According to evolutionary psychologists, men are naturally inclined to commit violence and rape, your thoughts?

Question

Have you ever wondered why men overwhelmingly support, follow, and participate in contact sports, fights, and various competitions with other men?

Have you ever wondered why men usually like to and are the dominators when it comes to sex?

Women are naturally submissive and want to feel weaker and protected by their man? How it is a turnoff if a woman is stronger than her man.

Have you ever wondered why the overwhelming majority of those incarcerated, those who commit violent crimes, and those who commit murder are men?

Perhaps history is ripe with men sexually abusing and raping women all across generations and all across countries.

Perhaps history is ripe with men battling other men, fighting wars and killing each other.

Men are naturally inclined to fight, naturally inclined to compete and commit violence.

Men also seem to be naturally inclined to be forceful when being intimate with women. I don’t think men necessarily ASKED women for their consent for the majority of history. I think men saw what they wanted and retrieved it.

I’m not saying anything personal regarding this, just an analysis on biology, science, and history as it pertains to this subject

hellionthesagereborn · Accepted Answer

No. I don't know where you heard that from but that is incorrect. First, rape is insanely rare and with good reason, from an evolutionary standpoint. Rape is not an effective means of reproduction for humans because of the long gestation period and the long dependency period. A woman could potentially give her self an abortion through self inflicted trauma however even if she did not, the likely hood that in, at least prehistoric times, that she would even survive is slim to none. Nine months of being vulnerable, of reduced calorie intake due to decreased mobility but an increase demand in those very calories because of gestation would increase the odds of miscarriage and other complications resulting in very likely a failed birth.

Then the fact that for several years the infant is entirely dependent on the mother for food also means that their would be zero chance of survival for the child if the mother simply stops breastfeeding. This is also true in that their would be zero chance of survival if the mother simply abandons said child (that is if she or the child lives long enough to get to this point). So rape is not a valid reproductive strategy and is why we rarely see it we do not consider it a sexually driven crime but one of control because it has nothing to do with sex or an attempt to reproduce.

As for violence, sort of. Testosterone does not increase violence, it does however increase protectiveness which can lead to violence. In fact if we look humans in general are not actually geared towards violence in general. In world war two for example, less then half of soldiers ever fired their weapon. That is hundreds of thousands of soldiers who didn't shoot the enemy. If we look at Vietnam far more did fire their guns but again, almost none of them hit. It is the modern equivalent of a dominance display/chest beating, they would fire off near the enemy in the hopes it would drive them away. This is why most soldiers have no to few confirmed kills but a small handfull have the vast majority of them, because human beings (and most living things really) are not built to be violent for the sake of violence, they are only generally violent if it is for survival OR if conditions create enough influence on them to be violent.

So men are not more violent however when psychological trauma is inflicted on men due to their natural tendency to be defensive towards outsiders, they tend to deal with that trauma with aggression that is directed outwards. Even then we can see the natural protective instincts are still functioning for most men as they are still statistically less likely to inflict harm on their immediate families and friends (statistically most child abuse and domestic violence is perpetrated by women not men, but statistically most assaults and murders are commited by men not women) but rather are more likely to inflict this violence on those outside of their "group".

So I would say the first is absolutely provably and unquestionablly false, and the second is a gross mischaracterization of male behavior, generally taking unhealthy male behavior and attempting to conflate it with healthy male behavior.

NamerOfStars · Accepted Answer

Are they not teaching natural selection anymore? Humans are animals. After we left Africa, we started encountering big, nasty animals that thought nothing of eating us. So what did we do? We started fighting back. If your tribe goes and hunts down the lions that ate one of your villagers who got lost on the way home, eventually the lions learn to leave you alone- if they don't, they die. Human violence guided the course of another species' evolution. Several, actually; you don't see to many short-faced bears these days, do you? (If you do, please consult a medical professional and/or temporal master). Problem was, once all the other big predators had learned to leave us be, we became the threat. Some humans didn't have the instinctual urge to dominate and kill- they were killed off by the ones who did.

But that's on a species-wide level. On a social level, men are the risk-takers and engagers in dangerous behavior- this is exactly where the empathy/respect dynamic came from; if you don't protect your women, they die, and your tribe can't compete. If you don't respect your men, they don't contribute beyond their own needs, and your tribe can't compete. You lose in the race and either get absorbed or wiped out.

Time passes, and eventually humans develop complicated notions of morality, and many strive to be MORE than just animals- sometimes we succeed. But we'll never cease to be animals, and the conditions that produced us aren't going to retroactively change.

Agape93 · Accepted Answer

Not surprised. what with natural aggression and a desire to breed as much as possible.

jshm2 · Answer

Evolutionary psychologists have as much scientific credibility as Tarot readers or numerologists. Lets get that off the bat.

The nature vs nurture debate does not support your ideals. You seem like a simp trying to white knight. Hence why you're relying on generalising and vague assertions.

There have been female killers, rapists and even female contact sports. The latter has nothing to do with the former. As competition is not about the violence or testosterone,. but the glory, fame and money.

You need to go back to the drawing board, kiddo. Think properly and research properly.

Derekk · Answer

Evolutionary psychology is an incredibly flawed field of study that is often used to support backward and regressive social views like this one. I'd be willing to go as far as to say that men are more eager for casual NSA sex and are more sexually motivated, but the idea that this overrides a basic instinct for human decency is a pretty shitty way to paint us isn't it?

Aiko_E_Lara · Answer

Also because according to social science, women are more likely to get away with it. Of course men are more aggressive in nature also because we had been using it for self defense more than just to attack anyone since men are also no one who hunt for food, defend the tribe or village against natural disasters and aggressive animals as well. And that would also mean they fight against rapists and violent men.

OddBeMe · Answer

No. We may be evolutionarily hornier. But committing crimes or attacking others is solely sadistic. That’s just psychology.

disgustingweebtrash · Answer

Vikings lived the real fulfilling life...

Dinosaursandanime65 · Answer

You guys can speak for yourselves

GermanGuy87 · Answer

I would agree

FakeName123 · Answer

Sources?

According to evolutionary psychologists, men are naturally inclined to commit violence and rape, your thoughts?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said