I wrote:
 << I've read some harsh critical reviews of the book but then I can hardly
>  imagine a theory like this not attracting a lot of heat. The authors are
>  accused among other things of overlooking child rape and rape of the
>  elderly, which are not so easily explained by natural selection. >>
>

S.B Feldman wrote:
> This is  entirely separate from the facts that rape is primarily  an act
of
> violence and any offspring are incidental to the uncontrolled aggression.

Yes but from what I can gather the authors are explicitly challenging the
conventional wisdom that rape is primarily about violence (or a result of
chaotic or overcrowded conditions). In their view rape is primarily about
males forcing women to have sex because they are driven to have sex, at
least in the prehistoric world. This is one of the reasons the theory is so
controversial.

The authors point out that most rape victims are young women of childbearing
age, and hypothesize that rape is therefore a genetic adaptation for bearing
children. I see nothing implausible about the theory that strong successful
serial rapists will have more children than weak unsuccessful rapists and
non-rapists.

I'm sure you realize that the violent "criminal" thoughts of rapists are
irrelevent in judging the truth of this theory. The violent predisposition
of the rapist toward women may also be a genetic adaptation the purpose of
which is to perpetuate the rapist's genes.

I think there can be no doubt that the successful serial rapist of 100,000
BC is likely to have been responsible for more children than the
well-mannered modern-day gentleman of the 21st century. The only question in
my mind concerns the extent to which prehistoric attitudes about forced sex
can be transmitted via genetics. It seems to be just another chapter of the
old nature vs nurture debate.

-gts