Your context has little bearing on the article, so no, I don't see the context. It starts off with STD viruses as a whole, then narrows that down to the most l

Your context has little bearing on the article, so no, I don't see the context. It starts off with STD viruses as a whole, then narrows that down to the most life-threatening viruses; HIV and hep B and hep C. It talks about sex as one vector for the transmission of STDs, but also points out that "60% of hepatitis carriers acquired the virus be means other than sexual intercourse." It then says that condoms would have been effective for the other 40%, then cautions that effectiveness for hepatitis doesn't equate to similar effectiveness for all other STDs. You'll notice that the article is only talking about condoms. It is not trying to be complete. Otherwise it would have included, for example, a discussion of oral dams. Since it isn't trying to be complete, you can't use the lack of details about other transmission vectors to draw any conclusions about how an average or below average number of sexual partners leads to a "near zero" likelihood of getting a viral STD. It doesn't even try because at the top it observes that "since the AIDS epidemic, awareness of sexually transmitted diseases seems embedded as a Bay Area cultural norm". The article is meant for a Bay Area reader, and hence the author has an expectation that the reader does not need details about basic information. Based on your use of the term "promiscuous", and assumption about the context, I am going to infer that you did not have a similarly sex-positive sex education.