God Fearing Atheist

I was just reading some studies on the evolution of rape and was wondering which you guys thought was more probable:

1) That rape increases male reproductive fitness, and thus is an adaptation in and of itself, or...

2) That rape is a by-product of the differences in male sexuality, in particular, our strong sex drive.

My bet would be the former. Any thoughts?

-GFA

DrLao

I think rape is a by-product of sexual size dimorphism. Man be bigger than woman. On average. I would hesitate to use fitness arguments to explain aberrant behavior. After all, if rapists were more fit than non-rapists, then how come most men aren't rapists? Or, more accurately, why aren't most children produced as the result of rapes?

God Fearing Atheist

Its usually explained as the result of environmental triggers. For example, consentual copulation may be the better bet in general, but when combined with a lack of resources (which women look for in a sexual partner), frequent rejections, lack of father figure and so forth, men may go into "rape-mode".

There are similar patterns in some non-human species.

-GFA

DrLao

OK, but if that is the case, then rape is not more fit except under unusual circumstances. It is misleading to call it a more fit reproductive strategy when most of the time it is not more fit.

God Fearing Atheist

I never suggested it increased male fitness under any and all circustances.

-GFA

Dr Rick

The answer depends on the evidence supporting the hypothesis that "rape increases male reproductive fitness" and the evidence that "rape is a by-product of the differences in male sexuality, in particular, our strong sex drive."

Which studies were you reading, and what was the data supporting either of these alternatives?

Rick

God Fearing Atheist

I'd be happy to get into it in a bit more detail, but first, what exactly do *you* propose?

I mean, you dont seem like a creationist, which rules out a non-Darwinian explaination....

-GFA

Dr Rick

I didn't propose the dichotomy in the OP; you did, along with some references to "some studies on the evolution of rape" you were reading. I propose that you share them with us.

I don't think so; all human behavoural explanations aren't either creationist or Darwinian.

Rick

God Fearing Atheist

Fine.

Thornhill, N. & R. Thornhill. (1990). Evolutionary analysis of psychological pain of rape victims I: The effects of victims age and martial status. Ethology and Sociobiology, 11, 177-193.

--- (1983). Human Rape: An evolutionary analysis. Ethology and Sociobiology, 4, 137-173.

--- (1991). Coercive sexuality of men: Is there psychological adaptation to rape? Sexual Coercion, Lexington.

Thornhill, R. (1999). The biology of human rape. Jurimetrics, 39, 137-155.

Palmer, C. (1991). Humam rape: Adaptation or by-product? Journal of Sex Research, 28, 365-386.

--- (1989). Is rape a cultural universal? A re-examination of the ethnographic evidence. Ethnology, 28, 1-16.

Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford UP.

And so forth.

The reason I phrased it as I did is because some conclusions can easily be ruled out (for example, rape as the result of drift or mutation-selection balance).

Really? Biological human beings are sometimes the result of something *other* than the evolved interaction between their genes and their environment?

What is this amazing mechanism im missing?

-GFA

pz

Since you so readily conflate "Darwinian" with "evolved interaction between their genes and their environment", I suspect you are missing just about everything.

You are aware that Darwin died in 1882, I presume? There is a lot more to evolution than Darwinian mechanisms.