[nacht]

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm all for focusing on self defense and would advocate using the money that goes toward manufacturing these condoms instead being used to teach these women how to defend themselves. Forget the condom with teeth and just beat the ever living hell out of the guy.

...and to be pedantic (I am INTJ, hear me pendant), the goal in a self defense situation is not to "beat the ever living hell out of the guy" and anyone who thinks it is should either not be trained in self defense or at the minimum be divorced of such notions before advancing in such training.

The goal of self defense is to get away. Not to beat people up.

[Seriously]

Oh for the love of GOD. You obviously just want to argue with me and I'm really tired of it so how about I just say "you win" and then you can go home happy, eh?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I take Krav. My goal is to get home safe and if that means I have to beat the shit out of you to do it I will. Feel free to argue with that as well.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[SelfMadeBum]

	Originally Posted by nacht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The goal of self defense is to get away. Not to beat people up.

Getting away is one kind of self defense, as I see it. Physically neutralising the threat is another.

[Distance]

Beating the crap out of someone who attempts to victimise you, is a form of taking your power back. I'm all for that too.

[nacht]

	Originally Posted by SelfMadeBum To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Getting away is one kind of self defense, as I see it. Physically neutralising the threat is another.

If you are excessive in your "physically neutralizing the threat" then you can (and should) be prosecuted for excessive use of force.

Ultimately your goal needs to be to get away, whatever that entails, which may include leaving your attacker physically unable to pursue. If that leaves your attacker physically crippled or dead, so be it, but the goal cannot be to "leave your attacker physically crippled or dead" or to "beat up your attacker," your goal must be to get away.

It also means that if you have managed to prevent further pursuit and have gotten away (say, via breaking in the knees) then it is excessive force to continue to "beat them up" or inflict further damage. At that point it is no longer a matter of self defense.

[nacht]

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Beating the crap out of someone who attempts to victimise you, is a form of taking your power back. I'm all for that too.

It is nothing more than fantasizing that does nothing to "take your power back" in any meaningful way. It is vigilante violence that increases the risk to yourself by needless increasing the damage and time on the scene, and can very well end you up in jail and with further psychological issues.

There is no honor in hurting another human being. It can be necessary, but there is no honor in it.

[VagrantChord]

	Originally Posted by nacht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The goal of self defense is to get away. Not to beat people up.

	Originally Posted by SelfMadeBum To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Getting away is one kind of self defense, as I see it. Physically neutralising the threat is another.

You may get away but you might have enraged your attacker in the process and he'll return bent on more destruction so you'll have to face the situation again.

On the other hand, if you have the chance to neutralize the threat and kick the living shit out of your attacker before you do get away, that ass kicking just might be the deterent to prevent future attacks.

In my experience, the latter method has been the most effective in the long run.

[themuzicman]

Um... vigilante violence and acting in self-defense are mutually exclusive. If a woman kills a man who is trying to rape her, and that was the force necessary to stop him it is justified. There is no "minimal force" rule for self-defense.

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by nacht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It is nothing more than fantasizing that does nothing to "take your power back" in any meaningful way. It is vigilante violence that increases the risk to yourself by needless increasing the damage and time on the scene, and can very well end you up in jail and with further psychological issues. There is no honor in hurting another human being. It can be necessary, but there is no honor in it.

What has honour got to do with some moron trying to stick his penis into you, enacting both emotional and physical violence so he can get his sick rocks off?

Talk to me about honour when we're talking about a stylized duel. Beyond that, kicking the crap out of a would-be rapist, poking out his eyes or ripping apart his dick will satisfy my honour just fine.

[nacht]

	Originally Posted by VagrantChord To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You may get away but you might have enraged your attacker in the process and he'll return bent on more destruction so you'll have to face the situation again.

This is fantasizing. You might as well say "and if you beat them up too severely their friends might come to make an example out of you." We can play "what if" games all day.

Not to mention the "what if" concern of "what happens when their family sues you for excessive use of force because you've rendered them quadriplegic." If you go into court and say "I feared for my life, I had to try and stop him and got away as soon as I could" there is going to be very different tune playing than if you say "He attacked me so I beat the everliving shit out of him to teach him a lesson not to come after others."

Your concern can only be with the present circumstance and with using the correct application of force to get away (which may involve avoiding the confrontation in the first place, always the A+ answer). Besides, if you raise the bar sufficiently and indicate that you are too much trouble to deal with, the average rapist will go find an easier mark.

	On the other hand, if you have the chance to neutralize the threat and kick the living shit out of your attacker before you do get away, that ass kicking just might be the deterent to prevent future attacks.

...and again, the goal cannot be to "kick the living shit out of your attacker." Not legally, not ethically, and not practically. It prolongs the engagement and increases the risk on several different levels.

I can shatter every bone in the arm. It would be useless to do so if I have broken both their knees and smashed a floating rib and they are on the ground. It is just inflicting pain and destruction for the sake of inflicting pain and destruction at that point.

---------- Post added 06-22-2010 at 01:28 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Um... vigilante violence and acting in self-defense are mutually exclusive. If a woman kills a man who is trying to rape her, and that was the force necessary to stop him it is justified. There is no "minimal force" rule for self-defense.

True, but there is an "reasonable force" rule for self-defense founded in common law, and many states have rules such as that you have a "duty to retreat" if you are able to do so.

[Seriously]

Honestly nacht I don't think at any point in the during a rape or attack anyone is going to be thinking about this stuff. Honor, beating the shit out of someone or repercussions will all be moot points in the face of getting away one way or another. People are mainly articulating their feelings toward the situation. Most women would like to think of beating the shit out of any many who tried to rape them doesn't mean they actually would.

[nacht]

Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Honestly nacht I don't think at any point in the during a rape or attack anyone is going to be thinking about this stuff. Honor, beating the shit out of someone or repercussions will all be moot points in the face of getting away one way or another. People are mainly articulating their feelings toward the situation. Most women would like to think of beating the shit out of any many who tried to rape them doesn't mean they actually would.

It is fantasizing, pure and simple, and not particularly productive fantasizing. It is like the guy entertaining notions of beating up the rapist when a woman confesses that she has been raped: simply not a useful exercise and one that gets in the way of actually helping others get through it.

Proper self defense is about proper application of force as required to get away, which is to say that which is sufficient for the circumstances (which may be "none"). To quote English law on the matter "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances as he believes them to be."

Talking about "beating the shit out of them" is neither productive nor, if the opportunity arose and you actually did such, ethical nor legal.

[Distance]

I'm curious to know how the men in this thread would satisfy their honour if someone physically stronger than them tried to put it up their arse? Would they lie still to take it so's not to enact violence on another being? Or would they use whatever means are available to nullify their attackers?

[nacht]

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm curious to know how the men in this thread would satisfy their honour if someone physically stronger than them tried to put it up their arse? Would they lie still to take it so's not to enact violence on another being? Or would they use whatever means are available to nullify their attackers?

First: I don't think anyone here is advocating that anyone "lie still to take it so's not to enact violence on another being." That would require a pretty severe distortion of all of the arguments I've seen against this mousetrap.

Second: Why would it be any different between men and women? Both are entitled to the reasonable application of force.

[Seriously]

Originally Posted by nacht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It is fantasizing, pure and simple, and not particularly productive fantasizing. It is like the guy entertaining notions of beating up the rapist when a woman confesses that she has been raped: simply not a useful exercise and one that gets in the way of actually helping others get through it. Proper self defense is about proper application of force as required to get away, which is to say that which is sufficient for the circumstances (which may be "none"). To quote English law on the matter "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances as he believes them to be." Talking about "beating the shit out of them" is neither productive nor, if the opportunity arose and you actually did such, ethical nor legal.

Actually it's not such a big deal in Texas...not sure about Africa though.

[SelfMadeBum]

I'm subject to correction, but I don't think "beating the shit out of them" was suggested as the object of the defense. Neutralising the threat is, however that is achieved.

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by nacht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	First: I don't think anyone here is advocating that anyone "lie still to take it so's not to enact violence on another being." That would require a pretty severe distortion of all of the arguments I've seen against this mousetrap. Second: Why would it be any different between men and women? Both are entitled to the reasonable application of force.

How does any physical imbalance equate to reasonable application of force? Generally speaking, men out-height, out-strength and out-weight most women. In order for a woman to nullify a man, most will have to rely on the element of surprise. If this means gouging out eyes, kneeing a groin to the level of future erectile dysfunction, it's not as if she's going to be thinking "am I doing this too hard?". She's going to be thinking "Fuck I'm scared". Better to think "Fuck I'm going to kick the shit outta' you because I'm friggen' angry that you would try to do this to me". Do you always know how hard you're hitting when in flight or flight mode? When your adrenaline is pumping when you fear for your life, what are you thinking? Have you ever been in a life-threatening situation from another person who's bigger and stronger than you? This is what each woman who's been attacked or raped is wondering. Will he stop at rape?

[nacht]

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Actually it's not such a big deal in Texas...not sure about Africa though.

Quoting the Texas Penal Code § 9.31:

(a) Except as provided in
Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against
another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is
immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful force.

It makes a specific note that deadly force is not authorized under § 9.31 unless it follows § 9.32, 9.33, or 9.34.

Embedded in § 9.32 we see:

(a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.31;
(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
would not have retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(2) embodies a "duty to retreat" before attempting to use deadly force.

There is a specific exemption to this clause for the Castle Doctrine, but that involves a somewhat different set of circumstances.

[firebee]

Some of y'all are not getting the point of "there is no honor in hurting another human being".

No honor.

Not no honor unless you're thinking the right thoughts, or no honor except if the way you choose to hurt them is according to some set of rules, or no honor unless you're teaching them a darned good lesson. There just is no honor in it, under any circumstances, period.

And yet we still train to do nasty, horrible, bloody things to people -- so there surely must be some point, right? The point is: we do what we have to do, because we have to do it. And the implication of this is that, there being no honor whatsoever involved, we do precisely what needs to be done no matter what needs to be done, and no more than that.

So, if I run across some huge side of beef that wants to do something to me that I don't care to think about, odds are that the thing I'm going to have to do to get him to stop isn't very aesthetically pleasing -- kicking in his knee, say, or gouging out his eyeball, or the ever-famous grab-pull-squeeze-twist sort of thing, or something else that is generally not considered a proper part of stand-up honorable fighting or the sort of thing that one can have light conversations about at a formal reception. And that's what is going to happen -- the more dirty and dishonorable the better, because dirty and dishonorable = more productive at attaining the goal of not being raped or killed.

Now, let us say that we have done the thing that we needed to do, and the offending individual has now clearly lost the inclination to be mean and nasty. At this point, there are probably a number of things that we could do to them, to let out our frustration or desire to inflict pain in a justified arena or whatever the hell. Snap an extra few bits off to teach them a lesson. Kill them -- or if that is by this point superfluous, ensure a closed-casket funeral. Eat their lung. I don't know. But here's the thing: Our goal is what? To get away. If we spend a bunch of time faffing about doing things that are not necessary for the goal of getting away, then we are compromising our goal of getting away in favor of... some other goal, which is not very pleasant.

If I'm of a mind to go and hurt someone for fun, I go off and spank my boyfriend. It's not a suitable motivation for the practice of martial arts.

[Seriously]

Originally Posted by nacht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Quoting the Texas Penal Code § 9.31: (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. It makes a specific note that deadly force is not authorized under § 9.31 unless it follows § 9.32, 9.33, or 9.34. Embedded in § 9.32 we see: (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; (2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and (3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. (2) embodies a "duty to retreat" before attempting to use deadly force. There is a specific exemption to this clause for the Castle Doctrine, but that involves a somewhat different set of circumstances.

If I'm a woman being raped I'm not really going to care...but I also know how to make it look all legal just in case you were worried about me. I also know how to cut your throat with your own knife...while you are holding it.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[firebee]

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If I'm a woman being raped I'm not really going to care...but I also know how to make it look all legal just in case you were worried about me.

I am not terribly impressed with the notion that being a woman somehow constitutes a magical excuse not to consider the ethical or practical implications of a self-defense situation. We have just as much capacity as men do to consider our actions properly, and even more motivation (on average, considering the question of physical size) to not screw around with superfluous revenge bullshit.

The notion that "it's all okay as long as I make it all look legal" is, in addition to being ethically reprehensible, a really dumb fucking idea. Cops know what crime scenes look like, because they've seen a lot more of them than you have. Attempting to be clever is a gold-plated way to turn your defensible action into a complete legal clusterfuck.

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I also know how to cut your throat with your own knife...while you are holding it. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yeah, nacht has showed me that trick before. Cute, isn't it? Did you know that you can do a similar thing with those ligaments that are behind the knee?

[Seriously]

Originally Posted by firebee To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I am not terribly impressed with the notion that being a woman somehow constitutes a magical excuse not to consider the ethical or practical implications of a self-defense situation. We have just as much capacity as men do to consider our actions properly, and even more motivation (on average, considering the question of physical size) to not screw around with superfluous revenge bullshit. The notion that "it's all okay as long as I make it all look legal" is, in addition to being ethically reprehensible, a really dumb fucking idea. Cops know what crime scenes look like, because they've seen a lot more of them than you have. Attempting to be clever is a gold-plated way to turn your defensible action into a complete legal clusterfuck. Yeah, nacht has showed me that trick before. Cute, isn't it? Did you know that you can do a similar thing with those ligaments that are behind the knee?

If I were ever in a rape situation, again, I doubt I will be thinking about legalities. I will be ensuring I'm not raped. And if I need to neutralize the threat I will also ensure that I don't suffer any repercussions legal or otherwise. I'm not an idiot so I wouldn't fuck with a crime scene but I would surely represent myself as being in a situation where the actions I took were to ensure my own safety and that I felt myself to be in mortal danger if that is what the situation called for.

[nacht]

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	How does any physical imbalance equate to reasonable application of force? Generally speaking, men out-height, out-strength and out-weight most women. In order for a woman to nullify a man, most will have to rely on the element of surprise.

Nonsense. This isn't an arm wrestling contest, it is a struggle to get away.

How much force does it take to break in a knee? To shatter the bones in the foot or ankle? To gouge out an eye? To smash a trachea? To break in a floating rib?

The question isn't "can a woman out-wrestle a man," the question is "what is required to get away for a man or a woman." On the issue of how much force can be generated, for women the only answer that matters is "enough."

	If this means gouging out eyes, kneeing a groin to the level of future erectile dysfunction, it's not as if she's going to be thinking "am I doing this too hard?". She's going to be thinking "Fuck I'm scared". Better to think "Fuck I'm going to kick the shit outta' you because I'm friggen' angry that you would try to do this to me".

The distinction between "reasonable application of force to get away" and "kick the shitta outta' them" is not trivial.

Emotions don't enter into it except in evaluation of the circumstance. What degree of force is justified by the circumstance you believe yourself to be in? Beating them up because you are "friggen' angry" is not legal nor is it ethical, nor is it particularly wise. It is simply inflicting damage because you take joy in inflicting harm on another human, and it substantially increases your risk by leaving you at the scene (and in reach of the assailant, not something to be dismissed if they are drugged up on PCP) for longer.

Apply exactly as much force as you need. Whatever that happens to entail. That may leave your attacker dead, it may leave them crippled, but once you have done enough to open up the ability to retreat, you do so.

You most emphatically do not stick around to inflict even more damage simply because your blood is hot and you are enraged. That has nothing to do with self defense, and it has nothing to do with the "element of surprise."

	Do you always know how hard you're hitting when in flight or flight mode? When your adrenaline is pumping when you fear for your life, what are you thinking? Have you ever been in a life-threatening situation from another person who's bigger and stronger than you? This is what each woman who's been attacked or raped is wondering. Will he stop at rape?

Actually most rapes in the US are (non-aggravated, IIRC) date rapes, and so such questions look more than a little different from how you frame them, but tabling that for a moment.

The question isn't how hard you are hitting. You of course strike with conviction. The question is between "do I shatter their arm and their ankle and maybe their floating rib so that I can get away" and "after having shattered their arm and their ankle and it is clear that I can get away do I continue to beat them up because they wronged me and I am angry?"

There is a huge distinction between "beat the shit out of them" and "self defense."

---------- Post added 06-22-2010 at 02:41 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I also know how to cut your throat with your own knife...while you are holding it. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yeah, I learned how to do that when I studied tantojutsu.

[Distance]

nacht, as someone who's been attacked before and got away, I'm not going to go any further into this. Suffice to say, you do whatever is necessary.

Believe what you fantasize. I know what happens.

[nacht]

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	nacht, as someone who's been attacked before and got away, I'm not going to go any further into this. Suffice to say, you do whatever is necessary.

You seem to be deliberately refusing to understand what I have been writing if you think I wouldn't agree with the statement of "you do whatever is necessary."

The trick is that I have argued again and again and again that you add to "whatever is necessary" the caveat of "and no more." You may fudge it a bit "just to be safe," but in essence you apply a reasonable amount of force as required to disengage--be that lethal or trivial--and then you leave. If you need to apply a lethal amount of force, you do so as efficiently as possible given the circumstances.

You don't "beat the everliving shit out of them," you don't beat them up, and your goal isn't even peripherally to beat them up.

Your goal is to do "whatever is necessary" to get away. "Whatever is necessary" is also known as a "reasonable amount of force." Then, once you can retreat, you do so. Whether you actually have a "duty to retreat" is irrelevant here except as a matter of law: once you can get out of the situation, you do, and further violence is neither ethically nor legally justified. Nor is it wise.

	Believe what you fantasize. I know what happens.

I'm not the one engaging in fantasies here. You and others have been the ones fantasizing about beating people up beyond what is reasonable.

Saying that you "know what happens" is a useless statement, because you have seen what happened... once. To you. In a situation where we have no idea what the circumstances were or whether the degree of force applied was reasonable on which to judge.