Human Rape: Adaptation or By-Product? Author(s): Craig T. Palmer Source: The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 28, No.

3 (Aug., 1991), pp. 365-386 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3812709 Accessed: 29/01/2010 18:52
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Sex Research.

http://www.jstor.org

The Journal of Sex Research Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 365-386 August, 1991

Human Rape: Adaptation or By-Product?

CRAIGT. PALMER,Ph. D.
Institute of Social and Economic Research Memorial University of Newfoundland

This paper examines two alternative evolutionaryexplanations of human rape. Oneexplanation sees human rape as a facultative male reproductive tactic. The other explanation sees human rape as an evolutionary byproduct of certain evolved differences in the reproductive strategies of human males and females. These two explanations generate alternative testable predictionsconcerningcross-species, cross-cultural,and modern societal data on rape. Existing evidence is found to be insufficient to warrant an adaptive explanation of rape per se in humans. The question of whether the search for adaptations needs to be shifted frombehavioral categories to the underlying psychologicalmechanisms is discussed. KEY WORDS: Rape, evolution, by-product, adaptation Rape has received growing attention from social scientists in many diverse disciplines. One recent approach has been to apply evolutionary theory to the understanding and prevention of these acts (see Alcock, 1983; Alexander, 1979, 1987; Alexander & Noonan, 1979; Barash, 1977, 1979, 1982; Hagen, 1979; Shields & Shields, 1983; Symons, 1979; Thornhill, 1980; Thornhill & Thornhill, 1983, 1987, in prep.). Except for creating controversy, the evolutionary approach has made little impact on the larger literature on rape (see Baron, 1985; Dusek, 1984; Sunday & Tobach, 1985; for exceptions, see Ellis, 1989, & Rhodes, 1981). Much of this controversy has centered around attempts to support an adaptive explanation of human rape. Some objections (i.e., those based on the naturalistic fallacy of confusing statements about what "is" with those about what "should be") are simply the result of misunderstandings of modern evolutionary theory (see Ruse, 1978). However, more legitimate objections to adaptive arguments have also been made. These objections have led many critics to reject an evolutionary approach in its entirety. This paper presents a broader evolutionary approach that equally
Requests for reprints should be sent to Craig T. Palmer, Ph.D., Institute of Social and Economic Research, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland A1C 5S7. 365

366

PALMER

considers the adaptive hypothesis and the hypothesis that rape is only an evolutionary by-product of other adaptations. Such an approach might lead to a more objective and productive evaluation of an evolutionary perspective on rape. Differentiating adaptations from by-products is a central task in modern evolutionary biology. Many researchers follow the criteria set forth by Williams (1966) to differentiate adaptations from by-products (see also Alcock, 1983; Alexander, 1979; Burian, 1983; Daly & Wilson, 1983, 1987; Hinde, 1975; Ruse, 1978; Symons, 1979; Wilson, 1975). Williams (1966) suggests that the key to establishing that a given structure or behavior is actually an adaptation is demonstrating that it has been "designed" by natural selection for a specific function (see Symons, 1979; Williams, 1966). Besides the use of cross-species comparisons, a "plausible demonstration of design" consists of demonstrating that a trait accomplishes its alleged function with "sufficient precision, economy, efficiency, etc." (Williams, 1966, pp. 254,10). This means demonstrating the "appropriateness of the means to the end" (Williams, 1966, p. 12; see also Crawford & Galdikas, 1986; Curio, 1973; Dewsbury, 1980; Symons 1980, p. 206, 1987, p. 122). While this does not require showing "perfection" in the functioning of the trait, it does entail demonstrating that the trait is better explained by the proposed function than by any other effect (see Symons, 1979, p. 11). These criteria are necessary because there is no simple way of identifying an adaptation. The first complication comes from the fact that an "adaptation" is formed by natural selection in the past. The term adaptation does not imply anything about the present or future fitness of the individual exhibiting the trait. Thus, there is the possibility that "the trait, although once adaptive under conditions that no longer exist, is currently maladaptive" (Alcock, 1983, p. 11; Thornhill and Thornhill, 1983, p. 142). Simply measuring the current reproductive effects of a given behavior relative to alternative forms of behavior, as suggested by Caro and Burgerhoff Mulder (1987), is often a very useful type of information, but it cannot be taken as a conclusive test of a trait being an adaptation (see Symons, 1989). A second complicating factor is the need to establish that the trait proposed to be an adaptation is really a distinct and independent entity. Proposing evolutionary functions for "arbitrarily demarcated parts of organisms" often leads to functional explanations of structures or behaviors which are not actually adaptations (Symons, 1980, p. 200). Such misplaced functional explanations are particularly likely when the proximate causes of the proposed trait are ignored:

HUMANRAPE

367

... insufficient attention toproximateconcernsmay result in a misreading ofthe forces at workin the selection process.Researcherswho concentrate exclusively on ultimate function run the risk of cataloguing behaviors as 'adapted'which may instead be by-productsor secondary effects of other adaptations (Losco, 1981, p. 336; see also Gould, 1987). Identifying distinct traits that could be adaptations is particularly important and difficult when dealing with behavior (see Caplan, 1978; Cavalli-Sforza & Feldman, 1981; Cloak, 1975; Durham, 1982; Gallup, 1987; Gallup & Suarez, 1983; Gould, 1980, 1983; Gould & Lewontin, 1979; Lewontin, 1978, 1979; Sade, 1980; Sociobiological Study Group, 1978; & Symons, 1987). It has been suggested that many names of behaviors are "so phenotypically vague as to be virtually descriptively empty" (Donald Symons, personal communication. February 22, 1988). Such vagueness is a crucial problem because, just as morphological adaptations must be distinct entities, alternative behavioral "tactics" must be "discontinuous, [and] mutually exclusive . . ." (Dominey, 1984, p. 386). Thus, it is necessary to demonstrate that proposed behavioral be "sufficiently distinct and bounded" before the adaptations assumption that they themselves were favored by natural selection can be supported (Martin Daly, personal communication. February 23, 1988). The necessity of an adaptation to be a precise and distinct aspect of a phenotype is crucial to determining if human rape is an adaptation. This is because several authors have emphasized the vagueness of the behavioral category of "rape" compared to other types of copulation. They argue that it is questionable whether the infinitely varied attempts of human males to copulate with females can be divided into distinct categories (Martin Daly, personal communication, March 6, 1988). Donald Symons even suggests that "there is a seamless continuum of heterosexual couplings" and there may be "no behavior(s) distinctive to rape." (Donald Symons, personal communication. February 22, 1988). Since rape does not appear to be a distinct aspect of a phenotype, Symons concludes that "rape" is not even "the name for the sort of thing that could be a human adaptation." (personal communication, February 22, 1988). There has been a recent theoretical shift that is relevant to this issue: "Research emphasis needs to shift away from the description and in adaptive terms-to the discovery and analysis of behavior-even characterization of psychological mechanisms as adaptations" (Tooby and Cosmides, 1989, p. 32). This approach holds that "despite a widespread prejudice among psychologists to the contrary, evolutionary considerations render it highly implausible that the psyche consists of

368

PALMER

a single or small number of domain-general purpose mechanisms or processes" (Tooby and Cosmides, 1989, p. 31; see also Cosmides and Tooby, 1987; Thorhill and Thornhill, in prep.). As an alternative, this approach assumes "the human nervous system is comprised of a very large number of complex special purpose mechanisms" (emphasis added, Tooby and Cosmides, 1989, p. 34). Hence, a behavior can be considered "an adaptation only if at least one of those mechanisms was designed by selection specifically to produce it" (Symons, 1989, p. 139). With regard to rape, this means that the type of thing that could be an adaptation is a psychological mechanism in the human male's psyche that exists solely because it allowed males to increase their reproductive success by raping. The question of adaptation or by-product now becomes whether the mechanisms involved in rape have been selected for rape itself, or for a variety of other types of behaviors. Although I will use this new terminology, I do not agree with claims that the behavioral category of rape is indistinguishable from other forms of sexual activity. Although many societies may be experiencing a slight change in the acts denoted by the word "rape," the word "rape" has generally been used in discourse without confusion. The fact that such communication occurs implies that people agree about the acts that the word 'rape" refers to, even if it is difficult to make the definition explicit. In an earlier paper (Palmer 1989b), I suggested that rape refers to copulations involving either the victim's resistance to the best of her ability, or the reasonable likelihood that such resistance would result in death or bodily harm to the victim or others whom she commonly protects. Although the categorizing of some acts as rape may be less obvious than others, I auggest that it can always be determined whether a certain act constitutes rape. The question therefore becomes whether there is evidence of psychological mechanisms in the human male designed to produce this type of behavior. METHOD Although there are several possible explanations of rape consistent with the basic tenets of evolutionary theory (including rape as an individual pathology or a product of novel environments; see Palmer 1988b), the most likely possibilities are the adaptive and by-product explanations. The evidence used to support these two alternative explanations will now be examined.

HUMANRAPE

369

Rape as a By-product In his 1979 book The Evolution of Human Sexuality, Donald Symons argued for the importance of an evolutionary approach, based on parental investment theory Trivers 1972), to the study ofhuman sexual behavior. Rape was included among the behaviors that he felt were only understandable in the context of evolved differences between men and women. These evolved differences, according to Symons, are the ultimate reason why "everywhere sex is understood to be something females have that males want..." (Symons, 1979, p. 253). Despite this fact, he rejected the notion that human rape itself was an adaptation produced by natural selection: "I do not believe that available data are even close to sufficient to warrant the conclusion that rape itself is a facultative adaptation in the human male . . . " (1979, p. 284). Instead of a specific reproductive tactic, Symons proposed that rape was only a by-product of evolved differences in the behavioral and emotional mechanisms of males and female sexuality (see also Symons, 1987). These different mechanisms include those involved in the male's greater visual arousal, greater autonomous "sex drive," a lesser ability to abstain from sexual activity, a much greater desire for sexual variety per se, a greater willingness to engage in impersonal sex, and less discriminating criteria of sexual partners (Symons, 1979, pp. 264-267). These traits combine to produce a situation in which "the typical male is at least slightly sexually attracted to most females, whereas the typical female is not sexually attracted to most males." (Symons, 1979, p. 267). Rape, according to Symons, is an outcome of this situation but is not itself an adaptive reproductive tactic because none of the mechanisms involved in rape was selected specifically for rape. Rape as an Adaptation Two specific adaptive explanations of human rape as an adaptative behavioral category were put forth in 1983. Shields and Shields (1983) suggested that the human male reproductive strategy is composed of three alternative conditional tactics: honest courtship. seduction, and rape. The crucial environmental condition influencing a male to adopt the rape tactic is the vulnerability of the victim. This is because: ultimately, rape is expected to occur only when its potential benefit (production of an extra offspring) exceeds its potential cost (energy expended and risk taken) owing to some probability of resistance or retributionthat would reduce a rapist's (or his kin's)reproductivesuccess (Shields & Shields, 1983, p. 115).

370

PALMER

rests largely on the actual of this explanation Evaluation distinctiveness of "honest courtship, seduction, and rape." To support this explanation, there must be evidence of a psychological mechanism evolved specifically to link the vulnerability of females with the male response of rape. Thornhill and Thornhill (1983,1987) argued that human rape was a condition-dependent facultative tactic that should only occur when the evolutionary benefits of the act outweigh the evolutionary costs. However, they stressed the effect of available alternative reproductive options on the cost/benefit ratio of committing rape (see also Alexander, 1979, 1987; Alexander & Noonan, 1979; Thornhill, 1980). They point out that 'in the absence of alternatives, the reproductive benefits ofrape to men will always exceed the costs associated with the behavior" (Thornhill & Thornhill, 1983, p. 138; see also Thornhill & Thornhill, 1987, p. 277). They predict that the males most likely to rape are those "unable to compete for resources and status necessary to attract and reproduce successfully with desirable mates" (Thornhill & Thornhill, 1983, p. 138). The acceptance of this hypothesis hinges on evidence of a physiological mechanism in human males selected to link the absence of available mating opportunities with the response of rape. Evidence: Cross-Species Data These early arguments for human rape being an adaptation relied heavily on comparisons with "rape" in other species: the idea that rape is a maladaptive outcomeof an adaptive male strategy lacks a foundationin comparativebiologywhichwe feel is a majorstrength of the view that rape is an evolved facultative mating tactic of males (Thornhill & Thornhill, 1987, p. 286). The Thornhills' hypothesis that rape is produced by a male physiological mechanism linking rape with the inability to attain the resources necessary to attract consenting mates predicts that "rape" (or "forced copulation") will be found in distantly related species which share the common characteristic of males contributing resources to their mates. (For debate over using the term "rape"in nonhumans, see Baron, 1985; Blackman, 1985; Burns, Cheng, & McKinney, 1980; Dusek, 1984; Estep & Bruce, 1981; Gowaty, 1982; Harding, 1985; Hilton, 1982; McKinney & Stolen, 1982; Palmer 1989b; Sunday, 1985.) A number of species of insects (Thornhill, 1980; Tsubaki & Ono, 1986), fish (Constanz, 1975), amphibians (Wells. 1977), and primates (Galdikas, 1979, 1985a, 1985b; MacKinnon, 1974,1979; Mitani 1985) may meet this first criterion (see Palmer, 1989b).

HUMANRAPE

371

To support the Thornhills' hypothesis, it must also be shown that rape is committed by the subordinate males without resources in these species. In many of these species, rape does not appear to be confined to low status males who lack resources. Dominant and/or territorial males commit rape among certain species of fish (Keeneyside, 1972; Van den Assem, 1967), nearly all species of water-fowl (see McKinney, Derrickson & Mineau, 1983), and some primates (Jones, 1985; MacKinnon, 1979). There is also the fact that rape appears to exist in species such as elephant seals (Cox & LeBoeuf, 1977) and chimpanzees (Goodall, 1986) in which males do not contribute significant amounts of resources (see Palmer, 1989b). The principle of divergent evolution also fails to provide convincing support for the prediction that rape should be found in species with male contribution of resources, but not in closely related species in which males do not contribute resources. While this may be the case among some species of insects, this prediction is not met among nonhuman primates. Chimpanzees, orangutans, and howler monkeys all differ significantly from humans in regard to the male contribution of resources, yet rape attempts occur in all of these species (see Palmer, 1989b). The fact that rape is apparently committed by "rich"as well as "poor" males in a variety of distantly related species is not consistent with the specific explanation stated by Thornhill and Thornhill (1983). Of course it might be consistent with an alternative adaptive explanation such as the one put forth by Shields and Shields (1983). Existing evidence of nonhuman rape does not, however, provide conclusive evidence of physiological mechanisms selected specifically for rape by males of all social statuses. Although the notal organ ofscorpionflies appears to have been "designed" specifically for rape (Thornhill, 1980; Thornhill & Alcock, 1983; Thornhill & Thornhill, 1987), this type of evidence is lacking in other species. Evidence of mechanisms selected to produce rape responses at reproductively optimal times has also been the subject of much debate (see Afton, 1985; Barash, 1978; Beecher & Beecher, 1979; Birkhead et al., 1985; Burns, Cheng & McKinney, 1980; Cheng, Burns & McKinney, 1983; Gladstone, 1979; Hailman, 1978; Harding, 1985; Hoogland & Sherman, 1976; Mineau & Cooke, 1979; Sunday, 1985). The by-product explanation, contrary to the claims of Thornhill and Thornhill (1983), also receives some support from cross-species comparisons. Evidence of evolved differences in male and female sexual behavior that could produce rape as a by-product are found in many of the same species in which rape occurs (see Alcock, 1983; Barash, 1979;

372

PALMER

Nadler & Miller, 1982; Orians, 1969; Trivers, 1972). Rejections of the by-product explanation also appear to be based on an unjustified assumption: this explanation is unsatisfactory in failing to suggest how natural selection might favor an overflow of sexual motivation, or how the costs and risks of FC [forced copulation] attempts for males are offset (McKinney,Derrickson & Mineau, 1983). This rejection is only valid if one assumes rape is an independent entity that has been acted on by natural selection. It fails to apply if one considers the possibility that the selected trait is not the raping behavior per se, but various physiological mechanisms that influence the sexual behavior of males in a variety of other ways. Natural selection may have simply favored a physiological mechanism producing a lower threshold for sexual arousal in males. Such a mechanism could have been selected because it "should often help males avoid missing a potential mate, . . . [although] it also means that males are more likely than females to engage in misdirected or resisted copulatory attempts." (my emphasis, Alcock, 1983, p. 353). Rapes that cannot possibly lead to reproduction, such as the interspecific rapes reported among some marine mammals (DeLong, 1975), are particularly likely to be only by-products of such male physiological adaptations. Instead of providing convincing support for a particular adaptive explanation, comparative data appear to indicate that it "may not be possible to develop a single comprehensive theory of forced mating even within the theory of evolution" (Crawford & Galdikas, 1986, p. 224, my emphasis; see also Palmer, 1989b). Evidence of adaptation in some species, such as scorpionflies and orangutans, is much stronger than in others. This means that explanations of human rape must currently be tested largely with human data. Evidence: Cross-Cultural Data Both the adaptive and by-product explanations generated predictions about the occurrence of rape in different cultures. The dismal state of ethnographic data on rape, unfortunately, makes this source of evidence of only limited use (see Palmer, 1989a). Thornhill and Thornhill (1983) claimed a correlation between polygyny and severity of punishment which they suggest supports their explanation of rape (see also van den Berghe, 1979). This correlation depends largely on the coding of five monogamous societies (Woleai, Tewa, Yap, Timbira, and Marshallese) as either not punishing rape or not even having rape. The limited and contradictory ethnographic descriptions of rape in these societies make

HUMAN RAPE

373

the conclusion that these monogamous societies have little or no punishment for rape questionable (see Palmer, 1989a; see also Broude & Greene, 1976; Brown, 1952; Chappell, 1976; Minturn, Grosse & Haider, 1969; Sanday, 1981). For example, Hunt et al. (1949) state that "There is no concept of 'rape' in Yap," but Salesius states that wife abductions were a major cause of war on Yap and even reports that the customary punishment for rape was a fine paid to the victim's father (1906, p. 117). The evidence that rape goes without any punishment among the Marshallese is even more tenuous as it is based on the following story told to an ethnographer by a non-Marshallese trader: One day while standing with a friend not far from his dwelling at the Ine trading post, he [the trader] saw 20 young men enter the bushes, one after another. Curious to know what was going on, he took the same path and discovered to his great astonishment a young girl stretched out on the ground, completely rigid and unconscious.When he reproachedthe young men for their cruel treatment of the girl, they replied: "it is customary here for every young man to have intercourse with every girl" (Erdland 1914, p. 113). Even if this story is true, it is questionable that this incident actually implies that rape goes unpunished. First, the claim of complete sexual access to all women is modified by the phrase "(except those excluded on account of blood or kin-group relationship)" (Erdland 1914, p. 99). There is also evidence that the remaining freedom is further restricted by the fact that the mere suspicion of marital infidelity "arouses intense jealousy, which leads to brawls and quarrels" (Kramer & Neverman, 1938, p. 185; see also Wedgwood, 1942, p. 16). There is no evidence that whatever actual sexual freedom is left includes rape, and a crosscultural study on attitudes towards rape by Broude and Greene (1976) concludes that there is simply no information available on such attitudes in this society. The similar inconsistencies in the data on all societies reported to lack rape or punishment for rape, including all of the societies used by Thornhill and Thornhill (1983), is crucial because the Thornhills' correlation between polygyny and severity of punishment is dependent on the zero rating given to these societies (see Palmer 1989a). Hence, cross-cultural data are currently unable to decide the issue since both adaptive and non-adaptive hypotheses can account for the apparent universal occurrence of rape. Evidence: Modern Societal Data Two aspects of human male physiology were hypothesized to have been designed specifically for rape. In 1980, Thornhill suggested that

374

PALMER

the larger size of males in humans and other species evolved because it allowed males to reproduce by rape. The obvious problem with this hypothesis is the existence of alternative explanations of sexual dimorphism with much greater basis in comparative data (see Alexander et al., 1979). In fact, Thornhill abandons this hypothesis in his later writings specifically on human rape. This means the issue centers on the second aspect proposed to have been designed for rape. This is the use of a beauty evaluating mechanism designed specifically for selecting females at the age of peak fertility: Rapists and non rapists are expected to prefer nubile women. Rapists in particular are expected to value female fertility of potential victims to a greater degree than female reproductivevalue ... [that is] rapists will find potential victims of maximum fertility [in their early twenties] most desirable, whereas other men and rapists will find young women at maximum reproductivevalue [in their mid-teens] most desirable for long term pair-bondingpurposes (emphasis in original, Thornhill & Thornhill, 1983, p. 167, see also Thornhill & Thorhill, 1987, p. 284-285). Evidence of a distinct beauty evaluating mechanism being used in rape is exactly the type of evidence needed to support an adaptive explanation, but there are several flaws in the existing evidence. First, the existence of two such distinct beauty evaluating mechanisms might be the result of selection for pair-bonding on the one hand and short-term consenting sexual encounters on the other. It is also crucial to remember that rapists must be shown to "strive" for peak fertility, instead of peak reproductive value, in order to support an adaptive explanation. The mere demonstration that rapists strive for relatively young females, at about the age of peak fertility and peak reproductive value, would not be evidence for a distinct beauty evaluation mechanism being used in rape. Such evidence might just indicate sexual motivation in rape (see Alcock, 1983; Palmer, 1988) and, hence, be consistent with the explanation of rape as a by-product of physiological mechanisms in the human male that have evolved for a variety of other specific functions. The most consistent finding of studies on rape, in modern and traditional societies, is probably that women in their teens and twenties are vastly overrepresented among rape victims. Study after study has shown that rape victims peak somewhere in the 13- to 25-year age range (Amir, 1971; Chappell et al., 1977; Chappell & James, 1976; Clark & Lewis, 1977; Cohen & Felson, 1979; Groth, 1979; Katz & Mazur, 1979; Kramer, 1987; MacDonald, 1971; McCaldron, 1967; Rada, 1978; see also Erdland, 1914; Freeman, 1983; Gorer, 1938; LeVine, 1959; Nimuendaju, 1946; Thornhill & Thornhill, 1983; Turnbull, 1965; Zingg, 1938). While the Thornhills claim that their data suggest "that fertility of females is

HUMANRAPE

375

more important than reproductive value in rape victimization" (Thornhill & Thornhill, 1987, p. 285), they admit that this has not been demonstrated. Hence, while the fact that young females are overrepresented among rape victims is consistent with an adaptive hypothesis, it is no less consistent with the by-product hypothesis. Thornhill and Thornhill (1983) also implied that the behavior of rapists in regard to the types of sex acts they commit is evidence of some type of physiological mechanism designed to maximize reproduction via rape. They emphasize the fact that penile-vaginal intercourse is the most common sex act reported during rapes (Thornhill & Thornhill, 1983, p. 163), but they fail to demonstrate evidence of a mechanism that produces more reproductively efficient behavior during rape than during consenting sexual encounters (see Burgess, 1980; Glaser et al., 1986; Hyde, 1982; McCahill, Meyer & Fischman, 1979; Queen's Bench Foundation, 1978; Schiff, 1979). Adaptive explanations have also admittedly ignored forms of "sexual assault" that have no chance of producing offspring because they do not involve penile-vaginal intercourse (see Shields & Shields, 1983, p. 116). While it is possible that different types of "sexual assaults" result from completely different physiological mechanisms and have completely different evolutionary explanations than acts which meet the literal definition of rape: The exclusion of behaviors which do not raise the inclusive fitness of the rapist from the category of rape appears to be an artificial division based on theoreticalconstraints rather than considerationof any characteristics of the behavior in question (Harding, 1985, p. 35). Arelated issue is the need for evidence that the reproductive benefits of rape have typically outweighed its costs. Between 0% and 19% of rape victims in various studies have become pregnant (Katz & Mazur, 1979). Such pregnancies are also not likely to result in a surviving and reproducing offspring (see Harding, 1985). In fact, Harding estimates the chances of rape resulting in a surviving offspring to be less than 0.2% (1985, p. 50). This author, as well as Sunday (1985), Baron (1985), and Dusek (1984), has seen this as strong evidence against the view that rape is a reproductive tactic. A low rate of reproduction from rape does not falsify an explanation of rape as an adaptation any more than a low rate of reproduction demonstrates that male ejaculation is not an adaptation. However, both adaptive explanations of rape have felt obligated to establish that the reproductive rate of rape is sufficient to support an adaptive explanation. This is where the difference between the two versions of the adaptive explanation of rape becomes crucial. Shields and Shields

376

PALMER

(1983) argued that the slight benefits of rape have outweighed the costs. They attempt to do this by suggesting that rape was more often successful in the evolutionary past, before the uses of modern contraceptives and abortions. They also minimize the costs involved by suggesting that rapes were seldom reported (see also Alexander & Noonan, 1979; Thornhill and Thorhill, in prep.). The Thornhills, on the other hand, readily admitted the low benefits and high costs of rape: In humans the benefits to reproductionare small because of the small probability of conception following a single copulation: this is the case even in societies without moder methods of birth control and it was probablythe case in human evolutionaryhistory (Thornhill& Thornhill, 1983, p. 142, see also Thomhill & Thornhill, 1987; Alexander & Noonan, 1979). The reason they conceded this point is their emphasizing of the fact that "In the absence of alternatives, the reproductive benefits of rape to men will always exceed the costs associated with the behavior" (my emphasis, Thornhill & Thornhill, 1983, p. 138). But is there evidence of a physiological mechanism in human males that links rape to an absence of alternative reproductive opportunities? To support their position, Thornhill and Thornhill cited evidence that men from the lower socio-economic classes are overrepresented among convicted rapists (see Amir, 1971; Dietz, 1978; Gebhard, Christenson, Gagnon & Pomeroy, 1965; Thornhill & Thornhill, 1983). However, even among convicted rapists, some rapes are committed by males who are not of extremely low social status. Thornhill and Thomhill themselves point out that less than a quarter (23%) of the rapists in the large study by Gebhard, Christenson, Gagnon, and Pomeroy (1965) were from the lowest socioeconomic class (Thornhill & Thornhill, 1983, p. 151). Wartime rapes in a variety of modem countries and traditional societies have also clearly not been limited to males of low social status (see Brownmiller, 1975; Chagnon, 1968; Sanders, 1980). Even more troublesome to the Thornhills is the fact that many convicted rapists appear to have had alternative reproductive opportunities, at least during the time preceding the rape. Thornhill and Thornhill state that "[s]ome studies report that 50% to 60% of rapists have been married at some time prior to their conviction" (Thornhill & Thornhill, 1983, p. 164). Smithyman (1978) indicates that the rapists in his study had a relatively normal dating history. Gebhard, Christenson, Gagnon & Pomeroy (1965) even found that many sex offenders of various types actually had unusually active sex lives. Several studies of sexual aggression among college students also found

HUMANRAPE

377

that "the more common and most severe aggressors were males who had the largest amount of previous sexual activity.. ." (Geis & Huston, 1980, p. 187, citing studies by Kanin 1957; Kanin & Parcell, 1977). It is possible that these alternatives were no longer available at the time of the rape, but Thornhill and Thornhill also point out that the percentages of rapists who are still married at the time of the rape "range from 19% to 43%"(for references and discussion, see MacDonald, 1971; Rada 1978; Thornhill and Thornhill, 1983, p. 164). This evidence does not mean that rapists are necessarily more sexual than non-rapists, but it is certainly contrary to the prediction that rapists lack alternative sexual opportunities. Thornhill and Thornhill made the following initial rebuttal to the seemingly damaging evidence of rapists regularly having reproductive alternatives: "This is not to say that rapists have or have had what they perceive as suitable mates. Women are not equal in their desirability to men" (my emphasis, Thornhill & Thornhill 1983, p. 164). However, they provided no evidence on the "desirability" of the women rapists have had sexual access to in order to support this explanation. Not only did Thornhill and Thornhill stress that the benefits of rape are low and the costs of rape are usually high, they attempted to use these high costs to discredit the by-product explanation of rape: It is a possibility that human rape is simply an inevitable [sic] outcome of an evolutionaryhistory in which males were selected to persist in their attempts to copulate and females were selected to discriminate between males and often refuse copulation. In this view, human rape is a maladaptive consequenceof an adaptive general mating strategy of men. We feel that this view isinappropriatebecause of the costs associated with human rape . .. [which means that] those who persisted in copulation attempts to the point of rape when costs exceeded benefits would have been out reproducedby males who adopted rape adaptively (Thornhill & Thornhill, 1983, p. 142;see also Shields & Shields, 1983, p. 124;Thornhill & Thornhill, 1987, p. 286). Again, it is theoretically possible that natural selection could have worked on rape per se as a distinct trait in the way just described. However, to support this view it must still be demonstrated, not merely assumed, that human males have some physiological mechanism evolved specifically to enable them to rape "adaptively." The high costs of human rape are actually not a problem for the by-product explanation. Since this view sees a variety of mechanisms for other aspects of male sexuality as the traits, it must only demonstrate that other effects of these evolved male sexual mechanisms (i.e., not missing any possibility of consenting matings, or influencing an undecided female to consent to mating) outweighed the net costs of rape.

378

PALMER

The New Adaptive Explanation of Rape Thornhill and Thornhill have recently written a new adaptive explanation of human rape that focuses explicitly on the physiological and psychological mechanisms involved (Thornhill and Thornhill, in prep.). In place of the data described above, the new adaptive explanation is based largely on "the fact that forced/unforced copulation is a continuum and not a dichotomy and on the assumption that sexual coercion of one form or another is an aspect of the majority of human copulations." (Thornhill and Thornhill, in prep., p. 19). This assumption is crucial to their interpretation of the new data that they use to support an adaptive explanation. The majority of the new data drawn upon consists of the many studies on sexual arousal to rape depictions. Particular attention is given to studies indicating that many males become more sexually aroused to rape depictions when the female victim becomes sexually aroused (Farkas, 1979; Malamuth, 1981a, 1981b; Malamuth and Check 1980a, 1980b, 1983; Malamuth, Heim and Feshback 1980a; Schmidt, 1975; see also Malamuth 1989a, 1989b). The Thornhills make the following interpretation of this evidence: We have suggested that the sexual response of women is sexually stimulating to men because it implies a man's exclusive sexual access to a woman and therefore a high probability of offspring production by a man. We feel that this interpretation will apply to the sexual arousal of men in both forced and unforced sexual settings, because male sexuality seems to be characterized by a combinationof coercionand noncoercion and because there is no distinct dichotomy between coercive and noncoercive sexual tactics of men. (Thornhill and Thornhill, in prep., p. 51). Although I agree with the reason given as to why males are aroused by signs of a female's arousal, I feel this actually supports the by-product explanation of rape. The Thornhills themselves state that male physiological mechanisms that responded to female arousal were favored because it occurred in situations where it increased the probability of continuing exclusive sexual access, not because it occurred in coercive situations. Rape, even in the rare instances where the victim experiences some arousal, does not tend to lead to a continuing exclusive sexual relationship with a high probability of producing offspring. The fact that males become more aroused by depictions of aroused rape victims appears to be clearly a by-product of selection for mechanisms favored in consenting situations. The Thornhills' argument rests entirely on their assertion that there is no objective dichotomy between coercive and noncoercive copulations. If this assumption is accepted, then the question of adaptive coercive

HUMANRAPE

379

sexuality is aforegone conclusion since adaptive mechanisms are surely involved in male sexual behavior in general. I suggest that this crucial assumption is vulnerable on a fundamental level. If there is 'no distinct dichotomy between coercive and noncoercive sexual tactics of men" how can the Thornhills talk about "forced" and "unforced" sexual settings? The mere fact that they use the words, and agree on which depictions fit which category, implies that it is possible to make such a distinction (for attempts at objectively defining rape, see Palmer, 1989b; Snelling, 1975). The Thornhills also give little attention to the possibility that the use of coercion to attain sexual goals is just a by-product of coercion to attain nonsexual goals. DISCUSSION As the Thornhills point out, the question of adaptation in human rape has still not been answered. Although the findings of this paper indicate that there is still insufficient evidence to support the claim that human males have been adapted to rape, this does not mean that we can conclude that rape is a by-product of a male sexuality that has been selected to reproduce purely through "consensual" copulations. Martin Daly points out that '"nen might have evolved a sexual psyche such that erectile and ejaculatory responses were impossible without the enthusiastic participation of their partners" (emphasis in original, Martin Daly, personal communication, March 20, 1989). It is quite possible that the ability of human males to copulate without obvious signs of consent, and even despite severe protest, on behalf of their partners is the result of physiological mechanisms that were favored by natural selection specifically because they allowed the male to reproduce via rape. However, it is also possible that rape is a consequence of the interaction of a variety of mechanisms that were selected because they kept males from missing other kinds of sexual opportunities that might result in reproduction. Mechanisms in the human male concerning visual stimulation, autonomous sex drive, desire for a variety of partners, greater willingness to engage in impersonal sex, and less discriminating criteria of sexual partners could be sufficient to produce raping behavior, yet all of these mechanisms could have been selected solely because they helped human males reproduce by ways other than rape. I also feel there is the need for caution in pursuing the new approach to the search for adaptation. Of particular importance is a reconsideration of the view that coercive and noncoercive sexual activity cannot be distinguished. The mere fact that researchers can agree on the

380

PALMER

different categories when designing their studies implies they are able to differentiate the types of behaviors. Although making these criteria explicit may be difficult, the failure to do so appears to hinder attempts to determine evolutionary explanations. For example, the Thornhills suggest several types of future research that could provide a more conclusive evolutionary explanation of human rape. Among these tests, perhaps the most convincing evidence for an adaptive explanation would be variations in sperm content during rape and consenting situations. This test, however, requires a distinguishable difference between consenting sexual activity and coerced activity. This demonstrates that a focus on the evolution of mechanisms underlying behavior does not mean that all behavioral categories actually form a continuum of seamless variation. It is one thing to include proximate mechanisms in the search for adaptations. It is, however, adifferent thing to assert that categories of behavior easily distinguishable in everyday discourse are actually part of a continuous whole. Making such an assertion simply to support an adaptive explanation can only hinder our evolutionary understanding of the world.

References
A. D. (1985). Forced copulation as a reproductive strategy of male lesser Scaup AFTON, Aythya-affinis: A field test of some predictions. Behaviour, 92, 146-167. ALCOCK,J. (1983). Animal behavior: An evolutionary approach, third edition. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinaur Associates. R. A. (1979). Darwinism and human affairs. Seattle, Washington: University ALEXANDER, of Washington Press. R. A. (1987). The biology of moral systems. New York: Aldine. ALEXANDER, P. W. J. L., HOWARD, K M., & SHERMAN, R. A., HOOGLAND, R. D., NOONAN, ALEXANDER, (1979). Sexual dimorphism and breeding systems in pinnipeds, ungulates, primates and humans. In N. A. Chagnon & W. G. Irons (Eds.), Evolutionary biology and human social behavior: An anthropological perspective. North Scituate, Massachusetts: Duxbury Press. K. M. (1979). Concealment of ovulation, parental care, and R. A., & NOONAN, ALEXANDER, human social evolution. InN. A Chagnon &W. G.Irons (Eds.),Evolutionary biology and human social behavior: An anthropological perspective. North Scituate, Massachusetts: Duxbury Press. AMIR, M. (1971). Patterns in forcible rape. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. BARASH, D. P. (1977). Sociobiology of rape in mallards (Anas platyrhynchos): Response of the mated male. Science, 197, 788-789. BARASH, D. P. (1978). Reply to Hailman "Rape among mallards." Science NY, 201, 202. D. P. (1979). The whisperings within. New York: Harper and Row. BARASH, BARASH, D. P. (1982). Sociobiology and behavior, second edition. New York: Elsevier. BARON, L. (1985). Does rape contribute to reproductive success: Evaluations of sociobiological views of rape. International Journal of Women's Studies, 8 (3), 266-277.

HUMAN RAPE

381

F. A. (1976). Cross-species comparisons and the human heritage.Archives ofSexual BEACH, Behavior, 5 (5), 469-485. M. D., & BEECHER, I. M. (1979). Sociobiology of bank swallows: Reproductive BEECHER, strategy of the male. Science, 205, 1282-1285. T. R., ETAL. (1985). Extra-pair matings and mate guarding in the common BIRKHEAD, Murre Uria-aalge. Animal Behavior, 33, 608-619. J. (1985). The language of sexual violence: More than a matter of semantics. BLACKMAN, In S. R. Sunday & E. Tobach (Eds.), Violence against women: A critique of the sociobiology of rape. New York: Gordian Press. S. (1976). Cross-cultural codes on twenty sexual attitudes and BROUDE, G., & GREENE, practices. Ethnology, 15, 409-429. J. S. (1952). A comparative study of deviations from sexual mores. American BROWN, Sociological Review, 17, 135-146. S. (1975). Against our will: Men, women, and rape. New York: Simon and BROWNMILLER, Schuster. BURIAN,R. M. (1983). Adaptation. In M. Grene (Ed.), Dimensions of Darwinism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. F. (1980). Forced copulations in captive mallards: 1. K, & MCKINNEY, BURNS,J., CHENG, fertilization of eggs. Auk, 97, 875-879. A. L. (1978). The sociobiology debate. New York: Harper and Row. CAPLAN, M. B. (1987). The problem of adaptation in the study T. M., & BORGERHOFF MULDER, CARO, of human behavior. Ethology and Sociobiology, 8, 61-72. M. W. (1981). Cultural transmission and evolution. L. L., & FELDMAN, CAVALLI-SFORZA, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. N. A. (1968). Yanomamo: The fierce people. New York: Holt, Rinehart and CHAGNON, Winston. D. (1976). Cross-cultural research on forcible rape. International Journal of CHAPPELL, Criminology and Penology, 4, 295-304. CHAPPELL, D., & JAMES,J. (1976). Victim selection and apprehension from the rapist's Paper presented to the second perspective: A preliminary investigation. International Symposium on Victimology, Boston, September 8. L. (1977). A comparative study of forcible CHAPPELL, D., GEIS,G., SCHAFER, S., & SIEGEL, rape offenses known to the police in Boston and Los Angeles. In D. Chappell, R. Geis & G. Geis, (Eds.), Forcible rape, the crime, the victim, and the offender. New York: Columbia University Press. F. (1983). Forced copulation in captive mallards K M., BURNS,K., & MCKINNEY, CHENG, Ana-platyrhynchos 3. Sperm competition. Auk, 100, 302-310. D. J. (1977). Rape: The price of coercive sexuality. Toronto: The L. M. G., & LEWIS, CLARK, Women's Press. F. T. (1975). Is a cultural ethology possible? Human Ecology, 3 (3), 161-182. CLOAK, L E., & FELSON, M (1979). Social changes and crime rate trends: Aroutine activity COHEN, approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588-608. G. D. (1975). Behavioral ecology in the male Gila topminnow, Poeciliopsis CONSTANTZ, occidentalis (Cyprinodontiformes: Poeciludae). Ecology, 56, 966-973. J. (1987). From evolution to behaviours: Evolutionary psychology L., & TOOBY, COSMIDES, as the missing link. In J. Dupre, (Ed.), The latest on the best. Cambridge: The M.l.T. Press. B. J. (1977). Female incitation of male competition: Amechanism Cox, C. R., & LEBOEUF, in sexual selection. American Naturalist, 111, 317-335. B. M. F. (1986). Rape in nonhuman animals: An evolutionary C., & GALDIKAS, CRAWFORD, Canadian Psychology, 27, 215-230. perspective. E. (1973). Towards a methodology of teleonomy. Experientia, 29, 1045-1058. CURIO, M. (1988). Personal Communication, March 6. DALY,

382

PALMER

M. (1983). Sex, evolution and behavior, second edition. Boston: Willard DALY,M.,& WILSON, Grant Press. DALY,M., & WILSON,M. (1987). Evolutionary psychology and family violence. In C. Crawford, M. Smith, & D. Krebs, (Eds.), Sociobiology and psychology: Ideas, issues and applications. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. R. L. (1975). Interspecific reproductive behavior among four otariids at San DELONG, Miguel Island, California. Talk given at the conference on the biology and conservation of marine mammals at the University of California, Santa Cruz. D. A. (1980). Methods in the two sociobiologies. In multiple book reviews of DEWSBURY, Donald Symon's The Evolution of Human Sexuality. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3 (2), 171-214. P. E. (1978). Social factors in rapist behavior. In R. Rada, (Ed.), Clinical aspects of DIETZ, the rapist. New York: Grune and Stratton. W. J. (1984). Alternative mating tactics and evolutionary stable strategies. DOMINEY, American Zoologist, 24, 385-391. W. H. (1982). Interactions of genetic and cultural evolutionary models and DURHAM, examples. Human Ecology, 10 (3), 289-322. DUSEK,V. (1984). Sociobiology and rape. Science For the People, 16, 10-16. ELLIS,L. (1989). Theories of rape. Hemisphere Publishing Company: New York. P. A. (1914). Die Marshall-insulaner (The Marshall Islanders). Munster: ERDLAND, Anthropos Bibliothek Ethnological Monographs 2, (1), (Translated by Richard Neuse for Human Relations Area Files). K. E. M. (1981). The concept of rape in non-humans: A Critique. ESTEP,D. Q., & BRUCE, Animal Behaviour, 29, 1272-1273. G. M. (1979). Trait and state determinants of male sexual arousal to descriptions FARKAS, of coercive sexuality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii. D. (1983). Margaret Mead and Samoa: The making of an anthropological myth. FREEMAN, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. GALDIKAS, B. M. F. (1979). Orangutan adaptation at Tanjung Putting Reserve: Mating and ecology. In D. A Hamburg & E. R McCown, (Eds.), The great apes. Menlo Park, California: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing company. B. M. F. (1985a). Adult male sociality and reproductive tactics among GALDIKAS, Orangutans at Tanjung-Putting Borneo Indonesia. Folia Primatology, 45, 9-24. B. M. F. (1985b). Subadult male Orangutan sociality and reproductive behavior GALDIKAS, at Tanjun-Putting. American Journal of Primatology, 8, 87-100. G. G. (1987). Unique features of human sexuality in the context of evolution. In GALLUP, D. Byrne & K. Kelley (Eds.),Alternative approaches to the study of sexual behavior. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum Associates. G. G., & SUAREZ, S. D. (1983). Homosexuality as a by-product of selection for GALLUP, optimal heterosexual strategies. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 26, 315-332. C. V., GAGNON, J. H., & POMEROY, W. B. (1965). Sex offenders: GEBHARD, P., CHRISTENSON, An analysis of types. New York: Harper and Row. T. L. (1980). Forcible rape and human sexuality. In multiple book GEIS, G., & HUSTON, reviews of Donald Symon's The Evolution of Human Sexuality. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 171-214. D. E (1979). Promiscuity in monogamous colonial birds. American Naturalist, GLADSTONE, 114, 545-559. J. B., ETAL.(1986). Sexually transmitted diseases in victims of sexual assault. GLASER, New England Journal of Medicine, September, 4, 625-627. J. (1986). The chimpanzees of Gombe: Patterns of behavior. Cambridge: The GOODALL, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. G. (1938). Himalayan Village:An account of the Lepcha ofSikkim. London: Michael GORER, Joseph Limited.

HUMAN RAPE

383

S. J. (1980). Sociobiology and the theory of natural selection. In G. W. Barlow & GOULD, J. Silverberg (Eds.), Sociobiology: Beyond nature/nurture? Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. S. J. (1983). The hardening of the modern synthesis. In M. Grene (Ed.), Dimensions GOULD, of Darwinism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. S. J. (1987). Freudian slip. Natural History, February, 14-21. GOULD, S. J., & LEWONTIN, R. C. (1979). The spandrels of San Marco and the panglossian GOULD, paradigm: Acritique of the adaptionist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B, 205, 581-598. GOWAY, P. A. (1982). Sexual terms in sociobiology: Emotionally evocative and paradoxically, jargon. Animal Behaviour, 30, 630-631. N. A. (1979). Men who rape. New York: Plenum Press. GROTH, R. (1979). The biosexual factor. New York: Doubleday. HAGEN, R. J. (1978). Rape among mallards. Science NY, 201, 280-281. HAILMAN, C. F. (1985). Sociobiological hypotheses about rape: A critical look at the data HARDING, behind the hypotheses. InS. R Sunday &E. Tobach (Eds.), Violence against women: A critique of the sociobiology of rape. New York: Gordian Press. D. F. J. (1982). Is it really rape or forced copulation? Bioscience, 32, 641. HILTON, HINDE,RA. (1975). The concept offunction. InG. Bearends &A. Manning (Eds.), Function and evolution in behavior. Oxford: Clarendon Press. L L, & BURGESS, A W.(1980). Sexual behavior of assailants during reported HOLMSTROM, rapes. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 9 (5), 427-439. J. L., & SHERMAN, P. M. (1976). Advantages and disadvantages of Bank Swallow HOOGLAND, coloniality. Ecological Monographs, 46, 33-58. HUNT,E. E., ETAL.(1949). The Micronesians of Yap and their depopulation. Cambridge: Peabody Museum Harvard University. HYDE,J. S. (1982). Understanding human sexuality. New York: McGraw-Hill. C. B. (1985). Reproductive patterns in mantled Howler Monkeys estrus mate choice JONES, and copulation. Primates, 26, 130-142. E. J. (1957). Male aggression in dating-courtship relations. The American Journal KANIN, of Sociology, 63, 197-204. S. R. (1977). Sexual aggression, a second look at the offended KANIN,E. J., & PARCELL, female. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 6, 67-76. M. A. (1979). Understanding the rape victim. New York: Wiley. KATZ, S., & MAZUR, M. H. A. (1972). Intraspecific intrusions into nests of spawning longear KEENEYSIDE, sunfish. Copeia, 272-278. L. L. (1987). Albuquerque rape crisis center: Annual report, Bernalillo County KRAMER, Mental Health/Mental Retardation Center. S. (1985). Sociobiological theory and the violent abuse of women. In S. R. LENNINGTON, Sunday & E. Tobach (Eds.), Violence against women: A critique of the sociobiology of rape. New York: Gordian Press. R. A. (1959). Gusii sex offenses: Astudyin social control.American Anthropologist, LEVINE,

61, 963-990.
R. C. (1978). Adaptation. Scientific American, 239 (3), 159-169. LEWONTIN, R. C. (1979). Sociobiology as an adaptationist program. Behavioral Science, LEWONTIN, 24, 5-14. LoSco, J. (1981). Ultimate vs. proximate explanation: Explanatory modes in sociobiology and the social sciences. Journal of Social and Biological Structures, 4, 329-346. J. M. (1971). Rape offenders and their victims. Springfield, Illinois: Charles MACDONALD, C. Thomas. J. (1974). In search of the red ape. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. MACKINNON,

384

PALMER

J. (1979). Reproductive behavior in wild orangutan populations. In D. A. MACKINNON, Hamburg & E. R. McCown (Eds.), The great apes. Menlo Park, California: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company. N. (1981 a). Rape proclivity amongmales. Journal ofSocialIssues, 37,138-157. MALAMUTH, N. (1981 b). Rape fantasies as a function of exposure to violent-sexual stimuli. MALAMUTH, Archives of Sexual Behavior, 10, 33-47. N. (1989a). The attraction to sexual aggression scale: Part one. The Journal MALAMUTH, of Sex Research, 26 (1), 26-45. N. (1989b). The attraction to sexual aggression scale: Part two. The Journal MALAMUTH, Sex Research, 26 (3), 324-354. of J. (1980a). Penile tumescence and perceptual responses to rape MALAMUTH, N., & CHECK, as a function of victim's perceived reactions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, 528-547. J. (1980b). Sexual arousal to rape and consenting depictions: MALAMUTH, N., & CHECK, The importance of the woman's arousal. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 89, 763-766. N., & CHECK,J. (1983) Sexual arousal to rape depictions: Individual MALAMUTH, differences. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 92, 55-67. S. (1980a). The sexual responsiveness of college MALAMUTH, N., HEIM,M., & FESHBACH, students to rape depictions: Inhibitory and disinhibitory effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 399-408. T. W. L., MEYER,L. C., & FISCHMAN, A. M. (1979). The aftermath of rape. McCAHILL, Lexington, Massachusetts: D. D. Heath and Company. R. J. (1967). Rape. Canadian Journal of Corrections, 9, 37-57. MCCALDRON, P. (1983). Forced copulation in waterfowl. S., & MINEAU, MCKINNEY, F., DERRICKSON, Behaviour, 74, 250-293. P. (1982). Extra-pair-bond courtship andforced copulation among MCKINNEY, F., & STOLEN, captive green-winged teal (Anas crecca carolinensis). Animal Behaviour, 30, 461474. F. (1979). Rape in the lesser snow goose. Behaviour, 70, 280-291. MINEAU, P., & COOKE, S. (1969). Cultural patterning of sexual beliefs and MINTURN, M., & HAIDER, L., GROSSE, behavior. Ethnology, 8, 301-318. J. C. (1985). Mating behaviour of male Orangutans in the Kutai game reserve, MITANI, Indonesia. Animal Behaviour, 33, 392-402. L. C. (1982). Influence of male aggression on mating of Gorillas. R. P., & MILLER, NADLER, Folia Primatologica, 38, 233-239. C. (1946). The eastern Timbira. Univ. Calif. Publ. Amer. Arch. Ethn, 41, NIMUENDAJU, 1-358. G. IH (1969). On the ewlution of mating systems inbirds and mammals. American ORIANS, Naturalist, 103, 589-603. C. (1988). Twelve reasons why rape is not sexually motivated: A skeptical PALMER, examination. The Journal of Sex Research, 25 (4), 512-530. C. (1988b). Evolutionary Explanations of rape: Testing adaptive and non-adaptive PALMER, hypotheses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University. C. (1989a). Is rape a cultural universal? A re-examination of the ethnographic PALMER, data. Ethnology, 28 (1), 1-16. C. (1989b). Rape in nonhuman species: Definitions, evidence, and implications. PALMER, The Journal of Sex Research, 26 (3), 353-374. BENCHFOUNDATION. (1978).The rapist and his victim. In L. D. Savitz & N. QUEEN'S Johnston (Eds.), Crime and society. New York: Wiley. RADA,R. T. (1978). Clinical aspects of the rapist. New York: Grune and Stratton. R. (1981). Why do men rape? Playboy, 28 (4), 112. RHODES,

HUMAN RAPE

385

RUSE, M. (1978). Sociobiology: A philosophical analysis. In A. L. Caplan (Ed.), The sociobiology debate. New York: Harper Row. SADE,D. S. (1980). Human sexuality: Hints for an alternative explanation. In multiple book reviews of Donald Symon's The Evolution of Human Sexuality. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3 (2), 171-214. F. (1906). Diekirolneu-Insel Jap. Berlin: Wilhelm Susserot (translated for the SAMESIUS, Human Relations Area Files). P. (1981). The socio-cultural context of rape: A cross-cultural study. Journal of SANDAY, Social Issues, 37 (4), 5-27. SANDERS,W. B. (1980). Rape and women's identity. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications. A. F. (1979). Statistical trends in rape. Journal of the Forensic Scientific Society, SCHIFF, 19, 95-106. G. (1975). Male-female differences in sexual arousal and behavior. Archives of SCHMIDT, Sexual Behavior, 4, 353-364. W. M., & SHIELDS, L. M. (1983). Forcible rape: An evolutionary perspective. SHIELDS, Ethology and Sociobiology, 4, 115-136. S. D. (1978). The undetected rapist. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, SMITHYMAN, Claremont Graduate School. University Microfilms International. Ann Arbor, Michigan. H. A. (1975). What is non-consent (in rape)? In L. G. Schultz (Ed.), Rape SNELLING, victimology. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas. SOCIOBIOLOGICAL STUDY GROUP. (1978). Sociobiology-Another biological determinism. In A. L. Caplan (Ed.), The sociobiology debate. New York: Harper and Row. S. R. (1985). Introduction. In S. R. Sunday & E. Tobach (Eds.), Violence against SUNDAY, women: A critique of the sociobiology of rape. New York: Gordian Press. S. R., & TOBACH, E. (1985). Violence against women:A critique of the sociobiology SUNDAY, of rape. New York: Gordian Press. D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press. SYMONS, D. (1980). The evolution of human sexuality revisited. In multiple book reviews SYMONS, of Donald Symon's The Evolution of Human Sexuality. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3 (2), 171-214. D. (1987). If we're all Darwinians, what's the fuss about? In C. Crawford, M. SYMONS, Smith, & D. Krebs (Eds.), Sociobiology and psychology: ideas, issues and applications. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. D. (1988). Personal Communication, February, 22. SYMONS, D. (1989). A critique of Darwinian anthropology. Ethology and Sociobiology, 10 SYMONS, (1-3), 131-145. R. (1980). Rape in Panorpa scorpionflies and a general rape hypothesis. THORNHILL, Animal Behaviour, 28, 52-59. THORNHILL, R., & ALCOCK,J. (1983). The evolution of insect mating systems. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. N. W. (1983). Human rape: An evolutionary analysis. THORNHILL, R., & THORNHILL, Ethology and Sociobiology, 4, 137-173. N. W.(1987). Human rape: The strengths of the evolutionary THORNHILL, R, & HORNHILL, perspective. In C. Crawford, M. Smith, & D. Krebs (Eds.), Sociobiology and psychology: Ideas, issues and applications. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. N. W. (in prep.) The evolutionary psychology of men's coercive R., & THORNHILL, THORNHILL, sexuality. TOOBY, J., & COSMIDES,L. (1989). Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture, part 1: Theoretical considerations. Ethology and Sociobiology, 10 (1-3), 29-51.

386

PALMER

R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), TRIVERS, Sexual selection and the descent of man. Chicago: Aldine. TSUBAKI, V., & ONO, T. (1986). Competition for territorial sites and alternative mating tactics in the dragonfly Nsnnophya-pygmaea odonata libellulideae. Behaviour, 97, 234-252. C. M. (1965). Wayward servants: The two worlds of the African Pygmies. TURNBULL, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. VANDENASSEM, J. (1967). Territory in the three spine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeaturs L.: An experimental study in intraspecific competition. Behaviour supplement, 16. VAN DENBERGHE, P. L. (1979). Human family systems. New York: Elsevier. K. D. (1977). The social behavior of anuran amphibians. Animal Behaviour, 25, WELLS, 663-693. G. C. (1966). Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton, New Jersey: WILLIAMS, Princeton University Press. E. 0. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge: Harvard University WILSON, Press. ZINGG,R. W. (1938). The Huichols: Primitive artists. New York: G. E. Stechert and Company.