# Do self defense programs work?



## AtomicRabbit

Hi all, I've joined the forum because I want to learn more about martial arts for self defense. I've seen this course, do you think it's worth doing or should I be going about things in a different way? 

http://russellstutelytraining.com/go.php?offer=atomic2019&pid=9


----------



## Dirty Dog

We have a no fraudbusting policy here that prevents  me from giving you my honest opinion of the site you've linked.


----------



## Tez3

Doing online courses are never, ever as good as finding an _actual _instructor and _actually_ learning techniques. 
Even if the online course did have any value you can't learn techniques properly from a video, especially as a beginner.


----------



## drop bear

Do MMA.


----------



## jobo

AtomicRabbit said:


> Hi all, I've joined the forum because I want to learn more about martial arts for self defense. I've seen this course, do you think it's worth doing or should I be going about things in a different way?
> 
> http://russellstutelytraining.com/go.php?offer=atomic2019&pid=9


No, I wouldn't part with a lot of money for that, in fact I wouldn't spend any money on that.

If your actually serious about being able to handle yourself in a fight, any time soon do 6 months of strength and conditioning training and then sign on for an art that fights.


----------



## Martial D

AtomicRabbit said:


> Hi all, I've joined the forum because I want to learn more about martial arts for self defense. I've seen this course, do you think it's worth doing or should I be going about things in a different way?
> 
> http://russellstutelytraining.com/go.php?offer=atomic2019&pid=9



Anything labeled as 'self defense', especially when it comes with claims of teaching you to proficiency (or street lethalness or some other wordplay) in a very short time, should be taken not just with a grain of salt, but with a 25kg bag of salt.


----------



## Deleted member 39746

Oh lord its the civilian version of SCAR.


I wouldn't throw self defence courses under the bus generically though as there are some good ones which are designed for people who dont have time/need/want to do a regular martial arts but want a more short term solution to self defence.  (granted i dont know of a legitimate teacher who wouldn't say the more you practice it the better you get at it)

But the caveat is of that type of course its meant as a short term solution to self defence for people who cant do long term training for what ever reason or lack the desire too and just want some broad range of skills they can practice now and then to get them out of most situations etc. 

Just dont conflate legitimate and illegitimate.   (just to clarify im not endorsing the link)


----------



## Martial D

Rat said:


> Oh lord its the civilian version of SCAR.
> 
> 
> I wouldn't throw self defence courses under the bus generically though as there are some good ones which are designed for people who dont have time/need/want to do a regular martial arts but want a more short term solution to self defence.  (granted i dont know of a legitimate teacher who wouldn't say the more you practice it the better you get at it)
> 
> But the caveat is of that type of course its meant as a short term solution to self defence for people who cant do long term training for what ever reason or lack the desire too and just want some broad range of skills they can practice now and then to get them out of most situations etc.
> 
> Just dont conflate legitimate and illegitimate.   (just to clarify im not endorsing the link)



I would. Straight under the bus, hopefully to be washed away down the nearest storm drain.

At least, any of them(the overwhelming majority ) that involve showing people fixed moves for very specific circumstances(he grabs you like this, you do this very unrealistic thing that only works if he cooperates and tada!).

Self defense that just teaches you situational awareness and when to run away or yell for help can be helpful I guess.

You just can't and won't learn how to defend yourself over a weekend, or even a month of weekends.

Edit - from that link, purely for the LOLs.

*Look At Just Some Of The Techniques You Will Master:
*

*Enter Under Cover – Safely Attack the Attacker*
*Gorilla Pull – This is PURE EVIL*
*Lung Collapser – This is Just Plain Nasty*
*Bladder and Bowel Release – OMG – See the bad guy urinate in a heap on the floor after being hit*
*One Arm Strangle – Multiple Attacker Technique*
*Brachial Stun – Instant K.O Baby*
*Thai Strangle – You NEED to learn this one – Multiple Attacker Technique*
*Much More*


----------



## JR 137

I didn’t watch it, but the biggest benefit to any actual self defense course lies in the situational awareness training rather than physical techniques. Avoiding putting yourself into situations and being able to recognize situations before they escalate are far more effective than any physical techniques. 

And then let’s say they show you some great physical stuff. How do you know you’re actually doing them right? Is there someone correcting you? What about your target(s)? Range? Timing? Without a teacher and resisting partner, there’s no corrections and adjustments. There’s just visualizing and hitting a bag (or the air). It’s like having an argument with yourself - it doesn’t get you anywhere nor actually prepare you for anything unexpected.

Then let’s say you’re training SD with an instructor and students. You do it for a few weeks and get very good. Then what? You walk away and think you’ll have those physical skills forever? I’ve been training currently for 4 years now. My previous stint was over 6 years, so over 10 years total. I just went back 2 weeks ago after 4 months out due to a back injury. All the muscle memory stuff was intact. The basics were all easily still there. I wasn’t even especially out of shape. My timing absolutely sucks now.


----------



## Danny T

Get a good instructor, increase your overall cardio and strength, train to fight, train situational awareness, and live life.


----------



## JR 137

Danny T said:


> Get a good instructor, increase your overall cardio and strength, train to fight, train situational awareness, and live life.


And don’t quit once you feel like you’re good enough.


----------



## Martial D

JR 137 said:


> I didn’t watch it, but the biggest benefit to any actual self defense course lies in the situational awareness training rather than physical techniques. Avoiding putting yourself into situations and being able to recognize situations before they escalate are far more effective than any physical techniques.
> 
> And then let’s say they show you some great physical stuff. How do you know you’re actually doing them right? Is there someone correcting you? What about your target(s)? Range? Timing? Without a teacher and resisting partner, there’s no corrections and adjustments. There’s just visualizing and hitting a bag (or the air). It’s like having an argument with yourself - it doesn’t get you anywhere nor actually prepare you for anything unexpected.
> 
> Then let’s say you’re training SD with an instructor and students. You do it for a few weeks and get very good. Then what? You walk away and think you’ll have those physical skills forever? I’ve been training currently for 4 years now. My previous stint was over 6 years, so over 10 years total. I just went back 2 weeks ago after 4 months out due to a back injury. All the muscle memory stuff was intact. The basics were all easily still there. I wasn’t even especially out of shape. My timing absolutely sucks now.



Ya, I agree completely! Unfortunately martial arts skills, at least of the applicable variety, take constant maintenance.

It's like the line KFW likes to bust out - "if you do not train with your hands for three days they are no longer yours" or something like that.

Myself, I recently moved towns, and haven't been training aside from hittin the bob and general solo stuff, shadowboxing etc for a few months now. I went in for some light sparring with some guys last Friday and got wrecked. Guys I could beat before.

The moral..if you want to fight like a fighter, you need to train like a fighter.


----------



## JR 137

Martial D said:


> Ya, I agree completely! Unfortunately martial arts skills, at least of the applicable variety, take constant maintenance.
> 
> It's like the line KFW likes to bust out - "if you do not train with your hands for three days they are no longer yours" or something like that.
> 
> Myself, I recently moved towns, and haven't been training aside from hittin the bob and general solo stuff, shadowboxing etc for a few months now. I went in for some light sparring with some guys last Friday and got wrecked. Guys I could beat before.
> 
> The moral..if you want to fight like a fighter, you need to train like a fighter.


I agree with it all except the 3 days part. In my experience it takes longer than 3 days. I train twice a week due to commitments of life. No problems maintaining it. 3 weeks maybe, but not 3 days. 

Bag work and stuff like that is great. But nothing simulates live punches and kicks coming at you. Nothing. 

My teacher and I were having a laugh about it after class the night I came back. He said I actually looked better during basics because I wasn’t compensating due to pain and tightness; I was more relaxed and stuff flowed better. But it all fell apart once we started sparring. It was “there’s the punch coming. Too late to block it because it already hit me. There’s the kick coming, oh you got your hand on it as it hit your stomach. There’s an opening, oh but now he’s no longer there because you started the counter a second too late.” He’s a quiet guy, but when he starts going, he’s hilarious. And totally right.


----------



## Steve

Avoid high risk behaviors, pay attention and use common sense .   if you are a prostitute or member of a gang, quit, and if you're a drug addict, stop.   That will be $800 .  I accept pay pal.


----------



## Martial D

Steve said:


> Avoid high risk behaviors, pay attention and use common sense .   if you are a prostitute or member of a gang, quit, and if you're a drug addict, stop.   That will be $800 .  I accept pay pal.


And if you happen to be a drug addicted prostitute that belongs to a gang? What then?


----------



## Steve

Martial D said:


> And if you happen to be a drug addicted prostitute that belongs to a gang? What then?


I think i answered that in my post.   Stop taking drugs.  Quit the gang.  Get a job that is legal, and stop engaging in high risk behaviors.   Best self defense you can get.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JR 137 said:


> the biggest benefit to any actual self defense course lies in the situational awareness training rather than physical techniques.


No "situational awareness training" can help this bus driver. She has no control who will get on that bus. Also she has no place to run.

What should she do?






A brick in her purse (also know how to use it) may end this story differently. Physical techniques have it's place.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Steve said:


> I think i answered that in my post.   Stop taking drugs.  Quit the gang.  Get a job that is legal, and stop engaging in high risk behaviors.   Best self defense you can get.


Until you can show me YouTube footage of someone successfully defending themself by not engaging in high-risk behaviors, I refuse to believe that it works.


----------



## Steve

Tony Dismukes said:


> Until you can show me YouTube footage of someone successfully defending themself by not engaging in high-risk behaviors, I refuse to believe that it works.


I can do better.   I can show you statistics.  I understand your post is tongue in cheek but we should distinguish between video evidence and any evidence.


----------



## Deleted member 39746

Martial D said:


> I would. Straight under the bus, hopefully to be washed away down the nearest storm drain.
> 
> At least, any of them(the overwhelming majority ) that involve showing people fixed moves for very specific circumstances(he grabs you like this, you do this very unrealistic thing that only works if he cooperates and tada!).
> 
> Self defense that just teaches you situational awareness and when to run away or yell for help can be helpful I guess.
> 
> You just can't and won't learn how to defend yourself over a weekend, or even a month of weekends.
> 
> Edit - from that link, purely for the LOLs.
> 
> *Look At Just Some Of The Techniques You Will Master:
> *
> 
> *Enter Under Cover – Safely Attack the Attacker*
> *Gorilla Pull – This is PURE EVIL*
> *Lung Collapser – This is Just Plain Nasty*
> *Bladder and Bowel Release – OMG – See the bad guy urinate in a heap on the floor after being hit*
> *One Arm Strangle – Multiple Attacker Technique*
> *Brachial Stun – Instant K.O Baby*
> *Thai Strangle – You NEED to learn this one – Multiple Attacker Technique*
> *Much More*



Not going to dispute the topic is filled with terrible information and is exploited to hell.   But you do just need to teach somone to be slightly better than the average person. And in my view any half decent self defence course should contain some actual physical defence and then a quantity of other factors including but not limited to what you mentioned.


Also you editing in that confused the hell out of me, it didnt refresh so i thought i accidentally copied something from the website and pasted it in.


To amend the above segment i somewhat forgot i was thinking of a instructor course in my head, which is namely only used as a supplement if they don't have any of their non instructor lessons going at the time you can go to them.

Plus if its someone who is actually qualified they have trialed it to make sure most people can retain the information post course from what they do, and then you could sell or provide media as take home guides for people to remember what you taught them.   anyway before my ruthless business side comes out.  Also i skimmed over the segment on how to go about it and i would recommend  one of the established styles you can more regularly go to.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

*Do self defense programs work?*

The term "self-defense" always remind me "selfish". As long as I'm OK, I don't care what may happen around me. It just gives me that cold society feeling.

Better terms can be:

- Defend and save your family members.
- Fight for your country.
- Defend and save human being from alien.
- Fight for the world peace.
- Help the weak to fight against the strong.
- Help the good to fight against the evil.
- Great power comes great responsibility.
- ...


----------



## dvcochran

AtomicRabbit said:


> Hi all, I've joined the forum because I want to learn more about martial arts for self defense. I've seen this course, do you think it's worth doing or should I be going about things in a different way?
> 
> http://russellstutelytraining.com/go.php?offer=atomic2019&pid=9


 
Hard pass, very hard pass. 

Audit the martial art and/or long term self defense programs in your area. Hopefully they are one and the same. Try different schools and have a real talk with the instructor/owner. Also talk with several of the higher ranked students and get their views and opinions. Find what they started out looking for and what they found. Tell them what you are looking for and are concerned about. If you get real, honest answers that do not seem glossed up with a lot of fluff, see if they have a trial program you can try. Finding the right program is not a "one size fits all" solution and can take time so don't rush. An athletic 225lb male will start out looking/seeing a program differently form a 130lb petite woman. They ideas may eventually merge but not at the start. Reaching your goal takes the same mindset as a marathon runner. A few sprints will not get it done. Ever.
Stay in touch and let us know how it goes.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> Hard pass, very hard pass.
> 
> Audit the martial art and/or long term self defense programs in your area. Hopefully they are one and the same. Try different schools and have a real talk with the instructor/owner. Also talk with several of the higher ranked students and get their views and opinions. Find what they started out looking for and what they found. Tell them what you are looking for and are concerned about. If you get real, honest answers that do not seem glossed up with a lot of fluff, see if they have a trial program you can try. Finding the right program is not a "one size fits all" solution and can take time so don't rush. An athletic 225lb male will start out looking/seeing a program differently form a 130lb petite woman. They ideas may eventually merge but not at the start. Reaching your goal takes the same mindset as a marathon runner. A few sprints will not get it done. Ever.
> Stay in touch and let us know how it goes.


What are the goals one is trying to reach?  I'm nit sure you can say its a marathon and not a sprint if we haven't sorted out what the goal is.


----------



## drop bear

And by the way. 

Systems do matter now?

It isn't fun or natural ability at play?


----------



## Martial D

Steve said:


> I think i answered that in my post.   Stop taking drugs.  Quit the gang.  Get a job that is legal, and stop engaging in high risk behaviors.   Best self defense you can get.



I dunno. At that point wouldn't it just be safer to bring your gang with you when you go out?


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> What are the goals one is trying to reach?  I'm nit sure you can say its a marathon and not a sprint if we haven't sorted out what the goal is.


Without exception, someone who queries self defense classes are looking to better prepare themselves against an attack or would be assailant, at least at the start. There are a few who are looking for some kind of ego stroke but they are usually the ones who come lurking into the dojo/dojang looking for a quick fix. 
I have taught many self defense primer classes with our local police department and local professional organizations. The first thing I always stress is that these classes do not, in any way, teach a reliable way to defend yourself. They, at best, teach some tricks or minor skills that may get a person out of a pinch. We work more on situational awareness and common sense rules. When someone asks me about learning self defense I will always stress that it is a process that takes time. Not to deter them from taking the class, just the opposite. I encourage the exploration in the hopes that it will help them see there is more to it than a few hours or days or even weeks of brief exposure to learn the protective skills they are seeking. 
So no, it isn't a sprint. I don't want to blur the lines and lull a novice into thinking it is quick and easy (like the link in their first post) and can be done by an online source by someone with no experience. A really good way give MA a black eye.


----------



## Steve

Martial D said:


> I dunno. At that point wouldn't it just be safer to bring your gang with you when you go out?


I guess it depends on what your gang does.  If it's a knitting gang, you might be okay.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> Without exception, someone who queries self defense classes are looking to better prepare themselves against an attack or would be assailant, at least at the start. There are a few who are looking for some kind of ego stroke but they are usually the ones who come lurking into the dojo/dojang looking for a quick fix.
> I have taught many self defense primer classes with our local police department and local professional organizations. The first thing I always stress is that these classes do not, in any way, teach a reliable way to defend yourself. They, at best, teach some tricks or minor skills that may get a person out of a pinch. We work more on situational awareness and common sense rules. When someone asks me about learning self defense I will always stress that it is a process that takes time. Not to deter them from taking the class, just the opposite. I encourage the exploration in the hopes that it will help them see there is more to it than a few hours or days or even weeks of brief exposure to learn the protective skills they are seeking.
> So no, it isn't a sprint. I don't want to blur the lines and lull a novice into thinking it is quick and easy (like the link in their first post) and can be done by an online source by someone with no experience. A really good way give MA a black eye.


learning to fight takes time.  But if being safer is the goal, learning to fight might not be the best gang for your buck .  in fact, a 24 to 30 hour self defense course has been proven extremely effective for women self defence on college campuses.  That seems like a valuable sprint.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Steve said:


> But if being safer is the goal, learning to fight might not be the best gang for your buck .


I think you had a bit of a freudian slip here.


----------



## Deleted member 39746

Kung Fu Wang said:


> *Do self defense programs work?*
> 
> The term "self-defense" always remind me "selfish". As long as I'm OK, I don't care what may happen around me. It just gives me that cold society feeling.
> 
> Better terms can be:
> 
> - Defend and save your family members.
> - Fight for your country.
> - Defend and save human being from alien.
> - Fight for the world peace.
> - Help the weak to fight against the strong.
> - Help the good to fight against the evil.
> - Great power comes great responsibility.
> - ...



Well i have seen it used as priority is defending yourself (by extension who ever you wish/need to defend) and another key point is actually knowing what you get yourself into if you step into some situations.    eg you could have walked away but didnt and all that and what the consequences of not walking away could be.    At least the people who acknowledge the people who are taught to help or need to  protect other people etc.    At least if you loose and end up nearly dying you cant say it was a brazen mistake of ego and you thought it out before doing it.     (and i like to repeat the point about protecting yourself and avoiding conflict and if you cant and feel you morally need to help someone or cant walk away to at least assess the situation before continuing and know the (possible) consequences of it) 

I think i have raved about how i like 3 terms, sport, combat and self defence at some stages also. 

And to add to your cold society feeling, you are somewhat hard programmed to put yourself first.   

(i might have missed something to your post)


Also worth a note, i think you can almost always walk away/talk your way out of social violence* but you cant avoid predatory. (apart from literally spotting someone you dont like the look of and avoiding them like the plague before they can do anything)
*Assuming you aren't disinclined to the social skills needed to non violently get out of anyway. 


Hopefully some of that is of use to anyone anyway.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> *Do self defense programs work?*
> 
> The term "self-defense" always remind me "selfish". As long as I'm OK, I don't care what may happen around me. It just gives me that cold society feeling.
> 
> Better terms can be:
> 
> - Defend and save your family members.
> - Fight for your country.
> - Defend and save human being from alien.
> - Fight for the world peace.
> - Help the weak to fight against the strong.
> - Help the good to fight against the evil.
> - Great power comes great responsibility.
> - ...


It all starts with self-defense, as a concept.


----------



## Steve

kempodisciple said:


> I think you had a bit of a freudian slip here.


Autocorrect got me.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Kung Fu Wang said:


> *Do self defense programs work?*
> 
> The term "self-defense" always remind me "selfish". As long as I'm OK, I don't care what may happen around me. It just gives me that cold society feeling.
> 
> Better terms can be:
> 
> - Defend and save your family members.
> - Fight for your country.
> - Defend and save human being from alien.
> - Fight for the world peace.
> - Help the weak to fight against the strong.
> - Help the good to fight against the evil.
> - Great power comes great responsibility.
> - ...



Unless you put on your oxygen mask first, you cannot help others.

Laying down your life for another is noble and brave. It also means that whatever happens to them after you are dead, you cannot control any longer.

Live, and help others.

So, live comes before helping others.

Therefore, self-defense.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> learning to fight takes time.  But if being safer is the goal, learning to fight might not be the best gang for your buck .  in fact, a 24 to 30 hour self defense course has been proven extremely effective for women self defence on college campuses.  That seems like a valuable sprint.


I am not talking about learning how to ring fight. Like I said, there are some valid tricks to be gleaned from a short self defense class but they do not work well for most women and the concern of over confidence is very real. I not even going to start on the liability concerns for the trainer of the class.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> learning to fight takes time.  But if being safer is the goal, learning to fight might not be the best gang for your buck .  in fact, a 24 to 30 hour self defense course has been proven extremely effective for women self defence on college campuses.  That seems like a valuable sprint.



Yeah. Setting up the right environment goes a long way. 

In that I would suggest a cash in transit course. Or a bodyguard one.(but they cost a heap more generally)


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> I am not talking about learning how to ring fight. Like I said, there are some valid tricks to be gleaned from a short self defense class but they do not work well for most women and the concern of over confidence is very real. I not even going to start on the liability concerns for the trainer of the class.


I don’t believe you are correct, and the only available evidence that I’ve ever found is on my side.   As I said, if learning to fight is the goal, sure.  But if personal safety is the goal, that is rarely about fighting skill.

Not saying that’s not a good skill to have.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> I don’t believe you are correct, and the only available evidence that I’ve ever found is on my side.   As I said, if learning to fight is the goal, sure.  But if personal safety is the goal, that is rarely about fighting skill.
> 
> Not saying that’s not a good skill to have.



For girls or guys?


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> Yeah. Setting up the right environment goes a long way.
> 
> In that I would suggest a cash in transit course. Or a bodyguard one.(but they cost a heap more generally)


Depends on the actual risk involved.   If the greatest threat to you is date rape, a bodyguard class isn't going to be the training most likely to help.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> For girls or guys?


I said earlier women on college campuses, but I really like that you are distinguishing between different contexts for self defense.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Depends on the actual risk involved.   If the greatest threat to you is date rape, a bodyguard class isn't going to be the training most likely to help.



Same concepts. 

It is all about preplanning safe movements and creating exit strategies.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> I said earlier women on college campuses, but I really like that you are distinguishing between different contexts for self defense.



I assume guys are in more danger of violence.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I assume guys are in more danger of violence.


I don't know that's true DB. We're likely in more danger of the violence best covered by fight training.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> I don’t believe you are correct, and the only available evidence that I’ve ever found is on my side.   As I said, if learning to fight is the goal, sure.  But if personal safety is the goal, that is rarely about fighting skill.
> 
> Not saying that’s not a good skill to have.


Can you explain how a thing/skill/technique that a person does a few dozen times in a likely non-formal environment engrains enough that they will recall it to some level of proficiency while in a very high stress situation? I have more faith in their flight instinct. Again, the brief class, if presented as such, is a good primer to start more repetitive training. I go not get your directly going to fighting. Probably semantics.


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> Yeah. Setting up the right environment goes a long way.
> 
> In that I would suggest a cash in transit course. Or a bodyguard one.(but they cost a heap more generally)


Not familiar with the term. What is a "cash in transit course"?


----------



## Deleted member 39746

dvcochran said:


> Not familiar with the term. What is a "cash in transit course"?



If hes from the U.K its what the SIA uses for private security, its the people you see who drive the armoured vans from banks and such filled with money.   And walk around shops with the breif cases filled with money and the like.







(a picture is worth a thousand words after all)


----------



## Tony Dismukes

dvcochran said:


> Can you explain how a thing/skill/technique that a person does a few dozen times in a likely non-formal environment engrains enough that they will recall it to some level of proficiency while in a very high stress situation? I have more faith in their flight instinct. Again, the brief class, if presented as such, is a good primer to start more repetitive training. I go not get your directly going to fighting. Probably semantics.


I believe Steve is talking about courses aimed at reducing the odds of the young women ever ending up in a high-stress situation where they might need to have proficiency in fighting techniques.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> I assume guys are in more danger of violence.


Why do you assume this?   I'd say douchebags are the most at risk.  Being a douchebag is definitely a high risk behavior, particularly if you like to drink in public .


----------



## Steve

Tony Dismukes said:


> I believe Steve is talking about courses aimed at reducing the odds of the young women ever ending up in a high-stress situation where they might need to have proficiency in fighting techniques.


Yes.  Addressing their confidence, role playing common scenarios, teaching common sense things like not going to parties alone, never leaving your drink unattended.

I am specifically commenting on tje common trope that self defense is something that takes years.  Where we have seen actual studies, courses as short as 24 or 30 hours have reduced the rate of rape, attempted rape, and other sexual assaults by half.  

As I said, knowing how to fight might be a handy skill, but if you are an averahe person looking to be more safe, it's probably not in the top ten behaviors one might address.  

And of course, I'm not talking about people who are in violent professions.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> Can you explain how a thing/skill/technique that a person does a few dozen times in a likely non-formal environment engrains enough that they will recall it to some level of proficiency while in a very high stress situation? I have more faith in their flight instinct. Again, the brief class, if presented as such, is a good primer to start more repetitive training. I go not get your directly going to fighting. Probably semantics.


My point is that those skills are irrelevant if you address high risk behaviors.  Learning to fight is fun.  But I've said before that if we look at actual statistical data, the chances of being murdered in the usa are very low.  Ecen of being mugged .  Where it happens it is often the predictable outcome of high risk behaviors.  

Studying for years just in case you run across a predatory rapist is fine.  But far less likely to help you if the actual risk is your best friend's boyfriend or the guys in a frat, or maybe your uncle. In contrast, we know that 30 hours of training things other than fighting gona very long way to mitigating the above situations by avoiding the riskn entirely and encouraging the will to resist, which we see over and over is more important than fighting skill.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Yes.  Addressing their confidence, role playing common scenarios, teaching common sense things like not going to parties alone, never leaving your drink unattended.
> 
> I am specifically commenting on tje common trope that self defense is something that takes years.  Where we have seen actual studies, courses as short as 24 or 30 hours have reduced the rate of rape, attempted rape, and other sexual assaults by half.
> 
> As I said, knowing how to fight might be a handy skill, but if you are an averahe person looking to be more safe, it's probably not in the top ten behaviors one might address.
> 
> And of course, I'm not talking about people who are in violent professions.


I think the difference in timeline comes from using a different primary definition. Teaching this sort of stuff shouldn't take long (and endless repetition likely has a quickly diminishing return, since it's all simulation and role-play).


----------



## jobo

dvcochran said:


> Can you explain how a thing/skill/technique that a person does a few dozen times in a likely non-formal environment engrains enough that they will recall it to some level of proficiency while in a very high stress situation? I have more faith in their flight instinct. Again, the brief class, if presented as such, is a good primer to start more repetitive training. I go not get your directly going to fighting. Probably semantics.


as a group we naturally think  that dedicating a bif chunk of your life to ma, is both benifical and necessary, coz that what we do. but actually supporting that with some data about real world situations and you come back with a few anecdotes.  theres is no guarantee that in a stressful situation that your going to have greater proficiency at a technique  that some one who has done it for 30 hours. non at all.  rather your faced with choosing one technique  iut of dozens of variations,  whilst they will only have one, so theres no decision process to delay things. 

all over the world non ma defend themselves adequately every day, it's clear that doing so then doesn't necessarily requires thousands or even hundreds of hours of training


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Rat said:


> And to add to your cold society feeling, you are somewhat hard programmed to put yourself first.


I have seen one guy tried to drag a girl into his car in the street of Honolulu, Hawaii. That girl was screaming for help. People on the street just watched. Nobody was willing to stop that guy.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Why do you assume this?   I'd say douchebags are the most at risk.  Being a douchebag is definitely a high risk behavior, particularly if you like to drink in public .



And women shouldn't dress provocatively?

Either way a lot of violence is predatory. It doesn't really matter if the guy is a duchebag or not.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> And women shouldn't dress provocatively?
> 
> Either way a lot of violence is predatory. It doesn't really matter if the guy is a duchebag or not.


The simple point I’m trying to make is that safety is objectively measurable, but being able to fight (while fun) isn’t universally helpful.  Meaning, we have crime statistics that break out by all manner of various factors, so we can see that some behaviors and circumstances result in higher risk of violence.   

The choice is, do I continue to do this thing or not?  If you choose to drink to excess publicly, alone, learning to fight might help mitigate the risk.  However, you could choose not to drink to excess, or just have a buddy.  Or drink to excess at home.   There are many very effective ways to mitigate the personal risk, and only one of those might benefit from fighting skill.  This kind of evaluation could be applied to any situation.  Some will lend themselves to learning to fight.  Some, many if you’re an average person, will be effectively overcome by making some simple changes.


----------



## Tez3

Women have been raped and sexually assaulted throughout history, despite wearing corsets, layers of petticoats and other garments. They were also not allowed out on their own or to go out drinking they were still raped.  Instead of telling women how not to be sexually assaulted how about we teach boys how not to rape and assault when they get older.
Alesha MacPhail trial: Boy, 16, found guilty of rape and murder of six-year-old in Scotland


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Women have been raped and sexually assaulted throughout history, despite wearing corsets, layers of petticoats and other garments. They were also not allowed out on their own or to go out drinking they were still raped.  Instead of telling women how not to be sexually assaulted how about we teach boys how not to rape and assault when they get older.
> Alesha MacPhail trial: Boy, 16, found guilty of rape and murder of six-year-old in Scotland



And instead of police we will teach people how not to commit crimes.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> The simple point I’m trying to make is that safety is objectively measurable, but being able to fight (while fun) isn’t universally helpful.  Meaning, we have crime statistics that break out by all manner of various factors, so we can see that some behaviors and circumstances result in higher risk of violence.
> 
> The choice is, do I continue to do this thing or not?  If you choose to drink to excess publicly, alone, learning to fight might help mitigate the risk.  However, you could choose not to drink to excess, or just have a buddy.  Or drink to excess at home.   There are many very effective ways to mitigate the personal risk, and only one of those might benefit from fighting skill.  This kind of evaluation could be applied to any situation.  Some will lend themselves to learning to fight.  Some, many if you’re an average person, will be effectively overcome by making some simple changes.



I agree. But I don't think predatory violence always factors on duchbaggery. I think that is a misconception. 

So for example those college studies of self defence. One of the ways to mitigate that risk is go to a safer college. Or not go to college. 

But unfortunately not always able to be achieved. 

Men especially are more likely to be placed in a higher risk environment. So for example I generally close late at night. And that is because I am the guy.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> I agree. But I don't think predatory violence always factors on duchbaggery. I think that is a misconception.
> 
> So for example those college studies of self defence. One of the ways to mitigate that risk is go to a safer college. Or not go to college.
> 
> But unfortunately not always able to be achieved.
> 
> Men especially are more likely to be placed in a higher risk environment. So for example I generally close late at night. And that is because I am the guy.


Douchebaggery is one of many.  If a person wants to learn to fight, I agree that could be useful.  But usually, there are things one could do that are going to be more useful in less time and for less money than training to become a competent fighter.  This doesn’t even account for whether the particular brand of martial arts training is actually teaching fighting skills, because that’s not a given.  

It’s like going to school to learn to be a mechanic so you can keep your 1977 Mustang 2 running.  Sure, you can do it.   But by the time you account for the cost of tuition, your time, and the inherent unreliability of the Ford Mustang 2, for far less money and in way less time, you could buy a more reliable car.  In the end, the car you buy will consistently get you where you want to go, and you didn’t have to invest the time and money into becoming a trained mechanic.  Now, if you really like that mustang 2, it might be worth it to you, but then don’t delude yourself.   At that point, it’s no longer about reliable transportation.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> Women have been raped and sexually assaulted throughout history, despite wearing corsets, layers of petticoats and other garments. They were also not allowed out on their own or to go out drinking they were still raped.  Instead of telling women how not to be sexually assaulted how about we teach boys how not to rape and assault when they get older.
> Alesha MacPhail trial: Boy, 16, found guilty of rape and murder of six-year-old in Scotland


Why not do Both?  If young ladies can take a 30 hour class that is proven to reduce their likelihood of being the victim of sexual assault by about 50%, why wouldn’t you support that?


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Why not do Both?  If young ladies can take a 30 hour class that is proven to reduce their likelihood of being the victim of sexual assault by about 50%, why wouldn’t you support that?



I do support it.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> I do support it.


 hoping tez would.


----------



## JR 137

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have seen one guy tried to drag a girl into his car in the street of Honolulu, Hawaii. That girl was screaming for help. People on the street just watched. Nobody was willing to stop that guy.


That’s been studied scientifically a bit. Different distress scenarios, but every time it was clearly a person in need of help.

Number one reason people stated why they didn’t help - they were in a hurry and didn’t have time to get involved. They were either on their way to work, school, get the kids, etc. And different groups of people didn’t matter - religious, young, old, good neighborhood, bad neighborhood, etc.; the stats of people who helped vs people who didn’t were about the same regardless of the group and the location. There was a show called What Would You Do or something like that on MSNBC or the like that was pretty similar to the scientific studies. Different scenarios, all people who needed help and most people kept walking rather than helping. And they were asked why they did or didn’t help. Most who didn’t were too busy and didn’t have the time, yet they somehow had time to talk to the interviewer around the corner. Funny how that works, I guess getting on TV is important enough. 

IMO people are also less likely to get involved in male vs female nowadays because of how domestic violence people react. Often enough, the victim becomes the aggressor to the person who tries to help. It’s that twisted “don’t touch my man” mentality even though they’re getting beat up. I’ve seen it several times.

It’s a real F’ed up world out there. And it seems like it’s just getting worse.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> The simple point I’m trying to make is that safety is objectively measurable, but being able to fight (while fun) isn’t universally helpful.  Meaning, we have crime statistics that break out by all manner of various factors, so we can see that some behaviors and circumstances result in higher risk of violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agree. A fact of life that is more avoidable for some than others just by where they live, among other factors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The choice is, do I continue to do this thing or not?  If you choose to drink to excess publicly, alone, learning to fight might help mitigate the risk.  However, you could choose not to drink to excess, or just have a buddy.  Or drink to excess at home.   There are many very effective ways to mitigate the personal risk, and only one of those might benefit from fighting skill.  This kind of evaluation could be applied to any situation.  Some will lend themselves to learning to fight.  Some, many if you’re an average person, will be effectively overcome by making some simple changes.
> 
> 
> 
> All this falls under the guise of common sense. Again, sadly something that some people are lacking more than others. But I feel you are off topic with what the OP is searching for (generous speculation here). Until I have a reason not to, I am going to give her the benefit of a doubt and assume she have at least average common sense and is wish enough to avoid at least the gross extremes of situations like you mentioned. I heard her asking "what is the best way to learn how to physically protect myself"? A good MA program should help with the self realization and thinking better in stressful environments.
> Our GM was talking about forms tonight. He made a very good point that they are just a tool to help us get better, physically and mentally. But they only work if you apply them correctly. Sure, they will help anyone get more physically fit. But they are an excellent mental acquity tool.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Steve

Its only off  topic if the OP is uninterested in being more safe.  Regarding presuming he has common sense, I don't know why you would presume anything.   Unfounded presumptions cause a it of misunderstanding around here,.


----------



## drop bear

JR 137 said:


> That’s been studied scientifically a bit. Different distress scenarios, but every time it was clearly a person in need of help.
> 
> Number one reason people stated why they didn’t help - they were in a hurry and didn’t have time to get involved. They were either on their way to work, school, get the kids, etc. And different groups of people didn’t matter - religious, young, old, good neighborhood, bad neighborhood, etc.; the stats of people who helped vs people who didn’t were about the same regardless of the group and the location. There was a show called What Would You Do or something like that on MSNBC or the like that was pretty similar to the scientific studies. Different scenarios, all people who needed help and most people kept walking rather than helping. And they were asked why they did or didn’t help. Most who didn’t were too busy and didn’t have the time, yet they somehow had time to talk to the interviewer around the corner. Funny how that works, I guess getting on TV is important enough.
> 
> IMO people are also less likely to get involved in male vs female nowadays because of how domestic violence people react. Often enough, the victim becomes the aggressor to the person who tries to help. It’s that twisted “don’t touch my man” mentality even though they’re getting beat up. I’ve seen it several times.
> 
> It’s a real F’ed up world out there. And it seems like it’s just getting worse.


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


>


Great video. Wonderful to see people willing to help someone in need.


----------



## Deleted member 39746

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have seen one guy tried to drag a girl into his car in the street of Honolulu, Hawaii. That girl was screaming for help. People on the street just watched. Nobody was willing to stop that guy.



Thats the whole "someone else will do it" effect, i forget its actual name, you can get a few cases of it.   Plus the generic thing is just to call the police anyway, they dont overly want citizens to do their job and you cant really say nobody called the police, they just didn't step in. (unless you followed all of them home and have their entire phone records for the day)


Edit: didnt see JR's response to it and thats better put than mine.


----------



## JR 137

drop bear said:


>


The homeless man with the shopping cart probably didn’t have anything he was running late for. 

And all the people waiting for the train weren’t going anywhere without helping.


----------



## jobo

JR 137 said:


> That’s been studied scientifically a bit. Different distress scenarios, but every time it was clearly a person in need of help.
> 
> Number one reason people stated why they didn’t help - they were in a hurry and didn’t have time to get involved. They were either on their way to work, school, get the kids, etc. And different groups of people didn’t matter - religious, young, old, good neighborhood, bad neighborhood, etc.; the stats of people who helped vs people who didn’t were about the same regardless of the group and the location. There was a show called What Would You Do or something like that on MSNBC or the like that was pretty similar to the scientific studies. Different scenarios, all people who needed help and most people kept walking rather than helping. And they were asked why they did or didn’t help. Most who didn’t were too busy and didn’t have the time, yet they somehow had time to talk to the interviewer around the corner. Funny how that works, I guess getting on TV is important enough.
> 
> IMO people are also less likely to get involved in male vs female nowadays because of how domestic violence people react. Often enough, the victim becomes the aggressor to the person who tries to help. It’s that twisted “don’t touch my man” mentality even though they’re getting beat up. I’ve seen it several times.
> 
> It’s a real F’ed up world out there. And it seems like it’s just getting worse.


theres also a " scientific " thing, that the more people are present the less likely anyone of them is going to help you. theres a herd thing going on where every waits for some one else to intervene.  where if it's only you !


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> as a group we naturally think  that dedicating a bif chunk of your life to ma, is both benifical and necessary, coz that what we do. but actually supporting that with some data about real world situations and you come back with a few anecdotes.  theres is no guarantee that in a stressful situation that your going to have greater proficiency at a technique  that some one who has done it for 30 hours. non at all.  rather your faced with choosing one technique  iut of dozens of variations,  whilst they will only have one, so theres no decision process to delay things.
> 
> all over the world non ma defend themselves adequately every day, it's clear that doing so then doesn't necessarily requires thousands or even hundreds of hours of training


The idea that having more options makes it harder to choose one is an over-generalization from a very specific piece of cognitive research. There's no evidence I know of to support it for a well-trained set of skills.

I also know of no evidence that suggests training a skill over a longer period leaves one with no better chance of being able to use it than training it 30 hours once, some time ago.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> And women shouldn't dress provocatively?
> 
> Either way a lot of violence is predatory. It doesn't really matter if the guy is a duchebag or not.


What has women's dress to do with what Steve said?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> Women have been raped and sexually assaulted throughout history, despite wearing corsets, layers of petticoats and other garments. They were also not allowed out on their own or to go out drinking they were still raped.  Instead of telling women how not to be sexually assaulted how about we teach boys how not to rape and assault when they get older.
> Alesha MacPhail trial: Boy, 16, found guilty of rape and murder of six-year-old in Scotland


Do you really think saying, "Don't do that" will change much for the folks who think that it's okay? In some cultures, there may be real benefit from changing the culture, but not in all cases is that a factor.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> The idea that having more options makes it harder to choose one is an over-generalization from a very specific piece of cognitive research. There's no evidence I know of to support it for a well-trained set of skills.
> 
> I also know of no evidence that suggests training a skill over a longer period leaves one with no better chance of being able to use it than training it 30 hours once, some time ago.


Yeah. It's called the paradox of choice and really refers to happiness and anxiety.  It's not about inability to choose.  

As to whether a skill takes 1, 10, or 1000 hours to master, that really depends.  

My point is that skill development aside, personal safety is about mitigating risk.


----------



## Tez3

gpseymour said:


> Do you really think saying, "Don't do that" will change much for the folks who think that it's okay? In some cultures, there may be real benefit from changing the culture, but not in all cases is that a factor.




My post was about those who tell women 'not to' do various things because it's considered it leads to their rapes, when in fact it should be made clear that women aren't to blame, the rapists are.



gpseymour said:


> What has women's dress to do with what Steve said?



Fairly oblivious actually, it's the list of things that 'women do that make them responsible for their being assaulted', DB was adding the bit Steve missed off.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Yeah. It's called the paradox of choice and really refers to happiness and anxiety.  It's not about inability to choose.
> 
> As to whether a skill takes 1, 10, or 1000 hours to master, that really depends.
> 
> My point is that skill development aside, personal safety is about mitigating risk.


Agreed. It's why I consciously try to keep a divide between the topics of self-defense (physical skills for surviving an attack) and self-protection (the rest of the stuff that keeps us safe from harm...or arguably the larger topic that also includes self-defense). I don't think much durable self-defense can be had in a short workshop. Some durable self-protection can be had.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> My post was about those who tell women 'not to' do various things because it's considered it leads to their rapes, when in fact it should be made clear that women aren't to blame, the rapists are.


Fair enough, but I don't think folks are saying "If you do this, it's your fault." They're saying, "If you make this choice, you can reduce the risk." It's like walking down an alley in a place I don't know. If I make that choice (which I ought to be able to make), it's not my fault if I get attacked. But I know that there's somewhat more risk in a random alley than a random busy street. So I make the choice that reduces my risk, since I can't control what stupidity others might wish to impose.



> Fairly oblivious actually, it's the list of things that 'women do that make them responsible for their being assaulted', DB was adding the bit Steve missed off.


I don't think most folks imply such things when they give a list of things a woman (or anyone else) can do to reduce risk. Probably some do, but I think those folks are in a minority these days (and possibly were not at times in the past).


----------



## Tez3

gpseymour said:


> I don't think most folks imply such things when they give a list of things a woman (or anyone else) can do to reduce risk. Probably some do, but I think those folks are in a minority these days (and possibly were not at times in the past).



Nope, many people still think it's a woman's fault hence the list of things women should wear or do.
Rape Culture, Victim Blaming, and The Facts

Drunk or flirty rape victims often 'to blame', says survey

Myths about Rape | Title IX


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. It's why I consciously try to keep a divide between the topics of self-defense (physical skills for surviving an attack) and self-protection (the rest of the stuff that keeps us safe from harm...or arguably the larger topic that also includes self-defense). I don't think much durable self-defense can be had in a short workshop. Some durable self-protection can be had.


I have never seen anywhere any evidence that there is any correlation between "self defense" training and one's odds of being victimized.  I have, however, seen a lot of evidence that the "rest of the stuff that keeps us safe" is simple to learn and does have a material impact on one's odds of being victimized.  Said simply, just telling me that street ninjutsu is better than tae bo for self defense doesn't make it so.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> My post was about those who tell women 'not to' do various things because it's considered it leads to their rapes, when in fact it should be made clear that women aren't to blame, the rapists are.
> 
> 
> 
> Fairly oblivious actually, it's the list of things that 'women do that make them responsible for their being assaulted', DB was adding the bit Steve missed off.


I actually referenced a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine about a program offered on college campuses in Canada that was created by and for women with the specific intent of reducing their likelihood of being victims.  If you have issues with them, their approach, or their results, I think you're being completely unreasonable.   I mean, bless your heart, Tez3, you literally cannot tell your allies from your enemies.


----------



## Steve

Who here has a spare tire on their car?  For those who do, why do you have one?  For those who don't, what would you do if you have a flat tire? 

I'm betting that those who have one are thinking, it came with the car, and I have it in case I get a flat.  For those who don't, some possible answers are, "I have AAA (or roadside assistance of some kind)."  Or they possibly have not given it any thought.  If someone said, "No, I don't have one, and honestly I have no idea what I'd do," the reasonable response would be, "Well, my friend.  Maybe you can consider getting a spare tire... or roadside assistance... or a can of tire foam." 

The point is, talking to any group of people (women, men, college students, whoever) about risk isn't blaming them for anything.  It's making them aware of risk and giving them options.  When I told my son to get his oil changed, buy a paper road atlas, and check the weather in the mountain passes before he drove from Washington to Texas wasn't blaming him for anything.  It was helping him prevent issues where possible, and prepare for the issues that might occur.  Driving into a blizzard in the mountain pass is an avoidable issue, in most cases.  You can simply not do it, which is pretty easy to do.   But if you decide you're going to do it, you should be prepared to take additional steps to stay safe.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> Nope, many people still think it's a woman's fault hence the list of things women should wear or do.
> Rape Culture, Victim Blaming, and The Facts
> 
> Drunk or flirty rape victims often 'to blame', says survey
> 
> Myths about Rape | Title IX


As I said, they exist. I think they're in the minority.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I have never seen anywhere any evidence that there is any correlation between "self defense" training and one's odds of being victimized.  I have, however, seen a lot of evidence that the "rest of the stuff that keeps us safe" is simple to learn and does have a material impact on one's odds of being victimized.  Said simply, just telling me that street ninjutsu is better than tae bo for self defense doesn't make it so.


There's a reasonable argument that fighting ability improves the chances of coming out better if someone is attacked. Given the sheer number of variables involved, I can't imagine how we'd ever get data to support or refute that.

Whether self-defense training does so will depend largely on whether it's actually teaching fighting ability.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> There's a reasonable argument that fighting ability improves the chances of coming out better if someone is attacked. Given the sheer number of variables involved, I can't imagine how we'd ever get data to support or refute that.


I think your last sentence effectively neutralizes your first sentence.  I think there are physical skills that can help, but it really depends.  Simply put, I would agree that physical training of some kind can help, and if the situation plays to your strengths, great.  But I'm unconvinced that "self defense" training is more effective than other, non martial training (e.g., CrossFit or Parkour or even Tae Bo).  Maybe, if the chips fall just right, but statistically, it just doesn't play out.   





> Whether self-defense training does so will depend largely on whether it's actually teaching fighting ability.


And you don't get a beginner attacker who attacks you incorrectly.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> The idea that having more options makes it harder to choose one is an over-generalization from a very specific piece of cognitive research. There's no evidence I know of to support it for a well-trained set of skills.
> 
> I also know of no evidence that suggests training a skill over a longer period leaves one with no better chance of being able to use it than training it 30 hours once, some time ago.


that's not really what I said, I said that in a stressful situation there is no evidence that a well practiced skill wont desert you as easily as it will someone who hasnt trained for anywhere near as loNg,  unless of course you have some to share ? equally the less practised person may cope with stress better and out perform the expert,


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> As I said, they exist. I think they're in the minority.


to be clear, whether they are in the minority or not, I'm not one of them, and consider any suggestion otherwise to be personally offensive.  I do not appreciate being mischaracterized in this way, if that is what Tez3 is suggesting.


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> that's not really what I said, I said that in a stressful situation there is no evidence that a well practiced skill wont desert you as easily as it will someone who hasnt trained for anywhere near as loNg,  unless of course you have some to share ?


in the training field this is referred to as transfer of learning.  Relies a lot on developing genuine expertise, which is why I harp on application a lot.  If you are waiting for genuine danger to apply a technique, your chance of success is pretty low


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> in the training field this is referred to as transfer of learning.  Relies a lot on developing genuine expertise, which is why I harp on application a lot.  If you are waiting for genuine danger to apply a technique, your chance of success is pretty low


I don't think I said anything that fits that response,  fighting can be extremely simple, in fact it's best if it is. the more complex a technique the more likely us us to go wrong, genuine danger us just a state of mind, I've seen people more or less paralyse d from the prospect of public speaking which has no genuine danger at all, just as I've seen people scale rock faces with no fear at all


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> I don't think I said anything that fits that response,  fighting can be extremely simple, in fact it's best if it is. the more complex a technique the more likely us us to go wrong, genuine danger us just a state of mind, I've seen people more or less paralyse d from the prospect of public speaking which has no genuine danger at all, just as I've seen people scale rock faces with no fear at all


Sure but folks who have developed public speaking skills in smaller venues and have learned how to structure a speech and are prepared are much better able to speak in public than someone who wings it.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> Sure but folks who have developed public speaking skills in smaller venues and have learned how to structure a speech and are prepared are much better able to speak in public than someone who wings it.


and some people are born performers who have no Sense of danger to over  come.  others can spend a long time practising and never be anything but slightly less scared and dull.

but the point I'm making is a high level of stress and genuine danger are not synonyms


----------



## Tez3

gpseymour said:


> As I said, they exist. I think they're in the minority.



They aren't unfortunately, you may think so because you don't think that way and assume others being reasonable people don't either. I can assure you, think women are responsible for their own assaults and rapes is far more common than reasonable people think.

Nearly half of young British men 'think drunk women are to blame' if they are sexually assaulted

One in 12 say rape victims to blame if they are drunk or flirtatious

and this disgusts me. BBC News - Women say some rape victims should take blame - survey


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> What has women's dress to do with what Steve said?



Same argument.

If guys were not duchebag they wouldn't get bashed. Is like if women dresses more conservatively they wouldn't get raped.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> I have never seen anywhere any evidence that there is any correlation between "self defense" training and one's odds of being victimized.  I have, however, seen a lot of evidence that the "rest of the stuff that keeps us safe" is simple to learn and does have a material impact on one's odds of being victimized.  Said simply, just telling me that street ninjutsu is better than tae bo for self defense doesn't make it so.



Yes but there is a fairly logical argument that if I get in to a fight. And I can fight. I will have a better chance in that fight.

And we can certainly see examples of people winning fights.

But otherwise yeah it is interesting there is no evidence either way.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> Same argument.
> 
> If guys were not duchebag they wouldn't get bashed. Is like if women dresses more conservatively they wouldn't get raped.


Or said the other way, if you want to be a d-bag and don't want to be punched in the face, you may need to prepare differently than if you choose not to be a d-bag.  If you check the weather in the mountain passes, and see that a blizzard is coming through, you have choices.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Or said the other way, if you want to be a d-bag and don't want to be punched in the face, you may need to prepare differently than if you choose not to be a d-bag.  If you check the weather in the mountain passes, and see that a blizzard is coming through, you have choices.



Or just don't be a duchebag when you walk though the mountains.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> Yes but there is a fairly logical argument that if I get in to a fight. And I can fight. I will have a better chance in that fight.
> 
> And we can certainly see examples of people winning fights.


totally reasonable.  The question then, is what are your chances of getting into a fight?  And to be clear, this is a little different for you than for me.  You're an Australian, which just automatically means you're more likely to get into a fight than me.  As an Australian, your accent is annoying, which puts people on edge.  But even beyond that, you are (or were) involved in bouncing.  Me?  I'm a lovable guy who doesn't really hang out in bars, drink to excess, etc.  My chances of getting into a fight are exceedingly low. 

So, if we're talking bang for buck, learning to fight is a "nice to have" not a "need to have."  Might be different for someone else.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> Or just don't be a duchebag when you walk though the mountains.


Bears hate d-bags.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Bears hate d-bags.



Drop bears hate everyone.


----------



## JR 137

jobo said:


> theres also a " scientific " thing, that the more people are present the less likely anyone of them is going to help you. theres a herd thing going on where every waits for some one else to intervene.  where if it's only you !


I haven’t seen anything scientifically looking at that, but it makes sense. More people look at each other like who’s going to help. And they’re all probably assuming everyone else isn’t helping out for a reason, like there’s some danger that they’re not personally seeing.

There’s a lot of odd sociological things that happen when groups get larger. People do weird stuff they’d never do without the rest of the pack. 

One of my favorites is people waiting for stuff like tolls and parking garage exits. Somehow, people instinctually go to lanes where there are other cars rather than looking for the shortest lines. Every time I’m at a toll plaza I laugh about it. I think they think the lanes without anyone in them yet have the green light is on is closed or something. Same thing when I go to the car wash, leaving the parking lot at the airport, stuff like that. I guess people like waiting in line in their cars or something, because they don’t typically do the same thing at grocery stores and the like.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

JR 137 said:


> I haven’t seen anything scientifically looking at that, but it makes sense. More people look at each other like who’s going to help. And they’re all probably assuming everyone else isn’t helping out for a reason, like there’s some danger that they’re not personally seeing.


There's a whole portion of social psychology focused around this, that I think Jobo is referring to. Look up the bystander effect and diffusion of responsibility if you want more info on it.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Same argument.
> 
> If guys were not duchebag they wouldn't get bashed. Is like if women dresses more conservatively they wouldn't get raped.




Thank you for proving my point that people blame the victims.


----------



## dvcochran

gpseymour said:


> The idea that having more options makes it harder to choose one is an over-generalization from a very specific piece of cognitive research. There's no evidence I know of to support it for a well-trained set of skills.
> 
> I also know of no evidence that suggests training a skill over a longer period leaves one with no better chance of being able to use it than training it 30 hours once, some time ago.


Agree with the first sentence. I do now quite get what you are saying in the second sentence. If you are saying practicing something to the point of habit doesn't increase the likelihood of using it when needed, I have to disagree.


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> You're an Australian, which just automatically means you're more likely to get into a fight than me.




Really? Wartime 'Battle of Brisbane' remembered


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> totally reasonable.  The question then, is what are your chances of getting into a fight?  And to be clear, this is a little different for you than for me.  You're an Australian, which just automatically means you're more likely to get into a fight than me.  As an Australian, your accent is annoying, which puts people on edge.  But even beyond that, you are (or were) involved in bouncing.  Me?  I'm a lovable guy who doesn't really hang out in bars, drink to excess, etc.  My chances of getting into a fight are exceedingly low.
> 
> So, if we're talking bang for buck, learning to fight is a "nice to have" not a "need to have."  Might be different for someone else.



Which for guys I think is probably more likely due to being put in more dangerous positions. 

Hence the study might change with gender.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> Which for guys I think is probably more likely due to being put in more dangerous positions.
> 
> Hence the study might change with gender.


I completely agree.   Self defense is not one size fits all.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> I think your last sentence effectively neutralizes your first sentence.  I think there are physical skills that can help, but it really depends.  Simply put, I would agree that physical training of some kind can help, and if the situation plays to your strengths, great.  But I'm unconvinced that "self defense" training is more effective than other, non martial training (e.g., CrossFit or Parkour or even Tae Bo).  Maybe, if the chips fall just right, but statistically, it just doesn't play out.   And you don't get a beginner attacker who attacks you incorrectly.



Can you hunt down that study for me again. I think it raises some interesting points so I am giving it to some guys I know.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> Really? Wartime 'Battle of Brisbane' remembered[/QUOTE


failing to read beyond that sentence makes you seem a little foolish.  Should I put sarcasm tags in line for you, lest you fail to recognize it?


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> Can you hunt down that study for me again. I think it raises some interesting points so I am giving it to some guys I know.


Sure.  Here's the original

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1411131

I read a 2018 update, but can't seem to find that one now.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Sure.  Here's the original
> 
> https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1411131
> 
> I read a 2018 update, but can't seem to find that one now.



Thanks.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I think your last sentence effectively neutralizes your first sentence.


I don't think so. I said there was a reasonable argument to be made. That we can't expect to get good data around it doesn't eliminate the idea of a reasonable argument (though it does probably eliminate the possibility of a scientific assertion).  



> I think there are physical skills that can help, but it really depends.  Simply put, I would agree that physical training of some kind can help, and if the situation plays to your strengths, great.  But I'm unconvinced that "self defense" training is more effective than other, non martial training (e.g., CrossFit or Parkour or even Tae Bo).  Maybe, if the chips fall just right, but statistically, it just doesn't play out.   And you don't get a beginner attacker who attacks you incorrectly.


If both include similar fitness levels (to eliminate the argument that it's just the fitness), then - assuming the "self defense" training is actually developing fighting skills, it's definitely likely to be more use in some situations. Of course, there will always be situations where nothing helps significantly...and some where almost anything (assuming it provide some fitness/strength benefits) helps. I'm not sure what your point is about the incorrect attack.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> that's not really what I said, I said that in a stressful situation there is no evidence that a well practiced skill wont desert you as easily as it will someone who hasnt trained for anywhere near as loNg,  unless of course you have some to share ? equally the less practised person may cope with stress better and out perform the expert,


If you control for individual differences (so it's not the person reacting better naturally), I can't think of any evidence that would support the idea of an untrained or barely-trained person performing as well as someone who is practiced in a skill, for any skill, under stress. Of course, if we include poorly-trained people (people who put in a lot of hours, but don't actually learn the skill), then it's a toss-up.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> and some people are born performers who have no Sense of danger to over  come.  others can spend a long time practising and never be anything but slightly less scared and dull.
> 
> but the point I'm making is a high level of stress and genuine danger are not synonyms


That's conflating variables, Jobo. That's what I was getting at earlier.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> They aren't unfortunately, you may think so because you don't think that way and assume others being reasonable people don't either. I can assure you, think women are responsible for their own assaults and rapes is far more common than reasonable people think.
> 
> Nearly half of young British men 'think drunk women are to blame' if they are sexually assaulted
> 
> One in 12 say rape victims to blame if they are drunk or flirtatious
> 
> and this disgusts me. BBC News - Women say some rape victims should take blame - survey


I'm curious if that's a similar proportion in the US. It's not my perception that the numbers would be as high, but that might be a misperception, or it might be just because of who I spend time around.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Same argument.
> 
> If guys were not duchebag they wouldn't get bashed. Is like if women dresses more conservatively they wouldn't get raped.


No, not really the same argument, at all.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

dvcochran said:


> Agree with the first sentence. I do now quite get what you are saying in the second sentence. If you are saying practicing something to the point of habit doesn't increase the likelihood of using it when needed, I have to disagree.


I was saying I haven't seen any evidence to suggest practicing something to the point of habit doesn't increase the likelihood of using it when needed.


----------



## Tez3

gpseymour said:


> I'm curious if that's a similar proportion in the US. It's not my perception that the numbers would be as high, but that might be a misperception, or it might be just because of who I spend time around.




The first links I posted were American and I would say that the percentages of people thinking it's the woman's fault is even higher in the US especially with the current climate and things I've actually heard your politicians say as well as laughable verdicts in courts. the 'me too' movement started in the US and you have a president who advocates grabbing women by their genitals. the 'boys will be boys' and 'it's just locker room talk' are pervasive ideas that fuel the 'women are to blame' ideas. You also have a lot of schools and colleges who discriminate against females when it comes to clothes, blaming the clothing females wear for 'distracting' boys. That's something we don't have in the UK. 
*This is very disturbing data* Statistics | RAINN




Stanford sexual assault: woman who blamed victim for drinking apologizes


Blame the Supreme Court for America's Sexual Harassment Nightmare

USA: WOMEN CADETS ARE BLAMED FOR RAPES AT AIR FORCE ACADEMY

Rape Culture Is Real

Somehow, “Women are to blame, too” – Code Like A Girl


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> If you control for individual differences (so it's not the person reacting better naturally), I can't think of any evidence that would support the idea of an untrained or barely-trained person performing as well as someone who is practiced in a skill, for any skill, under stress. Of course, if we include poorly-trained people (people who put in a lot of hours, but don't actually learn the skill), then it's a toss-up.


yea there no evidence for it and non against it either, therefore there is no evidence, which makes a conclusion that more training makes you better able to defend yourself no more than an assumption made by people either to sell additional training or to hustfiy6 doing so.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> The first links I posted were American and I would say that the percentages of people thinking it's the woman's fault is even higher in the US especially with the current climate and things I've actually heard your politicians say as well as laughable verdicts in courts. the 'me too' movement started in the US and you have a president who advocates grabbing women by their genitals. the 'boys will be boys' and 'it's just locker room talk' are pervasive ideas that fuel the 'women are to blame' ideas. You also have a lot of schools and colleges who discriminate against females when it comes to clothes, blaming the clothing females wear for 'distracting' boys. That's something we don't have in the UK.
> *This is very disturbing data* Statistics | RAINN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stanford sexual assault: woman who blamed victim for drinking apologizes
> 
> 
> Blame the Supreme Court for America's Sexual Harassment Nightmare
> 
> USA: WOMEN CADETS ARE BLAMED FOR RAPES AT AIR FORCE ACADEMY
> 
> Rape Culture Is Real
> 
> Somehow, “Women are to blame, too” – Code Like A Girl


Looking at individual institutions in the US will give you a VERY skewed view of what is common. There are many schools here (hundreds among the many thousands) that are far outside the mainstream view. And individuals (like the first headline here) don't give us an idea of prevalence, either. I'll try to look for some statistics later, see what I can find.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> yea there no evidence for it and non against it either, therefore there is no evidence, which makes a conclusion that more training makes you better able to defend yourself no more than an assumption made by people either to sell additional training or to hustfiy6 doing so.


There's a lot of evidence that shows that training a skill makes it more likely to become habit. You're not even trying. Remember, you made the claim.


----------



## Tez3

gpseymour said:


> Looking at individual institutions in the US will give you a VERY skewed view of what is common. There are many schools here (hundreds among the many thousands) that are far outside the mainstream view. And individuals (like the first headline here) don't give us an idea of prevalence, either. I'll try to look for some statistics later, see what I can find.




However you seem happy to believe the UK stats are correct? I could have posted a list of hundreds of articles about sexual harassment, assault and rape in the Us that give lie to your assertion but I get it, you don't want to believe it.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> There's a lot of evidence that shows that training a skill makes it more likely to become habit. You're not even trying. Remember, you made the claim.


but that's not the point I'm making, it's about if that will manifest itself under extreme stress, when its instincts rather than habit that's the issue, instincts are far more deeply embedded f than habbits, in my recent issue all my karate training deserted me every bit of it, all those hours were a waste of time, as under stress I just reverted back to my instincts and rugby tacked him to the ground a technique  I developed when I was 6

and expressly if 300 hours or three thousand hours makes you better able to defend yourself than 30, for which there is no data what so ever, just an assumption it must be so, made by people who have dedicated many hours to it.

if one karate expert loses to one untrained bum then it throws doubt on it, unless you can supply data that shows it's an aberration  against the mean.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I don't think so. I said there was a reasonable argument to be made. That we can't expect to get good data around it doesn't eliminate the idea of a reasonable argument (though it does probably eliminate the possibility of a scientific assertion).
> 
> 
> If both include similar fitness levels (to eliminate the argument that it's just the fitness), then - assuming the "self defense" training is actually developing fighting skills, it's definitely likely to be more use in some situations. Of course, there will always be situations where nothing helps significantly...and some where almost anything (assuming it provide some fitness/strength benefits) helps. I'm not sure what your point is about the incorrect attack.


That is questionable logic.


Tez3 said:


> However you seem happy to believe the UK stats are correct? I could have posted a list of hundreds of articles about sexual harassment, assault and rape in the Us that give lie to your assertion but I get it, you don't want to believe it.


Can we agree that it's a problem in the USA and in the UK, without being unreasonable and accusing folks on this forum?  Whether it's worse here or there seems like a stupid waste of time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> However you seem happy to believe the UK stats are correct? I could have posted a list of hundreds of articles about sexual harassment, assault and rape in the Us that give lie to your assertion but I get it, you don't want to believe it.


You provided stats for the UK. Unless I missed it, you provided examples, but not stats for the US. I haven't looked at the source of the UK stats yet, either, so I don't know what (if any) problems there might be there, either. I'm just accepting that if you posted it, you likely already looked at the source to be sure it's not a biased sample.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> but that's not the point I'm making, it's about if that will manifest itself under extreme stress, when its instincts rather than habit that's the issue, instincts are far more deeply embedded f than habbits, in my recent issue all my karate training deserted me every bit of it, all those hours were a waste of time, as under stress I just reverted back to my instincts and rugby tacked him to the ground a technique  I developed when I was 6
> 
> and expressly if 300 hours or three thousand hours makes you better able to defend yourself than 30, for which there is no data what so ever, just an assumption it must be so, made by people who have dedicated many hours to it.
> 
> if one karate expert loses to one untrained bum then it throws doubt on it, unless you can supply data that shows it's an aberration  against the mean.


But that's not instinct. As you pointed out, you used a technique you developed earlier in life. Probably one you've used under stress more often.

Do some folks revert to instinct under duress? Yes. Do "people"? That's the question, and there's evidence in several fields that training can ingrain skills so they survive stress. There's also evidence in several fields that the less stress is used in that training, the less likely the training is to survive sudden stressors.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> That is questionable logic.


Which part gives you a headache, Steve? I thought it was loose, but still logical (accepting the limits of the evidence).


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> but that's not the point I'm making, it's about if that will manifest itself under extreme stress, when its instincts rather than habit that's the issue, instincts are far more deeply embedded f than habbits, in my recent issue all my karate training deserted me every bit of it, all those hours were a waste of time, as under stress I just reverted back to my instincts and rugby tacked him to the ground a technique  I developed when I was 6
> 
> and expressly if 300 hours or three thousand hours makes you better able to defend yourself than 30, for which there is no data what so ever, just an assumption it must be so, made by people who have dedicated many hours to it.
> 
> if one karate expert loses to one untrained bum then it throws doubt on it, unless you can supply data that shows it's an aberration  against the mean.


I agree... Sort of.   Broadly, We do know that building skill translates to application, even under stress.   we see it in all human activities.  However, it's true that some people fail to perform.   If everyone could do everything, if only they were properly trained, then hiring would be so easy.  This isn't the case, though.   Some people just don't have aptitude.   So, broadly, we can say with certainty that well designed training leading to application can be directly linked to application under pressure.  True, even if individually some people fail.

And, i also agree that part of the problem is we don't really know what the key skills are in self Defense.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve said:


> And, i also agree that part of the problem is we don't really know what the key skills are in self Defense.



I'm fairly confident that we never will, either. Because there is a near-infinite variety of situations.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> But that's not instinct. As you pointed out, you used a technique you developed earlier in life. Probably one you've used under stress more often.
> 
> Do some folks revert to instinct under duress? Yes. Do "people"? That's the question, and there's evidence in several fields that training can ingrain skills so they survive stress. There's also evidence in several fields that the less stress is used in that training, the less likely the training is to survive sudden stressors.


*"We don't rise to the level of our expectations, we fall to the level of our training.”  Archilochus *


----------



## Steve

Dirty Dog said:


> I'm fairly confident that we never will, either. Because there is a near-infinite variety of situations.


Which allows some folks to make a living selling snake oil.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve said:


> Which allows some folks to make a living selling snake oil.



Or, at the very least, oil that only works on a rare breed of snake.


----------



## jobo

well yes it was i


gpseymour said:


> But that's not instinct. As you pointed out, you used a technique you developed earlier in life. Probably one you've used under stress more often.
> 
> Do some folks revert to instinct under duress? Yes. Do "people"? That's the question, and there's evidence in several fields that training can ingrain skills so they survive stress. There's also evidence in several fields that the less stress is used in that training, the less likely the training is to survive sudden stressors.


 well yes ut was instinct , as it was an instinctive reaction,  !, a lot of ma training is in training habit to over ride instinct, , on the rather questionable premise that its superior. 

so theres not any data on if ma can maintain there skill under stress  ( it's a biased sample as people who are required to be able to perform under pressure are selected on that basis, which clearly ma are not)and non that 30 hours is less useful than say 500 hours, which coincidentally  is the of the habit traing that deserted me. at this stage I'm lacking belief that it made any difference at all. the aggressor was dismantled and  and crying in 10 seconds , even with my training I'm not sure it would have improved that any,


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> I agree... Sort of.   Broadly, We do know that building skill translates to application, even under stress.   we see it in all human activities.  However, it's true that some people fail to perform.   If everyone could do everything, if only they were properly trained, then hiring would be so easy.  This isn't the case, though.   Some people just don't have aptitude.   So, broadly, we can say with certainty that well designed training leading to application can be directly linked to application under pressure.  True, even if individually some people fail.
> 
> And, i also agree that part of the problem is we don't really know what the key skills are in self Defense.


do we ? we know it does for some people, but we have no idea what   percentage of the population that is and how that relates to ma. I've seen many a professional footballer miss an open goal and their not short of practise


----------



## Steve

Dirty Dog said:


> Or, at the very least, oil that only works on a rare breed of snake.


More like, at the very most.


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> do we ? we know it does for some people, but we have no idea what   percentage of the population that is and how that relates to ma. I've seen many a professional footballer miss an open goal and their not short of practise


You're mixing up micro and macro.  It's like the difference between climate and weather.  The footballer can miss a goal under pressure.  I hate soccer, but my understanding is that more are missed than made.  

The question is, would an untrained person be able to make any goals under pressure?


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> You're mixing up micro and macro.  It's like the difference between climate and weather.  The footballer can miss a goal under pressure.  I hate soccer, but my understanding is that more are missed than made.
> 
> The question is, would an untrained person be able to make any goals under pressure?


I'm not mixing up anything, I'm asking a difficult question to see if anybody has more than a bucket full of assumptions, that additional training increases your chances of robustly defending your self and the answer so far is no , not at all. people ut seems have little doubt but no evidence which moves it in to the same category as religion.

the soccer analogy is just to show that even the most trained and skilful people are prone to forget how to move their leg under pressure, if they have a fairly high failure rate then it must be even greater for non elite atteletes


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> I'm not mixing up anything, I'm asking a difficult question to see if anybody has more than a bucket full of assumptions, that additional training increases your chances of robustly defending your self and the answer so far is no , not at all. people ut seems have little doubt but no evidence which moves it in to the same category as religion.
> 
> the soccer analogy is just to show that even the most trained and skilful people are prone to forget how to move their leg under pressure, if they have a fairly high failure rate then it must be even greater for non elite atteletes


Sometimes people just miss.   If you really believe a pro soccer player misses a shot on goal because they forget how to move their leg under pressure, I'm not sure I can help .


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> Sometimes people just miss.   If you really believe a pro soccer player misses a shot on goal because they forget how to move their leg under pressure, I'm not sure I can help .


they dont forget how to move it, they forget their technique of how to move it to hit a ball in the required direction, I said open goals or tap ins, the sort your granny could do, not just any miss


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> well yes it was i
> well yes ut was instinct , as it was an instinctive reaction,  !, a lot of ma training is in training habit to over ride instinct, , on the rather questionable premise that its superior.


You said it was the rugby tackle you learned at 6. That's not an instinct, but a well-learned action. That's exactly what we're aiming for in MA training.



> so theres not any data on if ma can maintain there skill under stress  ( it's a biased sample as people who are required to be able to perform under pressure are selected on that basis, which clearly ma are not)and non that 30 hours is less useful than say 500 hours, which coincidentally  is the of the habit traing that deserted me. at this stage I'm lacking belief that it made any difference at all. the aggressor was dismantled and  and crying in 10 seconds , even with my training I'm not sure it would have improved that any,


There are definitely some variables that can confound data. There are also studies that have controlled for those variables.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> do we ? we know it does for some people, but we have no idea what   percentage of the population that is and how that relates to ma. I've seen many a professional footballer miss an open goal and their not short of practise


I think we have enough data to make some reasonable inferences on the percentage. I think you're right that we have some problems in generalizing some of that data to include MA, though experiments that deliberately invoke high-stress reactions ("fight or flight") are reasonable sources for such inferences.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> I'm not mixing up anything, I'm asking a difficult question to see if anybody has more than a bucket full of assumptions, that additional training increases your chances of robustly defending your self and the answer so far is no , not at all. people ut seems have little doubt but no evidence which moves it in to the same category as religion.
> 
> the soccer analogy is just to show that even the most trained and skilful people are prone to forget how to move their leg under pressure, if they have a fairly high failure rate then it must be even greater for non elite atteletes


You're conflating errors in technique with a complete absence of technique. Most of those misses - even the really easy ones - don't involve them failing to kick well. Most involve them mis-targeting or (more commonly) simply using more power than is useful for the situation. It's still a kick, and more or less the same kick they intended.


----------



## hoshin1600

Tez3 said:


> My post was about those who tell women 'not to' do various things because it's considered it leads to their rapes, when in fact it should be made clear that women aren't to blame, the rapists are.



ill take on this argument, but i wont argue about it...merely point out a few things.
the current popular ideology is a victimization mindset.   the mind set says....we are victims (of various things, im not focused on sexual assault here)  therefore YOU (those who dont belong inside our group)  should "check your privilege" because you white male men are bigots, homophobic, transphobic, mysoginistic full of toxic masculinity  blah blah blah...everyone know all of the slander terms that get thrown out.  frankly it gets boring after awhile.
but the issue is that the world get divided into We the oppressed and You the oppressors.   its a dividing ideology that shuts down the conversation and does so on purpose because YOU oppressors shouldnt have a "platform".    this Marxist derivative does not believe in free speech, how could it. free speech doesnt exist in this ideology.  any speech is seen as an expression of your group not the ideas of an individual. there is no sovereign individual.
the rape culture thing is an extension of this quasi Marxist, post modern feminism.  its just another group to belong to in order to virtue signal your victim status.

ok back to the program...

problems arise in this victim climate because it is unpopular to have a counter voice.  therefore there is only ONE narrative.  no debate is possible in order to come up with better solutions.  as Tez has pointed out in many posts that the problem is "MEN"   that boys should be taught not to rape.  im sorry i have two young boys,  at no time have i ever told them that it *is ok *nor did my Dad tell me it was either.  but how convenient that the answer was sooooo simple all this time.  you figure that since women have been being raped since the beginning of time (you know in corsets and all) that someone would have thought of that before...i guess Nancy Reagan was soooo close ..."JUST SAY NO"   maybe we should go to all the prisons and tell everyone in there that crime is bad that they shouldnt do it.  that should solve the problem.  just tell the criminals its bad to kill and steal and all the crime will go away.
  im sorry this solution seems a little ridiculous to me.  the facts are, a small minority of the population does bad things and history has shown that it isnt going to just go away.  so instead of playing ideology politics how about we  have a conversation and actually deal with the issue.  

back to the issue......

as much as some people want to blame the oppressors,  statistics matter.   my friend has a tendency to ride his motorcycle at very high speeds once in a while.  he says he only does it "once in a while"  the more often you ride like that the better the chances are your going to die but if you only do it a few times chances are youll be ok.   the same statistics hold true in this argument.   again the fact is there are bad people and they WILL DO BAD THINGS we cannot change that with wishful thinking.  my question is where does individual responsibility exist in this problem?  the current argument says all of the blame lies on the assailant and NONE  on the victim.  so statistics dont exist?  they are not real?   the stats say if a women lives alone the chances of being a victim increases...maybe only a little. lets say the number raises .05%  then if she lives in a less affluent city the percentage of being a victim goes up 10 %    her age also is a factor under 30 years of age,,,increase of 20%.   the frequency of going out to clubs and bars where alcohol is served % goes up again the more she socializes.  every life choice will either decrease or increase the % chance of being a victim of a violent or sexual crime.
so yes there is personal responsibility that can be advised. this is different than putting blame on the victim. *responsibility is not blame*. however the ideology likes to ignore this because it doesnt serve their ulterior motive. 
i feel this Feministic view actually puts women more at risk because they refuse to explain personal responsibility and that there is a very real thing called consequences. 
the argument says:  "_we shouldnt have to tell women to dress conservatively , women should be able to do what ever they want to do"_
yeah well ,, my Doctor shouldnt have to tell me to not eat Mcdonalds every day because it will lead to heart attack and death but he still does.  why because its sound advise.  i have the right to eat what ever i want, where ever i want.  lets blame Mcdonalds and have a "Me To Fat"  movement that forces all fast food to have less calories and be more healthy......oh wait we already did that and it failed because people hated it.  they wanted that BigMac not a salad.
its called personal responsibility people.  deal with it.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> I think we have enough data to make some reasonable inferences on the percentage. I think you're right that we have some problems in generalizing some of that data to include MA, though experiments that deliberately invoke high-stress reactions ("fight or flight") are reasonable sources for such inferences.


you might have enough data, but you dont seem at all keen on sharing it, despite several requests, I could almost be forgiven for thinking your just making things up .


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> You're conflating errors in technique with a complete absence of technique. Most of those misses - even the really easy ones - don't involve them failing to kick well. Most involve them mis-targeting or (more commonly) simply using more power than is useful for the situation. It's still a kick, and more or less the same kick they intended.


if They dont hit the ball well they haven't kicked well, and definitely not as they intended


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> You said it was the rugby tackle you learned at 6. That's not an instinct, but a well-learned action. That's exactly what we're aiming for in MA training.
> 
> 
> There are definitely some variables that can confound data. There are also studies that have controlled for those variables.


no I didn't I said I developed it when I was 6, from
om instincts , the same way fledgling birds fly south from instinct m6 instinct was to drag other kids over,( and 5hen punch them) I only got better at it after a few practise runs and it still works well, despite not practising it at all, since I stopped playing rugby 42 years ago


----------



## Orion Nebula

gpseymour said:


> I'm curious if that's a similar proportion in the US. It's not my perception that the numbers would be as high, but that might be a misperception, or it might be just because of who I spend time around.



I'm guessing you don't spend much time reading the comments on public social media posts. I try not to, but sometimes I can't help myself and then I'm reminded why I stay away. Based on that alone, I would conclude that the US is overrun with victim blamers (both men and women) as well as some real slime balls. So I think our perceptions certainly are affected by the people we are exposed to, either personally or through cesspools... I mean social networks like Facebook and Twitter. 

There are some interesting articles about the psychology of victim blaming. There's a concept called the "just world" where people have a need to believe that we live in a just society so they start trying to rationalize why bad things happen to people. Here's a few articles about it (along with some other theories):

Psychology Today - Why do people blame the victim?

The Atlantic - The psychology of victim-blaming

Regarding the assertion @Tez3 made about educating men to stop assaulting women, there has actually been some interesting stuff done in this area. I remember seeing something about it on tv years ago and I'm sure if this is the same program I saw, but there's an educational movement in Kenya that's actually having a good impact. It initially started as an educational program for girls to assert themselves in saying no and providing some self-defense training, but its organizers smartly recognized that they need to change boys' attitudes as well. Now more boys are intervening when they see an assault and reported rapes are down. Check it out:

Teaching boys that 'real men' would stop rape


----------



## Orion Nebula

hoshin1600 said:


> ill take on this argument, but i wont argue about it...merely point out a few things.
> the current popular ideology is a victimization mindset.   the mind set says....we are victims (of various things, im not focused on sexual assault here)  therefore YOU (those who dont belong inside our group)  should "check your privilege" because you white male men are bigots, homophobic, transphobic, mysoginistic full of toxic masculinity  blah blah blah...everyone know all of the slander terms that get thrown out.  frankly it gets boring after awhile.
> but the issue is that the world get divided into We the oppressed and You the oppressors.   its a dividing ideology that shuts down the conversation and does so on purpose because YOU oppressors shouldnt have a "platform".    this Marxist derivative does not believe in free speech, how could it. free speech doesnt exist in this ideology.  any speech is seen as an expression of your group not the ideas of an individual. there is no sovereign individual.
> the rape culture thing is an extension of this quasi Marxist, post modern feminism.  its just another group to belong to in order to virtue signal your victim status.
> 
> ok back to the program...
> 
> problems arise in this victim climate because it is unpopular to have a counter voice.  therefore there is only ONE narrative.  no debate is possible in order to come up with better solutions.  as Tez has pointed out in many posts that the problem is "MEN"   that boys should be taught not to rape.  im sorry i have two young boys,  at no time have i ever told them that it *is ok *nor did my Dad tell me it was either.  but how convenient that the answer was sooooo simple all this time.  you figure that since women have been being raped since the beginning of time (you know in corsets and all) that someone would have thought of that before...i guess Nancy Reagan was soooo close ..."JUST SAY NO"   maybe we should go to all the prisons and tell everyone in there that crime is bad that they shouldnt do it.  that should solve the problem.  just tell the criminals its bad to kill and steal and all the crime will go away.
> im sorry this solution seems a little ridiculous to me.  the facts are, a small minority of the population does bad things and history has shown that it isnt going to just go away.  so instead of playing ideology politics how about we  have a conversation and actually deal with the issue.
> 
> back to the issue......
> 
> as much as some people want to blame the oppressors,  statistics matter.   my friend has a tendency to ride his motorcycle at very high speeds once in a while.  he says he only does it "once in a while"  the more often you ride like that the better the chances are your going to die but if you only do it a few times chances are youll be ok.   the same statistics hold true in this argument.   again the fact is there are bad people and they WILL DO BAD THINGS we cannot change that with wishful thinking.  my question is where does individual responsibility exist in this problem?  the current argument says all of the blame lies on the assailant and NONE  on the victim.  so statistics dont exist?  they are not real?   the stats say if a women lives alone the chances of being a victim increases...maybe only a little. lets say the number raises .05%  then if she lives in a less affluent city the percentage of being a victim goes up 10 %    her age also is a factor under 30 years of age,,,increase of 20%.   the frequency of going out to clubs and bars where alcohol is served % goes up again the more she socializes.  every life choice will either decrease or increase the % chance of being a victim of a violent or sexual crime.
> so yes there is personal responsibility that can be advised. this is different than putting blame on the victim. *responsibility is not blame*. however the ideology likes to ignore this because it doesnt serve their ulterior motive.
> i feel this Feministic view actually puts women more at risk because they refuse to explain personal responsibility and that there is a very real thing called consequences.
> the argument says:  "_we shouldnt have to tell women to dress conservatively , women should be able to do what ever they want to do"_
> yeah well ,, my Doctor shouldnt have to tell me to not eat Mcdonalds every day because it will lead to heart attack and death but he still does.  why because its sound advise.  i have the right to eat what ever i want, where ever i want.  lets blame Mcdonalds and have a "Me To Fat"  movement that forces all fast food to have less calories and be more healthy......oh wait we already did that and it failed because people hated it.  they wanted that BigMac not a salad.
> its called personal responsibility people.  deal with it.



You raise some interesting points here. I agree that there is a subset of people among various movements (whether it's sexual assault, race, LGBTQ+ rights, etc.) that divide the world into the oppressed and the oppressors and don't want to invite the oppressors into the conversation. Unfortunately, these are often the loudest voices and create negative stereotypes for the movement. For example, one of the stereotypes of feminists is an angry woman with short hair and hairy armpits burning her bra and calling for the extermination of men. Ok, maybe that's an exaggerated stereotype, but you get my drift. The majority of feminists don't fit that mold, and really the term feminism is a misnomer. While feminism has its roots in the quest for equality between men and women, today it actually encompasses a wide range of socioeconomic issues including racial equality, transgender rights, etc. For those of you who enjoy 80s movies, I find that Bill and Ted perfectly encompass the goals of feminism: "Be excellent to each other" and "Party on, dudes!" Anyway, if you had the opportunity to engage with true feminists, you'd probably think differently about them. Although even a calm, thoughtful feminist ready for civil discourse will have a hard time suppressing their reaction to statements like _"the rape culture thing is an extension of this quasi Marxist, post modern feminism.  its just another group to belong to in order to virtue signal your victim status." _That's just a bloody ignorant thing to say. 

You also don't have a good understanding of what rape culture is (although that's not your fault - a lot of people have trouble defining it)... it's not fathers telling their sons that it's fine and dandy to rape women. That's absurd. I'm sure that situation does exist in small quantities, but rape culture is about attitudes and behaviors that help to keep rape prevalent in society. Sometimes it's obvious what these are, like making rape jokes or blaming the victim for dressing provocatively. Other are very disconnected, like forcing children to hug relatives when they don't want to, which teaches them that they don't always have autonomy over their bodies. It's a complex issue without an easy answer, but it shouldn't be dismissed as some fake construct designed for virtue signaling.


----------



## Steve

Orion Nebula said:


> I'm guessing you don't spend much time reading the comments on public social media posts. I try not to, but sometimes I can't help myself and then I'm reminded why I stay away. Based on that alone, I would conclude that the US is overrun with victim blamers (both men and women) as well as some real slime balls. So I think our perceptions certainly are affected by the people we are exposed to, either personally or through cesspools... I mean social networks like Facebook and Twitter.
> 
> There are some interesting articles about the psychology of victim blaming. There's a concept called the "just world" where people have a need to believe that we live in a just society so they start trying to rationalize why bad things happen to people. Here's a few articles about it (along with some other theories):
> 
> Psychology Today - Why do people blame the victim?
> 
> The Atlantic - The psychology of victim-blaming
> 
> Regarding the assertion @Tez3 made about educating men to stop assaulting women, there has actually been some interesting stuff done in this area. I remember seeing something about it on tv years ago and I'm sure if this is the same program I saw, but there's an educational movement in Kenya that's actually having a good impact. It initially started as an educational program for girls to assert themselves in saying no and providing some self-defense training, but its organizers smartly recognized that they need to change boys' attitudes as well. Now more boys are intervening when they see an assault and reported rapes are down. Check it out:
> 
> Teaching boys that 'real men' would stop rape


personally, I think this is a big topic that invariably ends up leading a bunch of folks who agree that rape is wrong to get angry with each other.  Each person convinced the other is smug, arrogant, and/or ignorant.  

There are things we can do to educate both young men and young women.  I don't think blaming a girl for their assualt is right.  I also don't think blaming a boy for something his friend did is right either.


----------



## Orion Nebula

Steve said:


> personally, I think this is a big topic that invariably ends up leading a bunch of folks who agree that rape is wrong to get angry with each other.  Each person convinced the other is smug, arrogant, and/or ignorant.
> 
> There are things we can do to educate both young men and young women.  I don't think blaming a girl for their assualt is right.  I also don't think blaming a boy for something his friend did is right either.



Great point! I agree. It's easy to get offended by something somebody says even though you're both on the same side and the whole thing turns into an angry mess. I wonder what psychologists have to say about people dividing themselves over their small differences instead of coming together over what they have in common!


----------



## Flying Crane

I love the opening video on his website.  Looks to be a “how to assault someone in a bar.”


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> I also don't think blaming a boy for something his friend did is right either.




That's a random comment. I've not known that to happen.


----------



## hoshin1600

@Orion Nebula 
nice post. well written and thoughtful. i can appreciate that.


Orion Nebula said:


> You also don't have a good understanding of what rape culture is


i think i do.  however it is based on my own experience living in the USA.  you bring up Kenya


Orion Nebula said:


> there's an educational movement in Kenya that's actually having a good impact. It initially started as an educational program for girls to assert themselves in saying no and providing some self-defense training, but its organizers smartly recognized that they need to change boys' attitudes as well.


and this partially fits my thoughts on the matter.   Kenya and the USA are different and not by a little bit.  As i see it that part of the world has real issues and i would totally agree a rape culture exists there as well as other parts of the world. however we need to differentiate between real and perceived and this is where ideologies get in the way of discussion.  
however for me to advise my daughter (if i had one) not to go out at night dressed like a saturday night street walker is not a form of "Toxic masculinity"  its just the right thing to do on many levels. nor does that advise make it ok for bad people to do bad things.  there has to be responsibility on both sides. but the current flavor is to blame one side and remove all responsibility from the other.
now i need to make one thing very very clear ...i am not talking about children here.  my comments are about adults and young adults.  again there are complexities to the issues.  complexity has a tendency to nullify blanket statements.


Orion Nebula said:


> if you had the opportunity to engage with true feminists, you'd probably think differently about them


  i dont deal in "THEM"  why do we need to define people into groups?  i deal with individuals every day all day long.   somehow i think the 


Orion Nebula said:


> angry woman with short hair and hairy armpits burning her bra and calling for the extermination of men


 will object to being called _not a real feminist.
_
but honestly my point is identity politics will not create solutions or in this case keep girls and women safe.  focus on the individual responsibility of both the assailant and the victim.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> That's a random comment. I've not known that to happen.



Gillete ad.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> That's a random comment. I've not known that to happen.


men at large are responsible for the actions of some men.


----------



## hoshin1600

Steve said:


> smug, arrogant, and/or ignorant.


well see now your just trying to suck up and flatter me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> you might have enough data, but you dont seem at all keen on sharing it, despite several requests, I could almost be forgiven for thinking your just making things up .


I missed if you asked for me to show data. I'll be happy to go make a search for the specific studies I have in mind.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> if They dont hit the ball well they haven't kicked well, and definitely not as they intended


In most cases, they actually make great contact...just not getting the result they wanted. It's usually a matter of the angle and/or power being off somewhat. The absolute miss is quite rare. The wobbly result of poor contact is also quite rare.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> no I didn't I said I developed it when I was 6, from
> om instincts , the same way fledgling birds fly south from instinct m6 instinct was to drag other kids over,( and 5hen punch them) I only got better at it after a few practise runs and it still works well, despite not practising it at all, since I stopped playing rugby 42 years ago


Yes, you did. See below:


jobo said:


> I just reverted back to my instincts and rugby tacked him to the ground a technique I developed when I was 6


If you're changing that story, we have run into the end of where this discussion can go, I think.


----------



## hoshin1600

@Orion Nebula 
i should also say i am not attacking a person or a group of people.  i am against ideologies and when a person is ideologically possessed they do not use their own thoughts they become a mouth piece for their group spewing out the same rhetoric which is very predictable and boring.  it often happens that people who may not fit into a group like feminism will hear the rhetoric in the media and on web sights and then start repeating them.  like Obama saying 90% of all scientists believe in global warming or that Trump advocates grabbing women by the *&^%$%$


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Orion Nebula said:


> I'm guessing you don't spend much time reading the comments on public social media posts. I try not to, but sometimes I can't help myself and then I'm reminded why I stay away. Based on that alone, I would conclude that the US is overrun with victim blamers (both men and women) as well as some real slime balls. So I think our perceptions certainly are affected by the people we are exposed to, either personally or through cesspools... I mean social networks like Facebook and Twitter.


I don't. There's significant evidence that moderate voices are not what you find on those kinds of media (this is what I was saying before about the bias of sources), which I think is what you were getting at.



> There are some interesting articles about the psychology of victim blaming. There's a concept called the "just world" where people have a need to believe that we live in a just society so they start trying to rationalize why bad things happen to people. Here's a few articles about it (along with some other theories):
> 
> Psychology Today - Why do people blame the victim?
> 
> The Atlantic - The psychology of victim-blaming
> 
> Regarding the assertion @Tez3 made about educating men to stop assaulting women, there has actually been some interesting stuff done in this area. I remember seeing something about it on tv years ago and I'm sure if this is the same program I saw, but there's an educational movement in Kenya that's actually having a good impact. It initially started as an educational program for girls to assert themselves in saying no and providing some self-defense training, but its organizers smartly recognized that they need to change boys' attitudes as well. Now more boys are intervening when they see an assault and reported rapes are down. Check it out:
> 
> Teaching boys that 'real men' would stop rape


That's what I was getting at earlier about cultural issues. There are definitely cultures that have okayed rape (many in the past, some still extant). That's something that can definitely (and demonstrably) be changed by education and social pressure. There's a point at which it's not the culture, but the individual, and I'm not aware of any evidence that education is effective beyond that point (I'd be happy to be wrong about that). Classifying all of these together makes it difficult to discuss the difficulties around that latter category.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> personally, I think this is a big topic that invariably ends up leading a bunch of folks who agree that rape is wrong to get angry with each other.  Each person convinced the other is smug, arrogant, and/or ignorant.
> 
> There are things we can do to educate both young men and young women.  I don't think blaming a girl for their assualt is right.  I also don't think blaming a boy for something his friend did is right either.


I really wanted to make one of my casual jokes out of this, Steve, but I think it's too good a post to mess with. Well said.


----------



## Orion Nebula

hoshin1600 said:


> i think i do.  however it is based on my own experience living in the USA.  you bring up Kenya
> 
> and this partially fits my thoughts on the matter.   Kenya and the USA are different and not by a little bit.  As i see it that part of the world has real issues and i would totally agree a rape culture exists there as well as other parts of the world. however we need to differentiate between real and perceived and this is where ideologies get in the way of discussion.




Good points. I wonder if the disagreement about the existence of rape culture stems from semantics? While I don't know much about Kenya beyond a few Internet articles, I would agree that it appears to have a very obvious rape culture in that it seems like boys have traditionally been taught through their culture that they can do what they want with women. Whereas in the USA, almost no one thinks rape/assault is a good idea. Yet sexual assault is still prevalent and I would guess in most cases, the assailant thinks it was either ok to do or not their fault. Behaviors and attitudes in our society help lead to this, so what do we call it if not rape culture? But I do understand what you're getting at here. Rape in the USA generally isn't guys prowling the streets for prey, although there are certainly men out there who view women in this way. It's most often people not understanding what consent is and people getting drunk and making bad decisions. How do we describe that? I think it's part of human nature to first describe a problem before being able to tackle it. I get the sense that you don't like labels and categorizing things into neat little boxes, but a lot of people think this way.

[QUOTE="hoshin1600, post: 1952992, member: 32360"]
however for me to advise my daughter (if i had one) not to go out at night dressed like a saturday night street walker is not a form of "Toxic masculinity"  its just the right thing to do on many levels. nor does that advise make it ok for bad people to do bad things.  there has to be responsibility on both sides. but the current flavor is to blame one side and remove all responsibility from the other.
now i need to make one thing very very clear ...i am not talking about children here.  my comments are about adults and young adults.  again there are complexities to the issues.  complexity has a tendency to nullify blanket statements. [/QUOTE]

I agree that giving out advice on how to be safe shouldn't be considered sexist, toxic, etc. However, I think it's easy to understand why making a statement like that about women in general would be easy to interpret as laying the responsibility solely on women, which is why I think Tez3 took offense. It's frequently the case that people of both genders will dole out suggestions for how women should adjust their behavior but don't mention how men should adjust theirs. If you're chatting with your daughter, sure, it doesn't make sense to bring up guys because they aren't there to hear you, and I don't think anyone reasonable would accuse you of sexism or perpetuating rape culture because you were trying help keep your hypothetical daughter safe.

[QUOTE="hoshin1600, post: 1952992, member: 32360"]
  i dont deal in "THEM"  why do we need to define people into groups?  i deal with individuals every day all day long.   somehow i think the
 will object to being called [I]not a real feminist.[/I][/QUOTE]

Fair enough. It's true that we don't need to divide people into groups, but people do a good job doing it (as well as dividing themselves). And you're right, the angry stereotype would be pissed that I said she wasn't a real feminist, but by definition she's not if she doesn't think men should be around.

[QUOTE="hoshin1600, post: 1952992, member: 32360"]
but honestly my point is identity politics will not create solutions or in this case keep girls and women safe.  focus on the individual responsibility of both the assailant and the victim[/QUOTE]

I want there to be a thumbs up emoji, but there's not


----------



## Orion Nebula

gpseymour said:


> I don't. There's significant evidence that moderate voices are not what you find on those kinds of media (this is what I was saying before about the bias of sources), which I think is what you were getting at.
> 
> 
> That's what I was getting at earlier about cultural issues. There are definitely cultures that have okayed rape (many in the past, some still extant). That's something that can definitely (and demonstrably) be changed by education and social pressure. There's a point at which it's not the culture, but the individual, and I'm not aware of any evidence that education is effective beyond that point (I'd be happy to be wrong about that). Classifying all of these together makes it difficult to discuss the difficulties around that latter category.



Yep, that's exactly what I was getting at about social media - definitely not moderate!

That's a really good point about what types of culture can be changed by education. As @hoshin1600 said, Kenyan and US cultures are very different. I don't have any examples for you of education working in a society like what we have in the US. I wonder if any universities have data on that since a lot of them are requiring incoming students to go through consent training, although I'm not sure how effective it is to educate people about these sorts of things once they're adults. I'm under the impression that beliefs and values get ingrained earlier in life, but then again, I've read that college students also have a tendency to become more liberal, so I guess I have no idea.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> men at large are responsible for the actions of some men.



And the dichotomy is that to meet the expectation and act against that perceived toxic masculinity. It is super handy to be really good at the same sort of masculinity that is frowned upon.

Or if I want to try to stop a rape I should be prepared to bust some skulls.


----------



## Steve

Orion Nebula said:


> Yep, that's exactly what I was getting at about social media - definitely not moderate!
> 
> That's a really good point about what types of culture can be changed by education. As @hoshin1600 said, Kenyan and US cultures are very different. I don't have any examples for you of education working in a society like what we have in the US. I wonder if any universities have data on that since a lot of them are requiring incoming students to go through consent training, although I'm not sure how effective it is to educate people about these sorts of things once they're adults. I'm under the impression that beliefs and values get ingrained earlier in life, but then again, I've read that college students also have a tendency to become more liberal, so I guess I have no idea.


Smoking rates is an example, until vaping slipped into the same niche.   Pregnancy rates drop when education is discussed.   

I may be missing your point but I can think of many examples of what I think you're talking about.


----------



## hoshin1600

often MA instructors and others make assumptions on how sexual assault will occur. our own narrative on what will happen and how are often based on fiction.   wouldnt it be great if we knew exactly what the rapist was thinking and could explain what he would do and how he would select victims directly from the offenders themselves ?   its been done and we know.  google is a wonderful thing, so is a book store.  if only more people would do the work to find out.  
the one area that is difficult to figure out is young teens up to college age.  its like my son deciding to bounce marbles off the TV screen.  _what the heck were you thinking of course the screen was going to break?!_  he wasnt.thinking.  it didnt occur to him that there could be undesirable consequences.  so for young people i do think that education on sexual consent has some value.  but after the establishment of right and wrong is there we are dealing with predatory tendencies.  when talking about predators we are not talking about all men, we are talking about a small percentage. small enough that in prisons chomo's and rapists are ostracized and singled out for "splitting their wigs"  even the most violent offenders in prison know rape is not acceptable.  
i think the best defense is prevention and if that doesnt work skills can help if there is a violent component to the assault (which not all will)


----------



## Tez3

hoshin1600 said:


> often MA instructors and others make assumptions on how sexual assault will occur. our own narrative on what will happen and how are often based on fiction. wouldnt it be great if we knew exactly what the rapist was thinking and could explain what he would do and how he would select victims directly from the offenders themselves





If you look at the actual facts of rape you will see that in 90% of cases the victim knew the rapists, the myth of walking alone along a dark alley and being attacked by a stranger is a dangerous one, the truth is a female will most likely be raped by someone she knows, is friendly with or even close to.  it's not something young people do because they make a mistake, thinking that way is a huge problem, the 'boys will be boys' thinking that means young men get away with rape, people need to stop thinking rape is 'accidental' it's not. When a young man rapes a drunk female, or forces her, it's not a mistake made by youth, it's a criminal act.  While people excuse youth as a reason for assault rapists will always get away with their crimes.
Sexual Assault Perpetrators’ Justifications for Their Actions: Relationships to Rape Supportive Attitudes, Incident Characteristics, and Future Perpetration

Myths about rape


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Smoking rates is an example, until vaping slipped into the same niche.   Pregnancy rates drop when education is discussed.
> 
> I may be missing your point but I can think of many examples of what I think you're talking about.


Both of those seem to be about changing a prevailing attitude. I think it's a strong analogy for the culture in the past in the US (when the general public was much more likely to buy the "she was asking for it - look at how she dressed" argument). To that extent, education has worked. The question is whether there's still enough toxic prevailing attitude for more progress to be made.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

hoshin1600 said:


> often MA instructors and others make assumptions on how sexual assault will occur. our own narrative on what will happen and how are often based on fiction.   wouldnt it be great if we knew exactly what the rapist was thinking and could explain what he would do and how he would select victims directly from the offenders themselves ?   its been done and we know.  google is a wonderful thing, so is a book store.  if only more people would do the work to find out.
> the one area that is difficult to figure out is young teens up to college age.  its like my son deciding to bounce marbles off the TV screen.  _what the heck were you thinking of course the screen was going to break?!_  he wasnt.thinking.  it didnt occur to him that there could be undesirable consequences.  so for young people i do think that education on sexual consent has some value.  but after the establishment of right and wrong is there we are dealing with predatory tendencies.  when talking about predators we are not talking about all men, we are talking about a small percentage. small enough that in prisons chomo's and rapists are ostracized and singled out for "splitting their wigs"  even the most violent offenders in prison know rape is not acceptable.
> i think the best defense is prevention and if that doesnt work skills can help if there is a violent component to the assault (which not all will)


Yeah, those adolescents are missing a key part of reasoning. Consequence consideration functions (especially for long-term consequences) develop late in the brain, and it's why adults so often ask "Why did you do that?" (because it seems to the adult brain to be a very simple question) and the teen says, "I don't know." (because to their brain it's a question that doesn't make much sense).

EDIT (clicked too soon): I keep meaning to look and see if there's a common lack of that functionality among some identifiable population of offenders. I assume some research has been done in that area, but haven't looked.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> If you look at the actual facts of rape you will see that in 90% of cases the victim knew the rapists, the myth of walking alone along a dark alley and being attacked by a stranger is a dangerous one, the truth is a female will most likely be raped by someone she knows, is friendly with or even close to.  it's not something young people do because they make a mistake, thinking that way is a huge problem, the 'boys will be boys' thinking that means young men get away with rape, people need to stop thinking rape is 'accidental' it's not. When a young man rapes a drunk female, or forces her, it's not a mistake made by youth, it's a criminal act.  While people excuse youth as a reason for assault rapists will always get away with their crimes.
> Sexual Assault Perpetrators’ Justifications for Their Actions: Relationships to Rape Supportive Attitudes, Incident Characteristics, and Future Perpetration
> 
> Myths about rape


I agree with most of what you say here, Tez. I just want to point out that mistakes and criminal acts are not mutually exclusive. Some rape isn't a power thing (another common myth), but simply a failure to recognize the other person's lack of consent/ability to refuse. Which is criminal, because we need to defend that person's right to consent and refuse. But it is still, from the offender's standpoint, sometimes a mistake.

(It might be we could find a way to argue it's always a mistake, but that seems like it'd be a stretch, at best.)


----------



## Tez3

gpseymour said:


> The question is whether there's still enough toxic prevailing attitude for more progress to be made.




You have a president who likes to grab women's genitals and a judge who sexually assaulted a female when he was younger and got away with it.  You have numerous 'celebrities' up on charges of sexual assault, you have the Incel movement, a vice President who refuses to be alone with women because they are 'dangerous', a man who gets off with sexual assault because he's a good swimmer ( many other cases too), the metoo movement, politicians who sexually assault women ( we get shocked when one politician gets called on his behaviour dear lord you have loads of them) so just how much more toxic do you want it to get before you start actually thinking there's a problem.
Sexual assault and harassment in American politics (2017-2018) - Ballotpedia

Not mention the catcalling, the wandering hands, the peeking down women's tops, the rubbing up against women, the sexual suggestions, the groping that happens every single day to the majority of women. Most women are so used to it they don't even consider it assault anymore and shrug it off. please don't say it doesn't happen, it does, a lot.

*Women don't ever think being assaulted or raped was just  someone who made a mistake, ever. Most men don't do this because it's easy not to assault or rape, anything else is just the rapist's excuse. *


----------



## hoshin1600

i was going to respond to a lot of this but ....no.. its just too ridiculous.


----------



## hoshin1600

gpseymour said:


> I keep meaning to look and see if there's a common lack of that functionality among some identifiable population of offenders. I assume some research has been done in that area, but haven't looked.


i dont have the facts or studies on hand but yes the current thought as i seem to remember is that a large portion of criminals have difficulty in cognitive reasoning of consequences.


----------



## Tez3

hoshin1600 said:


> i was going to respond to a lot of this but ....no.. its just too ridiculous.




Well I guess a great many think that way, 'boys' will be boys' after all, lets not blight their lives by bringing sexual assault or rape charges against them eh. Let's laugh at Peter Sagan pro bike rider pinching a women's backside as she presented a bouquet on the podium, eh he's a lad isn't he.  But of course it's all ridiculous isn't it.
Everyday sexual assaults – one woman’s timeline

_"Every woman has been groped/grabbed. Some countries are a lot worse for this than the UK; a few are better. The men who help themselves to a handful of bum or breast, who yank down your top or flip up your skirt, often treat it as a Benny Hill type joke. It’s amusing … if women are a joke, like squeaky toys._

_But there’s something even more revolting about the surreptitious stroker. Most everyday sexual assaults are like this: so sneaky & underhand that we can’t be 100% sure we’re being assaulted."
_
This is so damn true.


----------



## hoshin1600

also for the love of Zeus,,,, we all know the stats that a large portion of sexual assault victims knew their attackers.
however
An expert estimates there are at least 2,000 serial killers still at large in the U.S.
http://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/Serial Killer Information Center/Serial Killer Statistics.pdf

with a guesstimate of 2000 to 3000 serial killers in the US and the average number of victims being in the vicinity of 100 per killer and the number one motive being a sexual fantasy......somebody is being a victim to someone they didnt really know.  now we could also look up the stats on serial rapists because not all serial rapists kill their victims , but i digress.


----------



## hoshin1600

Tez3 said:


> Well I guess a great many think that way, 'boys' will be boys' after all, lets not blight their lives by bringing sexual assault or rape charges against them eh. Let's laugh at Peter Sagan pro bike rider pinching a women's backside as she presented a bouquet on the podium, eh he's a lad isn't he.  But of course it's all ridiculous isn't it.
> Everyday sexual assaults – one woman’s timeline
> 
> _"Every woman has been groped/grabbed. Some countries are a lot worse for this than the UK; a few are better. The men who help themselves to a handful of bum or breast, who yank down your top or flip up your skirt, often treat it as a Benny Hill type joke. It’s amusing … if women are a joke, like squeaky toys._
> 
> _But there’s something even more revolting about the surreptitious stroker. Most everyday sexual assaults are like this: so sneaky & underhand that we can’t be 100% sure we’re being assaulted."
> _
> This is so damn true.



what is ridiculous Tez is that your brain washed by an extreme left media.
our president doesnt go around grabbing women.  and if you think that (which you do because you have said it twice in this thread alone) then you didnt listen to what was actually said.
and i dont appreciate you putting words into my mouth.  i never said boys will be boys or projected that idea.


----------



## hoshin1600

i also challenge the notion of 90% of all victims knew their attackers.
prove it!!!
i want government stats not some womens group who has vested monetary interest in the results. *AND* im going to put restrictions on the figures.

children,,,anyone under the age of 18 does not count.. their world exposure is to narrow.  of course anyone who victimizes them has a relationship to them it will put a bias on the results.
the assault has to be within the bounds of actual government law.  not a college tribunal or some such non sense.  college (or university as you call it) has their own rules which often include ANY SEXUAL contact when alcohol was involved as rape.
i would want to see the level of relationship between the victim and attacker.
that last one is my major point. there is a big difference between being raped by uncle bob and some guy that you have seen before because he works at the star bucks where you get your coffee.

the perception being put forth by many is that "knowing the assailant" is equal to coercion and grooming and the corresponding inability for self defense. IE your not going to kick uncle Bob in the face and rip his eyes out.  however if the assailant is "known"  but only by a vague association then a violent response for self defense would be appropriate.
so how many of these "known" assailants are relational and how many are vague association??


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> You have a president who likes to grab women's genitals and a judge who sexually assaulted a female when he was younger and got away with it.  You have numerous 'celebrities' up on charges of sexual assault, you have the Incel movement, a vice President who refuses to be alone with women because they are 'dangerous', a man who gets off with sexual assault because he's a good swimmer ( many other cases too), the metoo movement, politicians who sexually assault women ( we get shocked when one politician gets called on his behaviour dear lord you have loads of them) so just how much more toxic do you want it to get before you start actually thinking there's a problem.
> Sexual assault and harassment in American politics (2017-2018) - Ballotpedia
> 
> Not mention the catcalling, the wandering hands, the peeking down women's tops, the rubbing up against women, the sexual suggestions, the groping that happens every single day to the majority of women. Most women are so used to it they don't even consider it assault anymore and shrug it off. please don't say it doesn't happen, it does, a lot.
> 
> *Women don't ever think being assaulted or raped was just  someone who made a mistake, ever. Most men don't do this because it's easy not to assault or rape, anything else is just the rapist's excuse. *


I think we're done here now.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

hoshin1600 said:


> i dont have the facts or studies on hand but yes the current thought as i seem to remember is that a large portion of criminals have difficulty in cognitive reasoning of consequences.


If I find any research on it, I'll try to remember to post to one of the relevant threads.


----------



## JR 137

Tez3 said:


> You have a president who likes to grab women's genitals and a judge who sexually assaulted a female when he was younger and got away with it.  You have numerous 'celebrities' up on charges of sexual assault, you have the Incel movement, a vice President who refuses to be alone with women because they are 'dangerous', a man who gets off with sexual assault because he's a good swimmer ( many other cases too), the metoo movement, politicians who sexually assault women ( we get shocked when one politician gets called on his behaviour dear lord you have loads of them) so just how much more toxic do you want it to get before you start actually thinking there's a problem.
> Sexual assault and harassment in American politics (2017-2018) - Ballotpedia
> 
> Not mention the catcalling, the wandering hands, the peeking down women's tops, the rubbing up against women, the sexual suggestions, the groping that happens every single day to the majority of women. Most women are so used to it they don't even consider it assault anymore and shrug it off. please don't say it doesn't happen, it does, a lot.
> 
> *Women don't ever think being assaulted or raped was just  someone who made a mistake, ever. Most men don't do this because it's easy not to assault or rape, anything else is just the rapist's excuse. *


I take exception to the whole Supreme Court Justice thing. I’m not getting political here, just stating facts, and some very widely held opinions...

Calling him guilty of sexual assault and saying he got away with it is absolutely asinine.

Did you watch the hearing? The entire hearing? Or just snippets the media showed, which is of course bias; left and right leaning media have their biases, so I’m not bashing either side.

Both Dr. Ford and then-Judge (now Justice) Cavanaugh made very compelling arguements. Both seemed very sincere and believing one over the other is just plain bias talking. Both are equally credible as character goes. 

Even if either one wasn’t credible, you have to look at the evidence. Due process and all that stuff. Ford’s account could not be corroborated by any witnesses, specifically the several SHE named. Forget about police, forensic evidence, etc. I’m not questioning why there wasn’t any. 

So she makes a compelling witness by being emotional, and that’s enough to say he did it? If that’s the case, he was equally compelling and emotional, so that’s enough to say he didn’t do it?

With no witness corroboration and no other evidence, what leg does anyone who says he did it have to stand on? 

Her case was very poorly handled by the people around her who had an obvious political agenda. There were many lies coming from her people’s side (I’m NOT saying from her personally).

Then you have far left politicians going on record saying “I believe her” before they heard anything from her or him. And these people are mostly attorneys by training. So we have a prominent senator who’s a Harvard Law graduate saying “I believe her” in the news, yet hasn’t heard either side’s testimony. I thought people like that are supposed to defend due process, not ignore it when it’s convenient. Several far left politicians claimed they’d vote no for anyone Trump nominated, long before Cavanaugh was nominated. Due process? Political vendetta? Personal vendetta?

The Cavanaugh hearing and the entire process was an absolute disgrace. A man’s reputation is forever ruined with zero credible an objective evidence by people with a political agenda. And worse, Dr. Ford’s reputation is also forever ruined by the same people who manipulated it to fit their agenda. 

If this was a progressive judge nominated by a progressive president, the left would’ve cried foul the same way the right is crying foul. And they’d have been absolutely correct. The entire fiasco should’ve been held privately so both people could’ve saved their dignity. 

If there was ANY witness corroborating her story, he had no business serving as a judge. With zero evidence, there’s zero reason why any of it went public the way it did. I don’t consider myself democrat nor republican; I vote for whoever I feel is the right person for the job. In 6 presidential elections that I’ve been old enough to vote in, Ive voted 5:1 democrat:republican, so don’t give me I’m an anti-left or right nonsensical argument.


----------



## Tez3

hoshin1600 said:


> i want government stats not some womens group who has vested monetary interest in the result




Really/ I mean really? some women's group? is that what you think it was? Shows how much you know then.
_"Around 90 per cent of victims of the most serious sexual offences in the previous year knew the perpetrator, compared with less than half for other sexual offences." _This is an Official Statistics bulletin produced by the Ministry of Justice, Home Office and the Office for National Statistics.
An Overview of Sexual Offending in England and Wales



Most Victims Know Their Attacker | National Institute of Justice

Most rape victims ‘know their attacker’ | IOL News



hoshin1600 said:


> i would want to see the level of relationship between the victim and attacker.



No one mentioned 'relationships' that's your take on it, the statistics say 'known' ie not a stranger but someone they have interacted with.



hoshin1600 said:


> the assault has to be within the bounds of actual government law. not a college tribunal or some such non sense. college (or university as you call it) has their own rules which often include ANY SEXUAL contact when alcohol was involved as rape.



In Europe and the UK there is only one law, we don't have 'college tribunals' or whatever. We also don't have 'government' law, we separate our governments from the law. Our judiciaries are independent. The rape charity you maligned is a highly respected one here, supported by the Home Office, police and NHS. It is regulated by the Charities Commission and conforms to National Service standards. While they do limited fund raising for specific projects it is mostly funded by the government....this is just an example, I won't post lists of all the money that the government has allotted the centres. Glasgow's Rape Crisis centre to receive £74,000 in vital funding



hoshin1600 said:


> our president doesnt go around grabbing women. and if you think that (which you do because you have said it twice in this thread alone) then you didnt listen to what was actually said.



He condones it, he's on video saying so. Literally, the whole world heard it. You are excusing his behaviour...….. 'locker room talk'.  

As for being 'brainwashed' by left wing propaganda, my dear, you are talking bollocks. Crime statistics and crime are something I'm very familiar with, I have also taken several in-depth Home Office courses (not seminars) on sexual and domestic violence, the tutors were highly qualified experts in their field from forensic, academic and police fields as well as dealing with victims of rape both in this country and another, hotter and sandier than the UK. You can keep telling yourself I'm wrong but I'm not.


----------



## Orion Nebula

@hoshin1600 I'm surprised that you are so strongly challenging the idea that sexual assault victims know their attackers. It's not an unreasonable idea, nor is it new. I'm not really interested in doing much research here since 1) I'm not the only who brought up the stats, and 2) people tend to dig their heels deeper into their beliefs when presented with conflicting information (not saying this will apply to you, but it's a common trend). However, the Bureau of Justice Statistics has lots of data related to sexual assault:

BJS - Rape and Sexual Assault

Of particular interest is the report on assault of college-aged females (this is the age group which gets assaulted the most), which meets your first two conditions. It states a slightly lower figure of 80%, which is further broken down into intimate partners (including current and former), relatives, and friends/acquaintances. They also distinguish students vs. non-students in the report. For the non-students, there's an almost 50/50 ratio of assaults by partners and friends. For students, the figure for friends and acquaintances is much higher. It's a little odd that they chose to report friends and acquaintances as one figure when their methods show that they asked these as separate questions.

I have some other questions for you. From your last post, you seem to only be concerned with rape itself and not other forms of sexual assault. Does that really matter? There is most definitely a difference between someone pinching a butt and rape. Technically, a butt pinch can be called sexual assault, but it's on a whole different level than rape. However, there are plenty of awful sexual things you can do to someone that are just as wrong and psychologically damaging as rape. So I don't think it's really that important to distinguish between assault vs. rape, especially when rape reporting rates are so low. How many people are really going to report something like a smack on the behind as an assault?

I'm also wondering why you think that a woman needs to have a very close relationship with someone to not resist? There are plenty of reasons why someone might not claw the eyes out of their attacker, even if it's just a casual acquaintance like the guy who makes your coffee. The average male is stronger than the average female - it's not hard to imagine a girl starting to resist and quickly being overpowered and then giving up because she would rather be raped than have her face smashed in. Even if she didn't give up, it's still not that hard to overpower someone who is smaller and physically weaker than you, especially if they're already in a disadvantaged position. Looking at that report, in a lot of of the cases, alcohol is involved. You can't exactly fight off someone effectively when you're completely trashed, and certainly not if you're passed out. And you know what else? Sometimes things happen faster than you can react to. 

One thing I do agree with you on is that women definitely should be trained in some self-defense, as many have discussed in previous posts. There are plenty of simple things that can be taught to women that will help them inflict some damage on an attacker who is overpowering them and give them the chance to get away. Probably not useful if they are extremely intoxicated and not useful in situations where a relationship could lead to coercion and a desire to not harm your attacker (such as being raped by a boyfriend), but better than nothing.


----------



## Tez3

JR 137 said:


> Did you watch the hearing? The entire hearing? Or just snippets the media showed, which is of course bias; left and right leaning media have their biases, so I’m not bashing either side.




We watched it all live, everyone watched it all around the world and only some Americans think it's fine, the whole thing was seriously weird. Why does the government choose judges? 
I don't care about the left/right politics, the whole thing was disgraceful, the question being asked by politicians, the crying by the now installed judge was disgusting. He is clearly untrustworthy by his answers and before you complain at that opinion, I've conducted many interrogations of very good liars, terrorists and criminals and can tell when someone is covering up and downright lying. So yes I stand by my opinion based on actual words by the actual people, not the media not the politicians and mark my words you will see how it works out and it being 'ouch', Tez was correct.


----------



## Martial D

@tez "*I've conducted many interrogations of very good liars, terrorists and criminals and can tell when someone is covering up and downright lying*."

So you are what..some feminist secret agent then?

Or was this during your time with the language police?


----------



## Tez3

Martial D said:


> @tez "*I've conducted many interrogations of very good liars, terrorists and criminals and can tell when someone is covering up and downright lying*."
> 
> So you are what..some feminist secret agent then?
> 
> Or was this during your time with the language police?




How droll but highly unoriginal.


----------



## hoshin1600

Orion Nebula said:


> I'm surprised that you are so strongly challenging the idea that sexual assault victims know their attackers


actually im not,  in a previous post i stated that its common knowledge. so im not digging in my heals on anything.



Orion Nebula said:


> I'm also wondering why you think that a woman needs to have a very close relationship with someone to not resist?


you see @Orion Nebula your relatively new to the sight, this kind of debate between me and Tez has been going on for years, as much as i appreciate her as a person and often enjoy her posts we are like cats and dogs on political views. and i will fight them with a passion when they show up here where they dont belong.
but to your question,  the idea has been put forth and beaten like a dead horse that martial arts, self defense doesnt work because the victim knows the attacker. there is truth to that.  a young teen being groomed or in any number of other circumstances may find that typical martial arts are not an appropriate response during a sexual assault,  but as always there are times when it will help and is appropriate so that is the drum i am beating to counter the idea that self defense is useless.
oh and i am well aware of all the stats and numbers on the subject. its a subject i have had a focused interest in for years.  my interest for knowledge on womens self defense goes back maybe 25 years.  so im not uneducated on the subject.  mostly i play devils advocate to ideas that are painted a little to broad brushed.


----------



## hoshin1600

Tez3 said:


> He condones it, he's on video saying so. Literally, the whole world heard it.


actually he didnt.  he said he likes to kiss women.   what he said was ,,,paraphrased.,,,,when your famous you can get away with things that other non famous people cant do, as example you could "grab them" and women will allow you to get away with it because your famous.
now in an indirect way he is pointing out the very problem we are discussing.   why would a women allow someone to do something to them "just because he is famous"?  that is a problem.  a problem worth disccussing.


----------



## hoshin1600

gpseymour said:


> If I find any research on it, I'll try to remember to post to one of the relevant threads.


oh and very high levels of immediate gratification and low levels of delayed gratification.


----------



## Orion Nebula

hoshin1600 said:


> actually im not,  in a previous post i stated that its common knowledge. so im not digging in my heals on anything.
> 
> 
> you see @Orion Nebula your relatively new to the sight, this kind of debate between me and Tez has been going on for years, as much as i appreciate her as a person and often enjoy her posts we are like cats and dogs on political views. and i will fight them with a passion when they show up here where they dont belong.
> but to your question,  the idea has been put forth and beaten like a dead horse that martial arts, self defense doesnt work because the victim knows the attacker. there is truth to that.  a young teen being groomed or in any number of other circumstances may find that typical martial arts are not an appropriate response during a sexual assault,  but as always there are times when it will help and is appropriate so that is the drum i am beating to counter the idea that self defense is useless.
> oh and i am well aware of all the stats and numbers on the subject. its a subject i have had a focused interest in for years.  my interest for knowledge on womens self defense goes back maybe 25 years.  so im not uneducated on the subject.  mostly i play devils advocate to ideas that are painted a little to broad brushed.



Hmmm, well you did say that it was common knowledge in one post but then almost immediately followed it up with this post:



hoshin1600 said:


> i also challenge the notion of 90% of all victims knew their attackers.
> prove it!!!
> i want government stats not some womens group who has vested monetary interest in the results. *AND* im going to put restrictions on the figures.
> 
> children,,,anyone under the age of 18 does not count.. their world exposure is to narrow.  of course anyone who victimizes them has a relationship to them it will put a bias on the results.
> the assault has to be within the bounds of actual government law.  not a college tribunal or some such non sense.  college (or university as you call it) has their own rules which often include ANY SEXUAL contact when alcohol was involved as rape.
> i would want to see the level of relationship between the victim and attacker.
> that last one is my major point. there is a big difference between being raped by uncle bob and some guy that you have seen before because he works at the star bucks where you get your coffee.
> 
> the perception being put forth by many is that "knowing the assailant" is equal to coercion and grooming and the corresponding inability for self defense. IE your not going to kick uncle Bob in the face and rip his eyes out.  however if the assailant is "known"  but only by a vague association then a violent response for self defense would be appropriate.
> so how many of these "known" assailants are relational and how many are vague association??



That looks like a strong challenge to the idea to me. But, now that you've explained that what you're really doing is continuing an ongoing battle with Tez, it makes more sense, although I'm not sure why you're asking for stats if you're already familiar with them. Although I guess the point is probably to rile up Tez (especially with the inflammatory language in your requirements). Cheers and enjoy your argument!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Orion Nebula said:


> @hoshin1600 I'm surprised that you are so strongly challenging the idea that sexual assault victims know their attackers. It's not an unreasonable idea, nor is it new. I'm not really interested in doing much research here since 1) I'm not the only who brought up the stats, and 2) people tend to dig their heels deeper into their beliefs when presented with conflicting information (not saying this will apply to you, but it's a common trend). However, the Bureau of Justice Statistics has lots of data related to sexual assault:
> 
> BJS - Rape and Sexual Assault
> 
> Of particular interest is the report on assault of college-aged females (this is the age group which gets assaulted the most), which meets your first two conditions. It states a slightly lower figure of 80%, which is further broken down into intimate partners (including current and former), relatives, and friends/acquaintances. They also distinguish students vs. non-students in the report. For the non-students, there's an almost 50/50 ratio of assaults by partners and friends. For students, the figure for friends and acquaintances is much higher. It's a little odd that they chose to report friends and acquaintances as one figure when their methods show that they asked these as separate questions.
> 
> I have some other questions for you. From your last post, you seem to only be concerned with rape itself and not other forms of sexual assault. Does that really matter? There is most definitely a difference between someone pinching a butt and rape. Technically, a butt pinch can be called sexual assault, but it's on a whole different level than rape. However, there are plenty of awful sexual things you can do to someone that are just as wrong and psychologically damaging as rape. So I don't think it's really that important to distinguish between assault vs. rape, especially when rape reporting rates are so low. How many people are really going to report something like a smack on the behind as an assault?
> 
> I'm also wondering why you think that a woman needs to have a very close relationship with someone to not resist? There are plenty of reasons why someone might not claw the eyes out of their attacker, even if it's just a casual acquaintance like the guy who makes your coffee. The average male is stronger than the average female - it's not hard to imagine a girl starting to resist and quickly being overpowered and then giving up because she would rather be raped than have her face smashed in. Even if she didn't give up, it's still not that hard to overpower someone who is smaller and physically weaker than you, especially if they're already in a disadvantaged position. Looking at that report, in a lot of of the cases, alcohol is involved. You can't exactly fight off someone effectively when you're completely trashed, and certainly not if you're passed out. And you know what else? Sometimes things happen faster than you can react to.
> 
> One thing I do agree with you on is that women definitely should be trained in some self-defense, as many have discussed in previous posts. There are plenty of simple things that can be taught to women that will help them inflict some damage on an attacker who is overpowering them and give them the chance to get away. Probably not useful if they are extremely intoxicated and not useful in situations where a relationship could lead to coercion and a desire to not harm your attacker (such as being raped by a boyfriend), but better than nothing.


I'm not disputing anything you posted here (I honestly haven't given it due attention yet). Just pointing out that what I think Hoshin was saying was that there's a difference between "have seen" and "known", for most of us. Statistics are wily beasts at the best of times, and this is no different. In analyzing this, researchers drew a useful (but arbitrary - as any would be) line of demarcation. They separated "complete stranger" from "known in any way at all" (at least that appears to be the separation used in the write-ups I've seen). It would be useful to see another line of demarcation added, something along the lines of "know who they are" versus "actually know them". That latter, I think, is what he's getting at. From a victimization standpoint, there's likely a difference in selection, attack, and reaction (by the victim) when the attacker is just someone they can recognize (barista at a shop they've been to a couple of times), as opposed to someone they actually trust (friend's friend, etc.). Unfortunately, I don't know of any stats that show us that differentiation, nor any analysis to show those factors, and whether or not they differ.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

hoshin1600 said:


> oh and very high levels of immediate gratification and low levels of delayed gratification.


AKA "impulse control". I remember seeing something that actually measured that among violent offenders. I wonder if I kept any notes on it.


----------



## JR 137

Tez3 said:


> We watched it all live, everyone watched it all around the world and only some Americans think it's fine, the whole thing was seriously weird. Why does the government choose judges?
> I don't care about the left/right politics, the whole thing was disgraceful, the question being asked by politicians, the crying by the now installed judge was disgusting. He is clearly untrustworthy by his answers and before you complain at that opinion, I've conducted many interrogations of very good liars, terrorists and criminals and can tell when someone is covering up and downright lying. So yes I stand by my opinion based on actual words by the actual people, not the media not the politicians and mark my words you will see how it works out and it being 'ouch', Tez was correct.


I don’t trust people’s emotions. I trust evidence. Call me crazy.


----------



## Deleted member 39746

Pulling this back to the original question, Could someone fish out some better courses for the person to do?     (not DVD's but i mean if anyone knows of any good workshops or something for people who cant do or dont want to commit to long term training currently) 

I wouldn't know U.S courses.


----------



## hoshin1600

Orion Nebula said:


> well you did say that it was common knowledge in one post but then almost immediately followed it up with this post:


knowing the statistic and knowing what meaning should be derived from the statistic are different.


----------



## hoshin1600

Rat said:


> Pulling this back to the original question, Could someone fish out some better courses for the person to do?     (not DVD's but i mean if anyone knows of any good workshops or something for people who cant do or dont want to commit to long term training currently)
> 
> I wouldn't know U.S courses.



short courses are better for those who have a solid base. called seminars,  they allow you to focus on one aspect of training and fill in any gaps.  however for the complete novice short course work is only good for an introduction to something.


----------



## Steve

JR 137 said:


> I take exception to the whole Supreme Court Justice thing. I’m not getting political here, just stating facts, and some very widely held opinions...
> 
> Calling him guilty of sexual assault and saying he got away with it is absolutely asinine.
> 
> Did you watch the hearing? The entire hearing? Or just snippets the media showed, which is of course bias; left and right leaning media have their biases, so I’m not bashing either side.
> 
> Both Dr. Ford and then-Judge (now Justice) Cavanaugh made very compelling arguements. Both seemed very sincere and believing one over the other is just plain bias talking. Both are equally credible as character goes.
> 
> Even if either one wasn’t credible, you have to look at the evidence. Due process and all that stuff. Ford’s account could not be corroborated by any witnesses, specifically the several SHE named. Forget about police, forensic evidence, etc. I’m not questioning why there wasn’t any.
> 
> So she makes a compelling witness by being emotional, and that’s enough to say he did it? If that’s the case, he was equally compelling and emotional, so that’s enough to say he didn’t do it?
> 
> With no witness corroboration and no other evidence, what leg does anyone who says he did it have to stand on?
> 
> Her case was very poorly handled by the people around her who had an obvious political agenda. There were many lies coming from her people’s side (I’m NOT saying from her personally).
> 
> Then you have far left politicians going on record saying “I believe her” before they heard anything from her or him. And these people are mostly attorneys by training. So we have a prominent senator who’s a Harvard Law graduate saying “I believe her” in the news, yet hasn’t heard either side’s testimony. I thought people like that are supposed to defend due process, not ignore it when it’s convenient. Several far left politicians claimed they’d vote no for anyone Trump nominated, long before Cavanaugh was nominated. Due process? Political vendetta? Personal vendetta?
> 
> The Cavanaugh hearing and the entire process was an absolute disgrace. A man’s reputation is forever ruined with zero credible an objective evidence by people with a political agenda. And worse, Dr. Ford’s reputation is also forever ruined by the same people who manipulated it to fit their agenda.
> 
> If this was a progressive judge nominated by a progressive president, the left would’ve cried foul the same way the right is crying foul. And they’d have been absolutely correct. The entire fiasco should’ve been held privately so both people could’ve saved their dignity.
> 
> If there was ANY witness corroborating her story, he had no business serving as a judge. With zero evidence, there’s zero reason why any of it went public the way it did. I don’t consider myself democrat nor republican; I vote for whoever I feel is the right person for the job. In 6 presidential elections that I’ve been old enough to vote in, Ive voted 5:1 democrat:republican, so don’t give me I’m an anti-left or right nonsensical argument.


I watched the entire thing and cavanaugh was not, imo, credible,.  He seemed like a guy who did things he regrets, that all his friends also did. He seemed like a guy who probably outgrew the overt acts he probably (imo) did in his youth, but never outgrew the entitlement mindset he clearly (imo) has.  There's no doubt in my mind he did the things he's accused of.  I knew many young men just like then when I was in high school in the same timeframe.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please, do not discuss politics on this site. If you feel a need to discuss politics, feel free to visit US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum and discuss it there.

-William H
-MartialTalk Moderator-*


----------



## Steve

JR 137 said:


> I don’t trust people’s emotions. I trust evidence. Call me crazy.


Having been involved in a lot of investigations into allegations of misconduct, including harassment, I will say that there is something called "lack of candor," that is very important.   The thing is, sometimes you know a person is lying.  You know that they have done things that are pretty bad, and you suspect they have done more things you are not even aware of,.  But evidence that could hold up in court?  Maybe not that much is even available.   Despicable people do am pretty good job of covering their asses.  What you can often document is that they lacked candor,when interviewed.   They said things that were contradictory, or maybe didn't make sense with other things they said.   And that's enough because the burden is lower.   

Point is, during the Senate confirmation hearing, that's like a job interview.   It's not a trial.   It's really not even an investigation as mentioned above.  The goal wasn't tomprove he was a sex offender.  The goal was to determine whether he has the character, integrity, judgment, and gravitas to serve a lifetime appt on the supreme Court.  I saw plenty of evidence that I wouldn't hire him as an analyst on my staff, much less as a judge.


----------



## Steve

kempodisciple said:


> *ATTENTION ALL USERS:
> 
> Please, do not discuss politics on this site. If you feel a need to discuss politics, feel free to visit US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum and discuss it there.
> 
> -William H
> -MartialTalk Moderator-*


Oops.  Sorry.  This wasn't posted when I started writing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Rat said:


> Pulling this back to the original question, Could someone fish out some better courses for the person to do?     (not DVD's but i mean if anyone knows of any good workshops or something for people who cant do or dont want to commit to long term training currently)
> 
> I wouldn't know U.S courses.


If the OP is looking for physical defensive skills (which was my take, and what I include in the term "self defense") without consistent, long-term training, their best bet is to find someplace that teaches these skills on a regular basis, and which has a focus on generating something usable quickly. There are a lot of versions of that. The way I teach has that objective (there's a "foundation" curriculum I cover before I get into the formal stuff, intended to get students some very basic fighting skills quickly). Some MMA gyms (don't know what proportion, and I'm thinking of the one in Australia @drop bear trains at) take that further and have a full short term (12 weeks in their case) fight training program that includes fitness and preparation for an MMA bout. Mind you, the skills picked up in something like this do degrade pretty quickly if not maintained, so if nothing else, a regular refresher would be necessary.

The point would be to find someplace that is particularly focused on short-term skill delivery, which isn't universal (beyond "foundation", things slow down a lot in my classes).

That's all assuming the OP is looking for fastest answer, rather than something long-term (at which point other concerns might temper the choice more).

If they're looking for how to avoid becoming a victim, the quickest answer is probably something like @Steve talks about, but unfortunately I don't know where they'd find a good version of that. I wish someone was doing certification courses for that kind of thing. It's probably more realistic to qualify someone to teach that in a week-long course than any MA material.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

gpseymour said:


> If the OP is looking for physical defensive skills (which was my take, and what I include in the term "self defense") without consistent, long-term training, their best bet is to find someplace that teaches these skills on a regular basis, and which has a focus on generating something usable quickly. There are a lot of versions of that. The way I teach has that objective (there's a "foundation" curriculum I cover before I get into the formal stuff, intended to get students some very basic fighting skills quickly). Some MMA gyms (don't know what proportion, and I'm thinking of the one in Australia @drop bear trains at) take that further and have a full short term (12 weeks in their case) fight training program that includes fitness and preparation for an MMA bout. Mind you, the skills picked up in something like this do degrade pretty quickly if not maintained, so if nothing else, a regular refresher would be necessary.
> 
> The point would be to find someplace that is particularly focused on short-term skill delivery, which isn't universal (beyond "foundation", things slow down a lot in my classes).
> 
> That's all assuming the OP is looking for fastest answer, rather than something long-term (at which point other concerns might temper the choice more).
> 
> If they're looking for how to avoid becoming a victim, the quickest answer is probably something like @Steve talks about, but unfortunately I don't know where they'd find a good version of that. I wish someone was doing certification courses for that kind of thing. It's probably more realistic to qualify someone to teach that in a week-long course than any MA material.


The issue with this, is that those skills degrade. Both the physical, and the social/situational awareness/other 'soft' skills. So you would need a refresher often enough, or be in real-life situations often enough, that you're almost in long-term training. A short term curriculum like what rat and the OP are asking about just won't be realistic even a year down the line.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

kempodisciple said:


> The issue with this, is that those skills degrade. Both the physical, and the social/situational awareness/other 'soft' skills. So you would need a refresher often enough, or be in real-life situations often enough, that you're almost in long-term training. A short term curriculum like what rat and the OP are asking about just won't be realistic even a year down the line.


Agreed. I toyed with trying to do something like that. It would have been a 90-day startup, and once-a-month refreshers (no new content after the 90 days). If I had a program with enough students, I might consider revisiting this, but my personal opinion was that if folks were supposed to come once a month, most wouldn't come more than a few times a year. I don't think that would be often enough to even maintain minimal proficiency on something acquired in 90 days (of 2-4 days a week).


----------



## KenpoMaster805

Dont watch any Martial video they might be wrong its better if you go to a karate school and get a instructor that suites you gor yiur Ma


----------



## Buka

My, my, what a man hating anti American thread this turned out to be.


----------



## dvcochran

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. I toyed with trying to do something like that. It would have been a 90-day startup, and once-a-month refreshers (no new content after the 90 days). If I had a program with enough students, I might consider revisiting this, but my personal opinion was that if folks were supposed to come once a month, most wouldn't come more than a few times a year. I don't think that would be often enough to even maintain minimal proficiency on something acquired in 90 days (of 2-4 days a week).


Very interesting, did you go so far as to create a curriculum? I would love to see it if you did.


----------



## dvcochran

KenpoMaster805 said:


> Dont watch any Martial video they might be wrong its better if you go to a karate school and get a instructor that suites you gor yiur Ma


I disagree with "don't watch any MA video, they might be wrong. I do agree with getting in person training to get the full understanding of the technique with resistance training. Videos are best for those with some experience.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

dvcochran said:


> Very interesting, did you go so far as to create a curriculum? I would love to see it if you did.


Parts of one. I'll see if I can find where I put it.


----------



## jobo

dvcochran said:


> I disagree with "don't watch any MA video, they might be wrong. I do agree with getting in person training to get the full understanding of the technique with resistance training. Videos are best for those with some experience.


agree
the thing with that line of reasoning is theres no evidence that in person instruction makes you better at self defence than vid instruction, you can infer that it's the case but it's impossible to prove, in fact you cant prove that any ma training makes you better at self defence, you could reasonably infer that those with a combat  out let do, but not at all for the vast majority of ma. so saying that  unquantifable vid trainingon is inferior to the unquantifiable  benefits of personal instruction is just a stab in the dark really


----------



## Deleted member 39746

Video might be one of the best mediums to look at in terms of techniques.   So if you are trying to dissect how to do this technique, video is the way to go. 


I would extend the scope of his original point to, best with some experience or last resort if you cant find anywhere to get said experience from someone who can give you it.     But should be done with a training partner as much as possible.    

That being Dvcochran. 

After all, martial arts (lineages) started somewhere and there is a innate skill set in how to fight in basically everyone.


----------



## dvcochran

UOTE="jobo, post: 1957988, member: 36477"]agree
the thing with that line of reasoning is theres no evidence that in person instruction makes you better at self defence than vid instruction, you can infer that it's the case but it's impossible to prove, in fact you cant prove that any ma training makes you better at self defence, you could reasonably infer that those with a combat  out let do, but not at all for the vast majority of ma. so saying that  unquantifable vid trainingon is inferior to the unquantifiable  benefits of personal instruction is just a stab in the dark really[/QUOTE]
The greatest value had from training within a school, assuming it is of quality, is the resistance training. I agree, as with anything, if it is not genuine resistance it is not as valuable. I do NOT want a guy trying to kill me every class, I cannot do that any more. So teaching self defense is as much about setting the theme and understanding of what you are doing during the resistance training. Not a macho, Randy Savage experience with a willing partner. A person usually doesn't have time to "get up" in a self defense encounter so it isn't an emotional moment. For me, the "high" comes after the encounter is over. I still struggle with not getting irrationally pissed off after a moment like that.


----------



## Headhunter

KenpoMaster805 said:


> Dont watch any Martial video they might be wrong its better if you go to a karate school and get a instructor that suites you gor yiur Ma


Why would I go to a karate school if I do judo? Then a karate instructor won't help my judo much


----------



## donald1

Wow. You know a style is legit when they have an instant ko baby.


----------



## jobo

dvcochran said:


> UOTE="jobo, post: 1957988, member: 36477"]agree
> the thing with that line of reasoning is theres no evidence that in person instruction makes you better at self defence than vid instruction, you can infer that it's the case but it's impossible to prove, in fact you cant prove that any ma training makes you better at self defence, you could reasonably infer that those with a combat  out let do, but not at all for the vast majority of ma. so saying that  unquantifable vid trainingon is inferior to the unquantifiable  benefits of personal instruction is just a stab in the dark really


The greatest value had from training within a school, assuming it is of quality, is the resistance training. I agree, as with anything, if it is not genuine resistance it is not as valuable. I do NOT want a guy trying to kill me every class, I cannot do that any more. So teaching self defense is as much about setting the theme and understanding of what you are doing during the resistance training. Not a macho, Randy Savage experience with a willing partner. A person usually doesn't have time to "get up" in a self defense encounter so it isn't an emotional moment. For me, the "high" comes after the encounter is over. I still struggle with not getting irrationally pissed off after a moment like that.[/QUOTE]


but there in lies the problem, you either have a resistant partner or you dont, there isn't a middle ground, half resisting isn5 resisting it's only half trying, or maybe only a third trying,  how on earth do you quantify any resistance less than 100%.

in a lot of ways yourjust as well punching a bag at full power than fairy tapping an opponent who isn't really trying.  it proves much the same as far as self defence abilities go


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> The greatest value had from training within a school, assuming it is of quality, is the resistance training. I agree, as with anything, if it is not genuine resistance it is not as valuable. I do NOT want a guy trying to kill me every class, I cannot do that any more. So teaching self defense is as much about setting the theme and understanding of what you are doing during the resistance training. Not a macho, Randy Savage experience with a willing partner. A person usually doesn't have time to "get up" in a self defense encounter so it isn't an emotional moment. For me, the "high" comes after the encounter is over. I still struggle with not getting irrationally pissed off after a moment like that.




but there in lies the problem, you either have a resistant partner or you dont, there isn't a middle ground, half resisting isn5 resisting it's only half trying, or maybe only a third trying,  how on earth do you quantify any resistance less than 100%.

in a lot of ways yourjust as well punching a bag at full power than fairy tapping an opponent who isn't really trying.  it proves much the same as far as self defence abilities go[/QUOTE]
It is entirely possible to resist less than 100%. If I'm resisting 100% (as if my life depended on it), I'm using all my strength, speed, and any savagery I can muster, and taking every opening at maximum useful force and speed. That kind of thing leads to injuries, so it's rare to do in a training environment. Instead, we pull back the power, sometimes the speed, and nearly always limit the savagery. When we work with someone of lesser skill, we can even limit the openings we take, to give them more opportunities to practice offense. It's my experience that most learning happens somewhere between about half and 3/4 of "fighting for your life" level resistance, allowing for some pretty vague estimates of level of resistance.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> but there in lies the problem, you either have a resistant partner or you dont, there isn't a middle ground, half resisting isn5 resisting it's only half trying, or maybe only a third trying,  how on earth do you quantify any resistance less than 100%.
> 
> in a lot of ways yourjust as well punching a bag at full power than fairy tapping an opponent who isn't really trying.  it proves much the same as far as self defence abilities go


It is entirely possible to resist less than 100%. If I'm resisting 100% (as if my life depended on it), I'm using all my strength, speed, and any savagery I can muster, and taking every opening at maximum useful force and speed. That kind of thing leads to injuries, so it's rare to do in a training environment. Instead, we pull back the power, sometimes the speed, and nearly always limit the savagery. When we work with someone of lesser skill, we can even limit the openings we take, to give them more opportunities to practice offense. It's my experience that most learning happens somewhere between about half and 3/4 of "fighting for your life" level resistance, allowing for some pretty vague estimates of level of resistance.[/QUOTE]
well it's not really, if someone trying to throw you on the floor and your only half "resisting "then your going on the floor. that teaches no one anything about real world application.  if someone throwing punches at half speed, that teaches you nothing about dodging full speed punches. just the opposite  really it gives you a flattering view of your abilities of self defence.

I know it's just about impossible to run a modern dojo with realistic levels of violence,  but that's why the self defence benefits of any ma that doesn't use realistic levels of resistance is very questionable


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> well it's not really, if someone trying to throw you on the floor and your only half "resisting "then your going on the floor. that teaches no one anything about real world application.  if someone throwing punches at half speed, that teaches you nothing about dodging full speed punches. just the opposite  really it gives you a flattering view of your abilities of self defence.


Not always true. I can resist with about 10% of my tools and stop most students from putting me on the floor, because I know how to counter what they're doing. I don't have to fight back at all to stop them from putting me down, just counter the techniques. Just as instructors could do with me until I learned enough to cause trouble at that level of resistance. And if someone is working "light technical" (meaning they're purposely not putting their strength into things, to force themselves to use better technique), then I can provide meaningful (and appropriate) resistance with a similar level of force.



> I know it's just about impossible to run a modern dojo with realistic levels of violence,  but that's why the self defence benefits of any ma that doesn't use realistic levels of resistance is very questionable


Any resistance from a well-trained martial artist is going to be unrealistic. I can probably put down a Judo BB if we don't play by Judo rules (if we do, they're more likely to put me down), but the counters they'd use wouldn't be something I'm ever likely to run into from an attacker. That's why part of SD training probably ought to include trying to simulate (doing some things a trained person wouldn't be likely to do), so you can get practice against types of resistance that aren't common in sparring/rolling.

But yeah, there's always a factor of trying to figure out how to get as realistic as you can, without getting people injured. And I don't know that's entirely a "modern dojo" thing. If you're teaching for self-defense purposes, and the students are getting injured, they don't need an attacker any more.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

jobo said:


> if someone trying to throw you on the floor and your only half "resisting "then your going on the floor. that teaches no one anything about real world application.  if someone throwing punches at half speed, that teaches you nothing about dodging full speed punches. just the opposite  really it gives you a flattering view of your abilities of self defence.


You are confused between "skill developing" and "skill testing".

For skill

- developing, you will give your opponent that opportunity.
- testing, you will not give your opportunity that opportunity.

For example, if you always

- lay down on the ground, you will never help your opponent to develop his throw skill (but you can help him to develop his ground skill).
- run away from your opponent, you will never help your opponent to develop his striking skill (but you can help him to develop his running skill).


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

jobo said:


> realistic levels of resistance is very questionable


If I pull you and you 

- resist, your resisting will not help my pulling, but will help my pushing.
- yield, your yielding will not help my futher pulling.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If I pull you and you
> 
> - resist, your resisting will not help my pulling, but will help my pushing.
> - yield, your yielding will not help my futher pulling.


Agreed, though it depends upon how we define "resist". My "maximum resistance" to a pull isn't a counter-pull, but something like a shift of weight, using your arm to change your structure, and a strike to diffuse your power.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> Agreed, though it depends upon how we define "resist". My "maximum resistance" to a pull isn't a counter-pull, but something like a shift of weight, using your arm to change your structure, and a strike to diffuse your power.


Your "maximum resistance" will be my "counter". May be there are 3 terms here.

1. Avoid - I attack your leading leg, you step back, I attack your other leg.
2. Resist - I pull, your resist, I push.
3. Counter - I attack, you counter, I counter your counter.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Your "maximum resistance" will be my "counter". May be there are 3 terms here.
> 
> 1. Avoid - I attack your leading leg, you step back, I attack your other leg.
> 2. Resist - I pull, your resist, I push.
> 3. Counter - I attack, you counter, I counter your counter.


The main reason I don't like defining "resist" that way, is that students often ask "well, what if he resists", and their "resistance" makes no sense (perhaps a sudden stiff, unmoving arm) or is clearly not the input we'd be using the technique against (pulling their arm in, when the technique is for working against an extended arm). And when we talk about "resistive training", we're talking about actually trying to stop someone from doing their technique, not just providing opposing force.

I can't quite wrap my head around push-vs-pull as "resistance" to the technique. It's simply an opposing motion. To me, "resist" includes all methods of resisting a technique: counters, strikes, stiffening/relaxing, shifting posture, etc.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> To me, "resist" includes all methods of resisting a technique: counters, strikes, stiffening/relaxing, shifting posture, etc.


Does your definition of "resist" include dodge, move to the side, move back, run away, lay down on the ground, ...?

If I can run away faster that you can chase me, even if you are Muhammad Ali, your punch cannot land on me.

As long as "resist" means "contact", you can always borrow your opponent's resisting force.

For example,

- I punch.
- You block.
- I pull your blocking arm, and ...

But if 

- I punch.
- You dodge.
- I can't do much after that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Does your definition of "resist" include dodge, move to the side, move back, run away, lay down on the ground, ...?
> 
> If I can run away faster that you can chase me, even if you are Muhammad Ali, your punch cannot land on me.
> 
> As long as "resist" means "contact", you can always borrow your opponent's resisting force.
> 
> For example,
> 
> - I punch.
> - You block.
> - I pull your blocking arm, and ...
> 
> But if
> 
> - I punch.
> - You dodge.
> - I can't do much after that.


Yeah, when we're talking about resisting a technique (as in purposely trying to stop it from happening) all that is part of the toolbox. And as I said before, it can also include relaxation, which doesn't provide a force to borrow.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> Yeah, when we're talking about resisting a technique (as in purposely trying to stop it from happening) all that is part of the toolbox. And as I said before, it can also include relaxation, which doesn't provide a force to borrow.


It doesn't matter relaxation or not, as long a there is body contact, the clinch can be established.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It doesn't matter relaxation or not, as long a there is body contact, the clinch can be established.


Oh, I agree with that - I was commenting on your statement that if the resistance includes contact, you can borrow their force. As long as they commit some force, you can borrow it, but relaxation doesn't commit force to borrow.


----------

