Real world self-defense for teen girl

[mom2teengrls]

I've been asking this on several self-defense forums. Is kick boxing good for a teen girl that is getting bullied? The school administrators and parents of the bullies haven't been able to get these feral students under control. I want my daughter to be able to defend herself. From doing some motherly snooping (listening in on her calls and reading her text messages with bigdaddyspy software), I've found out that a group of girls are jealous of her, and her relationship with a boy, so they've been causing her trouble. I want her to stop being a victim. Will kick boxing give her the skills to defend herself?

Janice

[Da Pope]

Kick boxing, Mauy Thai (Thai boxing) or Judo

[szorn]

I realize that this is an old post but I have throw in some thoughts here...

There is a difference between self-defense and martial arts. If a teen or anyone else needs the ability to protect themselves against bullies or violent threats they should seek out realistic self-defense training not traditional or semi-traditional martial arts. After they have gained the knowledge and skills to keep themselves safe from violence they can then pursue more long-term training in martial arts should they have the desire to do so.

In regards to boxing or kickboxing...I would not recommend these sports to women that need to learn effective self-defense. The act of punching alone requires long-term training in order to be able to effectively use the skill without injuring the hands. This is equally true to both men and women. However, due to the fact that most women do NOT have the propensity to naturally punch with a closed fist, the skill can take longer to learn properly. Even when learned properly, there are just too many variables in a real altercation to guarantee that the hands won't get inured while punching. In short, stick with natural and instinctive skills, those skills that offer the highest potential for success.

Steve

[szorn]

I just picked up a nice "tactical" pen for a young female friend who is going off to college this year. Of course I'll show her a few basic methods to apply the tool. In my book it falls into "judo".

Personally I wouldn't recommend a "tactical" pen as they are considered 'weapons' by some states and jurisdictions as are Kubotans and other similar tools. I would check out the laws where she is going to school just to be sure. Also, some colleges have their own laws against self-defense tools. Obviously, being safe is more important than legal ramifications of using a tool even if it's against the law. However, there are other options available that are both effective and legal in most states. I prefer to teach the use of normal bic-style pens as well as the Super Sharpie. These are effective, inexpensive, legal, and they don't draw attention.

Steve

[szorn]

I prefer a more humane approach with control and restraint being my primary objective (given the choice, I'd rather NOT kill) To that end I keep zip ties and duct tape handy along with other weapons and tools.

The approach should be relative to the situation, the desired outcome, and the discrepancies between the attacker and the intended victim. Control and restraint is essential for law enforcement and security officers, as they are generally required to take subjects into custody. However, average men and women have no such requirement. The fact is that control & restraint tactics often fail for officers, even when there are 2 or more officers and only one subject. There is a video out there of two officers failing to control and cuff a petite female that was at least 100 pounds lighter than each officer. The failure of control tactics is so high that most DT programs emphasize "stunning" tactics against subjects that resist control holds and often these fail to lead to complete control of the subjects. The problem is that the resistance doesn't have to be extremely aggressive to foil a control hold, standard convulsive muscle contractions will do the job.

The general objective in self-defense is to 1) avoid the situation in the first place 2) use only the amount of force necessary to successfully escape the situation when avoidance isn't possible. The longer a person engages an attacker (trying to control and restrain) the greater the chance of severe injury or death. With this in mind we also need to look at the circumstances. If the assailant is a robber and only wants personal property there is no reason to engage in a physical manner. However, if the assailant's words, actions, or behavior leads the intended victim to believe that they are in imminent danger, the response (whether escaping or fighting back) but be decisive and explosive. In either situation, control & restraint would be inappropriate and risky for the intended victim.

Personally I prefer to emphasize the tools, tactics, and techniques that statistically have the highest success rate. For basic self-defense (especially for women) that would be decisive and explosive action designed to slow or stop the threat so escape is more feasible.

I understand the desire to be humane but have to stress that empathizing with an assailant could lead to hesitation which could ultimately lead to severe injury or death of the intended victim. I also understand the reluctance to kill in defense of the self or someone else. However, there are many defensive options that won't necessarily have lethal results and most of these options have a higher success rate than control and restraint tactics.

Steve

[kingoftheforest]

You've got to be willing to do as much or more to the other guy as he will do to you.

[Paul Kevin]

now a days girls are very hard fighter