@25mg12
Ah, you. Sorry, but I don't respect you nor do I put any value in your thoughts and opinions. You're like @ oeconomist lite. Don't know why I haven't blocked you on previous occasions when reading your comments made my eyes widen, but I'm doing it now. Bye.
Yeah, that totally doesn't sound like basic bitch backpedaling. And if you think I sound
anything like oeconomist: 1.) Fuck you, that's insulting and uncalled for. 2.) You obviously haven't actually read much, if anything, that I've posted - which considering your drive-by commentating like you're on fucking Twitter right now - isn't a stretch to assume.
if you believe in the concept which has been addressed
The glorious internet, where we must fully believe and support anything we talk about. Under penalty of death.
I'm all for conceding that culture actively influences behavior
...Considering because we have plenty of studies and case samples showing that it's true, that's a good idea.
but when you assume that environmental expectations can override something as basic as innate constitutional sexual proceptiveness toward preferred subject in a group
"Innate constitution sexual proceptiveness toward preferred subject in a group" - for someone that bitches about Oeconomist, you're sounding a fuckload more like him right now than you are me. How pretentious to word "people that you want to fuck" like that.
But I digress. Y'see, I wasn't assuming that. You just decided and assumed I did. Besides that, we do have interesting social science from the last few decades. Unless you suddenly think so many western men suddenly became much more homosexual than men in the 1950s... Which doesn't bore out. It's just that men in the 1950s that were gay were less open, more concealed and less likely to act on it. Does this mean men from then were comphet? No, not necessarily. Same applies here. You're offering a false dichotomy. It's not an "on"/"off" switch. People, societies and cultures don't tend to operate that way.