Which education might that be?

There is the muted, some might add neutered, government funded sort that appears to be lacking success if the numbers quoted in the OP are any indication.

But honestly now, how likely are the young to multiple click through the diplomatic verbiage of government sites and brochures to discriminate what is useful and relevant to them?

Then on the other hand there is the powerful images and slick one-liners that appeal to the young impressionable and vulnerable, that is the normalising of anal sex being spruiked by the chatterati in the liberal media, by Hollywood movies and via porn.

Earlier a poster recommended a site with beautiful models in a sumptuous white sheeted bed, smiling with love and joy and about to enjoy anal sex (coyly referred to as 'bottom sex'. How cute. Not!) Here,
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/healthy-living/sexual-health/a2266/anal-sex/

That the same site also carried the story, 'I got Botox in my scrotum and my sex life has never been better' might indicate some hesitance before swallowing all it says.

But in any event the image of a beautiful, young, fit, nubile couple who obviously prefer anal sex to vaginal is a powerful one for boys and young men in particular. Such messages drown out the, 'But is it safe' and 'Why would a caring male lover want to inflict pain, discomfort and higher risk of harm and disease on a woman?'.

It's now crystal clear -

" ... why isn't the message getting through on anal
sex?"

We've just been given a perfect example of "Why?"
The link given earlier by the "netdoctor" site
pointed out all the major health risk factors associated
with anal sex. The site was based on a text by Dr John
Dean, specialist in sexual medicine and later revised
by Dr David Delvin, GP Sexologist and Family Planning
Specialist. One would have thought that the information
being provided would be quite valuable, instead apparently
(and I quote) the

"image of a beautiful, young, fit, nubile couple who
obviously prefer anal sex..." (his words) Really?
Totally distracted this one particular poster to the
extent that no much else registered.

God knows what he will see in the other link given on the
consequences of heterosexual anal sex for women, by the
medinstitute. One shudders to think.

AJ, this is not about sexual orientation, it's a health issue and when I spoke about men performing anal sex, that included heterosexual couples. The only reason I don't talk about women doing it is because quite frankly, women can't do it, they can only accept it.
Only males can perform this act, which is why I referenced men.
My concern in all this stems from frank discussions with adult granddaughters and their friends regarding the pressure put on them to engage in theses acts, yet no one has ever told them how much more dangerous it is compared to vaginal sex.
They have been told it is now socially acceptable but not taught the risks involved, nor told that they shouldn't feel guilty or abnormal for wanting to refuse.
And if I was a bit graphic in my discussion, well, I won't apologise, I'm on old nurse and find people understand issues better when in receipt of accurate biological information.

@Foxy, Friday, 7 April 2017 7:05:18 PM

Your chosen links and the one under discussion are taken from overseas. You must have spent some time Googling to find it. So you must also have had some reason for your choice.

However it is an excellent example of what I was talking about: on the computer screen the photo presents as a poster, a billboard with the young and beautiful poster couple, appreciators of anal sex about to indulge (again?).

Above the billboard is the heading 'Anal Sex' with the bald statement to be taken as fact that, "Many couples derive pleasure from some form of 'bottom stimulation'..". There is the tailing admission that it does involve health risks. But the scene has already been set and the impression has been created. Further information if read is likely to be seen through that lens.

-BUT HELL, everybody is doing it right? That is the impression it is conveying.

Would many read on? Probably not. And that is the finding of many communication studies, especially where the younger impressionable generations are concerned.

Having looked at the article again, the poster couple and the environment, the comfy inviting bed, would be representative of advertising that is targeted at girls and young women and would easily catch their eyes. However I would like to think that the writers of the article muffed their message by giving a conflicting impression through the photo and lead.

Well this is turning out to be an interesting discussion after all.

A discussion that initially appeared to want to attack homosexual and bisexual men as the main focus of blame for the spread of HIV (at least, that’s how many of the more conservative posters seemed to interpret it, judging by their responses) is slowly revealing perhaps a far bigger culprit: pornography (more specifically, what is depicted in it nowadays and the ease with which it may be accessed).

When I was in high school, the only access to pornography that us teenage boys had was passed-around magazines and video cassettes with copies of copies of poor-quality movies filled with bad 70s and 80s hairdos and close-ups that were obscured by copious amounts of pubic hair. Nowadays, any kid can stream graphic, high definition pornography at any time straight to their phone.

In my opinion, that’s a far bigger sexual health concern than gay or bisexual men.

--

Big Nana,

Unless they’re being raped, women are still engaging in the act, even if they were pressured into it.

<<The only reason I don't talk about women doing it is because quite frankly, women can't do it, they can only accept it.>>

By that token, women can never have sex, they can only ever “accept it”. Yet that’s not the way any of us phrases it.

Anyway, if your granddaughters weren’t taught about the increased risk of anal sex or that it is wrong for anyone to pressure anyone else into ANY form of sexual activity, then perhaps that should have been your first comment on this thread? It does appear to be more relevant to what leoj is wanting to discuss, after all (at least now, anyway).

Feminists and not the practical health professional Big Nana, have reinforced gender roles by framing men as risks to women. Probably as the Australia's most significant and dangerous threats to women, beyond the unmentioned coronary heart disease, dementia and Alzheimer disease, and cerebrovascular disease.

On the other hand it is women who are eternally caring, responsible and so on. They possess all of the virtues, bar none.

Strangely, feminists can easily rationalise why they hold slut marches, encourage sexual promiscuity in girls and young women, insist that women do not and should not consult with men on terminations and so on. -I am NOT saying that men should have the final say, just challenging the feminist double standards.

The world has changed too, feminism has been effective in encouraging women to be as some men might have been. Well, if all men were to claim the success of the few lotharios that is. But then women always liked 'bad boys'. It took feminism to encourage impressionable girls and young women to imagine that forming a queue to be mounted (now in the behind) and thinking they were the (unlikely) 'One' at the same time was actually 'empowerment'. Then came the surprises at fertility running out with time (who would have thought?) and the unexpected STIs, especially the serious blood carried viruses, but contracted early regrettably.

While pornography contributes, it is largely the media and the various socialist, claimed 'Progressive', academics and other talking heads (that are so influential with the ABC apparently)that are behind such social experiments as promoting anal sex to youth and more recently concentrating on young women and schoolchildren. And yes, indisputably, there is a loose alliance through common interest where feminists and gay activists (dominated by the US Gay Pride) are concerned.

While all of that grinds away in the background and creates a certain political environment, it nonetheless has to be recognised as not being conducive to maintaining any common, collective, cooperative agreement on health policy.