Why did evolution make women small, fragile and delicate? Why do I instinctively want to impregnate the smallest women, why do they give me the hardest boner? Surely one would think evolution and instinct would favor big masculine women.
Why did evolution make women small, fragile and delicate?
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
Wait for it... you will summon that one anon... just wait
yeah the one who always talks about making 5'3 men and 6'5 women reverse sexual dimorphism. am kinda of surprised he isn't here
He regularly gets banned from blue boards for posting porn and his sexual fantasies. It just takes a while for the mods to actually do their jobs.
He has solid reasoning. It would increase the litter size of humans from 2 to 6. It would give use a huge advantage against the ayys in a space empire expansion scenario
He's a coomer who only wants it due to his addiction to shotacon pornography.
Ideas can often come from unlikely places
Motivated reasoning comes from very obvious places.
This is an pretty accurate 3d model of the dimorphism.
This is what humans will look like in a few years.
i too feel a strong drive to impregnate this uhh "egg-producer"
Calling women “egg producers” is top kek and antihuman
A rare combo
Did evolution did that or we men did that, by selecting the small, fragile ones?
Men selecting for a trait over thousands of years is evolution
Yes, but why would men select that trait? Surely it decreased survivability of women. Perhaps not.
It's more similar to children.
This has two different implications
=> woman looks younger => woman is more fertile
=> woman looks more like a child => children are to be protected => woman are to be protected at a certain fraction the urge of children
Why children need to be protected: it's a basic instinct of most mammals. It just is.
This anon gets it.
It's not simply that men want delicate women, they want neotenic women. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny_in_humans#Women
It could be that if a man wasn't strong enough to protect his own than the whole family died out. So maybe its just that this trait can only be passed on when strong men reproduced, which was favorable for the species.
if by "selecting" you mean raping then yes.
without rape our species would have died out a long time ago.
So you are suggesting that men being stronger than women would have led to a selective pressure towards easily rapeable women.
That's kind of hot tbh
Plenty of other animal species commit rape on the regular.
makes sense anon, else why conquer and pillage lands
and it's not just humans that have relied on rape to keep a species going.
all the nature programs we are spoonfed always show the same lies: "The female xyz waits to find a suitable mate, the one with the best xyz. Only the males with the best xyz will get to pass on their genes."
The reality is these nature photographers have to wait a long time to film a courtship where rape isn't taking place. Exceptions to every rule, perhaps 10% of animal sex will actually fit the bullshit narrative they are told to perpetuate.
no because we have natural choice, rape just causes infant death by the rapist killing the kid or the mother rightfully not taking care of an unwanted baby, social destruction and killings by trauma, no one takes care of a kid which wasn't wanted in general, even more in ancient societies where before the rape happened they would have killed the rapist immediately thanks to them hurting and killing everyone there, even more when humans have the body of a consensual species (direct sex organs which don't have any way to forcefully penetrate, showing on an undeniable way that our nature is 100% against rape).
stop having mental illness and fuck off.
it's funny how this uncomfortable fact always brings out the haters who can't handle the truth.
from 300k years ago to around 1800 women were getting raped all the time, especially the 'good' ones who had paired off with a simp.
while simp was out hunting for food or doing other things 'his woman' was getting raped very often by a lot of different men. When she got pregnant she would just tell 'her man' that it was his child while it was actually one of the many different rapists.
This is how most species perpetual.
>she would just tell 'her man' that it was his child while it was actually one of the many different rapists.
because whlie YOU know this, he wouldn't have had a clue?
lol wake up, kiddo
women will gladly take care of the invaders baby because they proved more fit that the man they killed. The woman then has a better child.
A beta Provider boyfriends purpose
Evolution didn't make women small and fragile, it just made men bigger and tougher. Due to the especially vulnerable nature of human babies and the length of time they are so vulnerable for thanks to their overlarge heads evolution focused on making sure that women could be good caregivers as they would need to spend a lot of time around their baby. This meant that speed and strength were just wasted calories for women. Instead the men would get it as they could make better use out of it due to their relative freedom.
babies are so hard to care that men not being part of it could cause death for that reason, even more because women being weaker on the period would have the need of
modern suburban shit isn't nature, by that logic being fat is the natural human form.
aside from that yes, but it's caused by medications and a lack of exercise caused by stereotypes, it isn't natural but made by the destruction of normal female physical capacities.
fmost of those woman in their natural state would have been strong.
Females are biologically wired to be weaker than men. Female muscles are less dense. Female hormones(the shit that makes them female in the first palce) are what makes them weak. No amount of cope will change that.
Get your "strong kween empowerment" bullshit elsewhere homosexual.
>babies are so hard to care that men not being part of it could cause death for that reason, even more because women being weaker on the period they are having kids would have made the need of the father taking care of it much bigger
where i'm denying that there is a difference in strength? women are weaker to men.
my point is that women change strength with resistance and actuation speed, not that they are the same as men, the reason this difference is small it's because estrogen has proestrogen which causes muscle, this with an small amount of T generates female muscle development, our dimorphism is just small because we are a monogamous species which has thrived on mutual development, it's logical to think that we are going to be more equal than different, even if that difference is palpable, a 20% strength difference is still a lot, just not the weakling 50% state which is caused by hormonal coercion.
>Why do I instinctively want to impregnate the smallest women
According to twitter its because you're a pedophile.
I want to fuck short and thin girls with small butts but I think its because I'm also short.
Maybe women need to be weaker than men to force the advantage of gender specialization within a family. Man better at hunting, women better at home stuff.
Maybe many cheap tiny sperm, one big egg - anisogamy - often plays out to small female, larger male. Competition among males for the female, smaller females being easier to get to mate as other anons pointed out, and afterwards being small conserves energy required for the pregnancy.
It's the opposite. Evolution made men taller, stronger and bulkier. The reason is simple: sexual competition among men. Stronger, taller and bulkier men were more able to get pussy. The reasons are quite straightforward: pregnancy in humans is very costly, so it makes sense women will try to select strong males for safety; moreover, stronger males can also dominate competing males.
Doesn't explain why I (and so many other) men love petite women
>energy conservation: petite women focus on bearing children
>social conditioning: muscle women are great, but we do not seem them very often
>petite women are easier to secure
>there is high heterogeneity in male preference between men don't have the luxury of being picky, they get whatever they can most of the time, so you'll have a wide range of preferences
>there is high heterogeneity in male preference; men don't have the luxury of being picky, they get whatever they can, so you'll have a wide range of preferences
petite women die by being weaker and dying at birth.
women just got the best physical prowess because it's the only way to survive in extreme situations, a stronger female can get food easier and in starvation can have reserves and get more of them easily after expending them.
naturally women have the best physical prowess*
Yea, that's why the average woman isn't weak as shit, right?
female prowess as being strong as a female, sex dimorphism exists even if it's small on humans.
The more mass you have the more calories it takes to support you, at some point the amount of calories you can get by being strong is outweighed by the amount of calories lost by maintaining that mass. As women also have to deal with breastfeeding their kids until they become old enough to eat by themselves and women also have to deal with pregnancy in which their nutrients are sapped by their baby it makes sense that evolution would not bother with giving women particularly good physical prowess relative to males.
and when there isn't enough food you expend it so you survive, your point?
when there isn't any food miscarriages happen and the baby normally dies, this is the reason we had safe places to thrive where there is a safe chance to know that the kids will live on the first place.
the time for the woman to give milk to their kids is 6 months too, including this with other females helping on this makes breastfeeding a moot point, even more when not all women will get pregnant at the same time by the different cycles and how you can trigger breastfeeding by stimulation if done enough times.
women aren't going to be given the same strength as men but they need to be given good physical capabilities so they can help on all facets of life with their own specializations.
because there isn't any milk*
aren't given* they are given*
This is the effect of porn. In nature, females are usually larger than males. In humans also, it's more natural to want to impregnate taller, bigger women. Because a woman who is slightly taller than her husband is more likely to birth a child that'll be taller than both of them. But a smaller woman gives birth to a child that's less tall than the father.
Womans rights has also played key part in knocking off this natural balance to the point where even 4'5" roasties today seek men above 6'2"
what about midgets? did they even exist before we started saving so many defective humans from certain death in the last 100 years?
Yes they did. It's less like we started saving defective humans and more like we started enabling lifestyles that increased risks of genetic disorders and defective humans.
Evolution didn't made women weaker, men just got more strength in exchange of resistance and muscular speed thanks to our specialization around punching other men with the same strategy.
women have type 1 muscle which in his natural hormonal state can give 78 or 80% of upper body strength and a 100% leg in comparison to men.
>but 50% difference
this difference is caused by birth control, birth control is an hormonal disruptor which damages normal muscular development by blocking estrogen and testosterone by using chinese imitation estrogen, there should be an study of non pill treated females to see real sexual dimorphism on equally trained people, something that female olympic athletes can't give because all of them got affected by birth control on the first place by pure statistics, with half of them using it while on the competition (and this is on a survey, a lot of females there could lie or just got out of it a day before the events, making the non pilled sample moot by being affected by the pill on the first place and not having the muscle development or not even having the possibility of developing it again).
the reason men get more type 2 muscle and are taller it's because men need to fight other men hand to hand and because of our evolutive past, something that being tall and having better upper body strength enhances, this got reduced by a lot to be better hunters and having better stamina tho (our strategy is based around physical resistance and throwing shit quickly to kill shit, something that women excel at, this is the reason that ancient female hunters have been easily found, the reason there isn't a lot of studies around it is because they didn't care about analyzing their bones and always thought they were man by bias).
men just are a little bit stronger as a counter measures against close combat based strategies
not even chinese imitation thinking about it, estrogen killer
In my country women are taller than men and more muscular and I'm 5'11. Sometimes in afraid of rape
>In my country women are taller than men
Bullshit, no country is like this.
you've seen the shit we have done to pugs or that ugly goat that the arabs pay a fuckton for a purebreed?, you think that we haven done that to ourselves in any god damned capacity?
Women have to share energy with children due to lactation, men have more energy for themselves and can afford larger bodies.
The future of humanity is a female-biased sexually dimorphic species, with tall superfecund women and small superathletic men.
Genetic modification is going to be used on humans to reverse sexual dimorphism. Tall thick superfecund women can be programmed to gestate small litters of babies when pregnant. Fecundity is related to female size which is why females are larger than males in ~90% of all animals (about 55% of mammals the females are as large or larger than males, so this pattern is seen in mammals as well). Small superathletic men require only a few hundred calories but can perform all labor needed.
This is the future of humans and the ideal dimorphism
>Why did evolution make women small, fragile and delicate?
Unironically, because they are the most easy to rape
Men are the sexual selectors.
idc but why'd it do it to me?
>small, fragile and delicate
If you're looking at that demographic sure. A guess is humans warring with bigger humans, the small size serving as insurance they aren't mistaken for the bigger.
Are they small fragile and delicate if men look to be roughly the same compared to other species?
In the one's we see, but what about that we don't?
If you want to personify it, it did that to a minority.
Perhaps what you call instinct is a fetish. Petite or teen the search term.
Do the big porn sites still give results for petite?
But they have banned keywords for incest
Odd with all of the step porn
"STEP mom" is allowed
But "mom" by itself isnt
Same with all incest
As far as appeasements go, its reassuring that they half assed it.
Incest is too big a fetish to cancel
>Why did evolution make women small, fragile and delicate?
Because small, fragile and delicate women are easier to rape, and thus have more kids than strong and tough women and pass their weak genes.
That's also why women evolved a general rape fetish, a tendency to freeze under attack instead of the normal fight or flight response, and why they get wet when they're afraid.
They are designed for rape.
Men are bigger for the purposes of combat, the female form is perfectly adequate for reproduction without wasting calories on big bones and muscles.
>big masculine women.
viking women/nrdoic were not small or fragile. They were robust with strong frames.