In this blog post, we will look at rape from the perspective of evolutionary adaptation and explore the conflict between ethics and instinct.
Most people have heard of the term “evolution,” but few understand it well. Some believe it to be a theory that competes with creationism in explaining the origin of life, and it is common to hear parents tell their children, “That monkey is our ancestor,” when visiting a zoo. Evolution is often used in a very abstract sense to mean that living things change according to their environment. In fact, the idea that living things change according to their environment has many implications. In this article, we will examine the meaning of the term “adaptation” as used in evolutionary psychology and argue that rape is an example of adaptation in human society.
Adaptation refers to the characteristics of living things that change to suit their environment. Even within the same species, no two individuals are completely identical. The same is true for humans. Among the countless characteristics of organisms of the same species, there are traits that are advantageous for survival and reproduction in a given environment, and conversely, there are traits that are disadvantageous. Adaptation refers to the process by which individuals with traits advantageous to the environment increase in number through the repeated survival of advantageous traits over at least several hundred generations. Completely adapted traits become characteristics of the entire species.
When discussing whether rape also falls under this adaptation, it is inevitable to feel instinctive discomfort. This stems from the connotation of the word “adaptation.” In everyday life, we use ‘adaptation’ in a positive sense. However, the “adaptation” discussed here is a concept that must be viewed in a value-neutral manner. This is because simply being advantageous for survival in an environment does not mean that it is justified. The fact that rape is an adaptation does not justify rape. Whether rape is an adaptation is a biological question and separate from questions of law and ethics.
The main focus of this article is where human rape comes from. If the trait of committing rape has been passed down as a trait that is advantageous for survival and adaptation in the human environment, then it is an adaptation, but if it is always a by-product of sexual desire regardless of the given environment, then it is not an adaptation. In order to prove that rape is an adaptation, the following conditions must be met. First, committing rape must be advantageous for human survival and reproduction. Furthermore, this trait must be hereditary. Finally, there must be a large number of individuals who commit rape over a long period of time.
However, the latter two conditions are difficult to prove. First, human genetic material has not yet been fully studied. Furthermore, the term “long period of time” refers to a period ranging from a few thousand years to as long as 300,000 years, which is the history of humankind, and the number of times and rate of rape have been investigated for only a relatively short period of time. Furthermore, rape is not a visible trait like height or facial features, and it is an act that is prohibited by law and ethics. At the same time, victims are reluctant to report the crime, so it is impossible to statistically prove that “the trait of committing rape has survived over a long period of time” based on the data we have. Therefore, the discussion should focus on whether rape is a trait that is beneficial to human survival and reproduction.
In fact, rape is an act related to reproduction, so under the same conditions, committing rape is bound to be more advantageous for survival and reproduction than not committing rape. From an evolutionary psychological perspective, men tend to want to spread their genes widely and are not selective in choosing sexual partners. Women, on the other hand, are selective in choosing sexual partners, which can be seen as the result of biological differences between men, who produce millions of sperm cells a day, and women, who produce one egg a month, accumulated over tens of thousands of years. When there are no legal or ethical sanctions, these differences between men and women inevitably lead to rape, or non-consensual sex, and rapists are more likely to leave behind more offspring.
The problem here is the assumption that “there are no legal or ethical sanctions.” Even if rape has only recently become punishable by law, if rape has been recognized as unethical since the beginning of human society, and if people have refrained from rape in a society where this has been the norm, it is difficult to say that rape has been advantageous for survival and reproduction. However, according to Georges Bigerello’s book, The History of Rape, even in 18th-century European society, when rape occurred, the perpetrators felt no guilt for their actions, and the victims did not see any problem with it. Furthermore, he states that whether rape was illegal was determined by the social class of the parties involved. In other words, it was less than 500 years ago that it was not considered a problem for men of the ruling class to rape women of the ruled class. In other words, although modern society may have a social environment that is unfavorable to the survival of rapists, that environment has existed for too short a time to explain the process of “adaptation.” Evolutionary psychology believes that most human characteristics were formed before the advent of agricultural societies, and during this period, rape was not subject to any sanctions and was considered beneficial for survival and reproduction, so it can be argued that rape is an adaptation. In fact, Jonathan A. Gottschall’s research has statistically shown that the probability of pregnancy resulting from rape is higher than that resulting from consensual sex.
One counterargument to the claim that rape is an adaptation is that it cannot explain rape against children, infertile women, and men. Here, it is important to remember that adaptation and other evolutionary behaviors are not developed for the purpose of survival, but rather result in the survival of advantageous traits. In other words, rape became an adaptation because it gave the perpetrator an advantage in survival, but rape does not need to exist solely for the purpose of survival and reproduction. In fact, the primary goal of most rape cases is to satisfy sexual desire. Among the traits of each species, including humans, only those that are advantageous to the environment survive, and no species can intentionally control the direction of evolution for its own survival.
In fact, unlike other traits, rape is difficult to judge as an adaptation because it is physically no different from sexual behavior for reproduction. It is not a visible trait. However, as discussed above, it is reasonable to analyze that rape has continued to exist because it was a trait that was advantageous for survival and reproduction in the human environment, regardless of the perpetrator’s intentions. The word “adaptation” gives the impression that we must change immediately in response to our environment, but in fact, adaptation is a process that takes place over thousands of years, and therefore, today’s social atmosphere and institutions cannot help explain adaptation.
However, if today’s society is truly an environment that is unfavorable to the survival and reproduction of individuals who commit rape, and if this unfavorable environment continues for thousands of years, humans may adapt to not commit rape. However, even if that were to happen, it would still be a good argument for the claim that rape is an adaptation. In any case, rape is not merely a byproduct of sexual desire regardless of the era or environment, but is established as an adaptation related to survival in accordance with the environment.
