Venereal diseases have been a significant cause of human mortality for ages. The first outbreak of Syphilis in Europe killed ~7% of the population. The only thing that broke up that state of affairs was the advent of antibiotics.

And if it turns out you weren’t a perfect judge of character and your partner cheats on you, then fuck you, right? I guess you deserved to die from cancer because you couldn’t read your fiancé’s mind. Or maybe it’s your fault for not being a good enough spouse.

Than take a jab, since your risk assessment shows you'll benefit from it.

But then, don't blame me for your partner being a slut.

I don’t understand your second sentence. Are you saying that getting vaccinated will cause my spouse to cheat on me?

No, I just said promiscuous people are riskier. If you trust your spouse to cheat on you, and you don't want to kick them out, you'd better vaccinate.

I’m so confused. “…don't blame me for your partner being a slut.” This implies that I would otherwise have some reason to hold you responsible for this, like your advice not to get vaccinated would prevent it, but since I’m acting against your advice the outcome is no longer your fault.

You're replying on a post that shows a literal >16x reduction in prevalence, with "just don't be a slut, worked for thousands of years".

I'd invite you to look up the prevalence of STDs during the most puritanical eras and places, maybe you'd change that stupid take.

> I'd invite you to look up the prevalence of STDs during the most puritanical eras and places,

Even during the worst of times with the highest prevalence, not being a slut would reduce risk from STDs to a level that a vaccine would bring only a marginal benefit. A very high percentage of those infected indulged in promiscuous behavior, despite living in a puritan era and place.

> maybe you'd change that stupid take.

Only a stupid man without any arguments would resort to calling someone else's argument "a stupid take".

Chastity is 100% effective at preventing STDs exactly like living in a plastic bubble is 100% effective at preventing the flu (incidentally, it's also 100% effective at preventing humanity from existing within 80 years...). The fact that people throughout history, even in the most repressive times when "adulterers" were stoned or forced to marry rapists, have had much higher rates of STDs than we do today, shows that reality, rather than an abstract ideal case, is what matters in terms of public health.

Put another way: a "slut" practicing safe sex today will have fewer chances to contract an STD than a regular married woman in Victorian times.

> stupid man without any arguments

Seriously? Your argument is "damn those slut whores" and you're pretending to have an intellectual high ground...? Have a good weekend.

> Seriously? Your argument is "damn those slut whores"

No. Now calm down and try to understand what I wrote. It's not that hard.

> There's a whole range of behaviors and HPV risk profiles between celibate and being a slut.

Why is a marginal benefit bad?

It's not bad per se, but the cost benefit analysis looks different due to different risk profile.