User:Kirstyc90/sandbox

Sociobiological theories of sexual coercion are theories that explore to what degree, if any, evolutionary adaptations influence the psychology of sex offenders. Such theories are sometimes misunderstood to be providing justification for rape; however, researchers in sociobiology argue that their goal is to provide correct knowledge of the causes of rape, which can be useful in developing effective preventive measures.

A Natural History of Rape
The idea that rape evolved under some circumstances as a genetically advantageous behavioral adaptation was popularized by biologist Randy Thornhill and anthropologist Craig T. Palmer in their 2000 book A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion. According to Thornhill and Palmer (2000), “sexual coercion and rape occur in species in which males are more aggressive, more eager to mate, more sexually assertive, and less discriminating in choosing a mate” (p. 87).

Before the publication of A Natural History of Rape, Palmer (1991) provided two possible predictions for understanding why men rape women. One explanation posits that human rape is a reproductive strategy for men, which has evolved over time. The second explanation hypothesizes that rape evolved as an evolutionary by-product of other adaptive reproductive strategies used by males and females.

Naturalistic fallacy
Thornhill and Palmer write: "rape is viewed as a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage". They further state: we "emphasize that by categorizing a behavior as "natural" and "biological" we do not in any way mean to imply that the behavior is justified or even inevitable. “Biological” means "of or pertaining to life," so the word applies to every human feature and behavior. But to infer from that, as many of our critics assert that we do, that what is biological is somehow right or good, would be to fall into the so-called naturalistic fallacy." Thornhill and Palmer compare this phenomenon to "natural disasters such as epidemics, floods and tornadoes". They argue that what can be found in nature is not always good and that measures should be and are taken against natural phenomena. They further argue that a good knowledge of the causes of rape, including evolutionary ones, are necessary in order to develop effective preventive measures.

Evolutionary psychologists McKibbin et al. (2008) argue that the claim that evolutionary theories are justifying rape is a fallacy in the same way it would be a fallacy to accuse scientists doing research on the causes of cancer of justifying cancer. Furthermore, McKibbin et al. (2008) assert that the naturalistic fallacy is very much related to an additional false belief known as “genetic determinism,” “the idea that behavior is unalterable, programmed, or otherwise unchangeable” (p. 87). These researchers say that rape is not an acceptable occurrence and understanding its causes may help create preventive measures.

Sexual coercion in animals
It has long been noted that behavior resembling rape in humans is widespread in other animals, including ducks and geese, bottlenose dolphins, chimpanzees, and even guppies. Indeed in orangutans, close human relatives, copulations of this nature may account for up to half of all observed matings. Such behaviours, referred to as ‘forced copulations’, involve an animal being approached and sexually penetrated whilst it struggles or attempts to escape. These observations of forced sex among animals are not controversial. What is controversial is the interpretation of these observations and the extension of theories based on them to humans. Thornhill introduces this theory by describing the sexual behavior of scorpion flies in which the male may gain sex from the female either by presenting a gift of food during courtship or without a nuptial offering, by using force to restrain her.”

Sexual coercion in humans
It is hypothesized that rape in humans is homologous to similar behavior in other animals. “Human rape appears not as an aberration but as an alternative gene-promotion strategy that is most likely to be adopted by the 'losers' in the competitive, harem-building struggle. If the means of access to legitimate, consenting sex is not available, then a male may be faced with the choice between force or genetic extinction.”

According to parental investment theory, "a man can have many children, with little inconvenience to himself; a woman can have only a few, and with great effort." Thus, females tend to be choosier with partners. Rape is seen as one potential strategy for males to achieve reproductive success.

Women are most often rape victims during the potential childbearing years. Rapists usually do not use more force than necessary to subdue their victims, which is argued to be the case since physically injuring victims would reduce the chance of reproduction. Furthermore, "in many cultures rape is treated as a crime against the victim's husband." Indeed, Studd and Gattiker (1991) found evidence confirming these notions in the realm of sexual harassment where it is young, single women that are the most frequent targets of unwanted sexual advances.

Anthropologist Edward H. Hagen states in his Evolutionary Psychology FAQ from 2002 that he believes there is no clear evidence for the hypothesis that rape is adaptive. He believes the adaptivity of rape is possible, but claims there is not enough evidence to be certain one way or the other. However, he encourages such evidence to be obtained: "Whether human males possess psychological adaptations for rape will only be answered by careful studies seeking evidence for such cognitive specializations. To not seek such evidence is like failing to search a suspect for a concealed weapon." Hagen also describes some conditions in the ancestral environment during which the reproductive gains from rape may have outweighed the costs:
 * "High status males may be have been able to coerce matings with little fear of reprisal."
 * "Low status women (e.g., orphans) may have been particularly vulnerable to being raped because males need not have feared reprisals from the woman's family."
 * "During war, raping enemy women may have had few negative repercussions."
 * "Men who were low status, who were likely to remain low status, and who had few opportunities to invest in kin may have realized reproductive benefits that outweighed the considerable costs (e.g., reprisal by the woman's family)."

Sexual coercion in relationships
Shackelford and Goetz (2005) argue that sperm competition in humans may have produced an evolutionary adaptation for forced sex within a relationship. “Sperm competition occurs when the sperm of two or more males concurrently occupy the reproductive tract of a female and compete” for fertilization (p. 47). Sexual coercion may have evolved as an adaptive response in males to cues of a female partner’s sexual infidelity, allowing a male to introduce his sperm into his female partner’s reproductive tract when there is a high probability for competition with another male’s sperm. This theory is supported by evidence that men who are more sexually coercive tend to be partnered with women who have a history of sexual infidelity.

Types of rapists
McKibbin et al. (2008) argue that there may be several different types of rapists or rape strategies, but "propose that rape is a conditional strategy that may potentially be deployed by any man." At least one-third of males "admit they would rape under specific conditions" (p. 88) and many men report having coercive sexual fantasies.


 * 1) Disadvantaged men: Men who are deprived of mates due to low socioeconomic status or poor genetic quality marked by low facial symmetry may resort to rape because they are unable to achieve reproduction otherwise.
 * 2) “Specialized rapists”: Those who are more sexually aroused from rape than from consensual sex.
 * 3) “Opportunistic rapists”: Those who switch between forced and consensual sex depending on the circumstances (e.g. probability of injury or retaliation by a relative).
 * 4) “High-mating-effort rapists”: Those with high self-esteem who are sexually experienced, aggressive, dominant, and often psychopathic.

Gender and sexual variation
Most sociobiological theories of sexual coercion are based on research conducted with cisgender individuals who identify as heterosexual; however, a few studies have investigated sexual coercion in more diverse populations. One study found that women in same-sex relationships report more physical abuse and sexual coercion than men in same-sex relationships, while another study found that gay men experience more sexual coercion than lesbian women. Unfortunately, there are no known evolutionary theories based on the results of these studies.

Evolutionary defences against sexual coercion
Women may have developed several defensive strategies to avoid rape by men. The "bodyguard hypothesis" suggests that one defensive strategy is a partner preference for physically and socially dominant men that are effective bodyguards against other men (although there may also be other evolutionary reasons for such a preference). Another defensive strategy involves the great psychological pain associated with rape, which according to some research is greatest during the childbearing years. Such psychological pain may influence women to take action to avoid rape in the future. Research has found that during the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle women perform fewer behaviors that may increase the risk of an assault. Studies have also shown that sensitivity for potential coercive behaviors in males as well as handgrip strength (but only in a simulated coercive situation) increase during the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle. Finally, Davis and Gallup (2006) hypothesize that preeclampsia and miscarriage may represent evolved adaptations used to terminate pregnancies that go against female reproductive strategy, including those that are caused by rape.

Individual differences in women’s defenses against sexual coercion may exist according to levels of attractiveness. Evidence supports the hypothesis that attractive women exhibit more rape avoidance behaviors than less attractive women because highly attractive women are more frequently targets of rape.

According to Duntley and Shackelford (2012), primary victims of sexual violence are not alone in incurring the costs associated with sexual coercion. Biological relatives, romantic partners, and allies can be considered “secondary victims,” and also possess important adaptations to protect the genes, reputation, and investments of those they are close to (p. 60). One such adaptation may be for males to seek revenge against rapists in the form of violence or prosecution. fMRI studies have found activation in the pleasure centers of men’s brains upon acquiring revenge against a perceived wrongdoer.

Preventing sexual coercion
Thornhill and Palmer (2000) suggest a number of possible strategies for preventing rape. One example is to explain to males that they may have predispositions to misread female invitation of sex. Generally, Thornhill and Palmer argue the view that rape is due to a desire for domination and not related to sexual desire is not only untrue, but harmful. For example, Thornhill and Palmer claim that the way women dress will not affect their risk of rape. They assert that much greater societal freedom, dating without supervision, and removal of many barriers between males and females have created an environment that has removed historical societal controls against rape.

Victim counseling
Counseling of rape victims could be improved by evolutionary considerations, according to Thornhill and Palmer. These theorists argue that the view of seeing rape as a desire for domination and control cannot explain to victims why rapists seem to be sexually motivated. Evolutionary considerations may also explain the emotional pain felt as well as the form it takes.

Critiques of sociobiological theories of sexual coercion
The 2003 book Evolution, Gender, and Rape, written in response to A Natural History of Rape, compiles the views of twenty-eight scholars in opposition to sociobiological theories of rape. Palmer and Thornhill responded to these critics in an article in the journal Evolutionary Psychology.

While defending the evolutionary psychology theory of rape against its more vehement critics, Vandermassen (2011) provides a critique of some aspects of the view. She characterizes the view of Thornhill and Palmer (2000) as “extreme” (p. 736), arguing that they fail to allow for the influence of any non-sexual motivations in the crime of rape, such as anger and hostility toward women. Self-reports by rapists have found that roughly 18% “hate” the individuals that they rape. Vandermassen believes that one reason for this misogyny is that “women provoke ungratifiable sexual desire” (p. 742). Buss and Schmitt (2011) provide two more possible reasons for this male hostility. One reason is that because women are choosier than men, men have dealt with “a history of rejection by women” of higher mate value (p. 779). Second, psychopathy may have developed as a short-term mating strategy for men to achieve sex with women who would normally reject them.

Vandermassen also notes two problems with the data cited by Thornhill and Palmer regarding the psychological trauma caused by the violence associated with rape. Firstly, Vandermassen argues that the data is inaccurate and obscures the fact that it does not support Thornhill and Palmer's “counterintuitive hypothesis” that more physical violence during rape is associated with less psychological pain (p. 744). Secondly, more recent research has failed to support this hypothesis.

Ward and Siegert (2002) believe that Thornhill and Palmer’s theory of rape lacks essential components of a good theory, including detailed causal mechanisms regarding men’s propensity to rape and an explanation of “how biological, psychological, social/cultural, and contextual factors interact to result in sexual aggression” (p. 156).

Schatzel-Murphy et al. (2009) argue that sociobiological theories of sexual coercion do not account for gender differences and similarities amongst offenders. Their study shows that both men and women employ similar strategies such as seduction, manipulation, intoxication, and physical force to sexually coerce other individuals.

Feminist theories of sexual coercion
Feminist theories of sexual coercion generally interpret sexual coercion to be a crime of power and dominance more so than a crime of sexual desire. One such theory holds that in societies in which men have more power there is more sexual coercion against women. Results of a multi-national study by Hines (2007) did not support this theory, but did find that as the status of women rises in a given society, so does the rate of coercion against men. Results of this study support the “adversarial sexual beliefs theory,” indicating that gender hostility is a significant predictor of sexual coercion for both sexes.

Convergence of sociobiological and feminist theories
A more moderate position, integrating evolutionary psychology and feminist theories on rape, is presented by Vandermassen and feminist evolutionary researcher Barbara Smuts. Smuts (1995) commends evolutionary theory for its investigation of both why and how men exercise power over women; asserting that feminist theories often do not tackle both points. Additionally, Smuts argues that evolutionary psychology and feminist theory can converge on at least one overarching notion: “the drive to gain control over female sexuality, and the willingness to use force or violence to that end, evolved because it contributed to male reproductive success” (p. 738).

Evolutionary psychologist David Buss (1996) notes five additional concepts that feminists and evolutionary psychologists can agree on:
 * 1) Across cultures, men are largely in control of both power and resources
 * 2) It is through their control of resources that men are able to control women
 * 3) Some men have a psychological tendency to treat women as objects to be used and controlled
 * 4) Male sexual aggression often hinders females’ freedom of choice
 * 5) Oppression is caused by the mutual actions of both women and men