The first thing I want to address is the idea that I have seen pop up in two different post. This is the idea that rape has to have some sort of advantage to the female and if it does not it destroys the rape adaptation hypothesis. This is completely false. The rape adaptation hypothesis says out right that rape is NOT a benefit to the female.
So why the quick dismissal that it benefits the female? There are at least a couple of roads open. Trauma to the individual doesn't preclude adaptation. There's plenty of mating trauma in the animal world.
Thornhill and Palmer are apparently a bit, uh, cagey, about the whole notion of adaptation. In a
review of the book Jerry A. Coyne and Andrew Berry note, "The authors lay out two alternative evolutionary hypotheses: rape is either a "specific adaptation" (i.e., natural selection explicitly promoted the act) or a "by-product of evolution" (i.e., there was no direct selection for rape; rather it is an accidental product of selection for, say, male promiscuity and aggression)."
They call the second definition "meaningless". Even assuming it actually describes something which is occurring, "rape" could not be considered an adaptation, because it is not the trait being selected. But if we allow it, in whatever fashion, what grounds are there to state that the adaptation centers on the male? If rape results in higher pregnancy rates, then it seems you have two possible explanations. One, that male rapists are better sexual competitors, and the other, that physical trauma enhances fertility in the female.
So why the quick dismissal? Because it's a sociological argument using a claim about a reproductive strategy as "evolutionary" evidence, not an examination of adaptation. Claiming there's an evolutionary determinant for rape sells books to people who want to see you score points off feminists. Asking whether rape might make women more fertile will get you run out of town on a rail, assuming you live long enough to be hoisted onto one.
But if we don't want to talk about a possible adaptive advantage to the female, let's talk about what makes rapists better sexual competitors. Actually, let's stand it on its head--what makes better sexual competitors rapists? Because the argument isn't that rapists have twice as many opportunities to impregnate females, it's that they're twice as likely to do so. So why is it that these virile studs are shut out of the mating game in the first place? How is that adaptive? There may be other species where rape is a reproductive strategy, but are there any where the outsiders are twice as fit? Here selection seems to be working to level the playing field instead of improving the chances of survival.
I'm just a withered dilettante with a habit of delayed judgement, but when I see claims of universal biological imperatives based on 405 telephone calls, I generally let the bandwagon take another loop without me.
™ Version 4.2