As humans, and perhaps as mammals more generally, we are used to the following theme:
Women looking beautiful, and men doing what they can to impress them to win access to their vagina.
Studies of sexual partners seems to back this up: Women are more choosey, whilst men sleep will sleep with right munters. Chat-up lines are learnt by the men; PUAs exist to teach men how to pick up women, etc.
In the mammal world, the typical rule is that the men are stronger and more physically capable than the women. The competition for which male is most physically superior is one of the things that I believe has driven evolution for mammals. The stronger man can take the meat from the weaker man, so he is more attractive.
But I noticed something:
Even in the insect world, this seems to hold true.
Take spiders, for example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQbScg3r1oQ
The male spider is physically weak compared to the female spider. The physical dominance roles have been reversed, and I'd have expected the female spider to be the one doing the competing for the smaller male's attention. But no, it is still the male spider which is trying to compete for access to the larger female spider.
.
So.... can you think of any species in which the burden of attracting a mate rests more on the female?
>>8060965
>So.... can you think of any species in which the burden of attracting a mate rests more on the female?
This would potentially happen to a species where the burden of carrying young falls on the male.
>>8060965
There are always exceptions.
Your mom, for instance.
>>8060977
If your theory holds water, sea horses would be a good case study.
>>8060981
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seahorse#Courtship
>As the female releases her eggs, her body slims while his swells. Both animals then sink back into the seagrass and she swims away.
Seahorse women confirmed for pump-and-dump alpha as fuck.
>>8060991
No word on how judging the male is though.
Just behave
>>8060978
ayyy
Can't think of an example off the top of my head but I can share a theory (well accepted) as to why males compete and females choose. A male is able to impregnate as many females as he is able to fuck, so it is in his reproductive interest to have sex with as many females as will let him. A female is limited to one impregnation per however long the pregnancy lasts. This means she must pick the best male possible to impregnate her so she doesnt waste her time bearing poor quality offspring from an inferior male. This of course, is all down to the asymmetry of the male and female gametes.
>>8061042
>Can't think of an example off the top of my head but I can share a theory (well accepted) as to why males compete and females choose. A male is able to impregnate as many females as he is able to fuck, so it is in his reproductive interest to have sex with as many females as will let him.
re-read OP:
>But I noticed something:
>Even in the insect world, this seems to hold true.
In the insect world, you choose one mate, then die. And yet it is still the woman judging and the male competing.
How does your "theory (well accepted)" explain THAT?
>>8061047
Doesn't really apply specifically to insects and I never claimed it to. It's just a fairly interesting sidenote as to the reason for "choosey" females in many animals.
>>8061052
You don't see the problem?
>Animal A is choosy
>Animal B is choosy
>I have a theory for why A is choosy
>It doesn't apply to B at all
>But I'm still sure it is right
Probably not. Probably there is a second, different reason why A is choosy that covers both A and B.
>>8061057
It is conpletely baseless to say that just because a theory doesnt apply to one animal type it "probably" isn't true and that an allencompassin theory is "probably" more likely. Insects and mammals for example are very different so why assume the same must apply to both?
>>8061074
>It is conpletely baseless to say that just because a theory doesnt apply to one animal type it "probably" isn't true and that an allencompassin theory is "probably" more likely. Insects and mammals for example are very different so why assume the same must apply to both?
Like, imagine somebody trying to explain how birds fly, and they come up with a completely untestable hypothesis ("They have feathers, just like angels, so angels draw them up towards their heavenly home to appreciate them.")
Then somebody shows a bat that flies without feathers.
At that point, you can either go "Bats and birds don't have to fly for the same reason," or you can realize that a hypothesis that is both untestable and doesn't cover the entire data set is probably going to be superseded later by a different, better hypothesis.
>>8060965
AFAIK the gender possessing the more rare gametes (limiting factor to reproduction) is given the designation of female whereas the gender possessing the more abundant gametes is termed male.
So females are always the judge, and males are always the judged. Because that's how we define them.
Designation of gender has nothing to do with physical attributes such as size or strength.
Even if female spiders are physically dominant, they still are the limiting factor with regards to the continuation of the species since their gametes are rarer. So they are competed for regardless.
>>8061096
Fucking destroyed
>So.... can you think of any species in which the burden of attracting a mate rests more on the female?
Jacana
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/6/l_016_04.html
Phalarope
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalarope
