Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Central London mob attacks people in Hyde park

With blokes that option may not be a practical one, so a more violent approach might be necessary.

See the difference yet?

And what if the bloke that has rendered that option impractical is not a bloke but a woman?

See the similarity yet?
 
And can you explain why you wouldn't apply the same to a woman?

Not easily, no. Partly because such feelings of aversion to hitting women probably have their roots in childhood, hence do not lend themselves readily to conscious examination.

Also, partly because such an aversion is likely bound up with notions of how status between men should be maintained, and how one's reputation in the eyes of women should be cultivated, and the ways in which the two are different.
 
Also, partly because such an aversion is likely bound up with notions of how status between men should be maintained, and how one's reputation in the eyes of women should be cultivated, and the ways in which the two are different.

Notions which I consider horribly old-fashioned and sooner gotten rid of, the better, I'm afraid.

Status between men (or between anyone) being judged by physical strength may have been appropriate or useful in primitive societies, but I don't think it is in any way a useful way to determine status in a civilised one.
 
Notions which I consider horribly old-fashioned and sooner gotten rid of, the better, I'm afraid.

Status between men (or between anyone) being judged by physical strength may have been appropriate or useful in primitive societies, but I don't think it is in any way a useful way to determine status in a civilised one.

Not sure it is a matter of physical strength so much as a psychological willingness to take a risk.

There is another factor, namely that many men simply feel more kindly disposed to women in general and hence find the thought of a man punching a woman more repellent than a man punching another man. This discrepancy pops up in all sorts of situations - one reason armies are generally reluctant to field women in the frontline is that male soldiers find it extremely difficult to ignore the cries of a wounded woman (or so I read somewhere).
 
@Rutita: I'd feel the same way.

No, I mean where are they? He's a child - and therefore their legal responsibility - yet they're letting this violent prick chat to the press and give the idea that it's just dandy to go around lamping women in the face over extremely trivial things.

Oh, I see. Well, I'm not sure if he is actually legally their responsibility any more, at 16 - he could move out and get married if he wanted to.
 
As opposed to the big, fat, white line of coke that you seem to have had?



*takes a seat beside LoL*


Thread of the year! Next time someone starts a thread asking about class I shall direct them here for the definitive explanation.


(((Big fat line of cocaine)))

*offers quimcunx candyfloss*

Blimey. Where do some of you get the stamina? :D
 
Oh, I see. Well, I'm not sure if he is actually legally their responsibility any more, at 16 - he could move out and get married if he wanted to.
Ah, sorry, I thought he was the same age as the woman he smacked in the face.
And what if the bloke that has rendered that option impractical is not a bloke but a woman?
I see one of those highly improbable, point-scoring scenarios I was referring to earlier has just been cooked up!

"But what if it's six headed aggressive alien destroying the planet - and it happens to be female?"
 
I see one of those highly improbable, point-scoring scenarios I was referring to earlier has just been cooked up!

No it's not.

Do you really find it highly improbable that there might be a situation where a man is not able to restrain a woman?

It's a very simple point - if the aggressor is a woman, and is stronger than you, and you are not able to restrain her, then why should you apply a different approach to that which you said you'd apply to exactly the same scenario but involving a male aggressor?
 
No it's not.

Do you really find it highly improbable that there might be a situation where a man is not able to restrain a woman?

It's a very simple point - if the aggressor is a woman, and is stronger than you, and you are not able to restrain her, then why should you apply a different approach to that which you said you'd apply to exactly the same scenario but involving a male aggressor?

Kindly do not avoid my earlier question for any more pages of this thread.:)

Please answer yes or no, have you hit a woman and in which case what was the situation?

(and no metaphysical hypothesis please)
 
Kindly do not avoid my earlier question for any more pages of this thread.:)

Please answer yes or no, have you hit a woman and in which case what was the situation?

(and no metaphysical hypothesis please)

If you can get your head around the metaphysics of refering to my post no. 414 you will find you already have your answer.
 
Where's chico enrico gone? He seemed so impatient for my reply but now he's disappeared. I wanted to know what he was going to say next.
 
Where's chico enrico gone? He seemed so impatient for my reply but now he's disappeared. I wanted to know what he was going to say next.
He was going to accuse you of beating up women for fun because, obviously, anyone who thinks it's no worse than hitting a man must be into hitting women. Equally obviously, anyone who thinks it's particularly unacceptable to hit a woman must think it's fine to go around beating up men...
 
Do you really find it highly improbable that there might be a situation where a man is not able to restrain a woman?
Seeing as you were so mustard keen to discover people's personal experiences earlier on, could you tell me how many times you've personally faced this situation and had to give a woman a slap in the mush?

As for me, the answer = 0.
 
Seeing as you were so mustard keen to discover people's personal experiences earlier on, could you tell me how many times you've personally faced this situation and had to give a woman a slap in the mush?

As for me, the answer = 0.

Zero as previously stated. Are we determining probability by means of anecdotal evidence?
 
I've just realised my multi-quote post is about 3 pages long with commentary. I must be annoyed.

So I have decided to just condense teuchter's posts, not anyone elses, for anyone reading this who may now be under the impression he advocates kicking the shit out of women as a hobby. And those who lack the requisite degree in metaphysics. Though I notice those new to this part of the thread don't seem to have read it any other way than presented here, so I probably don't need to.

Personally I don't think it's ever OK to injure another person unless necessary in self defence or you have some kind of agreement between the two of you that you are both happy to engage in physical violence. Just before anyone pipes up saying that I am happy to hit women.

Well, exactly.
But I'm not arguing to dissolve the "don't hit women" taboo - I'm arguing to extend it so it becomes a "don't hit people" taboo.



I don't think it's OK for anyone to kick the shit out of anyone of any gender or any physical size.

The protocol is very simple. Try to stop people beating each other up if you can (balanced of course against the risk to yourself).


I've never aggressively hit anyone. (Except when I was a child).

The difference you are talking about is the strength of the person I'm trying to restrain. That is related to, but not one and the same as their gender.

If I have the option of restraining them, I'd do that, male or female.

If I decided as a last resort that violence were necessary, then that decision would be based on the physical capabilities of the person involved, not their gender.

I don't understand how saying I would no more hit a man than I would a woman is translated as I gladly hit women, as gladly as I would hit men, if I wasn't such a coward.
 
just out of interest, i take it at some point in your life you have hit a man?

may i then enquire if you have also hit a woman and what the real-life situation was?

personally i think there is a very different psychological 'dynamic' from hitting a man to hitting a woman and as such would not be an 'easy' think for a normal, balanced male to do were it not truly a 'last resort' in the face of extreme threat of physical danger to self or others.


Why do you take it that he has hit a man? Are you under the assumption that all men have hit a man? Why? Do you believe that all normal, balanced men have? Have you? Was he bigger or smaller than you? Stronger? Weaker? Did hitting a man make you feel more manly? I’m assuming you think hitting a woman would make you feel less manly? Does not having hit a man make you less manly?
 
Erm, I'd also apply the same criteria to hitting men or women. I'd go for restraint first rather than hitting, but restraint wouldn't always be possible, This is theoretical, though - haven't had a fistfight since I was about 11.

And there are quite a few individual women who are stronger than quite a few individual men. If my GF got into a fight with my best male friend, he'd have no hope - she's way, way stronger than him. (It's kinda funny to consider those two pacifists fighting, though :D). Just because men are stronger on average doesn't mean that no situation will ever arise where a man can't restrain a woman. If we get to talking about multiple women beating up a man - which I have seen - then the women's individual strength isn't really all that important.

It's kinda dangerous to continue saying that men are always the stronger sex and a man should never hit a woman. That makes life harder for men who in violent relationships where it's the woman who's violent.

Not unless the law has changed without me noticing, he can't! :D

He can with his parents' permission, or in Scotland (for marriage) and he can move out, whether they like it or not. Actually, I'm sure that the need for parents' permission was withdrawn recently, but the government site that would have official info on it is down, and all the other sites are older.
 
I haven't been reading teuchter's posts as "I gladly hit women, as gladly as I would hit men, if I wasn't such a coward" for whatever that's worth, quimcunx.

The basic premise (for me) is that you don't want to be hitting people at all if it can be avoided, and especially over something as daft as a tshirt. But people don't always act rationally, especially in the heat of the moment. And it's the action, reaction, reaction, escalation that results in things getting out of control and people getting hurt/OB called in etc. Some people have the ability to defuse these incidents with some humour/sense, even as basic as 'leave it mate, it's not worth it'.

But, there are some people that thrive on the adrenaline rush ... fight/flight and all its aspects, not just manifesting in physical punches.

As a lass, if I hit someone I'd expect to be hit back with equal force. If my target was male (or female tbh) and didn't hit me back, I wouldn't feel demeaned ... although I'd probably feel even more ashamed of myself when the adrenaline thing receded. But that's just me innit. I avoid it :D
 
I haven't been reading teuchter's posts as "I gladly hit women, as gladly as I would hit men, if I wasn't such a coward" for whatever that's worth, quimcunx.

I was counting you as new to this part of the thread!

I've had a boyfriend who was a foot taller than me and a good 3 or 4 stone heavier who failed to pick me up. I managed to pick him up. In fact when I was tiny in width as well as height, 4'11'', and men would physically pick me up for their own amusement I would retaliate by picking them up. I even picked up a 17 stone bouncer once. I've spun a 15 stoner round and round and round.

I reckon I could take teuchter in a fight.

:)
 
Back
Top Bottom