# Rape – All about power and control Or an evolutionary option? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 12, 2004, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-all-about-power-and-control-or-an-evolutionary-option/254746 "2004-07-12T18:14:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2004, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-all-about-power-and-control-or-an-evolutionary-option/254746/101 "2004-07-23T20:05:35Z")
> [@Darwin's Finch](#): > > There is no “trait x leading to behavior y” here. The trait _itself_ is rape behavior, _which has not been demonstrated to be influenced by any selective pressures at all_. Of course this is false as well. Behaviour, as such, is not a trait. What we are talking about here (assuming, for the moment, that rape is the result of evolutionary pressures) is some bits of DNA governing the psychology of men, which psychology will manifest itself in behaviour, very likely in varying ways dependent upon environmental factors. The psychological source of rape behaviour need not result in only heterosexual rape of fertile women, any more than the psychological source of the plain vanilla sex drive need result in only heterosexual sex with fertile women. Surely oral and anal sex behaviour, of both hetero and homosexual varieties, is to be explained by the human psychological factors which govern our sex drive, which were themselves certainly selected for by evolution. The fact that oral and anal sex cannot possibly result in procreation does nothing to change the fact that such behaviour is explained by our evolution-bestowed sex drive. Likewise, if evolution has planted the psychological seed of rape into men, there is no reason whatsoever to think that it must manifest itself only as rape of fertile women, rather than as a wide variety of violent sex. I would also note that you cannot possibly have demonstrated that a behaviour clearly linked to the passing on of genes to the next generation is not subject to selective pressures. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2004, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-all-about-power-and-control-or-an-evolutionary-option/254746/102 "2004-07-24T02:20:01Z")
**Gorsnak** , I really think that **Darwin** is being hopelessly dense. Of course you are quite right. **Darwin** , is eating a selected for trait? Yet we clearly have evolved to sometimes eat and sometimes to not eat. We have evolved to not eat even when hungry under certain circumstances. And eating can sometimes be deleterious to our health and our reproductive success. So a drive to eat must not be a product of natural selection, eh? Is altruism a product of evolution? I and most students of evolution believe so, but clearly we are very altruistic in some circumstances and not at all in others. Is being able to express emotions selected for? Again, we don’t always smile in all circumstances. \*\*We have evolved with mental characteristics that bias us to behave in different ways in different circumstances. \*\*Why is that such a difficult concept to wrap your brain around? Mental characteristics are subject to natural selection in much the same way as morphological traits. Mental characteristics are not the behavior itself. And you know who first formulated that concept? Your eponymnous namesake, Charles Darwin, in 1872, _The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals_. But I guess he just didn’t understand anything about natural selection. No offense … well okay some offense, because your arrogance here is so correlated to your ignorance … your really demonstrate that you have no understanding of how science works. Speculation is indeed a critical part of how science works. Making some reasonable assumptions and modelling is how science works. Comparing how different hypothesies fit what data you have is a critical part of how science works. And the hypothesis that fits the data you have the best is your working hypothesis until it either falsified or another hypothesis is presented that fits the data more completely. Of course it might not be true. Only religious dogma offers certainty. I always retain some doubt. Now. You seem to be saying that anal rape falsifies the hypothesis. Only if you believe that anal sex falsifies the hypothesis that sexual drives are a product of natural selection. Try again. ---
**Author:** ![1010011010](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/ea666f/32.png) [@1010011010](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1010011010)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2004, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-all-about-power-and-control-or-an-evolutionary-option/254746/103 "2004-07-24T22:06:32Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > Do alpha males typically get females drunk so they can take advantage of them, or offer to escort females homes so they can assault them privately? Those are two of the typical strategies of the “Power-Assertive Rapist”. “[Power-Assertive Rapists] are macho men with big egos who think that women exist to be used and abused by them.” “[The Power-Reassurance Rapist] generally sees himself as lacking in power and masculinity and doubts he’s going to get what he wants […] through legitimate means.” I’m beginning to see problems with either your descriptions or the categorizations. > [@Lamia](#): > > Of course, if you’re married to the idea of rape being an evolutionary adaptation, I doubt any research on the actual behavior of rapists is going to make any difference. Of course. Since I have a different view from your own, I’m closed-minded and unreasonable, QED. I also fail to see how the behaviour of _modern_ rapists is going to be highly relevant to an argument that it may have once been a useful reproductive strategy. Unless you’re suggesting the previously described behaviours of certain low tier chimps has no similarities to rape because they didn’t get the female chimps drunk or escort them back to their condos? > [@Lamia](#): > > It’s much easier to support such a theory if you base it entirely upon non-human behavior and unsupported speculation about the behavior of ancient humans and proto-humans. If that’s the context in which the behaviour is purported to be effective… I don’t see how studies of a modern social/urban environment would be very informative. > [@Lamia](#): > > But I have yet to see any evidence in the way of statistics, genetic research, or criminal profiles of rapists that indicates that rape behavior as we know it provides rapists with any reproductive advantage over non-rapists. In the absence of such evidence I have to dismiss adaptive theories about the origins of rape behavior. In the absense of social or governmental institutions to reduce the consentual reproductive opportunities available to rapists, we’d expect them to be similar to those of a non-rapist, all else being equal. Rape, then, can generate a reproductive opportunity that would not be available to a non-rapist. Any factors that would increase the success of that reproductive opportunity would, then, be encouraged (with the usual caveat about balancing against an overall background of how those changes affect mortality and fecundity). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-all-about-power-and-control-or-an-evolutionary-option/254746.md?page=5)