Apparently a 10% increase in internet access decreased rape by 7.3% after controlling for various demographic factors. What’s interesting about the study is that we don’t have a problem with tracing causality. Different states introduced high speed internet at different times, in a pattern that should be independent of existing crime trends. As social science goes, it was fairly solid.
I’d like a cite or a lead for that Norwegian effort, as a brief search didn’t turn anything up.
But what does "rape is not a seduction technique"even mean? When you write this the meaning might be obvious to you, to me it sounds like a sound bite. “Seduction” and “rape” are two different things, on the other hand it is predictably common how often the rapist demonstrates a belief/delusion that the act was consensual even when such a claim is beyond all reason (e.g. including knifepoint rapes on strangers).
This paper does not seem to support what you are saying at all though. Some of the other answers to the survey not included in “lust” also demonstrate straightforward sexual motives (e.g. belief in the inability to get consensual sex), whereas others are clearly excuses rather than motives (e.g. drugs, marital problems). Only 1% claimed they raped to show their physical dominance over the victim.
Actually the Norway study did exactly what the study that Landsburg cites did (correlate rape with changes in internet access) so it’s surprising they found different results. I’ll try to find the Norwegian study, in the meantime I will tentatively retract my comment.
That abstract is a little hard to parse. One problem that such research faces is the study group, namely, convicted rapists. As I understand it, in the US, date rapists and spousal rapists are extremely difficult to convict compared to hiding-in-the-bushes stranger rapists. It’s completely plausible–even likely–that stranger rapists are more motivated by anger and dominance than acquaintance rapists are. I suspect that similar differences exist in Kenya.
It’d be hard to do a study that captures unconvicted rapists. However, a broad survey that asks men questions about whether they have committed acts that meet the definition of rape (without using that word) and then ask them questions about their motives for engaging in nonconsensual sex might get at the motives of acquaintance rapists more effectively.
One very basic question that I think underlies a lot of discussion on this topic is what the definition of “crime of power” is.
Here are some possibilities, which obviously can change which crimes fall under the definition:
A crime of power is a crime in which the gaining or use of power is an essential element of the formal offense as defined in the criminal law. Any commission of that offense, by its nature, is automatically a “crime of power” regardless of what the perpetrator actually intended.
A crime of power is a crime for which a raw, savage thirst for power was a major, if not the only, motive behind the crime. So, if a perp commits Reckless Driving with Intent to Commit Mopery because he loves the feeling of holding the lives of innocent civilians in his hands, then he has committed a “crime of power”, while another perp who committed that offense because he needed a way to get to work (and for no other reason), would still be guilty of the underlying offense, but his commission of that offense would not be considered to be a “crime of power”.
A crime of power is a crime in which the perpetrator gains some level of power, of whatever nature, over the victim. This relates to the actual result - if no power is actually gained in fact, then no “crime of power” has happened, even if the perp was the most power-hungry, bloodthirsty, egotistical maniac in the universe. If the perp gains power that they arguably did not really want but was only a side-effect of their own “perfect crime”, then they are guilty of a “crime of power”.
A crime of power is a crime that is on an official list of crimes of power, e.g. a “State of Kansas Comprehensive List of Offenses that Constitute Crimes of Power 2015 Second Revised Edition”. The actual elements of the offense and any and all circumstances surrounding the actual act, the offender’s motivation, etc. are completely irrelevant. If it’s on the list, it’s a crime of power, otherwise it isn’t. So if Kansas decides that possessing a whiskey still without a license is a crime of power but for some reason declines to classify Aggravated Molestation of a Child Over Sixteen Years Old as a crime of power, then by golly that must be the case. When the leaders have spoken, the thinking has been done.
So what is the definition? Are any of these close to yours? Has any court, etc. actually defined the term “crime of power”?
I’ve used this analogy before, but I think it’s still accurate:
Rape is ALWAYS about sex, just as robbery is ALWAYS about money. But rapists AND robbers often have mixed motives, and both crimes CAN be about a lot more than just sex or money.
On one end of the spectrum, I think it’s safe to say that a pickpocket’s motivation for stealing is almost completely financial. Oh, he may get a thrill out of breaking the law too, but mostly, he wants money. Similarly, a guy who hotwires and steals your car is probably after money. Again, he may get a kick out of the deed, but money is his primary motivation. If the thief were loaded, he probably wouldn’t do it.
On the other end of the spectrum, a guy who beats you up and THEN takes your wallet is motivated by a lot more than cash. So is a guy who carjacks you. A love of violence is obviously a huge part of that thief’s motivation.
It’s no different with rape. Sometimes, sex is what’s it’s ALL about. Sometimes it’s about a lot more.
I’m not sure I can entirely buy into the use of any kind of absolutes about motives. To give you an example:
Person A is a drug addict and serial burglar who has just got out of prison, he finds he can’t cope on the outside and so he commits a burglary in which he targets an occupied home and takes items that are of no possible value to him or the homeowner. During the burglary he is interrupted by the occupier and he politely instructs them to phone the police and waits patiently for the police to arrive and arrest him. At the court he pleads guilty to burglary and asks to be sent back to prison.
Now burglary (with intent to steal) is an acquisitive crime, but in the above example there is no acquisitive motive, even as a secondary motive: he only took the items only to demonstrate he had the necessary mens rea for burglary and had no wish to actually acquire the items or their value. His motive was simply to go back to prison.
Of course whilst the above example is real, it is completely atypical. Most of the time acquisition of property is the primary motive in (acquisitive) burglary or even when it isn’t (e.g. someone who commits burglary mainly for the thrill) it is at least a strong secondary motive.
What I am trying to say is that criminal motivations are as complex as other human motivations (though taking into account as AK84 said earlier, when people commit crimes they are usually not making the best decisions). However, just as with other human motivations, when looking for general trends you will usually find the motives are predictable and straightforward.
To take a non-criminal example: sometimes someones motives for eating pie might be they want to make the person who made it happy, even if they are not hungry and they don’t eat pie. However in the vast majority of cases of people eating pie it’s because the are hungry and/or they like pie.
NB I am not trying to use the examples as analogies for rape. I am just trying to make a point about how human/criminal motivations can be complex and non-obvious, but at the same time are more often straightforward.
A guy who finds his date has passed out and can’t object probably is motivated by lust if he has his way. A guy who forces a woman is probably a bully motivated by domination urges. But then there’s the guy who drugs his date -possibly enjoys having his way (power) possibly has limited confidence in his seduction/persuasion abilities; possibly is just too lazy to try to persuade.