Just recently I slept with a girl I met at a bar not knowing she had sex with my friend hours earlier, now my friend has slept with several women and says he has not used protection several times. When we were at it the condom ripped completly off, so we were usafe for about 10-15 minutes not knowing it. I fear I may have gotton STDs but worse HIV. Now I have only slept with two women in my life, and was wondering what u thought my chances of getting it are. Please post me back and tell me what you think.
I think it’s impossible to give you odds. You have to get tested. It’s nothing to be afraid because if you have it, you have it (and you can start treatment *now), and if not, then it will set your mind at ease.
I think your friend has HIV? Otherwise I don’t see why you would instantly be worried about it.
But anyways, just because your friend has HIV doesn’t mean he necessarily transmitted it to this girl, and even if he did, it doesn’t mean she necessarily transmitted it to you. But either way, get checked.
Um, it sounds unlikely, but obviously you’re worried. Wouldn’t testing be a better approach for figuring it out than asking random strangers? You should probably check, yeah.
Your question is like asking: “Am I going to die if I drive from my house to the grocery store?”
Again, too many variables to know for sure, but I’d bet my next paycheck you don’t have hiv.
Assuming that the other person has HIV (which ranges from likely to virtually impossible depending on the population involved), the chances of transmission from a single incident are quite low – very roughly, around 1% or less for a male. (It may even be substantially less.) Among heterosexuals who are not sex-trade workers and who do not use intravenous drugs, HIV is not very prevalent, though of course there are other STDs which are more common.
The chance that a woman will acquire HIV from a man who is HIV+ is somewhat greater, probably a few percent from a single incident. This does not mean that you shouldn’t be concerned at all, and you should certainly be tested at an appropriate time in the future. It would probably be wise to go to a clinic now in the event that you acquired some other STD. (Realistically, the chances are not that large, particularly if you have no reason to believe the other person had an STD, but it still has to be said.)
My suggestion to you is to go to your local Red Cross tomorrow and donate blood. It’s free, you are helping to save lives, and they test all donated blood. If they find anything you should know about, it will mention it in the thank-you letter they mail you. Of course, this might not help for any other STDs, but its an easy, free, helpful way to test for HIV. 
I don’t know how it works in the US, but in England you should definitely not use blood donation as a means of getting an HIV test. If you are worried about HIV go to a clinic. Donating blood if you think you may have a disease is a waste of time for all involved.
This is a reckless and stupid suggestion. If you want to put your mind at ease, go to a sexual health clinic.
The worst part about all of this is that you cannot have definate results for six months. The current HIV tests might not show results even if you are positive due to your body not making enough anti-bodies for HIV in the first few months of infection.
This is not to say you have contracted it, with all that you have written, it does not sound as probable as you might fear. But definately play it safe and get tested and avoid activity that may pass it to someone else.
-What are the odds of getting AIDS from ordinary heterosexual sex?
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_373.html
Free yes, easy maybe but in no way is it helpful. In Northern Ireland the checklist of questions you get before donating pretty much exclude you from donating if you think you are at risk from AIDS/HIV. Its a very irresponsible way of having a check up on your blood.
To the OP, from what I learned in sex education at school, clinics in the UK at least are discreet and more than ready to check you out for any STD, ask your Doctor. There’s no way anyone on here could assess your chances of any infection from that story alone.
That is dated pretty far back though. 17 years later, more people are infected with HIV/AIDs today and I’m sure there are updated statistics for those categories as well.
Doesn’t there have to be an incubation period before you go take the test.
I can’t imagine a test that could detect the hiv virus if you were infected the day before. Seems like I remember you had to wait three months or something like that. I could be wrong though.
DON’T donate blood!!! You can be infected and not know it for up to 6 months. If (God Forbid) you are infected, then blood donation will be spreading it to more innocent people. Don’t do it.
IIRC, around 80% of new infections show up on an HIV test within 3 months. Just bide your time for several months, then get tested. The safest time period is 6 months within which 99.9% of infections are supposedly detected by an ELISA. (BTWIANAD.) It’s hard not to worry but waiting is basically your only option.
I would like to chime in here and say this is a stupid stupid stupid STUPID suggestion. IIRC the red cross tests batches of blood at the same time. Meaning that they take a little bit from a bunch of different people and mix it together and test the result. If they detect something they throw out everyones blood in that batch. If you are indeed infected than you have wasted a bunch of peoples blood plus you will not get a reliable diagnosis. It could have been someon else in that batch with HIV so you would still have to get personally tested.
Go here and find yourself a testing facility and get tested.
Do not donate blood as a way of testing for HIV. This is a very very very dangerous idea please do not do it.
Wow.
I don’t want to say this is the worst, most terrible, ignorant, and morally-depraved thing I’ve ever heard. That would be hyperbole. But this makes the top ten, anyway.
HIV screening is not perfect. There are false negatives - and a few people a year still get infected from the donor blood supply. That’s why there’s so much effort to filter out those at higher risk for HIV (notably, anyone who has engaged in any sort of sex work, and gay men. Whether this is fair or not is debatable.)
I hope you’ve never done this. There are free places to get tested. Hell, if it would stop this, I think there’s Dopers who’d pay for someone to get tested. HIV status is protected far beyond ordinary medical confidentiality in the US at least; there is simply no justification for donating blood if you think there is any chance you’re HIV positive. You may well kill someone if you do.
If you’re sexually active, and non-monogamous (or within the bounds of a polyamorous relationship in which the partners are HIV-negative and don’t have sex outside of the relationship), you should be tested from time to time. There is a small but nonzero chance of it evading very careful countermeasures.
Again, though, it sounds titanically unlikely that the OP might have it.
Well that’s inefficient of them. And dishonest, too. I took my friend who works at the local Red Cross at her word when they said they retested each sample from the batch to see which were really bad rather than just throwing them all out. She said it was just cheaper to batch test since statistically most batches won’t have to be retested and then you’ve done a single test rather than 20 (or however many are in a batch). Now I see that she was just a liar.
The Red Cross doesn’t have the financial resources to test blood for people who are too cheap or lazy or afraid to go to a real clinic and have it done. By using them for a “free” HIV test, you are stealing money that they could use for a legitimate purpose. Especially when there are plenty of free or inexpensive clinics where someone can get an HIV test. What’s the point of doing such a stupid thing anyway - if the RC comes back and says you tested positive, you STILL have to go to a regular doctor or clinic and be retested and be advised on treatment options. It’s not like the test itself is the end of the process.
I thought that the Red Cross batch-tested and then if the batch was positive, they tested individual samples. One, they are wasting an awful lot of blood if they just toss out the entire donation because of possibly one infected sample. Two, I cannot believe that they are telling 10 or 20 people or whatever amount is in the batch that they are being rejected because they might be HIV+, when really maybe only one person is HIV+. They’d have a huge legal problem on their hands if they were doing such a thing - mental anguish, pain & suffering, etc.
And, anyone who believes he might have been exposed to HIV and trusts a Red Cross test to find out “for sure” is a big fat idiot. He’s gambling with his life to save a few dollars. Give up beer or DVDs or take the bus for a few weeks if you think you can’t afford to go to a real clinic.
Since HIV is untestable in the first few months, then the Red Cross wouldn’t detect antibodies and the blood would go to other people. The same blood that might be HiV +. Sounds morally like manslaughter to me.
I’d also like to chime in and say this is an igonorant, wrong-headed, and just plain stupid thing to do. You would unknowingly be exposing others because you’re too damn lazy or cheap to get a real test. The other poster was right in comparing it to manslaughter.