In this blog post, we take an in-depth look at whether human crime—specifically the act of rape—can be explained from the perspective of evolutionary psychology.
Humans act through a series of processes—“perception, decision-making, and action”—and one of the main goals of psychology is to explore why we make certain decisions. Evolutionary psychology is the field that posits the existence of evolutionary factors underlying these decision-making processes.
Evolutionary psychology interprets various human behaviors from an evolutionary perspective. For example, it views the tendency for men to prefer younger women not as a simple personal preference, but as a biological adaptation formed during the evolutionary process to ensure healthier offspring and greater reproductive success. Furthermore, some evolutionary psychologists attempt to interpret even the act of rape as a reproductive strategy. They argue that inferior males, who are at a disadvantage in reproduction, chose rape as a means to spread their genes, and that this is an evolutionarily adapted behavior.
However, can all human behaviors truly be explained solely from an evolutionary perspective? Can human behavior be understood merely as the result of instinctive impulses? This approach entails various philosophical and ethical issues.
First, rape is an unethical and criminal act that involves forcing sexual intercourse upon another person without their consent. Of course, sexual attraction or desire between men and women is, to some extent, an unconscious impulse and can be explained biologically. Such sexual desire itself can likely be explained to some degree within the framework of evolutionary psychology. However, does the impulse to commit rape also exist unconsciously? This implies that humans are instinctively “designed” to engage in such behavior, and such a claim leads to serious ethical pitfalls.
Some animals engage in forced copulation for reproduction. For example, the animal known as the “mutt” possesses reproductive organs specialized for producing offspring and mates in a manner similar to rape. Citing such examples, some argue that humans may have developed similar traits during the course of evolution. However, it is unfair to compare humans and animals on the same level or to interpret adaptation in the same way. This is because humans are beings endowed with free will. Therefore, when applying the concept of evolutionary “adaptation” to humans, considerations on a completely different level from those applied to animals are necessary.
Free will refers to the human ability to think independently, control one’s own body, and make rational judgments regarding given desires or impulses. Of course, basic physiological desires such as hunger or sexual desire may be signals sent by the body to the brain. However, such signals do not necessarily compel humans to perform specific actions. While desires may influence human choices, the power of decision ultimately lies with the individual’s will.
Let’s take sexual desire as an example. Most humans possess the desire to reproduce, which naturally leads to sexual desire. However, people either restrain these desires or satisfy them appropriately based on social norms and ethical standards. If the act of rape were included among evolutionary traits like sexual desire, one might argue that it too lies latent within humans, with some suppressing it and others acting on it. However, this is a clearly flawed premise.
Sexual desire and the impulse to rape must be fundamentally distinguished. Sexual desire is a simple biological urge that can be satisfied with the consent of the other party. On the other hand, rape is a violent and unethical act committed without the consent of another person; it is a concrete action that infringes upon another person’s physical and mental rights. The decisive difference between humans and animals lies precisely in the ability to think rationally about such desires and to make choices. Humans are not beings governed solely by instinct. They are higher-order beings capable of rationally judging right from wrong and determining their actions. Therefore, the claim that a “desire to rape” is inherent and merely suppressed is also a fallacy that seriously undermines the value of human rationality.
One argument put forward by evolutionary psychologists is that men in a disadvantageous position for reproduction chose rape as a strategy to spread their genes, and that this solidified into a kind of adaptive trait over time. However, even if a man feels a stronger sexual desire because he is at a reproductive disadvantage, it is his free will that determines whether or not he commits the crime of rape. Humans are not animals, nor are they merely mechanical beings that react to environmental stimuli.
For example, when a cow is hungry, it grazes on the grass around it. It does not deliberate over whether to eat grass or meat. This is because cows act on instinct. This is the order of nature and may be the result of adaptation. However, in the case of humans, we make choices and judgments when faced with food, and we may even choose not to eat based on our beliefs or ethics. Thus, human behavior cannot be reduced to a mere product of adaptation.
Some scholars regard rape as a psychological pathology and argue that rapists are in a state where it is difficult for them to engage in normal rational thinking. In other words, rape is said to be a pathological symptom, such as impulse control disorder or antisocial personality disorder. However, we need to reconsider the concept of “disease” here. A disease is generally a condition that impairs human physical or mental functions and lowers the quality of life. It makes no sense to claim that such a pathological state could contribute to the effective propagation of human genes. Disease is something to be overcome, not a product of adaptation. Treating rape as a pathological condition does not provide grounds to support the claim that it is an adaptive trait.
Ultimately, while the debate over whether “rape is an adaptation” is separate from the question of whether it can be justified, the hypothesis that rape is an evolutionary adaptation—as argued by evolutionary psychology—still contains ethical and logical flaws. The claim that rape is an adaptive trait leads to the denial of human free will and moral judgment. If humans are “programmed” to act under the compulsion of specific traits, we can no longer be moral beings. And this is a claim that threatens the very foundation of human existence.
Therefore, humans are not merely beings driven by biological instincts, but beings endowed with complex social and moral judgment. While the explanatory framework offered by evolutionary psychology may hold validity for some physiological behaviors, it is difficult to apply it directly to all behaviors. This is especially true for serious ethical issues such as rape.
For these reasons, it is difficult to view rape as an adaptive trait genetically inherent in humans. This is because humans are beings capable of choice and judgment, and above all, possess free will. Rape is not the result of instinct, but of flawed judgment and choice. Therefore, we must firmly reject the claim that rape is an adaptation and clearly recognize that it is a distorted interpretation stemming from a flawed premise.
