>>11237865The correct reasoning. :^)
OK, I'll actually answer you. Tiny males do not negatively affect reproduction, while at the same time they save resources for the species as a whole. In systems of no effective scarcity for a species, females are almost always larger than males.
Less than 2% of all animal species have male larger dimorphism, because it's overall a significantly less optimized design. Male larger dimorphism tends to only exist in tournament species, where males physically compete for mating rights.
Once direct male on male competition no longer applies for reproduction (which is the case for humans now, and will only become more solidified as we advance in automation) making males large is not effective as it just wastes resources, because males are not more effective at their reproductive role by being larger (whereas females are more effective when they're larger). A male of comparable size to a female is just a waste of resources, he is not any better than a pocket sized male at propagating his genes and continuing his species.
Giantess fetishism is the most high IQ fetish there is, as it is the only fetish that is undeniable and truly optimized given biological reproduction constraints. There is a reason the majority of people don't like it - the vast majority of people are too low IQ to understand it.
A tiny male world like how I described is essentially the final stage of evolution and proof that the human species has reached it's pinnacle biologically form.
