Another woman gets punched by a man.

[JJ Mitchell]

This becoming the norm of our society now?.

 

[Maurice Boscorelli]

If you take a swing at somebody then expect a return reaction.

 

[Thomas Crown]

I dont know, I was brought up to never raise your and to a woman but it seems that women are becoming more violent and it seems stupid. Any trained man is going to react when anyone tried to hit them. The problem is some women think that a man wont hit back

 

[Sir Vicks]

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

 

[Boing]

I hate to say it and Sillygirl will agree with me but FGS's don't hit if you don't want to get ht back. Easy enough -/It wasn't me:-/

 

[Fuggedabouditt]

I dont know, I was brought up to never raise your and to a woman but it seems that women are becoming more violent and it seems stupid. Any trained man is going to react when anyone tried to hit them. The problem is some women think that a man wont hit back

...and when I said that I would punch the woman in the fast food place that accused the couple of having sex in an eatery because she came at them aggressively, I was made to feel like a bully. There is a fine line, but instant reaction to anyone that comes at me in that manner, is to stop them. In that case, the words did nothing and she escalated.

Man or woman, if you're crazy enough to assault anyone, then you get the same back.

 

[cristycurves]

Sorry, but any of the big strong guys I've met have all said they'd never hit a women. Restrain her, or use some other means to try and calm the situation, but never slap, punch or intentionally pound on a woman.

 

[Canada-Man]

Sorry, but any of the big strong guys I've met have all said they'd never hit a women. Restrain her, or use some other means to try and calm the situation, but never slap, punch or intentionally pound on a woman.

how do you restrain somebody who is likely to use a weapon against you?

 

[cristycurves]

how do you restrain somebody who is likely to use a weapon against you?

You tell me wisenhammer? This thread *is* talking about *punching* and *hitting*

Now that I think of it though, I've seen some pretty large penises,(if that is what you mean by a weapon) and when they were going to use them against me, I simply grabbed a hold and started jerking, that seemed to work

 

[demien3k5]

Any trained man is going to react when anyone tried to hit them.

This is an accurate statement, however the nuance comes via the concept of 'appropriate use of force'. Just because a smaller adversary attempts to perpetrate a physical attack doesn't mean that a full scale, no holds barred retaliatory offensive should always and immediately be launched.

Particularly where male vs. female confrontations are concerned, there are many alternative and typically more appropriate responses to a physical attack than simply saying to yourself 'fuck this, all bets are off' and pounding the crap out of her simply because you are physically able to do so. That's the ego-driven, macho-tough guy bully mentality.

Even in a potentially life-threatening situation, and in the blink of an eye, a truly professionally trained individual will keep a cool, calm head and do an options assessment before jumping to any extreme response.

Truth is, the thrashing of a woman by a man is virtually never a necessary or appropriate use of force.

 

[demien3k5]

Restrain her, or use some other means to try and calm the situation, but never slap, punch or intentionally pound on a woman.

This ^^^^^^^^^

 

[Canada-Man]

 

[demien3k5]

Why do the instigators always get a pass? I get it that in general, the "little lady" isn't going to hurt the "big strong man" even if she lands a slap or punch. So what? People want equality....then accept it in all aspects of life. If you take a swing at someone, you better be prepared to deal with the consequences, whatever they may be. The argument of "restraining" the weaker littler person isn't legit either. You're making too many assumptions about the goodness of the instigator. She's willing to take a swing at the guy. She might be willing to do worse. Maybe she has weapons on her? Maybe she has martial arts training. Nobody would know this at the moment of the attack. She has a friend with her in the vid....perhaps she has a weapons or training. By "restraining" her, the guy opens himself up to other attacks. Why should he take any risks? Because she's a "girl"! Isn't that fucking sexist?!

It's the golden rule....treat others how you wish to be treated. If you show them that you are willing to use violence, then be prepared for the other person to visit violence upon you. If not....admit women are weaker creatures that must be cared for by big strong men. You don't get to have it both ways.

So tired of double standards.

You're right. Full scale thermonuclear war is likely your only means of emerging from any confrontation unscathed. Why chance it? Dealing out death and destruction in ample and equal quantities is probably your last best chance at survival, particularly in cases of a surprise attack. Use of force should ALWAYS be met with greater, and more decisive counter-force! Complete and utter eradication of the problem is the only true option.

<This message has been brought to you by the Donald Trump School for Bullying and Aggressive Behavior.>

 

[Fuggedabouditt]

Why do the instigators always get a pass? I get it that in general, the "little lady" isn't going to hurt the "big strong man" even if she lands a slap or punch. So what? People want equality....then accept it in all aspects of life. If you take a swing at someone, you better be prepared to deal with the consequences, whatever they may be. The argument of "restraining" the weaker littler person isn't legit either. You're making too many assumptions about the goodness of the instigator. She's willing to take a swing at the guy. She might be willing to do worse. Maybe she has weapons on her? Maybe she has martial arts training. Nobody would know this at the moment of the attack. She has a friend with her in the vid....perhaps she has a weapons or training. By "restraining" her, the guy opens himself up to other attacks. Why should he take any risks? Because she's a "girl"! Isn't that fucking sexist?!

It's the golden rule....treat others how you wish to be treated. If you show them that you are willing to use violence, then be prepared for the other person to visit violence upon you. If not....admit women are weaker creatures that must be cared for by big strong men. You don't get to have it both ways.

So tired of double standards.

Yep

 

[peace]

:don'twantto-see:/

 

[demien3k5]

I believe in this thread, we're talking about a woman threatening/attacking a male victim.

Women are, to the very greatest extend, smaller and weaker than virtually any man they might choose to attack (with the exception of rare cases to the contrary)

Beyond collateral damage that a woman could cause via a surprise attack, most typical women pose much less of a risk to a man during any physical confrontation, and as such, most men, being the stronger of the two, should be able to defend against an attack by a) simply walking away 2) using words to diffuse further physical interaction 3) using an acceptable use of force in self-defense to prevent further attacks/personal injury.

There is no need for retaliatory physical aggression from a male victim against a female aggressor once a situation has been appropriately controlled, because in reality there is no longer any real personal risk.

For a man to jump right to physical retaliation against a smaller, weaker aggressor under the guise of 'gender equality' is ridiculous and completely unnecessary in pretty much all circumstances and simply shows a lack of self-control on the man's part, if not a poorly rationalized sense of entitlement and self-indulgence.

In your scenario, what if a man immediately retaliates and kicks the ever-loving shit out of his female aggressor because she struck first, really goes to town, only to find out she was under the influence of a alcohol, or a narcotic, or perhaps is suffering from mental illness - any of which could be preventing her from rational behavior.

Is the guy off the hook simply because she struck first? Not likely.

Retaliation by men in the form of physical violence against women, even women who are aggressors, is NOT the way. There are virtually ALWAYS alternatives, except in cases ( as I have said many times) where it's truly a life threatening situation.

But whatever. If you can feel good about yourself after perpetrating violence against a woman, regardless of circumstance, well....

 

[Prick]

On the serious side. Good responses here :good:

 

[cristycurves]

Well I hate to do it, I hate to say it....but I agree with a particular repsondant:shout: what I again find amusing and sad, though is, he fervently protests against those who have no issue *physically* retaliating against woman, yet he sees no issues with his own verbal attacks on women. One is as bad as the other imo. But then again, who am I to say.......

 

[papasmerf]

Well I hate to do it, I hate to say it....but I agree with a particular repsondant:shout: what I again find amusing and sad, though is, he fervently protests against those who have no issue *physically* retaliating against woman, yet he sees no issues with his own verbal attacks on women. One is as bad as the other imo. But then again, who am I to say.......

.
It is rare we will agree with someone 100% of the time.
Stands to reason that if we are honest, we will not disagree with them 100% of the time.

When you do, it is you not them.

 

[cristycurves]

Is this a Papa fact So rare means it can happen.....so when it does, when someone and I agree 100% who is being dishonest, or honest, or...oh..... I'm so confused now...and that is a fact, well not 100 %, more like rarely, rarely I'm confused, well sometimes ...lol okay.....forget it, now I'll have to fact checkDamn-Not too smartFunky & Music