quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin
I see the problem as being threatened to be butt fucked by someone you just paid to play/pretend that scenario would effectively negate any perceived "threat". If I took such a class (and I have) and the instructor grabbed me by my hair, threw me down and threatened to butt fuck me, it would be hard for me to suppress the laughter. Actually, he could heap a whole bunch of insults on top of it and say that he was going to butt fuck my fat white cracker ass and it wouldn't elicit any more "real" fear in me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
"The students fighting for their lives actually found their real-life assailants boring and inarticulate in their attempts to be nasty." The, "training for real life defense" is invalid.

Been following this exchange, and I wanted to chime in, that Merc has been consistent, and logical, but no one seems to want to address his point.

I'm with ya, merc.
FirmKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
I don't think the point will ever be addressed.

quote:

You missed it then.  The statement was that the students were being desensitized and trained in "overkill" situations, where the mock assailant was *more* verbally aggressive than was statistically likely in a real life situation.

quote:

Not just "an argument" but in fact the only argument, on two fronts. One the reference that you give regarding sexual assault. On that issue, similar to a waiver of liability, it would not hold up in any legal proceeding. If it is considered illegal to have such a verbal exchange with a 14 year old, no parent can waive a right to accept it as part of training.

The second issue is that those words do not reflect reality, based upon what Sinergy said.

Take them both together. Some parent is offended, and goes to police officer. The police investigate, and it's confirmed that the assailant used the a reference to "butt-fucking" in the exercise. It confirms the "assault". Then somehow this fact comes to light; "The students fighting for their lives actually found their real-life assailants boring and inarticulate in their attempts to be nasty." The, "training for real life defense" is invalid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin

Regardless of how good or bad the instructors or students are I stand firm that the scenarios that get acted out in these classes do not compare to the reality of an assault. I say that as someone who has been the victim of a violent assault, as someone who has also taken these types of classes and who has spent a good number of years working with the victims of violent assaults. I am not trying to invalidate what Sinergy does or the usefullness of such a class. I am simply trying to say that while, they may indeed be the best line of defense, we would be foolish to think that they are an accurate depiction or could fully prepare someone for the reality of such a violation.

quote:


the entire object of the class is to upset the student and put them in a mental state such as they would be in if they were really attacked.

I teach women in realistic scenarios using verbal and physical tactics that a woman being assaulted will encounter. 


quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin

I can tell you that the adrenaline load you see in your class environment is not comparable to what occurs in an actual assault.

While I understand this is your personal perspective, this is not what the graduates of ours (who are assaulted after the taking the class, in some cases years later) class report back. Most of them maintain that they were much more scared by the muggers in class than they were by the actual assailant in the actual fight they were in.  

quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin
The last quote suggests that more fear is usually instilled in the class environment than in reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Although the replies are tangent and out of context, my question remains unanswered. Why would a specific verbal taunt that is acknowledge by the training facility as not being realistic be used as an example of realism?

quote:



IN MOST CASES;

quote:



no parent can waive a right to accept it as part of training.

quote:



The second issue is that those words do not reflect reality, based upon what Sinergy said.

quote:

Weird.  The school I teach at does not seem to have an issue with it.  We have been there for almost 16 years.

quote:

The fact that you glommed on to the comment about it not being representative of reality simply indicates to me that you have made up your mind and no amount of explanation or sources will change your opinion.

quote:

Your unwillingness to provide any relevant sources backs up my assertion that you have come to a discussion armed solely with that opinion.

quote:

Source: http://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/research/self-defense.html
There are some discrepant findings on the relationship between the use of physical resistance and experiencing physical injury during a sexual assault.  Several studies indicate that physical resistance is associated with increased physical injury (Bachman & Carmody, 1994; Prentky, Burgess, & Carter, 1986).  The majority find no relationship between physical resistance and increased physical injury (Kleck & Sayles, 1990; Quinsey & Upfold,1985; Ullman & Knight, 1992; Ullman & Knight, 1995;  Zoucha - Jensen & Coyne,1993).   Most of the studies to date do not take into account the sequence of events that lead to assault and injury, therefore other factors may be associated with level of physical injury experienced by the victim besides the victim engaging in forceful resistance. For example, Ullman and Knight (1992) have suggested that physical injury endured by the victim is the result of the level of the offender’s violence, with physical resistance contributing little to increased risk of injury.   Relationship to perpetrator is an important context factor given that 75% of rapes are perpetrated by someone the victims knows (Kilpatrick, Edmonds, & Seymour,1992). Therefore, a minority are actually perpetrated by strangers.  Critics of self defense classes argue that the resistance strategies taught in self-defense programs emphasize stranger assault situations rather than the more common types of assault scenarios, such as acquaintance rape. Overall, rape prevention studies indicate that resistance strategies may decrease the chance of completed rape with probable little effect on extent of physical injury.

quote:

I am going to assume by your choice of sources you are agreeing with the training methods utilized by the company I am involved in.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

I am going to assume by your choice of sources you are agreeing with the training methods utilized by the company I am involved in.

Yes - summarized by this viewpoint of yours regarding its relevance to reality: 

"The students fighting for their lives actually found their real-life assailants boring and inarticulate in their attempts to be nasty."

 

And the study summary finding:

 

Overall, rape prevention studies indicate that resistance strategies may decrease the chance of completed rape with probable little effect on extent of physical injury.

 

On the other matter, I'll assume your lack of response indicates you are incapable of defending the practice of your company's use of language considered verbal assault, when applied to a minor by an "adult".

 

quote:

As I pointed out, it messes with my head sometimes.

I think it appropriate if your job requires you to speak as you must to a 14 year old; considering your knowledge that it is rarely realistic. More realistic would be to call yourself "Uncle Sinergy and/or refer to school. As the article sites, 75% of the attacks are perpetrated by people know to the victim.

 

As I said before, I respect your goals and efforts.

 

I think you capable of generating an adrenaline reaction with other tactics.

 

Just me, could be wrong...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Although the replies are tangent and out of context, my question remains unanswered. Why would a specific verbal taunt that is acknowledge by the training facility as not being realistic be used as an example of realism?

quote:

When the facility knows that it is not representative of reality - IN MOST CASES; how can you justify its use?

quote:

If it is considered illegal to have such a verbal exchange with a 14 year old, no parent can waive a right to accept it as part of training.

quote:

"The students fighting for their lives actually found their real-life assailants boring and inarticulate in their attempts to be nasty."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: cjenny

I've never known ANY father to say that it is okay for an adult man to tell his teenaged daughter that he is going to 'butt fuck her'. My god.

Fair enough.

We are teaching women to fight for their lives against men who assault them.

[dreamworld]

You think a perpetrator who uses verbal intimidation is going to hold back and NOT say these sorts of things to a woman he intends to rape or kill?

Of course not, there are standards of protocol which rapists and serial killers will adhere to when they are attacking women!

[/dreamworld]

The process involves verbal desensitization so that the woman being attacked is able to keep her wits about her and fight for her life when some sick person is assaulting them.

Sinergy

p.s.  On the other hand, the feedback we get from graduates who have had to use our stuff to defend themselves is that the mock assailants in class were generally a lot more verbally nasty.  The students fighting for their lives actually found their real-life assailants boring and inarticulate in their attempts to be nasty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin

It's fricking rude...please stop. There are PLENTY of threads on the boards that you can argue 'til your heart's content. Do you really have to muck up threads that are not intended to become political debates?

quote:

Extracted from Mercbeth's post
Several studies indicate that physical resistance is associated with increased physical injury (Bachman & Carmody, 1994; Prentky, Burgess, & Carter, 1986).  The majority find no relationship between physical resistance and increased physical injury (Kleck & Sayles, 1990; Quinsey & Upfold,1985; Ullman & Knight, 1992; Ullman & Knight, 1995;  Zoucha - Jensen & Coyne,1993).