We don't know that, and we don't know that neanderthal males were more prone to rape than homo sapiens males. And it's weird to even apply the 21st century concept of rape to prehistoric societies.
However, if one happens to be a race science type, there’s a lot of profit that can be made telling suggestive “just so” stories about which homo sapiens genetic lines are allegedly tainted with a larger proportion of neanderthal genes, or however that’s supposed to work.
Fantasizing about prehistory to justify contemporary racism is a very old pastime. It doesn’t aspire to logical consistency:
> From the “state of nature” and Romantic notions of virtuous German barbarians to theories about Neanderthals, killer apes, and a matriarchal paradise where women ruled, Geroulanos captures the sheer variety and strangeness of the ideas that animated many of the major thinkers of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, including Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Charles Darwin, and Karl Marx. Yet as Geroulanos shows, such ideas became, for the most part, the ideological foundations of repressive regimes and globe-spanning empires. Deeming other peoples “savages” allowed for guilt-free violence against them; notions of “killer apes” who were our evolutionary predecessors made war seem natural. The emergence of modern science only accelerated the West’s imperialism. The Nazi obsession with race was rooted in archaeological claims about prehistoric IndoGermans; the idea that colonialized peoples could be “bombed back to the Stone Age” was made possible by the technology of flight and the anthropological idea that civilization advanced in stages.
Amor Fati. The idea that we would carry ontological guilt for prehistoric sex acts that happened further up our family tree is just... masochistic. Not to mention that our ancestors would be both perpetrator and victim?
I understand the instinct to virtue signal but no good can come from this.
