Fundamental pillars of self-defense?

[Hanzou]

My oh my, aren't we the heartless, conscienceless bastard?
Injuries happen, certainly, but I think most of us accept a degree of responsibility for the safety of our training partners, as well as feeling regret when there are injuries.

This is becoming hilarious...

Someone I'm competing against in a competition is not a training partner.

 

[Brian King]

Yet, Brian believe it or not the members in the military do "other" their opponents. I regularly have students in country some where and even they would admit that "othering" is common and works effectively to dehumanize the opponents.

Yes of course, Brian. Thanks for posting your students experiences, they match my own. Individual military members do "other". It is a simple method coping method that has been used for centuries. It is no longer emphasized in the training of recruits. It has been proven harmful to the mission. A soldier that over reacts or commits atrocities because 'it is only a gook' is not the rule of training. That some soldiers need this coping tool to deal with the emotional strain of killing is understandable. In fact is kind of commendable that as humans we have to go thru such lengths in order to pull the trigger. That said, the costs to the mission and to the individual member make this method of coping and training too expensive to purposely and willingly embrace. It is short term effectiveness at best and even that could be argued I think.

Regards
Brian King

 

[Brian King]

Yeah, for starters, I've never purposely injured a training partner. Let's stop that nonsense right there.

I've accidentally injured training partners or opponents too stubborn, stupid, or proud to submit to a submission. There's a difference there, and its a difference I've highlighted several times. Heck, I've highlighted that difference in the very post you quoted, so its baffling to me that you would still believe that I purposely injured training partners.

If you enter a training hall, or a competition with the mindset that you're invincible, or that people can't submit you, then you have a pretty high chance of being injured. If you enter a training hall or a competition with the mindset of a humble learner, and that we're fellow journeymen on a path towards becoming better, you have a lower chance of being injured. It's as simple as that.

Ah, sorry Hanzou, I did not mean to upset you. I think that we have different ideas of what constitutes accidental and purposeful. From my perspective, if I do a take down and the opponent falls badly and is injured, it is likely accidental, if I am applying a lock that is designed to break, and a break happens, it is hardly accidental. If both people are slowly working on the lock, exploring it, testing it and their bounds, and an injury occurs it is still on purpose. If a limb gets injured while rolling and the lock was not intentional but incidental to the movement then it could perhaps be called an accident. If I am training with a live blade and get cut, is it an accident? I did not start the training with the idea to be cut but cut I am still. On purpose does not have to be necessary be a negative although the results and costs can be negative.

Perhaps we can move away from the word purposely since it seems to upset you. You have accidentally injured many people while training and competing. It seems like the coping method that you are using is that they all were "too stubborn, stupid, or proud to submit to submission" What do you say if someone said that of the person applying the technique? That the person doing the submission was too stubborn, stupid, or proud to release the submission even though they knew it was on and solid and injured the 'other' person. Could there be merit to that observation at all?

Regards
Brian King

 

[Hanzou]

Ah, sorry Hanzou, I did not mean to upset you. I think that we have different ideas of what constitutes accidental and purposeful. From my perspective, if I do a take down and the opponent falls badly and is injured, it is likely accidental, if I am applying a lock that is designed to break, and a break happens, it is hardly accidental. If both people are slowly working on the lock, exploring it, testing it and their bounds, and an injury occurs it is still on purpose. If a limb gets injured while rolling and the lock was not intentional but incidental to the movement then it could perhaps be called an accident.

Except that the outcome is still accidental, because the intention in a competition or practice is to get a submission, not a break. However, breaks can and do occur. The expectation is to tap BEFORE serious injury occurs. If you're feeling pressure on a limb and you still don't tap, then you accept the consequences. If your partner isn't releasing the hold, or being overly forceful, that's a different matter entirely.

Perhaps we can move away from the word purposely since it seems to upset you. You have accidentally injured many people while training and competing. It seems like the coping method that you are using is that they all were "too stubborn, stupid, or proud to submit to submission" What do you say if someone said that of the person applying the technique? That the person doing the submission was too stubborn, stupid, or proud to release the submission even though they knew it was on and solid and injured the 'other' person. Could there be merit to that observation at all?

In a competition? Nope. My job in a competition is to apply the proper techniques to win. In competition you don't release the submission until the ref breaks you up, the guy taps, or the guy goes limp.

If someone is purposely breaking limbs in a training hall, they're not going to be training for very long.

 

[oftheherd1]

I've been out of the US Army for some 26 years, so maybe I am out of touch. As I recall when I was in basic, there was no mention of coping with killing. We were taught use of weapons, cover, concealment, calling in supporting fire and such, as methods of killing before we were killed. And nobody wanted to be killed. That was the goal, kill before being killed. I think however, that most in combat do have to deal with the idea of killing, as well as seeing friends killed, sometimes in very dehumanizing ways. But it seemed to me most found some way to accommodate to that pretty quickly, and could leave what happened on the battlefield on the battlefield, at least outwardly. I do wonder if the video games kids are exposed to these days may have changed any of that. As to killing of prisoners or wounded, or mutilating bodies, that in my experience wasn't the norm for all soldiers, but that most would be pretty tolerant of such things with their peers; after all, they all had to be able to depend on each other. I think a lot of that depended on the leadership, or lack of it.

Anyway, :"othering" as had been mentioned above, was never taught. I think it just comes naturally as part of coping mechanisms. You don't want to kill friends or non-threatening strangers. But those 'others' who are trying to kill you are fair game to be dispatched any way, any where, and as quickly as possible, with no regard to what they might feel. It's survival. What I think is receiving around the bush treatment, is how do sane, nice people, learn when and how to switch in and out of survival mode that puts everything aside but survival?

 

[oftheherd1]

thanks Steve, I appreciate your POV.

Yes, a fundamental shift in the nature of SD4W instruction would be a huge improvement. There is no lack of information/data about threats to girls/women from friends/family/known aggressors. The information is available and many MA based instructors pay lip service to that understanding. But this reality is absent from their instruction/classes and appear to be baffled or unable to take it in and make their instruction connect to women's lives. The focus-assumption is entirely on the 'stranger in an alley/street/parking lot'.

Why?

You bring up good points. But I wonder if there is a disconnect. MA are violent by nature. They are quite often, in a SD setting, reactions to unexpected violent attack. Elder keeps talking about the differences between men and woman, and I agree with him, modern thoughts to the contrary. Is it right to expect the SD instructor to take on issues of family/friend sexual desires and dynamics? If they have the training to do so, that would be OK. But I doubt most have any insight into that at all. If they don't, they may cause problems where none exist; they may put ideas into a person's mind that cause them to think things that aren't true.

Also, many attacks on women and girls, especially sexual, are by relatives or close friends. Some are sufficiently subtle as not to be violent. Do those victims deserve less instruction on how to avoid them? Of course not. I just don't think that is the role of the MA/SD instructor. I don't want to see that type of instruction left out of people's survival training. It is very important. But to answer you question above, about should it be part of SD training by MA instructors, and should they even pay lip service to it, I don't think so. BTW, acknowledging people need to defend themselves against family, or friends who wish to prey on them sexually, but not violently, is not lip service, but should be deferred to those expert in that field. Telling them that if a friend or family member, or stranger attacks them, here are ways to defend yourself, that I think is proper to SD.

I would very much like to know your thoughts on that. If you think I have not expressed myself well, or am wrong, please let me know. I am willing to be convinced otherwise from what I have said, or just clarify if that is what is needed. Remember, I am not against people, and primarily we think of women and children, being given instruction on how to avoid being victims of sexual predators, I am very much for that. I'm just not sure it is the role of the MA SD instructor.

 

[BMhadoken]

Thanks for bringing the 'immunity from retaliation" into the conversation. An important aspect of training I think would be learning to recognize violent actions, both in others and in ourselves, and to react according to the current situation rather than expectations.

Society tells us all violence is bad. I'm not a bad person. Consequently, "violence" becomes defined as any level of aggression beyond the one I'm comfortable using. If you ask me, the biggest factor in this disconnect is that first idea that "all violence is bad and if you use it you're a bad person."

This and the expectation of being above reproach are in no way gender-specific. I've nonetheless seen many "empowered and assertive" young women try to throw their weight around while still trying to claim the social protections granted by their femininity. I can't remember the source and google is for once of little help so take this with a large grain of salt, but I recall reading something at one point reporting that many women who were attacked or sexually assaulted by strangers had been rude, dismissive or verbally violent with their attacker beforehand. Again, no source, cannot confirm.

A big problem is that it's socially unacceptable to tell this particular group of women the things they need to accept in order to stay safe. Don't get blackout drunk in public and/or with strangers. In fact, don't get blackout drunk. Don't yell and cuss at someone if you aren't willing to bleed for it, and certainly don't slap them or otherwise physically attack them. Stay with your group, don't follow a stranger alone into an isolated area on the promise of a good time. And if you want to do risky or stupid things, for gods sake strap a knife in your shoe or something.

Dealing with the more insidious forms of abuse or violence a woman encounters at home or from people she knows is above my paygrade, but I would absolutely say they're the most worrying forms, because they're by far more common that attacks from strangers, and because the woman is over time trained to be accepting and not resist the ever-escalating abuse.

Also, many attacks on women and girls, especially sexual, are by relatives or close friends. Some are sufficiently subtle as not to be violent. Do those victims deserve less instruction on how to avoid them? Of course not. I just don't think that is the role of the MA/SD instructor. I don't want to see that type of instruction left out of people's survival training. It is very important. But to answer you question above, about should it be part of SD training by MA instructors, and should they even pay lip service to it, I don't think so. BTW, acknowledging people need to defend themselves against family, or friends who wish to prey on them sexually, but not violently, is not lip service, but should be deferred to those expert in that field. Telling them that if a friend or family member, or stranger attacks them, here are ways to defend yourself, that I think is proper to SD.

I'm in agreement with you here that if an instructor doesn't have training or experience in dealing with these sorts of relationships, they shouldn't give their student potentially damaging advice. However, comma, I'd say a good self defense instructor could certainly keep a list of names and numbers for the woman to contact for the appropriate advice.

 

[oftheherd1]

...
This and the expectation of being above reproach are in no way gender-specific. I've nonetheless seen many "empowered and assertive" young women try to throw their weight around while still trying to claim the social protections granted by their femininity. I can't remember the source and google is for once of little help so take this with a large grain of salt, but I recall reading something at one point reporting that many women who were attacked or sexually assaulted by strangers had been rude, dismissive or verbally violent with their attacker beforehand. Again, no source, cannot confirm.
...

I'm in agreement with you here that if an instructor doesn't have training or experience in dealing with these sorts of relationships, they shouldn't give their student potentially damaging advice. However, comma, I'd say a good self defense instructor could certainly keep a list of names and numbers for the woman to contact for the appropriate advice.

I don't know where you may have seen statistics that most women who are attacked bring it on themselves by their own aggressive behavior. Frankly, that sounds.like someone trying to shift the blame to the victim. I can assure you in my experience, that is not the case. If I think about it for a while, maybe I can remember an instance like that, but I can't now. Women are usually sexually attacked by sexual predators. Some are serial predators who are constantly on the lookout for a person to sexually attack, others might not normally do so, but do it on what they think is a low level, and infrequently, such as a date rape where the attacker and the victim may be less inhibited. Some of men just tell themselves no is a coy yes. None of that is acceptable. Nor is shifting the blame. No means just that, no. And what kind of aggression would justify rape?

 

[BMhadoken]

None of that is acceptable. Nor is shifting the blame. No means just that, no. And what kind of aggression would justify rape?

Justifies it to me, or to the guy doing the raping? He only needs to convince himself that he's not a bad guy. Even if he's doing a bad thing, he's doing it for, in his own mind, acceptable reasons. Or perhaps he just denies his own intentions even to himself, right up to the point he's got her panties around her ankles. I've known plenty of guys who would ambush a man and beat him straight into the ICU over a perceived insult, every one of them still believed they were decent folk. It's not much of a stretch.

If you leave your car unlocked with something valuable sitting in the front seat and someone steals it, yes, they're the ones responsible, blame them, and hold them accountable for their actions to the fullest extent of the law. But you still should have locked your car up. If a girl gets blackout drunk, passes out and some guy takes advantage while she's unconscious, he's a pig and must be prosecuted. She still shouldn't have gotten blackout drunk.

I don't think it's victim-shaming to tell people (not just women) to conduct themselves with the knowledge that we're surrounded by imperfect and occasionally very awful people. If you insist on practicing high-risk behavior, you increase the chances of something bad happening. No it shouldn't be that way. But it is.

If you're accusing me of victim-blaming based on the other thing, well as I said I can't find a source and until I can, definitely don't take that as any kind of fact, because I won't be.

 

[oftheherd1]

Justifies it to me, or to the guy doing the raping? He only needs to convince himself that he's not a bad guy. Even if he's doing a bad thing, he's doing it for, in his own mind, acceptable reasons. Or perhaps he just denies his own intentions even to himself, right up to the point he's got her panties around her ankles. I've known plenty of guys who would ambush a man and beat him straight into the ICU over a perceived insult, every one of them still believed they were decent folk. It's not much of a stretch.

Please tell us. You have explained what you think of the guy doing the raping justifying himself. How about you?

If you leave your car unlocked with something valuable sitting in the front seat and someone steals it, yes, they're the ones responsible, blame them, and hold them accountable for their actions to the fullest extent of the law. But you still should have locked your car up. If a girl gets blackout drunk, passes out and some guy takes advantage while she's unconscious, he's a pig and must be prosecuted. She still shouldn't have gotten blackout drunk.

No argument there, as long as it isn't used as an oblique way to blame the victim. No matter how stupid I might be in my behavior, I have a right to be safe from physical harm or theft of property. Why does the fact that there are bad guys take away from my right to be safe no matter?

I don't think it's victim-shaming to tell people (not just women) to conduct themselves with the knowledge that we're surrounded by imperfect and occasionally very awful people. If you insist on practicing high-risk behavior, you increase the chances of something bad happening. No it shouldn't be that way. But it is.

Not unless you are trying to tell them they are at fault and should be ashamed.

If you're accusing me of victim-blaming based on the other thing, well as I said I can't find a source and until I can, definitely don't take that as any kind of fact, because I won't be.

I'm not accusing you of anything. I was commenting on the study, as you did.

I am not trying to be confrontational. But I don't agree with anything that attempts to lessen responsibility for an attacker, especially by trying to put blame on a victim. You may feel the same way, but to me at least, you didn't express yourself quite that way. I don't want to, nor do I mean to, say you really want to blame victims. I just thought you expressed yourself in a way that was too easily interpreted that way.

 

[Tgace]

We certainty all have the "right" to be safe, but your "rights" mean nothing to a person attacking you. While nobody attacked bears responsibility for what another person decided to illegally do to them, I think we do a great disservice to people by avoiding addressing prevention because someone may interpret it as "blame".

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[K-man]

This and the expectation of being above reproach are in no way gender-specific. I've nonetheless seen many "empowered and assertive" young women try to throw their weight around while still trying to claim the social protections granted by their femininity. I can't remember the source and google is for once of little help so take this with a large grain of salt, but I recall reading something at one point reporting that many women who were attacked or sexually assaulted by strangers had been rude, dismissive or verbally violent with their attacker beforehand. Again, no source, cannot confirm.

Wow! You are game!

Let's look at your statement "many women who were attacked or sexually assaulted by strangers had been rude, dismissive or verbally violent with their attacker beforehand". I think we need to separate 'attacked' and 'sexually assaulted'. The 'attacked' bit as a result of those actions I can accept. That many women have been sexually assaulted for those reasons just doesn't compute. I can see that playing out in court ... "Well your Honour, she called me an arsehole so I raped her". Don't see much justification there.

A big problem is that it's socially unacceptable to tell this particular group of women the things they need to accept in order to stay safe. Don't get blackout drunk in public and/or with strangers. In fact, don't get blackout drunk. Don't yell and cuss at someone if you aren't willing to bleed for it, and certainly don't slap them or otherwise physically attack them. Stay with your group, don't follow a stranger alone into an isolated area on the promise of a good time. And if you want to do risky or stupid things, for gods sake strap a knife in your shoe or something.

It is also politically incorrect to voice the opinion that women should take sensible steps to avoid trouble but there are some women who insist, quite correctly, that they should be able to go anywhere or do anything they like and expect to be able to do it without any fear of being attacked.

I could get to a pedestrian crossing, wait for a big truck to come along at 60 mph and step out in front of it. Guess what? It ain't going to stop and I would be 'dead' right. Even the Australian case we were discussing earlier was a you lady with headphones in jogging by herself in an unpopulated area. Sure, she should have been entitled to be safe but she wasn't.

 

[drop bear]

I am not trying to be confrontational. But I don't agree with anything that attempts to lessen responsibility for an attacker, especially by trying to put blame on a victim. You may feel the same way, but to me at least, you didn't express yourself quite that way. I don't want to, nor do I mean to, say you really want to blame victims. I just thought you expressed yourself in a way that was too easily interpreted that way.

It becomes a PC issue to suggest that a woman can take responsibility to lessen the chance they will be attacked. By training to fight or modifying their behaviour.

But it is their head on the block not society's. And although we would like to stop all attacks on women. It isn't going to happen.

So turning this around and making the victim responsible for their own safety a bit is just the more practical option.

 

[BMhadoken]

I think we need to separate 'attacked' and 'sexually assaulted'. The 'attacked' bit as a result of those actions I can accept. That many women have been sexually assaulted for those reasons just doesn't compute. I can see that playing out in court ... "Well your Honour, she called me an arsehole so I raped her". Don't see much justification there.

I did separate them, intentionally, for partly that reason. Situations that escalate into sexual assault are slightly more complicated. Take two young college kids, add some liquid stupid. They're having a good time, maybe flirting a little, she thinks it's in good fun, he thinks its a go signal. Maybe they get alone in a room. He's trying to go further, she doesn't want to. Being young, drunk and inexperienced, he obliviously bowls through her attempts to let him down nice and easy. She gets angry, calls him a dog, maybe backhands him. And this is the exact point where things go really sour.

And that's just some dumb young buck who "didn't mean for things to get so out of control." How much easier to justify these attacks in the mind of someone who sees women as inherently property to be claimed?

 

[Dirty Dog]

Wow! You are game!

Let's look at your statement "many women who were attacked or sexually assaulted by strangers had been rude, dismissive or verbally violent with their attacker beforehand". I think we need to separate 'attacked' and 'sexually assaulted'. The 'attacked' bit as a result of those actions I can accept. That many women have been sexually assaulted for those reasons just doesn't compute. I can see that playing out in court ... "Well your Honour, she called me an arsehole so I raped her". Don't see much justification there.

Sexual assaults are not about sex. They are about power. Just like most of the other assaults you mention.

 

[Jenna]

Great post Jenna, thanks for taking the time to share. It is not very PC to say, but (whispering) male and females are different. The neurological differences between students are many, even the chemicals (not only adrenaline is dumped into the blood stream) and amounts of each vary between students. The events that trigger the 'dump' can vary based on the person being triggered. Gender, culture, past experiences, training, age, health, and many other variables including perception and views of violence all interact to create the chemical and emotional biological roller coaster ride that exposure to and use of violence can engineer. One difference that should perhaps also be noticed is the difference between students on length of time it takes for the chemicals to dissipate. Gender also has a role in that I believe.

I like your point about making a distinction between protecting self rather than harming others. I think that besides helping to set boundaries it helps to give one 'permission' to harm. It is of more interest to me currently to study by what means people use to give themselves that permission than by what means they deploy to actually cause the 'harm'. Teaching someone the eye gouge is FAR different than giving them the tools to actually do it, if that makes sense? Have you read either of the books "On Killing" and the book "On Combat" by Lt. Col. Grossman? Interesting reads that I have read thru more than once and each time gained some insight.

So perhaps a pillar might be something along the lines of, self defense training should help the student discover and develop a means to access the mindset of preservation and protection rather than the mindset of reaction and retribution?

Thanks for all of your insights Jenna and your honesty
Regards
Brian King

I want to ask you some thing Brian how do you see the bigger -the biggest- picture of all of this when you step right back to the best place to observe it?

In discussing the means by which we harm each other whether in offence or defence what is our conceit causing us to miss?

Jx

 

[oftheherd1]

I did separate them, intentionally, for partly that reason. Situations that escalate into sexual assault are slightly more complicated. Take two young college kids, add some liquid stupid. They're having a good time, maybe flirting a little, she thinks it's in good fun, he thinks its a go signal. Maybe they get alone in a room. He's trying to go further, she doesn't want to. Being young, drunk and inexperienced, he obliviously bowls through her attempts to let him down nice and easy. She gets angry, calls him a dog, maybe backhands him. And this is the exact point where things go really sour.

And that's just some dumb young buck who "didn't mean for things to get so out of control." How much easier to justify these attacks in the mind of someone who sees women as inherently property to be claimed?

I don't get your point. I still don't see you defending the victim's right to refuse to have sex. You have made her sort of complicit, up to a point, and then when she expresses her intent to not have sex (and she should be free to decide that at any point in your scenario), she becomes wrong by resisting the implied force with force of her own. ???

May I suggest if you think rape is wrong, say so. If you don't think rape is wrong, defend a man's right to rape plainly and vigorously.

I know that sounds strong, perhaps a little too strong. But I'm still not sure which side of the fence you are on.

BTW, look at Dirty Dog's post below yours. I agree with that. You often hear it said that sex is just the tool in the quest for power and subjugation of the victim. Do you agree with that and would it change how you express yourself in discussions of rape?

It becomes a PC issue to suggest that a woman can take responsibility to lessen the chance they will be attacked. By training to fight or modifying their behaviour.

But it is their head on the block not society's. And although we would like to stop all attacks on women. It isn't going to happen.

So turning this around and making the victim responsible for their own safety a bit is just the more practical option.

I am not a particularly PC person. I normally try to be polite, but sometimes fail. But I have never been the sort to agree with something I think is wrong just because it is popular. So, should a woman avoid dangerous circumstances and behavior. Yep, just as much as I or anyone else should. But rape is an emotional issue for many reasons. You may or may not agree with some of those reasons, but still, forced sex, on adults or children, should not be tolerated. Any more that any other assault is tolerated. How about we consider theft from an unlocked opened windowed car. In either case if you aren't trying to justify the thief's or rapist's actions, where is there blame for the car owner, or a woman? Not making good choices? OK. But I always seem to see blame used to lessen the responsibility of the criminal. I don't agree with that.

So if you want to say a woman or car owner, given that there are in fact people who wish them harm, should therefore take some precautions, that would be prudent on the car owner's or woman's part. But blaming the car owner or woman for the law breaker's actions, that doesn't float for me.

Now if it floats anyone's boat, I am willing to listen, and may make comments. But I'm not into victim blame.

 

[Tgace]

If you choose to leave a laptop in your unlocked car, parked on the street overnight, and someone steals it, are you to "blame"? No. Nobody has the "right" to take your property, regardless of the wisdom of your decision.

Is it wise to leave your laptop in your unlocked car? Was it a decision you made?

If I'm teaching people at a crime prevention class to NOT leave a laptop in an unlocked car should I be concerned that a victim of such a crime is in the audience and may think I'm "blaming" them?

Should I not give that advice in the first place and instead train people that "stealing stuff from unlocked cars is wrong"?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[BMhadoken]

I don't get your point. I still don't see you defending the victim's right to refuse to have sex. You have made her sort of complicit, up to a point, and then when she expresses her intent to not have sex (and she should be free to decide that at any point in your scenario), she becomes wrong by resisting the implied force with force of her own. ???

Since it apparently does need to be spelled out verbatim, something I find hard to believe, yes a woman has a right to say no to sexual advances at any stage in the process. She also has a right to use effective physical force if he doesn't want to listen or let her leave. Slapping a drunk horny idiot does not bring you closer to an effective resolution unless you use the brief moment of stunned surprise to run. Otherwise it just really pisses him off and brings things closer to a monkey-dance scenario, a scenario where this woman is almost certainly going to lose unless she can force-feed him his kneecaps in the next 5 seconds.

 

[oftheherd1]

Since it apparently does need to be spelled out verbatim, something I find hard to believe, yes a woman has a right to say no to sexual advances at any stage in the process. She also has a right to use effective physical force if he doesn't want to listen or let her leave. Slapping a drunk horny idiot does not bring you closer to an effective resolution unless you use the brief moment of stunned surprise to run. Otherwise it just really pisses him off and brings things closer to a monkey-dance scenario, a scenario where this woman is almost certainly going to lose unless she can force-feed him his kneecaps in the next 5 seconds.

Thanks for your clarification.

Although I don't think every man would simply get angry and do what they wanted anyway, your point is well taken.