Darwin's Rape Whistle

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Feb 12, 2011 9:29 am

Any discussion on rape is delicate and even an Evolutionary consideration of the subject is no exception. The following article is very interesting (and is bound to be controversial given the subject matter). I caution the faint of heart before choosing to read it because the first part is especially difficult to accept. Putting aside ones value judgments is therefore a must before taking this on.Given the enormity of this adaptive problem for ancestral women, it is plausible that human females would have evolved a set of counter-adaptations to protect them from being raped, and that these anti-rape adaptations would be activated, specifically, during the woman's most fertile period, the periovulatory phase of her reproductive cycle. So with the foregoing theoretical sketch in mind, I now present to you an up-to-date list of four empirically validated "phase dependent female rape-avoidance mechanisms:" Have women evolved to protect themselves from rapists? - By Jesse Bering - Slate Magazine

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Feb 12, 2011 3:59 pm

Ahso!;1353549 wrote: Any discussion on rape is delicate and even an Evolutionary consideration of the subject is no exception. The following article is very interesting (and is bound to be controversial given the subject matter). I caution the faint of heart before choosing to read it because the first part is especially difficult to accept. Putting aside ones value judgments is therefore a must before taking this on.Have women evolved to protect themselves from rapists? - By Jesse Bering - Slate Magazine

From the strictly evolutionary stand-point, it would not necessarily be advantagious to the species to "avoid rape".

Few mammals have really evolved monogamous relationships. The original instinct would drive males to "plant their seed" in any female they were able to.

only with the evolution of relationships and "civilization" did rape really become unacceptible behavior.

In fact, in many cases, monogamy can actually be counter to evolutionary drive to improve the species.

There is a very large percentage of monogamous relations which fail to produce viable offspring. And another fairly large percentage produce offspring that prove less than productive to species survival.

Much of the strength of many humans is a result of conquering armies from various tribes forcing themselves on the conquered.

Please note: Nothing I write here should be construed to represent an attempt to justify, or condone any form of coerced sexual contact.

Given the advancement of human civilization I agree that such behavior is now counter to social evolution.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Feb 12, 2011 4:38 pm

LarsMac;1353572 wrote: From the strictly evolutionary stand-pointIs there any other?

LarsMac;1353572 wrote: it would not necessarily be advantagious to the species to "avoid rape".

Few mammals have really evolved monogamous relationships. The original instinct would drive males to "plant their seed" in any female they were able to.

only with the evolution of relationships and "civilization" did rape really become unacceptible behavior.

In fact, in many cases, monogamy can actually be counter to evolutionary drive to improve the species.

There is a very large percentage of monogamous relations which fail to produce viable offspring. And another fairly large percentage produce offspring that prove less than productive to species survival.

Much of the strength of many humans is a result of conquering armies from various tribes forcing themselves on the conquered.

Please note: Nothing I write here should be construed to represent an attempt to justify, or condone any form of coerced sexual contact.

Given the advancement of human civilization I agree that such behavior is now counter to social evolution.Thanks for the input.

We have two dogs with us, one male and one female. The male has been fixed and the female gets fixed next week. The female has had one menstrual cycle and during it the male would grab her by her neck and mount her whether she liked it or not. When she's not in heat it's not obviously there is a gender difference behaviorally.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Feb 12, 2011 6:41 pm

LarsMac;1353572 wrote: From the strictly evolutionary stand-point,

Ahso!;1353575 wrote: Is there any other?

Of course.

From the social standpoint, we are talking about a reprehensible crime which must be stopped.

If someone were to commit such an act on my wife, or daughter, or any of my family, I might well forget all my fine moral upbringing and hunt the sumbitch down in cold blood.

So, yes, there are at least two.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Feb 12, 2011 6:49 pm

My point was that morality is also an evolved adaptation, as is emotion and the associated responses. So, from my perspective it all boils down to Evolutionary Theory.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:29 pm

Ignoring that some people think psychology is a quack science, the evolutionary issue is not so relevant to rape when you consider that it's an act of violence, not sexuality. We could just as easily ask what anti-murder mechanisms humans have acquired.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Feb 12, 2011 8:12 pm

koan;1353600 wrote: Ignoring that some people think psychology is a quack science, the evolutionary issue is not so relevant to rape when you consider that it's an act of violence, not sexuality. We could just as easily ask what anti-murder mechanisms humans have acquired.Can it be both, as in violence driven by sexual devices? Violence is definitely an evolutionary adaptation for both defensive purposes as well as acquiring necessities for survival. I thought the piece touched on those points.

FWIW, I myself don't view psychology as quack science, though I do believe it's perspective needs to shift to an evolutionary one, which it has in fact been doing. While mom and dad are important influences in our lives, the idea of placing blame with them is too short sighted, IMV. I realize that's simplistic but it hits on the heart of modern psychology.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Feb 12, 2011 9:46 pm

It's possible it could be both, but not likely.

Rapists, except for the odd one on an episode of criminal minds, are not intending on breeding with their victims and it's an act of violence. They may express it through sexual means but they aren't attacking a woman who turned them on, they are attacking a woman who represents all people who have taken away their sense of personal power. It might be anger against women in general or it could be because their boss humiliated them at work that day. They just see an opportunity to take power from someone they can overpower. Not much different than a dude getting the crap beat out of him outside a bar.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 3:29 am

What's your take on the main purpose of the article, the four points?

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:42 am

It indicates that ovulating women think differently and react differently. I'm not convinced.

If you took the same control and test groups and told them a story about a child abduction it could yield the same results.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 11:07 am

I do believe women have evolved such things over time but I think this study gives too much weight to them. Not just internal processes but physical ability. Hell, look at the cutlery. Way back in the day I'm quite sure women took great care of their nails just as they do today. No potential rapist back then didn't consider the risks involved, you get scratched up or a damaged eye you could very easily die as a result of that injury. I and my wife will sometimes wrestle and she has on occasion left me bleeding profusely. Her nails are wide, thick and strong and she has more reach than I by about 4 inches, her feet are bigger. Where I have weight and power on my side (I'm 240lbs she's 135 to 145 and we're both 6 ft) she has better balance, speed and stamina. We both do have skills, me from wrestling in my younger days and her from ballet and dancing and self defense courses. All in all if we were to really go into a fight to the death I MOST LIKELY would win but pay a dear price for it.

I think that women 3000 years ago were vastly different from the women of the more recent past in most cases. Civilization has softened us all, we are more sheltered. If you put a man from the Neolithic age in the ring with a computer programmer who do you think would win? The physical abilities of aboriginal peoples are well documented.

Evolution cares little for HOW child is conceived, I think the article gives far to much weight to who's in the rearing of the young. I am quite sure women are very capable of rearing young with men coming and going. It doesn't really matter if one male runs off and gets a spear in his guts, the guy who speared him will take his place and if that fails womens cooperative nature ensure better yields of children. Wasn't there a policy of the old English lords and knights "breeding out" the bad elements in old France in the middle ages? Go in and kill all the males rape the women who would give birth to Englishmen. Funny, there's a lot of Frenchmen still around. I think women in many ways more important than those of the article control their genetic destinies. I also think it's not so much about genes (nature) as upbringing (nurture). A child can be conceived in violence but that doesn't mean the child will be the same as who fathered it. That's up to the mother.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 2:15 pm

Hmmmm The comments after the article are very interesting.

May I ask one question though? when a woman hits menapause (the ceasing of ovalation) She no longer thinks that men can rape her?

I find this to be a very mysoginistic article written by someone already on the back foot at the very beginning of it . ie: I'm a homosexual and I don't condone rape , but it's natural for men to rape females. ........this man clearly did not do his research very well at all.

Okay why do men rape men? That would be a more interesting article.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 3:58 pm

May I ask one question though? when a woman hits menapause (the ceasing of ovalation) She no longer thinks that men can rape her?

Rape in the bare bones sense is about sadism and it applies to all.

it would not necessarily be advantagious to the species to "avoid rape".

Few mammals have really evolved monogamous relationships. The original instinct would drive males to "plant their seed" in any female they were able to.

only with the evolution of relationships and "civilization" did rape really become unacceptible behavior.

In fact, in many cases, monogamy can actually be counter to evolutionary drive to improve the species.

There is a very large percentage of monogamous relations which fail to produce viable offspring. And another fairly large percentage produce offspring that prove less than productive to species survival.

Much of the strength of many humans is a result of conquering armies from various tribes forcing themselves on the conquered.

What I find perplexing is the standards applied. In my eyes no does mean no but what about date rape ect? During the Soviet conquest of Berlin, when the country was leveled it was not unusual for German women to make arrangements with Soviet soldiers. They traded sex for food and other goods. If a soldier assigned to guard a truck full of Spam is approached by a woman and a deal is struck then is this rape? Granted it's not the best of situations but all parties involved are better off in the end. The extreme conditions have made a different set of standards of personal conduct for all those involved.

Another situation arises when a group of guys goes into an area (lets say Batu Khan and his merry band of Mongols in the Volga and Kavkaz regions) and slaughters all of the males for 100s miles around. Only women and children are left. What is to be done? I think that some of the features in the faces of the people of western Ukraine and south central Asia will tell you what was done, and probably not by extreme sexual violence either. I have no doubt that choice in available males with certain features was extremely limited and the women of the era were more resigned than excited by the prospects but there you have it.

I fail to see the benefit (if anything is to be had) from this study. Women, even when faced with adversity beyond anything we can dream of always adapt. Women are more malleable in nature, more plastic. It's trying to be too specific in how women react in given situations.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:54 pm

I still end up caught in the concept of evolution meaning something didn't exist and then nature made it exist for protection of the species.

In this case, I wonder how they could prove the hormonal changes are an adaptation unless they can test it against the hormonal phases of earlier civilizations.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:56 pm

... as far as we know, females have always been paranoid hormonal bitches. And there's nothing wrong with that.

TruthBringer · Post by **TruthBringer** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 11:53 pm

Ahso!;1353605 wrote: Can it be both, as in violence driven by sexual devices? Violence is definitely an evolutionary adaptation for both defensive purposes as well as acquiring necessities for survival. I thought the piece touched on those points.

FWIW, I myself don't view psychology as quack science, though I do believe it's perspective needs to shift to an evolutionary one, which it has in fact been doing. While mom and dad are important influences in our lives, the idea of placing blame with them is too short sighted, IMV. I realize that's simplistic but it hits on the heart of modern psychology.

It is my personal belief that all Evil is born out of a perverted sense of sexual desire and gratification. To appease the senses of the body through lust and greed. To "get off on it". Since the beginning of it's inception.

A Satanist does not gravitate towards death, destruction, pain, revenge, and black magic simply because the idea of it seems interesting. They gravitate towards such practices because it turns them on to do so. Hence the perverted sense of sexual gratification.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:42 am

koan;1353669 wrote: I still end up caught in the concept of evolution meaning something didn't exist and then nature made it exist for protection of the species.

In this case, I wonder how they could prove the hormonal changes are an adaptation unless they can test it against the hormonal phases of earlier civilizations.As with any science there is of course an assumption, and that assumption is that life began as the simplest of life forms and mutated and adapted from there. That's what the Theory Of Evolution has been proving slowly but consistently every day. The evidence accumulates as it's uncovered. This assumption has been proven correct up to now. Not only biologically, but also n terms of emotion, cognition as well as every aspect of social life.

So, the idea that "everything happens for a reason" is proving to, in fact, be absolutely correct. What Evolutionary Theory has done is take the mystery out of it. Some obviously resist the idea of removing the mystery because, well, they enjoy mystery, which to the evolutionist, may also be an adaptation.

In the end it's not necessary to show a different menopausal phases as much as this is the one which that exists today and the assumption would be because it's there. It serves a purpose relevant to survival and reproductive advantage. Were there (evolutionary) stages of the adaptation? That would also be a safe assumption, I think.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:54 am

TruthBringer;1353672 wrote: It is my personal belief that all Evil is born out of a perverted sense of sexual desire and gratification. To appease the senses of the body through lust and greed. To "get off on it". Since the beginning of it's inception.

A Satanist does not gravitate towards death, destruction, pain, revenge, and black magic simply because the idea of it seems interesting. They gravitate towards such practices because it turns them on to do so. Hence the perverted sense of sexual gratification.This sort of good/evil mindset has been evolving out of society, that's why people are labeling it a "dark ages mentality". It may have served a purpose in the past, I don't know, but it is devisive and therefore destructive to the species and will not therefore survive much longer. Perhaps "helpful and non-helpful" (to survival and reproductive advantage) would be bettter suited terms.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:42 am

Ahso!;1353673 wrote: As with any science there is of course an assumption, and that assumption is that life began as the simplest of life forms and mutated and adapted from there. That's what the Theory Of Evolution has been proving slowly but consistently every day. The evidence accumulates as it's uncovered. This assumption has been proven correct up to now. Not only biologically, but also n terms of emotion, cognition as well as every aspect of social life.

So, the idea that "everything happens for a reason" is proving to, in fact, be absolutely correct. What Evolutionary Theory has done is take the mystery out of it. Some obviously resist the idea of removing the mystery because, well, they enjoy mystery, which to the evolutionist, may also be an adaptation.

In the end it's not necessary to show a different menopausal phases as much as this is the one which that exists today and the assumption would be because it's there. It serves a purpose relevant to survival and reproductive advantage. Were there (evolutionary) stages of the adaptation? That would also be a safe assumption, I think.
Reproductive advantage because they are avoiding non chosen gene pools... presumably, but the behaviour described indicates they are avoiding sex. Instead of paranoia over being raped, I'd expect fertile women to be on the prowl for the man of their choice. It just doesn't mesh.

In fact, the use of evolution to describe a lot of things sounds to me like a lame excuse to make an unproven statement sound factual.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 6:33 am

koan;1353679 wrote: Reproductive advantage because they are avoiding non chosen gene pools... presumably, but the behaviour described indicates they are avoiding sex. Instead of paranoia over being raped, I'd expect fertile women to be on the prowl for the man of their choice. It just doesn't mesh.

In fact, the use of evolution to describe a lot of things sounds to me like a lame excuse to make an unproven statement sound factual.Your skepticism is healthy.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:12 pm

Ahso!;1353673 wrote: As with any science there is of course an assumption, and that assumption is that life began as the simplest of life forms and mutated and adapted from there. That's what the Theory Of Evolution has been proving slowly but consistently every day. The evidence accumulates as it's uncovered. This assumption has been proven correct up to now. Not only biologically, but also n terms of emotion, cognition as well as every aspect of social life.

So, the idea that "everything happens for a reason" is proving to, in fact, be absolutely correct. What Evolutionary Theory has done is take the mystery out of it. Some obviously resist the idea of removing the mystery because, well, they enjoy mystery, which to the evolutionist, may also be an adaptation.

You cannot assume that evolution always proceeds from the simple to the complex - life may have started with the simple and the trend is generally towards complexity but it is not an invariable rule and nature can select for simplicity just as easily as for complexity.

There are many examples where a species became too complex to adapt quickly to a changing environment and therefore lost out to a simpler competitor.

Neither can you say that "everything happens for a reason" - much of evolution is blind chance and statistics. Change happens and, occasionally, proves to be beneficial - to say that when this happens it happened for a reason is to ignore the thousands of cases where the change was not successful.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 6:33 pm

Bryn Mawr;1353719 wrote: You cannot assume that evolution always proceeds from the simple to the complex - life may have started with the simple and the trend is generally towards complexity but it is not an invariable rule and nature can select for simplicity just as easily as for complexity.

There are many examples where a species became too complex to adapt quickly to a changing environment and therefore lost out to a simpler competitor.Quite right, Bryn, generally speaking. Though since the subject of the thread is related to the human species, that was my focus.

Bryn Mawr;1353719 wrote: Neither can you say that "everything happens for a reason" - much of evolution is blind chance and statistics. Change happens and, occasionally, proves to be beneficial - to say that when this happens it happened for a reason is to ignore the thousands of cases where the change was not successful.100% correct again, Bryn, and thanks for pointing that out. My reponse may have been poorly worded.

I was pointing out that everything we observe in ourselves such as emotions, reactions, morals and so forth each have a history and purpose - thus my "everything happens for a reason" remark.

Sorry for the confusion. My bad!

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:01 am

After given this some thought, it's curious that females don't have more control over whether the egg is fertalized. For example, why couldn't the egg release be voluntary? Or for example, a combination of stress hormones might kill any egg that is fertalized during an attack. Or even more simply, another set of muscles could easily protect it. It's possible that these adaptations could/do exist as well. Though it's hard to make predictions in this case, because the offspring are ultimately the ones making the genetic selections on behalf of the females.

winnip2 · Post by **winnip2** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 9:13 am

Fascinating article. And I think very accurate. some people argue that monogamy is only cultural. But I did see a discovery program on love, sex, etc. and it pointed out some theories about how when we began to walk on 2 legs, the mother had to carry the child in her arms, making her much more defenseless than when a baby could cling to her back. We also have one of the most helpless mammalian newborns. This indicates a need for dual parenting responsibilities in order to keep the mother and child safe. That is why women select males that will give good genes and support, at least for the first 4 years of a child's life, the female needs assistance, and curiously researchers have found that around 4 years is the length of time when couples can fall out of love (chemical reaction wise). I definitely think there is merit in the idea of evolving to prevent rape, especially withing the fertile days of the cycle. truly fascinating, thanks for sharing!

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 12:12 pm

There is, of course, a question of whether or not what is better for the woman as an individual is better for the species as a whole.

Reproduction is not as desirable or as common as it used to be. Is the yuppie human an evolutionary product?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 12:18 pm

koan;1353846 wrote: There is, of course, a question of whether or not what is better for the woman as an individual is better for the species as a whole.

Reproduction is not as desirable or as common as it used to be. Is the yuppie human an evolutionary product?

That would be devolutionary, surely.

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 4:15 pm

Perhaps the devolutionary process that has women refusing to mate and reproduce so prolifically would set off an evolutionary increase in rape.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 4:44 pm

koan;1353884 wrote: Perhaps the devolutionary process that has women refusing to mate and reproduce so prolifically would set off an evolutionary increase in rape.

That change is not (d)evolutionary, it's cultural - no change to the genome whatsoever.

martha · Post by **martha** » Sat Feb 26, 2011 10:41 pm

I get this, makes sense.