Is Hitting Ever Okay?

[Candyman74]

There’s the sports angle, too, of course. It’s fine for two boxers to hit each other during a match.

[Enderw24]

Look, you keep talkin’ like a bitch, I’m gonna smack you like a bitch.

[grimpixie]

OK and necessary are not the same thing - it may be necessary to use force under certain circumstances, but that doesn’t necessarily make it OK.

[Heart_of_Dorkness]

Interesting responses so far, thanks. The poll is surprising to me in several ways:

• I thought we’d see a greater proportion of “only in self-defense” responses. Quite a few people feel hitting is okay or necessary for non-self-defense reasons. I’d really like to hear more about these reasons. Personally, I would count PunditLisa’s type of response (preventing a drunk from driving) as self-defense, or at least, defense of others, which is more or less the same thing in my mind. I’m mostly curious about statements like this:

@Daerlyn

I think that once in a while you meet a person whose behaviour really demands a shot in the face. Their gender is not a factor (though I find women often behave more obnoxiously because they have less of an expectation of getting hit).

I mean, I totally get the impulse to punch someone who’s behaving obnoxiously, but I would never* actually do it, not only because I still wouldn’t consider it okay or necessary, but also because it seems like it would just make the situation worse. Before, I was annoyed. Now, I’m annoyed and in a fight.

• I’m pleasantly surprised that the vast majority seem to feel gender is irrelevant. I predicted that there would be a lot of people saying that, for instance, it’s okay/necessary for men to hit other men, but not to hit women. But I see that for most, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, which is cool. Smack that bitch up!

There is a fair proportion of men who think hitting is okay/necessary for men only, but interestingly, it’s regardless of who’s getting hit. I’d like to hear more about these situations, too: guys, when would it be okay or necessary for a man to hit someone, but not for a woman? What should the woman do instead?

• Weirdly, there’s one less vote from the women for men hitting men than the other scenarios. If that wasn’t an error, I’d love to know why that is.

Some other thoughts…

@Der_Trihs

And under some circumstances aggression is justified; killing anyone involved with an occupying enemy army, for example. Or killing anyone involved in supporting slavery in the Old South. Or killing people who attack or try to rob you in a situation where order has broken down; you can’t call the cops if there aren’t any cops, or if they are so corrupt as to be as dangerous as the criminals.

But all of those examples are basically self-defense, or defense of your country/countrymen. I’m talking specifically about you initiating the violence.

@Shagnasty

Sometimes the best way to quickly level the playing field is just to deck on of them if you think it will lead to be quickest resolution. There is nothing special about physical aggression over other types of aggression if the law isn’t involved.

Okay, so you’re essentially saying that for you, there’s no bright line between verbal and physical aggression? Interesting. In that case, “who started it” becomes much muddier.

Out of curiosity, do you have examples of when hitting someone led to a quick resolution of a situation? Such as, “Then Tom hit Joe, and that settled the matter.”? I know I might sound really disingenuous and snarky here, but I’m honestly asking. Personally, I’ve only ever seen situations like, “Then Tom hit Joe, and all hell broke loose… and long story short, that’s why I don’t go drinking with Tom anymore.”

@Argent_Towers

I’d prefer a punch to the face over the pain of a bad breakup or the emotional stress of a panic attack.

That’s fair. I’m not saying physical pain is always worse than emotional pain; I’d agree that it’s not. But I’m asking whether it’s ever okay or necessary to inflict physical pain. Are you saying that in some cases, physical aggression is an appropriate response to emotional aggression? If so, could you give an example?

@Candyman74

There’s the sports angle, too, of course. It’s fine for two boxers to hit each other during a match.

True, but not really what I was getting at. Let’s also leave out method actors, BDSM, and any other consensual situations.

@grimpixie

OK and necessary are not the same thing - it may be necessary to use force under certain circumstances, but that doesn’t necessarily make it OK.

I agree. I meant that “/” as “or”, not an equivalency. Basically, I was trying to capture a range of levels of acceptability without making the poll too long. “Acceptable” can be anything from “I had no other choice” to “it’s least-bad option” to “it’s the right thing to do”.

*Never say “never”.

[Scumpup]

I do not lightly show the business side of the pimp hand.

[ryan]

Male.
Self-defense or the defense of someone else, regardless of gender, hitting is OK.
Yes there are people who desperately need a smack in the mouth, but unless it rises to the level of self-defense it’s still not ok.

[Steophan]

@ryan

Male.
Self-defense or the defense of someone else, regardless of gender, hitting is OK.
Yes there are people who desperately need a smack in the mouth, but unless it rises to the level of self-defense it’s still not ok.

I voted for all the “ok in some circumstances” options, because it’s acceptable to hit someone in defense of another, in some situations.

In practice, as I’m a big chap, I’ll get between two people who are fighting rather than hit them, as I know I can take a hit myself if necessary, and someone else can pull them apart. If that’s not an option I reserve the right to hit them as necessary.

[Nava]

I think it’s OK if both parties are OK with it, but then, I know quite a few people who practice martial arts… non-consensually, only to defend oneself or someone who can’t defend himself.
HoD, the Spanish-law definition of self-defense includes “defending someone who can’t defend himself or who depends on the defensor”, but we’ve had discussions about that before and there’s already people in this thread separating both. That alone is enough to lower the “self-defense only” %, I think.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Der_Trihs

I regard “violence is always wrong” as being about as irrational as “violence is always the answer”. Violence is neither right nor wrong in itself, what matters is the end result. It’s just that violence is a limited tool, so for most situations it isn’t the answer, which is how people who say “violence is always wrong” can function - they can usually avoid situations where their philosophy breaks down.

Ironically enough, I must agree with this statement.

Gender doesn’t matter. Defense of yourself or others? Sure, and I don’t see why them being a"loved one" makes it more or less just. And under some circumstances aggression is justified; killing anyone involved with an occupying enemy army, for example.

What about say the American occupying army in Germany or Japan after World War II?

Or killing anyone involved in supporting slavery in the Old South.

What if they now had changed their mind about slavery or say bought a slave because the slaves asked them to (there were such cases).

[Chimera]

@Der_Trihs

I regard “violence is always wrong” as being about as irrational as “violence is always the answer”. Violence is neither right nor wrong in itself

Agreed. Extremes of logic, ideals and positions should be avoided in life.

[Rand_Rover]

@Der_Trihs

I regard “violence is always wrong” as being about as irrational as “violence is always the answer”. Violence is neither right nor wrong in itself, what matters is the end result. It’s just that violence is a limited tool, so for most situations it isn’t the answer, which is how people who say “violence is always wrong” can function - they can usually avoid situations where their philosophy breaks down.

Gender doesn’t matter. Defense of yourself or others? Sure, and I don’t see why them being a"loved one" makes it more or less just. And under some circumstances aggression is justified; killing anyone involved with an occupying enemy army, for example. Or killing anyone involved in supporting slavery in the Old South. Or killing people who attack or try to rob you in a situation where order has broken down; you can’t call the cops if there aren’t any cops, or if they are so corrupt as to be as dangerous as the criminals.

Yep, totally on board with this. Violence is severely under-rated by some people.