In this blog post, we explore from a scientific and evolutionary psychological perspective whether rape could be an adaptive behavior for survival and reproduction in the process of human evolution.
In order to answer a question, it is necessary to first understand the question clearly. The same is true for the question, “Is rape an adaptation?” I think there is no need to discuss what rape is, and I think that we can only answer the question if we first clarify what adaptation is. As written in “Darwin’s Table,” adaptation can be seen as a product of natural selection, and natural selection refers to the mutation of an individual in a way that is more suitable for the environment. In other words, when an individual changes in a way that is suitable for the environment, it can be called “adaptation.”
The process of natural selection takes place over thousands of years and is the result of individuals adapting to various environmental changes in order to survive and reproduce. Adaptation directly or indirectly contributes to the survival of individuals and, as a result, plays an important role in passing on genes to the next generation. Therefore, understanding the nature of adaptation is essential for interpreting and explaining biological phenomena.
Then, the question “Is rape adaptive?” can be reframed as “Is rape a suitable way for humans to adapt to their environment?” What is suitable for an environment? A suitable way for an environment is a way that is beneficial to the survival of an individual or something equivalent. Although the example of the white fur of polar bears is not true, it is a good example to define what “an appropriate way for the environment” is. In fact, the color of the polar bear’s fur helps it to camouflage itself in the snowy Arctic environment and helps it to hunt and survive. Then, if rape is an adaptation, rape must have some advantages over not raping.
In response to this, “Darwin’s Table” states that “rape is an adaptive behavior that increases the chances of successful reproduction for males who have difficulty mating.” Of course, it is true that males who have difficulty mating can increase their chances of successful reproduction through more rape. However, that is not because rape is an adaptation for reproduction, but merely a byproduct of rape that increases the chances of reproduction. If rape is a product of adaptation for reproduction, then the act of rape should be carried out primarily for the purpose of reproduction. Of course, as the book also states, this does not mean that the act should be carried out with the direct thought, “I will reproduce by impregnating a woman with rape today.” However, even if rape is an unconscious adaptation, it should be an act based on the most basic and important purpose of reproduction.
If rape is an adaptation for reproduction, we should be able to prove that this behavior has provided survival and reproduction benefits in the course of evolution. For example, if rape increases the transmission of genes in individuals, this behavior is likely to have become widespread evolutionarily. However, in reality, rape is a phenomenon that occurs even in cases where reproduction is impossible (same-sex, children, the elderly, etc.), making it difficult to see rape as an adaptation for reproductive purposes. As stated in the second paragraph on page 26 of the above book, it is impossible to explain the act of rape against same-sex, children, the elderly, etc. who cannot reproduce. The next paragraph of the book states that this is what Palmer’s “by-product theory” explains, but this “by-product theory” is difficult to support the claim that rape is a by-product of sexual desire because it is a by-product of adaptation. In addition, reproduction requires pregnancy, which is another possible objection because not all rapes involve penetration. This, too, is a reason why rape is hard to be considered an adaptation. Therefore, the claim that rape is an adaptation is not sufficiently supported.
In addition, Thornhill claims that male rape behavior is an adaptation, citing the example of a particular organ in male bonnet monkeys, which is a logical leap. Even if the organ in bonnet monkeys is indeed a product of adaptation for rape, this is true for all bonnet monkeys. There is no logical basis for applying the case of these eels, a species completely different from humans, to humans. For this argument to be convincing, humans and eels would have to be very similar biologically, or “human” males would have to have organs that facilitate rape like “eel” males, but there is no explanation for this. Even if two species are very similar, it is difficult to apply the characteristics of one species to another species as they are. It is illogical to try to explain humans using the example of a rootlet, which is not very similar. Also, even if an organ is easy to rape, it must be proven that the organ evolved “for the purpose of rape” because an organ that evolved for a different purpose could also be easy to rape by chance. However, such content is also not found, and therefore the example of the undercoat cannot be used as a basis for the claim that rape is adaptive.
To evaluate the claim that rape is adaptive, we must have evidence that rape is a genetically advantageous act and closely examine the role that such acts played in the context of human evolution. Human societies are governed by complex cultural and social norms and laws, which make evolutionary explanations for acts such as rape more difficult. For example, rape is strongly condemned and punished in most societies, making it difficult to be considered an evolutionarily advantageous strategy.
In other words, the claim that “rape is adaptation” cannot be concluded as rape is adaptation without hesitation because it cannot explain much about rape. In order to say that rape is an adaptation, it is necessary to explain these aspects, and until then, rape cannot be considered an adaptation. In addition, an evolutionary psychological approach to rape must fully reflect the complex social behavior and moral judgment of humans, and recognize that there are limitations to simply explaining it as a biological adaptation.
