If I got myself tested and it turned out to be positive, what should I do next? And if I had it and I was not tested, what would happen? When would it become obvious that I had it?
Start treatment right away. There have been significant advancements in HIV treatment over the years, and it can prevent AIDS for a long time. However, if you've got HIV there's not much you can do other than that, it's too late. The whole point of protection is to protect yourself against things like HIV. A moment of pleasure for a lifelong disease is not worth it.
What treatments are there? Magic Johnson is 54 and he has had the disease for over 20 years and appears healthy
Exactly. What's really interesting is how fears can change sexual behavior or arousal. Fear of impregnation can make males somewhat resistant to or not easily aroused by vaginal intercourse. Fear of infection can also make males somewhat resistant to or not that enthused about seeking anal intercourse. I've read this somewhere. It makes sense. The mind is a powerful tool. As for the OP, don't worry that much. For most people who have been infected, antibodies which will show up in a test in 2 months. For practically everyone who has been infected, antibodies are present in 3 months. In the unlikely event that there is a positive result, they indicate starting treatment right away. It seems that, after experimenting with different combinations of medications, people are now taking fewer of them and having better results, and with fewer side effects. I watched a documentary on long-term survivors (3 decades) and they all have a complaint or two about things that are more difficult to do, such as arthritic type symptoms or some decline in some sensory functions. I'm sure the medical community will only get better at this. Personally, I wish a vaccine and/or cure would come through so this epidemic isn't a field day for pharmaceutical companies. Sometimes I suspect that.
EDIT: After a quick google search I have removed my old post on this particular subject, the answer appears to be: Antiretroviral medications work in one of 3 ways to suppress viral replication: The drug is a nucleoside or nucleotide analog reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) and blocks reverse transcriptase. The drug interferes with shape changes to gp41, the HIV transmembrane glycoprotein, (these changes are necessary for viral binding to the host cell) and blocks viral binding sites (which prevents viral entry into the host cell). The drug is a protease inhibitor and inhibits the function of viral protease, which is essential for the creation of virions (the infectious viral particles that bud off a host cell). There is a very interesting post on the NHS too - Emergency HIV drugs If you think you have been exposed to the virus within the last 72 hours (three days), anti-HIV medication may stop you becoming infected. For it to be effective, the medication, called post-exposure prophylaxis or PEP, must be started within 72 hours of coming into contact with the virus. The quicker PEP is started the better, ideally within hours of coming into contact with HIV. The longer the wait, the less chance of it being effective. Well, I think that's a bit different though. I'm willing to bet he started HIV treatment near instantly when he received it, and the thing is, he's loaded. He has access to the best treatment money can buy, which unfortunately most don't. It's similar to Stephen Hawking, it was my understanding he should of died years ago due to his motor neurone disease, but he simply has enough money to get the best treatment possible.
So what do you think the chances are of me contracting it through oral sex with the same woman twice and fingering three women without a condom?
Very close to zero. Oral transmission of HIV is, as far as we now know, very rare. Transmission from fingering a woman would also be extremely rare. I wanted to correct some misinformation: HIV, even when not diagnosed until it reaches full blown AIDS, is by no means a "nothing can be done" disease any longer. There are some very effective treatments now that allow a person to have a near-normal life expectancy and quality of life. There are trade-offs; expensive medications and some side effects (nausea, intolerance to alcohol, various other annoyances are all common), but these days, people who get treatment can still remain in good relative health. That said, Zaio is correct that there's simply no excuse for not playing safely when one is having vaginal or anal sex, because the risk of not doing so is high, and the impact on sex of using condoms is pretty much nonexistent.
I didn't mean that nothing can be done at all, I meant nothing can be done other than delay the inevitable. And while some people can live near full lives with HIV, those people have been treated very early. So many people have HIV without knowing it, and those people wont last anywhere near as long even with treatment, as progression will be too far in. Stimulation is stimulation. It doesn't feel as bad as people make it out to be, in fact some people find it more pleasurable if they put some lube on their frenulum before putting the condom on. Even if it didn't feel as good, are you really going to risk STDs for a tiny bit more pleasure? I don't see the logic.
That just isn't true. The treatment options have dramatically expanded, and there are still a lot of people who have no idea they have the virus until they show symptoms... and with some of the new treatment methods, these people are able to live very normal lives (with the caveats I mentioned above.) Now... if someone is in complete denial, shows symptoms for years, progressively gets worse, and gets no treatment... then they will probably have a decreased life expectancy. But otherwise, it really isn't the dire picture you point. I don't want for a moment to discourage safer sex because the downsides of being treated for HIV are significant and permanent and annoying, and trading that for a moment of pleasure using unsafe sex that's pretty much indistinguishable from safer sex is just.... stupid.
if it can take 2 months to show up for most and 3 months for the rest, what' the point of requiring or asking a partner about his/her status or requiring a test before getting physical because as i understand it, it could show up negative today and that does not necessarily mean they are negative, it just means it hasn't shown up yet so if you do not have a condom on, you can still contract the disease from them even if they are negative and the diseases hasn't show up in their blood yet? am i right? basically it sounds like a test before sex could help if the person's test is positive, at least then you would know there's an issue. but if it is negative, it doesn't sound like you're "home free". because they could lhave just become exposed and infected before the antibodies show up? is that right?
^ Yes. To be completely sure some couples require a HIV test, and another test 3-6 months later. I still wouldn't bareback even if they are definitely clear though. As points were raised in this post, the pleasure reduction is minimal, they could bring back some diseases if they cheat, and if you're barebacking you pretty much have a 100% chance you'll get them if he's cumming in your ass. Condoms will also prevent STIs (supposing it doesn't break) and makes the cleanup easier. There's simply no reason not to use condoms.
Yes, you are correct, and I prefer the 3-month option for testing. Hence: condoms, condoms, condoms, always, whether in a committed relationship or not. And watch out for the other STDs that can increase the chances of getting HIV, such as gonorrhea and syphilis (mainly because they create open lesions that increase the chances of HIV transmission).
