No.12455262
ViewReplyOriginalReport
Quoted By: >>12455280 >>12455282 >>12455297 >>12455306 >>12455329 >>12455733 >>12456241 >>12456247 >>12456264 >>12456323 >>12456393 >>12456468 >>12456694 >>12456797 >>12459157 >>12460107 >>12460503 >>12460899 >>12461268 >>12461328 >>12461644 >>12463647 >>12464267 >>12464470 >>12464499 >>12466397 >>12466571 >>12468719
Why is sexual dimorphism a thing?
Like conceptually I get that it increases the viability of offspring survival by basically forcing the weaker gender to care for the young, but wouldn't it make more sense for every member of a species to be as strong as possible? Why sexually select for traits that serve no or little biological purpose instead of selecting for traits that might make your same sex children as fit as possible? For instance in humans it seems like it would make more sense if men sexually selected for well muscled, strong jaw line, "manly" women, to have the strongest and most capable sons (and daughters, to a lesser extent). Instead they select for booba and neoteny and other arguably useless traits. Wouldn't it make more sense for both Males and Females of a species to be capable of killing/defending/etc, rather than on one?
Like conceptually I get that it increases the viability of offspring survival by basically forcing the weaker gender to care for the young, but wouldn't it make more sense for every member of a species to be as strong as possible? Why sexually select for traits that serve no or little biological purpose instead of selecting for traits that might make your same sex children as fit as possible? For instance in humans it seems like it would make more sense if men sexually selected for well muscled, strong jaw line, "manly" women, to have the strongest and most capable sons (and daughters, to a lesser extent). Instead they select for booba and neoteny and other arguably useless traits. Wouldn't it make more sense for both Males and Females of a species to be capable of killing/defending/etc, rather than on one?
