If A Random Girl Walks Up and Punches You Would You Hit Her Back?

OpticalJunction

Senior Member
Jul 1, 2011
599
6
23
I'm a lady, and yes I would. Disrespectful to walk up to a stranger and hit them without a cause, I'd feel justified in retaliating.
 

ssgt splatter

New member
Oct 8, 2008
3,276
0
0
After reading like the third or forth post I'd probably get thrown in jail for this but yes I'd punch her back. I almost hit a girl once before back in junior high but only because she and a friend of her's were friends with some ass-hole bullies that tormented me for most of the school year and they pushed me hard enough to make me stumble.
 

Eynimeb

New member
Jun 15, 2012
23
0
0
agrajagthetesty said:
Ok, well unfortunately I can't read Dutch, so I won't be able to go over the sources directly. Thank you for providing more details about them, though - I'll make a few points in response to what you've said.

First, like I said, investigations from outside the police have demonstrated significant bias in their methodologies (for example, classifying unsubstantiated reports under the "false" heading), so I'd hesitate before trusting police stats that haven't been investigated.

Second, if the numbers refer only to teenage girls, it would have been better for you to specify that in your original post, rather than saying "claims of rape and sexual assault by women". (I may have misunderstood the situation here since I can't read your original source; forgive me if so.)

Third, somebody recanting or choosing not to press charges does not automatically mean that their report was false, especially if the complainant's decision is made directly after an intimidating speech implying doubt over their claim. This issue is actually addressed in the study I linked to: "many victims will recant when faced with apparent skepticism on the part of the investigator [...] Yet such a recantation does not necessarily mean that the original report was false" (on page 2).

And fourth, anecdotal claims aren't scientific, so your story about your sister and assertion that "it's very likely that it happens more often" don't count as valid evidence.

EDIT: Grammar fix.
1: Of course, take the figures with a grain of salt. But 'unsubstantial' doesn't get filed under 'false' as far as I know. They are only officially labelled false if she admits to it. If there are contradictions, etc, it goes under 'likely false, but we continue the investigation because there's a small chance she might be telling the truth after all'. They really *are* erring on the side of caution. They even take charges made by males seriously. (At least sometimes, nobody outside the police knows how many times they don't.) That doesn't mean they actually get the perpetrators of course...

You'll never be able to get police stats properly investigated. Such an investigation suggests women abuse the legal system, which goes completely against what is a politically correct and socially acceptable viewpoint. Women's rights organisations would be outraged, and demand it be stopped.

2: Hm, yes, you're right. Post edited. Sorry about that.

3: You're right, it doesn't. But from what I understand, the Dutch police takes rape charges *much* more seriously than their U.S. counterparts. When they suspect a charge is false, they base that on evidence that points towards that, not the absence of evidence, and unless the person pressing the charges confesses to lying, they will err on the side of caution on her behalf. At least, that's what the articles say. The first speech is not intended to be intimidating, and their initial response always has to be neutral.

If police officers are *not* neutral, and initially respond in a skeptical manner, then that's exactly the 'mainstream cynicism' that I mentioned, that would harm feminist goals. Keep in mind, this has been going on for a while. What we see now may be a reflection of all that's happened up to now, meaning we're not at all up to speed.

4: My anecdote wasn't meant as actual evidence, I just wanted to mention that I have run into quite a few women who support making false rape charges for only minor material gains on the woman's part. These things do not happen in a vaccuum after all; peer pressure is one of the things that could normally keep people from doing overly stupid things.
 

agrajagthetesty

New member
Jan 29, 2010
124
0
0
Eynimeb said:
Of course, take the figures with a grain of salt. But 'unsubstantial' doesn't get filed under 'false' as far as I know. They are only officially labelled false if she admits to it. If there are contradictions, etc, it goes under 'likely false, but we continue the investigation because there's a small chance she might be telling the truth after all'. They really *are* erring on the side of caution. They even take charges made by males seriously. (At least sometimes, nobody outside the police knows how many times they don't.) That doesn't mean they actually get the perpetrators of course...
Ok, I'm still highly suspicious about the 20%-false-charges figure (because of the bias I've mentioned and the fact that the number is 4 times higher than the average figure found elsewhere by thoroughly investigated sources) but I'm happy to move on from the point since neither of us are in a position to properly examine the evidence. But I'd really like to know more about how the 60%-false-claims figure was reached, because it's just so massive, beyond the scope of anything else I've heard (which is especially odd if they're so inclined towards believing the reports). And the only theory I can think of to explain that 60% figure is that a good chunk of it consists of the 50% who don't press charges after hearing the message about false reports. If not, I'd appreciate some more information about where the number does in fact come from.

You'll never be able to get police stats properly investigated. Such an investigation suggests women abuse the legal system, which goes completely against what is a politically correct and socially acceptable viewpoint. Women's rights organisations would be outraged, and demand it be stopped.
Actually, the investigations I've talked about reveal abuses of the system by police, not women! The report I've linked is by the The National Center for the Prosecution of Violence Against Women, which certainly sounds like a women's rights organisation, but they seem happy to ask for proper investigation.

Hm, yes, you're right. Post edited. Sorry about that.
Ok, thanks. :)

You're right, it doesn't. But from what I understand, the Dutch police takes rape charges *much* more seriously than their U.S. counterparts. When they suspect a charge is false, they base that on evidence that points towards that, not the absence of evidence, and unless the person pressing the charges confesses to lying, they will err on the side of caution on her behalf. At least, that's what the articles say. The first speech is not intended to be intimidating, and their initial response always has to be neutral.
I certainly hope they take it more seriously, and from what I know of the country, I'm inclined to be of that opinion too. But nowhere is perfect, and intention doesn't guarantee effect. For a young girl, subjected to one of the most traumatic violations one can experience, hearing a speech about the crime of false reporting could easily cause her to back down - by suggesting that she won't be believed, discouraging her to proceed with a long and difficult prosecution, terrifying her with thoughts of repercussions if the prosecution isn't successful, and so on - even if the authorities intend to be neutral and not intimidate.

If police officers are *not* neutral, and initially respond in a skeptical manner, then that's exactly the 'mainstream cynicism' that I mentioned, that would harm feminist goals. Keep in mind, this has been going on for a while. What we see now may be a reflection of all that's happened up to now, meaning we're not at all up to speed.
Your mention of "mainstream cynicism" seems from your original comment to refer to feelings stemming from resentment over women's alleged refusal to give up the benefits of benevolent sexism (chivalry, etc.). (Yes? Let me know if I'm understanding it wrong.) But I honestly don't think that's the cause for sceptical reactions to claims of rape. I think the reactions are due to something much older and more deep-rooted, something more resembling (though far less ugly, of course) the passage in Deuteronomy sentencing women raped in a city to be stoned to death for not screaming (22:23-4) - something that fundamentally distrusts and condemns women who make accusations of rape, and tends to make excuses for attackers. But we're well out of the range of stats and percentages here. We can agree that being automatically sceptical towards rape claims is bad, yes?

My anecdote wasn't meant as actual evidence, I just wanted to mention that I have run into quite a few women who support making false rape charges for only minor material gains on the woman's part. These things do not happen in a vaccuum after all; peer pressure is one of the things that could normally keep people from doing overly stupid things.
While I don't deny the existence of peer pressure in general, I think the implication that it exists in any serious way around false rape charges is somewhat absurd - for peer pressure to work, there needs to be an established culture of whatever the peers are pressuring towards, and I don't think there's evidence for that with false charges. I, personally, have never heard any woman advocate such a thing, and have only ever seen people condemn false charges. Obviously, that doesn't count as evidence either - but unless either of us runs into a real study on this topic, we're probably best sticking with a discussion of the numbers given by the police and other sources, since they cover issues rather more solid and easily defined than "peer pressure".
 

MDSnowman

New member
Apr 8, 2004
373
0
0
I've only ever hit one woman in my life. It was my little sister and she was trying to stab me with a steak knife. It'll take more than a punch for me to go there again.
 

tmande2nd

New member
Oct 20, 2010
602
0
0
I have been punched randomly by a woman.

But she was piss drunk at a hotel.
Apparently I looked like her ex or something.

But the thing is that I do heavy manual labor (Farm Work, Junk Removal, Landscaping, etc).
If I did hit someone I would really hurt them probably. I can take a blow since I have been in fights...so I would shrug it off.

However if I got ATTACKED I would fight back. Fuck gender rolls or whatever, if you ATTACK a person be ready to be attacked back.
 

iblis666

New member
Sep 8, 2008
1,106
0
0
it depends on several things: how hard is she hitting me, what is she wearing, what does she look like, what is her attitude, ect

i mean the range is just so large from the very best where i might ask her to keep hitting me since its a turn on to asking her to stop or even hitting her back it really depends on the situation
 

swenson

New member
Sep 5, 2009
119
0
0
Probably not, even though I'm female and therefore apparently exempt from the rule that guys can't hit girls (which I think is silly--if you need to defend yourself, you need to defend yourself. There's no need to beat a girl half to death... but then again, there's no need to beat a guy half to death in that situation either). I might like fighting games, but I don't like violence or direct confrontation in real life (which may be why I like fighting games so much! Live vicariously through videogames or something, right?).

In general, though, this gets into my rant about stupid social rules... look, guys can be physically hurt and overpowered by women too, okay? To deny that is sexist on two ways: first of all, you're telling smaller/weaker guys (or guys too nice to hit anybody else) that there's something wrong with them. Secondly, you're telling women they can't be strong or tough. Both are stupid and wrong. It's like all those people who deny that men can be in abusive relationships... I mean, when's the last time you saw a "men's shelter"? Those things happen, but because we have this idea that men are ALWAYS stronger and ALWAYS the aggressor, when a women does something against a man, everyone just tries to pretend it didn't happen or repaints it so she's the victim.

And let's not be stupid and pretend I'm saying men should just punch out any woman who annoys them. I'd rather that nobody ever hit anybody else or was in a situation where violence could solve things because I'm a sweet sugary cuddly teddybear sparkly unicorns peace love marshmallows type, apparently. But I recognize that sometimes, maybe hitting somebody else is unavoidable. And sometimes, the "somebody else" that gets punched is female. And it's not the end of the world if that happens.

(I should point out that I'm assuming the girl punching me is actually attacking me, like seriously trying to hurt or kill me, not just joking around or pathetically swatting at me. In that case, then punching back probably isn't necessary to resolve the situation.)
 

The Tibballs

New member
Jun 3, 2012
64
0
0
It would depend on what kind of mood I was in. If I was in a good mood, I'd most likely punch them in the throat & walk away while they lay on the ground gasping & you really don't want to know what I'd do if I was in a shitty mood.

I'd also do the same if it was a guy, because I don't discriminate.
 

OctoH

New member
Feb 14, 2011
502
0
0
If my girlfriend was there, she would do it for me.

If my girl was not there, and this random person was packing some seriously bad intentions, yes I will neutralize her with equal force.

If the girl could not really do anything to me, then I might just settle for putting her in an armlock and giving her a stern talking-to.
 

Nyaliva

euclideanInsomniac
Sep 9, 2010
317
0
21
Let me put it this way: I wouldn't punch a GUY who randomly came up and punched me in the face, I'd mostly just be confused and/or out cold.
 

Swny Nerdgasm

New member
Jul 31, 2010
678
0
0
Dude someone lays a hand on me they are getting dropped, male or female, fuck that "you don't hit women" bullshit.
 

aestu

New member
Jun 19, 2012
92
0
0
The only reason I would not is because of fear of legal reprisal.

But if I thought I could get away with it - completely unlikely - I would break every bone in her body for her arrogance.
 

zakkro

New member
Aug 6, 2009
27
0
0
No, because I'm incredibly weak. So weak, that even a three-year-old could knock me out.
 

algalon

New member
Dec 6, 2010
289
0
0
Depends on a number of things - the size of the woman ( I have 2 nieces over 6 ft mind you), the pain caused, and the intention. So if Brienne of Tarth came up and punched me square in the face.....well I might be in a coma for a few days. But when I wake up I'm finding where she lives and burning it to the ground.
 

Dascylus

New member
May 22, 2010
255
0
0
Yes... Without hesitation...

***Pause to allow people to seethe amongst themselves...***

Now I will accept criticism on the whole "violence is a bad thing" part, that's subjective and everyone has the right to their opinion on that.
But I think the OP was very deliberate in making the individual female... Is anyone questioning why it matters whether it's a random girl or guy?
Let's insert other random variables and see where the line is...

Old guy, old lady, young guy, young girl, wheelchair guy, wheelchair girl, male cancer patient, female cancer patient...
Go on guys, what's the difference?

So the original question is flawed... I suggest it being re worded to read "If a random person were to approach and punch you, would you punch them back? But that isn't so polemic I guess.