If a girl slaps her boyfriend, does he have a right to slap her back?

[Anonymous]

If a girl slaps her boyfriend, does he have a right to slap her back?

Yes

No

[Anonymous]

I think it depends. I knew a girl who just started smacking her boyfriend, and even when he blocked and tried to stop her, she tried kicking him. It took a bunch of us to restrain her. I think in a situation like that he could slap her back. I think that would be self defense. Her boyfriend didn't slap her, but that's one example I can think of. If it's one slap, I don't think so. I think with anyone guy or girl, they should just walk away.

I once had a good friend of mine slap me when we were drunk, and all I did was walk away and grab another drink. I didn't speak to her for a long time. She slapped me just because I said her boyfriend (who was cheating on her, and she knew it) was a jerk. I know we're both girls, but still. I don't think one slap means anything. Now if she had gone crazy on me, chances are I would have hit her back.

In a relationship, I honestly think if one person hits the other then the relationship shouldn't even continue. If the person capable of doing it once, chances are it will happen again. I think it would also lead to a lot of resentment. I don't see why anyone needs to hit anyone anyway. I've never agreed with girls think it's okay to slap a guy whenever, even if she thinks he deserves it.

[Dcosse]

I think he has the right to, whether he should or not is up to him, it might be the end of the relationship if he does though. Physical violence has no place in a relationship and women should learn to keep their hands to themselves if they don't want to get hit. My dad always told me "If you're going to act like a man you're going to get hit like a man" basically stating that no matter how upset I am, I shouldn't hit a guy because more than likely he's stronger than me and can hurt me more than I can hurt him (if weapons aren't involved). And if a guy ever physically hurts me my dad's going to have to hurt him so it's best to just avoid the situation at all costs haha.

[lumos]

No, simply because I think physical violence is wrong. I'm not saying this just because she's a woman. It could just as well be your dad, your brother, your male cousin, your male friend etc, and I would still say "don't hit back". Unless they're seriously threatening your life and you HAVE to defend yourself, slapping/hitting them back would be 100% pointless. It won't do anything but make you look just as dumb as them. So do you want to be the bigger person or not? I say, be the bigger person. Physical violence is always wrong and should not be used for anything but self-defense. Hitting her back would not be self-defense, it would be revenge.

[plaank]

Yes.. totally agree.

[Venatrix]

This is when things get iffy sure if she hits him then by all accounts he's got rights to hit her back but problem with that is the guy always outweighs the girl in the situation and also by strength he's prob stronger so that little B slaps she hits you with sure can anger you but won't really injure you but when you retaliate you can seriously do psychical damage I just say you bitch her out and warn her that the next time she does that you'll do the same but just don't forget your strength outweighs hers and I'm not saying girl are weak just the truth a 120 pound girl can't hold her own against a 180 pound guy

[Anonymous]

Morally yes legally no. with women's lib many good things happened but somehow hitting men and it being socially acceptable is one of the bad side effects. Funny that these days you can easily find a girl to suck your ding dong but there is also a good chance it could be bit or cut off. Now obviously no one has the right to harm another but it happens and justice and equality are still far from the horizon. Hopefully all the playing fields will be fair someday and hopefully violence to both sexes will be at a minimum or even non existent.

[Anonymous]

You have a legal right do defend yourself if she keeps hitting you, but you don't have a right to slap her back for the sake of revenge, any more than she had a right to slap you. Just dump her crazy ass, and don't ever consider working things out with someone that hits you. That has never worked out well for anyone.

[Marihorror]

Hell yeah. If you're going to attack someone, you better be prepared for them to try to knock you the fuck out. No one with common sense is going to sit there and be a punching bag, no matter what's between their legs.

[harakiri]

Depends... what did he do? Or was he an innocent bystander? I think everyone has the right to defend themselves... personally, I'm a pretty hands-on person... i would hate for a playful gesture from me to land myself in a coma because the dude couldn't handle his strength or completely misunderstood.

[Anonymous]

No one should hit anyone. The guy would technically have a right to defend himself, but he probably shouldn't just because he is likely stronger than her and can cause a lot more harm to her than she could cause him.

In the case of the girl hitting the guy it would be best If the guy didn't hit her back and they just talked about it. Because violence begets violence.

My opinion would be the same if the guy hit the girl as well. She would be best off not hitting him back and talking out the issue.

[T-shirtsandkneehighs]

Hit her back ten times harder. Yeah you'll do more damage than she did but it's a consequence. My dad used to tell me and my siblings to do that so we did. Just because she has a pussy it doesn't make it okay. I'm sure if the tables were turned everyone would agree that she should slap you back so why the fuck not. Equality n all that

[LittleSally]

If she slapped you for no reason or if she slapped you for a good reason... I don't think you should slap back.
If you don't like the way she's behaving dump her. The only moral thing you can do.

Be better than her.

Why would she use physical abuse at all is beyond me. Especially in a relationship. Be better. If she's having some sort of metal problems and you can't handle it (maybe no one can or should have to) move on.

[Mesonfielde]

Honestly, while I'm against physical violence, if you open the can of worms, you deserve to be shown that your sex does not give you a free pass immunity card. If they haven't learned previously that violence is bad, maybe they'll learn from the pain, if they're incapable of doing so from logic or empathy.

[Lulu2194]

I don't necessarily think that a man or a woman should be hitting anybody. There are other ways to resolve conflict. I don't believe a man should ever lay his hands on a woman violently but I also don't think a woman should be violent towards her man either. A lot of people don't realize that a lot of domestic violence cases involve a woman being violent towards the man!

[Vish123]

As far as right is concerned yea man he has all the RIGHT in the world.

what I'd do umm

If she's a GF I'd leave her forever end of the story "things are either right or wrong for me"
If she's wife, gimme 1 week I ain't gonna leave or slap her but she gonna slap herself 10 times wanna learn how? well its a secret :D

[Vish123]

Also a friendly advice more and more girls will choose the 2nd option don't be fooled by that. Honestly If a man has lost self respect than he's also lost his right to be a man.

[Botchie]

I think no one should hit anyone in the first place. If she slaps him, she should be in trouble somehow. No one has the right to hit someone else. It's unfair as is how women can get away with this (most of the time). But no, he should not hit back. At that moment, he should just walk away and assess the situation as well as give things time to cool off.

[TadCurious]

No, you don't have a right to slap her back. If you have to deal with her slapping or hitting you can always restrain her arms by holding them down. You could overwhelm her at your whim. A girl shouldn't slap or hit a guy, or anyone else for that matter, but you can't hit her back. If she's out of control you restrain her.

[HappyToBeAlive]

A man physically and mentally can handle getting slapped by a lady. Not to mention that a guys slap can cause much more damage. No you can't hit back because no matter what a lady does, you're still lucky she lets you call her "your lady". I don't care if you think this is sexist. It's my opinion

[LonelyBoyInside]

Bull shit. Women like to play weak because they like to play you like a fool. You do not have to beat her mercilessly, but a quick slap back is justified.

[HappyToBeAlive]

You my friend should've been raised better.

[RedSnowBunny]

A lady to hurts the man she loves isn't a "lady" at all.

[Hopefuldreamer8]

So a guy is lucky to have a lady even if she abuses him? That's fucked up.

[HappyToBeAlive]

I don't think you get it. Guys can't be abused. I don't know how to explain it. It's hard to believe that a guy can get bullied around by some scrawny woman

[relahvent]

Lol not all women are tiny and weak, especially one's that are physically fit and work out.

[HappyToBeAlive]

I agree with you. But i dont know. The idea is just weird to me. It doesn't feel right.

[Botchie]

I think you forget just how strong some women can get and how weak some men can be. Plus, all it takes is a hit to the right spot to do some serious damage, male or female.

[RedSnowBunny]

Knock that bitch out. Then throw all her shit out of the house while she's unconscious.

[relahvent]

Hahaha this is gold

[twistedsanity]

Yup I agree

[Anonymous]

MOst women don't want equality. This poll proves it.

But yes of course. Whereas feminists would disagree with me, I view a woman as just as much a person as a man is. She is responsible for her own actions. She has all the rights of a man. But she also has the same obligation that a man has: the obligation not to violate other people's rights. You can't have one without the other. It doesn't make sense.

[Opinion Owner]

Keep thumbing down girls. You're only proving my point.

[Opinion Owner]

Also the people saying walk away are fucking stupid. If using defensive force is wrong, how are you going to stop her if she won't leave you alone? You going to call the police? Sorry you can't do that. That's defensive force. And using force in defense against a woman is wrong, right?

[ambasauras]

Leave the situation. Go to a public place. If she follows you and continues harassing you, then she's clearly crazy and others will see that too. If it continues, report her to the police for harassing you. There's no need to hit her back.

[Opinion Owner]

If hitting her back is wrong, then calling the police is wrong. Because the police will hit her if they have to. Heck they'll kill her if they have to.

[ambasauras]

The police are trained to deal with unstable people. If you call the police on her for physical abusing you or harassing you, they'll know how to handle the situation.

"Because the police will hit her if they have to." KEY WORDS: "have to"

The police would try to ask her to leave you alone or would try to arrest her calmly. If that proved impossible, then they would handle the situation appropriately. If the girl hit them back, they would use physical force, but only to restrain her so that they can DO THEIR JOB and take her into custody. If a woman slaps you, it'll probably sting, but it won't threaten your life. You are a citizen and are not responsible for deciding who faces justice, when they get it, and how they get it. We have law enforcement, prosecutors, jurors, and judges for that. Using physical force isn't necessary if a woman slaps you. If you're life isn't in danger, there's no reason you can't simply walk away, call the police, and let them do their job.

[Opinion Owner]

Who's to say she's unstable? And if she is, the police don't know the details.

So using physical force is wrong unless your life is in danger? I'm sure the rapists and burglars out there will be thrilled to hear that you believe that.

Key word 'have to'? Exactly. The law says that the police can use reasonable force. The law says ordinary people can use reasonable force. What point are you making?

You're confusing defense and retaliation. In a free society, the justice system has the monopoly on retaliation. But the police can't DEFEND you, except in rare cases where they just happen to be walking down the street where a crime is taking place.

It comes down to this. Are you going to side the aggressor, the attacker, the violator of rights? Or are you going to side with the victim? If the victim was female, this wouldn't even be controversial. So sad how women side with violent women. I

[Opinion Owner]

If you tolerate violence against men you're helping to create a culture of violence, which leads to more violence against women too. Or you could just say that violence is wrong, and peopel, whether they're male or female, have the right to defend themselves.

[ambasauras]

I said that police are trained to deal with unstable people because when people attack them or are aggressive towards them (because they are unstable), the police know how to handle the situation. Do you really think a person in their right mind would attack a police officer?

No, using physical force is wrong if you don't have other options. The main goal should always be getting yourself out of the situation as quickly as possible. If a woman slaps you, you have two choices: (1.) hit her back and (2.) walk away. Since a slap isn't life-threatening and the situation can easily be diffused by walking away, #2 is the best option. On the other hand, if a woman was to go crazy on you (think Jodi Arias), then in order to remove yourself from the situation, you fight back (#1) as much as necessary until you can escape the situation (#2).

[ambasauras]

If a rapists attacks someone, they should fight back (#1) as much as necessary until they can escape the situation (#2). Regarding your burglar reference, police advise people not to confront the burglar. They advise people to hide and call 911. If you're in a house and a burglar attacks you, then you should fight back (#1) as much as necessary until you can escape the situation (#2) and call 911, just like the police suggested.

The violence is wrong principle applies to men attacking men, women attacking women, women attacking men, and men attacking women. In other words, it applies to everyone! If a man hits a woman and she has the opportunity to walk out the door, then she should! If he tackles her to the ground and the only way she can escape is by hitting him back, then she should do that, but leave the situation as soon as possible. A person can't claim 'self-defense' if their not in immediate danger.

[Opinion Owner]

The police don't know anything about the situation. They don't know what she is. By the time they get to the situation, she could have done even more damage anyway.

What other options does a victim of an attack have, other than physical force? Either he uses force, or the police do. It's force either way. Despite what you say, it's extremely likely to end up worse for her if her victim calls the police rather than handles it himself. The police are more than one person, they have guns, and she'll get a criminal record if she surivives.

Your solution is: a victim of an attack should sacrifice his wellbeing for the sake of the attacker's wellbeing. The question is why should the victim have to do that? If you want to sit back and let a rapist or burglar or domestic abuser do his business, that's up to you. It's your life. But don't you dare impose that on the rest of us.

[Opinion Owner]

The misandry on this site is just unbelievable. No one would question a woman's right to hit a male attacker if the question was the other way around. Some women on this thread even admit that they're sexist.

Maybe one day you'll get a man in your life you care about, and you might start thinking differently.

[Opinion Owner]

No it's only on questions about women attacking men that anyone claims that women don't have the right to hit back. When the question's about a man hitting a woman, everyone says that the woman has the right to hit back.

Who's to say it's not necessary? Judging by the many questions asked by female attackers even on GAG, the most effective way to stop a woman hitting you is to hit her back.

[ambasauras]

1. Police officers are people too. They can tell when a person is stable versus when they are unstable. A stable suspect would be cooperative with the police. When suspects are cooperative with the police, the police have no need for violence. On the other hand, an unstable suspect would be verbally and even physically abusive to the police. When a suspect is physically abusive to the police, then the police must use violence in order to restrain him/her so that an arrest can be made.
2. As I previously mentioned, the other option is walking away.
3. I also previously mentioned that the police don’t always use force when confronting a suspect or making an arrest. They try to handle the situation calmly. If that’s not possible, they use as much violence as necessary to take the suspect into custody. Are you trying to argue that police officers slap the suspect instead of arresting him/her when they arrive at domestic violence incidents?

[ambasauras]

4. I’m not saying that a victim of an attack should sacrifice his wellbeing for the sake of the attacker’s wellbeing. I’m saying that he should just walk away from the situation. If a woman slaps a man, his wellbeing isn’t sacrificed if he just walks away. Quite frankly, I think he’s better off walking away because if he hits her back, then he’s sunken to her level.
5. I addressed your rapist/burglar example in one of my previous posts.
6. There’s no need for personal attacks in debates. They take away from your argument. Besides, this is the Internet. You don’t know anyone well enough for personal attacks.
7. When a man is slapped in the face, it’s not necessary for him to hit back because his life is not in danger. Do you mean to tell me that a slap on the face is enough to put a person in imminent fear of death?

[ambasauras]

8. I said earlier that if a man slaps a woman in the face, and she has the option to leave the situation without responding violently, then she should. The only time anyone should ever use violence in retaliation is when they have no other option. If a man hits a woman and she hits him back without even trying to leave the situation, then she’s just as guilty of assault because she could have walked away from the situation.
9. The most effective way to stop any person from hitting you is to escape the situation and never contact them again, thus never giving them the chance to hit you again.

[Opinion Owner]

When did I claim the police aren't people?

No, the police have no power beyond their power to use force. It all comes back to force. How much effective power would the police have if they weren't allowed to touch you? None.

That is what you're saying: the victim should sacrifice himself. He should 'walk away'. In other words, the burden is on him to do what is in the interest of his attacker. But if walking away doesn't work, he's screwed, because he's not allowed to use force.

A rape victim's life isn't in danger in almost every case. In fact, a rape victim is far more likely to have his or her life in danger if he or she resists. So your message to rape victims is: "Don't resist. If you do hit the rapist, you're a bad person". If I were to say that, I'd be called a misogynist.

You still haven't explained why it's morally right for police to use force when the victim's life isn't in danger but not OK for the victim to use force. As you say, police are people too.

[Opinion Owner]

No, legally it's not assault to hit someone back. Morally it isn't either. I've said: on this thread, some women do claim that they believe that women shouldn't hit back either, but on other threads it's very different.

Why is that the most effective way? When someone attacks you, they're saying, "I don't think you have the right to be free from violence". So, in the absence of defensive force, why would the attacker not come after you? Let's put it this way: if it was illegal (as you want it to be) to defend yourself against an attacker, and if the police weren't allowed to use force either (which is the logical end-point of your ethics), would the number of attacks increase? Yes.

On GAG, there have been many questions by heart-broken women who never thought their bfs would hit back. One thing's for sure: they're far less likely to hit again.

[Opinion Owner]

Here's a question for you: why can't women just control themselves and respect men?

[ambasauras]

1. The police aren’t allowed to use physical force against suspects unless it’s absolutely necessary. Police using physical force unnecessarily against suspects is what’s known as ‘police brutality’. Police officers can lose their jobs if they engage in police brutality. They can serve prison time for engaging in police brutality.
2. By Merriam Webster definition, a sacrifice is: “the act of giving up something that you want to keep especially in order to get or do something else or to help someone”. When a man walks away from a woman who hits him, the only thing he is giving up is an unhealthy relationship – which benefits him.
3. When I addressed your rape analogy earlier, I mentioned that rape victims are justified in using physical force to defend themselves and escape the situation. Please don’t put words in my mouth.

[ambasauras]

4. Contrary to what you’ve recently posted, I have addressed your concern about “why it's morally right for police to use force when the victim's life isn't in danger but not OK for the victim to use force”. I’ve previously said that it’s not morally right, and it’s not even legal, for the police to use unnecessary physical force. I’ve also said that the victim of an attack is justified in using physical force as a last resort to escape the situation. Therefore, I never said that the police are justified in using physical force when the victim’s life isn’t in danger. I also never said that victims are never justified in using physical force. The main point of my argument is that physical force should only be used as a last resort.

[ambasauras]

5. It seems that you’re putting words in my mouth again when you say that I want self-defense to be illegal. Obviously, that would be ridiculous. I’m saying that there is a difference between self-defense and mutual combat. Self-defense is using physical force only when necessary to escape a situation, and then running like hell. Mutual combat is when both parties engage in violence and neither makes an effort to leave the situation. Self-defense is not a crime. Mutual combat is a crime and that’s why police officers sometimes make dual arrests at domestic violence incidents.

[ambasauras]

6. “Here's a question for you: why can't women just control themselves and respect men?” Respectfully, you saying this leads me to believe that you’re an advocate for male superiority and that you don’t understand that both men and women are capable of violence. While women should respect men, men should also respect women. There are women who are disrespectful of men and there are men who are disrespectful of women. It goes both ways. Just like there are women who assault men and there are men who assault women. I don’t mean to offend you, but your resentment of women makes it seem like you may have been disrespected by women in the past. If that’s the case, I’m sorry for your experience, but not all women are like that.

[Opinion Owner]

No, you've changed your story. You previously said that force is justified only if your life is in danger. In the vast majority of rapes, the victim's life is not in danger especially if he/she doesn't attempt to resist. So what principle are you operating on now?

No, after I showed that you're confusing defense with retaliation, you haven't addressed why the police should have a power that you don't want ordinary people to have.

No, here's what I mean when I say that you're demanding sacrifice. You're demanding that the victim risk his safety, perhaps even his life, by effectively tying his hands behind his back. You're siding with the attacker.

Oh, so now you're saying that the police aren't justified in using force unless life is in danger? So, the police should be utterly powerless in dealing with the vast majority of crimes? Because in the vast majority of crimes, even violent or sexual ones, no one's life is in danger.

[Opinion Owner]

A mutual fight is where two people decide they want to fight. An attack is where one person uses force against another without consent, regardless whether the victim reacts. You're basically victim-blaming: "Unless you don't resist, you're part of the problem" is what you're saying.

Oh, here we go. The sexism card. I'm a sexist because I want equality, is that right? I'm a sexist because I believe that women are persons just like men, who can control themselves if they want to? The reason I asked the question is that you, and more explicitly many other women on here, are saying that women shouldn't have to control themselves. Take it up with them.

You're right that men should respect women. And overwhelmingly they do. That's why when a man hits a woman, people show overwhelming support for the woman defending herself. And so they should. It's a shame that most women don't feel that way about men, as the poll shows. It's also extremely shortsighted, as I've explained.

[Opinion Owner]

Please answer these questions directly:

1. You previously said that force is justified only when someone's life is in danger. So why do you also say that a rape victim is justified in using force, when most likely the victim's life is not in danger and will actually be put in danger by resisting?

2. Do you label a rape victim partly to blame if she does resist, just as you partly blame the victim of a slap if he resists? If not, why not?

3. You have now made it clear that you think that even the police should not be allowed to use force except when life is in danger. So, if words won't persuade the attacker to stop, what should the police do?

[ambasauras]

Yes, force is justified as a last resort. Yes, force is justified if your life is in danger. Force is justified as a last resort when you can’t escape a violent situation. When a person is being violent, they’re essentially unpredictable. Unpredictable people are capable of anything. When a victim is being attacked by an unpredictable person and cannot escape the situation, the victim has the potential to be hurt – even killed. So, a person in this situation has no other means of escape, and since their attacker is unpredictable, they’re life is potentially in danger. That’s why the victim has the right to defend him or herself as much as necessary in these situations. I’m not changing my story. You’re just failing to understand that these concepts go hand-in-hand.

[ambasauras]

You have not showed me that I’ve confused defense with retaliation. All you’ve shown me is that you’re confusing self-defense with mutual combat. Police have the same rights as everyone else – only use violence when necessary. If everyone (including police) used violence to get revenge and to get their way, we’d have anarchy. Please do not twist my words or put words in my mouth.
How does a victim risk his or her safety by leaving a situation? How is that tying the victim’s hands behind his or her back? If a man leaves the situation after being slapped by a woman, he’s putting space between him and her. Space in this situation is safety. His hands are not behind his back because through leaving the situation he takes control over the situation. I’m not siding with the attacker at all. I don’t believe in unnecessary violence.

“A mutual fight is where two people decide they want to fight.”

[ambasauras]

That’s exactly correct. When two people decide to fight and neither leaves the situation, despite any opportunities to leave, it’s a mutual fight.
“An attack is where one person uses force against another without consent, regardless whether the victim reacts.”
Again, you’re exactly correct. If Person #1 slaps Person #2, Person #1 has just used force against another without consent, regardless whether Person #2 reacts. If Person #2 slaps Person #1 back, then Person #2 has also just used force against another without consent, regardless whether Person #1 reacts. Bottom line: Both Person #1 and Person #2 have now used force against another without consent, regardless of how the other person reacted. While Person #2’s frustration of being slapped first is understandable, it does not justify slapping Person #1 back. There’s a line between understanding a person’s actions versus deciding whether their actions are moral or immoral.

[ambasauras]

“…you, and more explicitly many other women on here, are saying that women shouldn't have to control themselves”.

This is exactly what I mean when I say you’re putting words in my mouth. I never said that women shouldn’t have to control themselves. I mentioned earlier that women should face the justice system for using violence. I’m saying that ALL people, regardless of gender, need to control themselves. If a woman slaps a man and he slaps her back, he reacted out of anger and vindictive reasons. That’s not self-control. If Jodi Arias goes crazy on a man, and he uses physical force against her to get away from her, he reacted out of his need to get away from her and save his life. That’s self-control.

[ambasauras]

I said that I thought your comment was sexist because it seemed very male-centered to me; however, you’ve acknowledged that respect goes both ways, so I may have just misunderstood you. If a man was to hit a woman and she hit him back for the sake of revenge, she wasn’t defending herself. She was engaging in mutual combat. While I would sympathize with her frustration, I believe she acted immorally as well because she should have just left the situation instead of retaliating in anger. If leaving the situation was impossible, I’d be supportive of her because she did what she had to do to escape. I’d feel the same way if the genders were reversed. If a woman was to hit a man and he hit her back for the sake of revenge, I would sympathize with his frustration, but I believe he acted immorally too because he should have left the situation instead of retaliating in anger. If he was unable to leave the situation, I’d be supportive of him because he did what he had to do to escape.

[ambasauras]

Now to address your questions.

“1. You previously said that force is justified only when someone's life is in danger. So why do you also say that a rape victim is justified in using force, when most likely the victim's life is not in danger and will actually be put in danger by resisting? ”
Me saying force was justified only when someone’s life was in danger was me being inarticulate. A better way to put it is that using force is justified as a last resort. When all opportunities to diffuse the situation have been exhausted, then force is justified, but only enough force to diffuse the situation. I think it should also be noted that when a person is being raped, they have no idea what their attacker is planning.

[ambasauras]

It’s true that the vast majority of rapes do not end in murder, but it’s a very real possibility. When a victim uses physical force against a rapist, it’s because they want to escape the rapist. A victim’s main goal is always escaping. Victims don’t think about revenge when they’re being attacked. They think about putting distance between themselves and their attacker.

“2. Do you label a rape victim partly to blame if she does resist, just as you partly blame the victim of a slap if he resists? If not, why not?”

A rape victim is completely justified in resisting their attacker. If Person #1 tackles Person #2 to the ground, holds him or her (rape can happen to anyone) down or uses some other means of trying to force the victim to remain submissive, then Person #2 is trapped. Since Person #2 is trapped, he or she can’t go anywhere. If Person #2 starts using physical force against Person #1, it’s going to be so that he or she can get the hell away from Person #1.

[ambasauras]

Yes, Person #2 uses violence, but he or she does so to escape the situation.

If a slap victim slaps their attacker back, it’s unnecessary violence because the slap victim is not trapped. If Person #1 slaps Person #2, Person #2 might be sore and frustrated, but unlike the rape victim I mentioned earlier, Person #2 can escape the situation without using violence because he or she is not trapped. If Person #2 can escape the situation, but instead chooses to stay and retaliate with violence, then he or she is using violence for the sake of revenge.

In summary, the rape victim is justified in using violence as a last resort because he or she has no other option to escape. The slap victim is not justified in using violence because he or she didn’t use it as a last resort.

[ambasauras]

I also want to say that I’m troubled that you’re comparing rape with a slap in the face. Rape is a much more violent and devastating act. Rape is such a violent and traumatic act that victims have committed suicide because they were so traumatized. Rape victims often develop anxiety disorders, have severe trust issues, and remain in counseling for years because of the assault. Being slapped in the face is frustrating and humiliating, but it’s nowhere near as traumatic as being raped.

“3. You have now made it clear that you think that even the police should not be allowed to use force except when life is in danger. So, if words won't persuade the attacker to stop, what should the police do?”

It’s actually the law that police can use physical force only when necessary. Police officers have a duty to arrest violent people.

[ambasauras]

They cannot simply walk away from a violent individual because their job is to get that individual off the streets. If someone is hitting a police officer, a police officer has to use necessary force to do their job and arrest the offender. I’m not saying that people should be persuading their attackers to stop. I’m saying that people should be escaping the situation as soon as possible instead of throwing gasoline on the fire by attacking back. Unfortunately for police officers, they cannot leave violent situations like the rest of us because their job is to arrest violent offenders. I’ve mentioned before that police should use necessary violence if they have no other option.

[relahvent]

"When a person is being violent, they’re essentially unpredictable. Unpredictable people are capable of anything"
Exactly. What makes you so sure that simply walking away from the woman will defuse the situation? If she's angry enough to use violence in the first place, chances are she isn't going to simply let you walk away, especially if she realizes that you will call the police on her. But I can almost guarantee once she gets hit by a man, she will stop and realize that she picked the wrong fight.

[Opinion Owner]

Rapists typically aren’t unpredictable. A rape victim is far more likely to be killed or seriously injured if she resists. Therefore, by your logic, she shouldn’t, and it would be morally wrong for her to do so.

Yes, you are tying the victim’s hands. You’re saying the victim can’t strike back, that he has to escape, even if that means jeopardizing his wellbeing more than striking back would. Space is not safety. Being able to use force is safety.

No, the burden is not on the victim to leave. Why, if I were to attack you, would it place a burden on you to leave? Violating someone’s rights does not impose an obligation on the victim of the violation. That’s obscene.

No, you totally don’t understand rights. If Person 1 strikes Person 2, Person 1 consents to being struck back. Comparing an attack to a mutual fight is like comparing consensual sex to rape. We both know the difference.

[Opinion Owner]

You implied that women shouldn’t have to control themselves. Other people said so explicitly. That’s why I phrased it the way I did.

It’s funny how people like you appear only on questions about women victimizing men. On questions about men victimizing women, you’re nowhere to be seen.

When a person slaps someone else, you have no way of knowing what the slapper is planning. If the slapper had any respect for the victim’s rights, the slap would never have happened anyway.

The opportunity to diffuse the situation was exhausted when the slap was perpetrated.

As I said, rapists are not unpredictable, typically. With most rapists, once the rape is done, it’s done. That’s not typically true of domestic abusers. But you only have to read the many GAG questions by heartbroken female slappers to know that hitting a woman back will typically stop her from ever doing it again.

[Opinion Owner]

Defense is resistance to protect someone or something. Retaliation is punishment. The police cannot defend you, except in extremely rare cases of coincidence.

Yeah, it’s very likely that a slap will lead to greater violence too. What’s your point? When did I say that hitting back a woman who has hit you is about revenge?

In most cases, a rape victim’s use of force is pointless. As I’ve told you, you’re far more likely to get hurt if you resist the rapist.

And we get to the crux of the matter: “I’m troubled…” Rape is a violation of rights. Slapping is a violation of rights. In that sense, they’re the same. The suffering caused is morally irrelevant. For example, if your boyfriend dumps you, that may make you want to kill yourself. That doesn’t mean that he has violated your rights, or that you have the right to use force against him.

[llorando]

Technically he doe's have the right to hit back, but morally he shouldn't. I don't believe in hitting a woman, so if a woman tried to hit me I'd try and block the hit or if she did succeed in hitting me, I'd just be a gentleman about it and walk away.

[plaank]

No. And if the roles were reversed, I don't think she'd have the right to hit him back either.

What good could possibly come from letting a violent person drag you down to their level?

[plaank]

At least explain why you disagree..

[still_waiting]

That's a good point. Why slap someone back? That's childish. Remove yourself from the situation GIRL OR GUY

[Anonymous]

You pussies. If someone hits you first, you have every damn right to retaliate. Fair is fair.

I wish we can go back to the old days where people just fought it out to eliminate steam. There was a lot less nonsense because people minded their p's and q's. My parent's generation was awesome. Now, people raise kids to be pussies.

[Anonymous]

i dont think so. its not okay for the girl to slap the boy to begin with, and him doing it back makes it that much worse. he does have the right to defend himself, but if its just a simple slap, i dont think he needs to retaliate. be the bigger man (literally) and control yourself when she couldn't. you know?

[Anonymous]

don't know but if my boyfriend slapped me id fucking chop his mother fucking testicles off without hesitation.

but, if i was that guy, i'd get a restraining order on her... lol

no one should slap anyone. whether girl slap boy or boy slap girl.

the boy should get rid of her asap.

[AndyWes]

Lol, do you even consider what you're writing? Here, let me rephrase it.

"don't know but if my girlfriend slapped me I'd fucking chop off her mother fucking breasts without hesitation."

How mentally unbalanced and deranged does that sound?

[Opinion Owner]

lol i meant boyfriend soz

[Opinion Owner]

lol its a joke pls relax.

[Teray1]

If a woman ever hit my man her ass would be down for the count. I did it my self. I said hold on baby i got this. I wouldn't let it happen i took kick boxing.

[Teray1]

Oh wait i read your question wrong im sorry.

[MarkTwain]

I had a girl once who slipped me by surprise as hard as she could. It didn't even hurt stood there like a rock. Her face was like OMG I looked at her and was like what was that for. I couldn't hit her back and I did think about it. I would have knocked her out if I would have slapped her back. If she would have spit at me... than SMACK...

[MarkTwain]

^slapped