She Stole My Voice: A Documentary About Lesbian Rape (Uncensored Version)

This film is not about lesbian rape. This film is about female perpetrators of sexual assault. There are many downfalls of this film, and one of the most notable is the notion that a female who sexually assaults another female must be a lesbian and a woman who is assaulted by another woman is somehow a lesbian. Because none of the victims or perpetrators identify themselves as lesbian (in fact, there is hardly any verbal, environmental, or relational context for any of the rape scenes) perhaps the film makers unintentionally conflated female-to-female sexual assault and lesbian rape. The film dangerously interweaves incest, rape of a child, sexual assault and lesbian rape as if they were the same thing. But let's be clear: they are distinct forms of victimization.

I am not a denier of lesbian domestic or sexual violence. I have been an advocate in the anti-domestic and sexual violence field for 9 years and I am very familiar with the dynamics and effects of lesbian domestic violence and sexual assault and the larger societal context in which they take place.

I think I understand the film maker's intent to expose the existence of female-to-female sexual assault - the intent to explain and portray what some people think of as impossible. I even think I understand why they chose to show rape scenes over and over and over - as a way to prove the mechanics of how a woman can rape another woman. I think I can even understand the film makers' decision to use very young, feminine women to play the victims and perpetrators - to unravel stereotypes that in an abuse situation "butch" women are the aggressive attackers and "femme" women are the submissive victims. Why they chose to only portray rape between very young, feminine women and not diverse ages or gender expressions, I do not know. The rape scenes also seem to mimic pornography until the viewer picks up on the lack of consent (a comment on the relationship between pornography and sexual violence?). Why they chose not to address intimate partner sexual assault is unclear to me as well. None of this is clear because none of the film makers' choices are explained or obvious.

In a print interview, the film makers do explain their choice to include interviews with the general public, contrasting them with feminist theorists. The feminist theorist most commonly quoted is Camille Paglia, an anti-feminist feminist whose opinions on gender, sexuality, rape, sexual harassment, and homosexuality are far from representative of feminist theory. Why didn't the film makers quote or contact one of the most well known researchers on lesbian rape, Lori B. Girshick (author of Woman-to-Woman Sexual Violence: Does She Call it Rape?)?

Of all the misconceptions and stereotypes the film claims to be breaking, the rape victim turned perpetrator is dealt with most ungracefully. As the director of D.C. Rape Crisis Center, the only expert appearing in the film, correctly states, not all victims become perpetrators (a common myth about abused boys), but some perpetrators have been victimized. Though verbally explained, two of the rape scenarios involved women who had previously been victimized portrayed as perpetrators. What image do you think the viewer is going to be left with?

Overall, this film is bound to be misunderstood and misused. From most accounts, it seems to be dismissed as pornography. This is problematic given that the sexual acts depicted are not consensual. However, it can also be dangerous if taken seriously as representative of lesbian rape. This film is not about lesbian rape. It is about female-to-female sexual assault. Being assaulted by another woman does not make the victim or the perpetrator a lesbian. Had the film been well made, our time may have been better spent actually discussing the issues instead of guessing about the integrity and intent.

I had seen this documentary on youtube and I had tried to purchase it for some time, when I finally found it on amazon.com, and upon actually seeing it, I was most impressed. I have seen many of the other reviews of this documentary, and the hostile nature of most of them calling it pornographic or disappointing or baulking at it in some other way, are either a), men who just don't get it and never will and don't want to accept that women are capable of these things too, yet they don't seem to hide from it when it's their wives or girlfriends abusing them, b), women who don't want to accept it.
It's so easy isn't it to laugh or critisize. To make a documentary like this takes guts and a real determination to get the truth heard. Of course lesbian rape happens, just like homosexual rape happens in the male community in prisons for example. What makes this so worthy of critism for telling the other side of it? I am hoping to publish a book which attacks women, which critisizes their attitudes in modern society, which may never see the light of day because no one wants to hear it, and so I have to admire this documentary and the makers not only for having the guts to make it in the first place, but for the quality of it too. I was always aware of the darker side of women unfortunately, and it made me laugh when a lot of these victims said they didn't think women were capable of such things. Well they are. And pregnancy is the most vindictive weapon that women can use against them, and they get away with it every time.
I say well done indeed to the makers for being Brave and honest. It's just a pity that we live in a world which likes to hide from these things and slag off what it doesn't understand.

I DO UNDERSTAND THE SERIOUSNESS OF LESBIAN RAPE AND I DO AGREE THAT RAPE IS RAPE, BE IT A MALE OR FEMALE RAPIST. THE DOCUMENTARY DOES POINT THAT OUT CLEARLY AND GIVES REASONS WHY ONE SHOULD THINK SO. I'VE ALWAYS SAID TO MYSELF...IF SOMEONE PERFORMS ORAL SEX ON AN UNDER-AGED MINOR, THOUGH HE/SHE DID NOT GET PENETRATED, THE SEXUAL ACT STILL AMOUNTS TO RAPE.

HOWEVER, I DID NOT THINK THAT THE FILM DROVE THE MESSAGE HOME. DON'T GET ME WRONG, IM NOT SAYING THAT THEY DID NOT WORK HARD IN PUTTING THE FILM TOGETHER. WHAT IM SAYING IS THAT THE STORY LINES ARE ALL MESSED UP. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY JUST DON'T MAKE SENSE. SOME OF THE SCENES WERE INDEED GRAPHIC AND AT TIMES HUMILIATING AS I PICTURED MYSELF AND HOW I WOULD NOT WANT A WOMAN WITH A STRAP ON FORCING IT INTO MY MOUTH...AND AT OTHER TIMES, I HAD TO REWIND IT A COUPLE OF TIMES TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IN THE WORLD WAS GOING ON.

I BOUGHT THIS VIDEO ONLY BECAUSE I DO PARTICIPATE IN A JAIL MINISTRY AND WANTED TO KNOW SECOND HAND WHAT CHALLENGES THEY MAY BE FACING SO I MAY KNOW HOW TO DEAL WITH INMATES ACCORDINGLY. WELL...THAT WENT THOUGHT HE DOOR. I WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND IT'S OBVIOUS TO ME THAT I'M IN THE WRONG BUSINESS. MAYBE I SHOULD BE INTO MARKETING OR SOMETHING.

APPARENTLY THAT'S WHERE ALL THE MONEY IS. WHOEVER MARKETED THIS INDEPENDENT FILM MUST HAVE HELPED THE SCRIPT WRITERS MAKE A KILLING. SAD TO SAY THAT THEY CAUGHT ME. THE WAY THAT THE WRITERS PORTRAYED THE FILM TO BE WAS NOT HOW IT CAME ACROSS.THE BOX THAT IT CAME IN SAID THAT IT IS "AN IMPORTANT STEP FORWARD FOR GAY AND LESBIAN EQUALITY." YES, IT IS, BUT THE ONLY WAY THAT I SEE IT WINNING "BEST DOCUMENTARY" FROM THE GLOBAL INDEPENDENT FILM SHOWCASE IS IF THERE WAS ONLY ONE CHOICE.

FROM LOOKING AT ALL THE PREVIEWS AND OTHER SUPPORTING MEDIA ADVERTISED COMPARED TO WHAT I PURCHASED, COMING FROM A WOMAN WHO LOVES DOCUMENTARIES AND KNOWLEDGE, I PERSONALLY DON'T THINK THAT IT'S WORTH THE BUY.

This movie is a brilliant horrible joke. Whoever made this film is laughing so hard at us that they will not stop laughing for a long time. On one hand the documentary seems to deal with a serious matter, such as lesbian rape. Most people who are interviewed seem to talk about the theme in a believable way. The testimonials seem believable too, on the surface. The narrator of the documentary, the explanations she gives us are believable. The text scrolling down on the screen about the fact that women can be rapists sounds believable to me, too. On the other hand, the alleged documentary has porn-like reenactments of sexual abuse between women with would-be porn actresses paid to stage lesbian rape scenes for the shock, amazement and perhaps pleasure of the viewers. Why do I call this a "brilliant horrible joke"? I call it "brilliant" because the filmmakers have achieved what they sought for. This is a kind of Andy Kaufman's joke. (Have you watched the movie about this comedian starring Jim Carrey? If you haven't, go watch "Man on the Moon" and you'll see what I mean!) Andy Kaufman was a comedian who relished in pulling practical jokes on everybody: family, friends, girlfriends, you name it. The kind of practical joke Andy liked to pull was to act as though he was serious about something outrageous and horrible when in fact that was all an inside joke. When his family was told he had cancer and he was dying nobody believed him, because they thought he was pulling another practical joke. I view this documentary as a big practical joke. I am sure this was a concept of one person or a group of friends, who decided: "Hey, let's make a seemingly serious documentary about something as outrageous as lesbian rape, something on the edge of believability, and then for the hell of it we will insert staged porn scenes about the same theme. Let's see how many people we will be able to fool and outrage. Let's see if someone will see for what this really is: a big practical joke, which is going to make us rich." And guess what, the filmmakers did just that, as at the moment this practical joke is a huge success in sales. What was supposed to be just a practical joke, became so much more. It became a brilliant marketing strategy to sell a porn DVD to people who wouldn't watch porn. Even better, with the buzz that this (probably unintended) marketing strategy created, they turned a run-of-the-mill rape fantasy porn DVD into something that is making them extremely rich while the filmmakers laugh their way to the bank.

I'm trying to decide if this is a serious inquiry or an excuse for some unskillful porn. While there is one interviewee who gives the impression of knowing her stuff, The others seem pointedly uninformed, naive, or somewhat inarticulate on the subject. Much of the film consists of interviews, interspersed with very graphic, though quite unbelievable scenes of forced sex between women. No one puts up much of a struggle. No one cries out for help. No one seems to resist very much, except for some squeaky protests worthy of an S&M site. Submission seems to be the order of the day. The cinematography and composition of the dramatized sequences are chaotic, with 'way too much onscreen. One sequence consists of two, count 'em, two rapes in inset boxes, a background that consists of yet another rape in progress, and a long title crawl in the bottom half of the screen, which is yet another rape tale in text. So, what are we supposed to look at? It makes George Lucas look leisurely!

So... I'm trying to decide whether this is an attempt at a scholarly framing device for porn, or if the creators actually believe they've contributed something to a high level communication about an issue they claim to be extremely widespread. I've known plenty of people in "the life," and have never heard anything to support their statistic that 30 per cent of lesbians have been sexually assaulted by a person not their partner.

There is one other thing I found quite disturbing; a general demeaning of male sexuality reminiscent of the most strident feminism of the 1970's. It's out of date, ladies. Male sexuality does not seek to "wound." Your association of popular words for sex (nail, screw, etc.) with harmful intention is your own problem. There are indeed loving and devoted men. Perhaps if you get your mind out of victim mentality, you have a chance to portray important issues in a way that doesn't present women as the wounded prey of implacable sadists. All of your graphic depictions of sex simply placed a woman in the role of a pathological man, popping out of the shadows and doing their dirty work. Perhaps you meant well. Perhaps it was a cynical excuse to sell some uninspired sex footage. If the issue is indeed this widespread, it deserved a higher level of integrity, as well as more competent production values.