(crossposted at Amplify )
I recently attended a book reading by some of the contributors of Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and a World Without Rape (including Jessica and Miriam). The book (which is wonderful and you should go buy ) deals with many subjects around “rape culture”, particularly the common practice of blaming the victim of rape if she has a “loose” or “slutty” reputation. Our society far too often holds up a pure and virginal ideal for women, and once this “seal” is broken or they display "unnaceptable" behaviors, they become “dirty” and “get what is coming to them”.
A few days after the reading, I came across an abstinence-only until marriage program in Ohio (yes, the same Ohio with Derek the Abstinence Clown ) that pretty much reinforced every crazy aspect of a rape culture that blames the victims of rape if they do not pass the “purity” test. It’s bad enough that abstinence-only programs like these withhold and distort vital information that young people need to protect their own sexual health, but adding this acceptance of rape culture is the icing on the Shit Cake.
The Ohio program is Abstinence ‘Till Marriage , which started receiving annual CBAE grants of $600,000 in 2006 (set to run until 2011). On their “Miss the Mess” website, you can enter the “Party Room ”, where you learn the story of Rochelle, Jason, Monica and Tanner. Each person tells their perspective about what happens during and after a party one night.
Rochelle tells how she drove her drunken friend Jason home after the party, and then is raped by him. Jason denies that the rape happened, saying their sex was consensual. Monica and Tanner observe that Jason was being a drunken idiot the entire night, with Monica (Jason’s ex) adding her opinion that Rochelle has a reputation for “putting out” and being a “slut”.
The site then asks the question: “Based on all accounts, whose story sounds the least credible?”
Guess who is the “correct” answer? Rochelle .
Why , you ask? Because she “made several questionable decisions”, “she had a motive to lie” and, lest we forget, “she’s been pinned reputation (sic) for being ‘loose’”
It’s hard not to overemphasize the sickness in this “correct” answer. Rochelle is not be believed. After all, she drove in a car with a boy. And she’s actually had sex before, or at least people say that she has, which is apparently the same thing and equally worthy of disbelief after you’ve been raped.
The site then asks if we know that a rape occurred. The “correct” answer says that we don’t know, emphasizing again that Rochelle has a "motive to lie", and that:
“Unfortunately, we are left judging (Rochelle’s) honesty by her character and her actions"... “Monica implied Rochelle had a promiscuous reputation and the whole school seemed to know it.”
Ah, yes. Her “character”. They once again remind us that “sluts” aren’t to be trusted. Why should we listen or care about them, right?
The site then goes a step further, adding a degree of sympathy for the actions of the rapist:
“Also, alcohol makes people less inhibitive. Jason was extremely vulnerable to his circumstances” .
Vulnerable ? Less inhibitive ? What exactly are they saying here, that rape is a “less inhibitive” behavior? That alcohol made poor Jason “vulnerable” to being a sick rapist asshole? Seriously, I’d like to know what the hell their point is on this one.
Perhaps the sickest aspect of this organization and their website is the fact that our tax dollars are funding it. To date, they have received $1.8 million dollars, and are set to receive another $1.8 million in the next three years. Yes, we are subsidizing rape culture. And this is just one example of the many ridiculous abstinence-only until marriage sex education programs that we have wasted $1.5 billion in federal money on in the last decade.
But we now have a great chance to end funding for abstinence-only until marriage initiatives. President Obama is currently drafting his budget for the 2010 fiscal year, and it is vital that he ZERO OUT ab-only funding in this budget. If he doesn’t’ zero it out, it will be extremely difficult to get Congress to pull the money out. Likewise, if Obama does zero out the funding, it will be a more difficult process for Congress to sneak the funding back in through appropriations.
So please, with all due haste, send Obama this message today: ZERO OUT ABSTINENCE-ONLY SEX EDUCATION FUNDING .
Send out the abstinence clowns, and strike one small blow against rape culture.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: When Rape Culture meets abstinence-only sex ed.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11962
It's interesting that "Rochelle" is a person of color.
Just sayin'.
I had the same thought, actually. notice that she is stereotyped not only as a "slut" but also a "troublemaker" because of her suspended license.
And then there's the well-meaning quiet Asian.
Yeah, I know this isn't directly related, but it's so mind-bogglingly wrong I had to put it up here:
Until recently in human history, the recognized standard for sexual activity was to be saved for enjoyment within the boundaries of marriage. Sex within a loving marriage is a wonderful, satisfying experience that helps to bond the husband and wife together for a lifetime. During the 1960’s people thoughts about sex began to change, (Sexual Revolution) people now believed that they could throw off the standard of marriage and begin to have sexual activity anywhere, anytime, with anybody!
Yeah... because it's only in the 60's people started fuckin' before marriage.
racism intersects sexism. what else can you expect from abstinence-only tools?
Rochelle is the only person who acted responsibly. Jason drank more alcohol than he could handle and isn't even old enough to drink at all. Monica and Tanner do nothing but watch Jason get drunker and drunker, and Monica spreads rumors behind her friends back. Maybe all that sex she might have had made her smarter.
earned from the story of Rochelle is that doing the right and compassionate thing of driving a drunk person home will get you raped and no one will believe you since you're a slut anyway. Next time, let the drunk potential rapist get himself home, and hope that when he crashes his car that he takes out a few of the abstinence cretins who came up with this stuff with him.
Is Jesus's parable of The Good Samaritan familiar to any of these upstanding Christians who preach abstinence? Or do they have a version where the Samaritan who helps the traveller is "totally asking for it"?
I was born again from ages 17 to 22 (I'm 32 now) and having studied the Bible a bit I'm always drawn to John 8:2-11 where the Scribes and the Pharisees brought the adulterous woman before Jesus. They wanted to stone her but Jesus said, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone". Basically y'all are sinners so don't judge anyone, because God's the only true judge of human behavior (in the Christian world, that is).
I think if Jesus were around to read this he'd remind all the bastards, who came up with this bullshit, of all of their sins and transgressions. And maybe have another look at this scenaro to figure out where they went wrong.
I cannot come up with a more academic way to say "this shit is fucked".
These are my exact sentiments.
You know, a lot of abstinence only education is incredibly misogynistic upon examination, but this shit is so blatant it's unbelievable. I feel like many programs may be well-meaning, they are just created by people embedded in a culture that positions girls/women as the 'guardians of chastity' and boys/men as helpless slaves to their libido. Ideally I'd like to see all the thinly veiled woman-hating, rape apologist programs get banned, but this one is so terrible I feel like it's criminal. And the fact that they receive taxpayer dollars? I'm going to second Stephen A, there's little to say beyond 'this shit is SO fucked up.'
It's so interesting because only a hundred years ago or so, the roles were reversed. Women were considered to be uninhibited sexually and had to be "tamed," whereas men were in control of their actions. It just goes to show the bullshit behind both these stereotypes.
All I can say is that Ohio is sorry for this.
I grew up near Cleveland, and I wish I could remember what we learned in health class. I remember learning about babies and placenta, and I remember being split up between boys and girls when we learned about periods (in fifth grade). And I remember watching horror videos of a girl who gets an abortion in a back alley and dies from infection (which, in retrospect, I think was advocating PP and an open air policy where girls wouldn't run the risk of infection, sepsis or death) and one starring, ironically, Calista Flockhart as a bulemic teenager who threw up into jars and hid them in her closet.
And I actually do think I remember learning about condoms. I couldn't say for certain, though. So, we're not all into shame and clowns over here. Promise.
OH!
But I do recall, too, in seventh grade health class watching a video where these two guys had a secret handshake and were *slap knees* *clap hands* *high five* *peace sign* VIRGINS!
But still, this was the same teacher who was very open and explained what oral sex was when we asked him and all of that. So maybe it was just all part of a progressive package?
Fifth grade: bodily functions.
Seventh grade: Here's what it is, but don't do it yet.
Ninth grade: Condoms and abortions, or, How to be responsible.
I don't know, I could be off. But I totally still remember the secret handshake.
I think we watched the same bulimia movie. Is it the one where she has a friend who runs with her and they try to outdo one another with how much weight they can lose? And where she feels gross kissing her bf because she hates her body? lol
Not to want to cause an arguement but what is 'lol' about a woman having such a low opinion of herself that she feels uncomfortable being intimate with someone?
I don't think this link was given in the original post, but I feel like it's very important that we let this organization know how disgusting this scenario is.
Here is how to contact them:
http://www.missthemess.com/contact/index.php
(I still haven't done it because I'm still too enraged to create an articulate reply, so if something goes amiss while trying to submit your comment, please let me know.)
I contacted them. I don't know if I'll get a response back. I checked "a reply isn't necessary" or something, but you can request a reply back. I told them that they shouldn't be telling people that rape victims should be blamed for what happens to them and that they need to be defunded.
I swear I was just going to tell someone they should post this. And I get here and here it is! So thank you for you posting it. I am shocked..seriously...I think my favorite thing about the website is this statement on their who we are page:
Abstinence 'til marriage is 100% effective in eliminating teen pregnancies, STDs and reducing the probability of cervical breast and prostate cancer later in life.
Apparently waiting until marriage to have sex reduces getting cancer, because your body "knows" when you are married and all those cancerous cells won't come around...This comment confuses me. It is from this page:
http://www.missthemess.com/who/index.php I was also wondering if they mean abstience from sex, but not from masturbating...can I still do that without increasing my chances of getting cancer. You know this actually makes sense, bc my mom had me when she was 21 (and not married) also got pregnant with my brother before she was married and she got cancer. This has answered my question to as of why! I should write them and tell them thanks for clearing that up!
I looked at the chart for the counties that support their education, and I am proud that my county is not included.
I find it scary with the information dedicated to rape statistics that the organization blames the rape victim.
Did anyone else notice the high rate they put down for a condom's failure rate if used correctly 100% of the time?
Their informative website taught me that I'm a big dirty slut, that I probably have an STD (not STI), and that it was my fault I was raped because I'm a big dirty slut. Other than that, I learned...
If you have sex before you marry your are more likely to:
Breakup before you marry
(This is creepy.)
Scare off someone who wants to marry a virgin
(This is creepier.)
Be less happy in your marriage
Get a divorce
Commit adultery after you marry
(Because I'm a big dirty slut.)
Be fooled into marrying for the wrong reason
(What?)
Be less satisfied with your married sex life
(Umm... if I had nothing to compare it to, I suppose I'd be happy with, ya know, whatever)
Have guilt feelings that may nudge you into a poor marriage
(What exactly am I guilty about? Oh, yeah, being a big dirty slut.)
Be deprived of the important bonding that sexual intimacy can give a marriage
(I feel perfectly bonded to my lover and he to me, thank you very much for judging us.)
And oh, yeah... just a general note to the ATM Folks...
Go fuck yourselves.
I was confused about ATM for a second. And then I realized that it stands for Abstinence 'Till Marriage. And I can't help but think that someone went out of their way to get that acronym.
I guess they've never heard the theory that the wait-until-marriage kids marry SO they can have sex... And umm... That's NOT marrying for the wrong reason????
This really freaks me out. As someone whose had two tumors in my breast (benign thank goodness) and been through a lot including being raped by an abusive boyfriend on nearly a daily basis (and had the bruises and broken nose to prove it), I don't exactly appreciate being told I deserve it. Quite frankly, the abusive asshole was my first and it wasn't really my decision. I may be only 19 years old, but I've lived through enough to realize that these things have nothing to do with me being abstinent or not.
I agree, this is awful.
The really weird thing about it is, it doesn't even really make sense as a pro-abstinence message.
the message is that if Rochelle was a "virgin" or Monica was a "virgin" then they would had been more credable since there would been evidence of Jason committing a crime against Rochelle.
uh, i think the least reliable people in this story are Monica and Tanner, seeing that they WEREN'T EVEN FUCKING THERE FOR THE RAPE?!?!?!?!?
my psychotic rapist exboyfriend tried to pull that. 'I HAVE LIKE, ELEVENTY WITNESSES TO THE FACT THAT YOU WEREN'T RAPED.' yeah, a handful of people who saw me before he raped me and after, but no-one who was ACTUALLY THERE EXCEPT ME AND HIM.
@@
Um, so, in my outrage I emailed the organization and left them a voice mail message (I'm an advocate, so I consider it part of my job). I also posted this to my facebook site. I got this response from some kid I haven't spoken to since high school (and I don't even remember really talking to him during high school either):
Your assuming that he DID rape her. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, without some sort of sign of a struggle how could you convict him without any doubt of his innocence?
Wouldn't he have had to hold her down forcibly, leaving a mark? wouldn't she have done SOMETHING to try to defend herself? even one scratch??
All we have to go on is testimony...and there are so many differing versions of the events that you could never be sure which is correct... so the accused must remain innocent until further evidence can be put forth.
Any good, snarky comments from my sisters over here to help me respond to this? I've already written back just short of a dissertation on rape culture and victim blaming not to mention that this website is about abstinence only education, not sexual assault, quoting all of my good stats. But I would like some back up. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!
Just say you're not saying Jason would be automatically guilty, it's just that the web site is saying that Rochelle is automatically at fault. Also, the web site says it's about abstinence education, so if Jason really did only have sex with Rochelle, he should get some blame too, but that isn't what the video focuses on.
how about this-
the law used to require that the woman fight back for it to be considered rape, and guess what, WE DROPPED THAT FUCKING REQUIREMENT because it caused more women to get hurt.
yes, innocent until proven guilty, but the text of this website seems to imply that jason should be absolved because of his drunkenness, something else courts don't really approve of as a defense.
i am just SO FUCKING TIRED of hearing "well it's just her word", implying that she says this shit for kicks. i know it happens, but just the way people say it they act like it's 90% of cases.
did i help any, somewhere in between the outrage?
Le sigh. Thank you, yes, everything was helpful and pretty much exactly what I've been saying. The fucker is just SO focused on falsified rape charges and how so many women lie. I've used stats, examples, everything in my repertoire to change his mind. It's so endemic. Grrr.
What if I worked in a job where people believed that what I was working toward was completely valid? No one says, hey, those kids with cancer? Yeah, those little bastards must be lying, they don't look as sick as they say they are. Out of bed and back to work with them!
This is why I'm jaded and think society is inherently fucked. Because I constantly have to defend myself to men who ascribe to the patriarchy and think it's their right to constantly attack me.
With that, I'm going out drinking!
I was offered a job, a well-paying job, to work with Brazen, my town's abstinence-only group that goes to schools and talks about the evils of sex and how girls can be perverts too. When they were at my high school, I seem to remember a story VERY similar to this that they acted out.
I had so many people tell me "it's just a job and you're unemployed! You need the money! Just take it!" I knew I couldn't have done it and still lived with myself.
It really bothers me how they go about explaining rape, but every time some abstinence-speaker talked about rape, it was ALWAYS the victim's fault. Whether she was promiscuous, or asking for it, or just irresponsible and therefore deserving, it was her fault.
I hate these programs, I will promptly submit my thoughts on the matter to the white house.
maybe you could take the job and teach the kids the right, scientific stuff. and if anyone complains on you, tell them they're dirty sluts who can't be trusted.
Take the job, teach the truth, and when they try to fire you, invoke Bush's conscience clause! (Actually you'd probably get fired anyway but it would be a good way to make a point).
This is what REALLY pisses me off on that site...
http://missthemess.com/store/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=47
It's a purity ring with an "un-blossomed rose". Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you Abstinence Only.
that is really fucking creepy.
And it only comes in 'female' sizes. Why does that not surprise me?
Oooooooooooh! There's a "Rugged Cross" ring that only comes in 'male' sizes.
Because men have strong, straight objects and women have weak, gentle folds that don't blossom until they are touched by a man's 'cross'....only after marriage, of course.
yeah, they're not good with subtle innuendo are they?
Holy hell. Can we get a trigger warning on this? I'm quite distressed. Seen this happen one too many times in real life...
This is just plain horrible. If anyone needs evidence that there's such a thing as a rape culture... this is it!
omg and the purity balls on the site list the dad and daughter as a "couple". gross.
Umm... I have to say, every time I see "purity balls" in print it takes me a second to remember what they are because I think it's a reference to testicles, and then I'm horrified at the concept again. And here, I seriously thought for a second it was merch they were selling; some representation of the testicle that young men could buy.
Purity BALLS? REALLY????? Maybe no one else thinks this is ironic; these crazy virginity freaks would be hilarious if they weren't so dangerous.
Also on the site:
If you have sex before you marry your are more likely to:
Breakup before you marry
Scare off someone who wants to marry a virgin
Be less happy in your marriage
Get a divorce
Commit adultery after you marry
Be fooled into marrying for the wrong reason
Be less satisfied with your married sex life
Have guilt feelings that may nudge you into a poor marriage
Be deprived of the important bonding that sexual intimacy can give a marriage
I fucking hope I scare away men who want to marry a virgin.
"Abstinence 'til marriage is 100% effective in eliminating teen pregnancies, STDs and reducing the probability of cervical breast and prostate cancer later in life."
If there's one thing my parents taught me not to tolerate, it's liars.
I'd love to see how they figure that having sex before marriage causes *breast* and *prostate* cancer?! Okay, I get the cervical cancer part, as it can be caused by a sexually transmitted virus, but the other two? That's just fucking retarded.
These bastards are full of it. If "abstinence only" worked, which it doesn't, the teen pregnancy and STD rate would have dropped, but it hasn't. Instead it's increased. Why? Because a bunch of kids full of raging hormones will nod and smile when you tell them not to do it, and then they'll turn around and do it. And without any education about it, they're left with no protection, both literally and figuratively.
It will be a great day in this country, when religion stops ruling everyone.
They've made some quick changes to the Flash app. Since I first looked at it this afternoon, they have removed the part where they tell you that Rochelle is the least credible, and instead just say to "discuss" it. Gee, I wonder what direction that classroom discussion will be guided in?
I think its fascinating that they've jumped on making these changes so quickly. I wish we had a hard copy of the old text so we could see exactly what changes they've made.
I love how they've switched from identify Rochelle as the least credible to an open question saying "Please be respectful of each others opinions. There are no right answers or wrong answers, just opinions."
I think this question may be new:
"In this story the legal system will have the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt... Do you have enough information to do that now?"
Answer: "The real answer is no. Rape is always wrong and rapists should be prosecuted. Falsely accusing someone of rape is also reprehensible.
We don't really know if Rochelle consented to have sex with Jason or if he forced her. We only know that both kids made risky choices and have to go through the legal system to sort things out. In a court of law you can be certain that arguments regarding their stories, their decisions and their character will be fierce.
Jason and Rochelle's decisions in the past may have a serious impact on their futures. It would be a good time for both of them to have a clean slate."
Remember girls, if you tell people that someone raped you, expect to have every "questionable" decision you've ever made brought up in court and to have your reputation dragged through the mud. It's really just your word against his, unless there's an eyewitness or some really convincing physical evidence (but then again, maybe you just like it rough).
What was Rochelle's "questionable decision" exactly??!!
Using her vagina.
She had a bad reputation and then got in a car with a guy who was drunk.
Ladies, remember, your rape prevention workshop warned you to watch yourself around alcohol and never told men to change their own behavior. So getting raped at or after a party is all your fault.
Boys don't have to do anything to prevent rape. Boys will be boys and they can't possibly control their actions.
This shit has to stop.
In this scenario her "questionable decision" was driving a drunk friend home while her drivers license was suspended. Presumably whatever happened that caused her license to be suspended would also be classified as a bad decision.
I'm sure they also count whatever events led to her having a reputation as a "slut" (because obviously that's a fault, right?).
They've obviously never heard of Rape Shield Laws that require that the victim's past NOT be brought up. It's the law, stupid assholes!
How fucking clueless are these people?
JenR is right - I've also seen references in comments to Rochelle being a woman of colour, but whether or not that's accurate she's white now. There is now no discussion of the rape suggested, only vague talking points and an assessment of who might have contracted HIV from Rochelle (!!).
I feel that the changes are in bad faith; it seems that, rather than issuing an apology and asking for guidance from credible sources on women's rights and sexuality to inform their content, they have just made subtle changes to make the furore seem like an over-reaction. Still, if you haven't sent your e-mails yet, it's worth nothing that the content has changed.
I just went to the site and the model they have for Rochelle is appearing on my screen as ethnically ambiguous to a far greater degree than the model playing Monica (the "better girl" 'cause she just gives blow jobs rather than "attracting" full-on rape). If they meant for her to identify as European (which I tend to doubt simply because most teen sites I've seen try to include an African-American or Hispanic model to be "relevant," and because most care a lot about minority symmetry; there's an East Asian kid in this scense), I think they could have picked any number of models who are more readily identified as Euro alone.
But I myself am from a country with a lot of ethnic mixture on the coast, so my eye is trained to notice people with varied phenotypes.
If she is meant to be ethnically ambiguous, they probably made the fourth kid Korean to counterbalance this--because, you know, "we put in a minority who was represented positively!!" (ignoring the fact that East Asian-Americans don't benefit from being continally typecast as the passive straight-arrows, and that pitting them against the "bad" Hispanics and Blacks is even shoddier).
"I've also seen references in comments to Rochelle being a woman of colour, but whether or not that's accurate she's white now."
They haven't changed the model who portrays Rochelle, but her appearance is somewhat ambiguous so some people are identifying her as white and others not.
Ha, they changed it. No explanation or anything. This is hilarious. They must have gotten wind that this was going around the blogs with a "ZERO OUT ABSTINENCE-ONLY SEX EDUCATION FUNDING" plea. It makes you wonder what kind of lessons these groups would print though if they thought they could get away with it.
Oh yes and the well meaning Asian guy who lives with his extended family no less, how stereotypical.
I think its important not to let up on the pressure to get rid of these failed programs though. I'll be mentioning this in my call to my Congressman on Tuesday when I call to lodge a complaint about the way the government is handling the banking situation...
"My Mom, Dad, and tiny Grandmother were all screaming in Korean as the cop tried to calmly explain his reason for visiting."
Yeah, this sentence caught my eye as being unnecessary. Who decided his grandmother's size was relevant to the story?
Because women who are small are less offensive, silly.
The site then asks the question: "Based on all accounts, whose story sounds the least credible?"
Guess who is the "correct" answer? Rochelle.
Why, you ask? Because... "she had a motive to lie"...
I'm sorry to admit that I haven't got the stomach to go to this website and verify that I'm hearing this right. (Also it would now appear to be a waste of time anyway, as they have edited their web pages.) But I've got to ask, did they really assert that "Rochelle's" story was the weakest of the four, because of her motivation to lie? What motivation is that?
I mean, we're looking at an either/or proposition here. As the stories contradict, somebody lied, that's for sure. Either a.) "Jason" raped "Rochelle," who complained to the police, whereupon, for the obvious reason of wanting to stay out of jail, "Jason" lied to the police and denied attacking "Rochelle," or b.) "Rochelle," for no immediately obvious reason, decided out of the blue to falsely accuse "Jason" of raping her, so she is the one who lied to the police.
Now these abstinence enthusiasts can't have be saying that case b.) is more likely than case a.). Not unless they're totally nuts. According to the FBI, in 2007 there were 90,000 arrests for forcible rape in the U.S.A. Does anyone believe that 90,000 or more women in the U.S.A. falsely accuse men of having raped them every year? I'm not talking about the "beyond a reasonable doubt" preponderance of evidence which U.S. law requires for conviction here, I'm just talking about the relative believability of accusations vs. denials. Does anybody seriously believe a numerical majority of accusations of rape are false?
"But I've got to ask, did they really assert that "Rochelle's" story was the weakest of the four, because of her motivation to lie? What motivation is that?
In the story Rochelle's "motivation to lie" is that her father caught her driving Jason's car while her drivers license was suspended.
So the hypothetical scenario in which Rochelle was not raped would go like this:
a) Rochelle offers to drive her friend Jason home in his car because he was drunk, despite the fact that she doesn't have a drivers license.
b) Rochelle and Jason have sex.
c) She drops him off at his house and drives home in his car.
d) Her father sees that she's been driving a car without a license and gets angry.
e) Rochelle decides that rather than telling her father she was helping a friend it would be better to accuse her friend of raping her.
Maybe we're supposed to believe that she's getting revenge on Jason for going back to his girlfriend? And that she's dumb enough to drive a car right up to her house thinking that her father wouldn't notice?
c) She drops him off at his house and drives home in his car.
Actually, that's not quite right -- everyone's version of the story involves her driving herself home in his car alone. Her version is that she managed to kick him out of the car and escape; his version is that for some bizarre reason, after having sex with her, he offered to let her drive herself home in his car while he walked it. Which of these sounds more plausible to you??
What's amazing to me is that, since presumably they're writing their own material, they could've written this story any way they wanted -- and they still included this weird detail about her driving herself home, which they could've done a number of different ways. I wonder if this is actually based on a real event? It seems awfully strange that a website with this particular agenda would present a story full of so many holes like that...
Huh. You're right, it doesn't specifically say that she drove him to his house, it just says that he told her she could use his care to drive herself home. Mind you it doesn't say that he decided to walk home either, we're just left to imagine how that part of the scenario played out. Obviously I assumed that his story would include her dropping him off at his house first and mentally filled that in.
idiolect, your puny "facts" and "logic" are no match for the treacherous wiles of Nonabstinent Ruined Sluts.
I think it's very interesting that Google updated their cached version of that site right after the site updated. And the WayBackMachine doesn't capture .swf video.
I'm sure someone has a copy somewhere though, and a bunch of people copied the text.
These people are dangerous. They use subterfuge, lies and fear in an attempt to control everyone else, and when they get called out on it, they quickly change tactics and cover-up all the wrong things they've done.
I don't see any changes made to that story. I clicked the link from the OP and nothing changed.
Maybe your computer has a cached version of the file? For me the discussion section after the scenario has definitely changed since last night.
I think it was in the process of being changed late last night, because it was different last night from what it was, and then today it was different again. Last night it was as if they had removed the material, and today they have added entirely different material.
If you're still seeing the same thing, take screenshots and post them LOLz... then after you're done, hit F5 to refresh it or clear your computer's cache.
then after you're done, hit F5 to refresh it or clear your computer's cache
No! UFF, PLEASE DON'T DO THAT!. As long as it is still cached it is possible to retrieve the applet whole, but after you refresh it is GONE!
I wasn't going to. I also transcribed most of the original story (less something at the end that scrolled up the screen that I couldn't type fast enough). I e-mailed it to myself, if anyone wants it.
If you're using Internet Explorer, go to:
http://www.walkernews.net/2007/05/07/retrieve-flash-movie-in-ie7-cache-folder/
Depending on your Windows version, follow the directions there or the ones that article links at the beginning.
If you're using Firefox, click on the address bar and type about:cache and hit enter. Look for entries from missthemess.com with the extension .swf.
If you're using Safari on a Mac, download File Juicer and extract your Safari cache. Look in the Flash folder for a file 100kb-200kb in size. Drag and drop candidates onto an open Safari window to identify them.
If you're using Internet Explorer, go to:
http://www.walkernews.net/2007/05/07/retrieve-flash-movie-in-ie7-cache-folder/
Depending on your Windows version, follow the directions there or the ones that article links at the beginning.
If you're using Firefox, click on the address bar and type about:cache and hit enter. Look for entries from missthemess.com with the extension .swf.
If you're using Safari on a Mac, download File Juicer and extract your Safari cache. Look in the Flash folder for a file 100kb-200kb in size. Drag and drop candidates onto an open Safari window to identify them.
Apparently, in response to the internet firestorm that this blog post has created, Abstinence 'Till Marriage has dramatically changed the text of there "Party Room". While this is to be commended, they still need to tell visitors to the site why they changed their original, highly offensive text, and offer an apology, if you ask me.
I wrote down the full transcript of the original language in the Party Room, btw. I'll be posting an update on this shortly, with the full original language.
Here's a version I fished out of my Safari cache with File Juicer, it isn't what they have up now but I'm not sure if it's the original or one of the inermediate edits:
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?mm2z4ttyyzz
(File Juicer is only for Macs, I'll look to see if similar software exists for Windows.)
I couldn't find anything like FJ, but this may be some help:
http://www.walkernews.net/2007/05/07/retrieve-flash-movie-in-ie7-cache-folder/
Firefox users (any platform): Click on the address bar and type about:cache and hit enter. Look for entries from missthemess.com with the extension .swf.
THANK YOU!!! I'm glad that flash didn't go down the memory hole.
It appears to be a partly-scrubbed version, unfortunately.
Do the rockets scientists of the abstinence movement realize that countries where women are severely restricted (i.e. Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan) have a very high incidence of rape?
I was using Safari to look at the website at first. When I used Firefox instead, I saw the changes. The first change they made is in the beginning, where they put in this disclaimer:
"The story you are about to watch is a fictional account involving decisions and consequences with four teenagers. It is intended for serious discussions about the risks involved in substance abuse, sexual activity, and peer pressure. We must emphasize that any crime occurring as a result of risky decision is still a crime and ATM education strongly encourages teens to seek a trusted adult or notify the proper authorities in such cases. It is our hope that with a little common sense, and the proper information, every teenager can learn to "Miss the Mess."
However, they left in this part:
"Jason's judgement was obviously impaired. Accounts of Tanner and Rochelle tell us Jason had too much to drink. But notice how Jason and Monica never really say that Jason is drunk or high. Monica just says that he was "acting like a jerk" - and Jason admits he was "getting sick" and needed to "hold his own." Alcoholics and partners of alcoholics often deny there's a problem and blame their addictions on other things. Also, alcohol makes people less inhibitive. Jason was extremely vulnerable to his circumstances (like his recent break up, crying, and being with a "hot" girl who comforted him)." They added this final sentence, "Alcohol and drugs can also increase your resolve to act impulsively."
The only sexual activity that took place in this scenario is rape, and ATM absolves Jason of any wrongdoing by saying he was too drunk and emotionally vulnerable to know what he was doing. So I guess they're teaching teen boys to arm themselves with as many excuses as possible so that when they have sex with a girl without her consent, he'll be prepared to claim he isn't responsible.
Another change they made is regarding Rochelle's STD status. At first she had AIDS, and now she has HIV. I found it interesting from the start that Jason, who Monica said has had sex with girls besides her (and, if he were to lie to her, he would say he has never had sex), has the only curable disease in the hypothetical questions that are posed (syphilis). Rochelle, whose promiscuous sex life is only implied by Monica's rumor-mongering, has HIV, hypothetically. But the only two people we know who have been sexually active are Jason and Monica, yet Rochelle is the only one who hypothetically has an incurable and deadly STD.
If you have not used Safari to view the site since the changes, then that is terrific!
(I'm assuming you're on a Mac)
1. Do not touch Safari AT ALL.
2. Download and install File Juicer (with Firefox, naturally.)
3. Start File Juicer and go to File > Browser Cache > Safari
4. After it finishes extracting, look in the Flash folder for a file 100kb-300kb in size. Drag and drop candidates onto an open Firefox window to identify them.
That didn't work. I downloaded File Juicer, and there's nothing that says "Browser Cache."
Now it's not letting me open any of swf files, saying that it's not a movie file. It's trying to open it with Quick Time, and I don't think that's right.
You're right, it looks like Firefox doesn't like raw SWFs. Oops. :(
I can confirm that iSwiff (a tiny offline flash viewer utility) works well though. You can preview the SWFs by launching it and dropping them onto its dock icon:
http://echoone.com/iSwiff/
The old version of the site still comes up anyway when I visit it using Safari.
In that case one of the SWFs in the Juice folder must be it. Install iSwiff (it's only 200k), go to the SWF folder in Finder and View > as List, the View > Arrange by > Size.
The "Party Room" SWF that I extracted had a size of 131k, but they seem to have cut out a great deal by the point I viewed the page, so the original may may be somewhat larger, but I suspect still comparable.
That worked. Thanks.
I was so appalled by Rochelle's situation (as evidenced by my angry and not-so-articulate original response) that I failed to mention the concerns about Monica's. While her rumor-spreading about Rochelle's sexuality is certainly disgusting behavior, there is no comment on how she has been giving Jason oral sex "to keep him happy." To me, that implies coercion, which is also sexual assault in my perspective. While the website originally said that this was a "dangerous" choice because of STIs, it unsurprisingly never addresses this aspect as sexual assault. I think they're both potentially Jason's victims. The fact that Monica feels she has to engage in oral sex in order to save the relationship only makes me more convinced that he's a perpetrator. (I realize I'm talking about them like they are real people, but this a very realistic situation and needs to be analyzed in practical terms. Not the terms made by rape apologists.)
And I'm shocked that they got on the changes so quickly. I looked at the site at work; I'm going to see if I can screenshot it. We definitely still need to use this, as it is a perfect example of what other programs who haven't been called out on numerous feminist blogs are doing.
I urge you please do not revisit the page on that computer, as you will very likely overwrite the local cached copy of the Flash applet and it will be permanently lost. At the risk of being called a spammer, I'll repost what I wrote above:
If you're using Internet Explorer, go to:
http://www.walkernews.net/2007/05/07/retrieve-flash-movie-in-ie7-cache-folder/
Depending on your Windows version, follow the directions there or the ones that article links at the beginning.
If you're using Firefox, click on the address bar and type about:cache and hit enter. Look for entries from missthemess.com with the extension .
If you're using Safari on a Mac, download File Juicer and extract your Safari cache. Look in the Flash folder for a file 100kb-200kb in size. Drag and drop candidates onto an open Safari window to identify them.
argh, the end of the Firefox directions should say "Look for entries from missthemess.com with the extension .swf"