Rape – All about power and control Or an evolutionary option?

[Tigers2B1]

First, least there be any confusion – this is not a thread attempting to explain away the horrors of rape. Rape is a horrible act. This is not a thread about whether rape is wrong – it is. And the harm goes much deeper than physical injury. So - this thread is in no way saying that if rape occurs it’s a little more understandable simply because some men are biologically inclined to rape as a strategy for reproduction. It’s wrong in the same way that our natural emotion called “aggression” leads, sometimes, to murder is wrong – Murder is wrong and so is rape. Instead, this is a thread about possible biological links to the act called rape. It’s also about the common idea that rape is caused by the desire for power / control in the rapist - and the corresponding idea that rape has nothing to do with sex and more subtly, procreation. I have not seen any scientifically based evidence for the assertion that rape is about control / power and not naturally motivated as a means to pass genes when other alternatives aren’t available.

That rape may be an evolved alternative seems to be supported. Women and men have vastly different interests when it comes to sex. A man’s genetic drive / interest is to impregnate as many women as possible. A woman’s interest is to ensure that the man will help with the child both before and after birth.

No doubt rape is maladaptive for the female because of the personal risks involved. Child birth and independant child rearing don’t come risk free. BUT why is it maladaptive for the raping male? First, the energy expended by a male during copulation can be recovered by eating a grape. If the child dies copulate again. Of course, this different for a human female who carries and nourishes a baby for nine months, places her life at risk during childbirth, and then must care for the baby/child all through the extended human childhood. That energy might be recovered by eating 50 million grapes - give or take a few hundred thousand. Hence – the male is a non-discriminating copulating machine while it is in the female’s interest to pick a male who shows signs of ‘love’ (e.g. he’ll hang around) and signs of being a good provider for her and the baby (e.g. powerful /influence others / rich) - Both ‘qualities’ help ensure additional life expectancy in the competitive world where warmth and food are scarce and predators and enemies are plentiful-

Again, there is very little to risk for the rapist but the wrath of the female’s relatives and/or society. If those aren’t factors, like it might be when the rapist isn’t known by relatives or during wartime, than most of the risk disappears. If the male feels he can’t win the woman’s consent by other methods than rape might be an evolutionary alternative that would allow his genes to pass.

In the alternative, if rape were about control / power it would appear that women who were raped would be spread fairly evenly by age. This isn’t the case. Rape victims are overwhelmingly women who are in their peak reproductive years.
Other telling characteristics of rape include -

Rape is one of the ‘universals’ - found in all human cultures no matter the time, place, or contacts with other cultures.

Rape is found in many of our closest relatives in the animal kingdom. (orangutans and chimps). Rape is also found in many other species besides.

Rape victims are murdered at a rate of 1 in 500 rapes. (A rate that certainly does not preclude rape as a means of passing genes.) Non-mental “serious injury” occurs in 4% of rape victims.

(The above statistics are from Thornhill and Palmer’s book A Natural History of Rape –)

In regards to the existence of rape (in its various forms) in primates - here’s some observations from Jane Goodall –

http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~reffland/anthropology/anthro2003/origins/apeswrath.html

**…Jane Goodall provides us with a compelling example of how males use violence to get sex. In her 1986 book, The Chimpanzees of Gombe, Goodall describes the chimpanzee dating game. In one of several scenarios, males gather around attractive estrous females and try to lure them away from other males for a one-on-one sexual expedition that may last for days or weeks. But females find some suitors more appealing than others and often resist the advances of less desirable males. Males often rely on aggression to counter female resistance. For example, Goodall describes how Evered, in “persuading” a reluctant Winkle to accompany him into the forest, attacked her six times over the course of five hours, twice severely.

Sometimes, as I saw in Gombe, a male chimpanzee even attacks an estrous female days before he tries to mate with her. Goodall thinks that a male uses such aggression to train a female to fear him so that she will be more likely to surrender to his subsequent sexual advances. Similarly, male hamadryas baboons, who form small harems by kidnapping child brides, maintain a tight rein over their females through threats and intimidation. If, when another male is nearby, a hamadryas female strays even a few feet from her mate, he shoots her a threatening stare and raises his brows. She usually responds by rushing to his side; if not, he bites the back of her neck. The neck bite is ritualized-the male does not actually sink his razor-sharp canines into her flesh-but the threat of injury is clear. By repeating this behavior hundreds of times, the male lays claim to particular females months or even years before mating with them. When a female comes into estrus, she solicits sex only from her harem master, and other males rarely challenge his sexual rights to her.

These chimpanzee and hamadryas males are practicing sexual coercion: male use of force to increase the chances that a female victim will mate with him, or to decrease the chances that she will mate with someone else. But sexual coercion is much more common in some primate species than in others. Orangutans and chimpanzees are the only nonhuman primates whose males in the wild force females to copulate, while males of several other species, such as vervet monkeys and bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees), rarely if ever try to coerce females sexually. Between the two extremes lie many species, like hamadryas baboons, in which males do not force copulation but nonetheless use threats and intimidation to get sex….**

[presidebt]

So rape is a primate-like behaviors, ergo, rapists have barely made it from the primate gene pool to the human gene pool. Sure, I’ll buy that. That must why we put them cages.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Well… what’s your point? For a variety of reasons, sex is pleasurable and so is having power over others, and engaging in both can give an organism a better chance at passing on genetic material. Engaging at both at the same time could be a precursor to rape.

In any case, it’s not that effective a means of reproduction among humans. A forcible rape can cause injury to the woman (endangering the pregnancy), and can discourage emotional bonding between her and the child, endangering the child’s survival. While I admit there may be a carry-over from our pre-human ancestors, rape serves little reproductive purpose now.

[Tigers2B1]

@Bryan Ekers

…In any case, it’s not that effective a means of reproduction among humans. A forcible rape can cause injury to the woman (endangering the pregnancy), and can discourage emotional bonding between her and the child, endangering the child’s survival. While I admit there may be a carry-over from our pre-human ancestors, rape serves little reproductive purpose now.

This isn’t an argument that rape is the preferred method for producing children. Clearly it isn’t and for a long list of reasons. Yet, for the man who is inclined, one that feels he has no alternative means to win the consent of the female - then it matters a great deal, genetically speaking. No chance verse some chance of passing genes. In those cases it’s the only effective means to procreation for the male with that female.

In regards to the effects it has on any resulting genetic offspring — as already suggested in the OP, the male rapist really doesn’t have much invested in the results of rape nor does he invest anything in any resulting offspring.

Last – I’m not certain how you draw the distinction between our pre-human ancestors and the genes that may have inclined some males toward rape – and present humans. Rape certainly still exists.

[Darwin_s_Finch]

@Tigers2B1

Instead, this is a thread about possible biological links to the act called rape. It’s also about the common idea that rape is caused by the desire for power / control in the rapist - and the corresponding idea that rape has nothing to do with sex and more subtly, procreation. I have not seen any scientifically based evidence for the assertion that rape is about control / power and not naturally motivated as a means to pass genes when other alternatives aren’t available.

I haven’t seen any scientifically based evidence that it’s an attempt to pass on one’s genes, either.

That rape may be an evolved alternative seems to be supported. Women and men have vastly different interests when it comes to sex. A man’s genetic drive / interest is to impregnate as many women as possible. A woman’s interest is to ensure that the man will help with the child both before and after birth.

None of which supports rape as the product of evolution. How about this: it’s a product of will - it’s a conscious choice, made by the raper.

No doubt rape is maladaptive for the female because of the personal risks involved. Child birth and independant child rearing don’t come risk free. BUT why is it maladaptive for the raping male?

It is completely irrelevant with respect “adaptation”. Rape is not an adaptation to get laid when otherwise one might no be able to. I would, in fact, like to see some research that shows that a rape performed by any given male is the first time that individual has had sex. Show me that, and you might have a case. Otherwise, it’s all needless speculation about the mistaken idea that every trait or behavior must be adaptive.

[Tigers2B1]

@Darwin's Finch

…How about this: it’s a product of will - it’s a conscious choice, made by the raper.

Not saying it isn’t a “choice” - otherwise the rapist wouldn’t pick his victims and his times.

…Rape is not an adaptation to get laid when otherwise one might no be able to. I would, in fact, like to see some research that shows that a rape performed by any given male is the first time that individual has had sex. Show me that, and you might have a case. Otherwise, it’s all needless speculation about the mistaken idea that every trait or behavior must be adaptive.

Why is this even related? What does rape and the first time one has sex have ANYTHING to do with each other? Reread my post. That’s not what is being advocated.

[lissener]

This topic was under discussion on Talk of the Nation, a few years ago when the report came out. It was the only time my voice has been on a national radio program. Here’s what I said

So what? We used to poop in the woods too, but we’ve evolved this thing calle society, wherein we all agree to act by certain codes of conduct. Just because you can point to an evolutionary antecedent for a particular behavior should in no way justify it in modern society.

[Marley23]

@Tigers2B1

It’s also about the common idea that rape is caused by the desire for power / control in the rapist - and the corresponding idea that rape has nothing to do with sex and more subtly, procreation.

I think the “rape is about power and not sex” argument has really fallen out of favor these days. But I don’t think it has anything to do with procreation.

[Darwin_s_Finch]

@Tigers2B1

Not saying it isn’t a “choice” - otherwise the rapist wouldn’t pick his victims and his times.

If you are arguing that it is evolutionary in origin, you are arguing that is in genetic, rather than based on conscious choice. If you are not, in fact, arguing for it being genetic, then the entire “evolutionary” aspect of your argument is void.

Why is this even related? What does rape and the first time one has sex have ANYTHING to do with each other? Reread my post. That’s not what is being advocated.

I read your post, and I’m not convinced you know how evolution works. You stated the following in your OP:

If the male feels he can’t win the woman’s consent by other methods than rape might be an evolutionary alternative that would allow his genes to pass.

Rape as an evolutionary alternative can ONLY work if the rapist HAS NEVER had sex by any other means. Otherwise, the whole argument is just silly, because clearly rape would no longer be the only option. So, again, show me some research to back up the claim that rapists, as a rule, engage in rape as the sole means of reproducing or attempting to reproduce.

You also asked about how rape might be “maladaptive” for a male. Rape doesn’t even factor into discussions of adaptation because it isn’t one (and there’s no such thing as “maladaptive” anyway).

[Tigers2B1]

@Darwin's Finch

If you are arguing that it is evolutionary in origin, you are arguing that is in genetic, rather than based on conscious choice…

No – it doesn’t have to be the either or proposition you’ve assumed — that is, it’s classified as deterministic genetic OR a non-deterministic choice. Are you really saying that how humans think isn’t influenced by our evolution? How we see the world isn’t a product of our evolution? And by extension, that the choices we make aren’t similarly motivated? People limit their sexual choices / partners based on physical and social status all of the time. People decide when and where to steal and then choose to hide that stealing because it is in their self-interest to do so — and people take retribution for the same reasons.

[/quote]
…Rape is not an adaptation to get laid when otherwise one might no be able to. I would, in fact, like to see some research that shows that a rape performed by any given male is the first time that individual has had sex. Show me that, and you might have a case.
[/quote]

I responded – * What does rape and the first time one has sex have ANYTHING to do with each other?*

Then you stated -

…Rape as an evolutionary alternative can ONLY work if the rapist HAS NEVER had sex by any other means.

Darwin – look - maybe there’s some confusion here – but consenual sex isn’t the only type that produces babies. Having or not having present consensual sex doesn’t bar or interfer with one’s later decision to force / coerce nonconsensual intercourse. Looking at your second post (but not the first) - I’ll take the jump and say you must mean first time sex with a specific female. All I can say in response is that even consenting females who might consent under certain circumstances (e.g. best mate available)- don’t always decide to consent under others (e.g. better mate becomes available). Moreover - consenting and nonconsenting female(s) can be impregnated more than once. Having consentual sex with a female in 1999 doesn’t bar forcing sex in 2000 - with both producing off-spring.

Anyway ----IF you are talking about a specific female - there is more than one female in the world and not all consent to sex. But, to be honest - I have no idea why you think first time sex has anything to do with this —

NOW – as posted above – Why do you think “rape victims are overwhelmingly women who are in their peak reproductive years. Why is rape is one of the ‘universals’ - found in all human cultures no matter the time, place, or contacts with other cultures. And why is rape is found in many of our closest relatives in the animal kingdom. What is wrong with the OP rationale that rape might be an evolved method for passing genes when a male feels he has no other avenues open to him with that female - concerning the above? And how does all that fit into what you think is the real cause of rape — whatever that happens to be –

[RindaRinda]

I am just a layperson, but I’m having real difficulty buying the notion that the complicated, specific behavior of rape is the product of evolution. Rape takes many forms: there’s gang rape, in which there is no certainly of the parentage of any resultant offspring; there’s anal and oral rape; there’s same sex rape.

I can see that the more general behavior of “aggression” is a result of evolution, and rape is but one form that the behavior of aggression takes. Also, if rape were indeed an evolutionary adaptation, wouldn’t it be more common amongst humans?

I think it’s really strange that aggressive sexual behavior in animals is described as rape. How is it equivalent to rape amongst humans? Do female animals actually ever consent, anyway?

[Tigers2B1]

@RindaRinda

… I’m having real difficulty buying the notion that the complicated, specific behavior of rape is the product of evolution. Rape takes many forms: there’s gang rape, in which there is no certainly of the parentage of any resultant offspring; there’s anal and oral rape; there’s same sex rape.

… And ordinary consentual sex also takes all of those forms – there’s consensual anal and oral sex and consensual same sex sex. Yet the idea that consentual sex is driven by the need for power and control rather than the sex drive isn’t a popular notion. So why would it be for rape?

…I can see that the more general behavior of “aggression” is a result of evolution, and rape is but one form that the behavior of aggression takes. Also, if rape were indeed an evolutionary adaptation, wouldn’t it be more common amongst humans?

First rape might be more common than some think – and depending on circumstances, like wars, rape increases. Here are some stats in addition to those already provided in the OP –

http://www2.ucsc.edu/rape-prevention/statistics.html

**…According to the National Crime Victimization Survey there were an estimated 248,000 rapes and sexual assaults against victims over the age of 12 in the US in 2001. (US Department of Justice)

According to the National Victim Center, 683,000 women are raped each year. (1992)

Only 2% of rapists are convicted and imprisoned. (US Senate Judiciary Committee 1993)…

Among female rape victims, 61% are under age 18. (American Academy of Pediatrics, 1995)…

22% of females raped are under the age of 12 years; 32% are 12-17 years old; 29% 18-24 years old; 17% over 25 years old. 83% of those raped are under the age of 25 years old. (National Institute of Justice 1998)…**

Note the victim age in the quote above. The age of rape victims are NOT randomly distributed as one might think they should be if rape were only motivated by the desire for control / power as some suggest. Rape victims tend to be those females who are in the child bearing age range - Why?

…Do female animals actually ever consent, anyway?

I’m not sure I understand what you mean. As I understand – when forced or coerced sex isn’t present, females pick the males they decide to mate with – which is ‘consenting’ as I understand that. If you’re using some other meaning for 'consent – I don’t understand. But as far as the ordinary definition of ‘consent’ - which includes the event where the female says or shows body language which says “yes, I will have sex with you” – I would say the female would be consenting -

[Captain_Amazing]

@Darwin's Finch

Rape as an evolutionary alternative can ONLY work if the rapist HAS NEVER had sex by any other means.

I don’t know if that’s neccesarily true. Lets say you have two individuals. One will only have sex with consentual partners. The other doesn’t take consent into account as a factor. He will have sex with both consentual and nonconsentual partners. Even if he also has sex consentually, his willingness to have sex with nonconsentual partners increases the pool of available mates, and might lead to him having more sex, and therefore a greater chance of passing on his genes.

[Marley23]

@RindaRinda

Do female animals actually ever consent, anyway?

By the standard we use for humans, animals aren’t capable of consent. Just one more reason I don’t think genetics are relevant here.

[doreen]

[QUOTE=Tigers2B1

Note the victim age in the quote above. The age of rape victims are NOT randomly distributed as one might think they should be if rape were only motivated by the desire for control / power as some suggest. Rape victims tend to be those females who are in the child bearing age range - Why?[/quote]

Why would rape being partially motivated by power/control/desire to humiliate necessarily lead to a random distribution? Perhaps most rape victims are within the child bearing range because that’s the group most rapists are angry at- or because that’s the group most likely to be raped by a husband or boyfriend ( a group of rapists that almost certainly has power/control issues)

[Tigers2B1]

Make what you will of this. An artcle from Scientic American - which discusses rape in primates and evidence of an evolved strategy for passing genes when you happen not to be the local alpha male —

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:Ep7LOPYIlf8J:hominid.uchicago.edu/cmalcom/maleorangs.pdf+rape+chimpanzees+orangutan+site:.edu&hl=en

**…Among male orangutans, though, the cause of arrested development seems to lie in the animals’ social environment. The presence of dominant adult males appears to delay the maturation of adolescent males in the same vicinity. Until recently, researchers believed that they were observing a stress-induced
pathology that is, the adolescent orangutans stopped developing because the adult males bullied and frightened them. Over the past few years, however, we have conducted studies suggesting that arrested development among orangutans is not a pathology but an adaptive evolutionary strategy. The arrested
adolescent males are capable of impregnating females, and by staying small and immature (in terms of secondary sexual features) they minimize the amount of food they need and lower the risk of serious conflict with adult males. But the strategy of these arrested adolescents has a disquieting aspect: they copu-
late forcibly with females. In other words, they rape….

…Apparently, arrested adolescents are neither stressed nor reproductively suppressed. What is going on? … Instead male primates can choose alternative strategies to maximize their reproductive success. Why should there be alternatives? Because the seemingly logical strategy developing powerful muscles and dramatic secondary sexual characteristics to excel at male-male competition has some serious drawbacks. In many species, maintaining those secondary characteristics requires elevated testosterone levels, which have a variety of adverse effects on health. The aggression that comes with such a strategy is not great for health either.

Furthermore, increased body mass means greater metabolic demands and more pressure for successful food acquisition. During famines, the bigger primates are less likely to survive. For an arboreal species such as the orangutan, the heavier body of the mature male also limits which trees and branches can be accessed
for food. And the development of secondary sexual characteristics makes a male more conspicuous, both to predators and to other males that view those characteristics as a challenge. The competition between adult males and developing adolescents probably explains the elevated levels of stress hormones
in the latter. …

… So how do the arrested males mate? Observations of orangutans both in the wild and in captive populations have indicated that the arrested males forcibly copulate with females. Rape is an apt term for these copulations: the adult females usually resist the arrested adolescents fiercely, biting the males
whenever they can and emitting loud, guttural sounds (called rape grunts) that are heard only under these circumstances. Adult males sometimes rape, too, but not nearly as often as the arrested males. In a study conducted in Borneo during the early 1980s, Mitani and his field assistants observed 151 copulations by arrested males; 144 of the matings were forced. Thus, two reproductive strategies appear to have evolved for adolescent male orangutans…**

[RindaRinda]

@marley23

By the standard we use for humans, animals aren’t capable of consent. Just one more reason I don’t think genetics are relevant here.

That’s why I brought it up. “Rape” as seen in animals is not equivalent to rape in humans, in my view. Our brains are more complex, and our psychology is more complex. To me, saying rape in humans has evolved as a procreation strategy is like saying creating a company, making it profitable, then purchasing more companies to increase your wealth evolved as a procreation strategy.

Rape, like becoming a captain of industry, are manifested forms of aggression, IMO, not specific procreation strategies. Saying that rape evolved is implying that there is a rape gene. I can buy the idea that there are genes related to aggression, but not the idea of a specific rape gene.

@Tigers2B1

… And ordinary consentual sex also takes all of those forms –
there’s consensual anal and oral sex and consensual same sex sex. Yet the idea that consentual sex is driven by the need for power and control rather than the sex drive isn’t a popular notion. So why would it be for rape?

In your OP, you stated that rape evolved as a procreation strategy. Let me restate my point: If rape did indeed evolve as a procreation startegy, why are there non-procreative rapes like gang rape, oral/anal rape, and same sex rape, if rape isn’t indeed caused by some twisted need besides passing on ones genes? And why isn’t rape more common than it is? 600,000 rape victims out of a population of 250,000,000 suggests to me a relatively low rate of occurence, especially if you consider the fact that there is not one victim per rapist: it’s reasonable to assume most rapists have multiple victims.
(Clarification: I categorized gang rape as non-procreational [pardon the coinage of that phrase, please] because any resultant offspring cannot be guaranteed to be the offspring of any one of the participants)

…and depending on circumstances, like wars, rape increases.

All that says to me is that when one group of men is trying to terrorize a population, rape is used as a tool of terror.

(snip stats)

Note the victim age in the quote above. The age of rape victims are NOT randomly distributed as one might think they should be if rape were only motivated by the desire for control / power as some suggest. Rape victims tend to be those females who are in the child bearing age range - Why?

What about the age of the rapists themselves? Aren’t they also in the reproductive age range, which is when aggressive behaviors of any sort are more common?

Also, what is the breakdown of the types of rape in those stats? What is the age distribution for stranger rape? I ask because if you consider date rape, it seems reasonable that rapists of a reproductive age will date women of their own age, because that’s the pool of women they will have more contact with.

As for 83% of the victims being under 25, 54% overall involve a victim 17 years or younger. I have some problems with the idea that raping someone under 17 is a sound reproductive strategy. The babies of teenage mothers are more likely to be underweight or premature, so having sex with such a person is risky, as the infant may not survive.

Also, you have not addressed the problem that Bryan Ekers brought up, which was

A forcible rape can cause injury to the woman (endangering the pregnancy), and can discourage emotional bonding between her and the child, endangering the child’s survival.

About your orangutan article: how often do these “rapes” result in pregnancy, and what happens to the resultant infant? Does the mother care for it? Does the alpha male kill them?

Just out of curiosity…does “rape” occur amongst bonobos?

[DSeid]

To put this in some context. This is one area where many have put an answer before the question. To ask the question is to be politically incorrect in some circles. Just look at this portion out of a review on a book dismissing the notion in Science July 18 '03

the nature-nurture tension has periodically erupted as a significant focus of biological and sociological debate. This tension was particularly evident with the 2000 publication of Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer’s A Natural History of Rape (2). To argue, as did Thornhill and Palmer, that rape is a “natural” or evolved product of the psyche of the human male could, at the very least, be seen as politically loaded and, more justifiably, viewed as a gendered attack by yet another band of demonic males (3) on the value and meaning of women.

The dogma is that men are socialized to commit rape; that rape is about power and oppression between genders as groups. Yet there is reasoned analysis to support the notion that the tendency to commit rape under certain circumstances is a regrettably selected for behavior. “Natural” or “selected for” doesn’t make it moral or excused or justified. Stephen Pinker, btw, takes on some of these subjects in his most recent book, The Blank Slate, and after making this very point he illustrates it well with a quote of Katherine Hepburn to Bogart in The African Queen - “Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world to rise above.”

Darwin, I don’t understand your points at all.

“Genetic” or “conscious choice”? We make conscious choices because of a combination of how we are programmed to be wired (genetics), and environmental interactions with that wiring (including but not restricted to learned behaviors). The conscious choices we make in a variety of circumstances are heavily influenced by the effects of selection over eons. You would dismiss any effect of selection on behavioral tendencies once you believe that apparent conscious choices are at play?

“Rape as an evolutionary alternative can ONLY work if the rapist HAS NEVER had sex by any other means. Otherwise, the whole argument is just silly, because clearly rape would no longer be the only option. So, again, show me some research to back up the claim that rapists, as a rule, engage in rape as the sole means of reproducing or attempting to reproduce.” I’m not sure you understand how evolution works. What does “only”, or “no other option”, or “sole means” have to do with it? The question is this: under specific circumstances will more genes get out if a male rapes or not?

From the perspective of “the selfish gene” a male would human within a social community has significant disincentives to rape under most circumstances - the consequence of raping and being caught would minimize the chance of having other opportunities within the community and of attracting high quality consensual mates. So we are mainly programmed not to. But in a circumstance where the male percieves that they are risking little (perhaps already alienated from a community, or in a war situation as a conquering maurader so unlikely to be punished) and is in a circumstance where winning consent is unlikely (same circumstances) then a “selfish gene” is best served by getting that genetic material out there by whatever means are necessary. Forcing the female to make the investment in caring for the product of conception. And male humans are well equiped to use violence in pursuit of goals. Especially young adult males at the peak of sexual competiveness in pursuit of young attractive fertile females.

Yes animals give consent and refuse partners all the time. Often with very complicated rituals and signs of interest or of consent. Males compete heartily in order to be selected by females for consensual sex throughout he animal kingdom. And coerced copulation is also a widespread occurence in the animal kingdom. This is a bit of an aside, but there is even an instance of homosexual rape in a lizard species. This particular anole has its male parts kept inside a sack. It also excretes a glue-like substance after sex that serves to seal up the female to help guarentee that no one else gets a crack at her. Well some males will rape other males, with the result being that the raped males are glued shut and taken out of the competition pool.

Ah but lizards don’t make “choices” so it can be genetic. We are above that. We are not animals anymore. We just act like it.

On preview, Rinda, well becoming a captain of industry is an indirect result of a procreation strategy. And your points about homosexual rape, oral/anal rape would equally apply to consensual sex in which all these occur. Is sex not about sex and procreation then too? Also no guarantee is needed. Just increasing the possibility of passing on the genes above baseline with little likelihood of significant cost. This applies both to gang rape and to the possibilty of harm to the mother to be (although few murders are committed along with rape, and only 4% are seriously injured - arguing against this being about power as much as about using violence to accomplish a goal) Finally few behviors are due to a single gene but they are still genetic. Musical giftedness for example, is unlikely to have a single gene at its root, but is genetic. Hell, even simple things like eye color are the product of multiple genes.

[Darwin_s_Finch]

@Tigers2B1

No – it doesn’t have to be the either or proposition you’ve assumed — that is, it’s classified as deterministic genetic OR a non-deterministic choice. Are you really saying that how humans think isn’t influenced by our evolution? How we see the world isn’t a product of our evolution? And by extension, that the choices we make aren’t similarly motivated?

Did I say that? No, I did not. I said rape behavior is not the product of evolution. It cannot be an adaptation because it exists in a small minority of people. It also does not necessarily lead to reproduction, nor is that even a motivation in the vast majority of instances. Sex is the primary motivation, and as I am sure you are aware, humans have been having sex without reproducing for some time now. And I’m sure I don’t have to explain how that renders it outside the realm of evolution.

People limit their sexual choices / partners based on physical and social status all of the time. People decide when and where to steal and then choose to hide that stealing because it is in their self-interest to do so — and people take retribution for the same reasons.

None of which has anything to do with the topic at hand.

I responded – * What does rape and the first time one has sex have ANYTHING to do with each other?*

I really have to spell this out for you?!

Step 1) You specifically claimed that , “If the male feels he can’t win the woman’s consent by other methods than rape might be an evolutionary alternative that would allow his genes to pass.”
Step 2) The ONLY way that a male CAN feel that he “can’t win the woman’s consent by other methods than rape” is if he has BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL IN ALL OTHER METHODS. This, obviously, means HE HAS NOT HAD SEX IN THE PAST.
Step 3) If a male HAS had consensual sex in the past, then CLEARLY step 2 has not occurred. He might feel it’s the only way of making it with a SPECIFIC woman, but that doesn’t change the fact that he HAS had the opportunity to reproduce before, so the use of rape as the only viable means of generating progeny is right out.

Get it?

Darwin – look - maybe there’s some confusion here – but consenual sex isn’t the only type that produces babies. Having or not having present consensual sex doesn’t bar or interfer with one’s later decision to force / coerce nonconsensual intercourse.

Did I say consensual sex was the only means of producing babies? No, I did not. I said rape fails as an evolutionary option - your primary thesis, since it’s right there in the thread title - UNLESS all other methods HAVE failed, and I have asked for evidence that such is the case. If such is not the case, then rape is not an “evolutionary option”.

Moreover - consenting and nonconsenting female(s) can be impregnated more than once. Having consentual sex with a female in 1999 doesn’t bar forcing sex in 2000 - with both producing off-spring.

But it does rule it out such behavior as being some sort of adaptation. It’s evolutionarily irrelevant.

NOW – as posted above – Why do you think “rape victims are overwhelmingly women who are in their peak reproductive years. Why is rape is one of the ‘universals’ - found in all human cultures no matter the time, place, or contacts with other cultures.

Because such guys are horny, and will take whatever advantage of a woman that they can. This does NOT mean they are doing so in order to obtain progeny. It means they want SEX. Again, if you feel differently, provide some evidence as to the motivation behind rape: sex, or babies.

And why is rape is found in many of our closest relatives in the animal kingdom.

“Rape” is not the same as “using violence to get sex”. The coercion example you quoted demonstrates that that behavior is an attempt to sway females, and that prolonged exposure is necessary before it has any effect. The intent is to make the partner more “willing” to mate with a specific individual. It is, in essence, a more violent version of typical courtship displays.

Whereas with many rape victims, there is no prolonged contact. Rape is simply violent sex with an unwilling partner. So, I am not prepared to accept that “rape is found in our closest relatives”.

What is wrong with the OP rationale that rape might be an evolved method for passing genes when a male feels he has no other avenues open to him with that female - concerning the above?

Already covered that.

And how does all that fit into what you think is the real cause of rape — whatever that happens to be –

I make no claims as to the real cause. I only claim it is not evolutionary in origin, any more than the desire to kill, steal, or any psychological disorder a person might have is. Biological in nature? Sure. Evolutionary in origin? Nope.

[Sage_Rat]

I have read that a rapist who has been chemically rendered impotent will be just as likely to go out and rape a woman (man, child, etc.) with a broomstick, bottle or such.
But, assuming there is such a thing as genetically induced rape and just plain old “this dude’s messed up” rape, then it may be that such non-sexual rape accounts are the product of this latter group only.

So in a sense, I don’t know that I can really come down on one side or the other. My only comment is that one is better off to assume that we are all human beings with an ability to choose our actions, and apply equal punishment to all cases of the crime regardless of whether their may be differing reasons. And it seems to me that bringing up the possibility of differing reasons just makes it easier to eventually treat one side more or less kindly. So it’s probably best not to debate.