 |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
Sociobiological theories of rape are theories that explore what role, if any, evolutionary-psychological adaptations play in causing the act of rape in animals and humans. Such theories are highly controversial, as traditional theories typically do not consider rape to be a behavioral adaptation. Some object to such theories on ethical, feminist, or political grounds.
| Contents |
It has long been observed that some animals appear to show behavior resembling rape in humans, such as combining sexual intercourse with violent assault, often observed in ducks and geese. Sometimes an animal is sexually approached and penetrated while it is clear that it does not want it -- e.g. it tries to run away. These observations of forced sex among animals are not controversial. What is controversial is the interpretation of these observations, and the extension of theories based on them to human beings.
It is because rape often results in reproduction that some sociobiologists theorize that rape may be genetically advantageous for rapists, and thus prosper as a psychological adaptation.
The idea that rape evolved as a genetically advantageous behavioral adaptation was popularised by biologist Randy Thornhill and anthropologist Craig T. Palmer in their book A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion.
Thornhill and Palmer's argument begins with the statement that all human behaviors are, no matter how indirectly, the result of some evolutionary adaptation. They note that since the human brain itself, and thus all capacities for any kind of action whatsoever, evolved from natural selection, the only point of dispute is whether rape is only a by-product of some other unrelated adaptation (such as a desire for agression, domination, etc.) or if rape itself is an adaptation favored because it increases the number of descendants of rapists. They argue that the latter case is true.
Thornhill and Palmer argue that the underlying motivations of rapists evolved because they were at one time conducive to reproduction. In the book, they note that the overwhelming majority of rape victims are of childbearing age, suggesting that reproduction plays some role in a rapist's choice of victims.
Women, they argue, have evolutionary-psychological adaptations that protect their genes from would-be rapists. "We feel that the woman's perspective on rape can be best understood by considering the negative influences of rape on female reproductive success," they write. For example, the book cites a study claiming that victims of childbearing age suffer more emotional trauma from rape than older women. They present this as evidence consistent with their theory, as women in the ancestral environment beyond their reproductive years had less to lose, in terms of genetic progeny, by being raped.
Although they present rape as an evolutionary instinct, they stress that they are doing so primarily to reveal better ways to combat rape, not to excuse modern rapists. Rape can only be eliminated, they argue, once a society is fully aware of its evolutionary origins. A large section of the book is spent discussing rape-prevention methods. They investigate the effectiveness of chemical castration and other punishments common today, and eventually advocate harsher sentences for rapists than are currently employed, and, more controversially, educational programs explaining the evolutionary causes of rape to young men so that they can better suppress these instincts.
Distinguished MIT Professor of Psychology and popular science writer Steven Pinker has spoken out in support of Thornhill and Palmer's work. He writes, "This is a courageous, intelligent, and eye-opening book with a noble goal - to understand and eliminate a loathsome crime. Armed with logic and copious data, A Natural History of Rape will force many intellectuals to decide which they value more: established dogma and ideology, or the welfare of real women in the real world."
Other proponents of various sociobiological theories of rape have expressed the views described here, which may or may not represent Thornhill and Palmer's.
Viviparous females, and human females in particular, whose offspring remain helpless for many years, must invest significant time and resources in order to reproduce and to raise their offspring, whereas males can father considerably more offspring with much less of an investment. Many sociobiologists argue that this causes females to more heavily scrutinize their mates, whereas males are motivated simply to have many mates. These strategies are known as K-selection and r-selection, respectively. Proponents of the view that rape is genetically adaptive see rape as a male attempt to violently remove the female's decision making power regarding reproduction.
Supporters of sociobiological theories of rape argue that this is consistent with rape being considered a high crime in almost all cultures, second only to murder, as this is consistent with the interests of living things. From an evolutionary perspective, the only thing more undesirable than forcing an organism's reproductive destiny is ending its life.
Proponents of this theory have also stated that during the fertility peak of the female menstrual cycle, women are more likely to seek potential mates while simultaneously taking greater precautions against the possibility of rape. Females report a higher incidence of rape occurring during the less fertile points in their cycles with one exception: those on birth control medication (such as "the pill") do not report rape with any bias towards a specific period of their cycle--birth control inhibits ovulation on some level.
According to these theories, males are considered more desperate to mate, and one result of this desperation could be endemic misinterpretation of a female's signals. This could illustrate why many rapists justify their actions with "she said no but meant yes". Variations of this theme are common. For example, there is no clear delineation between sexual touch and non-sexual touch. Holding hands may be considered by one side to be a sexual touch whereas the other considers it completely platonic. Human sexual behavior and Date Rape describe these issues further.
Some supporters of these theories argue that many common attitudes regarding sex and rape have origins in evolution as rape-preventative measures.
Females tend to be more cautious about rape in young adulthood. They are also more likely to resist rape, or resist more forcefully, during young adulthood.
Proponents of these theories have also claimed that fathers' protectiveness of their daughters is caused by an instinct, not only to protect their genes in the form of their offspring, but to ensure the quality of his grandchildren by protecting his daughter from rape.
Public showers, public restrooms, locker rooms, and fitting rooms typically have male and female sections. This gender segregation, according to some sociobiologists, reduces the likelihood that a woman will find herself alone with men in an environment that is sexually suggestive. Dormitory arrangements are often gender segregated as well.
In some countries, women are forbidden to leave the house with any amount of skin showing. Some sociobiologists see this as a way to reduce the female's likelihood of attracting attention and by extension, rape.
The distinguished proponent of evolutionary psychology Edward H. Hagen states in his Evolutionary Psychology FAQ (http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/evpsychfaq.html) that he believes there is no clear evidence for the hypothesis that rape is adaptive. He believes the adaptivity of rape is possible, but claims there is not enough evidence to be certain one way or the other. However, he encourages such evidence to be obtained: "Whether human males possess psychological adaptations for rape will only be answered by careful studies seeking evidence for such cognitive specializations. To not seek such evidence is like failing to search a suspect for a concealed weapon." [1] (http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/epfaq/rape.html)
Many biologists are strongly opposed to these theories, and often to evolutionary psychology itself. The book Evolution, Gender, and Rape brings together the views of twenty-eight prominent biologists in opposition to these theories.
Some critics argue that it is difficult to determine to what extent the idea of rape can be extended to intercourse in other animal species, as the defining attribute of rape in humans is the lack of informed consent, which is difficult to determine in other animals. They believe these theories are founded on anthropomorphic interpretations of animal behavior.
Others claim that forced sex in animals is ineffective as a means of reproduction; males will attack other males, or groups of males will attack lone females, killing them in the process.
Some critics do not deny the generally observed attempts to control female sexuality and reproduction, but see these as being culturally conditioned, rather than as a product of evolution.
Forced sex in animals:
Theories regarding rape in humans:
Responses to these theories:
Other evidence:
|
||||
| View Live Article | This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License | |
||
