Poll: what's worse,beating up a girl, or getting beat up by a girl?

[klakkat]

It depends. I know two girls who play rugby and lift weights regularly. Getting beaten up by them wouldn't be much of an insult if I was a 98-pound weakling, but no, I'm the heavily-muscled male of our group. It's certainly never came to blows, but at least I can hold my liquor against them, and eat spicier foods... That's about as much of a 'physical victory' as I'm willing to pursue (in part because a fight would involve BOTH of them, while I would be unsupported... and I'm not that strong).

As for beating on girls... well, as may be inferred, the above two rugby girls and I hit each other from time to time, but never that seriously. Hitting a softer target just doesn't hold any merit or reason; I don't even hit the males I associate that are smaller than me. There's no point, usually. If someone is really that out of line, then I could kick them out and never invite them again (this hasn't come up yet, so hypothetical); but only in true monumental occasions of assholary would physical violence be necessary as a deterrence, and then I WOULD have back up, since most of my friends aren't assholes.

 

[ChocoFace]

beating up a girl is oh-so-much worse.
i mean you should easily be available to defend yourself when a girl attacks you, but if you counter, you're going to hell. Not the circle where there's non-stop partying either. you're going to the bad type.

 

[Twilight_guy]

If you believe in equality, then the question becomes whats worse being beat up or beating someone up. Obviously, if you get beat up its not your fault but if you beat someone up then you are being malicious now I'm going to say the malicious one is worse so beating up a girl, or a guy, is worse.

 

[Levitas1234]

Depends on the situation, whether or not the beating is abuse. Generally a man can fend off a women to the point of running away or some shit, so it's kinda sad to see someone get beat up by a girl. However, a guy beating up a girl is usually over stupid shit, so if say, a drunk girl was starting shit and starts pushing people and gets decked in the face, that's kinda funny and she deserved it.

 

[Nemu]

You seem bitter

Not really. But I have had to knock out a few drunken asshole "white knights" who have come to the aid of some drunken whore getting mad at me for shooting her down.

I truly believe in equal opportunity which means I will smack a chick in the face for the exact same offences I would a guy.
So honestly the only thing about this situation is the absolute and overwhelming stupidity of all white knights.

If you say so.

I still think you're bitter. =P

 

[Umwerfer]

i'm a guy. I don't hit girls (I seriously do not care if they consider that sexist), and I hate when someone proves to be stronger than me, be it dude or chick. However, while biology gives guy's advantages, we're NOT necessarily stronger than girls. I have a black belt in taekwondo, and some of the girls I have sparred against would beat the snot out of the average male (myself included xD)

 

[klakkat]

beating up a girl is oh-so-much worse.
i mean you should easily be available to defend yourself when a girl attacks you, but if you counter, you're going to hell. Not the circle where there's non-stop partying either. you're going to the bad type.

I understand why committing violence on another is morally worse than it being committed on you. But why is it any worse committing violence on the opposite gender than the same? Obviously, don't let it get out of hand if you can control the situation. Reply in kind, as they say, but don't insist on escalating unless you are truly prepared for war.

Also, EASILY defend yourself? I've definitely met women that could beat up more than 3/4s of the men I'd ever met; and that's assuming the best for the other 1/4. sure, men do have SOME physical advantage on average, but technique means a lot more than physical strength, particularly if weapons are involved. I would say, if you are a good fighter, then counter in such a way that you TEACH your attacker, male or female, if attacked*. NEVER be a victim, but don't generate victims either.

*This is assuming a good-natured attack. If your life is threatened, then I believe it is within your rights to cripple or kill your attacker, no matter their gender. If you are not a fighter, then run your ass away; the dead cannot have any pride.

 

[Paksenarrion]

In Soviet Hidden Versus Thread, Beating Girls You!

 

[TailstheHedgehog]

Violence should only be used in self defence anyway.[footnote]Violence on that level. When politics, governments and nations get involved it's a whole other story[/footnote]

I'd say that's the bottleneck of this whole debate.

 

[Dense_Electric]

What always amazes me is how gender is what most people seem to look at when it comes to this question, and yet when elaborated on it always ends up as "I don't hit people weaker than myself." Gender and physical strength are two totally seperate human traits, how the hell do so many people get them mixed up? Oh, sure, maybe your *average* female is going to be a bit weaker than your *average* male, but if you think that applies ALL THE TIME I'm going to laugh my ass off after some girl with a black belt in six styles of martial arts pounds your skull in. Of course, this raises another good point, in that there's another misconception that physical strength is the ultimate determinate of all physical confronation, but this isn't true either. *How* and *where* you throw a punch is just as, if not more, important than how *hard* you throw it. Short version is, don't assume that someone can't put you in a wheelchair just because they're of one gender or the other, because that's generally the person that will.

As for this silly little "honor code" nonsense, I remind you that that was part of the reason the Japanese lost World War II. Honor is a fickle *****, and those that place it above, say, not getting killed/injured/beattoshit are usually the ones that end up getting killed/injured/beattoshit. Damn, if someone comes at you swinging you have a right to defend yourself, and their gender has about as much relevance as their prefered brand of toothpaste. If you let yourself get pummled because you would be "dishonored" to retaliate, then you probably deserve to get beat up.

So to answer the question - well, preferably we could all just keep our hands to ourselves and be a bit more mature about settling our differences, but if we're going to beat the shit out of each other I can't say. You've only provided us with the genders of the two combatants, that's not enough information to answer the poll. Who is a better fighter? Who is physically stronger? What are their reasons for fighting? Tell us that and I can choose one of the options.

Oh, and echo, what the hell is this foolishness of a man who gets beat up by a woman automatically deserving it? So if she pummles him into the dirt then he must have been cheating on her or something, but if *he* pummles *her* into the dirt then she's an absue victim? I don't suppose it's possible that *she* was cheating on *him* or anything. It's that kind of nonsense that is the reason our society still hasn't moved past stupid questions like this.

 

[Miumaru]

The worse thing is the foolish notion that a vagina is what dictates fighting ability.
If you beat up someone who is weaker than you, or does not want to fight, thats worse. If its a boy, or a girl. Does not matter.
If someone punched most guys here, that would likely be worse than punching Chun Li from Street Fighter. And if Chun Li from Street Fighter beat a guy up, the only shame is that you are probably a bad guy (she is a cop afterall)

 

[Signa]

Getting beat up by a girl, because girls think they can hit someone without recourse. Society seems to think this is ok too. Sure, they might not hurt as much, but the fact that physical violence is being allowed is just plain wrong.

Beating up a girl isn't good either, but no one says it's ok, so no one gets away with it.

What always amazes me is how gender is what most people seem to look at when it comes to this question, and yet when elaborated on it always ends up as "I don't hit people weaker than myself." Gender and physical strength are two totally seperate human traits, how the hell do so many people get them mixed up? Oh, sure, maybe your *average* female is going to be a bit weaker than your *average* male, but if you think that applies ALL THE TIME I'm going to laugh my ass off after some girl with a black belt in six styles of martial arts pounds your skull in. Of course, this raises another good point, in that there's another misconception that physical strength is the ultimate determinate of all physical confronation, but this isn't true either. *How* and *where* you throw a punch is just as, if not more, important than how *hard* you throw it. Short version is, don't assume that someone can't put you in a wheelchair just because they're of one gender or the other, because that's generally the person that will.

As for this silly little "honor code" nonsense, I remind you that that was part of the reason the Japanese lost World War II. Honor is a fickle *****, and those that place it above, say, not getting killed/injured/beattoshit are usually the ones that end up getting killed/injured/beattoshit. Damn, if someone comes at you swinging you have a right to defend yourself, and their gender has about as much relevance as their prefered brand of toothpaste. If you let yourself get pummled because you would be "dishonored" to retaliate, then you probably deserve to get beat up.

So to answer the question - well, preferably we could all just keep our hands to ourselves and be a bit more mature about settling our differences, but if we're going to beat the shit out of each other I can't say. You've only provided us with the genders of the two combatants, that's not enough information to answer the poll. Who is a better fighter? Who is physically stronger? What are their reasons for fighting? Tell us that and I can choose one of the options.

Oh, and echo, what the hell is this foolishness of a man who gets beat up by a woman automatically deserving it? So if she pummles him into the dirt then he must have been cheating on her or something, but if *he* pummles *her* into the dirt then she's an absue victim? I don't suppose it's possible that *she* was cheating on *him* or anything. It's that kind of nonsense that is the reason our society still hasn't moved past stupid questions like this.

Thanks for this. I'm glad that I'm not the only one who looks at it from a more objective angle. Fact is, women don't have the same control of their emotions as guys do. In those moments, a woman can be FAR more dangerous than a man because they will lose all rationality and attack with anything and everything. That means any blunt or sharp objects may start swinging. An enraged guy will usually still have enough sense to not use a weapon. Maybe it's because he doesn't need a weapon, but ultimately a bruise will heal faster than a cracked skull or laceration.

Doesn't make it right of course, but I'm just pointing out my observations.

 

[Stickwell]

Getting beat up by a girl... as a great young boy told me in middle school, 'If she wants to hit me like a man, I'll hit her back like one.'

 

[klakkat]

What always amazes me is how gender is what most people seem to look at when it comes to this question, and yet when elaborated on it always ends up as "I don't hit people weaker than myself." Gender and physical strength are two totally seperate human traits, how the hell do so many people get them mixed up? Oh, sure, maybe your *average* female is going to be a bit weaker than your *average* male, but if you think that applies ALL THE TIME I'm going to laugh my ass off after some girl with a black belt in six styles of martial arts pounds your skull in. Of course, this raises another good point, in that there's another misconception that physical strength is the ultimate determinate of all physical confronation, but this isn't true either. *How* and *where* you throw a punch is just as, if not more, important than how *hard* you throw it. Short version is, don't assume that someone can't put you in a wheelchair just because they're of one gender or the other, because that's generally the person that will.

As for this silly little "honor code" nonsense, I remind you that that was part of the reason the Japanese lost World War II. Honor is a fickle *****, and those that place it above, say, not getting killed/injured/beattoshit are usually the ones that end up getting killed/injured/beattoshit. Damn, if someone comes at you swinging you have a right to defend yourself, and their gender has about as much relevance as their prefered brand of toothpaste. If you let yourself get pummled because you would be "dishonored" to retaliate, then you probably deserve to get beat up.

So to answer the question - well, preferably we could all just keep our hands to ourselves and be a bit more mature about settling our differences, but if we're going to beat the shit out of each other I can't say. You've only provided us with the genders of the two combatants, that's not enough information to answer the poll. Who is a better fighter? Who is physically stronger? What are their reasons for fighting? Tell us that and I can choose one of the options.

Oh, and echo, what the hell is this foolishness of a man who gets beat up by a woman automatically deserving it? So if she pummles him into the dirt then he must have been cheating on her or something, but if *he* pummles *her* into the dirt then she's an absue victim? I don't suppose it's possible that *she* was cheating on *him* or anything. It's that kind of nonsense that is the reason our society still hasn't moved past stupid questions like this.

Ahh,
there is much wisdom in this one,
and fairly eloquent too;
I dare say,
you have a high IQ!

 

[Agayek]

Beating up a girl. If you get beat up, that's not a big deal. But, if you beat someone, that's just wrong. Beyond belief.

I would posit that beating someone who is the process of attacking you, regardless of their race, gender or creed, is a perfectly valid response. You have the right, and I would sometimes argue the obligation, to defend yourself from unprovoked violence.


My answer to this question is pretty simple: Why the hell does gender matter? I will hit a woman for the same reasons I would hit a man; chiefly an attack on my friends or I. Hitting someone else, man or woman, in any other situation is simply wrong.

 

[Varrdy]

Well I was raised well enough and was always told it was wrong to hit girls. Then again, it was a time (and place) where girls were still the "fairer" sex who played with prams, dolls, Polly Pocket and all that shit and boys had footballs and Scalextric (and in my case, several metric tonnes of Lego). If a boy beat up another boy, that was usually written off as "boys being boys". If a girl hit a boy, he was asking for it and if a boy hit a girl he would be grounded, bollocked until his ears rang and probably get a smacked arse.

Of course I am generalising but you get the idea.

I think there's been a bit of confusion on this thread and I would like to clarify that "beating up" is a lot different to "hitting".

Beating someone up, regardless of gender, is never really a good thing. Mind you, hitting isn't much better but to get to the question at hand, what is worse? Being beaten up by a girl or beating up a girl. I'm assuming in this case that the question is aimed at guys here?

Now don't hate on me when I say that men are usually bigger and stronger than women. It's not sexism, it's genetics okay? Every time I see some shite on the news who beat his girlfriend / wife because she blinked during the Football I want to invade his butt-pucker with a hot poker smeared with chilli sauce. I want him sent to prison and see how he likes a good kicking.

That said, domestic abuse isn't always this one way street. Wayne Bobbit knows what I am talking about and I once read an article about male victims and it made for gruesome reading. One poor sod got red hot wax all over his naked privates after his wife heard about him hugging another woman. It turned out to be his sister but someone saw him hugging her and was straight on the phone. A swift divorce was filed by him as soon as he got out of hospital.

Those two examples were chosen because they show that now the sexes are supposed to be "equal", it's still more common to hear about female victims than male ones because female victims get sympathy and a male victim is worried he'll be laughed at for getting beaten up by a girl / woman. That's because of the programming (which sounds more sinister than I wanted it to) we usually got as children.

As much as I would like to say, in these enlightened times where men cook and women fix the car, neither is worse than the other but old habits die hard and when you couple that to my earlier statement about men generally being stronger and my hatred of bullies, I would have to say beating up a girl is so much more worse than getting beaten up BY one.

That dealt with, I'd like to address another matter this thread has raised.

As someone with a sharp temper (although I have mellowed considerably in my mid-late 20's) I have thumped a few guys for various reasons (I don't like to do it often, simply because I am skinny, weak and feeble and it fucking hurts if you don't get it right!) but no matter how infuriated I have been with certain women and girls, ad we are talking steaming-ears levels here, I have never once, not even in the hottest flushes of anger, have I even thought about raising my hand to one. I kick something inanimate; I storm out and swear until even Satan blushes but for all the reasons already stated, it would have to take something pretty serious to make me do that. Not even if I found out I was being cheated on would I smack my GF.

What would it take? Well it would have to be if she had a weapon and was in such a frenzy she wasn't going to stop waling on me until I was dead. Unarmed, I'd do my best to restrain her. But, if I was getting pounded on with a frying pan or was bleeding from a knife wound then I am sorry but I think I would have to at least try and get an uppercut in.

I know the joke goes that now women have equal rights they have the same right to a bunch of fives but that's a (pretty shit) joke. It's not meant to be serious but I'd laugh just as much at jokes about men, women, white-people, black-people, Asians, Irishmen or lanky English gits with big mouths (I am an equal-opportunities piss-taker) if they are funny.

But yeah, wether it's "PC" or not, getting beaten up by a girl is embarassing wheras beating up a girl makes you a c*nt who deserves to have his bollocks Tazered.

Wardy

 

[gilthanan]

"snip modern pseudo-feminist political correct crap"

As for this silly little "honor code" nonsense, I remind you that that was part of the reason the Japanese lost World War II. Honor is a fickle *****, and those that place it above, say, not getting killed/injured/beattoshit are usually the ones that end up getting killed/injured/beattoshit. Damn, if someone comes at you swinging you have a right to defend yourself, and their gender has about as much relevance as their prefered brand of toothpaste. If you let yourself get pummled because you would be "dishonored" to retaliate, then you probably deserve to get beat up.

*snip argument implying that we need to take a serious look at a hypothetical, internet poll*

*snip stuff disagreeing with modern psuedo-feminist political correct crap you mentioned earlier*

Japan lost the second World War because, well US hyper-industrialization, access to necessary materials (like oil) to run war that Japan lacked, Japanese hyper-extended foreign policy, Japan's long term (Almost 9 years by the end) engagement with China and various other East Asian and Pacific powers, and the nuclear bomb kind of were like, not in their favor. Their honor just made them lose more men, because they didn't know when to quit.

Secondly, I hate it when people bring in serious discussion of possibilities that may happen that change a hypothetical meaningless internet poll. You need every detail, and cry sexism and other stupid nonsense. Physically, the hormones prevalent in a man encourage muscle growth, so for the average female who do not present such a large amount of that hormone, tend to not have as much muscle growth. In fact, they have a growth of fat (women naturally have a higher BMI) you know, to give them those curves (most) males enjoy. So, barring the 6 martial arts blackbelt woman, you could assume that the man would have a dominant edge in melee combat, because like it or not, there is a damn good reason you don't see lightweights fighting heavyweights in boxing, heavyweights will win.

We don't need to debate the why, we don't need to debate the consequences, we don't need to consider that that African swallow's flight distance compared to the Western Europeans, we don't need 20 poll options to determine who has the flexibility and who has the reach. Just assume, under most circumstances, or don't bother answering the poll at all, because most of the time you'll be right, which in gambling terms is far better then the one time you won't be.

Excluding the possibility that a female Scandinavian Olympian was running around outside our house last night, what else might be a possibility?