How Alcohol is Used to Abuse Women in New York City

Alcohol is the most commonly used substance in the facilitation of sexual assault, yet its role is often minimized by cultural narratives that treat intoxication as a social lubricant rather than a pharmacological weapon. This research article examines how alcohol systematically dismantles the neurobiological infrastructure of women’s autonomy, from prefrontal cortex suppression that impairs consent and decision making, to hippocampal disruption that erases memory of violation, to amygdala interference that disables threat detection. Drawing on neuroscience, alcohol pharmacology, criminal justice data, and sociological research on predatory behavior, this paper argues that alcohol facilitated sexual assault represents not a failure of women’s judgment but an exploitation of known neurobiological vulnerabilities. Approximately half of all sexual assaults involve alcohol, with perpetrators frequently reporting the deliberate intoxication of victims as a strategy. The neuroscience reveals that alcohol creates a precise constellation of impairments, diminished resistance capacity, suppressed risk perception, impaired memory encoding, and disrupted social cue processing, that predatory actors exploit with intention. Understanding these mechanisms is essential for reframing legal, clinical, and prevention responses to alcohol involved sexual violence.

The Scope of Alcohol Facilitated Sexual Violence

Conservative estimates suggest that at least 25% of American women have experienced sexual assault, including rape, during adolescence or adulthood (Abbey et al., 2004). Approximately half of those cases involve alcohol consumption by the perpetrator, the victim, or both. On college campuses, where the dynamics are most intensively studied, the figures are starker. Research by Mary Koss, whose national surveys span from 1985 to 2015, shows that one in three college women now report experiencing sexual assault, up from one in four in the mid 1980s (Koss, 2021). Of these incidents, 75% involved victims who were incapacitated by alcohol at the time, up from 50% three decades earlier. The trend line is moving in the wrong direction.

The perpetrator side of this equation is equally revealing. Approximately 90% of college men who admitted to committing sexual assault reported that they did so while their victims were incapacitated by alcohol (Koss, 2021). Date rapists frequently report intentionally getting women drunk to facilitate intercourse (Abbey et al., 1996; Kanin, 1984). As one incarcerated rapist told researcher Diana Scully, when sober he did not have the capacity to commit rape, but alcohol changed that calculus (Scully, 1991). Alcohol serves as both a pharmacological weapon against the victim’s neurological defenses and a psychological permission structure for the perpetrator’s aggression.

These statistics reveal a pattern that is not incidental but structural. Perpetrators actively seek environments, such as bars, fraternity parties, and social gatherings, where heavy drinking is normalized and where intoxicated women can be isolated from protective networks (Abbey et al., 2004). Women who are drinking are targeted for sexual assault by perpetrators, with alcohol involvement present in approximately 50% to 75% of assaults (Reed et al., 2009). The question is not whether alcohol and sexual assault co occur, but how alcohol’s specific neurobiological effects create the precise conditions that predatory actors exploit.

How Alcohol Dismantles Decision Making and Consent

The Prefrontal Cortex Under Siege

The prefrontal cortex (PFC) is the neurological seat of autonomy. It integrates sensory and cognitive information, evaluates risks, inhibits impulsive behavior, and enables the complex judgment required for meaningful consent (Abernathy et al., 2010). Alcohol has profound and well documented effects on this region. The PFC’s primary role is to develop purposeful responses that reflect both present and future circumstances, including the inhibition of behaviors that pose undue risk or harm (Abernathy et al., 2010). When alcohol enters the system, it systematically degrades these functions.

At the molecular level, alcohol selectively attenuates NMDA receptor mediated synaptic transmission in the prefrontal cortex (Weitlauf & Woodward, 2008). NMDA receptors are essential for the persistent neural activity patterns that support working memory and sustained attention. When these receptors are inhibited, the neuron’s ability to carry out its task is compromised, reducing the individual’s capacity to control behavior and assess risk (Woodward, cited in Weitlauf & Woodward, 2008). In practical terms, this means the normal risk benefit assessment that the prefrontal cortex performs is disrupted.

For women, this disruption has specific consequences in sexual contexts. Research by Norris and colleagues demonstrates that intoxicated women are less likely to spontaneously generate inhibitory cognitions, meaning they are less able to mentally produce reasons not to engage in a risky behavior, and are less likely to rate negative outcomes as probable (Norris et al., 2004; Fromme et al., 1999). Alcohol does not create desire where none exists. Rather, it degrades the executive machinery through which women evaluate, refuse, and resist. Experimental studies show that women’s perceptions of sexual assault risk are significantly diminished when intoxicated, and their capacity to deploy effective resistance strategies drops correspondingly (Norris et al., 2006; Testa et al., 2000).

This prefrontal suppression is not symmetrical between perpetrators and victims. For men inclined toward sexual aggression, alcohol’s degradation of prefrontal inhibition removes internal barriers to acting on preexisting hostile attitudes. Intoxicated men with hostile attitudes toward women find the use of force more acceptable and express greater willingness to commit sexual assault than sober men with similar attitudes (Abbey, 2011). The same pharmacological agent that strips victims of their capacity to refuse simultaneously strips perpetrators of whatever internal restraint they possessed.

Alcohol Myopia

The Neurological Mechanism of Predatory Exploitation

The Alcohol Myopia Theory (AMT), developed by Steele and Josephs (1990), provides the most comprehensive framework for understanding how alcohol facilitates sexual violence at the cognitive level. AMT posits that alcohol produces a narrowing, or myopic, effect on attention that restricts the range of internal and external cues an intoxicated person can perceive and process (Giancola et al., 2010). Remaining attentional resources are allocated to the most salient and easy to process cues in the immediate environment. In sexual situations, instigatory cues, such as sexual arousal, physical proximity, and social pressure, are typically more immediate and salient than inhibitory cues, such as a partner’s verbal refusal, body language resistance, or internal ethical considerations.

For the victim, alcohol myopia means that danger signals, such as being isolated from friends, a partner’s escalating aggression, or the recognition that consent has not been established, fall below the threshold of cognitive processing. The intoxicated woman’s brain is not ignoring these signals by choice. The pharmacological narrowing of attention makes it neurologically impossible to process them with the same acuity as when sober. A meta analysis of experimental studies found a significant main effect of alcohol consumption on sexual aggression, and the link was robust regardless of individual differences (Santaguida et al., 2022). Alcohol increases the probability of sexual aggression perpetration across diverse populations and personality profiles.

For the perpetrator, alcohol myopia operates in a complementary but predatory direction. Intoxicated men focus on salient instigatory cues related to the social belief that an intoxicated woman is an easy target or to internalized pressure to perform masculine dominance, while excluding less salient inhibitory cues such as the woman’s disinterest or distress (Leone et al., 2022). Laboratory research demonstrates that men’s masculine gender role stress (MGRS) increases sexual aggression toward an intoxicated woman when men themselves are intoxicated, but not when sober (Leone et al., 2022). The alcohol myopia model thus reveals a neurological asymmetry: the same substance that blinds the victim to danger simultaneously blinds the perpetrator to refusal.

Alcohol’s Most Devastating Weapon

The Hippocampus and the Erasure of Memory

Perhaps the most insidious dimension of alcohol facilitated assault is its effect on the hippocampus, the brain region responsible for encoding new autobiographical memories. Alcohol primarily interferes with the ability to form new long term memories, leaving intact previously established memories and the ability to keep new information active briefly (White, 2003). Large amounts of alcohol can produce partial (fragmentary) or complete (en bloc) blackouts, which are periods of memory loss for events that occurred while a person was drinking.

The mechanism is specific and well characterized. Alcohol disrupts activity in the hippocampus by potentiating GABA mediated inhibition and interfering with excitatory NMDA receptor activation, resulting in decreased long term potentiation, the cellular process underlying memory consolidation (Lee et al., 2010). The hippocampal CA1 pyramidal cells are particularly vulnerable. Critically, cognitive and memory impairment occurs before motor impairment, which means a person experiencing a blackout may appear fully functional, able to walk, talk, and interact, while forming no memories whatsoever (Lee et al., 2010; White, 2003). This dissociation between observable behavior and internal memory encoding is precisely what predators exploit.

Women are more susceptible to alcohol induced blackouts than men, even when controlling for body weight and drinking history (Lee et al., 2010; Wilhite & Bhatt, 2020). This heightened vulnerability has biological roots. Women generally have lower body water content and different alcohol metabolism kinetics, leading to higher peak blood alcohol concentrations from equivalent doses. Binge alcohol produces greater hippocampal damage in female rats than males, with significant loss of dentate gyrus granule neurons observed in females but not males (Leasure et al., 2017). The ENIGMA Addiction Working Group’s analysis of 966 participants confirmed that alcohol dependence is associated with smaller hippocampal CA1 and subiculum volumes in both sexes, with animal models showing particular vulnerability in female hippocampal subfields (Rossetti et al., 2021).

For a perpetrator seeking to assault a woman while minimizing the risk of later identification or prosecution, the blackout is the ideal outcome. The victim cannot remember what happened, cannot provide coherent testimony, and often doubts her own experience. As Abbey and colleagues noted, many victims do not realize they have experienced legally defined rape because their fragmented or absent memories do not fit the prototypic scenario (Abbey et al., 2004). One woman in their study reported that for years she believed it was her fault for being too drunk and never called it rape until much later, even though she had repeatedly refused (Abbey et al., 1996).

The Amygdala Disconnected

How Alcohol Disables Threat Detection

Beyond prefrontal and hippocampal effects, alcohol disrupts the amygdala’s capacity to process social and emotional threat cues. Research from the University of Illinois at Chicago demonstrates that alcohol reduces the coupling between the amygdala and the orbitofrontal cortex during the processing of angry, fearful, and happy faces (Gorka et al., 2013). This disconnection means that intoxicated individuals have diminished ability to accurately read the emotional states and intentions of others.

For women in social situations where predatory behavior may be escalating, this amygdala orbitofrontal decoupling has devastating consequences. The amygdala normally functions as an early warning system, detecting threat in facial expressions, voice tone, and body language before conscious awareness can process the information (Oscar Berman et al., 2014). Alcohol’s interference with this system means that threatening or aggressive behavior that a sober woman might detect and respond to goes unrecognized or is misinterpreted. The intoxicated brain processes social information through a distorted lens that underweights danger and overweights immediate social cues such as friendliness or affiliation.

This neural disruption operates in concert with the prefrontal and hippocampal effects to create a comprehensive vulnerability. The woman cannot adequately detect the threat (amygdala suppression), cannot effectively reason about how to respond (prefrontal impairment), and will not fully remember what happened (hippocampal disruption). This is not a coincidental combination of effects. It is a predictable pharmacological constellation that predatory actors, whether consciously or through learned behavioral patterns, exploit with devastating effectiveness.

Sex Specific Neurotoxicity

Why Women’s Brains Pay a Higher Price

The neuroscience of alcohol’s effects is not gender neutral. Women experience what researchers call telescoping, an accelerated progression of alcohol related brain damage relative to men (Wilhite & Bhatt, 2020). Studies of acute alcohol effects on cognition consistently find that women perform worse than men on higher order cognitive tasks requiring divided attention, working memory, and decision making, as opposed to simpler tasks like reaction time (Wilhite & Bhatt, 2020). This means that at equivalent blood alcohol concentrations, women’s executive functions, the very capacities needed to recognize danger and assert refusal, are more profoundly impaired.

At the structural level, the female hippocampus appears particularly vulnerable. Leasure and colleagues (2017) demonstrated that binge alcohol produces a significant decrement in dentate gyrus granule neurons in female rats but not males, and this neuronal loss was associated with spatial navigation impairments and decreased expression of trophic support molecules such as BDNF and IGF 1. The researchers concluded that sex differences in alcohol induced hippocampal damage are due in part to a paucity of trophic support and plasticity related signaling in females. Squeglia and colleagues found that female binge drinkers exhibited substantial deficits in spatial working memory compared to same sex non drinkers, whereas male binge drinkers actually performed better than non drinking males (Squeglia et al., 2012).

The prefrontal cortex tells a similarly gendered story. Chronic alcohol exposure produces 15 to 23% neuronal loss in the frontal association cortex (Harper, 1998), and adolescent female alcohol users show reduced prefrontal cortex volume and impaired performance on tasks requiring executive function (De Bellis et al., 2005; Tapert et al., 2001). These findings carry profound implications for sexual assault prevention. They mean that each binge drinking episode does not merely create a transient window of vulnerability but potentially contributes to lasting structural changes that compound future risk.

The Neurobiology of Trauma

What Alcohol Does During and After Assault

When sexual assault occurs to an intoxicated woman, the neurobiological trauma response is compounded by alcohol’s effects. The hormonal cascade triggered by perceived threat, involving catecholamines, corticosteroids, and opioids, is modulated by concurrent alcohol intoxication in ways that further compromise the victim’s experience and subsequent recall (Tiller & Baker, 2014). High levels of catecholamines impair the brain’s mechanisms controlling rational thought, while increased opioid output can compromise the ability to express emotion. Elevated corticosteroids can deplete stored energy, triggering tonic immobility.

Tonic immobility, or assault induced paralysis, is an autonomic response that occurs when fighting or fleeing are no longer viable options. Between 41% and 52% of women experience this response during sexual assault (Bovin et al., cited in Tiller & Baker, 2014). It is characterized by pronounced muscle rigidity, numbness, and insensitivity to painful stimulation. Alcohol exacerbates the likelihood of tonic immobility by further suppressing the motor and volitional systems that would otherwise enable resistance. The combination of alcohol intoxication and tonic immobility creates a victim who is physically present but neurologically incapacitated, unable to resist, unable to flee, and unable to encode coherent memories of the event.

The post assault consequences are equally neurologically devastating. Alcohol involvement in sexual assault is associated with increased self blame, delayed disclosure, and reduced likelihood of seeking help (Abbey et al., 2004; Krebs et al., 2007). Victims whose memories are fragmentary or absent often doubt their own experiences, a doubt that is reinforced by legal systems and social responses that demand coherent, chronological testimony. The neuroscience makes clear that the very nature of alcohol’s assault on hippocampal function makes such testimony neurologically impossible, not a sign of fabrication, but a predictable consequence of the pharmacological state the perpetrator either created or exploited.

Cultural Narratives and Double Standards

How Society Enables Exploitation

The neurobiological vulnerabilities that alcohol creates in women are amplified by cultural double standards that treat women’s drinking as moral failure while treating men’s drinking as social entitlement. Despite decades of liberalization of gender roles, women who drink alcohol are frequently perceived as more sexually available and promiscuous compared with women who do not drink, while the same behaviors among men are viewed with far more leniency (Abbey et al., 2004; Norris, 1994). Sexually assaultive men commonly describe women who drink in social settings as appropriate targets for sexual aggression (Kanin, 1984; Scully, 1991).

This double standard creates a feedback loop between neurobiology and culture. Alcohol pharmacologically impairs women’s capacity for self protection. Cultural narratives then blame women for the impairment rather than holding perpetrators accountable for exploiting it. The victim who was drinking is asked why she consumed so much rather than the perpetrator being asked why he chose an incapacitated person as a target. Research on alcohol expectancies reveals that men who believe alcohol increases women’s sexuality feel more comfortable forcing sex when drinking because they can rationalize that alcohol caused both their behavior and the woman’s apparent acquiescence (Abbey et al., 1996).

The legal system further compounds this dynamic. Cases of alcohol facilitated sexual assault frequently pivot on the victim’s level of intoxication and ability to consent (Fisher & Lab, 2010). Expert testimony is often required to explain how a person experiencing a blackout can appear functional while forming no memories, a dissociation between appearance and internal state that juries find counterintuitive. The neuroscience is unambiguous on this point: the hippocampus cannot develop long term tolerance to alcohol the way other brain regions can, which means a person in a blackout can walk, talk, hold conversations, and appear alert while recording no memories whatsoever (White, 2003). The gap between external appearance and internal neurological reality is the space in which perpetrators operate and within which justice systems routinely fail.

Reframing Prevention

From Victim Responsibility to Predatory Accountability

The neuroscience reviewed here demands a fundamental reframing of how alcohol involved sexual assault is understood and prevented. Traditional prevention approaches have disproportionately focused on women’s behavior, advising them to monitor their drinks, stay with friends, and limit consumption. While practical, these approaches implicitly accept a framework in which the burden of preventing assault falls on potential victims rather than potential perpetrators. The brain science reveals why this framework is insufficient: alcohol’s effects on the prefrontal cortex degrade precisely the executive capacity needed to implement protective strategies. Advising an intoxicated woman to exercise judgment is neurologically contradictory.

Research on environmental modification shows more promise. Changing drinking environments, including regulating practices such as two for one drink specials, ladies’ nights that incentivize women’s heavy consumption, and sponsored drinking games, can reduce the conditions that facilitate assault (Koss, 2021). Bystander intervention training has demonstrated effectiveness, with research showing that witnesses trained in intervention are significantly more likely to act when they observe predatory behavior. Prevention programs that combine alcohol education with sexual assault risk reduction show measurable decreases in incapacitated assault among high risk populations (Gilmore et al., 2015; Senn et al., 2015).

Most critically, the neuroscience supports a shift in legal and cultural accountability. If alcohol’s effects on the female brain are known, predictable, and exploitable, then the deliberate intoxication of a victim, or the targeting of an already intoxicated victim, should be understood not as a contextual factor but as a weapon. The brain evidence establishes that an intoxicated woman’s apparent consent is neurologically unreliable: her prefrontal cortex cannot perform the risk benefit analysis consent requires, her amygdala cannot accurately process social threat cues, and her hippocampus may not encode the event at all. Under these conditions, the perpetrator’s knowledge of the victim’s intoxicated state should bear heavily on culpability.

Conclusion

Alcohol facilitated sexual assault is not a misunderstanding between intoxicated people. It is the exploitation of a specific, well characterized set of neurobiological vulnerabilities by individuals who benefit, socially and sexually, from the pharmacological incapacitation of their targets. The neuroscience reveals a precise chain of impairment: alcohol suppresses the prefrontal cortex’s capacity for autonomous decision making, narrows attentional focus through the myopia effect so that inhibitory cues go unprocessed, disrupts hippocampal memory encoding so that the assault may never be fully recalled, disconnects the amygdala from the cortical processing needed to detect threat, and produces all of these effects more severely in women than in men. Each link in this chain represents a loss of autonomy, an erosion of the neurological infrastructure that makes genuine consent possible.

Understanding these mechanisms does not reduce the moral responsibility of perpetrators. If anything, it amplifies it. The neurobiological effects of alcohol on women’s brains are not secret knowledge. They are published in peer reviewed journals, taught in pharmacology courses, and intuitively understood by anyone who has observed the behavioral effects of heavy drinking. When a man deliberately intoxicates a woman or targets an already intoxicated woman for sexual contact, he is exploiting neurological vulnerabilities as predictable as the effects of any other incapacitating substance. The brain evidence demands that we name this exploitation for what it is: not a failure of women’s personal responsibility, but a calculated assault on the neural architecture of human autonomy.

References

Abbey, A. (2011). Alcohol’s role in sexual violence perpetration: Theoretical explanations, existing evidence, and future directions. Drug and Alcohol Review, 30(5), 481489. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3362.2011.00296.x

Abbey, A., Ross, L. T., McDuffie, D., & McAuslan, P. (1996). Alcohol and dating risk factors for sexual assault among college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20(1), 147169.

Abbey, A., Zawacki, T., Buck, P. O., Clinton, A. M., & McAuslan, P. (2004). Sexual assault and alcohol consumption: What do we know about their relationship and what types of research are still needed? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9(3), 271303. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(03)00011-9

Abernathy, K., Chandler, L. J., & Woodward, J. J. (2010). Alcohol and the prefrontal cortex. International Review of Neurobiology, 91, 289320. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0074-7742(10)91009-X

Cortez, I., Rodgers, S. P., Kosten, T. A., & Leasure, J. L. (2020). Sex and age effects on neurobehavioral toxicity induced by binge alcohol. Brain Plasticity, 6(1), 525. https://doi.org/10.3233/BPL-190094

De Bellis, M. D., Narasimhan, A., Thatcher, D. L., Keshavan, M. S., Soloff, P., & Clark, D. B. (2005). Prefrontal cortex, thalamus, and cerebellar volumes in adolescents and young adults with adolescent onset alcohol use disorders and comorbid mental disorders. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 29(9), 15901600.

Fisher, B. S., & Lab, S. P. (2010). Encyclopedia of victimology and crime prevention. SAGE.

Fromme, K., D’Amico, E. J., & Katz, E. C. (1999). Intoxicated sexual risk taking: An expectancy or cognitive impairment explanation? Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 60(1), 5463.

Giancola, P. R., Josephs, R. A., Parrott, D. J., & Duke, A. A. (2010). Alcohol myopia revisited: Clarifying aggression and other acts of disinhibition through a distorted lens. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 265278. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610369467

Gilmore, A. K., Lewis, M. A., & George, W. H. (2015). A randomized controlled trial targeting alcohol use and sexual assault risk among college women at high risk for victimization. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 74, 3849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2015.08.007

Gorka, S. M., Fitzgerald, D. A., King, A. C., & Phan, K. L. (2013). Alcohol breaks brain connections needed to process social cues. Psychopharmacology, 229(3), 517526.

Harper, C. (1998). The neuropathology of alcohol specific brain damage, or does alcohol damage the brain? Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology, 57(2), 101110.

Kanin, E. J. (1984). Date rape: Unofficial criminals and victims. Victimology, 9, 95108.

Koss, M. P. (2021). Alcohol is becoming more common in sexual assault among college students. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/alcohol-is-becoming-more-common-in-sexual-assault-among-college-students-171584

Krebs, C. P., Lindquist, C. H., Warner, T. D., Fisher, B. S., & Martin, S. L. (2007). The campus sexual assault (CSA) study. National Institute of Justice.

Leasure, J. L., Neighbors, C., Henderson, C. E., & Young, C. M. (2017). Sex differences in hippocampal damage, cognitive impairment, and trophic factor expression in an animal model of an alcohol use disorder. Brain Structure and Function, 222(8), 36773688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-017-1476-8

Lee, H., Roh, S., & Kim, D. J. (2010). Alcohol induced blackout: Phenomenology, biological basis, and gender differences. Journal of Addiction Medicine, 4(2), 6170.

Leone, R. M., Haikalis, M., Parrott, D. J., & DiLillo, D. (2022). Effects of men’s acute alcohol intoxication, perceptions of women’s intoxication, and masculine gender role stress on sexual aggression perpetration. Psychology of Violence, 12(1), 5161.

Norris, J. (1994). Alcohol and female sexuality: A look at expectancies and risks. Alcohol Health and Research World, 18(3), 197201.

Norris, J., Davis, K. C., George, W. H., Martell, J., & Heiman, J. R. (2004). Alcohol’s direct and indirect effects on men’s self reported sexual aggression likelihood. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 65(6), 688695.

Norris, J., Stoner, S. A., Hessler, D. M., Zawacki, T., George, W. H., Morrison, D. M., & Davis, K. C. (2006). Cognitive mediation of alcohol’s effects on women’s in the moment sexual decision making. Health Psychology, 25(6), 689701.

Oscar Berman, M., Marinković, K., & Gansler, D. A. (2014). Alcohol: Effects on neurobehavioral functions and the brain. Neuropsychology Review, 17(3), 239257.

Reed, E., Amaro, H., Matsumoto, A., & Kaysen, D. (2009). The relation between interpersonal violence and substance use among a sample of university students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(10), 16231634.

Rossetti, M. G., Mackey, S., Garvey, B., & colleagues. (2021). Sex differences in the neuroanatomy of alcohol dependence: Hippocampus and amygdala subregions in a sample of 966 people from the ENIGMA Addiction Working Group. Translational Psychiatry, 11, Article 156. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-021-01204-1

Santaguida, M., Dubé, S., Williams, M., Eidus, C., Vachon, D., & Johnson, A. (2022). Alcohol consumption and sexual aggression perpetration: A meta analytic review. In Springer encyclopedia of sexual psychology and behavior.

Scully, D. (1991). Understanding sexual violence: A study of convicted rapists. Routledge.

Senn, C. Y., Eliasziw, M., Barata, P. C., Thurston, W. E., Newby Clark, I. R., Radtke, H. L., & Hobden, K. L. (2015). Efficacy of a sexual assault resistance program for university women. New England Journal of Medicine, 372(24), 23262335.

Squeglia, L. M., Schweinsburg, A. D., Pulido, C., & Tapert, S. F. (2012). Adolescent binge drinking linked to abnormal spatial working memory brain activation: Differential gender effects. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 35(10), 18311841.

Steele, C. M., & Josephs, R. A. (1990). Alcohol myopia: Its prized and dangerous effects. American Psychologist, 45(8), 921933. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.8.921

Tapert, S. F., Brown, G. G., Kindermann, S. S., Cheung, E. H., Frank, L. R., & Brown, S. A. (2001). fMRI measurement of brain dysfunction in alcohol dependent young women. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 25(2), 236245.

Testa, M., Livingston, J. A., & Collins, R. L. (2000). The role of women’s alcohol consumption in evaluation of vulnerability to sexual aggression. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 8(2), 185191.

Tiller, J., & Baker, L. (2014). The neurobiology of sexual assault (Learning Network Brief No. 14). Western University Centre for Research and Education on Violence Against Women and Children.

Weitlauf, C., & Woodward, J. J. (2008). Ethanol selectively attenuates NMDAR mediated synaptic transmission in the prefrontal cortex. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 32(4), 690698.

White, A. M. (2003). What happened? Alcohol, memory blackouts, and the brain. Alcohol Research and Health, 27(2), 186196.

Wilhite, E. R., & Bhatt, S. (2020). Alcohol’s unique effects on cognition in women: A 2020 (re)view to envision future research and treatment. Alcohol Research: Current Reviews, 40(2), Article 09. https://doi.org/10.35946/arcr.v40.2.09