[ 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)]

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.