The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-22-2009, 07:47 AM
Bam Boo Lah Bam Boo Lah is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 6
Risk of HIV transmission for less than 10 seconds condomless sex

Hi all,

So I did sort of a mistake, excited I was, by having during a very short time (a few seconds) condomless sex with a heterosexual, non drug-using woman. I regained my wits quickly, pulled out and put a condom.

Do I tangibly risk anything, HIV-wise ?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 04-22-2009, 07:58 AM
lazybratsche lazybratsche is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Well, there's always some risk. In your case, the risk is pretty small. This cite places the risk of unprotected sex in your case at 1 in 200,000, assuming your partner is HIV positive. They don't say it clearly, but I think they're implying that this is per sexual encounter. And I think it's safe to say that the shorter duration of contact in your case will reduce the risk even more (less time for fluids to mix, less, erm, skin bruising and abrasion that comes will all sex).

ETA: Don't worry a whole lot this time, but plan for next time!

Last edited by lazybratsche; 04-22-2009 at 07:59 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-22-2009, 07:58 AM
Cliffy Cliffy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
I'm not a doctor. It's probably awfully low -- the risk of female to male transmission of HIV during vanilla intercourse is already rather low. But next time, bring an overcoat.

--Cliffy
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-22-2009, 08:11 AM
Henrichek Henrichek is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Oy, that shows my ignorance regarding HIV. I thought the risks were substantially higher than that, with a near 1 probability if one of the participants carried the virus. Well, I suppose it's better to overestimate the risk..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-22-2009, 08:33 AM
Simplicio Simplicio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Yea, I always wonder at how HIV gets transmitted sexually through the non-anal sex having population at all with the infection chances for vaginal intercourse. I mean, you have to be having a lot of unprotected sex to catch a disease with a 1 in 100,000 chance of transmission. And yet wikipedia gives the percentage of new infections from heterosexual sex as 35-40% (though perhaps that just means heterosexuals are having a lot of anal sex).
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-22-2009, 08:34 AM
Zulema Zulema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Of course, you trapped her bodily fluids against your skin unless you washed before putting on the condom.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-22-2009, 09:11 AM
BrandonR BrandonR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Cecil says the chance isn't that high, but the numbers are terribly dated so take it with a grain of salt unless someone can scrounge up updated stats.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-22-2009, 10:38 AM
Dandmb50 Dandmb50 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
I always wondered about that too, is it a for sure thing that you catch the virus or is it like the chances of a man having sex with a women and she "might" get pregnant?

Daniel .................... Toronto
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-22-2009, 10:41 AM
Dandmb50 Dandmb50 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
So if the person he had sex with is a carrier of the HIV virus is it a for sure thing he will get the virus or is it just a chance, risk of catching it?

Daniel ................... Toronto
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-22-2009, 10:44 AM
Simplicio Simplicio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dandmb50 View Post
I always wondered about that too, is it a for sure thing that you catch the virus or is it like the chances of a man having sex with a women and she "might" get pregnant?
The answers pretty much in the links above. There's only a small chance an infected person will give an uninfected person HIV during vaginal intercourse. Far less then the chance of impregnating someone (not sure why you have "might" in scare quotes though, makes it look like you don't believe all this talk of sex leading to pregnancies )

Course, there's plenty of other fun diseases you can transmit during intercourse, and some of those aside from being unpleasant in their own right also increase the chance of HIV transmission, so condoms are still a good idea.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-22-2009, 12:15 PM
Kimmy_Gibbler Kimmy_Gibbler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simplicio View Post
I mean, you have to be having a lot of unprotected sex to catch a disease with a 1 in 100,000 chance of transmission.
The inverse gambler's fallacy strikes again!

Quote:
Originally Posted by id.
And yet wikipedia gives the percentage of new infections from heterosexual sex as 35-40% (though perhaps that just means heterosexuals are having a lot of anal sex).
If most intercourse that occurs is heterosexual (heterosexuals make up better than 90% of the population) and heterosexual intercourse has a non-zero probability of transmitting infection, why should it be surprising that roughly 1/3 of new infections arise from heterosexual intercourse?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-22-2009, 12:39 PM
JonathanTheRed JonathanTheRed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henrichek View Post
Oy, that shows my ignorance regarding HIV. I thought the risks were substantially higher than that, with a near 1 probability if one of the participants carried the virus.
Don't feel too bad about your ignorance; during the heyday of the HIV scare in the United States, information about the disease was primarily propagated by activists who willfully overplayed the risk of transmission from vaginal intercourse. In the early 1980s AIDS was widely perceived as a "gay disease", and societal tolerance for homosexuality was not where it is today. Those responsible for misleading heterosexuals about the threat were probably concerned that unless they panicked the straight people into fearing for their own lives, the disease would receive less attention, funding, and research. These concerns, it must be said, were probably not without merit, so in a way I can sympathize... but using deception to scare the crap out of people rarely turns out well. Thanks to activist- and media-fueled hysteria over a nonexistent and highly unlikely epidemic among heterosexuals, much of the money that went to fighting AIDS was essentially wasted, focused on populations that really were not at significant risk of infection. It was as though most of the money allocated to breast cancer awareness and outreach were focused on men, about 400 of whom die of breast cancer annually in the United States.
Quote:
Well, I suppose it's better to overestimate the risk..
Not necessarily, unless you own a condom factory.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-22-2009, 12:54 PM
Simplicio Simplicio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimmy_Gibbler View Post
If most intercourse that occurs is heterosexual (heterosexuals make up better than 90% of the population) and heterosexual intercourse has a non-zero probability of transmitting infection, why should it be surprising that roughly 1/3 of new infections arise from heterosexual intercourse?
So heterosexuals are 9 times more of the population then gays, but according to the above link vaginal intercourse is 3,000 times more likely to result in infection. Of course, some heterosexuals may have anal sex, some gays may not (presumably lesbians aren't), there are plenty of other ways to spread HIV and heterosexuals may just be more likely to engage in unsafe behavior. So maybe these factors combine to explain the discrepancy, but still, at a first glance anyways, the numbers seem odd.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-22-2009, 01:06 PM
Zsofia Zsofia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonathanTheRed View Post
Don't feel too bad about your ignorance; during the heyday of the HIV scare in the United States, information about the disease was primarily propagated by activists who willfully overplayed the risk of transmission from vaginal intercourse. In the early 1980s AIDS was widely perceived as a "gay disease", and societal tolerance for homosexuality was not where it is today. Those responsible for misleading heterosexuals about the threat were probably concerned that unless they panicked the straight people into fearing for their own lives, the disease would receive less attention, funding, and research. These concerns, it must be said, were probably not without merit, so in a way I can sympathize... but using deception to scare the crap out of people rarely turns out well. Thanks to activist- and media-fueled hysteria over a nonexistent and highly unlikely epidemic among heterosexuals, much of the money that went to fighting AIDS was essentially wasted, focused on populations that really were not at significant risk of infection. It was as though most of the money allocated to breast cancer awareness and outreach were focused on men, about 400 of whom die of breast cancer annually in the United States.
All of that is a good point, but look what's going on in Africa - you can certainly have an AIDS epidemic fueled largely by hetero sex.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-22-2009, 01:34 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 22,186
The point is, there has to be a relatively large amount of fluid transmission. This is why anal sex is the most dangerous- anal tissue very often tears during anal sex. allowing the fluids to enter the blood directly.

It seems to be nessesary to have some sort of fluid (semen) to fluid (blood) transfer, thus we normally need a bleeding tear, an ulcer, etc. Unboken skin seems to be a farily effective barrier. Not 100%. Vaginal fluids also seem to be not a good fluid for transmission.

Note that a Syphilis ulcer is an excelent "access point". One reason why prostitutes are a source of AIDs also.

It's also not all that difficult or rare for a man to have a small tear (or ulcer) on his penis.

In Africa we have several things going on- rough dry sex is preferred by many males, thus leading to tears and semen to blood transmission. Same with very young girls* and those with mutilated genitals. Homosexual sex is far more common that those infected would have you beleive, although those participating would likely not be considered to be "gay" by many, they still have participated in homosexual anal sex. Many men in Africa commonly have sex with prostitutes and this has been postulated as one of the main sources.

wiki "The main driver of infection in the region is commercial sex. In the Ghanaian capital Accra, for example, 80% of HIV infections in young men had been acquired from women who sell sex. In Niger, the adult national HIV prevalence was 1% in 2003, yet surveys of sex workers in different regions found a HIV infection rate of between 9 and 38%."


* there is a not uncommon beleif that sex with a virgin will cure AIDS. You can imagine what occurs when an HIV active male rapes a 8 yo girl to cure his AIDS.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-22-2009, 02:10 PM
JonathanTheRed JonathanTheRed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zsofia View Post
All of that is a good point, but look what's going on in Africa - you can certainly have an AIDS epidemic fueled largely by hetero sex.
This is true, but the situation in Africa is manifestly very different than in Western countries. DrDeth pointed out a few of those differences and how they contributed to the HIV epidemic there. I've heard other reasons as well, some of which I'm highly skeptical of (for example, the claim that African heterosexuals routinely use anal sex as a method of birth control), others of which I find credible (for example, the claim that there is a higher incidence of other, lesion-causing STDs, or the claim that African men are less likely to admit to homosexual intercourse.)

It's no exaggeration to describe the general tenor of information on HIV disseminated in the early-to-mind 90s as "hysteria", and as Henrichek demonstrates, even to this day many intelligent, rational people have the mistaken impression that HIV is far more transmissible than it really is. Michael Fumento in The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS (1993) documented several examples of this hysteria. I'm going off memory here so I may be mistaken, but I believe it was Oprah Winfrey who told her audience that one in five American adults was likely to be dead of AIDS within a decade. Fumento cites another commentator as saying something similar to, "You have a gay man, and he has AIDS. He has sex with a bisexual man, and gives the disease to him. Then the bisexual has sex with a perfectly heterosexual woman, and she gets it. Then you go down the line, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, and you ask, 'How did this nice Catholic girl get AIDS?'" This attitude was common, yet I would not hesitate to bet my life and the lives of everyone I love that there has never been an instance of a person ten steps removed from a high-risk group contracting HIV.

Again, I'm not without sympathy for those who worried that unless they convinced heterosexuals that they faced a grave threat from AIDS, the disease would be ignored. History has more than justified the fear that the majority will be indifferent to (or in favor of) ills which afflict unpopular minorities, and there were plenty of yahoos declaring AIDS to be God's punishment for sodomy to fuel that fear. The politicization of AIDS may have been necessary... but necessary or not, it's still a shame.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-22-2009, 02:58 PM
panache45 panache45 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NE Ohio (the 'burbs)
Posts: 22,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonathanTheRed View Post
Again, I'm not without sympathy for those who worried that unless they convinced heterosexuals that they faced a grave threat from AIDS, the disease would be ignored. History has more than justified the fear that the majority will be indifferent to (or in favor of) ills which afflict unpopular minorities, and there were plenty of yahoos declaring AIDS to be God's punishment for sodomy to fuel that fear. The politicization of AIDS may have been necessary... but necessary or not, it's still a shame.
I was one of those activists in the '80s, and I have to say that we really did believe that hetero transmission would be more than it turned out to be. I'm not aware of any actual deception going on, though I wouldn't be surprised if there had been some.

Our main concern was (and still is) the fact that there have always been HUGE numbers of ostensibly straight, married men who have sex (usually unsafe) with other men, contract the virus, and take it home to their wives. And yes, there have been significant lives lost this way.

But the fact remains that the non-gay population never really embraced that risk, still believing it was primarily a gay disease. The really shameful aspect of this is the Black community. Practically from the beginning, there was evidence that the disease was spreading disproportionately among Blacks . . . yet the Black leaders (with the exception of Jesse Jackson) would not hear of it. Their attitude was that it was a gay disease, and there were no Black homosexuals. Even today, almost 30 years later, a large segment of the Black community is in denial. And of course this attitude results in pushing large numbers of Black men into the "down low," involving many other risks, in addition to HIV.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-22-2009, 05:00 PM
constanze constanze is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonathanTheRed View Post
This is true, but the situation in Africa is manifestly very different than in Western countries. ...
One additional factor might be genetics. I recently read the results of a study, and the gist was that geneticists found that Africans were more likely to be infected with a certain type/strand of the HIV (there are different types) because one gene is different from the Europeans; very tentative speculation at this point was that the Europeans had the gene changed after surviving the plague (which killed of 30% of the then-population of Europe), which the Africans hadn't encountered (a kind of ironic late "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" thing ...)

However, I thought - esp. given that in the pregnancy threads some Dopers have told about how they got pregnant despite several precautions - that the common Doctors advice is that statistics and risk factors is no help at all if you happen to be the one in a 10 000 (or whatever number) who happens to get it?
Or in other words, do you play lotto because you believe you have a chance to win?

Last edited by constanze; 04-22-2009 at 05:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-22-2009, 07:34 PM
dracoi dracoi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henrichek View Post
Oy, that shows my ignorance regarding HIV. I thought the risks were substantially higher than that, with a near 1 probability if one of the participants carried the virus. Well, I suppose it's better to overestimate the risk..
There are cases of married couples where one partner has HIV and the other doesn't, even though they've had unprotected sex frequently and over a long period of time. They've simply managed to beat the odds time and time again.

Of course, 1 in 200,000 (or 1 in anything) is of no consolation whatsoever to the 1. Get yourself tested just to be sure.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-22-2009, 08:56 PM
Thudlow Boink Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Springfield, IL
Posts: 17,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by constanze View Post
One additional factor might be genetics. I recently read the results of a study, and the gist was that geneticists found that Africans were more likely to be infected with a certain type/strand of the HIV (there are different types) because one gene is different from the Europeans; very tentative speculation at this point was that the Europeans had the gene changed after surviving the plague (which killed of 30% of the then-population of Europe), which the Africans hadn't encountered (a kind of ironic late "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" thing ...)
Yes, I saw that too. Here's a link to one article I found about the study.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-23-2009, 05:08 PM
JonathanTheRed JonathanTheRed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by panache45 View Post
I was one of those activists in the '80s, and I have to say that we really did believe that hetero transmission would be more than it turned out to be. I'm not aware of any actual deception going on, though I wouldn't be surprised if there had been some.
Oh, I'm not alleging deliberate disinformation on the part of you or anyone else... although I'd be surprised if there hadn't been any. But I do think there was a lot of gun-jumping that may well qualify as willful ignorance -- the alarm bells were sounded before there was sufficient reason to justify it. And surely you won't deny that the disease was very heavily politicized.

Quote:
Our main concern was (and still is) the fact that there have always been HUGE numbers of ostensibly straight, married men who have sex (usually unsafe) with other men, contract the virus, and take it home to their wives. And yes, there have been significant lives lost this way.
Yes, there have been significant lives lost... but "significant" is a vague and subjective term, and that significant number needs to be viewed in perspective. The number of American women who've lost their lives to AIDS after being infected by a male partner since the beginning of the epidemic is an order of magnitude lower than the number of American women who die of cardiovascular disease in a single year. How much do you want to bet that the money spent on research, prevention, and education has been nowhere near proportionate? Why isn't your main concern heart disease, or cancer? Even if you're going to insist on limiting your concern to AIDS, you'd do better (and save more lives) to focus your efforts on gay men and intravenous drug users, who together make up nearly two thirds of new infections. (Even that figure is probably low, thanks to recall bias introduced by patients reluctant to admit to either gay sex or IV drug use.)

And that's the main source of my distaste with the politicization of AIDS. Resources are not infinite, and every decision carries an opportunity cost. Fighting AIDS is a worthy goal, but there are lots of other worthy goals, and when decisions about which goals to pursue are made through politics rather than rational analysis, the result will be that the cemeteries will fill up that much faster. AIDS has not cracked the top 15 causes of death in the U.S. for over a decade.

Quote:
The really shameful aspect of this is the Black community. Practically from the beginning, there was evidence that the disease was spreading disproportionately among Blacks
Most likely due to the fact that blacks are also disproportionately represented in the population of intravenous drug users, yes?

Quote:
And of course this attitude results in pushing large numbers of Black men into the "down low," involving many other risks, in addition to HIV.
I'm not sure what you mean by the "down low." Could you elaborate?

Perhaps you can comment on a disturbing rumor that I've heard: to wit, that the great strides made in AIDS treatment (80% of patients diagnosed today can expect to live at least ten more years, and that's after being diagnosed with AIDS, not HIV) some gay men no longer fear infection and are reverting to the old behavioral patterns which led to the initial epidemic in the first place. I've even heard that some gay men get a thrill out of risking unprotected sex with an infected men... "bug chaser" is the term I heard, I believe. Is this true?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-23-2009, 05:34 PM
The Great Philosopher The Great Philosopher is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonathanTheRed View Post
Perhaps you can comment on a disturbing rumor that I've heard: to wit, that the great strides made in AIDS treatment (80% of patients diagnosed today can expect to live at least ten more years, and that's after being diagnosed with AIDS, not HIV) some gay men no longer fear infection and are reverting to the old behavioral patterns which led to the initial epidemic in the first place. I've even heard that some gay men get a thrill out of risking unprotected sex with an infected men... "bug chaser" is the term I heard, I believe. Is this true?
Yep, 'bug chasers' exist. Some of them not only want the thrill of the risk of catching it, but actually want to contract HIV. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4895012.stm

Although that article just went online and found a bunch of gay men who wanted to have unprotected sex with other HIV+ gays - there's no research into how prevalent that desire is (I suspect it's fairly rare). You can find people online who want to do pretty much anything after all.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-23-2009, 09:43 PM
glowacks glowacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonathanTheRed View Post
I'm not sure what you mean by the "down low." Could you elaborate?
I remember seeing this from at least two sources, but there are significant numbers of closeted black married men who have homosexual sex "on the down low" presumably meaning extremely secretly. That's the exact term I've seen used. While obviously there's been a significant social stigma against homosexuals for most of history, there is probably a bit more machismo expected in African-American culture compared to other races and cultures of the Western world. Thus, even admitting such a sub-culture exists is quite difficult for them and I'm not surprised it's not more well known.

Last edited by glowacks; 04-23-2009 at 09:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-23-2009, 10:34 PM
Henrichek Henrichek is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Great Philosopher View Post
Yep, 'bug chasers' exist. Some of them not only want the thrill of the risk of catching it, but actually want to contract HIV. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4895012.stm
Is that legal? To knowingly spread a serious infection? Or is it only illegal to knowingly spread it to people without first telling that you are infected?

Last edited by Henrichek; 04-23-2009 at 10:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-24-2009, 11:19 AM
constanze constanze is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonathanTheRed View Post
Perhaps you can comment on a disturbing rumor that I've heard: to wit, that the great strides made in AIDS treatment (80% of patients diagnosed today can expect to live at least ten more years, and that's after being diagnosed with AIDS, not HIV) some gay men no longer fear infection and are reverting to the old behavioral patterns which led to the initial epidemic in the first place. I've even heard that some gay men get a thrill out of risking unprotected sex with an infected men... "bug chaser" is the term I heard, I believe. Is this true?
Over here in Europe, the big worry isn't gay men, it's the new generation of hetero youngsters who think that AIDS is a thing of the 80s, long gone, or at least cured, who don't use condoms. We have started new awareness campaigns because everybody's gotten complacent and stopped worrying and started to think of AIDS as treatable with those new drugs.

Since you used heart disease as comparison above: if you know you have high blood pressure, or bad cholerstol, or blocked blood vessels, there are bunches of medication, life style changes or bypass etc. available to you. Once you have caught HIV, there's nothing you can do besides take medication to prolong the outbreak of AIDS - if you can afford them. Any lifestyle change won't remove the virus, while less stress, healthier eating and more sports over a longer period does wonders for one's heart. So I think there's quite a difference in outcome and seriousness between those two illnesses.

I don't know the numbers of new infections for the US, but currently, the highest new infection rate is no longer Africa (despite superstitious, badly informed males raping young girls because they believe virgins can cure AIDS, or migrant workers getting infected from prostitutes and infecting their wifes and then families back home), it's Eastern Europe - the remnants of the USSR, all those satellite states with low education and people using sex partly for income (the sex trade makes this not only a terrible human right problem, but also a health risk); and Asia. Again, lack of education there, so nobody knows how serious AIDS is, and thus nobody takes precautions.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-24-2009, 11:21 AM
constanze constanze is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henrichek View Post
Is that legal? To knowingly spread a serious infection? Or is it only illegal to knowingly spread it to people without first telling that you are infected?
In Germany, just a couple of days ago one person (I think a female prostitute?) knowingly slept with partners despite having HIV (I think males?) and infected them, and is now tried in court with bodily assault (I think that's the legal English term? Attacking somebodys health/injuring somebodys body?) It could mean up to 15 years max., I think (I only read the headline of a tabloid in passing, I would have to do a longer search for details.)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.