Here, you’ve conflated evo psych with evolutionary biology (or you deliberately moved the goalpost, but I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt).
This was a response to: [quote=“Phrenological, post:104, topic:78345, full:true”]
Probably because EvoPsych isn’t hard science, existing to confirm preexisting social conservative narratives. Evolutionary Biology is valuable. EvoPsych is a bunch of just-so stories that found themselves in academia along Parapsychology, grasping for relevancy but finding plenty of media attention along the way.
[/quote]
(emphasis mine)
Those are two different disciplines. Furthermore, you flat-out dismissed @chenille when (s)he wrote a very specific refutation of your points, saying you didn’t understand it. Which I think is frankly nonsense; if you can understand these evo psych papers you’re googling you should be perfectly capable of comprehending that post.
If we want to go the route of “what nature says breasts are for”, then why do women nursing in public get so much pushback? I mean, that is 100% their legitimate biological function. Why is “nature” only pulled out to justify men being allowed to stare at/tell women to cover breasts? Think about that for a bit and you might begin to see some of the flaws in evo psych.
