>>12788318>>12788539Therefore, monogamous species which do NOT spec into male larger dimorphism, are inherently superior and outcompete and dominate monagomous species which DO spec into male larger dimorphism. They get a larger population for the same amount of food, so the species as a whole is superior in the niche. This is why when we observe monogamy in animals, there is little dimorphism, or female larger dimorphism.
The reason for female larger dimorphism is because female size is inherently superior, unlike male size. Bigger females can lay more eggs or give birth more easily or have larger litters. This is not like males. Male size is externally molded. Big males only exist when the environment needs them to be. Big females are better because the reproductive role of a female is one where being bigger is simply innately better. Males do not have this requirement.
This is why, in birds of prey or rabbits or shrews or some other monagomous mammals, females are bigger than males even though they are monogamous.
When I write things like "In the future, men will be small and women will be big" I am not bullshitting. We WILL become a female larger species by the end of the century. We will use genetic engineering to achieve this. Female larger dimorphism is inherently superior to male larger dimorphsm.
Yes, I am slightly autistic and insane. That does not matter. Yes I know a lot of women may not like the idea of men being small and women being big. That does not matter.
When we look at couples where a huge 6'6" dude is dating some shrimpy 5 foot tall woman, that is nothing but a reminder that throughout humans evolutionary history, tens of millions of babies were murdered, women were raped, men were forced to kill each other, everyone was starving.
It is a stain on our species and it WILL be completely wiped out of the genome. There is NOTHING you or anyone else can do to stop this.
