That entirely depends on the overall lifetime reproductive activity of each with sexual partners - and the capacity to aid sexual partners to give birth to, nourish, and bring up offspring.

Sorry, no it doesn't. All else being equal, the one who forcibly inseminates the greatest possible number of women will leave a greater number of offspring, statistically.

It's possible that the propensity to rape coincides with a lesser capacity to  aid sexual partners to give birth to, nourish, and bring up offspring -- perhaps that's what you're getting at? In which case rape would present the best chance for the loser to leave offspring. But I think it's a bit of a stretch, I'd be surprised if there were a strong correlation. Research needed.

Your question presupposes sufficient hardwiring for the "rapist" trait to be passed on to descendants. IOW, you beg the question.

We seem to have differing ideas about how evolution works. In my understanding, if some random mutation (or some other process) results in a greater propensity to rape, the only question is, does it provide a selective advantage to the bearer of the "rape gene" or not? If it does, then the gene will tend to propagate. The origin of the propensity doesn't matter -- perhaps it correlates to bravado in hunting, or intimidation of enemies, or some other selectively advantageous behaviour. Not important.

It's true that I haven't had this "nature/nurture" discussion for many years; perhaps the science has evolved a great deal. I find the notion that all humans are born (conceived) as a blank slate to be a rather quaint, romantic one (which I am probably mis-representing). Decades ago, I probably subscribed to it.

Since then, I have had two children.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II}