Bristol Palin to Educate Teens About Abstinence

it's like getting diet tips from a dude who used to be fat


seems wholly appropriate. she's the daughter of a dumb bitch but there's nothing hypocritical about this unless you can prove she's banging someone. sarah's a bitch but i got nothing against bristol.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Granted, I haven't watched what the Palin' kid has said, but if someone can admit his/her mistakes, then we can learn from them.[/QUOTE]

You know, I hate the reverence people get when they fuck up massively and then pretend that getting over it is something that should be worshiped, peddling their life-lessons-wares around like it's some brilliant insight into the human condition.

You did drugs, killed two hookers, went to jail for two years, and found out "gee, killing and drugs are bad and you shouldn't do them and now I need to make money off this revelation."

fuck that noise. It's like I need some fat fuck telling me being a fat fuck is a poor health lifestyle because he had a heart attack at age thirty. I'm supposed to know that shit to begin with. And don't pretend the knowledge isn't there - it's been in schools, it's on infomercials, we're in a society where people are starving themselves to fit into clothes that are fashionable, magazines airbrush people into Adonis shapes. It's well known, and if you don't know it by the time you hit puberty, you're either full on retarded OR intentionally being stupid. There's no excuse. None.

So when some knocked up bitch has a kid out of wedlock then proceeds to preach about it AND endorses a line of thought that already failed her (as evident by her bastard kid), I'm not going to be impressed or learn a damn thing. All I can think is that she's money grubbing, and that it pisses me off that I can't get the same sweet setup because my parents aren't retards in the political game, thereby making my fuck ups hot shit in the media and thus make me a hot commodity on the dumbass circuit.

When she starts fucking her students and has another kid, I wonder how they'll pass the charade off again. As it stands, I'm amazed it's being done so blatantly and brazenly in this elitist religious clusterfuck in the guise of a "moral lesson" that's only been disproven a thousand times over with science, data, and an honest understanding of what human nature is like.
 
I don't disagree that she's probably in it for the money (well, to be honest, I do - I'd guess it's more for the attention)... and, again, I haven't watched anything she's came out with. I'm just saying, we, as individual human beings, naturally learn from our own mistakes. Likewise, as communal beings, we can learn from the mistakes from those around us.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Well, he's right that it's not 100% fool proof. There's always some tiny risk of sperm dripping it's way to the vagina etc.

But he did come across as acting like that's some huge risk, when it's pretty damn minuscule, and way below any type of vaginal intercourse (pulling out, condom which can break or slip off, pill which can have missed doses etc.).[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but at that point, you might as well tell kids they can't flog the log, because it's theoretically possible that if they get spunk on their Spider-man underoos then toss them on the floor, and Mommy comes along to clean up their jammies and gets some Tijuana toothpaste on her fingers without noticing, then realizes there's a Simon and Simon marathon on in the other room and decides to rub one out herself ... she could get pregnant! And the kid would be, like, your brother-son!

It's not gonna happen. Anal sex won't get anybody pregnant, even "sometimes." It's sperm, not zombie blood from 28 Days Later.
 
This thread is gross.

I see nothing hypocritical about it. If I were learning how to avoid getting shot, I wouldn't mind hearing from someone that had been shot.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
I see nothing hypocritical about it. If I were learning how to avoid getting shot, I wouldn't mind hearing from someone that had been shot.[/QUOTE]
Heh. Reminds me of the fake news story of the day from my university's paper, "Abstinence Education Rendered Worthless when Local Teen Makes Self Absolutely Unfuckable".
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']This thread is gross.[/QUOTE]

This is why sex education can't work.

OMG sex is so gross!

Let's not pretend that any professionally-designed curriculum would be anywhere near as juvenile as this thread is. I'm not dumb enough to pretend that someone's going to stand in front of a class of 15/16-year olds and gleefully shout "LET'S A LEARN ABOUT BUTTfuckIN', Y'ALL!"

That doesn't change the fact that oral doesn't get you pregnant.
 
[quote name='trq']It's not gonna happen. Anal sex won't get anybody pregnant, even "sometimes." It's sperm, not zombie blood from 28 Days Later.[/QUOTE]

See, this is the ill-informed stuff that worries me.

Seriously, go do a Google search. Preferably before you teach any children about sex.
 
[quote name='trq']Yeah, but at that point, you might as well tell kids they can't flog the log, because it's theoretically possible that if they get spunk on their Spider-man underoos then toss them on the floor, and Mommy comes along to clean up their jammies and gets some Tijuana toothpaste on her fingers without noticing, then realizes there's a Simon and Simon marathon on in the other room and decides to rub one out herself ... she could get pregnant! And the kid would be, like, your brother-son!

It's not gonna happen. Anal sex won't get anybody pregnant, even "sometimes." It's sperm, not zombie blood from 28 Days Later.[/QUOTE]

Well, it's not impossible.

I mean the guy can pull out and come directly on her vagina and there's some chance it could get in their, or come not deep in her ass and it can leak out etc.

Still a a very slim chance, but not as slim as your example. :D

But again, it's all moot as we'll never have sex ed that teaches anal an oral as less risky (for pregnancy) than vaginal intercourse, as too many people (liberal and con as myke noted earlier) are appalled at that thought when it comes to their kids.

Teaching them to abstain but use a condom if they decide to have sex is a far cry for a parent than telling their daughter to just to give head or take it up the pooper to be safer. And yes, I used daughter to point out the double standard as I'm sure parents of girls find it more appalling than parents of boys on average who care more about pregnancy risk than the fact of their son getting some.
 
Its been said a couple times - you can't get pregnant from anal sex, but if the jizz made its way around and into the vagina then you can. Which is unlikely, and the prevention method would be "hey, make sure that doesn't get in your vagina." Not impossible, but if it happens God hates you. Other than that you can get STDs just like any other orifice you might put a dick in, so you should probably have a condom anyway.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Its been said a couple times - you can't get pregnant from anal sex, but if the jizz made its way around and into the vagina then you can. Which is unlikely, and the prevention method would be "hey, make sure that doesn't get in your vagina." Not impossible, but if it happens God hates you. Other than that you can get STDs just like any other orifice you might put a dick in, so you should probably have a condom anyway.[/QUOTE]

It is unlikely.
It's unlikely a condom will break.
It's unlikely to transmit HIV through a condom.

It can happen though. Which is (partially*) why I'm saying that it's very important to stress that anal sex isn't "safer" than vaginal sex.

*The other parts, of course, being the increased risk of STDs along with the physical damage that can be done when not performed correctly.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Not impossible, but if it happens God hates you. [/QUOTE]

Yeah, but according to the abstinence only crowd god hate's sinners who have premarital sex--so it's probably pretty damn likely! :D
 
But it is "safer" in the sense that your chances of getting pregnant are virtually eliminated, in the same sense that it's "safer" to use a condom and birth control pills. Except unlike those you're not even putting it in the right port, so there's no so much a barrier preventing the sperm from getting through as it is the sperm is in an entirely different location. More likely to fuck up than oral, since it's closer, but it can't make it there without help.

You run the risk of STDs with any sexual contact, but we weren't talking about STDs anyway Palin in OP is talking about pregnancy.
 
Yeah, besides I'm sure most parents--if they had a gun to their had and had to choose--would rather their daughter get an anal injury from sex than get pregnant.

STDs are a different matter, but STDs are covered in sex ed and kids come out knowing (or should if they pay attention) that you can get STDs from oral and anal sex just like you can from vaginal intercourse.

Risk of anal injury would never be covered, as sex ed will never teach how to use lube etc. to prevent anal injuries.
 
Utterly astounding how Flintstones you people want education to be.

Girl listens to abstinence-only education, presumably to not get pregnant.
Girl gets pregnant.
Girl goes on to teach abstinence-only education to other impressionable children.

Astounding. How are we a superpower in the world again?
 
[quote name='Strell']Utterly astounding how Flintstones you people want education to be.

Girl listens to abstinence-only education, presumably to not get pregnant.
Girl gets pregnant.
Girl goes on to teach abstinence-only education to other impressionable children.

Astounding. How are we a superpower in the world again?[/QUOTE]

I HATE the idea of abstinence only education. But I don't think someone that failed can't teach others from their mistakes.

Someone that got knocked up as a teen can make an impression on teens by talking about the challenges of teen pregnancy. Just like a person who's life was ruined by drugs can reach kids by sharing how their life was destroyed etc.

I don't think any of that shit has any great impact, but I think someone who can talk first hand about their mistakes probably can have more impact than some prudish teacher who has never had sex with the lights on telling them to wait until marriage. Making a mistake doesn't preclude one from trying to help others not make the same mistakes.

:puke: Can't believe I just sort of stuck up for a Palin.
 
You say that like telling kids about the consequences of pregnancy is going to scare them from having sex.

The point is that you can't stop that kind of emotional/physical/hormonal rage. What you can do is help direct it into a safe and orderly manner.

Telling kids "oh, don't have sex because you might have a baby" doesn't erase the urge. It might make them think twice, it might stop a few here and there, but it doesn't do shit for all the sexually frustrated kids out there. And since that's the case, it's far better to include some education on what they can do to protect themselves and anyone they might be having sex with.

THAT'S the disconnection. And seeing someone uphold something that failed them is pure hypocrisy. You've got the ability as someone IN Bristol's situation to say "Wow, I wish I'd known about condoms and birth control and proper facts regarding pregnancy."

Instead she's going to trumpet the same horn that fucked her.
 
Like I said, I don't think it works AT ALL.

Just saying I don't think it's any worse to have someone who had a kid as a teen do it, vs. someone that waited until marriage. It's not going to work either way, and, that aside, there's nothing wrong with someone trying to teach others not to repeat the mistakes they made IMO.

I don't see it as hypocrisy for someone to speak of their mistakes and urge others not to do the same by talking about how it ruined their lives etc.

It's not hypocrisy to preach abstinence when she got pregnant, it's just ignorance to the fact that maybe if she'd gotten straight talk about sex and how to prevent pregnancy that maybe she would have never gotten knocked.

Hypocrisy is bashing people for doing something she's done. As long as she isn't railing on and saying people having premarital sex are bad people etc., she's not being hypocritical. Just fucking ignorant for preaching abstinence when abstinence only education in school and at home didn't stop her from getting pregnant.

It's semantics, but it is just ignorance/being brainwahsed vs. being hypocritical.
 
Except Bristol has a huge safety net right now, which is going to carry her for the rest of her life. How does this make her a role model? No matter what she does now, she's going to be forgiven, Republicans are going to rail on anyone talking any noise about her, and she's going to essentially be a cared-for semi-celebrity for the rest of her life.

What message does this send to the next teenager who gets knocked up because they didn't know anything about condoms/birth control/etc? 'Cuz when that happens and she's ruined her life because she doesn't have all these same luxuries, what do you tell her when she's a burnt out kid with a baby?

And this is a tangent, but why do people believe that telling kids about condoms is going to magically give them an urge to have sex? The urge is already there.

I just find it utterly astounding that anyone could let this sort of thing pass under the banner of "oh well she totally knows what she's talking about." Yeah, ok, but having all these special privileges around her makes it look FAR more nice and fluffy than it should, and how it would ever be to RandomAmericanGirl.

People aren't fractionally as forgiving for, say, a bad sports coach, pro or neighborhood little league. Texans will FLIP. THEIR. SHIT. if Coach Sours down at Tom Landry Middle School doesn't take Bobby Hill to state. But at least those guys aren't fucking up (on average) three separate lives, one of which is totally defenseless and never asked to be a part of it, in some kind of life-altering way.
 
Agreed. She's a poor person to talk about the impact of teen pregnancy as she had the luxury of dealing with it in a rich family, with two parents etc.

If they want someone who can talk from personal experience, find some inner city girl raised in poverty by a single mother who busted ass to get good grades in high school and had her college dreams shattered by having a kid and having to get a job to support the kid etc.

She's not a hypocrite for talking about it, just ignorant and a poor choice since teen pregnancy is much less a burden when you're from a stable, rich family.
 
Abstinence only sex ed is so awful. "don't have sex!'"
Whoops I had sex, oh well, what difference does it make if I use a condom or not.
 
Yep, you can't just tell kids to not do something that they have a strong, biological drive to do.

The kids that can abstain do so as they've been raised their whole lives beliving sex before marriage is a sin etc. (and even most of those kids fuck before marriage).

Not because their parents never talked to them about it, but that sex ed course in school told them to abstain! As such it has no impact--it's preaching to the choir with kids who will abstain, and having no impact on the majority of kids.

Where as teaching facts about pregnancy, STDs, condoms, birth control pills etc. at least gets some kids to know what the risks are and to at least slap on a condom.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']If I were learning how to avoid getting shot, I wouldn't mind hearing from someone that had been shot.[/QUOTE]

"Do as I say, not as I do"? No thanks. I don't want to hear about abstinence from a chick that's getting (or at least got) some. And what is she going to say about the consequences of sex? It's not like she's going to call that little teat-hanger she popped out the burden that it really is (or would be, if her mother didn't piss money) -- I imagine she'll use the word 'blessing', which doesn't sound like the kind of thing that scares kids out of fucking.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']It can happen though. Which is (partially*) why I'm saying that it's very important to stress that anal sex isn't "safer" than vaginal sex.[/QUOTE]

Human fertilization is usually a numbers game.

The quantity of sperm capable of reaching an egg is increased if ejaculation occurs inside the vagina than any place else.

Can you agree to that?
 
I couldn't find the head exploding gif, but this works.


ExplodingHead.jpg
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Human fertilization is usually a numbers game.

The quantity of sperm capable of reaching an egg is increased if ejaculation occurs inside the vagina than any place else.

Can you agree to that?[/QUOTE]

Completely.
 
Can we accept this as fact: Kids don't need to go to school to learn about anal, oral, what have you. They already know. If you don't believe me, sign onto a game of Halo for 5 minutes.

It's absolutely ridiculous for our sex ed system to not acknowledge the reality that this information is going to find its way into the minds of young people one way or another no matter what parents or schools do about it. My parents never taught me that stuff and yet it turns out I was a teenage boy with internet access anyway. This information is becoming more prevalent, not less. And if I were going just based on pornography (surely we can agree: the primary sex education tool employed by adolescent boys) than I might think unprotected vaginal intercourse following by a nice big facial is adequate birth control.

The point is any sex education program which refuses to acknowledge that kids are going to learn on their own and take the opportunity to provide the proper context and risks for the information they're learning anyway is completely irrelevant.
 
[quote name='bvharris']
The point is any sex education program which refuses to acknowledge that kids are going to learn on their own and take the opportunity to provide the proper context and risks for the information they're learning anyway is completely irrelevant.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely. Just have the ability for parents top opt their kids out of the program to cut down on bitching.

Don't require consent, just mail an opt-out form to all student's households that parents can sign to opt their kids out. Put the burden on the prudes who think their kids are innocent and will be corrupted by the sex ed course, not on everyone else by having to sign and return a consent form.
 
Way to take the fun out of the thread and you know, like...make good points and stuff.

I should have saved the copy of the evaluation of the outcomes of Florida abstinence-only education program, where kids believed that drinking Mountain Dew, drinking bleach, and smoking pot were potential means of avoiding/ending pregnancy. People learn informally, and bvharris is dead right that we're in the porn-formation age. We mostly grew up with computers, but without access to the internet and thus, immediate, rampant porn available at any time. So they are going to learn informally - we need to be prepared to deal with that.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Absolutely. Just have the ability for parents top opt their kids out of the program to cut down on bitching.

Don't require consent, just mail an opt-out form to all student's households that parents can sign to opt their kids out. Put the burden on the prudes who think their kids are innocent and will be corrupted by the sex ed course, not on everyone else by having to sign and return a consent form.[/QUOTE]

Sure, and then those kids will be the only ones who get pregnant and delicious delicious irony will be had by all. :D

Obviously in a perfect world it would be mandatory, but requiring obstinate parents to do the legwork in opting-out is better than the other way around.
 
I could go for either an opt-in or opt-out method. Either way, IMHO, you've *got* to make sure parents are notified. I don't think sending a note home with the kid or mailing it would necessarily work. Too many variables... That's why I, personally, would prefer an opt-in method, as this would make *sure* something is on file that the parent(s) have given consent. Why not just include it with the paperwork being filled out at the beginning of the school year when you're registering your child?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I could go for either an opt-in or opt-out method. Either way, IMHO, you've *got* to make sure parents are notified. I don't think sending a note home with the kid or mailing it would necessarily work. Too many variables... That's why I, personally, would prefer an opt-in method, as this would make *sure* something is on file that the parent(s) have given consent. Why not just include it with the paperwork being filled out at the beginning of the school year when you're registering your child?[/QUOTE]

Because the reality is that the only reason parents are in the equation at all is because they're parents. Other than that, unless they're health care professionals or the like themselves, they have no special qualification to determine what their child needs to know in order to prepare them for their own sexual maturation. As much as most parents would probably prefer to think of their own children as being pure as the driven snow, it's simply not the case. And even if it is, they're still going to be at the very least presented with temptation.

The "not necessary for my little Angel" excuse just isn't good enough. Like I said, in a perfect world there would be no parental consent at all, but requiring parents to do the leg work and opt out of a program (as long as they're informed of the option to do so) is perfectly reasonable, since parental consent is sadly a necessary evil in this day and age.

Also, requiring an opt-in punished the children of parents who simply don't give a fuck, and I'm sure we can all think of a few of those.
 
Parents who don't care about their children are more likely to just sign whatever forms the school officials stick in front of them when signing all the accompanying forms when enrolling for classes.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I could go for either an opt-in or opt-out method. Either way, IMHO, you've *got* to make sure parents are notified. I don't think sending a note home with the kid or mailing it would necessarily work. Too many variables... That's why I, personally, would prefer an opt-in method, as this would make *sure* something is on file that the parent(s) have given consent. Why not just include it with the paperwork being filled out at the beginning of the school year when you're registering your child?[/QUOTE]

The kind of parents who would opt-out of useful education to counter what *all* children learn informally are the same parents who are so up in their kid's shit they'd know about the opt-out card before the kid had it in their hand.

An education is something you start from a baseline of "everybody needs this." Then work backwards and say "anyone dumb enough to pull their kids from this has to sign this form, otherwise they're learning about sex and sexuality."

fuck, I did that in 1989, when I was in sixth grade. In CATHOLIC school.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
An education is something you start from a baseline of "everybody needs this." Then work backwards and say "anyone dumb enough to pull their kids from this has to sign this form, otherwise they're learning about sex and sexuality."
[/QUOTE]

This. Allowing parents to opt out of any sort of education is a slippery slope. Next thing you know these same idiot parents will be holding their kids out of school when the President of the United States gives a national address to school children. Oh....
 
bvharris, did you read the NYT Magazine article from 2-3 weeks back on public advocacy for textbooks and subjects to be used in Texas elementary schools? Some *crazy* scary stuff there.
 
Well, I suppose we could debate on if SexEd should be considered an elective or not, but am I the only one who's parents had to approve the classes chosen in High School? For example, one year, I was required to take a science class - had the choice of Biology or Chemistry (or, in theory, could have taken both). Whichever I wanted to take, ultimately, wasn't up to me, but my mother. I got what I wanted, (and now know all kinds of useless chemistry facts for my job at Walmart!), but she could have overrode my decision and put me in Biology. Or, instead of four years of French, threw me in Spanish (which, admittedly, would have been useful...)
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Well, I suppose we could debate on if SexEd should be considered an elective or not, but am I the only one who's parents had to approve the classes chosen in High School? For example, one year, I was required to take a science class - had the choice of Biology or Chemistry (or, in theory, could have taken both). Whichever I wanted to take, ultimately, wasn't up to me, but my mother. I got what I wanted, (and now know all kinds of useless chemistry facts for my job at Walmart!), but she could have overrode my decision and put me in Biology. Or, instead of four years of French, threw me in Spanish (which, admittedly, would have been useful...)[/QUOTE]

No, my parents never had any say in the classes I took once I was at a level where one would choose their own classes (I guess high school probably, though it might have started in middle school). Not that I didn't discuss it with them, but ultimately the decision lies with the student (as it should). Then again I went to high school in Massachusetts, so there's no telling what sort of crazy socialist program was in place. :D

I'm not saying parents shouldn't be a factor in education - both sex and otherwise. They absolutely should be. But they shouldn't be allowed to be an impediment to it.
 
I'm sure parents could override pretty much anything in most public schools, even if it's not already built into their system, unless it's really required and can't have a substitute. In my case I don't remember my parents having to sign off on my classes, but obviously they have to sign report cards, etc. and the classes I took weren't hidden from them.

But that's why opt-out works fine anyway, it's not like they're going to secretly teach kids about sex, the parents know and if they want to take the kid out they can do it easily.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']bvharris, did you read the NYT Magazine article from 2-3 weeks back on public advocacy for textbooks and subjects to be used in Texas elementary schools? Some *crazy* scary stuff there.[/QUOTE]

I did read it actually, and without going into too much detail, as someone whose work is closely intertwined with primary school curricula, it disturbed me doubly. Especially since so many textbook companies base their books off of Texas requirements since they're such a large state. That's a whole other debate for another day though. :roll:
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Did your parents have to sign off on your choices?[/QUOTE]

don't recall for certain, but I'm pretty sure they did not.
 
I grew up in a very conservative small town, and I never had to have my parents sign anything having to do with classes. The only thing we had to was meet with a guidance counselor for 5 minutes right before turning the sheet in. Even in 8th grade we didn't have to have anything signed for our freshman year classes.
 
Seth MacFarlane is going to be all over this one.

I guarantee that as soon as new FGs start coming out, Palin and her dysfunctional brood will be endlessly spoofed.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']don't recall for certain, but I'm pretty sure they did not.[/QUOTE]

I definitely didn't have to get parents sign off or approval on classes at all, whatsoever. It was total up to the students.

Even the sex ed was part of a required health class in high school, and I don't recall any consent form for parents for that either. Just a statement from the teacher that students could opt out if they didn't want to participate.

And that was in WV, hardly some liberal beacon of a state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top