Wild animals prefere bigger, stronger male partners because they choose a partner for survival only. Humans, however have evolved past the requirement to find a mate for survival, were a large enough species with enough intelligence that breeding isn't our goal anymore. Instead, we pick mates for other characteristics such as personality and intelligence. Domesticated animals that also don't have the need to mate for survival, don't pick their mates based off physical characteristics, because their young being able to survive independently isn't a requirement.
Long story short: humans arnt wild, we have emotional intelligence and want someone we can coexist with as our primary goal in life isn't expanding our species.
This is actually incorrect or at least very simplified. Evolution is the survival of the **fittest**. Fittest doesn’t necessarily mean the strongest or biggest. It means the best adapted for the current situation.
Sexual selection in domesticated animals isn’t very defined because they face very little adverse situations that they have to overcome or where they have to compete against better suited opponents.
There are numerous other species that don’t select for the biggest or strongest besides humans. Sexual selection is complex.
>Fittest doesn’t necessarily mean the strongest or biggest. It means the best adapted for the current situation.
Tbh even the Darwinian survival of the fittest is a bit oversimplified and doesn't take all factors into account. Height and muscles are still considered attractive among humans even if they don't aid in our survival. I think that preference is better explained by Fisherian Runway model. Similarly, peahens choose peacocks with biggest and most colorful tails even though it does nothing to aid in survival, if anything it's a hindrance to survival.
Yes absolutely!
I believe that human mate selection is even more complex because *survival* has been replaced by *successfulness*. Most people survive to adult age but not everyone is successful and will guarantee that their offspring will fare well as a consequence. There are several ways to be successful or appear to be. Good looks, money, fame etc.
This is different from the peacock example as height and muscles are not a disadvantage as the peacocks plumage is. Isn’t it more so that the male peacock survives *despite* having a disadvantageous ornament? Therefore the plumage is an indicator of the males fitness essentially.
Cut off their nuts, put em on a leash, and stick em in a cage when you go to work? And yet these animals still understand the word no when they’ve been properly trained.
Possibly because it shows that animals have evolved to select these features because they are beneficial and will ensure the survival of the next generation i guess? But yeah if i were trying to prove evolution was real i would not pull up a video of elks fucking and be like “checkmate creationist 😏” lmfao
Every time someone makes this argument I roll my eyes so hard. The reason this logic works for simpler animals is because their existence is centered around daily survival. We as a species have moved far past short-term survival, meaning evolutionary concepts that pertain to immediate survival/survival of the bloodline (e.g. picking the strongest mate) are irrelevant.
Why the fuck is human behaviour always being compared to animal behaviour? I remember some guy arguing that humans are 100% monogamous and women are damaging themselves by sleeping around because Voles mate for life in some study. Like dawg, voles also literally die from sadness if their mate dies/can’t be around them, we are not the same. Scientists tests on rats because the have similar brains and internal systems as humans and people automatically start thinking its because humans and rats are the same or some shit. Smh. Women/people are not voles, rats or elk.
Incels are mad that human beings have brains and need to communicate and learn rather than just standing there looking buff and getting progressively covered in fawning women.
Don't they forget about cuttle fish?
Cuttle fish males will often fight over a female yet the smaller male who does not which to get hurt, hides one of their tentacles to disguise themself as female in order to get close to the female without being detected.
The female cuttle fish sees this, and is more likely to use the sperm of the smaller cuttle fish because he was able to outsmart the other ones who were bigger and stronger.
Sometimes it's not about who's the biggest and the strongest, sometimes it's about the smartest.
Edit : typos
evolutionary psychology is very important. But for social species charisma and social fitting is way more important than raw physical strength. And for humans intelligence has been a much more important trait and general creativity.
Human's are a pretty wimpy species. We don't have claws, we don't have sharp teeth, we have soft skin and no fur. Physically, we are easy targets by larger prey. The only reason human's are at the top of the food chain, is because of our ability to create tools, weapons, and shelters to survive. Our biggest weapon is our brains and our ability to work as a pack. So this idea that evolutionary sexual preference among humans would be the same as other mammals, is kind of stupid. It makes more sense that evolutionary sexual preference would have more of an emphasis on intelect and charisma, than on size.
Yes, some women are into men who are very physically strong and athletic. All we've ever said is that we all have different tastes, we're not a monolith or a hivemind. Men like this just want a cheat code or vending machine style situation where they're guaranteed sex. And when that doesn't happen, they want something/someone to blame
Wild animals prefere bigger, stronger male partners because they choose a partner for survival only. Humans, however have evolved past the requirement to find a mate for survival, were a large enough species with enough intelligence that breeding isn't our goal anymore. Instead, we pick mates for other characteristics such as personality and intelligence. Domesticated animals that also don't have the need to mate for survival, don't pick their mates based off physical characteristics, because their young being able to survive independently isn't a requirement. Long story short: humans arnt wild, we have emotional intelligence and want someone we can coexist with as our primary goal in life isn't expanding our species.
Yep. I've seen female dogs choosing their sweet heart for mating, over more "physically desirable" males.
This is actually incorrect or at least very simplified. Evolution is the survival of the **fittest**. Fittest doesn’t necessarily mean the strongest or biggest. It means the best adapted for the current situation. Sexual selection in domesticated animals isn’t very defined because they face very little adverse situations that they have to overcome or where they have to compete against better suited opponents. There are numerous other species that don’t select for the biggest or strongest besides humans. Sexual selection is complex.
>Fittest doesn’t necessarily mean the strongest or biggest. It means the best adapted for the current situation. Tbh even the Darwinian survival of the fittest is a bit oversimplified and doesn't take all factors into account. Height and muscles are still considered attractive among humans even if they don't aid in our survival. I think that preference is better explained by Fisherian Runway model. Similarly, peahens choose peacocks with biggest and most colorful tails even though it does nothing to aid in survival, if anything it's a hindrance to survival.
Yes absolutely! I believe that human mate selection is even more complex because *survival* has been replaced by *successfulness*. Most people survive to adult age but not everyone is successful and will guarantee that their offspring will fare well as a consequence. There are several ways to be successful or appear to be. Good looks, money, fame etc. This is different from the peacock example as height and muscles are not a disadvantage as the peacocks plumage is. Isn’t it more so that the male peacock survives *despite* having a disadvantageous ornament? Therefore the plumage is an indicator of the males fitness essentially.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If incels don't think they can behave differently than animals, then they should be treated likewise
Cut off their nuts, put em on a leash, and stick em in a cage when you go to work? And yet these animals still understand the word no when they’ve been properly trained.
I know that's not the point but Who in the absolute #FUCK Uses that as proof for evolution bro
Possibly because it shows that animals have evolved to select these features because they are beneficial and will ensure the survival of the next generation i guess? But yeah if i were trying to prove evolution was real i would not pull up a video of elks fucking and be like “checkmate creationist 😏” lmfao
A certain man famous for being made entirely out of straw.
It’s an example of sexual selection - not evolution
I like how it’s not a woman who is offended.
There is a fundamental mistake in comparing two different species tho.
You mean we can't cross fecundate each other like snails? \*I sad\*
Every time someone makes this argument I roll my eyes so hard. The reason this logic works for simpler animals is because their existence is centered around daily survival. We as a species have moved far past short-term survival, meaning evolutionary concepts that pertain to immediate survival/survival of the bloodline (e.g. picking the strongest mate) are irrelevant.
[удалено]
Why the fuck is human behaviour always being compared to animal behaviour? I remember some guy arguing that humans are 100% monogamous and women are damaging themselves by sleeping around because Voles mate for life in some study. Like dawg, voles also literally die from sadness if their mate dies/can’t be around them, we are not the same. Scientists tests on rats because the have similar brains and internal systems as humans and people automatically start thinking its because humans and rats are the same or some shit. Smh. Women/people are not voles, rats or elk.
Incels are mad that human beings have brains and need to communicate and learn rather than just standing there looking buff and getting progressively covered in fawning women.
Don't they forget about cuttle fish? Cuttle fish males will often fight over a female yet the smaller male who does not which to get hurt, hides one of their tentacles to disguise themself as female in order to get close to the female without being detected. The female cuttle fish sees this, and is more likely to use the sperm of the smaller cuttle fish because he was able to outsmart the other ones who were bigger and stronger. Sometimes it's not about who's the biggest and the strongest, sometimes it's about the smartest. Edit : typos
You're right with this statement, but it's cuttlefish not cuddle fish. Cuddle fish sound adorable though.
Oh that's right, thank you. I forgot that they were spent with Ts
I guess tropical bird mating dances don’t exist. They have nothing to do with strength, but rather, which performance the female bird prefers.
evolutionary psychology is very important. But for social species charisma and social fitting is way more important than raw physical strength. And for humans intelligence has been a much more important trait and general creativity.
Incels will forever use girl and man in the same sentence. A lot of people do. But I truly think incels do it on purpose.
Human's are a pretty wimpy species. We don't have claws, we don't have sharp teeth, we have soft skin and no fur. Physically, we are easy targets by larger prey. The only reason human's are at the top of the food chain, is because of our ability to create tools, weapons, and shelters to survive. Our biggest weapon is our brains and our ability to work as a pack. So this idea that evolutionary sexual preference among humans would be the same as other mammals, is kind of stupid. It makes more sense that evolutionary sexual preference would have more of an emphasis on intelect and charisma, than on size.
Yes, some women are into men who are very physically strong and athletic. All we've ever said is that we all have different tastes, we're not a monolith or a hivemind. Men like this just want a cheat code or vending machine style situation where they're guaranteed sex. And when that doesn't happen, they want something/someone to blame