I agree with Scruffy. I also agree with the impression that he sounded a bit alarmist on the whole matter. My question to the round: when are you supposed to be an alarmist? In my books, when life is at stake. I am no friend of any drama in life, but this one richly deserves it.
Most of us here have been around the block a few times. We have cruised the bars, the baths, the parks, the gyms, etc. I daresay, few of us had any real chance to perform a quick medical check and establish the fact that the bottom dude was clean, STD-free, abrasion-free, etc. So, how do you 'carefully' choose your partner? Based upon his looks, age, attire? And those will somehow tell you about his health status? Nope, I don't think so.
Quite a few guys saw the problem in promiscuity and tried to counter it by moving within the same circle of buddies. You trusted them - they trusted you or so the story goes. In reality, all of our buddies have other buddies and other buddies have those they are not sharing with them. Which all brings us to square one.
All of us here are free men and all of us are free to fool ourselves, if this is what we choose to do. All of us apply risk management startegies to survive anyway. Yet, to select someone over someone else for the 'raw sex' really boils down to playing Russian Roulette. Fooling yourself that you know how to manage that risk remains your prerogative, but admitting to the truth that you are fooling yourself equally so, remains your moral obligation to the others and to yourself as well.
The truth is that your survival in this respect starts at the moment you stop to practice the denial of reality and admit to the fact that given circumstances require appropriate survival strategy on your part. That strategy excludes unprotected sex. Some will tell you that you have limited your freedom by embarcing this choice. Indeed, you have. Many will tell you that you have made a very wise decision. Both of those hold truth.
KD
