In this blog post, we critically examine whether rape is a product of adaptation from the perspective of evolutionary psychology.
According to Charles Darwin, living organisms have evolved through a process of natural selection, resulting in the diverse biological forms and characteristics we see today. Natural selection refers to the process by which organisms undergo morphological or physiological changes to better adapt to their environment. For example, polar bears have white fur to survive in snowy environments, and desert foxes have large ears to effectively release body heat.
While most biologists agree on the existence of natural selection as a mechanism, there is still disagreement about the scope and intensity of its influence. In particular, there is ongoing debate about the extent to which natural selection has influenced human culture and behavior. This has led to fierce debate between “adaptationists” and “anti-adaptationists.” Adaptationists believe that all characteristics of living organisms are formed through natural selection, and that if a characteristic exists, it must have had an advantage in terms of survival or reproduction. On the other hand, anti-adaptationists believe that some characteristics may be accidental and do not necessarily remain because they were evolutionarily advantageous.
Among these debates, a particularly controversial topic is whether rape is a product of evolution, i.e., an adaptation. This issue goes beyond a simple biological interpretation and is deeply connected to ethical and sociocultural issues, making it even more sensitive. In this article, we argue from an anti-adaptationist perspective that rape is not a result of biological adaptation, but rather a non-evolutionary and irrational act.
According to adaptationists, rape can be explained as a strategic behavior to increase the chances of reproduction. In other words, they argue that it is a biological instinct to increase the chances of leaving offspring by attempting to have intercourse by force, even without sexual consent. However, for this argument to be convincing, empirical evidence is needed to show that rape actually significantly increases the success rate of reproduction. In other words, it must be backed up by clear data showing that rape is carried out with the purpose of reproduction.
However, actual statistics do not support this claim. According to data released by the Rape Crisis Center in the United States, approximately 10% of rape victims are men, and approximately 44% are children and adolescents under the age of 18. Furthermore, about 8% of all rape cases involve the perpetrator threatening the victim’s life with a weapon or other means. These figures suggest that rape is not necessarily for the purpose of reproduction. Rape against men and children is completely unrelated to reproductive potential, and it is more likely that other motives such as violence, power display, or sexual pleasure were at work. These cases provide important grounds for the argument that rape is not a biological adaptation.
Adaptationists counter this argument by citing “the same mechanism that causes people to avoid snakes.” Although some snakes are harmful and others are harmless, humans instinctively avoid snakes because they consider them dangerous.
Similarly, rapists may unconsciously attack women as symbols of reproductive potential rather than assessing the specific reproductive potential of their victims. However, this analogy is somewhat far-fetched. First, people avoid snakes unconditionally because they lack specific knowledge about them.
If we could accurately distinguish between poisonous and harmless snakes, we would only avoid the poisonous ones. In the same vein, humans generally have the ability to intuitively judge a woman’s age and reproductive potential. Therefore, if rape is an act intended for reproduction, perpetrators should tend to target only women of childbearing age rather than children or elderly women who are less likely to reproduce. However, statistics do not support this. In other words, rape must be explained by motives other than reproduction.
Another counterargument is that “since homosexuality and sexual intercourse with infertile women also exist, rape may also have purposes other than reproduction.” However, this overlooks an essential difference. Sexual intercourse is generally consensual and does not necessarily have reproduction as its purpose. Same-sex relationships or relationships with infertile women can have various purposes, such as expressing affection, forming bonds, and pursuing pleasure. On the other hand, rape is essentially an act of violence against the will of the other party, and the damage caused by it is extremely serious, both physically and psychologically. Therefore, it is not reasonable to compare general sexual behavior and rape on the same level.
In conclusion, if rape is a product of adaptation, then it must be carried out in a way that effectively increases reproductive success, and there must be clear advantages to doing so. However, when statistical and logical evidence is taken into account, it is more reasonable to interpret rape as a type of violence that arises from unethical impulses or social structures rather than a biological adaptation. Of course, future research may reveal that rape is linked to biological evolution in some way, but based on the data and interpretations available to date, it must be made clear that rape is not an adaptation, but rather an abnormal behavior and an act of violence that can never be justified.
