How about if they grab you twice? And if it's your privates?
The (Nottinghmashire) police recommend ringing 101, though if possible to report it to the door staff of the establishment you're in.
I think you should be able to punch someone who infringes your personal space either sexually or violently immediately, or repeatedly after being told to stop. A slap is permissible as well though less likely to incapacitate them, which is ideal. Obviously the police can't recommend that, but it's good they didn't condemn Penny Reeve's actions. I do wonder what they'd actually be able to do if Reeve did report it yet the only witnesses were to the punch and not the groping.
If they're grabbing you threateningly, you can't exact just phone 101.. If they're planning to hurt you, you should have a right to retaliate, especially if they're violently grabbing you and don't let go when you tell them to.
it is never acceptable to strike... unless struck first. It is however a disadvantage to be struck first. I recommend boxing if you wish to become shock hardened. I studied karate for 5 yrs but the best street fighters were always boxers. They can take the hit. But that is not your question, is it? You ask for permission to strike when not struck... sorry... the answer is no!
Depends why, but if someone lays hands on me without v good reason I feel I have the right to retaliate. The severity would depends how threatened I felt, and that is for me to decide (sod this 'letting someone hit you first' stuff)
it is never acceptable to strike... unless struck first. It is however a disadvantage to be struck first. I recommend boxing if you wish to become shock hardened. I studied karate for 5 yrs but the best street fighters were always boxers. They can take the hit. But that is not your question, is it? You ask for permission to strike when not struck... sorry... the answer is no!
The OP was asking whether you should be able to hit someone who was invading your personal space in a violent and/or sexual way. I think you are either missing the point, or simply haven’t properly addressed the question (or both).
If I were to be a victim of this kind of assault, I would feel no moral obligation to refrain from fighting back. However, I was a victim of sexual assault when I was 12, so I have experienced the feelings of immense fear and confusion, and so I can appreciate how incredibly brave the woman was to react in the way that she did.
EDIT: I ended up developing symptoms of PTSD, so my (very strongly held) view is that anyone who behaves in this way deserves to be comprehensively ruined - not just struck.
The OP was asking whether you should be able to hit someone who was invading your personal space in a violent and/or sexual way. I think you are either missing the point, or simply haven’t properly addressed the question (or both).
If I were to be a victim of this kind of assault, I would feel no moral obligation to refrain from fighting back. However, I was a victim of sexual assault when I was 12, so I have experienced the feelings of immense fear and confusion, and so I can appreciate how incredibly brave the woman was to react in the way that she did.
I miss no point... my belief forbids me to strike but it does allow it if struck. It still however disapproves.
I miss no point... my belief forbids me to strike but it does allow it if struck. It still however disapproves.
So your reasoning is that you can only punch someone if they specifically punch you? If someone stabs you, you wouldn't punch back to defend yourself, because they haven't punched you? If someone uses pepperspray or a taser on you, you wouldn't punch to defend yourself, because they haven't punched you?
Your argument ignores how serious groping is. Groping is sexual assault, and it is just as serious as any other form of assault. You have every right to physically defend yourself in that situation.
You are wrong to profess this toxic view that self defence is not an acceptable course of action. You clearly have no idea how serious sexual assault really is, otherwise you would know that it is considerably more serious than just ‘being struck’. Also, it implies that you believe that I would have been wrong to stand up to those who assaulted me (as it was, I was surrounded by several other boys 6” tall and s*** scared, so I couldn’t). Perhaps you don’t realise that that sexual assault leaves indelible scars on a person’s psyche, and that PTSD can be fatal if left untreated...? Of course, you are entitled to hold your own views, but don’t come crying to me if (for whatever reason) you become a victim of sexual assault and you refrain from defending yourself because of your totally unfounded ‘beliefs’. Because you‘d be even more mentally f***ed than if you hadn’t.
You commented with a phrase commonly used to imply that women deserve sexual assault for not fighting back hard enough... whilst at the same time suggesting that it is not okay to fight back if someone gropes you.
Would you like to clarify that isn't what you meant, or do you admit to that hateful intent?