do it with them? Making the assumption that you wouldn't be swinging or anything. Just you and your partner.

 

Also, if your partner was infected would you still sleep with them? (again, assuming you are uninfected).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say NO to both, but I can see exceptions, but only rare ones, like say you wanted to have a child together. Of course exposing someone to a potentially fatal disease for that reason is also not a good plan. SO, NO, I wouldn't. With protection, I might though.

 

Anyway, if you loved someone, would you want to expose them to such a thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well having HIV and having AIDS are two completely different things. With todays medical advances its possible to contract HIV and with proper treatment never get AIDS it may also be possible to combat the virus such that HIV will become undetectable.

If I had a long term partner that wasnt infected I would make sure they knew the risks and knew exactly what they were getting into, but ultimately that is their choice to make it they want to potentially expose themselves to HIV/AIDS.

Personally I wouldnt take the risk of getting HIV or AIDS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be very afraid and paranoid, and not fully able to enjoy being sexually active. There is safer sex: kissing, massaging, and etc...etc...However, I would be so afraid of transmitting OR recieving the virus. Probably a no for me. That is why I pray there is a cure for this disease, SOON. People should not have to pay a lifetime penalty just because they had sex one night.

 

Magic Johnson definitely isn't celibate. He has an undetectable viral load due to the medication, however, the virus that causes HIV can still be transmitted...So they have to take EXTRA precaution before he and Cookie are intimate.

 

Honestly, I don't know. That is why I refuse to have any promiscuous sex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My brother died of AIDS related infections. (since Aids doesn’t actually kill, it only prevents the body from fighting infection)

 

I know him and his partner had sex. I never agreed with it.

 

I also know if it is a woman with AIDS it is very hard for her partner(male or female) to contract it. However it is very likely for a man to give it to a woman or to a “receiving” male. The rick also goes down if the infected male is the ”receiver” in a gay relationship.

 

But regardless of all this info. I say NO! It’s not worth it. To me it comes down to this…HIV is a STD that can live in your body and destroy your immune system completely undetected. There are no real symtoms for most people. Yes HIV and AIDS are different, unfortunately not everyone gets tested regularly enough, either because they feel invincibly, “it would never happen to me” or they feel ok, so they must be fine. So the reality is, many people don’t know they have it until it is AIDS.

 

I know this isn’t really the answer you asked for… But my answer is still NO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also know if it is a woman with AIDS it is very hard for her partner(male or female) to contract it. However it is very likely for a man to give it to a woman or to a “receiving” male. The rick also goes down if the infected male is the ”receiver” in a gay relationship.

 

 

Actually, the HIV virus is just as easily transmitted through vaginal fluids. If she's a carrier then anyone who penetrates her, or performs oral sex on her, is at risk.

Furthermore, the "receiver" in anal intercourse(male or female)is more at risk due to the thin tissue membranes of the anus...Anal sex carries the highest risk, then Vaginal, and then oral(although Oral is considered, by the CDC, low risk if there is no fluid transfer)...

 

Sorry about your brother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I would. Obviously with protection. I know a number of couples in this situation. People should read Bryce Courtney's book "April Fools Day", describes his son getting AIDs during the eighties/nineties (via blood transfusion). His son and his wife have sex regulary, and she is fine.

 

It's also interesting to note the chance of transfer listed on the link removed article:

 

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[40]

Childbirth 2,500[41]

Needle-sharing injection drug use 67[42]

Receptive anal intercourse* 50[43][44]

Percutaneous needle stick 30[45]

Receptive penile-vaginal intercourse* 10[43][44][46]

Insertive anal intercourse* 6.5[43][44]

Insertive penile-vaginal intercourse* 5[43][44]

Receptive oral intercourse* 1[44]§

Insertive oral intercourse* 0.5[44]§

* assuming no condom use

§ Source refers to oral intercourse performed on a man

Note that assuming no condom use, 1 in every 1,000 encounters with an infected partner during receptive penile-vaginal intercourse will result in infection. I'm not sure what the transmission rates WITH a condom are, but they are low.

 

The virus, unlike say Ebola, cannot be transferred via skin to skin contact.

 

I suppose at this point, I should admit, that a number of years ago I had a partner who was HIV positive so I got myself pretty informed. I get passionate about these things, because there is a huge stigma surrounding HIV/AIDs.

 

HIV has been found at low concentrations in the saliva, tears and urine of people infected yet the risk of transmission by these secretions is negligible. Despite ALL the people infected in the world, there are very few cases of negligible transfer of the disease.

 

There is alot of fear, alot of stigma associated with the disease. Indeed in western cultures, this fear and stigma is a high cause of suicide in HIV infected people that is sometimes killing more people than the progression to AIDs itself. Its also very counter-productive to safe-sex efforts tell people that sex with an HIV infected person does not guarentee infection, because people cognatively distort that things of a low percentage will not happen to them. Most people assume maybe an 80-90% chance of infection, when the chance is actually 0.1%

 

Lets assume your partner is HIV positive, and you have sex with a condom. It is fair to say the chances of getting infected as very very negligible. (quote from link removed: "Studies on couples where one partner is infected show that with consistent condom use, HIV infection rates for the uninfected partner are below 1% per year"). Lets assume that during sex something happens that makes you worried about the condoms effectiveness, then you can immediately go on a link removed treatment programme in order to prevent the disease from breaking out. PEP is generally considered to be extremely effective, but it is very expensive. And it needs to be started within 72 hours of infection, before sero-conversion has taken place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had a fatal STI I would only date someone who also had it.

Unfortunately, that plan doesn't work either. There are a number of strains of HIV, and you can be infected with more than one. Being infected with multiple strains is theorised as being a cause of the failure of drugs, you take different kinds of them depending on the strain, and its only through perfect adherence to the drug regime that the virus can be sent to undetectable levels. Note I didn't say "strict", i said "perfect".

 

I have heard of HIV couples getting together and saying "yey we don't need to have condoms" but thats a very foolish idea.

 

I couldn't imagine intentionally putting someone's life at risk.. even if they were aware of their choice/risk.

Every time you have sex you put someones (and you own) life at risk. Simply getting HPV (the virus that genital warts). Its difficult to test for this, and high asymptomatic, that indicated infection rates of 82%. HPV is linked to the causes of a number of kinds of cancer, than can in many cases kill you before HIV infection would. Let me put it this way, most of the people replying to this thread will have HPV.

 

Its also worth noting, that condoms are nowhere near as effective at preventing HPV transmission as HIV/AIDs, as HPV is transferred via skin to skin contact. Pregnancy in itself has a moderate mortality rate, especially in young or old mothers. Abortion has a mortality rate worth note.

 

I won't have a relationship with someone unless I really care about them, but I won't let HIV/AIDs hysteria get in the way of the facts.

 

I posted this a while ago on another thread:

On a search once I saw a soldier who refused to hold a guys hand who was dying at the scene of an accident because the guy had AIDs and there was dried blood all over his hands. I made a point of walking over and holding his hand without gloves on. I'd rather have the virus than be that heartless. But thats just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think, regardless of the different strains thing, that sleeping with an already infected partner is better then sleeping with an uninfected partner, if it's only about sex.

 

On a related note: who here has been tested/gets tested regularly for things?

 

*raises hand* When I'm 18, I will and until then, I'm not having sex or anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think, regardless of the different strains thing, that sleeping with an already infected partner is better then sleeping with an uninfected partner, if it's only about sex.

I think sleeping with someone "only for sex" who has HIV/AIDs is not a good idea, and that wasn't what i meant in my post. Also, i reiterate that unprotected sex between two people with HIV is a very bad idea. There is small amounts of evidence for multiple infections, but its so hard to test for, and the long term results aren't known. But in many diseases where multiple strain infections are possible, it becomes very hard to treat the disease at all. AIDs attacks the immune system, it doesn't kill people. Opportunistic infections kill you. Having two strains of HIV gives you a much higher chance of getting AIDs. Having HIV is not a death sentence in the western world, having AIDs is.

 

On a related note: who here has been tested/gets tested regularly for things?

I get tested every three months, which is the average time for sero-conversion.

 

*raises hand* When I'm 18, I will and until then, I'm not having sex or anything.

Worry about teenage pregnacy, HPV, STI's, and everything else as well. Sex is a dangerous business! But that doesn't mean we stop doing it. Basic epidemiology tells us that viruses require a method of transmission, and whats the one thing that nearly every animal, human, etc... does with some regularity? HAVE SEX! So thats the method of transmission for most viruses and disease. Its a fact of life.

 

Also, I'd like to throw a can of worms into the discussion by noting that the exact causal link between HIV and AIDs is disputed by some in the scientific community. I don't understand the debate, as its quite technical, but I believe it has something to do with them believing something else needs to be present for HIV to develop into AIDs, some kind of parasite or something, and that HIV can be nothing more than something you have in your system.

 

We just don't know enough about this disease.

 

A cure for AIDs isn't a priority for researchers, cause current medical techniques for treatment and cures offer no hope for beating the virus - because it becomes part of your immune system. Repressing the virus is possible.

 

The "hope" comes in the form of a vaccine. The making of vaccines is complicated where multiple strains exist in people, and where new strains come as a result of mutation of the virus. Its an incredibly complex virus, prone to mutation, thus - the development of a vaccine is "problematic"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I'd like to throw a can of worms into the discussion by noting that the exact causal link between HIV and AIDs is disputed by some in the scientific community. I don't understand the debate, as its quite technical, but I believe it has something to do with them believing something else needs to be present for HIV to develop into AIDs, some kind of parasite or something, and that HIV can be nothing more than something you have in your system.

 

 

Icemotoboy, I've always wondered about this. Why is it, in the early stages of the epidemic, that people died--literally--right away. There were people who were infected in week one and dead by week three, due to AIDS related complications. However, there are some individuals who carry HIV in their bodies for years and years and never know.

Your post made me think about that. Could HIV and AIDS be two different things, relatable by one x-factor?

 

No one quote me on this...This is just a question.

 

 

Worry about teenage pregnacy, HPV, STI's, and everything else as well. Sex is a dangerous business! But that doesn't mean we stop doing it. Basic epidemiology tells us that viruses require a method of transmission, and whats the one thing that nearly every animal, human, etc... does with some regularity? HAVE SEX! So thats the method of transmission for most viruses and disease. Its a fact of life.

 

Exactly, it's evolution. Survival of the fittest. These organisms are fighting for their survival too, so they are latching onto any and everything that can ensure their own growth and reproduction. The viruses know that human beings have sex. So sex is the way to go to procreate the different viral strain. It sucks that something so pleasurable can be life threatening...

I wish there was no AIDS and you could just goto the clinic and get a bottle of penicillin.

 

As it is protect yourself. I haven't had sex yet, but I am educating myself on all the risks...I want pleasure but I don't want to die for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Why is it, in the early stages of the epidemic, that people died--literally--right away. There were people who were infected in week one and dead by week three, due to AIDS related complications. However, there are some individuals who carry HIV in their bodies for years and years and never know."

 

I think that was because they'd been infected for years and then there was a term for it and all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose I would start by saying, I'm not scared of dying - but I am scared of not living. Fear is natural and important, but I don't let it become hysteria.

 

Icemotoboy, I've always wondered about this. Why is it, in the early stages of the epidemic, that people died--literally--right away. There were people who were infected in week one and dead by week three, due to AIDS related complications. However, there are some individuals who carry HIV in their bodies for years and years and never know.

All my research into the subject has simply been reading, my brother is a Biochemist working in genetics, so a little bit of his thinking has washed off on me over the years. but i'm far more interested in the epidemiology and economics of disease than the technical aspects.

 

That said, I think much of the answer to your question lies in the origins of HIV, which I find a fascinating topic. It appears that either HIV existed in very low levels in the United States in periods prior to 1981, or it may have become extinct in the United States at times, with the present infection established in the USA about 1976. The earliest documented HIV infection dates from 1959 discovered in an old blood sample from someone from africa.

 

The virus may have been introduced and re-introduced into the American population on several occasions, but that it may have died out for lack of a large, very sexually active population to transmit it. When the virus became entrenched among addict populations the epidemic really took off, as (if you read my post above) the sharing of needles was an even more efficient means of spread.

 

So, it seems quite likely that AIDS appeared many times before it finally took hold.

 

Alot of the reasons for rapid decline of early cases is that HIV is asymptomatic, asside from some very mild symptions during sero-conversion. So people weren't detected till they became very sick. When doctors DID become aware of sick people, they treated them according to the diseases they presented, when the real problem was the lack of immune system. Sometimes, these treatments themselves exposed those who had AIDs to further infection and ultimately early death. Nowdays treatments for other diseases with those with AIDs are carefully managed and documented. We understand the disease more, or at least its effects.

 

AIDs, "untreated" (i use that word loosely), will result in death in someone within months. I believe the median is something like nine months. The progression, those who have seen late-stage AIDs cases will back me up on this, is unbelievably fast in the late stages. The body just goes nuts, with no immune system.

 

Your post made me think about that. Could HIV and AIDS be two different things, relatable by one x-factor?

Its possible. Its not generally accepted. But in some cases HIV, even untreated, will never progress into AIDs. We don't know why. Some people are "resilient" to sero-conversion of HIV strains, somehow related to their genetic structure. We don't know why. There is one documented case of a british man having the virus, only to have it disapear. We don't know why.

 

Whatever the outcome, one thing is certain in my mind...

 

The leading cause of death and suffering in this world is IGNORANCE.

 

Put together all the drug, smoking, obesity, suicide, war, crime deaths - and you will see that many of them have large elements of ignorance. It is somewhat contagious as well. But you can protect yourself against it by being OPEN MINDED, COMPASSIONATE, and EDUCATED. Don't believe everything your parents tell you, that you see on TV, and that you learn in school. Read voraciously. Don't buy into fear. Don't stand for ignorance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good thread. Excellent, in fact. I'm learning - that is always good.

 

To the original question, I'd have to say I don't know. I would probably be hesitant, and scared, and would go into super-researching mode. I'd talk to other people who had been there and find out the facts, weigh risks, and then decide.

 

I have a difficult time wrapping my head and heart around being in a situation like that myself. It must be very difficult, and the love would have to be strong. HIV/AIDS is not something I am well educated about.

 

--I didn't realize there were so many different strains of HIV. It does make sense though. Mutations and new strains must be developing all the time.

Scary, and heartbreaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...