According to this CNN article:
One in four teenaged girls in the United States has a venereal disease. While I will teach my children correct principles about pre-marital sexual contact, nonetheless, eventually, I will have to let them govern themselves. They may make moral mistakes, and if they do, I want some measure of protection in place. Originally, I was opposed to this idea, that my children would never do such a thing and there would be no reason to get an unnecessary vaccination, that they would be above yielding to lust, that I would have taught them better standards.
But, then I think about how tough the world is these days. I think about how badly my loins burned when I was a teenager and twenty-something. There were times in my life, when, even with religion, had the wrong moment come along, I would've had sex. Indeed, I've often said that it's a good thing that I've always been overweight, because if more girls had found me attractive, I would've nailed anything that moved. We Williams are a lusty breed.
So, in thinking about the ideal outcome for my children, I would rather them have some sort of protection from a ghastly disease, than hold them to an ideal that I achieved, but of which they might fall short. Therefore, if my child ever comes to me and says that they're having sex, I will ask them to stop and take sane measures to prevent them from being with their sexual partner. I will also offer them birth control and condoms if they persist. For while it might break my heart that they have loose morals, the parent in me wants to make sure that they come out of their sins without lasting reminders of their wrongdoing. Do not mistake my statements as laxness, permissiveness, or tacit approval of their actions; it is not. I condemn sex outside of marriage on moral grounds. I was a virgin when I got married, if I could do it, they can too. But, as I've stated before, the ideal should be aspired to and contingencies should always be in place when the ideal fails. I hope I'm right, for their sake.