When I read that bit I certainly didn’t think that Sam was meaning anything more than there was probably some evolutionary success that managed to pass on rapist’s genes in the human population. What I mean is that hundreds of thousands of years ago, even in the most primitive of societies no doubt familial bonds were stronger than anything else, but there is no doubt that if certain males were prone to rape as many women as they could, then the chances of their genes passing on were better than the average, socially bonding male’s genes. Of course the rapist would also be high on the “target of murder” agenda of the bonded community, and that being the case no doubt the success his genes being dominant would be controlled.
It’s also interesting that rape is highly esteemed in the Old Testament, especially in the spoils of war . . . and that is still evident in recent battlegrounds like Rwanda and Yugoslavia. If war can be called natural, then rape goes into the same envelope.
On a related angle, I find it weird and uncomprehensible that a man can get an erection while brutalizing another human being. And even more unpalatable is the thought that the assaulting male can (and usually does) have an orgasm (or ejaculate) while in the midst of this mindless attack on another. I do realize that rape is more about power and control, but ultimately if the man can get sexually aroused to the point of climax, something extra weird and inhuman is going on. Are these brutal actions the physical expression of the raping gene? How much of this madness is due the physiological and how much to psychological? Does anyone know if there are studies on the relationship between sexual arousal and ruthless brutality? I guess I just don’t understand how a man can get an erection while beating the life out of someone, and yet it happens constantly in much of the world, America included.