That's horribly circumstantial, as well, is refuted or at least diminished by other evolutionary studies.
For example - after a man orgasms he has boost of estrogen which makes him more sensitive, and after a woman orgasms she has a boost of testosterone which makes her more confident... which scientists stipulate means that evolutionary-ly speaking nature "wanted" man to care for woman, and woman to bond with man to better watch after -their- offspring.
Does that mean the other theory is wrong? Quite possibly. Does that mean that both theories might be true but part of a more complicated situation? Quite possibly.
Does this mean that all evolutionary science is very, very subjective and amounts to a lot of scientific guessing most of the time for publishing and publicity? Absolutely.
Humanity, or H. Sapiens if you prefer, adheres poorly to the scientific method due to things like free will and so many variations of thought, yet, where there is something that is undecided, or uncertain, there will be a study, results, ECT. and we will read them on Yahoo news and many will say, "Ah ha! So that is the answer..." when in fact that is not how it works, I used fooled many times by that kind of pattern until later in graduate school and in analyzing studies.
This kind of science is subjective, often contradictory, and a side effect of trying to funnel the enormity of human existence into a type of power-aide for the public news story that "explains" things, when it does not.