Aren't human female breasts an example of this phenomenon? I believe that only humans and cows have been furnished with these "weapons" by evolution.

Beware the cougar with the largest claws.

So when is someone going to answer the real question; do dung beetles poop?

Besides humans and cows, sows and bitches, should not beforgotten

If you look at # of offspring, you can see that dumb people (both sex) are winning the evolution race.

Come on down to Dallas on any Friday evening. Observe the interaction between males and females of our species and view the anatomical augmentation of the female gender. You'll learn everything you need to know on this subject.

Take the quote "Fending off females who have designs on your dung-ball is evidently more important than laying extra eggs" and replace a few words.

You get:

Fending off societies who have designs on your dung-ball is evidently more important than being productive.

All of history in one sentence. Ho hum. :-(

Is there anything interesting here? I am sure the females of most animal species use violence to protect their young. Beatles use big horns.

"Tunnels are often so close together, however, that other females may break in to their neighbours’ underground, to try to steal dung."

I think that's the first time I've heard anybody suggest there's not enough shit in the world.

This is quite interesting and underscores why females around their offspring are easily as aggressive, or more aggressive, as the male of many species.

Like Working Man, I, too, was taken with the line:

"Fending off females who have designs on your dung-ball is evidently more important than laying extra eggs." Douglass Adams lives.

"Males compete because the more females they inseminate, the more genes they will leave behind. Females mainly let the males get on with this, and pick the winners. They increase their genetic contribution not by promiscuity but by nurturing."

I gather this is the postulation of the author of this article and not of the scientists? This seems like a flawed hypothesis to me: anthroporphizing beetles, and the anthropomorphing is patriarchicial in bias? Furthermore, it reflects only one reproductive cycle. I assume the female dung beetle moves on to another mate next go-round?

Since half the genes of any offspring, including that of dung beetles, come from the mother, the males do have an interest in who they mate with. This interest becomes even more profound to the extent the males are burdened with any role or responsibility in protecting, feeding or raising young (which of course they do have an interest in doing to ensure that their offspring is reaches adulthood and is successful). The article does not discuss whether the males perform any function after mating.

Even if the male dung beetle has no function toward the offspring but insemination, this idea that the male dung beetle has no interest but to compete with other male dung beetles and then mate with any fertile female still makes no sense; he still wastes time and sperm if he mates with female dung beetles who have lesser quality genes.

It definitely does not work in humans, though, and I am troubled when this idea that human male "status" gained through competition is promoted as being an interest that men have in mate selection. I also am troubled when promiscuity in men is touted as a behavior that has evolved because it is "successful." I work with issues associated with abused and neglected human children and I can tell you that male or female infidelity traumatizes human children (both children of the main union and children of the affairs) and very often leads them to be unsuccessful in reproducing themselves. And male humans who do nothing beyond insemination, or even nothing beyond insemination and providing money, produce much less successful offspring than male humans who add actual parenting and personal investment in the child to this equation. Finally, male humans have an interest in choosing female mates with better genes (not just any fertile female) because half the genes come from the female and because of this need for human children to get through a lengthy maturation period (24 years or so) before they can successfully reproduce. Women's genes often cannot be seen unless the females are active in public life, earning money and competing for status along with the men.

So, equality and competition between men and women in public life is very much in the interest of both men and women.

[Darwin] defined it as the struggle between members of one sex, “generally male”, to possess the other. The plumage of peacocks attracts peahens. The stag’s antlers are there to fight off other stags. And so on.

The fallacy I see in Darwin's analysis is the idea that the male must "possess" the female, rather than "mate" with her. The former assumes a dominance of the male over the female. The latter assumes a mutually selected union.

Darwin's analysis, as other feminists have pointed out, often reflects his own anthropomorhpic bias, borne of the fact he lived in a very patriarchical human society, Britain. Patriarchy necessarily puts men and women in conflict with one another (because men control the resources and deprive women of autonomy or choice in reproduction). This means that there is always a conscious or subconscious power struggle between men and women and creates this idea that men are "possessing" women. Some (maybe many) women who grow up under patriarchy internalize their oppression as well and begin to see themselves as extensions of men and fitting men's needs, etc. And many men become emotionally stunted and preoccupied with competition under patriarchy and are not able to navigate "unions" rather than "possession."

Perhaps the concept of "love" was evolved to deal with this problem and ensure that, as often as possible, there was not male dominance or "possession" of the female because of the many problems that patriarchy causes for offspring?

I suspect the

It is thought that species who are larger or developed violent advantages over the other sexes is due to so called "parental investment" (cost of nuturing and protecting offspring). The smaller the parental investment the more agressive/ larger a sex becomes in relation to the other. This is so the sex can fight competitors
for the privledge of mating and in necessary forcing coitus.

For example females can only have one effective sexual partner in a 9 month period (longer if breast feeding). Males on the other hand can have near limitless. The result, is humans are 15% larger than females because males can have multiple partners.

There are some cases where the female investment is low resulting in smaller males relative to females.

Person123

I have heard this argument before that the reason men are on average 15% bigger than women is so they can force reproduction on women. And, of course many men put this concept into practice, in many ways; hence we have rape, pornography, job discrimination and other ways that women are targets for violence and disenfranchisment.

But a child borne of rape or to a woman who cannot earn a living due to job discrimination is usually not successful. So, it makes no sense that this would be an evolutionary strategy that sticks.

What unfortunate karma to be reborn as a dung beetle.

hockey mons with lipsticks are as ferocious as pitbulls with balls but bullls have lipsticks envy.

Maybe Gaddaffi knew what he was doing when he established an all female personal security corps.

Adding to the confusion we have feminine men & masculine women in our civilized socities..