In this blog post, we will examine the debate over whether rape is an evolutionary adaptation and explore in depth why it should be treated as an ethical issue.
With the development of evolutionary theory, there has been much debate about what can be considered natural selection. One controversial topic is whether rape is an adaptation. This question was first addressed in Son Hill’s Natural History of Rape, which is significant in that it approached rape from a biological perspective. However, scholars disagree on whether rape is actually an adaptation. In Sohill’s book, this topic is discussed in the form of a debate between the pros and cons. Richard Dawkins’ team argues that “rape is an adaptation,” while Stephen Jay Gould’s team argues that “rape is not an adaptation.”
First, let’s look at the basis for the argument that rape is an adaptation. The main arguments for this claim appear in Sonhill’s Natural History of Rape. The first is that the majority of rape victims are women of childbearing age. The argument is that men who are unable to find a mate resort to rape as an extreme means of increasing their reproductive success. The second argument is that women of childbearing age are more likely to be victims of rape than women who are not of childbearing age. Finally, Sonhill argues that human male rape may be a product of adaptation, citing the existence of certain organs in some male animals that facilitate rape.
On the other hand, the opposing view is as follows. First, the statistical data on the age groups of victims presented by Sonhill is insufficient to support the claim that rape is an adaptation. According to statistical analysis, there is no significant difference in psychological trauma and violence between non-fertile women aged 44 and older and fertile women aged 12 to 44. Second is the issue of child sexual abuse. Son Hill argues that child victims are fewer than women of childbearing age, but this comparison is not appropriate because children lack the ability to express themselves and therefore cannot make accurate statements. Furthermore, this argument is not convincing given that children who are unable to become pregnant account for 30% of all rape victims. Third, various cases of rape, such as rape between men, incest, and child rape, make it difficult to support the explanation that rape is a result of adaptation.
Based on these arguments, I have come to oppose the thesis that rape is an adaptation. In order to understand rape, it is necessary to consider actual cases of rape. Rape can be seen as an act that arises from the conflict between sexual desire and value judgments (ethics and morality). In other words, rape is more likely to occur when sexual desire is stronger, which is the result of the conflict between the “intensity of biological sexual desire” and “sensitivity to ethical standards.”
The important point in this argument is to exclude ethical issues and view rape from the perspective of adaptation. However, this does not mean that rape is not a morally wrong act, even if it is biologically adaptive. Therefore, rape cannot be explained solely by biological factors, but ethical factors also influence the motive. This makes it difficult to conclude that rape is purely a biological adaptation.
Next, let’s look at whether rape is an adaptation. The book discusses adaptation and by-products, explaining them through the analogy of spandrels. I believe that not everything can be an adaptation and that many by-products are inevitable, and I believe that rape is one such by-product. Living organisms are extremely complex, and their internal interactions are also complex, so it is difficult to explain everything as adaptation. For example, if the digestive system evolved as a result of adaptation, then diseases of the digestive system, such as gastritis and enteritis, cannot be considered adaptation. Although individuals with diseases are less likely to survive natural selection, they can be seen as byproducts that inevitably occur in the process of evolution toward a better state. Therefore, by-products can exist, and rape can also be seen as such a by-product.
Those who argue that rape is not a by-product but an adaptation point out that rape has only been an issue for a very short period of time in human history. According to evolutionary theory, it takes a long time for a trait to be selected by natural selection, but since human history is relatively short, it is difficult for rape to be subject to natural selection due to ethical issues. However, this argument is insufficient. Humans have lived in groups for a long time and have developed a systematic social structure along with the use of tools. The period of time that humans have lived in society is sufficient for evolution to occur, and the recognition that rape is ethically problematic has also existed in human society for a long time, so it is difficult to say that ethical factors have not influenced rape.
Those who argue that rape is an adaptation often cite animal anatomy as an example. They point to the fact that some male animals have organs that facilitate rape, such as the spurs of some animals, and that human semen can change to make it more suitable for pregnancy in situations of rape. However, it is difficult to see this as an adaptation solely for rape. Semen composition can be altered by psychological factors and is not related to the act of rape itself. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, social comparisons with animals support the argument that rape is ethically problematic, but are irrelevant to natural selection.
There is also a debate over socially apparent statistical data as a counterargument to the claim that rape is a byproduct. Sonhill argues that rape is an adaptation based on statistical data presented in The Natural History of Rape. However, these statistics are not sufficient to determine whether rape is a biological adaptation. The act of rape involves ethical and moral factors in addition to biological factors, so it cannot be concluded whether it is an adaptation based on simple statistics alone. Since the perpetrator’s ethical awareness and sexual desire cannot be controlled in statistical data, it is unreasonable to conclude that rape is a biological adaptation based on this.
Furthermore, from the opposing point of view, there is a logical leap in the argument that rape is an adaptation because it is effective for reproduction. According to this argument, any behavior that is effective for reproduction can be considered an adaptation, which means that even behaviors such as theft and murder can be adaptations if they are advantageous for survival and reproduction. However, natural selection targets traits, and behaviors are byproducts of traits, so it is a logical fallacy to claim that behaviors themselves are adaptations.
The debate over whether rape is an adaptation or a byproduct is significant in that it approaches rape from a biological perspective. However, rape is a behavior that involves a complex interplay of biological traits and social and ethical factors, and therefore cannot be considered subject to natural selection. The statistical data used by those who argue that rape is an adaptation also lacks scientific basis because the interactions between the factors are not controlled, and it is a logical leap to consider the act itself an adaptation because it is advantageous for survival. In conclusion, from an evolutionary perspective, it is reasonable to view rape as a byproduct of natural selection rather than a trait.
