girl68 Posted August 14, 2009 Posted August 14, 2009 I would expect him to at least try. Although as it's been previously mentioned if it is only a guy hitting on me I can take care of that myself. But if I'm being obviously disrespected then yes, I want my man to step it up for me.
SoulSearch_CO Posted August 14, 2009 Posted August 14, 2009 Well, being trained in self-defense, pressure-point control tactics, and ground fighting, I don't NEED anybody to defend me. I like to know I can actually take care of myself because I wouldn't expect a guy to follow me around like my bodyguard anywhere I go - and those situations you mentioned could come up dang near anywhere (I mean the rape/assault thing). But anyway...you know, I haven't honestly thought about it. Like weighing if the guy I'm with could "defend" me, or not. But looking back, I have a pretty comfortable belief that each and every one of them could have - and for different reasons on each of them - not all having anything to do with physical size/strength.
New Again Posted August 14, 2009 Posted August 14, 2009 The best way a man can protect his family is by making sure he guides them away from danger before it escalates and by providing well enough to allow them to live in a safe place. Of course in the end any decent guy will fight or do whatever it takes to defend his family but these dorks that think that means becoming a martial arts master are idiots who more than likely will lead their SO into danger rather than out of it. I agree with this. I know that if there were a situation my guy would defend me...but mostly what I've noticed when we are together or have plans to get together, is that he takes measures to avoid the possibility of something happening.
Trialbyfire Posted August 14, 2009 Posted August 14, 2009 carhill, however he does it, doesn't matter to me. As long as he protects without controlling, it's all good.
Trimmer Posted August 14, 2009 Posted August 14, 2009 IMO, it's about everyone exiting safely and alive, not about 'winning', if at all possible. Completely agree. This brings me to a phrase my wife hated, 'situational awareness'; a combination of cognition and instinct which identifies potential threats and dangers before they become active and imminent. IMO, it's much better to avoid than confront, if at all possible, when it comes to threats/dangers. Humans can be unpredictable beasts Again, I completely agree with all of Carhill's points here. Is the object to prove your manhood, or to pick a path that has the highest probability of getting the family out with minimum damage? Yes, my man needs to step up and protect me. I can pretty much take care of myself in almost any situation. And yet, this is primal for me. If he doesn't make the attempt or have the primal desire to protect, I lose complete respect for him. So, along the lines of Carhill's points, if he makes a choice to back out of a situation, and this results in the two of you "getting out" unscathed, does this earn any respect, or in order to maintain your respect, does he have to put on a primal display, i.e. does he have to actually face risk in order to trigger that primal instinct and keep your respect? I only ask because "losing complete respect" is a pretty strong statment, and I'm trying to understand where your threshold is that he has to meet to avoid that. Sometimes a choice to back out - and being situationally aware and taking what might be a fleeting opportunity to do so - might be the best path to success (that being measured as minimal damage/injury/loss...) But a lot of people have the "primal" instinct that this is a failure and only for wussies - that the only way to prove yourself is by facing it and "being a man." And that gets people hurt and killed. For me it's about situational awareness, threat analysis, preemptive avoidance, etc. I would definitely "go physical" if needed to protect my children or partner, but ONLY if I estimated that was the highest probability to my family and myself coming out with minimal damage. And into that, I have to factor that they need me alive, too, so you have to quickly evaluate the situation and all the options.
anne1707 Posted August 14, 2009 Posted August 14, 2009 This brings me to a phrase my wife hated, 'situational awareness'; a combination of cognition and instinct which identifies potential threats and dangers before they become active and imminent. IMO, it's much better to avoid than confront, if at all possible, when it comes to threats/dangers. Humans can be unpredictable beasts This is certainly the approach my H takes. I am particularly aware of this if we are out somewhere late at night. Whilst I know that if push came to shove, he would do anything to protect me, he would first try to ensure we avoid those situations. He has also drilled into me habits such as locking the door as soon as I get in the car - preventative measures are always better than reactive.
Author redhighheels Posted August 14, 2009 Author Posted August 14, 2009 Very insightful replies. I was referring to high-threat situations involving people you care about, and not situations where the woman is immature enough to start a fight just to test her partner. I do agree with most of the women in the sense that I can defend myself just fine, BUT if I do date a guy, I expect him to look out for me. I guess it all boils down to having my back, and I in return will have his. Come to think of it, as of yet, I've never found myself in such a situation. For me, it doesn't matter so much if he's physically able to defend me, but whether he would try. It's the thought that counts. I was on a date a while ago with a guy who was in the military. At some point, he mentions that he has a younger sister, so I said something along the lines "Oh, it must be nice for her to have a big brother to look out for her". Well, turns out he was never protective of his sister and he kept going on and on about not being in a fight his entire life. Dont't get me wrong, I'm all against gratuitous violence, but WTF?! A man who doesn't stand up for his own sister is sure as hell not going to stand up for me. The idea that if something were to happen and when I turned to him all I'd see is a long trail of dust was completely off putting.
New Again Posted August 14, 2009 Posted August 14, 2009 I was on a date a while ago with a guy who was in the military. At some point, he mentions that he has a younger sister, so I said something along the lines "Oh, it must be nice for her to have a big brother to look out for her". Well, turns out he was never protective of his sister and he kept going on and on about not being in a fight his entire life. Dont't get me wrong, I'm all against gratuitous violence, but WTF?! A man who doesn't stand up for his own sister is sure as hell not going to stand up for me. The idea that if something were to happen and when I turned to him all I'd see is a long trail of dust was completely off putting. Maybe he was never in a situation to "be protective" of her? My brother has certainly never been in such a situation. Doesn't mean he wouldn't if something came up...but to date he never has been.
GorillaTheater Posted August 14, 2009 Posted August 14, 2009 Maybe he was never in a situation to "be protective" of her? My brother has certainly never been in such a situation. Doesn't mean he wouldn't if something came up...but to date he never has been. I'm still stuck on the fact that he'd never been in a fight. At all. Not even in the military. I'm trying to figure out how that's possible.
Trialbyfire Posted August 14, 2009 Posted August 14, 2009 So, along the lines of Carhill's points, if he makes a choice to back out of a situation, and this results in the two of you "getting out" unscathed, does this earn any respect, or in order to maintain your respect, does he have to put on a primal display, i.e. does he have to actually face risk in order to trigger that primal instinct and keep your respect? I only ask because "losing complete respect" is a pretty strong statment, and I'm trying to understand where your threshold is that he has to meet to avoid that. Sometimes a choice to back out - and being situationally aware and taking what might be a fleeting opportunity to do so - might be the best path to success (that being measured as minimal damage/injury/loss...) But a lot of people have the "primal" instinct that this is a failure and only for wussies - that the only way to prove yourself is by facing it and "being a man." And that gets people hurt and killed. For me it's about situational awareness, threat analysis, preemptive avoidance, etc. I would definitely "go physical" if needed to protect my children or partner, but ONLY if I estimated that was the highest probability to my family and myself coming out with minimal damage. And into that, I have to factor that they need me alive, too, so you have to quickly evaluate the situation and all the options. carhill, however he does it, doesn't matter to me. As long as he protects without controlling, it's all good.It looks like we crossed posts Trimmer.
Author redhighheels Posted August 14, 2009 Author Posted August 14, 2009 Maybe he was never in a situation to "be protective" of her? My brother has certainly never been in such a situation. Doesn't mean he wouldn't if something came up...but to date he never has been. Maybe he never was, but what bothered me was his attitude about it - it was pretty much "Whatever happens, she's on her own and it's not my problem". Not cool.
New Again Posted August 14, 2009 Posted August 14, 2009 I'm still stuck on the fact that he'd never been in a fight. At all. Not even in the military. I'm trying to figure out how that's possible. True. My brother's also in the military, actually. I don't think he's ever been in a fight either... (other than training and the fact that he's fighting in a war....). Of course, he is protective of me, so maybe he just doesn't tell me so I won't be concerned I can very easily imagine that being the case.
New Again Posted August 14, 2009 Posted August 14, 2009 Maybe he never was, but what bothered me was his attitude about it - it was pretty much "Whatever happens, she's on her own and it's not my problem". Not cool. I see what you're saying. Not that it matters, but sometimes they'll surprise you. I have an ex who I always felt was that way also. It was getting to be a turn off the more I perceived him that way. Then one night I got a phone call from jail. Quite the surprise.
dreamergrl Posted August 14, 2009 Posted August 14, 2009 There are many situations that I could handle myself. I've been through many as it is. However, I want a guy that I feel protected by. The safe feeling is important to me.
sally4sara Posted August 14, 2009 Posted August 14, 2009 I'm still stuck on the fact that he'd never been in a fight. At all. Not even in the military. I'm trying to figure out how that's possible. Some people are born privileged and never have to deal with contentious situations. My mother tried to keep my brother from our neighborhood element by driving him to a private christian school well out of our neighborhood and then moving closer to it ASAP.
Author redhighheels Posted August 14, 2009 Author Posted August 14, 2009 I see what you're saying. Not that it matters, but sometimes they'll surprise you. I have an ex who I always felt was that way also. It was getting to be a turn off the more I perceived him that way. Then one night I got a phone call from jail. Quite the surprise. I'm sure they might, but I didn't give him more than 2 dates. When I was little, I used to get picked on A LOT, and my sister always had my back. She's the most nonviolent person you'll ever meet, but she gave a girl who beat me a whopping to last for a lifetime. Now that I'm all grown up, I would seriously set the world on fire if anything were to happen to her. A guy who doesn't take care of his own family is a wuss in my book.
Trimmer Posted August 14, 2009 Posted August 14, 2009 It looks like we crossed posts Trimmer. I hear you... I just wanted to know whether an intelligent approach to avoiding conflict would trigger your primal respect as much as an adrenaline-charged confrontation... When I'm in an environment where there is any possibility of a threat or unknowns, I'm outwardly relaxed, but highly alert, observant and taking in and processing all inputs, thinking ahead, kind of automatically planning 'what if' scenarios all along the way. I don't think that my family necessarily even notices (certainly not the kids...) but I'll shift my position in the group, change our path slightly, etc. in response to the environment, and to me, that feels exactly like "being protective." Optimum success to me isn't winning a fight, it's avoiding it in the first place.
GorillaTheater Posted August 14, 2009 Posted August 14, 2009 Some people are born privileged and never have to deal with contentious situations. My mother tried to keep my brother from our neighborhood element by driving him to a private christian school well out of our neighborhood and then moving closer to it ASAP. Don't get me wrong, I haven't been in a fist fight in 20 years, but before that it was always something: typical school stuff, the guy in the bar who says "f*ck you" when accidently bumped into, the guy in boot camp who wants to be tougher than anyone else, Russian merchant marine in Bremenhavn. I don't see how a young guy can wholly avoid those situations and mix it up a little, even if he doesn't actively seek out a fight. But I guess this is probably a threadjack. More to the point, I hope I never have to take a bullet for my wife and kids, naturally, and would actively attempt to avoid situations where I may have to, but I would if necessary. In a heartbeat. Most any guy would.
Trimmer Posted August 14, 2009 Posted August 14, 2009 More to the point, I hope I never have to take a bullet for my wife and kids, naturally, and would actively attempt to avoid situations where I may have to, but I would if necessary. In a heartbeat. Most any guy would. Agreed. And if I had no escape and the means to kill first to prevent that bullet from being fired, I have no question that I would do it. (But as you say, I'd also try to avoid being cornered, as the first line of defense.)
Sam Spade Posted August 14, 2009 Posted August 14, 2009 As a guy, my view on violent conflicts is pretty much in line with what is taught in law enforcement/military. Basically, any conflict has a pretty predictable trajectory, and the actions to be taken are really rational (rather than a function of some internal 'spirit', 'heroism', or 'fearlesness', or 'winning at any cost, against all odds' - the guys that are gun ho no matter what are the ones that get killed). So anyway, unless we're talking about the other extreme - a complete coward that would back off from any confrontation), or a disabled guy, most guys will take the approrpiate steps in a dangerous situation. Fighting off one attacker - approrpiate. Trying to fight off a guy with a gun - inapprorpiate. Fighting off an attacker with a knife? Depends. Whiping your own knife and 'duelling' - stupid. Grabbing a chair or an umbrella - appropriate. Fighting off multiple attackers - inappropriate (and imposible; running away and brinding in help would be more approrpiate). Etc. Basically the only time the "fighting spirit" really comes into play is when the opponents (and the weapons) are identical. But that's a stupid way to fight. The key to any fight is to come up with a leverage - better skills, better strenght, better weapon - whatever, as long as it overwhelms the opponent. Conversely, if your opponent has bigger guns or resources than you you should back off for your and your loved ones' sake and seek alternatives. Hence the stupidity of fighting for the sake of it, and unfortunately too many movies promote this unrealistic spectacle. My point being is that if I was a girl I'd look for a basic decent guy in decent shape with a common sense, rather than one that's watched too many rambo movies. This kind of guy is a lot more likely to be to get both of 'us' in trouble.
You'reasian Posted August 14, 2009 Posted August 14, 2009 I'm still stuck on the fact that he'd never been in a fight. At all. Not even in the military. I'm trying to figure out how that's possible. I've seen two on one guy fights, and the one guy almost put both of them out of comission!
sally4sara Posted August 14, 2009 Posted August 14, 2009 Yes, I agree. I have more confidence in a person who cares less about pride than the preservation of themselves and their loved ones. Pride is important, but if you die trying to keep it - what good was it? If I ever found myself in the position of protecting my family by letting someone humiliate my character, I would. They don't matter to me. Such as a person who will hulk out because some guy grabbed his GF's behind to amuse his buddies. It is a small thing to let the group of jerks think he is a coward than to land in the hospital or worse to save face. If his GF doesn't understand that the grope was more about trying to pick a boot party on her BF than it was to denigrate her, she isn't worth the effort.
TaraMaiden Posted August 14, 2009 Posted August 14, 2009 There are many situations that I could handle myself. I've been through many as it is. However, I want a guy that I feel protected by. The safe feeling is important to me. My partner never interferes if I'm having a heated discussion with someone, because he knows and can tell, I'm more than eloquent enough to handle any situation. But if the other person begins to get leery, rude or too pushy, he'll step in. He's a lawyer, so he knows the risks involved (in the UK) regarding taking the law into your own hands. But he wouldn't hesitate to 'chin' someone or smack someone to protect me, in self-defence. but he'd never initiate a fight, no matter what the provocation. I know this for sure. he was a military officer, and found himself in potentially flammable situations before..... But yes, being with someone I feel 'safe' with, is a complete plus.
Trialbyfire Posted August 14, 2009 Posted August 14, 2009 Such as a person who will hulk out because some guy grabbed his GF's behind to amuse his buddies. It is a small thing to let the group of jerks think he is a coward than to land in the hospital or worse to save face. If his GF doesn't understand that the grope was more about trying to pick a boot party on her BF than it was to denigrate her, she isn't worth the effort.In this, you and I don't agree. If someone cops a feel, I expect to be protected from that kind physical abuse. No one touches that part of me or any other sexual area. For that matter, I would probably hulk out if this happened to me.
sally4sara Posted August 14, 2009 Posted August 14, 2009 In this, you and I don't agree. If someone cops a feel, I expect to be protected from that kind physical abuse. No one touches that part of me or any other sexual area. For that matter, I would probably hulk out if this happened to me. You would expect your fiance to fight 4 guys at once because one of them decided to use you to pick a fight with him?
Recommended Posts