Can I assume that everyone has seen Bristol Palin and “The Situation’s” safe sex PSA? If not, here, let me ruin your day!

What’s noteworthy about this clip isn’t the stars included, but the incredibly muddled message of the PSA itself. After all, they were forced to dance around the glaringly obvious characteristics of their spokespeople: the one who claimed to practice abstinence decidedly hadn’t, and the other doesn’t exactly treat sex all that carefully. And so, the commercial comes across as insincere and optional – particularly because abstinence is dismissed altogether by the end. It only stands to reason that the “safe sex” side of the argument was equally optional.

I have to say, I truly think this is one of those PSAs that does more harm than good, especially if you’re on the abstinence-only side of the argument. Bristol Palin probably should have sat this one out if she’s truly serious about her cause, and not merely her image. Am I wrong?


4 Comments

  1. The one who claimed to practice abstinence decidedly hadn’t

    Actually, she says that she knows what it’s like to be a teen parent, so her implication is that Now she is living abstinently.

    Really though apart from it being embarrassing to watch that guy take himself seriously, I don’t think the PSA was at all what you imagined it to be. Essentially, the message is: if abstinence is what you want to do, that’s fantastic, but if it’s not, then you had better use a condom. Abstinence isn’t dismissed by the end. It’s just that this guy isn’t interested and doesn’t find its goals more valuable than the goals of his own promiscuous vector. He says that abstinence is great, but not for him. Palin responds, I think, reasonably. Because, really, can you imagine if that guy propagates?

    I believe in abstinence until marriage. That doesn’t mean I can’t hope my children will be smart enough to use protection should they enjoy their youthful indiscretion. No sense in doubling the problem of sin with the problems of disease or unplanned pregnancy.

  2. Hi! Recent reader to this blog, thank you guys for the honesty, it’s refreshing.

    Here’s the thing about this PSA: it doesn’t send any strong Christian message at all.

    The reason I mention that is because the Palins are known for touting their Christian faith. Good on them for being open about their faith – but more often than not, their choices and reactions reflect unfavourably Christian. “The Situation”? Really? He basically sums up in 1 persona the hedonistic, selfish, entitled and image obsessed world we find ourselves in. So how can pairing up with him give a consistently strong Christian message?

    Bristol did not practice abstinence and is only now advocating abstinence after the Candies Foundation hired her as their spokesperson i.e. for money. And have you seen the Candies ads? They are terrible. Basic message to young women: “Be sexy! Wear tight clothes! It’s your right to be provocative!”

    Throw in the abstinence angle and the message becomes: “Be sexy! Wear tight clothes! Give off a sexy vibe to all and sundry but just don’t go all the way!”

    It’s hardly loving to tease the opposite sex then shut it all down. As a woman, I feel that we have to take responsibility for our choices and actions. We can’t always blame men for acting lustfully when we are contributing to stoking that sin.

    The message from Palin & the Candies Foundation is so muddled as to erase most if not all of their credibility.

  3. sorry, typos: I meant to say – “but more often than not, their choices and public reactions reflect unfavourably on Christians and Christ.”

Comments are now closed for this article.