You grabbed her by the shirt hard enough to leave welts on her arms. “In her struggle to get free”.
Sounds like violence to me. Why must people resort to violence over issues that are best solved by ummmmh… talking it out? Compromise? Rational discourse?
If you’re saying that you wouldn’t hit a female, but you would hit a male, then yes, you’re being sexist. You should never hit anyone unless it’s self-defense, and even then, only if there’s no other way to avoid the confrontation.
Holly said “Sounds like violence to me. Why must people resort to violence over issues that are best solved by ummmmh… talking it out? Compromise? Rational discourse?”
Siva said: “She charged at me so i grabbed her by her by the arms of her shirt to be kept from getting hit.”, " She felt as though her life was endangered, because I grabbed her by the arms of her shirt while she tried to claw me."
Holly, she claimed to have welts on her arms. I never saw them. When I grasped the arms of her shirt, I didn’t shake or pull or push, if she indeed had welts it was caused by her trying to hit me. You can’t talk to this girl i’ve tried on many occasions.
Arnold Winkelreid said “If you’re saying that you wouldn’t hit a female, but you would hit a male, then yes, you’re being sexist. You should never hit anyone unless it’s self-defense, and even then, only if there’s no other way to avoid the confrontation.”
My “is this sexist” question was referring to "assault on a female " law in NC
Well, interesting situation. I would consider it an act of self defense, but it depends on the area and how the local law sees it.
In some places, you would be guilty of assault and dumped in the poky overnight. In others, she would be considered guilty and dumped in the poky. In a couple more, you both go, and in others, no one would go but one of you – most likely you – would have to find somewhere else to stay for the night. In a few, the cops would just tell you to settle down and not seeing any signs of blood, drunkenness or being under the influence of drugs, would split.
I know a lot of men who have managed to get dumped in jail for the night because some girlfriend whacked them one, they slapped back out of reflex and when the cops came, HE got blamed.
IF your relationship has reached the point where you are coming to blows, then it’s time to get out and find someone else. I have met many a woman that I would have absolutely no qualms in punching out if she hit me because of their attitude and general physical aggressiveness. When I used to knock back brews, I saw little women pick up beer bottles, walk up to some guy they were arguing with and smack them in the head with it. THEN when the cops came, HE got hauled off because he reacted and punched her back.
I’ve also met a lot of nasty, fat chicks who have an attitude so pissy that just trying to have a polite talk with them is almost impossible and they like to solve arguments with their fists or anything loose lying around.
What? Me worry?’
Yeah, yeah, and we all know that excess adipose tissue is exactly what makes those women so prone to being violent, manipulative, lying assholes. :rolleyes:
Give me a fucking break, Rainbow. The attitude you portray in that post would tempt Mother Teresa into breaking a beer bottle over your own fat-crammed cranium.
Phouka:
Rainbow said he “met a lot of nasty fat chicks.” Not that “all fat chicks are nasty.” There is a difference.
The odds that the bread will fall butter side down are directly proportional to the cost of the carpet.
Seeing that Diane’s made a very good case that Rainbow, Sentinel, and MarkSerlin (not to mention several other various sock puppet personalities) are all one in the same, I am not ready to let this one slide.
Nasty people are nasty people. Whatever fat a person carries around has nothing to do with whether they’re nasty, violent, or even shallow, judgemental idiots. Mark/Rainbow/Sentinel’s habit of throwing fat into his description of unlikeable people is a cheap way for him to reinforce his own bigotry. It may not bug you, but it bugs me enough to respond when I see him do it.
See. There’s one now! (A nasty fat woman, I mean.) Suspicious, mouthy, belligerent, paranoid, hateful, antagonistic, malevolent, meddlesome, harassing, ill informed, single minded, insecure and with a generally malicious disposition.
By the way - I use FAT to describe men also. I guess she’d fit right in with the ** large* people* (and I use the term people, loosely)** on Rikki Lake.
What? Me worry?’
WHOOSH!!!
Right over your head.
Adding “fat” to a description of someone (especially negative) is usually not necessary…unless the person being described could not fit into an airline seat, and that was part of the story. Then bringing up that they were “fat” would be important. Otherwise, there is no real need to bring it up, other than to be insulting.
How does “fat” help us understand your point more? Not at all. As much as if you gave us their hair color. Or, other details, such as:
“Blonde women.” Oh, that helps us understand everything so much better. “Black women.” “Gay women.” Armenien women." Nope, none of these details would help clarify your point either, just like taking pains to point out “fat” didn’t help either. It only shows your bigotry.
But, I am pissing in the wind. I already know what you’re going to do. Deny any bigotry, claim (being slightly incoherent while doing so) that that is not what you meant, or just repeat some other variation of what you’ve already said. Sigh. Yawn.
Whatever.
YAWN -(Scratches assorted body parts.)
Yep. You are pissing into the wind. Have fun.
What? Me worry?’
Perhaps Rainbowcsr meant that most of the nasty “chicks” he has met also happen to be fat.