WSJ Editor: Intoxicated Sexual Assault Victims Are as Guilty as Their Attackers

WSJ Editor: Intoxicated Sexual Assault Victims Are as Guilty as Their Attackers

Wall Street Journal editor James Taranto claimed that cases of “‘sexual assault’ on campus” that involve alcohol are really victimless crimes in which both parties are equally guilty.

In his February 10 WSJ column[3], Taranto baselessly argued that men are often unfairly accused in sexual assault cases on college campuses, particularly when both men and women involved in the case were drinking (emphasis added):

What is called the problem of “sexual assault” on campus is in large part a problem of reckless alcohol consumption, by men and women alike.


If two drunk drivers are in a collision, one doesn’t determine fault on the basis of demographic details such as each driver’s sex. But when two drunken college students “collide,” the male one is almost always presumed to be at fault. His diminished capacity owing to alcohol is not a mitigating factor, but her diminished capacity is an aggravating factor for him.

As the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education notes, at some campuses the accuser’s having had one drink is sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt … In theory that means, as FIRE notes, that “if both parties are intoxicated during sex, they are both technically guilty of sexually assaulting each other.” In practice it means that women, but not men, are absolved of responsibility by virtue of having consumed alcohol.

While it is true that reckless alcohol consumption can play a role[4] in encouraging damaging behavior, and that male and female college students (particularly underage students) could probably benefit from learning to moderate their drinking for a variety of reasons[5], Taranto’s accusation that women who drink — and then are forced to have sex against their will — are not only equally at fault for their assault but are guilty of an equivalent crime takes victim blaming to a new and dangerous low.

Taranto’s victim-blaming approach furthers his attempts to disingenuously redefine the problem of sexual assault as a problem of alcohol. The problem of sexual assault on college campuses, as elsewhere, is entirely a problem of sexual assault, in which a victim does not consent to sexual relations with the aggressor. Studies have shown[6] that alcohol consumption doesn’t cause sexual assault, nor does it serve as a defense. According to a literature review from the National Institutes of Health:

The fact that alcohol consumption and sexual assault frequently co-occur does not demonstrate that alcohol causes sexual assault.


[M]en are legally and morally responsible for acts of sexual assault they commit, regardless of whether or not they were intoxicated or felt that the woman had led them on previously. The fact that a woman’s alcohol consumption may increase their likelihood of experiencing sexual assault does not make them responsible for the man’s behavior, although such information may empower women when used in prevention programs.

Other studies similarly found that some college men who acknowledge committing sexual assault — which included 25 percent of male students surveyed — may have used alcohol[7] to “have an excuse for their behavior.” Other variables, like peer pressure, “may lead some men both to drink heavily and to commit sexual assault,” but the researchers found no evidence to place the blame solely on the presence of alcohol.

Moreover, just because both women and men are drinking in a particular situation does not necessarily place them on equal footing. As Ann Friedman has noted[4], “The biological reality is that women do not metabolize alcohol the same way as men do, and that means drink for drink women will get drunker faster.” The idea that women who get drunk and then are forced into nonconsensual sexual experiences are equally at fault in the situation misses the reality of assault, particularly as it involves physical force[8] of some kind in a majority of cases.

If Taranto is concerned about the treatment of men in such cases, he could have written about male sexual assault victims, who are a smaller[9] but nevertheless important portion of victims. But when men are sexually assaulted the perpetrator is usually also male[7]; in fact, 98 percent[10] of all perpetrators are male. The “double standard” Taranto is worried about, in which men are more often the accused, isn’t a double standard at all — it’s just reality.

The insistence that victims are equally responsible for their assault contributes to a dangerous stigmatization[11] which keeps many victims from reporting these crimes[12] — particularly because victims who do report can become the targets of vicious attacks[13]. Previously, Taranto’s victim-blaming has included insisting that efforts to address the growing problem of sexual assault are attacks on men and male sexuality[12].

But no matter how many times he uses the WSJ to blame victims and push sexist attacks[14], his concern that women take advantage of using alcohol to falsely accuse men of assault just doesn’t match the facts. According to the FBI, people falsely report sexual assault at the same low rate as other comparable crimes: only 3 percent of the time[11].

This is an article that was bound to get a lot of attention. And it is an article that it  is very easy to come to a quick conclusion about. Which is exactly what happened, considering that an Alternet contributer has decided to write about it.

When I first read about this a few days ago (or maybe yesterday), at first glance, I did have the reaction that most people probably did when they seen the article (or more likely,  the stories referencing the article later. Since not many of us read the Wall Street Journal on a daily basis).

While the public at large is indeed warranted in calling out the editorial piece, I do not think that should be the end of the conversation. To say that women and men are equally responsible in a sexual assault that involves excessive alcohol consumed by both parties, is at very least, a drastic oversimplification of a very complex problem. The problem becomes complex, in that though the premises may be the same for all incidents of this nature, the variables are never the same.

I will not go in depth into the  drunken sexual assault angle, as frankly, its a hugely complex problem. One that is further clouded by often unthought and irrational sexist attitudes and opinions on both sides of the fence.

But there is another, bigger problem that should be addressed in this case.

That is, the presence of alcohol. The fact that it is a regular occurrence for young people to binge drink to the point of finding themselves embroiled in messes like this, seems to me a far bigger problem.
That is not to say that cases of sexual assault against anyone  (Women OR Men) is not important. It is to say that, it is symptom of a far bigger issue.

Like drunk driving, rampant alcohol poisoning and any number of other problems associated with binge drinking in the campus environment. It is a symptom of a bigger problem. Though a very noticeable (maybe the most noticeable of them all), none the less, still one single piece of a bigger puzzle.

Which is why, I think that people should be careful not to just focus on this one issue. The problem of alcohol fueled sexual assault IS a very big problem.
But to focus attention only on it, risks missing the bigger picture.

2 thoughts on “WSJ Editor: Intoxicated Sexual Assault Victims Are as Guilty as Their Attackers

    1. For the last year or 2, I have tried to ensure that I look at every piece of information that I come into contact with in the world, from as many angles as possible. Though this is not always possible, certainly not always easy, and the answers are not always as satasfiing as one would hope, I still like the feeling of knowing that I tried to dig even just a little deeper.

      And I wish that people everywhere, could learn that being critical is not a bad thing.

      When it comes to my news sources, some would probley think I am crazy. I can toggle between Sun news (the canadian equivilent of Fox), Cnn, MSNBC, and almost any other. I do not view them for the spin, I view them for what information I can squeeze out of each. Bias is only bias, if you swallow it and let it define your opinion.

      That ^^ whole tangent may be irrelevent to the piece of writing at hand, but at the same time, it really isn’t. It never hurts to allow yourself to stand aside from the story, and look at it from that angle.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.