No abstract

No abstract

Psychological adaptation underlies all human behavior. Thus, sexual coercion by men could either arise from a rape-specific psychological adaptation or it could be a side-effect of a more general psychological adaptation not directly related to rape. Determining the specific environmental cues that men's brains have been designed by selection to process may help us decide which of these rival explanations is correct. We examine six testable predictions against existing data: (1) Both coercive and noncoercive sex will be associated with high levels of sexual arousal and performance in men.(2) Achieving physical control of a sexually unwilling woman will be sexually arousing to men. (3) Young men will be more sexually coercive than older men. (4) Men of low socioeconomic status will likewise be more sexually coercive. (5) A man's motivation to use sexual coercion will be influenced by its effects on his social image. (6) Even in long-term relationships men will be motivated to use coercion when their mates show a lack of interest in or resistance to sex because these are interpreted as signs of sexual infidelity. Current data support all six predictions and are hence consistent with the rape-specific hypothesis, but this does not eliminate the side-effect hypothesis, which is likewise compatible with the findings, as well as with the further evidence that forced matings increased the fitness of ancestral males during human evolution. We suggest some research that may help decide between the two hypotheses.

No abstract

Evolutionary theory predicts that humans should avoid incest because of the negative effects incest has on individual reproduction: production of defective offspring. Selection for the avoidance of close-kin mating has apparently resulted in a psychological mechanism that promotes voluntary incest avoidance. Most human societies are thought to have rules regulating incest. If incest is avoided, why are social rules constructed to regulate it? This target article suggests that incest rules do not exist primarily to regulate close-kin mating but to regulate inbreeding between more distant kin (especially cousin categories) and sexual relations between affinal relatives (often nonkin). Three evolutionary hypotheses about cousin marriage and affinal kin mating follow from this suggestion: (1) Rules regulating mating between affinal kin are means of paternity protection. Cousin marriage (inbreeding) is regulated because, if it occurs, it can concentrate wealth and power within families to the detriment of (2) the powerful positions of rulers in stratified societies and (3) the relatively equal social statuses of most men in egalitarian societies. Tests using the comparative method on a worldwide sample of 129 societies supported the three hypotheses. Two alternative anthropological hypotheses (derived from Freudian theory and alliance theory) failed to be supported.