Rape in the animal kindom

bogwalrus

Is there much proof out there that rape exists in the animal kingdom outside of humans? I read that it has been observed in dolphins but cant find any science articles or studies that say for definite.

If it does happen to be true is there any evolutionary advantage of a species forcing copulation against the other opposite sex both male and female?

Could non consentual copulation have been an early step of the evolution of copulation and consent developing later down the line as part of a social evolutionary development.

Furez

Ducks are notorious.

CelticRambler

There's no biological advantage in rape. The female is either fertile or not. Copulation when she's infertile results in no offspring so is a waste of resources for the male, leaving him less able to compete with other "less exhausted" males when a fertile female becomes available. Consequently, the males who (only) copulate in response to the female secreting phermones that signal her fertility (= "consent") have an evolutionary advantage.

fin12

A lot of animal mating looks like rape anyway especially what happens to cats, sounds sick.

bogwalrus

CelticRambler wrote: »

There's no biological advantage in rape. The female is either fertile or not. Copulation when she's infertile results in no offspring so is a waste of resources for the male, leaving him less able to compete with other "less exhausted" males when a fertile female becomes available. Consequently, the males who (only) copulate in response to the female secreting phermones that signal her fertility (= "consent") have an evolutionary advantage.

Do females have control over the secretion of phermones or is it triggered by some event? If not then it is not consent.

5uspect

It's generally defined as sexual coercion rather than rape:
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1001965.files/Course%20Materials_Week%205/Male%20Agression%20and%20Sexual%20Coercion_Smuts_compressed.pdf

Also there is often a pleasure argument to be made for sexual behaviour in animals rather than simple resource expenditure.

Linnaeus

Some animals seem to enjoy sex; some perform the act mechanically; and females of certain species seem to detest copulation, doing it only when constrained. During the mating season, male birds dance around the females, cooing loudly and ruffling out their feathers in order to look larger; but often their efforts are initially in vain, the girls just ignore them or try to flee.

What looks like violent physical assault in the animal kingdom most likely has nothing to do with lust; it is probably just the males' desperate instinctive effort to mate: nature imposes it on them. Most females eventually comply for the same reason.

paleoperson

bogwalrus wrote: »

Do females have control over the secretion of phermones or is it triggered by some event? If not then it is not consent.

That's not necessarily true depending on the situation and your interpretation of it. After all everything is on some level "triggered by some event".

I think that's trying to shoehorn things into discrete ideas like "rape" or "consent" makes sense for humans, but not necessarily in biology.

Linnaeus

Hello all,

As I mentioned previously, females of many species seem either indifferent or actually opposed to the idea of copulation. When a male approaches for the purpose of mating, the female's first MENTAL reaction is usually to avoid him. This would indicate that something within the CONSCIOUS will of the female says no to sex. Yet nature has implanted a SUBCONSCIOUS urge in these same females...the instinct which tells them that reproduction is necessary for the preservation of the species...and so eventually they COMPLY, although not giving their CONSENT with full desire.

Crow92

Linnaeus wrote: »

Hello all,

As I mentioned previously, females of many species seem either indifferent or actually opposed to the idea of copulation. When a male approaches for the purpose of mating, the female's first MENTAL reaction is usually to avoid him. This would indicate that something within the CONSCIOUS will of the female says no to sex. Yet nature has implanted a SUBCONSCIOUS urge in these same females...the instinct which tells them that reproduction is necessary for the preservation of the species...and so eventually they COMPLY, although not giving their CONSENT with full desire.

Except animals aren't conscious beings so don't have conscious thoughts?
Surely Rape is a human construct and not applicable to animals?

Linnaeus

Crow92,

Certainly animals are conscious beings! Especially the higher orders: mammals and birds. Animals are sentient: they have emotions, they think and reason, within their own limitations.

Of course animal thought and logic is not as highly developed as ours is. Rape could only exist among human beings: it is a breach of the moral/legal code. Many animal species have their own morality, but this usually does not involve sexual behaviour, which can be very promiscuous among them AS THEY NEED TO PROCREATE WIDELY IN ORDER TO GUARANTEE THE SURVIVAL OF THE SPECIES. When a male animal seems to be assaulting an unwilling female, there is no criminal intention on his part, no profligacy, no violation of any code simply because animals have no such socio-ethical codes as we do. They do not rape; they merely obey their natural instincts.

bogwalrus

Some very interesting replies. What triggered my question was a piece i had heard on the radio about a legal case in which a man seems to have gotten away with rape claiming it was just nature and biology. In a society we create rules that contrast with natures because we feel it betters the memebers of society. In a way we as humans defy nature because it is too slow in advancing with our wants and needs as human.

Nature is blind to what is right and wrong and humans can see the benefits of positive actions that eventually shapes our species for the better.

As far as a species goes we are getting pretty alien as we go against natures plans. Is this fair to say?

Linnaeus

Hello bogwalrus,

Nature itself is not immoral or even amoral; it is ethical insofar as it works constantly toward the preservation and improvement of the species.

But Nature neither establishes nor recognizes moral conduct-codes in sexuality. It is man, with his higher intelligence and spiritual conscience, who has done this, for the good of mankind. Human beings in general support the right of women to choose their partners, not to be subjected to sexual relations against their will, and to be treated with gentleness. The animal kingdom does not impose this fair treatment of females, although in certain species, courtship is gentle, males and females mate for life and may demonstrate great fondness for each other. This is especially prevalent among birds. Other species mate fast and furiously just for the purpose of reproducing, the males showing no consideration at all for the females.

Animals may have the excuse of not possessing a MORAL CONSCIENCE when they brutally copulate. On the other hand humans, the only creatures besides the angels which do have such a moral conscience, cannot claim that they are simply obeying nature if they commit rape. Human beings are well aware of what is morally right and wrong.

paleoperson

bogwalrus wrote: »

Some very interesting replies. What triggered my question was a piece i had heard on the radio about a legal case in which a man seems to have gotten away with rape claiming it was just nature and biology. In a society we create rules that contrast with natures because we feel it betters the memebers of society. In a way we as humans defy nature because it is too slow in advancing with our wants and needs as human.

Nature is blind to what is right and wrong and humans can see the benefits of positive actions that eventually shapes our species for the better.

As far as a species goes we are getting pretty alien as we go against natures plans. Is this fair to say?

I think most relevant is how it occurs in our closest relatives... other primates, particularly other great apes. They are the most accurate indicator of what occurs naturally in humans. What happens in other types of animals, or even other types of mammals, doesn't really matter when trying to find natural human behaviour. What "looks like" rape is quite rare among great apes, but it does occur sometimes in orangutans.

But you must also take into account that rape in apes isn't the same: females don't go into isolation very much. If they are being threatened or aggressive behaviour is made towards them, they will be defended by their family or friends. It's really fascinating how aware they are and everyone should know about it. You can read all about it in books on primatology. There's also the fact that the perpetrator would not be able to use things such as knives or any other way to threaten or hurt or hold the victim. All of that is unnatural.

So for the extremely rare rape to be in any way natural, the female would have to be taking risks to begin with and to have some misjudgement, and it would have to be a powerful person without using any unnatural tools. The extremely rare murder also happens fwiw.

If that happened then imo the pain and trauma would be much LESS than that of a victim where the circumstances were a lot more unnatural and different. Of course this is a completely politically incorrect thing to say but it makes a lot of sense.

There's a controversial book called "The Trauma Myth" claiming that a lot of molested children do not experience the type of trauma and suffering that they're 'expected' to. The sinister situation is where people are in an unnatural situation coerced or pushed and that is where the suffering really occurs.