Fillmore & Weafer (2004) present some very interesting and potentially important results suggesting that men are more susceptible than women to both the disinhibiting and stimulating effects of a moderate dose of alcohol. Research suggests that men are more susceptible than women to the disinhibiting effects of alcohol on aggression (Giancola & Zeichner 1995; Giancola et al. 2002), and, it has been well documented that men drink more and have more alcohol-related problems than women (Williams et al. 1989; Finn & Hall 2004). The present results suggest a potential mechanism that might contribute to these important gender differences. Alcohol may compromise inhibitory control of certain processes in men more than women, resulting in a tendency for men to consume more drinks on a single occasion than women, and a tendency for men to be more aggressive than women when intoxicated. Although the gender differences observed by Fillmore and Weafer make sense given the known gender differences in excessive alcohol use and alcohol-related problems, a number of questions need to be systematically addressed to establish the reliability of these effects. The first word of caution stems from the small sample size used in this study. Larger sample sizes are necessary to ensure that the observed gender differences are not just an oddity of the small sample. Furthermore, if these are true gender differences then it is important to assess whether they are reliable across time, dose level, blood alcohol concentration limb location, risk-status, and context. In fact, systematic study of the reliability and correlates of gender differences in the disinhibiting effects of alcohol would be helpful in uncovering the mechanisms responsible for this effect, if it is a true effect, and their relevance for broader gender differences in alcohol consumption and problems. If the differences are observed only at specific dosage levels or in specific contexts, then this might clarify some of the mechanisms underlying this effect. The authors discuss this issue to some degree when noting that gender differences in the disinhibiting effects of alcohol have not been observed on some inhibitory control tasks, such as the the stop-signal task (Mulvihill, Skilling & Vogel-Sprott 1997). We also have not observed gender differences in the disinhibiting effect of alcohol on a different go/no-go task that uses monetary incentives and punishments to activate or inhibit behavior (Finn et al. 1999). Gender differences also might vary in relation to risk status. For instance, while moderate drinking women appear to have significantly fewer alcohol problems than moderate drinking men, heavy drinking women appear to have equal or more alcohol-related problems than heavy-drinking men (Wilsnack, Wilsnack & Klassen 1984), suggesting that heavy drinking women may be more disinhibited than heavy-drinking men. Finally, the authors offer an interesting speculation that the gender differences in alcohol's stimulating effects may contribute to the observed differences in alcohol's disinhibiting effect. This is intuitively appealing speculation, but the authors can directly test this speculation by assessing whether alcohol-induced decreases in response inhibition are correlated with alcohol-induced increases in subjective stimulation. In summary, the gender differences in alcohol's disinhibiting effect observed by Fillmore and Weafer are potentially important and may have relevance for gender differences in alcohol consumption and problems. However, it is important to systematically study these effects in larger samples that vary in risk status while using different tasks, doses, and contexts. Such work will be very valuable to our understanding of broader gender differences in alcohol use and abuse and the mechanisms contributing to these differences.