Rick Perry recently spoke at an energy policy discussion, where he suggested that introducing more fossil fuels to "Africa" could help stop sexual assault:
"But also from the standpoint of sexual assault. When the lights are on, when you have light that shines, the righteousness, if you will, on those types of acts. So from the standpoint of how you really affect people's lives, fossil fuels is going to play a role in that. I happen to think it's going to play a positive role."
After you eat your way through the word salad, what Rick Perry seems to suggest is that fossil fuels make lightbulbs turn on. Those lightbulbs shine "righteousness" on acts of sexual assault, stopping them, somehow. This is a bit of a stretch. First of all, fossil fuel is not the only source of energy. I assume this energy policy conference discussed the merits of different forms of energy, not "should we have electricity or not." So somehow making the connection from fossil fuel, to electricity, to lightbulbs, to stopping sexual assault, is like trying to squeeze water from a stone (if that water is "ghoulishly using sexual assault to shill for fossil fuels").
Furthermore, we can't assume that the mere presence of light would stop sexual assault. Studies on the effects of lighting on crime are not so conclusive. Though to be fair, it's hard to say conclusively whether the findings of these studies would be applicable to communities completely lacking electricity infrastructure. Besides, there are merits in promoting better electrical infrastructure for public safety. So maybe there's more context to Rick Perry's quote that makes it a little less tone deaf?