neutrality of language

Neutral Language That Isn’t Neutral: The Words That Shape Belief in Sexual Violence Cases

Language matters. In conversations about sexual violence, particularly within legal systems, media reporting, and institutional responses, certain phrases are often presented as neutral, objective, or factual. Yet many of these phrases carry hidden assumptions, power imbalances, and cultural myths about how sexual violence occurs and how victims should behave.

At WGG Australia, we believe that examining this language is essential. The words used to describe sexual assault do more than document events, they shape who is believed, who is blamed, and whose experiences are dismissed.

Phrases such as “both parties were intoxicated,” “no visible injuries,” and “inconsistent account” frequently appear in police summaries, court proceedings, and media reports. On the surface, they appear neutral. In practice, they often obscure critical realities about consent, trauma, and power.

“Both Parties Were Intoxicated”

This phrase is commonly used to frame sexual assault allegations involving alcohol. It appears balanced and impartial, suggesting shared responsibility. However, its impact is far from neutral.

The phrase is frequently used to discredit victim-survivors and reinforce the misconception that intoxicated people can freely consent to sexual activity. In reality, consent requires the capacity to understand what is happening and the ability to freely agree or refuse. If a person is too intoxicated to understand or stop what is happening, consent cannot be freely given.

Research consistently shows that alcohol plays a significant role in sexual assault, but not in the way public narratives often suggest. Rather than simply blurring communication between two equally impaired people, alcohol is frequently used strategically by perpetrators. Studies have found that alcohol is the most common substance used to facilitate sexual assault, surpassing widely discussed “date-rape drugs” such as Rohypnol (Horvath & Brown 2007; Wall & Quadara 2014). Perpetrators may deliberately encourage drinking to incapacitate victims or opportunistically target individuals who are already intoxicated.

Alcohol can also serve another purpose for perpetrators: social cover. Cultural narratives often frame intoxication as signalling sexual availability or reduced accountability. These beliefs enable perpetrators to minimise their actions while shifting scrutiny onto the victim’s behaviour.

Importantly, intoxication is not static. Because of how alcohol is absorbed in the body, a person can continue becoming more intoxicated after their final drink. Someone who appeared capable of consenting earlier in the evening may later lose the capacity to do so.

Consent is not a one-time transaction. It must be ongoing and freely given throughout a sexual encounter. If intoxication increases to the point that a person cannot meaningfully consent, sexual activity must stop.

Society does not treat intoxication as a defence for other harmful behaviour such as assault, property damage, or drink driving. Yet when sexual violence occurs, intoxication is often invoked to diffuse responsibility.

The language of “both parties were intoxicated” therefore does more than describe a situation, it subtly redistributes responsibility away from the perpetrator and onto the victim.

“No Visible Injuries”

Another phrase frequently used in institutional responses to sexual violence is “no visible injuries.” On its face, this may appear to be a straightforward medical observation. However, its repeated use carries significant implications about what “real” sexual assault looks like.

This language reinforces the longstanding “real rape” myth, the idea that sexual assault typically involves violent attacks by strangers that result in obvious physical injuries. In reality, sexual violence occurs in a wide range of contexts, many of which do not involve overt physical force.

Research consistently shows that most victims of rape or sexual assault sustain no visible injuries. In one study of 400 rape cases reported to a central UK police force, 79% of victims experienced no physical injuries (Waterhouse, Reynolds & Egan 2016). Another study examining 317 reported rapes found that only 4% involved physical injuries requiring medical treatment (Carr et al. 2014).

Even when injuries are present, they are rarely definitive evidence of non-consensual sex. Ano-genital injuries, for example, can occur during both consensual and non-consensual intercourse, making them unreliable indicators of sexual violence (Quadara, Fileborn & Parkinson 2013).

Focusing on visible injury therefore creates a misleading standard for credibility.

It also fails to acknowledge the complex nature of trauma. Sexual assault can cause profound psychological, emotional, and social harm that may not be immediately visible. Survivors may experience post-traumatic stress, anxiety, depression, and long-term impacts on safety and trust.

By emphasising physical evidence alone, the phrase “no visible injuries” reduces the experience of sexual violence to a superficial assessment of the body, rather than recognising the broader realities of trauma.

In doing so, it risks reinforcing the harmful message that sexual violence must look a certain way to be believed.

“Inconsistent Account”

Perhaps one of the most damaging phrases used in sexual assault cases is “inconsistent account.” This term is often invoked to question the credibility of victim-survivors when their recollections contain differences, omissions, or changes over time.

Underlying this phrase is a common but inaccurate assumption: that genuine victims should remember traumatic events clearly, coherently, and consistently.

Decades of psychological research demonstrate that trauma does not work this way.

Victim-survivors of traumatic events typically recall only a small number of clear details, often between three and five (Holmes, Grey & Young 2005). Other aspects of the experience may be fragmented, unclear, or missing altogether.

Trauma can disrupt memory formation and recall. Survivors may experience amnesia, memory gaps, or evolving recollections as the brain gradually processes the event (Conway, Meares & Standart 2004; Tromp et al. 1995).

Memory can also be affected by factors such as physical injury, medication, psychological distress, or the passage of time. These realities mean that variations between accounts are not unusual and do not indicate dishonesty.

Yet legal and social expectations often assume the opposite.

Research has shown that police, judges, and members of the public tend to perceive highly emotional victims as more credible than those who appear calm or controlled (Ask 2010; Bollingmo et al. 2008). However, emotional responses to trauma vary widely.

Some survivors display visible distress, while others appear composed or detached, often as a coping mechanism. Emotional reactions may also change over time as individuals process the experience or receive support.

When inconsistencies are interpreted as evidence of fabrication, these complex realities of trauma are ignored.

The phrase “inconsistent account” therefore does not simply describe differences in memory. It often reflects misunderstandings about how trauma affects recall, contributing to the dismissal of legitimate experiences.

The Power of Language

The phrases examined here share a common feature: they appear neutral, but they carry cultural assumptions about credibility, responsibility, and victimhood.

When institutions repeatedly use language that subtly questions survivors, these assumptions become embedded in public understanding. Over time, they shape how sexual violence is reported, investigated, prosecuted, and discussed in society.

This has real consequences. Misconceptions about intoxication, injury, and memory contribute to high attrition rates in sexual assault cases, where many survivors disengage from the justice process after facing disbelief or scrutiny.

Changing this requires more than policy reform. It requires examining the everyday language that quietly reinforces rape myths and victim-blaming narratives.

Neutral language is not always neutral.

If we want systems that support survivors and hold perpetrators accountable, we must first recognise how words can uphold the very structures they claim to objectively describe.