I’m assuming the person saying this was not serious about men and pre pu gi rls and was using a stereotyped impression of what he felt that academic-talk sounded like to give a mock justification for what is clearly incorrect.
At 14 years old, I read “Sexual Behavior of the Human Male” by Alfred Kinsey (1948) from cover to cover. There was no internet at the time for me but my public library had this. I couldn’t take it out but I could read it there and I did.
It is full of statistics, graphs, charts, lists of various types of male sexual behavior, percentages of norms and types along with short anecdotes from interviewees.
Some of the study, which was very large over a 15 year period if I remember right would not be compiled for public consumption today.
I didn’t read it for excitement but for curiosity: I loved facts and consumed them and my thin “sex ed” books while useful were missing a LOT that this filled in.
Consequently, from age 14 onwards, I was aware of the entire range of human male sexual behavior.
So, I couldn’t be shocked when I heard of something. I’d already read about it. I could be sad or mad or disappointed or have other normal human reactions to unwanted things but moral outrage was absent from me.
Is that a function of how my brain is?
Or a function of having gotten adequate knowledge at a crucial junction?
I don’t know. But exposure to the knowledge didn’t affect my attraction but it only may have affected what I considered within the boundaries of human male behavior.
I separate behavior from acceptable behavior.