If their relationship is built on a strong moral foundation, trust will suffice.
David gave into temptation and even had a man killed. Are you saying you have a better relationship with God than David?
That's a false (and very patronizing) analogy. I have never attempted to cast myself along side David for comparison, nor has anyone else on this thread. Seriously, you remind me of the New York Times editorial page types who bash Christian morality on every single day of the year then trot out the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" line every time a death penalty case comes up.
It is not "unrealistic" to expect higher moral standards from our children than the media espouses. By suggesting otherwise you are missing the problem entirely and basing your assessment of this vaccine on an artificial and perverse standard of judgement rooted not in ethical reasoning but rather its abdication to the Age of Clinton.
If you think your kids are at risk, then by all means let them take this vaccine. But don't assume that everybody else's kid is either (a) a slut or (b) destined to marry a slut. Contrary to popular culture's expectations, most of them are not.
When given the choice, I'll always side with better fathering over the government nanny.
Yeah, because "trust" will repel the HPV virus. Look, parents are the last to know about the misdeeds of their kids and spouses are the last to know about the misdeeds of their spouses.
I'm not saying the behavior is something to be praised but, come on, let's be realistic here.
It's a vaccine for a virus that is sexually transmitted. If it is shown to be effective and safe then what is the problem? The government isn't forcing you to take it - anyone can opt out.
You don't want it - fine. Calling anyone who would take it a slut or a whore is just bizarre.