Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!ucla-cs!usenet
From: mtxinu!ohday.sybase.com!tim@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Tim Wood)
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
Subject: Re: French kissing - safe or unsafe?
Message-ID: <1991Jun28.172317.129@cs.ucla.edu>
Date: 28 Jun 91 01:58:16 GMT
References: <1991Jun23.021608.3250@cs.ucla.edu> <1991Jun24.124202.26280@cs.ucla.edu> <1991Jun25.173427.21341@cs.ucla.edu>
Sender: mtxinu!sybase.com!news@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Organization: Sybase, Inc.
Lines: 56
Approved: phil@wubios.wustl.edu
Note: non-commercial reproduction.
Nntp-Posting-Host: squid.cs.ucla.edu
Archive-Number: 3311

In article <1991Jun25.173427.21341@cs.ucla.edu> jon@turing.acs.virginia.edu (Jon Gefaell) writes:
>The trick here is the inherently unsure matter of HIV infection. Since the
>Virus can be present, but not detectable for various periods of time, then
>you cannot rely on a negative test as conclusive proof that your partner is
>not infected. Additionaly, even if seroconversion had a definate timetable,
>you could not know that your partner would/did contract the virus out of
>synch with the testing. For these reasons at least, I think that you must
>treat EVERY PARTNER as if they were in fact HIV+. This means a singular
>approach to 'Safer Sex'.
>...
>So, I suppose I agree with you, Sex with ANY idividual is inherently 'unsafe'
>but no more so with a person who's HIV status is confirmed positive, than for
>a person who's HIV status is 'assumed' negative as a result of testing.

Does this mean that all single people who commit to a monogamous
relationship in the future must nevertheless exclusively practice "dry"
sex indefinitely?  (My just-made-up term; it seems more precise than
"safe/r sex" in that it means *no* contact with any liquid-borne
substance from your partner's body.  It also lends an ironic tone which
helps me communicate my point.  Please feel free to correct me on 
technical points.)

At some point, all we have to go on is the numbers.  A negative antibody
test a minimum of six months after one's last non-dry sex act gives 
better than 99.3% assurance that one is actually virus-free (at least I 
remember reading in a responsible publication.)  To get assurance that
both in a new relationship are HIV-, they have only "dry" sex for at
least six months, then both partners get tested.  If the tests are
negative, both are as safe (practically) as they can be, no?  If the
partners can truthfully and trustably say that they have been "dry" for
some periods of time before becoming involved, then the 6 month wait
could be shortened by the minimum of those two periods.  I am for the
moment assuming no other diseases.

I see this regimen as an upper bound; people may depend on condoms and other
barriers for varying degrees of "damp" sex.  Of course, any non-dry contact
with someone outside the relationship might "break the seal", and the
clock must start over again.  (I'm also assuming that detection-by-PCR
is not used; while very expensive, that tests presence of the HIV virus 
itself, so gives a virtually certain (P(true result) ~= 1.0) answer,
within a short time of when the virus might have entered the body.)

Of course, the assurance one eventually wants here is the assurance that it's
OK to have "wet" sex.  I just can't see being in a committed relationship
and using condoms for other than birth control (again, ignoring other
diseases: eg male jock itch can cause a vaginal yeast infection.)

Implicit to the relationship is trust.  If I couldn't ultimately trust 
my partner way more than the likelihood of condom failure, I wouldn't stay.

Good luck with your test, and getting free of guilt.
-TW
Sybase, Inc. / 6475 Christie Ave. / Emeryville, CA / 94608	  415-596-3500
WORK:tim@sybase.com     {pacbell,pyramid,sun,{uunet,ucbvax}!mtxinu}!sybase!tim
PLAY:axolotl!tim@toad.com		       {sun,uunet}!hoptoad!axolotl!tim
Dis claim er dat claim, what's da difference?  I'm da one doin da talkin' hea.