Eh... rape isn't evolutionary. a) it doesn't provide a stable family unit for the offspring, decreasing its chances of survival, b) it has social consequences that can get the rapist killed or children abandoned / aborted / killed, or neglected by the mother, etc.
Culture and Evolution are two distinct things. Humanity has a lot of cultural diversity.
Genghis Khan placed little emphasis on producing "stable family units" (he actually wiped out about 2% of the world's population), but from an evolutionary perspective, his genes have been quite successful.
If a gene was simply "raping children", then yes, that wouldn't be very good for the future longevity of the gene in a population.
If the gene instead motivates an inclination "to have sex with as many humans as possible" however, that may be better.
No, you're wrong, try again.
This is one of the common misconceptions about evolution, that it is just this polygamous indiscriminate fuck fest. No, if you're a fish it is... but not if you're a bear or human.
Evolution leads to differentiation in survival strategies based on the species and its specific circumstances. Another example I like to use is the black widow. The female black widow actually eats the male after she's inseminated. The male provides food and sustenance for the black widow nursing the young...
Spiders often go long periods without food, and they reproduce in very large numbers. They need some reliable source of energy for reproduction, and alot of it. So for spiders this strategy of killing and consuming the mate actually make sense. But you're a human, and if you were to do that... it would not be evolutionary, we would also have to lock you up for it.
So you see there are big differences in how evolution can work based on the specific species.
Last edited by DogOfDanger; 09-25-2022 at 01:23 AM.
If you want to think about evolution and natural instinct think about circumstances in nature. In nature if a man went around raping all the women in the tribe - the local tribe of just a few dozen people - the men would stone him to death. Infact male monkeys will conspire together and tear apart the alpha male if his social approval drops too low, that's well documented, so...
I dislike this, but I wouldn't feel uncomfortable labelling such behaviour as "unnatural" simply because I dislike it.
This happened in nature yes, but it's a desperate response to an extinction event and the blocking of the instincts. In some sense you could say the male manta rays had their sexual instincts repressed by circumstances.
Evolution would always prefer a stable family unit to an unstable one, in my scenario this simply wasn't possible... consensual sex and a stable family unit has very clear survival / reproductive advantages over rape.
Last edited by DogOfDanger; 09-25-2022 at 01:59 PM.
b) When I hear about animals behaving like this the first thing I do is carefully examine their circumstances, and every time I've done it I've found major problems in the environment. For example, their habitats have been destroyed, their social & mating hierarchies have been thrown off, they're unable to successfully expand, they're being poached or something, etc.. Humans have fucked the planet very badly, the animals are effected in many ways. Look at the Manta Rays as an example.
So the answer is I'd have to actually look into what you're talking about, but I can tell you that rape does not bode well for the survival of offspring since there is no stable mother / father to look after the offspring.
What makes you think you can say that humans are a naturally non-rapist, monogamous species?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy_in_animalsStudies of primates support the relationship between testis size and mating system. Chimpanzees, which have a promiscuous mating system, have large testes compared to other primates. Gorillas, which have a polygynous mating system, have smaller testes than other primates. Humans, which have a socially monogamous mating system, have moderately sized testes. The moderate amounts of sexual non-monogamy in humans may result in a low to moderate amount of sperm competition.
The fact a behavior occurs does not make it evolutionary, nor does it make it primarily instinct-driven. Go read the wikipedia article you provided, it looks like a great article.
"In species where the young are particularly vulnerable and may benefit from protection by both parents, monogamy may be an optimal strategy."
I am confident priests raping children has no evolutionary benefit, yes, because children are not fertile, are they you little moron? Do you know what fertile means? That's right... it means capable of reproducing. And do you know why that matters? Yes... right. Because reproduction is what drives evolution, and that's what we're talking about - evolutionary benefit. Isn't that amazing you little idiot?
Partner bonds are not the only way of looking after offspring. Group rearing (whether by related or unrelated members) is also a common feature in human and chimpanzee societies.
You determined what is a "natural" instinct is based solely on reproduction: but many genes have been shown to be disadvantageous for the individual, but beneficial for the group as a whole, for example, some genes that benefit group behaviour in bees and wasps.
A sex drive can for example be beneficial for the group as a whole, but useless for many/most of the organisms in the group.
Not all behaviors have a broad evolutionary benefit, or are primarily driven by natural instinct. You can have instincts that are smothered and express in deferred ways. For example, in extinction conditions, where the instincts are blocked - like in the example with the 9 male manta rays mounting their females - what you see is not a broad evolutionary behavior, it's the unhealthy desperate expression of the instincts.
This is more like a derailment of the instincts - in the same way an autoimmune disorder is a derailment of the immune system. The instincts are not serving their purpose, they're not within the environment they evolved for. They're expressing in maladaptive ways...
Look again at the scenario with the spider eating the male before laying eggs. Now consider whether there's some condition where it would actually be in the best interest of human survival to kill the partner and eat it... or eat members of your family. Look at the Dahmer party, where these pioneers got stuck on a mountain and had to eat one another to survive.
This is not driven primarily by instinct. Instinct takes billions of years and repeated selection to evolve. This is a practical consideration that the pioneers took, in spite of and in conflict with their instincts, they decided to eat one another.
This would be a grotesque thing for you to do - it would not be instinctual, it would be contrary to all your instincts....
So this is what we're dealing with in these extinction-like scenarios. Instinct is something honed by circumstances that are homeostatic, and it is honed over billions of years...
For a spider it IS instinctual to eat the mate, because for them it's an evolutionary behavior, their instinct evolved or that....
You get ppl telling gay men that "It's okay to be gay, as long as you don't do anything gay, because that would be gay" - then naturally there's a high chance their homosexuality would express itself in ways that are immoral and predatory. Look at the weird mind fuck they're doing to ppl while pretending they are more righteous and good on top of it etc.
U can't blame heteronormative society entirely, but if both the self-hating gays and anti-gay Karens work together to make the gay person accepted as long as they can't actually be gay- it's little surprising that it would express itself in twisted ways. I mean Conservatives loooove to talk about the link between homosexuality and pedophilia ((and it's in cases like there really is one)), but it's not really as black and white as they make it out to be. And objectively we need heterosexuality to make people, but as soon as there's enough there's more and more gays get born to naturally balance that anyway. Civilizations that aren't developed very well always put heterosexuality on a pedastal, cuz it obviously needs more str8 ppl & heterosexuality to make it thrive - but they are only correct in the short term. And it becomes a thing to scapegoat or an illusion, where they think throwing more heterosexuality at the problem will fix it- but they are still just poor and suffering.
No, you aren't making any sense here.