That's an irrelevant take
It is a long-term hypothetical but not irrelevant. If a hormonal treatment for men takes off it will certainly diminish the relevance of condoms for heterosexuals, hence them will become less relevant during a commonly agreed upon sex ed-curcilum. Due to their dual functionality as both contraceptive and proactive measure against most STDs condoms have a important place in an education regime for these topics as it effectively gives you a bridge between them.
So it is worth sparing a thought as how to teach about STD prevention when there is no longer this highly useful bridge to the topic of contraception that condoms are currently providing.
Women's contraception techniques are also not preventing STDs, but they are almost like a pillar of women's liberation.
Yeah, but for different reasons.
The role of hormonal contraception for women was that it put the planning into family planning. With the separation of sex and pregnancy in the hands of the women, it gave them control of their sex lives and lives more generally as they were no longer in the risk of "being stuck" with a unplanned child.
The treatments for men now in discussion however come after that and will not have as profound an effect:
For one because men were almost always privileged to reject an unwanted child (e.g. see who prominently contesting parenthood features in women's movements - going back to Olympe de Gouges' Declaration of the Rights of Woman and of the Female Citizen
, Article XI) and that way always had an out of the responsibly for a child (granted there were social shaming mechanism for run-away fathers in place, but they were not as well enforced as for women giving birth outside of marriage).
Secondly, it comes after the treatments for women and therefor only provides a -much needed- redistribution of the risks of hormonal contraception as well as of the responsibility in family planning.
not everyone is a horny teenager trying to bang as many girls as possible, mkay?
A) In my experience the twenty-somethings are for worse in the category of risque sexual behavior then teenagers.
B) I am not thinking that heronormative categories - gay, trans-, inter- and asexual horny teenages exist in my mind as well. (verbatim, you only implied the existence of heterosexual, female bi and lesbian horny teenages)
C) More matter of fact, I concede that my views are somewhat off-the-mark concernding the majority - but mostly because of my interaction with LGBTQ+-communities* which somewhat pushes aspect of pregnancy out of focus for me.
* Just to clarify because the OP makes reference to "horny": I am not implying the LGBTQ+-persons are any more prone to sexually risque behavior then heterosexuals.