# Women Self Defence!



## kravmaga1

Should Women learn self defense more and more nowadays? How it will help in nowadays life? From what thing women should start learning the self defense tricks?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

If you mean the combative skills to defend (what I refer to as "self-defense" - others include all areas of self-protection in that term), then there's not dramatically more need to learn it than there has been in the past. And the physical defenses women should learn aren't dramatically different from those a man should learn, though the emphasis might be if one is tailoring a program to women.

As others can point out more cogently, there's a good deal beyond self-defense (the combat techniques) that can provide a lot of benefit for women in avoiding assault. Some of that can be gained through MA training (increased confidence, a supportive community, etc.), and some of it likely will not, as most MA programs don't have the knowledge to teach about avoiding domestic violence and similar topics.


----------



## Headhunter

Everyone should learn some self defence men or women


----------



## hoshin1600

@kravmaga1 
how about going over to the meet and greet page and tell us something about yourself.  this would help others and myself when we respond to your posts.


----------



## jobo

kravmaga1 said:


> Should Women learn self defense more and more nowadays? How it will help in nowadays life? From what thing women should start learning the self defense tricks?


though about his AND there is little difference between male sd and female, when push comes to shove. There are possible differences in he motive for the attack and possibly the MO of being attacked  . But its not unknown for males to be sexualy assaulted by other males or for robbery to involve a bag snatch rather than a face to face mugging. It's perhaps less likely that a female will just be randomly kicked about by a group of youths but not at all unlikely.

there arnt any neat tricks that can be learnt quickly, let's say you are going for an eye poke, that needs preparation so that its an automatic reaction, people are prone to freezing, and all so speed and accuracy that takes practise or at least a very cools head so  you can lure them into range and can strike with suprise.

female are likely to have a deficit in strengh and size, as for that matter will a lot of males, if that the case you need to prioritize increasing fitness and learning tecneque that that increase you mechanical advantage. And that takes time

you also need to accept that giving  hem your bag , wallet or car keys is sometimes by far the best strategy


----------



## Headhunter

jobo said:


> though about his AND there is little difference between male sd and female, when push comes to shove. There are possible differences in he motive for the attack and possibly the MO of being attacked  . But its not unknown for males to be sexualy assaulted by other males or for robbery to involve a bag snatch rather than a face to face mugging. It's perhaps less likely that a female will just be randomly kicked about by a group of youths but not at all unlikely.
> 
> there arnt any neat tricks that can be learnt quickly, let's say you are going for an eye poke, that needs preparation so that its an automatic reaction, people are prone to freezing, and all so speed and accuracy that takes practise or at least a very cools head so  you can lure them into range and can strike with suprise.
> 
> female are likely to have a deficit in strengh and size, as for that matter will a lot of males, if that the case you need to prioritize increasing fitness and learning tecneque that that increase you mechanical advantage. And that takes time
> 
> you also need to accept that giving  hem your bag , wallet or car keys is sometimes by far the best strategy


Hey they can have my wallet no problem. As there's never anything in it lol


----------



## marques

kravmaga1 said:


> Should Women learn self defense more and more nowadays? How it will help in nowadays life? From what thing women should start learning the self defense tricks?


Prevention is the safest, easiest and most effective way.
Very few are going to train a few times weekly just to eventually defeat an eventual agressor. The ones training regularly... often do it because they like the training itself. Should women train? Of course they should, if they enjoy it.


----------



## JR 137

My daughters are almost 5 and 7 years old.  Right around when they become teenagers, they’re going to take a grappling art, and they’re not going to have a choice.  The only choice will be where - the local Judo, BJJ or wrestling club.  They’re going to learn to sufficiently defend themselves from being grabbed and dragged, and defend from being put on their back.  The other physical stuff is just icing on the cake IMO.  I could easily teach them wrestling, as I have a good amount of competition and coaching experience, but they’re not going to take it as seriously as they would from someone else.  And I’d prefer the Judo and BJJ chokes and submissions to be honest.

I’d love it if they liked it and stuck with it for a long time.  But basically, they’ll have to stay until they’re proficient.  

My mother took a women’s self defense seminar run by a local police department a few years ago.  She said it was very heavy on situational awareness and statistics.  I’ve been telling my wife she should go, but you know how much wives listen to their husband.  My daughters will attend that too.

Am I paranoid?  Maybe a little bit.  But I have a couple female friends who should’ve been a bit paranoid.


----------



## jobo

JR 137 said:


> My daughters are almost 5 and 7 years old.  Right around when they become teenagers, they’re going to take a grappling art, and they’re not going to have a choice.  The only choice will be where - the local Judo, BJJ or wrestling club.  They’re going to learn to sufficiently defend themselves from being grabbed and dragged, and defend from being put on their back.  The other physical stuff is just icing on the cake IMO.  I could easily teach them wrestling, as I have a good amount of competition and coaching experience, but they’re not going to take it as seriously as they would from someone else.  And I’d prefer the Judo and BJJ chokes and submissions to be honest.
> 
> I’d love it if they liked it and stuck with it for a long time.  But basically, they’ll have to stay until they’re proficient.
> 
> My mother took a women’s self defense seminar run by a local police department a few years ago.  She said it was very heavy on situational awareness and statistics.  I’ve been telling my wife she should go, but you know how much wives listen to their husband.  My daughters will attend that too.
> 
> Am I paranoid?  Maybe a little bit.  But I have a couple female friends who should’ve been a bit paranoid.


you may find daughters don't listen to their dad either when they are 13


----------



## JR 137

jobo said:


> you may find daughters don't listen to their dad either when they are 13


I find they don’t listen very well now 

There’s ways.  Such as “you’re not going anywhere until you’ve done X” “No phone this week” etc.  Somehow this generation’s parents forgot to enforce the rules.  As a school teacher, I hear it all the time - “my kids don’t listen.  I tell them to do their homework but they won’t.  I don’t know what to do!”  I always say “take that phone away for a few days” or “take the Xbox away” but I get looks like that would be child abuse.  Kids learn by having a parent who enforces the rules.  And CONSISTENTLY enforces them.  Things like that and going places aren’t constitutionally protected rights, and taking them away isn’t exactly “cruel and unusual punishment” by any means, although many parents would vehemently disagree.  I don’t know, maybe I’m too old school.


----------



## CB Jones

JR 137 said:


> My daughters are almost 5 and 7 years old.  Right around when they become teenagers, they’re going to take a grappling art, and they’re not going to have a choice.  The only choice will be where - the local Judo, BJJ or wrestling club.  They’re going to learn to sufficiently defend themselves from being grabbed and dragged, and defend from being put on their back.  The other physical stuff is just icing on the cake IMO.  I could easily teach them wrestling, as I have a good amount of competition and coaching experience, but they’re not going to take it as seriously as they would from someone else.  And I’d prefer the Judo and BJJ chokes and submissions to be honest.
> 
> I’d love it if they liked it and stuck with it for a long time.  But basically, they’ll have to stay until they’re proficient.
> 
> My mother took a women’s self defense seminar run by a local police department a few years ago.  She said it was very heavy on situational awareness and statistics.  I’ve been telling my wife she should go, but you know how much wives listen to their husband.  My daughters will attend that too.
> 
> Am I paranoid?  Maybe a little bit.  But I have a couple female friends who should’ve been a bit paranoid.



I see your reasoning....but I look at my 5'3" 105 lb wife and think....If a 200+ lb street thug attacked her....would she still be able to pull off grappling techniques as he is punching her full power?  How effective is she going to be trying to out wrestle that guy?

For the most part, the most important thing in self defense is.......prevention!     Also, having access to a weapon IMHO is a big advantage.


----------



## JR 137

CB Jones said:


> I see your reasoning....but I look at my 5'3" 105 lb wife and think....If a 200+ lb street thug attacked her....would she still be able to pull off grappling techniques as he is punching her full power?  How effective is she going to be trying to out wrestle that guy?
> 
> For the most part, the most important thing in self defense is.......prevention!     Also, having access to a weapon IMHO is a big advantage.


Agreed.  Keep in mind most sexual assaults are committed by someone they know, so while prevention and awareness are crucial, they’re not foolproof.  Nothing is.

Grappling techniques can help with avoiding punches in a “ground and pound” situation.  Chokes don’t take a ton of strength.  Some Judo and wrestling throws are actually easier to pull off on a bigger, heavier opponent.

It’s a long shot.  But I’ll give them every chance I can, regardless of how small that chance is.  It goes along with the philosophy of if I’m going to die in a gun fight, there’s not going to be any bullets left in my gun when it’s over.


----------



## jobo

CB Jones said:


> I see your reasoning....but I look at my 5'3" 105 lb wife and think....If a 200+ lb street thug attacked her....would she still be able to pull off grappling techniques as he is punching her full power?  How effective is she going to be trying to out wrestle that guy?
> 
> For the most part, the most important thing in self defense is.......prevention!     Also, having access to a weapon IMHO is a big advantage.


yes, but that the common what if question, the same is true of a male that at a weight strengh disadvantage. The the attacker has significant physical advantages then your techniques are less likely to be effective.

the other side is if your fit and have good skill then the % of the population who can just over power you is much reduced, and those that can may find it takes longer / much more effort and that alone my be enough to change their minds


----------



## jobo

JR 137 said:


> I find they don’t listen very well now
> 
> There’s ways.  Such as “you’re not going anywhere until you’ve done X” “No phone this week” etc.  Somehow this generation’s parents forgot to enforce the rules.  As a school teacher, I hear it all the time - “my kids don’t listen.  I tell them to do their homework but they won’t.  I don’t know what to do!”  I always say “take that phone away for a few days” or “take the Xbox away” but I get looks like that would be child abuse.  Kids learn by having a parent who enforces the rules.  And CONSISTENTLY enforces them.  Things like that and going places aren’t constitutionally protected rights, and taking them away isn’t exactly “cruel and unusual punishment” by any means, although many parents would vehemently disagree.  I don’t know, maybe I’m too old school.


good luck with that if they don't want to learn to fight, my father was convinced i should like rugby and fishing like he did.i still hold a grudge of how he used to guilt trip me to make me go, when i didn't want to, that lasted til i was about 12 when i found the voice to tell him id rather stick pins in my eyes.

strangely, once he stopped forcing me, i took up both hobbies, they just didn't involve him


----------



## JR 137

jobo said:


> good luck with that if they don't want to learn to fight, my father was convinced i should like rugby and fishing like he did.i still hold a grudge of how he used to guilt trip me to make me go, when i didn't want to, that lasted til i was about 12 when i found the voice to tell him id rather stick pins in my eyes.
> 
> strangely, once he stopped forcing me, i took up both hobbies, they just didn't involve him


You’re right.  I’m your father and my daughters are you.  Same exact thing will happen.  I mean if it happened to you, it HAS to be true of everyone everywhere, right?

And there’s a difference between fishing and rape prevention.


----------



## jobo

JR 137 said:


> You’re right.  I’m your father and my daughters are you.  Same exact thing will happen.  I mean if it happened to you, it HAS to be true of everyone everywhere, right?
> 
> And there’s a difference between fishing and rape prevention.


well these isn't that much difference between playing rugby and sd, some might say rugby is more effective.

its either some thing they want to do or some thing you are making them do, taking their phones off them as they won't take up a hobbie that you want them to, isn't good parenting, even if you think its for you heir own good


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> well these isn't that much difference between playing rugby and sd, some might say rugby is more effective.
> 
> its either some thing they want to do or some thing you are making them do, taking their phones off them as they won't take up a hobbie that you want them to, isn't good parenting, even if you think its for you heir own good


It doesn't have to be a hobby. It's like a science class. They should take it, learn it, then they can stop if they want.


----------



## JR 137

jobo said:


> well these isn't that much difference between playing rugby and sd, some might say rugby is more effective.
> 
> its either some thing they want to do or some thing you are making them do, taking their phones off them as they won't take up a hobbie that you want them to, isn't good parenting, even if you think its for you heir own good


Come back to me when you’re a parent.

I won’t be forcing them into a hobby, I’ll be mandating a life skill.  If they wish to continue it as a hobby, all the better.  They’ll only be required to do it until they’re proficient.  Past that is their prerogative.

If we had a pool, lake or ocean in our backyard, swimming lessons would be mandated too.  They’d go until they could prove they wouldn’t drown simply by being in water too deep to touch the bottom.  If they chose to go further with it or compete in it would be their choice.  SD is no different in my eyes.  If they don’t like it, tough sh!t.  I didn’t like my father bringing me to his auto repair shop and teaching me how to fix my own car after the initial newness of it all wore off.  As an adult I now understand why.  I didn’t like it when I had to read for 20 minutes every night either.  

I have a duty to protect my kids and just as importantly to teach them to protect themselves when I can’t.  If they don’t appreciate that at the time, oh well; they’ll thank me later.  I’ll do the absolute best I can to get them to have fun, buy into it and not shove it down their throats.  But if push comes to shove, so be it.


----------



## Headhunter

jobo said:


> good luck with that if they don't want to learn to fight, my father was convinced i should like rugby and fishing like he did.i still hold a grudge of how he used to guilt trip me to make me go, when i didn't want to, that lasted til i was about 12 when i found the voice to tell him id rather stick pins in my eyes.
> 
> strangely, once he stopped forcing me, i took up both hobbies, they just didn't involve him


One of the things I hated most when I did some teaching or even when I was a kid training myself was kids who were forced to be there. Because simply its a waste of time they're not listening they won't be practicing at home so they won't remember things so the instructor has to repeat things again which wastes everyone's time, the instructors because he has to redo lessons, the kids who don't want to be there because they could be doing something they want and it's a waste to the kids who want to be there who have to wait for the ones who don't


----------



## Headhunter

JR 137 said:


> Come back to me when you’re a parent.
> 
> I won’t be forcing them into a hobby, I’ll be mandating a life skill.  If they wish to continue it as a hobby, all the better.  They’ll only be required to do it until they’re proficient.  Past that is their prerogative.
> 
> If we had a pool, lake or ocean in our backyard, swimming lessons would be mandated too.  They’d go until they could prove they wouldn’t drown simply by being in water too deep to touch the bottom.  If they chose to go further with it or compete in it would be their choice.  SD is no different in my eyes.  If they don’t like it, tough sh!t.  I didn’t like my father bringing me to his auto repair shop and teaching me how to fix my own car after the initial newness of it all wore off.  As an adult I now understand why.  I didn’t like it when I had to read for 20 minutes every night either.
> 
> I have a duty to protect my kids and just as importantly to teach them to protect themselves when I can’t.  If they don’t appreciate that at the time, oh well; they’ll thank me later.  I’ll do the absolute best I can to get them to have fun, buy into it and not shove it down their throats.  But if push comes to shove, so be it.


Sorry cant agree with that mentality I just can't. Yes self defence is important of course it is but if they don't want to do it they won't be interested they won't do it right then once they are allowed to stop they'll completely forget it because they hate it and were forced into it. Kids should be allowed to choose their extra activities if they want martial arts great if they want to do tennis or football or gymnastics great. Obviously the really important stuff like English, maths things like that they have to do but anything outside of education should be their choice as long as their doing something.


----------



## jobo

JR 137 said:


> Come back to me when you’re a parent.
> 
> I won’t be forcing them into a hobby, I’ll be mandating a life skill.  If they wish to continue it as a hobby, all the better.  They’ll only be required to do it until they’re proficient.  Past that is their prerogative.
> 
> If we had a pool, lake or ocean in our backyard, swimming lessons would be mandated too.  They’d go until they could prove they wouldn’t drown simply by being in water too deep to touch the bottom.  If they chose to go further with it or compete in it would be their choice.  SD is no different in my eyes.  If they don’t like it, tough sh!t.  I didn’t like my father bringing me to his auto repair shop and teaching me how to fix my own car after the initial newness of it all wore off.  As an adult I now understand why.  I didn’t like it when I had to read for 20 minutes every night either.
> 
> I have a duty to protect my kids and just as importantly to teach them to protect themselves when I can’t.  If they don’t appreciate that at the time, oh well; they’ll thank me later.  I’ll do the absolute best I can to get them to have fun, buy into it and not shove it down their throats.  But if push comes to shove, so be it.


Il i hear is pushy parent, its no different to those who think its in the kids interest to make them learn piano or play soccer or what have you. It's always,seems to be the things the parent did or wished they had. Sure get them to try it, but if they would sooner play net ball, then that's what they should be doing with their time


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> It doesn't have to be a hobby. It's like a science class. They should take it, learn it, then they can stop if they want.


he is point is they can't stop if they want, or he will take their phone of them or what have you.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Headhunter said:


> Sorry cant agree with that mentality I just can't. Yes self defence is important of course it is but if they don't want to do it they won't be interested they won't do it right then once they are allowed to stop they'll completely forget it because they hate it and were forced into it. Kids should be allowed to choose their extra activities if they want martial arts great if they want to do tennis or football or gymnastics great. Obviously the really important stuff like English, maths things like that they have to do but anything outside of education should be their choice as long as their doing something.


How do you determine math is important (beyond basic algebra), but self protection is not? I think the reason those kids don' take it seriously is because they view it as a hobby they're going to be continued to force to do, and not as an additional skill to learn. If you present it a school, my bet is: if they like it they'll pay attention because they enjoy it and want to learn. If they don't like it, they'll try to learn it quickly, at least while they're at the class, and then stop. As an example, going off JR's post, I wasn't a fan of swimming lessons as a kid, but I was forced to do it. I took it seriously while I was there, specifically so I could swim long enough to satisfy my parents and stop. It ended up being useful because now I enjoy kayaking, canoeing, white water rafting, and sailing (and swimming), which I would not be comfortable doing if i had not learned to swim.


----------



## JR 137

jobo said:


> he is point is they can't stop if they want, or he will take their phone of them or what have you.


Do you have something wrong with you?  Your idiotic selective reading strikes again, Rain Man.  They can stop any time after they’re proficient.  Until they’re proficient, they’ll go.  If they say “I’m not going” before they’re proficient then they’ll lose privileges.  Not after they’re proficient.  There’s a difference.  

And again, I’m not forcing them into a hobby; defending themselves is a life skill.  Once they’re proficient, then it’s hobby time if they so choose.

It’s like teaching them to read.  Once they’re proficient, they can join the book club or burn their library card.  Makes no difference to me.  Until they can proficiently read, it’s not a choice.  Edit:  you’re a bit slow, so let me make that clear for you - that there is an analogy.  

I can see reading COMPREHENSION wasn’t a very high priority for your skill set.


----------



## CB Jones

JR 137 said:


> Do you have something wrong with you?  Your idiotic selective reading strikes again, Rain Man.  They can stop any time after they’re proficient.  Until they’re proficient, they’ll go.  If they say “I’m not going” before they’re proficient then they’ll lose privileges.  Not after they’re proficient.  There’s a difference.
> 
> And again, I’m not forcing them into a hobby; defending themselves is a life skill.  Once they’re proficient, then it’s hobby time if they so choose.
> 
> It’s like teaching them to read.  Once they’re proficient, they can join the book club or burn their library card.  Makes no difference to me.  Until they can proficiently read, it’s not a choice.  Edit:  you’re a bit slow, so let me make that clear for you - that there is an analogy.
> 
> I can see reading COMPREHENSION wasn’t a very high priority for your skill set.



Agree.  I'm that way with firearms.

I didn't care if my son was interested or not in shooting.....he was going to learn how to safely handle firearms.....once he learned how to handle them I could care less if he ever wants to go shooting or not.  I have at least made sure he has that knowledge.


----------



## jobo

kempodisciple said:


> How do you determine math is important (beyond basic algebra), but self protection is not? I think the reason those kids don' take it seriously is because they view it as a hobby they're going to be continued to force to do, and not as an additional skill to learn. If you present it a school, my bet is: if they like it they'll pay attention because they enjoy it and want to learn. If they don't like it, they'll try to learn it quickly, at least while they're at the class, and then stop. As an example, going off JR's post, I wasn't a fan of swimming lessons as a kid, but I was forced to do it. I took it seriously while I was there, specifically so I could swim long enough to satisfy my parents and stop. It ended up being useful because now I enjoy kayaking, canoeing, white water rafting, and sailing (and swimming), which I would not be comfortable doing if i had not learned to swim.


every thing is Important, just some things are more important than others, it more or less impossible to live a productive life unless you have some basic cognitive abilities around language and maths, where as lots of people get along just fine with out an ability to smash someone into the. Floor or swim for that matter, my inability to swim more than 20ft has caused me absolutely no problems my whole life. Even when canoeing they give me one of them  float things


----------



## jobo

JR 137 said:


> Do you have something wrong with you?  Your idiotic selective reading strikes again, Rain Man.  They can stop any time after they’re proficient.  Until they’re proficient, they’ll go.  If they say “I’m not going” before they’re proficient then they’ll lose privileges.  Not after they’re proficient.  There’s a difference.
> 
> And again, I’m not forcing them into a hobby; defending themselves is a life skill.  Once they’re proficient, then it’s hobby time if they so choose.
> 
> It’s like teaching them to read.  Once they’re proficient, they can join the book club or burn their library card.  Makes no difference to me.  Until they can proficiently read, it’s not a choice.  Edit:  you’re a bit slow, so let me make that clear for you - that there is an analogy.
> 
> I can see reading COMPREHENSION wasn’t a very high priority for your skill set.


and your going to force them to go, until you THINK,they are proficient, 

so what level of proficiency are you setting to end this obsession ?


----------



## Headhunter

kempodisciple said:


> How do you determine math is important (beyond basic algebra), but self protection is not? I think the reason those kids don' take it seriously is because they view it as a hobby they're going to be continued to force to do, and not as an additional skill to learn. If you present it a school, my bet is: if they like it they'll pay attention because they enjoy it and want to learn. If they don't like it, they'll try to learn it quickly, at least while they're at the class, and then stop. As an example, going off JR's post, I wasn't a fan of swimming lessons as a kid, but I was forced to do it. I took it seriously while I was there, specifically so I could swim long enough to satisfy my parents and stop. It ended up being useful because now I enjoy kayaking, canoeing, white water rafting, and sailing (and swimming), which I would not be comfortable doing if i had not learned to swim.


You don't that knowing how to count and add up and take away and multiply is important?....

As jobo said just because that happened to you doesn't mean it's the same for everyone. I've seen so many kids dragged into martial arts and look genuinely miserable and upset in there. If anyone thinks that's right then there's an issue


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Double post


----------



## hoshin1600

Things kids don't like..

Turkey
Cucumber
Vegetables
I kinda like school, a little bit but not a lot
My little brothers tv shows
Brushing teeth
Taking a shower
So says my 7yo when I asked.
point is there are a lot of things kids don't like. As parents we get to choose what is good for them.  It's our job. No two children and no two situations are the same.  Making a blanket statement about how a specific parent is raising their children shows a lack of understanding of complex issues. It is also incorrect to assume a parent can't change their mind on a decision that was made when the situation calls for it.
You all are arguing as if decisions are sent down from the heavens and written on a tablet to be enforced and obeyed for all of eternity.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Headhunter said:


> One of the things I hated most when I did some teaching or even when I was a kid training myself was kids who were forced to be there. Because simply its a waste of time they're not listening they won't be practicing at home so they won't remember things so the instructor has to repeat things again which wastes everyone's time, the instructors because he has to redo lessons, the kids who don't want to be there because they could be doing something they want and it's a waste to the kids who want to be there who have to wait for the ones who don't


I only taught kids for a short while, but I found the inattentive ones equally split between those who didn't want to be there (including those who chose the class, but didn't want to be there that particular day) and those who simply didn't think they should have to do all that work. The latter were more frustrating for me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> he is point is they can't stop if they want, or he will take their phone of them or what have you.


The same would apply to that science class.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> and your going to force them to go, until you THINK,they are proficient,
> 
> so what level of proficiency are you setting to end this obsession ?


Obsession? Must you attempt to make every discussion an argument by the use of inflammatory language? (Or are you going to claim that's not inflammatory?)


----------



## drop bear

CB Jones said:


> I see your reasoning....but I look at my 5'3" 105 lb wife and think....If a 200+ lb street thug attacked her....would she still be able to pull off grappling techniques as he is punching her full power?  How effective is she going to be trying to out wrestle that guy?
> 
> For the most part, the most important thing in self defense is.......prevention!     Also, having access to a weapon IMHO is a big advantage.



Be embarrasing if she got bashed by a 4 foot 100lb weakling though just because she couldn't fight.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Obsession? Must you attempt to make every discussion an argument by the use of inflammatory language? (Or are you going to claim that's not inflammatory?)


really, he says his young daughters MUST become proficient in ma and he will punish them if they refuse. Calling it obsessive is the least inflammable  thing you could call it


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> really, he says his young daughters MUST become proficient in ma and he will punish them if they refuse. Calling it obsessive is the least inflammable  thing you could call it



That is how you train kids.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

kempodisciple said:


> Double post


Somehow it showed up to me as a double post, despite apparently not being one.


Headhunter said:


> You don't that knowing how to count and add up and take away and multiply is important?....
> 
> As jobo said just because that happened to you doesn't mean it's the same for everyone. I've seen so many kids dragged into martial arts and look genuinely miserable and upset in there. If anyone thinks that's right then there's an issue



I specifically stated besides basic algebra. I didn't particularly need to learn precalc, calc, or trig. Technically, there are probably people arguing about adding and multiplying too, since most people my age will use their calculator for anything beyond (and including) 2+2, and they're still capable of functioning. We still learn all of it.

As far as what Jobo said, I have no idea, I blocked him his first month here. He actively takes sentences out of context, changes their context to what he wants, and then argues against that. Not worth engaging with someone like that.

What you're discussing is different than what I (and I believe JR) are talking about. Similar to the swimming lessons I mentioned, what I believe he wants them to do is learn a specific skill, and once they learn that skill at a quantifiable level, that I assume they know, they are free to stop. And informing the child of why they are learning that skill That's different than most kids I see in MA classes, where they are being forced to engage in a non-ending hobby, likely without clear explanation of why they are stuck doing it, and no end in sight regardless of how well they do. Possibly the better they do, the more likely they'll have to continue. 

To continue with the example of myself, with swimming I worked at it because I specifically knew when I could stop swimming lessons. At the same time, I was forced to practice piano, but without an end in sight. I had (and have) musical talent, so if it's something I wanted to continue I would have been very good, but for most of my childhood, I hated playing because I was forced, and I didn't understand why. I had to go to 3 different piano teachers as a kid because I was such a pest to them, and would be forced to practice at home. Very different than how I acted with MA (which I wanted to do) or swimming (which I didn't want to do, but was informed it was a specific skill I was learning for safety, and would end when I learned it). Honestly, I think if it was explained the way JR is suggesting it, a lot less children would have the attitude that you're talking about in MA classes.


----------



## JR 137

jobo said:


> really, he says his young daughters MUST become proficient in ma and he will punish them if they refuse. Calling it obsessive is the least inflammable  thing you could call it


You have some serious comprehension issues.  You really should stop putting putting words into people’s mouths.  Or stop putting your stupid spin on things.

If they refuse to go when it comes time to go, they’ll have the same consequences as when they refuse to do other important things I require them to do, such as homework, chores, etc.

If they don’t have any consequences for their actions, then they end up ruling the house.

For the record, they won’t be punished for not being proficient.  They will lose privileges for not going.  I know you won’t see the difference, but anyone with an ounce of comprehension will.


----------



## JR 137

Headhunter said:


> You don't that knowing how to count and add up and take away and multiply is important?....
> 
> As jobo said just because that happened to you doesn't mean it's the same for everyone. I've seen so many kids dragged into martial arts and look genuinely miserable and upset in there. If anyone thinks that's right then there's an issue


I’ve seen plenty of kids dragged into academic school and look genuinely upset and miserable too.  I’ve seen them dragged to their grandparents’ houses, parties, etc.  So because they don’t like something that means the parents should give in?

SD is a life skill IMO.  I’ll make it as fun and exciting as possible.  I’ll let them choose which grappling school they go to.  I’ll do it with them.


----------



## JR 137

jobo said:


> and your going to force them to go, until you THINK,they are proficient,
> 
> so what level of proficiency are you setting to end this obsession ?


No obsession on my end.  Seems like you’re obsessed that someone has a different point of view though.

What level of proficiency?  They’ll have male training partners and teachers to gauge by.  Being able to hold their own against their peers seems like a good level of proficiency.  Probably around intermediate colored belt judo ranks.  When they can consistently throw and get out of a mount from someone who’s a bit bigger and stronger than they are, I’ll be satisfied.  If they can do that against trained peers who expect it and know how to counter it, they should be fine against someone who doesn’t see it coming.


----------



## jobo

JR 137 said:


> You have some serious comprehension issues.  You really should stop putting putting words into people’s mouths.  Or stop putting your stupid spin on things.
> 
> If they refuse to go when it comes time to go, they’ll have the same consequences as when they refuse to do other important things I require them to do, such as homework, chores, etc.
> 
> If they don’t have any consequences for their actions, then they end up ruling the house.
> 
> For the record, they won’t be punished for not being proficient.  They will lose privileges for not going.  I know you won’t see the difference, but anyone with an ounce of comprehension will.


if they don't become proficient then you will make them go for ever? . f they are not proficient you punish them by making them go, if they won't go you punish them anyway.

seem more stick and stick than carrot and stick


----------



## JR 137

jobo said:


> if they don't become proficient then you will make them go for ever? . f they are not proficient you punish them by making them go, if they won't go you punish them anyway.
> 
> seem more stick and stick than carrot and stick


In your own demented world.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> really, he says his young daughters MUST become proficient in ma and he will punish them if they refuse. Calling it obsessive is the least inflammable  thing you could call it


And if he was talking about swimming, because they lived near a lake? You might want to look up the definition of "obsession".


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> And if he was talking about swimming, because they lived near a lake? You might want to look up the definition of "obsession".


its not really a valid comparison with what is suggested, most kids can learn to swim in an hour or three, IF you defintion of swimming is you can doggy paddle your way out if you fall in a lake, in fact most kids, certainly older kids could do that with out a lesson.

his idea is they must reach blue belt at bjj or equivalent at whatever. That like saying that your swimmer must reach bronze medal standard in order to walk near a lake, that too would be obsessive


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> its not really a valid comparison with what is suggested, most kids can learn to swim in an hour or three, IF you defintion of swimming is you can doggy paddle your way out if you fall in a lake, in fact most kids, certainly older kids could do that with out a lesson.
> 
> his idea is they must reach blue belt at bjj or equivalent at whatever. That like saying that your swimmer must reach bronze medal standard in order to walk near a lake, that too would be obsessive


The standard my dad had for swimming (and I've heard similar from other parents) wasn't being able to doggy-paddle a few feet in case you fell in near the shore/dock. It was being able to swim halfway across a small lake (near our house), so I'd be able to swim to shore from anywhere in there if I tipped a boat over, etc. That took a while to learn - probably not as long as getting to the grappling proficiency discussed in this thread, but a few weeks. 

But it is still a fair comparison. The time commitment is different, but not really different from going to school to learn the basics of science, math, etc. A lot of kids hate that, and wouldn't go if they weren't made to. So they are made to, and they go. And we wouldn't fairly call that an obsession - it's parenting. You might disagree with his choice, but "obsession" is not an appropriate term, and you are using it deliberately to create an argument out of a discussion.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> The standard my dad had for swimming (and I've heard similar from other parents) wasn't being able to doggy-paddle a few feet in case you fell in near the shore/dock. It was being able to swim halfway across a small lake (near our house), so I'd be able to swim to shore from anywhere in there if I tipped a boat over, etc. That took a while to learn - probably not as long as getting to the grappling proficiency discussed in this thread, but a few weeks.
> 
> But it is still a fair comparison. The time commitment is different, but not really different from going to school to learn the basics of science, math, etc. A lot of kids hate that, and wouldn't go if they weren't made to. So they are made to, and they go. And we wouldn't fairly call that an obsession - it's parenting. You might disagree with his choice, but "obsession" is not an appropriate term, and you are using it deliberately to create an argument out of a discussion.


you keep jumping all over with your analogy, one minete its like science, then it's swimming and its not really like either.

you point WAS living near a lake, not its changed to boating out to the middle of a lake. Certainly that needs swimming, but saying you can't boat unless you learn to swim, is not the same,as saying you need to reach blue belt in order to leave the house, ones a ,sensible thing. The Other is obsessive

the number of parents that make their kids go to school is quite high, the number that insist they are proficient ma is quite low. I suspect there is a reason for that, based on the majority not being by defintion, obsessive


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> you keep jumping all over with your analogy, one minete its like science, then it's swimming and its not really like either.


Two different analogies started by two different people. I can follow both, and so can you.




> you point WAS living near a lake, not its changed to boating out to the middle of a lake. Certainly that needs swimming, but saying you can't boat unless you learn to swim, is not the same,as saying you need to reach blue belt in order to leave the house, ones a ,sensible thing. The Other is obsessive


Not a different thing. Most people who live near a lake spend time ON that lake (not just standing on the shore). And your statement about "reach blue belt to leave the house" is an absolute strawman. And you know it is, that's why you used it.



> the number of parents that make their kids go to school is quite high, the number that insist they are proficient ma is quite low. I suspect there is a reason for that, based on the majority not being by defintion, obsessive


So, if a few people do it, it's a disorder. If a lot do it, it's sensible? Interesting argument.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Two different analogies started by two different people. I can follow both, and so can you.
> 
> 
> 
> Not a different thing. Most people who live near a lake spend time ON that lake (not just standing on the shore). And your statement about "reach blue belt to leave the house" is an absolute strawman. And you know it is, that's why you used it.
> 
> 
> So, if a few people do it, it's a disorder. If a lot do it, it's sensible? Interesting argument.


that's where its going, he will only feel she is,safe to be out when she is,a blue belt, in order that he feels better he will make her become a blue belt by punishing her.

let's take the personalities out of it

billy is a sensitive child, he likes stamp collecting and bird watching and art, billies dad decides he has to learn self defence and takes him to boxing, billy hates hit, he doesn't like fighting, he doesn't like being punched and he doesn't like hurting people, he just wants to draw and look at his stamps.

billy tells his dad he doesn't want to go and his dad punishes him by taking his drawing stuff off him, he,still doesn't want to go so he takes his stamp collection of him and so on. 

billy becomes very depressed and with drawn and think his life isn't worth living.

that sounds like an abusive parent to me, what do you think?


----------



## JR 137

What I can’t understand is why @jobo is obsessed with how I plan to raise my kids.

You’re not going to change Raymond Babbit’s mind, @gpseymour In his mind, making sure my daughters are capable of defending themselves is child abuse.


----------



## CB Jones




----------



## JR 137

jobo said:


> that's where its going, he will only feel she is,safe to be out when she is,a blue belt, in order that he feels better he will make her become a blue belt by punishing her.
> 
> let's take the personalities out of it
> 
> billy is a sensitive child, he likes stamp collecting and bird watching and art, billies dad decides he has to learn self defence and takes him to boxing, billy hates hit, he doesn't like fighting, he doesn't like being punched and he doesn't like hurting people, he just wants to draw and look at his stamps.
> 
> billy tells his dad he doesn't want to go and his dad punishes him by taking his drawing stuff off him, he,still doesn't want to go so he takes his stamp collection of him and so on.
> 
> billy becomes very depressed and with drawn and think his life isn't worth living.
> 
> that sounds like an abusive parent to me, what do you think?


Where do you come up with this crap? It gets more comedic by the post.


----------



## jobo

JR 137 said:


> What I can’t understand is why @jobo is obsessed with how I plan to raise my kids.
> 
> You’re not going to change Raymond Babbit’s mind, @gpseymour In his mind, making sure my daughters are capable of defending themselves is child abuse.


if you didn't want your parenting skills discussed you shouldn't have entered them into a discussion


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> that's where its going, he will only feel she is,safe to be out when she is,a blue belt, in order that he feels better he will make her become a blue belt by punishing her.
> 
> let's take the personalities out of it
> 
> billy is a sensitive child, he likes stamp collecting and bird watching and art, billies dad decides he has to learn self defence and takes him to boxing, billy hates hit, he doesn't like fighting, he doesn't like being punched and he doesn't like hurting people, he just wants to draw and look at his stamps.
> 
> billy tells his dad he doesn't want to go and his dad punishes him by taking his drawing stuff off him, he,still doesn't want to go so he takes his stamp collection of him and so on.
> 
> billy becomes very depressed and with drawn and think his life isn't worth living.
> 
> that sounds like an abusive parent to me, what do you think?


Only when you create a strawman. Which you did, again.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> if you didn't want your parenting skills discussed you shouldn't have entered them into a discussion


That would be a cogent comment if you weren't actually debating strawman arguments you create.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Only when you create a strawman. Which you did, again.


its not a strawman, its exactly the same situation of a kid being forced to learn ma against their will or face the confiscation of goods, only billy lost his stamp collection he sais he would remove their phone and or similar.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

jobo said:


> well these isn't that much difference between playing rugby and sd, some might say rugby is more effective.


My old BJJ instructor played rugby and he insisted that it absolutely was a martial art.


----------



## hoshin1600

what i have learned so far,
Billy lost his stamp collection to a straw giant who couldnt swim.
Rain man can count a box of falling match sticks but seems to not have any reading comprehension.
obsessive people like the color blue and martial arts but rugby is taught in BJJ classes.
and all hell breaks loose when someone asks about women taking self defense classes

i got this all figured out


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> its not a strawman, its exactly the same situation of a kid being forced to learn ma against their will or face the confiscation of goods, only billy lost his stamp collection he sais he would remove their phone and or similar.


Except that you've decided what the punishment should be (removal of a cherished hobby and - per a prior post of yours - restriction of all movement), rather than quoting anything the poster said. You've created an argument to argue against - that's the definition of a strawman. Losing access to a cell phone is not nearly the same thing.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Except that you've decided what the punishment should be (removal of a cherished hobby and - per a prior post of yours - restriction of all movement), rather than quoting anything the poster said. You've created an argument to argue against - that's the definition of a strawman. Losing access to a cell phone is not nearly the same thing.


the poster said Ge would remove her phone and or other  goods, there is no point removing something that is NOT cherished, that isn't a punishment.

I'm going to confiscate your skateboard you don't use u till you learn to fight, yea what ever

hw clearly isn't going to stop with the phone, he will keep going till he breaks her will


----------



## AngryHobbit

JR 137 said:


> My daughters are almost 5 and 7 years old.  Right around when they become teenagers, they’re going to take a grappling art, and they’re not going to have a choice.  The only choice will be where - the local Judo, BJJ or wrestling club.  They’re going to learn to sufficiently defend themselves from being grabbed and dragged, and defend from being put on their back.  The other physical stuff is just icing on the cake IMO.  I could easily teach them wrestling, as I have a good amount of competition and coaching experience, but they’re not going to take it as seriously as they would from someone else.  And I’d prefer the Judo and BJJ chokes and submissions to be honest.
> 
> I’d love it if they liked it and stuck with it for a long time.  But basically, they’ll have to stay until they’re proficient.
> 
> My mother took a women’s self defense seminar run by a local police department a few years ago.  She said it was very heavy on situational awareness and statistics.  I’ve been telling my wife she should go, but you know how much wives listen to their husband.  My daughters will attend that too.
> 
> Am I paranoid?  Maybe a little bit.  But I have a couple female friends who should’ve been a bit paranoid.




I don't think you are paranoid at all. I wish my dad was that insistent and had me trained (or trained me himself - he was a former army and KGB man, had a really solid background in sambo). 

Unfortunately, he believed I would get all the defense I needed if only I met the right guy who could effectively defend me. That didn't work out so hot. I was one of the least popular girls in my class. I actually didn't date until I came to the States at the age of 19. AND... the last but not the least - I was first attacked when I was 10, walking to school in January (still dark outside). Fortunately, my assailant was drunk, it was slippery, and I was able to escape unscathed. I adore my dad, but I do wish he wasn't so conservative about these things and just faced reality - the best defense is SELF-defense, because there is no Prince Charming to come and save anyone. 

He sort of grudgingly approved when I started training (at the age of 28), but still bemoaned my loss of femininity. Whatever... It's a wrong time to be a lady when some drunk jerk tries to grab you.


----------



## AngryHobbit

CB Jones said:


> I see your reasoning....but I look at my 5'3" 105 lb wife and think....If a 200+ lb street thug attacked her....would she still be able to pull off grappling techniques as he is punching her full power?  How effective is she going to be trying to out wrestle that guy?
> 
> For the most part, the most important thing in self defense is.......prevention!     Also, having access to a weapon IMHO is a big advantage.



I think this makes for a good reason to diversify the training. If her art of choice focuses on grappling - that's fantastic. I know I wish I were a better grappler, working on it. But it also wouldn't hurt to learn some blending and blocking, choke defenses, what I like to call "gross out" defenses - like poking in the eyes and biting (somehow, mysteriously, nothing discourages an attacker quite so well as the sight of his own blood on your teeth), and yes... of COURSE... prevention. Where is the exit? What is in the room that can be used as a weapon? Is the area well lit? What are the surroundings? The sounds? All that stuff.


----------



## AngryHobbit

hoshin1600 said:


> what i have learned so far,
> Billy lost his stamp collection to a straw giant who couldnt swim.
> Rain man can count a box of falling match sticks but seems to not have any reading comprehension.
> obsessive people like the color blue and martial arts but rugby is taught in BJJ classes.
> and all hell breaks loose when someone asks about women taking self defense classes
> 
> i got this all figured out


You got it!


----------



## AngryHobbit

JR 137 said:


> What I can’t understand is why @jobo is obsessed with how I plan to raise my kids.
> 
> You’re not going to change Raymond Babbit’s mind, @gpseymour In his mind, making sure my daughters are capable of defending themselves is child abuse.



You know you have my support. I don't need any proof there are some jerks out there only too happy to attack a woman or a little girl - been there, done that, got a t-shirt, got all the proof I need. Your daughters are going to grow up amazing, tough, intelligent women, ready to tip the scale in favor of "the weaker sex", if needed. 

P.S. I also wish my dad trained my mom. She was a tiny little woman - an easy target for any jerk. At one point, as a kid, I asked her why the wedding ring she was wearing was not the one that showed up in the wedding pictures. She told me she was beaten and robbed on her way home from work, shortly after she and dad got married. Her original wedding ring was taken away. Dad had another one made for her - as a gift for when she recovered from the beating and allowed to return home from the hospital. I suppose had my dad insisted on training my mom, our friends here would call it spousal abuse.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> hw clearly isn't going to stop with the phone, he will keep going till he breaks her will


If you say so.


----------



## JR 137

jobo said:


> the poster said Ge would remove her phone and or other  goods, there is no point removing something that is NOT cherished, that isn't a punishment.
> 
> I'm going to confiscate your skateboard you don't use u till you learn to fight, yea what ever
> 
> hw clearly isn't going to stop with the phone, he will keep going till he breaks her will


THAT’S RIGHT!!!!  IF THAT DOESN’T WORK, THEY’LL HAVE TO FIGHT ME EVERY SINGLE DAY!!!!

You’re truly an awe inspiring idiot.


----------



## jobo

JR 137 said:


> THAT’S RIGHT!!!!  IF THAT DOESN’T WORK, THEY’LL HAVE TO FIGHT ME EVERY SINGLE DAY!!!!
> 
> You’re truly an awe inspiring idiot.


there no point getting all shouty with me, save that for your daughters


----------



## JR 137

jobo said:


> there no point getting all shouty with me, save that for your daughters


I needed a good laugh.  Thanks!


----------



## JR 137

gpseymour said:


> If you say so.


I love how he twists things.  You’ve got to give it to him, it’s a truly special skill set.  He should consider litigating.  His opposition would just throw their hands in the air and say “whatever.”  He’d win a ton of cases by making the opposition give up solely because they’re not getting paid enough to sit through that.


----------



## Brian King

Like college, martial arts can be a family tradition and expected. If from very young childhood you talk about (college, martial arts ...) as if it is expected, then there is a very good chance that they will go and that they will do well.  Examples, here is your college fund. The money here will help pay your college tuition when you go to college...said once a month when the mutual fund reports are published as the child grows up. Here is the martial arts school that you will be going to when you reach (?) years old. Shall we go watch a class again on your birthday?
Treat it as something that is done in your house, not a big deal. In this house we ....
We are the (last name) and we value education and effort. Said often, when they do well and when they do not.
Regards
Brian King


----------



## AngryHobbit

jobo said:


> there no point getting all shouty with me, save that for your daughters


You know... you are so eager to defend his daughters where they don't need defending, you forget not to bully people trying to have a discussion. Nobody is forcing you to bring up your kids/nieces/nephews/other younger family members, etc. in any particular way. 

The man is trying to teach his girls a useful skill. We KNOW it's a useful skill - because we are all smart people here and have read bullying, sexual assault, and rape statistics. We KNOW it will not go to waste. There is plenty of proof. 

Like any good instructor/mentor/coach establishes a system of responsibility and reward as part of the learning process. It's no different than school, or craft, or sport, or job - so WHAT precisely is your problem other than blowing this out of proportion and dubbing a good man a child abuser? Not only is this ridiculous - it is not at all worthy of a martial artist.


----------



## sheACTION!

Yesss!!! Women self defense is something that all women should be looking into!! I teach self defense videos on you tube I take real life scenarios and make them for women. check them out:


----------



## JR 137

AngryHobbit said:


> You know... you are so eager to defend his daughters where they don't need defending, you forget not to bully people trying to have a discussion. Nobody is forcing you to bring up your kids/nieces/nephews/other younger family members, etc. in any particular way.
> 
> The man is trying to teach his girls a useful skill. We KNOW it's a useful skill - because we are all smart people here and have read bullying, sexual assault, and rape statistics. We KNOW it will not go to waste. There is plenty of proof.
> 
> Like any good instructor/mentor/coach establishes a system of responsibility and reward as part of the learning process. It's no different than school, or craft, or sport, or job - so WHAT precisely is your problem other than blowing this out of proportion and dubbing a good man a child abuser? Not only is this ridiculous - it is not at all worthy of a martial artist.


You don’t know Jobo very well, do you?  This is just him being himself.  I greatly appreciate the support and agree with you 100% here.  But Jobo’s Jobo.  He won’t change.  His views on, well pretty much everything, are pretty funny, in a tragic and warped sense of humor way.  Don’t take him seriously.  It’ll save you a lot of completely wasted energy.  My going back and forth with him is for my amusement only.  If he truly bothered me, I’d ignore his nonsense.


----------



## AngryHobbit

JR 137 said:


> You don’t know Jobo very well, do you?  This is just him being himself.  I greatly appreciate the support and agree with you 100% here.  But Jobo’s Jobo.  He won’t change.  His views on, well pretty much everything, are pretty funny, in a tragic and warped sense of humor way.  Don’t take him seriously.  It’ll save you a lot of completely wasted energy.  My going back and forth with him is for my amusement only.  If he truly bothered me, I’d ignore his nonsense.


Yeah, @gpseymour explained it to me... I was just... you know... being me. A bullying survivor with a superhero complex the size of Texas. Trying to swoop in on my white horse and defend... everyone.


----------



## CB Jones

sheACTION! said:


> Yesss!!! Women self defense is something that all women should be looking into!! I teach self defense videos on you tube I take real life scenarios and make them for women. check them out:



#1 thing should always be prevention.

In your video, there is no reason to get out of the car.  Contact law enforcement and wait for them to respond.  You can exchange info once LEO is there.


----------



## aedrasteia

JR 137 said:


> My daughters are almost 5 and 7 years old.  Right around when they become teenagers, they’re going to take a grappling art, and they’re not going to have a choice.   I’ve been telling my wife she should go, but you know how much wives listen to their husband.  My daughters will attend that too.
> 
> Am I paranoid?  Maybe a little bit.  But I have a couple female friends who should’ve been a bit paranoid.




This response was not directed at you, JR137. Your mention of your young daughters reminded me of this.  I wish you and them, safety and happiness.

Attend to this reality:
*Maggie Nichols, Rachel Denhollander, McKayla Maroney, Gabby Douglas, Aly Raisman, Maggie Nichols, MorganMcCaul, Alexis Alvarado, Jessica Smith, Christine Harr, Larissa Boyce and more than 100 additional women *have added their names to accusations that Dr. Larry Nassar sexually molested and abused them, for years. He has pled guilty to federal charges and another sentencing hearing begins tomorrow.  Many of the women were molested as young teenagers, as young as 12 and 13. 
For some, the abuse continued for years.

Now another well known name has been added:
*Simone Biles, Olympic Gold medalist*

On eve of doctor's sentencing, gymnast Simone Biles says she was abused

Once again, not a stranger.
Not a 'street thug'. Not 'in the street'.
Not a stranger. Not a choke. Not grabbed and dragged.
Repeated for years.

Take a look at the photo of Larry Nassar.

Among his victims were and are smart, tough, committed, strong, fit, Olympic athletes, medal winners, veterans of years of the toughest training and competition at levels we can barely imagine.
 Never quitting, no matter the demands.     Not 'weaklings, not 'snowflakes', not whiners'  as so many accuse survivors.

Now, reconcile this reality with your notions about sexual assault and abuse. Before replying, think about the weapons Larry Nassar used. 
Are those 'weapons' addressed in your classes? How, exactly?
What are your 'drills', 'techniques' 'blocks'?  

Think about your reliance on your ideas about defending the self. Then think about the reality of the last 6 months as women have come forward about abuse. Larry Nassar's targets date back a long time and some reported him years ago. They were ignored, ridiculed, hushed up, intimidated. He was protected and defended.              
He doesn't 'fit the description'.

What constitutes your ideas about what women and girls need to know and be able to do, to protect themselves from Larry Nassar?

if you 'teach' women's SD, what's in your curriculum?
What is that based on? *What do you actually know about the most frequent assaults/abuse women and girls actually face?* 

I'm frequently depressed by the direction and content of these threads on SD for women, so I do not post often.   

But this disclosure by Ms. Biles and the sentencing coming for Dr. Nassar was on my mind.

Some of these brave girls will stand up in public and speak truth to Dr. Nassar, who acted with impunity for years. They didn't believe this day would ever come. But because of their relentless commitment and the patient work of others, it has now arrived. He will likely die in prison.

Are you wiling to learn _anything_ from their ordeal? And change your thinking, teaching and comprehension of abuse and assault?

w/respect A


----------



## Gerry Seymour

aedrasteia said:


> This response was not directed at you, JR137. Your mention of your young daughters reminded me of this.  I wish you and them, safety and happiness.
> 
> Attend to this reality:
> *Maggie Nichols, Rachel Denhollander, McKayla Maroney, Gabby Douglas, Aly Raisman, Maggie Nichols, MorganMcCaul, Alexis Alvarado, Jessica Smith, Christine Harr, Larissa Boyce and more than 100 additional women *have added their names to accusations that Dr. Larry Nassar sexually molested and abused them, for years. He has pled guilty to federal charges and another sentencing hearing begins tomorrow.  Many of the women were molested as young teenagers, as young as 12 and 13.
> For some, the abuse continued for years.
> 
> Now another well known name has been added:
> *Simone Biles, Olympic Gold medalist*
> 
> On eve of doctor's sentencing, gymnast Simone Biles says she was abused
> 
> Once again, not a stranger.
> Not a 'street thug'. Not 'in the street'.
> Not a stranger. Not a choke. Not grabbed and dragged.
> Repeated for years.
> 
> Take a look at the photo of Larry Nassar.
> 
> Among his victims were and are smart, tough, committed, strong, fit, Olympic athletes, medal winners, veterans of years of the toughest training and competition at levels we can barely imagine.
> Never quitting, no matter the demands.     Not 'weaklings, not 'snowflakes', not whiners'  as so many accuse survivors.
> 
> Now, reconcile this reality with your notions about sexual assault and abuse. Before replying, think about the weapons Larry Nassar used.
> Are those 'weapons' addressed in your classes? How, exactly?
> What are your 'drills', 'techniques' 'blocks'?
> 
> Think about your reliance on your ideas about defending the self. Then think about the reality of the last 6 months as women have come forward about abuse. Larry Nassar's targets date back a long time and some reported him years ago. They were ignored, ridiculed, hushed up, intimidated. He was protected and defended.
> He doesn't 'fit the description'.
> 
> What constitutes your ideas about what women and girls need to know and be able to do, to protect themselves from Larry Nassar?
> 
> if you 'teach' women's SD, what's in your curriculum?
> What is that based on? *What do you actually know about the most frequent assaults/abuse women and girls actually face?*
> 
> I'm frequently depressed by the direction and content of these threads on SD for women, so I do not post often.
> 
> But this disclosure by Ms. Biles and the sentencing coming for Dr. Nassar was on my mind.
> 
> Some of these brave girls will stand up in public and speak truth to Dr. Nassar, who acted with impunity for years. They didn't believe this day would ever come. But because of their relentless commitment and the patient work of others, it has now arrived. He will likely die in prison.
> 
> Are you wiling to learn _anything_ from their ordeal? And change your thinking, teaching and comprehension of abuse and assault?
> 
> w/respect A


This reach s into topics I am not equipped to help with directly - and I don’t know any instructor who is equipped for that. The brief research I’ve done didn’t show up anything that looked promising on the victim’s side for preventing this - certainly nothing that would come from a martial arts or self-defense program. Building confidence, self-esteem, community seem to be all we (and anyone?) can do from that side. If there is something more we could do, I’m interested in learning about it.


----------



## Tez3

https://www.coe.int/t/dg3/children/1in5/Source/PublicationSexualViolence/Hitrec.pdf


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> https://www.coe.int/t/dg3/children/1in5/Source/PublicationSexualViolence/Hitrec.pdf


Hey, Tez!


----------



## AngryHobbit

Tez3 said:


> https://www.coe.int/t/dg3/children/1in5/Source/PublicationSexualViolence/Hitrec.pdf


It is sad that we have to think about it, but since this is the world we live in - yes, our kids need to know this stuff.


----------



## jobo

AngryHobbit said:


> You know... you are so eager to defend his daughters where they don't need defending, you forget not to bully people trying to have a discussion. Nobody is forcing you to bring up your kids/nieces/nephews/other younger family members, etc. in any particular way.
> 
> The man is trying to teach his girls a useful skill. We KNOW it's a useful skill - because we are all smart people here and have read bullying, sexual assault, and rape statistics. We KNOW it will not go to waste. There is plenty of proof.
> 
> Like any good instructor/mentor/coach establishes a system of responsibility and reward as part of the learning process. It's no different than school, or craft, or sport, or job - so WHAT precisely is your problem other than blowing this out of proportion and dubbing a good man a child abuser? Not only is this ridiculous - it is not at all worthy of a martial artist.


well apart from some of the tongue in cheek stuff, there is a valid point of when and to what extent a parent should over rule the wishes of a child, or in the instant case a young woman.

the point at issue wasn't if ma is a good and valid pass time, rather should a child who doesn't want to learn ma be forced to do so by progressively removing her positions u till she complies. 

my felling are that is both wrong and counter productive, certainly offer incentives if she buys into it. BUT if she really doesn't want to do that, its normally wrong to force them just because you feel its for there own good.

that aside i suspect reality will be much different and he is yet to experience how determined a 13 yo girl can be and he will be much more concerned with the number of unsuitable boy friends there are calling the house


----------



## AngryHobbit

Thinking about motivation to train... both for children and wives, girlfriends, sisters, female friends, and family members... I do realize there is no magic wand to just want everyone to study martial arts. But there are ways to get people to think how it might benefit them and get motivated.

I told this story to @gpseymour just yesterday. When I was learning to play piano, motivating myself to practice 2-3 hours a day was... rough. I liked playing, I liked singing, but I was still a kid - it felt like a full-time job. So, my favorite grandpa and I were watching this old Russian detective movie we both loved. At one point, one of the detectives gets captured by a gang. They don't know he's a detective - they think he might be an informant from another gang. So, he just has to improvise and play a role until he figures out a way to get out of there or is rescued. Among other things, when the gang leader asked him what he did for a living, he mentions playing piano at restaurants. So, the gang leader points him toward a piano and tells him to play. And the guy does - and very well. And my grandfather pointed at him and said, "See? This might save your life someday." That was it. Silly, I know - I was six or seven at the time. But it worked. All the pretty ladies in pretty gowns, playing and singing in glamorous ballrooms did not motivate me to practice piano as that one detective, trying to survive. 

Another, darker form of motivation came along when @gpseymour and I were discussing whether I should train. I was a pathological pacifist at the time. I managed to feel guilty even about fighting off the two assailants who'd attacked me at various points when I was a child. I tried to reason that, surely, America was not like Ukraine, it was a civilized country where police actually showed up. Right? And then he told me about all the court cases, in which the crime victim called the police - sometimes, more than once - and still ended up badly hurt, raped, or dead. I cried for two hours - it was a major shift in my psyche. And then I got it together and started training. 

So... when trying to motivate someone, either show them Wonderwoman and Princess Merida from _Brave _or let them read some crime stats and detailed reports and court records. Or both.


----------



## oftheherd1

Tez3 said:


> https://www.coe.int/t/dg3/children/1in5/Source/PublicationSexualViolence/Hitrec.pdf



Good read Tez3.  Thanks for the link.

One thing I think the article sort of danced around was watching out for and discussing with children what may happen to them when puberty begins to set in.  They should first of all be comfortable with, and in fact know that it is preferable, to talk to a parent or other trusted adult about the strange new feelings they have.  Sexual predators know about that, and will often look for such signs and try to exploit that in whatever way they think will best work to their advantage.  And by the way, the above goes for both boys and girls.

I think it is best when parents can be at the top of the trusted list, and can talk candidly to children, without encouraging any inappropriate behavior.  Some teachers may be able to handle that, but based on what I have seen of "sex education" in schools, I am not sure how many would be.  And I really don't think that is a proper subject to place on the curriculum anyway.  Parents should not give up some responsibilities and I think that is one, regardless of how uncomfortable they may feel discussing sexually related matters.


----------



## oftheherd1

AngryHobbit said:


> Thinking about motivation to train... both for children and wives, girlfriends, sisters, female friends, and family members... I do realize there is no magic wand to just want everyone to study martial arts. But there are ways to get people to think how it might benefit them and get motivated.
> 
> I told this story to @gpseymour just yesterday. When I was learning to play piano, motivating myself to practice 2-3 hours a day was... rough. I liked playing, I liked singing, but I was still a kid - it felt like a full-time job. So, my favorite grandpa and I were watching this old Russian detective movie we both loved. At one point, one of the detectives gets captured by a gang. They don't know he's a detective - they think he might be an informant from another gang. So, he just has to improvise and play a role until he figures out a way to get out of there or is rescued. Among other things, when the gang leader asked him what he did for a living, he mentions playing piano at restaurants. So, the gang leader points him toward a piano and tells him to play. And the guy does - and very well. And my grandfather pointed at him and said, "See? This might save your life someday." That was it. Silly, I know - I was six or seven at the time. But it worked. All the pretty ladies in pretty gowns, playing and singing in glamorous ballrooms did not motivate me to practice piano as that one detective, trying to survive.
> 
> Another, darker form of motivation came along when @gpseymour and I were discussing whether I should train. I was a pathological pacifist at the time. I managed to feel guilty even about fighting off the two assailants who'd attacked me at various points when I was a child. I tried to reason that, surely, America was not like Ukraine, it was a civilized country where police actually showed up. Right? And then he told me about all the court cases, in which the crime victim called the police - sometimes, more than once - and still ended up badly hurt, raped, or dead. I cried for two hours - *it was a major shift in my psyche. And then I got it together and started training. *
> 
> *So... when trying to motivate someone, either show them Wonderwoman and Princess Merida from Brave or let them read some crime stats and detailed reports and court records. Or both*.



Stern requirements and punishment must sometimes be utilized, but rewards are always better.  But a detective saving himself and a grandfather who points out the possibility of your life being save?  Ya gotta love that!


----------



## oftheherd1

@aedrasteia Yours was a poignant post.  You ask some pointed questions.  Tez3 linked to a good article, but are there other things you can think of that us dummies might learn from?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> well apart from some of the tongue in cheek stuff, there is a valid point of when and to what extent a parent should over rule the wishes of a child, or in the instant case a young woman.
> 
> the point at issue wasn't if ma is a good and valid pass time, rather should a child who doesn't want to learn ma be forced to do so by progressively removing her positions u till she complies.
> 
> my felling are that is both wrong and counter productive, certainly offer incentives if she buys into it. BUT if she really doesn't want to do that, its normally wrong to force them just because you feel its for there own good.
> 
> that aside i suspect reality will be much different and he is yet to experience how determined a 13 yo girl can be and he will be much more concerned with the number of unsuitable boy friends there are calling the house


And now you are making a cogent argument.


----------



## hoshin1600

@aedrasteia i appreciate your posting and i understand the point your trying to make. however it seems to me you post questions rather than answers.  in some cases this may be helpful to guide people into thinking about the topic and their own beliefs.  but i cant help thinking that your own posts are equally unhelpful as the people your trying to correct.  


aedrasteia said:


> Once again, not a stranger.
> Not a 'street thug'. Not 'in the street'.
> Not a stranger. Not a choke. Not grabbed and dragged.


i understand what you are implying here but you cannot say that the typical self defense class in general is NOT HELPFUL.
in the US statics show that there is a great success rate of preventing a rape by physical resistance.  that there is virtually no increase in physical harm to a defender if she fights back vs compliance.  that determined physical resistance is successful where half hearted pleading and resistance is detrimental.  yelling and screaming is actually detrimental and shows a major increase in physical injury.
that the three most successful strategies for averting an attempted rape are, stern verbal resistance (saying no), threat of consequences, and determined physical resistance.



aedrasteia said:


> Many of the women were molested as young teenagers, as young as 12 and 13.


i will ask, why is this ?  why are young girls targeted more than adults in many cases?  it is because of the lower level of resistance and the inability of young small girls to put forth a formidable physical resistance.

i think your post is an attempt to show the difference between forcible rape and coercion.  that in many cases it is coercion. i will agree that in these circumstances physical resistance in the form of MA is more difficult to respond with because of the familiarity with the perpetrator but that is not to say it is inappropriate.
unfortunate as your example is, as was pointed out, there are just some situations that are beyond the scope of martial arts and their instructors and i believe children in this situation is one of those.

martial arts is a valuable tool for rape prevention.  it should be pointed out that it is not a solution in and of itself, that it is only one component of a successful strategy but it should not be presented and painted as useless in order to bring other non physical strategies to the forefront.


----------



## JR 137

hoshin1600 said:


> martial arts is a valuable tool for rape prevention.  it should be pointed out that it is not a solution in and of itself, that it is only one component of a successful strategy but it should not be presented and painted as useless in order to bring other non physical strategies to the forefront.


Many people either forget this point or just don’t know.  This is why I’ve been telling my wife she should go to the class given by the local police department for several years now.  And why my daughters will go once they’re old enough.  My mother went through her employer at the time.  She said it was far more situational awareness and statistics than physical skills.  

MA will only get you so far.  The awareness aspect will get you a lot further.  Very few attacks are committed by the stereotypical guy in a ski mask jumping out of no where, regardless of what the movies and news lead us to believe.


----------



## JR 137

Tez3 said:


> https://www.coe.int/t/dg3/children/1in5/Source/PublicationSexualViolence/Hitrec.pdf


Great to see you here, Tez!


----------



## wab25

First off, I am a parent of two. I have a different opinion about how to raise my kids, concerning self-defense and martial arts than the other parents on this thread. However, I respect the right of each parent to raise their kids in their own way. In fact, I would defer to a particular kid's parents, to know how best to raise their kid. I exercise that right with my kids, and respect that right of other parents concerning their kids. (assuming no abuse of coarse...)

I feel it is important to teach my kids self defense. The most effective thing I can teach them is awareness. Awareness of not only where they are, but where they are going. This includes things like who they go with, how they go there, where and when they are going... As well as how to know where exits are, how to recognize when things are going south soon enough and hopefully giving them the confidence to leave a bad situation early enough. This is by far the most effective in self defense. 

I personally don't believe that something practiced for a couple of years, in your early teens, and then ignored for 4 or 5 years, will be of much use... if you had to use it against a bigger, stronger and determined attacker. Maybe some of it will, but also maybe not. 

I would rather have my kids choose their own activities. Fortunately, they usually pick at least some activities with a physical component that helps them learn coordination, gain some strength and or endurance. I feel that if my kids are healthier, stronger, faster and have more endurance will help them be able to escape many situations. That paired with awareness, should cover statistically, most situations.

What I value most, is being able to communicate with my kids. I want them to enjoy being around me, talking with me and doing things we all enjoy together. Ideally, if something starts going wrong, they will talk to me or mom. Hopefully, mom and I will notice any differences and start investigating at the right time. Being more involved with my kids and having their trust and communication is what I feel will help my kids out the most. I feel that me mandating that they do an activity that they are not into, will hinder that closeness with my children. I feel that supporting them in whatever they want to do, brings us closer and builds their self confidence.

While I hope that they will study martial arts... they will get more out of it, if they choose it themselves. I hope that giving them the awareness, allowing them to get in the activities they want, hopefully giving them the confidence and keeping in good communication are enough. Yes, that does leave a hole, if that all fails and they need to know how to fight. But I don't feel that studying any art for a few years, because dad made me, will close that hole.

Concerning the thread topic... I believe that all people, women included, should study self-defense. However, that is not my decision... each person decides for themselves. Though, I highly encourage all to train.


----------



## AngryHobbit

oftheherd1 said:


> Stern requirements and punishment must sometimes be utilized, but rewards are always better.  But a detective saving himself and a grandfather who points out the possibility of your life being save?  Ya gotta love that!


That's why he was my favorite grandfather.  He saved me from rickets when I was a newborn baby by exercising me and using folk remedies. He taught me how to read from street signs and store marquees. And he motivated me to play piano by pointing out how it might save my life someday.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JR 137 said:


> Many people either forget this point or just don’t know.  This is why I’ve been telling my wife she should go to the class given by the local police department for several years now.  And why my daughters will go once they’re old enough.  My mother went through her employer at the time.  She said it was far more situational awareness and statistics than physical skills.
> 
> MA will only get you so far.  The awareness aspect will get you a lot further.  Very few attacks are committed by the stereotypical guy in a ski mask jumping out of no where, regardless of what the movies and news lead us to believe.


This is an area that wasn't covered enough in my training. I've been working to improve my knowledge in this area (and some others) to do better for my students.


----------



## Tez3

oftheherd1 said:


> Good read Tez3.  Thanks for the link.
> 
> One thing I think the article sort of danced around was watching out for and discussing with children what may happen to them when puberty begins to set in.



The article is European, it's taken for granted that sex education from parents and schools is extensive so everyone knows what happens at puberty.

Most self defence for women is run by men from a male perspective of want women face which is usually sympathetic but not actually helpful.


----------



## AngryHobbit

Tez3 said:


> The article is European, it's taken for granted that sex education from parents and schools is extensive so everyone knows what happens at puberty.
> 
> Most self defence for women is run by men from a male perspective of want women face which is usually sympathetic but not actually helpful.



That's a whole separate challenge. I've been trying to motivate women I know to come to class and train with me, but not at all successfully. They are aware of the risks. Some of them are survivors of assault. Almost all of them know someone who has been attacked. But they still won't come. I don't know what to do. Maybe I'm just... not using the right words or something.


----------



## Headhunter

AngryHobbit said:


> That's a whole separate challenge. I've been trying to motivate women I know to come to class and train with me, but not at all successfully. They are aware of the risks. Some of them are survivors of assault. Almost all of them know someone who has been attacked. But they still won't come. I don't know what to do. Maybe I'm just... not using the right words or something.


Nothing...there's nothing you can do if people don't want to train. You can't make someone train. Of course it'd be good if they did but if that's not what they want to do then that's just how it is


----------



## Tez3

AngryHobbit said:


> That's a whole separate challenge. I've been trying to motivate women I know to come to class and train with me, but not at all successfully. They are aware of the risks. Some of them are survivors of assault. Almost all of them know someone who has been attacked. But they still won't come. I don't know what to do. Maybe I'm just... not using the right words or something.




1. Use a female instructor who teaches from a female prospective.
2. Martial arts isn't self defence.
3. Why should women have to be the ones who have to 'take action and have to follow rules'', why shouldn't there be classes that teach males not to attack females?
4. Telling women that they are at risk because they are women isn't the answer.
5. As has been pointed out, most women are attacked by someone known to them.
6. Most women have plans in mind if attacked, this may not be fighting back, there should be no judgement if a female does whatever they feel is right to survive, if that includes not fighting 'giving in' then that's right for them. Physical fighting isn't always the answer.
7. Trust women to know what they want.
8. We've Been Teaching Women to Defend Themselves All Wrong


----------



## JowGaWolf

kravmaga1 said:


> Should Women learn self defense more and more nowadays? How it will help in nowadays life? From what thing women should start learning the self defense tricks?


Check the crime statistics in your area and in surrounding areas.  That should give anyone a realistic view on if they need to learn self-defense or not.  Also check the missing persons list as well.

What you'll find are victims of all ages male and female.  While there are some victims who could not prevent what happened to them.  I'm sure the majority of them had an opportunity to avoid what happened to them had they only recognized the opportunity and taken it.  

Most people are victims because they didn't disengage when they could, or because they just didn't see it coming. There are very few who I would consider "victims by fate." Those people are truly blind sided and there was nothing that they could have done to avoid it.  For example,  someone in a hotel window shooting down on people at a concert.  There's nothing that those people could have done to avoid that situation.  Once in it, self-defense starts to take on an entirely new meaning and perspective.  However, for what most people experience.  The "victims by fate" occurs less often than missed opportunities.


----------



## JowGaWolf

jobo said:


> you also need to accept that giving hem your bag , wallet or car keys is sometimes by far the best strategy


lol.  So what you are telling me is that I shouldn't try to counter-rob someone who tries to take my money.  Even if I think he's going to have more money than me. lol.


----------



## drop bear

AngryHobbit said:


> That's a whole separate challenge. I've been trying to motivate women I know to come to class and train with me, but not at all successfully. They are aware of the risks. Some of them are survivors of assault. Almost all of them know someone who has been attacked. But they still won't come. I don't know what to do. Maybe I'm just... not using the right words or something.



People will do hard work for reward rather than fear.


----------



## JowGaWolf

JR 137 said:


> But I have a couple female friends who should’ve been a bit paranoid


I have friends and family members like this as well.  One of the things being on the planet for 40+ years is that eventually you won't be able to say things like.
1. I don't know anyone who was raped
2. I don't know anyone who wasn't robbed.
3. I don't know anyone who has gotten into a street fight.
4. I don't know anyone who as been abused

Just go through the list of crimes and you'll discover that you know someone directly or loosely who fits into it, many of the crimes that happen to people.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> lol.  So what you are telling me is that I shouldn't try to counter-rob someone who tries to take my money.  Even if I think he's going to have more money than me. lol.



No absolutely counter rob them. They want your wallet. Take theirs.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

kravmaga1 said:


> Should Women learn self defense more and more nowadays? How it will help in nowadays life? From what thing women should start learning the self defense tricks?


My wife is a good example for woman self-defense. Besides she has TKD black belt and Chinese wrestling blue belt, she has armed almost up to her teeth. 

She always carry:

- stun gun,
- pepper spray,
- brass knuckle,
- spikes wristband,
- small knife necklace,
- ninja key chain.

I'll feel sorry for anyone who tries to attack her.


----------



## AngryHobbit

Tez3 said:


> 1. Use a female instructor who teaches from a female prospective.
> 2. Martial arts isn't self defence.
> 3. Why should women have to be the ones who have to 'take action and have to follow rules'', why shouldn't there be classes that teach males not to attack females?
> 4. Telling women that they are at risk because they are women isn't the answer.
> 5. As has been pointed out, most women are attacked by someone known to them.
> 6. Most women have plans in mind if attacked, this may not be fighting back, there should be no judgement if a female does whatever they feel is right to survive, if that includes not fighting 'giving in' then that's right for them. Physical fighting isn't always the answer.
> 7. Trust women to know what they want.
> 8. We've Been Teaching Women to Defend Themselves All Wrong


There is such a thing as self-defense-oriented martial arts. That's why, for example, I invited other women to join me in nihon goshin aikido classes. But if they chose to go and do a self-defense seminar at a local police department - that's cool too, as long as it was something.

I had a conversation with a female co-worker once and she said, "I'd sooner hurt myself than hurt someone else," when I mentioned self-defense training. And that... just... didn't make sense to me. I suppose, ok, she didn't want to hurt someone for her own sake. But wouldn't she want to protect her kids, for example? Her dog? Her elderly parents? Wouldn't that be worth it? Or is it that people just don't think about it that way? I honestly don't know. 

I completely agree with you that it should not be the answer - telling women they are at risk because they are women... or teaching women to defend themselves instead of teaching men not to attack. But that's the world we live in. We ARE at risk. And yes, there are plenty of good men out there who don't need to be told why they should not attack a woman - or anyone for that matter. But there are also plenty of others. 

The skewed nature of sexual assault toward women as the most common victims and men as the most common assailants affects other victims regardless of gender combination. It's bad enough women don't report such incidents, because they are afraid they'll be blamed (you know, the standard BS "You skirt was too short." "You were wearing too much makeup", blah, blah, blah). I can't even imagine what it's like for a woman reporting a sexual assault by another woman. Or for a man reporting a sexual assault by another man. Or for a man reporting a sexual assault by a woman. 

Again, it is not a comforting thought to tell anyone - man or woman, "Learn how to defend yourself, because of all the reasons we know, but mostly - because of what we don't know." But that is our reality. I would much rather have the training and never have to use it than not have it at all.


----------



## AngryHobbit

drop bear said:


> People will do hard work for reward rather than fear.


Isn't being able to escape with your life and unscathed reward enough?


----------



## AngryHobbit

JowGaWolf said:


> I have friends and family members like this as well.  One of the things being on the planet for 40+ years is that eventually you won't be able to say things like.
> 1. I don't know anyone who was raped
> 2. I don't know anyone who wasn't robbed.
> 3. I don't know anyone who has gotten into a street fight.
> 4. I don't know anyone who as been abused
> 
> Just go through the list of crimes and you'll discover that you know someone directly or loosely who fits into it, many of the crimes that happen to people.


You know... I started going through that list and immediately felt depressed. Wouldn't it be awesome to actually be able to say "I don't know anyone who" to at least one of these?


----------



## hoshin1600

Tez3 said:


> 3. Why should women have to be the ones who have to 'take action and have to follow rules'', why shouldn't there be classes that teach males not to attack females?


i am not sure i understand your comment of why women need to take action and follow rules.  what rules are you referring?  there are no classes to teach men not to attack women because #1 they wouldnt work , #2 we already have a system in place that works to discourage such behavior, its called prison.  #3 its pretty self evident its wrong but some dont care and the threat of imprisonment doesnt seem to stop them.  these men are predators not much different than snakes or wolves in their behavior. classes for wolves to not attack sheep doesnt work so well either.  that is why the onus is on women for the responsiblity of their own safety.



Tez3 said:


> Most women have plans in mind if attacked, this may not be fighting back, there should be no judgement if a female does whatever they feel is right to survive, if that includes not fighting 'giving in' then that's right for them. Physical fighting isn't always the answer.


i am not so sure this is true.  some women may have plans but i can tell you from the relationships in my life and the women i have known, they did not and at least one replied to my questioning "its just never gonna happen to me, so i dont worry about it"  i say how do you know, it could. " i just know its never gonna happen, its just not"
the next factor is whether the plan they have in their minds is viable.  as Mike Tyson said " everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face".   does their plan match reality?  how would they know if it does?  how do they know its a good plan?

as far as judgement of her decisions: the biggest judgment is from themselves and the questioning of their own choices.  i would like to point out that US statistics show that victims of rape who do not fight back have higher instances of emotional issues like PTSD than women who fought back. it would seem self evident that women who fought back and maybe lost would not feel the same sense of questioning and regret as those who froze in fear and did nothing.  doing nothing will always bring up the "what ifs" .
while physical fighting is not always the answer,  it should be an option and a choice.   not learn physical skills would mean that it is not an option.  no skills means no choice, giving in would be the ONLY choice.  i think the whole point of self defense classes is to give options and skills.

EDIT:
i also wanted to say that the article Tez posted was really good.  although the term feminist self defense is a bit of a turn off .with today's environment the word "feminist" is a very charged word in the US and Canada.


----------



## oftheherd1

Tez3 said:


> The article is European, it's taken for granted that sex education from parents and schools is extensive so everyone knows what happens at puberty.
> 
> Most self defence for women is run by men from a male perspective of want women face which is usually sympathetic but not actually helpful.



I don't think we are ignorant of the effects of puberty exactly, we just don't seem to take them so much into account nor look for remedies.  Maybe Europeans are some ahead of us.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> The article is European, it's taken for granted that sex education from parents and schools is extensive so everyone knows what happens at puberty.
> 
> Most self defence for women is run by men from a male perspective of want women face which is usually sympathetic but not actually helpful.


Most really just teach self-defense as they would to any audience, and change the wording of their explanations. I've taught self-defense to rooms of just women, but I've never called it "self-defense for women", because I don't change anything about my wording or approach. I don't have a problem with instructors (men or women) teaching general SD to women, but it rankles me when they name it as if it were a specialty program for women when it isn't.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> Why should women have to be the ones who have to 'take action and have to follow rules'', why shouldn't there be classes that teach males not to attack females?


Most men know not to. And teaching the "wrong" of it doesn't change the minds of those who would. Until we learn a way to change those minds, helping the women defend themselves is one thing we can do.


----------



## hoshin1600

[
QUOTE="Tez3, post: 1882458, member: 10553"]. We've Been Teaching Women to Defend Themselves All Wrong[/QUOTE]
i said this article Tez posted was pretty good,  but i am still going to critique it and make some comments. i do realize that to a degree i am preaching to the choir.

_"When I started looking for a self-defense class, what I was really looking for was one that would teach me how to fight"_
i am not sure this is the correct criteria for choosing a self defense class.  yes, physical martial skills are important but in a self defense class the goal should not be to "WIN"  a fight.  the goal should be to get out of the danger zone and perhaps that means stopping the threat but not necessarily.

_"I signed up for Krav Maga—partly because it’s totally lethal"_
a little over exaggerated and it is typical of someone who is inexperienced and excited about martial arts to see what they do as "the best".
people looking for self defense need to be a little more investigative about these classes and sometimes a little critical.

_"It’s a simple yet brutally effective type of hand-to-hand combat, originally designed for Israel’s military."_
it should be obvious that if it was designed for the military, that it was not designed for civilian's.  just because something is effective in one field does not automatically make it effective in another.

_"I discovered that it (krav- maga) takes years to learn "
 "Empowerment classes can be completed in weeks, not the years it takes to master martial arts_."
i put these two sentences together. the first from the beginning of the article and the second from the end.  i have an issue with any instructor that puts forth the idea to his students that hours and weeks of training and learning will last any longer in the persons memory and skill set than hours and weeks.

_“I don’t think taking a Krav Maga class will give you the immediate skills that people might be looking for,"_
see this is a problem. the instructor is implying that the classes she provides give instant results.  this is deceptive at best and at worst an out right lie.  if your going to be a professional in the field then you should be giving an honest evaluation of expectations. that also means of yourself and of the product your offer!  these classes may someday have a real impact on people lives, God forbid they need it and that responsibility should be taken seriously and not taken lightly.





self defense like this really burns my butt.
"four self defense moves that do not need any training at all"   i do not want to disparage Harry'd daughter but looking at her performance of these moves......they were not "as advertised"  no training means you have no skill and thus it is not an option when they are needed.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> People will do hard work for reward rather than fear.


People avoid for fear, approach for reward. It's not an absolute, but a reasonable general rule.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

AngryHobbit said:


> Isn't being able to escape with your life and unscathed reward enough?


Not if they aren't attacked on a regular basis. Fear of that potential attack is a more potent motivator, but doesn't motivate most people to get training, but to try to avoid being a victim (which is a good idea, if they are getting the right information to do so).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

hoshin1600 said:


> self defense like this really burns my butt.
> "four self defense moves that do not need any training at all" i do not want to disparage Harry'd daughter but looking at her performance of these moves......they were not "as advertised" no training means you have no skill and thus it is not an option when they are needed.


Agreed. The "Dracula" is our cross-face elbow strike. It does take some effort for some people to learn, and repetitions to become an easy response for most people. I've yet to find a single defensive move - no matter how simple - that every person could do well and effectively the first time. And that's without the interference of their avoidance and flinch responses.


----------



## drop bear

AngryHobbit said:


> Isn't being able to escape with your life and unscathed reward enough?



Nope. 

That is called something something in psychology. It is why people don't prepare for cyclones as well.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Nope.
> 
> That is called something something in psychology. It is why people don't prepare for cyclones as well.


I think that's the actual term. I know I'm using that every time I discuss the topic from now on.


----------



## oftheherd1

hoshin1600 said:


> @aedrasteia i appreciate your posting and i understand the point your trying to make. however it seems to me you post questions rather than answers.  in some cases this may be helpful to guide people into thinking about the topic and their own beliefs.  but i cant help thinking that your own posts are equally unhelpful as the people your trying to correct.
> 
> *Might I suggest that asking questions as aedrasteia has done, is a way both to encourage thought, and then answers to important questions, as well as showing aedrasteia's strong dismay concerning women being taken advantage of.  I just have trouble agreeing with your interpretation of her motives.*
> 
> i understand what you are implying here but you cannot say that the typical self defense class in general is NOT HELPFUL.
> in the US statics show that there is a great success rate of preventing a rape by physical resistance.  that there is virtually no increase in physical harm to a defender if she fights back vs compliance.  that determined physical resistance is successful where half hearted pleading and resistance is detrimental.  yelling and screaming is actually detrimental and shows a major increase in physical injury.
> that the three most successful strategies for averting an attempted rape are, stern verbal resistance (saying no), threat of consequences, and determined physical resistance.
> 
> *Maybe it would be helpful if you would define helpful.  Also, could you link to some studies showing great success in resisting rape leading to preventing rape, and the use of the three strategies you mention?  It has not been my experience that they are.  I'm not saying one of those strategies wouldn't work sometimes, but I don't think it is the norm.
> 
> And less increase in physical harm from resistance vs compliance?  Compliance?  Can you give an example of compliance?*
> 
> i will ask, why is this ?  why are young girls targeted more than adults in many cases?  it is because of the lower level of resistance and the inability of young small girls to put forth a formidable physical resistance.
> 
> *I think it has more to do with the age preference of the perpetrator.  Also, I think young girls are quite often more susceptible to grooming than forcible rape.  But engaging in sex with girls below a certain age, is still normally codified as rape, even if the victim may not perceive themselves as victims.*
> 
> i think your post is an attempt to show the difference between forcible rape and coercion.  that in many cases it is coercion. i will agree that in these circumstances physical resistance in the form of MA is more difficult to respond with because of the familiarity with the perpetrator but that is not to say it is inappropriate.
> unfortunate as your example is, as was pointed out, there are just some situations that are beyond the scope of martial arts and their instructors and i believe children in this situation is one of those.
> 
> martial arts is a valuable tool for rape prevention.  it should be pointed out that it is not a solution in and of itself, that it is only one component of a successful strategy but it should not be presented and painted as useless in order to bring other non physical strategies to the forefront.



I haven't seen anything that defines the method used against the Olympic girls.  It would be perhaps useful to know.  Was the abuse forceful or something more subtle?  I don't know.  But your last two paragraphs are I think, largely correct.  Martial arts training might give more confidence to younger women or girls to resist unwanted behavior, or may not if they don't know what is unwanted behavior. 

I hope I don't sound too negative to your post.  But I do think you are a little off track, even though well intentioned.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> 1. Use a female instructor who teaches from a female prospective.
> 2. Martial arts isn't self defence.
> 3. Why should women have to be the ones who have to 'take action and have to follow rules'', why shouldn't there be classes that teach males not to attack females?
> 4. Telling women that they are at risk because they are women isn't the answer.
> 5. As has been pointed out, most women are attacked by someone known to them.
> 6. Most women have plans in mind if attacked, this may not be fighting back, there should be no judgement if a female does whatever they feel is right to survive, if that includes not fighting 'giving in' then that's right for them. Physical fighting isn't always the answer.
> 7. Trust women to know what they want.
> 8. We've Been Teaching Women to Defend Themselves All Wrong



My issue is, and this is including the article. I would personally consider the methods something I would not put my trust in.

And If I would not use that method to protect myself. I just wouldn't recomend it to someone else.

So there would have to be some sort of compelling argument that a system works. And the argument would have to be scientific method.

So this altenate method of womens self defence has to show evidence of it working. Rather than just be hypothesis.






There may be a specific method that works for females rather than males but there is no evidence that this is the case.

just to sort of address this idea separately.
Lets take that No.3 and apply it to when I worked security.

3. Why should bouncers have to be the ones who have to 'take action and have to follow rules'', why shouldn't there be classes that teach drunks not to attack bouncers?

And then the answer is because tough cookies. that environment isnt going to change for wishing. So it is on you do develop the tools to deal with life. Or change your enviroment so you are not around people who attack you.


----------



## drop bear

hoshin1600 said:


> _"When I started looking for a self-defense class, what I was really looking for was one that would teach me how to fight"_
> i am not sure this is the correct criteria for choosing a self defense class. yes, physical martial skills are important but in a self defense class the goal should not be to "WIN" a fight. the goal should be to get out of the danger zone and perhaps that means stopping the threat but not necessarily.



I still think training to win a fight sets you up functionally better to escape a fight.

Escaping a fight is still a compilation of wins. Especially if you are under someone getting rained on. Because you fight for every position you get.

People think fighting or escaping is doing the technique and having it just work. And that mostly isnt fighting I am sorry to say. It is in reality getting a tiny inch of advantage to get another inch of advantage and so on untill you are where you want to be.


----------



## hoshin1600

oftheherd1 said:


> I haven't seen anything that defines the method used against the Olympic girls.  It would be perhaps useful to know.  Was the abuse forceful or something more subtle?  I don't know.  But your last two paragraphs are I think, largely correct.  Martial arts training might give more confidence to younger women or girls to resist unwanted behavior, or may not if they don't know what is unwanted behavior.
> 
> I hope I don't sound too negative to your post.  But I do think you are a little off track, even though well intentioned.



I think you post has some technical difficulties.  I was confused at first but I think I got it.  Most of your comments are mixed within the quote.
I will address it as time allows today. But what exactly do you think is off track?


----------



## Tez3

You see, all men deciding what women should have.


----------



## oftheherd1

Tez3 said:


> You see, all men deciding what women should have.



All is a big number Tez3.


----------



## AngryHobbit

Tez3 said:


> You see, all men deciding what women should have.


Excuse me? I am here too. The last time I checked I was female. And I agree with some of these gentlemen - not because I have no brain of my own, but because I don't let the fact that I am a woman stop me from listening when a man makes good sense. 

I too believe the point "why should women learn to defend themselves instead of men learning not to attack" is beautiful and altruistic but is not at all in sync with reality. If we made a gentleman's course on treating ladies mandatory for every boy today, this moment, it would probably still take two or three generations to notice a real change. I'm not waiting that long.


----------



## AngryHobbit

Malos1979 said:


> I'm not sure why the whole topic of "womens self defense" is even a topic. Are men and women that different? Isn't the self defense that works for men not applicable to women ?
> 
> And seriously? Do you live in a warzone?


I recommend self-defense to both men and women. And women are perfectly capable of training alongside men and achieving the same levels of proficiency. The reason for the emphasis on women's self-defense is because the stats are in and, according to US Bureau of Justice annual reports, while men are more likely to be victims of drug-related, or gang-related homicides, women are more likely to fall victim to domestic abuse and sex-related homicides. 

In 2011, 98.9% of people arrested for forcible rape were men, 79.7% of people arrested for violence against their family members, including children were men. Whom do you suppose they were committing those acts againat? Mostly women and children.

FBI has an excellent set of annual reports, breaking down violent crimes by perpetrator, victim, race, age, income bracket, living conditions (as in - suburbs, rural, inner city, etc.) If you look at those, you'll see one need not live in a warzone to be raped or murdered. Yes, there are bad neighborhoods (hello, inner city Detroit - we had a friend who used to work as a third shift paramedic there). But not all crimes take place in dark alleys. Some of them take place in broad daylight, in public places, in well-lit parking lots and garages, and - the scariest of them all - near or inside people's homes.


----------



## Tez3

AngryHobbit said:


> Excuse me? I am here too. The last time I checked I was female. And I agree with some of these gentlemen - not because I have no brain of my own, but because I don't let the fact that I am a woman stop me from listening when a man makes good sense.



Stick around and you will find out why we used to have a lot of women on this site and now don't.

I speak from my experience both in my professional life before I retired and my martial art life in the UK, about 50 years worth. The FBI figures don't, obviously, cover the rest of the world.

Martial arts and self defence are big business now, it pays for instructors and martial arts business owners to scare people into signing up for so called 'self defence courses'.

Rules for women.... these are usually given as dress modestly, if you wear short skirts etc you are 'asking for it'. Don't go out alone at night, don't drink too much alcohol, don't behave in a provocative manner ie 'behave yourselves, don't bring on an attack'. There is still the thought in many people's minds that when a woman is attacked she brought it on herself ..something she did or wore..., sometimes even the female victim thinks that, notably in domestic abuse situations.

No, self defence for men isn't the same as self defence for women for a number of reasons. Life Assurance: Women VS Men: difference in self-defense approach

Feminist....perhaps like many words it's been skewed in North America but I'm not from there so where I come from it's not a dirty word.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> You see, all men deciding what women should have.


Um, no. Not much here about what "women should have" (most of the "should" has been targeted at people in general). One woman making the same arguments as some of the men, and some of us talking about the difference between what we wish ("should be") and what is.

We didn't choose our gender, and that gender doesn't make our thoughts irrelevant. Nobody here is shutting women down - we are having an open discussion that actually includes some women.


----------



## Tez3

Sign, sorry but my time on this planet is limited now so I really am not going to spend it arguing and explaining. Many men have good intentions but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I'm sure you all mean well but this has been hashed out on many threads now and the same points keep coming up so what is the point of my trying to explain to the same people time and time again.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Malos1979 said:


> I'm not sure why the whole topic of "womens self defense" is even a topic. Are men and women that different? Isn't the self defense that works for men not applicable to women ?
> 
> 
> 
> And seriously? Do you live in a warzone?


When we talk about self-defense as I define it (the physical defense against an imminent attack), then it's not greatly different. It's likely they'll face a larger/stronger attacker, so mostly the same adjustments to be made that a weaker/smaller man would make. There's some difference in the kinds of attacks they're more likely to face, so perhaps a different focus, but still the same range.

If we widen the discussion to self-protection (others include this in their definition of self-defense), then there's a significant difference. And there is probably a different discussion to be had about the choice of fighting back or not and that sort of thing.

So, if it's meant to be specifically for women, it probably should be different. If they are learning as part of a larger (mixed-gender) group, then it's all mostly the same, with tailoring to the student where we can.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> Rules for women.... these are usually given as dress modestly, if you wear short skirts etc you are 'asking for it'. Don't go out alone at night, don't drink too much alcohol, don't behave in a provocative manner ie 'behave yourselves, don't bring on an attack'.


I teach most of those rules - except the modesty thing - in a more reasonable fashion. I teach them to both men and women, because they are good ways to avoid some of the situations that require self-defense. You're convinced men are controlling and bashing women on here, and none of that is happening.


> There is still the thought in many people's minds that when a woman is attacked she brought it on herself ..something she did or wore..., sometimes even the female victim thinks that, notably in domestic abuse situations.


I've found men sometimes do that to themselves, too, though it seems more common with the women I've talked to. I've wondered whether that's a function of socialization or the nature of the assault. One important point is that telling people (men or women) how they can avoid a problem isn't the same as saying it's their fault. A woman can reduce her chances of assault by not drinking too much. She shouldn't have to control her drinking to avoid assault, but she can't control someone else's behavior - only her own. I can replace a few words and make that true about young men avoiding getting into fights. I avoid some areas of some cities to manage the danger. I shouldn't have to, but I know the danger there and choose to be safer. That's how we take back some of the control.


----------



## JR 137

Tez3 said:


> You see, all men deciding what women should have.


I’m not here as a man deciding what women should have.  I’m here as a father deciding what his children should do.  And my often unagreeable  wife (one of the many traits for which I fell in love with her for) agrees with me.  Had she proposed some compelling points that ran contrary to my opinions, both of us would come to a mutual agreement of what’s best for our daughters.

Simple as that.


----------



## AngryHobbit

Tez3 said:


> Stick around and you will find out why we used to have a lot of women on this site and now don't.
> 
> I speak from my experience both in my professional life before I retired and my martial art life in the UK, about 50 years worth. The FBI figures don't, obviously, cover the rest of the world.
> 
> Martial arts and self defence are big business now, it pays for instructors and martial arts business owners to scare people into signing up for so called 'self defence courses'.
> 
> Rules for women.... these are usually given as dress modestly, if you wear short skirts etc you are 'asking for it'. Don't go out alone at night, don't drink too much alcohol, don't behave in a provocative manner ie 'behave yourselves, don't bring on an attack'. There is still the thought in many people's minds that when a woman is attacked she brought it on herself ..something she did or wore..., sometimes even the female victim thinks that, notably in domestic abuse situations.
> 
> No, self defence for men isn't the same as self defence for women for a number of reasons. Life Assurance: Women VS Men: difference in self-defense approach
> 
> Feminist....perhaps like many words it's been skewed in North America but I'm not from there so where I come from it's not a dirty word.




I am aware of the rules, thank you. I am not clueless. In addition to being an assault survivor and a survivor of molestation by a male family member, I am also educated in a traditionally male profession, and have worked my entire career in male-dominated workplaces. So, I am very well informed on how things work in these areas. Still, I am smart enough not to reject someone's opinion if it makes sense to me just because the person expressing it is not a woman. That would be sexist too. Am I supposed to throw out everything I've learned about literature, music, art, physics, chemistry, mathematics, and everything else if the information was presented by men? No, that would be stupid. 

By the same token, I don't look at who is saying something here - but at WHAT they are saying. If what they say makes sense and is helpful, I listen and learn.


----------



## hoshin1600

Tez3 said:


> Sign, sorry but my time on this planet is limited now so I really am not going to spend it arguing and explaining. Many men have good intentions but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I'm sure you all mean well but this has been hashed out on many threads now and the same points keep coming up so what is the point of my trying to explain to the same people time and time again.


if you want to sign off... AGAIN... and not be a part of the conversation then by all means do so.  but im not going to let you off the hook so easy this time.  your making accusations that are not substantiated by what has been posted in this particular thread.  judging this thread by past experience is a negative attitude and being blinded by bias. 


Tez3 said:


> There is still the thought in many people's minds that when a woman is attacked she brought it on herself ..something she did or wore...,


not one person has made that statement here on this thread.  your only argument is against your own bias and thoughts.


Tez3 said:


> Martial arts and self defence are big business now, it pays for instructors and martial arts business owners to scare people into signing up for so called 'self defence courses'


again with your bias.   no one here, that i know of does that nor have that posted anything that would imply this.

i mean seriously Tez this conversation has not been hostile towards women in the least and it has not provided any false or detrimental advise or faulty strategies.  if you have a disagreement with anything in specific that has been stated then bring forward proof and post it as false information or ideas and denounce what was specifically posted ,,,,other wise it becomes very obvious to all that what you are really against is MEN... and you feel that men should not even have a platform to speak on this topic.
this is a martial art forum, for men and women get over it.


----------



## AngryHobbit

JR 137 said:


> I’m not here as a man deciding what women should have.  I’m here as a father deciding what his children should do.  And my often unagreeable  wife (one of the many traits for which I fell in love with her for) agrees with me.  Had she proposed some compelling points that ran contrary to my opinions, both of us would come to a mutual agreement of what’s best for our daughters.
> 
> Simple as that.


Something I just thought of, JR, on the subject of bullying. I know every country, every town, and every school is different. So, I can only speak from my own experience. In the former Soviet Union, we didn't switch schools - there was no grade school, middle school, and high school. Instead, you spent ten years at the same school, same building, same group of people. I was bullied pretty much through my entire time at school. Here is something - I was mostly bullied by girls. I was the shortest child in my class of 33 people, and I think boys considered it beneath them to bully me. One or the other of them might throw a snowball at me, or tug on my ponytail now and then, but, mostly, boys left me alone. 

Girls however... oh. my. god. Girls were vicious. Not only did they bully me non-stop (well, me and a couple other poor souls they chose as targets), but they tried to do so as painfully as possible. If they said something mean - it was REALLY mean. If they hit - they hit multiple times, scratched, and pinched, and made sure it showed. If you didn't emerge with at least a few scrapes or bruises, it didn't count.

Later on, when I was in college in Ukraine, I spoke to other girls I was in class with and asked them about it. Now, this was a technical college, so not a lot of girls - and most of us were the "Hermione Granger" types. Very nerdy. Very studious. And all of them had very similar experiences. They were bullied and most of the bullying was done by other girls.

I am not sure whether the same issue exists in American or European schools. It is very possible what happened to me was the direct result of the VERY skewed and perverse attitude toward genders cultivated in the Soviet Union. But definitely something to keep an eye on for your girls. Anyone can be a bully. It can be a boy. It can be a girl. It can be a classmate or a teacher. Sadly, jerks come in all shapes, sizes, colors, ages, and genders.


----------



## hoshin1600

oftheherd1 said:


> *Might I suggest that asking questions as aedrasteia has done, is a way both to encourage thought, and then answers to important questions, as well as showing aedrasteia's strong dismay concerning women being taken advantage of. I just have trouble agreeing with your interpretation of her motives.*
> 
> I hope I don't sound too negative to your post.  But I do think you are a little off track, even though well intentioned.



i am not questioning her motives.  i know she is very knowledgeable on this topic. but i have trouble with the way many posters on this sight show up and criticize (not that she was) things that were posted and point out the flaws in peoples posts but then turn and leave without posting up their own views and suggestions or even solutions.  often it is a hit and run tactic "you peoples ideas are wrong and suck...now im leaving "  and then wont post their own ideas to be up for debate.
i can be a very harsh critic and i debate ALOT.  but i am not afraid to post my thoughts and im willing to debate them. as evidenced by this very reply to you.
my thoughts on -A-'s  post is that she has a lot of knowledge but never lets the rest of us in on them.  perhaps she is unwilling to defend them or debate them, thinking it is a fruitless battle. i dont know.  but i would like to hear more of her views than just pointing out how the rest of us may be incorrect in our thinking.  i would prefer specifics.


----------



## drop bear

Malos1979 said:


> I'm not sure why the whole topic of "womens self defense" is even a topic. Are men and women that different? Isn't the self defense that works for men not applicable to women ?
> 
> 
> 
> And seriously? Do you live in a warzone?



I would has said what works. Works.


----------



## drop bear

By the way girls dont train any different to boys when they jump in the cage. And they dont fight any different.

And If you wanted to make the statement that you can turn a girl into some sort of fighter with a specialist girl fighting system. You would want to be turning out some top fighters.

Otherwise girls and guys are looking for the people who are going to give them the best chance of winning.


----------



## Headhunter

Tez3 said:


> Stick around and you will find out why we used to have a lot of women on this site and now don't.
> 
> I speak from my experience both in my professional life before I retired and my martial art life in the UK, about 50 years worth. The FBI figures don't, obviously, cover the rest of the world.
> 
> Martial arts and self defence are big business now, it pays for instructors and martial arts business owners to scare people into signing up for so called 'self defence courses'.
> 
> Rules for women.... these are usually given as dress modestly, if you wear short skirts etc you are 'asking for it'. Don't go out alone at night, don't drink too much alcohol, don't behave in a provocative manner ie 'behave yourselves, don't bring on an attack'. There is still the thought in many people's minds that when a woman is attacked she brought it on herself ..something she did or wore..., sometimes even the female victim thinks that, notably in domestic abuse situations.
> 
> No, self defence for men isn't the same as self defence for women for a number of reasons. Life Assurance: Women VS Men: difference in self-defense approach
> 
> Feminist....perhaps like many words it's been skewed in North America but I'm not from there so where I come from it's not a dirty word.


Um did you get out of bed on the wrong side today or something. No one has said any of this stuff on this thread....we get it you hate men but don't go trying to start arguments about things that aren't here


----------



## hoshin1600

@oftheherd1 
_" could you link to some studies showing great success in resisting rape leading to preventing rape, and the use of the three strategies you mention? It has not been my experience that they are. I'm not saying one of those strategies wouldn't work sometimes, but I don't think it is the norm."_


Certain Self-Defense Actions Can Decrease Risk | National Institute of Justice

this is just one link expressing what i was saying.  i am at work so its not really something i want to be looking up here.

_"And less increase in physical harm from resistance vs compliance? Compliance? Can you give an example of compliance?"_
what i actually said was that if we use compliance as a base line, (compliance meaning you just give in with zero resistance)  if the victim actually resists there is statistically no increase in injury to the victim.  i have to stress the statistic part because it will increase injury sometimes in some instances depending on the profile of the perpetrator but statistically across many occurances there would be no increase.


----------



## JR 137

AngryHobbit said:


> Something I just thought of, JR, on the subject of bullying. I know every country, every town, and every school is different. So, I can only speak from my own experience. In the former Soviet Union, we didn't switch schools - there was no grade school, middle school, and high school. Instead, you spent ten years at the same school, same building, same group of people. I was bullied pretty much through my entire time at school. Here is something - I was mostly bullied by girls. I was the shortest child in my class of 33 people, and I think boys considered it beneath them to bully me. One or the other of them might throw a snowball at me, or tug on my ponytail now and then, but, mostly, boys left me alone.
> 
> Girls however... oh. my. god. Girls were vicious. Not only did they bully me non-stop (well, me and a couple other poor souls they chose as targets), but they tried to do so as painfully as possible. If they said something mean - it was REALLY mean. If they hit - they hit multiple times, scratched, and pinched, and made sure it showed. If you didn't emerge with at least a few scrapes or bruises, it didn't count.
> 
> Later on, when I was in college in Ukraine, I spoke to other girls I was in class with and asked them about it. Now, this was a technical college, so not a lot of girls - and most of us were the "Hermione Granger" types. Very nerdy. Very studious. And all of them had very similar experiences. They were bullied and most of the bullying was done by other girls.
> 
> I am not sure whether the same issue exists in American or European schools. It is very possible what happened to me was the direct result of the VERY skewed and perverse attitude toward genders cultivated in the Soviet Union. But definitely something to keep an eye on for your girls. Anyone can be a bully. It can be a boy. It can be a girl. It can be a classmate or a teacher. Sadly, jerks come in all shapes, sizes, colors, ages, and genders.


I’m a school teacher.  I’ve taught in public schools and I currently teach in a private school.  I’ve been a teacher for almost 10 years now.

What I’ve personally seen, and reflecting on my own experience in elementary-high school is that most bullying is same-gender.  Girls can and sometimes do bully boys, and vice versa, but no where near as often as same-gender.

I don’t worry too much about my girls being bullied.  Sure, it’ll happen at some point, but I highly doubt it’ll go very far.  They’re both pretty strong willed, don’t put up with nonsense, and aren’t afraid to tell who needs to be told.  Basically, they’re not easy targets.  Could this change? Absolutely.

The physical SD aspect is a very small part of the overall picture.  A critical one that could save their lives and/or mental and physical health IMO, but only a small part.


----------



## AngryHobbit

JR 137 said:


> I’m a school teacher.  I’ve taught in public schools and I currently teach in a private school.  I’ve been a teacher for almost 10 years now.
> 
> What I’ve personally seen, and reflecting on my own experience in elementary-high school is that most bullying is same-gender.  Girls can and sometimes do bully boys, and vice versa, but no where near as often as same-gender.
> 
> I don’t worry too much about my girls being bullied.  Sure, it’ll happen at some point, but I highly doubt it’ll go very far.  They’re both pretty strong willed, don’t put up with nonsense, and aren’t afraid to tell who needs to be told.  Basically, they’re not easy targets.  Could this change? Absolutely.
> 
> The physical SD aspect is a very small part of the overall picture.  A critical one that could save their lives and/or mental and physical health IMO, but only a small part.


Ah, you got it covered then - no worries!


----------



## CB Jones

JR 137 said:


> The physical SD aspect is a very small part of the overall picture. A critical one that could save their lives and/or mental and physical health IMO, but only a small part.



I agree

Physical SD like CCW should be the backup or last resort plan if/when prevention fails

People just shouldn’t become over confident in their physical SD or CCW and become lackadaisical on prevention.

An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure.


----------



## AngryHobbit

CB Jones said:


> I agree
> 
> Physical SD like CCW should be the backup or last resort plan if/when prevention fails
> 
> People just shouldn’t become over confident in their physical SD or CCW and become lackadaisical on prevention.
> 
> An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure.


Amen. We all know there IS no magic bullet (or unbeatable strike or form or pose). I could never understand people who trained in martial arts and then purposely went looking for trouble to show off.


----------



## oftheherd1

hoshin1600 said:


> i am not questioning her motives.  i know she is very knowledgeable on this topic. but i have trouble with the way many posters on this sight show up and criticize (not that she was) things that were posted and point out the flaws in peoples posts but then turn and leave without posting up their own views and suggestions or even solutions.  often it is a hit and run tactic "you peoples ideas are wrong and suck...now im leaving "  and then wont post their own ideas to be up for debate.
> i can be a very harsh critic and i debate ALOT.  but i am not afraid to post my thoughts and im willing to debate them. as evidenced by this very reply to you.
> my thoughts on -A-'s  post is that she has a lot of knowledge but never lets the rest of us in on them.  perhaps she is unwilling to defend them or debate them, thinking it is a fruitless battle. i dont know.  but i would like to hear more of her views than just pointing out how the rest of us may be incorrect in our thinking.  i would prefer specifics.



Maybe you should politely ask her direct questions and see what response you get.  But you should know that she doesn't spend as much time on MT as many of us do.


----------



## Buka

Ahh, British women reaffirm my love for card tricks and miracles.


----------



## oftheherd1

hoshin1600 said:


> if you want to sign off... AGAIN... and not be a part of the conversation then by all means do so.  but im not going to let you off the hook so easy this time.  your making accusations that are not substantiated by what has been posted in this particular thread.  judging this thread by past experience is a negative attitude and being blinded by bias.
> 
> not one person has made that statement here on this thread.  your only argument is against your own bias and thoughts.
> 
> again with your bias.   no one here, that i know of does that nor have that posted anything that would imply this.
> 
> i mean seriously Tez this conversation has not been hostile towards women in the least and it has not provided any false or detrimental advise or faulty strategies.  if you have a disagreement with anything in specific that has been stated then bring forward proof and post it as false information or ideas and denounce what was specifically posted ,,,,other wise it becomes very obvious to all that what you are really against is MEN... and you feel that men should not even have a platform to speak on this topic.
> this is a martial art forum, for men and women get over it.



Sorry, your first paragraph is a little amusing.  You aren't going to let Tez3 off this time?  From what I have seen of her since I have been at MT, you needed let her off anytime.  She seems perfectly capable of defending herself anytime she chooses to do so.  Also, since when are comments in any thread limited to prior comments in the same thread?  I don't think that has been done since I have been here.  She, as all others at MT, are free to judge however they wish.  You, and the rest of us are free to judge anyone who does so.  That does not necessarily mean any of us have a negative attitude nor that any of us are biased.  Where did you come up with that?

[QUOTING]
Tez3 said: ↑
There is still the thought in many people's minds that when a woman is attacked she brought it on herself ..something she did or wore...,
Click to expand...
[YOUR REPLY]not one person has made that statement here on this thread. your only argument is against your own bias and thoughts.

I think that has been commented on in this thread, but regardless, it pertains to attitudes and beliefs about women's role in their own rapes.  And commented on here or not, that has been around since I first got interested in girls, and as far as I know, a long time before.  Why isn't it pertinent for her to express dismay about it?

[QUOTING]
Tez3 said
Martial arts and self defence are big business now, it pays for instructors and martial arts business owners to scare people into signing up for so called 'self defence courses'

[YOUR REPLY]again with your bias. no one here, that i know of does that nor have that posted anything that would imply this.

Maybe you mean you haven't seen anything mentioned in this thread about MA schools or police departments teaching self defense?


----------



## oftheherd1

@Tez3 

Could you PM me please?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Malos1979 said:


> And seriously? Do you live in a warzone?


We live in a nice neighbor. That's why she doesn't carry her favor Walther PPK. All my family members have received both stun gun and pepper spray for our Christmas gift. I even received a bulletproof vest one year.


----------



## CB Jones

Kung Fu Wang said:


> We live in a nice neighbor. That's why she doesn't carry her favor Walther PPK. All my family members have received both stun gun and pepper spray for our Christmas gift. I even received a bulletproof vest one year.



Me personally.....the Walther would be the first thing I carried above all else.


----------



## hoshin1600

@oftheherd1 
https://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-cont...t-of-Victim-Resistance-on-Rape-Completion.pdf

_"Victim Resistance in Sexual Assault One of the most influential actions a victim can take during a sexual assault is to resist, and resistance has implications for rape completion as well as victim injury beyond the sexual assault itself. Unfortunately, conflicting research evidence across studies results in ambiguity with respect to the impact of victim resistance on victim injury (e.g., see results from Block & Skogan, 1986; Marchbanks, Lui, & Mercy, 1990; Ruback & Ivie, 1988; Tark & Kleck, 2004, 2014; Ullman & Knight, 1993, 1995; Yun & Lee, 2014). The majority of the research focusing on rape completion has found that victim resistance decreases the likelihood of a sexual assault culminating in penetration. Sarah Ullman (1997, 2007) discusses this relationship in detail, suggesting that the more resistance a victim uses, the greater her chances of avoiding a completed rape without incurring more injury. Ullman is not alone in her recommendations in terms of rape avoidance. For example, Clay-Warner (2002) determined a significant reduction in likelihood of completion when victims employed self-protective behaviors. Similarly, Marchbanks, Lui, and Mercy (1990) compared women who used no selfprotection to those who used any of three types of selfprotection (nonforceful, forceful, or both) and determined that victims who used any of these self-protective measures had a substantially decreased likelihood of completed rape. ZouchaJensen and Coyne (1993) found that nonforceful verbal resistance was ineffective at stopping a rape, but that forceful verbal resistance and, even more so, physical resistance served as an effective deterrent to rape completion. Similarly, Kleck and Sayles (1990) determined that resistance with any weapon (particularly a gun or knife) is the most effective in terms of rape avoidance, but that, overwhelmingly, victims who resist are much less likely to suffer a completed rape compared to nonresisters." _


----------



## hoshin1600

@oftheherd1 
_
"And less increase in physical harm from resistance vs compliance? Compliance? Can you give an example of compliance?_
_




_
this is a story of deception and coercion from the perpetrator. compliance from the victim. and in a twist to the plot ,, at the time of the rape SHE was a HE.


----------



## hoshin1600

@oftheherd1 

_"I think it has more to do with the age preference of the perpetrator. Also, I think young girls are quite often more susceptible to grooming than forcible rape. But engaging in sex with girls below a certain age, is still normally codified as rape, even if the victim may not perceive themselves as victims."_

i would argue that the victim always feels like a victim but may feel they are helpless to stop it.  for sure there is pedophila but all predators select victims based on their own success.  week, non- confident, compliant, less apt to tell others, these are the major factors for a predator more so than any age preference.  the crimes of sexual predator are often predicated on a disturbed fantasy. these fantasies have a base component of power and control.  this is why week and young are targets.  its no different than the natural world. the wolf targets the week the old and the young.  you dont often find a wolf taking on a full grown male.  wolves target the week and separate them from the pack.  these behaviors are not species specific, we humans do the same thing.


----------



## hoshin1600

often when the subject of women's self defense comes up the soap boxes and megaphones come out and and the message is..
"sexual predators are not strangers, not a street thug. the incident doesnt happen in a dark ally where the victim is choked and dragged into a dark corner behind a dumpster."
"that the victims are accused of being weak snowflakes that everyone thinks they deserved what happened because they dressed a certain way or where somewhere alone at night where they should not have been"

so for the sake of having a continuing productive conversation on the topic,, anyone who believes this please raise your hand and speak up now.........

if no one speaks up we can assume that the members of MT are a little more educated on the subject than the average person and we can all drop the insinuations of ignorance and move on.  

i would like to know what instructors have in their curriculum on this subject.  and i would like to improve mine by having a conversation about the subject.


----------



## wab25

hoshin1600 said:


> i would like to know what instructors have in their curriculum on this subject. and i would like to improve mine by having a conversation about the subject.


 Thats one of the reasons I got interested in this thread... 

The most important thing I teach on this subject, in my opinion, is the choice and education behind the choice. Are you going to fight back and defend yourself or are you not going to resist? There are a bunch of people (probably most people here) who will tell you to fight back and defend. There are also a bunch of people out there that would have you not resist, hoping that you won't be hurt as much. The thing is, neither group of people, nor myself as the instructor, has to go through what you will go through, if you are in that situation. Therefore, we should not be making your decision. You need to make that decision, and you need to be ok with that decision, because you are going to live with the consequences, if you get into this situation. While I cannot tell you what decision you should make, I can tell you that the worst time to make that decision, is when you realize you are in the middle of this type of situation. 

I encourage them to spend some time thinking about and researching these issues. The goal being to decide how you want to respond if you are ever in such a situation. I would encourage them to read articles and studies similar to those presented here earlier to use in making their choice, study both sides. I want them to be educated and to consider how they want to respond from an educated point of view. Make a plan and know how you want to respond, before ever getting into such a situation. I also encourage them to be open minded about their choices... as they get older, as their situation changes, as they learn more... their decision may change as well. Just like we plan fire escape routes and evacuation routes, we should choose how to respond in this type of situation. 

Once you get that situation figured out, you need to figure out when and how much. If you are being raped, and you reach out, grab a pair of scissors and stab the guy, causing him to bleed out and die... thats one thing. If you are at a house party, and someone leads you gently by elbow, and you reach out, grab a pair of scissors and stab the guy, causing him to bleed out and die... that is another thing entirely, even if the touch was not wanted, or even if they were leading you closer to the bedroom door to possibly isolate you. Deciding how to respond at different points in the escalation of events is also very important... 

Finally, reserve the right to change your mind. If you made a decision on how to respond... and you get in the situation and it isn't working for you, you can change your mind. Especially, since a lot of these things happen on dates... where you were ok with doing this much, you thought. You can change your mind at any time, and have the right to do so. Maybe holding hands was ok last night, but tonight, not so much. You have the right to change that decision and that line, just as much as you have to change your mind about resisting or not.

In the end, there are choices you need to make. You are the one that will deal with the outcome. Take some time, get educated and make the choices you need to make, before you have to make them. While you can ask for, and will get other peoples opinions on what you should do, realize those people don't get your consequences. You need to make your choice.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

wab25 said:


> Thats one of the reasons I got interested in this thread...
> 
> The most important thing I teach on this subject, in my opinion, is the choice and education behind the choice. Are you going to fight back and defend yourself or are you not going to resist? There are a bunch of people (probably most people here) who will tell you to fight back and defend. There are also a bunch of people out there that would have you not resist, hoping that you won't be hurt as much. The thing is, neither group of people, nor myself as the instructor, has to go through what you will go through, if you are in that situation. Therefore, we should not be making your decision. You need to make that decision, and you need to be ok with that decision, because you are going to live with the consequences, if you get into this situation. While I cannot tell you what decision you should make, I can tell you that the worst time to make that decision, is when you realize you are in the middle of this type of situation.
> 
> I encourage them to spend some time thinking about and researching these issues. The goal being to decide how you want to respond if you are ever in such a situation. I would encourage them to read articles and studies similar to those presented here earlier to use in making their choice, study both sides. I want them to be educated and to consider how they want to respond from an educated point of view. Make a plan and know how you want to respond, before ever getting into such a situation. I also encourage them to be open minded about their choices... as they get older, as their situation changes, as they learn more... their decision may change as well. Just like we plan fire escape routes and evacuation routes, we should choose how to respond in this type of situation.
> 
> Once you get that situation figured out, you need to figure out when and how much. If you are being raped, and you reach out, grab a pair of scissors and stab the guy, causing him to bleed out and die... thats one thing. If you are at a house party, and someone leads you gently by elbow, and you reach out, grab a pair of scissors and stab the guy, causing him to bleed out and die... that is another thing entirely, even if the touch was not wanted, or even if they were leading you closer to the bedroom door to possibly isolate you. Deciding how to respond at different points in the escalation of events is also very important...
> 
> Finally, reserve the right to change your mind. If you made a decision on how to respond... and you get in the situation and it isn't working for you, you can change your mind. Especially, since a lot of these things happen on dates... where you were ok with doing this much, you thought. You can change your mind at any time, and have the right to do so. Maybe holding hands was ok last night, but tonight, not so much. You have the right to change that decision and that line, just as much as you have to change your mind about resisting or not.
> 
> In the end, there are choices you need to make. You are the one that will deal with the outcome. Take some time, get educated and make the choices you need to make, before you have to make them. While you can ask for, and will get other peoples opinions on what you should do, realize those people don't get your consequences. You need to make your choice.


I don't talk about this often (small student group, and new blood is rare). I probably should broach the subject more often than I do, even given the small group size. It's an important subject I address more when talking about use-of-force in general than the type of language you use here (which is more directly appropriate to sexual assault), and I like your approach.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

hoshin1600 said:


> i would like to know what instructors have in their curriculum on this subject.  and i would like to improve mine by having a conversation about the subject.


This was my reason for coming to this thread in the first place - both finding what others are doing and improving what I do.


----------



## AngryHobbit

hoshin1600 said:


> @oftheherd1
> https://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-cont...t-of-Victim-Resistance-on-Rape-Completion.pdf
> 
> _"Victim Resistance in Sexual Assault One of the most influential actions a victim can take during a sexual assault is to resist, and resistance has implications for rape completion as well as victim injury beyond the sexual assault itself. Unfortunately, conflicting research evidence across studies results in ambiguity with respect to the impact of victim resistance on victim injury (e.g., see results from Block & Skogan, 1986; Marchbanks, Lui, & Mercy, 1990; Ruback & Ivie, 1988; Tark & Kleck, 2004, 2014; Ullman & Knight, 1993, 1995; Yun & Lee, 2014). The majority of the research focusing on rape completion has found that victim resistance decreases the likelihood of a sexual assault culminating in penetration. Sarah Ullman (1997, 2007) discusses this relationship in detail, suggesting that the more resistance a victim uses, the greater her chances of avoiding a completed rape without incurring more injury. Ullman is not alone in her recommendations in terms of rape avoidance. For example, Clay-Warner (2002) determined a significant reduction in likelihood of completion when victims employed self-protective behaviors. Similarly, Marchbanks, Lui, and Mercy (1990) compared women who used no selfprotection to those who used any of three types of selfprotection (nonforceful, forceful, or both) and determined that victims who used any of these self-protective measures had a substantially decreased likelihood of completed rape. ZouchaJensen and Coyne (1993) found that nonforceful verbal resistance was ineffective at stopping a rape, but that forceful verbal resistance and, even more so, physical resistance served as an effective deterrent to rape completion. Similarly, Kleck and Sayles (1990) determined that resistance with any weapon (particularly a gun or knife) is the most effective in terms of rape avoidance, but that, overwhelmingly, victims who resist are much less likely to suffer a completed rape compared to nonresisters." _


Not as effective, but I can personally attest a high heeled shoe with the heel tipped in high-grade steel and Soviet-manufactured hairspray are pretty good weapons for rape avoidance.


----------



## AngryHobbit

gpseymour said:


> I don't talk about this often (small student group, and new blood is rare). I probably should broach the subject more often than I do, even given the small group size. It's an important subject I address more when talking about use-of-force in general than the type of language you use here (which is more directly appropriate to sexual assault), and I like your approach.


I really wish we could do another seminar like the one we did with that fantastic group of ladies who chose us as the first stop for their girls' day out.


----------



## oftheherd1

wab25 said:


> Thats one of the reasons I got interested in this thread...
> 
> The most important thing I teach on this subject, in my opinion, is the choice and education behind the choice. Are you going to fight back and defend yourself or are you not going to resist? There are a bunch of people (probably most people here) who will tell you to fight back and defend. There are also a bunch of people out there that would have you not resist, hoping that you won't be hurt as much. The thing is, neither group of people, nor myself as the instructor, has to go through what you will go through, if you are in that situation. Therefore, we should not be making your decision. You need to make that decision, and you need to be ok with that decision, because you are going to live with the consequences, if you get into this situation. While I cannot tell you what decision you should make, I can tell you that the worst time to make that decision, is when you realize you are in the middle of this type of situation.
> 
> I encourage them to spend some time thinking about and researching these issues. The goal being to decide how you want to respond if you are ever in such a situation. I would encourage them to read articles and studies similar to those presented here earlier to use in making their choice, study both sides. I want them to be educated and to consider how they want to respond from an educated point of view. Make a plan and know how you want to respond, before ever getting into such a situation. I also encourage them to be open minded about their choices... as they get older, as their situation changes, as they learn more... their decision may change as well. Just like we plan fire escape routes and evacuation routes, we should choose how to respond in this type of situation.
> 
> Once you get that situation figured out, you need to figure out when and how much. If you are being raped, and you reach out, grab a pair of scissors and stab the guy, causing him to bleed out and die... thats one thing. If you are at a house party, and someone leads you gently by elbow, and you reach out, grab a pair of scissors and stab the guy, causing him to bleed out and die... that is another thing entirely, even if the touch was not wanted, or even if they were leading you closer to the bedroom door to possibly isolate you. Deciding how to respond at different points in the escalation of events is also very important...
> 
> Finally, reserve the right to change your mind. If you made a decision on how to respond... and you get in the situation and it isn't working for you, you can change your mind. Especially, since a lot of these things happen on dates... where you were ok with doing this much, you thought. You can change your mind at any time, and have the right to do so. Maybe holding hands was ok last night, but tonight, not so much. You have the right to change that decision and that line, just as much as you have to change your mind about resisting or not.
> 
> In the end, there are choices you need to make. You are the one that will deal with the outcome. Take some time, get educated and make the choices you need to make, before you have to make them. While you can ask for, and will get other peoples opinions on what you should do, realize those people don't get your consequences. You need to make your choice.



All good stuff. 

About 35 years ago, the military post where I was stationed was identified by the US Army as having an inordinate amount of rapes or attempted rapes.  It was already a hot topic in the Army, so as you may imagine, the post commander felt 'obligated' to take to immediate affirmative action.  Actually, he did good.  He set up a training group consisting of a lawyer, a physical security specialist, a social worker specializing in sexual assault, a military 'detective' and I think a couple of other specialties.  I got selected to be on it. 

Now I wasn't as smart as you, so the first time a lady (we gave the class to groups consisting of both men and women BTW) asked me if a man had her on her knees with a gun to her head, ordering her to perform a sexual act, what she should do? I wasn't well prepared.  I gave it some long and serious thought for at least a couple of seconds.  The only thing I could think of was to tell her if that happened she had a choice to make.  That I couldn't really tell her what to do because it would depend on too many circumstances.  The more I thought about it later, I figured that was really the only good advice I could have given.

So, I applaud you for your good sense and bravery to do that.  No matter what one is teaching, it is my experience that people expect a teacher to have all the learning and experience to answer any question.  Disappointment will ensue if they think you should and you don't, and the more so when the teaching involves sexual matters.  That can be subtly or not so subtly communicated, which tends to put us on the defensive, and make us think we have to come up with some answer, good or not.  Dangerous.  If there is no easy answer, better they know that, and think of scenarios before hand, and possible solutions before hand.  And we always pointed out that the class was for both men and women as both victims and aggressors. 

More importantly, how they will be able to live with the consequences of their solution.  I don't think that is done often enough, so I am encouraged to see you do that, even if you don't have the training to give them solutions, at least make them think.  It sounds like you are doing that.  Good on you.


----------



## oftheherd1

AngryHobbit said:


> Not as effective, but I can personally attest a high heeled shoe with the heel tipped in high-grade steel and Soviet-manufactured hairspray are pretty good weapons for rape avoidance.



Letting my imagination run free, I had to laugh at the probable results of such resistance.  Thanks for the laugh.


----------



## AngryHobbit

oftheherd1 said:


> Letting my imagination run free, I had to laugh at the probable results of such resistance.  Thanks for the laugh.


Any time. 

Seriously, though, that was one of those cases where I can only sort of assume what happened but I don't know what happened. Typical - I was coming home from a music lesson, down a not even a particularly dark street. I was 14 at the time. There was no way around that alley - no other route I could have taken. This drunk boor grabbed me from behind - big, sweaty, smelly gorilla. I think I screamed - I am not sure. But, typically, nobody stirred, even though it was in spring and many people had windows open. 

I must have done... something, because he let go and was clutching at his face, and his foot was bleeding through his shoe. What I THINK I did was stomped on his foot with my shoe, somehow grabbed my can of hairspray from my shoulder bag, and sprayed him with it. I don't know. Good old adrenaline. 

The reason I had steel-tipped heels was - I walked a lot (Soviet Union, no car, public transportation in the toilet), and my dad got tired of having to pay for my shoes having to be repaired all the time. So, he gathered all my shoes, took them to the airport where he worked, and had his mechanics put metal tips on all the heels. So, that worked. As I've often read about such cases, the whole thing took seconds, and the big idiot started screaming like a constipated elephant, and I ran home. I could run in heels pretty well - had to catch the aforementioned public transportation many times. I do hope I broke his toes and maybe that good old Soviet hairspray left him blind. Yes, very unladylike and uncharitable of me - I know.


----------



## JR 137

oftheherd1 said:


> Letting my imagination run free, I had to laugh at the probable results of such resistance.  Thanks for the laugh.


Ever see the movie Single White Female?


----------



## oftheherd1

AngryHobbit said:


> Any time.
> 
> Seriously, though, that was one of those cases where I can only sort of assume what happened but I don't know what happened. Typical - I was coming home from a music lesson, down a not even a particularly dark street. I was 14 at the time. There was no way around that alley - no other route I could have taken. This drunk boor grabbed me from behind - big, sweaty, smelly gorilla. I think I screamed - I am not sure. But, typically, nobody stirred, even though it was in spring and many people had windows open.
> 
> I must have done... something, because he let go and was clutching at his face, and his foot was bleeding through his shoe. What I THINK I did was stomped on his foot with my shoe, somehow grabbed my can of hairspray from my shoulder bag, and sprayed him with it. I don't know. Good old adrenaline.
> 
> The reason I had steel-tipped heels was - I walked a lot (Soviet Union, no car, public transportation in the toilet), and my dad got tired of having to pay for my shoes having to be repaired all the time. So, he gathered all my shoes, took them to the airport where he worked, and had his mechanics put metal tips on all the heels. So, that worked. As I've often read about such cases, the whole thing took seconds, and the big idiot started screaming like a constipated elephant, and I ran home. I could run in heels pretty well - had to catch the aforementioned public transportation many times. I do hope I broke his toes and maybe that good old Soviet hairspray left him blind. Yes, very unladylike and uncharitable of me - I know.



"Constipated elephant" is a new one.      In the Army we used to talk from time to time about someone moving or yelling like a constipated ape, but an elephant.  Wish I could have heard that.

From my experience, your experience of not remembering explicit details is not uncommon.  People either seem to remember great detail, or some variation of snatches or nothing.  Often the details come back later.



JR 137 said:


> Ever see the movie Single White Female?



No, I haven't.  Something similar must have happened?


----------



## AngryHobbit

oftheherd1 said:


> "Constipated elephant" is a new one.      In the Army we used to talk from time to time about someone moving or yelling like a constipated ape, but an elephant.  Wish I could have heard that.
> 
> From my experience, your experience of not remembering explicit details is not uncommon.  People either seem to remember great detail, or some variation of snatches or nothing.  Often the details come back later.



Well, he was right over my ear, so it was pretty loud. I remember flashes of it at times - very randomly. You know how sometimes something small triggers a memory? A smell, a flash of color? Kind of like that. I pieced it together over time.



oftheherd1 said:


> No, I haven't.  Something similar must have happened?


I haven't seen the movie either. I want to know!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

AngryHobbit said:


> I really wish we could do another seminar like the one we did with that fantastic group of ladies who chose us as the first stop for their girls' day out.


That was hands-down the most fun I've had teaching beginners.


----------



## hoshin1600

wab25 said:


> The thing is, neither group of people, nor myself as the instructor, has to go through what you will go through, if you are in that situation. Therefore, we should not be making your decision. You need to make that decision, and you need to be ok with that decision, because you are going to live with the consequences,


 i like it.



wab25 said:


> the worst time to make that decision, is when you realize you are in the middle of this type of situation.....The goal being to decide how you want to respond if you are ever in such a situation..... Make a plan and know how you want to respond, before ever getting into such a situation. I also encourage them to be open minded about their choices... as they get older, as their situation changes, as they learn more... their decision may change as well. Just like we plan fire escape routes and evacuation routes, we should choose how to respond in this type of situation.



for myself, i would refine this for more clarity.
the idea of making a choice before a fateful attack on how one should respond is based on a presuppisition that a choice is possible.  as i dig into this idea it seems to me that a conscious decision cannot be made.
  in order to predetermine a response you would need to know all the variables that will occur in a future event and that is impossible.  so it is impossible to know HOW to respond.  the next piece is will the person respond actively or passively.   what we are really inferring here is physical action with a determined attitude VS compliance. nature has been making this decision for millions of years.  another term for this is "Fight - Flight or Freeze.  these choices are made deep within the sub-conscious brain. these primal systems make decisions based on a cost-benefit analysis.  "if i do..X... what will be the cost (consequences) and what will be the benefit?"   the problem is fear.  Fear will hyper inflate the perceived costs.  the next factor is what resources does the person posses that can maximize the benefits.  what skills, force multipliers or consequences for the assailant are there in this event that can be leveraged? 

so does the person have a choice?  yes...  but not as first thought.  the decision is not a pre determined action for the future but rather a decision for the NOW.  the future doesnt exist. the only thing that does exist is the present. the best we can do, is to invest some of our present in hopes for a profitable return in the future.  so plan and train NOW.   training today is an investment.
if your plan is to put out any fires in your house you need to invest in an extinguisher.   another analogy would be making a decision to dead lift 500 pounds next year on march 15th.  that is the fallacy of pre-ordained action.  it isnt going to happen unless you choose to do the work between now and then.  the choice is in the day to day effort to get on with training and learning.

this brings me to my next thought.it has been said that being compliant is something that some women choose and that their decision should not be judged or ridiculed.  ok, no judgement or ridicule but  is compliance really a choice if the victim has no skills, no force multiplier and no determined attitude?  i would say that is not a choice.    if a women is in possession of those three things i find it hard to believe she would choose compliance.  the victim may not choose to hurt , maim or kill but to have those three attributes opens up a wide array of options that do not exist without them.


----------



## JR 137

@oftheherd1 and @AngryHobbit

I can’t find the clip from the movie.  I think it might been a little too, not good? for YouTube.  Right after a “love” scene, a woman takes her metal high heeled shoe and rams the pointed heel into the guy’s eye.  It’s an older movie, early 90s, and that was THE scene in the movie.


----------



## hoshin1600

so i am going to post some ideas in no particular order. a mish mash of concepts i cover in a self defense class, please forgive the mess.  

Can i defend myself?
there are five factors to the ability to defend ones self.

motivation
fear management 
ability
moral 
legal 
Victimology
this is a controversial area for some.  but i like to point out the purpose of victimology is not to blame the victim but rather to calculate percentages for prevention.
so on the macro level where do you live?  if your in urban Brazil or Chicago your percentages go way up, live in rural Maine? then your percentage numbers go down.. on the micro level  do you lock your doors? how often do you socialize?  do you do drugs?  ect ect..   behavior will add or subtract from your score.  the goal is to be aware of your behaviors and keep your score in check. minimize the risky behaviors when possible.

on the MA skills i teach.

the fence
common platform stance
post - frame- 2c & index  (similar to the militarys post- frame- hook)
i teach 
strikes, limb controlls, throws, ground work and weapons. there is a large focus on control and domination in the stand up similar to the ground work.

LOV
logic of violence

who
where
selection
isolation
psychological control
physical destruction
LOV is from  Rory Miller but i have been revising my own concepts using an Ethology dominance hierarchy model.

part of LOV   and victimology is de-valuing your self as a target.

pre-contact clues &  pre assault indicators of weapons

the action triangle  

run 
hide
fight

coopers color codes
boyd's cycle  or OODA loop


this is turning into a list rather than a discussion.  i apologize.


----------



## CB Jones

wab25 said:


> The goal being to decide how you want to respond if you are ever in such a situation. I would encourage them to read articles and studies similar to those presented here earlier to use in making their choice, study both sides. I want them to be educated and to consider how they want to respond from an educated point of view. Make a plan and know how you want to respond, before ever getting into such a situation. I also encourage them to be open minded about their choices... as they get older, as their situation changes, as they learn more... their decision may change as well. Just like we plan fire escape routes and evacuation routes, we should choose how to respond in this type of situation.



While I agree that you should take some time and be mentally prepared.

Every situation is going to have different variables and the ultimate decision is going to have to be made then and there.

The main thing is to give yourself more options via CCW or SD training.


----------



## AngryHobbit

JR 137 said:


> @oftheherd1 and @AngryHobbit
> 
> I can’t find the clip from the movie.  I think it might been a little too, not good? for YouTube.  Right after a “love” scene, a woman takes her metal high heeled shoe and rams the pointed heel into the guy’s eye.  It’s an older movie, early 90s, and that was THE scene in the movie.


Ow....


----------



## CB Jones

hoshin1600 said:


> Victimology
> this is a controversial area for some. but i like to point out the purpose of victimology is not to blame the victim but rather to calculate percentages for prevention.



I advocate just be smart.

Think about your surroundings and take some preventive measures.

Think about trouble spots where you spend a lot of your time and take necessary precautions.  Too often we are in too much of a hurry to just take a little precaution.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

hoshin1600 said:


> so i am going to post some ideas in no particular order. a mish mash of concepts i cover in a self defense class, please forgive the mess.
> 
> Can i defend myself?
> there are five factors to the ability to defend ones self.
> 
> motivation
> fear management
> ability
> moral
> legal
> Victimology
> this is a controversial area for some.  but i like to point out the purpose of victimology is not to blame the victim but rather to calculate percentages for prevention.
> so on the macro level where do you live?  if your in urban Brazil or Chicago your percentages go way up, live in rural Maine? then your percentage numbers go down.. on the micro level  do you lock your doors? how often do you socialize?  do you do drugs?  ect ect..   behavior will add or subtract from your score.  the goal is to be aware of your behaviors and keep your score in check. minimize the risky behaviors when possible.
> 
> on the MA skills i teach.
> 
> the fence
> common platform stance
> post - frame- 2c & index  (similar to the militarys post- frame- hook)
> i teach
> strikes, limb controlls, throws, ground work and weapons. there is a large focus on control and domination in the stand up similar to the ground work.
> 
> LOV
> logic of violence
> 
> who
> where
> selection
> isolation
> psychological control
> physical destruction
> LOV is from  Rory Miller but i have been revising my own concepts using an Ethology dominance hierarchy model.
> 
> part of LOV   and victimology is de-valuing your self as a target.
> 
> pre-contact clues &  pre assault indicators of weapons
> 
> the action triangle
> 
> run
> hide
> fight
> 
> coopers color codes
> boyd's cycle  or OODA loop
> 
> 
> this is turning into a list rather than a discussion.  i apologize.


Nothing to apologize for. I like the quick information that comes in an outline like that - it's good stuff to chew on and consider what it might reinforce - or cause me to question - in my own thinking.


----------



## AngryHobbit

hoshin1600 said:


> so i am going to post some ideas in no particular order. a mish mash of concepts i cover in a self defense class, please forgive the mess.
> 
> Can i defend myself?
> there are five factors to the ability to defend ones self.
> 
> motivation
> fear management
> ability
> moral
> legal
> Victimology
> this is a controversial area for some.  but i like to point out the purpose of victimology is not to blame the victim but rather to calculate percentages for prevention.
> so on the macro level where do you live?  if your in urban Brazil or Chicago your percentages go way up, live in rural Maine? then your percentage numbers go down.. on the micro level  do you lock your doors? how often do you socialize?  do you do drugs?  ect ect..   behavior will add or subtract from your score.  the goal is to be aware of your behaviors and keep your score in check. minimize the risky behaviors when possible.
> 
> on the MA skills i teach.
> 
> the fence
> common platform stance
> post - frame- 2c & index  (similar to the militarys post- frame- hook)
> i teach
> strikes, limb controlls, throws, ground work and weapons. there is a large focus on control and domination in the stand up similar to the ground work.
> 
> LOV
> logic of violence
> 
> who
> where
> selection
> isolation
> psychological control
> physical destruction
> LOV is from  Rory Miller but i have been revising my own concepts using an Ethology dominance hierarchy model.
> 
> part of LOV   and victimology is de-valuing your self as a target.
> 
> pre-contact clues &  pre assault indicators of weapons
> 
> the action triangle
> 
> run
> hide
> fight
> 
> coopers color codes
> boyd's cycle  or OODA loop
> 
> 
> this is turning into a list rather than a discussion.  i apologize.


Nothing wrong with lists. I really like the way you outline things. I like putting things in tables or lists when explaining things too. It actually makes a lot of sense.

I very much like the concept of "devaluing yourself as a target". You know? I don't think a lot of people think about it this way. How quickly and effectively can I suggest to a potential assailant this is not the kind of trouble he is looking for? And I am not talking about being butch or talking tough - nothing like that. But small things - walk, posture, awareness, other things I don't even have names for, all of which comprise a picture of "are you sure I am the person you want to attack?"

This and other posts of yours have given me some serious food for thought. I am still working through that phase in my training (after 10 years) where I know I'll be terrified if an attack occurs - and I don't care. Only fools and madmen are unafraid. But I want to be at the level where being terrified does not impede my ability to fight back.


----------



## hoshin1600

CB Jones said:


> I advocate just be smart.
> 
> Think about your surroundings and take some preventive measures.
> 
> Think about trouble spots where you spend a lot of your time and take necessary precautions.  Too often we are in too much of a hurry to just take a little precaution.



the thing is being smart is common sense,  and we know how common that is.
i like to use victimology and review some behaviors in a class to get participants active in thinking about their own behaviors.  a statement will go in one ear and out the other. especially when there are physical skills being done that day which are more fun.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

CB Jones said:


> While I agree that you should take some time and be mentally prepared.
> 
> Every situation is going to have different variables and the ultimate decision is going to have to be made then and there.
> 
> The main thing is to give yourself more options via CCW or SD training.


The ultimate decision is made in the moment, but I seem to recall some research indicating pre-consideration based on principles reduced the time and effort toward a decision, and reduced the doubt about the decision after the fact. My hazy memory says the research wasn't around assault, but was about stressful and difficult decisions that need a quick answer and would raise emotion in the moment. I'll see if I can dredge up enough detail to track down some information on it.

In any case, the principle is that you decide on the principles. What kind of attack would make it clearly okay to do X? What is a situation where you are clearly not okay doing X? This pre-decision makes it easier to make the decision when it clearly fits one of those definitions. The closer it is to a definition, the easier/faster the decision (and the less doubt there is after the fact). For most of us, there are some situations where we are clear we'd be very willing to hurt someone badly on purpose (threatening a loved one is usually the easiest example). And most of us have examples where we wouldn't be willing to do so (someone so drunk he can't stand straight, no weapon, making ridiculous threats he can't possibly follow up on, for instance). There are also situations where most of us would be readily willing to hand over our wallet, rather than take a chance on defending, etc.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

AngryHobbit said:


> Nothing wrong with lists. I really like the way you outline things. I like putting things in tables or lists when explaining things too. It actually makes a lot of sense.
> 
> I very much like the concept of "devaluing yourself as a target". You know? I don't think a lot of people think about it this way. How quickly and effectively can I suggest to a potential assailant this is not the kind of trouble he is looking for? And I am not talking about being butch or talking tough - nothing like that. But small things - walk, posture, awareness, other things I don't even have names for, all of which comprise a picture of "are you sure I am the person you want to attack?"
> 
> This and other posts of yours have given me some serious food for thought. I am still working through that phase in my training (after 10 years) where I know I'll be terrified if an attack occurs - and I don't care. Only fools and madmen are unafraid. But I want to be at the level where being terrified does not impede my ability to fight back.


This is the stuff I talk about as "changing their math". I want to change their math before they attack. If I can't, do that I want to change it fast once they do attack.


----------



## hoshin1600

AngryHobbit said:


> I am still working through that phase in my training (after 10 years) where I know I'll be terrified if an attack occurs - and I don't care. Only fools and madmen are unafraid.



let me think,, am i the madman???  ummm...no maybe the fool...

my problem when i was younger is i was very cold emotionally.  my old instructors used to call me cool cucumber.  this was great for sparring and tourney forms preforming in public.  but in an actual fight it was a big detriment.  i couldnt get it in gear so to speak.  i found i had to get angry to fight and i just didnt get angry.
it was something i really had to work on.  but now im a grumpy old man so im not sure how things worked out. lol


----------



## hoshin1600

gpseymour said:


> The ultimate decision is made in the moment, but I seem to recall some research indicating pre-consideration based on principles reduced the time and effort toward a decision, and reduced the doubt about the decision after the fact. My hazy memory says the research wasn't around assault, but was about stressful and difficult decisions that need a quick answer and would raise emotion in the moment. I'll see if I can dredge up enough detail to track down some information on it.
> 
> In any case, the principle is that you decide on the principles. What kind of attack would make it clearly okay to do X? What is a situation where you are clearly not okay doing X? This pre-decision makes it easier to make the decision when it clearly fits one of those definitions. The closer it is to a definition, the easier/faster the decision (and the less doubt there is after the fact). For most of us, there are some situations where we are clear we'd be very willing to hurt someone badly on purpose (threatening a loved one is usually the easiest example). And most of us have examples where we wouldn't be willing to do so (someone so drunk he can't stand straight, no weapon, making ridiculous threats he can't possibly follow up on, for instance). There are also situations where most of us would be readily willing to hand over our wallet, rather than take a chance on defending, etc.


i think there are two facets to what you are thinking. one is Hicks Law.  this says that for every decision a person has to make it increases the reaction time.  so if an officer has to decide between his firearm and a stun-gun that increase from 1 to 2 increases the response time by 50% 

the second which i think is really what your thinking of is that the decision point (shoot or not shoot) has a better outcome with a clear guideline of when it is acceptable vs non acceptable.  i teach this for civilians as "rules of engagement".
each individual should make that moral and legal decision prior to the event.  which as i think about it stands in contrast to my post to what Wab25 was pointing out.  my brain is fried for tonight so maybe i will have to wait to write something with any sense of readability.


----------



## AngryHobbit

hoshin1600 said:


> let me think,, am i the madman???  ummm...no maybe the fool...
> 
> my problem when i was younger is i was very cold emotionally.  my old instructors used to call me cool cucumber.  this was great for sparring and tourney forms preforming in public.  but in an actual fight it was a big detriment.  i couldnt get it in gear so to speak.  i found i had to get angry to fight and i just didnt get angry.
> it was something i really had to work on.  but now im a grumpy old man so im not sure how things worked out. lol


That's interesting. I haven't had a fight in the street outside class, so I don't really know what I will feel if it happens. I just remember what I felt when it happened a long time ago, long before I started training - and at those points, I was terrified... although... not paralyzed. 

When I do fight in class, I feel a bit alarmed - afterwards. At the point of the fight... I feel a bit monstrous. Which is unsettling. Not unfamiliar though - I've had TERRIBLE fits of rage before I got diagnosed, went into therapy, and got about getting things into balance. Not a bad thing if I can learn to control it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

hoshin1600 said:


> i think there are two facets to what you are thinking. one is Hicks Law.  this says that for every decision a person has to make it increases the reaction time.  so if an officer has to decide between his firearm and a stun-gun that increase from 1 to 2 increases the response time by 50%
> 
> the second which i think is really what your thinking of is that the decision point (shoot or not shoot) has a better outcome with a clear guideline of when it is acceptable vs non acceptable.  i teach this for civilians as "rules of engagement".
> each individual should make that moral and legal decision prior to the event.  which as i think about it stands in contrast to my post to what Wab25 was pointing out.  my brain is fried for tonight so maybe i will have to wait to write something with any sense of readability.


That second is mostly what I was talking about (thought the first applies, as well). If you have paradigms set up, your brain only has to compare the situation to the paradigms and choose the best fit, rather than running all the variables. It's the basic premise of training when to shoot/not shoot, and the like.


----------



## AngryHobbit

gpseymour said:


> That second is mostly what I was talking about (thought the first applies, as well). If you have paradigms set up, your brain only has to compare the situation to the paradigms and choose the best fit, rather than running all the variables. It's the basic premise of training when to shoot/not shoot, and the like.


I would say - not just deciding when to shoot/not to shoot, but also making that decision in a tiny amount of time. Having your brain trained to a point where all the behind-the-scenes work for a specific choice happens within milliseconds. And having your body trained to a point where it responds to what your brain decides just as quickly.

Remember that fencing duel description in Heinlein's _Glory Road_? Where his wrist "takes charge" and he skewers the Eater of Souls? Like that.


----------



## drop bear

AngryHobbit said:


> That's interesting. I haven't had a fight in the street outside class, so I don't really know what I will feel if it happens. I just remember what I felt when it happened a long time ago, long before I started training - and at those points, I was terrified... although... not paralyzed.
> 
> When I do fight in class, I feel a bit alarmed - afterwards. At the point of the fight... I feel a bit monstrous. Which is unsettling. Not unfamiliar though - I've had TERRIBLE fits of rage before I got diagnosed, went into therapy, and got about getting things into balance. Not a bad thing if I can learn to control it.



Moods are for cattle and love making.

Not for fighting.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

AngryHobbit said:


> I would say - not just deciding when to shoot/not to shoot, but also making that decision in a tiny amount of time. Having your brain trained to a point where all the behind-the-scenes work for a specific choice happens within milliseconds. And having your body trained to a point where it responds to what your brain decides just as quickly.
> 
> Remember that fencing duel description in Heinlein's _Glory Road_? Where his wrist "takes charge" and he skewers the Eater of Souls? Like that.


That latter part is a different topic. That gets back to muscle memory and unconscious-incompetence (in that case, taken to near-automation). Making decisions in advance means your decision-making apparatus doesn't need to interfere with that loop.


----------



## hoshin1600

gpseymour said:


> That second is mostly what I was talking about (thought the first applies, as well). If you have paradigms set up, your brain only has to compare the situation to the paradigms and choose the best fit, rather than running all the variables. It's the basic premise of training when to shoot/not shoot, and the like.


To rein that in a bit, I would say that what your talking about is the the same "line in the sand" that Wab25 was talking about. But the way I see it is that it only works in a violent self evident confrontation.  This is the point Tez and -A- keep trying to point out. That the common MO for a sexual predator is not self evident. He uses deception.  This also applies to other criminals as well but most common in sexual crime.  This MO is a major monkey wrench in the MMA type mentality. The assailant doest want to fight , he wants a victim.  So he will use deception to make you a victim in a way that will fly under the radar so you internal warning alarms will not go off until it is too late. This goes back to my old posts about cognitive dissonance.  The mind will be telling it's self, this can't be happening,  I must be imagining things.


----------



## kravmaga1

gpseymour said:


> If you mean the combative skills to defend (what I refer to as "self-defense" - others include all areas of self-protection in that term), then there's not dramatically more need to learn it than there has been in the past. And the physical defenses women should learn aren't dramatically different from those a man should learn, though the emphasis might be if one is tailoring a program to women.
> 
> As others can point out more cogently, there's a good deal beyond self-defense (the combat techniques) that can provide a lot of benefit for women in avoiding assault. Some of that can be gained through MA training (increased confidence, a supportive community, etc.), and some of it likely will not, as most MA programs don't have the knowledge to teach about avoiding domestic violence and similar topics.



I agree with your view. But can you tell what self defence tricks will be more useful to learn for women?


----------



## kravmaga1

hoshin1600 said:


> @kravmaga1
> how about going over to the meet and greet page and tell us something about yourself.  this would help others and myself when we respond to your posts.



Good idea!


----------



## hoshin1600

kravmaga1 said:


> I agree with your view. But can you tell what self defence tricks will be more useful to learn for women?



there are no tricks.  we do use magic cards or top hats with rabbits in them.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> That latter part is a different topic. That gets back to muscle memory and unconscious-incompetence (in that case, taken to near-automation). Making decisions in advance means your decision-making apparatus doesn't need to interfere with that loop.


do you converse by text at home?


----------



## jobo

kravmaga1 said:


> I agree with your view. But can you tell what self defence tricks will be more useful to learn for women?


tricks is the wrong word, ma in general is about efficiency of movement and gaining a mechanical advantage through the,correct movement.

for instance some one who uses correct kinetic handling techneque can appear far,stronger than someone with bigger muscles and more brute strengh who doesn't and that is what in essance is ma training is all about.

there is however a strong phycolological aspect in self defence that isn't necessarily there in ring work.

particularly the element of surprise, that's you being surprised and failing to react and even very experienced people can be effected AND taking your attacker by surprise, apart from a few phycos attacker only attack people then think they can easily defeat, ether through their physical attributes or by numbers. What they seldom expect especial from a woman is a to meet a,sustained and vicious attack from their " victim" in return, and this can bring on their flight or freeze reaction.

use what you have, elbows knees finger nails, teeth car keys..

have you ever tried wrestling an angry cat?

ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> do you converse by text at home?


No, that'd be silly. We use social media.


----------



## hoshin1600

me an my wife use "LINE"  its a phone app.


----------



## AngryHobbit

drop bear said:


> Moods are for cattle and love making.
> 
> Not for fighting.


That's a bit of an absolute statement. Just because experiencing emotions when fighting doesn't help you, doesn't mean it is also useless to everyone else. Different people draw on different resources in critical situations, including a fight. So, you might draw on lack of emotion, I might draw on rage, and yet another person might draw on something else. Whatever works - as long as we all reach a satisfactory result.


----------



## AngryHobbit

hoshin1600 said:


> To rein that in a bit, I would say that what your talking about is the the same "line in the sand" that Wab25 was talking about. But the way I see it is that it only works in a violent self evident confrontation.  This is the point Tez and -A- keep trying to point out. That the common MO for a sexual predator is not self evident. He uses deception.  This also applies to other criminals as well but most common in sexual crime.  This MO is a major monkey wrench in the MMA type mentality. The assailant doest want to fight , he wants a victim.  So he will use deception to make you a victim in a way that will fly under the radar so you internal warning alarms will not go off until it is too late. This goes back to my old posts about cognitive dissonance.  The mind will be telling it's self, this can't be happening,  I must be imagining things.


"The assailant doesn't want to fight, he wants a victim" - that is a great point. I am writing this down. Excellent way to put it.


----------



## AngryHobbit

gpseymour said:


> No, that'd be silly. We use social media.


... and telepathy.


----------



## drop bear

AngryHobbit said:


> That's a bit of an absolute statement. Just because experiencing emotions when fighting doesn't help you, doesn't mean it is also useless to everyone else. Different people draw on different resources in critical situations, including a fight. So, you might draw on lack of emotion, I might draw on rage, and yet another person might draw on something else. Whatever works - as long as we all reach a satisfactory result.



Can't rely on having the right emotion at the right time. I do experience different emotions in a fight. I don't approach the fight emotionally.

It is a job. Get it done.


----------



## AngryHobbit

kravmaga1 said:


> I agree with your view. But can you tell what self defence tricks will be more useful to learn for women?


There are certain techniques that work better for women, although they could also be used by men, just as effectively. If a guy is short and stocky, he can probably benefit from the same techniques I use regularly, and for the same reasons - disadvantages in reach and leverage in certain situations. 

That said, I mentioned earlier somewhere in this discussion, I like using "gross out" and "crazy" means for discouraging my assailant, if we are at the point of engagement. Snarling, biting, going for the eyes, ears, and nose. One of my instructors used to say, "Make him think you are Hannibal Lecter's favorite niece, you just escaped from a maximum security asylum for criminally insane, had a nurse for a morning snack, and this potential assailant is lunch." I like that approach. It works for me because it introduces an element of surprise and disconnect between perceived image and behavior. I am very short, round, and look like a Victorian doll with big googly eyes. So, when someone with my appearance makes a sound like a werewolf, it's a bit of a thought pattern interrupt. Instead of considering attacking me, they suddenly start wondering whether I've had a rabies shot and whether they should get one. 

True story - this one time in class, in an attack line, I almost toppled a guy by screaming at him. Big guy - one of my favorite people ever, really good martial artist, but, on a very primitive, basic level, a very terrifying presence for someone like me. He's the kind of person who walks through the doorway and you can't see the doorway. Anyway, he came at me with an overhead strike, so he was going forward, with his weight on the balls of his feet. We talked about "psychological warfare" just before that, so I decided to try it and screeched at him. I tried to produce a sound I've read about in a book - it's made by a woman who is trying to distract a wild boar from attacking her friend. In the book, the sound is described as "the witch's scream". It ALMOST worked. THIS close. He teetered on his toes and almost fell face down. But not quite - I still had to get in and use another technique. It was fun though. And very educational.


----------



## AngryHobbit

drop bear said:


> Can't rely on having the right emotion at the right time. I do experience different emotions in a fight. I don't approach the fight emotionally.
> 
> It is a job. Get it done.


Who says I can't get the job done? We can just agree to disagree on this. You clearly have your own approach. I have mine. Not surprisingly - we are two completely different people.


----------



## Buka

AngryHobbit said:


> That's a bit of an absolute statement. Just because experiencing emotions when fighting doesn't help you, doesn't mean it is also useless to everyone else. Different people draw on different resources in critical situations, including a fight. So, you might draw on lack of emotion, I might draw on rage, and yet another person might draw on something else. Whatever works - as long as we all reach a satisfactory result.



I draw on the emotion that's always been present whenever I've been forced to fight. I be scared.


----------



## AngryHobbit

Buka said:


> I draw on the emotion that's always been present whenever I've been forced to fight. I be scared.


Yup. I be scared. And then I be angry about somebody trying to make me be scared. And then I Hulk. Which is hilarious - just as @gpseymour . Any time I did the attack line, people waiting their turn giggled.


----------



## drop bear

AngryHobbit said:


> Who says I can't get the job done? We can just agree to disagree on this. You clearly have your own approach. I have mine. Not surprisingly - we are two completely different people.



Depends. Trying to create an emotion at the right time is like trying to hold water in your hands.

Mabye if you could choose the time and place then you can work a correct emotional state. (whatever that might be for you) But if it chooses you on a bad day, getting the job done becomes a lot more uncertain.


----------



## CB Jones

AngryHobbit said:


> Yup. I be scared. And then I be angry about somebody trying to make me be scared. And then I Hulk. Which is hilarious - just as @gpseymour . Any time I did the attack line, people waiting their turn giggled.



I am kinda disfunctional with emotions.  I typically don’t experience them until afterwards and then I’m like holy crap!


----------



## AngryHobbit

drop bear said:


> Depends. Trying to create an emotion at the right time is like trying to hold water in your hands.
> 
> Mabye if you could choose the time and place then you can work a correct emotional state. (whatever that might be for you) But if it chooses you on a bad day, getting the job done becomes a lot more uncertain.


It's more like getting the job done despite what's going on in your head. And summoning the right vibe WHILE getting the job done to help get it done. Adrenaline helps.


----------



## AngryHobbit

CB Jones said:


> I am kinda disfunctional with emotions.  I typically don’t experience them until afterwards and then I’m like holy crap!


Hey, have you ever had hysterical laughs afterwards? You know, once the "holy crap" of it all wears off, and you just start laughing and just. can't. stop.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Depends. Trying to create an emotion at the right time is like trying to hold water in your hands.
> 
> Mabye if you could choose the time and place then you can work a correct emotional state. (whatever that might be for you) But if it chooses you on a bad day, getting the job done becomes a lot more uncertain.


True enough when the emotion is undependable. For folks who reliably respond emotionally, perhaps less of a problem.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

CB Jones said:


> I am kinda disfunctional with emotions.  I typically don’t experience them until afterwards and then I’m like holy crap!


This is closer to me.


----------



## drop bear

AngryHobbit said:


> Hey, have you ever had hysterical laughs afterwards? You know, once the "holy crap" of it all wears off, and you just start laughing and just. can't. stop.



I have laughed during. It just depends if something funny is happening.


----------



## drop bear

Double post.


----------



## CB Jones

AngryHobbit said:


> Hey, have you ever had hysterical laughs afterwards? You know, once the "holy crap" of it all wears off, and you just start laughing and just. can't. stop.



No usually I’m berating myself for being stupid.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I have laughed during. It just depends if something funny is happening.


That’s something I’ve not had happen in an actual fight/defensive situation, but I can see it. High stress (even threat-level stress) doesn’t seem to block me from that reaction.


----------



## JowGaWolf

AngryHobbit said:


> it's a bit of a thought pattern interrupt


This has a bigger effect on than what most people realize.   If I can interrupt my attacker's thought of "Attacking me"  then I can buy some valuable time for me to do something other than being attack.  If you can get the "right interruption" then it may stop the attacker all together or give you enough break in the action to escape


----------



## Buka

IMO, thinking of the opponent's......anything, is unnecessary. I mean, think about it, he just entered your world. What a seriously stupid f'ing thing to do.


----------



## AngryHobbit

Buka said:


> IMO, thinking of the opponent's......anything, is unnecessary. I mean, think about it, he just entered your world. What a seriously stupid f'ing thing to do.


Oh yes. There are certain attacks I like to call "beyond reasonable doubt" attacks - the one where there is absolutely no question that the opponent intends to do you harm. If that happens, I am using whatever I am capable of.


----------



## kravmaga1

AngryHobbit said:


> There are certain techniques that work better for women, although they could also be used by men, just as effectively. If a guy is short and stocky, he can probably benefit from the same techniques I use regularly, and for the same reasons - disadvantages in reach and leverage in certain situations.
> 
> That said, I mentioned earlier somewhere in this discussion, I like using "gross out" and "crazy" means for discouraging my assailant, if we are at the point of engagement. Snarling, biting, going for the eyes, ears, and nose. One of my instructors used to say, "Make him think you are Hannibal Lecter's favorite niece, you just escaped from a maximum security asylum for criminally insane, had a nurse for a morning snack, and this potential assailant is lunch." I like that approach. It works for me because it introduces an element of surprise and disconnect between perceived image and behavior. I am very short, round, and look like a Victorian doll with big googly eyes. So, when someone with my appearance makes a sound like a werewolf, it's a bit of a thought pattern interrupt. Instead of considering attacking me, they suddenly start wondering whether I've had a rabies shot and whether they should get one.
> 
> True story - this one time in class, in an attack line, I almost toppled a guy by screaming at him. Big guy - one of my favorite people ever, really good martial artist, but, on a very primitive, basic level, a very terrifying presence for someone like me. He's the kind of person who walks through the doorway and you can't see the doorway. Anyway, he came at me with an overhead strike, so he was going forward, with his weight on the balls of his feet. We talked about "psychological warfare" just before that, so I decided to try it and screeched at him. I tried to produce a sound I've read about in a book - it's made by a woman who is trying to distract a wild boar from attacking her friend. In the book, the sound is described as "the witch's scream". It ALMOST worked. THIS close. He teetered on his toes and almost fell face down. But not quite - I still had to get in and use another technique. It was fun though. And very educational.



  This was helpful.


----------



## AngryHobbit

kravmaga1 said:


> This was helpful.


I am glad. I still have a lot to learn, so being able to actually help out someone else is always a pleasant surprise.


----------



## aedrasteia

hoshin1600 said:


> To rein that in a bit, I would say that what your talking about is the the same "line in the sand" that Wab25 was talking about. But the way I see it is that it only works in a violent self evident confrontation.  This is the point Tez and -A- keep trying to point out. That the common MO for a sexual predator is not self evident. He uses deception.  This also applies to other criminals as well but most common in sexual crime.  This MO is a major monkey wrench in the MMA type mentality. The assailant does't want to fight , he wants a victim.  So he will use deception to make you a victim in a way that will fly under the radar so you internal warning alarms will not go off until it is too late. This goes back to my old posts about cognitive dissonance.  *The mind will be telling it's self, this can't be happening,  I must be imagining things*.



Thank you for mentioning this. Sorry to be away for so much of this thread but life has been busy.  And today, with the sentencing of Dr. Larry Nassar, this comment and the efforts of Tez and I to focus on this point, is even more horribly clear.

And now I note that the president of Michigan State University has resigned. And three members of the Board of US Gymnastics have resigned. I hope this is the beginning of a process that will hold accountable so many of the people who looked the other way and ignored, dismissed, ridiculed and insulted the young women who were his victims for more than 20 years.

*"the mind tells itself, this can't be happening" *
Some of the 160 young women and girls did exactly that,in part because 'assault/attack/abuse they faced was _not from a stranger, not 'in the street'._  And so many of them did exactly as they had been taught. They went to a trusted adult for help with something they didn't understand, an intrusion they couldn't comprehend and received no help, not even from parents and other coaches. Adults, even their own parents, refused to accept the possibility this could happen, even when told by the victims.  So many of these girls were told by parents and others they trusted that he was a respected, valuable doctor and they were 'lucky' he was treating them.  And he continued to abuse and molest them for years.

It is so horrific, it numbs the mind.

Their statements in court over the last week, delivered straight to his face, are examples of amazing courage.

I will be direct and use accurate language because it is necessary. I hope this meets standards here at MT. I do not intend to be offensive or inflammatory. I welcome any advice from the moderators.

If you don't understand what he did, start here:
google   "Larry Nassar,  pelvic floor abuse"

In addition to inserting his ungloved, unlubricated finger(s)/hand, into the victim's vagina or anus (or both) and digging into the tissue, he also touched or fondled the breasts or butt of some victims, rubbed his erect penis against their bodies, masturbated while molesting them with his other hand.  He did not describe his 'medical' actions to victims or their parents in advance, did not seek consent from anyone prior to his 'treatment' and explained his medical purposes with evasive, dismissive language, relying on his reputation as a respected medical provider at MSU.  He was successful for many many years. He cultivated and groomed the parents of these girls, convincing many others he was doing 'legitimate treatments' in spite of the repeated, and desperate outcries from young girls about their horrific pain and the humiliation he caused.

It is well worth looking deeply into this case. We will likely never get as clear a picture of the abuse process, the methods and behavior of a successful abuser/attacker. He was able to deflect and neutralize suspicions and questions for years. US Olympics and Michigan State University officials ignored, deflected. minimized and protected him.

But he was also successful because adults around him, (including parents)  were accustomed to denial and rejection of the reports of these girls, often their own daughter.  I believe this was in part because their picture of assault/abuse was shaped by their belief that they could recognize an abuser.attacker and he could never be someone they knew, someone who they considered a trustworthy professional or friend. And by the constant public focus on dangerous 'strangers'. A focus shared by so many presenting self defense for women.

The investigation that resulted in todays sentencing for Nassar actually began in August, 2016 with their published stories on abuse by another women's coach, Bill McCabe. One of Nassar's victims saw that report (Out of Balance) and contacted the reporters. 

Follow IndyStar's investigation of USA Gymnastics and Larry Nassar from start to finish

Maybe it's best to stop here and start another thread, concentrating the overwhelming frequency of abuse and assault by trusted and known people. For me, its the very least we can do, as people who assert that we are honestly working toward the safety and (self) defense of women. I believe that goal is shared among us, but reality has been  easily avoided. Maybe that can stop now.

w/respect, A


----------



## Gerry Seymour

aedrasteia said:


> Thank you for mentioning this. Sorry to be away for so much of this thread but life has been busy.  And today, with the sentencing of Dr. Larry Nassar, this comment and the efforts of Tez and I to focus on this point, is even more horribly clear.
> 
> And now I note that the president of Michigan State University has resigned. And three members of the Board of US Gymnastics have resigned. I hope this is the beginning of a process that will hold accountable so many of the people who looked the other way and ignored, dismissed, ridiculed and insulted the young women who were his victims for more than 20 years.
> 
> *"the mind tells itself, this can't be happening" *
> Some of the 160 young women and girls did exactly that,in part because 'assault/attack/abuse they faced was _not from a stranger, not 'in the street'._  And so many of them did exactly as they had been taught. They went to a trusted adult for help with something they didn't understand, an intrusion they couldn't comprehend and received no help, not even from parents and other coaches. Adults, even their own parents, refused to accept the possibility this could happen, even when told by the victims.  So many of these girls were told by parents and others they trusted that he was a respected, valuable doctor and they were 'lucky' he was treating them.  And he continued to abuse and molest them for years.
> 
> It is so horrific, it numbs the mind.
> 
> Their statements in court over the last week, delivered straight to his face, are examples of amazing courage.
> 
> I will be direct and use accurate language because it is necessary. I hope this meets standards here at MT. I do not intend to be offensive or inflammatory. I welcome any advice from the moderators.
> 
> If you don't understand what he did, start here:
> google   "Larry Nassar,  pelvic floor abuse"
> 
> In addition to inserting his ungloved, unlubricated finger(s)/hand, into the victim's vagina or anus (or both) and digging into the tissue, he also touched or fondled the breasts or butt of some victims, rubbed his erect penis against their bodies, masturbated while molesting them with his other hand.  He did not describe his 'medical' actions to victims or their parents in advance, did not seek consent from anyone prior to his 'treatment' and explained his medical purposes with evasive, dismissive language, relying on his reputation as a respected medical provider at MSU.  He was successful for many many years. He cultivated and groomed the parents of these girls, convincing many others he was doing 'legitimate treatments' in spite of the repeated, and desperate outcries from young girls about their horrific pain and the humiliation he caused.
> 
> It is well worth looking deeply into this case. We will likely never get as clear a picture of the abuse process, the methods and behavior of a successful abuser/attacker. He was able to deflect and neutralize suspicions and questions for years. US Olympics and Michigan State University officials ignored, deflected. minimized and protected him.
> 
> But he was also successful because adults around him, (including parents)  were accustomed to denial and rejection of the reports of these girls, often their own daughter.  I believe this was in part because their picture of assault/abuse was shaped by their belief that they could recognize an abuser.attacker and he could never be someone they knew, someone who they considered a trustworthy professional or friend. And by the constant public focus on dangerous 'strangers'. A focus shared by so many presenting self defense for women.
> 
> The investigation that resulted in todays sentencing for Nassar actually began in August, 2016 with their published stories on abuse by another women's coach, Bill McCabe. One of Nassar's victims saw that report (Out of Balance) and contacted the reporters.
> 
> Follow IndyStar's investigation of USA Gymnastics and Larry Nassar from start to finish
> 
> Maybe it's best to stop here and start another thread, concentrating the overwhelming frequency of abuse and assault by trusted and known people. For me, its the very least we can do, as people who assert that we are honestly working toward the safety and (self) defense of women. I believe that goal is shared among us, but reality has been  easily avoided. Maybe that can stop now.
> 
> w/respect, A


I would be interested in following that thread. I don’t think I can contribute much, as this is an area I do not attempt (nor claim) to help with, except in an accidental way. I’d b interested in learning if there are things I can do within my programs that would contribute in some way to addressing this. I don’t teach young girls (or boys). I don’t currently teach teens, though I have opened registration for them. But I do teach women, so there should be something useful I can learn.


----------



## BmillerWarrior

I am gay and just need someone to give me some attention. I love MMA Guys!


----------



## AngryHobbit

BmillerWarrior said:


> I am gay and just need someone to give me some attention. I love MMA Guys!


Um.... this is a martial arts forum - not a dating site.


----------



## AngryHobbit

aedrasteia said:


> Thank you for mentioning this. Sorry to be away for so much of this thread but life has been busy.  And today, with the sentencing of Dr. Larry Nassar, this comment and the efforts of Tez and I to focus on this point, is even more horribly clear.
> 
> And now I note that the president of Michigan State University has resigned. And three members of the Board of US Gymnastics have resigned. I hope this is the beginning of a process that will hold accountable so many of the people who looked the other way and ignored, dismissed, ridiculed and insulted the young women who were his victims for more than 20 years.
> 
> *"the mind tells itself, this can't be happening" *
> Some of the 160 young women and girls did exactly that,in part because 'assault/attack/abuse they faced was _not from a stranger, not 'in the street'._  And so many of them did exactly as they had been taught. They went to a trusted adult for help with something they didn't understand, an intrusion they couldn't comprehend and received no help, not even from parents and other coaches. Adults, even their own parents, refused to accept the possibility this could happen, even when told by the victims.  So many of these girls were told by parents and others they trusted that he was a respected, valuable doctor and they were 'lucky' he was treating them.  And he continued to abuse and molest them for years.
> 
> It is so horrific, it numbs the mind.
> 
> Their statements in court over the last week, delivered straight to his face, are examples of amazing courage.
> 
> I will be direct and use accurate language because it is necessary. I hope this meets standards here at MT. I do not intend to be offensive or inflammatory. I welcome any advice from the moderators.
> 
> If you don't understand what he did, start here:
> google   "Larry Nassar,  pelvic floor abuse"
> 
> In addition to inserting his ungloved, unlubricated finger(s)/hand, into the victim's vagina or anus (or both) and digging into the tissue, he also touched or fondled the breasts or butt of some victims, rubbed his erect penis against their bodies, masturbated while molesting them with his other hand.  He did not describe his 'medical' actions to victims or their parents in advance, did not seek consent from anyone prior to his 'treatment' and explained his medical purposes with evasive, dismissive language, relying on his reputation as a respected medical provider at MSU.  He was successful for many many years. He cultivated and groomed the parents of these girls, convincing many others he was doing 'legitimate treatments' in spite of the repeated, and desperate outcries from young girls about their horrific pain and the humiliation he caused.
> 
> It is well worth looking deeply into this case. We will likely never get as clear a picture of the abuse process, the methods and behavior of a successful abuser/attacker. He was able to deflect and neutralize suspicions and questions for years. US Olympics and Michigan State University officials ignored, deflected. minimized and protected him.
> 
> But he was also successful because adults around him, (including parents)  were accustomed to denial and rejection of the reports of these girls, often their own daughter.  I believe this was in part because their picture of assault/abuse was shaped by their belief that they could recognize an abuser.attacker and he could never be someone they knew, someone who they considered a trustworthy professional or friend. And by the constant public focus on dangerous 'strangers'. A focus shared by so many presenting self defense for women.
> 
> The investigation that resulted in todays sentencing for Nassar actually began in August, 2016 with their published stories on abuse by another women's coach, Bill McCabe. One of Nassar's victims saw that report (Out of Balance) and contacted the reporters.
> 
> Follow IndyStar's investigation of USA Gymnastics and Larry Nassar from start to finish
> 
> Maybe it's best to stop here and start another thread, concentrating the overwhelming frequency of abuse and assault by trusted and known people. For me, its the very least we can do, as people who assert that we are honestly working toward the safety and (self) defense of women. I believe that goal is shared among us, but reality has been  easily avoided. Maybe that can stop now.
> 
> w/respect, A


Great idea - I would love to contribute.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

BmillerWarrior said:


> I am gay and just need someone to give me some attention. I love MMA Guys!


This looks suspiciously like an account hijacking.


----------



## jobo

BmillerWarrior said:


> I am gay and just need someone to give me some attention. I love MMA Guys!


join an mma gym, I'm sure you'll find a lot of attention, if its the sort of attention you are looking for will be debatable


----------



## jobo

AngryHobbit said:


> It's more like getting the job done despite what's going on in your head. And summoning the right vibe WHILE getting the job done to help get it done. Adrenaline helps.


hmm, your both right to a certain point extent, adrenaline or rather the danger response can indeed help, but it can also hinder, it has the effect of pumping glucose rich blood in to your muscles, this gives you greater energy and maximal strengh, how ever is has the draw back of reducing you fine motor skills, or in some cases all motor,skills and you can literally be frozen stiff with fear

, this isn't help by the fact that it takes blood from other organs including the brain that can further hamper your movement skills, and of course cause the intestines or bladder to evacuate their contents..

 these are a few of the things you don't want if you are in a " fight" . Even if your response is one of hitting back in rage, the emotion takes away from your co ordination and control of your body. And someone who has full control can just pick you off, its common for fighters or sports men in general to try and enrage their opponents by insulting their wife/ mother etal, as they know that an enraged oppoinent will perform below par

a little adrenaline is great, to much can be a real problem.


----------



## GreatUniter

kravmaga1 said:


> Should Women learn self defense more and more nowadays? How it will help in nowadays life? From what thing women should start learning the self defense tricks?



Yes, definitely. I think all girls and women should take self defense classes with a proper teacher. It will help a lot with prevention of street assaults (especially sexual) on women if they have at least a basic set of skills for self defense. What do you mean from what thing women should start learning? "Thing" is move, system, martial art, instructor..?


----------



## Tez3

GreatUniter said:


> Yes, definitely. I think all girls and women should take self defense classes with a proper teacher. It will help a lot with prevention of street assaults (especially sexual) on women if they have at least a basic set of skills for self defense. What do you mean from what thing women should start learning? "Thing" is move, system, martial art, instructor..?



Actual 'street' assaults on women aren't that common, however assaults and rapes by people known to the victims are scarily common. 90% of rapes are committed by someone known to the victim, these rapes happen in places where the victim can often feel safe, the workplace, home etc. Any self defence training has to be appropriate not a one size fits all affair.


----------



## GreatUniter

Tez3 said:


> Actual 'street' assaults on women aren't that common, however assaults and rapes by people known to the victims are scarily common. 90% of rapes are committed by someone known to the victim, these rapes happen in places where the victim can often feel safe, the workplace, home etc. Any self defence training has to be appropriate not a one size fits all affair.



Not here. Not in the Balkans where street assaults are common (but not everywhere). The percentages that a woman can be raped or assaulted from someone that is a stranger to her are the same as the percentages that she can be raped home (let's say 50-50).


----------



## hoshin1600

Tez3 said:


> Actual 'street' assaults on women aren't that common, however assaults and rapes by people known to the victims are scarily common. 90% of rapes are committed by someone known to the victim, these rapes happen in places where the victim can often feel safe, the workplace, home etc. Any self defence training has to be appropriate not a one size fits all affair.


Hey Tez good to see your still lurking.
do you have any links for that statistic. i am assuming that is for the UK.  i was just reading a report (cant remember for what location it was for, im at work and cant reference it now)
but this report said 80% knew the attacker but that was for all ages including children at about 5%.  out of that 80%   ,...30%  of the attackers were family members.  
what this tells me is that 70% of those attackers are not family members.   there is a high percentage of date rape for college students and there may be a high rate of victims that knew there attacker but only casually.

we need to be cautious about how we apply statistics and not create a narrative born out of partial facts because it meets a confirmation bias.


----------



## AngryHobbit

GreatUniter said:


> Not here. Not in the Balkans where street assaults are common (but not everywhere). The percentages that a woman can be raped or assaulted from someone that is a stranger to her are the same as the percentages that she can be raped home (let's say 50-50).


I would have to go back and check, but when I was growing up in Ukraine, street assaults were pretty common too. The stats might have changed since then, but there are bound to be some dramatic differences in the assault by stranger vs. assault by someone you know numbers between first, second, and third world, as well as between individual regions and countries.


----------



## AngryHobbit

Hey, look at that - not super-comprehensive, and some of the stats are old, but not a bad way to get a feel for crime situation by country. Here's a good one - less than 40% of people in Ukraine felt safe walking home at night in 2014. 

Ukraine Crime Facts & Stats


----------



## JR 137

hoshin1600 said:


> Hey Tez good to see your still lurking.
> do you have any links for that statistic. i am assuming that is for the UK.  i was just reading a report (cant remember for what location it was for, im at work and cant reference it now)
> but this report said 80% knew the attacker but that was for all ages including children at about 5%.  out of that 80%   ,...30%  of the attackers were family members.
> what this tells me is that 70% of those attackers are not family members.   there is a high percentage of date rape for college students and there may be a high rate of victims that knew there attacker but only casually.
> 
> we need to be cautious about how we apply statistics and not create a narrative born out of partial facts because it meets a confirmation bias.


Exactly.  “Known assailant” needs to be broken down further to get a good understanding.  “Known assailant” could range from someone you recognize without knowing their name to an immediate family member.  Knowing the assailant says something, but not very much.  There should be some sort of scale IMO, although that wouldn’t be very easy.

And then to complicate that known assailant stat even further, was it physically forceful or was it psychologically (for lack of a better word) forceful, as in sleep with someone to save a career, blackmail, etc.?


----------



## Buka

Tez3 said:


> Actual 'street' assaults on women aren't that common, however assaults and rapes by people known to the victims are scarily common. 90% of rapes are committed by someone known to the victim, these rapes happen in places where the victim can often feel safe, the workplace, home etc. Any self defence training has to be appropriate not a one size fits all affair.



Tez! Nice to see you.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JR 137 said:


> Exactly.  “Known assailant” needs to be broken down further to get a good understanding.  “Known assailant” could range from someone you recognize without knowing their name to an immediate family member.  Knowing the assailant says something, but not very much.  There should be some sort of scale IMO, although that wouldn’t be very easy.
> 
> And then to complicate that known assailant stat even further, was it physically forceful or was it psychologically (for lack of a better word) forceful, as in sleep with someone to save a career, blackmail, etc.?


I've looked a few times for some differentiation in the statistics, and haven't found it (doesn't mean it's not available). There's a huge difference between a family member or even hang-out friend, versus the guy who you've bought a latte from a few times. Both are "known" to the victim.


----------



## Tez3

hoshin1600 said:


> Hey Tez good to see your still lurking.
> do you have any links for that statistic. i am assuming that is for the UK.  i was just reading a report (cant remember for what location it was for, im at work and cant reference it now)
> but this report said 80% knew the attacker but that was for all ages including children at about 5%.  out of that 80%   ,...30%  of the attackers were family members.
> what this tells me is that 70% of those attackers are not family members.   there is a high percentage of date rape for college students and there may be a high rate of victims that knew there attacker but only casually.
> 
> we need to be cautious about how we apply statistics and not create a narrative born out of partial facts because it meets a confirmation bias.



I have Home Office statistics and American crime statistics as well as others from around the world. They are easy to find online. I also have my experience with dealing with such cases. I have worked in the Balkans and I know more about rape there than anyone should have to know, the same with Afghan.

To be honest there is no difference between someone you've only known for a little while and someone you've known for a while. they aren't strangers which is the point. There's no degrees of 'stranger' or non stranger. It doesn't need to be broken down,* it's someone you thought you didn't need to be defensive with. 
*
The rape figures for different countries won't be dramatically different at all, _human nature being what it is_. What is dramatically different is how countries deal with rape, in some the victims are blamed, in some it's actually legal, in others usually ones where there's war/civil war/unrest it's encouraged as a form of terror or control. 

We do not need to break down how well the victims know their attackers because as far as self defence is concerned it's irrelevant. What needs to be 'broken down' is  the type of self defence one needs when one is taken off guard and attacked by someone as opposed to the type of self defence one needs when attacked either randomly or targeted when you should be on your guard.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> I have Home Office statistics and American crime statistics as well as others from around the world. They are easy to find online. I also have my experience with dealing with such cases. I have worked in the Balkans and I know more about rape there than anyone should have to know, the same with Afghan.
> 
> To be honest there is no difference between someone you've only known for a little while and someone you've known for a while. they aren't strangers which is the point. There's no degrees of 'stranger' or non stranger. It doesn't need to be broken down,* it's someone you thought you didn't need to be defensive with.
> *
> The rape figures for different countries won't be dramatically different at all, _human nature being what it is_. What is dramatically different is how countries deal with rape, in some the victims are blamed, in some it's actually legal, in others usually ones where there's war/civil war/unrest it's encouraged as a form of terror or control.
> 
> We do not need to break down how well the victims know their attackers because as far as self defence is concerned it's irrelevant. What needs to be 'broken down' is  the type of self defence one needs when one is taken off guard and attacked by someone as opposed to the type of self defence one needs when attacked either randomly or targeted when you should be on your guard.


There definitely are differences between someone you recognize (have bought coffee from them a couple of times) and someone you actually know. The latter is part "known", but part "stranger". You'd be uneasy if they showed up on your doorstep unannounced, for starters, and unlikely to trust them implicitly.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> There definitely are differences between someone you recognize (have bought coffee from them a couple of times) and someone you actually know. The latter is part "known", but part "stranger". You'd be uneasy if they showed up on your doorstep unannounced, for starters, and unlikely to trust them implicitly.



I think tactically there would be some red flag points.

Same reason I dont meet people in back car parks.

The fishing trip became a bit notorious for a while there in Melbourne.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I think tactically there would be some red flag points.
> 
> Same reason I dont meet people in back car parks.
> 
> The fishing trip became a bit notorious for a while there in Melbourne.


Agreed. A different story if a mate asks you do something (help grab something out of his car, etc.) and a near-stranger.


----------



## Tez3

gpseymour said:


> There definitely are differences between someone you recognize (have bought coffee from them a couple of times) and someone you actually know. The latter is part "known", but part "stranger". You'd be uneasy if they showed up on your doorstep unannounced, for starters, and unlikely to trust them implicitly.



That's not the point though, you would be on your guard if they turned up at your house, however you wouldn't be if it was in a neutral place ie the coffee shop. You wouldn't be on your guard against a bloke who worked in the same office as you in that office for instance.


----------



## hoshin1600

Tez3 said:


> To be honest there is no difference between someone you've only known for a little while and someone you've known for a while. they aren't strangers which is the point. There's no degrees of 'stranger' or non stranger. It doesn't need to be broken down,* it's someone you thought you didn't need to be defensive with. *



"_So what your saying is.."  _we shouldn't let things like facts and statistics get in the way of us having our opinions dictated to us.

When you say it doest matter.....well that's were we disagree.  Why doesn’t it matter?  What matters is going to be dependent upon the criteria set by how we are going to use the information.

"_So when you say.._it doesn't matter..._what your saying is"  _rape culture.   Nothing matters beyond that.

But here is the reality,  we are martial artists. On this Web sight we have been constantly bombarded with the message that what we do doesn't work for instances of rape. And yet there has never been a message of WHAT DOES WORK.    Earlier I posted stats about women who fought back and stopped the rape. Clearly if there are good statistics on it , the notion that MA doesn’t work is not entirely true. It does work and it does apply. Some of the time.   To disregard this segment is entirely is detrimental to the women who may need it.
I guess we should all just accept _rape culture _and crawl back into our holes.


----------



## hoshin1600

Malos1979 said:


> Were has the bold part been stated? Please link it, I haven't seen it.
> 
> And I teach people to fight and I also teach them to fight back.
> 
> Both things are not only technical but also mentally, and it works in alot of situations


I'm sorry Malos. I don't understand. what "bold" part are you talking about? I didn't put any of my statement in bold.  Are you referring to the bold sentence in Tez's comment?


----------



## hoshin1600

Malos1979 said:


> It was that line that i made bold in the quote.....


ok i see. i didnt expand the quote link.
i am referring specifically to a history of posts made here at MT.  it has been a running narrative here over the years.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> That's not the point though, you would be on your guard if they turned up at your house, however you wouldn't be if it was in a neutral place ie the coffee shop. You wouldn't be on your guard against a bloke who worked in the same office as you in that office for instance.


Agreed. But that's part of my point. The statistics don't actually give us a good clarity on what the situations are. I suspect there are relatively few instances of women assaulted in the workplace of the perpetrator (that coffee shop), and relatively more instances of those "known" strangers assaulting them away from there, where they  could probably cause alarm bells of some sort.


----------



## hoshin1600

as i think about this Known Vs unknown concept it appears to me that this metric "doesnt matter".
as martial artists it has very little relevance whether the victim knew their attacker or not.  what does matter is whether of not it was deceptive, grooming, coercion and if it has an actual component of violence.   MA is only designed to address violence.  as such we can only educate on this basis.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Malos1979 said:


> It was that line that i made bold in the quote.....


Hoshin is expressing his frustration about an approach to posting here (this site, not this thread). When the topic of women's SD or sexual assault comes up, we often get a series of posts about what's not effective about MA training. Most of us acknowledge MA training isn't going to cover everything - we'd love to hear at least some conceptual suggestions about what we could consider adding. I don't have the expertise to construct an answer to that question, but I believe some of those who post complaints about MA for women do actually have some of that expertise. I'd love to learn from them - and I think that's what Hoshin is saying, too.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

hoshin1600 said:


> as i think about this Known Vs unknown concept it appears to me that this metric "doesnt matter".
> as martial artists it has very little relevance whether the victim knew their attacker or not.  what does matter is whether of not it was deceptive, grooming, coercion and if it has an actual component of violence.   MA is only designed to address violence.  as such we can only educate on this basis.


It does still matter from a psychological perspective. I'll even ignore the post-incident trauma here, and just consider the tendency toward denial. If someone you trust (known well) starts to do something "off", we tend to dismiss it at first as us misunderstanding their intention. Often, that is subconscious, so all the situational awareness-ness is irrelevant to that state of mind. That means any actual physical defense is likely to start much later, if at all. The shock of betrayal can actually make it more difficult to respond. And in a state of cognitive dissonance (holding a belief of one thing, while strong evidence of the contrary is presented), we are slower to respond and can more easily freeze up. That cognitive dissonance can also lead to an odd reluctance to cause harm to someone who is causing you harm.

I agree with the basic premise of your post, tempered by this understanding. If I had to draw it out, it wouldn't be a continuum (known to unknown) or a set of categories (coersion, violence, deception). It would be a grid of both.


----------



## hoshin1600

gpseymour said:


> Hoshin is expressing his frustration about an approach to posting here (this site, not this thread). When the topic of women's SD or sexual assault comes up, we often get a series of posts about what's not effective about MA training. Most of us acknowledge MA training isn't going to cover everything - we'd love to hear at least some conceptual suggestions about what we could consider adding. I don't have the expertise to construct an answer to that question, but I believe some of those who post complaints about MA for women do actually have some of that expertise. I'd love to learn from them - and I think that's what Hoshin is saying, too.



Yes spot on.
using MT members as whipping posts does not help anyone.
think about the fact that a large majority of members here are instructors, educators in the field of self protection. each instructor may have 5 to maybe 100"s of students. we can also add the non members who just read the posts and those who will read these threads some time in the future. we can extrapolate that out and it has the potential of having an impact on thousands of women.
think about that for a moment.

isnt it better to be productive and inform people.


----------



## hoshin1600

gpseymour said:


> That cognitive dissonance can also lead to an odd reluctance to cause harm to someone who is causing you harm.


this is a good point.
i am sure you understand that what i am pointing out is that known or unknown can be a distraction and an incorrect metric.  it is more important how the incident manifests itself or i could say the MO of the attacker.
so as a statistical metric known- unknown has no fuction for a MA,  but the perpetrator MO does.   there would be a correlation between the two but as a strict metric  known -unknown doesnt work so well.


----------



## Tez3

I was going to post but really do not feel like trying to explain yet again.  



gpseymour said:


> When the topic of women's SD or sexual assault comes up, we often get a series of posts about what's not effective about MA training. Most of us acknowledge MA training isn't going to cover everything - we'd love to hear at least some conceptual suggestions about what we could consider adding.



I have posted several times over the years ways to enhance training for women however they are always shot down. I'm told that self defence training is the same for everyone, there's no difference between men and women when being attacked etc. I'm tired of trying to explain that women are different, face different problems and yes sexual violence in the workplace is prevalent, sexual harassment is prevalent in all walks of life, yes I do understand men get sexually harassed as well, that most women however good a martial artist they are find it difficult to defeat a large man intent on violence, yes some women do fight off rapists, fighting is not always the answer, telling women to wear modest clothing and not to go out at night on their own is not helpful advice. Looking at statistics is fine but ask women about sexual assault ( especially in the workplace, ask a waitress how many times they've had their backsides pinched or patted) and listen when they tell you.


----------



## hoshin1600

Tez3 said:


> I was going to post but really do not feel like trying to explain yet again.





Tez3 said:


> I have posted several times over the years ways to enhance training for women however they are always shot down



im sorry that you feel that your "shot down".   maybe some of these posts were made prior to my being here, but my impression is that anytime this subject comes up it is not constructive. i feel like we are being hammered on the head with a mallet that says "rape culture' on it.  it has to me a somewhat accusational tone. that "we" are the problem.
maybe in a way we are, but as educators of MA we are doing the best we can.  in order to do better we need information and guidance.  we need dialog to help better our programs, to nudge us to rethink beliefs.  i have heard you say many times that women should be teaching SD4W courses.  agreed,  but you can only work with what you got and until martial arts schools are run by more women the best we can do is teach men to do a better job of it.  the alternative would be no one teaching anything.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> I was going to post but really do not feel like trying to explain yet again.
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted several times over the years ways to enhance training for women however they are always shot down. I'm told that self defence training is the same for everyone, there's no difference between men and women when being attacked etc. I'm tired of trying to explain that women are different, face different problems and yes sexual violence in the workplace is prevalent, sexual harassment is prevalent in all walks of life, yes I do understand men get sexually harassed as well, that most women however good a martial artist they are find it difficult to defeat a large man intent on violence, yes some women do fight off rapists, fighting is not always the answer, telling women to wear modest clothing and not to go out at night on their own is not helpful advice. Looking at statistics is fine but ask women about sexual assault ( especially in the workplace, ask a waitress how many times they've had their backsides pinched or patted) and listen when they tell you.


That's all either advice about what NOT to do (don't treat them the same, don't give that advice, etc.), or to ask about incidence and listen. None of that gives me any inclination on whether there's something I could do to improve anything I teach. I believe you have knowledge that would be helpful, and this post suggests you believe that, as well.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

hoshin1600 said:


> im sorry that you feel that your "shot down".   maybe some of these posts were made prior to my being here, but my impression is that anytime this subject comes up it is not constructive. i feel like we are being hammered on the head with a mallet that says "rape culture' on it.  it has to me a somewhat accusational tone. that "we" are the problem.
> maybe in a way we are, but as educators of MA we are doing the best we can.  in order to do better we need information and guidance.  we need dialog to help better our programs, to nudge us to rethink beliefs.  i have heard you say many times that women should be teaching SD4W courses.  agreed,  but you can only work with what you got and until martial arts schools are run by more women the best we can do is teach men to do a better job of it.  the alternative would be no one teaching anything.


I don't actually agree with the idea that only women should teach SD4W courses, any more than I believe only men can teach SD4M. I do believe there's value in having more women's voices in developing that training. And there's probably wisdom in having more women teaching both men and women how to teach. And I do believe there's value in the safety many women will feel in a learning atmosphere led by a woman - especially when topics like sexual assault are addressed. But let's not write off men who would like to contribute to the solution from that angle.


----------



## Tez3

hoshin1600 said:


> im sorry that you feel that your "shot down".   maybe some of these posts were made prior to my being here, but my impression is that anytime this subject comes up it is not constructive. i feel like we are being hammered on the head with a mallet that says "rape culture' on it.  it has to me a somewhat accusational tone. that "we" are the problem.
> maybe in a way we are, but as educators of MA we are doing the best we can.  in order to do better we need information and guidance.  we need dialog to help better our programs, to nudge us to rethink beliefs.  i have heard you say many times that women should be teaching SD4W courses.  agreed,  but you can only work with what you got and until martial arts schools are run by more women the best we can do is teach men to do a better job of it.  the alternative would be no one teaching anything.



I have tried to stay away from the blaming men part though in truth there is a lot that could be done in education and parenting to combat the lack of respect for women's bodies. The recent gymnastics doctor's trial, the show business revelations as well as the political ones are starting to make an impact on how bad workplace harassment and assault is. It's a problem society will have to resolve, it will take all of us. One part of that is what we do in Girl Guiding, we work with the girls ( it's a world wide campaign) to educate others and lobby government. Campaign to end sexual harassment in schools

Attacks on women come in different 'sections' for want of a better word.
1. the stranger attack/rape in a place away from home/workplace.
2. the stranger attack in a home/workplace such as a shop ie during a burglary often non sexual
3. systematic abuse by a family member/friend, sexual and/or physical 
4. systematic abuse by a partner as above can be sexual or physical or both.
5. random sexual assault by a stranger while on public transport/shop/in public/or while working in a service job like waitress/housekeeping in hotels/stewardess type job.
6. random sexual assault by a co worker/boss etc

Martial arts has to decide which of these scenarios they are best suited to help with. Teaching any abused partner to fight is mostly likely not going to work, what about the other situations?

We also have to face the fact that fighting isn't always going to be the best solution to being attacked, that a woman is often best using her instincts and going with what works for her to come out of the situation with the least damage. I have said this before but again been shot down because people believe you must fight back, even judges and juries can believe this 'she didn't fight back so it wasn't rape she must have wanted it'. sometimes, hard as it is to think about, the least resistance is the best way*. I'm not advocating not fighting as some have accused me of before, *I'm advocating giving women as many tools as possible and telling them that using their gut instincts on how to deal with a situation is their best defence. If goes against most male martial arts not to fight, I've seen others write on here that if asked by a mugger with a weapon for their wallet they will give it up and others have had a go at them 'but you are a martial artist you must fight', even against a gun or knife.


----------



## Tez3

gpseymour said:


> That's all either advice about what NOT to do (don't treat them the same, don't give that advice, etc.), or to ask about incidence and listen. None of that gives me any inclination on whether there's something I could do to improve anything I teach. I believe you have knowledge that would be helpful, and this post suggests you believe that, as well.



In this thread I posted several pieces about training with women.


----------



## AlexanderZousky

I am not a woman but before you go on and search for an effective martial art, you should know that the martial art is only effective if the person has the passion of learning it.


----------



## Michele123

I am a woman. In my late teens I used to help lead self defense classes for women. It was the female black belts of our school that taught these classes. Our Sensei was a man and only ever came towards the end of the class, all padded up, for the women to practice hitting/kicking/punching and so forth. It was fun. 

Someone earlier mentioned that MA won’t help someone in a domestic abuse situation. I disagree. One of my friends and classmates in karate back in my teens, was being abused. She never fought back physically, but the self-confidence she learned in MA led her to finally leaving her abuser. 

I think, perhaps, that self-confidence might be a key to self-defense.  If I am correct, then maybe that is an angle to work on in classes?  In our WSD classes, we would include information on domestic abuse shelters as well as descriptions and examples of the different sorts of domestic abuse. A lot of women in these situations don’t even realize they are being domestically abused.  They tend to think they deserve it somehow. (Part of the grooming I think). 

Anyhow, my $0.02


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Michele123 said:


> I am a woman. In my late teens I used to help lead self defense classes for women. It was the female black belts of our school that taught these classes. Our Sensei was a man and only ever came towards the end of the class, all padded up, for the women to practice hitting/kicking/punching and so forth. It was fun.
> 
> Someone earlier mentioned that MA won’t help someone in a domestic abuse situation. I disagree. One of my friends and classmates in karate back in my teens, was being abused. She never fought back physically, but the self-confidence she learned in MA led her to finally leaving her abuser.
> 
> I think, perhaps, that self-confidence might be a key to self-defense.  If I am correct, then maybe that is an angle to work on in classes?  In our WSD classes, we would include information on domestic abuse shelters as well as descriptions and examples of the different sorts of domestic abuse. A lot of women in these situations don’t even realize they are being domestically abused.  They tend to think they deserve it somehow. (Part of the grooming I think).
> 
> Anyhow, my $0.02
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I don't know how anyone would ever produce valid statistics to either support or disprove the notion, but I firmly believe the confidence and self-esteem people often develop in martial arts is the most important SD tool they receive.


----------



## AngryHobbit

Michele123 said:


> I think, perhaps, that self-confidence might be a key to self-defense.  If I am correct, then maybe that is an angle to work on in classes?  In our WSD classes, we would include information on domestic abuse shelters as well as descriptions and examples of the different sorts of domestic abuse. A lot of women in these situations don’t even realize they are being domestically abused.  They tend to think they deserve it somehow. (Part of the grooming I think).


I like that. This keeps coming up - that just the study of techniques is not the end-all-be-all. There has to be a psychological element built into the training as well.


----------



## kravmaga1

BmillerWarrior said:


> I am gay and just need someone to give me some attention. I love MMA Guys!



Before posting anything you should have seen what topic related we are discussing here. It is not a dating forum site.


----------



## Midnight-shadow

gpseymour said:


> I don't know how anyone would ever produce valid statistics to either support or disprove the notion, but I firmly believe the confidence and self-esteem people often develop in martial arts is the most important SD tool they receive.



I agree, along with the ability to say "no" to someone. I met a young woman recently who literally couldn't say no. When in a group she always did whatever the rest of the group wanted, and when asked what she wanted to do her reply was always "whatever you want". This worried me and made me wonder what would happen if she was approached by someone looking to abuse her in some way. Would she be able to say "no" to that person before it was too late.


----------



## AngryHobbit

Speaking solely for myself, without any implication all other women should do as I do, I will take the training wherever I can get it from whomever I can get it. If there are no female self-defense instructors in the area, I'll train under male. I'd rather make some progress and learn to adapt what I have picked up to  my own unique needs than sit and wait for just the right instructor to come along - with the right gender, the right attitude, and the right knowledge scope.

We don't select cardiologists solely out of the ranks of those who'd had a heart attack because we think they'll be able to better relate to the heart patients. We don't select oncologists only on the basis of whether or not they themselves had cancer. There are plenty of female urologists and male OBGYNs (incidentally, my favorite OBGYN ever was a man, and his name was Hillary - his Ukrainian parents thought it was a good name for a boy). 

So, I'll happily train to defend myself under the tutelage of a male instructor. And if I feel he lacks understanding of my unique position as a woman, I'll just say so instead of seething at him not understanding. I wouldn't expect my instructor to be telepathic and just automatically figure out exactly what I need. But I can still learn a lot. So that's what I'll do.


----------



## Tez3

AngryHobbit said:


> (incidentally, my favorite OBGYN ever was a man, and his name was Hillary - his Ukrainian parents thought it was a good name for a boy).



It is actually a masculine name which is also used for females.

I think you are slightly missing the point, women don't choose to train under a female martial arts instructor because they have suffered attacks but because they most likely know the problems, weaknesses and strengths better. No you don't chose a cardiologist because they have had a cardiac event but neither do you choose a cardiologist when you actually need a midwife.

No one is 'seething' at male instructors, nor is anyone expecting them to be telepathic. male instructors are seeking to improve their teaching to females, so we need to help them by telling them what we need _if we know_ and many female students don't.

Taking training as you find it may seem a good idea but indiscriminate training by students who think they can fix things themselves is probably not the way to go forward. Like learning from videos you can get a couple of techniques just about right but just about may prove not enough.


----------



## AngryHobbit

Tez3 said:


> It is actually a masculine name which is also used for females.
> 
> I think you are slightly missing the point, women don't choose to train under a female martial arts instructor because they have suffered attacks but because they most likely know the problems, weaknesses and strengths better. No you don't chose a cardiologist because they have had a cardiac event but neither do you choose a cardiologist when you actually need a midwife.
> 
> No one is 'seething' at male instructors, nor is anyone expecting them to be telepathic. male instructors are seeking to improve their teaching to females, so we need to help them by telling them what we need _if we know_ and many female students don't.
> 
> Taking training as you find it may seem a good idea but indiscriminate training by students who think they can fix things themselves is probably not the way to go forward. Like learning from videos you can get a couple of techniques just about right but just about may prove not enough.



I don't advocate training indiscriminately. When my previous instructor and the ... let's say... atmosphere at his dojo became unacceptable to me, as a student and, yes, as a female student, I simply left. That is always a choice. Men and women alike have the option to say, "This doesn't work for me" and act on it. Which I support and encourage.


----------



## Tez3

AngryHobbit said:


> I don't advocate training indiscriminately. When my previous instructor and the ... let's say... atmosphere at his dojo became unacceptable to me, as a student and, yes, as a female student, I simply left. That is always a choice. Men and women alike have the option to say, "This doesn't work for me" and act on it. Which I support and encourage.



I think we are talking about different things here. I'm not talking about whether the atmosphere is right for women but what is being taught. With the best will in the world and the most honest good instructors they may not be teaching what works for women.


----------



## AngryHobbit

Tez3 said:


> I think we are talking about different things here. I'm not talking about whether the atmosphere is right for women but what is being taught. With the best will in the world and the most honest good instructors they may not be teaching what works for women.


Again, if a woman feels what is taught is not right for her, she can move on and look for something else. Or, if nothing else is available, she can consider how to adapt what IS available to her needs.


----------



## AngryHobbit

Of course... THIS would be fun.

The History Of The Onna-Bugeisha — Japan's Badass Female Samurai


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> I think we are talking about different things here. I'm not talking about whether the atmosphere is right for women but what is being taught. With the best will in the world and the most honest good instructors they may not be teaching what works for women.


I entirely agree with that. And there's good evidence that error is gender-neutral.


----------



## Tez3

gpseymour said:


> I entirely agree with that. And there's good evidence that error is gender-neutral.



Exactly and there is no way for inexperienced students to know whether the training whether for self defence or anything else such as competition is any good until it comes to the crunch.


----------



## Tez3

AngryHobbit said:


> Of course... THIS would be fun.
> 
> The History Of The Onna-Bugeisha — Japan's Badass Female Samurai




"If Empress Jingu was a 10, Tomoe Gozen was an 11. "


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> Exactly and there is no way for inexperienced students to know whether the training whether for self defence or anything else such as competition is any good until it comes to the crunch.


For competition they might be able to, because of trophies and such (excepting of course those with fake trophies). Beyond that, Agreed.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> "If Empress Jingu was a 10, Tomoe Gozen was an 11. "


Japanese Spinal Tap?


----------



## Tez3

gpseymour said:


> For competition they might be able to, because of trophies and such (excepting of course those with fake trophies). Beyond that, Agreed.



Ooo the 'insert quotes' bit has turned up again!

What I meant by the crunch was entering competitions and finding out whether what you were taught was right as well as having to use your SD 'skills' on a real situation.


----------



## AngryHobbit

Tez3 said:


> "If Empress Jingu was a 10, Tomoe Gozen was an 11. "


Wasn't that a great line?


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Ooo the 'insert quotes' bit has turned up again!
> 
> What I meant by the crunch was entering competitions and finding out whether what you were taught was right as well as having to use your SD 'skills' on a real situation.



So nobody should be teaching self defence?

Because nobody knows if it works.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> So nobody should be teaching self defence?
> 
> Because nobody knows if it works.



Duh, no. I'm saying beginners and inexperienced students don't know what is good SD is and what isn't unlike thou who knows it all.


----------



## Tez3

AngryHobbit said:


> Wasn't that a great line?



No, it was lousy that why I copied it. The article is poorly written and looks like it's for 5 years olds.


----------



## AngryHobbit

Tez3 said:


> No, it was lousy that why I copied it. The article is poorly written and looks like it's for 5 years olds.


Ah, never mind then... I enjoyed it.


----------



## Tez3

AngryHobbit said:


> Ah, never mind then... I enjoyed it.



Have you seen the film 10, the one where women are rated according to looks etc? And the one the middle aged guy is obsessed with is an 11? Grading women on looks etc 1-10/11, not so good.


----------



## Michele123

Tez3 said:


> Have you seen the film 10, the one where women are rated according to looks etc? And the one the middle aged guy is obsessed with is an 11? Grading women on looks etc 1-10/11, not so good.



I don’t think the numbers were in reference to looks. I read it as a reference to fighting skill. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AngryHobbit

Tez3 said:


> Have you seen the film 10, the one where women are rated according to looks etc? And the one the middle aged guy is obsessed with is an 11? Grading women on looks etc 1-10/11, not so good.


Oh, for crying out loud - it was a JOKE! Yes, I've seen the movie, it's a horrible movie except the part with Bo Derek running in the surf. It's a hot scene - and that's all there is to it.

In this case, someone humorously attempted to emphasize these ladies' fighting skill. Aren't you tired of trying to find offence where there is none? If you don't like the article - fine. But is it absolutely necessary to nitpick at something to be personally offended about?


----------



## Tez3

AngryHobbit said:


> Oh, for crying out loud - it was a JOKE! Yes, I've seen the movie, it's a horrible movie except the part with Bo Derek running in the surf. It's a hot scene - and that's all there is to it.
> 
> In this case, someone humorously attempted to emphasize these ladies' fighting skill. Aren't you tired of trying to find offence where there is none? If you don't like the article - fine. But is it absolutely necessary to nitpick at something to be personally offended about?



Aren't you tired of being angry and projecting that on to others? No I'm not 'offended' in the least, why do you think that people are 'offended' when they disagree with you? This is a discussion site, people disagree with each other all the time. Accusing people of being offended is just plain silly, why would you think what you have to say is 'offensive'? 

As I said before I think language differs between us, it does between American and British English anyway as well as cultural differences. I think you are possibly still angry at my original comments on SD for women and see everything I post as combative. I can assure you I am not in the least offended and I believe we are talking at odds.


----------



## hoshin1600

AngryHobbit said:


> Oh, for crying out loud - it was a JOKE! Yes, I've seen the movie, it's a horrible movie except the part with Bo Derek running in the surf. It's a hot scene - and that's all there is to it.
> 
> In this case, someone humorously attempted to emphasize these ladies' fighting skill. Aren't you tired of trying to find offence where there is none? If you don't like the article - fine. But is it absolutely necessary to nitpick at something to be personally offended about?


Dont mind Tez,  i have come to the conclusion she is a UK modern feminist.(but maybe doesnt know it)  from what i gather it is a left leaning majority over there. even their "Right"  is left.   
i wonder how many people know facebook started as a way to rate hot college girls. but yet no one will boycott or say anything about it.   rating hot women is a thing.  its actually something women do to guys too, so lets not get all "holier than thou"  about it.
however 1 though 10 is old fashion.  now we have "kill, marry, F*@%"


----------



## Tez3

hoshin1600 said:


> Dont mind Tez,  i have come to the conclusion she is a UK modern feminist.(but maybe doesnt know it)  from what i gather it is a left leaning majority over there. even their "Right"  is left.
> i wonder how many people know facebook started as a way to rate hot college girls. but yet no one will boycott or say anything about it.   rating hot women is a thing.  its actually something women do to guys too, so lets not get all "holier than thou"  about it.
> however 1 though 10 is old fashion.  now we have "kill, marry, F*@%"




Actually it's kill, marry, avoid.

Your left is right leaning I'm afraid, we've been the way we are for many centuries,  millennia even before the US came along. My garden wall is older the USA. Our right isn't left at all just more moderate than your right. As for describing me as a UK modern feminist, you are incorrect, at 64 I'm not what Americans call a feminist which is usually an insult. If you mean I campaign for equal rights, no FGM, no child marriages etc then yes I do, along with my 10 million sisters in WAGGGS. 
The FB comment is a nice bit of anti Semitism against Zuckerberg who a film asserted used it to get 'non Jewish girls'. It's usually quite nasty about Jewish women btw the reasons given why he didn't want a Jewish woman.

I always think it's say that so many don't appreciate irony, sarcasm and other forms of wit that many think is actually 'taking offence'. The written piece about 'Samurai women' I will leave to @Chris Parker to confirm or correct but frankly the writing itself was of primary  school grade hence my amusement of the grading 1-10 being an 11. Think about it.


----------



## hoshin1600

Tez3 said:


> The FB comment is a nice bit of anti Semitism against Zuckerberg who a film asserted used it to get 'non Jewish girls'. It's usually quite nasty about Jewish women btw the reasons given why he didn't want a Jewish woman.


i never heard of that, not to say it cant be true. i just heard it was a "thing" for the college guys to go to the web sight and rate their college female peers.

and BTW i have no idea what movie or book or what ever your debating.  i just find it interesting how things get under people skins.


----------



## hoshin1600

Tez3 said:


> Actually it's kill, marry, avoid.


if that be the case in the UK, im glad i dont live there, sounds like a very boring place.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> The FB comment is a nice bit of anti Semitism against Zuckerberg


Not really. He said nothing anti-semitic, nor even anything particularly negative in that comment.


----------



## Tez3

gpseymour said:


> Not really. He said nothing anti-semitic, nor even anything particularly negative in that comment.



I didn't say it was.  I said the FB 'explanation' is an anti Semitic 'reason' for inventing FB. Mark Zuckerberg Created Facebook to Get Non-Jewish Girls | HuffPost

Zuckenberg was dating a girl at Harvard, something the film didn't mention, they later married.


----------



## Tez3

hoshin1600 said:


> if that be the case in the UK, im glad i dont live there, sounds like a very boring place.



It's called being civilised.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> It is actually a masculine name which is also used for females.
> 
> I think you are slightly missing the point, women don't choose to train under a female martial arts instructor because they have suffered attacks but because they most likely know the problems, weaknesses and strengths better. No you don't chose a cardiologist because they have had a cardiac event but neither do you choose a cardiologist when you actually need a midwife.
> 
> No one is 'seething' at male instructors, nor is anyone expecting them to be telepathic. male instructors are seeking to improve their teaching to females, so we need to help them by telling them what we need _if we know_ and many female students don't.
> 
> Taking training as you find it may seem a good idea but indiscriminate training by students who think they can fix things themselves is probably not the way to go forward. Like learning from videos you can get a couple of techniques just about right but just about may prove not enough.



This is also why men should avoid female instructors.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Actually it's kill, marry, avoid.
> 
> Your left is right leaning I'm afraid, we've been the way we are for many centuries,  millennia even before the US came along. My garden wall is older the USA. Our right isn't left at all just more moderate than your right. As for describing me as a UK modern feminist, you are incorrect, at 64 I'm not what Americans call a feminist which is usually an insult. If you mean I campaign for equal rights, no FGM, no child marriages etc then yes I do, along with my 10 million sisters in WAGGGS.
> The FB comment is a nice bit of anti Semitism against Zuckerberg who a film asserted used it to get 'non Jewish girls'. It's usually quite nasty about Jewish women btw the reasons given why he didn't want a Jewish woman.
> 
> I always think it's say that so many don't appreciate irony, sarcasm and other forms of wit that many think is actually 'taking offence'. The written piece about 'Samurai women' I will leave to @Chris Parker to confirm or correct but frankly the writing itself was of primary  school grade hence my amusement of the grading 1-10 being an 11. Think about it.


----------



## hoshin1600

What is snog?


----------



## Tez3

hoshin1600 said:


> What is snog?




Having a snog is just kissing and cuddling, tongues optional.


The programme DB posted up is a very strange one, where you just sit with your mouth open going 'WTF'.


----------



## oftheherd1

hoshin1600 said:


> Dont mind Tez,  i have come to the conclusion she is a UK modern feminist.(but maybe doesnt know it)  from what i gather it is a left leaning majority over there. even their "Right"  is left.
> i wonder how many people know facebook started as a way to rate hot college girls. but yet no one will boycott or say anything about it.   rating hot women is a thing.  its actually something women do to guys too, so lets not get all "holier than thou"  about it.
> however 1 though 10 is old fashion.  now we have "kill, marry, F*@%"



Interesting conclusion.  I tend to be quite conservative.  I realize Tez3 is more liberal than I am.  That is her right.  More than that, reading her posts and conversing with her on them tends to give me an interesting perspective on things, Agree with her or not.  She has never been impolite with me.  Of course, I try not to give her any reason to be.

For anyone new to MT who might read this, do be assured Tez3 is not timid.  She can be as opinionated as anyone else, and will defend herself.  She will normally do it politely unless she feels personally attacked.  Then don your flame suit and stand back.  

The above is my opinion.  Anyone may agree or disagree, as many often do.


----------



## Tez3

A very good course of study if you want to understand violence against women. It's a serious academic course from the University of Strathclyde, a very good reputable Scottish seat of learning. Understanding should hopefully lead to interested instructors formulate their teaching strategies for women's self defence classes.

Understanding Violence Against Women - Online Course


----------



## hoshin1600

Tez3 said:


> A very good course of study if you want to understand violence against women. It's a serious academic course from the University of Strathclyde, a very good reputable Scottish seat of learning. Understanding should hopefully lead to interested instructors formulate their teaching strategies for women's self defence classes.


assuming you know the content, can you give some teasers and take aways from this?


----------



## Tez3

hoshin1600 said:


> assuming you know the content, can you give some teasers and take aways from this?




_'Teasers_'? It's a *university *(not college) course not a fictional television series.

*"What topics will you cover? *

_Key concepts – Gender, Power and Violence_
_Defining and explaining Violence Against Women_
_Impact of Violence Against Women from a range of perspectives_
_Media and Cultural representations of Violence Against Women_
_Public and Professional responses to Violence Against Women_
_Preventing Violence Against Women – national and international approaches"_


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> A very good course of study if you want to understand violence against women. It's a serious academic course from the University of Strathclyde, a very good reputable Scottish seat of learning. Understanding should hopefully lead to interested instructors formulate their teaching strategies for women's self defence classes.
> 
> Understanding Violence Against Women - Online Course


Is there nobody already developing those strategies?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> _'Teasers_'? It's a *university *(not college) course not a fictional television series.
> 
> *"What topics will you cover? *
> 
> _Key concepts – Gender, Power and Violence_
> _Defining and explaining Violence Against Women_
> _Impact of Violence Against Women from a range of perspectives_
> _Media and Cultural representations of Violence Against Women_
> _Public and Professional responses to Violence Against Women_
> _Preventing Violence Against Women – national and international approaches"_


From that synopsis, it sounds like a sociological approach (since it discusses societal prevention). How does it inform the individual looking to teach prevention and defense to individuals?


----------



## hoshin1600

gpseymour said:


> From that synopsis, it sounds like a sociological approach (since it discusses societal prevention). How does it inform the individual looking to teach prevention and defense to individuals?


exactly.


----------



## hoshin1600

no offense but this college course sounds like a typical US and Canada women's studies course in the humanities. based on post modernism and Marxist thought.  standard class warfare and the oppressed rhetoric.
so that is why i asked for some take away's that are relevant to actual self defense.


which leads me to a relevant concept, that us men who are interested in providing self defense instruction and are wanting to learn more about actually helping get turned off when there is a narrative that men are evil and the reason for oppression.  it causes a back lash of negative emotion.


----------



## aedrasteia

gpseymour said:


> Is there nobody already developing those strategies?


sorry to be slow on replies - overwhelmed @work.
this (below)  was a thread on MT previously: 
maybe a Mod or other can link to that thread?  thanks

*Efficacy of a Sexual Assault Resistance Program for University Women*
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1411131

There are many more all over the country. 

All are comprehensive - not limited to strike, punch, kick and other techniques.
Because techniques are not remotely enough.
If other vital elements are absent, this instruction approach is almost worthless for the majority of girls and women because* the most common form of assault/harassment is not a stranger-danger jump and grab.*

Also - highly recommended: 

https://www.amazon.com/Trauma-Aware-Self-Defense-Instruction-instructors-self-defense-ebook/dp

*Trauma-Aware Self-Defense Instruction: How instructors can help maximize the benefits and minimize the risks of self-defense training for survivors of violence and trauma. Kindle Edition*
by Anna Valdiserri 

The NWMAF- National Women's Martial Arts Federation has a SDforWomen certification for instructors   

National Women's Martial Arts Federation - Instructor Certifications

Lynn Marie Wannamaker : the self defense paradox:

"One facet of this paradox is the fact that one person — the perpetrator — holds sole responsibility for the decision to assault someone. *The other is the fact that people at risk of violence can take effective steps to increase their own safety*. Our programs are trauma-sensitive, attentive to the presence of survivors in any gathered community.

"Other hallmarks of empowerment-based self-defense training include:

• Evidence-based information about who commits violent and sexual assaults and who they attempt to victimize.

• Education about healthy relationships, including consent negotiation skills and early warning signs of interpersonal violence.

• Examination of how culture and socialization may *disadvantage women from being able to trust or act upon their instincts regarding interpersonal safety.*

• *Opportunities to practice assertive communication that can be used to interrupt or de-escalate violent situations.

• Physical fighting techniques that are simple to learn and effective when other options have been exhausted.*

• Healing and community organizing resources to recover from violence and increase safety for all people.

No tips and ideas are enough. Doing whats needed by actual women/girls in daily life requires re-wiring our/your thinking about women/girls and sexual assault and self protection.  

I was hoping the Larry Nassar story could begin to do that.     more later,
w/respect A


----------



## Gerry Seymour

aedrasteia said:


> sorry to be slow on replies - overwhelmed @work.
> this (below)  was a thread on MT previously:
> maybe a Mod or other can link to that thread?  thanks
> 
> *Efficacy of a Sexual Assault Resistance Program for University Women*
> http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1411131
> 
> There are many more all over the country.
> 
> All are comprehensive - not limited to strike, punch, kick and other techniques.
> Because techniques are not remotely enough.
> If other vital elements are absent, this instruction approach is almost worthless for the majority of girls and women because* the most common form of assault/harassment is not a stranger-danger jump and grab.*
> 
> Also - highly recommended:
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Trauma-Aware-Self-Defense-Instruction-instructors-self-defense-ebook/dp
> 
> *Trauma-Aware Self-Defense Instruction: How instructors can help maximize the benefits and minimize the risks of self-defense training for survivors of violence and trauma. Kindle Edition*
> by Anna Valdiserri
> 
> The NWMAF- National Women's Martial Arts Federation has a SDforWomen certification for instructors
> 
> National Women's Martial Arts Federation - Instructor Certifications
> 
> Lynn Marie Wannamaker : the self defense paradox:
> 
> "One facet of this paradox is the fact that one person — the perpetrator — holds sole responsibility for the decision to assault someone. *The other is the fact that people at risk of violence can take effective steps to increase their own safety*. Our programs are trauma-sensitive, attentive to the presence of survivors in any gathered community.
> 
> "Other hallmarks of empowerment-based self-defense training include:
> 
> • Evidence-based information about who commits violent and sexual assaults and who they attempt to victimize.
> 
> • Education about healthy relationships, including consent negotiation skills and early warning signs of interpersonal violence.
> 
> • Examination of how culture and socialization may *disadvantage women from being able to trust or act upon their instincts regarding interpersonal safety.*
> 
> • *Opportunities to practice assertive communication that can be used to interrupt or de-escalate violent situations.*
> 
> *• Physical fighting techniques that are simple to learn and effective when other options have been exhausted.*
> 
> • Healing and community organizing resources to recover from violence and increase safety for all people.
> 
> No tips and ideas are enough. Doing whats needed by actual women/girls in daily life requires re-wiring our/your thinking about women/girls and sexual assault and self protection.
> 
> I was hoping the Larry Nassar story could begin to do that.     more later,
> w/respect A


Thanks a TON! That's a lot of what appears to be really useful info.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

aedrasteia said:


> No tips and ideas are enough. Doing whats needed by actual women/girls in daily life requires re-wiring our/your thinking about women/girls and sexual assault and self protection.


I agree. Tips and ideas are where the change starts. Part of that is what doesn't work. Part of that is what's actually working somewhere. And, of course, instructors have a lot of work to do (with themselves AND with their curriculum) to incorporate meaningful change if they want to serve this role (teaching SD specifically designed/intended for women).

I do still believe there are two views on this, and I'm okay with either - so long as neither side claims moral high ground over the other. One is that self-protection programs should include avoidance and information about how to deal with approaches other than a physical attack. The other is what I refer to as the "purse self-defense" that intends to deal with how to defend against a physical attack, and rarely strays from that. The latter is fine, so long as it doesn't claim to be more than it is. But if that's the case, it's probably not something that is well-suited to putting forth as a program specifically for women. I've taught self-defense to women, but only altering it as I would for anyone: accounting for physical advantages and limitations. What I'd like to do is educate myself enough (starting with information like this) to determine if I'm able to do more than that.


----------



## AngryHobbit

aedrasteia said:


> sorry to be slow on replies - overwhelmed @work.
> this (below)  was a thread on MT previously:
> maybe a Mod or other can link to that thread?  thanks
> 
> *Efficacy of a Sexual Assault Resistance Program for University Women*
> http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1411131
> 
> There are many more all over the country.
> 
> All are comprehensive - not limited to strike, punch, kick and other techniques.
> Because techniques are not remotely enough.
> If other vital elements are absent, this instruction approach is almost worthless for the majority of girls and women because* the most common form of assault/harassment is not a stranger-danger jump and grab.*
> 
> Also - highly recommended:
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Trauma-Aware-Self-Defense-Instruction-instructors-self-defense-ebook/dp
> 
> *Trauma-Aware Self-Defense Instruction: How instructors can help maximize the benefits and minimize the risks of self-defense training for survivors of violence and trauma. Kindle Edition*
> by Anna Valdiserri
> 
> The NWMAF- National Women's Martial Arts Federation has a SDforWomen certification for instructors
> 
> National Women's Martial Arts Federation - Instructor Certifications
> 
> Lynn Marie Wannamaker : the self defense paradox:
> 
> "One facet of this paradox is the fact that one person — the perpetrator — holds sole responsibility for the decision to assault someone. *The other is the fact that people at risk of violence can take effective steps to increase their own safety*. Our programs are trauma-sensitive, attentive to the presence of survivors in any gathered community.
> 
> "Other hallmarks of empowerment-based self-defense training include:
> 
> • Evidence-based information about who commits violent and sexual assaults and who they attempt to victimize.
> 
> • Education about healthy relationships, including consent negotiation skills and early warning signs of interpersonal violence.
> 
> • Examination of how culture and socialization may *disadvantage women from being able to trust or act upon their instincts regarding interpersonal safety.*
> 
> • *Opportunities to practice assertive communication that can be used to interrupt or de-escalate violent situations.*
> 
> *• Physical fighting techniques that are simple to learn and effective when other options have been exhausted.*
> 
> • Healing and community organizing resources to recover from violence and increase safety for all people.
> 
> No tips and ideas are enough. Doing whats needed by actual women/girls in daily life requires re-wiring our/your thinking about women/girls and sexual assault and self protection.
> 
> I was hoping the Larry Nassar story could begin to do that.     more later,
> w/respect A


These are great - thank you so much!


----------



## aedrasteia

gpseymour said:


> Thanks a TON! That's a lot of what appears to be really useful info.



I'm very Glad you think so and I'm sorry to be off this thread so frequently. I work with abused and exploited seniors - another groups frequently ignored by everyone in 'self-protection'. But that's another (related) story.

In order to use the information I've shared, instructors here,  who think they want to make changes must start with themselves.  There are no shortcuts. No tweaking or adding a few bits to an existing martial arts class.

Unwillingness to acknowledge the reality of the most frequent threats and assaults and spend some serious time, over weeks and months, learning about that reality tells me something about their willingness to go deep on this stuff.  And deep is what is required by reality girls/women face. The Nassar case is a real life example that is *finally* forcing people to take a painful look at that reality.

Just as we have to work over time to build competency in any area (like earning a belt)  we have to learn and
it takes time. And very hard, uncomfortable work. First step is facing what really happens.

when I was asked by another MA based instructor (a good hearted gentleman)  " what should I do first?"           I asked "how long did it take to earn you BB in your style... 2 years? 5 years?   Plan on spending a year or more getting barely competent here, at the very least. Too much time and commitment?  
Consider the seriousness of what you  say you want to do.

My goal is to be completely comfortable with every aspect of this - there will be nothing the girls/women must face that surprises me. Nothing I will be unable to consider. Nothing will confound me about their reactions. I may not know answers, but I know resources. Together they and I can figure out what works best for them and for me.    Thats' because these assaults/harrassment, threats, intrusions and attacks have happened to me too. And my mother, my friends, my cousins. This is horrible but very familiar territory. 

The first MA  I was involved with was judo, taught be a Kodokan trained Japanese exchange guy working w/a very tough AFJA partner. I was only girl in a class of 12.  Later I trained for a year in hard-style shuri-ryu karate and about another year in aikido.  I was junior to a retired Marine who taught SD for women through a local YWCA.  I was young.

And I then I walked away from exclusively MA based SD for girls and women.   I knew it was enormously inadequate.  By this time I had been working with SA/DV survivors and I had listened to the experiences of my mother, my friends, neighbors.  I had to ask myself hard questions about their situations and what MA could offer them, yes a little, but not nearly enough.

I finally looked at my own experience and respected it. . I thought hard about how and when and by whom I had been scared, threatened, intimidated, harrassed, assaulted.  MA skills were almost irrelevant to my real life. *MA gave me some wonderful tools,*, but not the ones I needed very often.

I needed so much more. So I invented it - working with other women/girls.  We all invented what we needed. I'll always be grateful for MA training. But it only gave me confidence about doing some techniques.

I needed confidence  in the *right to set boundaries and and the skills enforce them, even with people "inside the circle"  *MA couldn't and wouldn't do anything about the social reality and framework I lived inside, because my life was invisible to almost all the men in MA.  It still is, though that is slowIy, slowly changing. And there is more resistance and difficulty than i could handle on a regular basis.

I had to stick up for myself and what I knew I was really facing.   I still do. 
But that's another story.

w/respect A


----------



## Tez3

hoshin1600 said:


> no offense but this college course sounds like a typical US and Canada women's studies course in the humanities. based on post modernism and Marxist thought.  standard class warfare and the oppressed rhetoric.
> so that is why i asked for some take away's that are relevant to actual self defense.
> 
> 
> which leads me to a relevant concept, that us men who are interested in providing self defense instruction and are wanting to learn more about actually helping get turned off when there is a narrative that men are evil and the reason for oppression.  it causes a back lash of negative emotion.




You see, you post up something which *may* inform, *may *help and you get gyp for it. Everyone's a critic. Don't take the course if you don't like it, comparing it to a 'college' course when it's a university one is incorrect. College here is for 16-18 years doing Btecs and A levels, universities are for taking degrees, a step up so it's for adults looking for information for their professional careers not political propaganda.

The use of 'takeways' and teasers' indicates you think it's some sort comic books stuff.

As it's a British uni it will not be a college course. There tends not to be the dislike of 'women's studies' here such as you display, this course comes under psychology/social work studies intended for people who work in fields that need to understand violence such as police officers and social workers rather than your detested feminists looking to blame men. There are similar courses in understanding young male to male violence, gang violence and domestic violence in partnerships/marriage etc. This is a short by academic standards FREE course so isn't going to cover in such huge detail as an undergraduate course of three years will.

You need to disabuse yourself of the idea that women are out to get you...or at least if they are it won't be because you are male but for something else. It may be that your perception of women, Marxism, the left etc is somewhat passe and they are actually laughing at you. I mean class warfare? so 70s. I have no idea what 'suppressed rhetoric' is, perhaps it's like trapped wind?

 This Masters course, extensively covering the aspects of violence, note it comes under 'global studies' and who the experts are. If I were younger I'd find this something I'd find interesting to do, as I have a 1:1, I'd be qualified to apply though the placement might have been difficult.
Gender, Violence and Conflict MA : University of Sussex

The course focuses on:


gendered experiences of violence
conflict and peace
militarisation
masculinities and femininities 
representations, embodiments and the institutionalisation of violence. 
Violence is a huge subject, male on male violence an entire subject on it's own, there's also female on female violence and domestic abuse. Violence to children, violence by children, child soldiers, violence by nuns ( a far nastier subject than we'd like to think about) etc.


As for the 'evil men' idiocy, well that's your take on it which you, I'm sure, are entitled to however much you are wrong. I don't know why US men would be different from others but your words not mine. These course are for professionals not people who have an agenda of hating men. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about 'feminists' and being hated, quite odd.


----------



## Tez3

Adrasteia, as always you write the most complete common sense and knowledgeable posts.  You have my complete respect.


----------



## hoshin1600

Tez3 said:


> You see, you post up something which *may* inform, *may *help and you get gyp for it. Everyone's a critic. Don't take the course if you don't like it, comparing it to a 'college' course when it's a university one is incorrect. College here is for 16-18 years doing Btecs and A levels, universities are for taking degrees, a step up so it's for adults looking for information for their professional careers not political propaganda.
> 
> The use of 'takeways' and teasers' indicates you think it's some sort comic books stuff.
> 
> As it's a British uni it will not be a college course. There tends not to be the dislike of 'women's studies' here such as you display, this course comes under psychology/social work studies intended for people who work in fields that need to understand violence such as police officers and social workers rather than your detested feminists looking to blame men. There are similar courses in understanding young male to male violence, gang violence and domestic violence in partnerships/marriage etc. This is a short by academic standards FREE course so isn't going to cover in such huge detail as an undergraduate course of three years will.
> 
> You need to disabuse yourself of the idea that women are out to get you...or at least if they are it won't be because you are male but for something else. It may be that your perception of women, Marxism, the left etc is somewhat passe and they are actually laughing at you. I mean class warfare? so 70s. I have no idea what 'suppressed rhetoric' is, perhaps it's like trapped wind?
> 
> This Masters course, extensively covering the aspects of violence, note it comes under 'global studies' and who the experts are. If I were younger I'd find this something I'd find interesting to do, as I have a 1:1, I'd be qualified to apply though the placement might have been difficult.
> Gender, Violence and Conflict MA : University of Sussex
> 
> The course focuses on:
> 
> 
> gendered experiences of violence
> conflict and peace
> militarisation
> masculinities and femininities
> representations, embodiments and the institutionalisation of violence.
> Violence is a huge subject, male on male violence an entire subject on it's own, there's also female on female violence and domestic abuse. Violence to children, violence by children, child soldiers, violence by nuns ( a far nastier subject than we'd like to think about) etc.
> 
> 
> As for the 'evil men' idiocy, well that's your take on it which you, I'm sure, are entitled to however much you are wrong. I don't know why US men would be different from others but your words not mine. These course are for professionals not people who have an agenda of hating men. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about 'feminists' and being hated, quite odd.



you know Tez we seem to be at odds with each other and at this point i doubt its going to change. i have no wish to argue or try to inform you about politics since its forbidden here and respond to your comments aimed at me.  i do not put people on ignore because i feel everyone has good ideas at some point that i can learn from.  your post has some good comments mixed with pointed barbs but from this point going forward i have no desire to converse in that manner and will not respond to your posts since they only cause the circle of contention to continue.


----------



## JR 137

Tez3 said:


> _'Teasers_'? It's a *university *(not college) course not a fictional television series.


College and university have different definitions/usage here in the States than they do in other countries like the UK.

In the US they’re practically interchangeable terms.  Being a university doesn’t make it a better school than a college.  The difference is mainly the structuring and therefore the application process...

At a university, the various departments or “schools” have different admissions criteria. The student applies to a specific school within the university.  For example, I went to Niagara University for graduate school.  I applied to Niagara University School of Education.  My application was first approved by the general admissions department, then sent to the school of education for further approval.  The dean of the school of education made the ultimate decision on my acceptance.  Therefore each department or “school” may have their own standards for admission. 

I went to Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts (MCLA) for undergrad.  I applied to MCLA, and my application was decided by the admissions staff.  The biology department didn’t have anything to do with the process.  The standards for admission is the same for every program.  There may be an odd program or two that has higher standards though.  I had to take several courses and do clinical hours, then apply to the Athletic Training/Sports Medicine program officially after my 2nd year.  There was no guarantee I’d be accepted into that program even though I passed my previous courses.

In many other countries, a college is a 2 year school, and a university is a 4 year school.  In the US, a 2 year school is a community college or junior college.  A 4 year school is a college or university.  One of the best schools in the US (and the world) is Dartmouth College, which is an Ivy League school (Harvard, Yale, Cornell, etc.). In the US, college vs university has nothing to do with better or worse.  Somehow though, it seems the better schools are universities, but there’s obviously exceptions - Williams, Trinity, etc.  Then you have the “technical” schools - MIT, RIT, RPI, etc.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

aedrasteia said:


> I'm very Glad you think so and I'm sorry to be off this thread so frequently. I work with abused and exploited seniors - another groups frequently ignored by everyone in 'self-protection'. But that's another (related) story.
> 
> In order to use the information I've shared, instructors here,  who think they want to make changes must start with themselves.  There are no shortcuts. No tweaking or adding a few bits to an existing martial arts class.
> 
> Unwillingness to acknowledge the reality of the most frequent threats and assaults and spend some serious time, over weeks and months, learning about that reality tells me something about their willingness to go deep on this stuff.  And deep is what is required by reality girls/women face. The Nassar case is a real life example that is *finally* forcing people to take a painful look at that reality.
> 
> Just as we have to work over time to build competency in any area (like earning a belt)  we have to learn and
> it takes time. And very hard, uncomfortable work. First step is facing what really happens.
> 
> when I was asked by another MA based instructor (a good hearted gentleman)  " what should I do first?"           I asked "how long did it take to earn you BB in your style... 2 years? 5 years?   Plan on spending a year or more getting barely competent here, at the very least. Too much time and commitment?
> Consider the seriousness of what you  say you want to do.
> 
> My goal is to be completely comfortable with every aspect of this - there will be nothing the girls/women must face that surprises me. Nothing I will be unable to consider. Nothing will confound me about their reactions. I may not know answers, but I know resources. Together they and I can figure out what works best for them and for me.    Thats' because these assaults/harrassment, threats, intrusions and attacks have happened to me too. And my mother, my friends, my cousins. This is horrible but very familiar territory.
> 
> The first MA  I was involved with was judo, taught be a Kodokan trained Japanese exchange guy working w/a very tough AFJA partner. I was only girl in a class of 12.  Later I trained for a year in hard-style shuri-ryu karate and about another year in aikido.  I was junior to a retired Marine who taught SD for women through a local YWCA.  I was young.
> 
> And I then I walked away from exclusively MA based SD for girls and women.   I knew it was enormously inadequate.  By this time I had been working with SA/DV survivors and I had listened to the experiences of my mother, my friends, neighbors.  I had to ask myself hard questions about their situations and what MA could offer them, yes a little, but not nearly enough.
> 
> I finally looked at my own experience and respected it. . I thought hard about how and when and by whom I had been scared, threatened, intimidated, harrassed, assaulted.  MA skills were almost irrelevant to my real life. *MA gave me some wonderful tools,*, but not the ones I needed very often.
> 
> I needed so much more. So I invented it - working with other women/girls.  We all invented what we needed. I'll always be grateful for MA training. But it only gave me confidence about doing some techniques.
> 
> I needed confidence  in the *right to set boundaries and and the skills enforce them, even with people "inside the circle"  *MA couldn't and wouldn't do anything about the social reality and framework I lived inside, because my life was invisible to almost all the men in MA.  It still is, though that is slowIy, slowly changing. And there is more resistance and difficulty than i could handle on a regular basis.
> 
> I had to stick up for myself and what I knew I was really facing.   I still do.
> But that's another story.
> 
> w/respect A


I think the biggest issue from a MA standpoint (since we're on a MA forum) is folks simply not recognizing the limitations of a MA class/training. There are things it doesn't deal with, and that's okay, as long as it's understood. MA instructors are not going to solve the world's problems - they are not going to help women avoid choosing an abusive mate, etc. Unless they want to include that as part of what they do - which is beyond the scope of MA (because physical technique doesn't do anything in that area).

I've long recognized the reality that women face dangers my teaching doesn't cover, because I'm a MA instructor, and mostly teach straight self-defense (physical defense from a physical attack). You've given me a few tools to start considering whether I can do anything more within my program. The answer might be "no", but it'd at least be an informed "no".


----------



## Tez3

College v university isn't about better or worse here but doing different jobs. Many students go to college first to get the qualifications to go to university. The level of study is harder as you would expect for a degree course as a Masters would be harder than an undergraduate degree, it's a matter of progression. There are 'colleges' in some universities such as Oxford and Cambridge but that's something different, some are from the 13th century others more modern from Tudor times etc.
To go to uni, you need to know what the minimum qualifications are for your subject and get them usually a couple of years before you are 18, usually though with the competition for places you will need more than just basic qualifications then you can apply to UCAS who are usually the best people to help and advise.  University.

Some others ideas about the difference between the UK and US unis.
University In The UK Vs University In America

5 differences between going to college in the US vs the UK

Mostly true about the UK ones I've found, though the interest free loan bit sounds good it isn't actually, no likes starting their working life with £45,000 worth of debt. When I was a student we had grants, still had to work though, most students did. Sadly these days, students are more boring and drink less than when I was at uni (Aberdeen founded 1495) they are so less political and non activist, which is worrying, young people should be activists, should be taking on the world. They seem to have been ground down somehow. Political activity among university lectures, professors etc isn't hugely common either now.


----------



## Tez3

gpseymour said:


> I think the biggest issue from a MA standpoint (since we're on a MA forum) is folks simply not recognizing the limitations of a MA class/training. There are things it doesn't deal with, and that's okay, as long as it's understood. MA instructors are not going to solve the world's problems - they are not going to help women avoid choosing an abusive mate, etc. Unless they want to include that as part of what they do - which is beyond the scope of MA (because physical technique doesn't do anything in that area).
> 
> .



This was my point from an earlier post ( and why I listed some of those areas) we have to look at what we think the 'problem' areas are ( taking advice if needed from reputable sources) and decide which ones we can tackle with competency and which ones are out of our hands to deal with in a martial arts class. There's also ones that we have a duty of care to be aware of like child abuse and should know how to take the *appropriate *action for where we live. We have to do that not just because we have that duty of care to our young students but because we strive to be decent human beings.


----------



## Tez3

hoshin1600 said:


> you know Tez we seem to be at odds with each other and at this point i doubt its going to change. i have no wish to argue or try to inform you about politics since its forbidden here and respond to your comments aimed at me.  i do not put people on ignore because i feel everyone has good ideas at some point that i can learn from.  your post has some good comments mixed with pointed barbs but from this point going forward i have no desire to converse in that manner and will not respond to your posts since they only cause the circle of contention to continue.




No contention on my part, but you have made public comments about my beliefs, my political views etc as well as ideas about the university system here which can well be described as snide. If you can hand out those comments but can't take rebuttals then it's not my problem.

_"Dont mind Tez, i have come to the conclusion she is a UK modern feminist.(but maybe doesnt know it) from what i gather it is a left leaning majority over there. even their "Right" is left."  " if that be the case in the UK, im glad i dont live there, sounds like a very boring place." " this college course sounds like a typical US and Canada women's studies course in the humanities. based on post modernism and Marxist thought. standard class warfare and the oppressed rhetoric."_


----------



## hoshin1600

gpseymour said:


> I think the biggest issue from a MA standpoint (since we're on a MA forum) is folks simply not recognizing the limitations of a MA class/training. There are things it doesn't deal with, and that's okay, as long as it's understood. MA instructors are not going to solve the world's problems - they are not going to help women avoid choosing an abusive mate, etc. Unless they want to include that as part of what they do - which is beyond the scope of MA (because physical technique doesn't do anything in that area).
> 
> I've long recognized the reality that women face dangers my teaching doesn't cover, because I'm a MA instructor, and mostly teach straight self-defense (physical defense from a physical attack). You've given me a few tools to start considering whether I can do anything more within my program. The answer might be "no", but it'd at least be an informed "no".


so in this link that @aedrasteia  posted it shows that the program was divided into 4 parts, one of those parts was the physical MA skills.
*Efficacy of a Sexual Assault Resistance Program for University Women*
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1411131
this may be the correct ratio of instruction but without more detail i cannot say if the other components are appropriate or compatible for a MA school or instructor to address.  some of it does seem like it should be covered, so i would like to dig deeper on that.

my main contention is what i see as a political creep into this field.   many groups and ideologies are finding fertile ground in self defense and MA  to promote their views.  in this link ( National Women's Martial Arts Federation - Home, ) that @aedrasteia posted  there is a page for requirements to be a NWMAF member.  many will not see it the meaning but it is conformation of what i was saying earlier.  the bold text is my own.


_"6.* Political awareness*/contextualization of violence

The successful self defense instructor demonstrates:_

_*Considers violence in the context *of racism, sexism, classism, ableism, homophobia, ageism and other systems of *inequality and oppression.*_
_Understands violence as a societal vs. individual problem and communicates this in the classroom setting._
_Assists students to challenge the victim-blaming ethos prevalent in considerations of violence."_
it is getting harder to separate politics from self defense training because the new definition of violence is including speech and micro aggressions.

from wiki  again the bold text is mine
Violence - Wikipedia
_*Violence* is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force or* power*, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, *psychological harm, maldevelopment, *or *deprivation*," although the group acknowledges that the inclusion of "the use of power" in its definition expands on the conventional understanding of the word.[2] This definition involves intentionality with the committing of the act itself, irrespective of the outcome it produces. However, generally, anything that is excited in an injurious or damaging way may be described as violent even if not meant to be violence (by a person and against a person)._

_Evaluation studies are beginning to support community interventions that aim to prevent violence against women by promoting gender equality. For instance, evidence suggests that programmes that combine microfinance with gender equity training can reduce intimate partner violence.[81][82] School-based programmes such as Safe Dates programme in the United States of America[83][84] and the Youth Relationship Project in Canada[85] have been found to be effective for reducing dating violence._

so you can see there is a blending of traditional  definitions of violence with something new and promoting "Gender studies" as a way to prevent violence.  the new Canadian law Bill C16 specifically states that by not using certain pronouns for non binary people it is a form of hate speech and violence.  topics like this are important to take note of but forbidden on this sight.  these topics have a major impact on the conversation.

also if you read the entire Wiki link it goes on to say in not so many words that poverty is a form of violence toward that class of people.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> This was my point from an earlier post ( and why I listed some of those areas) we have to look at what we think the 'problem' areas are ( taking advice if needed from reputable sources) and decide which ones we can tackle with competency and which ones are out of our hands to deal with in a martial arts class. There's also ones that we have a duty of care to be aware of like child abuse and should know how to take the *appropriate *action for where we live. We have to do that not just because we have that duty of care to our young students but because we strive to be decent human beings.


That latter is not specific to MA, and not substantially pertinent to MA programs that don’t have kids classes. It’s a societal issue, rather than a teaching issue - as you correctly said, to be decent human beings.


----------



## AngryHobbit

aedrasteia said:


> I'm very Glad you think so and I'm sorry to be off this thread so frequently. I work with abused and exploited seniors - another groups frequently ignored by everyone in 'self-protection'. But that's another (related) story.



Wow. I can't even imagine how tough that job must be. And yes... they are often forgotten. Abuse of seniors is one of those things people are sort of aware of, but nobody likes to talk about - because it is so hard to acknowledge this can be happening in a civilized first-world country.

Another group I want to see addressed in MA training is bullying survivors. Being one, I can honestly say, certain parts of the practice were hard for me not because of my gender but because of the very deeply ingrained memories of bullying. I still remember this - one of our exercises was called "the bull pen". Everyone in class forms a circle and has a striking shield. And you stand in the middle - also with a striking shield. Folks take turns running at you, and you have to blend. The intention is to train people to be aware of what's going on when surrounded. Well, for me, it brought on a memory of being pushed around a circle of bullies, and I had a very embarrassing breakdown in the middle of a class. 

I think, in general, there is work to be done both on the part of the instructors and on the part of the students. There was no way my instructor could have helped me because of my bullying trauma, because I never told him about it. At the end of my other fitness classes - like zumba and yoga - instructors always ask whether anyone has any injuries and limitations. And it's up to the students to speak up, so the instructor might make recommendations how to adjust the intensity of exercise or where to take it easy.


----------



## Tez3

gpseymour said:


> That latter is not specific to MA, and not substantially pertinent to MA programs that don’t have kids classes. It’s a societal issue, rather than a teaching issue - as you correctly said, to be decent human beings.




I did say _things like _child abuse, thinking I wouldn't have to expand further and actually have to include things like bullying in the class, sexual harassment *etc etc* that we as instructors have a duty of care for. It was late at night so I thought I could save myself some typing and assume people would understand that 'things like' meant they could expand the list themselves. I didn't expect to get picked up for not including a long list and that I only meant child abuse.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> I did say _things like _child abuse, thinking I wouldn't have to expand further and actually have to include things like bullying in the class, sexual harassment *etc etc* that we as instructors have a duty of care for. It was late at night so I thought I could save myself some typing and assume people would understand that 'things like' meant they could expand the list themselves. I didn't expect to get picked up for not including a long list and that I only meant child abuse.


I wasn't picking at you - just putting forth my thoughts on it.


----------



## hoshin1600

AngryHobbit said:


> Another group I want to see addressed in MA training is bullying survivors.



sorry to hear that,  i was bullied as well so i can sympathize.  but how do you propose it be addressed?   my own belief is the training should not be "dumbed down" or have "safe spaces"  but rather could include a kind of immersion therapy.  exposure to triggers little by little.   
how do you see Ma could help what are your thoughts?


----------



## AngryHobbit

hoshin1600 said:


> sorry to hear that,  i was bullied as well so i can sympathize.  but how do you propose it be addressed?   my own belief is the training should not be "dumbed down" or have "safe spaces"  but rather could include a kind of immersion therapy.  exposure to triggers little by little.
> how do you see Ma could help what are your thoughts?


All good questions - I am still trying to sort it all out myself. Part of the problem is - we are all different. It's a cliche, but true. So, survivors of abuse have different triggers. I lay the first responsibility at the door of the survivors - as I said, they need to be honest with their instructors, just as they need to be honest with their therapists. People can't help you with what they don't know about you. So, when signing up for a martial arts class, they need to sit down and talk to the instructor about what they've been through and what they think challenges might be. Or, if they don't know, say honestly, "I have no idea how it might affect me the first time someone takes a swing at me - so, I'll do my best not to freak out, and I ask you to be patient with me if I do." 

If anyone has any information on methods used by MA instructors to work with bullying survivors, I'd love to see some. So far, if you look up "bullying and martial arts", you see a list of schools and programs making preposterous claims to "bully-proof your child".


----------



## hoshin1600

when i teach womens class (and this could be applied to all victims) i state right up front at the beginning that i fully expect someone to have a triggered break down. i then advise students to be aware of their own emotional state, so it doesnt creep up on them. i  allow them to step back when needed without pressure to keep going and advise everyone to give support for someone if it happens.
this i think will take some of the embarissment out of it and help avoid it if possible.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

hoshin1600 said:


> sorry to hear that,  i was bullied as well so i can sympathize.  but how do you propose it be addressed?   my own belief is the training should not be "dumbed down" or have "safe spaces"  but rather could include a kind of immersion therapy.  exposure to triggers little by little.
> how do you see Ma could help what are your thoughts?


There's only one adjustment I've typically made, for anyone with trauma. (I'm not equipped to do more, so would refer those who need more to seek someone equipped for that.) Once I know what their triggers are, I push gently in that area to find out what they can handle without getting into learning-limiting stress levels. I put them into that situation when they are feeling comfortable and with people they have learned to trust. This has had varying levels of success, including helping one student gradually get past crying-level anxiety when someone touched her neck and another who quit after a similar reaction.

So, for someone with that kind of reaction, what I'd do is find a partner they seem to trust and seem comfortable with (sometimes it's easier with a stranger of the same gender, sometimes with someone they know, sometimes they are more comfortable with me). I have that partner start by using a grip on the outsides of their shoulders, instead of the neck/choke. I have them gradually move in until the person shows stress. They back off a tiny bit (either in intensity or in location) and work there for a while. And so on.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

hoshin1600 said:


> when i teach womens class (and this could be applied to all victims) i state right up front at the beginning that i fully expect someone to have a triggered break down. i then advise students to be aware of their own emotional state, so it doesnt creep up on them. i  allow them to step back when needed without pressure to keep going and advise everyone to give support for someone if it happens.
> this i think will take some of the embarissment out of it and help avoid it if possible.


I try to remember to give this at the beginning of a seminar and to new students. I probably fail to do so as much as I remember.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

AngryHobbit said:


> All good questions - I am still trying to sort it all out myself. Part of the problem is - we are all different. It's a cliche, but true. So, survivors of abuse have different triggers. I lay the first responsibility at the door of the survivors - as I said, they need to be honest with their instructors, just as they need to be honest with their therapists. People can't help you with what they don't know about you. So, when signing up for a martial arts class, they need to sit down and talk to the instructor about what they've been through and what they think challenges might be. Or, if they don't know, say honestly, "I have no idea how it might affect me the first time someone takes a swing at me - so, I'll do my best not to freak out, and I ask you to be patient with me if I do."
> 
> If anyone has any information on methods used by MA instructors to work with bullying survivors, I'd love to see some. So far, if you look up "bullying and martial arts", you see a list of schools and programs making preposterous claims to "bully-proof your child".


I think many survivors (of both bullying and other trauma) are as surprised as the instructor at what triggers them and how quickly/strongly. From an instructor's standpoint, the first step (if you don't know in advance) is to catch the reaction early and get them feeling safe. After that, it's a matter of figuring out how to work them back to the situation so they can work past it.


----------



## AngryHobbit

hoshin1600 said:


> when i teach womens class (and this could be applied to all victims) i state right up front at the beginning that i fully expect someone to have a triggered break down. i then advise students to be aware of their own emotional state, so it doesnt creep up on them. i  allow them to step back when needed without pressure to keep going and advise everyone to give support for someone if it happens.
> this i think will take some of the embarissment out of it and help avoid it if possible.


I like this approach.

I think my biggest mistake was trying to just ... barrel through things, hoping if I do, the effect would somehow be less. Instead, I only made things worse for myself because the pressure just built up and then I went kapui.


----------



## hoshin1600

gpseymour said:


> I think many survivors (of both bullying and other trauma) are as surprised as the instructor at what triggers them and how quickly/strongly. From an instructor's standpoint, the first step (if you don't know in advance) is to catch the reaction early and get them feeling safe. After that, it's a matter of figuring out how to work them back to the situation so they can work past it.



yes i agree.  that is why i tell them not to be surprised when it happens.  i make it sound causal like it happens all the time and its no big deal.


----------



## Ondrejmatej

kravmaga1 said:


> Should Women learn self defense more and more nowadays? How it will help in nowadays life? From what thing women should start learning the self defense tricks?



Self-defense helps women protect themselves and their family. In my opinion, this is the most important reason for women to learn self-defense, because it is the difference between life and death.


----------



## Marie_Flowers88

kravmaga1 said:


> Should Women learn self defense more and more nowadays? How it will help in nowadays life? From what thing women should start learning the self defense tricks?



As a woman, we should learn how to defend ourselves from attackers. There are bad guys nowadays which target is woman mainly because they see us as weak when it comes to fighting. Take it from the news, there are cases of rapes and woman being abused. If only all women realized that we really need to learn how to defend ourselves, I can call that feminism. There is no a man that will always be there 24/7 to protect us. I hope I answered your question


----------



## Tez3

Ondrejmatej said:


> Self-defense helps women protect themselves and their family. In my opinion, this is the most important reason for women to learn self-defense, because it is the difference between life and death.





Marie_Flowers88 said:


> As a woman, we should learn how to defend ourselves from attackers. There are bad guys nowadays which target is woman mainly because they see us as weak when it comes to fighting. Take it from the news, there are cases of rapes and woman being abused. If only all women realized that we really need to learn how to defend ourselves, I can call that feminism. There is no a man that will always be there 24/7 to protect us. I hope I answered your question



90% of rapes and abuse are done by someone known to the victim who is quite often groomed by that person. Look at the American gymnastic doctor and the UK football coach as well as the Jimmy Saville scandal. The problem is telling who the 'attackers' are. The UK football coach targeted boys, not girls.
Defending ourselves is more than just learning to fight.


----------



## pdg

I don't know if it's the done thing, but mainly in reply to @JR 137 post on the first page (with other randomness thrown in)...

While having a plan is better than no plan, maybe leaving it until they're on the cusp of womanhood is too late? It's a time of change, of them discovering (or self confirming) that they're a person entirely in their own right and implementing a compulsory defence programme at that point will likely be met with huge resistance - the stereotypical "you can't tell me what to do!" stage.

The parallel was drawn with school education, that it's compulsory so they go. But what would the outcome be if they hadn't had compulsory education up to that point? Without the previous ~8 years experience would everyone just accept it?

I've seen reports of 10/11 year old girls being assaulted by teenage boys (and a single instance is enough to categorically state "it can happen") so again, is 13 soon enough?

My daughter is 5 (6 in a few weeks) and she's been attending the same MA club as me (in different classes) for almost 2 years now. While I'm certainly under no illusion that she's in any way capable of physical self defence it's a primer. It's also a confidence building exercise. They hold gradings (so she's got used to the whole performing her moves in front of an examiner), they do padwork drills etc. Very soon she should be going for her black belt (yes, ok, it's essentially a black belt in turning up, but it means something to her - and to me and the club it means she's shown willing for a third of her life) - this 'qualifies' her to join the junior classes a year sooner (in her case) than usual.

What I'm getting at in a very roundabout way is that starting her when I did means that it's just a normal thing - it's not a new and alien concept being foisted upon her when she's of an age where she's likely looking for an excuse to rebel. Right now she's looking forward to doing the family TKD classes with me as well as the junior kickboxing classes with my son (her older brother, somewhat obviously).

I just think it's my responsibility as a parent to help prepare my kids for the bad times just as much as the good, that sometimes violence happens and the only solution (hopefully last resort) is to meet it with returned violence - and the time to start that preparation isn't in some arbitrarily appointed date in the future. The best time to start is in the past, the second best time is now.


----------



## JR 137

pdg said:


> I don't know if it's the done thing, but mainly in reply to @JR 137 post on the first page (with other randomness thrown in)...
> 
> While having a plan is better than no plan, maybe leaving it until they're on the cusp of womanhood is too late? It's a time of change, of them discovering (or self confirming) that they're a person entirely in their own right and implementing a compulsory defence programme at that point will likely be met with huge resistance - the stereotypical "you can't tell me what to do!" stage.
> 
> The parallel was drawn with school education, that it's compulsory so they go. But what would the outcome be if they hadn't had compulsory education up to that point? Without the previous ~8 years experience would everyone just accept it?
> 
> I've seen reports of 10/11 year old girls being assaulted by teenage boys (and a single instance is enough to categorically state "it can happen") so again, is 13 soon enough?
> 
> My daughter is 5 (6 in a few weeks) and she's been attending the same MA club as me (in different classes) for almost 2 years now. While I'm certainly under no illusion that she's in any way capable of physical self defence it's a primer. It's also a confidence building exercise. They hold gradings (so she's got used to the whole performing her moves in front of an examiner), they do padwork drills etc. Very soon she should be going for her black belt (yes, ok, it's essentially a black belt in turning up, but it means something to her - and to me and the club it means she's shown willing for a third of her life) - this 'qualifies' her to join the junior classes a year sooner (in her case) than usual.
> 
> What I'm getting at in a very roundabout way is that starting her when I did means that it's just a normal thing - it's not a new and alien concept being foisted upon her when she's of an age where she's likely looking for an excuse to rebel. Right now she's looking forward to doing the family TKD classes with me as well as the junior kickboxing classes with my son (her older brother, somewhat obviously).
> 
> I just think it's my responsibility as a parent to help prepare my kids for the bad times just as much as the good, that sometimes violence happens and the only solution (hopefully last resort) is to meet it with returned violence - and the time to start that preparation isn't in some arbitrarily appointed date in the future. The best time to start is in the past, the second best time is now.


I agree with everything you’ saying here.  My point wasn’t they’ll have to wait until that age; I picked around that age as the latest.  And that age as a time where the training will be relatively serious vs ‘promoting because they showed up’ as you put it.

Someone bashed me a little bit because of my view.  That’s his prerogative.  I get it; it’s because all we have here is some words on paper and not the whole story which will never come through this medium no matter how hard we try.

My 7 year old daughter trained karate with me for about a year.  She loved it for most of the time but then got bored.  She reached the point where she thought she had it down and it became too repetitive for her.  I had her go a few times after she started saying she didn’t want to go to make sure it wasn’t a thing where she just wanted to do something else that day.  I backed off because I didn’t want to push her too hard at that age and make her hate going in the future.

I just want my daughters to be able to physically defend themselves when they get to the age where I think the threat becomes realistic.  I know it could happen at ANY age and grappling skills aren’t the ONLY way, but they’re definitely effective when all other ways have failed.  IMO effective grappling skills such as judo, BJJ, and wrestling are far more effective for a young lady and older than kicking and punching are when trying to prevent a larger person from dragging them and attempting to put them in their back.  Obviously the physical skills are a last resort, and that’s why I’ll have them complete a women’s SD course that’s offered in my area by a local police department.  

I guess it became real when I read a blog written by a former police officer who also ran a BJJ school.  He said before his teenage daughter leaves the house to go out with her friends, he mounts her and won’t let her out until she can get him to tap out.  His pre-teen daughter had to get out of a standing wrist grab or a standing choke from behind.  His friends and family give him a hard time until he tells them (paraphrased) “if you saw what I see every day, you wouldn’t let them leave the house.  This is a good compromise.”  He was a cop who worked in sex crimes.

While I won’t go that far, I’ll be a lot more comfortable knowing that they’ve proven they can reasonably defend themselves from that.  It obviously won’t be foolproof and they won’t be able to escape every single encounter, but it’ll increase their odds far better than doing nothing.

My girls are the love of my life.  If I’m not teaching them to take care of themselves, which partly includes defending themselves (within reason), exactly what am I doing?  If I’m not teaching my daughters to avoid situations like that and what to do when that avoidance failed, I’m not giving them the best chance I can.


----------



## pdg

Initially it appeared as though that was the age you'd chosen and were intending to stick to - that's the thing with forum discussions though, there's no inflection, no visual cues... This conversation in a pub would take minutes instead of days 

The bit about my daughter being (currently) a brown belt in showing up - it runs deeper. When we started she took some convincing to leave us (parents) and join in, seeing her now being the first to volunteer to demonstrate or showing newer members how to hold a pad illustrates the confidence boost. Maybe she'd have developed like that anyway, maybe not (I have no control sample...) As long as it doesn't go into overconfidence it's nothing but good.

The experience you had with your daughter and karate mirrors what I had with my 8 year old son and tkd. He did quite well for a time and enjoyed it, but the structure of theory, terminology and patterns just didn't sit well with him - he started kickboxing not long before stopping tkd and that's a much better fit.

I understand your reasoning about grappling and it's something I'd like my kids to try too - if it fits their instinct better then it's more suitable...

Your cop example to my mind is taking it a bit extreme, but his approach is based on his (over) exposure to those events - like you intend he's doing the best he can to prepare his children for his perceived level of risk.


----------



## Tez3

JR 137 said:


> He said before his teenage daughter leaves the house to go out with her friends, he mounts her and won’t let her out until she can get him to tap out.



I had to read that twice to actually see you meant he went into mount position, because mounting her means something very, very different and quite horrifying when a father does it. No, not posting jokingly.


----------



## JR 137

Tez3 said:


> I had to read that twice to actually see you meant he went into mount position, because mounting her means something very, very different and quite horrifying when a father does it. No, not posting jokingly.


Yeah.  I tried different ways to say it, and that’s the best I could come up with.  My command of the English language is questionable at times


----------



## pdg

Tez3 said:


> I had to read that twice to actually see you meant he went into mount position, because mounting her means something very, very different and quite horrifying when a father does it. No, not posting jokingly.



Is this maybe a case of English being a different language to English or just a contextual slip?


----------



## Tez3

pdg said:


> Is this maybe a case of English being a different language to English or just a contextual slip?



I don't know but was a bit shocked to read it.


----------



## hoshin1600

on a martial arts forum  we all know what you mean.....out in general public...well.....


----------



## AIKIKENJITSU

kravmaga1 said:


> Should Women learn self defense more and more nowadays? How it will help in nowadays life? From what thing women should start learning the self defense tricks?


I have taught for fifty years and women astound me! In California I had women all the time, to teach self defense to. Some even stayed till brown belt. I come to Washington state and women do not want self-defense. I had six women that signed up and over a week they call cancelled or no show. All women should learn self-defense and practice it weekly! It seems foolish and dangerous that they don't.
Yet my heart is full. I have a female that has been with me for ten years. She is now a 3rd degree black belt. 
Sifu
Puyallup, WA


----------



## Tez3

Men should stop telling women what they should do and instead address the problem of male violence against women.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Men should stop telling women what they should do and instead address the problem of male violence against women.



I am not making my saftey the responsibility of some violent scumbag.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tez3 said:


> Men should stop telling women what they should do and instead address the problem of male violence against women.


While this is true,  We cannot control the violence that someone wants to do against another.  Male violence isn't the only violence that women must navigate.  Females commit violence against each others just as well and some of women are just as brutal as the men.  For me, I would tell women, men, and children regardless of gender, that they should learn self-defense.  It's not just a woman or man thing to me.  I don't think it's a woman thing either.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> I am not making my saftey the responsibility of some violent scumbag.


I'm with you on this one.  This quote sums it up.

"The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy's not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking, but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable."
-Sun Tzu


----------



## Martial D

kravmaga1 said:


> Should Women learn self defense more and more nowadays? How it will help in nowadays life? From what thing women should start learning the self defense tricks?


Anywhere but anything labeled as 'self defense'. Literally anywhere.


----------



## jobo

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm with you on this one.  This quote sums it up.
> 
> "The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy's not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking, but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable."
> -Sun Tzu





> Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.





> Friedrich Nietzsche


----------



## Tez3

JowGaWolf said:


> While this is true,  We cannot control the violence that someone wants to do against another.  Male violence isn't the only violence that women must navigate.  Females commit violence against each others just as well and some of women are just as brutal as the men.  For me, I would tell women, men, and children regardless of gender, that they should learn self-defense.  It's not just a woman or man thing to me.  I don't think it's a woman thing either.



Not nearly as many females commit violence against other females as you seem to think, the figures are considerably smaller. Some women are just as brutal? You sound surprised, why? You think women are not human beings?

So many men who think they are experts on women's experience of how life is. 😠


----------



## geezer

Tez3 said:


> ...So many men who think they are experts on women's experience of how life is. 😠


You sound a lot like my wife and daughter on this subject. I used to argue with them. I'm a little slow, but learned better after a while. Privately, I still think I might have had _a few_ good points, but I'm not dumb enough to say so in front of them.

Here in the States it's similar with the BLM movement. I have a few ideas on the subject, but as an old White guy, when I'm around Black folk, it's better that I _just shut up and listen._ 

Maybe more people should do that?


----------



## hoshin1600

Here we go on this merry-go-round again.


Tez3 said:


> Men should stop telling women what they should do and instead address the problem of male violence against women.


Address the problem of male violence...how exactly? I mean seriously tell us how to do that, exactly..  This is a problem because no one has that answer. At least one that works. We have this system called "The Law" and a penalty system called "prison". But most folks today are trying to "De-fund" the prison system along with the people we hired to enforce those laws. On top of that no one is willing to invest in early intervention programs.  Men have been violent since the dawn of time. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying wishing on a star that it will go away is naive at best. 

Also it is a known statistical fact that women act out violence towards men more frequently but men have a greater power disparity. So the consequences are more severe.

It's also a known fact that males raised by a single parent are more likely to not do well in school, turn to gang involvement and be more violent when they fail to be successful in the world.
And yet certain groups and ideologies are pushing to do away with the standard nuclear family.
As ancient wisdom says, "You reap what you sow".  The way I see it, things have the potential to get wayyyy worse.
Good luck with that.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tez3 said:


> Not nearly as many females commit violence against other females as you seem to think, the figures are considerably smaller. Some women are just as brutal? You sound surprised, why? You think women are not human beings?
> 
> So many men who think they are experts on women's experience of how life is. 😠


I'm not surprised, we have more than our healthy dose of violence here.  

If it's made into a gender issue then the wrong approach is going to happen.   For example,  Men should learn not to be violent against women.   I agree.  But I also agree that men should learn not be violent against, other men, children and animals.

The problem is.  I can't control the violence that other do.  There's a lot that other people should do.  But using that as reason not to learn self-defense is a big mistake.  If a person has the capability to put their own safety into their hands then they should do.


----------



## JowGaWolf

geezer said:


> I used to argue with them. I'm a little slow, but learned better after a while. Privately, I still think I might have had _a few_ good points, but I'm not dumb enough to say so in front of them.


ha ha ha.. Translation.  You don't say anything because you just sit back and watch as they learn the hard way, what you would have said to them in the beginning.   You aren't the only married with kids  ha ha ha

Husbands shut up because we treasure peace lol.  And we only say the truth like this when our wives aren't reading over our shoulders ha ha ha.


----------



## geezer

hoshin1600 said:


> ... But most folks today are trying to "De-fund" the prison system along with the people we hired to enforce those laws


Most folks? Really? I had no idea. I rub shoulders with a lot of folks on the "left" and the "right" ...and only a few out on the fringes take that defund stuff literally. Most think more in terms of "reform" ...and reform requires _more_ funding, not less.



hoshin1600 said:


> ...And yet certain groups and ideologies are pushing to do away with the standard nuclear family.


*Not* at all interested in bringing up politics on this site, ...but I haven't heard of _anybody_ "right" or "left" who's against nuclear families.

It _*is*_ a sad fact that ever increasing numbers of young conservative working class couples without college degrees are deciding to have children out of wedlock and never marry, while a much higher percent of college educated, liberal professionals (including same sex couples) do marry and maintain strong families. Is_ that _what you were referring to?

Either way, what does any of that have to do with the OP ???


----------



## jobo

geezer said:


> Most folks? Really? I had no idea. I rub shoulders with a lot of folks on the "left" and the "right" ...and only a few out on the fringes take that defund stuff literally. Most think more in terms of "reform" ...and reform requires _more_ funding, not less.
> 
> 
> *Not* at all interested in bringing up politics on this site, ...but I haven't heard of _anybody_ "right" or "left" who's against nuclear families.
> 
> It _*is*_ a sad fact that ever increasing numbers of young conservative working class couples without college degrees are deciding to have children out of wedlock and never marry, while a much higher percent of college educated, liberal professionals (including same sex couples) do marry and maintain strong families. Is_ that _what you were referring to?
> 
> Either way, what does any of that have to do with the OP ???


it may be a fact ? but why is it a SAD fact


----------



## geezer

hoshin1600 said:


> Here we go on this merry-go-round again.
> 
> Address the problem of male violence...how exactly? I mean seriously tell us how to do that, exactly..  This is a problem because no one has that answer. At least one that works. We have this system called "The Law" and a penalty system called "prison" On top of that no one is willing to invest in early intervention programs.  Men have been violent since the dawn of time. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying wishing on a star that it will go away is naive at best.
> 
> Also it is a known statistical fact that women act out violence towards men more frequently but men have a greater power disparity. So the consequences are more severe.
> 
> It's also a known fact that males raised by a single parent are more likely to not do well in school, turn to gang involvement and be more violent when they fail to be successful in the world.
> And yet certain groups and ideologies are pushing to do away with the standard nuclear family.
> As ancient wisdom says, "You reap what you sow".  The way I see it, things have the potential to get wayyyy worse.
> Good luck with that.





jobo said:


> it may be a fact ? but why is it a SAD fact


touché


----------



## hoshin1600

geezer said:


> Most folks? Really? I had no idea. I rub shoulders with a lot of folks on the "left" and the "right" ...and only a few out on the fringes take that defund stuff literally. Most think more in terms of "reform" ...and reform requires _more_ funding, not less.
> 
> 
> *Not* at all interested in bringing up politics on this site, ...but I haven't heard of _anybody_ "right" or "left" who's against nuclear families.
> 
> It _*is*_ a sad fact that ever increasing numbers of young conservative working class couples without college degrees are deciding to have children out of wedlock and never marry, while a much higher percent of college educated, liberal professionals (including same sex couples) do marry and maintain strong families. Is_ that _what you were referring to?
> 
> Either way, what does any of that have to do with the OP ???


Ok I will have to qualify my post a little. I live in massachusetts which is very liberal thinking. So I might have a bias based on my own surroundings however the narrative is driven by the media.
That being said I think defunding anything is counter to preventing violence.
Deconstructing the nuclear family is a thing. I won't go further with that topic but it's easy to Google. It's spelled out very explicitly in certain group websights.
  I think marriage might have less to do with it than actually having a stable household and upbringing with a positive male role model but statisticaly two parent housholds fair better for children.
What does this have to do with the previous posts? Well I was somewhat answering my own question of how to reduce male violence against women, while pointing out that the very mechanisms that could do that are challenged and often frowned upon in modern culture.


----------



## JowGaWolf

hoshin1600 said:


> What does this have to do with the previous posts? Well I was somewhat answering my own question of how to reduce male violence against women,


I don't think such a thing can be done on such a narrow scale.

1. Address the issue of violence

2.  When addressing #1 understand that violence is neither bad or go.  It is a means to achieve the goals

3. Define the goals in which people are using violence to fulfill.  Uncontrolled emotion, Mental illness? Security? Survival?  Social inadequacy? Sport? Self- Perception

4. Once  you build a good classification you can then identify the goal, the triggers and find other means in which to assist a person to reach the same thing.  For those without a goal, then it would necessary to understand the triggers.

5. Provide Mental, Emotional, and Life counseling as a normal part of life.  So that people can access it when needed.

6. Everyone is going to hate this one, but I don't think it can be done without it.   Keep a record of it and track behavior and triggers.  
Something or someone has to be ale to track and identify critical changes.  Even if it's to let the individual know that they are about to go off the deep end.  Sort of like the girlfriend who has more sense than the boyfriend and knows him well enough to know when to pull him away from a bad situation.

7. The system that would manage this would need to be free from conspiracy and would need to have trust.  Because after you do #6  it's going to create a lot of that.

This is not the only  or even the right way to go about it.  But what it does is highlight the complexities that exist in trying to stop violence.  As you read what I posted you probably came up with a lot of those complex exceptions.


My personal thought about violence is to accept it as part of being human and then learn to control our taste for violence instead of violence controlling us.   It seems like the more we deny it the more violent we become not only physical, but emotional, and mental.  I'm always amazed at how many people enjoy fighting and training to fight in a controlled environment and how they all talk about not letting emotion drive the fight.  I like how those same people often speak of how they like hitting the heavy bag and all of the stress from the day goes goes away, with a great deal of it leaving for good.

We just need to accept the good and the bad of who we are as humans on a personal and social level and do what most of already understand.  Don't let the emotion control the fight.


----------



## geezer

hoshin1600 said:


> Ok I will have to qualify my post a little. I live in massachusetts which is very liberal thinking. So I might have a bias based on my own surroundings however the narrative is driven by the media.
> That being said I think defunding anything is counter to preventing violence.
> Deconstructing the nuclear family is a thing. I won't go further with that topic but it's easy to Google. It's spelled out very explicitly in certain group websights.
> I think marriage might have less to do with it than actually having a stable household and upbringing with a positive male role model but statisticaly two parent housholds fair better for children.
> What does this have to do with the previous posts? Well I was somewhat answering my own question of how to reduce male violence against women, while pointing out that the very mechanisms that could do that are challenged and often frowned upon in modern culture.


I have to laugh. You are a conservative in Massachusetts, and I'm a liberal in Arizona ....which means we probably see things about the same! I will check out some of the things you mentioned. Thanks for the thoughtful response to my somewhat snarky remarks, bro.


----------



## hoshin1600

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't think such a thing can be done on such a narrow scale.
> 
> 1. Address the issue of violence
> 
> 2.  When addressing #1 understand that violence is neither bad or go.  It is a means to achieve the goals
> 
> 3. Define the goals in which people are using violence to fulfill.  Uncontrolled emotion, Mental illness? Security? Survival?  Social inadequacy? Sport? Self- Perception
> 
> 4. Once  you build a good classification you can then identify the goal, the triggers and find other means in which to assist a person to reach the same thing.  For those without a goal, then it would necessary to understand the triggers.
> 
> 5. Provide Mental, Emotional, and Life counseling as a normal part of life.  So that people can access it when needed.
> 
> 6. Everyone is going to hate this one, but I don't think it can be done without it.   Keep a record of it and track behavior and triggers.
> Something or someone has to be ale to track and identify critical changes.  Even if it's to let the individual know that they are about to go off the deep end.  Sort of like the girlfriend who has more sense than the boyfriend and knows him well enough to know when to pull him away from a bad situation.
> 
> 7. The system that would manage this would need to be free from conspiracy and would need to have trust.  Because after you do #6  it's going to create a lot of that.
> 
> This is not the only  or even the right way to go about it.  But what it does is highlight the complexities that exist in trying to stop violence.  As you read what I posted you probably came up with a lot of those complex exceptions.
> 
> 
> My personal thought about violence is to accept it as part of being human and then learn to control our taste for violence instead of violence controlling us.   It seems like the more we deny it the more violent we become not only physical, but emotional, and mental.  I'm always amazed at how many people enjoy fighting and training to fight in a controlled environment and how they all talk about not letting emotion drive the fight.  I like how those same people often speak of how they like hitting the heavy bag and all of the stress from the day goes goes away, with a great deal of it leaving for good.
> 
> We just need to accept the good and the bad of who we are as humans on a personal and social level and do what most of already understand.  Don't let the emotion control the fight.


Nice thoughtful post.
I would point out that it's not like society hasn't studied this topic.
The scientific literature has been done and put out for quite some time.
The root cause analysis shows that children from 2yrs to 4 yrs are the most violent. Meaning hitting, kicking and biting. But most children are socialized out of this behavior by the age of 4. The children who don't, show that the aggressive behavior never goes away and these become anti- social behaviors which continues into adulthood. These are your teen and adult violent offenders.
There are also strong correlations between offenders and prior victims. meaning children who are victims of physical and sexual abuse have a higher likelihood of becoming perpetrators.

The bottom line is violence and agonistic behaviors have been studied and we know the causes and possible interventions. But as a society and a culture we won't implement or fund it.


----------



## hoshin1600

Anyone that wants to dig deeper should look up Dr. Richard Tremblay. Over the last 40 years he has studied violence and criminality. He has done longitudinal studies over the course of the participants life time from conception to adulthood. If I am not mistaken I think he has a few books out. I haven't read them so I can't recommend them from that perspective but I am aware of his work.


----------



## Steve

There are several other threads on this topic and they're all full of a bunch of dudes telling women that the facts aren't facts.  It's telling that all but one woman seem to have pretty much left the forum completely, much less choose not to participate in these threads.   

I encourage anyone who is new to these topics to go back and read through some of the historic topics in this subforum and also the women's self defense subforum.  Some actual women post in them and they know their ****.


----------



## Tez3

hoshin1600 said:


> Here we go on this merry-go-round again.
> 
> Address the problem of male violence...how exactly? I mean seriously tell us how to do that, exactly..  This is a problem because no one has that answer. At least one that works. We have this system called "The Law" and a penalty system called "prison". But most folks today are trying to "De-fund" the prison system along with the people we hired to enforce those laws. On top of that no one is willing to invest in early intervention programs.  Men have been violent since the dawn of time. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying wishing on a star that it will go away is naive at best.
> 
> Also it is a known statistical fact that women act out violence towards men more frequently but men have a greater power disparity. So the consequences are more severe.
> 
> It's also a known fact that males raised by a single parent are more likely to not do well in school, turn to gang involvement and be more violent when they fail to be successful in the world.
> And yet certain groups and ideologies are pushing to do away with the standard nuclear family.
> As ancient wisdom says, "You reap what you sow".  The way I see it, things have the potential to get wayyyy worse.
> Good luck with that.


I see absolutely no reason to make this political, it's nothing actually to do with the law, the police or what family situation people come from.

I have no idea what you mean by 'women act out violence towards men'.

It requires a change of attitude by many people which should be taught to their sons. It requires a backing down of the feeling  of entitlement many men have towards women, they are not entitled to pat them on the backside or brush up against their breasts. They aren't entitle to sex in return for buying a female a meal, they aren't entitled to anything a woman doesn't want to give them. They aren't entitled to wolf whistle at young girls or kerb crawl, they aren't entitled to take advantage of a female who's drunk, they aren't entitled to sexually abuse women who are in a subordinate position to them in the workplace.

Stop telling girls that a boy fancies them when he pulls her bra elastic, he doesn't, that's sexual harrassment. Stop  making sexual comments to women you aren't in a relationship with, we don't want to hear them. Stop sending dick pics, stop getting abusive just because a woman turns you down for a date, stop grading women.

Stop using the excuse 'boys will be boys' when they behave badly, stop having double standards where make and females are concerned, stop telling girls to put up with boys bad behaviour.

Start seeing females as human beings not as something there to gratify men. Start treating women as you'd want to be treated. 

This isn't down to single parent families, if boys are brought up by a single mother they are more likely to respect women! 

90% of assaults on women are committed by someone known to the victim, random attacks are actually quite rare. What a woman wears is of no concern to anyone, no woman 'asks for it'. However a woman deals with sexual assault is fine, if she didn't fight it doesn't mean it wasn't rape! A woman's sexual history is not a reason to assume she was asking to be raped. Women don't say no but mean yes, no means no. 

I could go on but I doubt you have read this far and certain haven't digested the contents,  you will be muttering angrily 'I don't do this, that or whatever', and calling me a liberal feminist as a slur. Fine, you asked but I want to see well rounded young boys growing  up to be decent men living and working in harmony with women not female hating incels with a propensity for violence or entitled men who treat women as a commodity.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Tez3 said:


> Men should stop telling women what they should do and instead address the problem of male violence against women.


Or I can meet you half way on this.  I'll simply continue to do what I've been doing my whole life:  not telling women what they should do, but also not assuming responsibility for someone else's actions because they have the same genitals that I have.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Tez3 said:


> This isn't down to single parent families, if boys are brought up by a single mother they are more likely to respect women!



Eh, no.  You don't need stats to know this because it's pretty observable, but it's in the environments and communities where single mothers are the most common that women and girls are the most vulnerable.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> There are several other threads on this topic and they're all full of a bunch of dudes telling women that the facts aren't facts.  It's telling that all but one woman seem to have pretty much left the forum completely, much less choose not to participate in these threads.
> 
> I encourage anyone who is new to these topics to go back and read through some of the historic topics in this subforum and also the women's self defense subforum.  Some actual women post in them and they know their ****.


apart from the fact your trying to install some sort of apatite. here are you of the view that men shouldn't have an opinion on this topic or just that they shouldn't be allowed to express it ?


----------



## Tez3

Urban Trekker said:


> Or I can meet you half way on this.  I'll simply continue to do what I've been doing my whole life:  not telling women what they should do, but also not assuming responsibility for someone else's actions because they have the same genitals that I have.


that's a fair one.


----------



## Steve

I think the subject of single parenting and how it relates to crime statistics (at least in the USA) must also consider the impact of racism, discrimination against gay couples, and a cycle of poverty... among many other things.  Point being it's a very complex topic, and oversimplification and similar reductive fallacies are particularly seductive.

In other news, has the women's self defense subforum been hidden, or has it been deleted?  And out of curiosity, if it's just hidden from most users, does anyone still post in it, or has it died?


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> I think the subject of single parenting and how it relates to crime statistics (at least in the USA) must also consider the impact of racism, discrimination against gay couples, and a cycle of poverty... among many other things.  Point being it's a very complex topic, and oversimplification and similar reductive fallacies are particularly seductive.
> 
> In other news, has the women's self defense subforum been hidden, or has it been deleted?  And out of curiosity, if it's just hidden from most users, does anyone still post in it, or has it died?


assuming you are a ..dude'' it seems dudes opinions are ok as you've just expressed one, so it must only be opinions you don't agree with that you have a problem with and want to see censored


----------



## Urban Trekker

Steve said:


> I think the subject of single parenting and how it relates to crime statistics (at least in the USA) must also consider the impact of racism, discrimination against gay couples, and a cycle of poverty... among many other things.  Point being it's a very complex topic, and oversimplification and similar reductive fallacies are particularly seductive.


Oh, it definitely does go deep, and that's something I could talk forever about.

But the statement that boys raised by single mothers are more inclined to respect women?  Dead wrong.  Aside from what I said in #355, here are two reasons (among possibly dozens of others) _why_ that statement is wrong:

- Aside from unusual circumstances - such as the death of the father, woman receiving donated sperm, or a woman otherwise becoming a single mother on purpose - the very existence of the vast majority of single mothers is the result of men disrespecting women.  And it's in an environment where the boy is going to grow up seeing other men do the same thing to other women, and he's learning from those other men.
- A young boy being raised by a single mother is not growing up in a household where he can continuously observe the proper way for a man to treat a woman.


----------



## jobo

Urban Trekker said:


> Oh, it definitely does go deep, and that's something I could talk forever about.
> 
> But the statement that boys raised by single mothers are more inclined to respect women?  Dead wrong.  Aside from what I said in #355, here are two reasons (among possible dozens of others) _why_ that statement is wrong:
> 
> - Aside from unusual circumstances - such as the death of the father, woman receiving donated sperm, or a woman otherwise becoming a single mother on purpose - the very existence of the vast majority of single mothers is the result of men disrespecting women.  And it's in an environment where the boy is going to grow up seeing other men do the same thing to other women, and he's learning from those other men.
> - A young boy being raised by a single mother is not growing up in a household where he can continuously observe the proper way for a man to treat a woman.


well that only works as an argument if the twin parent household in question has a male role model who treats women correctly and as you have absolutely no idea what % of households that is, your point cant stand


----------



## Tez3

Urban Trekker said:


> Eh, no.  You don't need stats to know this because it's pretty observable, but it's in the environments and communities where single mothers are the most common that women and girls are the most vulnerable.




 I'm curious to know why you think that? 

It's also not addressing my point about male attitudes to females which are perpetrated, and condoned by a great part of society. It's seen in government, by celebrities, by the media and in what would be considered good religious families. Look at the men who send unsolicited dick pics, where's the statistics for tnat? Why do so many men send them? Why do they think they can do that? It's the thin edge of the wedge, an example of attitude that leads men to believe they can do what they like. We need to stop enabling.

Gang violence and criminal activity is something I'm quite familiar with but it's not what I'm talking about in this instance.


----------



## Steve

Urban Trekker said:


> Oh, it definitely does go deep, and that's something I could talk forever about.
> 
> But the statement that boys raised by single mothers are more inclined to respect women?  Dead wrong.  Aside from what I said in #355, here are two reasons (among possible dozens of others) _why_ that statement is wrong:
> 
> - Aside from unusual circumstances - such as the death of the father, woman receiving donated sperm, or a woman otherwise becoming a single mother on purpose - the very existence of the vast majority of single mothers is the result of men disrespecting women.  And it's in an environment where the boy is going to grow up seeing other men do the same thing to other women, and he's learning from those other men.
> - A young boy being raised by a single mother is not growing up in a household where he can continuously observe the proper way for a man to treat a woman.


Okay, but here's the thing.  Let's accept for a moment that your assertion is true.  Is it the single mom as the cause, or is single parent household a symptom of a larger issue with multiple causes?  As I said, it's a grossly complex issue that is being oversimplified to make a point.


----------



## Urban Trekker

jobo said:


> well that only works as an argument if the twin parent household in question has a male role model who treats women correctly and as you have absolutely no idea what % of households that is, your point cant stand


Good thing there are stats to back up the results of children being raised in two-parent homes vs single parent homes.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Steve said:


> Okay, but here's the thing.  Let's accept for a moment that your assertion is true.  Is it the single mom as the cause, or is single parent household a symptom of a larger issue with multiple causes?  As I said, it's a grossly complex issue that is being oversimplified to make a point.


I'm not pointing the finger at anyone or anything.  What I'm doing is refuting the assertion that single-mother households are somehow ideal.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Tez3 said:


> Look at the men who send unsolicited dick pics, where's the statistics for tnat? Why do so many men send them? Why do they think they can do that? It's the thin edge of the wedge, an example of attitude that leads men to believe they can do what they like. We need to stop enabling.


The only way this can possibly contribute to your point is if we establish a correlation with single-parent households - which is what I'm focusing on right now, maybe you're talking about some bigger picture.

In which case, I'll be happy to address this bigger picture.

Most young men these days don't know that it's disrespectful.  They're sending dick pics out of ignorance, not malice.  Many men (of all ages) wrongly assume that what turns us on also turns women on.  So that's that.

And to tie this back to what I was addressing; if a father was in the home when they were growing up, they'd likely learn this from him.


----------



## jobo

Urban Trekker said:


> Oh, it definitely does go deep, and that's something I could talk forever about.
> 
> But the statement that boys raised by single mothers are more inclined to respect women?  Dead wrong.  Aside from what I said in #355, here are two reasons (among possibly dozens of others) _why_ that statement is wrong:
> 
> - Aside from unusual circumstances - such as the death of the father, woman receiving donated sperm, or a woman otherwise becoming a single mother on purpose - the very existence of the vast majority of single mothers is the result of men disrespecting women.  And it's in an environment where the boy is going to grow up seeing other men do the same thing to other women, and he's learning from those other men.
> - A young boy being raised by a single mother is not growing up in a household where he can continuously observe the proper way for a man to treat a woman.





Urban Trekker said:


> Good thing there are stats to back up the results of children being raised in two-parent homes vs single parent homes.


stats that relate to attitude to women, in twin v single parent household ? please post them

go on be honest, you just made that up didn't you ?


----------



## Urban Trekker

jobo said:


> stats that relate to attitude to women, in twin v single parent household ? please post them
> 
> go on be honest, you just made that up didn't you ?











						Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: Findings from NCANDS
					

Contents Introduction Previous Research on Male Perpetrators Research on Fathers and Child Well-Being The Objective of This Study Methodology Creation of the Unique Perpetrator Database Limitations to Analyses of These Data Findings What are the charac




					aspe.hhs.gov


----------



## jobo

Urban Trekker said:


> And to tie this back to what I was addressing; if a father was in the home when they were growing up, they'd likely learn this from him.


 or they might learn to treat women badly or they may watch their mother being abused by father and vow never to do that themselves

my dad used to periodically hit my mother, this stopped when i was 17 and battered him to a bloody mush


----------



## jobo

Urban Trekker said:


> Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: Findings from NCANDS
> 
> 
> Contents Introduction Previous Research on Male Perpetrators Research on Fathers and Child Well-Being The Objective of This Study Methodology Creation of the Unique Perpetrator Database Limitations to Analyses of These Data Findings What are the charac
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aspe.hhs.gov


 its attitude to women you claim to have stats for, you cant just post random stats and think its acceptable


----------



## Urban Trekker

jobo said:


> or they might learn to treat women badly or they may watch their mother being abused by father and vow never to do that themselves
> 
> my dad used to periodically hit my mother, this stopped when i was 17 and battered him to a bloody mush


Uh huh.  So you just stood by and watched it happen.  And at 17, you were suddenly capable of beating your father to a "bloody mush."

Yeah, I don't think you need to be going around accusing others of making things up.


----------



## jobo

Urban Trekker said:


> Uh huh.  So you just stood by and watched it happen.  And at 17, you were suddenly capable of beating your father to a "bloody mush."
> 
> Yeah, I don't think you need to be going around accusing others of making things up.


he didn't do it when the kids were there, usually late at night when full off beer and there wasn't much i could do about it, there wasn't much i could do when he battered me, he was a big guy, however aged 17, i put on something of a grow spurt  and played a lot of rugby and suddenly the boot was on the other foot, literally in this case

i was just him, only 25 years younger, he wasnt going to win that


----------



## Steve

Urban Trekker said:


> Good thing there are stats to back up the results of children being raised in two-parent homes vs single parent homes.


When you think of a two parent household, does that include two men or two women as well?


----------



## Urban Trekker

I just thought of something I've done several times when I was young (19, 20 years old).  I had a few lady friends and acquaintences who'd hit me up, and invite me over for a quickie.  Some of them were single mothers.

I can't even count the number of times I walked into the front door, and the chick who invited me over popped in a VHS tape for her kids, as they watched me follow her into the bedroom, and then 20 minutes later they see me come out of the room and head for the front door.

That was over 20 years ago, and I would never have been doing this if I thought the same way back then as I do now.

The thing is this: I'm fairly certain that in none of these cases was I the first guy that these kids had seen doing this, nor was I the last.

Now I can look at it from the perspective that, regardless of a woman's marital or parental status, she has sexual needs to meet.  And then I don't have to feel bad.

The other way to look at it: does this negatively affect the way they view their mother?  Because that's something I think about when I look back on this.

With a two parent household; children seeing mother bringing in random strange men to have sex with isn't a thing.  I mean, it could be in theory, but I doubt that's the case in practice much.


----------



## Tez3

Urban Trekker said:


> Oh, it definitely does go deep, and that's something I could talk forever about.
> 
> But the statement that boys raised by single mothers are more inclined to respect women?  Dead wrong.  Aside from what I said in #355, here are two reasons (among possibly dozens of others) _why_ that statement is wrong:
> 
> - Aside from unusual circumstances - such as the death of the father, woman receiving donated sperm, or a woman otherwise becoming a single mother on purpose - the very existence of the vast majority of single mothers is the result of men disrespecting women.  And it's in an environment where the boy is going to grow up seeing other men do the same thing to other women, and he's learning from those other men.
> - A young boy being raised by a single mother is not growing up in a household where he can continuously observe the proper way for a man to treat a woman.


Wow.

I do admire the fact that when you jump to conclusions you go large 😂

You also seem to have a poor opinion of men.

However you miss the point........ again.

'The proper way to treat a woman' ..........not sexist ...much!  A proper way to treat a woman (or man) is how you would want to be treated, there should be no difference in the way you treat people based on their gender. You can learn respect and decent behaviour off any decent human being.

One example of entitled male behaviour is of the young male student from a so called good  family who sexually assaulted a young unconscious female. He was given a light sentence because his father pleaded he was a good student and boys will be boys. What example is that father and that judge? what is that teaching young men?

What about families with single fathers, my goodness, how bad must they be without gasp! a woman!

Decent human beings are decent human beings, we all have a responsibility to young people and this means everyone needs to look at their attitude towards each other and NOT about how it's good to 'grab her pussy' 😠


Urban Trekker said:


> Uh huh.  So you just stood by and watched it happen.  And at 17, you were suddenly capable of beating your father to a "bloody mush."
> 
> Yeah, I don't think you need to be going around accusing others of making things up.



I see 17 year olds everyday who are more than capable of beating a 'grown' man up. There's no need to accuse someone of making things up when you aren't getting the points anyone is making here. You are very defensive and perhaps in denial about something either that or a politician with an agenda.


----------



## Steve

Urban Trekker said:


> I just thought of something I've done several times when I was young (19, 20 years old).  I had a few lady friends and acquaintences who'd hit me up, and invite me over for a quickie.  Some of them were single mothers.
> 
> I can't even count the number of times I walked into the front door, and the chick who invited me over popped in a VHS tape for her kids, as they watched me follow her into the bedroom, and then 20 minutes later they see me come out of the room and head for the front door.
> 
> That was over 20 years ago, and I would never have been doing this if I thought the same way back then as I do now.
> 
> The thing is this: I'm fairly certain that in none of these cases was I the first guy that these kids had seen doing this, nor was I the last.
> 
> Now I can look at it from the perspective that, regardless of a woman's marital or parental status, she has sexual needs to meet.  And then I don't have to feel bad.
> 
> The other way to look at it: does this negatively affect the way they view their mother?  Because that's something I think about when I look back on this.
> 
> With a two parent household; children seeing mother bringing in random strange men to have sex with isn't a thing.  I mean, it could be in theory, but I doubt that's the case in practice much.


Oh man...  now we're getting into another pretty deep topic about how we Americans conflate sexuality and morality, how we hold women to different standards of sexual behavior than men, and all kinds of screwy ideas we have about promiscuity and self-worth.   to be clear, I think you make a fair point.  And if we're looking for ways that men who aren't creepy and rapey want to help, it's to get over these puritanical notions of sexuality that largely only been applied to women, and stop conflating morality with a behavior that is natural and very predictable.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Tez3 said:


> Wow.
> 
> I do admire the fact that when you jump to conclusions you go large 😂
> 
> You also seem to have a poor opinion of men.
> 
> However you miss the point........ again.


Do I?  Let's see...


Tez3 said:


> 'The proper way to treat a woman' ..........not sexist ...much!  A proper way to treat a woman (or man) is how you would want to be treated, there should be no difference in the way you treat people based on their gender. You can learn respect and decent behaviour off any decent human being.


Seems to me like you're jumping to conclusions as to what I meant by that phrase, while ignoring the probably that I mean the exact same thing that you do.


Tez3 said:


> One example of entitled male behaviour is of the young male student from a so called good  family who sexually assaulted a young unconscious female. He was given a light sentence because his father pleaded he was a good student and boys will be boys. What example is that father and that judge? what is that teaching young men?
> 
> What about families with single fathers, my goodness, how bad must they be without gasp! a woman!
> 
> Decent human beings are decent human beings, we all have a responsibility to young people and this means everyone needs to look at their attitude towards each other and NOT about how it's good to 'grab her pussy' 😠


This doesn't relate to anything I've said.


Tez3 said:


> I see 17 year olds everyday who are more than capable of beating a 'grown' man up. There's no need to accuse someone of making things up when you aren't getting the points anyone is making here. You are very defensive and perhaps in denial about something either that or a politician with an agenda.


Here's why I'm calling BS:

First, I've beaten a grown man at the age 15; so I'm not doubting his capability of being able to beat up a grown man at 17.

However, the grown man that I beat up wasn't my father.  He wasn't related to me.  He was also in his early 20's.

My father is 24 years older than I am.  Could 17 year old me beat my 41 year old father?  I doubt it.  Thankfully, I've never been in a position where I had to find out.  Being of the same flesh and blood, all other factors between my father and I were equal.  All except that "old man strength," rough skin, chest hair - you know, those signs of virility that don't come in until your late 20's or early 30's - just weren't there.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Steve said:


> Oh man...  now we're getting into another pretty deep topic about how we Americans conflate sexuality and morality, how we hold women to different standards of sexual behavior than men, and all kinds of screwy ideas we have about promiscuity and self-worth.   to be clear, I think you make a fair point.  And if we're looking for ways that men who aren't creepy and rapey want to help, it's to get over these puritanical notions of sexuality that largely only been applied to women, and stop conflating morality with a behavior that is natural and very predictable.


Here's where I'm confused - and it's not because of anything you've said:

I'm married with three children.  Let's say my wife passes away, and I'm suddenly raising three children on my own.

If my children saw random women coming through the front door and following me to the bedroom all the time, I'm fairly certain that they'd think negatively of me for it as well.

Granted, it may or may not be for different reasons.  Or the reasons that we think are different are really the same or vice versa.


----------



## Steve

Urban Trekker said:


> Here's where I'm confused - and it's not because of anything you've said:
> 
> I'm married with three children.  Let's say my wife passes away, and I'm suddenly raising three children on my own.
> 
> If my children saw random women coming through the front door and following me to the bedroom all the time, I'm fairly certain that they'd negatively of me for it as well.
> 
> Granted, it may or may not be for different reasons.  Or the reasons that we think are different are really the same or vice versa.


Would they?  I don't know if that's a given.  Once again, this is itself a pretty beefy topic and I dont' think it benefits from oversimplification.  Suffice to say for now that the different reasons are important, IMO.


----------



## hoshin1600

So I'm a male and obviously men are  deplorable things that society could do without. We are obviously guilty by group identification.
But let me check to understand the message and solution..
Tell rapists not to rape. Check, got it
Tell the abusers not to abuse women. Check.
Tell the liars not to lie.
Tell the creepers not to be creepy. 
I hate to be a pessimist but I don't think that's gonna change anything.

I wouldn't assume to know anyone else's environment but jeepers Tez you paint a picture that sounds like it's right out of the 1950's.  Cat calling, is that really a thing anymore? 
I also have a real problem with the assumption that there is a direct correlation between cat calling, D Pic sending disrespectful behavior and actual physical violence. While an abuser will be disrespectful, the inverse of assumption that being disrespectful is equal to or a automatic precursor to violence is just wrong. No matter how you slice and dice the words it looks like male bashing guilt by group identity association from my side of the spectrum.
And Tez yes I read your entire post.


----------



## Urban Trekker

hoshin1600 said:


> But let me check to understand the message and solution..
> Tell rapists not to rape. Check, got it
> Tell the abusers not to abuse women. Check.
> Tell the liars not to lie.
> Tell the creepers not to be creepy.
> I hate to be a pessimist but I don't think that's gonna change anything.



^^^This.

The Bible (and other religions' equivalents) and the laws of the governments that we fall under already tell people not to do these things.  One threatens you with eternal damnation and the other threatens you with years in prison.

If sacred religious texts and laws telling people not to do certain things won't deter someone from doing them, then a random dude telling someone not to do them is wasting his breath.


----------



## Tez3

Urban Trekker said:


> hI just thought of something I've done several times when I was young (19, 20 years old).  I had a few lady friends and acquaintences who'd hit me up, and invite me over for a quickie.  Some of them were single mothers.
> 
> I can't even count the number of times I walked into the front door, and the chick who invited me over popped in a VHS tape for her kids, as they watched me follow her into the bedroom, and then 20 minutes later they see me come out of the room and head for the front door.
> 
> That was over 20 years ago, and I would never have been doing this if I thought the same way back then as I do now.
> 
> The thing is this: I'm fairly certain that in none of these cases was I the first guy that these kids had seen doing this, nor was I the last.
> 
> Now I can look at it from the perspective that, regardless of a woman's marital or parental status, she has sexual needs to meet.  And then I don't have to feel bad.
> 
> The other way to look at it: does this negatively affect the way they view their mother?  Because that's something I think about when I look back on this.
> 
> With a two parent household; children seeing mother bringing in random strange men to have sex with isn't a thing.  I mean, it could be in theor





Urban Trekker said:


> Do I?  Let's see...
> 
> Seems to me like you're jumping to conclusions as to what I meant by that phrase, while ignoring the probably that I mean the exact same thing that you do.
> 
> This doesn't relate to anything I've said.
> 
> Here's why I'm calling BS:
> 
> First, I've beaten a grown man at the age 15; so I'm not doubting his capability of being able to beat up a grown man at 17.
> 
> However, the grown man that I beat up wasn't my father.  He wasn't related to me.  He was also in his early 20's.
> 
> My father is 24 years older than I am.  Could 17 year old me beat my 41 year old father?  I doubt it.  Thankfully, I've never been in a position where I had to find out.  Being of the same flesh and blood, all other factors between my father and I were equal.  All except that "old man strength," rough skin, chest hair - you know, those signs of virility that don't come in until your late 20's or early 30's - just weren't there.



I doubt the children seeing their mother having sex would harm them especially if she enjoyed it, witnessing violence however is damaging at any age. It never fails to amaze us non Americans how you can let your children watch so much violence yet get hysterical if they as much as see a woman's bare nipple.




I see that yet again you are missing my points, deliberately so. You refuse to discuss anything that doesn't agree with your views.

You seem to have missed where jobo said his father was full of beer when he beat his wife, so all your convoluted equations go out of the window. Beating up a drunk man is quite easy, it's just a shame it had to be done, for a son to have to do it is even more of a shame, I have no doubts at all it needed to be done so good on him for doing it. Just because you couldn't have beaten your father doesn't mean others can't have.


----------



## Tez3

Urban Trekker said:


> Here's where I'm confused - and it's not because of anything you've said:
> 
> I'm married with three children.  Let's say my wife passes away, and I'm suddenly raising three children on my own.
> 
> If my children saw random women coming through the front door and following me to the bedroom all the time, I'm fairly certain that they'd think negatively of me for it as well.
> 
> Granted, it may or may not be for different reasons.  Or the reasons that we think are different are really the same or vice versa.


If you were raising 3 kids on your own you wouldn't have the energy left for sex 😂


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tez3 said:


> I see absolutely no reason to make this political, it's nothing actually to do with the law, the police or what family situation people come from.
> 
> I have no idea what you mean by 'women act out violence towards men'.
> 
> It requires a change of attitude by many people which should be taught to their sons. It requires a backing down of the feeling  of entitlement many men have towards women, they are not entitled to pat them on the backside or brush up against their breasts. They aren't entitle to sex in return for buying a female a meal, they aren't entitled to anything a woman doesn't want to give them. They aren't entitled to wolf whistle at young girls or kerb crawl, they aren't entitled to take advantage of a female who's drunk, they aren't entitled to sexually abuse women who are in a subordinate position to them in the workplace.
> 
> Stop telling girls that a boy fancies them when he pulls her bra elastic, he doesn't, that's sexual harrassment. Stop  making sexual comments to women you aren't in a relationship with, we don't want to hear them. Stop sending dick pics, stop getting abusive just because a woman turns you down for a date, stop grading women.
> 
> Stop using the excuse 'boys will be boys' when they behave badly, stop having double standards where make and females are concerned, stop telling girls to put up with boys bad behaviour.
> 
> Start seeing females as human beings not as something there to gratify men. Start treating women as you'd want to be treated.
> 
> This isn't down to single parent families, if boys are brought up by a single mother they are more likely to respect women!
> 
> 90% of assaults on women are committed by someone known to the victim, random attacks are actually quite rare. What a woman wears is of no concern to anyone, no woman 'asks for it'. However a woman deals with sexual assault is fine, if she didn't fight it doesn't mean it wasn't rape! A woman's sexual history is not a reason to assume she was asking to be raped. Women don't say no but mean yes, no means no.
> 
> I could go on but I doubt you have read this far and certain haven't digested the contents,  you will be muttering angrily 'I don't do this, that or whatever', and calling me a liberal feminist as a slur. Fine, you asked but I want to see well rounded young boys growing  up to be decent men living and working in harmony with women not female hating incels with a propensity for violence or entitled men who treat women as a commodity.


For a lot of the reason that mention is why I think emotion / mental control is needed.  I don't like the "I grew up bad" logic. Because there are peoplewho grew up in good homes and loving parents who grow up to be monsters


----------



## Urban Trekker

Tez3 said:


> I doubt the children seeing their mother having sex would harm them especially if she enjoyed it, witnessing violence however is damaging at any age. It never fails to amaze us non Americans how you can let your children watch so much violence yet get hysterical if they as much as see a woman's bare nipple.


Let's see here:  In the UK, you have the Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles.  Why?  Because you can't say "ninja" on TV shows aimed towards children in the UK.  You also can't show nunchaku in children's TV, so the scenes of Michelangelo wielding them are edited out.

The Transformers cartoon movie from 1986.  Look up the intro to the movie on YouTube where Unicron devours Lithone.

In the UK, that scene was removed and replaced with a Star Wars-like prologue explaining what happened.

If you ask us Americans, we'd say that your kids are the ones that are sheltered.

Furthermore, as far as how promiscuity among women is viewed; it's the same thing in the UK.  I'd be here all day if I posted links to YouTube videos of sexually frustrated British men talking about it.



Tez3 said:


> I see that yet again you are missing my points, deliberately so. You refuse to discuss anything that doesn't agree with your views.


No, I'm not.  I'm just not addressing things that go off the subject.  You want me to defends points I never made, and I refuse to do it.


Tez3 said:


> You seem to have missed where jobo said his father was full of beer when he beat his wife, so all your convoluted equations go out of the window. Beating up a drunk man is quite easy, it's just a shame it had to be done, for a son to have to do it is even more of a shame, I have no doubts at all it needed to be done so good on him for doing it. Just because you couldn't have beaten your father doesn't mean others can't have.


So his father had to be drunk for him to pull it off?  Makes better sense now.

However, I still say in a battle of father vs son; the son being a teenager and the father being late 30's/early 40's, too many other factors are equal for the father to not have a significant edge.


----------



## Urban Trekker

I also want to add this:  there really shouldn't be a discussion on the difference of morality between the US and the UK.  We were 150 years removed from each other (give or take) when the TV started appearing in living rooms, so we may differ in what can be shown.

But outside of that, where do you think we got our morals from?


----------



## Tez3

Urban Trekker said:


> Let's see here:  In the UK, you have the Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles.  Why?  Because you can't say "ninja" on TV shows aimed towards children in the UK.  You also can't show nunchaku in children's TV, so the scenes of Michelangelo wielding them are edited out.
> 
> The Transformers cartoon movie from 1986.  Look up the intro to the movie on YouTube where Unicron devours Lithone.
> 
> In the UK, that scene was removed and replaced with a Star Wars-like prologue explaining what happened.
> 
> If you ask us Americans, we'd say that your kids are the ones that are sheltered.
> 
> Furthermore, as far as how promiscuity among women is viewed; it's the same thing in the UK.  I'd be here all day if I posted links to YouTube videos of sexually frustrated British men talking about it.
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.  I'm just not addressing things that go off the subject.  You want me to defends points I never made, and I refuse to do it.
> 
> So his father had to be drunk for him to pull it off?  Makes better sense now.
> 
> However, I still say in a battle of father vs son; the son being a teenager and the father being late 30's/early 40's, too many other factors are equal for the father to not have a significant edge.


The Ninja Turtle thing was a copyright issue and the scene from Transformers wasn't removed when I saw it with my then young son. 😴

Our children do not go on killing spree in their schools.

Your misunderstandings pile up, you replied to my posts first, I pointed out you did not address any of my points, just posted up your opinions on single mothers.

No he didn't HAVE to be drunk but he was obviously a pisshead. I know 17 year olds who can take on an adult and win, after all, if they can't why are we teaching them martial arts? 

Men who post on IT about their sexual frustration are called incels............. and why do you watch these guys, why do you even know about the videos?


----------



## Tez3

Urban Trekker said:


> ^^^This.
> 
> The Bible (and other religions' equivalents) and the laws of the governments that we fall under already tell people not to do these things.  One threatens you with eternal damnation and the other threatens you with years in prison.
> 
> If sacred religious texts and laws telling people not to do certain things won't deter someone from doing them, then a random dude telling someone not to do them is wasting his breath.


You aren't


hoshin1600 said:


> So I'm a male and obviously men are  deplorable things that society could do without. We are obviously guilty by group identification.
> But let me check to understand the message and solution..
> Tell rapists not to rape. Check, got it
> Tell the abusers not to abuse women. Check.
> Tell the liars not to lie.
> Tell the creepers not to be creepy.
> I hate to be a pessimist but I don't think that's gonna change anything.
> 
> I wouldn't assume to know anyone else's environment but jeepers Tez you paint a picture that sounds like it's right out of the 1950's.  Cat calling, is that really a thing anymore?
> I also have a real problem with the assumption that there is a direct correlation between cat calling, D Pic sending disrespectful behavior and actual physical violence. While an abuser will be disrespectful, the inverse of assumption that being disrespectful is equal to or a automatic precursor to violence is just wrong. No matter how you slice and dice the words it looks like male bashing guilt by group identity association from my side of the spectrum.
> And Tez yes I read your entire post.


You read, but sadly did not understand. You did exactly what I said you would and no, I'm not happy to be proved correct. 😕

I did not say there's a correlation between cat calling etc I'm saying teach your sons not to do it and don't do it yourself.
Oh and that means women shouldn't excuse it by saying boys will be boys, it's on everyone.
Yes cat calling IS a thing, a big thing that affects young girls as well as adult females. You clearly haven't talked to enough women about this.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Tez3 said:


> The Ninja Turtle thing was a copyright issue and the scene from Transformers wasn't removed when I saw it with my then young son. 😴











						The Complete History of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
					

Co-creator Peter Laird was kind enough to answer our burning questions about the franchise. Cowabunga, dudes.




					www.mentalfloss.com
				




Not sure if we're talking about the same movie from 1986, but if we are, I can say for certain that it was never removed here.


Tez3 said:


> Our children do not go on killing spree in their schools.


Because they don't have the means.


Tez3 said:


> Your misunderstandings pile up, you replied to my posts first, I pointed out you did not address any of my points, just posted up your opinions on single mothers.


Uh, no I didn't.  Single mothers aren't even my focus.  My focus is your claim that boys raised by single mothers are more respectful of women.  That's just simply not true.


Tez3 said:


> No he didn't HAVE to be drunk but he was obviously a pisshead.


Now you're contradicting yourself.


Tez3 said:


> I know 17 year olds who can take on an adult and win, after all, if they can't why are we teaching them martial arts?


I told you, I pulled it off when I was 15.  But, again, this guy wasn't my father nor was he related to me.  In other words, he was not a bigger, stronger, more virile version of myself.  When someone claims to have beaten a bigger, stronger, more virile version of themselves; you've gotta ask questions.


Tez3 said:


> Men who post on IT about their sexual frustration are called incels............. and why do you watch these guys, why do you even know about the videos?


Probably the same reason as you.  Or maybe not.  You've got a lot history buffs out there without a degree in history.  You could probably say that I'm the same way with sociology.


----------



## Tez3

Urban Trekker said:


> I also want to add this:  there really shouldn't be a discussion on the difference of morality between the US and the UK.  We were 150 years removed from each other (give or take) when the TV started appearing in living rooms, so we may differ in what can be shown.
> 
> But outside of that, where do you think we got our morals from?


You got your morals from the ultra Puritans who left the UK for  America because they weren't allowed to oppress the population with their awful views on how life should be lived. You didn't get them from the rest of us.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Tez3 said:


> You got your morals from the ultra Puritans who left the UK for  America because they weren't allowed to oppress the population with their awful views on how life should be lived. You didn't get them from the rest of us.


Ah, you mean that insignificant population in Massachusetts that was outnumbered by people of other religious views in the rest of the colonies?  Anglican Church (now Episcopal here in the US) was still the largest Christian denomination in the colonies at the time, followed by Presbyterianism.  The math there just doesn't compute.  Besides, Massachusetts eventually became a British colony, so their escape from the British crown was temporary at best.


----------



## Tez3

Urban Trekker said:


> The Complete History of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
> 
> 
> Co-creator Peter Laird was kind enough to answer our burning questions about the franchise. Cowabunga, dudes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.mentalfloss.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if we're talking about the same movie from 1986, but if we are, I can say for certain that it was never removed here.
> 
> Because they don't have the means.
> 
> Uh, no I didn't.  Single mothers aren't even my focus.  My focus is your claim that boys raised by single mothers are more respectful of women.  That's just simply not true.
> 
> Now you're contradicting yourself.
> 
> I told you, I pulled it off when I was 15.  But, again, this guy wasn't my father nor was he related to me.  In other words, he was not a bigger, stronger, more virile version of myself.  When someone claims to have beaten a bigger, stronger, more virile version of themselves; you've gotta ask questions.
> 
> Probably the same reason as you.  Or maybe not.  You've got a lot history buffs out there without a degree in history.  You could probably say that I'm the same way with sociology.


Actually we have plenty of firearms here, we are just more careful who can have them.

I didn't 'claim' boys raised by single mothers are more respectful, it wasn't a statement of fact for goodness sake. I was suggesting it would be likely

Jono didn't claim anything of the sort, you are being very imaginative here, it's like you are having a conversation with yourself. He said he beat his dad up,
 you supplied the imaginary detail.

Socialogy? I respectfully suggest you pick another subject instead, woodworking perhaps.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Tez3 said:


> Actually we have plenty of firearms here, we are just more careful who can have them.


In other words... they don't have the means.  Not having the means to do evil doesn't make you good.  It's choosing not to do evil, despite having the means, that does.


Tez3 said:


> I didn't 'claim' boys raised by single mothers are more respectful, it wasn't a statement of fact for goodness sake. I was suggesting it would be likely


Walking it back, I see.  Very good.


Tez3 said:


> Jono didn't claim anything of the sort, you are being very imaginative here, it's like you are having a conversation with yourself. He said he beat his dad up,
> you supplied the imaginary detail.


You don't read very well.  To quote jobo:


jobo said:


> i was just him, only 25 years younger, he wasnt going to win that


Besides, he didn't even have to say it.


Tez3 said:


> Socialogy? I respectfully suggest you pick another subject instead, woodworking perhaps.


Yep, I've got a suggestion for you based on this quote.  Even doubly so, if I have to tell you what it is.


----------



## hoshin1600

Tez3 said:


> You aren't
> 
> You read, but sadly did not understand. You did exactly what I said you would and no, I'm not happy to be proved correct. 😕
> 
> I did not say there's a correlation between cat calling etc I'm saying teach your sons not to do it and don't do it yourself.
> Oh and that means women shouldn't excuse it by saying boys will be boys, it's on everyone.
> Yes cat calling IS a thing, a big thing that affects young girls as well as adult females. You clearly haven't talked to enough women about this.


Tez, I did read it and I do understand. What you tend not to see is that I often agree with you. Unfortunately we have different experiences and very different world and political views. 
That's OK, I don't post here much anymore because it's just not a healthy environment. Not unlike the rest of the world.
Intolerance and cancel culture rules now. It's sad.  
Enjoy your conversation.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Tez3 said:


> I didn't 'claim' boys raised by single mothers are more respectful, it wasn't a statement of fact for goodness sake. I was suggesting it would be likely


I've got no real desire to be involved in the actual discussion here, but I think there's some confusion stemming specifically from word phrasing and academia vs. common usage. Your statement was "This isn't down to single parent families, if boys are brought up by a single mother they are more likely to respect women!"

I see where he assumes that meant you were claiming a fact, while you didn't mean it that way. If I'm understanding you correctly, you simply meant that you think it's likely that the kid of a single mother would respect women. But the way that you wrote it initially suggests that you were stating, statistically, boys brought up by single mothers are more likely to respect women then boys not brought up by single mothers. Meaning, if you found a way to tally how much each person respected, it would be a (for argument's sake) 5/7 for men brought up by single mothers, and 3.5/7 for those not. So each individual boy would be more likely to respect women. Not the best at explaining things, but hope that helped.


----------



## Steve

A few years back, I asked the women in my life if they've ever dealt with inappropriate sexual behavior.  100% of them said yes, but that's not even what struck me.  I was kind of expecting that.  It was that they were so matter of fact about it.  The cat calls, objectification, and casual disregard are pervasive and baked into our culture, and that's something those of us who aren't pervy and creepy can do something about.  Like I said, this is a very large topic that sprawls across a wide strata.  This isn't necessarily the time and place for it, but there's a lot to discuss.

I do think we've made a lot of progress.  Think about the comedy movies from the 70s and 80s.  For example, there's a scene in Animal House that is clearly rape.  At the time, it was comedy.  But you show that scene to kids today and they are horrified.  And rightfully so.  In the 80s, considering whether or not to rape a woman who is passed out was considered funny.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I've got no real desire to be involved in the actual discussion here, but I think there's some confusion stemming specifically from word phrasing and academia vs. common usage. Your statement was "This isn't down to single parent families, if boys are brought up by a single mother they are more likely to respect women!"
> 
> I see where he assumes that meant you were claiming a fact, while you didn't mean it that way. If I'm understanding you correctly, you simply meant that you think it's likely that the kid of a single mother would respect women. But the way that you wrote it initially suggests that you were stating, statistically, boys brought up by single mothers are more likely to respect women then boys not brought up by single mothers. Meaning, if you found a way to tally how much each person respected, it would be a (for argument's sake) 5/7 for men brought up by single mothers, and 3.5/7 for those not. So each individual boy would be more likely to respect women. Not the best at explaining things, but hope that helped.


The fact that she tried to defend the statement after I criticized it isn't helping her claim that she didn't mean it as a fact, but I'm going to leave that alone and take her word for it.


----------



## Tez3

Urban Trekker said:


> ^^^This.
> 
> The Bible (and other religions' equivalents) and the laws of the governments that we fall under already tell people not to do these things.  One threatens you with eternal damnation and the other threatens you with years in prison.
> 
> If sacred religious texts and laws telling people not to do certain things won't deter someone from doing them, then a random dude telling someone not to do them is wasting his breath


if you care to read the original writings in the original languages you'll find no mention of eternal damnation.


Urban Trekker said:


> Ah, you mean that insignificant population in Massachusetts that was outnumbered by people of other religious views in the rest of the colonies?  Anglican Church (now Episcopal here in the US) was still the largest Christian denomination in the colonies at the time, followed by Presbyterianism.  The math there just doesn't compute.


Yep that's them, Xtians.


hoshin1600 said:


> Tez, I did read it and I do understand. What you tend not to see is that I often agree with you. Unfortunately we have different experiences and very different world and political views.
> That's OK, I don't post here much anymore because it's just not a healthy environment. Not unlike the rest of the world.
> Intolerance and cancel culture rules now. It's sad.
> Enjoy your conversation.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Tez3 said:


> if you care to read the original writings in the original languages you'll find no mention of eternal damnation.


Doesn't matter.  That's how the current population understands it.


Tez3 said:


> Yep that's them, Xtians.


Yep, and it's also lack of attempt to refute anything I said.


----------



## Tez3

Urban Trekker said:


> The fact that she tried to defend the statement after I criticized it isn't helping her claim that she didn't mean it as a fact, but I'm going to leave that alone and take her word for it.


Dear me, I wasn't 'trying to defend it', I was just pointing out you were wrong. I took what you said as you disagreeing not a criticism. You are somewhat combatative.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Tez3 said:


> Dear me, I wasn't 'trying to defend it', I was just pointing out you were wrong. I took what you said as you disagreeing not a criticism. You are somewhat combatative.


Semantics.  Either way, you were initially sticking to that original statement, then suddenly said you didn't mean it as a fact.  I told you, I'm letting that slide, but it looks like you don't want me to.  Combative?


----------



## Tez3

Urban Trekker said:


> Doesn't matter.  That's how the current population understands it.
> 
> Yep, and it's also lack of attempt to refute anything I said.


So, that's it, you want an argument, that's why you're here not for friendly discussion but argument.

You jumped to a massive conclusion about jobo, presumably to provoke an argument. 

Sorry but that's it for me, deliberate provocation and needling is hardly honest discussion, I did suspect before with other posts you've made but you've confirmed that you're for reasons of your own. I'm off, its bedtime anyway.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Tez3 said:


> So, that's it, you want an argument, that's why you're here not for friendly discussion but argument.
> 
> You jumped to a massive conclusion about jobo, presumably to provoke an argument.
> 
> Sorry but that's it for me, deliberate provocation and needling is hardly honest discussion, I did suspect before with other posts you've made but you've confirmed that you're for reasons of your own. I'm off, its bedtime anyway.



Nope.  Do you see what you said in that last sentence?  If you didn't want to discuss a particular topic anymore, then all you had to do was say something like that.  I wouldn't have taken a cheap shot at you, I promise.

The only reason I called you on a lack of a rebuttal is because your response appeared to be either dismissive or indicative of an attempt to just say any random thing to have the last word.  Maybe I misinterpreted that, but that's how I took it.


----------



## jobo

Urban Trekker said:


> I just thought of something I've done several times when I was young (19, 20 years old).  I had a few lady friends and acquaintences who'd hit me up, and invite me over for a quickie.  Some of them were single mothers.
> 
> I can't even count the number of times I walked into the front door, and the chick who invited me over popped in a VHS tape for her kids, as they watched me follow her into the bedroom, and then 20 minutes later they see me come out of the room and head for the front door.
> 
> That was over 20 years ago, and I would never have been doing this if I thought the same way back then as I do now.
> 
> The thing is this: I'm fairly certain that in none of these cases was I the first guy that these kids had seen doing this, nor was I the last.
> 
> Now I can look at it from the perspective that, regardless of a woman's marital or parental status, she has sexual needs to meet.  And then I don't have to feel bad.
> 
> The other way to look at it: does this negatively affect the way they view their mother?  Because that's something I think about when I look back on this.
> 
> With a two parent household; children seeing mother bringing in random strange men to have sex with isn't a thing.  I mean, it could be in theory, but I doubt that's the case in practice much.





Urban Trekker said:


> ^^^This.
> 
> The Bible (and other religions' equivalents) and the laws of the governments that we fall under already tell people not to do these things.  One threatens you with eternal damnation and the other threatens you with years in prison.
> 
> If sacred religious texts and laws telling people not to do certain things won't deter someone from doing them, then a random dude telling someone not to do them is wasting his breath.


the old testiment is quite big on rape, so not a good argument


----------



## Urban Trekker

jobo said:


> the old testiment is quite big on rape, so not a good argument





jobo said:


> the old testiment is quite big on rape, so not a good argument



There were other things listed besides rape.  I know you always try to find that one little thing, but try not to do that this time.


----------



## jobo

Urban Trekker said:


> There were other things listed besides rape.  I know you always try to find that one little thing, but try not to do that this time.


well it's the big one isnt it, if the religion isnt down on rape, it seems unlikely that youl get eternal damination for anything less


----------



## Urban Trekker

jobo said:


> well it's the big one isnt it, if the religion isnt down on rape, it seems unlikely that youl get eternal damination for anything less



The point is that your voice isn't going to stop anyone from doing anything when voices that carry far more weight than yours have already tried and failed.


----------



## Tez3

Urban Trekker said:


> The point is that your voice isn't going to stop anyone from doing anything when voices that carry far more weight than yours have already tried and failed.



For a start parents could teach their sons to not rape, that when women say no they mean no, that 'boys will be boy' isn't an excuse for bad behaviour of any type, that 'locker room talk' isn't a way to respect others. As I pointed out and there's plenty of statistics including crime numbers that show 90% of assaults on women are committed by someone known to them.


----------



## Tez3

Urban Trekker said:


> Nope.  Do you see what you said in that last sentence?  If you didn't want to discuss a particular topic anymore, then all you had to do was say something like that.  I wouldn't have taken a cheap shot at you, I promise.
> 
> The only reason I called you on a lack of a rebuttal is because your response appeared to be either dismissive or indicative of an attempt to just say any random thing to have the last word.  Maybe I misinterpreted that, but that's how I took it.


My dear, I get up at sparrow's fart  in the mornings and go to bed between 2130 and 2200, I wasn't going to stay up just to continue a pointless so called discussion so I was done.


----------



## Tez3

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I've got no real desire to be involved in the actual discussion here, but I think there's some confusion stemming specifically from word phrasing and academia vs. common usage. Your statement was "This isn't down to single parent families, if boys are brought up by a single mother they are more likely to respect women!"
> 
> I see where he assumes that meant you were claiming a fact, while you didn't mean it that way. If I'm understanding you correctly, you simply meant that you think it's likely that the kid of a single mother would respect women. But the way that you wrote it initially suggests that you were stating, statistically, boys brought up by single mothers are more likely to respect women then boys not brought up by single mothers. Meaning, if you found a way to tally how much each person respected, it would be a (for argument's sake) 5/7 for men brought up by single mothers, and 3.5/7 for those not. So each individual boy would be more likely to respect women. Not the best at explaining things, but hope that helped.



Well yes and no, on here, a non academic site, I write as I'd talk in the pub or at a dinner party, conversationally. 

If I were to make a statement of fact I'd back it up with citations, however in my two not disparate careers as well as my martial arts 'journey' I've met a great many sons of single mothers, not unusual when one is nearly in one's seventies and I've not found any lack of respect for my gender based on the fact they were brought up by a single woman, for other reasons yes. Most admired their mothers for doing a very hard job well.

When one writes something on here and someone tells you 'no you didn't mean that and you are wrong' it's laughable. Yes, I could be wrong but yes I did mean exactly what I said. It's paternalism to tell someone they didn't write what they meant. To tell me no one catcalls girls and women these days is pure nonsense of course.


Women's self defence is one of those areas where many well meaning men tell women what they want and need. Women know how they are treated in public and in the workplace, yet so many ignore that so many small incidences wear you down, that the lack of thought and respect plus an upbringing which allows this is an entitlement that needs to be stopped.


I recently read an article written in the UK by a young black solicitor about the small bits of racism she faced everyday, from being thought the defendant or a cleaner when she entered a court building to ignorant comments about her hair or skin. I had no idea, it was an eye opener and caused me much thought and something I'm taking to heart. I had no idea because I am not a young black woman experiencing her life, the same is true of men when it comes to the embarrassments women face everyday which seem trivial but really aren't. Women's self defence is based around defending yourself against a stranger who is trying to rape, it doesn't take into account the gropes, the pinches the pats, that women are told are just boys being boys, or the boss who corners them, the friendly guy just giving you a lift home but wants a kiss and grope as payment or the gang of young students who think touching up a girl is acceptable. 

Anyway, I have to stop and have breakfast, then out for walk with Enzo (see profile pic 😀) thank you for trying to explain I do appreciate it.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Tez3 said:


> For a start parents could teach their sons to not rape, that when women say no they mean no, that 'boys will be boy' isn't an excuse for bad behaviour of any type, that 'locker room talk' isn't a way to respect others.



Here's the deal: rapists are bad people, and bad people do bad things.

Your statement assumes that rapist don't know that they're doing anything wrong because a parent didn't tell them not to do it.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of don'ts in the world; and never once have I ever felt free to commit any of the ones that my parents didn't cover.

I'll also admit that I've committed ones that my parents did cover, such as stealing and throwing the first punch.

The point is this is: we all have free will.  We're all going to do whatever we're determined to do, even if we know it's wrong.

And let's address the underlying motive behind telling men to tell other men not to rape: it's a way to hold the general male population responsible for the actions of a few.

For this, if I could stop a man from going on social media or message boards such as this one, and saying things like "But _I_ don't do that," I'd love to.  Why? Because I know how it's going to turn out: rather than accepting that he's not part of the problem, the goal post will be moved to _make_ him part of the problem.

And that's what telling men to tell other men not to rape is: a moving of the goal post.



> As I pointed out and there's plenty of statistics including crime numbers that show 90% of assaults on women are committed by someone known to them.



And things like this are what prompt me to say what frustrated you last time.  I need to know what statement I made that this is supposed to be a counterpoint to.  Because when you say things like this, the implication is that I said something contrary to it, when I never did.


----------



## Steve

So, does anyone have any constructive recommendations for high school and college aged women defending yhems


Urban Trekker said:


> Here's the deal: rapists are bad people, and bad people do bad things.
> 
> Your statement assumes that rapist don't know that they're doing anything wrong because a parent didn't tell them not to do it.
> 
> There are hundreds, if not thousands, of don'ts in the world; and never once have I ever felt free to commit any of the ones that my parents didn't cover.
> 
> I'll also admit that I've committed ones that my parents did cover, such as stealing and throwing the first punch.
> 
> The point is this is: we all have free will.  We're all going to do whatever we're determined to do, even if we know it's wrong.
> 
> And let's address the underlying motive behind telling men to tell other men not to rape: it's a way to hold the general male population responsible for the actions of a few.
> 
> For this, if I could stop a man from going on social media or message boards such as this one, and saying things like "But _I_ don't do that," I'd love to.  Why? Because I know how it's going to turn out: rather than accepting that he's not part of the problem, the goal post will be moved to _make_ him part of the problem.
> 
> And that's what telling men to tell other men not to rape is: a moving of the goal post.
> 
> 
> 
> And things like this are what prompt me to say what frustrated you last time.  I need to know what statement I made that this is supposed to be a counterpoint to.  Because when you say things like this, the implication is that I said something contrary to it, when I never did.


There are a lot of "good dudes" who have pressured women into having sex or worse. We have one on the supreme court. 

Edit:  To elaborate a little more, I think that this idea of "bad people do bad things" is pretty naïve, particularly where it comes to sexual misconduct.  Women are sexually assaulted all the time on college campuses, and in the greek system in particular, and while some of these guys may get caught, most are 'good guys' who will go on to live their live.  Women are harrassed at work all the time by "good guys".   I've been in senior management for a long time and have had to deal with misconduct more than once, sadly.  My wife is a senior HR investigator for an international company.  She sees it every day, on the job.  You would be shocked how often it occurs. 

But make no mistake, not being punished is not the same as being innocent.  particularly where sexual misconduct is involved, there is often a lack of will to enforce, because the women are often in a position of weakness, they often have their own baggage, or many other factors come into play which makes it difficult to hold these guys accountable.  And so, they walk among us.  They work with our wives and daughters.  

The point is, there are a lot of things that "good guys" do that are not good things.  So, my advice to the guys who are getting defensive about this is to consider whether you want to be the guys who are helping to protect these people you allege are bad guys.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Steve said:


> So, does anyone have any constructive recommendations for high school and college aged women defending yhems



Not sure what this means.



> There are a lot of "good dudes" who have pressured women into having sex or worse. We have one on the supreme court.



Do you consider him to be a "good dude?"  Because I never did.


----------



## Steve

Steve said:


> So, does anyone have any constructive recommendations for high school and college aged women defending yhems



Autocorrect.  "defending themselves.



Urban Trekker said:


> Do you consider him to be a "good dude?"  Because I never did.



He's on the supreme court.  He's a "good guy."  And the point is, he's really pretty typical.  He was confirmed in part as a clear example of toxic partisanship.  But he was also confirmed, I believe, because a lot of the guys related deeply to his experiences.  Matt Gaetz is a predator. Jim Jones... jeez, do some research on that guy.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I personally don't believe that it's as simple as 'bad guys doing bad things' because the behaviors and attitudes toward women are so baked in.  You yourself threw out a perfect example of how we judge women differently than men just a bit ago in this thread.  That's a relatively benign example, to be sure, but it's part of the same issue.

And maybe the other point is that a lot of men who are bad guys don't even realize it themselves.

Edit:  Earlier I mentioned Animal House.  Another example that comes to mind is Revenge of the Nerds, in which the hero of the show literally raped a women at the conclusion of the movie.  I thought that was hilarious when I was 13 years old.  That was pop culture, and there was no indication at all that it was "bad guy behavior."  I certainly didn't think it was wrong at the time.  I thought it was funny, just like every single other kid my age that I knew.

And, I can tell you that in high school in the 80s, a lot of guys were doing a lot of things that I think we would all consider really bad by today's standards.  Like kavenaugh.  So, the question is, are these guys born broken?  I personally think they didn't get told how to behave by their parents.  In other words, "Your statement assumes that rapist don't know that they're doing anything wrong because a parent didn't tell them not to do it."  Yes.  I think that's right.  And that you're naive to believe otherwise, unless you have a very severe and limited personal definition of sexual misconduct that involves violent acts by a stranger.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> Autocorrect.  "defending themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> He's on the supreme court.  He's a "good guy."  And the point is, he's really pretty typical.  He was confirmed in part as a clear example of toxic partisanship.  But he was also confirmed, I believe, because a lot of the guys related deeply to his experiences.  Matt Gaetz is a predator. Jim Jones... jeez, do some research on that guy.
> 
> I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I personally don't believe that it's as simple as 'bad guys doing bad things' because the behaviors and attitudes toward women are so baked in.  You yourself threw out a perfect example of how we judge women differently than men just a bit ago in this thread.  That's a relatively benign example, to be sure, but it's part of the same issue.
> 
> And maybe the other point is that a lot of men who are bad guys don't even realize it themselves.
> 
> Edit:  Earlier I mentioned Animal House.  Another example that comes to mind is Revenge of the Nerds, in which the hero of the show literally raped a women at the conclusion of the movie.  I thought that was hilarious when I was 13 years old.  That was pop culture, and there was no indication at all that it was "bad guy behavior."  I certainly didn't think it was wrong at the time.  I thought it was funny, just like every single other kid my age that I knew.
> 
> And, I can tell you that in high school in the 80s, a lot of guys were doing a lot of things that I think we would all consider really bad by today's standards.  Like kavenaugh.  So, the question is, are these guys born broken?  I personally think they didn't get told how to behave by their parents.  In other words, "Your statement assumes that rapist don't know that they're doing anything wrong because a parent didn't tell them not to do it."  Yes.  I think that's right.  And that you're naive to believe otherwise, unless you have a very severe and limited personal definition of sexual misconduct that involves violent acts by a stranger.


surely,  5he point here is that anyone who watched beyond the first 10 mins of animal house was already broken

so it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy,  that they go on to abuse women, that is what your suggesting isn't it?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Tez3 said:


> Well yes and no, on here, a non academic site, I write as I'd talk in the pub or at a dinner party, conversationally.


Which makes sense. So do I. Just seemed to be the cause of the confusion. As to how/why others were saying "you didn't mean that and you are wrong", well that I don't have an answer for.


Tez3 said:


> Women's self defence is one of those areas where many well meaning men tell women what they want and need. Women know how they are treated in public and in the workplace, yet so many ignore that so many small incidences wear you down, that the lack of thought and respect plus an upbringing which allows this is an entitlement that needs to be stopped.


Which is why I've been reading the thread but not engaging (except for that post). It's definitely useful to read but not necessarily a conversation I should be having a part in.


Tez3 said:


> Anyway, I have to stop and have breakfast, then out for walk with Enzo (see profile pic 😀) thank you for trying to explain I do appreciate it.


Enjoy your walk!


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> Anyway, I have to stop and have breakfast, then out for walk with Enzo (see profile pic 😀) thank you for trying to explain I do appreciate it.


I suspect that Enzo likes a longer walk than Sadie.  St. Bernards are good for about 20 minutes.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Steve said:


> He's on the supreme court.  He's a "good guy."


Okay, this is a non-sequitur.  He's on the Supreme Court, therefore, he is a "good guy."

I'm going to say this without getting political, because I know it's against the rules here, but I can promise you that those who opposed the previous POTUS - who held not only a higher office than Supreme Court Justice, but the highest country in the nation - did not believe him to be a "good guy" on the basis of the office that he held.

So if a guy who flipped burgers at McDonald's did the same things as Brett Kavanaugh or Clarence Thomas, he wouldn't be a "good guy" because he doesn't have a prestigious job?

Note: I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, I just need some clarification if this isn't what you meant, and how you truly gauge whether or not someone is a "good guy."


Steve said:


> In other words, "Your statement assumes that rapist don't know that they're doing anything wrong because a parent didn't tell them not to do it."  Yes.  I think that's right.  And that you're naive to believe otherwise, unless you have a very severe and limited personal definition of sexual misconduct that involves violent acts by a stranger.


*Sigh* now, another accusation claiming that I said sexual assaults are more likely to be committed by strangers, when this isn't even something that I've mention on this thread.

My parents never told me not to mug anyone, and I've never done it.
My parents never told me not to snatch purses, and I've never done it.
My parents never told me not to carjack anyone, and I've never done it.
My parents never told me not to make fun of people with disabilities, and I've never done it.
My parents never told me not to commit a mass shooting, and I've never done it.
My parents never told me not to make home-made bombs for use in terrorist activity, and I've never done it.

As you can see, I could go on forever.  My parents don't have to tell me that a specific act is wrong in order for me to know that it is.  Hell, when it comes to rape - as in forced intercourse with an unwilling partner - I knew what that was by the age of 8, and I knew it was wrong as soon as I had heard of it.

Again, this is all about moving the goal post to make men part of the problem who really aren't.


----------



## Steve

Urban Trekker said:


> Okay, this is a non-sequitur.  He's on the Supreme Court, therefore, he is a "good guy."



I disagree.  He's literally on the judicial body with a lifelong appointment as one of only 9 arbiters of what is lawful and constitutional.  He was vetted, and determined to be a "good guy".  The real point here is that there are a lot of people, millions of people, who don't see what the big deal is. 



Urban Trekker said:


> I'm going to say this without getting political, because I know it's against the rules here, but I can promise you that those who opposed the previous POTUS - who held not only a higher office than Supreme Court Justice, but the highest country in the nation - did not believe him to be a "good guy" on the basis of the office that he held.
> 
> So if a guy who flipped burgers at McDonald's did the same things as Brett Kavanaugh or Clarence Thomas, he wouldn't be a "good guy" because he doesn't have a prestigious job?



People who flip burgers do those things.  People who are generally considered good people have done those things in every walk of life.  I guarantee you that some folks on this forum have done some things that others would consider sexual misconduct.  100% no doubt in my mind.  You probably work with guys who have done some things.  If they were in a fraternity, there is no doubt that they either acted or enabled behavior that required a female to defend herself at some point. 100%. 



Urban Trekker said:


> Note: I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, I just need some clarification if this isn't what you meant, and how you truly gauge whether or not someone is a "good guy."



Good guy meaning someone who isn't a bad guy by your definition.  In other words, if the measure of "bad guy" is violent rape, then there are a lot of good guys out there who don't meet that threshold, but who act in a way that requires women to defend themselves in some way.  And it's so pervasive that guys like you, who I presume to be a good guy, casually share examples such as the one in this thread where you saw nothing at all wrong with sharing an implied judgment about a single mom dating and having sex. 



Urban Trekker said:


> *Sigh* now, another accusation claiming that I said sexual assaults are more likely to be committed by strangers, when this isn't even something that I've mention on this thread.
> 
> My parents never told me not to mug anyone, and I've never done it.
> My parents never told me not to snatch purses, and I've never done it.
> My parents never told me not to carjack anyone, and I've never done it.
> My parents never told me not to make fun of people with disabilities, and I've never done it.
> My parents never told me not to commit a mass shooting, and I've never done it.
> My parents never told me not to make home-made bombs for use in terrorist activity, and I've never done it.
> 
> As you can see, I could go on forever.  My parents don't have to tell me that a specific act is wrong in order for me to know that it is.  Hell, when it comes to rape - as in forced intercourse with an unwilling partner - I knew what that was by the age of 8, and I knew it was wrong as soon as I had heard of it.
> 
> Again, this is all about moving the goal post to make men part of the problem who really aren't.



You say your parents never taught you how to behave?  I think you're giving your parents too little credit.  How do racists become racists?  Do you think some white babies are just born prejudiced against black babies?  Do you think you intuitively just know that making fun of people with disabilities is wrong?  I've worked with people who are disabled for decades and I hate to break it to you, but that's just not so.  Discrimination against people with disabilities is rampant... often casual and cruel.

personally, I think my mom and dad, both veterans and both very liberal, for a lot of my world views.  They planted the seeds, to be sure, for what I think is a thoughtful combination of patriotism and love of country with critical thought, respect for others, and an inclination to serve others.

I envy you, because you clearly have not seen beneath the veil.  We call HR and labor relations the 'dark arts' of management because you learn quickly how "good people" can do some really atrocious things... and how other good people enable them.


----------



## Tez3

Urban Trekker said:


> Here's the deal: rapists are bad people, and bad people do bad things.
> 
> Your statement assumes that rapist don't know that they're doing anything wrong because a parent didn't tell them not to do it.
> 
> There are hundreds, if not thousands, of don'ts in the world; and never once have I ever felt free to commit any of the ones that my parents didn't cover.
> 
> I'll also admit that I've committed ones that my parents did cover, such as stealing and throwing the first punch.
> 
> The point is this is: we all have free will.  We're all going to do whatever we're determined to do, even if we know it's wrong.
> 
> And let's address the underlying motive behind telling men to tell other men not to rape: it's a way to hold the general male population responsible for the actions of a few.
> 
> For this, if I could stop a man from going on social media or message boards such as this one, and saying things like "But _I_ don't do that," I'd love to.  Why? Because I know how it's going to turn out: rather than accepting that he's not part of the problem, the goal post will be moved to _make_ him part of the problem.
> 
> And that's what telling men to tell other men not to rape is: a moving of the goal post.
> 
> 
> 
> And things like this are what prompt me to say what frustrated you last time.  I need to know what statement I made that this is supposed to be a counterpoint to.  Because when you say things like this, the implication is that I said something contrary to it, when I never did.


That's how you read it, it's not what I actually wrote. That's the problem, you read it and put your own interpretation on it. You are also seeing things that aren't there. I write what I think, nothing more, nothing less, it's what we do in Yorkshire, we speak as we find, plain speaking.

I am not telling men not to rape, what I am saying, again, is to teach your children that NO means NO. Don't tell your sons that girls play hard to get, or they like to be pushed to have sex, don't tell them women like it rough or that girls who dress in short skirts are asking for it. 

Another thing that needs to stop is schools picking up the girls for what they wear and not the boys. It should be school policy that boys are responsible for their behaviour not the girls. Boys should not feel they can abuse or assault girls because of the girls clothing and adults should not excuse them.

Just how many times do I have to explain this? Children learn their behaviour from adults, if those adults say things like 'look what she's wearing, she's asking for it' then they are enabling abuse of women. If the adult thinks it's fine to assault a women because she's had a few boyfriends/wears short skirts/is drunk because she's asking for it what do you think will happen?

I've explained this a few times but you don't get it, others do and they did long before I posted anything.


----------



## Tez3

Urban Trekker said:


> Okay, this is a non-sequitur.  He's on the Supreme Court, therefore, he is a "good guy."
> 
> I'm going to say this without getting political, because I know it's against the rules here, but I can promise you that those who opposed the previous POTUS - who held not only a higher office than Supreme Court Justice, but the highest country in the nation - did not believe him to be a "good guy" on the basis of the office that he held.
> 
> So if a guy who flipped burgers at McDonald's did the same things as Brett Kavanaugh or Clarence Thomas, he wouldn't be a "good guy" because he doesn't have a prestigious job?
> 
> Note: I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, I just need some clarification if this isn't what you meant, and how you truly gauge whether or not someone is a "good guy."
> 
> *Sigh* now, another accusation claiming that I said sexual assaults are more likely to be committed by strangers, when this isn't even something that I've mention on this thread.
> 
> My parents never told me not to mug anyone, and I've never done it.
> My parents never told me not to snatch purses, and I've never done it.
> My parents never told me not to carjack anyone, and I've never done it.
> My parents never told me not to make fun of people with disabilities, and I've never done it.
> My parents never told me not to commit a mass shooting, and I've never done it.
> My parents never told me not to make home-made bombs for use in terrorist activity, and I've never done it.
> 
> As you can see, I could go on forever.  My parents don't have to tell me that a specific act is wrong in order for me to know that it is.  Hell, when it comes to rape - as in forced intercourse with an unwilling partner - I knew what that was by the age of 8, and I knew it was wrong as soon as I had heard of it.
> 
> Again, this is all about moving the goal post to make men part of the problem who really aren't.



You see rape as the forced sexual intercourse on a female, as an assault usually by a stranger. However there's more to it than that.

Rape is where a woman doesn't want sex but is forced to by various means. Emotional blackmail for example. 'if you really loved me you would', 'I'll leave you if you don't ' very effective on younger females.

There's the 'you'll lose your job' one. The I bought you dinner/did you a favour so you owe me. The well what did you think coming in for coffee meant then? There's more, all the ways of putting a female in a situation where she doesn't want to have sex but is scared or shamed into it.

then there's the relationship one, where the man keeps on and on pestering until he gets what he wants even though she doesn't want to. Lying in bed groping her until she gives in. Have you ever had sex with your wife when she didn't feel like it but you did and you cajoled her? Didn't think it was that serious because well you're married after all. Mate, she didn't want sex, no should mean no.

then there's the chap who the girl has had sex with before in the past who insists on sex again because well like the one above it's his right isn't it? Good luck with trying to prove rape with that, judges and juries won't believe her.

Or girl who has sex willingly with one guy only for him to let his mate in for sloppy seconds. I had to deal with a girl that happened to, no prosecution because she was willing with the first guy who she'd just met so she was asking for it. 😠

There's the friend one, when the girl drinks too much, passes out and the friend says well why not shag her. It's not rape they're friends 😕 no convictions for that one either.

Yoh think of rape as just an act carried out by criminals, it's not.


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> I suspect that Enzo likes a longer walk than Sadie.  St. Bernards are good for about 20 minutes.


Not really he's a 40mph coach potato, greyhounds like a couple of 20 minute walks and one zoomie a day lol. They are built for short bursts of speed and lots of sleep. 😂


----------



## Urban Trekker

Steve said:


> I disagree.  He's literally on the judicial body with a lifelong appointment as one of only 9 arbiters of what is lawful and constitutional.  He was vetted, and determined to be a "good guy".  The real point here is that there are a lot of people, millions of people, who don't see what the big deal is.


So we're not going to question the morals of those who don't see what the big deal was?



Steve said:


> People who flip burgers do those things.  People who are generally considered good people have done those things in every walk of life.  I guarantee you that some folks on this forum have done some things that others would consider sexual misconduct.  100% no doubt in my mind.  You probably work with guys who have done some things.  If they were in a fraternity, there is no doubt that they either acted or enabled behavior that required a female to defend herself at some point. 100%.


Probably, and if I learned that they did those things, I wouldn't look at them same.



Steve said:


> Good guy meaning someone who isn't a bad guy by your definition.  In other words, if the measure of "bad guy" is violent rape, then there are a lot of good guys out there who don't meet that threshold, but who act in a way that requires women to defend themselves in some way.  And it's so pervasive that guys like you, who I presume to be a good guy, casually share examples such as the one in this thread where you saw nothing at all wrong with sharing an implied judgment about a single mom dating and having sex.


Three things:

1.  I actually defended women who make these decisions by stating that regardless of their marital or parental status, they have sexual needs to be met like anyone else.
2.  I also stated that my worry is how the children (not me) would view their mother, and
3.  I stated that in the hypothetical situation that I ended up a single custodial father, I'd also worry how my children would view me if they saw random women coming over for sex.



Steve said:


> You say your parents never taught you how to behave?  I think you're giving your parents too little credit.  How do racists become racists?  Do you think some white babies are just born prejudiced against black babies?


So here's the deal:  I think that as long as parents focus on bigger picture items, then the specifics should easily fall into place.  Things like:  Respect other people.  Respect other people's property.  Do not cause any physical harm to anyone unless you protecting yourself or other people.  Treat others how you would want to be treated.

Again, focus on that, and everything else will follow.  That's not to say that discussion on specifics aren't necessary, but from the bigger picture, it gives people a base to make judgement calls on what is right and what is wrong.


Steve said:


> Do you think you intuitively just know that making fun of people with disabilities is wrong?  I've worked with people who are disabled for decades and I hate to break it to you, but that's just not so.  Discrimination against people with disabilities is rampant... often casual and cruel.


The only thing you're addressing is whether or not someone is going to do it.  Just because someone does a bad thing does not mean that they're unaware that it's wrong.  I can say with certainty that the people you've witnessed mistreating disabled people knew fully well that they were in the wrong.


Steve said:


> personally, I think my mom and dad, both veterans and both very liberal, for a lot of my world views.  They planted the seeds, to be sure, for what I think is a thoughtful combination of patriotism and love of country with critical thought, respect for others, and an inclination to serve others.
> 
> I envy you, because you clearly have not seen beneath the veil.  We call HR and labor relations the 'dark arts' of management because you learn quickly how "good people" can do some really atrocious things... and how other good people enable them.


Four more things:
1.  I'm a veteran.  In fact, I retired after 20 years of service.
2.  I'm liberal.
3.  I work in HR.  Not EEO/LR, but HR nonetheless.
4.  I'm not naïve to believe that people who look good on the surface can't actually be bad.  The difference is that I don't continue to see them as good when I learn of the things that they've done.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Tez3 said:


> You see rape as the forced sexual intercourse on a female, as an assault usually by a stranger. However there's more to it than that.


I never said that.  You and Steve need to stop putting words in my mouth.


Tez3 said:


> Yoh think of rape as just an act carried out by criminals, it's not.


Well, rape is a crime and, by definition, one who commits a crime is a criminal, right?

If there's any ignorance going on, it's this: the apparent belief that one has to be of low socio-economic status in order to be "bad" or a "criminal."  Or that anyone who wears a tie and slacks to work, but commits sexual assault, is simply a good guy who has done a bad thing.

For all the talk of racism and sexism on this thread, now we've got classism.


----------



## Steve

Urban Trekker said:


> So we're not going to question the morals of those who don't see what the big deal was?
> 
> 
> Probably, and if I learned that they did those things, I wouldn't look at them same.
> 
> 
> Three things:
> 
> 1.  I actually defended women who make these decisions by stating that regardless of their marital or parental status, they have sexual needs to be met like anyone else.
> 2.  I also stated that my worry is how the children (not me) would view their mother, and
> 3.  I stated that in the hypothetical situation that I ended up a single custodial father, I'd also worry how my children would view me if they saw random women coming over for sex.



I'm not being super clear.  My impression is that you and I have a different idea of what is and isn't sexual misconduct.  My definition is much broader, and has been informed by a professional lifetime of dealing with it.  I see not just the behavior, but I see the ways in which we (we meaning society, corporations, media, etc) tacitly endorse it.  Holding people accountable is exceedingly difficult for many reasons.  For example, let's say a woman has a lot of sex.  That alone may be the reason some creep gets away with rape.  That alone is often enough for otherwise reasonable people to figuratively or literally look at each other and say, "Well, I mean, she does have a lot of sex.  She did agree to have drinks with him.   How can that be rape?" 

Can you honestly tell me you've never seen people in your life behave in a way that is creepy and unwelcome, to a point where a female was forced to act in her own defense?  Women would be foolish to take a drink from a person they don't know in a bar... that's self defense.   It is pervasive.  And when I hear guys get defensive and start going down the "no one had to tell me that rape is bad," I call BS.  I think that's exactly what happened, somewhere along the way.  it's not about saying "rape is bad."  Rather, it's about pointing out to good guys, "hey, you don't think that's rape.. but it is."  For example, "Billy, I know that it's common in your fraternity to get women drunk hoping to have sex with them.  yes, I know it happens all the time.  If she's not sober enough to consent... that's rape."  

I know that over the last 40 years, through a combination of experience and education, I've learned that a lot of the things I thought were okay when I was a kid are actually pretty rotten.  I've mentioned Animal House and Revenge of the Nerds... I have a lot more examples from media and from "real life" I could share, but the point is the same. 



Urban Trekker said:


> So here's the deal:  I think that as long as parents focus on bigger picture items, then the specifics should easily fall into place.  Things like:  Respect other people.  Respect other people's property.  Do not cause any physical harm to anyone unless you protecting yourself or other people.  Treat others how you would want to be treated.



Some of the most respectful people I know, who view themselves as moral people, are real scumbags.   Once again, I guarantee you that we have a few on this forum.  People who view themselves as respectful and moral, and who see no disconnect between their self image and their behavior toward certain people, toward women, toward people of color, toward you name it. 



Urban Trekker said:


> Again, focus on that, and everything else will follow.  That's not to say that discussion on specifics aren't necessary, but from the bigger picture, it gives people a base to make judgement calls on what is right and what is wrong.
> 
> The only thing you're addressing is whether or not someone is going to do it.  Just because someone does a bad thing does not mean that they're unaware that it's wrong.  I can say with certainty that the people you've witnessed mistreating disabled people knew fully well that they were in the wrong.
> 
> Four more things:
> 1.  I'm a veteran.  In fact, I retired after 20 years of service.
> 2.  I'm liberal.
> 3.  I work in HR.  Not EEO/LR, but HR nonetheless.
> 4.  I'm not naïve to believe that people who look good on the surface are actually bad.  The difference is that I don't continue to see them as good when I learn of the things that they've done.


I've said in other threads that I think you and I would agree on more than we disagree.  I think in this, you have an unrealistically optimistic opinion on this subject.  At the very least, I think you have an impression that these "good on the surface" people are a relative minority.  I don't see it as a binary thing.  I think it's a spectrum that we're all on somewhere.  The question isn't that we're on that spectrum... it's a matter of trajectory.  Where we start is often a function of our background (i.e, our family and environment as a child) and our education.  But from that starting point, are we static, where we see nothing wrong and avoid any introspection.  Or are we continuing to grow? 

As I said earlier, when guys get defensive on topics like this, I get the impression that they are at least stuck.


----------



## Steve

Urban Trekker said:


> I never said that.  You and Steve need to stop putting words in my mouth.
> 
> Well, rape is a crime and, by definition, one who commits a crime is a criminal, right?
> 
> If there's any ignorance going on, it's this: the apparent belief that one has to be of low socio-economic status in order to be "bad" or a "criminal."  Or that anyone who wears a tie and slacks to work, but commits sexual assault, is simply a good guy who has done a bad thing.
> 
> For all the talk of racism and sexism on this thread, now we've got classism.


Here's a question.  Well couple of questions.  First, what words am I putting in your mouth?  

But second, does it have to be rape to be creepy or threatening?  Or said another way, does it have to be criminal behavior of any kind to be threatening or creepy?


----------



## Tez3

Urban Trekker said:


> I never said that.  You and Steve need to stop putting words in my mouth.
> 
> Well, rape is a crime and, by definition, one who commits a crime is a criminal, right?
> 
> If there's any ignorance going on, it's this: the apparent belief that one has to be of low socio-economic status in order to be "bad" or a "criminal."  Or that anyone who wears a tie and slacks to work, but commits sexual assault, is simply a good guy who has done a bad thing.
> 
> For all the talk of racism and sexism on this thread, now we've got classism.


I have no idea what you are talking about when you say 'apparent belief 'etc

I've never mentioned anything to do with class which is a very different thing in the UK btw.

Now as much as I'd like to continue its Friday evening and I have things to see to. I will be back Saturday night or Sunday morning if you are still pontificating.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Steve said:


> Here's a question.  Well couple of questions.  First, what words am I putting in your mouth?


Accusations that I have either said or believe that rape is generally committed by strangers.


Steve said:


> But second, does it have to be rape to be creepy or threatening?  Or said another way, does it have to be criminal behavior of any kind to be threatening or creepy?


Are we discussing behavior outside of sexual assault now?

The whole issue I'm discussing is the insinuation that anyone who is not playing an affirmative role against a particular evil is contributing to it.


----------



## Steve

Urban Trekker said:


> Accusations that I have either said or believe that rape is generally committed by strangers.



I don't think I've suggested that you've said that, though I do believe the stats are well founded that most sexual misconduct is perpetrated by someone known to the victim. 



Urban Trekker said:


> Are we discussing behavior outside of sexual assault now?



Do you think it has to rise to the level of assault for a women to warrant some level of self defense?  That's what I'm asking.



Urban Trekker said:


> The whole issue I'm discussing is the insinuation that anyone who is not playing an affirmative role against a particular evil is contributing to it.



Contributing isn't quite the right word.  But if you're arguing defensively in a thread like this, you're at least not working to mitigate it.  Look at it like this.  If someone says, "Racism is bad," would you reflexively say, 'Well, is it really even racism if it isn't doesn't meet these specific criteria I'm listing for you now?"

Or maybe it will help if you look at the actual argument you're making, which hinges on a belief that sexual norms and behaviors are not learned behaviors.  If we can agree that they are learned behaviors, then can't we also agree that our parents (among others) have something to do with our perspectives on what is and is not appropriate and acceptable (i.e., that our parents actually did teach us not to rape)?  And if we can agree on that, can we not also agree that our perspectives can (and I'd argue should) continue to evolve throughout our lives?

And the question does remain unanswered, which is, does it have to be criminal behavior of any kind to be threatening or creepy?


----------



## Urban Trekker

Steve said:


> I don't think I've suggested that you've said that,


Quoting Tez3: "You see rape as the forced sexual intercourse on a female, as an assault usually by a stranger. "

Quoting you:  "And that you're naive to believe otherwise, unless you have a very severe and limited personal definition of sexual misconduct that involves violent acts by a stranger."


Steve said:


> though I do believe the stats are well founded that most sexual misconduct is perpetrated by someone known to the victim.


Seems to me that it would only be necessary to keep repeating this if you feel that it refutes something that I either said or believe.



Steve said:


> Do you think it has to rise to the level of assault for a women to warrant some level of self defense?  That's what I'm asking.


Well, this isn't something that I want to get into; but it depends on what we mean by "self defense" (semantics, I know, I hate it too).  If a guy in a bar is staring at me hard like he wants to kick my ***, does that give me the right to walk up to him and hit him first?

No.  There's no law saying that he can't give me the evil eye.

Do I have the right to leave the premises in order to avoid whatever I feel may happen?  Of course.  Are we counting that as self defense?

I suppose that if a man is being "creepy" (the word "creepy," by the way, is almost purely based on perception and not on anything measurable) towards a woman, then the same would apply.



Steve said:


> Contributing isn't quite the right word.  But if you're arguing defensively in a thread like this, you're at least not working to mitigate it.  Look at it like this.  If someone says, "Racism is bad," would you reflexively say, 'Well, is it really even racism if it isn't doesn't meet these specific criteria I'm listing for you now?"


Only I've never done this on the topic of rape or sexual assault.  In none of the scenarios that you or Tez3 gave did I ever dismiss them as not being rape, or even treat any of them as if it were up for debate.



Steve said:


> Or maybe it will help if you look at the actual argument you're making, which hinges on a belief that sexual norms and behaviors are not learned behaviors.


That depends on what we're talking about.

Are we talking about things like promiscuity, sexual orientation, or anything else that involves consenting adults?

Or are we talking about things that include someone that is not a consenting adult?

There are two tribes in Papua New Guinea - the Sambia and the Etoro - that have a ceremony for young pre-teen boys transitioning into adolescence; the details of which are too graphic to describe here, but if you Google them, I urge you to mentally prepare yourself for the worst.

I suppose that what happens in these ceremonies could support your point about morality being relative, but you need to question whether or not you yourself made a moral judgement of these people based on what you just learned of them.



Steve said:


> If we can agree that they are learned behaviors, then can't we also agree that our parents (among others) have something to do with our perspectives on what is and is not appropriate and acceptable (i.e., that our parents actually did teach us not to rape)?


I think the "big picture" life lessons for me on this worked out just fine.  Treating others how you want to be treated, respecting others, etc, etc are not specific to non-sexual situations.



Steve said:


> And if we can agree on that, can we not also agree that our perspectives can (and I'd argue should) continue to evolve throughout our lives?


Sure, I don't see why not.


Steve said:


> And the question does remain unanswered, which is, does it have to be criminal behavior of any kind to be threatening or creepy?


Well, threats are a crime, so that's that.

"Being creepy" isn't.  As, I've said earlier, "creepiness" is based almost purely on perception.  Two guys could be doing the exact same thing, and only one of them be seen as creepy.  In any case, you can't pepper spray a guy because you think he's "creepy."


----------



## geezer

Tez3 said:


> ...then there's the relationship one, where the man keeps on and on pestering until he gets what he wants even though she doesn't want to. Lying in bed groping her until she gives in....
> 
> ...You think of rape as just *an act carried out by criminals*_,_ it's* not*.


Er, actually it_ *is,*_ I think ...Rape_ is _a criminal act .... if you commit rape, you are engaging in a criminal act ...so doesn't that make you a criminal?

Being a "criminal" isn't an innate quality... that you manifest for your entire life.  Rather, it's what you are if you engage in criminal acts.

That said, I'm not sure "pestering" a person and asking for sex until they just give up and give in by saying "Oh, very well, go ahead" is necessarily rape. It may be abusive and unacceptable, but "rape" implies forced sex, whether by physical or psychological means.

Somehow just _"pestering"_ doesn't seem to rise to that standard. It sounds more like ...well like a child at the checkout line saying, "Can I have a candy bar, huh, can I, can I, can I, can I, ....Pleeeez, can I, can I, can I, (cue bratty tantrum, and fussing) ....and finally the exhausted parent (or, in the other case, sexual partner)  gives in to shut the kid up.

Really,  people just need to put their partners _in time out_ if they carry on like that!  ...Or show them the door, once and for all.

Seriously, we need to support women being assertive when dealing with partners like this. In some cases it seems to be innate For example my wife and daughter are both little people around 5'2" and _scary _strong willed and assertive about everything. I'm proud of that. Others may need more support and coaching. And all we need to fight old societal norms that encourage women to be docile and submissive.

I thought _that_ change was already well underway ...but in the last few years it seems there has been a huge backlash and progress has been stalled. The culture wars are still raging ...at least where I live.


----------



## Steve

Urban Trekker said:


> Quoting Tez3: "You see rape as the forced sexual intercourse on a female, as an assault usually by a stranger. "
> 
> Quoting you:  "And that you're naive to believe otherwise, unless you have a very severe and limited personal definition of sexual misconduct that involves violent acts by a stranger."


Speaking to my own words, I think that's true.  I've said a few times that I think you and I have in mind different definitions of some key terms.  So far, you are kind of avoiding clarifying your definitions.  



Urban Trekker said:


> Seems to me that it would only be necessary to keep repeating this if you feel that it refutes something that I either said or believe.


 I think, as mentioned above, I'm reacting to your statements by trying to clarify my own.   Just to help us break out of this cycle, do we agree that this is a credible fact?  Because, if we can't agree on that, then we can't get to the point where I can figure out what you are actually saying.  To be honest, I can't be completely sure I understand what you think well enough at this point to know where we agree and disagree.  You avoid direct questions and answer others defensively.  As I said, I think we agree on more than we disagree, but I'm at the point where you're just not being very clear.



Urban Trekker said:


> Well, this isn't something that I want to get into; but it depends on what we mean by "self defense" (semantics, I know, I hate it too).  If a guy in a bar is staring at me hard like he wants to kick my ***, does that give me the right to walk up to him and hit him first?



Well, I mean, it's the subject of the thread.



Urban Trekker said:


> No.  There's no law saying that he can't give me the evil eye.



Evil eye?



Urban Trekker said:


> Do I have the right to leave the premises in order to avoid whatever I feel may happen?  Of course.  Are we counting that as self defense?
> 
> I suppose that if a man is being "creepy" (the word "creepy," by the way, is almost purely based on perception and not on anything measurable) towards a woman, then the same would apply.



Okay. Sure. now I'm curious.  Can you think of any behavior that you would consider creepy?  If so, I think we're close enough.  Is every behavior you think is creepy criminal behavior?  I'm asking for your opinion.

Personally, I can think of a lot of behavior that is creepy that doesn't rise to the level of criminal.



Urban Trekker said:


> Only I've never done this on the topic of rape or sexual assault.  In none of the scenarios that you or Tez3 gave did I ever dismiss them as not being rape, or even treat any of them as if it were up for debate.
> 
> 
> That depends on what we're talking about.
> 
> Are we talking about things like promiscuity, sexual orientation, or anything else that involves consenting adults?
> 
> Or are we talking about things that include someone that is not a consenting adult?



Maybe I haven't been concrete enough.  What I'm pointing out to you is that the very definition of consent has evolved.  While one may argue that it has never actually changed, the societal understanding of the term certainly has.  There are, I think, a lot of parents out there now including in "the talk" some version of, "This is what consent means."  @Tez3 has shared several specific examples of things that society has historically not categorized as "consent" that today are definitely understood to be so.  

So, once again, I don't know if we agree or not on this, but just to state my own belief as clearly as I can, I do think that kids are taught what consent is.  I don't think they know it intuitively.  I have shared some concrete examples of how society's definition has shifted.  Do you disagree or agree?  Please be specific.



Urban Trekker said:


> There are two tribes in Papua New Guinea - the Sambia and the Etoro - that have a ceremony for young pre-teen boys transitioning into adulthood; the details of which are too graphic to describe here, but if you Google them, I urge you to mentally prepare yourself for the worst.
> 
> I suppose that what happens in these ceremonies could support your point about morality being relative, but you need to question whether or not you yourself made a moral judgement of these people based on what you just learned of them.



I'm willing to look it up, but if you're saying we aren't born with an intuitive understanding of consent in complex social situations, I agree.  



Urban Trekker said:


> I think the "big picture" life lessons for me on this worked out just fine.  Treating others how you want to be treated, respecting others, etc, etc are not specific to non-sexual situations.



Cool.  So, then... that's a yes?  You use a lot of imprecise language that I think leads to misunderstanding, so I'm just trying to be as concrete as possible.  



Urban Trekker said:


> Sure, I don't see why not.
> 
> Well, threats are a crime, so that's that.



Threats are a crime?  Really, all threats?  If I say something to you that you perceive as threatening, in every case, I am breaking a law? Please do tell.  



Urban Trekker said:


> "Being creepy" isn't.  As, I've said earlier, "creepiness" is based almost purely on perception.  Two guys could be doing the exact same thing, and only one of them be seen as creepy.  In any case, you can't pepper spray a guy because you think he's "creepy."



I think we can get close enough to a shared definition of creepy for it to be constructive.  But if it would help you, please feel free to be more specific.


----------



## Urban Trekker

geezer said:


> Er, actually it_ *is,*_ I think ...Rape_ is _a criminal act .... if you commit rape, you are engaging in a criminal act ...so doesn't that make you a criminal?
> 
> Being a "criminal" isn't an innate quality... that you manifest for your entire life.  Rather, it's what you are if you engage in criminal acts.


Yeah, I pointed this out earlier.  Clearly, she means something else when she says "criminal."  A big scary-looking guy with a bunch tattoos and no job, maybe?  You're not a criminal, unless you're that type of guy?  So as to not put words in her mouth, I'll let her clarify whatever it is she does mean.


----------



## Steve

geezer said:


> Er, actually it_ *is,*_ I think ...Rape_ is _a criminal act .... if you commit rape, you are engaging in a criminal act ...so doesn't that make you a criminal?
> 
> Being a "criminal" isn't an innate quality... that you manifest for your entire life.  Rather, it's what you are if you engage in criminal acts.
> 
> That said, I'm not sure "pestering" a person and asking for sex until they just give up and give in by saying "Oh, very well, go ahead" is necessarily rape. It may be abusive and unacceptable, but "rape" implies forced sex, whether by physical or psychological means.
> 
> Somehow just _"pestering"_ doesn't seem to rise to that standard. It sounds more like ...well like a child at the checkout line saying, "Can I have a candy bar, huh, can I, can I, can I, can I, ....Pleeeez, can I, can I, can I, (cue bratty tantrum, and fussing) ....and finally the exhausted parent (or, in the other case, sexual partner)  gives in to shut the kid up.
> 
> Really,  people just need to put their partners _in time out_ if they carry on like that!  ...Or show them the door, once and for all.
> 
> Seriously, we need to support women being assertive when dealing with partners like this. In some cases it seems to be innate For example my wife and daughter are both little people around 5'2" and _scary _strong willed and assertive about everything. I'm proud of that. Others may need more support and coaching. And all we need to fight old societal norms that encourage women to be docile and submissive.
> 
> I thought _that_ change was already well underway ...but in the last few years it seems there has been a huge backlash and progress has been stalled. The culture wars are still raging ...at least where I live.


I'd like to introduce you to a guy named Anthony Bouchard.  He is not only admitting that he statutorily raped a 14 year old girl when he was 18, he is asserting that he is the good guy because he married her.  I mean, sure, she had a baby at 15, was divorced by him at 18, and committed suicide at 20.  But he's the good guy.  Not only is he not being prosecuted for this.  He is running for national office.

we can discuss whether WE think he's the good guy or not.  I certainly don't.  But what is relevant is how he is viewed by society at large.  While we may disapprove of his choices, he is not accountable, and in fact, he is being supported by a cross section of society in spite of (and in part, because of) his actions.  That he didn't allow her to have an abortion is actually an exonerating fact for many people.


----------



## Deleted member 39746

Steve said:


> I'd like to introduce you to a guy named Anthony Bouchard.  He is not only admitting that he statutorily raped a 14 year old girl when he was 18, he is asserting that he is the good guy because he married her.  I mean, sure, she had a baby at 15, was divorced by him at 18, and committed suicide at 20.  But he's the good guy.  Not only is he not being prosecuted for this.  He is running for national office.
> 
> we can discuss whether WE think he's the good guy or not.  I certainly don't.  But what is relevant is how he is viewed by society at large.  While we may disapprove of his choices, he is not accountable, and in fact, he is being supported by a cross section of society in spite of (and in part, because of) his actions.  That he didn't allow her to have an abortion is actually an exonerating fact for many people.



Just beign purely factual here.  i havent read the rest of this dicussiong but:

Statory rape and rape are diffrent crimes.   Rape is without consent, statory rape is where the person is not of age to consent.   I would go as far to say, if somone not of age to consent consents, thats generally looked on more favourable than straight out rape.     Witholding the arguing about when you can cosnent and to whome etc.     Just using those paramters. 

And as far as i know, males get thw short end of the stick for this one, if both parties are under aged.

Also, in some countries and legalities rape charges are dropped if the person agrees to marry you within a certain time bracket.  (just thought it was a intresting tid bit, not looked into what countries have this law)

(no idea if its of relivence, or if its supportive or not supportive of what has been written)

Addendum: Skimmed up a little.  The previously mentioned issue would be (if criminal, and serious) harrassment.   If it gets into harassment territory anyone should know to contact police.  Now there is a line between annoyance and not a police issue and harassment and thus a police issue.   (police to mean legal action in general)    Harrassment is only harassment, no other crime.  (it can accompiny other crimes though)


----------



## Steve

Rat said:


> Just beign purely factual here.  i havent read the rest of this dicussiong but:
> 
> Statory rape and rape are diffrent crimes.   Rape is without consent, statory rape is where the person is not of age to consent.   I would go as far to say, if somone not of age to consent consents, thats generally looked on more favourable than straight out rape.     Witholding the arguing about when you can cosnent and to whome etc.     Just using those paramters.
> 
> And as far as i know, males get thw short end of the stick for this one, if both parties are under aged.
> 
> Also, in some countries and legalities rape charges are dropped if the person agrees to marry you within a certain time bracket.  (just thought it was a intresting tid bit, not looked into what countries have this law)
> 
> (no idea if its of relivence, or if its supportive or not supportive of what has been written)
> 
> Addendum: Skimmed up a little.  The previously mentioned issue would be (if criminal, and serious) harrassment.   If it gets into harassment territory anyone should know to contact police.  Now there is a line between annoyance and not a police issue and harassment and thus a police issue.   (police to mean legal action in general)    Harrassment is only harassment, no other crime.  (it can accompiny other crimes though)



Quick comments on this.  First, if a person is not old enough to consent, she (or he) cannot by definition consent.  The idea of a person "not of age to consent" consenting... it just gives me a headache to consider it, the logic is so flawed. 

Second,  laws such as if the child should marry the guy, it's cool... that reinforces the salient point here which is that consent is a concept that heavily influence by societal norms, and is very much a concept that is taught to kids, not instinctively understood.


----------



## Steve

Alright.  With that, I think I'm out.  I've said my piece on this.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Rat said:


> Just beign purely factual here.  i havent read the rest of this dicussiong but:
> 
> Statory rape and rape are diffrent crimes.   Rape is without consent, statory rape is where the person is not of age to consent.   I would go as far to say, if somone not of age to consent consents, thats generally looked on more favourable than straight out rape.     Witholding the arguing about when you can cosnent and to whome etc.     Just using those paramters.
> 
> And as far as i know, males get thw short end of the stick for this one, if both parties are under aged.
> 
> Also, in some countries and legalities rape charges are dropped if the person agrees to marry you within a certain time bracket.  (just thought it was a intresting tid bit, not looked into what countries have this law)
> 
> (no idea if its of relivence, or if its supportive or not supportive of what has been written)
> 
> Addendum: Skimmed up a little.  The previously mentioned issue would be (if criminal, and serious) harrassment.   If it gets into harassment territory anyone should know to contact police.  Now there is a line between annoyance and not a police issue and harassment and thus a police issue.   (police to mean legal action in general)    Harrassment is only harassment, no other crime.  (it can accompiny other crimes though)


I have to comment on this, because once again while giving legal advice you're wrong on multiple accounts here.

The first is that there is no crime called statory rape. The crime is statutory rape. And it is considered a variation of rape, not something different (in most jurisdictions that I'm aware of)

And it is still without consent, as the official reason (in most jurisdictions that I'm aware of) is that the person is legally incapable of consenting, due to either age or mental/physical handicap. Which means that they still did not consent.

Regarding males getting the short end of the stick here, you can make that argument based on stats, but legally (again in most jurisdictions that I'm aware of), the law is phrased either (regarding age, not mental/physical handicap/other reasons): you cannot have sex with someone under x-age, in which case both people can theoretically be charged. ie: in California, if I'm 17 and my girlfriend is 17 and we have sex, we can both be charged. Or, it's if one person is above the age of consent. ie: in texas, it's legal so long as both people are above the age of 14, and within 3 years of age. If they're not then it's illegal, with one being the perpetrator and one being the victim. So if I was 19 and had sex with my 15 year old girlfriend, that's rape. If I'm 16 and had sex with my 16 year old girlfriend, then it's not.

In both of the above scenarios, you'll notice that from a legal standpoint male/female had nothing to do with it.

Also, do you notice how within this I used the phrase _in most jurisdictions that I'm aware of? _That's important, and something you continuously do not mention when you give people legal advice on here about rape, or self defense, or weapons, or basically anything else. You seem to go by memory, and state what you are stating as fact, which is never how legal issues work, and is a very dangerous thing to do when people may read what you are writing as something to be taken seriously/legitimately.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Steve said:


> Speaking to my own words, I think that's true.  I've said a few times that I think you and I have in mind different definitions of some key terms.  So far, you are kind of avoiding clarifying your definitions.


You think it's true that I believe rape is generally committed by strangers, despite having never said it?  Or that it's true that I have a limited definition of sexual misconduct, despite the fact that I've never debated anyone on it?


Steve said:


> I think, as mentioned above, I'm reacting to your statements by trying to clarify my own.   Just to help us break out of this cycle, do we agree that this is a credible fact?  Because, if we can't agree on that, then we can't get to the point where I can figure out what you are actually saying.  To be honest, I can't be completely sure I understand what you think well enough at this point to know where we agree and disagree.  You avoid direct questions and answer others defensively.  As I said, I think we agree on more than we disagree, but I'm at the point where you're just not being very clear.


Yes, we agree.



Steve said:


> Evil eye?


I don't think this requires explanation, but I'll give one if I need to.


Steve said:


> Okay. Sure. now I'm curious.  Can you think of any behavior that you would consider creepy?  If so, I think we're close enough.  Is every behavior you think is creepy criminal behavior?  I'm asking for your opinion.
> 
> Personally, I can think of a lot of behavior that is creepy that doesn't rise to the level of criminal.


No, I don't think all creepy behavior is criminal; as a matter of fact, I'll even say that if a particular behavior can only be described as "creepy" and nothing else, it's probably not criminal.

I'll even say that, other then the possibility of them snapping (Son of Sam style), most guys that can be described as "creepy" are pretty harmless.



Steve said:


> Maybe I haven't been concrete enough.  What I'm pointing out to you is that the very definition of consent has evolved.  While one may argue that it has never actually changed, the societal understanding of the term certainly has.  There are, I think, a lot of parents out there now including in "the talk" some version of, "This is what consent means."


Which, to be frank, is more in the context of telling their children what they need to know in order to stay out of trouble, and less about respecting the rights of the other person.  Which is fine, as long as the results are the same.

Look, one definition that has changed during my adulthood is having sex with someone who is intoxicated.  In my late teens and early 20's, if we woke up with a hangover next to someone that we wouldn't have touched with a stick while sober, we owned it and got the hell out of there.

This changed sometime in the mid-00's.

Now, off-topic, there is a dilemma: minors can be convicted of raping an adult victim, the precedent has already been set for that a long time ago.

What if a drunk 30 year old man and a sober 14 year old girl has sex?  On paper, they both committed rape.  But we both know that only one of them is going down, and it's not the girl.

Outside of that, though, when a rule changes, I'm not one to protest.  I simply accept the new rule and adjust my behaviors accordingly (thankfully, I've never been on the wrong end of anything that is now considered sexual assault that wasn't in the past).



Steve said:


> @Tez3 has shared several specific examples of things that society has historically not categorized as "consent" that today are definitely understood to be so.


And I've never debated her on those.



Steve said:


> So, once again, I don't know if we agree or not on this, but just to state my own belief as clearly as I can, I do think that kids are taught what consent is.  I don't think they know it intuitively.  I have shared some concrete examples of how society's definition has shifted.  Do you disagree or agree?  Please be specific.


Certain things.  Let's take intoxication, for example: getting someone drunk for the purpose of sex?  That's a line I wouldn't have crossed, even when there were no laws telling me not to do it.

Avoiding sex with someone, solely on the basis of being sober while the other person is drunk?  That probably has to be taught.  I'm not sure that's even illegal, but it's definitely best to not FAFO.



Steve said:


> Threats are a crime?  Really, all threats?  If I say something to you that you perceive as threatening, in every case, I am breaking a law? Please do tell.


You didn't know this?  You didn't know that telling someone "I'm gonna show up to your job and kick your ***" can get you arrested?



Steve said:


> I think we can get close enough to a shared definition of creepy for it to be constructive.  But if it would help you, please feel free to be more specific.


That's the thing: I can't.  I'm not trying to avoid your question or anything, but as I've said before, what's creepy and what's not creepy is based on perception.  It's one of those things where you know it when you feel it, but you can't explain it.  That's why I said that it's not something that's measurable.  Myself, I try to avoid using the words "creep" and "creepy" because of this.


----------



## geezer

Steve said:


> Alright.  With that, I think I'm out.  I've said my piece on this.


Smart move, Steve. I'm following your lead!


----------



## Steve

geezer said:


> Smart move, Steve. I'm following your lead!


Just a point where it becomes a merry go round.  I tend to stay on longer than I should.


----------



## jobo

Rat said:


> Just beign purely factual here.  i havent read the rest of this dicussiong but:
> 
> Statory rape and rape are diffrent crimes.   Rape is without consent, statory rape is where the person is not of age to consent.   I would go as far to say, if somone not of age to consent consents, thats generally looked on more favourable than straight out rape.     Witholding the arguing about when you can cosnent and to whome etc.     Just using those paramters.
> 
> And as far as i know, males get thw short end of the stick for this one, if both parties are under aged.
> 
> Also, in some countries and legalities rape charges are dropped if the person agrees to marry you within a certain time bracket.  (just thought it was a intresting tid bit, not looked into what countries have this law)
> 
> (no idea if its of relivence, or if its supportive or not supportive of what has been written)
> 
> Addendum: Skimmed up a little.  The previously mentioned issue would be (if criminal, and serious) harrassment.   If it gets into harassment territory anyone should know to contact police.  Now there is a line between annoyance and not a police issue and harassment and thus a police issue.   (police to mean legal action in general)    Harrassment is only harassment, no other crime.  (it can accompiny other crimes though)


ithink the definitions are different in the states, in the uk statutory rape is where the girl is 12 or under, this is a relatively new law, before this that consent had been given was a mitigating factor, 13 to 15 its an offence just not a particularly serious one one if the age of the participent its quite close, so 14 to 18 its highly unlikely the law would want to get involved, 14 /28 perhaps so


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> Quick comments on this.  First, if a person is not old enough to consent, she (or he) cannot by definition consent.  The idea of a person "not of age to consent" consenting... it just gives me a headache to consider it, the logic is so flawed.
> 
> Second,  laws such as if the child should marry the guy, it's cool... that reinforces the salient point here which is that consent is a concept that heavily influence by societal norms, and is very much a concept that is taught to kids, not instinctively understood.


see my above out line on uk law

where non consenting consent is a thing


----------



## jobo

jobo said:


> ithink the definitions are different in the states, in the uk statutory rape is where the girl is 12 or under, this is a relatively new law, before this that consent had been given was a mitigating factor, 13 to 15 its an offence just not a particularly serious one one if the age of the participent its quite close, so 14 to 18 its highly unlikely the law would want to get involved, 14 /28 perhaps so


the history of the ago consent in the uk is murky, up to the late 1800s the age of consent was 10, then following a scandal where an MP bought himself a 10 year old girl, with pure motives, it was bumped to 13, which was also problematic as girls hit puberty a lot later due to poor diet and no birth certificates no one knew how old anyone actually was, so they bumped it to 16 where they should at least look a bit grown up,, unless you got married then it was 14

my grandma married her 18 yo boy friend at 14, they managed to live happily for half a century


----------



## Urban Trekker

I just remembered that I wanted to respond to these:



Tez3 said:


> Don't tell your sons that girls play hard to get


So, here's the thing about this:  when I was single, I was only going to take rejection from any particular woman only once.  That's it.  Apparently, that wasn't the norm when I was doing it.

Now, this has become the norm.  And I've seen women all over social media who aren't happy about it.

Not really my concern, and I'll make sure that my son will also be of the mind that it's not his concern.  The whole "persistence" thing is just not worth the risk.



Tez3 said:


> don't tell them women like it rough


Oh, I will tell my son that some women like it rough and others don't.  Because that's the truth.


----------



## jobo

Urban Trekker said:


> I just remembered that I wanted to respond to these:
> 
> 
> So, here's the thing about this:  when I was single, I was only going to take rejection from any particular woman only once.  That's it.  Apparently, that wasn't the norm when I was doing it.
> 
> Now, this has become the norm.  And I've seen women all over social media who aren't happy about it.
> 
> Not really my concern, and I'll make sure that my son will also be of the mind that it's not his concern.  The whole "persistence" thing is just not worth the risk.
> 
> 
> Oh, I will tell my son that some women like it rough and others don't.  Because that's the truth.


we have people who are to old to care, telling others how sexual politics should work, adults can work it out for themselves  i predict the extinction of our species


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Well yes and no, on here, a non academic site, I write as I'd talk in the pub or at a dinner party, conversationally.
> 
> If I were to make a statement of fact I'd back it up with citations, however in my two not disparate careers as well as my martial arts 'journey' I've met a great many sons of single mothers, not unusual when one is nearly in one's seventies and I've not found any lack of respect for my gender based on the fact they were brought up by a single woman, for other reasons yes. Most admired their mothers for doing a very hard job well.
> 
> When one writes something on here and someone tells you 'no you didn't mean that and you are wrong' it's laughable. Yes, I could be wrong but yes I did mean exactly what I said. It's paternalism to tell someone they didn't write what they meant. To tell me no one catcalls girls and women these days is pure nonsense of course.
> 
> 
> Women's self defence is one of those areas where many well meaning men tell women what they want and need. Women know how they are treated in public and in the workplace, yet so many ignore that so many small incidences wear you down, that the lack of thought and respect plus an upbringing which allows this is an entitlement that needs to be stopped.
> 
> 
> I recently read an article written in the UK by a young black solicitor about the small bits of racism she faced everyday, from being thought the defendant or a cleaner when she entered a court building to ignorant comments about her hair or skin. I had no idea, it was an eye opener and caused me much thought and something I'm taking to heart. I had no idea because I am not a young black woman experiencing her life, the same is true of men when it comes to the embarrassments women face everyday which seem trivial but really aren't. Women's self defence is based around defending yourself against a stranger who is trying to rape, it doesn't take into account the gropes, the pinches the pats, that women are told are just boys being boys, or the boss who corners them, the friendly guy just giving you a lift home but wants a kiss and grope as payment or the gang of young students who think touching up a girl is acceptable.
> 
> Anyway, I have to stop and have breakfast, then out for walk with Enzo (see profile pic 😀) thank you for trying to explain I do appreciate it.



Why would similar gender make someone an expert in self defense?

I would assume it would have more to do with qualifications or expertise. 

And the same the other way. I assume women are more than capable at teaching men to defend themselves as well.


----------



## Deleted member 39746

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> The first is that there is no crime called statory rape. The crime is statutory rape. And it is considered a variation of rape, not something different (in most jurisdictions that I'm aware of)
> 
> And it is still without consent, as the official reason (in most jurisdictions that I'm aware of) is that the person is legally incapable of consenting, due to either age or mental/physical handicap. Which means that they still did not consent.
> 
> Regarding males getting the short end of the stick here, you can make that argument based on stats, but legally (again in most jurisdictions that I'm aware of), the law is phrased either (regarding age, not mental/physical handicap/other reasons): you cannot have sex with someone under x-age, in which case both people can theoretically be charged. ie: in California, if I'm 17 and my girlfriend is 17 and we have sex, we can both be charged. Or, it's if one person is above the age of consent. ie: in texas, it's legal so long as both people are above the age of 14, and within 3 years of age. If they're not then it's illegal, with one being the perpetrator and one being the victim. So if I was 19 and had sex with my 15 year old girlfriend, that's rape. If I'm 16 and had sex with my 16 year old girlfriend, then it's not.
> 
> In both of the above scenarios, you'll notice that from a legal standpoint male/female had nothing to do with it.


As far as i know morally speaking and for scalibility in charging for a court etc, it shouldnt be considered the same as rape.    As the person gave consent, the ability to consent is just in dispute, as opposed to no affirmative consent.       I honestly dont view the two as same, but thats my look on it.


As far as i know, it only applied to age.    Persons who did it to somone who couldnt give consent or didnt on diffrent grounds would be charged with full on rape.

That could be dated, i know males tend to get the short end of the stick for crime(especially in this area, and especially again in this day and age), but im not going to get into that for politics grounds.  (to bring it up for dispute would get quite political)


Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Also, do you notice how within this I used the phrase _in most jurisdictions that I'm aware of? _That's important, and something you continuously do not mention when you give people legal advice on here about rape, or self defense, or weapons, or basically anything else. You seem to go by memory, and state what you are stating as fact, which is never how legal issues work, and is a very dangerous thing to do when people may read what you are writing as something to be taken seriously/legitimately.


I dont think i gave legal advise in this instance, and it tends to nomimally be based off memory (i dont exactly memorise the numerical code assianged to some laws).   If i do give a proper quote or some semblance of advise i tend to drudge up a law, or write it near equally to find the actual law yourself.         Also for note, the crime in question doesnt exist here as far as i am aware, there is no statory rape in english law.

Addendum: i would also question why you would take legal advise in this isntance off the internet or  shoddy uncited law from a international community that may or may not apply to you.


----------



## Hanzou

Steve said:


> So, does anyone have any constructive recommendations for high school and college aged women defending themselves



Bjj. Learning how to choke, how to escape chokes, and dealing with a strength/weight disadvantage  in grappling range is essential for female self defense. I would pair that training with a standard SD course.


----------



## jobo

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I have to comment on this, because once again while giving legal advice you're wrong on multiple accounts here.
> 
> The first is that there is no crime called statory rape. The crime is statutory rape. And it is considered a variation of rape, not something different (in most jurisdictions that I'm aware of)
> 
> And it is still without consent, as the official reason (in most jurisdictions that I'm aware of) is that the person is legally incapable of consenting, due to either age or mental/physical handicap. Which means that they still did not consent.
> 
> Regarding males getting the short end of the stick here, you can make that argument based on stats, but legally (again in most jurisdictions that I'm aware of), the law is phrased either (regarding age, not mental/physical handicap/other reasons): you cannot have sex with someone under x-age, in which case both people can theoretically be charged. ie: in California, if I'm 17 and my girlfriend is 17 and we have sex, we can both be charged. Or, it's if one person is above the age of consent. ie: in texas, it's legal so long as both people are above the age of 14, and within 3 years of age. If they're not then it's illegal, with one being the perpetrator and one being the victim. So if I was 19 and had sex with my 15 year old girlfriend, that's rape. If I'm 16 and had sex with my 16 year old girlfriend, then it's not.
> 
> In both of the above scenarios, you'll notice that from a legal standpoint male/female had nothing to do with it.
> 
> Also, do you notice how within this I used the phrase _in most jurisdictions that I'm aware of? _That's important, and something you continuously do not mention when you give people legal advice on here about rape, or self defense, or weapons, or basically anything else. You seem to go by memory, and state what you are stating as fact, which is never how legal issues work, and is a very dangerous thing to do when people may read what you are writing as something to be taken seriously/legitimately.


I'm wondering how many jurisdictions your " aware of " 

statutory rape seems to be an almost exclusively american concept,  which would be just one jurisdiction


----------



## Tez3

geezer said:


> Er, actually it_ *is,*_ I think ...Rape_ is _a criminal act .... if you commit rape, you are engaging in a criminal act ...so doesn't that make you a criminal?
> 
> Being a "criminal" isn't an innate quality... that you manifest for your entire life.  Rather, it's what you are if you engage in criminal acts.
> 
> That said, I'm not sure "pestering" a person and asking for sex until they just give up and give in by saying "Oh, very well, go ahead" is necessarily rape. It may be abusive and unacceptable, but "rape" implies forced sex, whether by physical or psychological means.
> 
> Somehow just _"pestering"_ doesn't seem to rise to that standard. It sounds more like ...well like a child at the checkout line saying, "Can I have a candy bar, huh, can I, can I, can I, can I, ....Pleeeez, can I, can I, can I, (cue bratty tantrum, and fussing) ....and finally the exhausted parent (or, in the other case, sexual partner)  gives in to shut the kid up.
> 
> Really,  people just need to put their partners _in time out_ if they carry on like that!  ...Or show them the door, once and for all.
> 
> Seriously, we need to support women being assertive when dealing with partners like this. In some cases it seems to be innate For example my wife and daughter are both little people around 5'2" and _scary _strong willed and assertive about everything. I'm proud of that. Others may need more support and coaching. And all we need to fight old societal norms that encourage women to be docile and submissive.
> 
> I thought _that_ change was already well underway ...but in the last few years it seems there has been a huge backlash and progress has been stalled. The culture wars are still raging ...at least where I live.



Ah, what you have missed is the use of the word 'just' this changing the meaning of my sentence to the opposite of my meaning. Of course rape is a criminal offence (except in places where marital rape doesn't exist in law 😕). However it's more than the stereotype stranger violent attack that so many believe is what self defence is meant to be against.

I didn't say that a woman would say go ahead, it's when a man carries on anyway when the woman is no in a position to say no, that's rape whether you think it is or not.

The culture wars are very evident in the US where you have a strong Xtian lobby who believe in such things as 'surrendered wives' and of course from the previous president and his inane objectification and specialisation of women.


----------



## Tez3

Urban Trekker said:


> I just remembered that I wanted to respond to these:
> 
> 
> So, here's the thing about this:  when I was single, I was only going to take rejection from any particular woman only once.  That's it.  Apparently, that wasn't the norm when I was doing it.
> 
> Now, this has become the norm.  And I've seen women all over social media who aren't happy about it.
> 
> Not really my concern, and I'll make sure that my son will also be of the mind that it's not his concern.  The whole "persistence" thing is just not worth the risk.
> 
> 
> Oh, I will tell my son that some women like it rough and others don't.  Because that's the truth.


You can tell your son that but it wasn't my point was it, which was don't tell him that women like it rough.


It's not the norm for men to take no for an answer, we've had horrendous stalking cases as well as murders committed by men who won't take no for an answer. Yes we have women who stalk  but for different reasons.😕


It's not your concern how women are treated? Okay so that explains a lot, no concerns for the future of your society or any care for humanity. Remember, for evil to flourish it's enough for good men to do nothing.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Tez3 said:


> It's not your concern how women are treated? Okay so that explains a lot, no concerns for the future of your society or any care for humanity. Remember, for evil to flourish it's enough for good men to do nothing.



Ah, so now you've gone from putting words in my mouth to twisting my words to mean what they didn't mean.  Or maybe you're just lost in the sauce.  In which case, I'll break this down so that any feeble-minded person can understand:

1.  I said that, in my single days, I would take rejection from any particular woman only once.  The second she says no, I'm finished.  I'm not going to subject myself to rejection a second time.

2.  I said that this appears to not have been the norm back then.

3.  I base #2 on the fact that women all over social media are complaining that men are no longer persistent and quit after being rejected once.

4.  I was saying that their complaints of men quitting after being rejected only once are not my concern.  First, because I'm married now.  I've been out of the dating game for 16 years now.  Secondly, even if that wasn't the case, again, I'm only subjecting myself to rejection once and that's it.  Thirdly, even if I was the persistent type, it's not worth the risk of a sexual harassment case.  And this is why it's now common for men to stop after being told "no" only once.

Again; their complaints of men no longer being persistent - not my concern.

If that upsets you, then you need to rescind your statement of not telling boys that women play hard to get.


----------



## Tez3

Urban Trekker said:


> Ah, so now you've gone from putting words in my mouth to twisting my words to mean what they didn't mean.  Or maybe you're just lost in the sauce.  In which case, I'll break this down so that any feeble-minded person can understand:
> 
> 1.  I said that, in my single days, I would take rejection from any particular woman only once.  The second she says no, I'm finished.  I'm not going to subject myself to rejection a second time.
> 
> 2.  I said that this appears to not have been the norm back then.
> 
> 3.  I base #2 on the fact that women all over social media are complaining that men are no longer persistent and quit after being rejected once.
> 
> 4.  I was saying that their complaints of men quitting after being rejected only once are not my concern.  First, because I'm married now.  I've been out of the dating game for 16 years now.  Secondly, even if that wasn't the case, again, I'm only subjecting myself to rejection once and that's it.  Thirdly, even if I was the persistent type, it's not worth the risk of a sexual harassment case.  And this is why it's now common for men to stop after being told "no" only once.
> 
> Again; their complaints of men no longer being persistent - not my concern.
> 
> If that upsets you, then you need to rescind your statement of not telling boys that women play hard to get.


Lost in the sauce? Dear Lord you think I'm drunk! There's no discussing things with you is there? You constantly misunderstand not just my posts but others, whether deliberately or through lack of comprehension, always coming back with nonsense that you twist so you sound like a victim. 😕

Women aren't all over social media complaining men aren't persistent at all, what on earth are you looking at, first it's frustrated British men now it's whining women, really you are either making poor choices or making it up.

Btw congrats on 16 years married, I've been married for 46 years. I'm also a veteran and had another uniformed career where I saw just about all life, behaviours.....criminal and humane. 

If the best you can do is accuse me of being drunk because you don't understand my points then it's down to you not me.


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> Just a point where it becomes a merry go round.  I tend to stay on longer than I should.


It's got to that point now, definitely time to get off this one. 😣


----------



## Urban Trekker

Tez3 said:


> Lost in the sauce? Dear Lord you think I'm drunk! There's no discussing things with you is there? You constantly misunderstand not just my posts but others, whether deliberately or through lack of comprehension, always coming back with nonsense that you twist so you sound like a victim. 😕
> 
> Women aren't all over social media complaining men aren't persistent at all, what on earth are you looking at, first it's frustrated British men now it's whining women, really you are either making poor choices or making it up.
> 
> Btw congrats on 16 years married, I've been married for 46 years. I'm also a veteran and had another uniformed career where I saw just about all life, behaviours.....criminal and humane.
> 
> If the best you can do is accuse me of being drunk because you don't understand my points then it's down to you not me.











						Stop Telling Men Who Understand “No” to “Be Persistent”
					

We’re sending men two opposing messages and then mocking their trepidation.




					medium.com
				












						Woman Asks Why A Guy She Turned Down Didn’t Try Harder, Gets The Perfect Response
					

A guy invites a girl on a date, tries all of his best moves, but she says no. A guy has to move on, otherwise, it's harassment. Unless it isn't? Recently, a girl surprised the internet when she posted a question on Quora, asking why her date wasn't a mind reader.




					www.boredpanda.com
				




Clearly, you're the type that doesn't know when they've been defeated.  So I'm going to tell you: you've been defeated. Just stop.


----------



## Tez3

Urban Trekker said:


> Stop Telling Men Who Understand “No” to “Be Persistent”
> 
> 
> We’re sending men two opposing messages and then mocking their trepidation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> medium.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woman Asks Why A Guy She Turned Down Didn’t Try Harder, Gets The Perfect Response
> 
> 
> A guy invites a girl on a date, tries all of his best moves, but she says no. A guy has to move on, otherwise, it's harassment. Unless it isn't? Recently, a girl surprised the internet when she posted a question on Quora, asking why her date wasn't a mind reader.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.boredpanda.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, you're the type that doesn't know when they've been defeated.  So I'm going to tell you: you've been defeated. Just stop.


Son, your language shows exactly how seriously you took this discussion, only it wasn't a discussion to you it was all about defeating your opponent. Childish behaviour betraying the fact you are a keyboard warrior with delusions of being relevant.

If you think puff pieces from advertising driven sites are legitimate citations then my dear you are seriously deluded about your claims of being a student of socialogy.

No I'm not 'defeated' I wasn't competing or fighting as you were, I was genuinely trying to put a female perspective on a subject close to my heart, you on the other hand were all about point scoring with no thought to the subject matter.

You accused me of being drunk, on the juice, as you called it. It says far more about you than me. My dear, you may think you've won something but really that's just your ego talking. The losers, of course, are those looking here to find serious, competent and practical advice on female self defence and finding instead a male giving his opinion that most things wrong with the world are down to single mothers, but of course he's perfect, the ideal husband, respects women of course. Only he doesnt, because he can't sustain a civilised, open minded discussion with a woman without wanting to 'win' it. 

And now I am going to have a drink, my son in law's team have just won the Derby and I prefer to talk to reasonable people who don't see conversations as a battlefield.

Enjoy your Pyrric victory.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Tez3 said:


> Son, your language shows exactly how seriously you took this discussion, only it wasn't a discussion to you it was all about defeating your opponent. Childish behaviour betraying the fact you are a keyboard warrior with delusions of being relevant.
> 
> If you think puff pieces from advertising driven sites are legitimate citations then my dear you are seriously deluded about your claims of being a student of socialogy.
> 
> No I'm not 'defeated' I wasn't competing or fighting as you were, I was genuinely trying to put a female perspective on a subject close to my heart, you on the other hand were all about point scoring with no thought to the subject matter.
> 
> You accused me of being drunk, on the juice, as you called it. It says far more about you than me. My dear, you may think you've won something but really that's just your ego talking. The losers, of course, are those looking here to find serious, competent and practical advice on female self defence and finding instead a male giving his opinion that most things wrong with the world are down to single mothers, but of course he's perfect, the ideal husband, respects women of course. Only he doesnt, because he can't sustain a civilised, open minded discussion with a woman without wanting to 'win' it.
> 
> And now I am going to have a drink, my son in law's team have just won the Derby and I prefer to talk to reasonable people who don't see conversations as a battlefield.
> 
> Enjoy your Pyrric victory.



Oh, this long-winded reply full of character judgements, and you're not taking this seriously?

It should come as no surprise that you're going dismiss sources that destroy your narrative (yet, another example of you not knowing when you've been defeated), but you'd better learn how to spell sociology before making assessments on how well versed others are in it.

I suggest you do what you said you were going to do, and stop.  You've had enough internet for the day.


----------



## Dirty Dog

ATTENTION ALL USERS:
This thread, like all threads, has a topic. Please return to that topic. Before you click the POST button, you would be well advised to ask yourself if your post is about that topic. If your post isn't about that topic, you should reconsider posting it.

Mark A Cochran
@Dirty Dog 
Martial Talk Senior Moderator


----------



## Tez3

Dirty Dog said:


> ATTENTION ALL USERS:
> This thread, like all threads, has a topic. Please return to that topic. Before you click the POST button, you would be well advised to ask yourself if your post is about that topic. If your post isn't about that topic, you should reconsider posting it.
> 
> Mark A Cochran
> @Dirty Dog
> Martial Talk Senior Moderator


It seems the subject of women's self defence is a difficult one for some to discuss, as is defence against rape. I would suggest actually closing the thread. I doubt the discussion will continue in any meaningful way, at least meaningful to females. 😢

It's no surprise that so few if any other women ever post on here. We used to have a lot, this is the sort of thing that drives them away.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> It seems the subject of women's self defence is a difficult one for some to discuss, as is defence against rape. I would suggest actually closing the thread. I doubt the discussion will continue in any meaningful way, at least meaningful to females. 😢
> 
> It's no surprise that so few if any other women ever post on here. We used to have a lot, this is the sort of thing that drives them away.



I am confused as to the difficulty.

What is the difference between avoiding being bashed and avoiding being raped?

You either out fight them. Or out maneuver them. Or a combination of both.

And the tactics are almost interchangeable.

So for example this is a scenario that would be applicable in women's self defence.









						US teenager bashed by 'friends' who lured her to a sleep over
					

This is the horrifying moment that a teenage girl was viciously bashed by a group of so-called friends who lured her to a sleep over.




					au.news.yahoo.com
				




But is a common scenario for men as well.(this used to happen around where I lived)
The gender is the most irrelevant part of the issue.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> I am confused as to the difficulty.
> 
> What is the difference between avoiding being bashed and avoiding being raped?
> 
> You either out fight them. Or out maneuver them. Or a combination of both.
> 
> And the tactics are almost interchangeable.
> 
> So for example this is a scenario that would be applicable in women's self defence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US teenager bashed by 'friends' who lured her to a sleep over
> 
> 
> This is the horrifying moment that a teenage girl was viciously bashed by a group of so-called friends who lured her to a sleep over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> au.news.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But is a common scenario for men as well.(this used to happen around where I lived)
> The gender is the most irrelevant part of the issue.


and that post shows exactly what I mean. 😢


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> and that post shows exactly what I mean. 😢



Well yeah. Because you are arguing this partisan feelings based marketing has priority over a clinical risk assessment.

But I don't agree with this premis to start with.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Well yeah. Because you are arguing this partisan feelings based marketing has priority over a clinical risk assessment.
> 
> But I don't agree with this premis to start with.


If you are ever raped get back to me because then you might take it seriously.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> If you are ever raped get back to me because then you might take it seriously.



If I ever get raped. I would take an expert on the subject seriously.

I would get counselling from an expert.

I would get legal advice from an expert.

I would get medical care from an expert

And self defence advice from an expert.

I wouldn't care if my legal representative can empathise with me as a man, what gender he or she is. Or if my doctor understands what it is like to be raped also.

I want them to know how to do their jobs.

Simple as that.

If someone suggested that the best response, should I get raped is for all men just not to rape people. I wouldn't take them very seriously. Because that wouldn't help me one bit.

What these partisan approaches help, is the organisations that benifits from these divisions. Someone gets raped. It is not about what can be done for the victim. But what the victim can do for the cause.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> If I ever get raped. I would take an expert on the subject seriously.
> 
> I would get counselling from an expert.
> 
> I would get legal advice from an expert.
> 
> I would get medical care from an expert
> 
> And self defence advice from an expert.
> 
> I wouldn't care if my legal representative can empathise with me as a man, what gender he or she is. Or if my doctor understands what it is like to be raped also.
> 
> I want them to know how to do their jobs.
> 
> Simple as that.
> 
> If someone suggested that the best response, should I get raped is for all men just not to rape people. I wouldn't take them very seriously. Because that wouldn't help me one bit.
> 
> What these partisan approaches help, is the organisations that benifits from these divisions. Someone gets raped. It is not about what can be done for the victim. But what the victim can do for the cause.


You are not addressing the problem, you are expressing a political view.

The subject is women's self defence.

I have not and never said teach men not to rape, what I and other  women are saying is start seeing that unwanted sexual touches are assault, that how one is dressed is not an invitation for unwanted sexual abuse. That previous sexual history is not an excuse for sexual assault. That 90% of rapes and sexual assaults are committed by someone known to the victim.

In the stereotypical scenario given by most self defence instructors a female is attacked by a stranger. The first advice is don't walk out alone, don't go to certain places, don't wear revealing clothes, don't flirt with strangers, don't  drink too much etc.
When someone, a male most likely is held up In a mugging, he has a choice he can fight or give over his money and valuables, his chances of winning a fight  very depending on his skill and what the mugger is armed with.
When a woman is confronted by a man, stranger to her, intent on rape what does she do? Her choice is to fight, but he's singled her out because of her vulnerabilities, or she can 'give' him what he wants, to violate and humiliate her. To force her to be penetrated and wounded or she can fight him and be battered then violated. If she's extremely lucky and rarely does this happen she may be able to trick him or appeal to any better nature.

Afterwards, what happens? Does she report it? She should of course but is unlikely to, the police won't know unless someone else calls them. If she does them she would be very glad of medical staff who empathise with a rape victim, as she's again forced to undergo an invasion of her intimate self, swabs taken from her vagina and anus, her pubic hair combed through for evidence, nails cleaned out, photographs taken of her body.

Police statements next, empathetic officers hopefully not just ones who know their business which we hope they do. How much had she drunk, who did she talk to, what was she wearing, how many sexual partners had she had, was she flirting, was she leading anyone on, did she know her attacker. Did she fight back, if not why not? Did he climax inside her, did she climax............ Yes that's a question asked.


That's just the start, if it gets to court it's worse.

So, female self defence...................


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> You are not addressing the problem, you are expressing a political view.
> 
> The subject is women's self defence.
> 
> I have not and never said teach men not to rape, what I and other  women are saying is start seeing that unwanted sexual touches are assault, that how one is dressed is not an invitation for unwanted sexual abuse. That previous sexual history is not an excuse for sexual assault. That 90% of rapes and sexual assaults are committed by someone known to the victim.
> 
> In the stereotypical scenario given by most self defence instructors a female is attacked by a stranger. The first advice is don't walk out alone, don't go to certain places, don't wear revealing clothes, don't flirt with strangers, don't  drink too much etc.
> When someone, a male most likely is held up In a mugging, he has a choice he can fight or give over his money and valuables, his chances of winning a fight  very depending on his skill and what the mugger is armed with.
> When a woman is confronted by a man, stranger to her, intent on rape what does she do? Her choice is to fight, but he's singled her out because of her vulnerabilities, or she can 'give' him what he wants, to violate and humiliate her. To force her to be penetrated and wounded or she can fight him and be battered then violated. If she's extremely lucky and rarely does this happen she may be able to trick him or appeal to any better nature.
> 
> Afterwards, what happens? Does she report it? She should of course but is unlikely to, the police won't know unless someone else calls them. If she does them she would be very glad of medical staff who empathise with a rape victim, as she's again forced to undergo an invasion of her intimate self, swabs taken from her vagina and anus, her pubic hair combed through for evidence, nails cleaned out, photographs taken of her body.
> 
> Police statements next, empathetic officers hopefully not just ones who know their business which we hope they do. How much had she drunk, who did she talk to, what was she wearing, how many sexual partners had she had, was she flirting, was she leading anyone on, did she know her attacker. Did she fight back, if not why not? Did he climax inside her, did she climax............ Yes that's a question asked.
> 
> 
> That's just the start, if it gets to court it's worse.
> 
> So, female self defence...................



Is either about out fighting or out maneuvering the person who wants to hurt you.


Tez3 said:


> I have not and never said teach men not to rape, what I and other women are saying is start seeing that unwanted sexual touches are assault, that how one is dressed is not an invitation for unwanted sexual abuse. That previous sexual history is not an excuse for sexual assault. That 90% of rapes and sexual assaults are committed by someone known to the victim.



Ok. Where have you said the above before now?

Because you have pointed the vaguely accusing finger at society. And "male attitudes" which is a huge generalization.

"Men should stop telling women what they should do and instead address the problem of male violence against women."

"It's also not addressing my point about male attitudes to females which are perpetrated, and condoned by a great part of society. It's seen in government, by celebrities, by the media and in what would be considered good religious families. Look at the men who send unsolicited dick pics, where's the statistics for tnat? Why do so many men send them? Why do they think they can do that? It's the thin edge of the wedge, an example of attitude that leads men to believe they can do what they like. We need to stop enabling."


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Is either about out fighting or out maneuvering the person who wants to hurt you.
> 
> 
> Ok. Where have you said the above before now?
> 
> Because you have pointed the vaguely accusing finger at society. And "male attitudes" which is a huge generalization.
> 
> "Men should stop telling women what they should do and instead address the problem of male violence against women."
> 
> "It's also not addressing my point about male attitudes to females which are perpetrated, and condoned by a great part of society. It's seen in government, by celebrities, by the media and in what would be considered good religious families. Look at the men who send unsolicited dick pics, where's the statistics for tnat? Why do so many men send them? Why do they think they can do that? It's the thin edge of the wedge, an example of attitude that leads men to believe they can do what they like. We need to stop enabling."


Sweetie, I am, as instructed by the Mod, trying to get the thread back to women's self defence, you want to rehash past posts which you have taken out of context as they were specific answers to specific posts. 

But, addressing the problem is NOT telling men not to rape. Enabling abusers is done by a great many people, male and female, as well famously, American  presidents......'I grab them by the pussy' to cheers by his supporters. Society needs to stop excusing such behaviours as 'boys will be boys or it's just men being men.'

So, what would you teach on how to fight your way out of these scenarios,in a car, an office, when you are in bed asleep, in a toilet, on a bus, against someone with an edged weapon at your neck who you know and you didn't feel you needed to be on your guard with such as a teacher, fellow worker, bus/cab driver, friend's boyfriend/father/brother etc etc. Too easy and far too vague to say just fight.


I did some checking on rape support groups in the UK, the majority if  not all were started and run by rape survivors including the ones for men and the adult survivors of child sexual abuse.


----------



## Deleted member 39746

So working off the basis that females tend to one hand clinch(normally grabbing hair) and then slap the hell out of the other female when fighting.  (a trend i have observed in watching many videos of them fighting, at least ones in the U.S)     Does anyone know anyway you would practise that?  

This is at least social violence.   Only thing i can think of would be general clinch practise with that in mind.    Or break the mould and just straight punch the other one in the face, that tends to work as no one sees soemthing cultrurally void as coming.


----------



## Hanzou

This looks conducive to the discussion;






Chokes are a highly effective way for weaker individuals to stop stronger individuals in close quarter fighting.


----------



## Tez3

Rat said:


> So working off the basis that females tend to one hand clinch(normally grabbing hair) and then slap the hell out of the other female when fighting.  (a trend i have observed in watching many videos of them fighting, at least ones in the U.S)     Does anyone know anyway you would practise that?
> 
> This is at least social violence.   Only thing i can think of would be general clinch practise with that in mind.    Or break the mould and just straight punch the other one in the face, that tends to work as no one sees soemthing cultrurally void as coming.



How will that work if a female is asleep in bed when attacked? or against a man larger, heavier and stronger?


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> This looks conducive to the discussion;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chokes are a highly effective way for weaker individuals to stop stronger individuals in close quarter fighting.


I do think BJJ is the most practicable style for women when it comes to having a chance of fending off an attacker, the problem though like all self defence techniques though is having the instinct ingrained enough to be able to use it. The other thing I've found about BJJ is that how you put a technique on can be almost 'customised' to suit your size/strength. I found a particular arm bar difficult, I'm small, the instructor moved my body placement slightly so I could get a much better angle on it. 😁


----------



## Deleted member 39746

Hanzou said:


> This looks conducive to the discussion;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chokes are a highly effective way for weaker individuals to stop stronger individuals in close quarter fighting.


Define choke.   Because grappling requires more athelticism than just punching someone, so if you are smaller and weaker, you probbly dont want a bigger and stronger person on you.     Where as anyone can get knocked out with a single punch if you get lucky.  

Even pretty compotent people in grappling struggle until they get the tactics down to beat somone at least that knows the basics who is at least noticably bigger and stronger.   (you dont get the benfit of knowing your opponent in fighting normally outside of sport)

Not to say you shouldnt do it, but people tag that as the go to, you can just click your fingers and have somone in a choke hold. No fighting is really made for, or is meant to be done by people who arent atheltic. 

Addendum: this is also not accounting the adrenilzation, and the fact you are basically killing them and their kill or get killed response.   Whcih means said person gets even stronger than you and you are withing grappling range.


----------



## Hanzou

Rat said:


> Define choke.   Because grappling requires more athelticism than just punching someone, so if you are smaller and weaker, you probbly dont want a bigger and stronger person on you.     Where as anyone can get knocked out with a single punch if you get lucky.
> 
> Even pretty compotent people in grappling struggle until they get the tactics down to beat somone at least that knows the basics who is at least noticably bigger and stronger.   (you dont get the benfit of knowing your opponent in fighting normally outside of sport)
> 
> Not to say you shouldnt do it, but people tag that as the go to, you can just click your fingers and have somone in a choke hold. No fighting is really made for, or is meant to be done by people who arent atheltic.
> 
> Addendum: this is also not accounting the adrenilzation, and the fact you are basically killing them and their kill or get killed response.   Whcih means said person gets even stronger than you and you are withing grappling range.



Where did I say a woman would develop these skills through “magic”? She would develop these skills through diligent practice.

Wouldn’t a woman develop athleticism,  dealing with the adrenaline dump, and developing the skill to choke through training?


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> I do think BJJ is the most practicable style for women when it comes to having a chance of fending off an attacker, the problem though like all self defence techniques though is having the instinct ingrained enough to be able to use it. The other thing I've found about BJJ is that how you put a technique on can be almost 'customised' to suit your size/strength. I found a particular arm bar difficult, I'm small, the instructor moved my body placement slightly so I could get a much better angle on it. 😁



I feel that you develop the instinct through practice. You get on the mat and constantly roll with bigger, stronger, hairer men. Competing also develops that instinct too.

Heck, the first time I got choked out in Bjj was against a woman less than half my size putting me in a viscous triangle choke.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Rat said:


> Define choke.   Because grappling requires more athelticism than just punching someone, so if you are smaller and weaker, you probbly dont want a bigger and stronger person on you.     Where as anyone can get knocked out with a single punch if you get lucky.
> 
> Even pretty compotent people in grappling struggle until they get the tactics down to beat somone at least that knows the basics who is at least noticably bigger and stronger.   (you dont get the benfit of knowing your opponent in fighting normally outside of sport)
> 
> Not to say you shouldnt do it, but people tag that as the go to, you can just click your fingers and have somone in a choke hold. No fighting is really made for, or is meant to be done by people who arent atheltic.
> 
> Addendum: this is also not accounting the adrenilzation, and the fact you are basically killing them and their kill or get killed response.   Whcih means said person gets even stronger than you and you are withing grappling range.


I'd argue the opposite. Grappling basics yield more rewards against an oversized opponent than striking. It takes more skill IMO to generate a powerful punch from a small, light frame than to get an effective choke.


----------



## Tez3

gpseymour said:


> I'd argue the opposite. Grappling basics yield more rewards against an oversized opponent than striking. It takes more skill IMO to generate a powerful punch from a small, light frame than to get an effective choke.



True, ignoring other issues, I know I can get a RNC on a strong man and make it work but even with many years of punching in sparring and full contact comps I cannot KO a heavyweight man, a lightweight one certainly, perhaps a light middleweight with my adrenaline working for me but I'm not going to put my safety on the line by having a punching match with an attacker. 
My goal is distract and disable long enough to escape, I do not want to be fighting. If I can get a choke on, hold it until they're out, yes, but I'm not fighting for it. Escape must be the first priority and how you do that makes for a very good discussion.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> I'd argue the opposite. Grappling basics yield more rewards against an oversized opponent than striking. It takes more skill IMO to generate a powerful punch from a small, light frame than to get an effective choke.



I’d also point out that a female Bjj practitioner will be very effective fighting on her back in missionary position, since that is essentially the Guard, one of BJJ’s principal fighting positions. She should be doubly effective from that position because female practitioners are constantly pushed into the guard position by their larger, stronger classmates.


----------



## Deleted member 39746

gpseymour said:


> I'd argue the opposite. Grappling basics yield more rewards against an oversized opponent than striking. It takes more skill IMO to generate a powerful punch from a small, light frame than to get an effective choke.


Probbly a lot of nuance.  It should be done, but it shouldnt be sold as the end all, as the biggest caivate has just been brought up.  Its based on boxers chance, vs a consitent need for a lot of strength pretty much.




Hanzou said:


> Where did I say a woman would develop these skills through “magic”? She would develop these skills through diligent practice.
> 
> Wouldn’t a woman develop athleticism,  dealing with the adrenaline dump, and developing the skill to choke through training?


Never said you did, but people usually cite "BJJ" for "weaker people", when grappling is a very strength intensive thing.   They seem to think you would by magic be able to beat somone double your size because you did some BJJ classes.   It has value but its not the end all be all some people cite it as.   (BJJ is jsut a example, we could potentially get into which type of grappling may be best for this)

Addendum: As far as female on female goes, id think maybe Muay thai and judo would be good fits. Or at least anything that has a heavy amount of clinch work in it.  But caviate would still be bigger stronger people.


----------



## Tez3

Grappling isn't really a huge strength thing, it's a technique and skill based style. In MMA training we often put fighters in training up against lighter, smaller people (often the girls as Hanzou says it's good practice for them too) and tell them to not use their strength but only technique. Strength is no advantage in a bout where they are matched,  so technique will be the decider (fitness and tactics too of course but not the point here). Once they get the idea of not muscling through their opponents (very tiring) after being tapped out by weaker people, their skills develop well and it shows in the cage. Yes, they could use their strength on the weaker people as would an assailant but the weaker ones have a much greater chance of escaping through techniques, quickness and training than they ever would punching it out.


----------



## Hanzou

Rat said:


> Never said you did, but people usually cite "BJJ" for "weaker people", when grappling is a very strength intensive thing.   They seem to think you would by magic be able to beat somone double your size because you did some BJJ classes.   It has value but its not the end all be all some people cite it as.   (BJJ is jsut a example, we could potentially get into which type of grappling may be best for this)
> 
> Addendum: As far as female on female goes, id think maybe Muay thai and judo would be good fits. Or at least anything that has a heavy amount of clinch work in it.  But caviate would still be bigger stronger people.



Well I didn't say "some Bjj Classes", it's going to take years of practice for a woman to be able to overcome a man of larger size and strength, like I'm talking upper Blue/Purple belt level, and that's only if she's serious about her training and doesn't "hide" among the other female practitioners. This is simply the reality, and the results frankly speak for themselves.

I also would argue that it isn't about strength. Strength is certainly a factor, but it isn't the only factor in effective grappling. I'm over 6ft, and about 230 lbs (heavier thanks to COVID), and better trained female practitioners could escape my holds like snakes. I'd have them in side control, mount, back mounts, scarf holds, you name it, and female purple and above belts would slither out or outright sweep me as if I weighed nothing. That's pure technique and utilizing every part of your body in appropriate ways in order to counteract direct power.

Female practitioners I rolled against also heavily favored Guard pulls, and they were very effective at them, but they were also highly adept at reversing a successful takedown (i.e. DLT or single legs). Again, these are all skills they learned from diligent BJJ practice with bigger stronger men.

Finally it's strange that you would mention Judo while seemingly be skeptical of Bjj. Bjj and Judo are similar in some ways, but I would argue that the more robust and open BJJ curriculum and ruleset is better for women in general. Leglocks for example are completely banned in Judo, but are explored heavily in BJJ. Leglocks are highly effective against bigger and stronger individuals. The Guard isn't taught as a viable position in Judo, but is a major part of BJJ. I've already mentioned the benefits of the Guard for female self defense.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Well I didn't say "some Bjj Classes", it's going to take years of practice for a woman to be able to overcome a man of larger size and strength, like I'm talking upper Blue/Purple belt level, and that's only if she's serious about her training and doesn't "hide" among the other female practitioners. This is simply the reality, and the results frankly speak for themselves.
> 
> I also would argue that it isn't about strength. Strength is certainly a factor, but it isn't the only factor in effective grappling. I'm over 6ft, and about 230 lbs (heavier thanks to COVID), and better trained female practitioners could escape my holds like snakes. I'd have them in side control, mount, back mounts, scarf holds, you name it, and female purple and above belts would slither out or outright sweep me as if I weighed nothing. That's pure technique and utilizing every part of your body in appropriate ways in order to counteract direct power.
> 
> Female practitioners I rolled against also heavily favored Guard pulls, and they were very effective at them, but they were also highly adept at reversing a successful takedown (i.e. DLT or single legs). Again, these are all skills they learned from diligent BJJ practice with bigger stronger men.
> 
> Finally it's strange that you would mention Judo while seemingly be skeptical of Bjj. Bjj and Judo are similar in some ways, but I would argue that the more robust and open BJJ curriculum and ruleset is better for women in general. Leglocks for example are completely banned in Judo, but are explored heavily in BJJ. Leglocks are highly effective against bigger and stronger individuals. The Guard isn't taught as a viable position in Judo, but is a major part of BJJ. I've already mentioned the benefits of the Guard for female self defense.


As a point of reference, BJJ blue belt is usually something like 3+ years of consistent training, isn't it? And purple is probably somewhere around 5+?


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Sweetie, I am, as instructed by the Mod, trying to get the thread back to women's self defence, you want to rehash past posts which you have taken out of context as they were specific answers to specific posts.
> 
> But, addressing the problem is NOT telling men not to rape. Enabling abusers is done by a great many people, male and female, as well famously, American  presidents......'I grab them by the pussy' to cheers by his supporters. Society needs to stop excusing such behaviours as 'boys will be boys or it's just men being men.'
> 
> So, what would you teach on how to fight your way out of these scenarios,in a car, an office, when you are in bed asleep, in a toilet, on a bus, against someone with an edged weapon at your neck who you know and you didn't feel you needed to be on your guard with such as a teacher, fellow worker, bus/cab driver, friend's boyfriend/father/brother etc etc. Too easy and far too vague to say just fight.
> 
> 
> I did some checking on rape support groups in the UK, the majority if  not all were started and run by rape survivors including the ones for men and the adult survivors of child sexual abuse.



So you said it. But you didn't say it. Ok.

"So, what would you teach on how to fight your way out of these scenarios,in a car, an office, when you are in bed asleep, in a toilet, on a bus, against someone with an edged weapon at your neck who you know and you didn't feel you needed to be on your guard with such as a teacher, fellow worker, bus/cab driver, friend's boyfriend/father/brother etc etc. Too easy and far too vague to say just fight."


This is how I break down a self defense.

Self defence is basically a puzzle. All you are really doing is trying to solve a whole bunch of situations untill you are where you want to be.






Good basic fighting tools would be the go to under pretty much every fighting situation.

That is still vague. But your situation is vague.

Otherwise there are tactics that will help prevent you from being in a situation you can't walk out of. And they are basic tools.

And then there is some gender specific stuff. Like spiking drinks and the like.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> So you said it. But you didn't say it. Ok.
> 
> "So, what would you teach on how to fight your way out of these scenarios,in a car, an office, when you are in bed asleep, in a toilet, on a bus, against someone with an edged weapon at your neck who you know and you didn't feel you needed to be on your guard with such as a teacher, fellow worker, bus/cab driver, friend's boyfriend/father/brother etc etc. Too easy and far too vague to say just fight."
> 
> 
> This is how I break down a self defense.
> 
> Self defence is basically a puzzle. All you are really doing is trying to solve a whole bunch of situations untill you are where you want to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good basic fighting tools would be the go to under pretty much every fighting situation.
> 
> That is still vague. But your situation is vague.
> 
> Otherwise there are tactics that will help prevent you from being in a situation you can't walk out of. And they are basic tools.
> 
> And then there is some gender specific stuff. Lik spiking drinks and the



I'm so pleased it is such an easy thing for you to solve, such illuminating solutions to age old problems, can't think why women's self defence is still a thing! Gosh, all a woman needs to do is think her way out of being raped, so simple. 
I gave you specific scenarios, ones we've practiced, and you say it's vague. Okay.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> As a point of reference, BJJ blue belt is usually something like 3+ years of consistent training, isn't it? And purple is probably somewhere around 5+?



Blue Belt is about 1-1.5 years on average. Getting to purple takes 2-5 years after blue depending on the practitioner.


----------



## Tez3

We’ve Been Teaching Women to Defend Themselves All Wrong - Washingtonian
					

When I started looking for a self-defense class, what I was really looking for was one that would teach me how to fight. I go on solo runs most mornings and often walk home alone in the dark from the Metro. If someone were to attack me, I wanted to know, could I take him?




					www.washingtonian.com


----------



## Deleted member 39746

Hanzou said:


> Well I didn't say "some Bjj Classes", it's going to take years of practice for a woman to be able to overcome a man of larger size and strength, like I'm talking upper Blue/Purple belt level, and that's only if she's serious about her training and doesn't "hide" among the other female practitioners. This is simply the reality, and the results frankly speak for themselves.


_(in case it has any impact on this section, mindset changes in the next section and this was written mostly before the mindset change)_

I never said you did that either.  I am refering to the overall topic and what i have seen with it, which is people wave BJJ around like its a magic wand and will solve all your issues of being smaller and weaker by engaging in one of the most atheltic parts of fighting.  The only thing that truely makes this redudnent is weapons, but i usually (and presume others) gloss over thaat as a known fact when people ask about martial arts, and then it solves the issue of weapon laws etc.    Also, i just remmeber mid writing this, BJJ doesnt have striking normally, striking takes place and tends to accompany somone being attacked, can you say hold them in this position while they have free access to punch you in the back of the head?  (working on the basis since its not done you dont have experience in not exposing yourself to effective strikes)

My prefrence towards clinch based and takedown based fighting in this sitiation would be, because A) most female on female social fights i have seen is one handed clinch to the hair, or some other part and hitting with the other hand and that tends to cause a tumble, and B) If the person is stronger than you, you want to minimise the time you take within the kill zone of grappling range.  (doesnt even have to be a male, could just be a stronger female)      Im going to reply to the rest with my prefrences firmly established with some reason behind them.




Hanzou said:


> I also would argue that it isn't about strength. Strength is certainly a factor, but it isn't the only factor in effective grappling. I'm over 6ft, and about 230 lbs (heavier thanks to COVID), and better trained female practitioners could escape my holds like snakes. I'd have them in side control, mount, back mounts, scarf holds, you name it, and female purple and above belts would slither out or outright sweep me as if I weighed nothing. That's pure technique and utilizing every part of your body in appropriate ways in order to counteract direct power.


Athleticism isnt soley strength(used them both as synonomyms to reduce writing time, apoligies for confusion), its edurance as well and just overal ability.   Being bigger and more atheltic certainly helps in fighting, especially grappling.      Just to reel in the hyperbole a little from both sides, as lets be fair, not everyone is a 250CM 200kg strongman  and not everyone is a prodidgy in BJJ.  If we just bring it to normal size archs, lets say: 169.9cm is the average female height and 173.4 Is male.  (Wiki list for my countries height averages, i dont understand imperial and cant convert)    So that is, if my maths is correct a diffrence of 4cm if both persons are textbook average, i dont think thats much of a height diffrence.   Apparntly 251cm is the tallest man thats been recorded globally.        So lets just keep it within average ranges, somone who is on the shorter side would find somone who is average bigger, and the reverse for bigger side.   I dont really see the need to discuss "what if your bigger and stronger" because then you have the advantage, and there are a few videos out there of females who are bigger than the male in question victimising them.

That was a lot more rambly than i intended it to be. I am throwing out weight, and health conditions and age diffrences, for sake of argument they have none and are the same age.       Weight brings in the issue is it fat or muslce?  Obesity crisis muddles that, granted it gives you a advantage if they cant move 100kg's easily irrespective if its muscle or fat, or mostly one or the other. 


And me realsing that males may generally be more resistant to punching than females has made me realsie this is the wrong angle to go with this, and makes the above next to usless other than pointing out how hyperbolic we were both being.   The better angle is this, if you are weaker you are always at a dis advantage, but fighting back increases chances of living if somone tries something (depends on motive) as you make yourself a harder target so they leave for a easier one, one of the principles of defence, make yourself a hard target. (with the caviate that attracts people after hard targets, as hard targets tend to be hard because they are valuble)   As long as you go into it with the angle of "you are making yourself a hard target and buying time at minimum, and maybe can best them if the odds are in my favour" i dont see the issue.   Just no hollywood parapalgic dwarf is going to go mano a mano against a  200cm, 200kg strongman who has a 10-1 boxing record.   You arent likely to best them (not the dwarf here)unless there is a pretty big skill outset, or you get lucky so its probbly best you dont think of yourself as besting them rather you have disrupted what ever they were going to do to you thus made it a victory on your behalf.    

Oh if you wernt in a public place for buying time to make sense, you violated another principle of self defence, and thats observation and route selection, and also having somone with you which dissuades (some) crime.  Just going to paraphrase a geoff thompson quote "the point of self defence isnt so you feel safe going down a dark alley, but to avoid the dark alley"

Striken through because i wasted way too much time writing and i think i made some good points that should be read, it just isnt in play as reply to the argument.    (i dont know if everyone knows what a strike through means, but thats it in breif as i have spent way too long writing this part)






Hanzou said:


> Finally it's strange that you would mention Judo while seemingly be skeptical of Bjj. Bjj and Judo are similar in some ways, but I would argue that the more robust and open BJJ curriculum and ruleset is better for women in general. Leglocks for example are completely banned in Judo, but are explored heavily in BJJ. Leglocks are highly effective against bigger and stronger individuals. The Guard isn't taught as a viable position in Judo, but is a major part of BJJ. I've already mentioned the benefits of the Guard for female self defense.


_(written before above relisation, but i stand by it)_

Explained my prefrence towards judo earlier, takedown based so it should minimise your exposure to grappling more than BJJ which seems to be more, i dont know how to word it, gripping them based.    Ground fighting if done in Judo (its allowed and done) is normally reserved at higher levels, the focus is on takedowns.      Its 30 seconds to pin your oppinent or put them in whatnever approved submissiones as far as i know for olympic judo.        Its not the end all be all, but i think the FOCUS should be on takedowns and clinch work, not the only thing you do.  

_(written with the above realstiation) _

the 30 second blitz judo ground fighting may or may not be more useful for playing for time, as its partly to play for time. If you know you cant get into a superior position, play for time and minimise their effect. With the above caviate about location, i would say you are dead if you cant best them and no one will come to help, but defetism literally kills people. (but you are dead)


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> We’ve Been Teaching Women to Defend Themselves All Wrong - Washingtonian
> 
> 
> When I started looking for a self-defense class, what I was really looking for was one that would teach me how to fight. I go on solo runs most mornings and often walk home alone in the dark from the Metro. If someone were to attack me, I wanted to know, could I take him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonian.com


I've been skimming this thread for the last few days, but want to jump in on this.  I like the article overall.  I don't know if I'm too keen on the phrase "empowerment based self defense," but the idea is fairly consistent with how I tend to think of self defense.

Simply put, learning to fight probably isn't the thing that will keep you more safe.  Or said another way, like many of the men on this site who have never been in a fight in their adult lives, most women won't be either.  But there are a lot of things we can do that make us more safe other than learning to fight.  I really like the idea of self defense classes that focus on skills and traits that will help a person actually be more safe.  

But I also think if fighting is being taught in the school, it should be taught by people who have experience fighting and should teach students actual skill.  It was telling to me that the person described as the Yoda in the article found that after 2 years, her karate skills were insufficient, to the point that she fundamentally reimagined her entire approach to self defense.

As a relevant aside, several years ago (maybe 5 or 6 now), a person competing on American Ninja Warrior attributed her "ninja" training (i.e., her strength, agility, and conditioning training) to her successful defense against a person who was holding a knife to her throat.  They didn't mention any martial arts or fight training.  

Also, never received an answer from a moderator about the women's self defense forum.  Is it gone or just hidden?  @jks9199 @gpseymour @Monkey Turned Wolf?  There were several threads in that forum that might save us all some time.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Steve said:


> I've been skimming this thread for the last few days, but want to jump in on this.  I like the article overall.  I don't know if I'm too keen on the phrase "empowerment based self defense," but the idea is fairly consistent with how I tend to think of self defense.
> 
> Simply put, learning to fight probably isn't the thing that will keep you more safe.  Or said another way, like many of the men on this site who have never been in a fight in their adult lives, most women won't be either.  But there are a lot of things we can do that make us more safe other than learning to fight.  I really like the idea of self defense classes that focus on skills and traits that will help a person actually be more safe.
> 
> But I also think if fighting is being taught in the school, it should be taught by people who have experience fighting and should teach students actual skill.  It was telling to me that the person described as the Yoda in the article found that after 2 years, her karate skills were insufficient, to the point that she fundamentally reimagined her entire approach to self defense.
> 
> As a relevant aside, several years ago (maybe 5 or 6 now), a person competing on American Ninja Warrior attributed her "ninja" training (i.e., her strength, agility, and conditioning training) to her successful defense against a person who was holding a knife to her throat.  They didn't mention any martial arts or fight training.
> 
> Also, never received an answer from a moderator about the women's self defense forum.  Is it gone or just hidden?  @jks9199 @gpseymour @Monkey Turned Wolf?  There were several threads in that forum that might save us all some time.


Didn't see the question. But we're currently discussing if we're able to bring it back and set it up with the same restrictions. Just figuring out if it can happen with the current technical framework.


----------



## Tez3

Rat said:


> _(in case it has any impact on this section, mindset changes in the next section and this was written mostly before the mindset change)_
> 
> I never said you did that either.  I am refering to the overall topic and what i have seen with it, which is people wave BJJ around like its a magic wand and will solve all your issues of being smaller and weaker by engaging in one of the most atheltic parts of fighting.  The only thing that truely makes this redudnent is weapons, but i usually (and presume others) gloss over thaat as a known fact when people ask about martial arts, and then it solves the issue of weapon laws etc.    Also, i just remmeber mid writing this, BJJ doesnt have striking normally, striking takes place and tends to accompany somone being attacked, can you say hold them in this position while they have free access to punch you in the back of the head?  (working on the basis since its not done you dont have experience in not exposing yourself to effective strikes)
> 
> My prefrence towards clinch based and takedown based fighting in this sitiation would be, because A) most female on female social fights i have seen is one handed clinch to the hair, or some other part and hitting with the other hand and that tends to cause a tumble, and B) If the person is stronger than you, you want to minimise the time you take within the kill zone of grappling range.  (doesnt even have to be a male, could just be a stronger female)      Im going to reply to the rest with my prefrences firmly established with some reason behind them.
> 
> 
> 
> Athleticism isnt soley strength(used them both as synonomyms to reduce writing time, apoligies for confusion), its edurance as well and just overal ability.   Being bigger and more atheltic certainly helps in fighting, especially grappling.      Just to reel in the hyperbole a little from both sides, as lets be fair, not everyone is a 250CM 200kg strongman  and not everyone is a prodidgy in BJJ.  If we just bring it to normal size archs, lets say: 169.9cm is the average female height and 173.4 Is male.  (Wiki list for my countries height averages, i dont understand imperial and cant convert)    So that is, if my maths is correct a diffrence of 4cm if both persons are textbook average, i dont think thats much of a height diffrence.   Apparntly 251cm is the tallest man thats been recorded globally.        So lets just keep it within average ranges, somone who is on the shorter side would find somone who is average bigger, and the reverse for bigger side.   I dont really see the need to discuss "what if your bigger and stronger" because then you have the advantage, and there are a few videos out there of females who are bigger than the male in question victimising them.
> 
> That was a lot more rambly than i intended it to be. I am throwing out weight, and health conditions and age diffrences, for sake of argument they have none and are the same age.       Weight brings in the issue is it fat or muslce?  Obesity crisis muddles that, granted it gives you a advantage if they cant move 100kg's easily irrespective if its muscle or fat, or mostly one or the other.
> 
> 
> And me realsing that males may generally be more resistant to punching than females has made me realsie this is the wrong angle to go with this, and makes the above next to usless other than pointing out how hyperbolic we were both being.   The better angle is this, if you are weaker you are always at a dis advantage, but fighting back increases chances of living if somone tries something (depends on motive) as you make yourself a harder target so they leave for a easier one, one of the principles of defence, make yourself a hard target. (with the caviate that attracts people after hard targets, as hard targets tend to be hard because they are valuble)   As long as you go into it with the angle of "you are making yourself a hard target and buying time at minimum, and maybe can best them if the odds are in my favour" i dont see the issue.   Just no hollywood parapalgic dwarf is going to go mano a mano against a  200cm, 200kg strongman who has a 10-1 boxing record.   You arent likely to best them (not the dwarf here)unless there is a pretty big skill outset, or you get lucky so its probbly best you dont think of yourself as besting them rather you have disrupted what ever they were going to do to you thus made it a victory on your behalf.
> 
> Oh if you wernt in a public place for buying time to make sense, you violated another principle of self defence, and thats observation and route selection, and also having somone with you which dissuades (some) crime.  Just going to paraphrase a geoff thompson quote "the point of self defence isnt so you feel safe going down a dark alley, but to avoid the dark alley"
> 
> Striken through because i wasted way too much time writing and i think i made some good points that should be read, it just isnt in play as reply to the argument.    (i dont know if everyone knows what a strike through means, but thats it in breif as i have spent way too long writing this part)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _(written before above relisation, but i stand by it)_
> 
> Explained my prefrence towards judo earlier, takedown based so it should minimise your exposure to grappling more than BJJ which seems to be more, i dont know how to word it, gripping them based.    Ground fighting if done in Judo (its allowed and done) is normally reserved at higher levels, the focus is on takedowns.      Its 30 seconds to pin your oppinent or put them in whatnever approved submissiones as far as i know for olympic judo.        Its not the end all be all, but i think the FOCUS should be on takedowns and clinch work, not the only thing you do.
> 
> _(written with the above realstiation) _
> 
> the 30 second blitz judo ground fighting may or may not be more useful for playing for time, as its partly to play for time. If you know you cant get into a superior position, play for time and minimise their effect. With the above caviate about location, i would say you are dead if you cant best them and no one will come to help, but defetism literally kills people. (but you are dead)



Watching random videos on social media and deciding that women when fighting for their lives would merely pull hair is ridiculous. ***** fights where girls are most likely drunk are a completely different thing to a real fight. Girls pulling each other's hair is a psychological tactic designed to ruin the other girl's appearance and make her literally look bad. Women will punch each other out if it were a real fight between them usually when theres no men around.

Sexual assaults are rarely about trying to kill someone, they aren't usually about sex either but the domination and humiliation of the victim, sometimes it's revenge or the idea of teaching them a lesson. The first thought the victim has is of disbelief then how to get out of this alive. 

To get out alive one must decide whether to physically fight or not. Gut feeling will tell you, sometimes the only thing to do is to shut your mind off and wait until it's over. There should never be any recriminations over this, no one can tell a victim what she should have done to survive. Many do, assuming the lack of fight means it wasn't rape.

The sole aim of someone being assaulted is to escape, not to gain position, not to hold on to but only to distract long enough to get away. The distraction should be by any and all means possible. Sexual assault is not a random crime, making it supposedly harder so the attacker goes away looking for an easier target won't work, struggling/fighting often increases the attacker's enjoyment and can up the violence on their part because the victim is to blame for escalating it in the attacker 's mind ie you made me do it.


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> I've been skimming this thread for the last few days, but want to jump in on this.  I like the article overall.  I don't know if I'm too keen on the phrase "empowerment based self defense," but the idea is fairly consistent with how I tend to think of self defense.
> 
> Simply put, learning to fight probably isn't the thing that will keep you more safe.  Or said another way, like many of the men on this site who have never been in a fight in their adult lives, most women won't be either.  But there are a lot of things we can do that make us more safe other than learning to fight.  I really like the idea of self defense classes that focus on skills and traits that will help a person actually be more safe.
> 
> But I also think if fighting is being taught in the school, it should be taught by people who have experience fighting and should teach students actual skill.  It was telling to me that the person described as the Yoda in the article found that after 2 years, her karate skills were insufficient, to the point that she fundamentally reimagined her entire approach to self defense.
> 
> As a relevant aside, several years ago (maybe 5 or 6 now), a person competing on American Ninja Warrior attributed her "ninja" training (i.e., her strength, agility, and conditioning training) to her successful defense against a person who was holding a knife to her throat.  They didn't mention any martial arts or fight training.
> 
> Also, never received an answer from a moderator about the women's self defense forum.  Is it gone or just hidden?  @jks9199 @gpseymour @Monkey Turned Wolf?  There were several threads in that forum that might save us all some time.



I thought I'd put it up for discussion, I deliberately didn't comment so as not to give certain posters an excuse to attack me personally again.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> I thought I'd put it up for discussion, I deliberately didn't comment so as not to give certain posters an excuse to attack me personally again.


I've shared a link to a study done in Canada and think it's the same one referenced in the article.  Some concrete results, and IIRC, physical training was a relatively small part of the course.

Personally, I think the approach to self defense outlined in that article is better for most everyone, male or female.  Though learning to fight CAN be fun.


----------



## Tez3

Who on earth considers the word for female dogs 'worthy' of censorship? 😕


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> I'm so pleased it is such an easy thing for you to solve, such illuminating solutions to age old problems, can't think why women's self defence is still a thing! Gosh, all a woman needs to do is think her way out of being raped, so simple.
> I gave you specific scenarios, ones we've practiced, and you say it's vague. Okay.



For those specific scenarios.

Your average trained mma fighter would have as good a set of tools to fight out of those situations as anyone. All the mechanics are basically covered.

Who they are doesn't change that. Where they are doesn't change that and the knife at the throat is such an advantage that there isn't really a dominant system to deal with it.

I don't agree with this niche marketing that you are trying for. But if you have a better system than anyone else feel free to show it.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> I've been skimming this thread for the last few days, but want to jump in on this.  I like the article overall.  I don't know if I'm too keen on the phrase "empowerment based self defense," but the idea is fairly consistent with how I tend to think of self defense.
> 
> Simply put, learning to fight probably isn't the thing that will keep you more safe.  Or said another way, like many of the men on this site who have never been in a fight in their adult lives, most women won't be either.  But there are a lot of things we can do that make us more safe other than learning to fight.  I really like the idea of self defense classes that focus on skills and traits that will help a person actually be more safe.
> 
> But I also think if fighting is being taught in the school, it should be taught by people who have experience fighting and should teach students actual skill.  It was telling to me that the person described as the Yoda in the article found that after 2 years, her karate skills were insufficient, to the point that she fundamentally reimagined her entire approach to self defense.
> 
> As a relevant aside, several years ago (maybe 5 or 6 now), a person competing on American Ninja Warrior attributed her "ninja" training (i.e., her strength, agility, and conditioning training) to her successful defense against a person who was holding a knife to her throat.  They didn't mention any martial arts or fight training.
> 
> Also, never received an answer from a moderator about the women's self defense forum.  Is it gone or just hidden?  @jks9199 @gpseymour @Monkey Turned Wolf?  There were several threads in that forum that might save us all some time.



Which is the out maneuver portion of self defence. 

Assertiveness, awareness, sales training, I really like the cash in transit stuff. 

Not being lured in to that house so that your supposed friends can bash you.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> For those specific scenarios.
> 
> Your average trained mma fighter would have as good a set of tools to fight out of those situations as anyone. All the mechanics are basically covered.
> 
> Who they are doesn't change that. Where they are doesn't change that and the knife at the throat is such an advantage that there isn't really a dominant system to deal with it.
> 
> I don't agree with this niche marketing that you are trying for. But if you have a better system than anyone else feel free to show it.


Niche marketing? What on earth are you on about, since when has over half the world's population been niche? 😂😂😂😂😂

This subject just goes over the top of your head, oh I know,  nothing goes over your head, you would catch it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Blue Belt is about 1-1.5 years on average. Getting to purple takes 2-5 years after blue depending on the practitioner.


Thanks.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Rat said:


> can you say hold them in this position while they have free access to punch you in the back of the head? (working on the basis since its not done you dont have experience in not exposing yourself to effective strikes)


It’s my experience that BJJ positioning and control (central to what they do) makes effective strikes much harder to execute once they start working on you. You can see this in MMA matches.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> Who on earth considers the word for female dogs 'worthy' of censorship? 😕


In most of the US, it’s a significant insult.


----------



## Hanzou

Rat said:


> _(in case it has any impact on this section, mindset changes in the next section and this was written mostly before the mindset change)_
> 
> I never said you did that either.  I am refering to the overall topic and what i have seen with it, which is people wave BJJ around like its a magic wand and will solve all your issues of being smaller and weaker by engaging in one of the most atheltic parts of fighting.  The only thing that truely makes this redudnent is weapons, but i usually (and presume others) gloss over thaat as a known fact when people ask about martial arts, and then it solves the issue of weapon laws etc.    Also, i just remmeber mid writing this, BJJ doesnt have striking normally, striking takes place and tends to accompany somone being attacked, can you say hold them in this position while they have free access to punch you in the back of the head?  (working on the basis since its not done you dont have experience in not exposing yourself to effective strikes)


[/QUOTE]

Saying that "people" are waving Bjj around like its a magic wand that will solve "all your issues" is a straw man. I haven't seen anyone make that argument in this thread, and it's an argument I surely have never made.

And yes, weapons are a factor, but weapons are a factor regardless of the situation, and if you decide to fight back, that's a risk you're going to have to take. If you begin to fight back and they brandish a knife and attempt to stab you, there's a good chance they're going to successfully stab you. Again, that is a reality regardless of what martial art we're talking about, and frankly it sounds like another straw-man you're deploying for whatever reason.

As for striking, you can view the old Gracie in Action tapes, the first UFCs, and other examples to show how BJJ deals with striking. In my experience within BJJ we were taught how to deal with people striking us while grappling, especially in the Guard.


Rat said:


> My prefrence towards clinch based and takedown based fighting in this sitiation would be, because A) most female on female social fights i have seen is one handed clinch to the hair, or some other part and hitting with the other hand and that tends to cause a tumble, and B) If the person is stronger than you, you want to minimise the time you take within the kill zone of grappling range.  (doesnt even have to be a male, could just be a stronger female)      Im going to reply to the rest with my prefrences firmly established with some reason behind them.
> 
> 
> 
> Athleticism isnt soley strength(used them both as synonomyms to reduce writing time, apoligies for confusion), its edurance as well and just overal ability.   Being bigger and more atheltic certainly helps in fighting, especially grappling.      Just to reel in the hyperbole a little from both sides, as lets be fair, not everyone is a 250CM 200kg strongman  and not everyone is a prodidgy in BJJ.  If we just bring it to normal size archs, lets say: 169.9cm is the average female height and 173.4 Is male.  (Wiki list for my countries height averages, i dont understand imperial and cant convert)    So that is, if my maths is correct a diffrence of 4cm if both persons are textbook average, i dont think thats much of a height diffrence.   Apparntly 251cm is the tallest man thats been recorded globally.        So lets just keep it within average ranges, somone who is on the shorter side would find somone who is average bigger, and the reverse for bigger side.   I dont really see the need to discuss "what if your bigger and stronger" because then you have the advantage, and there are a few videos out there of females who are bigger than the male in question victimising them.
> 
> That was a lot more rambly than i intended it to be. I am throwing out weight, and health conditions and age diffrences, for sake of argument they have none and are the same age.       Weight brings in the issue is it fat or muslce?  Obesity crisis muddles that, granted it gives you a advantage if they cant move 100kg's easily irrespective if its muscle or fat, or mostly one or the other.
> 
> 
> And me realsing that males may generally be more resistant to punching than females has made me realsie this is the wrong angle to go with this, and makes the above next to usless other than pointing out how hyperbolic we were both being.   The better angle is this, if you are weaker you are always at a dis advantage, but fighting back increases chances of living if somone tries something (depends on motive) as you make yourself a harder target so they leave for a easier one, one of the principles of defence, make yourself a hard target. (with the caviate that attracts people after hard targets, as hard targets tend to be hard because they are valuble)   As long as you go into it with the angle of "you are making yourself a hard target and buying time at minimum, and maybe can best them if the odds are in my favour" i dont see the issue.   Just no hollywood parapalgic dwarf is going to go mano a mano against a  200cm, 200kg strongman who has a 10-1 boxing record.   You arent likely to best them (not the dwarf here)unless there is a pretty big skill outset, or you get lucky so its probbly best you dont think of yourself as besting them rather you have disrupted what ever they were going to do to you thus made it a victory on your behalf.
> 
> Oh if you wernt in a public place for buying time to make sense, you violated another principle of self defence, and thats observation and route selection, and also having somone with you which dissuades (some) crime.  Just going to paraphrase a geoff thompson quote "the point of self defence isnt so you feel safe going down a dark alley, but to avoid the dark alley"
> 
> Striken through because i wasted way too much time writing and i think i made some good points that should be read, it just isnt in play as reply to the argument.    (i dont know if everyone knows what a strike through means, but thats it in breif as i have spent way too long writing this part)



I'm sorry, but I don't know what point you're trying to make here. Obviously a paraplegic dwarf is going to have a very difficult, if not impossible time defeating a huge, muscle bound man who is a trained/professional fighter. I'm not sure what any of that has to do with a woman trained in BJJ dealing with a bigger, stronger assailant. It's like saying that I, as a trained swimmer has a chance to survive being stranded a few miles off shore, in the dark, and having to swim during a storm. However, you counter that by saying that I now have to swim with a 100lb anchor tied to my legs and both my arms missing. Yeah, in that scenario I'm very likely to drown, and it's rather irrelevant to the original point made; 

Training gives you a chance to survive bad situations.


Rat said:


> _(written before above relisation, but i stand by it)_
> 
> Explained my prefrence towards judo earlier, takedown based so it should minimise your exposure to grappling more than BJJ which seems to be more, i dont know how to word it, gripping them based.    Ground fighting if done in Judo (its allowed and done) is normally reserved at higher levels, the focus is on takedowns.      Its 30 seconds to pin your oppinent or put them in whatnever approved submissiones as far as i know for olympic judo.        Its not the end all be all, but i think the FOCUS should be on takedowns and clinch work, not the only thing you do.
> 
> _(written with the above realstiation) _
> 
> the 30 second blitz judo ground fighting may or may not be more useful for playing for time, as its partly to play for time. If you know you cant get into a superior position, play for time and minimise their effect. With the above caviate about location, i would say you are dead if you cant best them and no one will come to help, but defetism literally kills people. (but you are dead)



Yeah, I have no issue with a woman practicing Judo. If BJJ is not available, Judo would be a clear alternative choice. Again, the issue with Judo is their rigid rule structure which simply does not benefit a woman in self defense situation beyond the ability to perform a throw and knock her assailant out with a head impact. Now, if a woman can pull that off, then that's fantastic, however what if the assault starts while she's laying on her back? What if she does perform a throw but she ends up on the ground with her assailant on top of her? What if they land in neutral position and both begin to scramble for dominant positioning? What if she lands on top of him and he begins to grapple with her to obtain dominant positioning? This is why the 30 second limit and pinning is really a poor substitute for learning the Guard and learning about positional dominance in grappling.

Not to knock Judo here, but a Judo black belt is equivalent to a starter Blue belt in BJJ in terms of newaza. I subbed a Judo brown belt as a 3-stripe white belt. In competitions we just Guard pulled them and subbed them once we were on the ground. Your point about even LESS newaza being taught in modern Judo is very concerning. In order for a woman to successfully defend herself she's going to need to have more skill than a 1-stripe Blue belt in BJJ.

Also what about strikes? You brought up strikes in the case of BJJ, but what about Judo versus striking? In BJJ the Gracie line deals with the reality of striking on a rather consistent basis, but I have yet to see a Judo dojo that deals with it.


----------



## Tez3

gpseymour said:


> In most of the US, it’s a significant insult.


It's very tame for an insult though and very uninventive.😂 however I didn't write it's as an insult but an adjective, context matters.


----------



## Deleted member 39746

gpseymour said:


> It’s my experience that BJJ positioning and control (central to what they do) makes effective strikes much harder to execute once they start working on you. You can see this in MMA matches.



I have the same complaint for Judo and other grappling though.   They need to include and work around striking, and lets be fair if you have never been sickned before it can be as demorasing as being thrown.     God help you if they can box AND grapple.    Wait, why am i endorsing Judo, i thought i was meant to be a sambo bug.


----------



## Steve

An actual study was mentioned earlier, and I've referenced it before.  If you're interested in reading about a women's self defense program that seems to have been very effective, take a look.



			https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1411131#t=articleBackground
		


Along with a 2 year follow up: 





						SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals
					

Subscription and open access journals from SAGE Publishing, the world's leading independent academic publisher.




					journals.sagepub.com
				




And they now have an SARE center that focuses on women's self defense specifically




__





						Enhanced Assess Acknowledge Act Education Program (EAAA)
					






					sarecentre.org
				




Some takeaways I see from these various resources. 

While some Wen Do Women's Self Defence training is included in the program, it's not prioritized.  The emphasis of the self defense training is on soft skills such as assessing danger. 
Women who were raped were less likely to blame themselves for the assault.
The program effectively debunked many rape myths, and also the idea that women often precipitate their own rape.
The program is relatively short, suggesting that the benefits of a self defense program can be realized without spending a bunch of money buying a protracted self defense program from a self-proclaimed SD expert who has no actual experience.


----------



## Deleted member 39746

Hanzou said:


> Saying that "people" are waving Bjj around like its a magic wand that will solve "all your issues" is a straw man. I haven't seen anyone make that argument in this thread, and it's an argument I surely have never made.


I have seen that attitude applied to BJJ (among other things), and it wasnt in refrence or direct refutation to any of your points so it doesnt really matter.   Well, partially in refutation in that it was annecdotal for the "nothing works 100%" and "nothing magically works" sort of deal.



Hanzou said:


> As for striking, you can view the old Gracie in Action tapes, the first UFCs, and other examples to show how BJJ deals with striking. In my experience within BJJ we were taught how to deal with people striking us while grappling, especially in the Guard.


That doesnt mean it applies now, or to your BJJ school.    Legacy does not mean its current, or is specfically in your sub section of the style.   Legacy spaking Judo was more like freestyle wrestling, and im sure some schools do Atemi Waza in sparring or outside of Kata. (just as example that came to my mind)



Hanzou said:


> I'm sorry, but I don't know what point you're trying to make here. Obviously a paraplegic dwarf is going to have a very difficult, if not impossible time defeating a huge, muscle bound man who is a trained/professional fighter. I'm not sure what any of that has to do with a woman trained in BJJ dealing with a bigger, stronger assailant.


Holly wood and media myths and tropes adjusting a persons perspective on fighting.    It was extreme to show some ludicrouse example that may appear in media, or something like it may and thus adjust someones perspective.   When the dwarf would have more (forgot the best word here) odds against them, and probbbiltiy wise it would be nomimally past 0.

It has something to do with females, because there is a vastly stacked trope out there of a siginficantly weaker and smaller person beating somone of greater stature in media, and it usually is done poorly, unrealstically and for a empowerment thing. (and usually a female)




Hanzou said:


> I, as a trained swimmer has a chance to survive being stranded a few miles off shore, in the dark, and having to swim during a storm. However, you counter that by saying that I now have to swim with a 100lb anchor tied to my legs and both my arms missing. Yeah, in that scenario I'm very likely to drown, and it's rather irrelevant to the original point mad


The double part here is "unwinable scenrios exist", you die sometimes.   thats just the truth behind it, you are put in a inferior position and a murderer bests you and you die.   that would be another trope media has the ex machnia coming to save the day.      Granted its next to useless to discuss this, as i said defetism kills, but you at least need to congitively acknowledge and accept the fact there is a overwelming chance you will die in situations where its apt.  

Oh, i even forgot that some martial artists can get a ego and over inflate their fighting ability and potetionally start things it might be best to avoid.   (before anyone starts, im not replying to claims i have ego, so dont even try, i know at least one of you will try. )



Hanzou said:


> Training gives you a chance to survive bad situations.


As long as thats all its sold as i am fine with that, dont be the dwarf expecting to fight 2 metre strongmen.   Extreme example obviously, but the nuance in that i explained last post, that means accept you are buying for time.




Hanzou said:


> Yeah, I have no issue with a woman practicing Judo. If BJJ is not available, Judo would be a clear alternative choice.


this is literally just prefrence here.   I just support the notion of not being in grappling range and a takedown being your death if weapons are involved.    Bascially my view is more to expeidently break contact by literally taking themdown and stopping them from pulling you down.   Because it opens up the ability to run, or finish off the opponent or if you know suffcient restraints and need to, restrain them for police.




Hanzou said:


> Again, the issue with Judo is their rigid rule structure which simply does not benefit a woman in self defense situation beyond the ability to perform a throw and knock her assailant out with a head impact. Now, if a woman can pull that off, then that's fantastic, however what if the assault starts while she's laying on her back? What if she does perform a throw but she ends up on the ground with her assailant on top of her? What if they land in neutral position and both begin to scramble for dominant positioning? What if she lands on top of him and he begins to grapple with her to obtain dominant positioning? This is why the 30 second limit and pinning is really a poor substitute for learning the Guard and learning about positional dominance in grappling.


BJJ does have its own rules you know?  As far as i know strictness to the rules in most martial arts is absolute, just on a sportsmanships point.   It is  abhorrent to break the rules in any sport.    Judos ground game is at hight tier, for sport Judo i should say.  You may run your school how you like but if its primarily for the sport of judo then it will be built for that.  (same issue EVERY martial art with a parallel sport has)

If a assualt starts and you are in a inferior position*, you are done. That would be ambush, you dont expect or train to get out of a absolute ambush, you train to see them and to avoid and break them up (your best bet)  Its mostly a aggression game.    Well i mean you can train for it, and i have seen it happen, but its mostly just application of aggression, its not like training other things if you get my point.

I would question if you identified X as a threat why did you not attempt to create some form of position to defend yourself from.   And you better hope your BJJ is as good as you think it is and they arent better at it, or that there is no glass etc on the ground or its freezing cold.  (dont know why you would willingly lay down if either was the case, but to each their own)


If you are good at doing throws, the risk of the person grappling you reduces and it going wrong reduces, Judo has a ground game, and i have seen probbly the bulk of throws in at least olympic not result in a sprawl on the ground.  Dont know if its a sportsmans choice or just inability though, probbly mixture.    but i can say the same about pulling guard, if thats habit they could just know enough to lay on you and have more endurance.         If you end up in a Judo sprawl, its ground game is all done at higher levels, the return for that is you knowing takedowns and getting pretty good at doing them and defending against them.  (ones allowed in the sport anyway)



Oh my god i just realised this is the grappling equal of the "do you do weapons first or not? and why?" argument.    Do you learn takedowns first, or the result of takedowns first.


*Being on your back is the most inferior position you can get, the only thing worse is laying on your stomach.   But i dont know many people who do that out of comfort.




Hanzou said:


> Not to knock Judo here, but a Judo black belt is equivalent to a starter Blue belt in BJJ in terms of newaza. I subbed a Judo brown belt as a 3-stripe white belt. In competitions we just Guard pulled them and subbed them once we were on the ground. Your point about even LESS newaza being taught in modern Judo is very concerning. In order for a woman to successfully defend herself she's going to need to have more skill than a 1-stripe Blue belt in BJJ.


Thre is no clear cut when they actually start doing it, but since its not common in sports judo its not of priority.  I could probbly say the same about standing grappling for BJJ not being a priorty for some.

this would just come down to individual ability and skill, if you are used to (filthy) guard pullers and expect to fight them you would train diffrently to if you were just training in Judo.   It also depends on rules, i think the record here is the same as boxing vs wrestling, it amounts to 50/50 if persons are of comprable ability.

Id imagine BJJ persons would train diffrently if they were specfically going to be fighting Judo people. 




Hanzou said:


> Also what about strikes? You brought up strikes in the case of BJJ, but what about Judo versus striking? In BJJ the Gracie line deals with the reality of striking on a rather consistent basis, but I have yet to see a Judo dojo that deals with it.


See above post, i thought you would know my standing point here and i neglected to menton it, i belive striking should be included irrelivent of the grappling.


----------



## Hanzou

Rat said:


> I have seen that attitude applied to BJJ (among other things), and it wasnt in refrence or direct refutation to any of your points so it doesnt really matter.   Well, partially in refutation in that it was annecdotal for the "nothing works 100%" and "nothing magically works" sort of deal.



Would you be willing to post examples of this so that we can see exactly what you're talking about here? I'd be very curious to see this phenomenon in action.



Rat said:


> That doesnt mean it applies now, or to your BJJ school.    Legacy does not mean its current, or is specfically in your sub section of the style.   Legacy spaking Judo was more like freestyle wrestling, and im sure some schools do Atemi Waza in sparring or outside of Kata. (just as example that came to my mind)



It still applies in the Gracie line of BJJ. If you go to a Renzo, Rickson, Rorion, Relson, Gracie-Barra, etc. Bjj school, you will still get that type of training. Renzo's school is more based around MMA while the rest are more self defense based. Additionally, it isn't hard to find BJJ schools of that lineage.


Rat said:


> Holly wood and media myths and tropes adjusting a persons perspective on fighting.    It was extreme to show some ludicrouse example that may appear in media, or something like it may and thus adjust someones perspective.   When the dwarf would have more (forgot the best word here) odds against them, and probbbiltiy wise it would be nomimally past 0.
> 
> It has something to do with females, because there is a vastly stacked trope out there of a siginficantly weaker and smaller person beating somone of greater stature in media, and it usually is done poorly, unrealstically and for a empowerment thing. (and usually a female)




Except you can't compare a woman to a paraplegic dwarf, and you can't compare an assailant to a professional boxer. Those comparisons are ludicrous and pointless, and an absolute straw man. You're talking about a 0% chance situation versus are 15-45% chance situation. 

Again, it's like me saying that if I'm a trained swimmer I have a chance of surviving a sinking ship and swimming to shore, and you counter with "Yeah, but what if you're in the middle of a hurricane, the water is filled with sharks, you're bleeding out of your stomach, and your arms are missing?" It's a rather silly way to argue.



Rat said:


> The double part here is "unwinable scenrios exist", you die sometimes.   thats just the truth behind it, you are put in a inferior position and a murderer bests you and you die.   that would be another trope media has the ex machnia coming to save the day.      Granted its next to useless to discuss this, as i said defetism kills, but you at least need to congitively acknowledge and accept the fact there is a overwelming chance you will die in situations where its apt.
> 
> Oh, i even forgot that some martial artists can get a ego and over inflate their fighting ability and potetionally start things it might be best to avoid.   (before anyone starts, im not replying to claims i have ego, so dont even try, i know at least one of you will try. )
> 
> 
> As long as thats all its sold as i am fine with that, dont be the dwarf expecting to fight 2 metre strongmen.   Extreme example obviously, but the nuance in that i explained last post, that means accept you are buying for time.



See above. Also no one said that a woman fighting back in that situation had a guaranteed chance of surviving. We're simply saying that BJJ training gives them an avenue where they have the tools to successfully fight back if they're in that situation since the type of situation that women find themselves in is sort of BJJ's wheelhouse.



Rat said:


> this is literally just prefrence here.   I just support the notion of not being in grappling range and a takedown being your death if weapons are involved.    Bascially my view is more to expeidently break contact by literally taking themdown and stopping them from pulling you down.   Because it opens up the ability to run, or finish off the opponent or if you know suffcient restraints and need to, restrain them for police.



Which is fine, but that advantage only comes from a standing position. The point many here discuss is that there are many situations that don't start with both individuals standing and facing off with each other. Further, this stuff happens with someone the woman trusts or is comfortable with and is willing to invite into her personal space. When the assault begins, you're already well past striking range and now you're in grappling range whether you want to be there or not.

Also we must again stress that performing a Judo throw is not an easy task, even for Olympic level Judoka, much less your standard Judo black belt. So while a skilled female Judoka could toss someone to the ground, the five-point throw where the guy lands on his head and is unconscious is as elusive as a one punch knockout. Sure you can do it, and it's possible that you can pull it off, but what if you don't pull it off? 


Rat said:


> BJJ does have its own rules you know?  As far as i know strictness to the rules in most martial arts is absolute, just on a sportsmanships point.   It is  abhorrent to break the rules in any sport.    Judos ground game is at hight tier, for sport Judo i should say.  You may run your school how you like but if its primarily for the sport of judo then it will be built for that.  (same issue EVERY martial art with a parallel sport has)
> 
> If a assualt starts and you are in a inferior position*, you are done. That would be ambush, you dont expect or train to get out of a absolute ambush, you train to see them and to avoid and break them up (your best bet)  Its mostly a aggression game.    Well i mean you can train for it, and i have seen it happen, but its mostly just application of aggression, its not like training other things if you get my point.




Yeah, this is a false statement. An "ambush" can be anything from being jumped by 4 guys outside a bar, to your boyfriend suddenly attacking you while you were on the couch watching a movie. Going with the latter scenario, BJJ will give the woman the tools to escape from an inferior position in that range. Again, a woman being attacked by a man is not the equivalent of a paraplegic dwarf fighting prime Mike Tyson.



Rat said:


> I would question if you identified X as a threat why did you not attempt to create some form of position to defend yourself from.   And you better hope your BJJ is as good as you think it is and they arent better at it, or that there is no glass etc on the ground or its freezing cold.  (dont know why you would willingly lay down if either was the case, but to each their own)
> 
> 
> If you are good at doing throws, the risk of the person grappling you reduces and it going wrong reduces, Judo has a ground game, and i have seen probbly the bulk of throws in at least olympic not result in a sprawl on the ground.  Dont know if its a sportsmans choice or just inability though, probbly mixture.    but i can say the same about pulling guard, if thats habit they could just know enough to lay on you and have more endurance.         If you end up in a Judo sprawl, its ground game is all done at higher levels, the return for that is you knowing takedowns and getting pretty good at doing them and defending against them.  (ones allowed in the sport anyway)



Uh, what if you're in the house? You know assaults happen in homes as well right? Also I thought we were passed the needles on the ground arguments, but I guess we're back at it again.

As for a failed Judo throw versus pulling Guard, I wouldn't compare the two. Again, in one situation you have to scramble to achieve dominance, in the other, you're in a favorable position for sweeps and submissions. Further, if you're a female black belt in Bjj, you have had years of practice fighting from that position against skilled grapplers and fighters, so I would say you have a solid chance of successfully fighting back. Like I said, not to knock Judo, but the lack of extensive Guard practice places it well behind BJJ in the SD department.




Rat said:


> Oh my god i just realised this is the grappling equal of the "do you do weapons first or not? and why?" argument.    Do you learn takedowns first, or the result of takedowns first.
> 
> 
> *Being on your back is the most inferior position you can get, the only thing worse is laying on your stomach.   But i dont know many people who do that out of comfort.



Again, see the Guard. If you're on your back in Guard that is far from the most inferior position you can get.


Rat said:


> Thre is no clear cut when they actually start doing it, but since its not common in sports judo its not of priority.  I could probbly say the same about standing grappling for BJJ not being a priorty for some.
> 
> this would just come down to individual ability and skill, if you are used to (filthy) guard pullers and expect to fight them you would train diffrently to if you were just training in Judo.   It also depends on rules, i think the record here is the same as boxing vs wrestling, it amounts to 50/50 if persons are of comprable ability.
> 
> Id imagine BJJ persons would train diffrently if they were specfically going to be fighting Judo people.
> 
> 
> 
> See above post, i thought you would know my standing point here and i neglected to menton it, i belive striking should be included irrelivent of the grappling.



There is standing grappling in BJJ. I have learned Judo throws both from practicing Judo in college and via a Judo instructor who worked in my BJJ gym. I'm not personally a fan of Judo throws because I view them as overly technical, and I much prefer the more intuitive takedowns of classic BJJ or wrestling. Frankly female classmates over the years seem to be the same.

The thing is that BJJ practitioners are more adept at groundfighting, so while the standing grappling is good, it isn't as good as wrestling or Judo. Thus BJJ practitioners aren't going to waste time trying to outwrestle or outJudo those people and instead simply Guard pull them into Guard. Pulling Guard is actually an extremely effective takedown. The fact that Wrestlers and Judoka absolutely despise it simply shows how effective it is. What's "filthy" about that? 

The thing is, pulling someone into Guard can occur via the actual takedown, as a counter to a tackle attempt, a failed throw, someone muscling/knocking you to the floor, you waking up to someone on top of you, etc. The *point* is getting someone into your Guard in order to quickly regain the dominant position, or to choke them or break their limb from that position. A female with a decent rank in BJJ should be able to do exactly that once Guard is achieved.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Rat said:


> Judos ground game is at hight tier, for sport Judo i should say.


It's my understanding that most Judo clubs/dojos don't address the ground game as fully as they once did, because the rules have changed. When I was training Judo, submission and ground fighting was still taught as a big part of the curriculum (and I understand that was already reduced from where Judo's ground game had been previously), but I'm told that's not so much the case now.


Rat said:


> If a assualt starts and you are in a inferior position*, you are done.


That's not at all necessarily true. There are things that can be done from an inferior position to protect yourself and regain control, then transition to a stronger position. My slim experience with BJJ has been nearly all about that concept.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> An actual study was mentioned earlier, and I've referenced it before.  If you're interested in reading about a women's self defense program that seems to have been very effective, take a look.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1411131#t=articleBackground
> 
> 
> 
> Along with a 2 year follow up:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals
> 
> 
> Subscription and open access journals from SAGE Publishing, the world's leading independent academic publisher.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> journals.sagepub.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they now have an SARE center that focuses on women's self defense specifically
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enhanced Assess Acknowledge Act Education Program (EAAA)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sarecentre.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some takeaways I see from these various resources.
> 
> While some Wen Do Women's Self Defence training is included in the program, it's not prioritized.  The emphasis of the self defense training is on soft skills such as assessing danger.
> Women who were raped were less likely to blame themselves for the assault.
> The program effectively debunked many rape myths, and also the idea that women often precipitate their own rape.
> The program is relatively short, suggesting that the benefits of a self defense program can be realized without spending a bunch of money buying a protracted self defense program from a self-proclaimed SD expert who has no actual experience.



And things like body guards or money handling tend to have the same philosophy.


----------



## Deleted member 39746

gpseymour said:


> It's my understanding that most Judo clubs/dojos don't address the ground game as fully as they once did, because the rules have changed. When I was training Judo, submission and ground fighting was still taught as a big part of the curriculum (and I understand that was already reduced from where Judo's ground game had been previously), but I'm told that's not so much the case now.
> 
> That's not at all necessarily true. There are things that can be done from an inferior position to protect yourself and regain control, then transition to a stronger position. My slim experience with BJJ has been nearly all about that concept.




It is a issue, but its a issue thats present for anything that does sport.  Afterall, you are training to compete in Judo sports normally, like you are BJJ sports etc, not to go out and fight in the streets.   And Judo as a martial art isnt soley about fighting anyway, its about perfection through Judo*.   Your adapting Judo for self defence, you are adapting BJJ for it, you are adapting Boxing etc, and most of the time its field expenident adapting. 

School automony seems to be pretty big in most martial arts, so you might as well consider each school its own style in extreme cases.   For how much deviation can happen.  By god, why have our roles reversed? 
*Can be applied to many other martial arts and as far as i know BJJ as well.   This is nothing more than my prefrence towards Judo and more throwing based things as opposed to grappling.    

As for inferior position,  your odds have been reduced greatly.    You dont generally do well from one, hnece why its called inferior.    You dont tend to loose from a superior position.    if you start from ambush, in a inferior position thats just more to go wrong. (if it wasnt ambush you wouldnt willingly stay laying on your back)


----------



## drop bear

Rat said:


> As for inferior position, your odds have been reduced greatly. You dont generally do well from one, hnece why its called inferior. You dont tend to loose from a superior position. if you start from ambush, in a inferior position thats just more to go wrong. (if it wasnt ambush you wouldnt willingly stay laying on your back)



It depends who we are discussing. If I let a trained guy on top of me. I would be in trouble. But I can get most untrained guys off me pretty easily.

And this is because there are fights for positional dominance that are not intuitively apparent. Rarely does a new person fight for an underhook. So they give up position without realising.

Here we go. Two guys vs 1. And you can see they are just grabbing at any old thing. They have no idea what is a dominant position and what isn't. 






Which is pretty common.


----------



## Deleted member 39746

drop bear said:


> It depends who we are discussing. If I let a trained guy on top of me. I would be in trouble. But I can get most untrained guys off me pretty easily.
> 
> And this is because there are fights for positional dominance that are not intuitively apparent. Rarely does a new person fight for an underhook. So they give up position without realising.
> 
> Here we go. Two guys vs 1. And you can see they are just grabbing at any old thing. They have no idea what is a dominant position and what isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is pretty common.


Shouldnt be considered normal, or something to be planned to do though.        its sort of backwards to intetionally disadvantage yourself on some hopeful basis you can get into a better position.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Rat said:


> This is nothing more than my prefrence towards Judo and more throwing based things as opposed to grappling.


Two thoughts here. Firstly, what Judo does _is_ grappling. You're talking about groundwork or ground-based grappling. Which is part of grappling.

Secondly, upon what is this preference based? What's your level of exposure to Judo's grappling approach vs. BJJ's? How have you tested them to see which you think is better suited to this purpose? Personally, I have more exposure to Judo than BJJ, but more recent exposure to BJJ (by a long shot). Judo has a heavy influence on how I approach my primary art. That said, the sport approach BJJ uses has some real advantages over Judo's for self-defense. I think each could benefit from a dose of the other, but I think the more rounded SD approach would be someone studying Gracie JJ who dabbles in Judo to improve their understanding of stand-up grappling and defense from it (as opposed to the other way around).


----------



## Deleted member 39746

gpseymour said:


> econdly, upon what is this preference based? What's your level of exposure to Judo's grappling approach vs. BJJ's? How have you tested them to see which you think is better suited to this purpose? Personally, I have more exposure to Judo than BJJ, but more recent exposure to BJJ (by a long shot). Judo has a heavy influence on how I approach my primary art. That said, the sport approach BJJ uses has some real advantages over Judo's for self-defense. I think each could benefit from a dose of the other, but I think the more rounded SD approach would be someone studying Gracie JJ who dabbles in Judo to improve their understanding of stand-up grappling and defense from it (as opposed to the other way around).


I have more exposure to Judo  funnily enough, i cant even cite a single BJJ tourments rules beyond "no striking".(not via doing, but i at least know what goes into Judo more than BJJ)  My prefrence comes largely from being a weapons bug, which spells bad news if you end up on the ground.    And i also didnt really seperate "Combat" from this, so that means single vs group and group v group ability was a consideration in my mind for writing this.

Seperating all bias i have for combat situations here and just looking at it for a self defence situation of one on one.     I have a few points floating around here, but i am failing to articulate them correctly and to play them off each other.      the first one i have is the seemingly oxymoron of having to do something to avoid it, that being ground fighting.  You have to get good at it to defend against it and to fight agaisnt it.   

the second i have would be, how much time would it take to reliably best somone, and how much longer to best someone bigger and more atheltic than you as opposed to just buying for time.  Maybe just enough knowledge to stop them submitting you. (Id consider stopping them from ending you in a postion at least the basic knowledge needed in a position of combat thats not your focus.  Poor wording for that, but that at least gets that point across)  with that in mind, would judos ground game introduced a little earlier be poor enough to warrant switching to BJJ or doing BJJ instead?  And if we reverse that would Judos stand up be better enough to warrant switching if BJJ did the same?    Just ebcause i forgot, doesnt Judo do breakfalls either before BJJ or BJJ doesnt do them?

I think thats everything i had in my mind at least articualted enough to give the broad point across.     This is all with the position you are following SD rules, so practising observing, adjusting routes, avoiding dangerous situations etc.      So none of that, you walk into a forest that is known to have a den of drug dealers in it at night, by yourself, you let no one know you went there, brought no one with you and didnt bring any form of weapon.     



I had no idea where to put this statement so before i forget, the diffrences between BJJ and Judo, become a lot more nuanced the more time you spend in either, they are based on the same JJ, they seem to just go about it in opsoite ways, but both do what the other starts with, just nearer to the end.    Actually if i recall BJJ comes from Judo.   So not based on the same JJ, one is based off the other just inversed the focus. 


Addendum:  On exposure note, i have no idea what the norm for starter BJJ is.  I at least know starter Judo tends to be Sweeps and Breakfalls as the first techniques they learn.    Obvious grip and stance as well.     Can somone hit me up with a rough curriculum thats respective of the average school for both, at least at the 0-2 year mark.     Just to see if my mind is in the same place as reality in what they both should know.    So im not comparing Judo black belts to BJJ white belts or something.(or anyone else is)     I know such a thing can be difficult to find for obvious reasons.


Ground fighting on whole is the subject i know least about on revision.

I also wouldnt knock anyone doing either, it just so happens we ended up comparing the two.   Didnt someone get a lot of flak for trying to combine BJJ and Judo?    I also wouldnt overtly knock either its just a comaprision of which is the "best" in this list of criteria.    I person would rather main Judo than BJJ due to my prefrences and build.     And that has something to do with Judo being a sigifnicance influnece on Sambo and my obvious wish to at least try that out once.


----------



## geezer

.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Rat said:


> would judos ground game introduced a little earlier be poor enough to warrant switching to BJJ or doing BJJ instead? And if we reverse that would Judos stand up be better enough to warrant switching if BJJ did the same? Just ebcause i forgot, doesnt Judo do breakfalls either before BJJ or BJJ doesnt do them?


Compared to the ground work I learned and saw in Judo (and it has reportedly become more limited since then), BJJ's ground work is worlds ahead. For the standing stuff, I honestly think just a few Judo-style throws are sufficient for a basic grappling foundation for SD (a hip throw, a leg sweep, a dropping shoulder throw or something similar, just off the top of my head). I'm not sure if they are all within GJJ curriculum, but I suspect they are.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Compared to the ground work I learned and saw in Judo (and it has reportedly become more limited since then), BJJ's ground work is worlds ahead. For the standing stuff, I honestly think just a few Judo-style throws are sufficient for a basic grappling foundation for SD (a hip throw, a leg sweep, a dropping shoulder throw or something similar, just off the top of my head). I'm not sure if they are all within GJJ curriculum, but I suspect they are.



GJJ tends to be practical takedowns revolving around stuffing punches, body fold takedowns, and sweeps/trips. Definitely more SD focused than what you would see in Judo.

Hip throws are taught, but not recommended for self defense.


----------



## Deleted member 39746

Fairer comparsion may be compring a spots BJJ place to a sports Judo place.  So how do the rules in one of the more common BJJ tourments differ from Judo?  

Because you have pretty extensive adaptions in both, and Judo tradtionally allows more, and does striking in kata etc.    The rules changed to stop Judo being a Gied freestyle wrestling as far as i recall.    Actually, i dont know if that was just olympic, or just because olympic changed all changed.


----------



## Hanzou

Rat said:


> Fairer comparsion may be compring a spots BJJ place to a sports Judo place.  So how do the rules in one of the more common BJJ tourments differ from Judo?
> 
> Because you have pretty extensive adaptions in both, and Judo tradtionally allows more, and does striking in kata etc.    The rules changed to stop Judo being a Gied freestyle wrestling as far as i recall.    Actually, i dont know if that was just olympic, or just because olympic changed all changed.



It honestly doesn't change much. The only pitfalls a sport BJJer may have is dealing with strikes while grappling, but that isn't really a huge issue if the BJJer can achieve dominant position in a timely manner. Also I have severe doubts that someone would practice BJJ for an extensive amount of time and NEVER train with strikes employed. The few videos of street fights/exhibitions involving obvious sport BJJ practicioners showed those guys doing a pretty good job of neutralizing strikes, mainly because of the awkward positioning that a competent BJJer csn put someone in even if they're standing and the BJJer is on the ground.

There's also the possibility of someone learning sport BJJ in a MMA gym/environment where you're likely to get  spillover simply because of proximity.

And no, I'm not saying that someone doing BJJ can't get their brains bashed in by an attacker, but of all unarmed martial arts, I'd rather know that than pretty much anything else.


----------



## Buka

This was said in this thread.....

_If a assualt starts and you are in a inferior position*, you are done._

Good God, please don't ever teach.


----------



## Deleted member 39746

Buka said:


> This was said in this thread.....
> 
> _If a assualt starts and you are in a inferior position*, you are done._
> 
> Good God, please don't ever teach.


You need to include what was asteriked at least if you want to quote it. 

And you are, you should make no statement supporting the fact that you are not in a inferior position and you should have taken action to not be in that situation especially if you suspected somone of ill intent towards you.   This can be applied to many situations, the one cited is the least worse one.    (where you actually have a marginal chance, and that chance is not entirely based on the other person)

To support my statment, just replace "on your back" with "Being held up with a knife" or "being held up by a pistol/rifle".  would you make any statement other than "you are done"?   (now i will admit, there is a NOMINAL chance of besting the person in those sitations, but you have very little to no control, and this is if murder isnt the objective, you would have been shot or stabbed before you can think of a retort, potetionally muiltiple tiems if they are any good at it, again little to zero control, its their choice to shoot you and when, not yours.)



I also interpreted "on your back" to mean inferior positions in general, not soley on your back, but i already acknowledged being on your back is the least worse one i can think of.   At least with what came to my head.


----------



## Tez3

Rat said:


> You need to include what was asteriked at least if you want to quote it.
> 
> And you are, you should make no statement supporting the fact that you are not in a inferior position and you should have taken action to not be in that situation especially if you suspected somone of ill intent towards you.   This can be applied to many situations, the one cited is the least worse one.    (where you actually have a marginal chance, and that chance is not entirely based on the other person)
> 
> To support my statment, just replace "on your back" with "Being held up with a knife" or "being held up by a pistol/rifle".  would you make any statement other than "you are done"?   (now i will admit, there is a NOMINAL chance of besting the person in those sitations, but you have very little to no control, and this is if murder isnt the objective, you would have been shot or stabbed before you can think of a retort, potetionally muiltiple tiems if they are any good at it, again little to zero control, its their choice to shoot you and when, not yours.)
> 
> 
> 
> I also interpreted "on your back" to mean inferior positions in general, not soley on your back, but i already acknowledged being on your back is the least worse one i can think of.   At least with what came to my head.


I'm sure a lot of what you write sounds good in your head but quite honestly ploughing through it is like swimming in porridge.

The thread is about women's self defence, women who are being assaulted are usually pushed or thrown on the ground (often ambushed or taken by surprise depending on the situation) so regardless of what you consider inferior or superior, being on the ground, usually on your back with the attacker on top of you is what we have to deal with.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Rat said:


> You need to include what was asteriked at least if you want to quote it.
> 
> And you are, you should make no statement supporting the fact that you are not in a inferior position and you should have taken action to not be in that situation especially if you suspected somone of ill intent towards you.   This can be applied to many situations, the one cited is the least worse one.    (where you actually have a marginal chance, and that chance is not entirely based on the other person)
> 
> To support my statment, just replace "on your back" with "Being held up with a knife" or "being held up by a pistol/rifle".  would you make any statement other than "you are done"?   (now i will admit, there is a NOMINAL chance of besting the person in those sitations, but you have very little to no control, and this is if murder isnt the objective, you would have been shot or stabbed before you can think of a retort, potetionally muiltiple tiems if they are any good at it, again little to zero control, its their choice to shoot you and when, not yours.)
> 
> 
> 
> I also interpreted "on your back" to mean inferior positions in general, not soley on your back, but i already acknowledged being on your back is the least worse one i can think of.   At least with what came to my head.


By your statement, literally every fight would end as soon as someone had a slightly superior position. That's patently not what happens. Being in a superior position to an equal or lesser skilled fighter means you are more likely to win, but certainly doesn't guarantee it, even then. Against a superior fighter from that positiion, it may not help much. Give me a BJJ above blue belt and let me get a superior position on the ground, and I've not yet gained a real advantage, because I'm in their area of strength (with a few exceptions of spots where I have skills that might balance things).


----------



## Deleted member 39746

gpseymour said:


> By your statement, literally every fight would end as soon as someone had a slightly superior position. That's patently not what happens. Being in a superior position to an equal or lesser skilled fighter means you are more likely to win, but certainly doesn't guarantee it, even then. Against a superior fighter from that positiion, it may not help much. Give me a BJJ above blue belt and let me get a superior position on the ground, and I've not yet gained a real advantage, because I'm in their area of strength (with a few exceptions of spots where I have skills that might balance things).


There was no hyperbole intended if it appears that way through the neutrality of text is one thing.     How i am interpreting this line of argumentation is underplaying the risks to a hyperbolic extent.  (which i may have rebuffed with the opposite hyperbole, not you, i mean the argument line in general)  

Now fights dont always 100% end in one definitive way, you cant say that without being dishonest, so i am not saying that.  What i am saying is, they tend to and the majority do end and what needs to have happen for them to end, is one pariticpant needs to be put into a inferior position to allow them to be finished off. (what ever that is, doesnt matter)    The definition and implication of fight would mean there is a struggle and one participant is actively stopping you from doing that, and thus trying to do it to you so you cant do it to them. 


If we play it as equals, lets say its 50/50, putting somone in a inferior position makes it 70/30 (30% allows for the diverse range of positions, and you making a recovery or putting them in one)  Why would you start in the latter?  



gpseymour said:


> Against a superior fighter from that positiion, it may not help much. Give me a BJJ above blue belt and let me get a superior position on the ground, and I've not yet gained a real advantage, because I'm in their area of strength (with a few exceptions of spots where I have skills that might balance things).


You dont really have a choice of who is starting anything, they could be the single best (technically worse for you) person in 100km coming over to do what ever to you, or the single worse.  Just why would you risk starting in the inferior position if you suspected them?  Its just going to be harder and reduce your chances.      If they are your greater, you have made yourself More of a lesser. If they are your equal, they have been made your greater. If they are your lesser they have been made your equal.

(quoted as i specfically wanted to address that point seperate, but its sort of mixed with the end percentage point)

TL;DR and clarification of the above, my point is "why risk it?"


Addendum:   I have stated before i am a weapons bug and more biased towards that and striking, movement for both is pretty important. And to be fair "inferior position" in both of those is normally after either someones lopped something off you, or has cracked your jaw hard enough to concuss you.   So thats where the disconnect may come from.   


I dont think i have seen, nor does anything spring to mind as a example if two BJJ people try to victimise each other, or one does another, or just two grapplers on somewhat of a equal level.   Its normally somone better at grappling closing in from somone trying to box, or two people boxing each other as the fight.   If anyone can find a video of grapplers involved in predatory violence, i would be grateful.  Or just one trying to victimise the other. (focus on BJJ obviously) The other concern i would have for laying down is, they could initiate the attack by just jumping on your head.   (imagine the defendu two legged one, i cant remmeber what its called off the top of my head) 

Thinking about it, a video of the subject is probbly the best way to go about this.  Id rather one of a real fight between BJJ people, and a technique breakdown, as opposed to just one or the other. (so i actually know whats meant to be happening, and actually know it can work)

If anyone can find anything, feel free to inbox it to me if they dont want to post it on the thread.


----------



## Tez3

A


Rat said:


> There was no hyperbole intended if it appears that way through the neutrality of text is one thing.     How i am interpreting this line of argumentation is underplaying the risks to a hyperbolic extent.  (which i may have rebuffed with the opposite hyperbole, not you, i mean the argument line in general)
> 
> Now fights dont always 100% end in one definitive way, you cant say that without being dishonest, so i am not saying that.  What i am saying is, they tend to and the majority do end and what needs to have happen for them to end, is one pariticpant needs to be put into a inferior position to allow them to be finished off. (what ever that is, doesnt matter)    The definition and implication of fight would mean there is a struggle and one participant is actively stopping you from doing that, and thus trying to do it to you so you cant do it to them.
> 
> 
> If we play it as equals, lets say its 50/50, putting somone in a inferior position makes it 70/30 (30% allows for the diverse range of positions, and you making a recovery or putting them in one)  Why would you start in the latter?
> 
> 
> You dont really have a choice of who is starting anything, they could be the single best (technically worse for you) person in 100km coming over to do what ever to you, or the single worse.  Just why would you risk starting in the inferior position if you suspected them?  Its just going to be harder and reduce your chances.      If they are your greater, you have made yourself More of a lesser. If they are your equal, they have been made your greater. If they are your lesser they have been made your equal.
> 
> (quoted as i specfically wanted to address that point seperate, but its sort of mixed with the end percentage point)
> 
> TL;DR and clarification of the above, my point is "why risk it?"
> 
> 
> Addendum:   I have stated before i am a weapons bug and more biased towards that and striking, movement for both is pretty important. And to be fair "inferior position" in both of those is normally after either someones lopped something off you, or has cracked your jaw hard enough to concuss you.   So thats where the disconnect may come from.
> 
> 
> I dont think i have seen, nor does anything spring to mind as a example if two BJJ people try to victimise each other, or one does another, or just two grapplers on somewhat of a equal level.   Its normally somone better at grappling closing in from somone trying to box, or two people boxing each other as the fight.   If anyone can find a video of grapplers involved in predatory violence, i would be grateful.  Or just one trying to victimise the other. (focus on BJJ obviously) The other concern i would have for laying down is, they could initiate the attack by just jumping on your head.   (imagine the defendu two legged one, i cant remmeber what its called off the top of my head)
> 
> Thinking about it, a video of the subject is probbly the best way to go about this.  Id rather one of a real fight between BJJ people, and a technique breakdown, as opposed to just one or the other. (so i actually know whats meant to be happening, and actually know it can work)
> 
> If anyone can find anything, feel free to inbox it to me if they dont want to post it on the thread



And this has what to do with women's self defence? 😕


----------



## drop bear

Rat said:


> There was no hyperbole intended if it appears that way through the neutrality of text is one thing.     How i am interpreting this line of argumentation is underplaying the risks to a hyperbolic extent.  (which i may have rebuffed with the opposite hyperbole, not you, i mean the argument line in general)
> 
> Now fights dont always 100% end in one definitive way, you cant say that without being dishonest, so i am not saying that.  What i am saying is, they tend to and the majority do end and what needs to have happen for them to end, is one pariticpant needs to be put into a inferior position to allow them to be finished off. (what ever that is, doesnt matter)    The definition and implication of fight would mean there is a struggle and one participant is actively stopping you from doing that, and thus trying to do it to you so you cant do it to them.
> 
> 
> If we play it as equals, lets say its 50/50, putting somone in a inferior position makes it 70/30 (30% allows for the diverse range of positions, and you making a recovery or putting them in one)  Why would you start in the latter?
> 
> 
> You dont really have a choice of who is starting anything, they could be the single best (technically worse for you) person in 100km coming over to do what ever to you, or the single worse.  Just why would you risk starting in the inferior position if you suspected them?  Its just going to be harder and reduce your chances.      If they are your greater, you have made yourself More of a lesser. If they are your equal, they have been made your greater. If they are your lesser they have been made your equal.
> 
> (quoted as i specfically wanted to address that point seperate, but its sort of mixed with the end percentage point)
> 
> TL;DR and clarification of the above, my point is "why risk it?"
> 
> 
> Addendum:   I have stated before i am a weapons bug and more biased towards that and striking, movement for both is pretty important. And to be fair "inferior position" in both of those is normally after either someones lopped something off you, or has cracked your jaw hard enough to concuss you.   So thats where the disconnect may come from.
> 
> 
> I dont think i have seen, nor does anything spring to mind as a example if two BJJ people try to victimise each other, or one does another, or just two grapplers on somewhat of a equal level.   Its normally somone better at grappling closing in from somone trying to box, or two people boxing each other as the fight.   If anyone can find a video of grapplers involved in predatory violence, i would be grateful.  Or just one trying to victimise the other. (focus on BJJ obviously) The other concern i would have for laying down is, they could initiate the attack by just jumping on your head.   (imagine the defendu two legged one, i cant remmeber what its called off the top of my head)
> 
> Thinking about it, a video of the subject is probbly the best way to go about this.  Id rather one of a real fight between BJJ people, and a technique breakdown, as opposed to just one or the other. (so i actually know whats meant to be happening, and actually know it can work)
> 
> If anyone can find anything, feel free to inbox it to me if they dont want to post it on the thread.



Pulling guard isn't technically creating an inferior position for yourself.

I wouldn't do it. But people do get away with it.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> A
> 
> 
> And this has what to do with women's self defence? 😕



A fair bit in a meta sense. There are two ways people deal with fighting a person that is physically superior.

Either they try to go prison rules and eye gouge them or something Which is mostly stupid. Because the other person is still physically superior and can just eye gouge them back. But better.

Or they use position to create mechanical advantage. And then go prison rules if you want.






In self defense this second option is handy to know Because it increases the likelihood that you can determine the outcome of an attack.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Rat said:


> There was no hyperbole intended if it appears that way through the neutrality of text is one thing. How i am interpreting this line of argumentation is underplaying the risks to a hyperbolic extent. (which i may have rebuffed with the opposite hyperbole, not you, i mean the argument line in general)
> 
> Now fights dont always 100% end in one definitive way, you cant say that without being dishonest, so i am not saying that. What i am saying is, they tend to and the majority do end and what needs to have happen for them to end, is one pariticpant needs to be put into a inferior position to allow them to be finished off. (what ever that is, doesnt matter) The definition and implication of fight would mean there is a struggle and one participant is actively stopping you from doing that, and thus trying to do it to you so you cant do it to them.
> 
> 
> If we play it as equals, lets say its 50/50, putting somone in a inferior position makes it 70/30 (30% allows for the diverse range of positions, and you making a recovery or putting them in one) Why would you start in the latter?


While your overall comment here is reasonable, you're missing a few thoughts. First, the person in the inferior position may be the superior fighter in that situation (as with me dealing with a BJJ'er of reasonable rank on the ground). So them being in an inferior position doesn't really indicate the fight is nearly over. Now, keep it on the ground and let them get me in an inferior position, and we're probably nearing the end - because they're better equipped in that area.

As for equals, nobody is talking about purposely starting in an inferior position. I suspect you don't have enough experience with things like BJJ to understand how many positions on the ground where they LOOK to be in trouble that they are actually in control and well protected.


----------



## Deleted member 39746

drop bear said:


> Pulling guard isn't technically creating an inferior position for yourself.
> 
> I wouldn't do it. But people do get away with it.


Wasnt guard pulling, or i didnt interprete anything written as guard pulling. (id know what you mean if you wrote "guard pulling")  Although i have seen people get slammed from that.    But no real BJJ directed complaint there, plenty of grappling tourments dont allow slamming from diffrent positions.


----------



## Tez3

Rat said:


> Wasnt guard pulling, or i didnt interprete anything written as guard pulling. (id know what you mean if you wrote "guard pulling")  Although i have seen people get slammed from that.    But no real BJJ directed complaint there, plenty of grappling tourments dont allow slamming from diffrent positions.



This is women's self defence though not grappling tournaments. 

If you play by the rules of competitions when fighting for your life you've stuffed up.


----------



## Alan0354

kravmaga1 said:


> Should Women learn self defense more and more nowadays? How it will help in nowadays life? From what thing women should start learning the self defense tricks?


I think all women should learn self defense. By nature, women are not as strong as men in general, learning martial arts and self defense is the biggest equalizer. BUT, from my observation, women don't seems to want to learn for one reason or the other. I am trying so hard to get my grand daughter to go to a school. She did a few years of ballet, she can kick and all that, I ended up showing her round house kick, spin kick and all that, then I show her punching and kind of play sparring with her to try to get her interested. But still, she's really not that into it. 

Hell, I don't want my little girl to be abused by any man!!!! I kept talking to the mother, but she refuses to do anything, keep wanting her to learn piano and all that!!!

Then my wife, she did a lot of high impact aerobics before and did a lot of fast walking. That worn out her hips and ended up having two hip replacement. I kept telling her to spread out the aerobics using upper body like punching the bags. I got her groves, I have two heavy bags hanging and she just refuses to do it. I told her before the second hip replacement, she didn't listen, ending up had to replace the second hip. Doing rounds on heavy bags is almost as good as running!!!.....ALMOST!!!

What can we do to motivate them?


----------



## Deleted member 39746

gpseymour said:


> While your overall comment here is reasonable, you're missing a few thoughts. First, the person in the inferior position may be the superior fighter in that situation (as with me dealing with a BJJ'er of reasonable rank on the ground). So them being in an inferior position doesn't really indicate the fight is nearly over. Now, keep it on the ground and let them get me in an inferior position, and we're probably nearing the end - because they're better equipped in that area.
> 
> As for equals, nobody is talking about purposely starting in an inferior position. I suspect you don't have enough experience with things like BJJ to understand how many positions on the ground where they LOOK to be in trouble that they are actually in control and well protected.



Never said it was nearly over, just inferiroty of the opponent is needed to actual win a fight.    Or thats the rule if you want to word it another way. 

A better example i think i have is, as far as i know once a choke is set the one being choked is over.    A superior person going to a inferior position would be equal to letting the lesser start off either choking them or halway through choking them.   Inferior postions make the superior and inferior both equal.  And see my previous statement for the rest of that. 

I also recall "if it was initiated on the ground" somewhere along here, or starting in a inferior postion as somewhere along here, to which i have stated you failed in awarnesss and stratagy if you do that.  And have failed at least one principle of self defence. 

Addendum: also as far as i know if you are attacked most people try to make sure they have some advantage, so you are just painting a target on your back.   Or how weak you appear/weak of a positon you are in is a factor for if somone attacks you.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Rat said:


> Never said it was nearly over, just inferiroty of the opponent is needed to actual win a fight.    Or thats the rule if you want to word it another way.


Actually, you said: "If a assualt starts and you are in a inferior position*, you are done."

So, yeah, you said it was more than "nearly over".


----------



## Tez3

Alan0354 said:


> I think all women should learn self defense. By nature, women are not as strong as men in general, learning martial arts and self defense is the biggest equalizer. BUT, from my observation, women don't seems to want to learn for one reason or the other. I am trying so hard to get my grand daughter to go to a school. She did a few years of ballet, she can kick and all that, I ended up showing her round house kick, spin kick and all that, then I show her punching and kind of play sparring with her to try to get her interested. But still, she's really not that into it.
> 
> Hell, I don't want my little girl to be abused by any man!!!! I kept talking to the mother, but she refuses to do anything, keep wanting her to learn piano and all that!!!
> 
> Then my wife, she did a lot of high impact aerobics before and did a lot of fast walking. That worn out her hips and ended up having two hip replacement. I kept telling her to spread out the aerobics using upper body like punching the bags. I got her groves, I have two heavy bags hanging and she just refuses to do it. I told her before the second hip replacement, she didn't listen, ending up had to replace the second hip. Doing rounds on heavy bags is almost as good as running!!!.....ALMOST!!!
> 
> What can we do to motivate them?



Where do I start? Well, let 'them' choose what they do.

What you need to do is aquaint yourself on what harassment and assaults on women actually are.

The reason your wife didn't do as you told her is because you told her, you nagged, you bought stuff, you kept going on as if you know better about her body than she does, of course she didn't listen, quite right too. You disrespected her, you unexplained and you are patronising.

WE don't need motivating. You need to allow your female family members autonomy over what they chose to do. Learning a few kicks and punches does nothing. I bet they know more about being safe as a female than you do, you are talking as a male and it shows.


----------



## Alan0354

Tez3 said:


> Where do I start? Well, let 'them' choose what they do.
> 
> What you need to do is aquaint yourself on what harassment and assaults on women actually are.
> 
> The reason your wife didn't do as you told her is because you told her, you nagged, you bought stuff, you kept going on as if you know better about her body than she does, of course she didn't listen, quite right too. You disrespected her, you unexplained and you are patronising.
> 
> WE don't need motivating. You need to allow your female family members autonomy over what they chose to do. Learning a few kicks and punches does nothing. I bet they know more about being safe as a female than you do, you are talking as a male and it shows.


I cannot disagree more. Most common response I heard from women is "it's too violent", they rather do something "more pleasant" even for exercise like aerobics. I heard a lot that they don't even want to think about it.

It's a violent world. You are encourage victimhood.


----------



## Tez3

Alan0354 said:


> I cannot disagree more. Most common response I heard from women is "it's too violent", they rather do something "more pleasant" even for exercise like aerobics. I heard a lot that they don't even want to think about it.
> 
> It's a violent world. You are encourage victimhood.


I've been practising martial arts for over forty years, taught many many women, my own daughter does kickboxing and MMA having started with karate.

You have no idea of life from a female point of view, what it's like for women and girls every day and all you think is to teach them to 'fight'. Dear Lord we fight every. bloody. day. The sexist remarks, the put downs, the touching, the judging, the critisims, the patronising, the assumptions and you've shown that you also do this. Stop, just stop.

Perhaps they don't want to talk about it because they've been sexually assaulted, they want to do something more pleasant because it's in a place where they feel safe not a gym/dojo/dojang  full of men trying to teach them as if they were men too. 90% of sexual assaults are committed  by people known to the victims, women  need much more than kick and punch. If you think that's all it takes no wonder you don't get favourable responses.

To be able to defend oneself competently, with the aim of escaping the best way you can, women's self defence has to be taught differently from everyday martial arts. Most self defence training is dubious anyway, no resistance training, short courses and instructions to women...'don't go out at night' 'don't wear short skirts '.

Victimhood, 😂😂😂😂😂😂


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> o be able to defend oneself competently, with the aim of escaping the best way you can, women's self defence has to be taught differently from everyday martial arts.


Tez, I may have missed it if it came up elsewhere in this thread - I've been spotty keeping up on some threads lately and miss things. Has there been a discussion of how this should be different to suit this purpose?


----------



## Tez3

gpseymour said:


> Tez, I may have missed it if it came up elsewhere in this thread - I've been spotty keeping up on some threads lately and miss things. Has there been a discussion of how this should be different to suit this purpose?


There's been very  good suggestions on this thread, as well as the idea which I agree that grappling/groundwork/B JJ whatever you to call it is actually a more useful thing to learn than just kick punch. Confidence and assertiveness training work well.

There's a lot of things that put women off martial arts classes, all very valid and some reasons are shared by men too. Shaming women because they say they want something 'more pleasant' to do is unfair, a woman isn't going to tell a man she's intimidated by the students, or that she's been assaulted and training would be a great stressor for her, male instructors can unwittingly put women off classes as can over friendly men. I've actually discussed this with women who have often been met with derision when expressing an interest in training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> There's been very  good suggestions on this thread, as well as the idea which I agree that grappling/groundwork/B JJ whatever you to call it is actually a more useful thing to learn than just kick punch. Confidence and assertiveness training work well.
> 
> There's a lot of things that put women off martial arts classes, all very valid and some reasons are shared by men too. Shaming women because they say they want something 'more pleasant' to do is unfair, a woman isn't going to tell a man she's intimidated by the students, or that she's been assaulted and training would be a great stressor for her, male instructors can unwittingly put women off classes as can over friendly men. I've actually discussed this with women who have often been met with derision when expressing an interest in training.


I ask primarily because over the last few years, I've ended up with more female students than male. I suspect the smaller classes and more mature students (I haven't had a guy under 40 in my classes in many years) is more inviting, but that's a guess.

Over the last 15+ years, I've moved to teaching more groundwork and close grappling, and focused the striking on control (controlling the situation to get to grappling if that stays necessary) at the early levels.

But yeah, people want what they want. I might think something is a good idea, but I don't think that crosses into the "should" category. People get to set their own priorities and have their own preferences.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> A fair bit in a meta sense. There are two ways people deal with fighting a person that is physically superior.
> 
> Either they try to go prison rules and eye gouge them or something Which is mostly stupid. Because the other person is still physically superior and can just eye gouge them back. But better.
> 
> Or they use position to create mechanical advantage. And then go prison rules if you want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In self defense this second option is handy to know Because it increases the likelihood that you can determine the outcome of an attack.



I’d like to point out that the woman had zero chance while on her feet striking. She only gained a chance (and an advantage) when she took the fight to the ground.


----------



## Alan0354

Tez3 said:


> I've been practising martial arts for over forty years, taught many many women, my own daughter does kickboxing and MMA having started with karate.
> 
> You have no idea of life from a female point of view, what it's like for women and girls every day and all you think is to teach them to 'fight'. Dear Lord we fight every. bloody. day. The sexist remarks, the put downs, the touching, the judging, the critisims, the patronising, the assumptions and you've shown that you also do this. Stop, just stop.
> 
> Perhaps they don't want to talk about it because they've been sexually assaulted, they want to do something more pleasant because it's in a place where they feel safe not a gym/dojo/dojang  full of men trying to teach them as if they were men too. 90% of sexual assaults are committed  by people known to the victims, women  need much more than kick and punch. If you think that's all it takes no wonder you don't get favourable responses.
> 
> To be able to defend oneself competently, with the aim of escaping the best way you can, women's self defence has to be taught differently from everyday martial arts. Most self defence training is dubious anyway, no resistance training, short courses and instructions to women...'don't go out at night' 'don't wear short skirts '.
> 
> Victimhood, 😂😂😂😂😂😂


I guess you guys just want women to be weak and submissive. This is 21st century, woman want equality, then they need to step up.

I am really really surprised how you guys think. I am old, but I am a true believer women can be strong and should be, not be submissive.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Alan0354 said:


> I guess you guys just want women to be weak and submissive. This is 21st century, woman want equality, then they need to step up.
> 
> I am really really surprised how you guys think. I am old, but I am a true believer women can be strong and should be, not be submissive.


So they should submit to you by doing the things that you want them to do, in order to prove that they are not submissive?


----------



## Tez3

Alan0354 said:


> I guess you guys just want women to be weak and submissive. This is 21st century, woman want equality, then they need to step up.
> 
> I am really really surprised how you guys think. I am old, but I am a true believer women can be strong and should be, not be submissive.


Well for a start stop calling me a guy.

I stepped up long ago to gain equal rights with men so don't patronise me and other women. I've been there, done it and got the scars to prove it. You aren't the only old one around here. 

You only pay lip service to the idea of strong women because as soon as I disagreed with you, your posts got very stroppy. 
Stop telling women what to do if you truly believe in what you say you do. Women ARE strong, you have no idea mate. You just don't like it because they won't do as they are told by you 😂


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Alan0354 said:


> I guess you guys just want women to be weak and submissive. This is 21st century, woman want equality, then they need to step up.
> 
> I am really really surprised how you guys think. I am old, but I am a true believer women can be strong and should be, not be submissive.


Interesting that you think you know what others think. Psychic now, too?


----------



## Alan0354

First all, I never said I tell women what to do, don’t get all defensive. I encourage my grand daughter and my wife to learn self defense. One cannot just say they are not interested or comfortable in certain things and don’t want to try. In the old world, parents automatically give the boys tools, toy guns to play with, then give dolls and cooking toys to the girls. Please do NOT insult my intelligence by saying it’s not true. It’s a new world, you need to expose kids to everything. Self defense is ONLY one of the things. There are so many other things that girls should learn like using tools working on things like the boys do. Not only in self defense, but for future career. Women want to be treated equal, then they have to do everything men do to compete. Don’t just sit and cry foul and demand equal treatments, equal pay. Show you can do it. YOU EARN IT, that all started out as a kid to learn.

This is a more general talk: Not everything comes natural, a lot of skills are *ACQUIRED*, not born. A lot of interested are *ACQUIRED*, not by nature. It’s a new world, the days of women learning cooking and cleaning are long over, so are jobs as a secretary or typist are long gone. Most of the high pay jobs are high tech jobs like scientist, engineering and programming that required high math, physics and all that. Math and science do NOT come natural, particularly math, it is an ACQUIRED interest that you put in a lot of effort at the beginning before you acquire the interest. If everyone just follow the original interest and refuse to learn something they are uncomfortable, you almost NEVER get ahead. Remember most of the low skill jobs are gone overseas, you don’t have high skill, good luck.

Also even more important, to work on those high pay high tech jobs, you have to be handy, like good with tools, how to take things apart and put them back together. How do I know, I was in high tech, manager of engineering for a long time. I hire engineers and technicians. I have no doubt knowledge wise, women can be as good as men, one thing I notice is women just not as good with tools like screw drivers, pliers and all that. In those high tech high pay jobs, it is *NOT* like you sit behind the desk the program on the computer or design circuits on computers. You have to test it on the system. Very often, you need to get dirty, get into the inside of the system to probe, to monitor to verify that your program or your circuit design works. You need to disassemble things to test and put them back together. If you are not as handy, either you do it slow or worst, have to ask a technician to do it for you. You become less valuable as a worker. And when promotion and pay raise comes around, you get left behind and get bitter. These are the kind of things a woman should learn from very young. The idea is the same as learn self defense where you have to get OUT of the comfort zone and learn.

My wife is adventurous, she actually learn how to tune up a car, she learn to be a good shooter with guns. She’s a strong woman. Yes, she has a loaded gun next to her bed!!! She had a professional job, not those secretary or clerical job. She earned $110K/yr when she retired over *17 years ago*. I admire her for being a strong woman. That’s how I teach my grand daughter. I got her tools when she was only 4 years old, we took toys apart just to play with. I tutor her math and she’s a student of the year last year in junior high.

I am all for women to be strong and compete every bit with men. To be strong and knowledgeable, you have to learn things that you are NOT comfortable with. You don’t demand respect, YOU EARN IT, to be strong. Stop complaining about men abusing woman, do something about it, be strong, beat the men up if they deserve it.

I said all I want to say, and I know it’s going to fall on death ears. Goodbye.


----------



## Tez3

Alan0354 said:


> First all, I never said I tell women what to do, don’t get all defensive. I encourage my grand daughter and my wife to learn self defense. One cannot just say they are not interested or comfortable in certain things and don’t want to try. In the old world, parents automatically give the boys tools, toy guns to play with, then give dolls and cooking toys to the girls. Please do NOT insult my intelligence by saying it’s not true. It’s a new world, you need to expose kids to everything. Self defense is ONLY one of the things. There are so many other things that girls should learn like using tools working on things like the boys do. Not only in self defense, but for future career. Women want to be treated equal, then they have to do everything men do to compete. Don’t just sit and cry foul and demand equal treatments, equal pay. Show you can do it. YOU EARN IT, that all started out as a kid to learn.
> 
> This is a more general talk: Not everything comes natural, a lot of skills are *ACQUIRED*, not born. A lot of interested are *ACQUIRED*, not by nature. It’s a new world, the days of women learning cooking and cleaning are long over, so are jobs as a secretary or typist are long gone. Most of the high pay jobs are high tech jobs like scientist, engineering and programming that required high math, physics and all that. Math and science do NOT come natural, particularly math, it is an ACQUIRED interest that you put in a lot of effort at the beginning before you acquire the interest. If everyone just follow the original interest and refuse to learn something they are uncomfortable, you almost NEVER get ahead. Remember most of the low skill jobs are gone overseas, you don’t have high skill, good luck.
> 
> Also even more important, to work on those high pay high tech jobs, you have to be handy, like good with tools, how to take things apart and put them back together. How do I know, I was in high tech, manager of engineering for a long time. I hire engineers and technicians. I have no doubt knowledge wise, women can be as good as men, one thing I notice is women just not as good with tools like screw drivers, pliers and all that. In those high tech high pay jobs, it is *NOT* like you sit behind the desk the program on the computer or design circuits on computers. You have to test it on the system. Very often, you need to get dirty, get into the inside of the system to probe, to monitor to verify that your program or your circuit design works. You need to disassemble things to test and put them back together. If you are not as handy, either you do it slow or worst, have to ask a technician to do it for you. You become less valuable as a worker. And when promotion and pay raise comes around, you get left behind and get bitter. These are the kind of things a woman should learn from very young. The idea is the same as learn self defense where you have to get OUT of the comfort zone and learn.
> 
> My wife is adventurous, she actually learn how to tune up a car, she learn to be a good shooter with guns. She’s a strong woman. Yes, she has a loaded gun next to her bed!!! She had a professional job, not those secretary or clerical job. She earned $110K/yr when she retired over *17 years ago*. I admire her for being a strong woman. That’s how I teach my grand daughter. I got her tools when she was only 4 years old, we took toys apart just to play with. I tutor her math and she’s a student of the year last year in junior high.
> 
> I am all for women to be strong and compete every bit with men. To be strong and knowledgeable, you have to learn things that you are NOT comfortable with. You don’t demand respect, YOU EARN IT, to be strong. Stop complaining about men abusing woman, do something about it, be strong, beat the men up if they deserve it.
> 
> I said all I want to say, and I know it’s going to fall on death ears. Goodbye.




'Beat men up if they need it'

'stop complaining about men abusing women'

This says this is a man who thinks he's always right and doesn't like being disagreed with. He knows what's best for his women!


----------



## drop bear

The more I read this thread. The more I believe women should do MMA.


----------



## Alan0354

drop bear said:


> The more I read this thread. The more I believe women should do MMA.


Women need to learn to be strong. If more women are strong and can defend themselves, men will think twice before hitting women.

I would like to see how many men here willing to go into the octagon against Gina Carano.


----------



## drop bear

Alan0354 said:


> Women need to learn to be strong. If more women are strong and can defend themselves, men will think twice before hitting women.
> 
> I would like to see how many men here willing to go into the octagon against Gina Carano.



It didn't end well for these guys against Meisha Tate. 






I don't think there is a specific women friendly system run by women that does a better job of tooling a female up to fight people than whoever trained her.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Alan0354 said:


> First all, I never said I tell women what to do, don’t get all defensive. I encourage my grand daughter and my wife to learn self defense. One cannot just say they are not interested or comfortable in certain things and don’t want to try. In the old world, parents automatically give the boys tools, toy guns to play with, then give dolls and cooking toys to the girls. Please do NOT insult my intelligence by saying it’s not true. It’s a new world, you need to expose kids to everything. Self defense is ONLY one of the things. There are so many other things that girls should learn like using tools working on things like the boys do. Not only in self defense, but for future career. Women want to be treated equal, then they have to do everything men do to compete. Don’t just sit and cry foul and demand equal treatments, equal pay. Show you can do it. YOU EARN IT, that all started out as a kid to learn.
> 
> This is a more general talk: Not everything comes natural, a lot of skills are *ACQUIRED*, not born. A lot of interested are *ACQUIRED*, not by nature. It’s a new world, the days of women learning cooking and cleaning are long over, so are jobs as a secretary or typist are long gone. Most of the high pay jobs are high tech jobs like scientist, engineering and programming that required high math, physics and all that. Math and science do NOT come natural, particularly math, it is an ACQUIRED interest that you put in a lot of effort at the beginning before you acquire the interest. If everyone just follow the original interest and refuse to learn something they are uncomfortable, you almost NEVER get ahead. Remember most of the low skill jobs are gone overseas, you don’t have high skill, good luck.
> 
> Also even more important, to work on those high pay high tech jobs, you have to be handy, like good with tools, how to take things apart and put them back together. How do I know, I was in high tech, manager of engineering for a long time. I hire engineers and technicians. I have no doubt knowledge wise, women can be as good as men, one thing I notice is women just not as good with tools like screw drivers, pliers and all that. In those high tech high pay jobs, it is *NOT* like you sit behind the desk the program on the computer or design circuits on computers. You have to test it on the system. Very often, you need to get dirty, get into the inside of the system to probe, to monitor to verify that your program or your circuit design works. You need to disassemble things to test and put them back together. If you are not as handy, either you do it slow or worst, have to ask a technician to do it for you. You become less valuable as a worker. And when promotion and pay raise comes around, you get left behind and get bitter. These are the kind of things a woman should learn from very young. The idea is the same as learn self defense where you have to get OUT of the comfort zone and learn.
> 
> My wife is adventurous, she actually learn how to tune up a car, she learn to be a good shooter with guns. She’s a strong woman. Yes, she has a loaded gun next to her bed!!! She had a professional job, not those secretary or clerical job. She earned $110K/yr when she retired over *17 years ago*. I admire her for being a strong woman. That’s how I teach my grand daughter. I got her tools when she was only 4 years old, we took toys apart just to play with. I tutor her math and she’s a student of the year last year in junior high.
> 
> I am all for women to be strong and compete every bit with men. To be strong and knowledgeable, you have to learn things that you are NOT comfortable with. You don’t demand respect, YOU EARN IT, to be strong. Stop complaining about men abusing woman, do something about it, be strong, beat the men up if they deserve it.
> 
> I said all I want to say, and I know it’s going to fall on death ears. Goodbye.


Literally nothing in that changes the fact that sometimes people just aren't interested, and your presentation here suggests you become more forceful when someone expresses disagreement (not inherently a bad thing), which makes most folks less interested in the topic if it's a casual thing to them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> The more I read this thread. The more I believe women should do MMA.


Can you really become _more _"do MMA", db?


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> It didn't end well for these guys against Meisha Tate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think there is a specific women friendly system run by women that does a better job of tooling a female up to fight people than whoever trained her.



It's not a 'woman friendly' system run by women that we are looking for, disabuse yourself of that idea for a start, that's not what is needed.

What we need is one specific to the strengths and weaknesses of women, as has already been said, and I agree, a stand up toe to toe fight between male and female isn't going to end well for the latter. 

We also need to differentiate between learning a system until you are confident you can defend yourself and these courses the offer training for self defence. 

Learning a few kicks and punches once isn't going to help when you need it, you need to learn not to freeze, then to be able to make that strike that will distract long enough for you to escape. The idea is not to stand and fight, the idea is to escape. Of course not always possible but it's the aim. Pre lockdown a Guiding leader I know came up to me all excited because her company had sent her on a women's self defence course ( a whole day) she could now defend herself with confidence! She'd learnt to punch and kick, could defend herself if grabbed AND against knife attacks. You all know what I said, and I'm sad I punctured her self confidence in her self defence capabilities, I'm also sorry I hurt her wrist a bit while she tried to make me let go, my fault lol I grabbed the wrong wrist. 😕 I was supposed to use my right hand to grab her right wrist. 'it worked when we did it on the course, my partner let go straight away'. I'm not even going to mention the knife defences.....

One thing that is never taught on any self defence course I've seen is listening to your gut. This is important, if it feels wrong, it is and you need to get out of where you are. Too often women especially knew something was wrong, whether it was body language, the situation or just something they couldn't put their finger on but they disregarded it, perhaps so as not to appear rude or strange. Never ignore that feeling, this is something children need to be taught as well.

There's a lot that can be done in self defence for everyone but while these BS courses are taught people especially women aren't safe, they are full of false confidence about what they can do, it can in extreme cases allow people to take risks they should not.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> It's not a 'woman friendly' system run by women that we are looking for, disabuse yourself of that idea for a start, that's not what is needed.
> 
> What we need is one specific to the strengths and weaknesses of women, as has already been said, and I agree, a stand up toe to toe fight between male and female isn't going to end well for the latter.
> 
> We also need to differentiate between learning a system until you are confident you can defend yourself and these courses the offer training for self defence.
> 
> Learning a few kicks and punches once isn't going to help when you need it, you need to learn not to freeze, then to be able to make that strike that will distract long enough for you to escape. The idea is not to stand and fight, the idea is to escape. Of course not always possible but it's the aim. Pre lockdown a Guiding leader I know came up to me all excited because her company had sent her on a women's self defence course ( a whole day) she could now defend herself with confidence! She'd learnt to punch and kick, could defend herself if grabbed AND against knife attacks. You all know what I said, and I'm sad I punctured her self confidence in her self defence capabilities, I'm also sorry I hurt her wrist a bit while she tried to make me let go, my fault lol I grabbed the wrong wrist. 😕 I was supposed to use my right hand to grab her right wrist. 'it worked when we did it on the course, my partner let go straight away'. I'm not even going to mention the knife defences.....
> 
> One thing that is never taught on any self defence course I've seen is listening to your gut. This is important, if it feels wrong, it is and you need to get out of where you are. Too often women especially knew something was wrong, whether it was body language, the situation or just something they couldn't put their finger on but they disregarded it, perhaps so as not to appear rude or strange. Never ignore that feeling, this is something children need to be taught as well.
> 
> There's a lot that can be done in self defence for everyone but while these BS courses are taught people especially women aren't safe, they are full of false confidence about what they can do, it can in extreme cases allow people to take risks they should not.



You are just describing the difference between crappy and good martial arts.


----------



## Alan0354

gpseymour said:


> Literally nothing in that changes the fact that sometimes people just aren't interested, and your presentation here suggests you become more forceful when someone expresses disagreement (not inherently a bad thing), which makes most folks less interested in the topic if it's a casual thing to them.


I guess you just don't comprehend what I said and ACQUIRED interest or you have your mind made up and didn't even read my long post.

You people put things in my mouth, I did not force anyone, I present to them, it's up to them to pick it up. I present all things to my grand daughter when she was very young, I also played stuffed animals with her. In fact, that is really our thing, I actually like stuffed animals. I SLEEP with stuff bears every night between me and my wife. I don't play man and woman, just whatever I/we like. I know cooking and I am the better cook of the family and entertain them. I can sew if my life depends on it. I set the example myself. this is my 4 bears, I am into cane fighting, so are they!!





DIVERSITY and open mind to try is the key. AND never too old to learn new things!!! I retired 17 years already. I just studied C++ programming from a huge book from cover to cover. Nothing comfortable, nothing that I like about it. I just did because it's the most difficult programming language and it's essential to learn in today's world.....even though I am retired. *You stay in the comfort zone, you go NOWHERE*. Men should learn interests of women and women should learn interest from men.


----------



## Alan0354

drop bear said:


> It didn't end well for these guys against Meisha Tate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think there is a specific women friendly system run by women that does a better job of tooling a female up to fight people than whoever trained her.


If more women are like this, men will think twice before assaulting a woman.

Women don't have to learn any specific style, just learn something, go to the gym and do some weight lifting and get strong. All the martial arts don't mean a thing if one doesn't have the strength.

Most woman beaters don't learn MA, just a little training for a woman will go a long way in protecting herself. I feel just as strongly for women to be strong as I learn how to cook, clean and do all the work that women "supposed" to do.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Alan0354 said:


> I guess you just don't comprehend what I said and ACQUIRED interest or you have your mind made up and didn't even read my long post.
> 
> You people put things in my mouth, I did not force anyone, I present to them, it's up to them to pick it up. I present all things to my grand daughter when she was very young, I also played stuffed animals with her. In fact, that is really our thing, I actually like stuffed animals. I SLEEP with stuff bears every night between me and my wife. I don't play man and woman, just whatever I/we like. I know cooking and I am the better cook of the family and entertain them. I can sew if my life depends on it. I set the example myself. this is my 4 bears, I am into cane fighting, so are they!!
> View attachment 26907
> 
> DIVERSITY and open mind to try is the key. AND never too old to learn new things!!! I retired 17 years already. I just studied C++ programming from a huge book from cover to cover. Nothing comfortable, nothing that I like about it. I just did because it's the most difficult programming language and it's essential to learn in today's world.....even though I am retired. *You stay in the comfort zone, you go NOWHERE*. Men should learn interests of women and women should learn interest from men.


And really none of that is relevant to my post. You’re getting more forceful with each response, but not really communicating.


----------



## Alan0354

gpseymour said:


> And really none of that is relevant to my post. You’re getting more forceful with each response, but not really communicating.


It is absolutely relevant, you all accused me of forcing women to learn, that if they don't like it, it's wrong to keep talking to them. My point is interested are *ACQUIRED*, until you give it a try, you never know. ALSO, the importance to learn things that one is not comfortable in all the examples I gave. These all goes hand in hand.

Back to just self defense, if a woman feel so angry about what I said, don't learn it, BUT DON'T EVER come crying how man abusing her later. She had her choice and she proudly rejected learning because it's too violent. It's her responsibility for her own miss fortune then.

I am absolutely stunned, stunned people here don't want to encourage women to learn self defense. I guess people here want women to be weak and forever under the thumb of men.

Read my posts again, it's all about empowering women to be strong.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Alan0354 said:


> It is absolutely relevant, you all accused me of forcing women to learn


Except I didn't. That's rather my point.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Alan0354 said:


> It's her responsibility for her own miss fortune then.


Nope. It's still on the guy.

Sure, she might have been able to do something to improve her chance of fighting back, but NOT abusing here (or whatever else) is the responsibility of the guy. 100%


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Nope. It's still on the guy.
> 
> Sure, she might have been able to do something to improve her chance of fighting back, but NOT abusing here (or whatever else) is the responsibility of the guy. 100%



Nope.

The responsibility for self defense training. And everything that comes with that is on the person providing it and the person doing it.

This should not be confused with suggesting rapists should rape. Which weirdly becomes the case.

And while the rapist is definitely at fault. The spanner in the works of that idea is I don't think they care.

And this is the difference between something being not your fault and not your problem.


----------



## Alan0354

gpseymour said:


> Nope. It's still on the guy.
> 
> Sure, she might have been able to do something to improve her chance of fighting back, but NOT abusing here (or whatever else) is the responsibility of the guy. 100%


But still the woman got abused. Why are you so against convincing woman to learn self defense?

Nobody said it's the woman's fault, BUT it sure is her responsibility for her to put in the effort to get stronger.

Hell, I am putting in a lot of effort learning stick fight even I am 68. BLM is singling out Chinese to attack particularly the old ones. I can go cry foul, demonstrate and all that. BUT instead, I am DOING MY PART to get better odds to protect myself and my family by putting a lot of hours in stick fight the last 3 months and still going strong. It is WEAK to be a victim and say "pretty please, respect me and don't hurt me". I'd ask them to leave me alone when they are lying flat on the ground.

This is call DOING my part for my own safety. It is ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT who's fault is it. You think I like to spend all the extra hours practicing a new skill on top of my regular exercise? I sure don't like it. I just have to over come my feeling and just do it. Is it so hard to understand? That each one of us ARE RESPONSIBLE for our own well being and SACRIFICE to learn something?


----------



## Tez3

Ok, where to start.

Females are abused in many ways, they are fondled on public transport, wolf shifted at in the street, men pinch and slap their backsides, girls in school have their bra straps pulled, there's upskirting, lewd comments made to female runners,  and much much more. This is  excused as 'boys being boys' by many people. This needs to stop. It won't as long as it's enabled y politicians, so called celebrities and public figures. It's insidious, women have put up with it silently for centuries, they have been blamed for centuries, it's not boys fault girls cause them to lose all sense of decency. 😕 'males have needs, girls shouldn't tempt them' 'women shouldn't wear shorts skirts if they don't want men to touch them'. 'women say no  it mean yes'. That unbelievably is still doing the rounds..
Rape by a stranger is relatively rare, 90% of sexual assaults are committed by someone known to the victim. Rape is rarely about sex, it's about humiliating the victim and having power over them, random tapes are also rare, victims are picked out and attacked in such a way fighting them off is difficult. Date rape as it's called, often the victim is drugged so no chance to fight at all. Girls are warned about this but like when we teach 'stranger danger' to children, this focuses them on strangers not people they know.


----------



## Alan0354

Too late for me to edit the last post.

Speaking of exercise, I do NOT like doing exercise, I drag everyday I have to do exercise. I am not one of those that is so into exercise. Why do I spend so much time every week doing it? It's because I don't want to be old and helpless. I go to Gold's Gym, quite a hard core gym. I see people that are 80 years old and still walk with a bounce. We do take a lot of cruises, you'd be amazed seeing people that are not older than me walk with a walker, some even have to be confined to a wheel chair. I remember one time, during the pre-sailing meeting, right in the middle of it, a person just passed out and had to have crew members to help him out!!!

I don't want to be helpless, so I spend at least 4 to 5 hours a week in weight lifting and kick boxing to stay fit.............That is before I have to add the stick fight that increase to 7 to 8 hours a week of work out. Believe me, I don't enjoy it at all. BUT I refuse to be the victim and I want to be in charge of my destiny. This exercise is the better of the two evil. I am no expert in MA like some of you guys. I put in close to 3 years learning Tae Kwon Do long time ago. Since I stopped, I never quit working out, still have heavy bags and continue working with it every week. I never even acquire the interest, but I know it's good for me. My wife still go to the gym 3 times a week. We can be old, but we don't have to be helpless and I refuse to be a victim.

Anyone that don't want to be a victim, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Sometimes have to do something that you don't really like.


----------



## Alan0354

Tez3 said:


> Ok, where to start.
> 
> Females are abused in many ways, they are fondled on public transport, wolf shifted at in the street, men pinch and slap their backsides, girls in school have their bra straps pulled, there's upskirting, lewd comments made to female runners,  and much much more. This is  excused as 'boys being boys' by many people. This needs to stop. It won't as long as it's enabled y politicians, so called celebrities and public figures. It's insidious, women have put up with it silently for centuries, they have been blamed for centuries, it's not boys fault girls cause them to lose all sense of decency. 😕 'males have needs, girls shouldn't tempt them' 'women shouldn't wear shorts skirts if they don't want men to touch them'. 'women say no  it mean yes'. That unbelievably is still doing the rounds..
> Rape by a stranger is relatively rare, 90% of sexual assaults are committed by someone known to the victim. Rape is rarely about sex, it's about humiliating the victim and having power over them, random tapes are also rare, victims are picked out and attacked in such a way fighting them off is difficult. Date rape as it's called, often the victim is drugged so no chance to fight at all. Girls are warned about this but like when we teach 'stranger danger' to children, this focuses them on strangers not people they know.


Are you a female or is it politically incorrect now to put gender? So you just blame on the evil men and just say " pretty please, do assault me!!"

You sure sounds like you want to be the victim, it's the men's fault and there's nothing the women can do. If you are female, I am surprise you even learn MA.

STAND UP, TEACH THOSE STUPID MEN A LESSON. YOU GAIN THEIR RESPECT WHEN THEIR BACK IS FLAT ON THE GROUND.

Everything I said here is to empowering women to be strong. Your life might depend on it. When you get assaulted, there's only YOU that can save you out of the jam, you cannot call the police, they won't come in time to save you.


----------



## Tez3

Tez3 said:


> Ok, where to start.
> 
> Females are abused in many ways, they are fondled on public transport, wolf shifted at in the street, men pinch and slap their backsides, girls in school have their bra straps pulled, there's upskirting, lewd comments made to female runners,  and much much more. This is  excused as 'boys being boys' by many people. This needs to stop. It won't as long as it's enabled y politicians, so called celebrities and public figures. It's insidious, women have put up with it silently for centuries, they have been blamed for centuries, it's not boys fault girls cause them to lose all sense of decency. 😕 'males have needs, girls shouldn't tempt them' 'women shouldn't wear shorts skirts if they don't want men to touch them'. 'women say no  it mean yes'. That unbelievably is still doing the rounds..
> Rape by a stranger is relatively rare, 90% of sexual assaults are committed by someone known to the victim. Rape is rarely about sex, it's about humiliating the victim and having power over them, random tapes are also rare, victims are picked out and attacked in such a way fighting them off is difficult. Date rape as it's called, often the victim is drugged so no chance to fight at all. Girls are warned about this but like when we teach 'stranger danger' to children, this focuses them on strangers not people they know.


I stopped writing to watch the news.

In the UK a review has just taken place into rape and how it's dealt with by the law, the short answer is that it's not dealt with. Rape cases have gone down by over 60% over the past five years and convictions have gone down by over 40%. This is because the victims are being investigated before the alleged rspist, the victim 's phone is taken and everything downloaded, her ( yes there are male rape victims  but they are taken more seriously) medical history is acquired as well as work and even school records, this is to check the victims credibilty, if it checks out then the investigation goes ahead. Government ministers ha e said they are ashamed but it's the age old attitudes about women 'asking for it' that prevail.


----------



## Tez3

Alan0354 said:


> But still the woman got abused. Why are you so against convincing woman to learn self defense?
> 
> Nobody said it's the woman's fault, BUT it sure is her responsibility for her to put in the effort to get stronger.
> 
> Hell, I am putting in a lot of effort learning stick fight even I am 68. BLM is singling out Chinese to attack particularly the old ones. I can go cry foul, demonstrate and all that. BUT instead, I am DOING MY PART to get better odds to protect myself and my family by putting a lot of hours in stick fight the last 3 months and still going strong. It is WEAK to be a victim and say "pretty please, respect me and don't hurt me". I'd ask them to leave me alone when they are lying flat on the ground.
> 
> This is call DOING my part for my own safety. It is ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT who's fault is it. You think I like to spend all the extra hours practicing a new skill on top of my regular exercise? I sure don't like it. I just have to over come my feeling and just do it. Is it so hard to understand? That each one of us ARE RESPONSIBLE for our own well being and SACRIFICE to learn something?


Get it out of your head that women are weak and begging not to be hurt, we said f*** that a long time ago. You seem very angry with women, you also don't understand the issues here either. 

You say you're learning stick fighting well good for you, that has nothing to do with women's self defence. How would you feel if I have you the advice women are given? 'don't go out on your own, don't give people any reason to think you want to be attacked, don't flaunt yourself, wear concealing clothes, perhaps a scarf over your face'. Funny yeah.

Physical strength is not the answer, the American gymnastic team are physically strong but were still sexually assaulted... repeatedly.

Rant all you like, if you don't understand the problem you are part of the problem, your views of women are archaic and patronising, you really have no idea.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> How would you feel if I have you the advice women are given? 'don't go out on your own, don't give people any reason to think you want to be attacked, don't flaunt yourself, wear concealing clothes, perhaps a scarf over your face'. Funny yeah.



This is real advice for guys who don't want to be attacked.


----------



## Alan0354

Tez3 said:


> Get it out of your head that women are weak and begging not to be hurt, we said f*** that a long time ago. You seem very angry with women, you also don't understand the issues here either.
> 
> You say you're learning stick fighting well good for you, that has nothing to do with women's self defence. How would you feel if I have you the advice women are given? 'don't go out on your own, don't give people any reason to think you want to be attacked, don't flaunt yourself, wear concealing clothes, perhaps a scarf over your face'. Funny yeah.
> 
> Physical strength is not the answer, the American gymnastic team are physically strong but were still sexually assaulted... repeatedly.
> 
> Rant all you like, if you don't understand the problem you are part of the problem, your views of women are archaic and patronising, you really have no idea.


So what is your solution? Just cry? Nothing you can do? It's just is? just don't wear sexy cloths, don't go out?

Are you a female?


----------



## Tez3

Alan0354 said:


> Are you a female or is it politically incorrect now to put gender? So you just blame on the evil men and just say " pretty please, do assault me!!"
> 
> You sure sounds like you want to be the victim, it's the men's fault and there's nothing the women can do. If you are female, I am surprise you even learn MA.
> 
> STAND UP, TEACH THOSE STUPID MEN A LESSON. YOU GAIN THEIR RESPECT WHEN THEIR BACK IS FLAT ON THE GROUND.
> 
> Everything I said here is to empowering women to be strong. Your life might depend on it. When you get assaulted, there's only YOU that can save you out of the jam, you cannot call the police, they won't come in time to save you.


Really? I mean really, are you completely insane or trolling?

Why are you calling men stupid?

You don't understand anything I've written have you? You have no idea what sexual assault is, all you can think of is stranger rape which is thankfully quite rare.  You want women to turn into some sort of movie superheroes and go round bear in up men. Ridiculous, you don't gain respect by beating people up you earn a prison sentence. Most men do respect women, those that don't are the politicians and so called religious leaders who want to curtail all rights for women one place in the US will now prosecute a woman for having a miscarriage!! You had a president who advocated grabbing women by their genitals. 

You can try to insult me all you like it won't get you anywhere. 

On one hand you are decrying the violence you think you face, on the other you are advocating violence on men. 😕


----------



## Tez3

Alan0354 said:


> So what is your solution? Just cry? Nothing you can do? It's just is? just don't wear sexy cloths, don't go out?
> 
> Are you a female?


Please learn reading comprehension.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Ok, where to start.
> 
> Females are abused in many ways, they are fondled on public transport, wolf shifted at in the street, men pinch and slap their backsides, girls in school have their bra straps pulled, there's upskirting, lewd comments made to female runners,  and much much more. This is  excused as 'boys being boys' by many people. This needs to stop. It won't as long as it's enabled y politicians, so called celebrities and public figures. It's insidious, women have put up with it silently for centuries, they have been blamed for centuries, it's not boys fault girls cause them to lose all sense of decency. 😕 'males have needs, girls shouldn't tempt them' 'women shouldn't wear shorts skirts if they don't want men to touch them'. 'women say no  it mean yes'. That unbelievably is still doing the rounds..
> Rape by a stranger is relatively rare, 90% of sexual assaults are committed by someone known to the victim. Rape is rarely about sex, it's about humiliating the victim and having power over them, random tapes are also rare, victims are picked out and attacked in such a way fighting them off is difficult. Date rape as it's called, often the victim is drugged so no chance to fight at all. Girls are warned about this but like when we teach 'stranger danger' to children, this focuses them on strangers not people they know.



Ok. And the people who do all those things and support all those dumb ideas are screaming duchebags. 

Which is the premis behind all self defence. Bad people are bad. And you need the tools to stop them being bad to you. 

I am not sure where you are getting a disconect which these two ideas.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Ok. And the people who do all those things and support all those dumb ideas are screaming duchebags.
> 
> Which is the premis behind all self defence. Bad people are bad. And you need the tools to stop them being bad to you.
> 
> I am not sure where you are getting a disconect which these two ideas.


Oh you again, nope no disconnect.

There's bad people yes and then there's people whose bad behaviour is enabled by others excusing it. If a president of the US says it's good to grab women's genitals there's a lot of people who think it's fine doing it too.

The tools to deal with this aren't beating men up until they 'respect women's 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
We were discussing BJJ/groundwork until someone decided women needed to beat men up.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Oh you again, nope no disconnect.
> 
> There's bad people yes and then there's people whose bad behaviour is enabled by others excusing it. If a president of the US says it's good to grab women's genitals there's a lot of people who think it's fine doing it too.
> 
> The tools to deal with this aren't beating men up until they 'respect women's 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
> We were discussing BJJ/groundwork until someone decided women needed to beat men up.



Ok. The US president is also a screaming duche bag. That doesn't really change the nature of self defence. 

Mabye in this harsh world women do need to know how to beat people up.


----------



## Alan0354

drop bear said:


> Ok. The US president is also a screaming duche bag. That doesn't really change the nature of self defence.
> 
> Mabye in this harsh world women do need to know how to beat people up.


She/he just want to ***** and moan. I think we are wasting time.

I have much more colorful words for our resident of the WH.


----------



## Tez3

Alan0354 said:


> She/he just want to ***** and moan. I think we are wasting time.


So, you don't tolerate disagreement with your opinions, that much is obvious. You prefer to be insultin. You certainly are wasting people's time, with your 'beat up men' rhetoric as well as your racism against black people. Oh you thought we hadn't noticed you blaming black people for beating up Chinese people? The people blaming Chinese people are the conspiracy theorist lot who say China infected people with Covid deliberately. I can't help you with your reading comprehension but I will tell you Drop bear will disagree with you if he feels like an argument, it's his thing..... arguing for the sake of it.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Ok. The US president is also a screaming duche bag. That doesn't really change the nature of self defence.
> 
> Mabye in this harsh world women do need to know how to beat people up.


Yeah, good idea let's beat up all men.

My point as of course you know and are just trolling again is 'what self defence would benefit women the most'. We were talking about it until it got derailed by Mr. Beat all men up.


----------



## Alan0354

Tez3 said:


> So, you don't tolerate disagreement with your opinions, that much is obvious. You prefer to be insultin. You certainly are wasting people's time, with your 'beat up men' rhetoric as well as your racism against black people. Oh you thought we hadn't noticed you blaming black people for beating up Chinese people? The people blaming Chinese people are the conspiracy theorist lot who say China infected people with Covid deliberately. I can't help you with your reading comprehension but I will tell you Drop bear will disagree with you if he feels like an argument, it's his thing..... arguing for the sake of it.


You are doing a disservice for the women.

Ah, I wonder when is racism going to come up from you. You watch news? who beat up Chinese on the news everyday in US?


----------



## Tez3

Alan0354 said:


> You are doing a disservice for the women.
> 
> Ah, I wonder when is racism going to come up from you. You watch news? who beat up Chinese on the news everyday in US?


Didn't take long for you to get personal did it, you say you want empowerment for women but hate it when you are challenged.

No I don't watch the US news, why would I. I did read you blame BLM for the attacks though. You should know politics aren't allowed on here.

Perhaps the rest of us could get back to discussing what style of techniques are useful for women to learn.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Nope.
> 
> The responsibility for self defense training. And everything that comes with that is on the person providing it and the person doing it.
> 
> This should not be confused with suggesting rapists should rape. Which weirdly becomes the case.
> 
> And while the rapist is definitely at fault. The spanner in the works of that idea is I don't think they care.
> 
> And this is the difference between something being not your fault and not your problem.


The issue here is someone choosing not to do it. That choice does not make them responsible for being a victim where that training might have given them another option.

I think it's a good idea, but I won't go so far as to get into "shoulds" on this. The crime is the criminal's responsibility.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Alan0354 said:


> Why are you so against convincing woman to learn self defense?


Once again, a strawman, because I've done nothing of the sort.

First you claim I said you tried to force them to train. Now you claim I'm trying to convince them not to learn self-defense. Maybe read for comprehension - even when folks disagree with you - rather than snapping off a foolish retort.



> Nobody said it's the woman's fault, BUT it sure is her responsibility for her to put in the effort to get stronger.


I think it's a valid choice to do so. I also think it's valid for anyone to decide there are other areas of life they'd rather put that time into. Developing fighting skills takes time. Keeping them takes more time. Some folks simply don't prioritize that - they may choose something they feel is more important for their family or them.



> It is WEAK to be a victim and say "pretty please, respect me and don't hurt me". I'd ask them to leave me alone when they are lying flat on the ground.


An approach suggested by absolutely nobody in this discussion (or anywhere ever that I've heard).  So that's three strawmen. Your responses now sound angry, simply because someone has disagreed with you.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> Ok, where to start.
> 
> Females are abused in many ways, they are fondled on public transport, wolf shifted at in the street, men pinch and slap their backsides, girls in school have their bra straps pulled, there's upskirting, lewd comments made to female runners,  and much much more. This is  excused as 'boys being boys' by many people. This needs to stop. It won't as long as it's enabled y politicians, so called celebrities and public figures. It's insidious, women have put up with it silently for centuries, they have been blamed for centuries, it's not boys fault girls cause them to lose all sense of decency. 😕 'males have needs, girls shouldn't tempt them' 'women shouldn't wear shorts skirts if they don't want men to touch them'. 'women say no  it mean yes'. That unbelievably is still doing the rounds..
> Rape by a stranger is relatively rare, 90% of sexual assaults are committed by someone known to the victim. Rape is rarely about sex, it's about humiliating the victim and having power over them, random tapes are also rare, victims are picked out and attacked in such a way fighting them off is difficult. Date rape as it's called, often the victim is drugged so no chance to fight at all. Girls are warned about this but like when we teach 'stranger danger' to children, this focuses them on strangers not people they know.


I'm quoting you on this Tez because you bring up some things I meant to mention in another post, so I'm borrowing your post.

A woman can choose to take some control over this without taking martial arts to learn to fight and escape - a point @Steve makes quite nicely. Just because a woman doesn't prioritize fighting skills, that doesn't mean she's not doing anything to protect herself (the main reason I differentiate between "self-defense" and "self-protection").


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> The issue here is someone choosing not to do it. That choice does not make them responsible for being a victim where that training might have given them another option.
> 
> I think it's a good idea, but I won't go so far as to get into "shoulds" on this. The crime is the criminal's responsibility.



I don't think the criminal cares if you hold him responsible though. 

Sort of why he is a criminal.


----------



## Tez3

gpseymour said:


> I'm quoting you on this Tez because you bring up some things I meant to mention in another post, so I'm borrowing your post.
> 
> A woman can choose to take some control over this without taking martial arts to learn to fight and escape - a point @Steve makes quite nicely. Just because a woman doesn't prioritize fighting skills, that doesn't mean she's not doing anything to protect herself (the main reason I differentiate between "self-defense" and "self-protection").



I agree, self protect and self defence are different, most people not just women will practice self protection, the wilfully stupid of course don't.

Practicing martial arts is not for everyone, not just by choice but by circumstances and health.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Thread locked pending staff review.


----------

