It is exhausting to educate you.

Maybe it is a tautology or maybe it’s just another boring begging the question fallacy, but here. I don’t want to do your homework for you, but study up and re-read the following sentence you wrote:

“ approaches that would be welcomed or at least deemed flattering from a high-status Alpha Male would be scorned as sexual harassment from a less attractive lower-status man”

Maybe you can’t spot the issue with using the word “status”, without any definition, that way in that sentence, but people who know rhetoric can spot it a mile away. This is a good learning opportunity for you.

As for your “sociobiology”: that’s the pseudoscience, used as carelessly as someone co-opting the term “Darwinism” for “social Darwinism” against Darwin’s own protests.

Your knuckle-dragging MRA stuff, like “ men will hit on women, or at least try to chat them up, because they are programmed to want sex”, which then leads into a complaint about how we try to legislate away what men are entitled to by biology, is mouth breather stuff, not science.

When you say: “ you can’t legislate against desire: it is part of our deep programming and it is what ensures the arrival of the next generation”, you ply your pseudoscience as a means to defend the indefensible.

The rapists cheer for you, though.