Whether men are biologically wired to find younger women more attractive than older women is a question that will probably be open for debate for a very long time. All sorts of conflicting data exist.

But I wonder, is that actually an important question? (I don’t mean to suggest that the quest for knowledge in general is unimportant. I respect all researchers who are trying to answer questions.)

What I mean is, if we were to forgive some men’s boorish behavior by saying they’re just doing what nature wires them to do (if we accepted that disputed premise) would we not be guilty of indulging the naturalistic fallacy?

Philosophers have long pointed out that just because something exists in nature does not mean that it must be a human good. Culture in many ways exists for the purpose of transcending nature, to give humans a framework for behaving in ways that advance individual and social fulfillment and happiness.

We can quite properly oppose sexist power imbalance in relationships between men and women without worrying that biology will “prove” us wrong.

Because even if all men really are wired to find younger women more attractive than older women, our social understandings about power imbalance and the worth of individual human beings must matter more than our biology.