Evolutionary advantages of rape in a species

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Evolutionary rape hypotheses are met with hostility because, after centuries of subhuman status in Western civilization and a tenuous re-establishment of our full rights and privileges as human beings, we (IOW,women and the men who care about us) are hypervigilant against any argument that smacks of a rationalization or justification of the perpetuation of the abuse of women.

And rightly so, although it is one thing to criticize research which seeks to understand the causes behind something so repulsive, and another to criticize the methods or the accuracy of the conclusions. After all, greater understanding can lead to more successful preventative measures. The problem I see with evolutionary accounts of rape among humans isn't just the potential for defenses against the practice (as any such research can be carefully couched in language making explicit the researchers intent to explain behavior they condemn, as well as the usefulness of such research in prevention). The problem is more methodological. But any methodological difficulties can translate into inaccurate understanding and therefore problematic social mechanisms for prevention.

 

[jasonwill2]

Evolutionary rape hypotheses are met with hostility because, after centuries of subhuman status in Western civilization and a tenuous re-establishment of our full rights and privileges as human beings, we (IOW,women and the men who care about us) are hypervigilant against any argument that smacks of a rationalization or justification of the perpetuation of the abuse of women.

I guess that makes sense, but I thought must study on it was with animals

 

[Alceste]

I guess that makes sense, but I thought must study on it was with animals

Sure, but humans are animals.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I guess that makes sense, but I thought must study on it was with animals

There is a plethora of research on the evolutionary basis for sexual behaviors among humans, including rape. It's an active area of research, especially for evolutionary psychologists.

 

[jasonwill2]

Sure, but humans are animals.

I meant non-human animals.

 

[Alceste]

And rightly so, although it is one thing to criticize research which seeks to understand the causes behind something so repulsive, and another to criticize the methods or the accuracy of the conclusions. After all, greater understanding can lead to more successful preventative measures. The problem I see with evolutionary accounts of rape among humans isn't just the potential for defenses against the practice (as any such research can be carefully couched in language making explicit the researchers intent to explain behavior they condemn, as well as the usefulness of such research in prevention). The problem is more methodological. But any methodological difficulties can translate into inaccurate understanding and therefore problematic social mechanisms for prevention.

Yes, I agree, I think there are major methodological problems with studying behavioral evolution. Concerns about the study of animal behavior rationalizing taboo human behavior aren't a big deal for me. I think they are similar to creationists' concerns that evolution can be used to justify eugenics. I'm just explaining why I think people get uptight about such studies. One group of critics fears that new knowledge in the field of psychological evolution might be used to justify atrocities. Another group of critics (including me) recognizes that it is difficult or impossible to study animal psychology or behavior without anthropomorphizing the subject species to a totally ludicrous degree. (For example, calling duck sex "rape")

 

[Alceste]

I meant non-human animals.

What do you mean, exactly? Mallard ducks? "Non-human animals" is not a particularly meaningful category, to me.

 

[Alceste]

 

[painted wolf]

Generally you see "sneaky male" behavior (and thus sexual aggression) in species where males have limited access females through social pressure rather than territory defense.

"Sneaky males" exhibit a variety of behaviors to access females from rape to acting extra alluring to draw females away from established males to disguising themselves as females to sneak past the dominant male.

The whole point is to try to get your genes into the next generation. Females don't appreciate rape and they evolve ways to thwart rapists (either biologically or socially).

Ducks are a perfect example of biological control... the females have very elaborate sex organs to keep males from accomplishing their goal as well as encouraging loyalty in their male mates to prevent access by lone males.
It's important to note however, that rape doesn't seem to be a very successful strategy and very few forced copulations end up fertilizing eggs. In fact, few forced copulations are even done on fertile females to begin with.

What is interesting to note is that some male birds undergo extreme morphological change in their sexual organs. In songbirds the testicles can expand to be more than 10X their normal size in the breeding season! :areyoucra (I don't know off hand if ducks experience similar changes)
It very well may be that male ducks are simply flooded with so many hormones that their behavior becomes hyper-sexual, violent and erratic. (hence the tendancy to try to have sex with corpses, clearly non-duck animals and inanimate objects).

In apes forced copulation is trickier... multiple male matings is a strategy for confusing paternity and thus reducing male aggression against offspring. It does increase male aggression against females however, so there is a trade off. Of course male chimps are aggressive against everyone in their group and aggressiveness may be selected for by females.
Male coercion and the costs of promiscuous mating for female chimpanzees

In other primates male aggression is selected against, such as in Gelada baboons and Bonobo apes.

wa:do

 

[otokage007]

In most animals, for a male to rape would be very advantageous because it bastly increases his biological effectiveness. It could also be advantageous on a few particular cases if done by a female, although I'm not sure how a female could rape a male (unless she is as inteligent as a human, of course).

Appart from this, you asked for "evolutionary advantages", well, very often males try to select the best females to copulate, if a very succesful male rapes a very succesful female, the offspring should have very good quality genes, and this is improving the species. So raping would be in this case, advantageous from an evolutionary perspective.

It could have a great disadvantage though, and is that raping would probably increase the population, and this would result in less resources per area, which could be catastrophic long term.

hope it helped

PS: of course this is all speculative, since raping is not a very acceptable conduct in many animals, not only in humans. With this I mean that trying to rape would probably result in a failed copula followed by a fight in several species.

 

[Alceste]

In most animals, for a male to rape would be very advantageous because it bastly increases his biological effectiveness. It could also be advantageous on a few particular cases if done by a female, although I'm not sure how a female could rape a male (unless she is as inteligent as a human, of course).

Appart from this, you asked for "evolutionary advantages", well, very often males try to select the best females to copulate, if a very succesful male rapes a very succesful female, the offspring should have very good quality genes, and this is improving the species. So raping would be in this case, advantageous from an evolutionary perspective.

It could have a great disadvantage though, and is that raping would probably increase the population, and this would result in less resources per area, which could be catastrophic long term.

hope it helped

PS: of course this is all speculative, since raping is not a very acceptable conduct in many animals, not only in humans. With this I mean that trying to rape would probably result in a failed copula followed by a fight in several species.

I don't think there's any grounds to believe violent males would choose the most attractive females for forced copulation as opposed to the least able to defend themselves.

 

[McBell]

Seems to me you might find it difficult to prove a charge of rape against these apparently inconsiderate male duck lovers. First we would need to establish several points of crucial evidence, such as: What was the she-duck wearing? Had she been drinking? What was her sexual history? Did she do anything the he-duck might reasonably have perceived as flirtatious? Without a detailed and thorough examination into the character and behavior of the she-duck, it would be impossible to determine whether or not she was "asking for it".

How can you forget to mention investigating all the promises that were made in the process, after the process, and before the process?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I don't think there's any grounds to believe violent males would choose the most attractive females for forced copulation as opposed to the least able to defend themselves.

Precisely. As evolutionary accounts of rape usually deal with it as a "third option" if they argue there is an underlying evolutionary adaption involved at all, and therefore it is not about mate selection but opportunity, the idea that rapists tend to choose victims according to normal (or even abnormal) characteristics of the victim rather than (at least predominately) opportunity runs counter to every evolutionary account I know of (and by opportunity, I don't mean just whoever shows up in a dark alley; "date rape" also involves opportunity more than the selection processes at play when it comes to consensual intercourse).

And for those who don't look at rape from an evolutionary psychology standpoint (or who argue that such a view cannot account for it), rape is seldom, if ever, regarded as the result of a selectional process which takes into consideration characteristics of the victim (even unconsciously) rather than
1) the theory that rape is about control not sex
2) that it should be considered a type of aggressive sexual deviant behavior which is about sexual gratification, but for men whose sexual gratification is dangerously joined to violence and control
3) that there is no unifying psychological, psycho-social, or biopsycho-social account of rape, but that there are several models which account for many or most rapes.

At the end of the day, even if evolutionary accounts of such behaviors are accurate, they are "adaptive" only in that they may provide a mechanism for individual genes to be passed on. One could say that homosexual intercourse is maladaptive compared to the behavior of serial rapists with as much meaning (none). Causal explanations are only important if they can lead to better preventative measures, and until then talking about rape as an adaption (even if one is only inappropriately applying the term to "duck" behavior) seems at best fruitless and potentially dangerous.

EDIT: I should add that I tend to agree with theorists who follow the 3) above, as I find that the first two ignore the fact that women can in fact rape men, although it is far less frequent, and that even 2) does not explain the number of rapes which occur in environments like prison.

 

[jasonwill2]

Generally you see "sneaky male" behavior (and thus sexual aggression) in species where males have limited access females through social pressure rather than territory defense.

"Sneaky males" exhibit a variety of behaviors to access females from rape to acting extra alluring to draw females away from established males to disguising themselves as females to sneak past the dominant male.

The whole point is to try to get your genes into the next generation. Females don't appreciate rape and they evolve ways to thwart rapists (either biologically or socially).

Ducks are a perfect example of biological control... the females have very elaborate sex organs to keep males from accomplishing their goal as well as encouraging loyalty in their male mates to prevent access by lone males.
It's important to note however, that rape doesn't seem to be a very successful strategy and very few forced copulations end up fertilizing eggs. In fact, few forced copulations are even done on fertile females to begin with.

What is interesting to note is that some male birds undergo extreme morphological change in their sexual organs. In songbirds the testicles can expand to be more than 10X their normal size in the breeding season! :areyoucra (I don't know off hand if ducks experience similar changes)
It very well may be that male ducks are simply flooded with so many hormones that their behavior becomes hyper-sexual, violent and erratic. (hence the tendancy to try to have sex with corpses, clearly non-duck animals and inanimate objects).

In apes forced copulation is trickier... multiple male matings is a strategy for confusing paternity and thus reducing male aggression against offspring. It does increase male aggression against females however, so there is a trade off. Of course male chimps are aggressive against everyone in their group and aggressiveness may be selected for by females.
Male coercion and the costs of promiscuous mating for female chimpanzees

In other primates male aggression is selected against, such as in Gelada baboons and Bonobo apes.

wa:do

I don't know what to add to this, but I never considered that as per the ducks just being loaded with hormones.

I don't think there's any grounds to believe violent males would choose the most attractive females for forced copulation as opposed to the least able to defend themselves.

ya, when I think about it, rape is mostly a disadvantage from an evolutionary stand point then, if survival of the species is the goal.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

ya, when I think about it, rape is mostly a disadvantage from an evolutionary stand point then, if survival of the species is the goal.

If the "goal" is survival of the species, then we aren't dealing with evolutionary theory. Evolution has no goal, but is a description (or description) of processes involving mechanisms of changes which may make an individual more or less successful at ensuring their genetic code is passed on given a specific environment.

 

[Alceste]

I don't know what to add to this, but I never considered that as per the ducks just being loaded with hormones.



ya, when I think about it, rape is mostly a disadvantage from an evolutionary stand point then, if survival of the species is the goal.

It doesn't have to be an advantage or a disadvantage to endure. It could also be neutral - having no impact on mating opportunities or successful reproduction. Or it could be genetically linked to unrelated traits that are advantageous, like extra-waterproof feathers or really good eyesight or something. But given Painted Wolf's excellent post, it seems that rape alone is not increasing any duck's reproductive success. Particularly if they're also raping dead things, other species and inanimate objects.

 

[otokage007]

1) the theory that rape is about control not sex
2) that it should be considered a type of aggressive sexual deviant behavior which is about sexual gratification, but for men whose sexual gratification is dangerously joined to violence and control
3) that there is no unifying psychological, psycho-social, or biopsycho-social account of rape, but that there are several models which account for many or most rapes.

At the end of the day, even if evolutionary accounts of such behaviors are accurate, they are "adaptive" only in that they may provide a mechanism for individual genes to be passed on.

Well that's what animals acutally seek, to pass their genes. I think you are "humanizing" the subject, but it is quite pointless to speak of "evolutionary advantages" in humans, since we are not really evolving anymore as long as technology and medicine keep fighting natural selection.

One could say that homosexual intercourse is maladaptive compared to the behavior of serial rapists with as much meaning (none). Causal explanations are only important if they can lead to better preventative measures, and until then talking about rape as an adaption (even if one is only inappropriately applying the term to "duck" behavior) seems at best fruitless and potentially dangerous.

Homosexuality can improve biological effectiveness, so it is not really maladaptive. But I suppose I can accept that would almost never surpass a rape conduct.

EDIT: I should add that I tend to agree with theorists who follow the 3) above, as I find that the first two ignore the fact that women can in fact rape men, although it is far less frequent, and that even 2) does not explain the number of rapes which occur in environments like prison.

I agree with almost all you've said, but again, only if we talk about humans, which are not really the subject.

I don't think there's any grounds to believe violent males would choose the most attractive females for forced copulation as opposed to the least able to defend themselves.

Maybe, but could also be that the most attractive females aren't able to defend theirselves. Or could be that he's not even being picky and he just rapes whatever is in front of him.

My point is, rape could lead to succesful-male / succesful-female copulas that, otherwise, may not take place.

 

[Alceste]

Maybe, but could also be that the most attractive females aren't able to defend theirselves. Or could be that he's not even being picky and he just rapes whatever is in front of him.

My point is, rape could lead to succesful-male / succesful-female copulas that, otherwise, may not take place.

Doesn't it follow that the females of any species who are least able to defend themselves against violence by the males of their species would also be the least able to defend themselves and their young from other predators?

From an evolutionary perspective, you can't really call helplessness and vulnerability to violence "attractive". No doubt horny male ducks find it attractive, but PW says it rarely results in successful reproduction, and I believe her.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Well that's what animals acutally seek, to pass their genes.

Yes, but the question is whether our understanding of complex behavior of social animals (even nonhuman, but especially human) allows us to relate it evolutionary adaptions. One can come up with any "just so" explanation of how a given behavior might be adaptive to humans living tens of thousands of years ago in environments we don't really understand very well, and then "test" it using experimental paradigms which, even if the results are "significant", can be interpreted in a number of (often contradictory) ways. That doesn't mean these explanations are accurate or do anything more than hinder actual understanding. Despite their limits, the behavioral sciences apart from evolutionary psychology still have superior methods for understanding what is involved in human behavior, which makes the question of evolutionary causation pointless at best.

I agree with almost all you've said, but again, only if we talk about humans, which are not really the subject.

If we talk about other species, as Alceste so rightly pointed out, we aren't talking about rape.

 

[otokage007]

Doesn't it follow that the females of any species who are least able to defend themselves against violence by the males of their species would also be the least able to defend themselves and their young from other predators?

Not really, competitiveness against predators often grants skills that may be useless against the same-specie individuals. You have to take into account that in most species, males are actually made to surpass same-specie individuals (they are made to compete with other males, but what if they decided to use this skills also against females?). Also there's several animals that have no predators.

From an evolutionary perspective, you can't really call helplessness and vulnerability to violence "attractive". No doubt horny male ducks find it attractive, but PW says it rarely results in successful reproduction, and I believe her.

Sure, as I said myself, rape often results in a failed copula.