It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bristol: Mom Clueless About Teenage Sex

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Sarah Palin doesn't have a clue about teenage sexuality, her 18-year-old daughter, Bristol, indicated in a Fox News interview last night. The former VP candidate backs teen sexual abstinence, but that's just "not realistic at all," the teen mom told Greta Van Susteren. And while teenage sex may be a given, resulting pregnancies are no fun, added Bristol—though she emphasized that it was her decision, not her famous mom's, to have her baby.

"It's just not glamorous. Everyone should wait 10 years," Palin said. "It's so much easier if you're married, have a house and career. It's not a situation you want to strive for. I hope people learn from my story."



Nice to hear the real mom talking about teen sex, and I'm glad to know she hasn't had her mother's kool aid.

That she's against abstinence only (I assume) teaching is proof that she understands her situation and how it is for other teen moms.

Hopefully she can talk to her mom about how silly she is.




posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Well I am not religious and I don't drink any ones kool-aid but I sure as heck don't want my teenage daughter having sex. Is that really so bad to hope that we can avoid the pitfalls of teenage pregnancy? Did we reach a point where teenage mothers are the majority? I must have missed the letter saying we should just accept it and start giving them condoms.

Or are we not allowed to raise our children the way we want? Kind of silly if you ask me.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   
However, if she's the average teenager, she is going to be having sex a lot sooner than you wish, and her life will be destroyed by your mindset if she isn't protected from unwanted pregancies and stds rather than control techniques.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by sputniksteve
 


Tell them about abstinence, but don't pretend that your children will always listen to you! Give them some other choices so it's not just DO THIS or DON'T DO THIS. Give them a DO THIS IF YOU ABSOLUTELY MUST, BUT PLEASE BE SAFE.

Raise your children how you want, but try not to be naive.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Absolutely agree with you. All teenagers need education about birth control and stds and have the right to excercise their own decisions with regards to their sexuality at least by 16 in many places, but sooner in practice for many, so better not put it off, the sooner the better.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
This will probably catch me lots of flak but my daughter was born when I was 10 days past my 18th birthday. I started having sex at a very young age. I can tell you the reason for this though, it was not peer pressure, and it was not inevitability. It was due to emotional and psychological issues I had as a young adult, and the inability to deal with them in a safe and constructive way.

So naivete is not something that I am plagued with, I can promise you that. What I have done is try and raise my daughter in a different way and protect her from the things that harmed me at that young age. I have succeeded, and I will and do hope that she will be smarter then I was. I won't preach abstinence only, but I will sure as hell try and enforce it. I won't mind if she is taking protective measures if she is going to have sex anyway, but I'll be damned if I will promote it.

There is nothing wrong with hoping your child will wait until adulthood to have sex, I know plenty of people that did. It's not a bad thing. My opinion anyway.

Omg I just realized one of you is Canadian and the other one is close enough to Canada. =) I am only kidding you. Its a good topic to discuss.

[edit on 2/17/2009 by sputniksteve]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   
I was a teen mother. I grew up in a religious school and my step-father was a leader in a very prominant pro-life organization. Obviously, I was taught abstinence. Obviously, I did what I wanted to do. I'm not proud of it, I'm just saying, speaking from experience, you can try your darndest to raise your kids a certain way and teach them what you think is "right", but in the end, teenagers are generally going to do what THEY think is right, and your advice may not always be heeded.

My children will learn by my example, and hopefully do the right thing, but I'm certainly not going to just take it for granted that they'll listen to me. I am going to make sure they have ALL of the info that I was never given.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by sputniksteve
 


My mother had me when she was 17. I didn't have sex until I was 18. It wasn't a single thing she said to me that made me not want to do it, it was me not wanting to be like her. I understand wanting to protect someone you love and cherish, but it could be their downfall if they don't understand how the world really works.

It is your choice, I understand that. But if I decide to have a child, I will ask them to not have sex as long as possible, I will demand they only have sex in a loving relationship, and I will educate them on every way to be safe. Covering all bases seems to be best, in my opinion.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
You know this teen isn't the best kid to get advice from. She is NOT like most teen girls. She will be taken care of financially and so will her kid. Unlike MOST teens who get knocked up at 15, 16, 17 their parents DON'T have the ability to afford the extra mouth, and everything that comes with it. I love watching these well off kids talk like they understand "tough" times when there is nothing tough about anything in their life.

I agree with most of you...sit your kids down and be frank with them, and VERY honest about what WILL happen if they aren't careful. If your lucky they will wait, but if not they better be scared ----less about the outcome of THEIR decision, because then it's THEIR responsibility. Once they know that, the rest usually falls into place.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   
How is it that "abstinence" worked for the human race for 10,000 years, but suddenly it is "unworkable"?



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
It has? From the history I've read women were having babies while they were still children themselves, and that was standard history, the kind you get taught in school.
Also, its not going to be anyone but the teenagers decision, and the right of all women from childbearing age on, to control pregancies should be taught from kindergarden on, nevermind even better methods developed. This is abuse of women and children to treat them as possessions and keep them ignorant and then blame them for being human.
As for repsonsibilities, love them and help them no matter what, because if you arent that kind of responsible as a parent for your children, including not blaming them, then you shouldn't be one and don't deserve to have children. Its about love not power tripping and patriarchal authority.

[edit on 17-2-2009 by mystiq]

[edit on 17-2-2009 by mystiq]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Bristol's response was refreshing. They tried the abstinence-only teachings when I was in junior high and high school, and most people just rolled their eyes are chalked it up to one more thing to rebel against. But we (ok, most of us) listened to the pitfalls of not using condoms. We were always told that no contraception was 100% safe, that only abstinence was the only 100% safe way of insuring no disease and no pregnancy. In my experience, giving ALL of the options was what worked. We had very few teenage pregnancies in my graduating class and condoms were a source of pride and responsibility, not embarrassment or shame.

[edit on 17-2-2009 by Alora]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alora
Bristol's response was refreshing. They tried the abstinence-only teachings when I was in junior high and high school, and most people just rolled their eyes are chalked it up to one more thing to rebel against. But we (ok, most of us) listened to the pitfalls of not using condoms. We were always told that no contraception was 100% safe, that only abstinence was the only 100% safe way of insuring no disease and no pregnancy. In my experience, giving ALL of the options was what worked. We had very few teenage pregnancies in my graduating class and condoms were a source of pride and responsibility, not embarrassment or shame.

[edit on 17-2-2009 by Alora]



'Abstinence-only' only programs are federally funded, while sex-education classes are provided by the state the school is in. They do not replace sex-education classes, but are in addition to them.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by mystiq
It has? From the history I've read women were having babies while they were still children themselves, and that was standard history, the kind you get taught in school.
Also, its not going to be anyone but the teenagers decision, and the right of all women from childbearing age on, to control pregancies should be taught from kindergarden on, nevermind even better methods developed. This is abuse of women and children to treat them as possessions and keep them ignorant and then blame them for being human.
As for repsonsibilities, love them and help them no matter what, because if you arent that kind of responsible as a parent for your children, including not blaming them, then you shouldn't be one and don't deserve to have children. Its about love not power tripping and patriarchal authority.

[edit on 17-2-2009 by mystiq]

[edit on 17-2-2009 by mystiq]

Abstinence, in the "old days" meant: "Women didn't put out unless they were married". Were there people that didn't listen to that? Yes, there were. But as a SOCIETY, it worked remarkably well. The reason we had "babies" having babies was because THEY WERE MARRIED AT AN EARLY AGE.

Science FACT: Women are most fertile from about the age of 16-26. After 27, their fertility falls WAY off.

I notice how much of "women's rights" you espouse, but no reproductive rights for MEN. Now why is that, I wonder?

As to "Patriarchal Authority", look throughout history of what "matriarchal societies" were like. Here's a hint: You can see modern day "matriarchal societies" in a great many places in Sub-Saharan Africa. Compare them to "patriarchal societies" and what they achieved. Given all this history, which one has advanced the human race more?

Final note. When ANYONE delays sex until after marriage, what are the results? (Here's another hint: You can find these in scientific studies all over)

1) Is the woman happier in her sex life if she abstains until marriage? (This one might surprise you!)
2) Do the children do better if they have the biological father in the home?
a) Do they have a less chance of becoming criminals?
b) Do they have a less chance of becoming pregnant/getting someone pregnant if they have the biological father in the home?
c) Are they less likely to be involved with drugs if the biological father is in the home?
d) Are they less likely to commit suicide if the biological father is in the home?
e) Are they less likely to have mental health issues if the biological father is in the home?
f) From studies, who is the person LEAST likely to harm children? (One more hint: The person MOST likely to harm children is the mother, when the biological father is absent from the home)

Do I believe that birth control should be taught in sexual education classes? Absolutely. However, it is often an "either/or" false dichotomy.

How many sexual education courses talk about how much less sexually satisfied a woman will be in her sex life, if she has sex with every Tom, Dick, and Harry around? Any? Of course not! That would infringe on her "rights"!


How many sexual education courses talk about how, if a couple has pre-marital sex, they are MUCH less likely to get married, and if they do get married, their marriages are MUCH more likely to fall apart? Any? (Another inconvenient FACT that people do not like to acknowledge).

How about this one: With a single exception in the entire history of humanity, virginity has never been a cause of pregnancy.

Or this one: Sexually transmitted diseases (more of which are fatal now) are transmitted (SURPRISE!) through sexual activity.

This one should be a big surprise to many of you (it's not well advertised, or well known). The CDC did a study of monogamous partners, where one partner had HIV, and the other partner didn't, and ALWAYS used condoms. In 17% of the people, they contracted HIV.

Read that again: 17% of the partners where condoms were ALWAYS used, and did not break, the non-HIV positive partner became infected. You think they put THAT in sexual education classes?

Everything I have said in here is true. Take your time, and look it up. I encourage you not to believe me.

But don't give me your feminist BS, and tell me it is a sandwhich.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Ok now it makes sense why Sarah was "proctecting" her family from the media--she did not want her own daughter to call her on her bull!

I commend Bristol for talking about the issue realistically.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot


[edit on 17-2-2009 by mystiq]

Abstinence, in the "old days" meant: "Women didn't put out unless they were married". Were there people that didn't listen to that? Yes, there were. But as a SOCIETY, it worked remarkably well. The reason we had "babies" having babies was because THEY WERE MARRIED AT AN EARLY AGE.


You also had many cases of honeymoon-babies "born early" back in the day--or of non-medical abortions.



Science FACT: Women are most fertile from about the age of 16-26. After 27, their fertility falls WAY off.


Yeah, we're overdue to get back to child marraiges, right?



I notice how much of "women's rights" you espouse, but no reproductive rights for MEN. Now why is that, I wonder?

I can't speak for her opinion but it is more of an issue for women. Men will never have to do the heavy lifting of actually carrying and birthing the child, and are much less likely to get stuck with raising the child alone.


As to "Patriarchal Authority", look throughout history of what "matriarchal societies" were like. Here's a hint: You can see modern day "matriarchal societies" in a great many places in Sub-Saharan Africa. Compare them to "patriarchal societies" and what they achieved. Given all this history, which one has advanced the human race more?


I could just as easily say, look at all the problems of modern society, that is a good reason to abandon the patriarcy.



nal note. When ANYONE delays sex until after marriage, what are the results? (Here's another hint: You can find these in scientific studies all over)

1) Is the woman happier in her sex life if she abstains until marriage? (This one might surprise you!)


LOL. She could have terrible sex and never know it.


2) Do the children do better if they have the biological father in the home?
a) Do they have a less chance of becoming criminals?
b) Do they have a less chance of becoming pregnant/getting someone pregnant if they have the biological father in the home?
c) Are they less likely to be involved with drugs if the biological father is in the home?
d) Are they less likely to commit suicide if the biological father is in the home?
e) Are they less likely to have mental health issues if the biological father is in the home?
f) From studies, who is the person LEAST likely to harm children? (One more hint: The person MOST likely to harm children is the mother, when the biological father is absent from the home)


I have debunked these before...

The studies are flawed in that they ONLY compare single mother households where the fatehr is not present at all vs. two-parent households.

They do not include single-father households, shared custody, cohabiting without legal marraige, stepparents, ect.

A single parent just can't win. Either a parent is evil for bringing her kids up without a father figure, or she is evil for dating and exposing them to the harmful boyfriend/stepfather in order to provide that figure.


Do I believe that birth control should be taught in sexual education classes? Absolutely. However, it is often an "either/or" false dichotomy.

How many sexual education courses talk about how much less sexually satisfied a woman will be in her sex life, if she has sex with every Tom, Dick, and Harry around? Any? Of course not! That would infringe on her "rights"!


You are making a big assumption that every woman who is sexually active is going to sleep with every man she lays eyes on. Reality is much different.



How many sexual education courses talk about how, if a couple has pre-marital sex, they are MUCH less likely to get married, and if they do get married, their marriages are MUCH more likely to fall apart? Any? (Another inconvenient FACT that people do not like to acknowledge).


Another assumption you make is that the marraige would have been compatible in the first place.

I think it is better to discover that you are not going to last with another person BEFORE you legally bind yourself to them.



How about this one: With a single exception in the entire history of humanity, virginity has never been a cause of pregnancy.


*cough*Octomom*cough.*

Sorry, I had to.



Or this one: Sexually transmitted diseases (more of which are fatal now) are transmitted (SURPRISE!) through sexual activity.

This one should be a big surprise to many of you (it's not well advertised, or well known). The CDC did a study of monogamous partners, where one partner had HIV, and the other partner didn't, and ALWAYS used condoms. In 17% of the people, they contracted HIV.

Read that again: 17% of the partners where condoms were ALWAYS used, and did not break, the non-HIV positive partner became infected. You think they put THAT in sexual education classes?


Your point?

It isn't like waiting until marraige guarantees freedom from STDs. One person can't gurantee that their partner has also waited until they were married and besides that, even non-intercourse sexual contact can transmit STDS-- there are studies that you an look up that show abstinance only practitioners are more likely to engage in oral or anal sex, for instance.
:



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 


Women should not be owned parcels to be married off, and sexuality emerges along with childbearing early. I don't believe in marriage, and don't feel most people should be forced to endure the presence of another for long enough to hurt the children. For the few it works for, it would work even if they were just living together. I don't beleive in women being owned or respected as property. I believe in the whole messy process of growing, learning, laughing, loving and truly being free in our hearts to not feel trapped by any system and to only feel pulled to true friendship when it is right. This means we have boost women, educate everyone like mad and create empowered people, but....welcome all the children when they come whether planned or not.

Any other system is patriarchal and control mongling and not even ethical.

[edit on 17-2-2009 by mystiq]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by mystiq
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 


Women should not be owned parcels to be married off, and sexuality emerges along with childbearing early. I don't believe in marriage, and don't feel most people should be forced to endure the presence of another for long enough to hurt the children. For the few it works for, it would work even if they were just living together. I don't beleive in women being owned or respected as property. I believe in the whole messy process of growing, learning, laughing, loving and truly being free in our hearts to not feel trapped by any system and to only feel pulled to true friendship when it is right. This means we have boost women, educate everyone like mad and create empowered people, but....welcome all the children when they come whether planned or not.

Any other system is patriarchal and control mongling and not even ethical.

[edit on 17-2-2009 by mystiq]


Marriage- For the few it works for? You are saying out of all of the people that are married in the world it only works for a few? Are you kidding me?

Pregnancy- Avoiding it should be taught from Kindergarten on? I am seriously curious, do you have children? I certainly do not want my 5 year old daughter being taught from her kindergarten teacher how to avoid pregnancy.

Now, back to what has turned out to be Womans liberation debate.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by sputniksteve
Well I am not religious and I don't drink any ones kool-aid but I sure as heck don't want my teenage daughter having sex. Is that really so bad to hope that we can avoid the pitfalls of teenage pregnancy? Did we reach a point where teenage mothers are the majority? I must have missed the letter saying we should just accept it and start giving them condoms.

Or are we not allowed to raise our children the way we want? Kind of silly if you ask me.


But you cannot make their decisions for them. If your teenagers want to have sex, they are going to have it. Regardless of your values.

What you can hope for is that your values have pentrated enough, and your teaching of good choices, that they will make the best possible decisions with the resulting situations from that choice.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by mystiq
 


wow..somebody has a bitter taste in her mouth..lol, and your a feminist I see...anyway...what does your opinion on marriage and the joys of a good partner have to do with kids being talked to about making smart choices and MAYBE going against society and not having sex until ready for what could come of it?

[edit on 2/23/2009 by rcwj75]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join