In this scenario, man and woman have come to a point of complete hatred for eachother. A war between them has broke out, and has been going on for more than a year. What gender would win in this all out war?
Artificial reproduction has been invented, as in the artificial sperm and the artificial womb, so keeping the gender alive after this war isn't a problem.
OP's opinion: I believe males would, simply due to the fact that they have progressed this far in technology the most. Their strength, their skills in combat, their leadership skills, their creativity, their skills in practical work, etc. I believe males would win quite easily.
What gender do you believe to win in an all out war?
Artificial reproduction has been invented, as in the artificial sperm and the artificial womb, so keeping the gender alive after this war isn't a problem.
OP's opinion: I believe males would, simply due to the fact that they have progressed this far in technology the most. Their strength, their skills in combat, their leadership skills, their creativity, their skills in practical work, etc. I believe males would win quite easily.
What gender do you believe to win in an all out war?
So let me say this back to you.
"You're not qualified to point out that people are not qualified to correct people. You still unintentionally say things such as that if you're not the best at something, you can't correct others that aren't as good at you at something."
Sure, I may not be great at grammar, but it seems I have more common sense than you, which many have already said.
That said, I do think men would win, because Team Man would probably have more people trained in combat and with experience fighting wars than Team Woman, because there are more men in the army and more men who do combat sports.
Men are also encouraged by society to work out to be strong and fast, as opposed to women who are encouraged by society to work out to be skinny, so a much higher percentage of Team Man would be muscular and athletic than there would be in Team Women. Being strong is obviously of more use in a war scenario than being skinny.
Also, science suggests that men have brains which are more adapted to hunting and fighting etc. than women's brains, which are more adapted to child-rearing etc.. Obviously men would have the advantage in that regard.
To be clear, and I'm not presuming that is what the purpose of this poll is, but "who would win a war" is never a good way of deciding which is "better". This is simply because men are well adapted for war and women are not. If you wanted to judge which gender is more useful to society (another pointless question in my view, but one you seem to want to go an answer to) you need to find a task that men and women are equally naturally and socially adapted to.
I wanted to know if the IIN community regards women better so much that they would go against the obvious and say women would win, and atleast most believe men would win, but it suprises me that 43 people think women would win.
I also think a lot of people like to go against you just to be contrary, because they get a kick out of going against you and having a flame war, which is kind of childish if it's true.
That said, a lot of people probably do think women would win. This is the internet, and lots of people with weird opinions live here. The only way to live with them is to give up hoping that most of them will be rational, which can be hard but is very rewarding.
Do you really think you could convince men to kill off all women, and also they have to raise babies, and they didn't even get to fuck a woman to have that baby? YEAH RIGHT!!
Is it a spur of the moment kind of war or is it something that both sides are preparing for? Because that would make a big difference.
I think you could definitely get a really, really strong group of women together to kill men rather than vise-versa, though, when you think about it. I mean, if everyone magically agreed to it, then men would probably win but if you account for the above reasons, in reality women would probably win.
Do you know what they do? One will purposely call a female guard over for some kind of 'issue' so that their buddy across the way can jerk off to her. It's called 'gunning'. They'll take any chance they can to even so much a smell or see a female. If they can get a feel in, holy shit!! So, tell me how, if gay sex is superior (for a straight man), this can be true?
Real life doesn't support your theory. Sorry.
What theory? I never said prisoners prefer male on male sex, I said people in ancient Greece did. And when they realize the only way for sex is to do it with another man, sure it'll take a while to get used to, but men will get used to it.
Real life doesn't support the theory you "think" I made, that even I dissagree with.
I wasn't stating theories, I was stating facts, that in ancient Greece, male on male sex was seen as superior. Real life does support that fact. Sorry.
You did too make a theory, you clearly said you 'think males would end up doing that again'. That means, you assume that men in Greece (ALL men, not just homosexuals) would be fine with, and even prefer, sex with males over sex with females. And that that would 'happen again'. You're trying to tell men that they should give up sex with women because YOU have some kind of issue? Yeah, I bet you'll gain a lot of male followers with this idea....what a joke.
Maybe I was wrong about you....I'm hoping it's just a psychological problem because I don't think you're actually this stupid, but now I'm staring to wonder.
Really, you just drain all logic from discussions, Wigsplitz. I should of kept to my word to not even engage in discussion with you, even when it was encouraged by other users that you just are pointless to talk to.
Did I say that men today preffer male on male sex? No. So instead of actually trying to make it seem like I've said things I haven't, how about you actually pay attention to what is being said? Is that too hard? Don't ever try to get a position in Goverment, I can see it going like this.
"Yes, we are making more new companies in science...We are making new companies in science, because TV programms are not long enough"...You just make no logical sense.
You make points against points nobody is making, just so that you feel like you have a point in something, even if it's a point you made yourself, claim that I made it, then counter your own point.
I have said this to you about three times now.
Yes, but I'm not talking about males "today". I was giving people the benefit of the doubt that they would realize that I'm talking that future generations of males would be raised to have no problem engaging in homosexuality, but clealy I gave you too much credit to think you didn't need it explained to you.
This is in a "scenario that most likely wouldn't happen". If you think I think this would actually happen, then you're a moron. Where did I at all say that this whole thing is actually going to happen? Please, enlighten me with your oh so great logic.
Like I said, I didn't say the first generation engaged in the war would be comfortable with it, I'm saying after time, it could be years or hundreds of years, by each generation, homosexuality wouldn't be seen as something abnormal, so more males would engage in it by each generation, starting off as the only way for sex, to being the average way to have sex.
It's not an idea, moron, it's a scenario I simply made up, not something I plan on happening at all. So to say that it's a joke is ironic, because not even I think this would happen, yet you, the genius that you are, think that I think this will happen one day, and then you want to say that I'm the joke? Irony.
You think I'm stupid, yet I'm talking scientific terms. Humans "adapt" to their enviroment and more, so to say that they "can't" adapt in this sense is stupid. I am talking science, adapting, and you're saying "nope, male humans can't adapt, simple". And you want to deem me stupid? Please.
I stopped wondering if you were dumb or smart a while ago, I simply know you're stupid.
This is my last reply to you. I am confused to wonder why I even thought I could depend on having a logical thinker to debate with when replying to you.
I replied to your points to show you that I'm not leaving this debate because you're "too genius" for me, but because you are too difficult to have a logical debate with.
Bye.
I won't be reading or replying your response.
You're referring to pederasty, but you're a little confused. Pederasty (relations between man and boy) was very common in Ancient Greece, particularly in the Archaic period. There was no prevailing preference of homosexuality over heterosexuality, and in fact, the presiding sexual politics mostly just differentiated by sexual roles - giver and receiver, so to speak. There is absolutely no evidence that one type of relationship was given superiority over the other, seeing as the ancient Greek language did not even employ the terms "homosexual" or "heterosexual".
For reference:
Bruce Thornton - The Myth of Ancient Greek Sexuality
KJ Dover - Greek Homosexuality
Real life proves it? What about homosexuals? Are they some warped version of the male that some how warps reality?
What about bisexual males? Bisexual males that preffer male on male sex? Do they some how warp reality?
Real life proves that your opinion on real life is invalid.
You weren't there in ancient Greece so that's invalid. Go by observations that you can easily make in our world, it doesn't support anything close to a theory that men would be 'cool' with getting stuck having gay sex for the rest of time.
You're talking about TODAY'S man in this war, not ancient Greece's men, anyway. So it's completely invalid what they did or didn't do in Greece.
You're talking about rallying TODAY'S man against women, and you think you're going to sweeten the pot with eternal forced gay sex for straight men, and artificial wombs that create babies that aren't even related to you that you have to raise, alone? Wow, yeah, you'll get a lot of followers with that sweet deal.
Hey, you weren't there when women were oppressed, that must mean is didn't happen, so any point you make about women being opressed is invalid. You can't just say something is invalid because it doesn't go in your favour.
Well, there are many men that have oral sex with another man when they aren't gay, simply for their pleasure.
Like you said about prison. They have sex with men. Sure, they would preffer women "at this time", but if they were in war, and they hated women completely, and it went on for hundreds of years without women being present, men would adapt to wanting sex from other men, simply because the new generation would be brought up to think that's how it goes.
What is the difference between today's man and then's man? Nothing, only the equipment they use, and out advanced technology.
So no, it isn't "completely invalid". Simply because you want it to be doesn't make it so.
Like I said, males will adapt to their new way of living. Instead of bringing up children "alone", they will bring them up with other men.
Yes, the men that are involve in the war that have been raised to see females as sex partners most likely won't have sex with men, no dissagreement, I'm saying that the future generation of men would, then when the percentage of homosexual sex partners grow, the higher percentage of the next generation of males would be taught that it's normal to do, and so on.
You're simply thinking that I think men will just snap in their mind sets to have sex with men straight away, which is stupid. Over time men will get used to egaging in homosexual sex, simply because they are raised to see that it's normal.
Everything you said relates to what I already said about prison...there you are, in a place where homosexuality is all that's available, and is the 'norm' if you are to have any sexual contact. But it doesn't reverse sexuality permanently nor does it remove the desire to breed with a woman. To think that you can remove that is absurd. That's a stretch into the slightly unknown but we can make observations on that today with various situations such as prisons and AI breeding in animals to make a conclusion that it's not likely at all to think the instinct can be 'bred out'. Are all boys who were molested gay, because that's what they were exposed to? Do they all just stay with men and have no other desires, ever? Of course not. There's no logic in thinking that the instinct to breed could ever be eradicated.
Why do you want to turn all men gay? If you're gay then fine, be gay but why does everyone else have to be gay with you?
You're also making a big leap thinking that most men would even BEGIN fighting for such a future. You're asking a few generations of men to prepare for a world without women. OK, so you're asking men, who are not gay, to begin gay lifestyles, for the future generations. OK, sure...not likely. How do you expect to rally men to fight for that sort of an end? It's not going to happen. Also, how do you keep these preparatory generations from being exposed to women during this 'build-up' period?
Then once there's no women anymore, you're asking men to never create any new females. Of course, they'd have the technology to, so what would stop them? Also not likely.
Why would you want to oppress men that way? Why would you want to take away everything that makes them distinct and happy? What's a world full of all dudes? Then what? Then who do you want to eradicate next? How about black men, because they haven't invented so many things and are more likely to be criminals and less likely to succeed?
But your men being okay with being gay for the rest of their argument is not valid at all. I can speak for myself that if all women suddenly vanished tomm I would not, repeat NOT be okay with having sex with men for the rest of my life. I am not sexually attracted to men, ANY MAN, at all. I would be content to jerk off for the rest of my life before having sex with a man. I dont give a shit what they did in ancient Greece or Rome or where ever, I am not touching another penis, EVER.
I'm talking years, up to a hundred years maybe before it is even considered.
My parents used AI (artificial insemination) to breed their cows. The cows never saw a male besides for the brief moment they saw their calves if it happened to be male. They had cows for 20 years, a cow is bred before she's 2 so you can imagine how many generations of cows they had that never physically mated or even ever saw a mature bull. Needless to say I don't think there's one single report in the entire world of a cow that's been so bred out by AI and lack of bulls around that it turned gay (or even slightly lost the instinct to breed). If you turned those later generations of cows out with a male present in the herd, they'll breed like normal. They still maintain the instincts to breed. So why would humans turn gay? That's absurd. Not even turning full-on gay, but to think that you can somehow remove the strong instinct to mate (proliferate with the opposite sex) is stupid!!
That's your idea of common sense? Ha.
Not being sexist here but just stating what i think ):
Its funny to say women could "distract" them with an oil wrestling contest or a massive strip tease "diversion" but thats just making a joke out of the question (funny though it is). If you want a serious answer men would overwhelm women in this scenario.
I mean, Nazis for one, they were mainly male soldiers, they had no problem killing female jews, etc.
I think the people saying such thing want some sense of power, even if it is a ridiculous statement they are making that would obviously never work. Thanks for commenting.
BUT you have to try to separate those things from the actual question, the men in charge of this "military" operation wouldnt tolerate other "weak" minded men that would succumb to this temptation around them so any men who displayed those traits would probably not be taken seriously or just outright killed as they would be seen as an impediment to the overall goal of winning the gender war.
But couldnt men also have overpowered women and taken some as sex slaves, treated and abused horribly, and kept alive and around as a "release" when needed ??
It would be far more logical to think that has occured then to think it wouldnt be possible.
Think about it. Enough male children growing up to watch their mothers get beaten and brutalized by their husbands would have an effect, unless we were to adopt a Spartan society in which men are encouraged to have gay relations and the women are just used for breeding, in which case the women would have to be treated as highly regarded possesions because without them, no breeding would be able to take place.
Unless men could find a way to breed on their own. Then it comes back to the eternal gay society. Not pleasant. Eventually you would get to a place where males are not killing females, they are killing less masculine males. Males are, by nature, competative and non-competative males would be seen as weak. That's the male nature, compete, survive, progress. Females are the cooperative, nurturers as a whole. I am talking in terms of generality here and without a major faction of society promoting said cooperation, it would become a Darwinian survival of the fittest and fittest only society.
Plus, there is a massive difference between custody and actual war.
Anyway, even the homosexuals, pedophiles, asexuals, zoophiles etc. would be enough to win that war =P
When you come down to it, guys are bread to be tougher then girls.Besides, a steady supply of sex slaves would be coming in along with laws to enforce them.
i mean are the altering the chromosomes, in the process to make the sure the gender of the offspring.
and if it an artificial egg or sperm, does it have its own DNA or is it a blank canvas so to speak, and will alter with the addition to corresponding egg or sperm?
In that cases it be more like clones, and there are the problem of gene decay and etc etc.
Did I say women can't be in the army, etc? No. I said men are simply better at it.
Yes, but do you know that males score higher IQ tests? Do you know that there are mor genius males than genius females?
I never said women aren't smart.
A girl on her period, plus a gun, plus hatred for the other side? Not as scary as a man with a gun, hatred for the other gender, plus natural combat ability/hunter ability.
Women have never had to fight in a full going war. Never.
Women would have to try get close enough to do that first, and not to mention, they would have to try kick them in that area before the man hits her, and since men are better at combat, who do you think is going to strike the first one out?
No, it wouldn't come close. Men would dominate the war, it's one of the things they are best at.
Just like if you put a natural man and a natural woman in a ring, obviously the man is going to win.
Seriously women have used their sexuality to keep us men on lock down for centuries.
Such things only happen in the movies. Do you honestly think that sex drive will take over a man's survival instinct? If so, you watch too many movies.
Not to mention, even if they were to want sex with the enemy in times of war, what's to say they don't just take the women, and spread their legs by force? Meaning they win the war, and they get sex?
You've watched too many movies if you think women have kept men in lock down due to their sexuality. If every man in the world wanted to, they could force any woman in to sex, and they would be powerless against it. It isn't women's sexuality that has made them get as far as they have become powerful (not as powerful as males, though), it's males letting them. If males choosed to, the female gender could be wiped out within a year or less.
It's not sexism, it's facts. Just because facts go against the female gender doesn't mean it's sexism, it means it's facts that go against the female gender.
You want a loving companion, wouldn't women? So why wouldn't they join the male side?
Secondly, I'm not a misogynist, I don't hate women. Simply because I see the male gender as better doesn't mean I hate the female gender. Gold is better than silver, silver is still worth a lot and is in no way bad.
I'm a rapist by explaining something that can happen? -Facepalm- Moron. How old are you? If you're an adult, fuck. I say "fuck" because then it would be too late for you to actually be progressing in common sense.
Just like whites raped black women when blacks were slaves, does it make me a rapist for saying that's what happened? No, it makes me able to tell the facts.
If men decided to take control of the female gender, rape will happen, and this is proven by the treatment of females when they didn't have rights. It's not misogyny, it's not rape, it's telling the facts.
If you're going to reply, use logic. You seem too emotional than logical.
Three fights in primary, I won them all, two of them being with only one punch.
Two in highschool, one punch and won, the other took longer, but I won that one. The one I won with one punch was supposidly the "tough guy" in my year.
My most recent fight was with two people. Someone grabed my friend's neck, so I moved him away from him, he punched me, I smashed his face against the wall. His brother attempted to help, and I got him down easier than the first one, and he ran to get help. The person I hit into a wall have a broken jaw and a broken nose.
I also engaged in sports like rugby and games like join the crew, in which I won most times. Join the crew is a game of violence when you have to put someone from the opposite team in so much pain that they say "join the crew" and then they are on your team.
I also won a fight against a 37 year old man that had a job in the crazy house, and I won that aswell, I was only sixteen - seventeen at that time.
Secondly, I am not scrawny, I am natrually well built.
Don't assume things, it gets you nowhere, especially when saying such things about me.
I have been asked to join local teams in rugby simply because of my strength and speed.