In this blog post, we will examine the meaning of adaptation and how we should understand the act of rape, focusing on the debate raised in evolutionary biology: “Is rape a type of adaptation?”
Sexual violence, such as rape, is not an issue that has suddenly gained attention recently; it is a serious crime that has existed for a long time. For this reason, countries around the world have defined rape as a crime and established penalties for it. In South Korea as well, the release of works dealing with rape—such as the film ‘Don’t Cry, Mom’, inspired by the Miryang middle school girl case—has prompted many people to reflect deeply on the issue of rape once again. As such, most people accept as common sense that rape is an immoral act. However, at some point, various arguments began to emerge in the field of evolutionary biology surrounding the question, “Is rape a form of adaptation?” and scholars continue to debate this issue to this day. When I first encountered this topic, I, too, thought it was only human decency to oppose it. This was because I viewed rape as a clearly wrong act—one that cannot be explained, no matter how hard one tries to do so scientifically. However, reading Professor Pinker’s arguments in ‘Darwin’s Table’ led me to reconsider the essence of this debate. He questioned whether those who approach the issue of rape purely from an ideological standpoint, while ignoring the scientific perspective altogether, truly understand the concept of “adaptation.” In other words, the core of this debate lies not in evaluating the morality or ethics of rape, but in examining whether the act of rape constitutes an “adaptation” as defined by evolutionary biology. From here on, I will first summarize the arguments and evidence presented by various scholars in ‘Darwin’s Table’, then examine the meaning of the concept of “adaptation,” and finally explore whether the act of rape constitutes an example of adaptation in the evolutionary biological sense or should be understood as a simple act of violence.
‘Darwin’s Table’ does not simply present the opinion of a single author; rather, it depicts the actual process of several professors debating this topic. Scholars who argue that rape is an adaptation and those who argue it is not each present their own evidence, and they also offer differing opinions on the definition of adaptation and how to distinguish between adaptations and byproducts. Let us now examine the discussions they engaged in within the book.
Professor Thornhill, author of ‘The Natural History of Rape’, argues that rape is a behavior shaped by natural selection and serves as an adaptive behavior that helps males reproduce more successfully. He cites evidence such as the fact that most rape victims are young women of childbearing age and that some male animals possess physical characteristics that facilitate forced copulation. Furthermore, Professor Pinker emphasizes that the proposition “Rape is an adaptation” is merely a factual statement and should not be confused with a value judgment.
In response, Professor Coine counters that Professor Thornhill’s research does not sufficiently meet scientific standards. In particular, he points out that ‘The Natural History of Rape’ lacks sufficient evidence to support the claim that rape is an adaptation. First, he argues that there is insufficient data regarding the ages of rape victims and that there is no significant difference in the psychological trauma or severity of physical harm experienced by non-fertile women and fertile women. He also counters that the finding—presented in Professor Thornhill’s data—that children suffer less than adults may stem from differences in their ability to express themselves.
In the ensuing discussion, the debate shifts to the meaning of “adaptation” and how it should be defined before addressing whether rape is an adaptation. Professor Dawkins cites the eye as a prime example of an adaptation, arguing that only natural selection can produce such a sophisticated trait and that any trait must possess a certain level of complexity to be called an adaptation. In response, Professor Gould points out that the criterion of “a certain level or higher” is itself unclear, and, citing the paper he co-authored with Professor Lewontin, “The Spandrels of St. Mark’s and the Panglossian Paradigm,” argues that distinguishing between adaptations and byproducts is extremely difficult. He explains that the spandrel—the curved surface formed between round arches—is not an adaptation but a byproduct of the process of installing a dome atop the arches, and he criticizes adaptationists for their tendency to interpret every phenomenon as a product of natural selection.
In response, Professor Pinker explains that contemporary adaptationists do not unconditionally interpret every phenomenon as an adaptation. Furthermore, Professor Dawkins argues that even the spandrels cited by Professor Gould as an example can be understood as adaptations upon closer examination, noting that there are quite a few instances among phenomena previously considered byproducts that should actually be classified as adaptations.
However, to discuss the topic “Is rape an adaptation?”, we must first examine what “rape” and “adaptation” mean. Rape refers to a crime in which a sexual act is forced upon another person without their consent through illegal means such as assault or coercion. An adaptation, on the other hand, refers to the phenomenon in which traits or behaviors evolve through natural selection so that an organism is better suited to its environment.
However, as I examined the meaning of adaptation, I came to agree to some extent with the argument that rape could be a type of adaptation as defined in evolutionary biology. To explain this more specifically, the act of rape is one of the behaviors that arises in connection with a man’s biological instinct to pass on his genes to the next generation. In fact, Professor Thornhill argued in his book that rape is an adaptive behavior that helps men achieve greater reproductive success. In other words, the ultimate purpose of a man committing rape is to spread his genes more widely and thereby increase his reproductive success. From this perspective, rape may meet the criteria for biological adaptation, and therefore, his argument is that the proposition that rape is an adaptation can hold true.
However, those who oppose this argument may counter by pointing to the very definition of rape itself, asking how it can be explained as a scientific concept of adaptation. Indeed, rape is a crime and an act that can never be justified. Nevertheless, upon examining the definition of rape, I found that social and ethical value judgments are already embedded within the concept. Therefore, if opponents of this topic argue that rape is not an adaptation based solely on its definition, I believe we can point out—as Professor Pinker suggests—that value judgments must be distinguished from scientific explanations. In other words, this debate is not an argument that rape is right, but rather an attempt to explain how a specific behavior arose from an evolutionary biological perspective.
The second argument supporting the view that rape can be considered an adaptation is that this behavior is observed not only in humans but also in various animals. In fact, Professor Thornhill explained that some male animals possess specific physical structures that facilitate forced copulation. Furthermore, in some dolphin pods, behavior in which multiple males forcibly mate with a single female has been reported. While such behavior may stem from momentary pleasure, evolutionary biology interprets it as a reproductive strategy aimed ultimately at passing on one’s genes. Reproduction is one of the most fundamental characteristics of living organisms and a key factor in maintaining the species alongside individual survival. Although humans possess a higher level of cognitive ability and morality than other animals, it is undeniable that they are also living organisms. For this reason, some evolutionary psychologists argue that rape in humans may also be influenced by instincts related to reproduction. Furthermore, historically, there have been reports of sharp increases in sexual violence during wartime when legal punishments and social sanctions are weakened; this phenomenon is sometimes interpreted as an example of how instincts and social control interact in human behavior.
Of course, it is entirely possible to raise the counterargument that using animal behavior to explain human behavior in exactly the same way constitutes a logical leap, given that humans and animals differ significantly in intelligence, sociality, and morality. However, evolutionary psychology explains that humans, too, share a common biological foundation and also share the basic instinct for species reproduction. In fact, evolutionary psychology views the desire to reproduce as one of the most primal instincts common to most living beings, and interprets various human behaviors today as the result of psychological mechanisms formed over a long evolutionary process manifesting in diverse forms.
Karl Grammer, a behavioral biologist at the University of Vienna, stated, “Just because a behavior can be explained evolutionarily does not mean it is right.” Furthermore, Thornhill and Palmer, authors of ‘The Natural History of Rape’, also emphasized that “biology is meant to help us understand human behavior, not to justify it.” In fact, both modern evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology clearly distinguish between explaining the evolutionary origins of a specific behavior and ethically justifying that behavior. Therefore, when adaptationists attempt to explain rape from the perspective of evolutionary psychology or biology, this should not be seen as an attempt to defend or justify rape, but rather as an effort to understand the evolutionary context in which such behavior emerged. Ultimately, rape is a crime under any circumstances and an act that can never be tolerated. However, from an evolutionary biological perspective, academic debate continues regarding whether such behavior was shaped by evolutionary processes related to species reproduction, and the issue addressed in this article can be seen as a debate surrounding the very possibility of such a scientific explanation.
