GDS2019: Why it’s important to challenge ‘rape myths’ around intoxication and sexual assault
Alex Aldridge, Royal Holloway PhD Candidate & Professor Adam R Winstock, CEO & Founder
Global Drug Survey
Recent advice from the Metropolitan Police urged women not to use headphones while walking alone at night following a number of sexual assaults near a London tube station. Public reaction to this advice was mixed. While some were glad of the warning, others saw a message in which victims alone were responsible for sexual assault.
Blaming the victim of a sexual assault can be justified by ‘rape myths’: stereotypical or false beliefs about sexual assault. Some examples of common rape myths are: that most sexual assaults are committed by strangers; only women can be sexually assaulted; and that women are most vulnerable to assault when outside alone at night. Belief in rape myths can lead to responsibility being placed on women to avoid being assaulted, rather than targeting the actions of perpetrators.
Alcohol and other drugs are thought to increase women’s vulnerability to sexual violence. At the same time, substances are often said to be the cause of – or an excuse for – sexual aggression in men. Victim-blaming messages for avoiding sexual assault are common with regard to the effects of intoxicating substances. Women are told to avoid sexual assault by monitoring their alcoholic drinks while on nights out. Messages like ‘don’t leave your drink unattended’ and ‘drink from bottles instead of cups’ are commonplace. A wristband now exists that markets itself as a ‘simple, wearable test to see if your drink may have been spiked’.
Another prevalent rape myth is that sexual assaults where victims were intoxicated are somehow less ‘real’ than those involving non-intoxicated victims. Indeed, one study found evidence of a double standard in perceptions of intoxicated sexual assault: intoxicated perpetrators tended to be held less responsible for their actions while intoxicated victims tended to be held more so.
So far, this piece has used terms like ‘sexual assault’, ‘rape’, ‘victim’ and ‘perpetrator’ without critical reflection on how they might be interpreted. This is significant, as words like these that can actually act as a barrier to the reporting of sexual violence. Research has found that some individuals have difficulty in labelling their experiences using these words. Rape myths have an important role to play here. If one hears the word ‘rape’ or ‘sexual assault’ and imagines it to look a certain way (most likely a woman raped by an unknown man while walking alone at night), then experiences that look differently are less likely to be labelled as such.
This year, we asked Global Drug Survey respondents if they had been taken advantage of sexually while under the influence of alcohol and/or other drugs. We used the phrase ‘taken advantage of sexually’ rather than ‘sexually assaulted’ to capture a wider range of experiences. 19% (1475) reported that they had been taken advantage of sexually while intoxicated in their lifetimes, with 4% (59) of these stating that this had happened within the last 12 months.
Contrary to the belief that only women can be sexually assaulted, respondents across gender identity categories reported being taken advantage of. Of the male GDS respondents, 8% reported being taken advantage of in their lifetimes, with 2% of these reporting incidents in the last 12 months. Figures were similar for those identifying as women, as non-binary, or as having a different gender identity. Just over a third of each group reporting being taken advantage of in their lifetime, and around 10% in the last 12 months.
Our findings also challenged other dominant assumptions about sexual assault, including the idea that a woman is most likely to be assaulted by a stranger while walking alone outside at night. We found that 67% of incidents occurred in private houses; 70% of victims knew the perpetrator personally; and 74% had friends/acquaintances nearby at the time of the incident.
Just over one quarter (26%) of those who reported being taken advantage of also reported giving their consent at the initiation of sexual activity. This finding has two implications. First, it suggests consent is best thought of as a process, rather than a one-off event. Individuals must be able to retract their consent at any point during the sexual encounter. Second, just because sex is ‘consensual’ it does not necessarily follow that it is wanted. We might question whether individuals
having sex always feel comfortable or safe saying no.
Our findings raise important questions over how best to prevent intoxicated sexual assault. Clearly, urging women to avoid being outside alone after dark lest they be assaulted by a stranger can only go so far, particularly if incidents are more likely to occur in private houses and involve a perpetrator known to the victim. Instead, messages should promote ethical sexual behaviour in which individuals are encouraged to consider the effects of alcohol and/or other drug intoxication on their own and others feelings around sexual activity.