Awesome Protest Signs

[Osama bin Bambi]

[The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist]

I wonder, if a straight man was raped by a gay guy, would people be screaming "LOL THAT'S WHAT YOU GET FOR WEARING A THREE PIECE SUIT"?

[Shane for Wax]

I wonder, if a straight man was raped by a gay guy, would people be screaming "LOL THAT'S WHAT YOU GET FOR WEARING A THREE PIECE SUIT"?

Men can't be raped, silly.

Ugh I think I need to wash my hands and keyboard.

[ironbite]

And your mind.

[Canadian Mojo]

In all fairness, the entire 'does this mean we get to hit women now?' is actually 'does this mean we are allowed to hit back now?' because males are (were?) traditionally raised to never hit a female and some females exploit it to their advantage by acting in ways that would not be tolerated if they did not enjoy this protection.

[RavynousHunter]

In all fairness, the entire 'does this mean we get to hit women now?' is actually 'does this mean we are allowed to hit back now?' because males are (were?) traditionally raised to never hit a female and some females exploit it to their advantage by acting in ways that would not be tolerated if they did not enjoy this protection.

One of the lessons I'm happy my dad taught me.  Refrain from hitting ANYONE, if you can.  But, sometimes, you can't, and its best to defend yourself when accosted, doesn't matter who's doing it to you or what gear they might be packing under their belts.  They hit first, you're within your rights to hit back, within reason.

[Katsuro]

Personally I think if you hit someone then you should expect to get hit back, regardless of who you are or who you hit.  Not that hitting back is always the right thing to do, it depends on the situation, but if you don't want to get hit then how about you don't hit anyone first.  And also, try not being a dick to people.  It's not a guaranteed way to avoid being thumped but it is a start.

[wrightway]

I slapped my ex twice during our relationship. Once when he had me by the hair and another when he had me pinned to the wall by my throat. Both times the shock was enough for me to wiggle away, and put some sense in his head. By the logic a lot of people use he would have been justified in hitting me because technically I hit first.

[R. U. Sirius]

I slapped my ex twice during our relationship. Once when he had me by the hair and another when he had me pinned to the wall by my throat. Both times the shock was enough for me to wiggle away, and put some sense in his head. By the logic a lot of people use he would have been justified in hitting me because technically I hit first.

Life doesn't run on technicalities. If he got violent with you first, whether that took the form of hitting, grabbing or grappling, he shouldn't have been surprised when you defended yourself.

[Kit Walker]

I slapped my ex twice during our relationship. Once when he had me by the hair and another when he had me pinned to the wall by my throat. Both times the shock was enough for me to wiggle away, and put some sense in his head. By the logic a lot of people use he would have been justified in hitting me because technically I hit first.

If you're going my a completely strict definition of hit, in which only a quick strike counts, then yes. However, if we're using the "my *insert close loved one here* hits me" colloquial standard, I should think that holding you involuntarily by the hair or throat would count as the first move. What is meant by "you can hit back, regardless of gender" is "you can meet force with force in order to defend yourself, regardless of gender". Because by your same technicality, an abused man wouldn't be able to defend if his wife claws at him, throws things at him, chokes him, etc...because she didn't punch, kick, knee, elbow, slap, or headbutt.

[MadCatTLX]

I slapped my ex twice during our relationship. Once when he had me by the hair and another when he had me pinned to the wall by my throat. Both times the shock was enough for me to wiggle away, and put some sense in his head. By the logic a lot of people use he would have been justified in hitting me because technically I hit first.

If you're going my a completely strict definition of hit, in which only a quick strike counts, then yes. However, if we're using the "my *insert close loved one here* hits me" colloquial standard, I should think that holding you involuntarily by the hair or throat would count as the first move. What is meant by "you can hit back, regardless of gender" is "you can meet force with force in order to defend yourself, regardless of gender". Because by your same technicality, an abused man wouldn't be able to defend if his wife claws at him, throws things at him, chokes him, etc...because she didn't punch, kick, knee, elbow, slap, or headbutt.

Is anyone has a problem hitting someone, then follow the advice that I remember coming from some cartoon I once watched, "My pa taught me to never hit a girl, but he never said nuthin' 'bout bear hugs."

[wrightway]

This appears to be a Midwestern problem (I was going to say an Ohio problem but I've heard Michiganders use this logic too). Grappling with a woman, pulling her hair, pinning her in place, etc is viewed as okay as long as the strict definition of hit didn't come into play. A lot of people (including some in an abuse group) have told me that I can't call him physically abusive because he did not actually hit me. Hell, half the time I think that way. I catch myself justifying his actions because I can be difficult and he never actually struck me. In the same vein I've been told I could have been charged with domestic violence because I crossed "the line" for what's self defense and what's not.

[Valerius]

This appears to be a Midwestern problem (I was going to say an Ohio problem but I've heard Michiganders use this logic too). Grappling with a woman, pulling her hair, pinning her in place, etc is viewed as okay as long as the strict definition of hit didn't come into play. A lot of people (including some in an abuse group) have told me that I can't call him physically abusive because he did not actually hit me. Hell, half the time I think that way. I catch myself justifying his actions because I can be difficult and he never actually struck me. In the same vein I've been told I could have been charged with domestic violence because I crossed "the line" for what's self defense and what's not.

Holy shit, seriously? That's insane! I just can't wrap my mind around what a huge double-standard that is!

[wrightway]

This appears to be a Midwestern problem (I was going to say an Ohio problem but I've heard Michiganders use this logic too). Grappling with a woman, pulling her hair, pinning her in place, etc is viewed as okay as long as the strict definition of hit didn't come into play. A lot of people (including some in an abuse group) have told me that I can't call him physically abusive because he did not actually hit me. Hell, half the time I think that way. I catch myself justifying his actions because I can be difficult and he never actually struck me. In the same vein I've been told I could have been charged with domestic violence because I crossed "the line" for what's self defense and what's not.

Holy shit, seriously? That's insane! I just can't wrap my mind around what a huge double-standard that is!

It's why I talk about this stuff so much. It's ingrained in the culture where I live and grew up. If I don't remind myself that it's a horrible custom that's held over by how many fundie churches we have I will slip back into accepting the blame. It goes hand and hand with the slut shaming culture that gave us the Stuebenville rapists. Midwesterners accept the double standards and the behavior it spawns as par for the course.

Fuck, I've made myself sad. Could someone please find a good example of social justice now?

[Askold]