If this were all, it wouldn't be sufficient to see it's value. Rape is something primal too, yet there is no sensible defense of it. Establishing dominance is a social function, but is that itself a good one?
Though of course anti-bullying endeavors are kind of self-defeating, since it's just different circuitry that can be engaged to bully with.
Many classic bullies are able to bully exactly because they're able to convince people in that social setting that they're the victim, or at the very least the other the perpetrator.
Rape and bullying may both stem from primal impulses, but they aren't equivalent not morally, socially, or structurally. Rape is a clear-cut violation of bodily autonomy and consent. It’s inherently violent, non-consensual, and leaves lasting trauma. There's no ambiguity to it, no acceptable function within any civilized society. It’s predatory, full stop.
Bullying, on the other hand, spans a wide range of behaviors. Some forms are undeniably abusive and traumatic, but others are more murky social hazing, exclusion, mocking. That doesn’t make it good, but it does make it more ambiguous. Some people come out stronger, some are broken, some change because of it, others retreat into isolation. It varies widely.
So while both may arise from dominance-seeking instincts, lumping them together flattens the important differences. Rape is a moral absolute. Bullying is a moral gray zone with a sliding scale of harm, motive, and outcome.
Establishing dominance
is a social function but whether it’s a good one depends entirely on the context. Humans have been savage far longer than we’ve been civilized, and a lot of our instincts still echo that past. In mammalian hierarchies, dominance helps create order there’s often a clear alpha who asserts control, resolves disputes, and keeps the group cohesive. That makes sense in wild animal packs or even early human tribes where survival depended on quick deference to leadership.
But in a high school hallway? In an office? The instinct lingers, but the justification is not at the same level. People still jockey for status, still try to assert control over others through intimidation or humiliation but now it’s usually not about survival. It’s about ego, insecurity, or reinforcing fragile social boundaries. So while the impulse might be natural, that doesn’t make it noble. It just means we haven’t entirely evolved past it.
Of course, anti-bullying efforts can be self-defeating, because they often tap into the same circuitry they claim to fix. It's still about controlling behavior through group pressure just flipped. Instead of shaming someone for being “weird” or “weak,” now you shame them for being “toxic” or “problematic.” The labels change, but the mechanism’s familiar: someone steps out of line, the group comes down on them. And while the goal is to make things kinder or safer, it can just as easily become moral grandstanding or social punishment in a new costume. Bullying disguised as virtue.
This is also why bullying is far from a black-and-white issue. Many of the most effective bullies don’t come in with brute force or obvious cruelty they come in with narrative. They know how to frame themselves as the victim, or at least make it look like the other person is somehow in the wrong. That ability to manipulate perception is what gives them power. It turns social enforcement into a performance, where the actual dynamic is hidden under layers of plausible deniability and emotional sleight of hand.
Because of that, bullying operates on a spectrum. Sometimes it’s overt and undeniable. Other times it’s embedded in social games, cliques, or even institutional dynamics. That’s why it can’t be handled with a universal rulebook it needs case-by-case judgment. You have to look at the specific behaviors, the context, the outcomes. Not just who cried first.
