Last night Greta Van Susteren ran part one of an interview with Bristol Palin -- the first interview that Gov. Sarah Palin's oldest daughter has given, if I'm not mistaken, and an interview she chose to do herself. It must take tremendous courage to go on the air and tell your story after being the target of months of filthy gossip, jokes, and name-calling. (You see, we're all for respecting and supporting girls in this society -- until we scent blood in the water, and then it's no holds barred.) But as you can see if you watch the interview, this is a young woman who prefers to speak up on her own behalf.

I think it's a good thing that Bristol wants to help prevent teen pregnancy, that she emphasized that raising a child is "hard work" and not "glamorous" at all, and that she thinks it's better for kids to wait. She had a difficult line to walk between not glorifying teen pregnancy and demonstrating that a child is a blessing, not a curse or a punishment. On the whole, I think she did pretty well at that.

I did find myself wishing, though, that she could have made a stronger case for premarital abstinence. Obviously, just the sight of this 18-year-old girl with a baby -- even a baby that she clearly loves -- is going to make your average teenager think twice about sexual involvement. But when Bristol mentioned that abstinence can be "unrealistic" for a teenager, I don't think she gave enough credit to those teens who think it through and commit themselves to waiting, even when they're head over heels in love. It may be difficult in a sex-obsessed culture that gives the abstinent virtually no support at all, but it is possible and desirable.

As Bristol recounted, after becoming pregnant, she had to sit down with the child's father and come up with a plan as to how they were going to handle things. It's just as possible to make a plan before becoming pregnant, about how you're going to handle your romantic life -- and in the end, it saves a lot of difficulty and heartache.

I wish Bristol and her precious little one all the best -- and I hope that if she spends more time speaking out against teen pregnancy, she'll give some serious thought as to how best to encourage teenagers to wait, and why it's by far the best -- and yes, a perfectly realistic -- option.

(Note: Please keep all comments on topic, in accordance with our comment policy. If you have smears about the Palins and/or the Johnstons, keep them to yourself or prepare to see them deleted. This is not the National Enquirer or the DailyKos, and I am not in a mood -- in fact, I am never in a mood -- to be lenient toward petty gossip.)

(Image © Fox News Channel)

Comments

[Jason Taylor]

As I understand it, much of "abstainance" training is about prudence, not morality. Those who feel it a sin or at least a dishonor are more likly to be abstainant then those who just feel it unhealthy.

Telling people at just the age when they get interested in such pursuits as going to sea, going to war, building world-wide computer empires in their garage and so on that is SAFER to be chaste has an inherant flaw in it. For one thing it is making a concession that one must justify righteousness. For another, for many teenagers the danger will be a positive attraction. Teaching them that it is a duty to God, to one's family, and to one's future spouse might have more effect.

Moreover the concept of "abstainence education" seems more then a little unconfident. Not to mention patronizing to teens. Does anyone really think that teenagers need to be told that abstaining avoids a lot of trouble? Some problems are unanticipated of course, but some are quite obvious. It is not education, in the sense of information that is the problem. It is the lack of motivation. And the classroom paradigm is not really motivating.

I saw the interview myself and I liked Bristol(don't worry Levi, she's to young for me)and liked the interview. She was a fine girl.

[LeeQuod]

Jason Taylor wrote: "building world-wide computer empires in their garage"

That may be too subtle a reference for most, JT. I myself never owned nor saw a Lisa; my first Apple exposure was to a Mac. Here's a clarifying link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs#Personal_life

And one could argue that failure to be abstinent, and even fathering a child, had little visible impact on Steve Jobs. In that sense it's a pity that we don't have more examples of careers and empires ruined by promiscuity.

[Adrienne]

Wonderful post. I share your thoughts. Clearly, Bristol is handling her business with the help of the people who love her. As she said, she is very blessed. I also had the same reservation you did: I squirmed at the comment about abstinence being "unrealistic." Nonetheless, I wish them all the best, and I believe, as Sarah Palin has said, "Bristol will be just fine." Thank God for the support she has.
www.motivationtruth.com

[Jason Taylor]

Actually I was thinking of Bill Gates-who still looks like a teenager.

[Jason Taylor]

In any case people make awkward speech all the time. I doubt she meant that any given individual should give up. Or for that matter that a family should give up encourageing such things. She seemed to be pointing out that at the present time social motivation was against and not for chastity.

And there is the point that doesn't feel chivalrous to pick on a pretty little girl for a speech gaffe. Which may be why I don't wish to be to hard.

[Gina Dalfonzo]

You're always chivalrous, Jason. :-) In any event, as I made clear, I have absolutely no desire to pick on Bristol or encourage anyone else to do so. But I don't think analyzing and reflecting on her words falls under that heading. Of course, it's true that she's very young, and most likely still in the process of developing a worldview.

I do appreciate the point you made in your first comment about prudence vs. morality. The same thing had occurred to me. That is a major defect in much current teaching on the subject.

[Jason Taylor]

Of course. I wasn't saying you were picking on her. I was saying, I was inclined to go easy.

[Christina]

For those with religious compunctions, the moral argument should be foremost -- but either way it never hurts to make the practical argument.

The baggage that comes with having sex in an untenable situation: risk/reality of STDs (some of which are incurable and many of which can be fatal); increased cancer risk with each sexual partner; wrangling with birth control and the side effects of birth control; pregnancy scares; pregnancy panic. Is the sex really worth is? And -- girls -- is HE paying nearly as high a price as you are?

Having addressed both the moral and the practical standpoints comes the Toolkit. How to (Not) Do It:

1. Don't be alone with a tempting partner.

2. If you do end up alone with a tempting partner, don't compromise your decision-making skills with drugs, alcohol, or lust. And getting yourself worked up sexually has been shown in studies to be just as judgment-impairing as getting plastered.

3. Focus on the positives. What do you have in your life that's worth protecting, that you're trading off the momentary pleasure for?

[David]

"...it's a pity that we don't have more examples of careers and empires ruined by promiscuity". Really? Unfortunately, life isn't usually ruined by an out of wedlock pregnancy; it just changes the trajectories of many lives. No one will ever be able to say if the new trajectory is "better" or "worse" than what otherwise would have been. If the pregnant woman and the child are fortunate enough to be supported by loving people, this is all the more true. Going back to the original question, abstinence is the result of a conscious or unconscious cost-benefit calculation (except, of course when one is impaired by drugs, alchohol, lust, etc.) There are worldly and spiritual costs and benefits. The world has, for the most part, reduced the costs, and most people have lost interest in reaping spiritual benefits. From a Christian perspective, the requirement to love the sinner precludes imposing heavy sanctions (i.e. , costs). That leaves us only an option to show benefits. The best way for Christians to support abstinence is to demonstrate with our own lives how "obeying God" yields benefits in this world.

[Jason Taylor]

You could also for that matter remind girls that it is kind of like being a "scab" to use a crude term. Every girl that does it lowers the market value a wee bit lower then lifelong devotion. It is unfair to other girls and to guys who are willing to pay that.

And you can tell guys that it does seem to crowd out other things in life for those who can't control themselves.

[Jason Taylor]

As for Empires ruined by promuscuity, the obvious one is Troy.

And for others, it is almost a cliche, "the X dynasty grew corrupt until the barbarians swept out of the steepes..."

[David]

No, Jason. Those examples may be obvious to the elect of this blogspot, but they might as well be from an alternate universe in terms of their utility in supporting abstinence in America in 2009. Get real.

[labrialumn]

Christina, very good advice.

Abstinence until marriage is completely realistic - and God expects it.

When we act as if we don't expect it, we effectively give permission for people to commit that sin.That is how youth respond.

We can't go 'easy' on the statement promoting sin. It really would have been better for her to have had a millstone tied around her neck and cast into the sea than to cause anyone else to sin.

David, love requires not tolerating sin, or those who promote sin. Love demands that. Love requires urging those who sin to repentance, not papering over their guilt until they face the judgment.

Pointing to earthly benefits to waiting until marriage may not work - I know older singles - it didn't 'work' for them. The question is; whom will you serve? As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. Cost benefit analyses will fail when encountering persecution, and that is coming, some is in the "stimulus" bill. A cost-benefit faith is not a saving faith. Only fealty willing to be faithful unto death, loving God above all others, is.

[Gina Dalfonzo]

Go easy on Jason, David. He thinks in historical terms, and I'm sure the word "empire" suggested a certain train of thought. No need to get harsh about it.

[LeeQuod]

David wrote: "Those examples may be obvious to the elect of this blogspot, but they might as well be from an alternate universe in terms of their utility in supporting abstinence in America in 2009."

Hm - that's why I'd said "careers and empires"; those worldly successes (fame, money, power) are the kinds of things for which many people hunger.

And it's interesting that Planned Parenthood makes much the same argument to support abortion: an undue financial burden and a career-limiting life change. The only difference is that abstinence presses that message before conception, not after.

So I agree with Jason, and I think his train of thought was right on track. (BTW, "one millihelen" is defined as "the amount of facial beauty required to launch one ship". Geeks can be funny, too.)

[David]

Labrialum, I understand and agree. I usually think in terms of unbelievers, and how one might approach and convince them. Those who do not accept their status as a sinner will have trouble understanding the distinction between hating the sin and loving the sinner. Likewise, they are not ready to talk about saving faith. I was suggesting showing them the practical fruit of a faith filled life.

And, Jason, please forgive the impatience that showed up in my last post.

[Jason Taylor]

David, as duels are no longer fashionable I am reluctantly forced to forgive you that grave and horrendous insult.

[labrialumn]

David,
That is a helpful clarification. I still wonder how effective it will be with your target audience. Not that in such a case, it wouldn't be worth trying. Perhaps we could also add that we are a pair-bonding species, that sexual intimacy creates a very powerful bond, and violating that bond leads to tremendous long-term heartache, though it is possible to go on and become jaded and psychologically damaged from having multiple pair-bonds. I think that perhaps a discussion about the tremendous emotional pain might have an impact on youth. They may be risk-tolerant, even risk-seeking, but they stillt end to be pain-avoidant. There is something about human beings that has caused all cultures - not just the Judaeo-Christian to establish and honor life-long marriage, and defend it with severe penalties (Margaret Mead was lying, those cultures in Melanesia have very powerful taboos and penalties protecting sex and marriage) This is 'ancient wisdom' - another powerful meme - that marriage is such a unique thing that it must be protected even by the cost of death.

In the end, though, in a culture and society where pre- and extramarital sex is condoned, expected and even promoted (and even within churches such that evangelical and Catholic youth are statistically more promiscuous - a sign of imbalanced preaching of gospel without the law?), when the hormones and desires are powerful, and there is no social reinforcement of sexual morality, an awareness of the real harm and suffering caused by premarital sex will only delay premarital sex for a while. Society has to be reformed to shame premarital sex and adultery, and legal sanctions need to be restored, so that people will understand that there is real guilt. Then and only then will people start respecting marriage in practice. As it is written in 1 Timothy 1, the law has a teaching function.

I wish to add, if it might be allowed, that God's forgiveness is as infinite and intense as His justice. He is *eager* to forgive all who unfeignedly repent. If you have sinned - and we all sin daily in various ways (though not by necessity in any given way), repent, turn to God and ask His forgiveness on the basis of Christ's suffering, and you will be instantly and completely forgiven, love will be restored, and "though your sins be as red as scarlet, I will make you white as snow" If you feel convicted of your sins, feel your guilt, then turn from them and ask for forgiveness and it is totally yours,and your guilt and shame will be objectively gone! And there will be no more condemnation for them.

[Jason Taylor]

Actually the legend existed before Margeret Mead. Whalers had a romantic conceit that the type of island girls that hung around sailors were different from the type of girls that hung around sailors in every other port of call.