Evolution and morality, pt 3: rape

If the place of indiscriminate killing in the evolutionary realm was comparatively clear, and the place of theft was a little more muddied, then the place of rape is considerably more complicated. Once again, since we are trying to understand it in evolutionary terms, we must try to work out the nature of the motivation in the first place, and only then try to work out whether this amounts to a benefit or otherwise for the species.

There is much controversy in the psychological and legal communities regarding the extent to which rape is sexually motivated and the extent to which it is power-driven. We can surely say without reams of evidence that neither in isolation is anything like a satisfactory solution. Sexual desire exists in virtually everyone, and hardly ever manifests itself as rape; the desire for power exists in many people and doesn’t usually result in such extreme harm. There is also the question, in the latter case, of exactly what sort of power rape confers on the rapist. If it does confer power, it is only of the most worthless kind (as opposed to, say, owning a multinational company or being the President of France), and we therefore must conclude that the person who desires this sort of power is suffering some kind of mental imbalance. But neither are the two in combination quite a satisfactory solution, for the problems that attend them individually exist in combination, too.

The rapist is not a normal person. Evidence suggests that unprosecuted rapists very often rape more than once (in one study, most of the 120 rapists involved were repeat rapists, averaging at 5.8 rapes each), and whether or not this is simply because they realise they are very likely to escape untouched by the legal system is besides the point. The point is that rape is not generally a one-off occurrence. A man (and it is usually a man—according to an entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, they account for almost 99% of rapists)[1] does not decide one day to try rape out, nor is he induced to do it solely by anger or sexual frustration or the influence of some mind-altering substance. A man only rapes if he has the mind of a rapist.

What then constitutes such a mind? Again, this is hardly a settled matter, but my own tentative conclusion, gleaned from attempting to step into a rapist’s mind, is that they suffer from a feeling of inferiority, or powerlessness, with respect to women. This might arise from an inability to win them over in the usual fashion, and a concomitant feeling, usually unfounded, that women generally disrespect him as a result. Now this feeling of inferiority, even if attended with heightened anger, might be no bad thing in itself, if it could be sublimated in the form of comedy or art. But for whatever reason the rapist feels not only that he cannot sublimate in those ways, but also that there is only one way to express his frustration.

Christopher Hitchens, in a controversial article in Vanity Fair, theorised that men are funnier than women because it is men who have to be funny, since that’s essentially all they have to offer. It is men who have to do the seducing, and women who are seduced. Of course, this is a vast oversimplification, but it seems to express the general dynamic. It is surely no coincidence that this imbalance in the sexual politics is reflected proportionally by the number of men who are rapists, as opposed to women.

The brain is of course an extremely complicated little object, and my theory (if indeed it is mine!) that a male feeling of inferiority with regard to women, and an inability to express the resultant frustration in more productive ways, is a major cause of the rapist’s mentality, is only a theory, and almost certainly does not account for all cases. Indeed, it may account for other sorts of deviancy besides rape. But my feeling is that the theory, or a similar but more precisely worded version, accounts for a large part of what motivates rape.

If the theory is correct, then it is not too difficult to see how the existence of rapists is not good for the species as a whole. That’s not quite right. The existence of rapists doesn’t by itself do much to society either way. What is important is the rest of society’s attitude to them. If most of us were not repulsed by rape, and did not think it a crime worthy of severe punishment, then rape would become much more commonplace; and I don’t think it an exaggeration to say that society would in some way be dominated by it. More of us would be born to rapist fathers, and the greater acceptability of rape would lead to a greater disrespect and subjugation of women, and thus less need for the ability to sublimate. Either the ability to sublimate is genetic, in which case the gene pool would be more disinclined to it, or it is cultural, in which case, the increased amount of rapist fathers would cripple the next generation’s ability to sublimate. We then have a society which innovates less, and is thus less immune to survival pressures.

If we grant the central importance to our species (and that of virtually every other species imaginable) of sex, then it stands to clear reason that our attitude to it is an important determinant of the state of our species. And further, if we believe, as Freud did and most of his intellectual descendants do, in the importance of sublimation and its fundamental relation to sex and desire in general, we can conclude that the rapist’s state of mind is not only an unhealthy one, but one inimical to the thriving of the species at large. This is perhaps ironic, given what Freud thought of rape, but it does conform to our intuitive understanding that it is a bad thing. Although it is not difficult to imagine a thriving species for which rape is common and usual (such species do exist), it is difficult to see how such a species could compete with a species that finds rape repulsive.

---

[1] And this post will only address male rapists.