Now a team of British researchers offers an explanation. It's all a matter of perspective. On the face of it, asexual reproduction looks like a sounder strategy for propagating a species. After all, every member of an asexual species can clone itself as much as it likes, whereas in a sexual species only females have babies.
Males are just baubles that lounge around and play golf.
Females have to do twice as much work as a member of an asexual species just to keep numbers up. By rights, asexual species should wipe out sexual ones, simply by weight of numbers. Yet sexual species are everywhere. This is why evolutionary biologists are hung up about sex. The usual explanation is that the inherent variation of sexual species more than makes up for the cost of indigent males.