Danger from precum before putting on condoms

Risk of HIV transmission from precum exists, but is pretty low, and it sounds like the amount of precum you would have been exposed to would also be pretty low.

You're smart to think about things like this, and it's always a balance between being paranoid and being smart and safe. In this particular case, I wouldn't worry too much.

However, in addition to using condoms, it's always prudent to have an honest discussion about sexual history, and just evaluate where you're meeting the person and make some guesses from that. If you're in a bathhouse, or meeting someone off of Craigslist, the likelihood they are really promiscuous is very high, and, if it were me, that would be a risk I wouldn't want to take. But just because you met someone and they seem nice and non-promiscuous doesn't mean they aren't... or even that they'll be willing to lie about it.

So you have to both take precautions (as you are doing) and use your common sense and judgment about whether this is a risk you are comfortable with.

 

I wasn't putting a judgment on promiscuous, just stating it.

If you're using condoms, the risk of getting HIV is substantially reduced. But the risk isn't zero. Condoms can break, people can be sloppy, cum can get in your eye. Which is why I recommend a combination of using condoms AND discussing sexual history. For me, I would avoid having sex with anyone that's been very promiscuous, but my risk tolerance for that sort of thing is pretty low, having seen a lot of people die of AIDS, and heard of the complications of people that are more recently infected and living with it now.

Also, you can still (if you're doing oral without a condom) get various other STIs (herpes, chlamydia, syphillis, gonorrhea, etc.)

Again, I don't want you to take this as a judgment. Each person has to determine their own level of risk tolerance. You're being smart by always using condoms, but the fact that you asked the question shows that you still have concerns, so I'm just trying to honestly answer your questions.

 

The only problem with the above is the latency period on STI tests. Some STIs, such as syphillis and gonorrhea, will show up very quickly. Others, like HIV, will take 30 to 90 days to show up with the commonly used tests. (There are more sensitive tests that show results at about 14 days, but they're not commonly used because they're extremely expensive... in the hundreds of dollars per test.)

Additionally, when someone is infected with HIV, the time period at which they are at the greatest risk for infecting others is immediately after infection, when the virus is replicating rapidly and antibodies have not yet been produced. This is also before an HIV test will show a positive result So the person that is most likely to have HIV is the one who regularly hooks up, because each hook-up is a potential source of infection, and even if someone is tested monthly, the test result is only as good as exposures the person had a month before the test.

In short, you can't have it all. If you're going to be promiscuous, even if you are playing safe, you're going to be constantly exposing yourself to people who likely have one or more STIs, and may not even know it. And if you keep doing that, the risk of getting one or more STIs goes up, simply due to the law of averages.

 

Testing positive for the virus will show in 30 to 90 days in most cases. The longer you go post-exposure, the more accurate the results, so (these aren't accurate numbers, but you get the idea)

At 30 days after exposure/infection, 80 to 90% of infected people will show positive
at 60 days, closer to 90%
at 90 days, closer to 95%

But there are cases on record where the infection did not show as positive for longer periods of up to a year. All of these are based on using the commonly used test for the antibodies to the virus; the more sensitive (and way more expensive) tests for the virus itself will show results sooner.

There are no absolutes in terms of protection from HIV, which is why we are such strong advocates of condom use 100% of the time, and other safer sex practices.

 

If we're talking the HIV antibody instant (15 minute) tests, they're pretty foolproof; a swab of saliva or a drop of blood applied to the test stick, and applying a few drops of the reagent solution, and you have your result. It's pretty hard to screw up, so as far as test administration, there aren't many variables.

However, the instant test is never considered definitive; a positive result is always followed up with one or more additional tests of a different type to confirm. My understanding is that a negative on an antibody test less than 90 days from exposure should not be considered definitive, as false negatives are common due to the variance in time it takes for antibodies to develop. However, a negative result at 90 days is pretty definitive. The tests are of similar accuracy for positives, however, every agency I know of that tests using the instant test *always* retests any positive test using a more sensitive test to confirm the result.

I'm less familiar with the tests for other STIs. I do know that there are instant test sticks for most common STIs (syphillis, gonorrhea, hep-b, hep-c) but for some reason they don't seem to be commonly used in the US.

 

Keep in mind, the real number at 90 days is probably greater than 95, maybe closer to 97-99%. I was putting those numbers up as approximations of the differences in time periods. But the important consideration is that there are people who test negative, sometimes multiple times over months, haven't had any sexual or other exposure to HIV, and then test positve a year later.

These cases are pretty rare, and I don't know how airtight the histories are; it's possible the person lied about his/her exposure, lied about when they were last tested, or something else. But they do happen once in a while.

I suspect that what you were told is actually pretty close to on-the-mark, except for the outliers. If you want to feel more confident, you could ask for the PCR test, which is extremely sensitive (it's pretty accurate even after 2 weeks), and, as far as I know, is considered the gold standard for accuracy, and is looking for virus, not for antibodies to it.