Teach Safe Violence

[Caitlin.ann]

well rape is a type of sexual violence after all.

Indeed, but I find it a somewhat difficult comparison to make. The difference between rape and a high school brawl.

 

[sidhe]

Indeed, but I find it a somewhat difficult comparison to make. The difference between rape and a high school brawl.

What I'm finding difficult in the comparison is this:

Sex education so that young adults who choose to be sexually active will have the resources to make informed decisions.

...and...

Martial arts training and sanctioned physical altercations within the school as a means of conflict resolution.

Maybe I'm just not reading coherently today, but I don't see anything similar between those.

 

[RocketRed]

What I'm finding difficult in the comparison is this:

Sex education so that young adults who choose to be sexually active will have the resources to make informed decisions.

...and...

Martial arts training and sanctioned physical altercations within the school as a means of conflict resolution.

Maybe I'm just not reading coherently today, but I don't see anything similar between those.

Ditto. I think I see what's meant by the claim of a parallel between the two, but I'm not seeing it pan out that way.

Sex is sex. Violence is violence. Apples and oranges. Why should we treat them the same way? They involve different things, different feelings, different results and consequences.

Sidebar: wow am I ever tired of this "It's the liberals!" thing. "Liberal" is an umbrella term that can apply to so many different schools of political thought many of which have no unified one view on violence or war. It can apply to anyone left of center on the political scale. It can apply to everything from Blue Dog democrats to communists.
Using "liberals" as a conveniently vague strawman is very tiresome and unfortunately, using such strawmen has become more and more common. US politics are so polarized to the point of hysteria. Being a "liberal" makes you somehow both a Marxist and a Facist and yet an out-of-touch elitist who wants to make you have an abortion and be gay. Being a "conversative" makes you a Bible-beating, socially-intolerant, ignorant hick who just hates Obama because he's black.
Can we not do that? Do we really have to do that to each other? Can't we make our points without demonizing opposing political ideologies?

 

[Penumbra]

In our society, we cannot even fight if both parties feel they have a good reason to do that (unless you are Canadian where they have the infamous consensual fight laws [are these still in effect?]).

Sometimes it makes sense to fight one another -- in a way it is a profound relief of frustration and expression of combat that connects with something deep down inside of us.

Well, I think people should be allowed to fight each other if it's consensual, but I'm not sure it makes sense to allow children to do it. At least, if they're going to do it, mixed martial arts gloves and mouthpieces and stuff should be used- that's what contact sports are for. Things like wrestling and football are outlets for the basic instincts of humanity (especially male humanity). Males of many mammalian species are designed to fight one another over things like land and females. Humans are no different, and men tend to have an aggressive streak. Wrestling, grappling, kickboxing, mixed martial arts, karate, and other martial arts allow people to do that rather safely. Football is basically hunting, and is extremely popular because it's so primal. This is normal.

I think teaching people that it is not a part of the human psyche is as foolish as trying to educate people that sex is not an expression inherent to us as humans, that we do engage in outside of marriage and in times that are, in fact, irresponsible.

And there are those here who would have us believe that it is in fact positive to do that.

There has always been traditional views amongst liberals to try to make things safer for kids; this is where we get zero tolerance policies that have punished boyscouts for bringing their hunting knives to school. This is also where we get exaggerated anti-bullying laws where calling a kid an anti-gay epithet somehow now qualifies as a hate crime.

Liberalism has been the root of the loss of much of what is natural about our humanity -- it has tried to even regulate the normal behavior of children until every facet of education is made into turnign each child into a calm, subdued socialist pacifist intent on spending their days as submissive citizens drinking from the breast of big government.

First of all, you're just biased and using liberals as a scapegoat for everything. Liberalism != socialism. There are many types of liberals, ranging from those who believe in liberal social policies (i.e. more freedom) to those who believe in liberal spending policies (i.e. healthcare, welfare, higher taxation) and then there are those who believe in both or in bits and pieces of both. You're bringing all of this extra baggage into what should be a very streamlined discussion about the ethics of safe violence, which has little to do with politics.

Secondly, suicide is the third most likely cause of death among teens. Strictly discouraging bullying in schools is important, because children can be so cruel. The ones being bulled, and most teens in general, are vulnerable as they are going through very difficult parts of their life and haven't had enough time to build up a defense against people.

Lastly, you seem frightened of things that discourage what is natural for humanity, yet you're a Christian? Did Jesus come and say, "Well, looks like you guys are doing fine. Keep up the good work!"? No, he came and said all sorts of things against the status quo, and instructed his followers to be gentle. He used sheep as an analogy of his followers. According to your religion, humanity is sinful, and yet you seem against it being tampered with? Would Jesus have said, "Look son, if someone bullies you at school, challenge him to a fight and beat the snot out of him"?

-Lyn

 

[MoonLancer]

Indeed, but I find it a somewhat difficult comparison to make. The difference between rape and a high school brawl.

yes they are very different. perhaps instead of highschool sports being called vilent, maybe aggressive is a better word for it?

 

[david_x]

yes they are very different. perhaps instead of highschool sports being called vilent, maybe aggressive is a better word for it?

Maybe, if there were no concussions and broken legs...

 

[aandb]

I think the numbers are something like 46% have had intercourse (i.e. penis in vagina), 63% have had some sort of sexual experience (intercourse, oral/anal sex, mutual masturbation).

There are all the same risks involved with those activities as there are with vaginal intercourse... STDs more so, pregnancy is less, but there IS a risk with anal intercourse.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Maybe, if there were no concussions and broken legs...

To that, that is more an issue of risk rather than violence.

 

[ebia]

What if we had a system that essentially regulated violence between students,

In essence we do - it's called competitive sport; the better aspects of the behaviour behind violence with the least possible of the worst aspects.

The problem with your question is that by picking 'violence' you've picked the completely negative form of the behaviour - not compartive to "sex", which is good in it's place and less good in when abused.

 

[david_x]

To that, that is more an issue of risk rather than violence.

After reviewing the dictionary, I conclude that neither fit what I would consider the purpose of sports.

Aggression deals to much with simply the offensive and "violence" deals with uncontrolled movement. Neither of which encompass sports completely.

 

[Steezie]

After reviewing the dictionary, I conclude that neither fit what I would consider the purpose of sports.

Aggression deals to much with simply the offensive and "violence" deals with uncontrolled movement. Neither of which encompass sports completely.

Regardless of what you concede the interpretation to be, football is still basically about smacking into each other really really hard

 

[david_x]

Regardless of what you concede the interpretation to be, football is still basically about smacking into each other really really hard

I don't know that much about football, but i'm pretty sure that's not the point.

 

[Verv]

Just as a note.

Too many of you quote me into a hundred little pieces and then I lose total interest in confronting what you said. How am I supposed to deal with 10 people posting fragments of commentary at me? It would take me hours to go back and even see what you are referencing.

So I am just sticking to what is memorable.

You don´t happen to have an even broader brush, do you?
I am a liberal and pacifist, but I have no problem with other persons practicing violence in mutual consent.
It can´t be denied that young persons have a strong potential of aggression, and it´s a good thing to teach them how to deal with it responsibly.

Sex and violence are indeed comparable: Just like the main message concerning sex is "make sure the other person wants it, too" I am fine with violence as long as the message is "If you want to punch someone on the nose make sure they want to be punched on the nose."

OK.

So you are a libertarian in many senses... Well, I should not put words into your mouth, as undoubtedly you have been upset with me in the past for doing so.

I will let you define yourself on this one.

I see your ideas are pretty logically put together.

But why be a pacifist?

It seems counter to the nature of humanity.

If at all democracy has a tendency to belief that there are generally better options than violence. And I'd say that 20th century history supports that (several successful non-violent revolutions, and wars that usually do more bad then good)

I don't think any major liberal ideology says violence is never an option. But it should be avoided as possible.

The the OP: The post sounds as if there is a trend in schools (in the US?) to ban fighting sports on grounds of them being "too violent". Is that actually true?

I do not know about the US on this issue. It just seems that there is a lot of people who discourage fighting.

Perhaps fighting would be more respectable and have less bad consequences if it was moderated.

The circumstances that you are referencing for successful peaceful revolution are what? I do not know of any successful peaceful revolutions.

Does this mean we can compare non-consensual violence to rape?

Maybe! It makes a little bit of sense.

One is assault; the other is an assault that is sexual.

What I'm finding difficult in the comparison is this:

Sex education so that young adults who choose to be sexually active will have the resources to make informed decisions.

...and...

Martial arts training and sanctioned physical altercations within the school as a means of conflict resolution.

Maybe I'm just not reading coherently today, but I don't see anything similar between those.

What if two people, consensually choose to resolve a conflict through violence.

The school will give kids condoms to have sex; why don't they give them moderation in their fighting as well, then?

Isn't consensual violence the right of two people who are of age to know enough?

If you modern folks are so sanctioning of freedom put your money with your mouth is.

 

[sidhe]

What if two people, consensually choose to resolve a conflict through violence.

The school will give kids condoms to have sex; why don't they give them moderation in their fighting as well, then?

Isn't consensual violence the right of two people who are of age to know enough?

If you modern folks are so sanctioning of freedom put your money with your mouth is.

Okay, let me ask you this:

You go into a bar, get into a disagreement with someone, decide to take it outside, and the usual fisticuffs ensue. You're both trained martial artists, and being careful not to inflict serious damage. A police officer pulls up and sees the fracas. Is the fact that you're both being moderate and in full consent alter that you'll be arrested for disturbing the peace?

On the other hand, you go to a bar, get into an agreement with someone, take them back to your place, and get out a condom. Can the individual with whom you wish to...further agree call the police legitimately if all parties are consenting?

I believe people have the freedom to get into physical altercations if they want. I also believe they have responsibility to face any consequences for their actions. Similarly, people have the freedom to engage in whatever sexual practices they so choose, and the responsibility to face any consequences for their actions. However, distributing condoms is not the same as sanctioning violence as conflict resolution. If self-defense was taught in schools, that would be the same, and I think that self-defense classes should be an option...if you get into a fight, you should know how to defend yourself. However, with your description of sanctioned fights at school, the sexual comparison would be if there was a BDSM dungeon available for the students, not the provision of condoms.

 

[Beechwell]

Just as a note.
I do not know about the US on this issue. It just seems that there is a lot of people who discourage fighting.

Perhaps fighting would be more respectable and have less bad consequences if it was moderated.

The circumstances that you are referencing for successful peaceful revolution are what? I do not know of any successful peaceful revolutions.

East Germany 1989, India 1947, the Solidarnosc in Poland; and also the islamic revolition in Iran was mostly peacefull (except towards the end, but I would argue that it would have succeeded without those outbreaks of violence).
Sure, all those revolutions relied on favourable political situations, but the same can be said about violent revolutions.

About fighting in our society: I think that especially boys (and men) do have a certain need to live out aggressions, and they should be allowed (even encouraged) to do so in resonable ways. Preferably sports, but I also think schoolyard fights are not necessarily bad provided the opponents know when to stop and how to limit the fighting so noone gets serously hurt.
What I would find problematic (not sure if that is what you mean by your post) is violence as a form on problem solution. My main reason being that this tends to lead to unjust solutions, solely favouring the stronger adversary. And I don't think we want to live in a "might is right" kind of society - I certainly don't.

 

[DaisyDay]

Can't say I agree with that... any sport contains violence, and can still be very fun.

Running, diving, swimming, gymnastics, archery, golf, badminton, ice skating, croquet, pole vaulting, tennis - any sport? Maybe not.

 

[Steezie]

I don't know that much about football, but i'm pretty sure that's not the point.

Ostensibly, no. But if the point of the game really is just to score points, why isnt our national sport TOUCH football?

 

[sidhe]

Just as a note.

Too many of you quote me into a hundred little pieces and then I lose total interest in confronting what you said. How am I supposed to deal with 10 people posting fragments of commentary at me? It would take me hours to go back and even see what you are referencing.

So I am just sticking to what is memorable.

Oh, let me address this:

If it's hard work, pull yourself up by your bootstraps and do it. You write long, complex posts and then don't respond to the majority of the discussion of them basically because people respond to your points in too much detail? If you don't want your arguments to be examined closely and have each point responded to, then simplify the arguments. If you take the time to make a statement, and other people take the time to respond, not addressing them because it takes too much time and effort for you to actually continue the discussion is actually quite rude.

 

[david_x]

Running, diving, swimming, gymnastics, archery, golf, badminton, ice skating, croquet, pole vaulting, tennis - any sport? Maybe not.

Competitions mostly.

 

[david_x]

Ostensibly, no. But if the point of the game really is just to score points, why isnt our national sport TOUCH football?

It doesn't require as much from the athletes. It's less sporty.