Respectfully to all, how do the legal definitions assist people at their moment of need of SD?
At that moment, what may be an indecent advance that is warded off by an assertive bark could escalate into what it was intended to be.. an attempted rape. There is not always clinical demarcation of one or the other. Legal definitions inform legal ramifications yes, though what thoughts of legalities are we meant to consider at that moment of unwelcome sexual advance??
And in cases where the victim is subjugated or perhaps inured to the repeated trauma of sexual assault the legalities they seem distant and rarely have I found people thus situated to be in a state of mind to take much of any action let alone physical SD technique mentioned here and there. What do you suggest constitutes self defence here??? let alone how it is legally defined???
This is an emotive issue, naturally it would be, we are all compassionate human beings though I think legalities, while we have a duty to know our standing and while wholly necessary in the aftermath, I wonder is discussion of legality not to digress away from what is of most importance to anyone in the situation??
Also, while it would seem untrue of today - statistically - specially among younger people of either gender (college/university ages), there is still unfathomable ignorance over what is acceptable sexual conduct.
Jxx
Bolded: An excellent point Jenna, and mentioned elsewhere as with Watergal. When I taught, or even when I have been asked about SD, I always try to get the questioner to confront themselves, and examine whet they think they are capable of doing. If I tell them to gouge out eyes, and their reaction is that they couldn't, I try to get them accustomed to the idea that they need to get their mind settled to do that. Practice it in their mind until they in fact can do it. It is all I can do. That is, I can't make them willing to do it, only try to get them thinking about how to accept it as OK in desperate situations. If it really looks like they can't, then I have to go to another technique. The problem in Hapkido, is that most simple techniques (that is, what can be learned quickly and easily), are going to damage. But how do you easily explain that is isn't a problem in a situation where a person would consider fighting to be the correct response?
Underlined: That has been a problem for a long time, but I think it is worse now as there is in my opinion, more acceptance of bad behavior, that when I was young, would not have been acceptable. About 12 or so years ago, I was walking on a university campus with my wife and daughter. There was a boy and several young girls behind us, but in earshot. The boy was using a lot of vulgar language. I put up with it for a minute or two thinking he would quit, and also wondering what to do. I didn't think it a good setting to get into a physical altercation with him. I finally couldn't take more of it and turned around and said "Language, there are ladies present."
He quit. But I overheard him justifying himself to the young girls by saying he didn't understand as he didn't think he was saying anything so bad, and besides he wasn't talking to me anyway. What really stood out in my mind and made me never forget, was that the young girls didn't seem to mind a bit how he was talking and the vulgar language he was using. They acquiesced easily. How then can he learn different behavior?
I have also talked to a lot of men who don't understand no means no. You cannot correctly assume a woman is just being coy, or trying to appear to be a goody-two-shoes while wanting sex as well, if they are saying "No.". It may be one of those things. But a man who pursues sex when a woman says no, risks serious trouble with the law, to say nothing of the mental anguish he may cause the woman, and the effects on her life from then on.
Anyway Jenna, thanks for bring up those points. I think we all need to keep them in mind.