Bristol Palin Earns $262,000 as Abstinence Ambassador
Dang, the Palins sure know where to find the money. It’s in books, E-List celebrity dance shows, and apparently, abstinence advocacy. Bristol got paid many pretty pennies for imploring teens not to have sex, even though she did and has a baby to prove it.
That, in itself, is a little weird. I get that the message is, “learn from my mistake,” but it comes off as, “do as I say, not as I do.” She says that being a teen mom is hard so girls should think twice before having sex. Yet, she was on Dancing with the Stars and making really bad PSAs with Mike “The Situation” from Jersey Shore. She looks like she has this carefree, glamorous life. Definitely not the reality of 99% of teen moms.
BTW, no one from Jersey Shore should be anywhere near an abstinence education video. Everytime I catch that show, I want to power wash every inch of their house with bleach.
How about shooting a video of a sleepless Bristol at 3:00 AM trying to soothe a colicky, crying Tripp. That is way more realistic. It makes being a teen mom look as difficult as it really is.
The stranger part of this story is how much the Candie’s Foundation spent on abstinence-only education vs. how much they paid her to be their spokesperson. Bristol Palin’s Nonprofit Paid Her Seven Times What It Spent On Actual Teen Pregnancy Prevention. $35K on grants to clinics and health education centers, but Bristol gets a cool quarter mil.
Not only that, their abstinence only campaigns are laced with sex. Check out these tank tops they sell that say, “I’m Sexy Enough To Keep You Waiting.” Huh? That is just bizarre-o to me. Vow not to have sex, but wear that top to tease your boyfriend and his blue balls?
The Candie’s Foundation is serious about selling their branded line of Juniors clothing, accessories, and shoes. They’re obviously not serious about selling abstinence-only education because they suck at it. Mixed messages and very little money going to actual, real-life education shows just how much.
Bristol is more than happy to take their money, I’m sure. I wonder if she gets their cheap, slutty shoes for free. Even without them, what a sweet deal.
April 6th, 2011 at 12:53 AM
More obsession with the Palins. I don’t get it. So many liberal voices I know are intelligent, articulate, sensible — yours included Spinny — but almost to a person, in my experience, they’re obsessed with the Palins. Like some sort of weird horror flic involving pod people who suddenly go slobber-nuts at the mention of an encoded word. “Palin.” Bam! Let’s kill all the humans!
So Bristol gets a hefty salary? Those kinds of decisions are made all the time. It’s called the fame game. Those of us without fame may chafe a bit at the sometimes arbitrary relationship between hard work/dedication (or lack thereof) and compensation. But the Candie Foundation board of directors, with fiduciary duties to their organization, determined that Bristol’s salary was worth it, to fundraising and/or the mission. Happens all the time. Fame, notoriety, even infamy — all commodities, and we’re all (witness this very post) active traders in them.
And so what if the Candie Foundation is actually a 21st century organization and recognizes that a little “sex appeal” in advertising might resonate among their target audience, even if their message is abstinence? What do you want? Some easily-caricatured Church Lady campaign that would make abstinence even more ridiculous in the eyes of teens than it already threatens to be?
Not sure where you’re wonderful spinning head is on this one. Your own message seems conflicted, and compromised by overreaction to Bristol — just another famous kid.
April 6th, 2011 at 8:33 AM
Well, while I could care less about the Palin side of this, the using “sex appeal” to sell abstinence is completely hypocritical.
Since those supporting abstinence-only education tend to be of the Christian/religious bent, it should be noted that there’s a Bible verse, “Be in the world, not of it.” In other words, don’t water down the message with the tactics of worldly people. Especially when that tactic is the complete opposite of what you’re preaching.
That said, I don’t believe this Candie’s Foundation is a religious group (from looking at their website), and in fact, they seem to support the teaching of all-around sexual education (the ending of teen pregnancy being their sole ‘motive’). I still think ‘sexing-up’ abstinence is ridiculous, but if they’re willing to talk about safe sex along with abstinence as a means of achieving their goal, then I can’t hate on them.
April 6th, 2011 at 9:01 AM
Thanks for reading and commenting lyttleton! I loved your “Individualism” post. BTW, Hot Topic sells stuff like “Emily the Strange.” It’s a goth teen’s Neiman Marcus.
April 6th, 2011 at 1:40 PM
Nice fallacy, lyttleton! Brilliant!
You certainly don’t have to be right-wing and Christian to recognize the dangers of teen sex and pregnancy. That you felt compelled to style your response with scripture is sufficient evidence of a red herring.
And Spinny-dear,
It only comes off as “do as I say, not as I do” because you detest Sarah Palin – and no other reason.
April 6th, 2011 at 1:49 PM
Heh probably. Thanks for sharing, Terrance.
April 6th, 2011 at 2:12 PM
Hardly a fallacy, T. Nothing I said was factually incorrect or misleading, and I appropriately balanced my point by stating that the pro-abstinence side “tends” to be religious. It’s hardly a red herring to point out a sound statement, whether you believe in religion or not.
As an atheist, I can still see the wisdom in the view, “Be in this world, not of it,” in the sense that if you wish to preach/speak against a particular view/lifestyle, emulating it’s tactics is only going to weaken your message and make you look hypocritical.
You seem to be interested in a fight by coming out taunting, but you clearly misread my post as I, in the end, came out in support of The Candie’s Foundation. If you go to their site, they actually link to a story that says abstinence-only education doesn’t work and that’s why the government is looking to cut funding to it in support of more comprehensive sex education.
April 6th, 2011 at 2:20 PM
April 6th, 2011 at 2:37 PM
Uh, no, not pro-abstinence. Pro safe sex. Do you not realize there is a happy medium between abstinence and unprotected orgy?
Non-religious “tend” to be in favor of teaching proper use of condoms and birth control, as well as laying out the facts about pregnancy and STDs (without turning the topic into a moral cause).
Read the comments before you lash out next time. Your tone is far too smug for someone who lacks reading comprehension.
April 6th, 2011 at 2:52 PM
So then you’d be O.K. with your thirteen-year-old daughter having sex, so long as she uses protection?
But these people are not pro-abstinence, right? There couldn’t possibly exist an atheist who believes teenagers should not be engaging in sexual activity, right? Non-Religious people are just A-O.K. with their children having sex! Where in the hell were all these non-religious folks when I was a hormonal teenage boy!
I read the comment. I spotted a red herring. One’s religious views have nothing to do with Bristol Palin and the Candie’s Foundation or their message of abstinence. You don’t have to be religious to recognize the dangers of teenage sex and extol a formula for abstinence. You styled your response the way you did because you wanted to attack religious people, the Palin’s, and the fellow you responded to.
If that was not your intention, then I cannot fathom why you styled your response with scripture aimed at pointing out pro-abstinence hypocrisy, because as we have just discovered, non-religious people can be just as pro-abstinence as the Evangelical Christian.
April 6th, 2011 at 3:03 PM
You are using false assumptions all over the place. If I had a daughter, no, I wouldn’t want her having sex at 13, but at 16 I wouldn’t freak out about it. At either age, I’d rather have her taught smart safe-sex over unrealistic abstinence-only (which, as I established earlier, doesn’t work as well as comprehensive sex education).
You are blowing up with the fallacies, yourself. I clearly never said only religious people are for abstinence-only, that’s what the word “tend” implied. You can be an atheist and believe in abstinence and still understand the wisdom of the bible verse I quoted (and see the hypocrisy in abstinence-only education using sex to sell their message).
I also never attacked Palin. If you could read, you’d see in my first post I said I didn’t care about Palin (and, yes, I realize I mistakenly typed ‘could’ instead of ‘couldn’t'; typo shame). I brought up religious people to segue into the Bible verse that I felt was pertinent to the conversation, regardless of anyone’s actual religious beliefs.
For someone who came in screaming “Fallacy”, you’ve been unloading them like bullets from a gun.
Please calm down, you’re scaring the children.
Instead of trying to one-up me, just settle back, read what I wrote and see that I’m not saying anything all that damning against anyone.
April 6th, 2011 at 3:14 PM
So, you are pro-abstinence – and an atheist! Hooray! And the truth shall set you free!
I’m just trying to figure out why you mentioned religion at all. Spinny never mentioned it. Kendrick didn’t mention it. You mentioned it, then attacked. Weird, I thought. And a clear red herring.
Didn’t you note, however, that the Candie’s Foundation does not believe abstinence-only education is effective?
You said:
So, because the post was about Bristol Palin and her work with the Candie’s Foundation, a group you admit is non-religious, what was the purpose of mentioning religion?
April 6th, 2011 at 3:24 PM
lyttleton,
take it from me. Don’t waste your time with Terrance on this. You lost him when you made the slightest judgment about Bristol that had even the faintest suggestion of negativity. He becomes obsessive on issues like this and will always create “false arguments ” to tap dance around your core premise.
Just a suggestion
April 6th, 2011 at 3:29 PM
Oh, come now, Woodsy. The boy made a silly statement and he needs a little correction, ’tis all. One’s religious views has nothing to do with whether they would want their thirteen-year-old doing a little slappy-dappy with the neighbor boy.
Most parents are pro-abstinence, for crying out loud! Their religion, or lack thereof, aside.
And of course I’m going to defend the Palin’s. Sarah is as sexy as the day is long!
April 6th, 2011 at 3:31 PM
Someone apparently just bought you a “Fallacy-of-the-day calendar” and you hit Red Herring today, cos you keep saying it, but you’re incorrectly wielding the term.
Just because I brought in something outside of the immediate topic doesn’t make it a red herring. It’s okay to expand the conversation, it really is.
If I had said, “Palin and The Candie’s Foundation are terrible because they aren’t living up to this Bible verse”, that would have been a red herring.
I was commenting on the hypocrisy of the sexy clothing selling abstinence. (Look at that tank top that SL posted: Regardless of the organization’s overall stance, that is clearly a sexy women selling sex and abstinence in one picture: hypocrisy).
You’re spinning your wheels here, T, not making any actual points and flailing to get the win. Just because I don’t think a person should start having sex the moment they hit puberty doesn’t make me pro-abstinence. (Do you even know what that word means?) That’s like saying that I don’t think people should drink until they’re at least 18 means I’m a teetotaler.
You won’t give up until you feel validated, but you’ve got nothing in your bag. I’m feeling sleepy.
April 6th, 2011 at 3:34 PM
Thanks LB, the crazy thing is I never attacked Palin at all. I completely ignored her and this guy went nuts. My comments were directed at the sexy clothing line, that is all. The fact that I brought up religion may not be pertinent to this particular ad campaign, but it is pertinent to the topic of abstinence-only education.
April 6th, 2011 at 3:41 PM
“Thanks LB, the crazy thing is I never attacked Palin at all. I completely ignored her and this guy went nuts.”
They say perception is reality lyttleton. Terrance’s perception, like most white males in America, is you don’t mistreat their “imaginary” girlfriends, whether you actually have or not. It a jealousy thing. You remember right? When you were twelve or thirteen? That’s Terrance.
April 6th, 2011 at 3:43 PM
Oh, well, I guess if you were just “expanding the conversation,” and not attacking the Candie’s Foundation or Bristol Palin, then everything is O.K…
But let’s face it. You were attacking the Palin’s and those who support abstinence for teenagers.
Clearly you realize that sex is marketed across the board in today’s society. The Candie’s Foundation was using that fact to their benefit in marketing their message. And instead of simply accepting that as something close to reality, you cry hypocrisy!
You have already admitted that the Candie’s Foundation is a secular organization, so where’s the hypocrisy?
You’re just not making any sense, fella!
April 6th, 2011 at 3:44 PM
Oh man, I remember my 12-year-old imaginary girlfriend. She was hot. I totally would have had sex with her. Damn abstinence-only upbringing.
So, I get it, T’s not crazy, he’s in loooovee. Well, that’s kinda sweet. Ah shucks.
April 6th, 2011 at 3:46 PM
I’m picturing an old man standing in front of the mirror wearing a Malcolm-X t-shirt!
Oh, that’s just Larry Norman, the self-hating cowboy from Texas! He-Haw!
April 6th, 2011 at 3:50 PM
“But let’s face it. You were attacking the Palin’s and those who support abstinence for teenagers.”
I never attacked Palin. I’m not sure how anything I said could be construed that way. This is the most amazing level of delusion I’ve come across in some time.
I wasn’t pointing out religious hypocrisy, just hypocrisy in general. I used a Bible verse because it made the point I wanted to make (and because I figured a good majority of abstinence-only advocates would be familiar with the Bible).
If your problem with the world is that there is too much sexual pressure on teenagers, adding to that noise with more sexual imagery isn’t going to help. That’s hypocrisy (and self-defeating).
Since I can’t make it any plainer than that, I’m going to leave your insanity to froth and foam. I’ll be careful to never even speak the name “Palin” with anything short of reverence from now on.
(Do you know you’re crazy, T, or is this full on psychosis?)
April 6th, 2011 at 3:58 PM
Yes, yes. All us right-wingers are delusional – and white. I mean, clearly.
*yawn*
The liberal hypocrisy never ends…
Self-defeating, perhaps. Hypocritical? No. Perhaps you confused the two terms. Public edumacation aints so goods, sos you aints to blame, fella!
April 6th, 2011 at 3:59 PM
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
April 6th, 2011 at 8:49 AM
I wanted to write on a popular story right now that I found at DK and other sites. If I can throw a Jersey Shore reference into a post, it’s always fun. And The Situation’s body is smokin’ hot. Looking for pictures was all about eye candy.
I don’t know what the alternative would be to a sex appeal abstinence campaign would be. Definitely not the church lady like you said. But you don’t see a mixed message in the one they’re sending?
Anyway, I had fun writing this post. If it comes off as obsession with the Palins, so be it. Sometimes my head slows down to 33 so I can actually write something not as serious as dictators slaughtering innocents. Considering things like that are going on the world, I’d like to take a break and indulge my “obsession.”
April 6th, 2011 at 10:02 AM
Okay. Too hard on you. My bad. I just posted last weekend about Rebecca Black. You’re totally right. Sometimes, OMG, you just to have fun posting something. I’m way too serious, usually…
April 6th, 2011 at 10:17 AM
All good.
Despite my knee-jerk, emotional responses to your comments, I appreciate them. You definitely make me think about my posts, especially in the “Did I go too far?” kind of way.
April 6th, 2011 at 10:39 AM
Definitely not a knee-jerk or emotional response. I just didn’t get a happy face, so I knew I messed up.
Your post was well-written as usual. I’m just sensitive about Palin-hate, and still don’t really get it.
April 6th, 2011 at 10:41 AM
My initial reaction was knee-jerk and emotional. I am quite adept at using the Backspace button.
Haha I do wear my emoticons on my sleeve.
April 6th, 2011 at 1:44 PM
Kendrick ruins all the fun, Spinny. You’ll get used to it!
I go on ranting and raving about Democrats, Muslims, and the Left in general, then here comes Kendrick, fixed with facts and logic, to piss in my Cheerios!
April 6th, 2011 at 1:51 PM
That’s because he’s f’n brilliant.
Hmm. My Cheerios did taste strange today.
April 6th, 2011 at 3:32 PM
Great “free-market” speech Kendrick. No, really.
But though this may seem misplaced criticism from spinny it comes not because of what Palin is doing now but more how her mom tried to portray herself and family as somehow above the “evil” liberal people who are guilty for the same human errors and weaknesses that Bristol was, and I’m sure her Mom was equally.
No, its not the approach we want to use to re-establish civility and eliminate the political gridlock in this country. But you could help more if you would not wait to make your valid claim ONLY after your adversaries are guilty of such things.
How much more clout and credibility your case would be if we had an example of you criticizing conservative/Republicans for the same reason you feel a need to criticizing spinny.
Am I wrong?
April 6th, 2011 at 10:30 PM
Not sure I get your point lb. If it’s that I tend to criticize liberals/Democrats more often than conservatives/Republicans, then, okay, guilty (though I have certainly criticized the latter, including Limbaugh and Beck). I don’t believe it’s possible to have a political orientation and be a truly “equal-opportunity critic.”
If you’re right-of-center, like me, then the left just bugs you more. If you’re left-of-center, like you, the right just bugs you more. No surprise. But I agree in principle with what I think you’re saying: none of us should act as though we get to cast the first stone ’cause we’re sinless.
April 6th, 2011 at 1:01 AM
Sorry this is a round about comment…..my solution to anything Palin…ignore!
Here is a story about the cash that Planned Parenthood got….they were NOT alone!
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/05/liberty_university_federal_money
April 6th, 2011 at 9:06 AM
I know I should ignore. Lots on DK believe so too. Wow. That article was disturbing.
April 6th, 2011 at 5:01 AM
The money-making angle is the reason I believe Mama won’t run. Meanwhile, I recall hearing a tape of Bristol speaking …. what a bore … and she made a quarter of a million? Whew … it’s all in a name.
April 6th, 2011 at 9:08 AM
Yeah, she can’t afford the pay cut – An answer Rush gave when asked why he doesn’t run for POTUS that always makes me laugh.
April 6th, 2011 at 5:56 AM
The Palins are blood sucking scam artists. Their opinions are worthless, and make no sense at all. The best thing to do, is if everyone ignores them, and hopefully they will go away.
April 6th, 2011 at 9:09 AM
I know, Don. See my answer to lobo.
April 6th, 2011 at 1:42 PM
Blood-sucking scam artists? I didn’t know the Palin’s were democrats.
Whooo kneeew?!?
April 6th, 2011 at 1:54 PM
Naah not Democrats. Opportunists.
April 6th, 2011 at 8:26 AM
George Lopez says they are a Latino family……kids all live at home…..husband does not work……woman makes all the money…etc…..
April 6th, 2011 at 9:09 AM
April 6th, 2011 at 10:30 AM
Bristol Palin may be the female Anti-christ! Seriously.
April 6th, 2011 at 10:36 AM
Ahahaha Hook. I don’t think so at all, but if it turns out to be true, feel free to say “I told you so.”
April 6th, 2011 at 1:57 PM
What the hell is so great about Sarah Palin, and her ding bat daughter Bristol?
April 6th, 2011 at 11:05 PM
Her legs. I could stare at ‘em for days.
April 8th, 2011 at 7:16 AM
Straight from the conservative horse’s mouth……her popularity has much more to do with her looks and her dog whistle than it does her actual qualifications.
Jack, jack, no take-backs!
April 8th, 2011 at 9:55 AM
I was being facetious, DC.
Actually, I could stare at them for ten days.
