Coyne states, in passing, while offering examples about male competition and sexual selection, that “Females, who don't have to fight, are presumably close to their optimal weight for reproduction” (150). It is shown that “direct competition between males” and “female choosiness” (148) are apparent among organisms, and a key to sexual selection. As a result, it is arguable that males would tend to change more than females in order to increase their fitness and opportunity to produce offspring. Coyne already addresses the issue of the tradeoffs between adaptations benefitting survival and those aiding in reproduction in males; though there are many seemingly energy intensive/wasteful traits that males have to “win over the females”, they tend not to become so elaborate that these adaptations would result in the death of the organism before they even have a chance to pass of their genes to their offspring. However, in females, this becomes more of a question; since they tend not to have to fight for males, and do the choosing of their potential male mates, how is it that the females are able to adapt to become more suitable for reproduction? It would seem as if the males would tend to undergo selection “faster” than females do. Also, how far does this go? A deer's antlers can only get so large; with males having the largest, most robust antlers winning more jousting contests and impregnating more females. With this type of selection, wouldn't it be reasonable to presume that the deer's antlers would approach a certain maximum size (consider the tradeoff with survival and reproduction – at some point, the antlers would hinder their ability to survive). Speculate as to what happens in this situation.