@ilovepdub: This is Eric; I'm not a doctor. The answer is "not with any effectiveness." Once those fluids have contacted your mucous membranes, you may have contracted an STD right at that moment, even if you then try to remove the fluids. And you may become pregnant, even if you try to "wash out" the semen.
If you choose to be sexually active, use barrier methods to reduce your risks.
Go to our web site and click "FAQ" and "Myths" for more.
i believe its true that if your not your partners only one. then u have had sex with all thier partners too cuz of the sexual fluids.. but the way i see it . it cant be that much cuz if they are not affected u wont be either. but i jus say this . the only person you havin sex wit is the one u layin down wit.
@skydayer: Unfortunately, yes. Like people in the world who live on less than $1 a day. "[N]ew poverty estimates released in August 2008 show that about 1.4 billion people in the developing world (one in four) were living on less than $1.25 a day in 2005, down from 1.9 billion (one in two) in 1981." [World Bank, "What is poverty?" Accessed 2 June 2010.]
This is Eric. Although many religions do advocate abstinence from sex until marriage and fidelity in marriage, nothing in this script was written for religious reasons. It's entirely based on secular public health considerations grounded in peer-reviewed scientific research. Leaving religion aside, convincing people to abstain from sex until marriage can be a critical part of HIV prevention, particularly in impoverished places like rural Africa where people lack access to condoms.
Likewise, convincing people to be faithful in marriage is a critical part of HIV prevention. Infidelity by husbands is a major risk factor for HIV among married women, for example. Uganda's "No Grazing" (be faithful to your spouse) campaign was a critical part of their successful effort to reduce their HIV prevalence rate. Likewise, nothing in this script was written due to any particular political belief system, feminist or otherwise. We've simply studied what the scientific research has shown.
The risk involved with any sexual act will not change regardless if someone is married to the person or is done with a complete stranger. If they are to poor to have access to condoms there to poor to have access to HIV tests. Considering the symptomless stage can last for over 10 years waiting to marriage is the exact same thing as promoting temporary abstinence. Which makes no sense.
This is Eric. (1) You're oversimplifying "risk." Although the intrinsic risk of transmission through a specific act between an HIV+ and HIV- partner is not changed by marital status, that's not the only factor in "risk." You have a great deal of contextual knowledge about a person you're married to. Hopefully, you have a strong mutual commitment to being faithful to each other and not having sex outside of marriage. Hopefully, your spouse will proactively tell you if they are HIV+.
People should get tested for HIV before they get married, should disclose their status, and should disclose if they choose to have sex outside of the marriage or share needles thereafter. You are correct however that if your spouse is not faithful and doesn't disclose this, your risk of contracting HIV in marital sex might be similar to that of sex with a stranger. And indeed, a husband's infidelity or drug use are leading risk factors for HIV among married women.
(2) It's not correct that people who are too poor to get condoms will necessarily have no access to free HIV testing. There are places like Africa where even though free condom distribution is not in place, free access to HIV testing is. (3) Abstinence from sex always eliminates your risk of contracting HIV via sex during the period you successfully abstain. (If you're raped, of course, you're at risk through sex that way.) Whether temporary or until marriage, it's a useful approach.
(4) Abstaining until marriage/life partnership is NOT exactly the same thing as temporary abstinence. "Temporary abstinence" assumes it is time-limited and a person will resume sex later, increasing risk again. If both partners are HIV- and abstain from sex until marriage and do not contract HIV by other means like needle sharing and are faithful in marriage thereafter, they will not contract HIV through sex, period. (Assuming neither one is raped, of course.)
(5) We are not saying, and the video does not say, that abstinence is a panacea. But it is one useful tool in our full quiver of arrows (including condoms, fidelity, testing, disclosure of status, access to treatment, etc.) against HIV.
ILL NEVER HAVE HIV
bestman132ify 4 months ago
wonder is there a way to get someone elses sexual fluids out of you
ilovepdub 1 year ago
@ilovepdub: This is Eric; I'm not a doctor. The answer is "not with any effectiveness." Once those fluids have contacted your mucous membranes, you may have contracted an STD right at that moment, even if you then try to remove the fluids. And you may become pregnant, even if you try to "wash out" the semen.
If you choose to be sexually active, use barrier methods to reduce your risks.
Go to our web site and click "FAQ" and "Myths" for more.
AIDSvideos 1 year ago
i believe its true that if your not your partners only one. then u have had sex with all thier partners too cuz of the sexual fluids.. but the way i see it . it cant be that much cuz if they are not affected u wont be either. but i jus say this . the only person you havin sex wit is the one u layin down wit.
ilovepdub 1 year ago
Seriously who cant buy a pack of condoms really are there people who cant spare 2 - 5 dollars?
skydayer 1 year ago
@skydayer: Unfortunately, yes. Like people in the world who live on less than $1 a day. "[N]ew poverty estimates released in August 2008 show that about 1.4 billion people in the developing world (one in four) were living on less than $1.25 a day in 2005, down from 1.9 billion (one in two) in 1981." [World Bank, "What is poverty?" Accessed 2 June 2010.]
AIDSvideos 1 year ago
Good Video. But she should leave her marriage beliefs and feminism out of it.. This is medical advice and religon should have nothing to do with it..
SnugOFP 2 years ago
This is Eric. Although many religions do advocate abstinence from sex until marriage and fidelity in marriage, nothing in this script was written for religious reasons. It's entirely based on secular public health considerations grounded in peer-reviewed scientific research. Leaving religion aside, convincing people to abstain from sex until marriage can be a critical part of HIV prevention, particularly in impoverished places like rural Africa where people lack access to condoms.
AIDSvideos 2 years ago
Likewise, convincing people to be faithful in marriage is a critical part of HIV prevention. Infidelity by husbands is a major risk factor for HIV among married women, for example. Uganda's "No Grazing" (be faithful to your spouse) campaign was a critical part of their successful effort to reduce their HIV prevalence rate. Likewise, nothing in this script was written due to any particular political belief system, feminist or otherwise. We've simply studied what the scientific research has shown.
AIDSvideos 2 years ago
nice video, everyone above 17 should watch
kganeshraj 3 years ago
The risk involved with any sexual act will not change regardless if someone is married to the person or is done with a complete stranger. If they are to poor to have access to condoms there to poor to have access to HIV tests. Considering the symptomless stage can last for over 10 years waiting to marriage is the exact same thing as promoting temporary abstinence. Which makes no sense.
SnugOFP 2 years ago
This is Eric. (1) You're oversimplifying "risk." Although the intrinsic risk of transmission through a specific act between an HIV+ and HIV- partner is not changed by marital status, that's not the only factor in "risk." You have a great deal of contextual knowledge about a person you're married to. Hopefully, you have a strong mutual commitment to being faithful to each other and not having sex outside of marriage. Hopefully, your spouse will proactively tell you if they are HIV+.
AIDSvideos 2 years ago
People should get tested for HIV before they get married, should disclose their status, and should disclose if they choose to have sex outside of the marriage or share needles thereafter. You are correct however that if your spouse is not faithful and doesn't disclose this, your risk of contracting HIV in marital sex might be similar to that of sex with a stranger. And indeed, a husband's infidelity or drug use are leading risk factors for HIV among married women.
AIDSvideos 2 years ago
(2) It's not correct that people who are too poor to get condoms will necessarily have no access to free HIV testing. There are places like Africa where even though free condom distribution is not in place, free access to HIV testing is. (3) Abstinence from sex always eliminates your risk of contracting HIV via sex during the period you successfully abstain. (If you're raped, of course, you're at risk through sex that way.) Whether temporary or until marriage, it's a useful approach.
AIDSvideos 2 years ago
(4) Abstaining until marriage/life partnership is NOT exactly the same thing as temporary abstinence. "Temporary abstinence" assumes it is time-limited and a person will resume sex later, increasing risk again. If both partners are HIV- and abstain from sex until marriage and do not contract HIV by other means like needle sharing and are faithful in marriage thereafter, they will not contract HIV through sex, period. (Assuming neither one is raped, of course.)
AIDSvideos 2 years ago
(5) We are not saying, and the video does not say, that abstinence is a panacea. But it is one useful tool in our full quiver of arrows (including condoms, fidelity, testing, disclosure of status, access to treatment, etc.) against HIV.
AIDSvideos 2 years ago