The problem, as I see it, is with the uselessness of such studies.
The whole point of falsifiability is that for a scientific finding to be "useful", it has to have the potential to be wrong. You have to be able to say, "If this theory isn't true, then this thing that I want to do will fail." If it couldn't fail, then nothing you do would change whether it were true or not. It's only the possibility of failure that makes success meaningful.
So when I read that these studies aren't repeated, what I hear is that the studies aren't useful. If they were useful, then people would have built on them to make more elaborate structures, and when those structures failed, we'd know that one of the underlying theories was wrong.
Evo psych is rife with conclusions that are popularly held but not actually useful. The myths persist, but never feed into more science. Unfortunately, an awful lot of people who are nominally scientists buy into them, which means that it could be argued that they just plain aren't practicing science.