Rape is natural?

Great Debates
1

I wish I had a link for this, but I went through Dateline’s site and couldn’t find anything on their episode last night.

The last segment was on a theory put out by an evolutionary biologist (or perhaps anthropologist) who posits that men have a genetic predisposition to rape women in order to pass on their genes. All men, he said, are potential rapists. Rape is hardwired into our biological makeup, and women should be aware of and take action to prevent it from happening (like not wearing provocative clothing, being alone with a man not their mate of choice, and such).

His theory, the segment said, is being published in a respected science journal (they showed a copy of The Sciences, so I assume that’s the journal), and he will have a book on the subject out shortly.

I’m of two minds about this theory. The first is “big deal”. All men are potential rapists. Yes, they have penises, they are usually larger and stronger than women, and they have the capacity of overpower a woman and rape her. All men are potential rapists the same way that all women are potential prostitutes, all humans are potential murderers, and all hungry people are potential cannibals. Everyone has the capacity to commit acts that are violent and evil. The vast majority of us refrain from doing so. Get over it, already.

The second line of thinking I’ve entertained is: You have got to be kidding me. The show mentioned no research, only parallels to insect life. Also, I cannot see a way for rape to be an advantageous “adaption” in reproduction. While it’s not impossible for a woman to conceive by rape, the trauma would make it less likely, and there’s also the liklihood that a woman would deliberately abort her pregnancy or kill her newborn child specifically because it was fathered by a rapist. So where is the greater occurance of trait inheiritance?

The “theory” advanced by this man sounds to me like bad science masquerading as social politics. It denigrates men and puts women in the position of being made responsible for another person’s behavior.

What do you think? And if anyone can find me a link to this subject, I’d be most grateful

2

<AngryRant>I can’t believe this. What an utter load of bullshit. Rape is NEVER about sex, it’s about power. Women ARE aware of it. I can ** never ** walk down a street at night without being completely aware of everyone and everything around me. I have to be suspicious of every man I see on the street. To say that it is a woman’s job to make sure she doesn’t “wear provocitave clothing” or be alone with an man she doesn’t intend to screw is so entirely offensive. “Gee, it’s not our fault that we rape, you women better be more careful around us, or we’ll rape you.” That gives every amoral asshole in the world a thumbs-up to force himself next time he’s on a date and the girl says, “No.” One in three women is raped in her lifetime. I think women are pretty much aware of it. It appears that this scientist is not.</AngryRant>

Off to find out who exactly this guy was, what he said, and then write an irate letter to Dateline.

One must have chaos in oneself to give birth to a dancing star. -Nietzche

3

Personally, I agree with your first analysis. However:

I doubt that deliberate abortion (or any medical procedure, for that matter) has been an option for long enough to affect human evolution. As for killing the offspring, if the woman had a regular mate whom she usually procreated with, then she wouldn’t be able to know for sure if the child was the rapist’s baby or her husband’s baby, so she would probably be unlikely to kill it, and her husband would probably be reluctant to kill it (there’s a good chance it’s his, after all).

I would think that the competitive disadvantage of being a rapist (e.g. being clubbed to death when the rest of the tribe finds out) would outweigh any slight competitive advantage given by pregnancies resulting from rape.

4

Here it is: http://www.msnbc.com/local/kob/38546.asp

5

Krish, thank you for finding that link!

Erratum, abortion may only have become legal in the US recently, and surgical abortion have come into being in the last hundred years, but women have long used abortifacients like penny royal as well as physical means (the infamous coathanger or trauma caused by beating the woman’s abdomen) to induce abortion. Insanely dangerous and unhygenic, yes. Unavailable, no.

However, I’ll agree that purposeful abortion probably hasn’t existed long enough to affect evolution. But then, neither has rape.

6

I read about this one time (can’t remember the name of the book, though). One thing that was specified was that it would only be an adaptive strategy for those who would have no other way of procreating (read: noone would touch them with a ten foot pole). I don’t know if I buy it, but I found it to be an interesting idea.

7

The sad thing is that by NBC giving air time to these “scientists” (on both Dateline & Today), their beliefs are being spread.

As witness in the Balkans in the 1990’s, rape is a tool of power and terror. The Serb rapists were trying to terrorize the “enemy” women into being afraid of men and being unable to procreate.

Judges 14:9 - So [Samson] scraped the honey into his hands and went on, eating as he went. When he came to his father and mother, he gave some to them and they ate it; but he did not tell them that he had scraped the honey out of the body of the lion.

8

SwimmingRiddles wrote:
Rape is NEVER about sex, it’s about power

Sex and power is inextricably linked in nature. In many species, it is only the dominant male that gets to breed (eg. alpha male wolves, many types of herd animals, etc).
Rape is a antisocial act, and humans are social animals, so it isn’t a common thing in our species (well, not as much as consensual sex, I hope!), but can be very common in others (sorry, I have to go back to my notes to cite you some examples.)

9

Here’s a brief summary of the book, on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0262201259

Having not read the book, I can’t really argue with it. But some of the responses here are questionable.

SwimmingRiddles says that claiming rape to be an evolutionary adaptation “gives every amoral asshole in the world a thumbs-up to force himself [on women].” No. Simply saying that there are biological causes to certain actions does not imply that they are acceptable.

From the descriptions that I have read of the work, the authors do NOT imply that rape is acceptable. It is deplorable. But if its roots are evolutionary, would it not be helpful to KNOW that, so that effective ways of preventing rape can be developed?

“One in three women is raped in her lifetime. I think women are pretty much aware of it. It appears that this scientist is not.”

What makes you say this? It appears to me that the scientist IS aware of the prevalence of rape. The book seems to be an attempt to explain the origins and causes of it. Don’t you think it’s a good idea to investigate the cause of rape?

Saying “it’s about power” doesn’t really explain anything. What makes certain men rape? How can we prevent it? I think that these are the issues that need to be addressed, and scientific study into those questions should be encouraged.

(By the way, 1 in 3 seems very high to me. I’ve seen conflicting information even within a single reference. Has Cecil ever dealt with this issue? How prevalent is rape?)

Erratum writes: “I would think that the competitive disadvantage of being a rapist (e.g. being clubbed to death when the rest of the tribe finds out) would outweigh any slight competitive advantage given by pregnancies resulting from rape.”

True, assuming that rape occurs within tribes as opposed to between tribes. Surely there could be significant competitive advantage in favour of a population that has the compulsion to rape the women of neighbouring tribes.

10

The book “Demonic Males” (by Richard Wrangham and Dale Peterson) is a study of violence among the other great apes. They document that violence is routinely used by male chimpanzees to coerce females, and rape is a reproduction strategy used by some male orangutans.

The question is, how significant is this? “Natural” is definitely not synonymous with “good” or justified (Sorry all you New-age types). The natural world only cares about strategies which work, and if that involves deliberately starving the smallest of your chicks to death (moorhens), mating with the killer of your cubs (lionesses), or pushing your sibling out of the nest so you get more food (many bird species), your genes won’t care. Rape may be “natural”, and robbery, and murder. So what?

11

A fairly typical strategy of pillaging armies is to kill the men and infants and rape the women of the society being overrun. It is appalling to consider these actions, but it is certainly going to provide a genetic advantage to the rapists - they get to propagate their genes at the expense of the men being killed.

This happens with primates other than humans as well - gorillas will kill infants and rape females.

Whether something happens and whether it is based on a selective advantage has no bearing on whether such an activity is right or wrong. Studying something is not the same thing as endorsing it. Ignoring the basis for these acts is a sure way to not prevent them.

12

I forgot to post a link. I had heard of the gorilla-raping tactics in my anthropology classes, but I know that won’t cut it here. Here is a quick article from Time about sexuality in apes: FEMALES IN CHARGE.

Here is an article on violent behaviour: EXPLORING OUR BASIC HUMAN NATURE: ARE HUMANS INHERENTLY VIOLENT? - this includes some mention of chimpanzee rape & infanticide.

13

It could also said to be natural for women to seek to protect themselves from rape in various ways, including fostering a social atmosphere in which rape is not tolerated, is prosecuted as a crime. Still in process, obviously.

Similarly, it could be said to be natural for most men to seek to facilitate that process themselves, since most men pass along their genes in a manner that is threatened if their mates are at risk of being raped.

At the risk of hijacking this thread: I’d like to see the punishment fit the crime. Shackle the convicted rapist to a wooden chair and give the victim 1 hour alone with him, along with any tools or utensils the victim wishes to bring.

Designated Optional Signature at Bottom of Post

14

Wait a second… people are SURPRISED that life in the animal world is cruel and amoral? People are SURPRISED that rape is common among many animals (including the higher apes)? People are SURPRISED that violence and killing are common among animals, and that the most violent animals tend to come out on top?

If you ARE surprised, you must have been getting your image of animals from Disney cartoons!

Now, the fact that rape is common among animals (and therefore “natural”) does not make it right or good. In the same way, the fact that female chimpanzees regularly murder the offspring of other females does not make murder or infanticide right or good. But it’s not a zoologist’s job to make us feel good about ourselves! It’s his job to observe and describe animal behavior.

Is the theory that rape is natural and a successful reproductive strategy necessarily correct? No, not necessarily. Read the works of other zoologists, and then decide. But don’t dismiss a scientific theory just because its implications make you uncomfortable.

15

My husband occasionally listens to Mike reagan, and I heard a snippet of his show a week or so ago. This was the topic.

I can’t just off-handedly dismiss the research, since I’ve not read the book. But what I wonder is this: How many people charged with rape will try & use this as a defense? “I couldn’t help it! I’m genetically predisposed!” Is that a possibility?

“The quickest way to a man’s heart is through his ribcage.” --anonymous redhead

16

No, the most violent animals don’t come out on top. I think the problem with this kind of research report is that when people hear the argument that “rape is natural” they tend to intepret it as meaning “rape is universal and inevitable.” Social animals have evolved in complex ways that allow for both pro-social and anti-social behavior. It’s to our advantage to get along in orderly ways (such as consensual sex and marriage), but some individuals are going to try to cheat or take advantage. They sometimes get away with it, but, more often, they are punished. Which is going to be more advantageous depends on situational pressures.

17

astorian wrote:

Blech. Tell me about it. Remember those gorilla “families” in Disney’s Tarzan, with the papa gorilla and the mama gorilla and the one or two baby gorillas? Gah. I just wanted to scream, “Gorillas don’t pair bond! They’re an Alpha Male species!”

(Of course, wolves are an alpha male species that DOES pair bond, so maybe that’s not the best way to phrase it.)

18

  1. It is much easier for genes to affect a man’s sex drive than to affect his concern for other people’s desires. Therefore, the issue is not whether there are forces specifically encouraging rape, but whether there are forces discouraging it. That is, if there is nothing to distinguish (from an evolutionary standpoint) rape from consensual sex, then men’s predisposition to rape is simply a part of his sex drive, and not a separate entity. Unless the segment was claiming that men prefer rape to consensual sex.

  2. Saying that women should take precautions against being raped is not the same as blaming them for being raped. A rape involves two people, one of whom wants the rape to occur, while the other does not want it to occur. Now, the former certainly isn’t going to take steps to pevent rape, so that leaves the latter, doesn’t it? You can whine all you want about how women “shouldn’t” have to do this or that to avoid being raped, but that’s not going to change reality. That fact is, certain behaviors increase a woman’s chance of being raped. Women should be aware of that, and act accordingly.

19

Natural?

Even if it is, it doesn’t mean it’s good.

Rattlesnake poison is also natural, but I don’t want any part of it.

20

Erratum: “I would think that the competitive disadvantage of being a rapist (e.g. being clubbed to death when the rest of the tribe finds out) would outweigh any slight competitive advantage given by pregnancies resulting from rape.”

Marc Fleury: “True, assuming that rape occurs within tribes as opposed to between tribes. Surely there could be significant competitive advantage in favour of a population that has the compulsion to rape the women of neighbouring tribes.”

Quite right, I was only thinking of the situation of the lone rapist preying on women within societies (however, that was the context of the original post, so you can see why the broader view might not occur to me). The question then arises as to how often inter-tribal warfare would occur among primitive humans, and how successful this strategy would be. In any event, I think the psychological dynamic between “victors raping conquered women” and the sexual predators we’re talking about in this thread is quite different, and different evolutionary mechanisms would probably apply (and everybody should keep in mind that I’m not defending people who would commit either type!).