Secular Sanity said:You didn’t put any effort at all into listening to me or understanding the paper. You keep bringing up egocentrism but you’re the only one looking for a spot in the conversation where you can jump in and gain attention for yourself. You immediately directed the conversation back to you, and what you know, butt fucking. Go figure.
Huh?
You do realize that this is the direction you’re heading now, don’t you?
No, really: Huh?
No one seems to have a problem with sociobiological theories of altruism, but if you mention it in terms of aggression, you’re immediately shut down. Why is that, Tiassa? An attempt to understand the behavior of men and patriarchy does not in any way absolve them of their responsibility.
What are you on about?
I mean, even if I take the part that can be construed as making sense―
"An attempt to understand the behavior of men and patriarchy does not in any way absolve them of their responsibility,"
―I still don't see where you're going, since the response would be that I would not disagree.
What is so wrong at looking at the sociobiological theories of rape, patriarchy, or sexual coercion?
Nothing. Why do you ask?
Here is another male perspective on patriarchal sex.
And very interesting, indeed. I actually have, sitting on my desktop, an unfinished response to you that waits somewhere in its second post. I stayed the posts because I recognized they bore a specific, fatal flaw in presuming that I have a clue what you're on about, and since I don't, it's probably best to wait until I have a few more markers defining the path.
But I can say this much:
How much pressure is there on males to be masculine, to drink, to be athletic, and to get laid? So much so that they’re falling behind academically.
That would be part of what I'm on about. I like your phrasing, to be certain; thank you.