This blog post examines the academic critiques and feminist counterarguments surrounding their claim, balancing a review of the core issues in the debate with an assessment of its scientific validity.
In 2000, the book ≪A Natural History of Rape: The Biological Basis of Sexual Coercion≫, co-authored by behavioral ecologist Professor R. Thornhill and anthropologist Professor C. Palmer, caused a major stir in the field of evolutionary psychology at the time. The authors analyzed the causes of male rape, presented case studies, and concluded that rape is a product of natural selection. This claim also resonated strongly within the field of ethology and drew fierce criticism from anti-adaptationists and feminist groups. Notably, the criticisms raised by the academic community and those from the feminist camp operate on distinct levels. So, what are the two main points of criticism raised against Shonhill and Palmer’s argument, and how valid are they?
First, The Natural History of Rape was criticized as unethical and scandalous research due to its very subject matter. The authors challenge the definition of rape presented by feminist writer Susan Brownmiller in Against Our Will (1975). Brownmiller defined rape as “an expression of male supremacy, not a sexual motive.” That is, from a feminist perspective, the core of rape lies not in ‘reproduction’ but in ‘the expression of violence.’ However, Schonhell and Palmer argue that even if rape involves violence, its primary purpose is a reproductive strategy where inferior male individuals seek to pass on their genes to future generations. This directly challenged the mainstream concept in feminist academia at the time, drawing strong criticism that it attributed rape to human evolutionary nature and ultimately sought to justify the act. So, is this criticism truly justified?
In their preface, Shonhill and Palmer dedicate this book to all women and rape victims. They also explain that their research aims to clearly identify the causes of rape to develop effective prevention strategies. Steven Pinker of MIT’s Psychology Department similarly praised this intent in his review. Considering this, the controversy over justifying rape appears to stem from a misunderstanding of the authors’ intentions. They do not argue that “a product of natural selection = behavior beyond criticism.” Rather, they clearly state that just because a behavior is the result of natural selection does not mean it is exempt from ethical criticism. Based on this premise, The Natural History of Rape must be evaluated from a scientific perspective.
However, even from a scientific perspective, this book has faced criticism from academia due to several logical flaws. The authors present cases of forced mating observed in dolphins, primates, and others to explain human rape motives, arguing that rape is a product of natural selection because these behaviors exist. This constitutes a logical leap, extrapolating phenomena observed in some animals to humans, and is difficult to view as inference based on limited induction. The conclusion that a trait present in certain animals must also be an adaptation in humans is unconvincing. Furthermore, the assertion that rape behavior itself is an adaptive product, based on the existence of specialized organs in scorpion flies that aid in rape, is difficult to apply to the vast majority of organisms lacking such organs. The authors fail to examine counterarguments to these points, which have become major grounds for academic criticism. Considering these shortcomings collectively, Professor J. Coyne of the University of Chicago’s assessment that it represents “the most pathetic claim in evolutionary psychology theory” is not merely an exaggeration.
Nevertheless, Shonhill and Palmer’s approach represents an attempt with certain academic value beyond what opponents claim. They sought to scientifically explore the causes of rape, not to justify it by determining whether it is adaptive. However, since the book’s publication, the two researchers have faced intense criticism from feminist groups, including lecture disruptions, distorted citations, and protests. A crucial point is that the claim that rape might be adaptive is never identical to the conclusion that rape is ethically acceptable. Rape remains an intolerable felony, and scientific inquiry into its origins does not alter the ethical nature of the act.
Ultimately, The Natural History of Rape can be credited with contributing to a broader trend of analyzing various human behaviors, beyond rape, from an evolutionary psychological perspective. However, from a scientific standpoint, the authors’ arguments lack persuasiveness. Problems such as selective use of data and logical leaps make much of the academic criticism quite valid. While the attempt at an evolutionary psychological approach itself is meaningful, the scientific validity of the research falls short of expectations.
Validity is paramount in scientific research. Particularly in fields like The Natural History of Rape, where experimental verification is difficult, a more rigorous logical structure is required. This book has a stronger opinion piece character than a scientific work, which is why it faced both ethical and academic criticism simultaneously, sparking greater controversy than anticipated. This case serves as a stark reminder of how crucial ethical review and logical validity assessment are throughout the research process.
