.
        > Getting tested together may be a viable prevention strategy for some. However, this depends very much on the nature of the sexual relationship. If sex is occurring spontaneously and/or anonymously, mutual health screens would not be a viable prevention strategy.

Nevertheless, you would know something about your potential partner.


        > For those who are more intentional about their sexual relationships this can be a valid option. However, there are some pitfalls. If the relationship is to be ongoing, will it be monogamous and how do you assure that? Also, when the HIV/STD tests are conducted, what length of time has passed since the last possible exposure? In view of these questions, mutual health screens can present a false sense of safety or security.

Especially for those who imagine an HIV test protects you from
AIDS or cures it! People have to start taking the first steps towards
being responsible for themselves and others. If they don't then I
predict that the AIDS crisis marches on.


        > Unless, there has been some honest and open conversation prior to entering into the sexual activity, every negative test in the world cannot protect you from disease.

And no imaginary "honest" conversation will detect or predict or
cure any of the diseases a potential partner may have. Tests are
predictably "honest". Conversation should never be relied on for
honesty. Would you like a list of dead people who believed in
"honest" conversation?


        > You must first establish a rapport with the partner that allows for honesty, trust and open communication.

We know from reality/experience just how well that has worked out.
Check your above list of dead people.

        > Unless that is happening, other prevention strategies (condoms, abstinence, etc.) should be considered.

How has that been working out? Know any dead people who "said"
they "always" wear a condom or practice abstinence?