>>13677980The preference various so wildly that it's probably socialized. Whatever the case is, there is a non trivial minority of women who literally do not care about men being tiny. That is enough to justify the idea from a sexual selection standpoint.
>>13678055They're superior for the reasons already outlined.
For every 1 large male you can make and sustain, these other people can make a little under 2.5 of these small ones I'm talking about, and they are superior in every action other than lifting very heavy weights. That's not an advantage that will outweigh all the other traits.
You are not out-competing a working group of males who outnumber you, can out endurance you, eat less than you and will more easily kill you if you get into a serious conflict with them. It's not happening. If you're envisioning beating them up with you're fists then you have no hope. To argue otherwise like what the other guy tried is simply cope. And that's just warfare. Competition between groups of people is not just military conflict. There are more of them to do research, cultivate land, take and control resources to give to their women, etc., and they can do so more efficiently.
Do you REALLY think you and your friends can beat a group of males that both outnumber you and are superior to you in every way, just because you can lift more weight than them? Delusional cope.
We haven't even spoken about the women. The giant women will be free to perform any passion, interest, and career that they want, helping to run and maintain society as revered Amazon Queens. Any job that the men are too weak for can just be done by the big girls, or machines.
If you're a woman instead of a man, then you will lose against other women who like this idea and make their children follow this model. Your genes will lose against theirs, your children will be born into a world where they are in an inferior genetic class.
