[ SECRET POST #6208 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6208 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.

































Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 08 secrets from Secret Submission Post #887.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

OP have you touched grass recently? Or even watched a nature show about various things that live in grass?

Male mammals are, generally speaking, bigger and stronger than female mammals IRL for a variety of reasons like hunting/gathering/defense against predators and competition for mates.

Invert cliches all you want, but just admit it's your kink instead of this embarrassingly flimsy excuse, man...

[(Anonymous)]

This. Watch some Planet Earth or something. Male lions, tigers, and bears (oh my!) are bigger than their female counterparts. All canine breeds (the biggest influence on ABO) have larger males. Even dogs designed by humans have larger males.

[(Anonymous)]

Yup. OP would actually have a point if they were comparing omegaverse to say, birds or fish, where the ones that lay eggs are very often bigger than the ones who don't, precisely because egg-laying is just a one-time expenditure of energy/resources.

But omegaverse is based on mammalian biology where pregnancy leaves the baby carrier unable to do stuff a lot of the time, and taking out your biggest and strongest individuals out of the question because they're heavily pregnant and literally can't perform strenuous physical tasks any more makes no sense at all from an evolutionary standpoint (obviously humans have evolved socially and technologically beyond this, but every other mammal has not).

[ariakas]

taking out your biggest and strongest individuals out of the question because they're heavily pregnant

This is not actually why size-difference dimorphism exists in mammals though. It has nothing to do with it. Female mammals aren't "taken out of the question" they continue their activities while pregnant and go straight back to whatever activities they were doing before; female tigers don't have maternity leave or groups of providers, nor do female mice or deer or any other wild mammal. Female primates continue to forage and hunt. That includes primates such as humans in their natural environment. Social animals do perform some care for one another if one is disabled or injured, but pregnant and post-partum female humans do not routinely stop doing exactly what they were doing unless the birth is particularly injurious or traumatic, in which case this would be akin to any other traumatic injury. There is no "a lot of the time" in which female mammals are "unable to do stuff".

The reason male size-difference dimorphism is mate competition with other males. This has been extremely well studied. Monogamous mammals (including monogamous primates) do not exhibit these size differences. There is no concern for "biggest and strongest individuals" being "taken out" as this is not an evolutionary concern.

Not OP but this is a very commonly held misconception that I'm always happy to debunk as it informs prevailing views of human gender roles despite being scientifically unfounded.

[(Anonymous)]

Sure, OP can be wrong for a different reason, then.

Because competition for mates sure happens in A/B/O.

[ariakas]

Mammals yes, usually, but in many non-mammal species females are larger for exactly the reasons secret!OP describes (they can more easily carry more young and feed them).

In species where males are larger (including both mammals and non-mammals alike) this is thought to be driven primarily if not exclusively due to male-male competition. In mammal species that mate for life, including fellow primates such as gibbons, size differences between the sexes are negligible to non-existent.

Hunting/gathering/defense don't come into the equation since in almost all other mammals all individuals are involved in hunting/gathering/defense activities; these are not delineated along "gender" lines like they are classically believed to be among humans (even then, this may be an outdated view: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0287101).

So if alphas and omegas are "pair bonding" for life or whatever, and they can't/don't cheat, it would be very reasonable to assert that they would be of similar sizes.

[(Anonymous)]

But omegaverse is based off of mammalian species in which males are larger than females. It's not people imagining that humans are arachnids.

[ariakas]

But they're imagining that they mate for life, correct? Unlike humans? With soul-bonding, etc.?

If so, humans (or at least a subset of them) have now become a species that mates for life, and therefore would not show size-difference dimorphism, the same as any other primate species that mates for life.

[(Anonymous)]

That's a fair thing to speculate on, but OP isn't saying that dimorphism is illogical, and that it would make more sense for males and females to be of similar size; they're saying that current dimorphism should be reversed. One half of the species would still be larger than the other, it's just that it would be the one that gets pregnant instead of the one that impregnates.

[ariakas]

This is a good point: there are mammal species, including primates, where females are larger on average but none to the extent you'd see in like, a fish or a raptor or a spider, or even the reverse of polygynous primates, which is probably what they're thinking.

[(Anonymous)]

I mean, wolves mate for life, and the males are larger than the females.

[ariakas]

Very marginally (only ~5-10% of total bodyweight), which is not what people typically have in mind re: "size difference" dynamics, and besides, I (assume?) the humans in ABO are still primates lmao. I could be wrong. Is ABO all about wolf-human hybrids where the alphas are like 1" taller and 10 lbs heavier than the omega?

[(Anonymous)]

ABO applies the characteristics of wolves to humans. In some sense, yes, they're wolf/human hybrids.

[(Anonymous)]

Really outdated and incorrect ideas of wolf societal structure, to be fair. Wolf packs are family units and do not work like the concept that ABO is founded on.

[(Anonymous)]

Sure, but OP isn’t annoyed by the biologically inaccurate part. They think that the scientifically correct part of the kink is unrealistic.

[(Anonymous)]

Wait, why are we assuming mate for life = no competition to be the one to mate with that person for life?

[ariakas]

Because it's a very specific kind of violent intra-male competition that only occurs in polygynous/"tournament" species that results in very large size difference dimorphism between males and females in mammals.

I don't read a lot of ABO, but doesn't the whole bonding thing preclude alphas from mating with a ton of omegas? An alpha can't win the right to mate with a bunch of them by beating up all the other alphas, so his superior size/strength serves no purpose.

In species that mate for life, competition exists for the "best" mates, but these competitions involve displays of affection/skill/dedication/competence in childrearing/etc. in addition to attractiveness/health and are undertaken equally by males and females of that species. It doesn't look like chest-beating, rutting alphas.

[(Anonymous)]

OP is not asserting they would be of similar sizes, or that there would be negligible size difference. OP is asserting the child bearers would be bigger.

This is basically a "Totally Rational Essay on why it only makes sense Logically if my guy tops" and everyone's just like bro, chill, we can kink on different things.

[ariakas]

Yeah that's fair, I mean there are primate species where females are larger, often thought to be tied to polyandrous behaviours, but the differences are pretty marginal compared to the sizes you see in the full-blown male-dominated 100% polygynous tournament species where males can be like, twice the size of the females or more.

If OP means Slightly Larger, sure. But then the omegas also have to beef with the other omegas a bunch and get around lmao