A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion

by Randy Thornhill, Craig T. Palmer

A biologist and an anthropologist use evolutionary biology to explain the causes and inform the prevention of rape. In this controversial book, Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer use evolutionary biology to explain the causes of rape and to recommend new approaches to its prevention. According to Thornhill and Palmer, evolved adaptation of some sort gives rise to rape; the main evolutionary question is whether rape is an adaptation itself or a by-product of other adaptations. Regardless of the answer, Thornhill and Palmer note, rape circumvents a central feature of women's reproductive mate choice. This is a primary reason why rape is devastating to its victims, especially young women. Thornhill and Palmer address, and claim to demolish scientifically, many myths about rape bred by social science theory over the past twenty-five years. The popular contention that rapists are not motivated by sexual desire is, they argue, scientifically inaccurate. Although they argue that rape is biological, Thornhill and Palmer do not view it as inevitable. Their recommendations for rape prevention include teaching young males not to rape, punishing rape more severely, and studying the effectiveness of "chemical castration." They also recommend that young women consider the biological causes of rape when making decisions about dress, appearance, and social activities. Rape could cease to exist, they argue, only in a society knowledgeable about its evolutionary causes. The book includes a useful summary of evolutionary theory and a comparison of evolutionary biology's and social science's explanations of human behavior. The authors argue for the greater explanatory power and practical usefulness of evolutionary biology. The book is sure to stir up discussion both on the specific topic of rape and on the larger issues of how we understand and influence human behavior.

Genres: Psychology, Science, Nonfiction, Evolution, Biology, History, Gender

272 pages, Paperback

First published January 18, 2000

Reviews

[Nebuchadnezzar · Rating 1 out of 5]

Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer's A Natural History of Rape represents the worst excesses of evolutionary psychology. Contra the authors framing of the controversy, the book was critically panned in scientific journals and resulted in a book-length response edited by Cheryl Brown Travis, Evolution, Gender, and Rape. (Elisabeth Lloyd's excellent chapter is available online: http://joelvelasco.net/teaching/2890/...)

Thornhill and Palmer argue that rape is either an adaptive behavior or the by-product of adaptation. Both positions ultimately fail as they hinge on the veracity of David Buss's Sexual Strategies Theory (SST). SST boils down to a mis-application of Bateman's Principle to humans and has invited refutation from a number of fields, including biology, psychology, and anthropology (refer to Travis' volume or Buller's critique in Adapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature). Much of the other "evidence" presented is arbitrarily analogized from animals such as scorpion flies and overgeneralized, shoddy one-off studies.

I have no compunction about investigating humanity's more unsavory aspects from a biological perspective -- we see violent behavior (as well as altruistic behavior) all throughout nature. The authors rightly note that to object would be to commit the naturalistic fallacy. However, they forfeit the right to use this as a defense when they use their own "science" to support policy prescription. Shouting "naturalistic fallacy!" does nothing in that case.

It is impossible for me to know what resides in the minds of the authors, but if they wanted to be seen as the impartial investigators they attempted to portray themselves as, they did a god-awful job of it. A good deal of the book is taken up by uninformed screeds against feminism and the social sciences in general. Their policy advice includes such gems as reminding women not to dress like sluts, in slightly gussied up language. The framing of the "debate" smacks of old sexist tropes such as the image of the rational and objective male scientists against the emotional and "politically correct" feminist women. Though it would still be hack science, they could have easily written the same book without it reeking of misogyny. One wonders why they didn't do so if they wanted to be taken seriously. (Although it must be admitted that what they have to say about men could have come from the pens of the most radical of radical feminists, so it could be said that the work smacks of equal parts misandry and misogyny.)

This book is highly recommended as an example of how not to do science.

[Alicia Fox · Rating 5 out of 5]

"The ability of ideology to blind people to the utter implausibility of their positions is perhaps the greatest threat to accumulating the knowledge necessary to solve social problems." (p. 152)

This book uses a ton of data/research in evolutionary psychology/biology to explain why rape exists in all human societies.

It has been panned by a lot of people as somehow justifying or rationalizing rape, which is not the case at all. Those who hate this book (and the research behind it) fall victim to the naturalistic fallacy--the misconception that what is "natural" is "good." It is "natural" for lions to rip apart and eat zebras, it is "natural" for a virus to attack your body, and it is "natural" for volcanoes to erupt and kill thousands of people; but we generally don't say that these things are "good" because they are "natural."

With the evolution of our species, the naturalistic fallacy is especially prominent because we like to think that we are "highly evolved," and that our ability to post on Facebook somehow elevates us above other animals in terms of behavior.

If you are mentally capable of not succumbing to the naturalistic fallacy, and want some insight into human nature which is backed up by actual science, then this book might be for you.

As a feminist who would like to see rape rates go down, I wish people would stop attacking this research, and at least attempt to understand it.

[Fiona]

Frequently a catchall term for critiquing feminist writing as 'too emotional' or vehement to absorb, strident is an accurate description of Palmer and Thornhill's argument that rape is a product of reproductive adaptations, not the violent result of a misogynist culture as suggested in feminist thought. Their rhetoric is quite overwhelming, so much so that I almost bought their pre-emptive defence of a lack of data showing the reproductive success of rape as a ridiculous expectation, even as a little part of my brain niggled that such data seemed central to their thesis. But regardless of how “dumbfounded” they are by this criticism, the obvious difficulty, if not impossibility, of getting such data doesn't negate the problem that evolutionary psychology often veers into the land of 'just-so' stories where plausible theories of human behaviour are accepted because it seems to make sense and cannot really be disproved.

While it indeed seems reasonable that rape would be a reproductive strategy of individuals unable to ensure the survival of their gene pool the traditional consensual route, the fact that rapists are not only men who are unattractive to women but not infrequently men who women do find attractive suggests that while there may be a biological component there is also a cultural component that is not operating on a one-dimensional goal of reproduction. Furthermore, the fact that while most rape victims are often fertile, numerous unfertile females both pre- and post-menopausal (at least 30% of reported rapes by Palmer and Thornhill's own dataset – a dataset that it should be pointed out is both old [even at the time this book was published:], America-centric, and seemingly slight in instances of rape where the assailant was well-known to the victim) also raped raises questions about the sufficiency of their theory that rape is almost always an adaptive reproductive strategy.

Palmer and Thornhill find evolutionary adaptations as the ultimate causes of every aspect of rape. Rape is the result of an adaptive reproductive strategy for less fit males. Women's psychological pain from rape is the result of their reproductive strategies having been circumvented. Patriarchal laws surrounding the prosecution of rape are the result of men trying to safeguard their own reproductive success – both that of their partners and daughters (statutory rape). Their opening chapters define everything as biological, thereby entirely negating the influence of culture. Even crosscultural studies on how boys and girls are socialized aren't evidence of the influence of culture on rape – apparently they are evidence of how different developmental cues are being activated by surrounding. If this sounds like a semantic game, it's not the only one in the book.

The authors frequently parse social scientists' discussions of rape in peculiar ways. Hence, the suggestion that rape cannot be “rooted out from patriarchy without ending patriarchy itself” is interpreted as suggesting that “boys would be better off without a paternal presence”. This is a fairly fundamental misunderstanding of patriarchy. Similarly, postmodernism is defined as being “founded on a liberal ideology that propose no censorship or even no critical evalution of ideas” and as considering scientific findings to have no more validity that theology or literature. This is a very distorted and extremist representation of postmodernism. Another glaring misunderstanding is their idea that women's psychological pain only stems from the circumvention of their reproductive strategy. When Thornhill and Palmer speculate on ways to eliminate rape from the human population by selecting against or for traits, they suggest selecting for “indiscriminate mating by females (so that rape wouldn't matter to them)”. While they are not seriously suggesting this as an option, “indiscriminate” is a revealing adjective choice. Women who made no discrimination between their partners could still be raped and still suffer pain from this rape since, like men, would still want control of when they have sex, that is, control over their own bodies. This misconception gets at the heart of the flaws in this book.

While the fact that evolution occurs on a timescale almost inconceivable to the human mind, so that modern human history represents merely a blink, may seem to suggest we should look to our distant biological past for answers, the world we live in is not purely biological. Evolutionary adaptations millions of years in the making influence human behaviour that is also responding to a a complex social environment. While Palmer and Thornhill dismiss Cartesian rationality (I think, therefore I am) as a long discarded theory, modern humans have a sense of self that impinges on the occurrence and experience of rape. While there may be some truth in their theory of rape as an evolutionary adaptation, the ability of evolutionary theory to help decrease the occurrence of rape seems certain to be limited by the difference between the world they originated in and the world we live in now.

In any case, for all their hammering of the usefulness of their point of view, the solutions Palmer and Thornhill present are vague and ill-formed. In the end, it seems their main point is that rape is about sex not violence, so anti-rape measures need to focus on teaching men to recognise 'rape cues' and suppress them and teaching women to consciously work on not exuding such cues. Leaving aside the naïve optimism with which the authors envision young men could be taught to recognise rape cues (and seemingly fail to see the quite understandable outrage that many men would feel at being spoken to in such a manner, given that most men do not rape), their suggestions for teaching women involve those tired old ideas that women dress less provocatively and avoid 'dangerous areas', those mainly being 'in public'. They acknowledge the drawback of “social barriers” being “losses in personal freedom” but clearly fail to appreciate the injustice of women's daily life being constricted in response to the actions of a small proportion of the population – just like they fail to appreciate that rape is not just an act of reproductive violence but an act that many women find a violation of their sense of self.

I haven't given this book a rating - not because it's so crap it deserves nothing but because it doesn't seem like the kind of book you rate based on how much you liked it.

[Deb Waterhouse-watson · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is the most outrageously offensive and wildly unfounded book I have ever read - on any subject - but particularly on rape, as it is essentially trying to provide a 'scientific' basis for popular rape myths. I am a rape theorist myself, and have read the countless legitimate studies - in anthropology, sociology etc - that conclusively refute the myths Thornhill takes for granted, such as that women provoke rape by wearing revealing clothing etc (although statistically, unattractive, modestly dressed women are no less likely tobe victimised), it is natural for men to rape women (although many societies exist in which rape is virtually unheard of), etc etc. It amazes me that Thornhill expresses puzzlement that universities worldwide have rejected and denounced his work so emphatically. IT IS A COMPLETE FABRICATION. WAKE UP. If I could give this book negative stars, I would.

[Ann McDowell · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is difficult to read, both in style and content. However, I'm finding it impossible to discount data-driven conclusions the authors present. I read several of the reviews that concluded this books was misogynistic and dangerous. I'm a feminist and I don't agree. I do think it challenges long and closely held beliefs around why men rape, but it doesn't attempt to justify rape or suggest that society should tolerate or excuse it. They pretty clearly laid out the scientific evidence and I respect that. Thank you to the authors, I bet they get a lot of hate mail.

[Dani Braun · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the most enlightening books I’ve read in quite some time (possibly ever). This book is important. I wish this would have been a required reading when I was getting my master’s... would love to write a paper on this.

Great quotes:

“Rejections of evolutionary theory based on naturalistic fallacy, and hence on ideological grounds, are not tenable. The naturalistic fallacy has been described and discredited so many times that those who continue to evince it in their critiques of evolutionary explanations should be dismissed on the basis of lack of scholarship alone.” (p. 122)

“The ability of ideology to blind people to the utter implausibility of their positions is perhaps the greatest threat to accumulating the knowledge necessary to solve social problems”. (p. 152)

[Jane · Rating 1 out of 5]

In their repeated attempt to rationalize and justify rape, Thornhill and Palmer spend the whole book trying to tell you that they are not trying to rationalize or justify rape. I read this and shook my head in anger the whole time.

I thought maybe I would get some insight into one of the most terrifying experiences anyone can have. I thought perhaps I'd hear another side of the story, one that we don't hear very often. I was disappointed.

[Rinstinkt · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reading some reviews you'd think this book was written by Satan himself. Lol. Its a decent non fiction book that treats the topic of rape from a factual, biological and evolutionary perspective. The only thing it lacks is sociological mumbo jumbo interpretations.
I found the evolutionary premises and explanations well written and extensive.

[Sandra · Rating 4 out of 5]

Solid, careful overview of (evolutionary) science as it relates to rape, and how understanding behavioral drivers and triggers could be used to craft better (as in more effectively reducing harm) policies. None of which excuses rape, blames the victims, perpetuates misogynistic violence of patriarchy, and the rest of that tired moralistic hyperventilating. JFC.

[Evan Micheals · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the third “Voldamort” book (that should not be read by polite right thinking people) from the 1990’s that Stephen Pinker identified in The Blank Slate. This might also be the most challenging. There is no polite way to talk about rape. “The author are strongest when discussing why rape occurs and why it is so harmful to women” (p 2, written in the forward). The authors consider rape from an evolutionary perspective.

An evolutionary perspective has it that we are vehicles to push forward our own genes. That is our purpose. I think when you look at life from this perspective it explains a lot of our psychology. Thornhill and Palmer make clear their definition “we have used the word ‘rape’ to refer to refer to human copulation resisted b the victim to the best of her ability unless such resistance would probably result in death or serious injury to her or in the death or injury to other she commonly protects” (p 125).

A short discussion of sexual strategies from an evolutionary perspective from both males and females.

Males: 1/ Be the most genetically superior specimen so that all the females want to combine these genes with yours, and give their genes the best chance of survival. Males put their energy into becoming big, strong, and dominant. In these species the male is often larger than the female, Elephant Seals and Gorillas are an example to this. In humans these males sit at the top of the constructed hierarchy and dominate access to resources.

2/ Become an awesome Dad and take on a fair share of the parenting load. Partners can both work to makes sure the children they create survive long enough to mate themselves, therefore pushing the genes of both partners. Species are often closer together in size and harder to tell apart. Swans and Bonobos are examples of this. In humans’ monogamous relationships are examples of this and they share resources for the benefit of both.

3/ Rape. The male gets to push his genes forward and does not have to expend any energy in the parenting load. If gives a female inferior gene that she has to carry. If she abandons the child after birth, she has expended a lot of energy growing that baby and half that baby is her genes. She loses either way. This has been observed in most species, and the writers give examples of species that have evolved specifically to rape (scorpion flies).

Females: 1/ Find the male with the best genes and mate with him. She gets the best available genes to combine her own with, giving her offspring the best chance of survival. She is left with providing the energy to nurture and protect the child.

2/ Pair bonding with the best partner she can find. She has help and support to share the parenting load, but the child might be less genetically gifted.

3/ Cuckoldry. She “pair bonds” with someone who will share the parenting load, but without her mate’s knowledge mates with a genetically superior male. She get a genetically superior child and sharing the parental load. She has the best of both worlds to push her genes forward. The ‘pair bonded’ males as he expends a lot of energy pushing forward the genes he does not share.

This explains the cross-cultural phenomenon of men’s concern for their partner sexual fidelity, especially given human females have discrete estrus. This is a strategy more common than polite society would care to admit. When we began to identify blood groups more than 10% of children did not have the same blood group as either their mother or father.

Rape like genocide and ecological destruction (from last weeks review of Jared Diamond’s Third Chimpanzee) are natural to our species. There is a concern within social science that if we acknowledge rape as natural, it is justifiable. The is the naturalistic fallacy which assumes that all that is natural is good, “to propose specific evolved mechanisms that differ between males and females is sure to be labelled ‘sexist’ by ideologues who commit the naturalistic fallacy” (p 92). “The naturalistic fallacy leads to social scientists to fear that if rape is motivated by something as natural as sexual desire then is must be good, or at least excusable” (p 123).

This brings us to Free Will. Robert Sapolsky in his book “Behave” gives a number of good arguments that we do not have Free Will. He uses his knowledge of neuroendocrinology to make these arguments in a persuasive manner. I accept these arguments, but our society and laws are predicated on the assumption ‘as if’ we do indeed have free will. Coming back to rape, I believe that we should assume that men have the free will to choose whether or not to rape. Thornhill and Palmer agree “That rape is entirely based on biology does not imply that men cannot consciously choose not to rape” (p 128).

Thornhill and Palmer are critical of social sciences attempts to understand rape and sexual behaviour. “Feminism shares with evolutionary psychology a concern with describing and explaining what exists, but it also carries a social and political agenda” (p 90). The underlying assumption of such science is that they already know the answer, but they just need to find the evidence. They believe “Biologists are in a position to inform other about how evolution applies to humans. Biologists have deep understanding of ontogeny and of the theory of evolution, both of which deny the dichotomies for traits of individuals (e.g. learned vs genetic) that have misinformed and misguided social scientist research on rape” (p 160).

Thornhill and Palmer provide arguments based in the evolutionary perspective on why rape is worse for females “any desire to be raped must always have been select against in human evolutionary history, since it would have interfered with the fundamental reproductive strategy of females – i.e., to choose mates on the basis of the benefits they are likely to provide” (p 150). If we accept the premise that we are vessels to push our genes forward, rape interferes with females purpose to give her genes the best chance of moving forward.

Thornhill and Palmer show the research to support that rape is primarily a sexual act and refute the social science argument that it is based on power. Men are most likely to rape at the same age that women are likely to be raped (late teens through to twenties). In traditional society if a man finds a woman of age, alone, he will likely rape her. Rape increases in circumstance where the man is less likely to face social consequences from the rape, such as during war. If game theory is applied to rape we come to bleak, but conservative conclusions.

As a mental health clinician, it was interesting to read that the women who struggled the hardest physically to avoid being raped were least likely to suffer PTSD, especially if they were injured. Thornhill and Palmer theorized that the physical injuries from an evolutionary perspective signalled she was raped, and not engaging in cuckoldry, therefore likely to be accepted by her monogamous man. The fear of being accused of cuckoldry is evolutionary real. If a women cannot signal via injuries that she was raped “research shows that in social competition human females use a suite of indirect, low-cost tactics. Girl and women, relative to boys and men, tell more false stories about adversaries, gossip about them, start rumours about them, use ostracism and manipulation of public opinion as tactics” (p 132).


Thornhill and Palmer make suggestions to educate both males and females to reduce rape. They suggest longer prison sentences incarcerating men beyond the age when rape is most likely, chemical castration of rapists and tracking devices that would alert females a rapist is nearby. They advocate tough words to young men make clear the consequences if they are found guilty of rape. The education for women is to be aware of their environment and the dangers of men, especially unknown young men, and avoid being alone with them. The advice given sounds a lot like the conservative advise of yesteryear that people came up with by watching people, and what the nature of people is.

I have come to believe the purpose of civilisation and individually our frontal cortex is to transcend our nature. The older I get the more Hobbesian I am becoming. It is also something to consider when I have three children all about to be teenagers. I have always wanted to aspire to treat my daughter with the same rules as my son’s. I want to be liberal and egalitarian, but young teenage men are dangerous (I used to be one). Thornhill and Palmer do not hesitate in attacking social sciences accepted wisdoms about rape, and I suspect they are closer to the truth, hence why this became a Voldamort Book. The truth is more painful than fiction.

[Billie Pritchett · Rating 1 out of 5]

Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer's Natural History of Rape argues that rape is continuous with but nonetheless an extreme form of male sexual behavior in human beings. You could think of male sexuality in humans as a dial that could either be 0, asexual, or 10, rapacious, and perhaps normal male sexuality falls somewhere in between, at a 4 or a 5. Something like this claim looks to be true, and it would look as though from our point of view as human beings, most animal behavior, were humans to engage in it, would be quite rapacious. In the Animal Kingdom, there are all kinds of examples of forced sex; dogs and ducks, for example, don't get consent or mutually engage in sex, but rather the sex is forced.

The reason I didn't like the book is the appeal to "evolutionary explanations" read to me to be little more than common sense. To take an example, nobody need appeal to natural selection and the necessity of genes to replicate to understand that men would more often, on average, like to engage in sex, and it is up to the women to choose if they would like to engage in sex with a particular partner. Also, I think it should be widely understood that men often misinterpret women's behavior or speech as indications of courtship or that it is largely up to a woman to interpret ambiguous behavior from men as a display of courtship or not, and an appropriate display or not. Again, the appeal to "biological bases" and "evolutionary psychology" is what could be gathered through folk wisdom.

What do you think?

ADDITIONAL NOTE: I've read some reviews here that argue that this book is a justification for bad behavior for men or a justification for rape. That claim is absurd. I can't analyze their souls, but they read like well-meaning scientists who just, unfortunately, thought their Science Hat would provide more explanation than their Folk Psychology Hat or Ethical Hat.

[Ashley Zacharias · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not particularly well written. Logical holes and gaps that you could drive a truck through. Way too defensive about feminists and social scientists. Not nearly enough data. Not a chart or graph in the whole book. But probably correct in most of the conclusions.
Feminists have said so many goofy things in the last fifty years that refuting them is a lot like taking on a baby in a cage fight. The audience is going to hate you, just because you look so mean.
The thing that really grates in this book is Thornhill's generalizations about social scientists. His "natural science chauvinism" is not pretty. In fact, there are a lot of hard-headed social scientists who are a lot more skeptical than Thornhill realizes.
Statistically, psychologists are less likely to believe in supernatural claims than any other profession, for example. And, to the extent that social learning theories are a kind of mysticism, a surprising number of psychologists dismiss them.

[Astillar · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a very insightful book about the evolutionary history of human sexuality, specifically in regards to sexual conflicts of interest, namely rape. Considering the inflammatory nature of this subject matter, the authors make a great effort to clearly define and explain the evolutionary theory and interaction of biology and environment that results in modern human sexuality. The precision and intricacy of their analysis is necessary to avoid any oversimplifications or misunderstandings that commonly muddle the public's understanding of this behavior, yet the complexity of their language can be difficult for laypersons to understand. I've read multiple books on human evolution so the general concepts were known to me, but I still had difficulty in unpacking the dense, intricate reasoning developed by the authors.
That isn't to say the effort was not worth it. The authors explore this matter to its deepest roots and as a by-product, they answered questions I've had about human sexuality for decades, questions that have been ignored or considered taboo by many. This book is not only of interest to people personally concerned with rape, it is illuminating and educational for ANY adult.

[Susan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gives more questions than answers, but I found what is known to be really fascinating. They do a good job throughout of not being sexist, until the chapter on how to educate people not to rape. They say girls should be educated more about not being raped - fine - but spend more than twice as many pages on that than on telling boys not to rape. Besides that, awesome.

[Hillary White · Rating 1 out of 5]

I am not someone who will give up on a book easily, but this book is just so uninteresting, considering the lack of proof the majority of the time, that I decided to return it to the library soon. Maybe I will check it out again sometime but for now I'm beyond frustrated with it and ready to move on to something new.

[Terence · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found the book very enlightening. Ultimately, the truth of the arguments put forward here must survive the test of science, not ideology or political correctness.

[VEL – The Contemporary Heretic · Rating 4 out of 5]

‘A Natural History of Rape’ was published in 2000 amid media hysteria. Everybody read about it in newspapers and magazines – but few bothered to read the book itself

Why bother to read a theory so universally rejected by the feminist ‘experts’ quoted in the media? Doing so would only financially benefit its loathsome authors and their equally loathsome publisher. Moreover, its thesis was so self-evidently misguided, as these experts helpfully explained, that there was no need to read it for oneself

Unfortunately, although its thesis as portrayed in the media may indeed have been preposterous, this bore little resemblance to the book’s actual contents – perhaps because those not bothering to read the book for themselves evidently included most of those taking it upon themselves to write about it

The Naturalistic Fallacy
The most preposterous misconception regarding the book is that it justified rape. Thus, Emily Martin asserts:

“Their account actually amounts to an incitement to rape” (Evolution, Gender, and Rape: p378)

Yet, in the opening sentence, Thornhill and Palmer declare their desire “to see rape eradicated from human life” (xi) and devote a chapter to discussing the trauma of rape and three to discussing how to reduce it

The assumption that an evolutionary theory of rape amounts to a justification of rape represents a version of the naturalistic fallacy, whereby it is assumed, if something is natural, this makes it good

Yet diseases are also natural – i.e. caused by pathogens seeking to maximize their own reproductive success

Yet nobody concludes that dying from disease is desirable, even though this was the ‘natural’ outcome before such ‘unnatural’ interventions as penicillin and vaccination

No one accuses biomedical researchers of “justifying disease” by seeking to understand its causes. Only by understanding causes can we create cures

Thornhill and Palmer write:

“The naturalistic fallacy has been described and discredited so many times that [academics] who continue to evince it… should be dismissed on the basis of lack of scholarship” (p122)

Adaptive?
An even more widespread misconception is that Thornhill and Palmer argue that human rape is adaptive

In fact, the authors identify two plausible evolutionary explanations for rape:

1) Rape is an adaptation

2) Rape is a byproduct of psychological mechanisms evolved for other purposes

These are the only two explanations for rape

The main alternative, what Thornhill and Palmer term “the social science explanation of rape” is itself a version of byproduct theory – because the social learning mechanism on which it relies must itself have evolved through natural selection and hence represents an adaptation of which rape is a byproduct

The real question then is whether rape is itself an adaptation or a non-adaptive byproduct of other adaptations – and, if so, which adaptations?

Following George C. Williams’s principle that “complex traits should be considered adaptations only if they cannot be accounted for as byproducts”, and the more general principle of parsimony, we must provisionally conclude rape is not an adaption because all known aspects of rape can be explained adequately as a byproduct of more general-purpose adaptations (p61)

Byproduct
Rape may be a byproduct of many adaptations. For example, rape is obviously a byproduct of the capacity to have sex, itself obviously adaptive

Perhaps the most important adaptation of which rape is a byproduct is the greater male desire for promiscuous sex (p62)

Thus, rape reflects the conflict between males who want to mate with females who don’t want to mate with them

Rape Adaptations
To prove that rape is an adaptation requires evidence of a male trait that facilitates rape but serves no other function (p63)

For Thornhill and Palmer, the scorpion fly’s notal organ represents the quintessential rape adaptation – perhaps because Randy Thornhill himself published the research establishing that the notal organ was indeed rape-specific – i.e. that males without the organ cannot rape, but can have consensual sex (Thornhill 1980)

But many other rape adaptations exist in nature. Among the most remarkable are found in ducks

Duck Rape
In ducks, the penis itself may represent a rape-specific adaptation. Other birds lack penes. Ducks may have re-evolved penes specifically for enabling rape

Penis-size and elaboration in different duck species correlates with the frequency of observed rapes (Brennan et al 2007)

Also, female ducks evolved counter-adaptations to reduce the risk of conceiving from rape – including ‘dead ends’ in the oviduct – a kind of internal maze (Brennan et al 2009). As a result, few rapes result in conception (Brennan et al 2007)

This has been termed a ‘genital arms race’

Human Rape Adaptations?
The authors agree that there is no evidence of rape-specific adaptations in humans but discuss several candidates

Unlike notal organs or duck penes, they conclude that a rape adaptation in humans is likely to be psychological not morphological. The closest they come to proposing a physiological adaptation is the idea that males may increase the size of ejaculates during rape (p74)

Sex or Power?
Sociobiological theories of rape entail no necessary conclusions regarding the motivation of rapists. This is to confuse the ultimate and proximate level of causation

Thus, the earliest paper to apply sociobiology to human rape, concluded that “proximately rape appears to be motivated by male hostility” and “is a violent rather than a sexual act”, but still concluded that rape was adaptive (Shields and Shields 1983)

Motivation is irrelevant since it has no fitness consequences. Indeed, for non-humans, motives are a black box, since animals are incapable of explaining their feelings in questionnaires/interviews

Thus, whether ducks rape out of lust or to purposely perpetuate ‘Duck Patriarchy’ is ultimately unknowable!

Yet the case for a partially sexual motivation in the vast majority of rapes is overwhelming

Some rapists may be motivated by a desire to dominate as well as sexual desire. Indeed, the desire to dominate may represent a form of sexual desire, as in BDSM – but the involvement of an erect penis is prima facie evidence for a sexual motive

The Madness of Feminism
The most famous exponent of the claim that rape is about anger not sex is Brownmiller, who claims rape “is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear” (Against Our Will: p15)

This reference to “all men” and “all women” suggests that a man would welcome the rape of his wife or daughter by a stranger. This claim is wildly implausible, not only from the perspective of anyone with a modicum of sanity (i.e. anyone other than a feminist, a sociologist or the inmate of a lunatic asylum), but also from a Darwinian perspective, given the diminution of the man’s own inclusive fitness that would result

Steven Pinker dismisses the “rape-is-not-about-sex doctrine” as likely to “go down in history as an example of extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds” (The Blank Slate: p262)

Actually, it is less about “popular delusions” and “the madness of crowds” than “academic delusions” and “the madness of feminists” – since it is a delusion largely restricted this class, and those among the public who seek to affect an air of intellectualism by aping the latter’s affections

Resistance as a Mate-Selection
One suggestion holds that female resistance to rape itself functions as a mate-selection mechanism

Thus, Wright suggests:

“A female, in sheerly Darwinian terms, is better off mating with a good rapist, a big strong sexually aggressive male; her male offspring will then be more likely to be big strong and sexually aggressive… and therefore prolific… so female resistance should be favored by natural selection as a way to avoid having a son who is an inept rapist” (The Moral Animal: p52)

Some evidence supports this theory. First, women are more likely to conceive from rape than from consensual sex (Gottschall & Gottschall 2003)

Second, victims of date-rape are more likely to remain in a relationship with their abuser than those who resisted his advances (Wilson & Durrenberger 1982; Ellis et al 2009)

However, Thornhill and Palmer conclude that, given the injury risk:

“There are many easier and less costly ways for females to gain phenotypic and genetic information about males from males’ non-coercive signals and from the outcomes of male-male antagonistic interactions” (p83-4)

In other words, leave the fighting to the men

Female Counter-Adaptations
The authors also discuss the “psychological pain” inflicted by rape, concluding that it functions as “an adaptation that defends against the circumstances that reduced the reproductive success of individuals in human evolutionary history” (p95)

Yet only fear and avoidance of rape is likely to be selected for directly, not the distress that accompanies or follows rape

Indeed, the latter could be dismissed as, from a Darwinian perspective, ‘too little too late’ and an indication that avoidance mechanisms have failed

Indeed, psychological trauma is maladaptive if it interferes with the victim’s ability to continue her life, mating with males and raising her offspring. Thus, any trauma should be either short-term, or not so intense as to prevent future successful reproductive outcomes

Thornhill and Palmer make several predictions regarding the levels of distress suffered by different classes of victim

First, they predict that reproductive-age victims will experience greater distress than pre-pubertal or post-menopausal victims (p89-90) and are also more likely to resist rape (p93)

This is contrary to the conventional assumption that child sexual abuse is the most traumatic form of rape (cf. Rind et al 1998)

They also predict that victims experience greater distress from vaginal, than from anal or oral penetration, because only this results in reproduction (p93-94)

But why then have rapists not evolved to rape only vaginally for the same reason? Indeed, why do people ever engage in non-reproductive forms of sex?

Thirdly, they propose that victims currently in long-term relationships will experience more distress than single victims – because rape threatens their relationship, by potentially burdening their long-term partner with ‘cuckoos in the nest’ and raising doubts as to her faithfulness (p90-1)

But one might instead theorize that attached women suffer less distress from rape – because they have a long-term partner to assist in raising any resulting offspring, especially if she can persuade him that he is the father

Interestingly, this analysis suggests that, in fitness terms, the loss suffered by the rape victim’s partner may be as great as that of the victim herself

If the rape results in conception, the rape victim loses only the ability to choose the paternity of her offspring, timing of reproduction etc

However, her spouse may lose the ability to reproduce altogether for the duration of her pregnancy and lactation and may misdirect parental investment in the resulting stepchild

Who then is the main victim?

Prevention
The authors declare they desire “to see rape eradicated from human life” (pxi). But they also acknowledge:

“The ethnographic evidence indicates… there is no evidence of a truly rape-free society” (p142)

This suggests eradicating rape is impossible

But rape can be reduced – and the authors propose various ways of doing so

Most of their proposals are impractical. They include education programs (p181-3), claustration, seclusion and chaperones (p185-6)

More realistic are proposals to deter rape through criminal penalties. If men have evolved to rape, they have also evolved to respond to disincentives

Thornhill and Palmer conclude that the most effective forms of deterrent are those that restrict reproductive opportunity (p165-5)

Thus, incarceration in single-sex prisons is a good idea – but conjugal visits aren’t

Such penalties also have a eugenic effect, given the heritability of criminality (Mason and Frick 1994)

However, prisoners aren’t wholly prevented from raping. In fact, rape is endemic in the American prison system

Such rapes have no reproductive effect and the victims are mostly male and also criminals. But is this any reason not to care about them?

The authors also discuss chemical castration (p165-7)

The usual objection to castration is that does not prevent reoffending, because incapacitated offenders merely rape with objects rather than penes. However, this seems to rest on the assumption that rape is not motivated by sexual desire, a doubtful assumption

Thus, it is not that castration has an incapacitative effect, preventing the offender from sustaining an erection, but rather a rehabilitative effect, reducing the offenders’ desire to rape in the first place

Yet even if rape were motivated by dominance or aggression rather than lust, castration may still reduce rape, because castration reduces circulating androgens, which are associated with aggression and dominance

Thus, castration may also be an effective treatment for violent, as well as sexual, offenders

References
Brennan et al 2007 Coevolution of Male and Female Genital Morphology in Waterfowl PLoS ONE 2(5):e418
Brennan et al 2009 Explosive eversion and functional morphology of the duck penis supports sexual conflict in waterfowl genitalia Proceedings of the Royal Society London B 277(1686):1309-1314
Ellis, Widmayer & Palmer (2008) Perpetrators of Sexual Assault Continuing to Have Sex With Their Victims Following the Initial Assault International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 53(4):454-63
Gottschall & Gottschall (2003) Are per-incident rape-pregnancy rates higher than per-incident consensual pregnancy rates? Human Nature 14:1–2
Mason & Frick 1994 The heritability of antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis of twin and adoption studies Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 16(4):301–323
Rind et al 1998 A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples. Psychological Bulletin. 124(1):22–53
Shields & Shields 1983 Forcible rape: An evolutionary perspective. Ethology and Sociobiology4:115–136
Thornhill 1980 Rape in Panorpa scorpionflies and a general rape hypothesis. Animal Behaviour 28(1): 52–9
Wilson & Durrenberger (1982). Comparison of rape and attempted rape victims. Psychological Reports 50:198-9

[Brittany · Rating 2 out of 5]

Exceptionally just-so in its explanation of rape and weirdly confused about how the naturalistic fallacy plays out in reality, this book is kind of...disoriented. It repeatedly blames feminist scholars for employing the naturalistic fallacy while also saying they demonstrate "biophobia" in their reluctance to consider biological factors in rape. They don't seem to understand that feminists are typically the ones disagreeing with "evolution made me do it" claims (https://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conw...) when it comes to doling out punishment to perpetrators. Naturalistic fallacies pertaining to rape are typically employed by conservatives, so that criticism seems misdirected at best.

Thornhill and Palmer would like you to know your risk factors so you can reduce your chances of being raped. These include being female, being young, and being fertile. Good luck with these very easily changeable things, ladies! Isn't that super helpful of the authors?! Aren't you grateful?!

The authors kept bringing up the idea that people (often feminists) are confused as to why things are the way they are (e.g. why rape laws favor men's views on rape). I think they fail to understand that people (often feminists) have a very solid understanding as to why things are the way they are, and rather that they think that the way things are is wrong (because evolution doesn't tell us what is right or wrong - naturalistic fallacy!).

"Why are males the rapists and females (usually) the victims?"

I wonder what Thornhill and Palmer have to say about: https://www.cdc.gov/violencepreventio...

In the U.S., 1.2% of women (approximately 1.5 million) reported completed or attempted rape in the 12 months preceding the survey.

In the U.S., 0.7% of men (an estimated 827,000 men) reported being made to penetrate (attempted or completed) in the 12 months preceding the survey.

"According to Kinsey et al. (1948), about 20 percent of men reared in rural settings admitted to a sexual encounter with a farm animal." This should not pass your bullshit detector.

"In studies conducted by David Buss (1985, 1987, 1989), women from all over the world were found to use wealth, status, and earning potential as major criteria in mate preference, and to value those attributes in mates more than men did. Wiederman and Allgeier (1992) and Townsend (1998) found that this preference not only fails to disappear among economically self-dependent women; it increases."

"The holdover view is the basis for the popular but erroneous notion that the behaviors of non-human primates necessarily provide salient information about human psychological and behavioral adaptations. People commonly make the inference that if apes exhibit behavior X then it is part of human nature...and is not caused by culture. But a human psychological adaptation such as that responsible for rape must be studied in humans, and a chimp or orangutan psychological adaptation must be studied in humans, and a chimp or orangutan psychological adaptation must be studied in chimps or orangutans (Thornhill 1997a). The widespread notion that studying the behavior of monkeys and apes is the best way to identify human psychological adaptation seems to arise from the erroneous dichotomy by which culture is seen as primarily or entirely characteristic of humans, and not of other primates, whereas nature is seen as biology, genes, instincts, behaviors (such as fighting) that non-human animals engage in, predispositions, and behaviors of non-human primates that seem similar to human behaviors. It is then claimed that the behaviors of non-human primates reveal human nature because culture is not a part or is only a minor part of the environment of those primates."

"[The mate-deprivation] hypothesis is supported by evidence that rape is disproportionately committed by males with lower socioeconomic status, insofar as that is evidenced by data on rapists in the penal system (Thornhill and Thornhill 1983)."

"Even attempted rape may have been of great concern to our male ancestors from the standpoint of paternity reliability, since in the paternity-focused, adaptively paranoid male mind a woman who placed herself in a situation conducive to a rape attempt may fail to avoid similar situations in the future."

"The reason the movement to reform rape laws has met with only limited success is that the reformers are trying to change attitudes toward rape in the absence of an understanding of the evolved psychological mechanisms that produce those attitudes."

[Jim · Rating 1 out of 5]

Zero stars. Negative stars, actually.
Any book that includes dictates to females about how to present themselves to society at large as a means to lessen or eliminate the occurrence of rape should immediately be dismissed as utter sexist garbage and victim blaming/shaming. I am in no way saying males cannot do scholarship about rape, but I am saying absolutely that no authentic academic would ever include something as spurious as dress codes or social comportment as a response to rape or as a way to mitigate future rapes. Seriously?!?!? The author use biological excuses for rape, as if males have some sort of imperative or impulse that cannot be denied, refused, or controlled. It is beyond asinine, bordering on ridiculous. Definitely not scholarship. Rape is a violent and despicable act that has no excuses or mitigating factors. It is a conscious choice by the rapist to attack the victim. Attempts to lighten the psychological load on rapists by imagining it is "part of our DNA" is fucking disgusting. This book is wasted paper.

[Damned Snake · Rating 5 out of 5]

Short and well written book about why ideology over reason brings despair and suffering not only to the people who follow spiteful ideas, but also rest of society which has to endure conseqences of intelectual cowardice and ideological blindfoldedness

[Lau Lau · Rating 1 out of 5]

Le livre A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion de Randy Palmer et Craig Thornhill eu un certain retentissement lors de sa parution, et est un exemple parmi d’autres de théories en psychologie évolutionniste qui tentent de s’appliquer à des problèmes complexes interpersonnels situés dans des contextes socio-culturels précis.

La théorie de Palmer et Thornhill regorge de problèmes :

- Palmer et Thornhill ne sont pas consistants dans leurs explications dites "scientifiques", qui sont au final presque plus proches d’opinions que de théories substantielles ;
- Leur théorie trop souvent réduit des phénomènes complexes en des mécanismes évolutifs aux seuls buts de survie et de reproduction ;
- Analyser des problèmes ou rapports interpersonnels complexes de la même façon que la vision peut-être analysée est une disanalogie : la vision est un mécanisme qui fonctionne hors de contextes spécifiques, là où le viol dépend d'une forme d'intentionnalité et d’un contexte complexe dont il ne peut pas être séparé pour être compris. Les deux psychologues évolutionnistes ne mentionnent pas une fois les processus culturels qui influencent également des comportements. Ils essaient de façon arrêtée de montrer en quoi le viol peut être explicable uniquement au moyen de mécanismes biologiques issus de l’évolution, passant à côté des rapports de pouvoir ou des comportements de dominance qui sous-tendent cet acte coercitif. Les problèmes complexes interpersonnels comme le viol ne peuvent pas être expliqués de façon mécaniste comme le phénomène de la vision peut être expliqué ;
- Les relations interpersonnelles sont bien trop complexes pour pouvoir être définies en terme d’évolution. Leur théorie est incomplète et qu’ils utilisent une supposition non défendue et contestée, alors que des explications alternatives sont disponibles.
- Une question que le phénomène du viol soulève est celle de sa cause : pourquoi est-ce que ce sont principalement des hommes qui en sont responsables ? Et pourquoi est-ce que certains hommes violent et d’autres non ? Palmer et Thornhill n’offrent pas de réponse claire à cette question ; et en effet, ils généralisent plutôt leur théorie aux hommes dans leur intégralité ;
- Ils suggèrent deux programmes éducatifs. Ceux-ci n’ont premièrement pas de tenure, étant donné l’absence d’explication solide à la théorie sous-jacentes, et secondement ces programmes sont problématiques et ne feraient que renforcer des états d’esprits qui devraient pourtant justement disparaître ;
- De plus, et de manière plus générale, certains psychologues évolutionnistes, à travers des analyses parsemées de concepts tels que "potentiel reproductif" et "investissement" déshumanisent les activités humaines complexes comme l’amour et le mariage en empruntant des discours dans lesquels les femmes sont représentées comme des parties de corps sexuellement pertinentes, ce qui contribue à la dévaluation des femmes et à l'incidence du viol dans le cas du livre de Palmer et Thornhill.

Par ces multiples problèmes et par leur adhérence à la méthodologie de la psychologie évolutionniste, le livre de Palmer et Thornhill est une exemplification de sexisme institutionnel et inconscient dissimulé sous une proclamée "science" qui, au lieu d’apporter de réelles informations sur la nature humaine, perpétue des images sociales erronées et néfastes qui soutiennent des tendances sociales à engendrer de l’humiliation et des supplices envers les femmes.

La psychologie évolutionniste présente en effet des thèses qui peuvent être erronées ou du moins contestables. Elle ne peut pas entièrement expliquer les causes de tous nos rapports et problèmes interpersonnels sans tomber dans des erreurs de raisonnement ou dans des thèses aux implications problématiques, tant d’un point de vue féministe et philosophique que scientifique, et que c’est pour cette raison que, bien que la place du féminisme et de la philosophie soit remise en question dans ces discussions il est au contraire nécessaire que ces points de vues, féministe, philosophique et scientifique coopèrent afin de permettre aux connaissances scientifiques d’évoluer dans un cadre éthique et socialement responsable.
Comme l'expriment très justement Ethel Tobach et Rachel Reed,

Il n'y a pas de contradiction entre être féministe et scientifique. Le meilleur scientifique est socialement et scientifiquement responsable du travail effectué au nom de la science. Être socialement responsable engage le scientifique à prendre conscience de l'équité pour tous les humains. (Travis 2003, 132)

Je dois beaucoup de ce review au livre édité par Cheryl Brown Travis, Evolution, Gender, and Rape (2003), qui est une excellente réponse à celui de Palmer et Thornhill.

La psychologie évolutionniste peut potentiellement éclairer certains aspects de notre fonctionnement grâce à l’axe de l’évolution et de la sélection naturelle, mais cela ne suffit pas pour expliquer l’entièreté de la nature humaine, surtout lorsqu’il s’agit d’explications concernant des problèmes complexes au sein de rapports interpersonnels. D’autres paramètres bien plus importants et essentiels à ces rapports sociaux interviennent lorsque l’on cherche à comprendre la nature de ces problèmes. Il semblerait ainsi que seul moyen d’en rendre le mieux compte afin d’en comprendre les multiples facettes est en construisant une analyse qui serait multidisciplinaire, ou comme le suggère John Dupré un modèle de science pluraliste, tout en n’oubliant pas que l’analyse ou le modèle pourront être incomplets. La nature humaine est bien plus complexe qu’un réseaux de mécanismes cérébraux spécialisés issus de nos ancêtres du Paléolithique : elle est essentiellement fondée dans des contextes spécifiques et les rapports avec les autres êtres vivants.

[Steven · Rating 4 out of 5]

A little too Santa Barbara School-y

[Rafika Ayu Nadia · Rating 2 out of 5]

Cape bacanya bjir book of hundreds of pages just to mansplain rape

[Anna Matischen · Rating 1 out of 5]

Only here for the original work citations all in one place so I can highlight the egregiously huge conclusions evolutionary scientists of the past used to make on tiny amounts of evidence.

[HD · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thornhill's Hypothesis: An Examination of Rape Through an Evolutionary Lens.

"What leads to male typically being the offenders in cases of sexual assault, while females are generally the victims?"

"What are the underlying factors that continue to contribute to instances of sexual assault among humans?"

Considering these inquiries, the author initiates the process of unraveling the occurrence of rape within the human species. "A Natural History of Rape" by Randy Thornhill is a thought-provoking -and controversial- book that delves into the biological and evolutionary aspects of rape. Thornhill, along with co-author Craig T. Palmer, presents a theory that attempts to explain the occurrence of rape from an evolutionary perspective.

The book examines the idea that, from an evolutionary standpoint, some men may have developed an inclination toward rape as a strategy for reproductive success. It's important to approach this book with a critical and open mind, considering the ethical and moral implications of the theories presented.

Conclusion: "A Natural History of Rape" is a work that attempts to provide an evolutionary explanation for the occurrence of rape. While it offers a unique perspective, readers should approach it with caution, considering the ethical and moral concerns associated with the topic.

[Mathieu · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Rape is an act of violence and domination over women, not a sexually motivated act" is a social constructivist, and therefore, completely ideological, statement, validated by evolutionary science.
The first few chapters are a bit convoluted, especially around the discussion of ultimate versus proximate causes, but it picks up speed after that.
The last chapter (12) perfectly summarizes the entire book.
Overall, no big surprise if you know anything about a evolutionary biology, and meeting strategies as adaptations to the difference between male/female, parental involvement requirement. Go read Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene".

[Jennifer · Rating 3 out of 5]

I briefly joined a book club @ UT. A few high-minded profs and their grad assistants were reading this. Heavy...kinda boring, but heavy.

[Bocșe Robert · Rating 4 out of 5]

4,5 stars