Raw Deal: A Question of Consent

This brilliant documentary tells the shocking true story of a stripper who claims she was raped while on a call at a frat house. The events that unfolded during the oncoming investigation were truly devastating for the victim.

The beauty of this incredibly difficult film is that the director doesn't take sides. It would have been easy for him to suggest that the stripper was the victim and the frat boys, the bad boys, but the director steers away from all judgement and lets the audience decide for themselves.

It also shows that the victim of the case can be made out to be the villain, which is devastating because it has the power for victims of sexual crimes not to report these horrid actions, because of fear that they will be torn apart psychologically by lawyers and public opinion.

If you can stomach some truly disturbing themes, Raw : A question of consent is a brilliant and thought provoking documentary, that you wont forget any time soon!

Go and see it !

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...

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.

I couldn't sit through the whole film. It's really disturbing that something like this can happen around Year 2000. I'm not talking about rape. It happens every day. I'm talking about the failed prosecution (under whose administration...), the way some really twisted frat boys got away when the crime is recorded on tape. If the woman's so below them, like the guy kept saying, then why did they hire her? If her "stripper" profession's so disgusting, who does the hiring? If they were honest on tape about smearing her character (calling her "crackwhore" etc), why did they also call what they were doing "rape" in the same sentence? Again, what's horrifying is not the crime itself, but that people can watch it and think it's not. How far have we gone in the last four decades? In this day and age.

Firstly, I feel wrong adding a commentary to what is a depiction f someone's real life misfortune. It's not like this doco was some Hollywood production - it was real life. Grading something like this feels inappropriate. I'd also like to say that I find the thought very troubling that anyone could sit through the entire documentary and not feel as though they were witnessing something so deeply, deeply wrong. It is so clearly evident that you are witnessing a rape. I do wonder how others who can't see that in this movie would go about defining the act of engaging in sex.. I didn't know that it required the male to over-power and actually pin down the female. I didn't know that slapping and gouging at eyes was an acceptable part of having sex. I feel that the footage depicted in this documentary is disturbingly graphic. My assumption is that this documentary would have been a last ditch attempt available to the victim so as to seek some form of justice. I was left feeling such incredible sympathy for Lisa and a feeling of violently despising Tony Marzullo and his fello fratmates. Really, they should have a 300lb bloke do the same thing to them!