That’s a good list, for a start!

1) the point that the surveyed women may be expressing a culturally-learned preference that overrides any biological preference that was evolutionarily-active prior to humans donning clothing.

2) the assumption that what is biologically ‘desirable’ (and by implication evolutionarily advantageous) today would have had the same advantage in pre-clothing times.

3) that member size is a display to females, rather than to competing males.

4) an implicit assumption that female consent was as important in selecting male member phenotype in pre-clothing times as it may be today – choice is at least to some degree a cultural luxury compared to what was relevant to our evolutionary ancestors…

5) that non-5exual pressure didn’t ovreride 5sexual selection in pre-modern times – there are plenty of scenarios in which a swinging flacc1d ding-a-ling could very well be a distinct disadvantage to a male’s potential success in passing on his genetic legacy.

This list could go on, with both substantively separate points and permutations of the ones above. The bottom line is that the Mautz et al paper in isoaltion has little to say about the evolution of female preference for willy size, and more to say about what the current study participants, with all of their current cultural biases superimposed, report on a survey. It’s interesting as far as it goes, but it just doesn’t go very far…

Also, words that might be interpreted by an unintelligent robot at Google as violating policy have been changed.

Aaaah yes, the curse of the (non-avoidable) false positives.

Google’s (same for others) neural networks and other models are impressive in what they can do and annoying in some of the things that come along with these things.