That's not the least bit clear. It's abstract and non-specific and I had no idea what you were getting at. You didn't speak to specific things that I said or show where they were in error. You made non-linear and obtuse observations that were so general as to be worthless in understanding your point. It was only when you started talking in concretes and giving examples in the 4th exchange that I had any notion of what you were trying to say - which I then addressed - evolutionary psychology and evolutionary biology are not the exact same thing, even though they have some overlaps. You seem to conflate them and I don't - which is likely the source of our misunderstanding but you didn't make that clear out of the box.

You didn't say that not all evolutionary psychology believes these things that I spoke of in my OP (bc I rather think that it does). You didn't say that any of my examples and analysis were in error (bc they weren't). What you essentially said, since you like off base analogies so much, is that Not all Germans were Nazis, so it's unfair to say that Nazis are bad because that unfairly impugns innocent Germans. Meanwhile, I never said all Germans were Nazis because I wasn’t conflating the two. You deciding that I’m conflating something that I’m not doesn’t make it so. You have to respond to what I actually say. And if you’re not sure, ask for clarification.

Evolutionary biology is one thing and I've already said that it has uses, but according to Wikipedia, (and other sources) "Evolutionary psychology is an approach that views human nature as the product of a universal set of evolved psychological adaptations to recurring problems in the ancestral environment." And that's why it's bunk, because the conclusions that it overwhelmingly draws come from relatively recent, and non-universal sociological contexts that are demonstrably not from the ancient ancestral environment as claimed - all of which I spoke to in great detail in my story. And then you told me I was wrong without actually telling me why in a way that made sense.

You didn't address any of that at all. You didn't point out what was objectionable in what I said in any way that was accessible - instead you apparently lumped in evolutionary biology (without saying that’s what you were doing) and made bizarre statements about the possible adaptability of rape which also made no sense. You can keep claiming that you were clear - but unless you want to continue being majorly misunderstood by people, I recommend that you speak more directly to what they actually say in their stories and not what you assume that they mean or whatever it was you did. If you rejoice in making things simple, you need to do a much, much better job of that in your communication. Linear, concrete, specific, citing examples and addressing actual statements made by the author. You like to talk about mechanics - communicate like that — in “nuts and bolts”, and we'll all be better off for it - even around a complex topic (especially around a complex topic). You were not at an all linear or concrete - I had no idea WTF you were on about because I couldn't see how it bore any relationship to anything that I had said. You as the commenter have to draw that connecting line for the author because I won't necessarily understand your perspective, your knowledge base, your assumptions, etc. without it.

I don't need you to praise my work. I am fully able to accept critique and have at times amended my stories in response to that from other commenters. But when your critique makes no sense to me because it hasn't shown me to actually be in error in any specific or meaningful way, and further comes off like the emotional ranting of someone who can't deal with their world view being challenged, I'm going to tell you to talk to the hand.