Sexual Assault and Alcohol

Few commercial genres are more iconic than the typical beer ad, whose scantily clad women and sexual innuendo promise a more vibrant sex life for those who would only purchase the product. Today, these commercials reflect a youth culture that believes alcohol and sexual activity to be kin. This is ironic since alcohol is strongly correlated with several undesirable sexual outcomes, including sexual dysfunction, lessening of physical sensation, improper contraceptive usage, flawed evaluation of sexual situations, and the 900-pound gorilla of the bunch—sexual assault.

Having worked as an educator on issues of sexual violence, I know that few concepts evoke more disagreement among young adults than the morality of sexual encounters under the influence. Where do we draw the line between alcohol-fueled sexual assaults and mere “drunken hookups”? Try as some might to dismiss these encounters as either a normal part of the youth experience or simply too “gray” to adjudicate, the sheer volume of discord that arises from them demands our attention. For example, studies report that alcohol usage is involved in anywhere from one-third to two-thirds of sexual assaults.

To avoid dispensing accountability for inebriated sexual encounters is to assign a moral vacuum to a realm of behavior that is so normalized that many sexually active college students graduate without a sober sexual experience. Yet attempts to assign objective moral parameters to these behaviors are often met with shrugs, or with passionate and predisposed ascriptions of blame—usually of involved women. “She should have been more responsible and not placed herself in such a vulnerable position.” “Nobody put a gun to her head and made her drink.” “She got herself drunk. What did she think was going to happen?”

I believe strongly in risk reduction, but the kind of one-sided blame that follows heterosexual sexual encounters involving alcohol reveals an entrenched sexism. Students also readily point out alcohol consumption by men in these incidents, but almost always in their defense. “We can’t expect the guy to be a mind reader, much less when he’s drunk!” “Guys get a little more aggressive when they’re drunk. It’s just what they do.”

So how is it that the very same factor that raises the culpability of women in sexual encounters — their intoxication — also serves as a mitigating factor for men? Arguments against intoxicated women who “cry rape” almost always follow a similar logic. That is, alcohol’s effects are at least superficially understood by all, so those who voluntarily consume it should be accountable for its undesirable consequences. The cited effects of using alcohol cannot be denied. At about a .02 percent blood alcohol level, inhibitions begin to loosen, encouraging users to engage in behaviors to which they might normally object. Around .08, one’s judgment is significantly affected. Possible blackouts and memory loss begin around a .15 percent blood alcohol level. Not to mention that one is more likely to be perceived as more sexually available at all blood alcohol levels—research shows that the mere consumption of alcohol communicates to others that one has a desire to be sexually active, whether true or not.

Yet this list is both selective and prejudiced against women. The same substance fosters heightened aggressiveness in male users, as well as a gradual decrease in empathy—reportedly most pronounced in men.

The fact that we actually cite consumption of a substance intimately connected to violence, aggressiveness, and empathy loss in defense of alleged perpetrators only highlights the depths of the biases we bring to discussion of alcohol-facilitated encounters. Should someone crash a vehicle or physically assault someone while intoxicated, it is understood that his/her consumption of alcohol will not avert culpability. Yet this is exactly the logic used with intoxicated sexual aggressors. This is partly because the sheer dynamics of sexual assault do not lend themselves to adjudication (i.e., there is no physical evidence for consent) and partly because alleged victims are often viewed as accomplices to the crime, particularly if they too were intoxicated. Nonetheless, the logic remains problematic when applied to the health of the relationships between those involved in these encounters.

Holding men accountable for sexual aggression under intoxication may strike some as harsh, especially if we believe the average sexual assault to be a simple misunderstanding. But let us not forgetthat the stories of survivors of alcoholaccompanied sexual violence are riddled with experiences that go beyond simple misunderstandings. They are stories of women regaining consciousness to find that someone is having sex with them and of men ideating plans to incapacitate targets. These egregious instances aside, the fear voiced by many men of being blamed for an encounter in which all parties are “completely wasted” doesn’t exactly map to reality. In truth, the bulk of “drunken hookups” involve one party of noticeably greater capacity than the other. One party must after all have the ability to coordinate the sexual rendezvous and subsequent activity. Simply put, a great many men involved in these problematic encounters are still functional. Likewise, they should not be relieved of responsibility.

Sending the message of a more comprehensive accountability for drunken encounters to men takes on greater importance once we acknowledge that drunken violence is such a distinctly male phenomenon. Both men and women experience behavioral change under the influence, but men succumb to violence and aggression at significantly higher rates. Most of us already know this anecdotally, as our remembrances of drunken persons getting into fights or destroying property are largely limited to men. Numerous researchers are now taking note of a seeming increase in female aggression, but violence still remains largely male territory. All of this begs the question whenever a male is accused of sexual violence after consuming alcohol: “You got yourself drunk. What did you think was going to happen?”

None of this is to say that there is no place for female responsibility in sexual encounters involving alcohol. And it is certainly possible for females to be aggressors in today’s sexually charged culture. I just contend that it is time to revise the practice of placing the sole onus on women and alleged victims while at the same time absolving men and alleged perpetrators. To do otherwise would allow men free rein to enact wise their desires on women who have consumed alcohol and who may or may not agree with actions that require their bodies.

It might be argued that society spends so much energy discrediting female participants because they are the complainants far more often than men. They, more so than men, walk away from drunken encounters with grievances to air, so it stands to reason that society would be more adept at dismantling their claims. It might just be that America would turn on any participant in a seemingly voluntary encounter pant who later feels violated.

Even so, attributing an apparent prejudice against women to a generic disgust for irresponsibility does not rid us of important questions about gender biases and socialization. In deciphering the oft-hazy line between sexual assault and “regretted sex”, we’re still left to ponder just why women tend to show more repentance for alcohol-infused encounters than do men. Perhaps more men should regret fantasy-driven flings that ignore the risks of pregnancy, STDs, and fractured relationships. Perhaps more men should regret acquiring sex devoid of intimacy by means of impaired decision making and altered perceptions. r One would hope that such behavior might strike an ethical or even practical chord with anyone.

But alas, such reactions do not appear to be acceptable for most men to display in a peer culture that prizes any and all sexual activity - the score-at-any-cost mentality. From this lens, we might surmise that men who mercilessly blame women for their role in alleged sexual assaults are posturing to compensate for a range of emotions they either do not possess or are not allowed to show

Gordon Braxton is the prevention specialist in Harvard University’s Office of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response.