Indian TV Host Slapped by Contestant

Off Topic
161

[quote]Vicomte wrote:
You can’t walk away when she won’t let you.

[/quote]

Exactly. What are you supposed to do if some woman is hitting AND standing in your way to keep you from walking away? If you push her out of the way, she can scream assault. If you defend yourself against the hits, you will go to jail. Obviously, the PC answer is to just stand there and get slapped or run from the house somehow.

Women know this and they use it at times. I am not sure what the solution is, but making blanket judgments that no man should ever touch a woman doesn’t seem to be the solution.

I honestly think most of this could be cleared up in court if the message was sent that it isn’t OK to hit the guy while screaming and tearing at him and also preventing him to leave and then call the police if he fights back at all.

Yes, we can argue that they may not be doing disfiguring damage, but it isn’t like scratches and slaps don’t hurt and I am betting humiliation in public is the leading cause of even most men retaliating unless they truly are prone to hurt women for no reason.

It is almost instinctual for a guy to defend himself. It has to be overridden in order for a guy to stand there and just take it…unless he really is that weak as to not feel he can do anything about it.

Parents shouldn’t raise their daughters with the belief that they are free of repercussion if they start something physically.

162

It amazes me how many of you guys get all up in arms about a man hitting a woman after she clearly physically struck him first, but then you also get pissy about a man having to pay his wife alimony because she should be able to take care of herself…

You can’t have it both ways. Either we’re weak, pathetic creatures who need to be taken care of and protected, or we’re human beings who are expected to conduct ourselves according to the law just like men are.

163

[quote]Da Vinci wrote:
I think that the cultural standards are different in the middle east from a gender stand-point where it is probably severely more disrespectful and insulting for a woman to slap a man than in other parts of the world.[/quote]
India is South Asian, not Middle Eastern.

Why are you glad though? She cold-cocked him, and he retaliated in what was probably an instinctual manner. He then deserves to get the shit kicked out of him by a mob? Bullshit.

164

[quote]MarvelGirl wrote:
It amazes me how many of you guys get all up in arms about a man hitting a woman after she clearly physically struck him first, but then you also get pissy about a man having to pay his wife alimony because she should be able to take care of himself…

You can’t have it both ways. Either we’re weak, pathetic creatures who need to be taken care of and protected, or we’re human beings who are expected to conduct ourselves according to the law just like men are.[/quote]

A men.

(no pun intended)

165

[quote]MarvelGirl wrote:
It amazes me how many of you guys get all up in arms about a man hitting a woman after she clearly physically struck him first, but then you also get pissy about a man having to pay his wife alimony because she should be able to take care of herself…

You can’t have it both ways. Either we’re weak, pathetic creatures who need to be taken care of and protected, or we’re human beings who are expected to conduct ourselves according to the law just like men are.[/quote]

Being able to provide for yourself and hitting someone without fear of repurcussion have nothing to do with eachother.

166

[quote]MarvelGirl wrote:

You can’t have it both ways. Either we’re weak, pathetic creatures who need to be taken care of and protected, or we’re human beings who are expected to conduct ourselves according to the law just like men are.[/quote]

Actually, people can be both weak and law-abiding. Just sayin.

DB

167

[quote]Professor X wrote:
MarvelGirl wrote:
It amazes me how many of you guys get all up in arms about a man hitting a woman after she clearly physically struck him first, but then you also get pissy about a man having to pay his wife alimony because she should be able to take care of himself…

You can’t have it both ways. Either we’re weak, pathetic creatures who need to be taken care of and protected, or we’re human beings who are expected to conduct ourselves according to the law just like men are.

A men.

(no pun intended)[/quote]

No pun? Pussy.

168

Why should we be able to hit people with no fear of repurcussion?!? Do you really think that little of women? That’s so incredibly insulting, don’t you understand that?

Saying we should be able to walk around smacking the hell out of anyone we want whenever the fuck we feel like it is the EXACT same thing as calling us stupid fucking animals with absolutely no self control.

You think you’re being “nice” to women by allowing them to behave like destructive, retarded children? You’re not, you’re just insulting the hell out of them, and training them to act like infants for their whole lives.

Then you actually expect them to work for themselves when you decide your sick of them? No wonder so many of you guys get taken in divorce court, you’re morons. You train your women that it’s ok to do whatever the fuck they want, and then you expect themm to grow up and behave like rational adults just because you’re sick of sticking your dick in them.

What a fucking joke.

169

[quote]Vicomte wrote:
I imagine this is more common than most women like to believe. Fact is, that most men will not hit a woman unless they feel they have no other choice, and, lots of times, the women don’t allow any other options. You can’t walk away when she won’t let you.
[/quote]

I can’t find a link but in Dr. Helen’s blog I remember she linked to a study showing that in couples where both fought each other (rather than only the man committing violence) then the man was the one who always got more seriously injured.

I assume due to the same reasons you write, we are trained to hold back, whereas the women are not. So even when we do fight back we aren’t fighting like we’d fight another man.

Feminist groups want to say men are inherently more dangerous merely because we’re bigger (some of us :slight_smile: ) but the facts prove otherwise, (though since so much domestic violence against men is unreported it’s hard to say).

I suppose with the way we are treated by the legal system the only safe thing to do when a woman hits you and won’t let you leave is dial 911. We don’t want to do that it’s like admitting weakness, but it’s less about protecting our bodies than it is about protecting our future. It is crazy just push them out of the way and leave should be the thing to do, but nowdays you can’t take that chance.

I dated a total nutjob for a few weeks who stole from me, then I broke that off right away and she started telling everyone I was stalking her (I sent her an email a few weeks later asking for my money back).

So I talked to two different lawyers both told me the same thing: forget the money and get away and never contact her but keep a record of every time she contacted me, cause no judge will give a fuck about me if she goes into a court and starts crying. So these were lawyers themselves telling me the law didn’t even matter.

So I got off pretty easy she never hit me just threatened to and I only lost money, but even that small brush with a pscyho-female was enough to make me wary.

Dr. Helen has a pretty good blog and talks a lot of about those issues.

170

[quote]MarvelGirl wrote:
It amazes me how many of you guys get all up in arms about a man hitting a woman after she clearly physically struck him first, but then you also get pissy about a man having to pay his wife alimony because she should be able to take care of herself…

You can’t have it both ways. Either we’re weak, pathetic creatures who need to be taken care of and protected, or we’re human beings who are expected to conduct ourselves according to the law just like men are.[/quote]

Easy, you’re weak, pathetic creatures who are expected to conduct yourselves according to the law.

171

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

The problem is that there is a history of violence against women,

If there was a history of women going postal and hurting people.[/quote]

This is where you are wrong.

There IS a history of women committing violence against men. The problem is men refuse to admit it, refuse to call the police, refuse to get help. Then if they do, they are laughed out of the police station, or by their relatives, or by men they know for not being “man enough”. They just take it, because society (and probably some genetic programming) conditions us to.

It’s no different than rape in the past, when people refused to believe it was happening at the levels it was. But it was happening, it was just unreported.

But your excuses for the double standard are dead wrong. You are trying the argue “the double standard is there because it should be there because men are more dangerous” sorry that is bullshit. Dr. Helen: "Nearly twice as many women as men said they perpetrated domestic violence in the past year"

MarvelGirl has it right.

172

[quote]chrisb71 wrote:
PonceDeLeon wrote:

The problem is that there is a history of violence against women,

If there was a history of women going postal and hurting people.

This is where you are wrong.

There IS a history of women committing violence against men. The problem is men refuse to admit it, refuse to call the police, refuse to get help. Then if they do, they are laughed out of the police station, or by their relatives, or by men they know for not being “man enough”. They just take it, because society (and probably some genetic programming) conditions us to.

It’s no different than rape in the past, when people refused to believe it was happening at the levels it was. But it was happening, it was just unreported.

But your excuses for the double standard are dead wrong. You are trying the argue “the double standard is there because it should be there because men are more dangerous” sorry that is bullshit. Dr. Helen: "Nearly twice as many women as men said they perpetrated domestic violence in the past year"

It’s not even a new issue, this was written in 1908: Belfort Bax

MarvelGirl has it right.[/quote]

Either you completely misread my post or I wrote it poorly.

When I wrote : “The problem is that there is a history of violence against women,” I did not mean it is something to nullify a man’s chance at self defense.

I meant that it is a PROBLEM for MEN in this situation because it is perceived as an endorsement of past history because there “is a history of violence against women.”

It is a problem for men because it makes the playing field of self defense very uneven.

173

[quote]MarvelGirl wrote:
Why should we be able to hit people with no fear of repurcussion?!? Do you really think that little of women? That’s so incredibly insulting, don’t you understand that?

Saying we should be able to walk around smacking the hell out of anyone we want whenever the fuck we feel like it is the EXACT same thing as calling us stupid fucking animals with absolutely no self control.

You think you’re being “nice” to women by allowing them to behave like destructive, retarded children? You’re not, you’re just insulting the hell out of them, and training them to act like infants for their whole lives.

Then you actually expect them to work for themselves when you decide your sick of them? No wonder so many of you guys get taken in divorce court, you’re morons. You train your women that it’s ok to do whatever the fuck they want, and then you expect themm to grow up and behave like rational adults just because you’re sick of sticking your dick in them.

What a fucking joke.[/quote]

Thank you MG. Thank you.

Edit: The fallacy is in the notion of being all for women’s rights and equality, yet at the same time, holding the belief that a man should never hit a woman. It’s contradictory at best and hypocritical at worst and it just perpetuates the social stigma of weak women.

Whether you are a man or a woman, should be thrown out of the argument because assault and battery is wrong in the first place.

174

[quote]MarvelGirl wrote:
Why should we be able to hit people with no fear of repurcussion?!? Do you really think that little of women? That’s so incredibly insulting, don’t you understand that?

Saying we should be able to walk around smacking the hell out of anyone we want whenever the fuck we feel like it is the EXACT same thing as calling us stupid fucking animals with absolutely no self control.

You think you’re being “nice” to women by allowing them to behave like destructive, retarded children? You’re not, you’re just insulting the hell out of them, and training them to act like infants for their whole lives.

Then you actually expect them to work for themselves when you decide your sick of them? No wonder so many of you guys get taken in divorce court, you’re morons. You train your women that it’s ok to do whatever the fuck they want, and then you expect themm to grow up and behave like rational adults just because you’re sick of sticking your dick in them.

What a fucking joke.[/quote]

Actually my point is that no one should be able to hit another without fear of repurcussion, but you spoiled your whole arguement by saying a man can “train” a woman. Women aren’t dogs in need of domestication. They’re people and should act accordingly. You can’t “train” someone who doesn’t want to be trained.

175

All this banter does prove that its debateable whether a male should be able to reasonably defend himself if attacked by a female.

176

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

Actually my point is that no one should be able to hit another without fear of repurcussion, but you spoiled your whole arguement by saying a man can “train” a woman. Women aren’t dogs in need of domestication. They’re people and should act accordingly. You can’t “train” someone who doesn’t want to be trained.
[/quote]

Quit playing with semantics. It’s an issue of word choice.

She didn’t mean “train” as in training a dog, but social and psychological conditioning.

177

In this case of the video in question, she deserved a smack. She was clearly provoking while the men were not taking part in it. Women love a reaction, and sometimes (not always) resort to using unscrupulous tactics to get them. Should you go down that road, be wary of what you might find.

178

[quote]djrobins wrote:
All this banter does prove that its debateable whether a male should be able to reasonably defend himself if attacked by a female.[/quote]

As I’m sure has been stated, it’s entirely situation specific. If my girl and I are knee deep in a drunken arguement and she busts me in the face and walking away isn’t an option I’m gonna grab her hands, wrap her up and hold her 'til I’m sure she’s calmed down. If I’m somewhere and I feel my life is threatened and I can’t getaway I’m gonna do what I can to get out.

179

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Actually my point is that no one should be able to hit another without fear of repurcussion, but you spoiled your whole arguement by saying a man can “train” a woman. Women aren’t dogs in need of domestication. They’re people and should act accordingly. You can’t “train” someone who doesn’t want to be trained.
[/quote]

Any human being can be “trained”. If you allow someone to consistently indulge in inappropriate behavior with no repurcussions or negative consequences, you have “trained” them to do so. You can pick on my word choice all you want, it doesn’t negate what I’ve said.

If you allow any human being to physically attack you over and over and over again with no repurcussions, then yes I believe you have trained them to do so. By not reacting or giving them a reason to stop, you reinforce the negative behavior. Why on earth would they stop when hitting you feels good to them, and you won’t stop them?

180

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Women love a reaction, and sometimes (not always) resort to using unscrupulous tactics to get them. Should you go down that road, be wary of what you might find. [/quote]

You got that right!

A former British model has been jailed after smashing a wine glass on a student’s face and dragging it along his cheek.

Lisa Kee was drunk when she attacked Liam Sharratt at an upmarket bar in Deansgate in England’s south in 2007, theTelegraph newspaper reports.

Manchester Crown Court heard that Kee approached Mr Sharratt and a group of his friends, where they exchanged in “good humoured banter”.

But when her victim jokingly called her “a slag”, Kee turned violent.

The 29-year-old, who had a “red wine moustache”, demanded: “Who do you think you are?”

She tossed her red wine over Mr Sharratt and, when he laughed, she punched him in the head.

Mr Sharratt laughed again and this time Kee smashed her wine glass against his head before dragging it over his face and ripping his cheek open.

The gash was so deep that when he breathed his cheek flapped open.

He was left scarred for life.

Judge Martin Rudland described the incident as a “vicious and wholly unwarranted attack.”

Kee, who stood sobbing in the dock, was jailed for two-and-a-half years.

Mr Sharratt, a PHD student, was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and had to delay the completion of his studies.