Part I: Beyond Miscommunication: What This Study Revealed About Sexual Violence

From the DARCC Education Department

In my role at Dallas Area Rape Crisis Center, I spend a significant amount of time reading research on sexual violence. New studies are published every week, and while many reinforce what we already know, occasionally one challenges the way we think about the problem itself. This was one of those studies. 

A 2026 study with the title Isolate, Inebriate, Intimidate, Repeat: High Rates of Sexual Force Against Women Are Reported When Young Men Given Anonymous Surveys challenged some of the assumptions many of us make about sexual violence. Published in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence by researchers L. F. O'Sullivan and S. T. Ronis, the study surveyed more than 2,600 men ages 18 to 34 in the United States and Canada about situations in which they pursued sex with women they knew did not want sex and had not consented. 

Unlike many previous studies, researchers used anonymous surveys and repeatedly assured participants that their responses could not be connected back to them. The goal was to better understand how men described these encounters when concerns about identification, judgment, or consequences were removed. 

The findings were difficult to read, not because they revealed that sexual violence exists. We already know that. What made this study stand out was what it suggested about how some perpetrators understand their own behavior and how different those explanations can be from the narratives we often hear in public conversations about sexual violence. 

For years, many conversations about sexual violence have centered on misunderstanding. We talk about mixed signals, poor communication, confusion, and a failure to clearly establish consent. While those situations can occur, this study raises an uncomfortable question: What if, in many cases, the issue is not misunderstanding at all? 

According to the study, many participants reported recognizing that women did not want sex. They described women verbally refusing, making excuses, physically moving away, attempting to leave, or being too intoxicated to meaningfully respond. Yet many reported continuing their pursuit anyway. Researchers also found that participants frequently reported using tactics such as repeated pressure, isolation, manipulation, exploiting intoxication, and involving friends in the process. 

Perhaps the most striking finding was not simply that these behaviors occurred, but how they were described. The study found that many participants viewed their efforts as successful. Nearly two-thirds reported that their strategies resulted in the sex they wanted. Many participants also rated themselves as being as good as, or better than, other men their age at getting what they wanted sexually. Rather than describing confusion, some participants described persistence, determination, and confidence in their ability to overcome resistance. 

This is not a new concept for survivors. Many survivors have long described experiences where they felt their boundaries were clear, their discomfort was obvious, or their refusal was directly communicated. Yet society often searches for alternative explanations. We look for mixed signals. We wonder whether alcohol created confusion. We ask whether the other person really understood. We search for a misunderstanding that makes the situation easier to explain. 

What struck me most about this study was how directly it challenges that impulse. The findings suggest that some perpetrators are not describing confusion. They are describing continuing despite resistance. They are describing situations where the obstacle was not a lack of communication but a lack of respect for another person's autonomy. 

The study also raises important questions about the role of peers and social environments. Many participants reported involving friends, groups of friends, or even female friends in helping them gain access to women, build trust, or reduce interference. These findings remind us that sexual violence does not occur in a vacuum. It unfolds within social settings, friend groups, cultural norms, and environments that can either challenge harmful behavior or help enable it. 

Perhaps the finding I continue to think about most is what happened afterward. When asked whether anything bad came from these interactions, most participants reported no negative outcomes. Very few described concern for the woman involved, and only a small number reported consequences for themselves. Reading those responses, I found myself asking a different question than the one I started with. Maybe the most important question is not whether people understand consent.  Maybe the more difficult question is what happens when they do. 

If these findings are accurate, they challenge some of our assumptions about why sexual violence occurs and what it will take to prevent it. They force us to move beyond the idea that education alone can solve the problem and ask harder questions about entitlement, accountability, peer influence, and culture. In Part Two, we'll take a closer look at what these findings mean for prevention and why understanding the "why" behind these behaviors may be just as important as understanding the behaviors themselves. 

Source:

O’Sullivan, L. F., & Ronis, S. T. (2026). Isolate, inebriate, intimidate, repeat: High rates of sexual force against women are reported when young men given anonymous surveys. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605261432630