It's the difference between fucking the good looking nurse you meet in the pub who insists on protection and fucking her knowing she hops on every suspect dick that comes for testing at the GUM clinic.
The reliance you might place on the difference will likely be illusory.
If, per the part of the thread I responded to, the pretext for a name-and-shame is that a sex-worker having unprotected sex is objectionable and dangerous, then most working sex workers are, to one degree or another, dangerous. By naming, we've added one to the
known-known list - and that information is useful for perhaps six months afterwards. But the extent of the
known unknown list is, for all we're aware, just as big, or even larger than it was yesterday - as any previously known-to-be-safe practitioner can always 'crack'.
Most dangerous of all, some of those who protest 'cleanest' loudest, do so for diversion. The neurotic punter can really can only bear all this in mind, avoid the advertised barebackers and be highly suspicious of
everyone else as potential sources of false peace-of-mind.
