Ok, obviously I have too much time on my hands today:

I do not think there is a single sentence in this article that does not contain some unsupported position or outright fallacy.

> The similarity between Bill Gates, Paul McCartney, and the criminals (in fact, all men in evolutionary history) points to a very important concept in evolutionary biology: female choice.

What similarity, precisely? Logically this claims B implies A where A is the similarity of all men and B is the principle of female choice. Yet A is a vague and unspecific. We cannot reason about the truth value of B->A when A is vacuous.

> Imagine for a moment a society where sex and mating were entirely a male choice; individuals have sex whenever and with whomever men want, not whenever and with whomever women want. What would happen in such a society? Absolutely nothing, because people would never stop having sex! There would be no civilization in such a society, because people would not do anything besides have sex.

This is laughably false. There are two assumptions required for this argument:

1. A man's desire of sex surpasses all other desires. Also stated as: given the choice between having sex and any other activity, a man will always choose to have sex.
2. A man is able to have sex continuously.

Both are demonstrably false, the second is laughably so.

> This, incidentally, is the reason why gay men never stop having sex: Sexually active straight men on average have had 16.5 sex partners since age 18; gay men have had 42.8

First, the statistic offers no support for the assertion that the absence of female choice leads to more sex among gay males. It says nothing about the frequency or duration of the activity, just that they are on average more promiscuous. It may be the case that hetero men have more frequent sex with those fewer partners.

Additionally, even if it were true that gay males have more sex on average than straight males (because of male choice), it does not support the previous argument. In order to avoid contradicting the earlier argument regarding civilization, this assumes that all gay males contribute nothing to civilization, again demonstrably false.

> In reality, however, women do often say no to men. (In my experience, they always do.)

So maybe the author is projecting in this article?

> This is why men throughout history have had to conquer foreign lands, win battles and wars, compose symphonies, author books, write sonnets, paint portraits and cathedral ceilings, make scientific discoveries, play in rock bands, and write new computer software, in order to impress women so that they will agree to have sex with them.

While impressing women may be a motivating factor in these endeavors, it is hardly the sole or primary factor. In my experience scientific efforts are rarely motivated by lust for women, and it is arguable that for most it's history computer science has had a chilling effect on mating. This is an incredibly myopic view of achievement throughout history.

> There would be no civilization, no art, no literature, no music, no Beatles, no Microsoft, if sex and mating were a male choice.

This is a restatement of the central position in light of the latest claims, which are unsupported.

> Men have built (and destroyed) civilizations in order to impress women so that they might say yes. Women are the reason men do everything.

The first sentence may be true. But the second sentence does not follow from it. This comment itself is a counter example: it is in no way motivated by a woman.

> For a man to walk into a bar and have his choice of any woman he wants, he would have to be the ruler of the world. For a woman to have the same power over men, she’d have to do her hair.

Nice quote, but not logically supported. Just an humorous anecdote by a comedian. Maybe this article is satirical comedy?

> In other words, any reasonably attractive young woman exercises as much power as does the (male) ruler of the world.

Again demonstrably false, even limiting this argument to sexual choice, the most powerful man can take by force what he wants while many attractive young women today have trouble finding a match acceptable to them, even temporarily.

> Put differently, every woman has the power to predict the future, while very few men do.

Even in the limited sense claimed by the article this is obviously false.

> If a man wakes up in the morning and says to himself, “Tonight I will get laid,” the prediction will fail a vast majority of the times, unless he’s incredibly handsome.

False. I am married and my wife has a higher libido than I do. Even if she was not in the mood, if I really wanted it, she would not deny me. I am not incredibly handsome.

> If a woman -- any woman -- wakes up in the morning and says to herself, “Tonight I will get laid,” the prediction will always come true every time.

Again he stretches his statement so far that it is laughably false. Any woman will find a partner for the night, every time? Yeah right.