Sexual Relationships 
Sexual Health 
*Quick disclaimer: This is a hypothetical scenario using the little knowledge I have of biology and Sociology, the scenarios I provide may be graphic and disturbing, so if you are easily put off by that I suggest you don't read. This is not to say either sex is actually superior, it is to discuss the hypothetical result of an all out war of the sexes based on inherent biological advantages.*
I saw an interesting question today about which sex would win in an all out war. And it made me consider the factors of it.
Because it heavily depends on the type of warfare. So I will be pinning men and women against each other in 6 different types of warfare and simulate the outcome.
Now here are the conditions I will set for all battles.
__________________________________
Conditions
Numbered from 1 to 8...
__________________________________
1.) The goal of each war is complete domination and utter genocide of the opposing sex, meaning the only ones left alive are those of the opposite sex to the defeated faction.
2.) Previous male and female world leaders become obsolete, and 1 man and 1 woman will be chosen to lead each faction.
3.) All resources listed for each scenario will be equally distributed among both factions.
(Example: If men have 16 cannons, then women also have 16 cannons. If women have 700 horses, then men also have 700 horses, etc.)
4.) If the war is more than 1 round, 5% of both sex's population are none combatants, meaning they are all that is left after the army is gone, and will be quickly massacred afterwards. Their purpose is to produce resources needed for war, such as food, water, and clothing.
5.) Men and women cannot be double agents for the opposing side, because the hatred has become so vitriol that men and women are conditioned to try to kill each other at the mere sight of the opposite sex.
6.) Male and female ability will not be measured in accordance to current physiological statistics, but rather men and women from their lowest to highest physical potential as a species.
(Example: A short weak man will lose to an average height average strength woman, and an average height strong man will win against and average height strong woman.)
7.) Different types of warfare will generate different types of environments, a different amount of rounds, and all types of weapons used. These will be explained in accordance with each scenario.
(Example: a medieval battle will be fought on hills, will have 3 rounds, and every single member of the population are either soldiers, commanders, or the king/queen.)
8.) Nukes seem like a bad idea to both sides, (since it won't prove either one sex is superior, which is probably the goal) so Nukes are not a factor because it will obviously result in a draw if men and women just launch nuclear missiles at each other. So mutually assured destruction is a factor in this sex war.
__________________________________
But now to set up our scenarios, and map out which sex would win depending on the type of war.
__________________________________
Men Vs Women, to the death!
__________________________________
And we'll start with our first scenario...
1.) Brawl to the death!
__________________________________
Arena: Giant desert
Number of rounds: 1
Weapons: not present
If it were an all out fist on fist brawl to the death, men would win from superior upper body strength, and numbers alone. Martial arts may play a role for both men and women, but average height, strength, and numbers would still determine the final outcome.
This struggle falls to the men as the victor.
__________________________________
2.) Armed Battle Royale!
__________________________________
Arena: ever expanding hills
Number of rounds: 1
Weapons: Lethal Steel Melee
If it's a Barbarian type of battle royal with deadly melee weapons (swords, shields, daggers, battle axes, hammers, whips, spears, and morning stars), women would be able to hold their own based on the equal opportunity to develop lethal skill.
However the upper body strength required to wield a War hammer, great axe, or great sword, will be less common among women, and less effective due to a disadvantage regarding upper body strength.
Since heavier weapons are considered efficient in crowd control, having proficiency in heavier weapons is a huge advantage.
This would hand the victory to men.
__________________________________
3.) Medieval Warfare
__________________________________
Arena: Cold And windy hills with a castle on opposing sides.
Number of rounds: 3
Weapons: UK Medieval soldier
If we added bows, horses, catapults, armor, and long spears to the equation, it would still hardly affect the outcome considering the environment.
The likelihood of a man to survive an arrow wound compared to a woman at their full physical potential is higher.
Horses wouldn't give either sex an advantage over another, and spears will be just as likely to kill each member of the opposite sex.
Metal armor may slow down women more than it will men on average giving men a speed advantage.
Catapults will hit the same amount of targets, but women may take a longer time to load boulders due to their average upper body strength.
Men will most likely win the entire battle, it won't be an easy victory, but even without their
population advantage it favors upper body strength overall without factoring archery, and that becomes a glaring disadvantage for women on average.
Thus this war ends with men as the victors.
__________________________________
4.) Trench Warfare
__________________________________
Arena : extremely large plains with trenches dug.
Number of rounds: 3
Weapons: WWI military technology
Trench warfare would only be a game of numbers, and will most likely be won based on who has the higher population. Neither Men nor women have any advantages against bullets, mustard gas, or explosive shells. Men would gain the victory through numbers and that alone, and it will most likely be down to the very population difference.
The fog, mustard gas, and explosions would be too much for a soldier to act with anything but their instinct, man or woman it would just be a blind, bloody, and disorientated shoot out and charge. Dog fights would result in a draw due to piloting being reliant on staying above the chaos. Thus handing it to men for sheer survivability in numbers.
__________________________________
5.) Fully Armed Assault Warfare
__________________________________
Arena: Very Large forest
Number of rounds: 1
Weapons: WW2 soldier inventory
If it's a full on infantry assault (tactical rifles, pistols, shotguns, machine guns, grenades) with no breaks and the entire population on the battlefield... men and women would come to a close draw. This is due to a woman's intuition, awareness, and decisiveness. While men have a slight disadvantage in being able to be completely in tune with their environment, and are more likely to be shot first.
Women being smaller on average would give them a considerable stealth advantage in the forest.
That being said, it isn't enough to secure a victory on either side.
Women being outnumbered, and men on average having a higher carrying capacity when it comes to artillery, would even out their advantages.
So it would end in a draw, aka the extinction of humanity.
__________________________________
6.) Modern Warfare
__________________________________
Arena: the whole planet
Number of rounds: unlimited
Weapons: Whatever weapons have been developed since 30 minutes before I write this.
Men and Women will now have as many battles as it takes to eliminate each other in any part of the world. They now have war machines to fight each other in. That being said neither men nor women are immune to getting flattened by a tank or obliterated by a rocket.
Men will still have the population advantage, and they will split their territory down the middle in terms of space and land, the men occupying the west, and the women occupying the east.
All battles fought are now organized and planned, and can take weeks to accomplish, thus making the outcome only possible after several decades.
If it were a modern day war with all of the technology and strategies at our disposal, I think women might win, and I have a reason.
But it's very fucked up, since all ethics and morals are out the window.
We are assuming men and women no longer even interact without trying to kill each other, but men cannot reproduce without women, and women cannot reproduce without men.
So both sides would most likely capture male or female soldiers, rape them, and continue to reproduce and create offspring to be trained in hopes of becoming future soldiers.
That being said men have the advantage of being able to capture... Say... A dozen women, impregnate them all and have 12 babies delivered. But the disadvantage for men is that not only is there a chance the captured women will just give birth to another girl, but also that they can only capture so many women if they are going to win the war.
The women's advantage is that they only need to capture at least one man. They can then have 100 women rape him, become impregnated, and reproduce more potential soldiers.
They can also just extract semen from their captor over the course of a few days and have hundreds of samples by the end of the week, and can just kill the prisoner if they're confident they can acquire another one.
Now the obvious disadvantage is the same as it is for men, there's a chance they will just produce a boy.
But they can also just keep the boys overtime, and use them as semen dispensers for the girls. However another disadvantage is that if the women are impregnated, they cannot work as infantry or a combatant until they give birth, it would be foolish to do so.
So they sacrifice the ability to use certain troops for 9-12 months, giving them a slight numerical disadvantage for a period of time.
But this can be avoided if they only impregnate non combatants, drill sergeants, generals, or even commanders. They can still do their job, just not in an overly physical manner. but overall the increase in numbers will eventually exceed that of the male population.
After each battle and each capture, women continue to grow at an exponential rate in population, men continue to grow, but cannot do so without capturing at least 50% of how many women it's possible for the female faction to reproduce without being outnumbered (since pregnant women would be a liability on the battlefield).
An that happening is only possible if a male army were to capture the opposing female army without any casualties, and even if that were a probable outcome (which it is not unless there is absolutely no resistance from female soldiers) , it still wouldn't be enough to match a woman's capability of reproduction.
The male population would slowly dwindle over time after every battle. Larger female armies would begin to dominate other male armies sent. More men would be captured, more babies will be made, and eventually it will come down to the last man.
Which they will most likely harvest for sperm, then promptly put a bullet through his brain.
Women would be victorious, and most likely use any males born in the future as an additional harvest, sustaining woman kind for years to come.
__________________________________
Wrapping up.
__________________________________
So out of all these scenarios, men win 4 out of 6 rounds and women win 1.
So those are all of the outcomes for a war between men and women!
If you have a different opinion, please leave your opinions below.
I hope you found this boring and fucked up, and have a good day!
What Girls & Guys Said
15 42Nobody will win.
If all the humans are gone because of something like this, then the earth, and all other life probably "wins". Well, that's if they don't nuke each other to oblivion first.
I DON'T NEED TO SPECULATE SHIT
MEN WILL DESTROY WOMEN
If woman don't involve other men to fight for them then of course women will lose first because biology. I know you are going to hate reality but that is a fact. Men have 10 times more testosterone than women 10 times more muscle mass on average. I don't nobody will exactly win because the human species will be extinct due to that but women will be extinct first. This is not a matter of manipulated because what is in our minds are fighting to death. I won't be surprised if this gets hates. The my take owner is a feminist after all and so does his followers.
I think you're missing the main point which surely that a sex war is like a trade war. Everybody loses.
Wouldn't it make more sense for one man to work with the women to kill all the dudes? Then have the entire world of women to himself. That would make the most sense to me.
i could kill a 1000 women with just 1 fart. you should take that into account
Women we use sex or make fembots like ones in Austin Powers something like in the pictures.
Damnit!
I don't have to speculate shit
WE WILL FUCK WOMEN UP IN WAR
So the objective is to just obliterate the opposite sex? Lettuce be serious. Men would win and it wouldn't be close. Only thing women have on their side is their sexuality. Using their sex appeal to control and manipulate men and get what they want. By far the number one tool women use against men. Wouldn't work in war though. Like you said they could just be captured.
1. You have way too much free time on your hands
2. Men would easily win, despite what you see in retarded Hollywood movie propaganda, a woman stands no chance in a fight against a man, whether its hand to hand, melee weapons or whatever. And while guns and modern weapons do level that playing field, women still lack the aggression, the tactical, strategical way of thinking, and many other leadership traits that are necessary for war. Simply put, women are not meant for any form of violence.
What is there to speculate? It's common sense lol.
Bad take
This would have been way easier if men got to keep all the weapons they made.