Thanks for this information. I was reading this thread with interest despite being celibate till marriage because it is important to protect ourselves. I also remember reading statistics and this didn't seem to match up with what some are saying as a measure of safety. I am glad that you are a healthcare worker and emphasized these statistics. That means when you meet a guy, after you both have agreed to be monogamous (which let's face it doesn't always happen at the beginning of a relationship), you should get tested but still not have sex 6 months and get retested for safety (that means no sex during that time if you want to be really safe) so that you can ensure the tests are accurate (for HIV and Herpes...which you've mentioned can take even longer). Then, of course you should stay protected (condoms) even after because you never know (when in relationships), and of course get tested afterwards. Is this safe to say your course of recommendation? Of course someone in my state (celibacy, etc) would make certain their partner is tested in the same manner before marriage (or sex or whatever). I know some will not follow this because of the timeline, but I am wondering if this would be "suggested" if society was not trying to be politically correct (worried about shaming, etc), but just to get out the safest info timeline possible. Granted, we are aware that no one is completely safe (except people like me right now who just aren't having sex period and that is not a forever thing...and even then freak accidents are known to happen [blood transfusions,etc] thus no one is ever completely safe of anything), and that even married people can have a spouse cheat and on and on, but I would think there are timelines that we can put in place (along with choosing a partner who wants to be monogamous), coupled with protection that can allow us to have the safest possible experience.
I'm thinking that there should be even higher and more testing in relationships because they are not long term commitments, and in marriage there should be periodical testing though ideally if they are not cheating there would be a lower chance. Everyone mentioning married couples, mentioned those who were newly weds or early in marriage. Sure, if you marry someone who is not tested, then guess what? But if you marry someone who is committed to you, and was tested before marriage, I would assume there is a lower risk of contracting HIV (though of course it is still possible). I guess the question is, what are the practices that lead to safer (and lower risk of HIV), and what are the relationships (according to statistics) and then gauging from there, along with having a timeline in place to (test) and protect yourself? For instance, when married you can test all you want but there has to be some trust involved (which is why I think some people are scared of that commitment in this day and era and will commit to kids before marriage) because you have to put your life (in some respect) in someone's hands. Why? Well how are you having kids if you are doing it the natural way? Well, you are going to have to not use protection. And even if he's tested (there is that 6 month window right)? So what are we going to do? Are we all going to go and have test tube kids to ensure our safety? Or are we going to assume that certain relationships hold more risk than others, and of course protect ourselves accordingly. I don't think the solution is to throw up our hands. I do think the solution is to choose wisely, and lower our risk in whatever way we deem suitable, and then to hope for the best (because there is no 100 percent safety unless we all becomes nuns and priests).
he said oh I just got my papers right here and pulled it up on the portal on his phone
