Strip clubs and rape, what's the truth?
January 24, 2011 4:58 AM Subscribe
In 2003, a research paper [pdf] connected rising rapes in Camden, London to the recent opening of strip clubs nearby. Its results were reported all over the world and are frequently quoted by opponents of strip clubs. The figures in the report contained mathematical errors and corrected 5 years later. A new paper [pdf] says both calculations were wrong and there is no connection at all. Others point out this has all been said before.
This post was deleted for the following reason: unclear thwt's going on here but you seem to have uploaded at least one of these articles. MeFi is for linking to things ON THE WEB, not putting things online for other people to talk about. Contact us if you have questions. -- jessamyn
From the new paper: "If a cause-and-effect relationship between the number of lap dancing clubs andthe occurrence of rape existed, we would expect Lambeth to be lowest of thethree because it has no clubs."
This only works ceteris paribus, and we all know that's not the case. That's a pretty spectacular reasoning error in a paper attempting to correct previous reasoning errors. That said, Magnanti points out some real whoppers (like failing to compare rates, and instead, comparing raw counts in the presence of population growth? Who's doing their stats, middle school students?)
posted by Philosopher Dirtbike at 5:34 AM on January 24, 2011 [1 favorite]
This only works ceteris paribus, and we all know that's not the case. That's a pretty spectacular reasoning error in a paper attempting to correct previous reasoning errors. That said, Magnanti points out some real whoppers (like failing to compare rates, and instead, comparing raw counts in the presence of population growth? Who's doing their stats, middle school students?)
posted by Philosopher Dirtbike at 5:34 AM on January 24, 2011 [1 favorite]
I go to lap-dancing clubs in Camden all the time and it has always been consensual.
posted by londonmark at 5:49 AM on January 24, 2011
posted by londonmark at 5:49 AM on January 24, 2011
When it comes to culture-war type questions like this, I just never understand motivating factors (even if the research weren't deeply flawed). Here are some parallels:
Many pro-lifers believe that abortion causes breast cancer. It doesn't. Or that abortion causes something called post-abortion trauma. It doesn't. Less clear but equally futile are competing claims that porn increases propensity for sexual violence, or that more porn equals less rape.
These studies simultaneously try to prove too much and too little. If you believe that the right to choose an abortion is fundamental to women's wellbeing and equality, than the above studies are not likely to change your opinions - if anything it may strengthen your resolve and cause you to fight for more resources given potential complications. If you believe that abortion is murder, would you change your mind if you found out there was no link to breast cancer, or that most women do not regret their decision?
Same goes with porn. If you're a conservative moralist and you believe pornography to be a sin, it's unlikely that you're going to change that opinion due to a correlation to sexual violence (which in your mind comes from a culture of venality in the first place). If you're a radical feminist and consider pornography to constitute the subjugation of women, you're unlikely to have your mind changed by the statistics. On the other end of the spectrum, if you believe pornography to be liberating and part of a culture of healthy human functioning, you're not going to change your mind if you find there's a statistical correlation with increased violence (especially if you consider that violence to come from repression or mental illness that is correlated to repression and shame).
This research isn't designed to change the minds of the "opposition" or even neutral researchers. It's done to reinforce a pre-existing mindset shared by a political group. To the extent that all Science may look a little like this, not all science looks as bad as this. There's no wonder so much of the research is total bullshit.
It's not always equally bullshit - prolife researchers who make up claims about post abortion syndrome are much more ideologically motivated than those de-bunking these claims, something that even a basic glance at the field would tell anyone. Indeed, it would be easier could we dismiss all culture war research as equally stupid. But we can't, so we get crap like this.
posted by allen.spaulding at 6:32 AM on January 24, 2011
Many pro-lifers believe that abortion causes breast cancer. It doesn't. Or that abortion causes something called post-abortion trauma. It doesn't. Less clear but equally futile are competing claims that porn increases propensity for sexual violence, or that more porn equals less rape.
These studies simultaneously try to prove too much and too little. If you believe that the right to choose an abortion is fundamental to women's wellbeing and equality, than the above studies are not likely to change your opinions - if anything it may strengthen your resolve and cause you to fight for more resources given potential complications. If you believe that abortion is murder, would you change your mind if you found out there was no link to breast cancer, or that most women do not regret their decision?
Same goes with porn. If you're a conservative moralist and you believe pornography to be a sin, it's unlikely that you're going to change that opinion due to a correlation to sexual violence (which in your mind comes from a culture of venality in the first place). If you're a radical feminist and consider pornography to constitute the subjugation of women, you're unlikely to have your mind changed by the statistics. On the other end of the spectrum, if you believe pornography to be liberating and part of a culture of healthy human functioning, you're not going to change your mind if you find there's a statistical correlation with increased violence (especially if you consider that violence to come from repression or mental illness that is correlated to repression and shame).
This research isn't designed to change the minds of the "opposition" or even neutral researchers. It's done to reinforce a pre-existing mindset shared by a political group. To the extent that all Science may look a little like this, not all science looks as bad as this. There's no wonder so much of the research is total bullshit.
It's not always equally bullshit - prolife researchers who make up claims about post abortion syndrome are much more ideologically motivated than those de-bunking these claims, something that even a basic glance at the field would tell anyone. Indeed, it would be easier could we dismiss all culture war research as equally stupid. But we can't, so we get crap like this.
posted by allen.spaulding at 6:32 AM on January 24, 2011
I'm glad for the debunking, but I share some of the skepticism. And part of that is a suspicion that big, national changes are going to overpower local issues, and moreover that those local issues fit into a bigger context. So, if we were to pretend that strip clubs cause rape (which I very much doubt -- I think they mostly cause dudes to spend money), it's not going to be because dudes stagger out with fire in their eyes and a need to rape immediately. It would be because of their role as a signifier of changing sexual mores more generally, and of some broader outcome of increased commodification of sex. Again, I don't think that's actually the case, just that if you want to find the impacts, you will be looking in that direction.
posted by Forktine at 6:43 AM on January 24, 2011
posted by Forktine at 6:43 AM on January 24, 2011
« Older Calgon, blow me away! | buckets and sticks gonna do the trick Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by memebake at 5:17 AM on January 24, 2011