> 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.