Does rape increase the possibility of conception?

[BountyHunterSAx]

Statistics would seem to support that view. According to RAINN.org:

Almost 2/3 of rapes were committed by someone known to the victim.
73% of sexual assaults were perpetrated by a non-stranger.
38% of rapists are a friend or acquaintance.
28% are an intimate.
7% are a relative.

Of course, it could just be that the people who know you have better access to you.

-AHMAD

[Junghalli]

Is it true that rape for the rapist is about power and only power.?I've heard some people say that's the only motivation for it

That sounds like an absurd overgeneralization to me.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Is it true that rape for the rapist is about power and only power.?I've heard some people say that's the only motivation for it

That sounds like an absurd overgeneralization to me.

It is utter bullshit, derived from an era when only violent serial rapists and black people were considered rapists.

[Edi]

I don't see why this, if true, would be surprising. It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. In our pre-societal days, procreation was probably as much rape as anything else. Genes that influenced conception in favor of conception from rape more would be selected in favor those that do not.

The more important thing is, if this is true, so the fuck what? We also have a biological imperative to breed as much as possible, consume all available resources, and expand into every ecological niche we can; look where that 'imperative' has gotten us.

Another thing to consider is that for most of human history we lived in small groups where a brazen rapist would likely get turned upon by the other males in his tribe whose sisters, wives, and mothers he's raping. A hostile "rape and run" reproductive strategy has the evolutionary disadvantage of often ending up getting you run out of your tribe or killed. This is probably the biggest reason violent serial rapists (like serial killers and other such dangerous socio/psychopaths) are rather rare as a percentage of the population.

Yes, in their own tribe, but there were always other tribes, and laws of morality, throughout human history, only went for those people in your own group. Murder in your own tribe is bad; killing the guys over the next hill to take their stuff and rape their women (or take them for sex slaves) was a-OK. Rape-and-run during a raid, though it might not necessarily lead to pregnancy, might, and that would mean them spreading their genes. So they win, as horrible as that sounds.

Despicable? Disgusting? Yes. There were no "noble savages." Humans are bastards.

This also assumes that the evolutionary history of this particular proposed imperative is human in origin, and not mammalian, or even pre-mammalian. Humans have always been social creatures, but we carry with us a history of being something other than human. This theorized imperative would join a whole host of other things that have long since become obsolete.

This also goes to Duchess's post, who bases her entire post on the idea that this would've been evolved out because of modern monogamous relationships. Guess what, monogamous relationships have been the norm for humans for a very very short time, evolutionarily speaking.

Seems to me that these two posts are the ones where this thread started to go down the shitter, especially when it veered to discussion of the specifics there. There is one massive unsupported claim in each of these posts and what follows is a lot of handwaving by Terralthra in the ensuing argument. I have yet to see any refutation of any points Broomstick (as well as Mayabird and the Duchess to a lesser extent) have posted.

So, Terralthra, the fucking evidence, if you please. Otherwise you can shut the fuck up and get the fuck out of this thread. If things go on as they have for the past couple of pages, I predict this thread is looking at being HoSed as soon as supermod/admin attention is drawn to it.

[Terralthra]

I would suggest starting with "A Natural History of Rape, Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion" by Professors Thornhill & Palmer, in which they propose that rape is an adaptive behavior somewhere along the pre-human ( mammalian or primate ) family tree. They cite forced copulation observed in chimpanzees, along with other behaviors which are observed in mammal species in which the male ensures his genes are propagated while the female's interests are harmed, f.ex. lions, where when a new male lion takes over a pride of female lions, one of the first things he does is kill the cubs of the previous alpha male and impregnate the females himself.

The primary criticism of this position is that it focuses on rape as a sexual act, a reproductive desire, where rape is usually understood to be multidimensional in motivation; power, sex, and the confluence thereof (see, oh, "Evolutionary Biology, the What and the Chaff" by Dr. F.B.M. De Waal). That does not eliminate adaptation as a partial explanation.

My position remains that if such a correlation even exists, it is possible to explain it via ancient, that is to say pre-human - primate or even earlier, rape as a male adaptive reproductive strategy which had an effect not yet removed from our genome. Female fertility in a rape situation is not the only way this correlation could be explained, nor even really the preferred explanation (cf. "Attractiveness of women's body odors over the menstrual cycle: the role of oral contraceptives and receiver sex," Dr. Seppo Kuukasjärvi et al.).

Will that be sufficient to satisfy your requests for evidence, or should I cite additional sources?

[Broomstick]

I would suggest starting with "A Natural History of Rape, Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion" by Professors Thornhill & Palmer, in which they propose that rape is an adaptive behavior somewhere along the pre-human ( mammalian or primate ) family tree.

OK... why wouldn't it apply to lizards? And fish? Insects? If it's so damn adaptive why wouldn't the entire animal kingdom do it? Not to mention by limiting themselves to just "mammalian or primate" they ignore the evidence among birds.

If they're really attempting to describe a "natural history of rape" why limit it?

lions, where when a new male lion takes over a pride of female lions, one of the first things he does is kill the cubs of the previous alpha male and impregnate the females himself.

Oh, yes, that's exactly the same, we all know how a human rapist kills a woman's children fathered by other men before fucking her -- oh, wait, we don't.

The problem with that analogy is that it's more of a forced marriage than rape-and-run. The male lion sticks around to care for his offspring. This is not a close correlation by what most people call "rape". IF in humans a rapist commonly stuck around to help raise potential offspring that might carry some weight but that's not what happens. In fact, there are mechanisms in place in human societies that makes it more likely the offspring of a rapist will be killed - abortion, infanticide, abandonment. There are human societies where the women raped is at risk of death, which would really cut down on the propagation of these "fertile when raped/raped when fertile" genes.

What applies to lions, a cat that lives in social groups, does not even apply to most other cats, which are usually solitary, it's quite a leap to say that because something happens in lions it happens in humans. Likewise, humans have significant differences from all other primates, and some characteristics shared only by a very few other primate species. Studying our evolutionary cousins is interesting, but the mere fact somthing occurs amongst them does not automatically mean it applies to us.

The primary criticism of this position is that it focuses on rape as a sexual act, a reproductive desire, where rape is usually understood to be multidimensional in motivation; power, sex, and the confluence thereof (see, oh, "Evolutionary Biology, the What and the Chaff" by Dr. F.B.M. De Waal). That does not eliminate adaptation as a partial explanation.

Nor does it prove it, either.

[BountyHunterSAx]

it's quite a leap to say that because something happens in lions it happens in humans.

That seemed to be a recurring theme in your post - but I just had to point out, Broomstick, that you may be missing Terralthra's point. Terralthra said earlier that he was referring to "baggage" that we have from evolution. He isn't saying we exactly do what preceding animals do, only that a dulled down vestigial impulse of it may have carried over. He even specifically cited the example of getting 'goosebumps'.

Don't strawman that to him saying "humans do what animals do."

-AHMAD

[Junghalli]

I just don't see an adaptation for females to be more fertile when raped as terribly likely, because in other species like ducks where rape becomes a serious evolutionary factor the adaptations run in the opposite direction. The female evolves ways to make it harder for males to impregnate her without her cooperation. Which is what you'd expect if you remember the evolutionary reasons behind female sexual selectivity.

[Alyrium Denryle]

OK... why wouldn't it apply to lizards? And fish? Insects? If it's so damn adaptive why wouldn't the entire animal kingdom do it? Not to mention by limiting themselves to just "mammalian or primate" they ignore the evidence among birds.

It does. Lots of animals engage in "Force Copulation" as an adaptive strategy. And if you consider "sneaker" satellite males mating with females without them knowing it, among other things, it can apply to fish and insects as well. It does not happen in every species, but a good number, and in the species it does not happen in, it is just not productive for the male to engage in it. The risk is too high.

The primary criticism of this position is that it focuses on rape as a sexual act, a reproductive desire, where rape is usually understood to be multidimensional in motivation; power, sex, and the confluence thereof (see, oh, "Evolutionary Biology, the What and the Chaff" by Dr. F.B.M. De Waal). That does not eliminate adaptation as a partial explanation.

That is an ultimate vs. proximate causation issue on the part of the author. All evolution has to do is ensure the outcome, how it does it and through what causative mechanisms it does this with is irrelevant so long as it is heritable.

It is not adaptive for the FEMALE to be raped. It is only adaptive for the MALE to rape. A big part of the problem here is that you are very very bad at articulating a position. You have not until this most recent post, clarified that as far as I can tell.

Also, there is some good work being done in the peer reviewed lit on this topic.

Oh, yes, that's exactly the same, we all know how a human rapist kills a woman's children fathered by other men before fucking her -- oh, wait, we don't.

Strawman.

What DOES happen in human cultures is that proportionately step children are FAR more likely to be abused than biological children. FAR more likely. Same with adopted kids and foster kids oddly enough. The more investment and the less perceived benefit (adoption is basically evolutionarily and cognitively misplaced parental care. Adoptive parents trick themselves into investing in offspring that are not theirs, while foster parenting is not, they do so out of a sense of decency and civic duty, which is weaker than actual parental care drives)

IF in humans a rapist commonly stuck around to help raise potential offspring that might carry some weight but that's not what happens. In fact, there are mechanisms in place in human societies that makes it more likely the offspring of a rapist will be killed - abortion, infanticide, abandonment.

You have yet to provide any statistics on this. You need to show that throughout human history that these mechanisms have been in place and utilized. You then need to show that the rapist STILL does not receive a reproductive benefit even if they are in place. This is basic evolutionary biology. The rapist is maximizing his reproductive success with little risk (even in a modern society) the evolution of females and even the group as a whole may try to counter this, but in order for it to NOT lead to incentives to rape, they have to drop the fitness of rapists on average to less than or equal to the baseline level it would be at if he were not engaging in rape.

There are human societies where the women raped is at risk of death, which would really cut down on the propagation of these "fertile when raped/raped when fertile" genes.

Irrelevant because the most likely mechanism is victim-selection on the part of the rapist and the violent nature of the rape being more conducive to pregnancy.

Gottschall JA, Gottschall TA. Are per-incident rape-pregnancy rates higher than per-incident consensual pregnancy rates?. HUMAN NATURE-AN INTERDISCIPLINARY BIOSOCIAL PERSPECTIVE Volume: 14 Issue: 1 Pages: 1-20

it's quite a leap to say that because something happens in lions it happens in humans.

No. It is not. We are animals. I hate to break it too you, but the same rules that apply to lions apply to us. The situations and environments differ, often substantially, but the same rules apply. Which means that it is not a leap to explain the same behavior with the same evolutionary mechanisms.

What you are saying is akin to "Animals research is invalid because rats are not people and we cannot generalize" but we can. And we do.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I forgot something.

On forced marriages. Those are basically rape anyway, and males that would be inclined to rape, will often just rape their legal wives in such instances... Especially in places where they have multiple wives and the marriages are arranged

[Terralthra]

I would suggest starting with "A Natural History of Rape, Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion" by Professors Thornhill & Palmer, in which they propose that rape is an adaptive behavior somewhere along the pre-human ( mammalian or primate ) family tree.

OK... why wouldn't it apply to lizards? And fish? Insects? If it's so damn adaptive why wouldn't the entire animal kingdom do it? Not to mention by limiting themselves to just "mammalian or primate" they ignore the evidence among birds.

If they're really attempting to describe a "natural history of rape" why limit it?

They don't limit it, and it does apply to many other kingdoms and phyla, instead of mammals. Birds (ducks), fish (Mollies and Platys), and insects (mantises and spiders) exhibit forced copulation of one variety or another, practiced by one or the other sex.

lions, where when a new male lion takes over a pride of female lions, one of the first things he does is kill the cubs of the previous alpha male and impregnate the females himself.

Oh, yes, that's exactly the same, we all know how a human rapist kills a woman's children fathered by other men before fucking her -- oh, wait, we don't.

Wow, you really tore up that strawman. Of course, I didn't actually claim that humans did the exact same thing at all, I provided the lion example exactly as Thornhill and Palmer did - as an example of a behavior that advances a male's genetic propagation at the expense of the females'. According to your rather sloppy explanation, that shouldn't happen. It does. The fact that you snipped that exact explanation of the relevance out when quoting it and then went on to act as if I had provided no reason for it to be relevant is the icing on the strawman cake.

The primary criticism of this position is that it focuses on rape as a sexual act, a reproductive desire, where rape is usually understood to be multidimensional in motivation; power, sex, and the confluence thereof (see, oh, "Evolutionary Biology, the What and the Chaff" by Dr. F.B.M. De Waal). That does not eliminate adaptation as a partial explanation.

Nor does it prove it, either.

Do you have a better explanation of the myriad examples of forced copulation in nature than an adaptive reproductive strategy on the part of the forcer, at the expense of the forced?

[Mayabird]

Male lions will kill the cubs of the females when they take over a pride, but the females do fight back and try to protect their cubs. The problem for them comes when the females have to spend time hunting and can't spend all their time protecting their cubs, which is when the males kill them.

Killing the cubs makes the lionesses go into estrus immediately, and then the male can father his own children. It's good for his genes. It's bad for the females because they invested a lot of time and energy into those cubs that the male just murdered (25% of lion cubs are killed by their new step-dads). And it's quite possible that it'll happen to them multiple times, as the average time that a lion has control of a pride is two years, which is just about but often not quite enough time for a cub to reach some semblance of adulthood.

So can we all agree that the stupid statement in the opening post about the female prerogative to get raped is bullshit, at least?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Male lions will kill the cubs of the females when they take over a pride, but the females do fight back and try to protect their cubs. The problem for them comes when the females have to spend time hunting and can't spend all their time protecting their cubs, which is when the males kill them.

Killing the cubs makes the lionesses go into estrus immediately, and then the male can father his own children. It's good for his genes. It's bad for the females because they invested a lot of time and energy into those cubs that the male just murdered (25% of lion cubs are killed by their new step-dads). And it's quite possible that it'll happen to them multiple times, as the average time that a lion has control of a pride is two years, which is just about but often not quite enough time for a cub to reach some semblance of adulthood.

So can we all agree that the stupid statement in the opening post about the female prerogative to get raped is bullshit, at least?

Oh Sweet Darwin yes. Females have been trying to reduce forced copulation since the dawn of time. It is just...hard... because even when a species uses third-party social policing like humans do, it is very very hard to reduce the fitness of rapists below what it would be if they did not rape

[Terralthra]

I will certainly agree that it is not in the female's interest to be raped, and certainly not to the level of an imperative. If I implied otherwise, my apologies for being unclear.

[Broomstick]

I will certainly agree that it is not in the female's interest to be raped, and certainly not to the level of an imperative. If I implied otherwise, my apologies for being unclear.

That has been my major objection all along. There's no question that the male might benefit from rape, but those who trot that out seem to forget that females are not passive in the reproductive game and that there are pressures working against as well as for the rapist. Which side will "win" will vary from species to species. In lions, given their social structure, rape-the-females-kill-the-cubs can greatly benefit the males. In that species the females immediately go into heat after their cubs are killed which is the type of thing I'd expect to see if evolution is "favoring" rapists. The adaptations seen in ducks are the sort that work against rape.

With humans - and I am in no way arguing that we aren't animals, just that you can't pick and choose at random to support a pet theory - you have to consider their culture as well as their genes because culture impacts human reproduction in significant ways. It also injects variables into the situation that don't exist with other animals. For example, in lion prides the new male ALWAYS kills or attempts to kill the cubs. In contrast, in humans, while step/foster/adopted children are more likely to be abused/neglected/killed most of the time they are not. It's not the animal data is totally irrelevant, it's that it doesn't apply 100% to humans.

Most human societies do not define forced copulation between husband and wife as rape, and it differs form what is usually considered rape in that the man stays around and takes care of the offspring. Outside of that, there are several cultural mechanisms in place working to reduce the fitness of rapists, and I've mentioned those: abortion, infanticide, and sometimes even killing of raped women. These tactics are not only used by women, they are also used by men. Thus, I can't see how a tendency to greater fertility when raped to get embedded in human genes. In humans, rape for reproduction would be a limited strategy at best for the male, and from the female perspective just not a good thing.
And, again, human females do not have obvious fertility. Say all you want about "subconscious" cues, there's no realistic way for a rapist to know one woman is more fertile than another on any particular day. More likely, victim selection might be skewed towards young adult women who are more fertile than other women, but since rape occurs to both infants and women decades past menopause that certainly cannot apply in all cases - and that's leaving aside males raping males, which also occurs in humans and clearly can not be reinforced by the fertility of the non-existent products of such unions. Rape in humans can also involve penetration by objects rather than the rapist himself which is, again, something that couldn't possibly be reinforced by genetics. Something other than simple reproduction has to drive rape in humans for such things to occur.