Raw Deal: A Question of Consent

In what other movie could you watch graphic sexual activity and still not understand at the end whether the sex was consensual or not? This movie is as provocative a film as you're likely to ever see, making every viewer question their preconceived notions of what rape and consent are. Along with Memento, no other movie in years has left me with more questions after the film is over. Unfortunately, unlike Memento, more and more viewings probably won't help our understanding of what we saw on screen. Some of the people involved aren't talking, and those who do probably all think they are entirely truthful and right. Don't be put off by how graphic it is...see it when it comes out.

I am not easily shocked, nor am I prone to anger. However, I just finished watching this film and feel disgusted and angry. The thing that disturbs me the most, is how people who saw the footage could possibly conceive the sequence of events as normal consentual sex. That includes some of the people who have posted comments on this site. Make no mistake, Lisa King was not wise to go back to that "party" she was not wise to continue drinking. However, this mistake and this recklessness does not mean that she deserved what happened to her. Shame on anyone who feels that the boys cant be blames for what they did, just because an intoxicated woman flirts with you, does not mean you have the green light to have sex with her. It is painfully painfully clear that Lisa did not want Mike to continue, she never kissed him, she fought him, she taunted him, the only time she ever conceeded was when he chocked her, bit her toe, or any of the other times when he stepped up his use of force to a point that hurt her or scared the hell out of her.

If this was consentual why did she never appear to be enjoying herself? I feel upset that these particulars even need to be explained, as it just so simply clear that this was an act of domination and and not one of consentual sex. The prosecuters, the judge, the boys at the party, and anyone who believes that this was not rape, really needs to look at their understanding of how to treat another human being. The level of acceptance of what happened that morning is truly a disturbing comment on the standards of humanity in society today.

I'm disappointed that there are not many comments on this page, since this is a film which demands to be debated, whether it be the simple questions of "was it/wasn't it rape" or even just "should this film be shown?" Personally, after seeing the film I have no doubt that King was raped, and that Mike Yarhaus is a dangerous, disturbed man at large. And I've probably seen as much of the evidence as the State Attorney could be bothered to look at. What is shocking as that the film features interviews with people who, I think sincerely, believe that this was an act of consensual sex. While I am convinced this was rape, the film doesn't let me acquire that conviction easily - not one participant in this film gives a good account of themselves, and the differences of opinion serve to produce a worryingly reminder that the question of consent is a misleading one. Remember all that "no means no" stuff that was misinterpreted as suggesting that if she doesn't say "no", she means "yes"? Now we get situations like this. King did not say no, and though she (occasionally) puts up a fight, it is pretty lacklustre. She even goads her assailant and taunts him. She doesn't scream or cry, yet this is still rape, because it is based on a pre-meditated assumption that she is there to have sex with, that she is "a white trash crackwhore" as she is constantly called. It also illustrates that rape is a power struggle. King was too proud, and too wasted to put up an attorney-friendly struggle. The next time I give my wallet to someone with a gun, I expect the court to recognise that I did not willingly give up my cash - I was threatened, but recognised that resistance was not worth the risk. I could argue so much about this movie, but I just saw it and these are some initial responses. Its a powerful, enraging piece, and either not as impartial as it hopes to seem, or blessed with villainous assailants who don't mind revealing their unpleasantness on camera. By the way, the potentially exploitative inclusion of the footage taken by the frat house of the rape is fully justified. What was dismissed as proof of consenting sex and passed around as a harmless sex tape can now be seen as proof of the opposite, reclaimed and set in context. Be ashamed. Be very ashamed, frat boys...

I found this to be a very serious and deep piece. I did not find the material to be needlessly graphic but I admit it was hard to watch at times. This documentary shares a very introspective look at politics and law. I was most impressed to find audience members debating the films' themes as it played.

This is a very thought provoking film. It disturbs the idea that the justice system can simply discover the truth of what happened and shows clearly how instead the system constructs the truth of what happened. By juxtaposing video footage of a rape with extracts from interviews with the survivor and a friend of the attacker a complex picture emerges that forced me to rethink 'consent'.

I think it is important to see this film but it is very hard to watch. You are literally seeing someone being raped.