VP hopeful Sarah Palin advocated Abstinence only education, teen daughter pregnant

[Moto]

I agree they need to know it, but I don't think it is the schools place to teach it. It should be done in the home.

It is absolutely the school's place to teach it.

It is awkward as hell to talk about sex with your parents. If it were left completely to my mom and dad to teach me about sex, I wouldn't get all of the information I need. Plus, I would have been creeped the shit out listening to my parents explain the process.

Instead, I got to hear about everything from my science teacher in 7th grade and again from my health teacher in 9th grade. It wasn't awkward at all, save for some giggling here and there. And, everybody got a solid education. Believe it or not, some good questions were asked by students and answered by the teacher. We all walked away more informed. Knowledge is power!

Seriously, though, what I learned in school I wouldn't have learned from my parents for a couple reasons. First, I was too afraid to ask at that point in my life. It's actually still pretty weird to talk about it with parents even at 19. Second, my parents are not qualified to teach me everything about sex and neither are most parents. My parents are not even religious and they still didn't tell me anything about it when I was younger. I'd imagine a lot of religious parents would have extreme difficulty discussing it or simply wouldn't discuss it all in an effort to keep their children "pure" or something like that.

So the schools teach it and everybody wins. Teens don't get corrupted and sinful when schools teach them about sex, they get informed. They use that knowledge to their advantage, to their parent's advantage, and to society's advantage (although, of course, some choose to ignore it). The idea that schools shouldn't teach it is absurd.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

I agree they need to know it, but I don't think it is the schools place to teach it. It should be done in the home.

Do you think that you could tell your son, when he is a teenager, how to put a condom on? And what if you taught him wrong? Why is it that you are more qualified to teach it than a teacher, when the teacher knows his stuff and is less likely to make a mistake?

 

[SIGbastard]

Do you think that you could tell your son, when he is a teenager, how to put a condom on? And what if you taught him wrong? Why is it that you are more qualified to teach it than a teacher, when the teacher knows his stuff and is less likely to make a mistake?

I'm done in here now, but I have to ask. Are you ****ing kidding me? You think teaching someone how to put a condom on is a complex task. It really doesn't take "expert" training to show someone how they unroll over long objects

 

[The Monkey]

I'm done in here now, but I have to ask. Are you ****ing kidding me? You think teaching someone how to put a condom on is a complex task. It really doesn't take "expert" training to show someone how they unroll over long objects

You're avoiding the subject.

As people have said, if every parent had a PhD in sex education, then the schools wouldn't have to teach them. But that's not the case. A lot of won't explain at all, and if them do they often to it poorly. What do you suppose we do with the children of those parents, let them get pregnant at 15 and have their life destroyed? No, the schools needs to be there if the parents aren't.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I don't really disagree with the stuff in bold from Sulkdodds. I don't really think the contraceptive failure rate is worth mentioning though. Sex at a young has been shown to be a cause of some psychological issues. Some kids are simply not mature enough when they engage in sexual acts and are scarred somewhat when relationships go south.

That's not my point.

You say that sex education needs to be left to the parents, but you are okay with the abstinence-only form of sex education in schools.

I ask you again the question that you have not yet answered: "for all that you rail against the 'nanny state', can you explain how an abstinence-only sex education programme funded by the government is any less centralised, controlling, or nannyish than a more rounded sex education programme similarly funded? Both are centrally funded, and both take the duty of education away from parents and families."

I'm going to link back to and summarise a post I made in this previously, because most of its points haven't been addressed:

Spoiler

There were plenty of pregnant teens at my highschool that had safe sex education. It's just going to happen no matter what you teach.

Put this another way: kids are going to have sex, so why not at least tell them how to do it safely? It's like encouraging people to use guns without encouraging them to bother learning how to.

The problem is that to teach only abstinence is essentially to lie; it is to willfully conceal information that is useful for teens, and indeed it is often to necessarily mislead students about the effectiveness of contraception or other things.

Look at the requirements that 1996 federal laws set up for sex education programs that wanted to receive special grants:

A) Has as its exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;

There is no discussion whatsoever of how to have sex safely - there is only discussion of how great not having sex is. This is not useful. Programs must also teach that "sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects" - which is probably true, but misleading, because sexual activity itself is not fundamentally psychologically harmful, is it? Psychological harm is far more likely to come from mishandling of such things, from inexperience with them.

Informing teenagers about condoms, the pill and the morning after is not promoting "specific ways of having sex", nor is it 'promoting' any specific moral agenda, other than that people should be told the truth instead of have important information withheld from them. Refusing to inform them about this, and harping on about the joys of abstinence is promoting a moral agenda, and a rather specifically religious one too, one that may have little foundation in reality:

In a meta-analysis, DiCenso et al. have compared comprehensive sex education programs with abstinence-only programs.[38] Their review of several studies shows that abstinence-only programs did not reduce the likelihood of pregnancy of women who participated in the programs, but rather increased it.

...

Also, a U.S. review, "Emerging Answers", by the National Campaign To Prevent Teenage Pregnancy examined 250 studies of sex education programs.[41] The conclusion of this review was that "the overwhelming weight of evidence shows that sex education that discusses contraception does not increase sexual activity".

Furthermore, one merely needs to glance at wiki's section on criticism of Abstinence-only education, citing two studies which found that abstinence-only programmes were often guilty of systematic misrepresentations and outright falsities.

But finally, for all that you rail against the 'nanny state', can you explain how an abstinence-only sex education programme funded by the government is any less centralised, controlling, or nannyish than a more rounded sex education programme similarly funded? Both are centrally funded, and both take the duty of education away from parents and families. The difference between them is this: one gives as much information as possible. The other keeps as much as possible back. One gives people choice, responsibility, and, what is more, the information required to make that choice with responsibility. The other gives people only the necessary resources to safely make one choice, and, in doing so, makes them choose under duress. If your concern was truly that sexual education should stay out of government and remain with the family, you would not support any form of federal sex education whatsoever.

Absinthe is wrong about one thing - all education is necessarily a form of control (as is everything). But the question is which programme gives more control to whom. If there is going to be sex ed funded federally, what kind would be better and indeed more in keeping with the spirit of America - an education that withholds information on behalf of the government, or one that gives people the resources to do as they will?

- abstinence-only programmes represent government funding of a slanted and specifically-religious moral instruction.
- showing kids how to use condoms, meanwhile, is not pushing nearly so much of a moral agenda
- abstinence-only programmes are of touch with reality and deprive teens and young adults of information (thus liberty) rather than give it to them. It is like teaching kids maths, but refusing to include any algebra. It is missing out key information.
- studies have found that abstinence-only programmes actually may increase pregnancy rates, while balanced programmes do not
- studies also seem to show that sex education in which contraception is discussed does not increase sexual activity
- studies have also found that the majority of abstinence-only programmes actually lie to and mislead pupils
And, finally:
- Abstinence-only sex education, enforced and funded by government, is no less nanny-statish than a balanced federal education, and in fact, since it is based on withholding more information, may be more, not less, totalitarian.

So if, as you claim, you are coming at this from a purely libertarian standpoint - no religious or otherwise 'moral' concerns involved - then please explain why you support the federal implementation of a programme that, while still promoting a moral agenda and educating kids about more than just "biology", is less balanced, less honest, and, crucially, less effective?

I want to know why it's only okay for the government to take responsibility away from parents when they do it with a slanted and ineffective programme, rather than a balanced and effective one.

The only way you can justify federal support of abstinence-only education is if you think that it is actually immoral to have sex outside of marriage or to use contraception, and that, I feel, is unjustifiable.

 

[Moto]

Sulk's got it.

 

[Krynn72]

Sulks got it going on.

 

[jverne]

SIGbastard you are probably one of the most naive and deluded forum character i've seen in a long time.
you're borderline hilarious.

 

[kineaesth]

What about Kathagsakagksgung?

 

[SIGbastard]

As I said before several times. I am not against teaching what sex is, teaching the biology, stages of puberty etc. You can teach it that way without laying down an instructional manual for kids about how they can go out and have sex with each other. I don't even care if there is abstinence programs. I just prefer that over passing out condoms. I've already said that before. I don't care if you guys think I'm convoluted. I think you guys are convoluted. I'm conservative to my core and proud of it. I am not alone in my views. It is just not popular here as most of you guys are pretty far to the left.

 

[delusional]

As I said before several times. I am not against teaching what sex is, teaching the biology, stages of puberty etc. You can teach it that way without laying down an instructional manual for kids about how they can go out and have sex with each other. I don't even care if there is abstinence programs. I just prefer that over passing out condoms. I've already said that before. I don't care if you guys think I'm convoluted. I think you guys are convoluted. I'm conservative to my core and proud of it. I am not alone in my views. It is just not popular here as most of you guys are pretty far to the left.

No one proposed that.

And just because other people believe the same things as you, doesn't make them right. We can provide evidence of why we believe what we do, you sadly, cannot.

 

[SIGbastard]

No one proposed that.

And just because other people believe the same things as you, doesn't make them right. We can provide evidence of why we believe what we do, you sadly, cannot.

Your name is fitting because I really haven't read "proof" of anything in here. Mostly opinion which is fine because I've been giving my opinion as well.

 

[delusional]

Your name is fitting because I really haven't read "proof" of anything in here. Mostly opinion which is fine because I've been giving my opinion as well.

opinion based off evidence is not "proof". But opinion based in evidence is superior to plain opinions.

 

[SIGbastard]

opinion based off evidence is not "proof". But opinion based in evidence is superior to plain opinions.

Yea but you have to provide the evidence and I really haven't seen much of that from anyone in here. You really are delusional . An opinion is an opinion and will always be based "in evidence" to the one holding it.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

As I said before several times. I am not against teaching what sex is, teaching the biology, stages of puberty etc. You can teach it that way without laying down an instructional manual for kids about how they can go out and have sex with each other. I don't even care if there is abstinence programs. I just prefer that over passing out condoms. I've already said that before. I don't care if you guys think I'm convoluted. I think you guys are convoluted. I'm conservative to my core and proud of it. I am not alone in my views. It is just not popular here as most of you guys are pretty far to the left.

But you have repeatedly dodge the question of why? Why not teach a comprehensive sex education program, including both condoms and abstinence as options, you know, like the rest of the western world, and give kids a small thing called choice. Yes, as shocking as that may be, I am proposing we let people decide for themselves once they have received education on the subject. And that way we wouldn't be lying to children either, which is what abstinence only education does (just check Sulkdodds post for the federal guidelines of abstinence only - its outright lying).

"I am not alone in my views."

Perhaps not in America. Besides, 500 years ago everyone thought that the world was flat, but that doesn't mean they were right.

" It is just not popular here as most of you guys are pretty far to the left."

Funny, because the conservative party here has no problem with comprehensive sex education programs, so I reckon its actually you who is far to the right.

 

[Sulkdodds]

As I said before several times. I am not against teaching what sex is, teaching the biology, stages of puberty etc. You can teach it that way without laying down an instructional manual for kids about how they can go out and have sex with each other. I don't even care if there is abstinence programs. I just prefer that over passing out condoms. I've already said that before. I don't care if you guys think I'm convoluted. I think you guys are convoluted. I'm conservative to my core and proud of it. I am not alone in my views.

Ah, I see how it is. That rubbish about the 'nanny state' was just bluster. You're not a libertarian - you are like me, or Solaris, in that you think it's okay for the state to take a controlling, nannying role, as long as it supports your ideology. It's alright for the state to spend several hundred million a year as long as it's spending it on your pet talking points.

And, put in a more partisan way - I make no bones about it - you think it is alright for the state to spend several hundred million a year on fear, ignorance, the deprivation of personal choice and the spread of poverty.

However much you carp on at us for "evidence" you have not bothered to address any of the points, let alone the statistics, in my (rather long) posts. For example, you persist in the claim that we are asking government to "lay down an instructional manual for kids about how they can go out and have sex with each other". This is untrue: we're suggesting that children should be given information about how to safely have sex if they wish to - information, at the bare minimum, about contraceptive techniques, and, more ideally, Dutch-style explorations of relationship power dynamics.

If you're worried that educating kids about this will make them go out and have more sex, worry no more! According to this study, "no comprehensive program hastened the initiation of sex or increased the frequency of sex", while an earlier iteration of the same study said that "the overwhelming weight of evidence shows that sex education that discusses contraception does not increase sexual activity".

And don't forget all those medical studies which show how, if you want to stop children having sex so early, or if you want their sexual behaviour to improve, the evidence favours the effectiveness of comprehensive programs, and points to the failure of abstinence-only programs.

The American Academy of Paediatrics concludes: "Abstinence-only programs have not demonstrated successful outcomes with regard to delayed initiation of sexual activity or use of safer sex practices... Programs that encourage abstinence as the best option for adolescents, but offer a discussion of HIV prevention and contraception as the best approach for adolescents who are sexually active, have been shown to delay the initiation of sexual activity and increase the proportion of sexually active adolescents who reported using birth control." Source

The British Medical Journal was of the opinion that there is "no evidence" that abstinence-only sex education programs "reduce risky sexual behaviours, incidence of sexually transmitted infections, or pregnancy" in "high income countries". (source).

When the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy did a comprehensive review of 115 program evaluations, it found that two-thirds of comprehensive sex education programmes (focusing on both abstinence and contraception) had a "positive effect" on teen sexual behaviour. The same study conceded that there "does not exist any strong evidence that any abstinence program delays the initiation of sex, hastens the return to abstinence, or reduces the number of sexual partners...studies of abstinence programs have not produced sufficient evidence to justify their widespread dissemination."

In light of all this, your statement is simply laughable:

Your name is fitting because I really haven't read "proof" of anything in here. Mostly opinion which is fine because I've been giving my opinion as well.

You're right about one thing: you've been giving your opinion. But various respected medical, humanitarian and information-gathering organisations have been giving evidence. And you haven't listened to any of it.

 

[SIGbastard]

Ah, I see how it is. That rubbish about the 'nanny state' was just bluster. You're not a libertarian - you are like me, or Solaris, in that you think it's okay for the state to take a controlling, nannying role, as long as it supports your ideology. It's alright for the state to spend several hundred million a year as long as it's spending it on your pet talking points.

:rolling:

I meant nanny state in that the government decides what "agenda" is right to teach instead of your family. Kind of like how some schools in certain states have weeks devoted to homosexuality tolerance. They read books about some kid with 2 daddies etc. Now I'm not giving my opinion on sexual preference so don't put words in my mouth. I just think that certain things should be left alone in respect of parents and their ideals. On subjects of "controversy" such as homosexuality, safe sex, and many other things.

In the US it is the parents right to raise their children as they see fit. This isn't the case in many other countries. That is the way it should be IMHO because it is not the governments job to decide what agenda should be taught. Recently homeschooling came under attack in California but the case was dropped. We don't need a nanny state that teaches our kids what agenda is seen fit by a centralized authority. Just teach them academics and drop any agenda. You can try and say that your ideals are not an agenda but that is pure bullshit because alot of people don't agree with it. If parents are in some retarded cult that worships lizard people (there actually is a religion like that in US) they have every right to teach that to their kids provided they are properly cared for etc, or if a family is in the KKK as much as I don't agree with it they have every right to teach their ideals to their children.

You can attack me all day because you don't like what I am saying. I don't really care. I'm sure I could find some studies in support of abstinence programs but I don't really care as I will be the one talking with my children so it doesn't matter. It would probably be best to just leave that part of sex ed alone so parents views are respected.

Also I claimed to be conservative not libertarian. I want limited government, low taxes, very unrestricted gun rights, etc, etc. I don't believe everything the "right" does. I for one think you should be able to choose what you want to put in your body right or wrong (drugs for instance). I am not isolationist in my foreign policy views like libertarians. I think it would be a mistake to pull out of Iraq right now for instance (irregardless of whether or not it was a good idea to go in the first place). Anyways I am really sick of this so I will refrain from posting anymore even when I'm getting attacked.

 

[Jintor]

Conclusion? Argument defeated.

*bangs gavel*

Next!

 

[PvtRyan]

If parents are in some retarded cult that worships lizard people (there actually is a religion like that in US) they have every right to teach that to their kids provided they are properly cared for etc, or if a family is in the KKK as much as I don't agree with it they have every right to teach their ideals to their children.

No. No they don't. While it's not possible to prevent parents teaching their children this (any legislation enforcing this would do more harm than good) they are most certainly wrong for teaching their personal convictions to their children. So while it's not possible or desirable to prevent parents teaching their children all sorts of bullshit (the responsibility is for the parents to decide what the line between raising your child and indoctrinating your child is) it is possible to prevent schools from doing this and that opportunity should definitely be seized.

Parents have no rights when it comes to their children. Quite the opposite, they only have responsibilities and obligations. A child is not a possession.

And there's a difference between certain "agenda's". Mainly that there are those that are based on fact and rational argument, and those that are based on fuck all. If you teach tolerance of homosexuality, you're not teaching your personal conviction to them, you're teaching them the facts that shows the kids that there's nothing rationally wrong with homosexuality and that there's no reason to think any less of them. Whereas anti-homosexuality teachings would be based on religious delusions, rather than reason. Same for abstinence-only teachings.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Still ignoring my question 'ey SIGbastard. Is it perhaps, because you cannot think of a good response?

Let me say it again. Why is that you believe that the government should teach your opinion (abstinence) rather than use simple intelligence like other western countries and teach using a comprehensive education program, covering various options - contraceptives, abstinence, etc.

Just look at Holland, which Sulkdodds brought up earlier. As we see here, Holland has the lowest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe.

including compulsory sex education in schools from the age of five, as being key to its success. While schools are free to design their own programmes, some of the most shocking initiatives have included condom demonstrations for 10?year?olds, trips to sex shops for older teenagers, and cartoon videos on how to masturbate.

But advocates of the Dutch approach say the practical demonstrations are just a tiny part of their agenda, which encourages teens to discuss the moral and emotional implications of sex. Typical debates include reasons to have sex, what to say if a boy refuses to wear a condom and how to maintain self-respect.

What's more, as Sulkdodds pointed out, the Dutch also explore power dynamics, foreplay, etc. They have the most comprehensive sex education program in the world, and by incredible coincidence, have the lowest teen pregnancy rate in Europe.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Sounds expensive.

 

[theotherguy]

Parents have no rights when it comes to their children. Quite the opposite, they only have responsibilities and obligations. A child is not a possession.

This is exactly the problem with current laws regarding children. Children should be the obligation and duty of parents, not their property. Children should be the property of no-one, and given the same rights as say, a mentally handicapped adult.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I meant nanny state in that the government decides what "agenda" is right to teach instead of your family. Kind of like how some schools in certain states have weeks devoted to homosexuality tolerance. They read books about some kid with 2 daddies etc. Now I'm not giving my opinion on sexual preference so don't put words in my mouth. I just think that certain things should be left alone in respect of parents and their ideals. On subjects of "controversy" such as homosexuality, safe sex, and many other things....Also I claimed to be conservative not libertarian. I want limited government, low taxes, very unrestricted gun rights, etc, etc. I don't believe everything the "right" does. I for one think you should be able to choose what you want to put in your body right or wrong (drugs for instance). I am not isolationist in my foreign policy views like libertarians. I think it would be a mistake to pull out of Iraq right now for instance (irregardless of whether or not it was a good idea to go in the first place). Anyways I am really sick of this so I will refrain from posting anymore even when I'm getting attacked.

You earlier said that you support abstinence-only education programmes.

Yet you claim you don't want the government to teach an agenda.

Why is it alright for the government to teach one agenda, but not the other?

I don't claim that my own opinions aren't an agenda, although I do claim they're better than yours.
I made no aspersions as to your ideology and beliefs other than those that related directly to the argument.
Your claim that you could defeat my arguments with alternative studies is worthless until you find them and do so.
But apart from any other argument, you still have not resolved this central contradiction:

"I don't want government to decide what agenda to teach."
"I support the government deciding to teach an abstinence-only agenda."
(paraphrased)

Please. If you do nothing else in this thread, I'd like you to explain this, because it's really confusing me.
Why is it alright for the government to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on teaching the abstinence agenda, instead of leaving it to families?

EDIT:

Sounds expensive.

So are teenage mothers on welfare.

 

[Mr Stabby]

So are teenage mothers on welfare.

Should everyone else pay for other people's stupid mistakes, maybe if we didn't pay for other people's mistakes we wouldn't have such an irresponsible culture.

 

[SIGbastard]

You earlier said that you support abstinence-only education programmes.

Yet you claim you don't want the government to teach an agenda.

Why is it alright for the government to teach one agenda, but not the other?

I don't claim that my own opinions aren't an agenda, although I do claim they're better than yours.
I made no aspersions as to your ideology and beliefs other than those that related directly to the argument.
Your claim that you could defeat my arguments with alternative studies is worthless until you find them and do so.
But apart from any other argument, you still have not resolved this central contradiction:

"I don't want government to decide what agenda to teach."
"I support the government deciding to teach an abstinence-only agenda."
(paraphrased)

Please. If you do nothing else in this thread, I'd like you to explain this, because it's really confusing me.
Why is it alright for the government to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on teaching the abstinence agenda, instead of leaving it to families?

EDIT: So are teenage mothers on welfare.

Man I'm really getting sick of this. Once again I said I PREFER abstinence programs over the alternative. I also said I think it would be best to just leave it alone (meaning don't push either agenda) and let parents teach there kids whether they want to stress abstinence or condom useage. I'd support the government choosing abstinence programs, but it would be best to it keep neutral and not teach either side (let parents fill the role).

Can we just leave it at that??? I really don't have time to put together nice elaborate posts and do research to find the appropriate studies. This semester is 25 credit hours, I need to prepare for boards, write a correlation seminar paper about a complex ortho case, call about a dozen patients, play with my son, and squeeze in some time to work on my .44 magnum load I am trying to work up. Just proceed with the mocking of Sarah Palin. That's what this thread was about.

 

[Solaris]

Who else thinks Bristol is really hot?

 

[Krynn72]

Her and her mom are pretty hot. I'd do a threesome with them. But once the other daughter comes of age, then the oldie is out of the threesome. Stern can have her.

 

[PvtRyan]

Her and her mom are pretty hot. I'd do a threesome with them. But once the other daughter comes of age, then the oldie is out of the threesome. Stern can have her.

You mean the Downs one?




Dude.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Palin herself is such a MILF.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

I cannot believe I just said that.

 

[kineaesth]

Can we just leave it at that?

Not meaning to cause beef or anything, but if you're so busy, then maybe it'd be a good idea to not start arguments with people on forums. Because then when you leave it's a bit lame. ANYWAY.

Palin's a douche, abstinence only sucks, etc etc.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Man I'm really getting sick of this. Once again I said I PREFER abstinence programs over the alternative

Oh, I am sorry! I must have made a mistake! No, wait, here it is:

I support abstinence only programs.

I still feel this is rather duplicitous: "the nanny state is bad, but not so bad when it supports my preferances - which, by the by, are for policies evidently less effective and less moral than the alternative".

But I'm not asking you to stick around when you are tired of an argument or when more important real-life concerns mean you can't answer (I know the situation well); don't think I'm posting all this just for your benefit. It's useful to have this stuff out here.

 

[nerdcorerocks]

i just have to comment on sulkdodds' last comment. just to let you know, SIGbastard did not contradict himself in those quotes.

"I support abstinence only programs" does not equal "I only support abstinence only programs"

 

[jondy]

Did he not? Surely supporting abstinence only sex-ed precludes one from supporting, say, teaching people to use condoms and about STI's and somesuch. I mean, they're not having sex. Why would they need to know?

Either way it doesn't really matter I suppose, the main issue here is the big state/little state hypocrisy that Sulkdodds is trying to tease out.

 

[CptStern]

how does that make sense? there is no alternative to "abstinence only" because it's the ONLY thing avaialbe ..or else they would have called it Abstinence Program ..not abstinence ONLY

 

[Operational]

Palin herself is such a MILF.

I don't find her attractive tbh.

 

[CptStern]

agreed, she's not remotely hot imho

 

[AJ Rimmer]

agreed, she's not remotely hot imho

Whenever I've heard people call her a MILF, I never think they mean she's hot, I mean she looks like a porn star, and she does.

 

[MJ12]

Lol, I am kinda scared if McCain gets elected. Another Bush.

What pisses me off is how these conservatives are so double standard. We're against premarital sex, but when our daughter is a drunk skank, it's forgivable, cuz we gots Jeezus on our side to forgive us of the sins.

I don't find her attractive tbh.

Eh, I still find her to be a VPILF.

She's got that hot librarian/professor thing going on, and I am pretty attracted to good looking women in that age range.

 

[CptStern]

Whenever I've heard people call her a MILF, I never think they mean she's hot, I mean she looks like a porn star, and she does.

but ..."mothers I'd like to f*ck


she's not a mother I'd like to f*ck ...admittedly it's more for the religious zealotry in her eye than her looks ..but 5 kids ..do you know what that does to a woman? ...like an old italian co-worker used to say "the walls, she no come back" ..it'd be like sticking your dick in a jar of mayo, you'd have to strap a 2 x 4 to your back to ensure you wouldnt fall in ..etc