This blog post explores whether rape could be an adaptive behavior for survival and reproduction during human evolution, from scientific and evolutionary psychological perspectives.
To answer any question, one must first understand it clearly. “Is rape adaptive?” is no exception. While we need not debate what rape is, we must first clearly define what an adaptation is to answer this question. As stated in “Darwin’s Table,” adaptation can be seen as a product of natural selection, which refers to the process by which individuals mutate in ways that make them more suited to their environment. In other words, when an individual changes in a way that makes it better suited to its environment, we can call that change an “adaptation.”
The process of natural selection occurs over thousands of years and is the result of individuals adapting for survival and reproduction in response to various environmental changes. Adaptation contributes directly or indirectly to an individual’s survival and, consequently, plays a crucial role in passing genes to the next generation. Therefore, understanding the essence of adaptation is essential for interpreting and explaining biological phenomena.
So, the question “Is rape an adaptation?” could be reframed as “Is rape an environmentally suitable way for humans?” But what does it mean to be suitable for the environment? An environmentally suitable way can be thought of as a way that is advantageous for the survival of the individual, or something equivalent to that. The example of polar bears having white fur, though factually incorrect, is a good illustration for defining what an “environmentally suitable way” is. In reality, the color of polar bear fur helps them camouflage themselves in the snow-covered Arctic environment, aiding in hunting and survival. Therefore, if rape is considered an adaptation, it must offer advantages over not raping.
Regarding this, “Darwin’s Table” states, “Rape is an adaptive behavior that increases the reproductive success of males who have difficulty mating.” It is true that males struggling to mate can increase their reproductive success through more frequent acts of rape. However, this is not because rape is an adaptation for reproduction, but merely a byproduct where engaging in rape happened to increase reproductive potential. If rape were truly an adaptation for reproduction, the act of rape itself should fundamentally be driven by the purpose of reproduction. Of course, as the book also states, this doesn’t mean the perpetrator consciously thinks, “Today, I will rape a woman to impregnate her and reproduce.” However, even if unconscious, rape as an adaptation should be an act driven by the most fundamental and crucial purpose: reproduction.
If rape is an adaptation for reproduction, we should be able to demonstrate that this behavior provided survival and reproductive advantages during evolution. For example, if rape increased an individual’s gene transmission, such behavior would likely have become evolutionarily widespread. However, in reality, rape also occurs against targets incapable of reproduction (same-sex individuals, children, the elderly, etc.), making it difficult to view rape as an adaptation driven by reproductive purposes. As stated in the second paragraph on page 26 of the book, this fails to explain rape against individuals incapable of reproduction, such as same-sex partners, children, or the elderly. The following paragraph in the book mentions that this is explained by Palmer’s “byproduct theory.” However, this “byproduct theory,” which posits that rape is a byproduct of sexual desire, is a theory that struggles to support the claim that rape is an adaptive outcome. Furthermore, reproduction requires pregnancy, which can be countered again by the fact that not all rape involves penetration. This also serves as evidence that rape is difficult to view as an adaptation for the reasons stated above. Therefore, the claim that rape is an adaptation can be seen as lacking sufficient evidence.
Moreover, Shonhill cites specific organs of male baboons as evidence that male rape behavior is adaptive, which is a logical leap. Even if these baboon organs were truly an adaptive product for rape, this applies solely to baboons. Applying this example from a completely different species to humans has no logical basis whatsoever. For such an argument to have any persuasive power, humans and the species in question would need to be biologically very similar, or “human” males would need to possess organs facilitating rape similar to those of the species in question. Yet, no explanation for this exists. Even between highly similar species, it is difficult to directly apply one species’ characteristics to another. Attempting to explain humans using the example of the bottom-dwelling creatures, which are not particularly similar, is nonsensical. Furthermore, even if an organ is conducive to rape, it could have evolved for another purpose and merely happen to be conducive to rape. Therefore, it must also be proven that the organ evolved specifically “for the purpose of rape.” However, no such evidence exists either, and thus the example of the mole rat cannot serve as grounds for rape being an adaptation.
To evaluate the claim that rape is adaptive, we need evidence that rape is a genetically advantageous behavior and must carefully examine what role such behavior played within the context of human evolution. Human society is governed by complex cultural and social norms and laws, making evolutionary explanations for behaviors like rape even more difficult. For example, rape is strongly condemned and punished in most societies, making it difficult to consider it an evolutionarily advantageous strategy.
In other words, the claim that “rape is adaptive” cannot readily explain many aspects of rape, so we cannot hastily conclude that rape is adaptive. To claim rape is adaptive, explanations for these aspects are necessary; until then, rape cannot be viewed as adaptive. Additionally, evolutionary psychological approaches to rape must sufficiently reflect humans’ complex social behaviors and moral judgments, recognizing the limitations of explaining it solely through biological adaptation.
