In this blog post, we will examine various studies and discussions on whether rape is a product of human evolutionary adaptation or a behavior caused by environmental factors.
The plot of the movie “Blindness” is as follows. An ophthalmologist and his wife start their day peacefully, but suddenly, the ophthalmologist loses his sight. No one knows where it started or who spread it, but the virus spreads rapidly, and eventually, the government decides to isolate and confine the blind. The ophthalmologist’s wife, who has not lost her sight, heads to the camp to help her husband. As time passes, the camp begins to turn into a lawless zone, and with only blind people present, garbage and filth begin to pile up. Government support gradually diminishes, and the camp becomes increasingly overcrowded. Since no one can see, shame disappears, and people relieve themselves anywhere and are unable to wash. Amidst this chaos, a group of men who monopolize the government-supplied rations emerge, and a man armed with a gun, who calls himself the king, becomes their leader. He establishes a rule that women must pay with their bodies to receive the rations. In the film’s conclusion, the protagonist, the wife of an ophthalmologist who regains her sight, ultimately kills the leader and escapes the camp with her husband and the innocent people.
The reason this film is mentioned in relation to the theme of “Is rape adaptation?” is because it vividly illustrates the influence of the environment on adaptation. Before discussing whether rape is adaptation, we first need to consider the concepts of adaptation and evolution, as well as the concept of rape. Adaptation and evolution can be seen as the process by which individuals suited to their environment survive, increase in number, and produce offspring with traits suited to that environment, thereby evolving the species. As in the film, if the environment creates a situation where rape is advantageous for survival and reproduction, the mechanisms in our genes that induce rape will activate, leading to rape.
Anti-adaptationists will criticize the claim that rape is adaptive by pointing to the current decline in rape rates. In fact, the rate of rape crimes in the United States showed a dramatic decline over a 30-year period starting in 1973. This leads to the argument that if rape is adaptive, the number of individuals engaging in the behavior should increase, but the decline cannot be explained. However, this argument is flawed.
An important point to consider when criticizing anti-adaptationists’ claims is that the human environment is not fixed. Humans can induce changes in the environment through reason. In the primitive era, especially before the concept of “law” emerged, physical strength dominated everything. Like in the world of lions and tigers, the strongest males became kings, and they did whatever they wanted without restraint. This situation is not limited to primitive times. Even today, if the government collapses and law and order break down, the genes accumulated since primitive times will come into play, and violence and chaos will reign. Robbers would break into any store to steal goods, mobs would kill anyone who didn’t meet their standards, and rape would occur indiscriminately. In other words, in a lawless zone, violent and strong individuals would have a higher chance of survival, leading them to adapt and evolve toward violence and strength.
” This is where the difference between humans and animals becomes apparent. Humans do not rely solely on adaptation and evolution; they also establish a system of law and order through reason. This means that humans have the ability to change their environment and alter the direction of their adaptation. By establishing laws, humans prohibit the strong from oppressing the weak through violence and make it clear that those who use violence will suffer greater harm themselves. Humans are adaptive creatures, so laws were created, and they learned that using violence would result in greater harm. As a result, they adapted to avoid violence. This is because humans have evolved to avoid behaviors that result in greater harm than benefit. Those who continued such behaviors despite the harm would eventually suffer greater losses and struggle to increase their population.
Anti-adaptationists would criticize this argument by saying that if there were no laws, rape would be adaptive, and if there were laws, rape would not be adaptive, so we cannot definitively say that rape is adaptive. If rape can be adaptive or non-adaptive depending on the situation and environment, then it cannot be definitively determined that rape is an adaptation imprinted in our genes. To refute this, we can propose the hypothesis that a “rape control module” exists. The rape control module is the claim that humans have a mechanism inherent in our genes that judges various surrounding conditions before committing rape and then executes rape if it determines that rape is possible. In other words, it is not that the absence of genes that induce rape has reduced the incidence of rape, but rather that laws have raised the threshold of the rape control module in our genes, thereby reducing the incidence of rape.
In fact, until a complete genetic map is established and it is medically proven that genes that induce rape under specific circumstances exist within our bodies, discussions about whether rape is adaptive or non-adaptive can only be based on assumptions and speculations. Rape is a socially reprehensible act and a serious crime, and this fact cannot be denied. This discussion is not intended to defend rape by arguing that it is adaptive, but rather to use the claim that rape is adaptive as evidence for the existence of rape control mechanisms, thereby concluding that rape prevention strategies should be established through institutional reforms such as strengthening social penalties.
