Lunch Break: Bristol Palin says, “I lost my virginity while drunk.”
by LauraLoo
Reports US Magazine:
In her new autobiography, Not Afraid of Life: My Journey So Far, Bristol Palin reveals she lost her virginity while drunk for the first time to Levi Johnston (aka, the “gnat”) during a camping trip.
Bristol also gave an interview recently to ABC on the reality of teen motherhood…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ddqz93N0pw&feature=fvsr[/youtube]
Is writing this book (as cathartic as it may be to Bristol, as well as helpful to other teens), a good idea as to what is long-term best for son Tripp, age 2? Verbal smack-downs from both of his parents’ tell-all books (Levi’s book is due out later this year) is not exactly taking the high road as they air their dirty laundry.
Email LauraLoo with your Lunch Break suggestions.

Whenever we write anything and allow our words to be twisted and misused by media outlets, we should keep in mind that some day our children and grand children could be hurt by it in ways that we can’t imagine.
Truly, the Palins are a classy bunch.
With a father like his, who’s already publicly bad-mouthed and lied about Bristol and her entire family every chance he gets, I’m afraid Tripp would have had no chance to escape that sort of thing anyway. A girl truly can’t be too careful whom she chooses to be the father of her child (and even if she didn’t plan to have a child with him, having sex is inherently making that choice).
Poor Tripp.
I really wish that people would keep stuff like that to themselves. Some stuff should be more personal, especially when it can harm your kids.
That Bristol had her first sexual experience while drunk supports what I have been saying for a long time: we must revive the custom of chaperoned dating.
I’m not going to lie. So did I. I’m sure there are a lot of people in the same boat. I can’t really criticize her for it.
I wonder then if the sex was consensual?
@Megan, I guess it would depend on if the guy were drunk too. I have a huge, huge problem with sober men (or women!) having sex with drunk women (or men!). If they were both inebriated it would be a little different, I suppose.
Jack,
Good point–men (whether straight, gay, whatever) can also be manipulated. I tend to think sex is a bad idea when there’s an imbalance of sobriety. And then if both parties are intoxicated…just not even sure how to deal with that, the waters are so muddy. Bristol’s situation shows how ineffective the whole blanket prohibition on real discussions about sex are. “Just don’t do it” becomes a pretty useless injunction when a teenager inevitably faces such a sticky situation.
Yeah, I tend to see the sober person as taking advantage of the one who isn’t, whether they mean to or not. It just can’t really be informed consent if one person isn’t making the judgment in their right mind. When they are both impaired, though, I don’t think it is automatically abusive. It would be more situational.
This would be the same Bristol Palin who earned 7.5 times what was actually spent on teen pregnancy health and counseling clinics through Candie’s Foundation?
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/04/05/156116/bristol-palin-profiteer-teen-pregnancy/
Looks like she’s learned a lot from her mother.
This would be the same Bristol Palin who earned 7.5 times what was actually spent on teen pregnancy health and counseling clinics through Candie’s Foundation?
And Cecile Richards is a pauper.
We live in a free market, capitalist society. People are paid for endorsements and as spokespersons. Many of them are paid a lot of money. How is what Bristol is doing as a spokesperson any different? Or do you only scrutinize pro-lifers?
Relax. No one’s questioning Bristol Palin’s god-given right to follow in her mother’s footsteps as a shameless grifter and world-class con artist.
Cecile Richards runs a national organisation which entails full time work at a minimum. For this she is appropriately remunerated as anyone running such an organisation would be. Her salary consumes ?% of PP’s annual budget spending.
Bristol Plain was an ‘ambassador’ for the Candies Foundation. Her remuneration consumed 56% of their spending. Not sure too many other ‘spokespeople’ consume that much.
I don’t only scrutinize pro-lifers. Yet here I only see complaints about PP $$$$$$ and abortion clinic workers actually earning a living.
If the Candies Foundation decided to pay Bristol Palin a certain amount, frankly, that’s a contract between them.
Bristol Palin isn’t promoting or profiting from death. PP and abortion clinic workers are. That is the reason for our “complaints,” and you’re well aware of that.
If you could make money being the spokesperson for a pro-choice organization, would you do it? Would you say you hadn’t really “earned a living?”
Frankly, I don’t care what the Palin family does. It’s just more tabloid fodder and opportunities for anti-lifers to come here and spew hatred about a woman who has a disabled child she didn’t abort.
What, joan, no more jokes about little Trig? You disappoint me.
Kel, I have never said one word about Palin and her disabled child. From my perspective it was her choice to have and keep that child.
But Sarah Palin has shown herself to be far more interested in generating personal wealth than contributing anything to society by actually undertaking any political function. Her bus tour is all about $$$$$, not a ‘feeler’ for nominating for president. And it would appear that Bristol is following in her footsteps.
Reality: What is your rubric for determining the purpose of a person’s actions, such that you judge Palin to be doing what she’s doing “all about $$$$$?”
Meanwhile, Candidate Obama continues to fly around the country in Air Force One at taxpayer expense, doing some token official deed and then doing fundraisers.
So non-candidate, non-officeholder Palin continues to be obsessively berated by the Left, while Obama heads towards his supposed $1 billion election war chest with the full enthusiasm of Palin’s detractors.
And I thought hypocrisy was only possible on the right. ;-)
If we’re going to reduce the appalling rate of abortions in this country and also reduce the amount of single motherhood, we have to do something — but something humane and reasonable — to reduce the amount of impulsive, irresponsible sex.
Is chaperoned dating a good idea?
So according to what you have said rasqual, obama lands somewhere due to legitimate business and while he’s there does some fund-raising for his presidential campaign.
Meanwhile, Palin runs around the country lining her own pockets from fools adulating at her feet because they mistakenly think she might actually undertake a role requiring effort and responsibility.
“So non-candidate, non-officeholder Palin continues to be obsessively berated by the Left,” – beacuse she is all but operating under false pretences. “while Obama heads towards his supposed $1 billion election war chest with the full enthusiasm of Palin’s detractors.” – because he’s actually, you know, kinda really applying for a job in which he will do some work.
Rubric expressed.
No, actually, fundraisers with Obama’s participation are scheduled and then post hoc he miraculously discovers something “legitimate” to do nearby, so that his transportation to the fundraisers can be paid for by the taxpayer. Do you follow the president’s schedule at all? Obviously not, or you’d know where the false pretenses are.
You’re obliged to defend your rainbow carving messiah, I understand that. And you’re obliged to froth at the mouth like one of Pavlov’s charges whenever you see the name “Palin” in print, I understand that. But it’s so unseemly.
Anyway, again, you’re not making sense. Palin must be hounded despite not seeking nor holding office. But scrutiny of Obama is unnecessary because he does what he does as an active candidate and office holder.
Fascinating non sequitur. It’s like saying that it’s needless to watch the temperature on a grill when you’re cooking — only when you’re not.
Denise: “Is chaperoned dating a good idea?”
Sure. If a pair of kids can survive the constant scrutiny of a chaperone, there’ll be time where they’ll actually have to do things like converse, exchange ideas, argue, resolve conflict (or not), and so forth. The sheer boredom of having to do more (less?) than experience passion with each other will force a reality check.
The problem with youthful sex isn’t that kids do more than hold hands, it’s that they do so very much less. The reduction of a relationship to sex alone doesn’t generally stress guys, so we’re capable of being content with less. We’re really like some kind of ultimate impregnation machine, we really are. It’s not necessarily that that’s all we want, is an orgasm with a female. It’s that whether much more is part of that is just not as compelling to us as it ought to be. We’re open to it, but it isn’t what drives us.
That drive — often too short a commute — ought to be slowed down long enough so that the broader relationship gets the attention of us guys. We’re able and competent to work on a full relationship if we’re merely undistracted by the excitement of passion. Maybe chaperoned courtship would provide that.
Joan: The Palins are about as classy as the sleazy Kennedys, pro-abortion heroes (except for Eunice).
Rasqual,
I agree with your sentiment that a lot of times young people resort to sex because they’re bored and it’s easy, feels good and is less of work than a relationship. I think teens (and everyone, really) should not lose sight of the beauty of having friends of the opposite gender, of having a relationship that revolves more around intellectual/emotional intimacy and ideas instead of just passion. The passion is best when it flows from a relationship/friendship that is based on more.
That being said, however, “chaperoned dating” is not necessarily the answer. For high schoolers, maybe, but even then I think an adult’s presence is often hindering to deep conversations – particularly as the relationship continues to develop. You can’t know someone – really know them – until you’re alone together and don’t have to worry that they’re putting on pretenses for said chaperon. Maybe it’s just my background as a homeschooler speaking, but really chaperones are fine in most situations but not when a couple is trying to get to know each other seriously – especially if marriage might be in the future.
DUH.
two teenagers go camping.
with beer.
who would have thunk that someone might get pregnant?
I have two solutions: parental supervision (if under eighteen) and
“The Theology of the Body” training which helps teens
figure out their true value and the real meaning of love, sex and
finding true happiness. .
Solves all kinds of problems.
The nearest I may get to frothing at the mouth over the mention of Palin rasqual, is the eruption of raucous laughter that is generated. Especially when she opens her mouth.
You do realise that most of the rest of the ‘western’ world shakes their collective heads in amazement at just how many people actually think Palin warrants being in the political spotlight. And that whole ‘birther’ thing.
The fact still remains that obama is raising funds for a legitimate political activity while palin is deluding people into thinking she’s doing anything more than lining her own pockets. It is also obvious that obama is copping at least as much hounding as palin, with somewhat less honesty.
So Bristol didn’t actually fall pregnant on that drunken camping trip. It took more tries, interesting.