NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you guys think about:
Theoretical Situation: A girl(age 15-19) hits a guy around the same age with the intent of causing him harm, but he didn't do anything to earn it, she just felt like it. Should the guy hit her back?


Personally i think the guy should hit her back, with the intent of causing her harm, as long as it isn't permanent, but i feel like society would frown on the 'guy hitting girl' thing.
But, if girls have higher pain tolerance, shouldn't it not matter as long as nothing is broken,etc?

Yeah go ahead dude...

depends on the girl.

depends on the girl.

On her looks or what do you mean by that statement?

What do you guys think about:

Theoretical Situation: A girl(age 15-19) hits a guy around the same age with the intent of causing him harm, but he didn't do anything to earn it, she just felt like it. Should the guy hit her back?

Personally i think the guy should hit her back, with the intent of causing her harm, as long as it isn't permanent, but I feel like society would frown on the 'guy hitting girl' thing.

But, if girls have higher pain tolerance, shouldn't it not matter as long as nothing is broken,etc?

Just tell Mom your sister's picking on you again, it's not nice to hit girls.

On her looks or what do you mean by that statement?

Idk, he meant if ugly than fix the face?

What do you guys think about:
Theoretical Situation: A girl(age 15-19) hits a guy around the same age with the intent of causing him harm, but he didn't do anything to earn it, she just felt like it. Should the guy hit her back?



The guy should hit her back if that's the only way to prevent her from continuing her action.
The guy shouldn't hit her back if she tried once and she's not going to do it again soon.

Of course, if the targeted guy had been me, it is unlikely that the girl would hit me because:
1.I can evade, or parry, quite well
2.girls usually like me.:D

And who cares of the eventual "you guys don't beat girls" anyway. Equal opportunities = equal responsibilities.

On her looks or what do you mean by that statement?

on how fucking hard she hit me. some girls (and guys too) an all their strength punch doesn't merit a counter attack. others to not bring in a counter attack is setting yourself up for a trip to the hospital.

No. Call it a double standard, but no: you don't hit women unless you absolutely have to to prevent her from doing something terrible to you or a third party. You don't even need to consider the moral side of the argument: numbers are enough - your strength is in most cases far superior to hers, and the harm you would cause her is not in proportion to the harm she has caused you. She doesn't deserve it, even if she's an irredeemably evil person.

But, if girls have higher pain tolerance, shouldn't it not matter as long as nothing is broken,etc?

Girls don't have a higher pain tolerance. Women have more tolerance for sustained pain, men have more tolerance for short bursts of pain.

Also, it would depend more on the relative sizes of the people in question. Big guy and small girl... no. Equal sized? Go for it.

No. Call it a double standard, but no: you don't hit women unless you absolutely have to to prevent her from doing something terrible to you or a third party. You don't even need to consider the moral side of the argument: numbers are enough - your strength is in most cases far superior to hers, and the harm you would cause her is not in proportion to the harm she has caused you. She doesn't deserve it, even if she's an irredeemably evil person.

Maybe then she would learn not to hit people if you hit her once, and she discovers people don't care about your sex, just your actions.

No. Call it a double standard, but no: you don't hit women unless you absolutely have to to prevent her from doing something terrible to you or a third party. You don't even need to consider the moral side of the argument: numbers are enough - your strength is in most cases far superior to hers, and the harm you would cause her is not in proportion to the harm she has caused you. She doesn't deserve it, even if she's an irredeemably evil person.

in most cases i would hold a boxing stance and evade, block, or cover most of the blows.

Girls don't have a higher pain tolerance. Women have more tolerance for sustained pain, men have more tolerance for short bursts of pain.

Also, it would depend more on the relative sizes of the people in question. Big guy and small girl... no. Equal sized? Go for it.

In any case, most men have been hit countless times by the time they reach adulthood. Women may have a tolerance for pain, but men are more accustomed to it, except in cases of domestic violence and other horrors. The whole argument from pain tolerance is unhelpful, though, regardless.

in most cases i would hold a boxing stance and evade, block, or cover most of the blows.

As I recall, children who witness their mothers beating their fathers (which is at least as common as the inverse, statistically) are more likely to become abusers than children who witness their mothers being victimized. In other words, it's not good to retaliate, but neither is it good to just grin and bear it, especially if you have kids. Unless pain is just your thing.

As I recall, children who witness their mothers beating their fathers (which is at least as common as the inverse, statistically) are more likely to become abusers than children who witness their mothers being victimized. In other words, it's not good to retaliate, but neither is it good to just grin and bear it, especially if you have kids. Unless pain is just your thing.

the solution to that is I don't marry a crazy bitch. (given my choie of women in the past suggest i might)

And I mention else where if it is hard enough to stagger me I would likely defend myself more aggressively. thus far most women haven't hit me hard enough for me to feel the need to counter.

What do you guys think about:
Theoretical Situation: A girl(age 15-19) hits a guy around the same age with the intent of causing him harm, but he didn't do anything to earn it, she just felt like it. Should the guy hit her back?

Aww, someone has got a crush on you.
If you were maybe 5 years younger then yes, I would say you could get away with hitting her back. However, since this is high school(?) don't hit her back, it will only make things worse. If you want reveng spread a rumor that she has crabs, but quicly get a restaining order... or obtain/forge an abortion bill to her address.

No. You never, ever hit a woman. For any reason. That doesn't mean you have to let her hit you, but there plenty of ways to avoid/stop that wiithout you hitting her. That is always unacceptable.

What do you guys think about:
Theoretical Situation: A girl(age 15-19) hits a guy around the same age with the intent of causing him harm, but he didn't do anything to earn it, she just felt like it. Should the guy hit her back?


Personally i think the guy should hit her back, with the intent of causing her harm, as long as it isn't permanent, but i feel like society would frown on the 'guy hitting girl' thing.
But, if girls have higher pain tolerance, shouldn't it not matter as long as nothing is broken,etc?

This scenario is rather silly, given how loaded with assumptions and stereotypes about gender roles it is.

In that scenario, a person should defend themselves. The gender of the attacker is entirely irrelevant.

No. You never, ever hit a woman. For any reason. That doesn't mean you have to let her hit you, but there plenty of ways to avoid/stop that wiithout you hitting her. That is always unacceptable.

Ridiculous. Why should one never hit a woman? Are women weak creatures who need to be defended by their big, strong men?

Please. That is offensive and disgraceful.

Probably not, since I'm a really big guy. Maybe restrain her.

No. You never, ever hit a woman. For any reason. That doesn't mean you have to let her hit you, but there plenty of ways to avoid/stop that wiithout you hitting her. That is always unacceptable.

lol. the one girl i would have hit back knocked me out in one hit.
Given this was in Korea in a TaeKwonDo classroom in the context of sparing.
And was mostly a lesson in I better shut my mouth(I didn't think she would understand the joke i said to a male counter part). Lesson: don't make sexist joke in the presence of a female with 15+ more years martial arts experience then you.

What do you guys think about:
Theoretical Situation: A girl(age 15-19) hits a guy around the same age with the intent of causing him harm, but he didn't do anything to earn it, she just felt like it. Should the guy hit her back?

Personally i think the guy should hit her back, with the intent of causing her harm, as long as it isn't permanent, but i feel like society would frown on the 'guy hitting girl' thing.

He shouldn't hit back unless its nessissary for self-defense, both from a legal and an ethical perspective. This would hold true if it was a male as well. However, even if it was justified for self-defense, he would probably be frowned on, and might, even just subconsiously, be treated more harshly by judges, juries, and police (if it came to that).

But, if girls have higher pain tolerance, shouldn't it not matter as long as nothing is broken,etc?

Proof that they have higher pain tolerance? Also, why is hurting someone ok because you won't hurt them quite as much?

If, however, it was a matter of self-defense, I hope I would be no more restrained in hitting a woman than in hitting a man.

lol. the one girl i would have hit back knocked me out in one hit.
Given this was in Korea in a TaeKwonDo classroom in the context of sparing.
And was mostly a lesson in I better shut my mouth(I didn't think she would understand the joke i said to a male counter part). Lesson: don't make sexist joke in the presence of a female with 15+ more years martial arts experience then you.

Please tell me you pressed charges.

Granted I would never hit a woman because that's just the way I am, but if she is causing pain, she should be dealt pain back.

Equal rights.

Granted I would never hit a woman because that's just the way I am, but if she is causing pain, she should be dealt pain back.

Equal rights.

If someone is causing pain, you should not deal pain back. Why lower yourself to something as petty and pointless as revenge?

That's not to say you shouldn't defend yourself. If you are seriously in danger, then hurt them just as much as nessissary to protect yourself.

Ridiculous. Why should one never hit a woman? Are women weak creatures who need to be defended by their big, strong men?

Am I honestly being asked to justify not beating women? Is that what's happening here?

That is offensive and disgraceful.

No, what's offensive and disgraceful is a man who hits women.

Please tell me you pressed charges.

it was a sparring match.
I mentioned something about women being at a disadvantage in taekwondo versus men because of lack of power. She suggest we spar to prove the point I accepted. we had pads on and their was a referee. She basically threw a punch that had no power in it to distract me, then jumped up spun around and kicked me in the head.

I wasn't totally out, just knocked down and staggered.
I had it coming by being pig headed enough not to back down and apologize.

TBH my type of girl. would have tried to date her if she wasn't the instructors daughter.

tell her you're into that sort of thing and next time you'd appreciate it if she would call you a very naughty boy before hitting you.
then moan softly and drool.

Am I honestly being asked to justify not beating women? Is that what's happening here?



No, what's offensive and disgraceful is a man who hits women.

What you're being asked to justify is an attitude that ultimately treats women as though they are weak and need protection.

Please don't misunderstand me, as I am against violence on general principles. What I am saying is that the attitude present here is ultimately harmful and offensive towards women, and undercuts them in society.

The issue isn't one of "let's not hit women" so much as WHY you do not ever hit a woman.

No, what's offensive and disgraceful is a man who hits women.

In many circumstances I agree. However, it would be nice to here one reason why it should be considered worse to hit a man than to hit a woman, even if its a crappy one like "because the Bible says so." You've given an opinion, but you've given jack shit to justify or even explain it.

If someone aims a hit towards you, defend yourself.
Gender is irrelevant.

I was actually beaten up by a "kicker-girl" in middle-school,
but when I hit back once, I was sent to a talk with the teachers.

The issue isn't one of "let's not hit women" so much as WHY you do not ever hit a woman.

For the same reason you don't fuck kids or skin animals alive: because it's wrong. Or if you want a reason that approaches the same conclusion from the positive side, rather than the negative side, it's the same reason you open doors for them or give up your seat on the bus or let them on the elevator first: chivalry.

However, it would be nice to here one reason why it should be considered worse to hit a man than to hit a woman, even if its a crappy one like "because the Bible says so." You've given an opinion, but you've given jack shit to justify or even explain it.

- It's 'hear', not 'here.'

- You've got it backwards, it's worse to hit a woman than a man.

-'Because the Bible says so' is not a bad reason.

- I don't need to justify a damn thing, but I will explain. See above.

For the same reason you don't fuck kids or skin animals alive: because it's wrong. Or if you want a reason that approaches the same conclusion from the positive side, rather than the negative side, it's the same reason you open doors for them or give up your seat on the bus or let them on the elevator first: chivalry.


Again, why? Why are women special? Why should we treat them differently? Why should they not be considered equal in our society?

For the same reason you don't fuck kids or skin animals alive: because it's wrong.

Hitting someone of the opposite gender in a fight is hardly on the ethical level of raping a child. In fact, its not inherently wrong at all.

If you're raping a child, you are committing a sick violation for your pleasure of someone who is moreover helpless and harmless, and such an act is always utterly evil. If you hit someone in self-defense in a fight, you are defending yourself from an opponent in a fight. If you concede the act is ok when done to a guy, why should it be any different when done to a girl, presuming the circumstances are otherwise the same?

Or if you want a reason that approaches the same conclusion from the positive side, rather than the negative side, it's the same reason you open doors for them or give up your seat on the bus or let them on the elevator first: chivalry.

It would really be nice if you could justify your position with something more than "its right because it is." That's not even circular logic; its just repeating yourself. And I would hope that you would give your seat or hold a door for whoever needed it, not just a woman.

At the end of the day, its not a question of why you should be nice. Its a question of why you should be nicer to one gender. Or to look at it from a different point of view, instead of asking why you should treat a woman better, let me ask you why you should treat a man worse?

- It's 'hear', not 'here.'

Thanks, but I already know my spelling sucks. And I will warn you once: do not try to attack my spelling instead of my arguments. Use of ad hominums will gain you nothing but ridicule.

- You've got it backwards, it's worse to hit a woman than a man.

Obvious typo. However, you have yet to explain why its inherently worse to hit a woman than a man.

-'Because the Bible says so' is not a bad reason.

Do I really have to explain how treating the Bible as literal and infallible is a bad idea? Are you going to make me post a list of retarded Biblical commands and ask you how to justify them to prove the point?

- I don't need to justify a damn thing, but I will explain. See above.

You didn't explain shit, you repeated yourself. Try harder, if you can.

Again, why? Why are women special? Why should we treat them differently? Why should they not be considered equal in our society?

Women are special because...they just are, and they get treated differently because they're special. Yeah, I know it's circular, and I'll admit right now, I have no logical reason that will make you say 'Oh, I see it now, yeah, he's right.' I've got no sociological context to put it in, and no scientific studies to back me up.

I will say, most of the chicks I run into and/or have dealings with run the gamut from 'like it' to 'don't mind' as far as being treated with a bit of chivalry.

she should be arrested and placed in a jail that is also a public place of prostitution.

maybe for a not very long time, say maybe only one week.
personally i feel that brute force physical attack is every bit as serious as sexual assualt, and should be taken and treated seriously. certainly it is far less natural.

of course every reality of the situation needs to be objectively considered. from the scant discription given it is insufficient to determine what might actually be equitable in a given case.

but the time of treating genders differently, and treating physical assualt as a minor crime, both need to be over.

Women are special because...they just are, and they get treated differently because they're special. Yeah, I know it's circular, and I'll admit right now, I have no logical reason that will make you say 'Oh, I see it now, yeah, he's right.' I've got no sociological context to put it in, and no scientific studies to back me up.

At least you admit it. I still think you're wrong, or at least not entirely right, but at least you admit the obvious.

I will say, most of the chicks I run into and/or have dealings with run the gamut from 'like it' to 'don't mind' as far as being treated with a bit of chivalry.

Why attack a system which gives you special treatment?;) Plus, many women no doubt share your traditional values.

On the other hand, some women will be pissed off if you give them special treatment. My preferred attitude would be to treat everyone with courtesy, including holding a door for a girl if she liked it, and not if she didn't.

she should be arrested and placed in a jail that is also a public place of prostitution.

You better not be serious. Fucking rape as a penalty for a girl hitting a guy?

Also, I'm not one to cry sexism, but would you suggest forced prostitution (ie, rape) as the penalty for a man who hit another man?

maybe for a not very long time, say maybe only one week.

Do you have any concept of Justice or humanity at all?

personally i feel that brute force physical attack is every bit as serious as sexual assualt, and should be taken and treated seriously.

I would disagree. I don't have a survey on hand to back me up, but I would bet most people would find sexual assault more traumatic than a blow to the face. Rapists take an intimate and pleasurable act and twist it. Their's something utterly repulsive about it on a gut level beyond that of hitting someone. At least I find it so, and I'm sure their are many others who agree.

Of course, their are different degrees of both sexual and non-sexual assault.

certainly it is far less natural.

Horseshit. What action is more instinctively natural than lashing out in some way, be it verbal or physical, at those who harm us in some way? I would in fact say its far more natural than sexual assault.

of course every reality of the situation needs to be objectively considered. from the scant discription given it is insufficient to determine what might actually be equitable in a given case.

I doubt it would be anything you would consider equitable.

but the time of treating genders differently, and treating physical assualt as a minor crime, both need to be over.

Its not inherently considered a minor crime as far as I can tell. Its just that the law recognizes that their are degrees of assault. Surely you're not going to claim that, say, slapping someone is equivalent to smashing their kneecap with a baseball bat, or raping them?

Also, you suggested forced prostitution, ie, rape, as a penalty for assault. So, your attitude of Justice is to punish an offense with a greater one? Maybe we should go back to the days when we cut off a thief's hand?

My preferred attitude would be to treat everyone with courtesy, including holding a door for a girl if she liked it, and not if she didn't.

i hold doors for everyone who has an armload of packages or a hand truck load of them or is too close behind me the door would close rudely in their faces, regardless of gender or anything else. and I get offended when someone makes the mistake of assuming i making some sort of gender based preferential treatment by doing so, as once happened to me. (though i can more or less understand in the context of those times when it happened, why a female person in those days would make the paranoid assumption it was my intention to do so, myself being male)

At least you admit it. I still think you're wrong, or at least not entirely right, but at least you admit the obvious. Why attack a system which gives you special treatment?;) Plus, many women no doubt share your traditional values.

Now, see, I had this whole sarcastic response written in response to your earlier posting, but this one here is all non-confrontational and nice and I'd feel like a dick if I posted it. So we'll just let it go. As for admitting the obvious, hell, if I can't explain it logically, I'm not going to pretend I can. To be honest, it boils down to: 'That's the way I was raised, and I see no reason to change.'

On the other hand, some women will be pissed off if you give them special treatment. My preferred attitude would be to treat everyone with courtesy, including holding a door for a girl if she liked it, and not if she didn't.

I try to treat everyone with courtesy(with varying results, depending)but chivalry tends to be my default behavior in dealing with ladies.

she should be arrested and placed in a jail that is also a public place of prostitution. maybe for a not very long time, say maybe only one week.

That's the worst idea I've ever heard, what the hell is wrong with you? I can't think of any offense that would merit a week's worth of constant sexual assault. Hell, the death penalty would be kinder.

...but would you suggest forced prostitution (ie, rape) as the penalty for a man who hit another man?
i do rather suspect this would cut down somewhat on the romatacization of violence as being somehow "mature".

in short yes, absolutely good for the goose good for the gander. isn't that what supposedly goes on in prisons anyway?

Now, see, I had this whole sarcastic response written in response to your earlier posting, but this one here is all non-confrontational and nice and I'd feel like a dick if I posted it. So we'll just let it go. As for admitting the obvious, hell, if I can't explain it logically, I'm not going to pretend I can. To be honest, it boils down to: 'That's the way I was raised, and I see no reason to change.'

I'm not one to avoid a debate, and I tend to debate aggressively. But I'm always willing to let a fight go at the appropriate time.

I try to treat everyone with courtesy(with varying results, depending)but chivalry tends to be my default behavior in dealing with ladies.

Well, it may not be logical, but you're not really hurting anyone, so who gives a damn?

Unless you're ever in a situation where a girl is attacking you and you can't defend yourself properly because of your chivalry.;) Or if the girl is offended by your chivalry, in which case I for one would respect her wishes.

No. You never, ever hit a woman. For any reason. That doesn't mean you have to let her hit you, but there plenty of ways to avoid/stop that wiithout you hitting her. That is always unacceptable.

Shouldn't that be: No. You never ever hit another person....?

Shouldn't that be: No. You never ever hit another person....?
with the emphasis on PERSON, reguardless of gender!

i do rather suspect this would cut down somewhat on the romatacization of violence as being somehow "mature".

And shooting graffiti artists would no doubt cut down on the romantacization of vandalism as being somehow "cool." Or it might only incite further graffiti as an act of rebellion by people who rightly see such draconian punishments as unjust. Your point being?

You can try to justify a very long list of atrocities with the claim that they will deter some form of harm or another. That doesn't mean it actually works that way, or that the ends justify the means. While our society worked to do away with gender discrimination, it also began to develop a concept called "human rights." Maybe you should look it up.

in short yes, absolutely good for the goose good for the gander. isn't that what supposedly goes on in prisons anyway?

Yes, but some of us see that as a problem rather than a gain. And aside from the moral issues around human treatment of prisoners, rape in prison is surely a major contributing factor to ensuring that those who go in minor offenders often come out severely disturbed, hardened criminals. Plus, you know, we really need more STDs going around.

Yes, but some of us see that as a problem rather than a gain. And aside from the moral issues around human treatment of prisoners, rape in prison is surely a major contributing factor to ensuring that those who go in minor offenders often come out severely disturbed, hardened criminals. Plus, you know, we really need more STDs going around.

grantied, that IS a problem rather then a gain. as for std's, they couldhave, wouldhave, shouldhave been eliminated a long time ago if research priorities weren't so much based on symbolic instead of real value.

i absolutely aggree this is a very serious bad thing that needs to be seriously prioritised doing something about. it is, if anything, as you have indeed rightly pointed out, while perhapse dancing arround saying so, cruel and unusual, and thus unconsitutional, punishment.

my points were several and complex, chief among them being the irrationality of certain culturally implied perspectives. precisely as i perceive this thread as being about.

Women are special because...they just are, and they get treated differently because they're special. Yeah, I know it's circular, and I'll admit right now, I have no logical reason that will make you say 'Oh, I see it now, yeah, he's right.' I've got no sociological context to put it in, and no scientific studies to back me up.

I will say, most of the chicks I run into and/or have dealings with run the gamut from 'like it' to 'don't mind' as far as being treated with a bit of chivalry.
Well at least you admit you have no good reason to think that, though you should take that as a sign that perhaps you should reexamine your beliefs.

And yes, many women'll like being treated in a chivalrous manner, but that's because people like to be treated specially and has nothing to do with them being women. Some men'll be just as happy.

And there are plenty of women and men alike who would be offended by it as well. I've actually run into that by accident due to my tendency to be polite in public and hold doors open, stuff like that.

And there are plenty of women and men alike who would be offended by it as well. I've actually run into that by accident due to my tendency to be polite in public and hold doors open, stuff like that.

What happened?

grantied, that IS a problem rather then a gain. as for std's, they couldhave, wouldhave, shouldhave been eliminated a long time ago if research priorities weren't so much based on symbolic instead of real value.

I tend to think that a great many problems would be drastically reduced if the Justice System stopped being about punishment and started being about public safety first, rehabilitation and compensation second. Ie, rehabilitate when possible (while finding some way for the offender to compensate the victims), and when you can't, or when its too risky to try, lock them up and never let them out.

By contrast, the current system sends people to jail for minor crimes, where they are treated like shit, and then throws them out as hardened criminals to make room for the next bunch. A perfect combination of morally reprehensible and illogically counter-productive.

i absolutely aggree this is a very serious bad thing that needs to be seriously prioritised doing something about. it is, if anything, as you have indeed rightly pointed out, while perhapse dancing arround saying so, cruel and unusual, and thus unconsitutional, punishment.

I don't dance around anything. Frankly, I wouldn't care if it was constitutional. I'd just say "well, I guess we need an amendment."

my points were several and complex, chief among them being the irrationality of certain culturally implied perspectives. precisely as i perceive this thread as being about.

Unless you feel that the notion of prisoner's rights or rape being unconditionally wrong are irrational (in which case please try to back up your position with solid arguments), I fail to see how this justifies or explains your suggested punishment.

What do you guys think about:
Theoretical Situation: A girl(age 15-19) hits a guy around the same age with the intent of causing him harm, but he didn't do anything to earn it, she just felt like it. Should the guy hit her back?


Personally i think the guy should hit her back, with the intent of causing her harm, as long as it isn't permanent, but i feel like society would frown on the 'guy hitting girl' thing.
But, if girls have higher pain tolerance, shouldn't it not matter as long as nothing is broken,etc?

If your story is to be believed then that girl sounds like a crazy bitch. The male should just walk away peacefully and avoid her crazy ass...

Unless you're ever in a situation where a girl is attacking you and you can't defend yourself properly because of your chivalry.;) Or if the girl is offended by your chivalry, in which case I for one would respect her wishes.

I'm 6'6 and run about 260 lbs. Few women are willing to smack me, and the ones that did, I generally deserved it. As for being offended, you never seem to find that out until after you hold the door or whatever, do you?

Shouldn't that be: No. You never ever hit another person....?

No, it shouldn't. There can be plenty of good reasons to hit a man. Apropos of the subject, a couple of months ago, I saw this guy slap his girlfriend in the parking lot of my bar and I objected. He objected to my objection, things escalated, and I had to hit him. And then, go figure, his girl started yelling at me and helped him up. There's just no pleasing some people.

Women are special because...they just are, and they get treated differently because they're special. Yeah, I know it's circular, and I'll admit right now, I have no logical reason that will make you say 'Oh, I see it now, yeah, he's right.' I've got no sociological context to put it in, and no scientific studies to back me up.

I will say, most of the chicks I run into and/or have dealings with run the gamut from 'like it' to 'don't mind' as far as being treated with a bit of chivalry.

Women should hold doors open for men, but not for the reasons of "chivalry" that causes men hold doors for women. The lesson is that women need to serve men at all times.

Personally, there's no gender bias inherent in it for me. Whether its girl, guy, hermaphrodite or lizardperson from the constellation Draco, hit back only if its necessary in order to escape from the situation.

There's no moral duty to hit someone back if they attack you. Just because someone causes harm to you doesn't mean that you 'should' necessarily cause harm straight back. Might do it out of anger, but 'should' exercise physical violence in return? Not sure of the grounds for that one.

I'm 6'6 and run about 260 lbs. Few women are willing to smack me, and the ones that did, I generally deserved it. As for being offended, you never seem to find that out until after you hold the door or whatever, do you?

Well if a girl had a problem with it, I would never do it again.

No, it shouldn't. There can be plenty of good reasons to hit a man. Apropos of the subject, a couple of months ago, I saw this guy slap his girlfriend in the parking lot of my bar and I objected. He objected to my objection, things escalated, and I had to hit him. And then, go figure, his girl started yelling at me and helped him up. There's just no pleasing some people.

Just lucky for you the guy wasn't packing a knife or a gun. Me, I'd either stay out of it or call the police and let them do the dirty work. My taxes pay their salary, after all.;)

Women should hold doors open for men, but not for the reasons of "chivalry" that causes men hold doors for women. The lesson is that women need to serve men at all times.

You know, the next time you have a thought...you should just let it go. Besides, it's probably lonely in there.

Just lucky for you the guy wasn't packing a knife or a gun. Me, I'd either stay out of it or call the police and let them do the dirty work. My taxes pay their salary, after all.;)

Eh. It's been my experience most people meet like with like in those kind of situations. Besides, less people are armed than you might think nowadays, which might also be why there are so many rude SOB's around. That, and I figured the police were busy with more important things.

You know, the next time you have a thought...you should just let it go. Besides, it's probably lonely in there.

Lonely where?

By contrast, the current system sends people to jail for minor crimes, where they are treated like shit, and then throws them out as hardened criminals to make room for the next bunch. A perfect combination of morally reprehensible and illogically counter-productive.

i totally agree this is the current problem seriously needs to be corrected.

sorry about striking the other nerve, but there is an aspect to that we are all blinded to by the dominant enculturation. it takes a bit of looking outside of it at nature to see, and i can perfectly understand that this is unimaginable and inconceivable to the vast majority of us who have grown up completely within it.

morality IS about the avoidance of causing suffering, but, and i'm not denying that its real, but 2/3 of the suffering caused by rape, is because of prevailing cultural attitudes about sex in general.

attitudes that are falsely equated with morality.

(what i would totally disagree, is that ANY unprovoked physical assault is any less serious then rape)
(a LESS serious crime, that mostly shouldn't be crimes at all, would be possession, in personal only quantities, without intent to sell, anything, or trespassing without causing or intent to cause, damage or vandalism, or living in self made shelter that does not meet building code approval)

No, what's offensive and disgraceful is a man who hits women.

I'd call this a gender-based discrimination, or sexism for short.

I only think in terms of person A hits person B. The thing can be justified or not, depending on the following questions.
1.who started it?
2.is the amount of violence reasonabily limited and consistent with the purpose of preventing further violence, while causing the least harm possible (if violence is actually needed, of course)?
3.is the retaliation reasonabily proportionated to the potential harm caused by the aggressor?

Example: if someone attacks me with bare hands, I'm likely to try to dodge him/her first, try to talk the matter over, and parry or restrain if the attack continues. If this isn't going to stop my aggressor, I'm going in for more severe measures (serious pain and temporary incapacitation). Independently on my aggressor's gender.

Example 2: If someone carries a potentially lethal attack against me (could also be a martial artist attacking me barehanded, or a woman with a knife), while I'm unarmed, I'll try to stop and incapacitate my aggressor no matter what. If I'll have to cause permanent damage, too bad - I'm not trying to kill him/her, s/he is! Independently on my aggressor's gender.

What happened?

I got a dirty look a couple times, and once got an offended snort. No actual shouting at me though, thankfully.

Luckily that almost never happens. I usually get "Oh, thank you!" in a surprised tone instead. Apparently people are surprised that others would be polite.

I'd call this a gender-based discrimination...

That's what I'd call it too(that, or maybe 'Fred')because that's exactly what it is. Doesn't make it a bad thing. You know what else uses 'gender-based discrimination?' Public restrooms, clothing stores, and bars.

What do you guys think about:
Theoretical Situation: A girl(age 15-19) hits a guy around the same age with the intent of causing him harm, but he didn't do anything to earn it, she just felt like it. Should the guy hit her back?


Personally i think the guy should hit her back, with the intent of causing her harm, as long as it isn't permanent, but i feel like society would frown on the 'guy hitting girl' thing.
But, if girls have higher pain tolerance, shouldn't it not matter as long as nothing is broken,etc?
There are alt.net groups for people who like hitting girls. I'm sure you can find one specifically for hitting younger teen hotties in miniskirts or whatever else you like.

I got a dirty look a couple times, and once got an offended snort. No actual shouting at me though, thankfully.

Luckily that almost never happens. I usually get "Oh, thank you!" in a surprised tone instead. Apparently people are surprised that others would be polite.

I would come back with some smart arse rude comment either that or slam the door in their face.

i totally agree this is the current problem seriously needs to be corrected.

sorry about striking the other nerve, but there is an aspect to that we are all blinded to by the dominant enculturation. it takes a bit of looking outside of it at nature to see, and i can perfectly understand that this is unimaginable and inconceivable to the vast majority of us who have grown up completely within it.

morality IS about the avoidance of causing suffering, but, and i'm not denying that its real, but 2/3 of the suffering caused by rape, is because of prevailing cultural attitudes about sex in general.

Rape is, by definition, an act forced upon someone without consent. Thus, it will always be a violation of that person's rights and integrity, and often if not always carry some form of violence or other coercion attached to it. It can also be a physically as well as emotionally damaging act, and can spread STDs and cause pregnancy. Finally, regardless of prevailing social attitudes about sex, it will always be emotionally damaging, because it involves taking someone's control of their own body away and physically abusing it.

attitudes that are falsely equated with morality.

What attitudes are you referring to, exactly? Regardless, their is nothing that makes rape ok.

(what i would totally disagree, is that ANY unprovoked physical assault is any less serious then rape)

Are you saying that all physical assaults are equal? If so, then would I be correct in thinking that in your eyes, spitting in someone's face is equivalent to, say, gouging their eye out? Yeah, nice Justice System you'd create.

(a LESS serious crime, that mostly shouldn't be crimes at all, would be possession, in personal only quantities, without intent to sell, anything, or trespassing without causing or intent to cause, damage or vandalism, or living in self made shelter that does not meet building code approval)

Their are many examples of minor things that are crimes but should not be. Their are also many things that should be crimes, but which are not all equal to each other.

That's what I'd call it too(that, or maybe 'Fred')because that's exactly what it is. Doesn't make it a bad thing. You know what else uses 'gender-based discrimination?' Public restrooms, clothing stores, and bars.

This argument is below your usual level of intelligence.

Expecially your example about clothing stores.
Physical differencies =/=> different ethical standards. Unless you're claiming that females have a brain so different from the male brain that they aren't able to discern when violence can be justified, hence attacks coming from a female should be condoned because females are ethically-challenged and unable to judge properly.
Or maybe it's the boobs causing an ethical deficiency? Or the penis magically bestows higher moral qualities on its bearers?

Yes, this is a per absurdum. I somewhat doubt that you're implying this.

Also: bars? A public place is a public place and whoever wants to go in does so. Male or female. If you're talking about private clubs, that's another thing (where, dunno, women enter for free and men have to pay, wtf).

Public restrooms: separated because some people, lacking good manners, would look at other people's privates, causing embarassment in the best case (yes, some females look at males, too). So what? It's not a discrimination, because each gender has its own place to go and receives exactly the same service.

You're advocating receiving different treatment for the same action, based on one's gender. THIS is sexism, and, no, that's not good. Equal rights = equal responsibilities.

By the way, if gender discrimination is a good thing, then let's go back to more chivalrous times. "Wash the dishes and let the men speak, woman" would have been the typical argument. I'm sure you prefer modern times and a bit more equality - just like I do.

That's what I'd call it too(that, or maybe 'Fred')because that's exactly what it is. Doesn't make it a bad thing. You know what else uses 'gender-based discrimination?' Public restrooms, clothing stores, and bars.
Ahh, the good old "They did it first!" defense.

From which logic we can conclude that black people should never have been allowed equal civil rights, because, after all, public restrooms, clothing stores, and bars all discriminated based on race.

What do you guys think about:
Theoretical Situation: A girl(age 15-19) hits a guy around the same age with the intent of causing him harm, but he didn't do anything to earn it, she just felt like it. Should the guy hit her back?


Personally i think the guy should hit her back, with the intent of causing her harm, as long as it isn't permanent, but i feel like society would frown on the 'guy hitting girl' thing.
But, if girls have higher pain tolerance, shouldn't it not matter as long as nothing is broken,etc?
best not to hit her back, she might have a knife in her purse.

Ridiculous. Why should one never hit a woman? Are women weak creatures who need to be defended by their big, strong men?
Yes, we are.


Also, you shouldn't hit her unless you have to defend yourself. What you should do is call the police on her and press charges for assault. Escalating the situation by hitting her back is not going to help your case any. The only reason you should strike her is if you're really in a situation where there is no choice.

I'm a firm believer in equality. If the bitch is trying to hurt you, take her down. Could also be because I've known a couple guys who have been beaten by their girlfriends.

That's not to say you shouldn't defend yourself. If you are seriously in danger, then hurt them just as much as nessissary to protect yourself.

Didn't I just say that?:confused:

Didn't I just say that?:confused:

From what I can see, it looks like it went something like this: you seemed to be saying that if someone causes you pain, you should cause them pain back as an end in itself, while I was disagreeing for ethical reasons, and saying that you should only cause them as much pain as you need to in order to defend yourself.

I'm 6'6 and run about 260 lbs. Few women are willing to smack me, and the ones that did, I generally deserved it.
This is the second stupidest part of your argument. The idea that a man has "deserved" to get hit by a women for failing to pass the ketchup or commenting on a third parties ass, or whatever.
The stupidest, of course, is that central premise that women deserve special protection, but that's been well commented on already.
No, it shouldn't. There can be plenty of good reasons to hit a man. Apropos of the subject, a couple of months ago, I saw this guy slap his girlfriend in the parking lot of my bar and I objected. He objected to my objection, things escalated, and I had to hit him. And then, go figure, his girl started yelling at me and helped him up. There's just no pleasing some people.
This song has some very good advice for your situation. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10tsb73VJt4) (Sorry about the quality, the lyrics (http://www.metrolyrics.com/let-it-alone-lyrics-old-crow-medicine-show.html)to aid legibility).

One friend I know didn't hit her back, because he wasn't in inmediate danger and after all, it was his wife.

One week later, said wife grabbed a baseball bat and separated my friend from his precious three frontal teeth and like 25 minutes of his conscience.

He still thinks he should had smacked her back the first time she placed a hand over him.

From what I can see, it looks like it went something like this: you seemed to be saying that if someone causes you pain, you should cause them pain back as an end in itself, while I was disagreeing for ethical reasons, and saying that you should only cause them as much pain as you need to in order to defend yourself.

Yeah I guess I should have worded it better. I was drunk after all.

But what you said is what I meant to say.

Women are special because...they just are, and they get treated differently because they're special. Yeah, I know it's circular, and I'll admit right now, I have no logical reason that will make you say 'Oh, I see it now, yeah, he's right.' I've got no sociological context to put it in, and no scientific studies to back me up.


I see. So you're sexist.

One friend I know didn't hit her back, because he wasn't in inmediate danger and after all, it was his wife.

One week later, said wife grabbed a baseball bat and separated by friend from his precious three frontal teeth and like 25 minutes of his conscience.

He still thinks he should had smacked her back the first time she placed a hand over him.
To teach the bitch a lesson of course.

To teach the bitch a lesson of course.

if that lesson is "attack me and I'll defend myself", sure.

One friend I know didn't hit her back, because he wasn't in inmediate danger and after all, it was his wife.

One week later, said wife grabbed a baseball bat and separated by friend from his precious three frontal teeth and like 25 minutes of his conscience.

He still thinks he should had smacked her back the first time she placed a hand over him.

Hope he had her arrested.

if that lesson is "attack me and I'll defend myself", sure.

Wouldn't it be better to press charges?

But of course, since this is NSG, we can't go one day without some stupid attempt to try and apply universal rules to complex situations.

Would I hit a girl back? Depends. For the same reasons I'd hit a guy back. Whether I felt myself in danger. Her being a woman has absolutely nothing to do with it, other than in a VERY general sense that women, being smaller, are probably less likely on the whole to make me feel endangered.

That being said, there's a maxim that anyone who resorts to violence is a threat. Anyone can do harm, if his or her intent is to do harm. Even the smallest girl can grab a knife

Wouldn't it be better to press charges?

after the fact, sure? But the law recognizes our right to defend ourselves for a reason. I'm not saying respond to a slap in the face with a punch to the nose, but a willingness to do violence indicates a desire to do violence. Put me in a situation where I feel my health, safety, and bodily integrity are threatened and I will defend myself from that, regardless of your gender.

THEN I will press charges.

But of course, since this is NSG, we can't go one day without some stupid attempt to try and apply universal rules to complex situations.

Would I hit a girl back? Depends. For the same reasons I'd hit a guy back. Whether I felt myself in danger. Her being a woman has absolutely nothing to do with it, other than in a VERY general sense that women, being smaller, are probably less likely on the whole to make me feel endangered.

That being said, there's a maxim that anyone who resorts to violence is a threat. Anyone can do harm, if his or her intent is to do harm. Even the smallest girl can grab a knift

I already said that.

I already said that.

That's nice. Fortunately I'm not obligated to get your permission to post something, and pass it through the Smunkee board of approval to make sure it complies with their high standards.

stop trolling.

...the smallest girl can grab a knift
Noooooooo!! Anything but my knift!

Noooooooo!! Anything but my knift!

shaddup you, I already fixed that.

Incidentally your Hemmingwayesq avatar is freaking me out.

That's nice. Fortunately I'm not obligated to get your permission to post something, and pass it through the Smunkee board of approval to make sure it complies with their high standards.

stop trolling.

:confused:

What do you guys think about:
Theoretical Situation: A girl(age 15-19) hits a guy around the same age with the intent of causing him harm, but he didn't do anything to earn it, she just felt like it. Should the guy hit her back?


Personally i think the guy should hit her back, with the intent of causing her harm, as long as it isn't permanent, but i feel like society would frown on the 'guy hitting girl' thing.
But, if girls have higher pain tolerance, shouldn't it not matter as long as nothing is broken,etc?

depends on alot of things.

(assuming I was the guy being hit)
How well do I know this girl?
Is it just one hit?
Where was I hit?
Do I know the reason?

all this would be important to me on whether or not I 'hit' back and how hard I hit.

(yes, I know others may have said the same thing, but I didn't feel like posting "^ QFT") :p

If he can't block a punch from a girl around the same age... wow, just wow.

There are alternatives to punching back you know.

If he can't block a punch from a girl around the same age... wow, just wow.

There are alternatives to punching back you know.

it depends. if it's someone I know and she needed to vent, I wouldn't 'block' the punch.

heck, I've been the punching bag for alot of people. my only request is, keep it on the arms and shoulders.

it depends. if it's someone I know and she needed to vent, I wouldn't 'block' the punch.

heck, I've been the punching bag for alot of people. my only request is, keep it on the arms and shoulders.

In any case, unless she's some 300 pound bodybuilder with a black belt (sorry about the alliteration there), he doesn't have a reason to hit her.

In any case, unless she's some 300 pound bodybuilder with a black belt (sorry about the alliteration there), he doesn't have a reason to hit her.

as I said, it depends on alot of things. is it one hit or a prelude to an attack? is she hitting his arm or hitting somewhere more? vital and painful? is she using her fist or a 2x4?

is this a stranger or someone that person knows?

Self-defense is reasonable... it's up to the target if they would defend themselves.

Only if she likes being hit.

Potentially. Much as it had been previously put, it does bear reiteration; no universal formulaton can be applied.

Personally, there's no gender bias inherent in it for me. Whether its girl, guy, hermaphrodite or lizardperson from the constellation Draco, hit back only if its necessary in order to escape from the situation.

Exactly. Defending yourself proportionately is fine. Hitting someone to "teach them a lesson" or some such nonsense is not. Gender has nothing to do with it.

I wouldn't hit her back. If she's a good person, she'll be really sorry for hurting me, which suffices. If she's evil, nothing will do any good.

I've never met a girl who would punch me for no good reason, though. Does this mean I live among exceptionally nice girls?

He should attempt to extricate himself from the situation, without having to resort to further violence. Only if he absolutely has to, should he hit her, and then only to remove himself from the situation.

This should be the case whether the protagonists are male/male, female/female or female/male.

Theoretical Situation: A girl(age 15-19) hits a guy around the same age with the intent of causing him harm, but he didn't do anything to earn it, she just felt like it. Should the guy hit her back?

No. Retaliation is not an appropriate response to being hit; there's no real claim of self-defense there (edit: though he has no obligation to simply stand and take it, and if he does, there's probably something wrong going on.)

Personally i think the guy should hit her back, with the intent of causing her harm, as long as it isn't permanent, but i feel like society would frown on the 'guy hitting girl' thing.

It would. Instead, society should be frowning on the "person hitting person" thing. It is no worse to hit a girl than to hit a guy.

But, if girls have higher pain tolerance, shouldn't it not matter as long as nothing is broken,etc?

I wasn't aware that it was okay to deliberately hurt people as long as you don't hurt them "too much."

I think it's fine to hit a girl. Just not too hard.
I mean, it's ok to spank a child. So...

This argument is below your usual level of intelligence.

I think you're misunderstanding me. Discrimination is: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit. This happens all the time in society, on just about every level imaginable, and it's not always bad. Discrimination is only bad if it's done with malicious intent.

My point about clothing stores, restrooms and bars was that these all involve 'gender-based discrimination', but nobody(or very few people) care.

Bars - I've never heard anybody complain about 'ladies night' because chicks like free drinks, and guys like bars full of chicks.

Restrooms - They're divided into Men's Rooms and Women's Rooms and if you're not a man, or a woman you're(as a general rule) not allowed in the Men's or Women's Room. That's the very essence of 'gender-based discrimination' but very few people seem to mind, because it's not done maliciously.

Clothing Stores - Same as restrooms.

I see. So you're sexist.

Apparently. And here, all these years, I thought I was just being polite. Go figure.

This is why I teach kids from an early age to keep their hands and feet to themselves. Because then 10 years later when they get in an argument, they'll remember Ms. Ryadn telling them to use their words, not their fists/nails/shoes/teeth.

No, no, no.

What you do is choke slam her, ala the Giant or Kane or the Undertaker.

It avoids the whole crying thing because she only wakes up later, has a headache, and no clue what happened. You then have drugs and alcohol ready, tell her she was just having a nightmare, and get to work.

---

But seriously, if a man is being attacked by a woman, just hold her hands as she punches. That should be the end of it, unless it's Grace Jones or Chyna or something. In that case, the choke slam fo real, or run for your life.

----

But nah, the real answer is just to try to calm her down, reason with her, and make a compromise.

I think you're misunderstanding me. Discrimination is: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit. This happens all the time in society, on just about every level imaginable, and it's not always bad. Discrimination is only bad if it's done with malicious intent.


I can understand your point, but I have to disagree.

(merriam-webster)
dis·crim·i·na·tion
1 a: the act of discriminating b: the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
2: the quality or power of finely distinguishing
3 a: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually
b: prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>

I think that, when we're discussing "gender discrimination", we're talking about the meanings that I've bolded, expecially 3b. As you can see on the wiki,

wikipedia: Discrimination
Discrimination toward or against a person or group is the treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit. It is usually associated with prejudice. It can be behavior promoting a certain group (e.g. affirmative action), or it can be negative behavior directed against a certain group (e.g. redlining). The latter is the more common meaning.

Gender discrimination
See also: Sexism
Though gender discrimination and sexism refers to beliefs and attitudes in relation to the gender of a person, such beliefs and attitudes are of a social nature and do not, normally, carry any legal consequences. Sex discrimination, on the other hand, may have legal consequences.

Though what constitutes sex discrimination varies between countries, the essence is that it is an adverse action taken by one person against another person that would not have occurred had the person been of another sex. Discrimination of that nature in certain enumerated circumstances is illegal in many countries.

Currently, discrimination based on sex is defined as adverse action against another person, that would not have occurred had the person been of another sex. This is considered a form of prejudice and is illegal in certain enumerated circumstances in most countries.


This is what I'm meaning.

If I would react against a man attacking me using harsher standards than I would if a woman attacked me in exactly the same way, I would be enacting an adverse action against the man that would not have occurred had the person been of another sex.

You're talking "discrimination" more in the meaning of "distinction", I think. Which are quite different etymologically. Not just in Latin: even in English, there is a perceivable gap between "distinguish", "discriminate" (from latin dis+crimen) and "discern" (from latin dis+cernere).

I think it's fine to hit a girl. Just not too hard.
For what purpose?

I mean, it's ok to spank a child. So...
It's actually really not.

I can understand your point, but I have to disagree.

Fair enough. I'm willing to agree to disagree.

Under the social climate and culture of the people I hang around with? No, very unlikely.

You do not strike back, because you are a gentleman, and let things pass if they do not harm you too much. This would apply to both guys and girls. If you don't want to go for that approach, then deal with both sexes exactly identically, and all people as individuals. Next?

No, no, no.

What you do is choke slam her, ala the Giant or Kane or the Undertaker.

It avoids the whole crying thing because she only wakes up later, has a headache, and no clue what happened. You then have drugs and alcohol ready, tell her she was just having a nightmare, and get to work.

No no no no no. What you do is hit her with a FALCOOOOOOON PUNCH (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=23446&stc=1&d=1168484923)!

No no no no no. What you do is hit her with a FALCOOOOOOON PUNCH (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=23446&stc=1&d=1168484923)!

But what if she knows that move as well, and defends herself with it?

O shi- (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S363ixv9oZk&feature=related)

hit her damn it. it's self defence and they arecequal to men as ,uch as cmen are equal to them so...

But what if she knows that move as well, and defends herself with it?

O shi- (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S363ixv9oZk&feature=related)

Then may god (http://c2.api.ning.com/files/cXPiR7odjn5hWer2t-yHd7IcAbeXg1q*dEX8kl*VToU_/ERIS_by_istarwyn.jpg) have mercy on us all.

What do you guys think about:
Theoretical Situation: A girl(age 15-19) hits a guy around the same age with the intent of causing him harm, but he didn't do anything to earn it, she just felt like it. Should the guy hit her back?


Personally i think the guy should hit her back, with the intent of causing her harm, as long as it isn't permanent, but i feel like society would frown on the 'guy hitting girl' thing.
But, if girls have higher pain tolerance, shouldn't it not matter as long as nothing is broken,etc?

Men in general are stronger than women. That, and pretty much all of human history has recorded women as the less defensivew sex. These factors contribute to the incredible harshness in the law when a guy hits a girl.

I think if a girl hits a guy, maybe she should be charged... of course most cops wouldn't, but I saw a report once that suggested that domestic abuse caused by women is far more of a problem than anyone knows, merely because men don't wasnt to report it. This is shameful, since men are so often villainized for it, it is something society needs to end.

"Eye for an eye." may be an appropriate maxim in justice, but in personal actions I don't feel it is appropriate.

You better not be serious. Fucking rape as a penalty for a girl hitting a guy?
Also, I'm not one to cry sexism, but would you suggest forced prostitution (ie, rape) as the penalty for a man who hit another man?
Considering how many people, NS posters included, get their jollies from imagining male prison rape against men convicted of crimes they disapprove of, then I'd wager more than a few posters would reply in the affirmative to your query.

Personally i think the guy should hit her back, with the intent of causing her harm, as long as it isn't permanent, but i feel like society would frown on the 'guy hitting girl' thing.
But, if girls have higher pain tolerance, shouldn't it not matter as long as nothing is broken,etc?

i've always been of the opinion that if a girl hits a guy she should expect to be hit back. one person hitting another person, the first person is entitled to defend or retaliate, guy or girl.

now, if it didn't hurt, its somewhat another matter and possibly not necessary.

I'll ignore the first 3 punches, but any after that, she's getting her arm twisted behind her back until she chills out.

With other guys.. I usually just hit them in the solar plexus.

Considering how many people, NS posters included, get their jollies from imagining male prison rape against men convicted of crimes they disapprove of, then I'd wager more than a few posters would reply in the affirmative to your query.

Doesn't make it any less dispicable.

Of course, the tough on crime crowd seems ever quick to neglect the simple concept of human rights.:mad:

Meh if somebody attacked me I would defend myself, male or femal, big or small, don't really matter. Don't be anybodies punchbag.

A girl(age 15-19) hits a guy around the same age with the intent of causing him harm, but he didn't do anything to earn it, she just felt like it. Should the guy hit her back?

Depends how hard and where she hit him.

But, if girls have higher pain tolerance, shouldn't it not matter as long as nothing is broken,etc?

For one thing, girls feel pain more easily than men/boys, so you're wrong, 2, high pain thresholds don't mean you can't feel pain at all.

With other guys.. I usually just hit them in the solar plexus.

That's my favoured target spot as well.

Whenever we do the self defense part of my karate training we're taught that as soon as someone makes an aggressive move you take them down as hard and as fast as possible regardless of sex.

The first punch might not hurt but the second strike might be a whole lot different, there are plenty of force multipliers one can lay their hands on very easily.

I'd say it depends if she is really beating the shit out of me, if so I'd do what I would in any situation like that.

Pull out my pocket blade and scream until they leave, or until one of us is bleeding on the ground (Considering I dont know how to properly fight with a knife).

If I can handle her without the knife, I'd try to block her hits and get away. If she continues on though.. Im going defend myself by whatever means necessary. I believe in killing in defense if the person truly wont stop attacking.

Long story short, Ill hit a woman with a lead pipe (Assuming there is one nearby) the same as I would a man.

Equity is key