Jamie Lynn Spears (16) is pregnent (1 Viewer)

[Alf S]

Looks like the white trash soap opera continues...

Lifeline Live Blog: Entertainment News & Rumors - USATODAY.com

 

[WillG]

Man, it just keeps getting doesn't it.

At least Britney famously held onto her virginity for a decent amount of time....supposedly

 

[TravisR]

I'm not saying that you should wear the scarlet letter if you get pregnant at 16 but I don't know if you really need to be running to the bottom feeding tabloid journalists about it either.

And I know that there's only interest because her sister is currently famous for being a disaster on multiple levels but how does her getting knocked up even garner any attention.

 

[Carlo_M]

You know the saying, "you can take the girl out of the trailer park..."

 

[Kirk Gunn]

To quote a wise man.... "Smooth move ex-lax".

She appeared a moderate success with the pre-teen crowd despite her sister, so nice express ticket out of a lucrative career. Though Nick doesn't have quite the "standards" of "the mouse", I can't imagine them retaining her after this press. Cute teenagers with perfunctory acting skills aren't exactly hard to find.

Train wrecks must be genetic. Wonder if the Spears family tree were involved with these:

Category:Railway accidents in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[David McKean]

This is all just Mike Judge's Idiocracy playing itself out.

I love this quote:

To any of the youngens out there reading right now. SEX = BABIES.

 

[WillG]

How old is the boyfriend. Thought I heard somewhere that he is 18. Couldn't that be statutory? I know that the consent laws vary from state to state though.

 

[LewB]

Might vary depending on which trailer park you are in also.
I can hardly wait for 'ol Brit to run out of money, then it will get VERY interesting.

 

[MarkMel]

The dumbass doesn't fall far from the tree, does it?

 

[Malcolm R]

Supposedly, indeed. I just read somewhere that despite protests to the contrary years ago, Britney has been on her back since age 14.

I guess the "slut" gene must be hereditary.

Now if the press would just ignore all of them, they'd go away.

 

[Holadem]

Is she a slut because she had sex at 16 (IIRC average age of virginity loss)? Or is she a slut because she had unprotected sex with her boyfriend? Or is she a slut because unlike many, if not most girls in that situation, she actually chose to keep the baby (despite the near-certainty of killing her young career), rather than opt for the more sinister and probably more common alternative? (tell me the last time you've heard a celebrity had an abortion. These people's judgement is no better than the average person's to say the least. They routinely get caught doing stupid shit like driving drunk, high etc... Do you think they are above the stupidity of unprotected sex? You think the only pregnancies that occur in that milieu are the one they gleefully announce to the cameras?)

Curiously enough, had she "taken care of it", no one would be calling her a slut right now, even if you knew this girl was sexually active, as many girls her age are. Weird, no?

--
H

 

[Zen Butler]

Yeah, I'm going with H here. Is "slut," "trainwreck," "dumbass" truly necessary? She(AND her partner) were obviously careless but the names you're calling this young girl are offensive to me as a parent and as a member of this forum.

 

[Paul Padilla]

Teen pregnancy happens every day, so at this point she's only a slut by association with her morally and sanity-challenged big sister.

"Heard of" is the operative phrase. Had she simply "taken care of it" this thread wouldn't even exist. Don't think for a moment that it doesn't happen regularly in H-wood. But P.R. people understand that abortion is an explosive subject and could be the one of the few exceptions to the old adage, "Any publicity is good publicity." Sadly, the mere fact that we're talking about it is feeding baby-Britney's machine. :frowning:

 

[WillG]

I'm not sure that's necessairly true. I don't think that just the fact that she got pregnant is why people are calling her a slut. It's merely the confirmation that she's apparently very sexually active at this young age. Not to mention the fact that she is in a position to be admired and emulated by other children. Admittedly, and I'm not always proud of it, I tend to have conservative views when it comes to this kind of thing. There seems to be a lot of people in this society and a lot of media that seem to suggest an increasing permissiveness in wanton sexuality. There's more and more overt depection of it in the media. Prnography is now virtually mainstream in society and I'm sure there are kids who haven't hit their teens yet who know the names Jenna Jameson, Ron Jeremy etc. I'm not a puritan by any means, but I'm not sure we should be striving for completly liberal attitudes on teenage sexuality either. Maybe if it had no potential consequences, but that is not reality. If a woman at 16 is supposed to be fully active. Then why would, say a 25 year old guy, be branded as a sex offender for dating her.

Also, I can't help but think a pregnant girl at sixteen answers it's own question of why she shouldn't be fully active that young. It seems to me a sign of irresponsibility. I can't imagine many couple wanting to get pregnant at that age, so why does it happen? I know condoms can break and all that but why should that be the only line of defense. There's other things that can be used in addition.

I'm not saying she's a "slut". Apparently she's been with this guy a long time and, as far as we know, she hasn't been promiscuous. But, I'm not going to vouch for her judgement.

 

[Holadem]

(emphasis mine)

But that's not at all true. I shouldn’t have to say this, but a pregnancy is not a reflection of any higher degree/frequency of sexual activity. Just about the only thing you can state to an absolute certainty about a pregnant woman is that she had unprotected intercourse with a man once (and that's leaving aside special cases ranging from in-vitro to Immaculate conception). This bizarre misconception, which shouldn’t exist in 2007, is at the heart of what I am getting to. (It is a strange as some HTF's famous pronouncement some years ago that the only way a girl could know she was a lesbian was by being sexually active.)

What the pregnancy in this case does show is a degree of irresponsibility. No one should be having unprotected sex at any age unless they are confident their partner is disease free AND they intend to have a child.

--
H

 

[TravisR]

I haven't called her any names but I do think it's sick that a 16 year old child has hit her highest peak of fame by getting pregnant at 16 (eclipsing her previous peak of fame of being sister to a famous person). Since she's already gone to the media to talk about being pregnant, it's obvious that she's going to try to use this get exposure in US Weekly and E! (the bigger she gets, the more pics we're going to see of her posing on the red carpet) to try to build a career outside of Nickelodeon and that's just disgusting. That relates to not just her but to the media and the public as well.

Like I said earlier, she doesn't have to live in shame but to try to turn this into a career move is disgusting and shows how sick and fame obsessed alot of the world is.

 

[Christ Reynolds]

Here's a picture of her with her baby daddy. She looks like she's 11 or 12.

CJ

 

[Paul Padilla]

I've seen that perception more than once and I'm not sure that I agree. There are some conflicting statistics depending on which side of "abstinence only" one stands but as to the general perception of permissiveness, I believe that it is instantaneous publication (I.e. camera phones, blogs, youtube, etc.) that is simply providing proof of what has been happening all along. People have been having sex at 16 and younger since the beginning of time, except now it can actually become a career boost with all of the facile attempts to keep it secret. "No...whatever you do....don't publish those nude pictures...wink wink...nudge nudge".

Why do we care about mini-Britney's teen pregnancy? Because it's her P.R. firm's job to ensure that we do, but the irony is that this child will want for nothing, at least in the material sense, while thousands of others around the country will have difficulty keeping clean diapers on hand. The classy thing to do would have been to keep their mouths shut and attempt to give the kid a normal life inspite of it's genetic ties. If you have to make an announcement that you're doing a good thing it sucks the sincerity right out of it.

 

[Michelle Schmid]

Wow. There are some really harsh comments here. Interestingly, they're all directed at Jamie Lynn for getting pregnant (not, apparently, for having sex in the first place, as a lot of 16 year-olds do--boys & girls). As has been said, it only takes one time to get pregnant. No, I don't necessarily believe that she got pregnant her first time, but I don't know that for sure and it IS possible. In addition, the last time I checked it took two people to make a baby. Where's the criticism for her boyfriend/partner??? None? What, then, is he a stud? He nailed her, good job!--too bad she was just to stupid to avoid pregnancy? Uh, no. There are two people responsible for this situation, not one.

Frankly, the whole situation seems rather sad to me. Here's a girl trying to have a career outside of the shadow of her obviously disturbed sister, who's made a mistake--the same mistake that a lot of other teenagers have made, by the way. Rather than "getting rid of" the problem, she's done some thinking, some talking to the people who care about her, and has decided to have the baby. Good for her! And in return for her positive decision about this unfortunate situation you people resort to name-calling? I sincerely hope that none of your daughters ever need to come to you with this same news.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

The only fact we're quite aware of is that sex took place.

Otherwise, I'm not quite sure if I would chalk unprotected sex to irresponsibility. There is a huge, wide range of views on this topic. Though my experience is limited (I'm no fool, I wrap the tool dear god I just got banned from HTF for a lame rhyme....), a lot of people argue for the side of no condom (if we're limiting the idea of protected sex to physical protection). I know a friend who despises them. In his case (and a huge amount of people evidently), they use pharmaceutical birth control. In their view and several others, they are being responsible. And then there's coitus interruptus. Which is an entire line of discussion in and of itself.

So who knows? Maybe they did use birth control, and maybe they did use a condom. Have we included the possibility that they did have protected sex, but it failed? Either way, we all draw the line on what constitutes responsible and irresponsible sex, but disagree as to where that line is drawn.