Is the human behavior of rape an evolutionary adaptation or a violent byproduct of social learning?

This article addresses the debate over whether rape is an evolutionarily adaptive behavior or simply a byproduct of violent learning, exploring the adaptability of rape from an evolutionary perspective and concluding that it cannot be ethically justified.

 

The book Darwin’s Table, written by South Korean professor Daeik Jang, brings together prominent scholars to debate whether male rape behavior is adaptive or not. Leading adaptationists, including Dawkins and Wilson, argue that rape behavior has been directly adapted through natural selection over a long evolutionary history. On the other hand, anti-adaptationists, including Gould and Lewontin, argue that rape is not an adaptation, but violence, a learned cultural behavior. I will argue that rape is an adaptation, and I will discuss the evidence for this position and critique the evidence for the opposing position. But before I do, let me be clear: rape is not justified by adaptation. Rape is clearly an act that causes serious harm to others and should be prohibited and severely punished. In this article, we’ll center our discussion around the concept of “adaptation” as it relates to evolutionary theory, and explain why rape is unethical from an evolutionary perspective.
Since the dawn of humanity, both men and women have had a desire to pass on their best genes to the next generation. This has led to a natural desire for men to mate with beautiful women and for women to mate with strong, capable men. This desire instilled in women a desire for beauty to make themselves more beautiful so that they could attract stronger men, and in men a desire to increase their abilities so that they could acquire more beautiful women. However, from a woman’s perspective, she would be extremely repulsed genetically, physically, and mentally if a weaker man tried to force himself on her. Even if men and women have similar evolutionary needs, it is not right for one to be sacrificed to fulfill the needs of the other. Therefore, rape is an ethical no-no. The important discussion in this article is not the morality of rape, but whether it is an adaptation to nature or a learned behavior from an evolutionary biological perspective.
In The Natural History of Rape (R. Thornhill, C. Palmer, 2000), Thornhill argues that rape is one of those adaptive behaviors that helps men have more success in reproduction. This is especially true for men who have difficulty mating. From a purely evolutionary perspective, this argument makes sense. Basically, humans are animals, animals are creatures, and all creatures have the desire to reproduce. Humans, then, also have a need to reproduce, and have been mating since the beginning of time to fulfill this need. However, as individuals formed groups and societies arose, a distinction was made between powerful males and powerless males, and according to the logic of the strictest of the weak, the powerless were deprived of the right to leave offspring. Weak men who wanted to pass on their genes, but were unable to take women by force, would have been forced to resort to the extreme of forcibly violating women – rape. In this way, rape would have become an adaptation to nature. In The Selfish Gene (R. Dawkins, translated by Youngnam Hong, 2002), Richard Dawkins argues that genes are the main agents of biological evolution, and that all living things are the result of the self-replication of genes. Therefore, the ultimate goal of all living things is to replicate and evolve their own genes. In this sense, rape can be seen as one of the most natural adaptive behaviors that humans use to reproduce their genes.
Anti-adaptationists, on the other hand, argue that rape is not an adaptive behavior to perpetuate genes, but rather a violent byproduct of simple sexual desire. They cite evidence that fertile and non-fertile women who are raped suffer similar levels of trauma and assault, that child victims who do not become pregnant account for 30% of all rape victims, and that men rape men, in-laws, and children. I have to disagree. First of all, I don’t see how the similarity in trauma and harm from assault between women of childbearing age and women of non-childbearing age can be logically linked to rape not being an adaptation. The act of rape itself causes great psychological and physical harm to the victim, and it is not meaningful to compare the degree of harm between women of childbearing age and women of non-childbearing age. Rather, it makes sense to compare the proportion of women of childbearing age who are raped to the proportion of women of childbearing age who are not. Of course, I think Thornhill was wrong to try to bolster the argument that rape is an adaptation by using the degree of harm.
I also disagree that child victims make up 30% of all rape victims, and I disagree that rape is not adaptive when it comes to male-on-male rape, incest, etc. Anti-adaptationists argue that “rape happens regardless of the target,” and that rape is a byproduct of excessive sexuality, a means of relieving excessive sexual desire, rather than a means of spreading genes against women of childbearing age. But just because rape is a byproduct of excessive sexual desire, does that mean it’s not an adaptation? If we view sexuality as a fundamental adaptation for reproduction, then rape can be interpreted as a byproduct of this higher-level adaptation. Even if it’s a byproduct of a higher-level adaptation, that doesn’t mean it’s not an adaptation. For many adaptive behaviors that we know or don’t know about, there is clearly an underlying larger adaptation and a smaller adaptation that supports it. For example, instincts such as sex and appetite can be seen as large adaptations for reproduction and survival of the species, while the elongated necks of giraffes or the white fur of polar bears can be seen as small adaptations to the environment. Rape can be explained in the same way. Sex with loved ones, masturbation, and sex trafficking are some of the ways that humans can satisfy their sexual desires within their particular society (environment). However, a person who does not have access to the opposite sex or money, or who has an unusual sexual desire that differs from the normal sexual desire, may choose a small adaptive behavior for this special environment: rape. So while rape may seem like a byproduct of other adaptations, it can also be an adaptation, so we can’t say that rape is not an adaptation.
This raises the question of what distinguishes a large adaptation from a small adaptation, and what distinguishes a small adaptation from a byproduct. I consider needs to be large adaptations and the act of satisfying those needs to be small adaptations, and freedom of choice to be the criterion for small adaptations and byproducts. That is, adaptations are things that organisms do without choice in order to survive. For example, there is no question that basic needs such as appetite, sex, and sleep are adaptations to nature. However, the act of satisfying an appetite, for example, a human eating a vegetable or a rabbit eating a carrot, may appear to be basically equivalent, but freedom of choice makes the former a byproduct of appetite and the latter a small adaptation to fulfill it, because humans are omnivores and can consume a variety of foods through different cooking techniques. So while humans eating vegetables is a choice of preference, a rabbit eating carrots is not a choice because its anatomy has evolved to eat only carrots. In terms of sexuality and rape, rape is one selective sexual behavior that arose as humans became social animals, and it’s a small adaptation that only people who have no choice do. Just as there are many adaptive behaviors to satisfy an appetite, and we choose one of them, there are many adaptive behaviors to satisfy a sexual desire, and we choose one of them. So rape is a small adaptive behavior, not a large adaptive behavior.
I fully understand that it is ethically and morally difficult to accept the claim that rape is an adaptation. However, based on our understanding of nature, understanding rape as an adaptive behavior that has emerged as a result of biological evolution does not imply moral justification. Even if it turns out that rape is an adaptation, it is merely a scientific explanation that helps us understand the process of human evolution. This understanding does not diminish or absolve the act of rape from moral culpability; rather, it can contribute to realizing the seriousness of rape and taking steps to prevent it. Humans are responsible for their actions, so even if we accept that rape may occur as an adaptation to nature, we should strive to overcome it. Understanding rape from an evolutionary perspective does not condone the behavior, but rather can help us better regulate and prevent it.