In 1976 there was no Internet and no video casettes. Porn existed in very rudimentary forms: printed images (usually magazines), dime novels, and film, the latter usually avoided by anyone who didn't have their own super 8 projector at home or a penchant for wandering into semen-stained theaters to join a wankfest with men in hats. The holy grail of porn for 12-year olds like me was a friend's dad's stash or a dumpster full of last month's dirty magazines at a quick stop. Yes, you spoiled children of the Internet age, some of us had to dumpster dive for dirty pictures. (This is the creepy narrative twin to "I had to walk five miles to school" stories.) There were a few magazines that were considered prize discoveries, Hustler being the Shangri-la of dirty magazines for reasons that ought to be obvious. In the mix of magazines in those days was one called Oui, which was created in France and ultimately bought by Playboy. For that reason, the women were particularly beautiful, especially when compared to the heroin addicts and prostitutes who regularly showed up in Hustler.
I'm told by the uber brilliant Jay Kelly that one of the functions of the brain that I thought was shared by everyone is in fact not. That sub-function of executive function allows the possessor to analyze a situation and say why it's similar to other situations with a different set of circumstances. It's a gift for creating accurate analogies between disparate fields of study or diverse human experiences: this is like that. It's helped me understand why many of my students make the shittiest analogies of all time, or why they think every analogy that refutes their weak arguments is an "apples to oranges" analogy. Like other cognitive functions, I think this one improves (for those who have it) with age. It was certainly my experience.
When I first came across Oui, I insisted on pronouncing it O-U-I. You would think this forgivable for a 12-year old, wouldn't you? After all, why would I know the French word for yes and recognize it spelled out, especially when distracted by the naked woman posed under the title? In all honesty, it would have been okay had I not already had two semesters of Spanish and two semesters of French. I would go on to have three total years of French, and I still wouldn't recognize the title for what it was until late in high school. A failure of executive function? Perhaps a lack of coginitive development? This brings me to Bristol Palin, and her recent interview.
Christianity Today has published an interview with Bristol Palin about the above book, which was released last month. In fairness, it seems the book and the interview were published for nearly similar reasons: to make money while publishing virtually useless information. The interview is laughably bad, except that it's horrifying because Bristol reveals that the same uninformed, paranoid narcissism that is the heart of her mother's ethos is genetic (or learned). Before I get to the cognitive issues, here are some greatest hits from the interview, as I'm assuming you won't make it all the way through.
The word abstinence scares off young adults just because it is so textbook and so structured. That word causes them to lose interest in whatever someone's talking about.
The most charitable things I can say about that are that it's clear she's been reading homeschool textbooks, and she's guilty of projection. Clearly, she and mom are scared of "big" words. And what does structured mean here?
I think the media plays a huge role in premarital sex. There's so much pressure placed on kids, and there's so much that's talked about. I think that it needs to be talked about. It needs to be brought up more that it's not all that great. Why would you want to risk being a teen parent?
Um, I'm guessing Levi sucks in bed? This seems to be her insisting that her poor experiences with sex are indicators that sex actually isn't all that great for everyone else who is unmarried and doin' it. Wow. Isn't nascent narcissism cute?
I know lots of girls, lots of girls whose parents gave them abstinence rings and they held true to their word.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc much?
I know his book is not going to be legitimate, that's for sure. I think that people see my authenticity when I do write about everything so candidly, and if Levi wants to come out and make up more lies then so be it. That's just Levi.
Poison the well much? Oh, and how much does she already sound like mom?
Yeah, I think that people treat her poorly, they treat her with no respect, and I think it's because they're envious of her. She's got a good family, she's got a good husband, she's got awesome support, she's got God on her side, and I think people are envious of that. They're envious that she carries herself so well, that she's smart. There are lots of vicious people out there.
That last one is obviously in response to a question about mom. Didn't realize I was envious of her. I thought I disliked her because she's ignorant, mean-spirited, vindictive, hypocritical, divisive, ill-informed, and just plain bad for America. She tries to respond to a follow-up question about "god on our side," just about the only worthwhile question Sarah Pulliam Bailey asks as a follow-up, and I dare you to try to make sense of her reply.
Bristol goes on to reveal that she really enjoys speaking at pro-life events. Other than having a baby, what exactly are her qualifications to do this? Your guess is as good as mine. It's been a problem in Christian circles for a long time. Someone, irrespective of age, wisdom, or ability, has an experience, and that experience qualifies this person to speak to large numbers of people, as if the experience and her understanding of it are normative and determinative within the scope of Christian praxis. Bristol didn't abort her baby! Give her a microphone. She lacks the critical skills necessary to speak of complex issues like sex and abortion, but she can be a guest speaker? She can't adequately say "this is like that" in terms of her own life, but she's being interviewed by the flagship evangelical publication? To what end?
Let's be honest, shall we? She's speaking because her last name is Palin. It's also the only reason for the interview, because in terms of content, the interview is a worthless mishmash of emotive bullshit, stock phrases, poor thinking, revenge on Levi, and ego masturbation. It's clear from the interview that she's developmentally about 16 in terms of cognition and communication, although she's clearer than her mother. She's a toddler in terms of socialization, as is her mother. She fails to realize that in her quest for attention and to justify her decisions and heartbreaks, she is treading the same path her mother treads. For Sarah it's an issue of respect and power; for Bristol it's a vindication of a previous catastrophic decision, but both go about it in much the same way: assume that I am right and those who disagree are against me and against god, because he too believes I'm right. These people should be kept as far from power as possible, as it's impossible for them to see it in any other way than a divine validation of calling and empowerment (anointing is the shorthand Sarah Palin will use in church circles).
