[Polymath20]

I have been thinking about things lately, particularly psychopaths and such. There were a few threads about rape and I began thinking about rape in the same light as psychopaths. In particular, any evolutionary advantage they might confer.

For instance, psychopaths are known for being cunning and charming even if they are completely fake and don't internally understand emotions. They can be very manipulative and even blend into normal society. This is a key point - the ability to get along fine even without "normal" emotions. This could be an adaptive strategy to get along in complex society. Rather than emoting and empathizing, the brain of the psychopath has learned to observe and emulate as it's primary mode of integration.

In the case of rape, which can result in pregnancy, could this also be the result of an evolutionary strategy? While many/most males will attempt to cultivate an emotive, two way relationship with a female in order to copulate and reproduce (ha ha for dispassionate scientific terms) - often a rapist will imagine a relationship with a female and even have a sense of attachment to her before or after committing a rape. Other times, the rape could be perpetrated opportunistically.

Obviously, if this behavior sometimes results in becoming reproductively successful, is it possible this behavior, even if not perpetrated by any majority, could have a genetic foundation?

In no way am I attempting to justify or rationalize a violent behavior, I am just attempting to analyze why such a behavior might be persistent and sometimes advantageous. The biggest exception with humans is the very fact that we have such large brains and can analyze our own actions and motivations and thus decide not to do something whereas a lower order animal will not have this capacity.

[ManWithNoName]

I don't think it's about evolution, reproduction, or sex at all. It's all about power where the rapist just wants to feel powerful and like an 'alpha' male. Watch
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
which has Congolese rebels and soldiers explaining why they rape it, it's very telling in this regard. They all know it's wrong and would kill a man if they raped their sister or something like that but for them it's okay. They do it because it makes them feel powerful and in control in their dangerous lives filled with a lot of pain and suffering.

[Polymath20]

Google provides:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Well it seems I was not the first to conceive of this idea. Some people enjoy forceful sex, some men enjoy being forceful so it very well could be an evolutionary dividend. A man's social status is influenced by how assertive he is, so the boundary between an assertive, aggressive male can begin to blur. I remember reading an article written by a woman about sexual fantasy, in particular "rape fantasy" as she called it. As I remember, the males who were more "rapey" characters were also alpha males, not street creepers.

I don't think it's about evolution, reproduction, or sex at all. It's all about power where the rapist just wants to feel powerful and like an 'alpha' male. Watch this video which has Congolese rebels and soldiers explaining why they rape it, it's very telling in this regard. They all know it's wrong and would kill a man if they raped their sister or something like that but for them it's okay. They do it because it makes them feel powerful and in control in their dangerous lives filled with a lot of pain and suffering.

Yes, after more reading I'm tending to agree with this notion. I guess I'm trying to get at the biological origin of rape.

[Sinequanon]

Evolution is not a tool for explaining human social behavior.

[Distance]

Sadism has nothing to do with the biological imperative of species continuity.

[ManWithNoName]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Google provides: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Well it seems I was not the first to conceive of this idea. Some people enjoy forceful sex, some men enjoy being forceful so it very well could be an evolutionary dividend.

Sexually speaking men do tend to be naturally dominant and women submissive. It is true that a lot of women do have rape fantasy's but they're not really rape fantasies in the sense that they don't' really want to be raped, they just want to be ravished by a loving dominant male, generally their SO. Hence why 'bodice rippers' are basically an entire genre of women's trashy romance novels.

BDSM pretty much exists for people (both men and women) who feel the urge to be dominant or submissive but want to do it in a safe loving manner.

	A man's social status is influenced by how assertive he is, so the boundary between an assertive, aggressive male can begin to blur. I remember reading an article written by a woman about sexual fantasy, in particular "rape fantasy" as she called it. As I remember, the males who were more "rapey" characters were also alpha males, not street creepers.

They may appear to be 'alpha' males but often they are not really alpha at all in the sense that they are only acting as they do because of some huge inner insecurity or issue that they cannot work out and so instead lash out in acts seeking to make themselves feel more powerful.

	Yes, after more reading I'm tending to agree with this notion. I guess I'm trying to get at the biological origin of rape.

I really don't think there is a biological origin. Most rapists know and say that rape is wrong, and just make excuses as to either what they are doing isn't really rape or that somehow they should be allowed it. I think they do it largely because, as apposed to doing it in a safer environment like BDSM, is because BDSM wouldn't be enough for them where they don't seek release as much as they do total power and control at the expense of another person typically because they themselves have very low self esteem and huge issues.

[Rivers]

In case of soldiers, I think they rape because is an easy intercourse with no social repercussions, no seducing, no trouble. As for civilians who rape, I would say it's just their twisted mind doing what it does best, I doubt evolution has anything to do with it, rape was never common during the course of evolution nor was it preferred or tolerated.

[Polymath20]

	Originally Posted by Sinequanon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Evolution is not a tool for explaining human social behavior.

Yes it is. It's called evolutionary psychology.

For instance, if you have a picture of an infant in your wallet, it is far more likely to be returned to you. This is likely the result of an evolutionary adaptation (a behavioral one) where we feel compelled to protect the children of our species even if they are not our own.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Sexually speaking men do tend to be naturally dominant and women submissive. It is true that a lot of women do have rape fantasy's but they're not really rape fantasies in the sense that they don't' really want to be raped, they just want to be ravished by a loving dominant male, generally their SO. Hence why 'bodice rippers' are basically an entire genre of women's trashy romance novels.

Yes, I was thinking of this and I think that the dominant/submissive dynamic comes from other behavioral adaptations not necessary related to sex. As is pointed out, even rapists think it's wrong and know that it's wrong but it is intentionally done for a variety of reasons.

I was thinking of the lone stalker type rapist, but I think that is probably a very small minority of the cases of rape at this point.

	They may appear to be 'alpha' males but often they are not really alpha at all in the sense that they are only acting as they do because of some huge inner insecurity or issue that they cannot work out and so instead lash out in acts seeking to make themselves feel more powerful.

I didn't mean to imply that alpha males and rapists had a correlation. I meant rather that a social leader of men would tend to be more assertive socially, and this probably accounts for the bodice-ripper fantasy. Women fantasize about socially savvy, well-to-do, gentlemen who are capable of using force... gently... an expression of discipline, restraint, respect, and power.

[Sinequanon]

Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yes it is. It's called evolutionary psychology. For instance, if you have a picture of an infant in your wallet, it is far more likely to be returned to you. This is likely the result of an evolutionary adaptation (a behavioral one) where we feel compelled to protect the children of our species even if they are not our own. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Or it could be that seeing a picture of a child in a wallet causes us to empathize with the victim of the crime. There are various social theories that also explain this behavior without having to rely on evolution.

I know what evolutionary psychology is. I also know its problems. Let's go back to the inciting example: What if I paid you a million dollars (or whatever your price is) to rape a random woman? What would evolutionary psychology have to say about that? The issue here is that unless the motives are the adaptability or propagation of the species, purely, then evolution doesn't apply, because evolution itself really says very little about motivations. It would be like saying that the theory of gravitation is responsible for rapes because we are all mutually attracted to one another.

[Huruma]

	Originally Posted by Sinequanon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Evolution is not a tool for explaining human social behavior.

Why not? Human behavior is natural phenomenon, there's nothing 'mystical' about it.

[Amphorian]

I was reading the "Is rape the woman's fault thread" and Fishism posted this
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. Which I find interesting even if I don't fully agree with it. I think rape, like most other issues is a combination of nature and nurture.

[scorpiomover]

Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I have been thinking about things lately, particularly psychopaths and such. There were a few threads about rape and I began thinking about rape in the same light as psychopaths. In particular, any evolutionary advantage they might confer. For instance, psychopaths are known for being cunning and charming even if they are completely fake and don't internally understand emotions. They can be very manipulative and even blend into normal society. This is a key point - the ability to get along fine even without "normal" emotions. This could be an adaptive strategy to get along in complex society. Rather than emoting and empathizing, the brain of the psychopath has learned to observe and emulate as it's primary mode of integration.

Yup. It's observe others, formulate hypothesis on what behaviours will get them ahead, then test, and then keep repeating that skill until they achieve the level of success they desire. Surprisingly, it works, but not in the way you'd think.

Psychopaths are 4 times more numerous in top corporate jobs than in real life. However, one of their consistent key characteristics is that their job performance sucks, really, really badly. So their lack of emotions doesn't actually make them more successful. It makes them far less successful.

This concept of lack of emotions making one less rationally competent, actually shows up in another unrelated field, that of those people who had brain damage that left them still quite capable, but unable to feel. Studies repeatedly showed that those with brain damage that killed off the ability to feel emotions, make the types of mistakes in experiments, that would mean they are far, far less competent than an average person in real-life decisions.

Another key characteristic of psychopaths is that half their underlings and colleagues love them, and half think they are the devil incarnate. This brings up 2 possible factors: 1) Psychopaths concentrate their efforts on only charming a minority, and this compensates for the lack of competency. 2) Many people who are taken advantage of, tend to report that many take advantage of them, far more than normal, thus springing up the possibility that some are more apt to believe someone if they are being flattered, even about things that have nothing to do with the flattery, in order to keep the flattery coming. We see often, that guys who are skilled at going for casual sex, observe what types of characteristics are consistent with women who are easy to sleep with, and then deliberately make much more effort with those women, than normal.

Such strategies are highly successful in casual sex. Is there any reason to think that such skills would not be just as successful in taking advantage of someone to get hired, or to get a promotion? So why should psychopaths not be just as successful as guys who 'get lucky' a lot?

Psychopaths don't have to be good at their job. They only need to be good at telling you what you want to hear, and knowing that half the world will probably buy his BS, in order to keep having their egos stroked. That's what they practise, and they get good at it. They don't practise the other skills, because they don't have to, and so don't gain much competency with any other skills.

If there are genetic markers associated with psychopathy, then they are associated with the skill of getting what you want in society. The fact is, we don't test most people, because a lot of high school football players, lawyers, judges, politicians, doctors, scientists, and plenty of other high-ranking jobs, would show incredibly high for psychopathy, and that would tell the world that they are incompetent, and their skill-set is to give the impression of being confident by manipulating people. So they would do a lot to hide that. Besides, would you really want to know that your society is set up to make its decisions by listening to psychos?

But psychopathy could have a genetic basis, at least in part, because high-flying jobs do travel in families, and psychopaths represent 20%-24% of top corporate executives and CEOs.

In the case of rape, which can result in pregnancy, could this also be the result of an evolutionary strategy? While many/most males will attempt to cultivate an emotive, two way relationship with a female in order to copulate and reproduce (ha ha for dispassionate scientific terms) - often a rapist will imagine a relationship with a female and even have a sense of attachment to her before or after committing a rape. Other times, the rape could be perpetrated opportunistically. Obviously, if this behavior sometimes results in becoming reproductively successful, is it possible this behavior, even if not perpetrated by any majority, could have a genetic foundation?

If rape-based behaviour is a mutation that increases its prolificacy with each case of pregnancy through rape, then it could evolve to form a strong genetic basis. However, for this to happen, you have to have an increased number of males from rape, who become rapists, than in the normal population. However, since rapists don't usually stay around, I suspect the woman will probably raise her children to be the opposite of rapists, and ESPECIALLY the child born from the rape, because that's exactly what she would suspect could happen, and the very last thing she wants, is that her enabling of the child of her rape to live, causes other women like her to be rape. So I think that any genetic basis would actually be muted by environmental effects, that would lead the genetic markers to be spread throughout the general population, and so would never become concentrated enough in one individual to unite and evolve.

On the other hand, if one was in a crime-ridden area, where everyone rapes everyone else, then the genetic markers act like inbreds, and the markers can evolve. But since that environment already would carry evolutionary effects from crime and power struggles, rape would just be included into that. So you'd get psychopathic genes evolving there, and they would dominate, leaving any genetic markers for rape as being recessive, and about the same as in the general population.

So no, I don't think that rape would become genetic, and consequently, it wouldn't become an evolutionary adaptation.

I think I have an idea where you got this from. On the discovery channel, female animals look like they are being raped, because the male is pushy, and doesn't show any submissive behaviour. However, if you pay close attention to animal behaviour, when females don't want to be mated with, a lot show a level of agression towards the male, that is far in excess of the agression between male-on-male attacks that are intended to show the female who is the stronger and healthier. The idea that women are weaker and less aggressive than men is just another false stereotype.

[Sinequanon]

	Originally Posted by Huruma To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why not? Human behavior is natural phenomenon, there's nothing 'mystical' about it.

Evolution describes a process that takes place over an extremely long period of time. Social behaviors can and do cause people to counteract their evolutionary best interests. Constantly. Therefore we're talking about a broken clock - sometimes, on rare occasion, human behavior syncs with what one might expect it to from the perspective of evolutionary psychology. Other times, it has nothing to do with why people act the way they act. For instance, what is the evolutionarily psychological reason why a bunch of childless people (or parents who force their children to participate) would commit mass suicide? And what is the reasoning that beats the occam's razor test?

[Subgenius]

You can read numerous anthropological papers and peer reviewed journal articles on rape being a reproductive strategy. A couple thousand years of civilization doesn't stop evolution. Just because it is abhorrent doesn't change the fact that it occurs because some living thing wants sex. Do a google scholar search or jstor search or whatever peer reviewed journal articles you have access to.

[Huruma]

Originally Posted by Sinequanon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Evolution describes a process that takes place over an extremely long period of time. Social behaviors can and do cause people to counteract their evolutionary best interests. Constantly. Therefore we're talking about a broken clock - sometimes, on rare occasion, human behavior syncs with what one might expect it to from the perspective of evolutionary psychology. Other times, it has nothing to do with why people act the way they act. For instance, what is the evolutionarily psychological reason why a bunch of childless people (or parents who force their children to participate) would commit mass suicide? And what is the reasoning that beats the occam's razor test?

Evolution can only explain why certain traits survive and become common throughout a population, it doesn't mean there's any conscious decision to propagate ones genes (I don't know if that's what you were implying).

I think natural selection tends to favor adaptable traits and discourage maladaptive traits only as a general rule, which might be why around 1% of the population are asexual and around 10% homosexual (although there may be reasons why these minority sexual orientations evolved since one doesn't actually have to procreate in order to ensure that their genes survive). It may be that even if committing mass suicide is maladaptive, whatever causes one to commit suicide also causes traits that are adaptive. Also, one doesn't have to have children for their genes to be propagated, behaving altruistically toward a sibling, nephew, cousin, first cousin once removed etc. can also ensure that some of one's genes (including whatever genes that play a role in altruism) will survive another generation, even if it's not as many genes as would be propagated if you have (biological) children of your own. With social insects like ants, the majority of the members are sterile, but in working for the colony, they help to ensure their nieces/nephews (or is it sisters?) will survive and reproduce, I can't remember how that works.

[Tacitus]

	Originally Posted by ManWithNoName To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't think it's about evolution, reproduction, or sex at all. It's all about power where the rapist just wants to feel powerful and like an 'alpha' male.

Feeling powerful could be evolution's reward for using this disgusting strategy.

Normal people don't have sex to procreate most of the time, but because it feels exceptionally good.

[Dancingqueen]

Quote from Why Women Rape by Thornhill and Palmer:

" remarkable feature of these scorpionflies is an appendage that seems specially designed for rape. Called the notal organ, it is a clamp on the top of the male. s abdomen with which he can grab on to one of the female. s forewings during mating, to prevent her escape. Besides rape, the notal organ does not appear to have any other function.


For example, when the notal organs of males are experimentally covered with beeswax, to keep them from functioning, the males cannot rape. Such males still mate successfully, however, when they are allowed to present nuptial gifts to females. And other experiments have shown that the notal organ is not an adaptation for transferring sperm: in unforced mating, the organ contributes nothing to insemination.

Not surprisingly, females prefer voluntary mating to mating by force: they will approach a male bearing a nuptial gift and flee a male that does not have one. Intriguingly, however, the males, too, seem to prefer a consensual arrangement: they rape only when they cannot obtain a nuptial gift. Experiments have shown that when male scorpionflies possessing nuptial gifts are removed from an area, giftless males. typically, the wimpier ones that had failed in male-male competitions over prey. quickly shift from attempting rape to guarding a gift that has been left untended. That preference for consensual sex makes sense in evolutionary terms, because when females are willing, males are much more likely to achieve penetration and sperm transfer."


This seems to imply, that at least for some animals, rape IS a genetic strategy for reproduction. Extrapolating from this, I can see how rape can be viewed as in purely biological terms for humans as well. If you do not have the "status" to aquire a willing mate,and yet you need your genes to be passed on, rape is objectively speaking a viable (though reprehensible) option. Many things are biologically based, this does not necessitate that they must be allowed within the culture. Just because I have the biological ability to piss on the side of a building doesn't mean that my society cannot impose limits on how, where and when I piddle.

[Deliberator]

Well, rape does occur sometimes in other species, although I wouldn't say it's the dominant form of insemination in higher mammals. Clearly, it is more advantageous to evolution that women do want a lot of sex, especially when they are ovulating. In fact, with a lot of species the male typically doesn't force himself on a female that fights him off, which makes sense because she's only going to conceive at the time when she wants it anyway.

In our society, women don't reject rapists because they aren't ovulating, they reject them because of a complex social system that allows them to choose their mates and illicit control over their sexual activity. This isn't unique to humans but is also seen in other gregarious animals with more complex social systems, probably facilitated by the protective instincts of dominant males. For instance, some male chimp harasses a lady chimp, she protests, other protective chimps come to her aid and possibly drive out or even kill the harasser. So social structure must come into consideration here too.

Now, sociopathy is actually related to the mutation in a particular gene. For this gene to be passed on, it only has to NOT be damaging enough to cause premature death, or fail to mate at all during all those available years. Hence genetic mutations that aren't either good or bad from an evolutionary sense can survive without any kind of rational explanation required.

All that said, I think rape, if we're talking in context of sociopathy, is a combination of the aforementioned mutation with the natural desire to have sex with the mate of your choosing. That is, rape in and of itself is probably not much more than a side-effect of something that is beneficial to reproduction; after all, not every biological system is without its flaws.

P.S. please note the difference between "psychopath" and "sociopath"
Psychopath = experiencing psychosis (hallucinations, delusions, paranoia)
Sociopath = expressing anti-social behavior, devoid of empathy for other, devoid of guilt

[Wilderness]

In humans it's a pretty poor reproductive strategy. I don't think many women decide to have their rapist's baby.

Anyway, as if I recall correctly, rape is actually a common reproductive strategy in ducks. Male ducks are among the 1% of bird to have penises. However, females evolved twisty vaginas with dead ends to block insemination through rape.

So if rape were a reproductive strategy for humans, what would the female's evolutionary defense be?

[Deliberator]

Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If rape-based behaviour is a mutation that increases its prolificacy with each case of pregnancy through rape, then it could evolve to form a strong genetic basis. However, for this to happen, you have to have an increased number of males from rape, who become rapists, than in the normal population. However, since rapists don't usually stay around, I suspect the woman will probably raise her children to be the opposite of rapists, and ESPECIALLY the child born from the rape, because that's exactly what she would suspect could happen, and the very last thing she wants, is that her enabling of the child of her rape to live, causes other women like her to be rape. So I think that any genetic basis would actually be muted by environmental effects, that would lead the genetic markers to be spread throughout the general population, and so would never become concentrated enough in one individual to unite and evolve.

Yes, and clearly rape does not carry a high rate of pregnancy. For one, rape is illegal and not desired by anyone except the rapist, meaning it's frequency is suppressed through societal means. But putting the societal part aside, having lots of sex with a willing female during her ovulatory period is simply much more likely to cause successful pregnancy than hedging bets that the female you're going to rape when you get the opportunity happens to be ovulating at that time. And if she's fighting you may get hurt, or may not achieve a successful insemination. So really, it doesn't strike me as a very good reproductive strategy.

---------- Post added 11-07-2011 at 11:45 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by ManWithNoName To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't think it's about evolution, reproduction, or sex at all.

Oh it is definitely about sex as well. They even said, they started raping because they've been sitting around in the bush for all that time.

[Zodd]

So rape every day and choose girls who are in ovulatory period.

[Zsych]

There has been some research on this. I think the general view was that it didn't look like a good strategy (that is not to say that bad strategies don't manage to have some survival rate - they usually just don't tend to be very prevalent)

There's generally too good a chance of getting screwed for doing something like that - especially in older times with people living in closer knit communities. A king may be able to get away with rape, but the average person is a separate issue. Its also a very anti-social thing - and people in the past did not survive by being super-anti-social.

In theory though, I'd say that if you were to impregnate a girl who is part of an environment where the child will be born and raised decently well, then it could potentially be a valid strategy.

[SacrificialLove]

	Originally Posted by Wilderness To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So if rape were a reproductive strategy for humans, what would the female's evolutionary defense be?

I have heard/read that a woman's body specifically acclimates itself to her mate's sperm; her immune system is likely to identify a foreigner's sperm as an intruder and try to fight it off. I hope someone can help me out, here, because I just tried a few Google searches and apparently, I'm not using the right keywords because I can't find anything scientific to support this, LOL.

[Dysphoriac]

Yeah how do you know her eggs are fertilised after just one go, how do you know she is receptive and fertile. Men would waste lots of energy and be unsure of the results, another guy could come along and knock all the sperm out a few minutes later.

[mieu]

All lifestyles are arguably a reproductive strategy.