Tacomaster, a newcomer to the manosphere, left a comment which included a link to an incredible chart over at Dalrock‘s site. I don’t think that the old saying that a picture is worth a thousand words does this one justice. Click to see an expanded view.
I find this to be a truly frightening graphic, for obvious reasons. More disturbing though, is that even if women (and men) were exposed to it at an early age, it wouldn’t have much effect.
Note: I am posting this graphic for educational purposes. It is a copyrighted work, and only reproduced for Fair Use purposes.
Donal Graeme 
This assumes everyone involved has the same number of partners, so the exposure number is (2^n)-1. A few seconds with Excel and this formula indicates that for n = 33 partners, the exposure number (8.6 billion) is greater than the existing human population. If a disease exists, anywhere, you’ve been exposed to it.
True. There are concrete limitations on exposure because of factors like age, geography, etc. However, the exposure number also includes people who might be dead now, but were alive earlier when they had sex with someone who is still alive. But the overall point remains the same: the greater the number of partners, the greater the exposure.
The chart also presumes none of your sexual partners were virgins, right? You are not exposed to any potential future sexual partners your former sexual partner might get involved with after you part ways.
This is true. The chart is an approximation, based on averages. Theoretically you could do as described and avoid exposure. Although even virgins can pass on STDs in some cases, because they aren’t always passed via sex (like AIDS). Plus they can come from parents and bad-blood transfusions as well. The chart is just supposed to provide a graphic example of the risks involved.
I just wished to clarify. Either way the numbers are staggering.
Indeed. I saw something similar when I was a teenager. It proved highly motivational in encouraging me to live a chaste life.