> So people in committed relationships, homosexuals and people above the age where pregnancy is possible? I wasn't speaking in an absolute, because almost noth

> So people in committed relationships, homosexuals and people above the age where pregnancy is possible? I wasn't speaking in an absolute, because almost nothing is absolute. I probably should have said "I also have a theory that those that don't wear condoms or use protection are significantly less likely to wear masks over the general public. And that a large percentage of the more religious are less likely to wear masks." Since you went there, I'll try to be more concrete. Committed relationships across any sub-group you'd like to slice = no. Homosexuals that aren't in committed relationships = yes as they would be in the general non-committed bucket. No risk of pregnancy of course but obviously STD. Above the age of pregnancy? If not committed relationship = yes. Again, still risk of STDs, in fact quite high for the age group most younger people don't want to think of as having sex. Above the age of pregnancy would have the kicker bonus of less likely to care due to being older and cynical. Once you've seen a lot of crazy things maybe this doesn't phase you? Can't tell you how many that have been fortunate to escape cancers or other more challenging problems only to go carefree on coronavirus which they have more control over. It's an odd thing. Especially because those are higher risk and the ones that still have parents alive are in the highest risk category. > at least one of them is certainly not letting religion inform their sexual habits. The condoms and religion in my theory need not crossover. Although I would guess the center of that Venn diagram would skew even less likely to wear a mask.