[ 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)]

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.