I didn't assume the man had made the video, and also I assumed that it was planned rather than captured, documentary style, and I thought that that would be the case because I assumed anyone wanting to make a point about consent wouldn't make a video without the woman's consent.
I'd regard anyone who position the right of the spectator to an authentic viewing experience (over and above the right of the performer to consent before the video was made to the video being made) a reactionary liberal sort of git.
I think anyone viewing this work whose first response to the first minute is anything other than a sort of appalled relief - relief that it wasn't an awful Steubenville type situation/ joke about it, and appalled because that's the first thing that springs to mind, showing you've subconsciously bought all the victim blamed bs about being drunk etc - is privileged because I have been socialised.to expect that my drunkenness or that of other women is an invitation to sexual.assault and I would love to have lived life and had a set of social and cultural references that did not construct me so as to expect and fear this in such a situation.