The aluminium structure of an airplane is extremely strong for its weight. Is it strong because of the innate qualities of the metal, or because of the structure that the people who built the airplane imposed upon it?
Well, the answer is, of course, both. Fortunately, we can easily find out how important each of the two elements is by trying different combinations of materials and different structures. We can test our various models to destruction, rip them apart and put them back together and go on to produce elegant computer models utilising fairly straightforward physical laws.
Many men have sexual thoughts throughout the day. Is this down to their genetically determined sex drive or their social conditioning? Again, the answer is, of course, both. However, unlike an aluminium airplane we cannot pull apart the human psyche or swap human genes around to figure out how each factor impacts upon the final set of behaviours. There is no elegant computer simulation of the human body and mind.
Truth is, we may never know how big a role our genes have on any specific part of our behaviour because the experiments needed to find that out would be intolerably cruel and dangerous. Twin studies go quite a long way to helping, but there's always going to be a problem of possibly flawed methodology that bars us from true understanding. Inferring a link is fundamentally different from observing the process in action.
I'll use Climate Change as an analogy. Everything we know about Carbon Dioxide and how it works in the atmosphere says that it should cause global warming if present in the atmosphere in large amounts. For it to be the case that human-made climate change is NOT happening, it would require a process that goes against our direct observations as to how gas and sunlight work together. Climate change denial pitches inferred knowledge based on an indirect observation of climate behaviour against observed knowledge of the processes taking place within our climate and gives the inferred knowledge primacy.
We know that socialisation impacts upon sexual behaviour. For social influence to have minimal impact upon male sexual thoughts and behaviour would require a process that runs counter to what we have already directly observed. To claim men thinking about sex all the time is all (or even mostly) because of male biology is to give inferred knowledge primacy over observed knowledge. However, to rule out genes as a factor is to do the same because we know that genes do influence our sexuality... we just don't really know how. It's quite possible that the genes that encourage men to have lots of sexual thoughts exist in women too, but in men they are encouraged and in women they are suppressed. Our best scientific understanding of human behaviour tells us nature and nurture work together to make us who we are. However, it is very, very hard to pin down the role of gender in the "nature" aspect of our selves.
Anyway, irrespective of whether its male genes or human genes that influence male sexual behaviour we definitely do know that social influence is an important factor. So, we must always take social pressures and social learning into account when understanding human interactions. In a society where there is a significant societal difference between male and female sexuality, there is no general or universal model we can use in which we can swap "man" with "woman" and come up with the same answer to "what is really going on here?". The experiences of a male prostitute do not tell us anything meaningful about the experiences of female prostitutes. It is not an equivalent situation because society treats men and women differently when it comes to sex. That's not to say that male prostitutes can't be exploited or that certain women prostitutes can't have consensual sex. It's just that consent is not the same for men as it is for women, so it's wrong to use the process that applies to men as a basis for understand the process that applies for women. Basically, the life of a man does not make a good scientific model for understanding the life of a woman.
And that's the problem, really. We, as a society, have established that men and women are equal in a theoretical sense. However, in the real world, society does not yet treat men and women as equal. MRAs argue from the theoretical position, feminists argue from the real-world position. MRAs swap "woman" and "man" around in their ethical propositions as though it makes no difference, but you can't actually swap any specific man and any specific woman round in any specific real-world situation and expect to get the same outcome.
MRAs use the model that gives them the answer they want. Feminists need a model that reflects reality, because seeking an accurate understanding of reality is the only area in which feminism has an advantage over the MRAs in their fight for equality. It is no coincidence that both Trump and Putin are doing their absolute best to distort how we view reality. You can't use an understanding of reality as a weapon if reality is hidden away from everyone's view.