Do self defense programs work?

Tez3

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,119
Reaction score
4,496
Location
England
Did you watch the hearing? The entire hearing? Or just snippets the media showed, which is of course bias; left and right leaning media have their biases, so I’m not bashing either side.


We watched it all live, everyone watched it all around the world and only some Americans think it's fine, the whole thing was seriously weird. Why does the government choose judges?
I don't care about the left/right politics, the whole thing was disgraceful, the question being asked by politicians, the crying by the now installed judge was disgusting. He is clearly untrustworthy by his answers and before you complain at that opinion, I've conducted many interrogations of very good liars, terrorists and criminals and can tell when someone is covering up and downright lying. So yes I stand by my opinion based on actual words by the actual people, not the media not the politicians and mark my words you will see how it works out and it being 'ouch', Tez was correct.
 

Martial D

Senior Master
Joined
May 18, 2017
Messages
3,184
Reaction score
952
@tez "I've conducted many interrogations of very good liars, terrorists and criminals and can tell when someone is covering up and downright lying."

So you are what..some feminist secret agent then?

Or was this during your time with the language police?

:p
 

Tez3

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,119
Reaction score
4,496
Location
England
@tez "I've conducted many interrogations of very good liars, terrorists and criminals and can tell when someone is covering up and downright lying."

So you are what..some feminist secret agent then?

Or was this during your time with the language police?

:p


How droll but highly unoriginal. :D
 

hoshin1600

Senior Master
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
2,946
Reaction score
1,394
I'm surprised that you are so strongly challenging the idea that sexual assault victims know their attackers
actually im not, in a previous post i stated that its common knowledge. so im not digging in my heals on anything.

I'm also wondering why you think that a woman needs to have a very close relationship with someone to not resist?
you see @Orion Nebula your relatively new to the sight, this kind of debate between me and Tez has been going on for years, as much as i appreciate her as a person and often enjoy her posts we are like cats and dogs on political views. and i will fight them with a passion when they show up here where they dont belong.
but to your question, the idea has been put forth and beaten like a dead horse that martial arts, self defense doesnt work because the victim knows the attacker. there is truth to that. a young teen being groomed or in any number of other circumstances may find that typical martial arts are not an appropriate response during a sexual assault, but as always there are times when it will help and is appropriate so that is the drum i am beating to counter the idea that self defense is useless.
oh and i am well aware of all the stats and numbers on the subject. its a subject i have had a focused interest in for years. my interest for knowledge on womens self defense goes back maybe 25 years. so im not uneducated on the subject. mostly i play devils advocate to ideas that are painted a little to broad brushed.
 

hoshin1600

Senior Master
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
2,946
Reaction score
1,394
He condones it, he's on video saying so. Literally, the whole world heard it.
actually he didnt. he said he likes to kiss women. what he said was ,,,paraphrased.,,,,when your famous you can get away with things that other non famous people cant do, as example you could "grab them" and women will allow you to get away with it because your famous.
now in an indirect way he is pointing out the very problem we are discussing. why would a women allow someone to do something to them "just because he is famous"? that is a problem. a problem worth disccussing.
 

Orion Nebula

Green Belt
Joined
Feb 8, 2019
Messages
110
Reaction score
115
Location
Oregon
actually im not, in a previous post i stated that its common knowledge. so im not digging in my heals on anything.


you see @Orion Nebula your relatively new to the sight, this kind of debate between me and Tez has been going on for years, as much as i appreciate her as a person and often enjoy her posts we are like cats and dogs on political views. and i will fight them with a passion when they show up here where they dont belong.
but to your question, the idea has been put forth and beaten like a dead horse that martial arts, self defense doesnt work because the victim knows the attacker. there is truth to that. a young teen being groomed or in any number of other circumstances may find that typical martial arts are not an appropriate response during a sexual assault, but as always there are times when it will help and is appropriate so that is the drum i am beating to counter the idea that self defense is useless.
oh and i am well aware of all the stats and numbers on the subject. its a subject i have had a focused interest in for years. my interest for knowledge on womens self defense goes back maybe 25 years. so im not uneducated on the subject. mostly i play devils advocate to ideas that are painted a little to broad brushed.

Hmmm, well you did say that it was common knowledge in one post but then almost immediately followed it up with this post:

i also challenge the notion of 90% of all victims knew their attackers.
prove it!!!
i want government stats not some womens group who has vested monetary interest in the results. AND im going to put restrictions on the figures.
  1. children,,,anyone under the age of 18 does not count.. their world exposure is to narrow. of course anyone who victimizes them has a relationship to them it will put a bias on the results.
  2. the assault has to be within the bounds of actual government law. not a college tribunal or some such non sense. college (or university as you call it) has their own rules which often include ANY SEXUAL contact when alcohol was involved as rape.
  3. i would want to see the level of relationship between the victim and attacker.
that last one is my major point. there is a big difference between being raped by uncle bob and some guy that you have seen before because he works at the star bucks where you get your coffee.

the perception being put forth by many is that "knowing the assailant" is equal to coercion and grooming and the corresponding inability for self defense. IE your not going to kick uncle Bob in the face and rip his eyes out. however if the assailant is "known" but only by a vague association then a violent response for self defense would be appropriate.
so how many of these "known" assailants are relational and how many are vague association??

That looks like a strong challenge to the idea to me. But, now that you've explained that what you're really doing is continuing an ongoing battle with Tez, it makes more sense, although I'm not sure why you're asking for stats if you're already familiar with them. Although I guess the point is probably to rile up Tez (especially with the inflammatory language in your requirements). Cheers and enjoy your argument!
 

gpseymour

MT Moderator
Staff member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
25,736
Reaction score
7,544
Location
Hendersonville, NC
@hoshin1600 I'm surprised that you are so strongly challenging the idea that sexual assault victims know their attackers. It's not an unreasonable idea, nor is it new. I'm not really interested in doing much research here since 1) I'm not the only who brought up the stats, and 2) people tend to dig their heels deeper into their beliefs when presented with conflicting information (not saying this will apply to you, but it's a common trend). However, the Bureau of Justice Statistics has lots of data related to sexual assault:

BJS - Rape and Sexual Assault

Of particular interest is the report on assault of college-aged females (this is the age group which gets assaulted the most), which meets your first two conditions. It states a slightly lower figure of 80%, which is further broken down into intimate partners (including current and former), relatives, and friends/acquaintances. They also distinguish students vs. non-students in the report. For the non-students, there's an almost 50/50 ratio of assaults by partners and friends. For students, the figure for friends and acquaintances is much higher. It's a little odd that they chose to report friends and acquaintances as one figure when their methods show that they asked these as separate questions.

I have some other questions for you. From your last post, you seem to only be concerned with rape itself and not other forms of sexual assault. Does that really matter? There is most definitely a difference between someone pinching a butt and rape. Technically, a butt pinch can be called sexual assault, but it's on a whole different level than rape. However, there are plenty of awful sexual things you can do to someone that are just as wrong and psychologically damaging as rape. So I don't think it's really that important to distinguish between assault vs. rape, especially when rape reporting rates are so low. How many people are really going to report something like a smack on the behind as an assault?

I'm also wondering why you think that a woman needs to have a very close relationship with someone to not resist? There are plenty of reasons why someone might not claw the eyes out of their attacker, even if it's just a casual acquaintance like the guy who makes your coffee. The average male is stronger than the average female - it's not hard to imagine a girl starting to resist and quickly being overpowered and then giving up because she would rather be raped than have her face smashed in. Even if she didn't give up, it's still not that hard to overpower someone who is smaller and physically weaker than you, especially if they're already in a disadvantaged position. Looking at that report, in a lot of of the cases, alcohol is involved. You can't exactly fight off someone effectively when you're completely trashed, and certainly not if you're passed out. And you know what else? Sometimes things happen faster than you can react to.

One thing I do agree with you on is that women definitely should be trained in some self-defense, as many have discussed in previous posts. There are plenty of simple things that can be taught to women that will help them inflict some damage on an attacker who is overpowering them and give them the chance to get away. Probably not useful if they are extremely intoxicated and not useful in situations where a relationship could lead to coercion and a desire to not harm your attacker (such as being raped by a boyfriend), but better than nothing.
I'm not disputing anything you posted here (I honestly haven't given it due attention yet). Just pointing out that what I think Hoshin was saying was that there's a difference between "have seen" and "known", for most of us. Statistics are wily beasts at the best of times, and this is no different. In analyzing this, researchers drew a useful (but arbitrary - as any would be) line of demarcation. They separated "complete stranger" from "known in any way at all" (at least that appears to be the separation used in the write-ups I've seen). It would be useful to see another line of demarcation added, something along the lines of "know who they are" versus "actually know them". That latter, I think, is what he's getting at. From a victimization standpoint, there's likely a difference in selection, attack, and reaction (by the victim) when the attacker is just someone they can recognize (barista at a shop they've been to a couple of times), as opposed to someone they actually trust (friend's friend, etc.). Unfortunately, I don't know of any stats that show us that differentiation, nor any analysis to show those factors, and whether or not they differ.
 

gpseymour

MT Moderator
Staff member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
25,736
Reaction score
7,544
Location
Hendersonville, NC
oh and very high levels of immediate gratification and low levels of delayed gratification.
AKA "impulse control". I remember seeing something that actually measured that among violent offenders. I wonder if I kept any notes on it.
 

JR 137

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
5,162
Reaction score
3,213
Location
In the dojo
We watched it all live, everyone watched it all around the world and only some Americans think it's fine, the whole thing was seriously weird. Why does the government choose judges?
I don't care about the left/right politics, the whole thing was disgraceful, the question being asked by politicians, the crying by the now installed judge was disgusting. He is clearly untrustworthy by his answers and before you complain at that opinion, I've conducted many interrogations of very good liars, terrorists and criminals and can tell when someone is covering up and downright lying. So yes I stand by my opinion based on actual words by the actual people, not the media not the politicians and mark my words you will see how it works out and it being 'ouch', Tez was correct.
I don’t trust people’s emotions. I trust evidence. Call me crazy.
 

Rat

Master Black Belt
Joined
Jul 11, 2018
Messages
1,430
Reaction score
164
Pulling this back to the original question, Could someone fish out some better courses for the person to do? (not DVD's but i mean if anyone knows of any good workshops or something for people who cant do or dont want to commit to long term training currently)

I wouldn't know U.S courses.
 

hoshin1600

Senior Master
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
2,946
Reaction score
1,394
well you did say that it was common knowledge in one post but then almost immediately followed it up with this post:
knowing the statistic and knowing what meaning should be derived from the statistic are different.
 

hoshin1600

Senior Master
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
2,946
Reaction score
1,394
Pulling this back to the original question, Could someone fish out some better courses for the person to do? (not DVD's but i mean if anyone knows of any good workshops or something for people who cant do or dont want to commit to long term training currently)

I wouldn't know U.S courses.

short courses are better for those who have a solid base. called seminars, they allow you to focus on one aspect of training and fill in any gaps. however for the complete novice short course work is only good for an introduction to something.
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
18,066
Reaction score
3,760
Location
Covington, WA
I take exception to the whole Supreme Court Justice thing. I’m not getting political here, just stating facts, and some very widely held opinions...

Calling him guilty of sexual assault and saying he got away with it is absolutely asinine.

Did you watch the hearing? The entire hearing? Or just snippets the media showed, which is of course bias; left and right leaning media have their biases, so I’m not bashing either side.

Both Dr. Ford and then-Judge (now Justice) Cavanaugh made very compelling arguements. Both seemed very sincere and believing one over the other is just plain bias talking. Both are equally credible as character goes.

Even if either one wasn’t credible, you have to look at the evidence. Due process and all that stuff. Ford’s account could not be corroborated by any witnesses, specifically the several SHE named. Forget about police, forensic evidence, etc. I’m not questioning why there wasn’t any.

So she makes a compelling witness by being emotional, and that’s enough to say he did it? If that’s the case, he was equally compelling and emotional, so that’s enough to say he didn’t do it?

With no witness corroboration and no other evidence, what leg does anyone who says he did it have to stand on?

Her case was very poorly handled by the people around her who had an obvious political agenda. There were many lies coming from her people’s side (I’m NOT saying from her personally).

Then you have far left politicians going on record saying “I believe her” before they heard anything from her or him. And these people are mostly attorneys by training. So we have a prominent senator who’s a Harvard Law graduate saying “I believe her” in the news, yet hasn’t heard either side’s testimony. I thought people like that are supposed to defend due process, not ignore it when it’s convenient. Several far left politicians claimed they’d vote no for anyone Trump nominated, long before Cavanaugh was nominated. Due process? Political vendetta? Personal vendetta?

The Cavanaugh hearing and the entire process was an absolute disgrace. A man’s reputation is forever ruined with zero credible an objective evidence by people with a political agenda. And worse, Dr. Ford’s reputation is also forever ruined by the same people who manipulated it to fit their agenda.

If this was a progressive judge nominated by a progressive president, the left would’ve cried foul the same way the right is crying foul. And they’d have been absolutely correct. The entire fiasco should’ve been held privately so both people could’ve saved their dignity.

If there was ANY witness corroborating her story, he had no business serving as a judge. With zero evidence, there’s zero reason why any of it went public the way it did. I don’t consider myself democrat nor republican; I vote for whoever I feel is the right person for the job. In 6 presidential elections that I’ve been old enough to vote in, Ive voted 5:1 democrat:republican, so don’t give me I’m an anti-left or right nonsensical argument.
I watched the entire thing and cavanaugh was not, imo, credible,. He seemed like a guy who did things he regrets, that all his friends also did. He seemed like a guy who probably outgrew the overt acts he probably (imo) did in his youth, but never outgrew the entitlement mindset he clearly (imo) has. There's no doubt in my mind he did the things he's accused of. I knew many young men just like then when I was in high school in the same timeframe.
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
18,066
Reaction score
3,760
Location
Covington, WA
I don’t trust people’s emotions. I trust evidence. Call me crazy.
Having been involved in a lot of investigations into allegations of misconduct, including harassment, I will say that there is something called "lack of candor," that is very important. The thing is, sometimes you know a person is lying. You know that they have done things that are pretty bad, and you suspect they have done more things you are not even aware of,. But evidence that could hold up in court? Maybe not that much is even available. Despicable people do am pretty good job of covering their asses. What you can often document is that they lacked candor,when interviewed. They said things that were contradictory, or maybe didn't make sense with other things they said. And that's enough because the burden is lower.

Point is, during the Senate confirmation hearing, that's like a job interview. It's not a trial. It's really not even an investigation as mentioned above. The goal wasn't tomprove he was a sex offender. The goal was to determine whether he has the character, integrity, judgment, and gravitas to serve a lifetime appt on the supreme Court. I saw plenty of evidence that I wouldn't hire him as an analyst on my staff, much less as a judge.
 

gpseymour

MT Moderator
Staff member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
25,736
Reaction score
7,544
Location
Hendersonville, NC
Pulling this back to the original question, Could someone fish out some better courses for the person to do? (not DVD's but i mean if anyone knows of any good workshops or something for people who cant do or dont want to commit to long term training currently)

I wouldn't know U.S courses.
If the OP is looking for physical defensive skills (which was my take, and what I include in the term "self defense") without consistent, long-term training, their best bet is to find someplace that teaches these skills on a regular basis, and which has a focus on generating something usable quickly. There are a lot of versions of that. The way I teach has that objective (there's a "foundation" curriculum I cover before I get into the formal stuff, intended to get students some very basic fighting skills quickly). Some MMA gyms (don't know what proportion, and I'm thinking of the one in Australia @drop bear trains at) take that further and have a full short term (12 weeks in their case) fight training program that includes fitness and preparation for an MMA bout. Mind you, the skills picked up in something like this do degrade pretty quickly if not maintained, so if nothing else, a regular refresher would be necessary.

The point would be to find someplace that is particularly focused on short-term skill delivery, which isn't universal (beyond "foundation", things slow down a lot in my classes).

That's all assuming the OP is looking for fastest answer, rather than something long-term (at which point other concerns might temper the choice more).

If they're looking for how to avoid becoming a victim, the quickest answer is probably something like @Steve talks about, but unfortunately I don't know where they'd find a good version of that. I wish someone was doing certification courses for that kind of thing. It's probably more realistic to qualify someone to teach that in a week-long course than any MA material.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rat

Monkey Turned Wolf

MT Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
8,472
Reaction score
2,588
Location
New York
If the OP is looking for physical defensive skills (which was my take, and what I include in the term "self defense") without consistent, long-term training, their best bet is to find someplace that teaches these skills on a regular basis, and which has a focus on generating something usable quickly. There are a lot of versions of that. The way I teach has that objective (there's a "foundation" curriculum I cover before I get into the formal stuff, intended to get students some very basic fighting skills quickly). Some MMA gyms (don't know what proportion, and I'm thinking of the one in Australia @drop bear trains at) take that further and have a full short term (12 weeks in their case) fight training program that includes fitness and preparation for an MMA bout. Mind you, the skills picked up in something like this do degrade pretty quickly if not maintained, so if nothing else, a regular refresher would be necessary.

The point would be to find someplace that is particularly focused on short-term skill delivery, which isn't universal (beyond "foundation", things slow down a lot in my classes).

That's all assuming the OP is looking for fastest answer, rather than something long-term (at which point other concerns might temper the choice more).

If they're looking for how to avoid becoming a victim, the quickest answer is probably something like @Steve talks about, but unfortunately I don't know where they'd find a good version of that. I wish someone was doing certification courses for that kind of thing. It's probably more realistic to qualify someone to teach that in a week-long course than any MA material.
The issue with this, is that those skills degrade. Both the physical, and the social/situational awareness/other 'soft' skills. So you would need a refresher often enough, or be in real-life situations often enough, that you're almost in long-term training. A short term curriculum like what rat and the OP are asking about just won't be realistic even a year down the line.
 

gpseymour

MT Moderator
Staff member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
25,736
Reaction score
7,544
Location
Hendersonville, NC
The issue with this, is that those skills degrade. Both the physical, and the social/situational awareness/other 'soft' skills. So you would need a refresher often enough, or be in real-life situations often enough, that you're almost in long-term training. A short term curriculum like what rat and the OP are asking about just won't be realistic even a year down the line.
Agreed. I toyed with trying to do something like that. It would have been a 90-day startup, and once-a-month refreshers (no new content after the 90 days). If I had a program with enough students, I might consider revisiting this, but my personal opinion was that if folks were supposed to come once a month, most wouldn't come more than a few times a year. I don't think that would be often enough to even maintain minimal proficiency on something acquired in 90 days (of 2-4 days a week).
 

Latest Discussions

Top