It's been extremely prevalent. In terms of prehistory, we have lots of evidence that young women were almost always spared if one group massacred another, and we have genetic evidence that invariably the winning male bloodline would become predominant in any conquered group.

If you look at the Columbia link and do other research it's pretty obvious that 'punishing' rapists has never really been about punishing them or giving women some kind of absolution. In the code of Hammurabi and with the Jews women who didn't scream so that others could hear were prosecuted for adultery or stoned lol. The idea of giving women the satisfaction of watching anything for their own benefit is a very modern notion and even now doesn't really exist anyway. That's just your personal fantasy. You can go back to the Assyrians to see that if, for example, you raped my virgin daughter then I could legally rape your wife. It's mostly been a property or bloodline issue. It's never been about the females and that's another reason I think it's massively overblown in modern times. It's been normal human behaviour for millions of years. To put it another way, if you were a young 19 year old female in a village that was being ransacked, say, 4000 years ago, you'd know what was going to happen to you if your males lost. I don't think it would have been that traumatising - the males in your village would have done it to the females in their village were the roles reversed. The 'trauma' is largely a modern phenomenon where everything has to be upsetting/triggering/trauma-inducing. Everybody has to be a victim these days.