> The article would be fine if it recognized that it was speaking in trends and generalities. But the information is presented as universal and individually applicable.

I agree. I assume that's just the journalist doing a bad job of getting the nuance across.

> No doubt women find it hard to accept someone lecturing them on their preferences without allowing them any individuality.

At the same time, we humans are notorious for rationalizing nice sounding, preferable reasons for why we engage in certain actions. I don't have the context on these personal discussions, of course, but perhaps those women were indeed acting in ways that were more congruent than not with the evo-psych explanation espoused here.

> The diverse spectrum of human sexuality and romantic disposition is completely at odds with the simplistic view presented in the article. The system is too complex to understand in a few generalities.

I agree with the complexity. Again, I assume that much of it is just the usual pop-science article being a pop-science article. Perhaps I assume wrongly.

I do think however that overall, this is a research direction worth pursuing. There's a diverse spectrum of human sexuality and romantic dispositions, but what are some of the common driving forces in the background across time and culture? Why are some romantic experiences (e.g. an unreasonable crush on a specific person that fades over time) so common in the general population, and why do these experiences happen and play out in these common ways?

> I think It's more often part of an anti-understanding of higher level cultural phenomenon.

Quite possible, but IMO we shouldn't let popular misunderstandings of science detract from the actual scientific inquiry taking place. A lot of woo spiritualists have repurposed popular misconceptions of quantum mechanics for their own ends, but that doesn't detract from the legitimacy of actual quantum physicists.