Jacob, I was fascinated by your expositions on evolution. Moreover, I came to realize that morals block any natural progress.

Susana, please read again the essay AXIOLOGY about morals and ethics as being two of the five criteria to criticize a human act; also, THE BAD AND THE GOOD, which explains how these basic behaviors evolved from the first two microbes to us, H. sapiens.
Generalizations are to be avoided as far as possible. One should say, "When incorrectly understood, morals create problems." "Problem" is a human concept. Evolution has no problems or catastrophes. H. sapiens is the --artificial, arbitrary-- source of definitions and judgements.

Jacob, since morals are born from religion, it is religion what blocks natural progress.

Susana, morals are an integral part of religion, constituting human dictates found by evolution to be favorable to the advancement of groups. Religious people are fallible too, being the culprits of what is called religion-derived problems. Dogmas are the worst errors of religions, and their source was the original situation of most common people being ignorant. Dogmas are being eroded by the fact that a significant proportion of people is now less ignorant. But even educated people are not immune to faulty reasoning. Many are genetically prone to behave stupidly, and will remain so no matter their degree of education. An educated stupid is especially dangerous.
A stupid act hurts both the perpetrator and the hapless victim. It is not possible to better all the people. Stupidity is the mother of the wrongly called religion-derived problems. Intelligent people make their own "religion." Their dogmas are personal, based on principles of logic. You can not understand humanity without comprehending what I'm telling you, Sussy.

Susana, I just finished reading in one of my science journals the results and conclusions of a 20-year-long research of two scientists on the sexual behavior of many sorts of animals, insects included. They write about rape of women, based on observations of animals and questioning victimized women. I got the impression that the researchers, in spite of being evolutionists, did not derive the far-reaching conclusions. I arrived to my own, which I consider thunderous. I'll mention only one, which I believe will surprise you as it did myself when I was struck by that eureka.

At some time after the appearance of the first sexually differentiated organism, evolution allowed two different manners of mating, since both were viable: the consensual and the male imposed. The latter one we call sexual violation, or "rape." Had mating been always indifferent and free, rape would not exist. It is possible that mating was originally free, consensual sex being a rather late development, at the stage of the first insect. Choosing a fitter male was evolutionarily advantageous, and therefore the resulting genes reproduced preferentially in insects, continuing then in the succeeding scale of animals. Each one evolved its peculiar mating and parental behavior, according to many determinants, such as ecological conditions and geographical isolation.

In humans, consensual mating proved advantageous for the benefit it granted to well-organized groups, their nucleus being the family. Competition was favorable for advancement based on personal and family gain. Non-differentiated groups were submitted and eventually extirpated by the successfully organized ones. As it became understood that progeny was absolutely associated with the female partner's chastity, rapists were killed or forced to partner the unengaged pregnant victim. Consensual sex and specially consensual mating became the rule.
It must be understood that culturally defined mores are not a result of very slow human evolution but of fast societal development. Only in the 20th century were decades defined by social trends.

Morals not based on science influenced statal law, allowing for the reproduction of rapists. A constellation of peculiar genes determines the atavistic behavior of antisocial rapists. War-related and other types of rape are less genetically demanding.

An atavistic rapist is not attracted by socially accepted commercial sex. On his part, he is drawn to commit a punishable act, while a highly westernized society rejects the death penalty or emasculation as protective measures, as long as less invasive procedures are not available. The coincidental genes are disseminated by successive generations, until they again coincide in a new atavistic rapist.