4 ms·

> I'm not mad, but your constant insistence that you're not wrong 'in context' is nonsensical. I have a different opinion, I'm not wrong. >I mean that literal

• Nursie 12y ago
  >> I have a different opinion, I'm not wrong. You are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts. Here is your original post - "> Experts say being exposed to at least one STD virus is virtually inevitable If you are promiscuous of course, for those who don't the chance is almost cero." This is factually incorrect as there many, many ways for people to acquire infections commonly referred to as STDs without having had sex. You could have them right now even if you are a virgin. >> What doesn't make sense? That you continue saying things like "Exactly, in the context of the article, and that is condoms, hence, sexual relations, see that?" These make no sense because people can get these diseases without having sex, and then pass them on to people they have sex with, even if it's only one other person in their whole life. Regardless of context. Your chance of catching an STD from contact with a non-promiscuous person is quite high, because many, many humans have them from other means. You are not that well protected from some infections (herpes simplex in particular) even if you only ever have sex with one partner, and they do the same. (See other comments for how likely that actually is) Once more - you are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts, and saying "but context!" doesn't make any sense.