Dave’s not, perhaps, terribly eloquent, but I suspect the point he’s really getting at is that the risk level of an exclusively heterosexual, non-IV-drug using American (or, indeed, Western) male is pretty damn close to zero. And he’s right, which isn’t fair but them’s the breaks. IANAD but I follow HIV pretty closely as a participant in a vaccine study. Fundamentally, HIV in general, and the clave of HIV predominant in North America and Europe in particular, seems to transmit more easily male to female than vice versa. Part of the difference may lie in the etiology of various strains (clave E, predominant in Thailand, has been shown to invect vaginal and foreskin mucosa especially effectively), and part of the difference may result from different health practices and conditions in the West - especially the absence of untreated other STDs, such as herpes, and, in the United States, the universality of circumcision (one cite claimed 35 studies supported the view that circumcision reduces transmission risk, possibly by to a substantial degree).
Of course, the risk isn’t quite zero. Things happen. And the imbalance of risk is something of a public health nightmare, because now men have even less reason to be willing to put up with condoms. Of course, men can still get other STDs that transmit much more easily than the (relatively) delicate HIV, but these problems tend to be easily treated. Even more unfair, a disease like chlamydia is much more likely to exhibit symptoms in men, which means they’ll get treated, than in women, and the consequences of untreated chlamydia in women are much direr (chiefly pelvic inflammatory disease, which can lead to tubal/ectopic pregancy and/or sterility).