So basically what I’m observing right now is that humans are slowly changing. The parameters that made a man able to breed changed a lot, and I’m noticing that in very safe countries the ideal is a very “feminine” man, while in more dangerous countries it is still preferable to date a more “masculine” man. Now, I don’t know how much of this is due to personal taste, attraction or simple need for survival, but it reminded me of the differences between chimps and bonobos. Chimps are very strong, their structure is more patriarchal and the men compete for the right to mate. They do this because the best man has to spread his genes because of the high amount of predators and dangers that nature offers. Females naturally submit to the “alpha” that gains this title by pure violence. On the other hand we have bonobos. For people who don’t know, bonobos “evolved” from chimps when they were isolated in a pocket of land with no predators and a lot of resources. As a result, bonobos are more promiscuous (gay sex and pedophilia is more common) but weaker, and their society is matriarchal. The son of the alpha woman is going to breed, there is no reason to compete because there are no dangers. For people who claim that thanks to feminism we are evolving, I think we aren’t. I think the lack of dangers is slowly turning us into bonobos. Japan, which is one of the safest countries in the world, has one of the most feminized beauty standards of the world for example. Just food for thought about how the environment can change our sexual selection parameters.