Those who were the most sexually aggressive?
2007-06-09 08:55:45 · 7 answers · asked by SQD 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
Actually, I would assume the opposite. Humans are an extremely social species. So a rapist would not last long in a social community ... they would either be exiled or killed by other males, or at the very least *avoided* by females once word got around. So in the long run a rapist would have fewer opportunities to reproduce.
That is probably why rapists are relatively rare (in terms of percentages in the population).
2007-06-09 20:48:12 · answer #1 · answered by secretsauce 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, the dude above has the right idea, but. . .
If a man could rape lots of women, chances are that at least a few of them would be able to take care of the young, thus perpetuating his genes. Since it takes very little energy for a man to produce semen, it's really no loss to him if his sperm don't live to produce viable offspring.
However, this requires extreme aggressiveness. It also assumes that a person would be able to neglect any sort of emotion that would cause him to feel responsible. Further, because humans are social by nature, if the society condemns his actions, then he's not really going to get away with such actions for long. Finally, such behavior can be argued to be a product of something besides genetics - that is, upbringing, experiences, etc, would cause rapist activities. Such acquired characteristics are not heritable, so it looks like your question is fundamentally wrong in assuming that character traits can be passed on.
2007-06-09 16:02:57 · answer #2 · answered by Sci Fi Insomniac 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not in humans. Since we have to take care of our children so long we have developed a situation in which nurture plays just as an important role as nature, maybe more so. So it can be argued that if a rapist had better parental examples and better opportunities then he wouldn't be a rapist. But I am sure there have been rapists that have had ideal home lives and rape anyway for one reason or another.
Also, we place a whole different set of values on sex aside from reproduction. Rape between humans and rape between lower animals happens for entirely different reasons. Rape in lower animals may just be for reproduction while in humans it results from aggressive behaviours that might have nothing to do with sex at all but domination instead.
2007-06-09 16:03:10 · answer #3 · answered by Lady Geologist 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
there's a major difference between sexually assertive and sexually aggressive/oppressive/violent. Since human species really does need a social partnership of sorts - the man to protect and feed the family he produces thereby ensuring his genetic progeny - and the woman to birth and raise the offspring while being assured of her man's loyalty to her and her children with him --- rapists would anger the group to such an extent that he would be killed or cut off from the group - so it wouldn't really be encouraged, to my way of thinking. Evolutionarily speaking.
2007-06-09 16:03:42 · answer #4 · answered by mx_hart 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I suppose one could pose that argument, but rapists are not necessarily so much sexually aggressive as they are violent. Convicted rapists that have been given drugs to inhibit their sexuality still tend to be violent.
2007-06-09 16:01:45 · answer #5 · answered by fangtaiyang 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on the species, not true for humans who's young need extensive care.
2007-06-09 15:58:57 · answer #6 · answered by tinkertailorcandlestickmaker 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, they're just horny losers who can't make a single pick-up...
2007-06-13 14:47:44 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋