Does Evolution Condone Rape?

[ChrisPelletier]

This is a continuation of a discussion that drifted away from the original thread topic. (That thread is here for anyone wanting to see how the discussion came about http://www.christianforums.com/t2121526-question.html)

My stance on the issue is that rape is not selectively advantageous to human reproduction. Parsimonious brought up the idea that rape has been selected for and responses to it have arisen in the human population.

So I should set a few standards that have derailed this conversation in the past.

Rape is a crime where the victim is forced into sexual activity, in particular sexual penetration, against his or her will.

This means humans. Lets try to keep the topic on humans and if you want to discuss the validity of claiming other species reproductive behaviors qualify as rape, please state a new thread.

My position in the debate is that rape is a dis-advantageous natural selection mechanism in humans.

I believe Parsimonious’s point was that rape was selected for during the course of human evolution. I won’t say any more about his point as I don’t want to put words in his mouth.

This fits into the greater context of the morality of evolution. That can be debated elsewhere, but I hope this thread can clear up misconceptions thrown out to demean the case for evolution without looking at the evidence.

But on with the debate:
Parsimonious cited two sources for his argument: An evolutionary analysis of psychological pain following rape 1-4, a series of articles published by Nancy and Randy Journal of comparative psychology in 1991.
Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer wrote a whole book about a range of studies called "A Natural History of Rape" published in 2000.

After reading the articles I have to disagree with Pars. Here is a quote from the Nancy and Randy article that goes against his own argument, “The general answer is probably that rape was disadvantageous to ancestral female humans; that is, in evolutionary terms, rape reduced the inclusive fitness or potential for genetic propagation of women during evolutionary history.” How about the Randy Thornhill article? Well the only hypothesis consistent with the evidence they provided was that “rape is not an adaptation, but a by-product of evolved difference in male and female sexual behavior.”
In addition, Pars proposed humans had evolved a psychological rape-response. For this, I have seen no evidence for. Furthermore, if one were to presuppose an evolutionary selection for rape was advantageous to the point where you have a selected response, you would also expect to see a physical evolutionary response. My stance on this is that there is no physical evidence for a rape adaptation via evolutionary mechanisms.
I also would say that there is no action specific response, but rather a general response with enough plasticity to cover any deleterious actions. To elaborate on that, Pars has said that there appears to be a rape-specific response in humans from natural selection. Enough selection pressure for a specific response to occur I believe is unfounded. Additionally, I wish to point back to my point that if there was so much selective pressure as to select for a psychological response a physical response should have arisen as well.

I want to finish by putting this into a clinical context, why does this research matter? Thornhill himself sums it up nicely, “We emphasized that knowing which of the two ultimate hypotheses-rape adaptation or by product-is correct is critical, because that anser will help illuminate proximate causes that may be useful to manipulate to reduce rape.”

 

[mikeynov]

The title and content of this thread is a fairly obvious example of the naturalistic fallacy.

Is != ought. How hard is that to understand?

 

[ChrisPelletier]

The title and content of this thread is a fairly obvious example of the naturalistic fallacy.

Is != ought. How hard is that to understand?

Hey, i'm trying to address a debate that was brought up in another thread that had gone off topic. Do you have anything to add to it? Expunge on my fallacies in logic.

 

[AtheistPerson]

What does Natural Selection have to do with rape? What does changes in appearance have to do with rape? please indulge.

 

[Dragon02]

The fact is Evolution condones nothing. It is a theory as to how species became what they are today. Rape would cause more births, and thus more mutations, effectively accelerating the evolutionary process, however society says that rape is wrong and against the law and thus it is.

 

[tocis]

Last time I checked, most rapists commited their crimes not because of any real need for sex, and many rapes didn't even involve vaginal penetration until [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. Rape, usually, is about dominance - the (to the rapist) joy of having another human fully at your mercy.
Combine that with the fact that cooperation is something that's advantageous in an evolutionary sense, and you find that you have kind of a... hard time claiming that rape gives an evolutionary advantage. If there is a certain heritable predisposition toward violent dominance then a given population would, in the long term, be hurt by these genes.

(Edited - typo corrected)

 

[ChrisPelletier]

What does Natural Selection have to do with rape? What does changes in appearance have to do with rape? please indulge.

Well the idea i argue against is that rape is an evolutionary method of passing genetic information.

Not to sure where you got the changes in appearance though. might just be because i'm tired.

 

[ChrisPelletier]

The fact is Evolution condones nothing. It is a theory as to how species became what they are today. Rape would cause more births, and thus more mutations, effectively accelerating the evolutionary process, however society says that rape is wrong and against the law and thus it is.

As i agree. I just want to fully explain it so everyone understands.

 

[ChrisPelletier]

Last time I checked, most rapists commited their crimes not because of any real need for sex, and many rapes didn't even involve vaginal penetration until [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. Rape, usually, is about dominance - the (to the rapist) joy of having another human fully at your mercy.
Combine that with the fact that cooperation is something that's advantageous in an evolutionary sense, and you find that you have kind of a... hard time claiming that rape gives an evolutionary advantage. If there is a certain heritable predisposition toward violent dominance then a given population would, in the long term, hurt by these genes.

And again i agree.

 

[Parsimonious]

But on with the debate:
Parsimonious cited two sources for his argument: An evolutionary analysis of psychological pain following rape 1-4, a series of articles published by Nancy and Randy Journal of comparative psychology in 1991.
Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer wrote a whole book about a range of studies called "A Natural History of Rape" published in 2000.

After reading the articles I have to disagree with Pars. Here is a quote from the Nancy and Randy article that goes against his own argument, “The general answer is probably that rape was disadvantageous to ancestral female humans; that is, in evolutionary terms, rape reduced the inclusive fitness or potential for genetic propagation of women during evolutionary history.” How about the Randy Thornhill article? Well the only hypothesis consistent with the evidence they provided was that “rape is not an adaptation, but a by-product of evolved difference in male and female sexual behavior.”

First of all there is no doubt that rape is the worst possible outcome for females. I have never argued it was advantages for women. The selection pressure is on men. Rape is disadvantageous to women but that says NOTHING about its advantage to men.



Men and women have conflicting interest in sexual encounters in almost every species. Antagonistic arms races between the sexes are prevalent through out every sexually reproducing organism on the planet. Men can easily evolve adaptations that are maladaptive for women and vice-versa. So the first quote is rather meaningless to the specific debate over whether men have an evolved rape adaptation.



The reference to the “by-product” quote I am not sure about. Is that a direct quote? I can assure you that Thornill most adamantly does NOT believe rape is simply a by-product but exhibits all the signs of an adaptation.

In addition, Pars proposed humans had evolved a psychological rape-response. For this, I have seen no evidence for. Furthermore, if one were to presuppose an evolutionary selection for rape was advantageous to the point where you have a selected response, you would also expect to see a physical evolutionary response. My stance on this is that there is no physical evidence for a rape adaptation via evolutionary mechanisms.

Lets first address your response to there being physical adaptation. There is absolutely no reason to think that having a psychological or behavioral adaptation has to correspond to having a physical adaptation. Why does this have to be the case?



In addition I think it would be very helpful if you say how you would define an adaptation. How you would look to tell the difference between by-products, spandrels, exaptations, ect. The approach that Evolutionary Psychology uses, as well as a great deal of evolutionary biology is the approach of functional design. Adaptations are the result of direct selection and the only evolutionary mechanism that can develop function design is direct selection. Do you agree with this approach or not? I think that might be helpful to get straight.

I also would say that there is no action specific response, but rather a general response with enough plasticity to cover any deleterious actions. To elaborate on that, Pars has said that there appears to be a rape-specific response in humans from natural selection. Enough selection pressure for a specific response to occur I believe is unfounded. Additionally, I wish to point back to my point that if there was so much selective pressure as to select for a psychological response a physical response should have arisen as well.

I want to get your take on how to identify adaptations before really getting into this. But in general the response is that the psychological trauma associated with rape shows functional design in relation to problems of ancestral reproductive success. The functional design is specifically related to the consequences of rape. This design and specificity is strong evidence for adaptation against rape. If women have specific adaptations against rape it means that rape was consistent enough to be a cause of selection. This is only half the evidence to work with. There is the direct evidence of the analysis of men.



Again I must ask why you think there must be a corresponding physical manifestation of a behavioral adaptation.



So to get the ball rolling I would like to establish two real concrete points before we get into the nitty gritty. The first is your approach to adaptationsism and second is why you think there must be physical accommodation for behavioral or psychological adaptations. And perhaps a more holistic question to ask is do you believe humans have context specific psychological and behavioral adaptations at all?

 

[Parsimonious]

Last time I checked, most rapists commited their crimes not because of any real need for sex, and many rapes didn't even involve vaginal penetration until [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. Rape, usually, is about dominance - the (to the rapist) joy of having another human fully at your mercy.
Combine that with the fact that cooperation is something that's advantageous in an evolutionary sense, and you find that you have kind of a... hard time claiming that rape gives an evolutionary advantage. If there is a certain heritable predisposition toward violent dominance then a given population would, in the long term, be hurt by these genes.

(Edited - typo corrected)

Dominance is the standard model and thats what I shall be arguing against. We will see how it plays out. But I want to address two specific points, first your information about the frequency and types of rape is not accurate. Most rapes have characteristics of reproduction, ie, vaginal rape, women with in the fertile window (16-40), and even perhaps during the specific fertile period of the cycle. I will go into much more detail on this once some of the priliminary issues are resolved as best we can.

The second is a subtle point that everyone at this stage of discussion must realize. You are adovating that individuals will develop adpatations that favor the group over the individual. This is called group selection and is, except for some interesting but specific exceptions, impossible. Selection opperates ONLY on the individual. So something advantages to the individual will fixate even at the expense of the group.

 

[Lucretius]

Your logic can be exemplified in me telling you that you should not jump, because the Theory of Gravity says so.

 

[ebia]

Given that we are a species with an absurdly long pregnancy and childhood, I would have thought that any tendency not to stick around and help ensure that the pregency goes to term successfully, and the child grows up to adulthood, was a severe evolutionary disadvantage. Committed fathers might start less pregnancies than rapists, but more of those pregnacies are likely to result in the fathers becoming grandfathers.

 

[JimmyKoKoPop]

I'd say, in humans, natural selection doesn't really favor rapists. Pregnancy is long, humans don't have as easy of a job getting their females pregnant as other species do, and child rearing is EXTREMELY important to keeping your genes around.

 

[Nymphalidae]

Dominance is the standard model and thats what I shall be arguing against. We will see how it plays out. But I want to address two specific points, first your information about the frequency and types of rape is not accurate. Most rapes have characteristics of reproduction, ie, vaginal rape, women with in the fertile window (16-40), and even perhaps during the specific fertile period of the cycle. I will go into much more detail on this once some of the priliminary issues are resolved as best we can.

The second is a subtle point that everyone at this stage of discussion must realize. You are adovating that individuals will develop adpatations that favor the group over the individual. This is called group selection and is, except for some interesting but specific exceptions, impossible. Selection opperates ONLY on the individual. So something advantages to the individual will fixate even at the expense of the group.

I find myself agreeing with you. In response to those who think the man has to stick around in order for the offspring to successfully reach adulthood, I would like to point out that the nuclear family is a relatively recent phenomenon. It's very likely that women in primitive societies lived in small family groups, so she wouldn't have been rearing the child by herself.

 

[tocis]

Most rapes have characteristics of reproduction, ie, vaginal rape, women with in the fertile window (16-40), and even perhaps during the specific fertile period of the cycle.

I wrote "many", not "most", so where do you see the problem?

...something advantages to the individual will fixate even at the expense of the group.

Which is exactly what I proposed, so again, where do you see the problem?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Well the idea i argue against is that rape is an evolutionary method of passing genetic information.

Have you ever seen animals rape each other? I haven't.

Now, the male water buffalo may not ask for permission before mounting the female, but is that rape?

 

[Parsimonious]

Given that we are a species with an absurdly long pregnancy and childhood, I would have thought that any tendency not to stick around and help ensure that the pregency goes to term successfully, and the child grows up to adulthood, was a severe evolutionary disadvantage. Committed fathers might start less pregnancies than rapists, but more of those pregnacies are likely to result in the fathers becoming grandfathers.

I'd say, in humans, natural selection doesn't really favor rapists. Pregnancy is long, humans don't have as easy of a job getting their females pregnant as other species do, and child rearing is EXTREMELY important to keeping your genes around.

And this is where we get into issues of conditional responses. Rape, under most circumstances, is NOT the most effective form of reproduction. Getting a willing partner will almost always be the better solution. But there are times when rape might just work out pretty good, in-group/out-group issues like tribal warfare where there are no direct cost to you, or if your relative mate value is low, ect. Under these conditions rape as a CONTIGENT plan could evolve. I am not claiming that humans rape as a matter of primary forms of reproduction but rather it is a conditional response. You can see it in other species such as the orangutan, but this thread was to avoid too many divergent down other species.

As far as getting the women pregnant, in the original thread on this topic I sighted a study by Gotschall and Gotschall that should rape had a 3-4 times increase in pregnancy rate when compared to standard one night stands when you controlled for birth control.

Men are poor investor in general. There is some fascinating evidence that shows that women will extra-pair copulate during the peak fertile phase of their cycle to try and get a "good genes" guy to be the father of the baby, and then get a good investor, but poor quality male, to raise the child. So investment in offspring is a antagonistic relationship and is a problem no matter who the father is.

 

[Parsimonious]

I wrote "many", not "most", so where do you see the problem?



Which is exactly what I proposed, so again, where do you see the problem?

I guess there is not a problem, but I dont see your argument. If most rapes are of a "reproductive" variety where is the problem for adaptation.

And if traits that benefit the individual with in a given context at the expense of the group can evolve then the relative violence or dominance of a trait as it effects "society" doesnt matter in the equation.

 

[Parsimonious]

Have you ever seen animals rape each other? I haven't.

Now, the male water buffalo may not ask for permission before mounting the female, but is that rape?

Yes, actually, personally only in the orangutan and scorpion fly, but there are many documented cases of rape in animals. But the OP specifically asked us not to go to far down this route. But cross-species comparisons of rape and rape behavior can be very interesting and informative when analyzing human rape behavior.