EDIT: Actually not quite. To elaborate a little further - it has become understood that it is just and reasonable for the state to have jurisdiction over interpersonal interactions that involve money (though the converse is not necessarily implied) - this is 'the market'. Thus going to the store operates under a different regime than going to a friend's birthday party in their own home. Your example would equate to the state mandating condom usage with prostitution, assuming that was legal in the first place.
What you get up to at the store can be regulated by the state - what you get up to in the bedroom (without financial exchange) should not - assuming meaningful consent
But to address the absolutism in your question. If everybody in possession of a penis wore a condom at all times (a) they'd get nasty and possibly gangrenous, [so i'll assume you mean "when the penis is deployed in/on/around a second party"] and (b) it would reduce the birth rate by about 90%.
That would be about as likely as everyone wearing a mask at all times.
> The thing I just can't understand is why they didn't require everyone back then to wear condoms all the time
The thing I just can't understand is why they didn't require everyone back then to wear condoms all the time, regardless of whether they were HIV-positive. Those people were so callous in their regard for human safety!