Wow.  That really pisses me off.  Like...are they kidding??? Grr I wish they were, I guess.
To even say that Jason being drunk makes it ok is just...ew.  I am speechless.  

. . . pretty much reinforced every crazy aspect of a rape culture that blames the victims of rape if they do not pass the “purity” test.

Not exactly.  Rather, I think the program is trying to accomplish two tasks:

1.  Recreating a scenario (poor adult supervision, underaged drinking, etc.) wherein rape (and accusations thereof) enjoy an elevated rate of incidence; and

2.  Showing how background factors (reputation, and a culture of consensual sex) make it more difficult (not impossible, just more difficult) for law enforcement to meet a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard.

The program's creators are not making a statement about what should be, only about what is.  It should even be possible to believe that teenagers ought to be able to drink and have sex without anything bad ever happening to them, and recognizing that this is not the world in which we actually live.

In the mean time, what is the best personal strategy?

The program's answer appears to be:  don't lead this style of life.  I can appreciate how the appeal of the lifestyle might outweigh the associated risks, but pointing out those risks doesn't make the program guilty of creating a "rape culture".

Mahayana:  I agree, and "Miss the Mess" would have done well to have stated the obligatory rape-is-always-wrong point explicitly.

But the target audience of "Miss the Mess" is, in fact, 15 year-olds, not 35 year-olds, and to identify contributing factors to a sexual assault is not the same as "justifying" it in a moral sense.

Let me use an analogy.  In theory, I should be able to park my car in (to pick somewhere at random) the 8-mile precincts of Detroit, leaving it unlocked with the keys in the ignition, because after all, there is no credible way to justify auto theft no matter the age or character of the people it's happened to.  But, in reality, when I come back to find my car stolen, the police will assume that I was there to buy drugs, and everybody will tell me that I was asking for it.
 

A fair question.  I would do what I am in fact doing:  tell my daughters not to park their car on 8-mile.  And in general, I would recommend against behavior the efficacy of which requires other people to act in a heretofore improbable manner.

Do any of you have children?  Would you really tell your own children that because such-and-such behavior ought to be safe, they should act as if it really is safe?

ardiabat:  If we accept (arguendo), the first premise in your response (1.  Recreating a scenario (poor adult supervision, underaged drinking, etc.) wherein rape (and accusations thereof) enjoy an elevated rate of incidence;) we still don't get the second:  2.  Showing how background factors (reputation, and a culture of consensual sex) make it more difficult (not impossible, just more difficult) for law enforcement to meet a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard.

First, the cops are not bound by, "reasonable doubt."  Heck, they aren't even bound to preponderance of the evidence.  The most limit anyplace puts on them is, "good reason to believe," (well, no, that's for a felony.  Technically they need to have witnessed the performance of a misdemeanor [at least in Calif.,] but the attestation of a citizen can be enough to overcome that, so again, it's not a high bar)

Second... that's not what the piece does.  The "answers" are delievered behind the rubric: "What really went down."  That's likely to read as if they are getting, "the Truth."  Since teens aren't as versed in the tools of rhetoric, it's even more likely to read that way.


"Based on all acccounts, which story sounds least credible"  If we had to assign "motives to lie" Jason might have a powrful one... he raped Rochelle.  As motives go, that one is pretty strong.

Rochelle is blamed for being willing to drive him home; while on a suspended license, ergo she is in some way not so trustworthy (apparently it would be better for her to let him drive himself).  She has a "a reputation" which is also supposed to increase the odds she's lying about it (after all, since she is thought to like sex, she is more willing to lie about being raped... Wha?).

It's dressed in some pretty bits of fluff  but it's still spouting a lot of nonsense, made all the worse by that fluff.  All the  stuff presented is to be considered as unproven, and all opinions are to be respected... even though we are told this is a work of fiction, a <i>gedanken</i> experiment. Given that the message might have been... don't drink and put the moves on someone, rather than... if you do a friend a favor and he rapes you, it's your fault.

Yes we can:  I too went to the website.  What I saw was a thought experiment where the person who says they were assaulted is painted as untrustworthy because other people say she's a slut.

Monica: who "broke up with Jason", but knows she'll take him back, and gave him a blow-job, "to keep him happy", is considered credible.  Jason, who has been accused of rape says it was all consensual... after which he went to his friend's, and called his ex, so he can tell her "Rochelle showed me how important you are." He's credible; no reason for him to lie about anything.  Tanner is his friend, who gave him a place to crash in the middle of the night. He's credible.

Rochelle, who offered to give a kid too drunk to drive a ride home, says he assaulted her... she's not credible.  Jason doesn't have a good explanation for the car (after all, he didn't end up home, and he walked to his friend's place), but that's not important.

Rochelle, you see, has a reputation.

In short, I see no slander.  I see a stilted web-site fostering a terrible view of how sex (and the bubble reputation) work.  And I see you, making excuses and justifications for a site which says boys can't control themselves, and anyone who has a bad reputation isn't credible; which gives cover to rapists. 

I still stand by my original post. I think your story is full of bull!

UPDATE: (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". A commenter at Feministing saved the original flash here. 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.)

How do we know that the link to the "saved" original flash is really the original and not some maliciously altered version designed to support your highly emotionally charged allegations? With a little know-how It would be easy to steal their flash content, alter it, repost it, and claim that it's the original version.

In response to our criticism, Abstinence 'Till Marriage has dramtically altered the language in their "Party Room" (see update at the top of this post). While commendable, they still need to explain to visitors what was so wrong with their origianl language, and give a sincere apology for it as well.

I'd strongly suggest you have some concrete evidence before demanding any apologies. After all, if I'm not mistaken, you're the one that initiated these allegations. And now that the orgnaziation has responded by placing a disclaimer on their web site, I'd say that the ball's back in your court.

So where is your proof that this website is guilty of slander.  From my perspective, the organization that received the money first put the party room up and someone on this website discover it then blog about it, which in response they put up a disclamer.

I can't believe that you are justifing rape culture.  Rochelle was less crediable because she had a "history" whereas Jason is remove of any guilt because he was drunk.  I don't know how you can claim that all life is sacred when you justify rape culture and presumly agree with the organization that Rochelle deserve to be rape.

I do agree with you about babies being killed and never having a chance at life.  George Bush spend 10 billion dollars each month in Iraq for a pro life agenda.  His Pro life agenda work so well in Iraq that 600,000 thousands Iraqis, many of them babies had die because of the culture of life he had enacted. 

I know, how could any person say they believe all life is sacred that vocally support rape culture because if a woman has a sexual history she is no longer a human being and vocally defend the Pro Life agenda in Iraq, which had taken their right to life by bombing it along with the 4,000 american soldiers who has also die because of the Pro Life agenda in Iraq. 

 I'm speechless. I don't understand how people can think that way about rape victims.

CJ, in response to your comments, I don't believe the 'mess' created by this discussion is the one the site's authors had in mind. The only objective they've met is to reaffirm the beliefs of rape apologists and anger everyone else. A 'discussion tool' that starts from an offensive and dangerous premise like this one deserves to be called out because it isn't even a discussion tool in the first place. It clearly steers the young people of its target audience toward blaming the rape victim, not toward some type of open discussion.

And no outsider is suppressing or censoring this group's free speech. They rightly censored themselves out of shame stemming form the publicity created by other people exercising their right to free speech. There is also no one claiming this group has violated any of the terms of the government funding they receive, only that they should cease to receive that funding. This site in particular teaches kids that a drunken rapist is a victim of circumstance, and that the actual victim is not to be believed. That's not my interpretation of what's on the site, that's what they are saying, and it's simply wrong. But the larger reason to target this and every other abstinence only sex ed program is that they are spectacularly ineffective, unless you're counting negative effects.

And other than both being full of shit, this website has little in common with the Mapplethorpe exhibit. Criticizing abstinence only sex ed, especially the sites that promote rape culture like this one, is a great idea. The new administration will probably axe it anyway, but it never hurts to put some pressure on them. I doubt that pressure will somehow miraculously cause them to increase the program's funding. 

And when the government starts funding the porn industry and then removes the restrictions on minors viewing and purchasing it, I will speak out against that as well.