[ 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)]

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.