Women's Reactions to Rape

I'm sorry, you are arguing about this? It is pretty clear the guy was well trained, which is to say conditioned, but this was not a master of deft movements and clever ploys.He could put down a better trained fighter with a couple of heavy blows, because they were that heavy, and he could take blows very well.Once his conditioning, or maybe age, removed this advantage his lack of fighting skill became apparent.Or do you have some other theory?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Actually, I agree with everything you just said. The problem is that you used the term "unskilled" in a previous post and replaced it with "well trained, which is to say conditioned, but this was not a master of deft movements and clever ploys" in this post.But like I said, now that you've specified what you mean by "untrained"...I have to agree, unless of course I'm matching these two definitions of Tyson's boxing abilities incorrectly.

I was discussing the training that would be useful in real world application. I repeated that again later just to be clear. The stance and focus of attention you are trained in as a boxer (even if "defensive") stand against you in a real fight. Yes. While it is possible, it is better to be trained in other skills and not to ne conditioned to avoid using valuable tools.It is possible for me to win a race using only the gas pedal, but it is better that I am conditioned not to avoid using the brake. Tactically I agree with you, but that is only applicable to a certain range of kicks. There are plenty of kicks, and knee shots, which are perfectly fine and stand little chance of being caught. There are more martial arts in this world than kickboxing, with more steady stances, and in any case the kickboxing stance is just as firm unless you swing a leg up for a mid to high blow.In a real world fight the traditional boxing stance is top heavy, upperbody-center focused. This leaves it vulnerable to someone who does not use boxing restricted rules of engagement.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

If I somehow used the wrong term, switching unskilled for untrained or vice versa, then I'm sorry for causing confusion. If you agree with the greater defined statement of the last post you can tell me which word is more appropriate and I'll use that in the future.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

It is important to use the correct terms when speaking of boxing as it is easily imsunderstood. Instead of "Tyson is unskilled," which implies a lack of boxing ablility, you could say "Tyson is less technical of a fighter [for the level he competes at] OR [in comparison to his sheer power]"
That way, its not bashing on some of the sports greats, and therefore not contributing to the ideaology that boxing is unprofessional."Boxing is a form of self defense that has its flaws along with other forms of martial arts, that is why INDIVIDUAL COMBINATION is key to learning self defense. I was simply bringing up the point that boxing isn't to be left unconsidered. I wasn't attempting to create the illusion that boxing is invincable. Sorry if it appeared that way.That should settle the boxing debate.

quote:

---

OH OH and women have the advantage on men in leg strength! HAHAHA where did you think that one up at? How many women do you know with stronger legs than men?

---

Patronising bastard. As it happens the woman I mentioned who fought her attacker attributed this to being a pole-dancer, and thus being easily able to lift her own weight with her legs and so forth.wormjitsu, your remark above is pretty stupid. Women have a lower centre of gravity and proportionally more muscle in the lower body than the upper body by comparison to men.

Alright well I'll admit it was probably too sarcastic. I'll stick to the point without snye remarks from now on.Perhaps you could explain to me how it is you feel that women have a superior chance at succeeding in escape when on the ground UNDERNEATH their attacker. It has something to do with a higher ratio of lower body strength, that much you've made clear.

Hey just a tangent of this topic: what about the "claimed" rapes that didn't really happen. Not to sound stereotypical, but I know a great deal of women who have lied about such things as being "raped." RApe is a broad term. I think rape should refer to when someone is being brought to do something sexually that they do not want to be a part of. Some women however, think rape could be as simple as making advances without asking for voluntary consent. I am willing to put my right hand on the line that over 20% of rape accusations are completly and entirely false. Just curious what you guys think.

Okay, continuing my hideous habit of butting in before I've finished reading the whole thread, I just had to write this:Crashfrog: Crashfrog: its IS men getting raped. I don't know the figures, or how it compares with the rape of women, but loads of men are raped every year.

quote:

---

I know a great deal of women who have lied about such things as being "raped.

---

How many is that exactly? Exactly, please.

quote:

---

Just curious what you guys think.

---

I think you're dangerously close to an apologist for rape.

quote:

---

Perhaps you could explain to me how it is you feel that women have a superior chance at succeeding in escape when on the ground UNDERNEATH their attacker. It has something to do with a higher ratio of lower body strength, that much you've made clear.

---

Aren't you supposed to be some kind of fighter? Judo alone has a whole arsenal of things you can do from the ground. Just because you are on top of me doesn't mean that much - you may not be for long. Or, maybe I'll let you stay as long as you like while I have my hands around your throat and your arms pinned by my thighs. Further, while standing a woman fighting a man probably had less reach, and less upper body strength; on the ground, the reach advantage is negated, and the use of the legs in a lock is more viable. You can even use someones own weight to say, pin an arm. All sorts of things.This message has been edited by contracycle, 11-18-2004 09:14 AM

Sounds good, skilled but less technical. I will try to remember that.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

As a grappler I will endorse groundfighting as a great importance for self defense, as over 90% of attacks and fights do end up on the ground. However, if your implying that it would be safer for a woman to be pinned on the ground under a man when an attempted rape is taking place...thats simply faulty reasoning. Not only can the woman no longer run away or throw powerful strikes, but she isright where the attcker wants her to be. So unless your speaking of using submission holds and chokes, its a very bad thing to be underneath someone.

---

No, I am talking about getting knocked down but then staying down and using your legs to "punch" instead of trying to get up right away.

quote:

---

How many women do you know with stronger legs than men?

---

Me.Please note I am talking about proportional strength.My husband, even when I have been lifting a lot and even though I have a much stronger upper body and arms in general than most women, can put me in the dust WRT the amount of weight he can bench press or overhead lift.However, we leg press very similar weights. He is doing about 280 and I am at around 250.(note: That's me jumping the horse in my avatar picture.)This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-18-2004 10:01 AM

quote:

---

I am willing to put my right hand on the line that over 20% of rape accusations are completly and entirely false.

---

And you base this claim upon what evidence?

1) Women should carry guns? Women should learn hand-to-hand combat?-So ridiculous that, you must be joking. This is, as statistics will show you, more of an issue with being attacked by the boy next door than by a monster...your example is frivolous.-As a society it might be useful to quit portraying men as victims of their own bodies, and make them responsible, for once.-Men, by and large, are not beasts, most would probably consider themselves more intelligent than women, so why equate them with no more than base emotions. By doing this we shift responsibility from the man onto the woman...i.e your initial stand in a nutshell 'women should do something about it'. I would argue that men should do something about it, afterall: these women represent our wives, our mothers, our daughters, our sisters.I see Schrafinator has posted here so I'm sure you've caught alot of heat already