A Republican o.k. with Mormon Genocide

[The Nehor]

59 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

"I do a lot of self-defense and sparring stuff and it takes a lot of time and effort to learn to fight effectively and especially to fight someone bigger and stronger then you."

Good for you and you're absolutely correct. is your self defense and sparing based on the idea that you are completely helpless? That you must call the police if someone kisses you without asking? It teaches you not to slap a man if he gets out of line? That seems like a self defense system not to effective. But, to each her own.

 "Expecting every woman to learn to fight in order to function in society is unfair and kind of sad."

Sad? Strange from a feminist point of view if that's what you are queuing from. It's not that hard to hurt a man and get out of the situation.

"Does that mean you should need to learn to fight in order to be around me?"

Huh? If that was the requisite then I would not be around you. Learning to fight is good though *in case* a man acts inappropriately with you. I think your hubby would agree.

"And that if I attack you and beat you it just means that you are a wimp who should have been prepared?"

Well, if you ever find yourself in a fair fight then your fighting techniques suck.

"Is your argument that before feminism women all carried guns, were trained in jujitsu, and could break men's necks with ease and that feminism ruined that world?"

No, that feminism makes women weaker and more of a victim. I hear it loud and clear from you, Tacenda, and BlueBell.

It is not that hard? It can be very hard especially when the flight or fight instinct kicks in and flight wins. Even with training you never know exactly how you will react unless you face the real thing.

There is no such thing as a fair fight. Sport fighting is very different from a real fight and real fights range from dominance displays from things like High School and bar fights to attempts to seriously hurt to attempts to rape or kill. You deal differently with different situations.

I appreciate how much you think 'my hubby' would encourage me to learn to defend myself. I have had men hit on me before but never aggressively. You do know I am male right?

Your last paragraph is terrible and makes you a terrible victim-blaming person.

Edited November 10, 2016 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I love that you volunteer to help with child abuse and neglect, in Utah especially. I heard that we are three times the national average on child abuse just the other day on Good Things Utah.

I am in Texas but thanks.  

[Darren10]

4 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I'm not convinced that Clinton's emails contained "national security information," as per your insinuation above. 

Here's what Fact-checking Site had to say in their: PolitiFact Sheet: Hillary Clinton’s email controversy entry:

 

 

"113 contained classified information, and three of those had classification markers"

That's 3 emails with national security information right there.

Here's this: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/06/clinton-directed-her-maid-to-print-out-classified-materials.html

And there's Anthony Weiner's computer: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/us/politics/fbi-hillary-clinton-email.html?_r=0

[Darren10]

Nehor

I live in Spring just north of Houston. Where about do you live.

[Darren10]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is not that hard? It can be very hard especially when the flight or fight instinct kicks in and flight wins. Even with training you never know exactly how you will react unless you face the real thing.

There is no such thing as a fair fight. Sport fighting is very different from a real fight and real fights range from dominance displays from things like High School and bar fights to attempts to seriously hurt to attempts to rape or kill. You deal differently with different situations. Your fig

I appreciate how much you think 'my hubby' would encourage me to learn to defend myself. I have had men hit on me before but never aggressively. You do know I am male right?

Your last paragraph is terrible and makes you a terrible victim-blaming person.

Grabbing a man's b**** is so easy even a caveman could do it.

[Darren10]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is not that hard? It can be very hard especially when the flight or fight instinct kicks in and flight wins. Even with training you never know exactly how you will react unless you face the real thing.

There is no such thing as a fair fight. Sport fighting is very different from a real fight and real fights range from dominance displays from things like High School and bar fights to attempts to seriously hurt to attempts to rape or kill. You deal differently with different situations. Your fig

I appreciate how much you think 'my hubby' would encourage me to learn to defend myself. I have had men hit on me before but never aggressively. You do know I am male right?

Your last paragraph is terrible and makes you a terrible victim-blaming person.

"You do know I am male right?"

Sorry. I'm dong this so fast that I thought I was responding to Cal. That was a funny response. That said...

"Even with training you never know exactly how you will react unless you face the real thing."

Exactly. What video did I post that's sports fighting? To train you should get as close contact as you possibly can without getting hurt to get a feel what a real life situation would do. is that what you train in or more along the lines of form and competition? I am not at all encouraging the latter.

"There is no such thing as a fair fight."

Exactly my point. If you find yourself in a fair fight then your fighting tactics suck. (That's a bit being facetious but true enough).

Edited November 10, 2016 by Darren10

[Daniel2]

14 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

"113 contained classified information, and three of those had classification markers"

That's 3 emails with national security information right there.

Here's this: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/06/clinton-directed-her-maid-to-print-out-classified-materials.html

And there's Anthony Weiner's computer: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/us/politics/fbi-hillary-clinton-email.html?_r=0

And those three emails were later debunked by Comey himself, initially as having been not properly labeled as "Classifed," and then acknowledged to actually not have been three, but two, and weren't even classified but mislabeled be the result of human error...

Quote

FBI Director Admits Hillary Clinton Emails Were Not Properly Marked Classified

by Tommy Christopher | 2:21 pm, July 7th, 2016

VIDEO 252

Hillary Clinton‘s political and media critics jumped all over a key portion of FBI Director James Comey‘s lengthy statement on the investigation into email practices at the State Department in which Comey said that a “very small number” of emails sent or received by Secretary Clinton “bore markings indicating the presence of classified information” as evidence that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lied when she said she hadn’t sent or received material that was marked classified.

At a Congressional hearing Thursday morning, however, Comey admitted that the three emails to which he was referring were not, in fact, properly marked as classified, and that even a person with reasonable expertise in identifying classified material could make the “reasonable inference” that these emails were not classified:

Rep. Matt Cartwright: were these properly documented, were they properly marked according to the manual with the little “cs”?

FBI Director James Comey: no…There were three e-mails. Yhe “c” was in the body, in the text but there was no header on the e-mail or the text.

Rep. Matt Cartwright: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what’s classified and what’s not classified, and were following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?

FBI Director James Comey: That would be a reasonable inference.

The  “Marking Classified National Security Information” training manual requires that any document containing a parenthetical “portion marking” also contain markings as follows:

Identify the overall classification of the document. This will be equal to the highest classification level of any one portion found in the document. In this example, the highest classification is “Secret,” found in paragraph 2.
• Conspicuously place the overall classification at the top and bottom of the page.
• If the document contains more than one page, place the overall marking at the top and
bottom of the outside of the front cover, on the title page, on the first page, and on the
outside of the back cover (if any).
• Mark other internal pages either with the overall classification or with a marking
indicating the highest classification level of information contained on that page.

The emails to which Comey was referring, the only ones, did not contain any markings beyond those “portion markings,” which the State Department says were added in error anyway. Therefore, in addition to the absence of the header, Secretary Clinton could also have made the reasonable inference that the documents were not classified because their content was of a sort not normally classified, either.

Updated: Only 2 Hillary Clinton Emails ‘Bore Marking Indicating’ Classified Info, and Both Were Errors

by Tommy Christopher | 9:14 am, July 7th, 2016

VIDEO 237

At Tuesday’s press conference announcing that no charges would be filed against presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton over her handling of email as secretary of state, FBI Director James Comey claimed that a “very small number” of emails sent or received by Secretary Clinton “bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.”

We now know that the “very small number” Comey referenced was two, that neither email was sent by Hillary Clinton, and at Wednesday’s State Department daily briefing, we learned that the notations contained in both of the emails in question were the result of human error. Here’s State Department Press Secretary John Kirby explaining those two emails:

What neither Kirby nor the New York Times explained about those two emails is that neither of them was properly marked classified. As I reported Wednesday, both emails bore the notations that Kirby described, which are called “portion markings,” but neither of them featured the “overall classification” marking that is required by the “Marking Classified National Security Information” training manual, which would have looked like this example from that training manual:

That’s why Comey couldn’t claim that the “very small number” of emails, which turned out to be the smallest possible number you could still use in the plural, were “marked classified,” because they weren’t. They bore incomplete markings, and those markings themselves were in error.

Update: In testimony before Congress today, FBI Director James Comey confirmed the “portion markings,” and said he “thinks” there were three such emails that bore the incomplete designations:

Really, Darren.... in light of ALL the other stuff I've provided about all the corruption regarding emails, THIS is the hill you're prepared to die on...? 

I'm done.  Continue your Quixotic quest on your own at this point.

Suffice it to say, the FBI isn't pursing the matter further. 

And IMO, President Trump would be wise not to pursue any "special investigator" to try to throw his (failed) opponent in jail, lest all of Capitol Hill ends up facing similar  charges.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Daniel2

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

I had no idea you did not have children.

Here's what I'm getting at. Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton secretly days before the FBI was to announce their conclusion regarding Hillary Clinton. You brush this off as anything coincidental and presented me as some kook stretching to find some conspiracy theory. The meeting between Lynch and Bill was supposed to be secret but a reported just happened to be stationed right in the viewing range of the two planes Lynch and Bill flew in to meet. The reporter recognized the planes and filmed Lynch boarding Bill's plane. When asked about it Lynch said they talked about grandkids and that their meeting was coincidental. . Yeah, like talking grandkids is so important to arrange a secret meeting and it is about near impossible for the US Attorney General to coincidentally meet with a former President of the United States. absolutely no way that was unplanned.

So, that's my grandkid's reference. Absolutely nothing to d with you personally.

Child dude and get a perspective on what I'm saying.

Okay, adjusting perspective.........

It was a dumb reference.

[Daniel2]

5 hours ago, Duncan said:

Would it be legally be possible to overturn something like gay marriage or abortion rights just by the President saying so? I don't know and am honestly asking!

A president cannot easily overturn the Supreme Court ruling that resulted in the legalization of same-sex marriage, but he CAN undo many of President Obama's executive orders regarding extending equal protections to the LGBT community, and can ultimately appoint conservative-leaning judges to the Supreme Court itself.

After suffering one loss after another over the last 8 years under Obama's administration, Brian Brown, President of NOM (the National Organization for Marriage, designated as a Hate Group by the SPLC), recently released NOM's goals in related to President Trump's election.

Just as African-Americans and those who support their equality are concerned about the rise of an emboldened KKK and it's white supremacy platform, the LGBT community is concerned about these types of messages coming from anti-gay groups.

To his credit, Trump was the first member of the GOP in recent years to avoid making anti-gay rhetoric part of his campaign, and I'm hopeful he won't be as willing to pursue NOM's goals as they anticipate... But the type of people he's considering for his cabinet certainly are 'on the record' as promoting anti-gay pursuits, as is the Republican party itself. 

Hopefully, Trump will act as much as an outsider with regards to this issue as the 'outsider' image that drove his success, at least when it comes to protecting the civil rights and equal protection of LGBT citizens...

Quote

The Plan

November 9, 2016 at 4:59 pm

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

Donald Trump has won a historic election, an unprecedented victory that has turned the establishment upside down. We heartily congratulate him and his team on their incredible win. President-elect Trump will now turn his attention to governing, and NOM is committed to working with him. We are confident that our voice and our views will be important in a Trump administration.

Here is our plan:

• We will work with President Trump to nominate conservative justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, individuals who will adhere to the words and meaning of the constitution. Such justices will inevitably reverse the anti-constitutional ruling of the Supreme Court imposing same-sex 'marriage' on the nation in the Obergefell decision, because that decision lacked any basis in the constitution.
• We will work with President Trump to rescind the illegal, over-reaching executive orders and directives issued by President Obama, including his dangerous "gender identity" directives, attempting to redefine gender just as he sought to redefine marriage.
• We will work with President Trump to reverse policies of the Obama administration that seek to coerce other countries into accepting same-sex 'marriage' as a condition of receiving US assistance and aid. It is fundamentally wrong for a president to become a lobbyist for the LGBT agenda, and we are confident that will end in the Trump administration.
• We will work with President Trump and Congress to pass the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), which Mr. Trump supports. FADA is critical legislation to protect people who believe in marriage from being targeted by the government for persecution.

This is a bright and exciting time for NOM, and we are committed to taking full advantage of the opportunity we have. Our voice and our views matter to the incoming administration, and that means your voice and views matter...

We're excited about the future, and we are looking forward to work with the Trump administration to restore marriage, uphold gender, protect religious liberty and promote families.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Daniel2

[Duncan]

Just now, Daniel2 said:

A president cannot easily overturn the Supreme Court ruling that resulted in the legalization of same-sex marriage, but he CAN undo many of President Obama's executive orders regarding extending equal protections to the LGBT community, and can ultimately appoint conservative-leaning judges to the Supreme Court itself.

After suffering one loss after another over the last 8 years under Obama's administration,
Brian Brown, President of NOM (the National Organization for Marriage, designated as a Hate Group by the SPLC), recently released NOM's goals in related to President Trump's election.

Just as African-Americans and those who support them are concerned about the rise of an emboldened KKK, the LGBT community is concerned about these types of messages coming from anti-gay groups.

To his credit, Trump was the first member of the GOP in recent years to avoid making anti-gay rhetoric part of his campaign, and I'm hopeful he won't be as willing to pursue NOM's goals as they anticipate... But the type of people he's considering for his campaign certainly are 'on the record' as promoting anti-gay pursuits, as is the Republican party itself.  Hopefully, Trump will act as much as an outsider as the reasons he was elected, when it comes to protecting the civil rights and equal protection of LGBT citizens:

 

 

I see!

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

A president cannot easily overturn the Supreme Court ruling that resulted in the legalization of same-sex marriage, but he CAN undo many of President Obama's executive orders regarding extending equal protections to the LGBT community, and can ultimately appoint conservative-leaning judges to the Supreme Court itself.

After suffering one loss after another over the last 8 years under Obama's administration,
Brian Brown, President of NOM (the National Organization for Marriage, designated as a Hate Group by the SPLC), recently released NOM's goals in related to President Trump's election.

Just as African-Americans and those who support them are concerned about the rise of an emboldened KKK, the LGBT community is concerned about these types of messages coming from anti-gay groups.

To his credit, Trump was the first member of the GOP in recent years to avoid making anti-gay rhetoric part of his campaign, and I'm hopeful he won't be as willing to pursue NOM's goals as they anticipate... But the type of people he's considering for his campaign certainly are 'on the record' as promoting anti-gay pursuits, as is the Republican party itself.  Hopefully, Trump will act as much as an outsider as the reasons he was elected, when it comes to protecting the civil rights and equal protection of LGBT citizens:

I noticed also that Trump avoided anything anti-gay.  I am hoping he is flexible and real.  You see, I don't think he is really a republicans republican...he sees the world as it is and although that gets him in trouble sometimes..maybe...just maybe..he sees the world differently than his co-horts.  After being democrat all my life..I am counting on it. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Darren10 said:

BlueBell and Cal;

 

If a woman forcefully kisses a man should he file a complaint against her and should she be equally prosecuted as if a man forcefully kisses a woman?

 

If so, then why do you too agree with Nehor's statement, "Yeah, I forgot that we poor oppressed white people are really the true victims of racism..."? This is particularly applicable to Cal who mentioned women suffering at the lips of men kissing them w/o permission. Or did you simply like the post in its entirety?

I have been trying remember to phrase my comments to be gender neutral, may have slipped a few times because our society gernerally thinks of it as a male assaulting a female, but the same rules apply in my opinion.  And a woman can physically harm a man if the man isn't expecting it or not willing to defend himself assertively as can happen so slapping a woman who is sexually assaulting a man thinking that will end the problem is no more a good idea than the reverse.  Escalation is too likely to happen whoever and whenever violence is resorted to, either as an assault or a defense.

While whites can be victims of racism, I think what is being claimed in many cases is significantly different than the racism minorities experience and in many cases is a loss of easier access and even privilege rather than actual discrimination. 

Edited November 10, 2016 by Calm

[The Nehor]

45 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Exactly. What video did I post that's sports fighting? To train you should get as close contact as you possibly can without getting hurt to get a feel what a real life situation would do. is that what you train in or more along the lines of form and competition? I am not at all encouraging the latter.

Technique drills are good but any decent self-defense regimen involves sparring where you get hit. While it is obviously less real then a real fight techniques are often forgotten. Sparring and fighting tend to weaken the 'freeze up' response many have when attacked. It is different when I grab a woman in my class and drag her towards an imaginary van. She is willing to fight me but if it was a stranger and she was scared would she use the technique or freeze up or panic?

48 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Exactly my point. If you find yourself in a fair fight then your fighting tactics suck. (That's a bit being facetious but true enough).

No, unless you start the fight or they make it clear they are going to fight you are already at a disadvantage. So unless your tactics are attack anyone you suspect might be a threat you generally expect to be disadvantaged. The attack chooses the time, place, and method of the attack which is a huge advantage.

 

56 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Nehor

I live in Spring just north of Houston. Where about do you live.

DFW

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

"From my perspective, slapping a man who has no respect for me as a woman is likely to get me punched in the face or worse.  It's generally really stupid to slap people who 1)-have already shown they don't mind assaulting you and 2)-are bigger and stronger than you are.  

Do you really not know that women have been seriously physically harmed for doing less than slapping a man for touching her without her permission?  Why would any woman in her right mind take that risk if she had other options?"

Then raise up to the occasion and protect yourself. Learn to effectively slap a man who gets out of line and then get out of the situation or do some more effective slapping. Stop viewing yourself as so fragile and volatile.

 

Carry a gun and/or a knife and/or pepper spray. Learn to break a man's neck but stop pouting about how useless women are in protecting themselves. Criminetly feminism is destroying women .

You do realize that not all women can afford or are physically able to do this kind of stuff even if they live in a culture that promotes fighting back.

I am flabbergasted you think women are somehow more submissive now than they were in the past when we were taught submissiveness and being dominated a man was the proper place for a woman.  Most of the time I can see where you get your ideas from, but this is just fantasy.

[Tacenda]

24 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I noticed also that Trump avoided anything anti-gay.  I am hoping he is flexible and real.  You see, I don't think he is really a republicans republican...he sees the world as it is and although that gets him in trouble sometimes..maybe...just maybe..he sees the world differently than his co-horts.  After being democrat all my life..I am counting on it. 

Well, he was a Democrat once. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Going to jail does not stop behavior neither. At least not in the vast majority of cases. If anything it magnifies bad behavior.

If a man can simply slap block a slap then learn how to slap better and follow up by getting out of the situation or wit more slapping. Now, you're presenting a situation where the man is clearly dangerous. Kissing, blocking the slap and then possibly punching the woman in the face. If a man acts inappropriately, and force kissing definitely falls into that category, and does not stop after getting slapped, GET AWAY FROM THAT MAN TO BEGIN WITH. Don't even consider hanging out with him.

Yes, there was a time when slapping a man stops his advances. Not in all cases of course but in general it most definitely did. It's not a deterrent so much as a wake up call. But if a man's conscience is so far off as to hit a woman back then that is a dangerous man.

I fail to see how Donald Trump is a dangerous man in this sense. At least not from the article which spurred this dialogue of ours.

You are completely missing my point.  You claimed that kissing while deplorable was not sexual assault.  I proved otherwise including by pointing out it might include jail time.  I am not suggesting that jail is the solution to stop misdeamonr sexual assaults.  Not dismissing them as not assaults would probably be more useful in the long run, changing the attitude that allows someone to trivialize actual assaults will, to see assault as assault and therefore always unacceptable is what will most likely decrease abuse.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Calm

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

From the article I don't see that she recanted the story, she didn't know who it was until she saw Trump on the Apprentice and realized that was who had raped her. I know she seems very unstable, but she never admitted to making the story up yet, in my estimation.

There is a reason the suit was dropped.  If you do more research on this case, it doesn't have legs. The reporters who wanted to do a Trump expose could not go further with it because it was so unreliable.  Here is a story from Jezebel from June.  You know- Jezebel, the Trump hating feminist site.  If there was anything to this story they would not have been kind (nor should they have been.) The fact that so many people gave it any credence, again, says a lot about media bias and a nasty campaign. Read at your own risk...it contains a detailed history of this case with all the lurid details. http://jezebel.com/heres-how-that-wild-lawsuit-accusing-trump-of-raping-a-1782447083

[Calm]

"Yes, there was a time when slapping a man stops his advances."

Prove it.

[Darren10]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Technique drills are good but any decent self-defense regimen involves sparring where you get hit. While it is obviously less real then a real fight techniques are often forgotten. Sparring and fighting tend to weaken the 'freeze up' response many have when attacked. It is different when I grab a woman in my class and drag her towards an imaginary van. She is willing to fight me but if it was a stranger and she was scared would she use the technique or freeze up or panic?

No, unless you start the fight or they make it clear they are going to fight you are already at a disadvantage. So unless your tactics are attack anyone you suspect might be a threat you generally expect to be disadvantaged. The attack chooses the time, place, and method of the attack which is a huge advantage.

 

DFW

You're 100% correct in how sparring, actually getting hit, helps one get ready for a real life fight. It also sounds like your system is pretty intense, that's awesome! 

I can suppose that a womsn can freeze if a stranger grabs her but one of my main points, at least my intended points, being made is for women to prepare themselves for possible conflicts. Now, ehile being dragged to a van is a cool situation tomprepare for, it is not at all likely to happen. Note, I do not oppose at all training for such a scenario, and I think it's actually pretty cool to fo so, real life conflicts will very likely be very different. I imagine that your system teaches quick and effectivecstrikes to a man, correct? Is it realy thst diffucult for a woman to learn? I've never thought so. 

There's always a chance to get hit and hit hard, especially when taken by surprise. In fact, sucker punches are near impossible to stop brfore they impact. But, again, quick and effectivecstikes are very effective counter measures tomopen up a window for a woman to stop an attack and get out of the situation. 

Let me know if you ever come down to the Houston area. I'd lovevto meet you. I promise not to talk politics.

[Darren10]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

You do realize that not all women can afford or are physically able to do this kind of stuff even if they live in a culture that promotes fighting back.

I am Escalation is too likely to happen whoever and whenever violence is resorted to, either as an assault or a defense. you think women are somehow more submissive now than they were in the past when we were taught submissiveness and being dominated a man was the proper place for a woman.  Most of the time I can see where you get your ideas from, but this is just fantasy.

There are plenty of cheap classes women can take which only last a couple of days. Plenty of free info available too. 

I a, not saying they are more submissive (consensual, yes) but 

I do think thry are far more vicitmized than in the past, yes, absolutely. 

[Darren10]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

"Yes, there was a time when slapping a man stops his advances."

Prove it.

Guy kisses you, you slap him and he's in shock. That simple.

[Darren10]

Nehor;

"No, unless you start the fight or they make it clear they are going to fight you are already at a disadvantage. So unless your tactics are attack anyone you suspect might be a threat you generally expect to be disadvantaged. The attack chooses the time, place, and method of the attack which is a huge advantage."

Another redponse to this is that this is why you defend by attacking the attack and do so with full ferocity. If you ever cone to Houston I'd love to takevyou to the placed  I trained in. It would be a great place to share ideas. 

Edited November 10, 2016 by Darren10

[Calm]

"She is willing to fight me but if it was a stranger and she was scared would she use the technique or freeze up or panic?"  

Exactly.  All those videos were shot I am assuming when someone else was present.  Unexpected assaults when one is alone has a higher rate of freezing up rather than fighting.  Even highly trained women who prepare themselves for that very situation get assaulted, rape, etc.. Unless one thinks it is a good idea for every women to view every man as a potential rapist, being in the right mindset isn't going to happen for the majority of cases.

How much time would most women have to put in to have enough training it becomes second nature?  Those who use it in their professional lives are in a significantly different situation than a typical woman, especially a young mother with children.  A weekly self defense class isn't enough.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

There are plenty of cheap classes women can take which only last a couple of days. Plenty of free info available too. 

I a, not saying they are more submissive (consensual, yes) but 

I do think thry are far more vicitmized than in the past, yes, absolutely. 

You really think a few days or that reading or watching something online is all that it will take to ensure a woman will be able to physically defend herself against most men that are willing to physically attack her.

Yeah, pure fantasy.  Watching Kung fu movies turn guys into black belts, saw it on TV, must be true.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Guy kisses you, you slap him and he's in shock. That simple.

You are totally out of touch with reality.