Product Description

In one of the most important and controversial documentaries of the last five years, filmmakers Justine Chang and Armand Kaye examine a crime that has been ignored, discounted, and even declared impossible. The result of years of research and production, She Stole My Voice: A Documentary About Lesbian Rape is a jarring, terrifying, and eye-opening look at this lesbian rape and sexual violence between women.

The film masterfully interweaves community responses, expert analyses, and graphic reenactments to create an absolutely unforgettable experience. Viewers will see the reality and prevalence of this crime, and learn how the community as a whole, law enforcement, and even the lesbian community itself have repeatedly discounted this crime. And in the unforgettable and terrifyingly graphic reenactments of lesbian rape, viewers will begin to truly understand the chilling and horrific experience of actual lesbian rape.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #43209 in DVD
• Released on: 2007-11-07
• Rating: NC-17
• Formats: NTSC, Widescreen
• Number of discs: 1
• Running time: 88 minutes

About the Director
Justine Chang is a gay rights activist who has promoted awareness gay issues and women's issues through film and outreach. Armand Kaye has been involved in several independent films. "She Stole My Voice" is his first feature length documentary.

Customer Reviews

A film of questionable intent
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.

Horrible documentary
I wish I would have known there were reviews of this movie before I purchased it. Hoping to be informed on a subject that deserves attention, I was "treated" to poor reenactments with horrible actresses that only degraded the validity of the film. The film was poorly edited and how the information was presented lacked sophistication and polish. I wish more time was given to presenting scholarly information than the reenacted sex scenes. I don't need to see a rape to believe it exists.

This film is not about lesbian rape.
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.