rener gracie on fighting multiple attackers

I loved the video. It really succinctly stated some truisms that should really be understood by martial artists. The most important of which are:

1. No martial art gives you eight arms and eyes in the back of your head.

2. If you engage multiple attackers, without overpowering physical advantages you are in serious trouble no matter what you know.

3. If you are being attacked by multiple people, you have probably done several things wrong and should never have been in the situation.

4. The most important aspect of any real life engagement outside the military is not to "win" but to get home to your loved ones safely. Leave your ego out of it and live. Fragile ego needing bolstering is a sign of weakness, not strength.

5. The point of "self-defense" is not to kick ass but to stay safe. There are combat sports to satisfy your blood lust if you need them - doing it on the street can get you killed. Staying safe is most effectively achieved by avoiding conflict if at all possible, particularly when the numbers and other advantages are not with you, but also by being ready should you need to defend yourself and your family.

It is also true that the gracies have not been the best examples of these principles. :-D Of course, neither was I when younger, so I'm not judging, just observing. b I'm certainly teaching my children what I've learned and it apears so do the gracies, which I would guess is part of why the new generation (Ryron and Rener for example) are much more "peaceful warrior" types.

If you find yourself in a situation where you are outnumbered and surrounded, the principle of creating a bottleneck is the best one, IMHO. I also wish they'd spent more time on "fight dirty." If there are three guys waiting to stomp on your head if you fall down (or take someone down) then I'd have to think I should be very careful about winding up on the ground.

I love Jiu Jitsu partially because it gives you a way to dissuade an attacker without killing or maiming him. I can use the threat of the break to make him give up, or gently put him to sleep. If your life is at stake do whatever you need to. But if you don't have the option to be gentle then its time to pull out the groin kicks and the eye gouges and the standing breaks you don't normally practice but should have some familiarity with and throwing dirt at their eyes or whatever you can think of to protect yourself.

All IMHO. None of the above applies to supermen with supernatural striking ability to knock out 10 guys in a row with 1 blow apiece or people who seek out gang fights. You are own your own. Good luck.
 
So ... do you think that sober guys taking advantage of semi-conscious drunk chicks should be deemed acceptable?

There's a slight difference between being squeamish about victimless nudity, and not tolerating predatory sexual behavior.

As an FYI there are hardcore feminists that think a woman is incapable of consenting to sex if she's had even one drink. There's a pretty vast gap between that and someone who is too drunk to stand.

Reality is that alcohol lowers inhibitions, which is why so many people drink to relax. Surprise surprise, some people make poor decisions when they've been drinking. Just because she regrets her actions later doesn't mean she wasn't a willing participant at the time, but that's how some people would like it to be.
 
Reality is that alcohol lowers inhibitions, which is why so many people drink to relax. Surprise surprise, some people make poor decisions when they've been drinking. Just because she regrets her actions later doesn't mean she wasn't a willing participant at the time, but that's how some people would like it to be.
There's a pretty big stretch between "some people might like it to be this way [citation needed]" and claiming that's the law as it currently stands, which is what Jinn did.
 
As an FYI there are hardcore feminists that think a woman is incapable of consenting to sex if she's had even one drink. There's a pretty vast gap between that and someone who is too drunk to stand.

Reality is that alcohol lowers inhibitions, which is why so many people drink to relax. Surprise surprise, some people make poor decisions when they've been drinking. Just because she regrets her actions later doesn't mean she wasn't a willing participant at the time, but that's how some people would like it to be.

I don't disagree with you, but Jinn was speaking of legal definitions. I'm pretty sure it isn't illegal to have sex with someone who has had one drink.
 
There's a pretty big stretch between "some people might like it to be this way [citation needed]" and claiming that's the law as it currently stands, which is what Jinn did.

I don't disagree with you, but Jinn was speaking of legal definitions. I'm pretty sure it isn't illegal to have sex with someone who has had one drink.

The legal definition is actually kind of murky as to when intoxication renders someone unable to consent. If you're talking about someone who is intoxicated to the point of unconsciousness, that's an obvious case of rape. OTOH, if you're talking about someone who has clearly been drinking, but gives explicit consent? That'd be a very tough case to make.

For example, Massachusetts courts in 2008 decided that the standard was that the victim must be so mentally and/or physically impaired to the point that they could not consent....and that the defendant could have reasonably known that the victim was too impaired to consent.

So we're talking about cases in which a woman could literally ask for sex, and the guy has to evaluate whether she's too drunk to give consent, likely while being drunk himself. That's not cut & dry by any stretch of the imagination.
 
So we're talking about cases in which a woman could literally ask for sex, and the guy has to evaluate whether she's too drunk to give consent, likely while being drunk himself. That's not cut & dry by any stretch of the imagination.

It's definitely not very cut & dry in the cases where the guy is also very drunk. However, in cases where the guy is more or less sober, understanding when someone is unable to consent should not be very hard.
 
It's definitely not very cut & dry in the cases where the guy is also very drunk. However, in cases where the guy is more or less sober, understanding when someone is unable to consent should not be very hard.

I was stone sober and had a female friend of mine (an alcoholic, though I didn't know it at that time) come by my house and try to initiate doing things to me, and I didn't even realize she had been drinking. My first clue? When she went to use the bathroom, and promptly passed out on the floor.

Some people are pretty amazing at keeping it together when they're blitzed.
 
I was stone sober and had a female friend of mine (an alcoholic, though I didn't know it at that time) come by my house and try to initiate doing things to me, and I didn't even realize she had been drinking. My first clue? When she went to use the bathroom, and promptly passed out on the floor.

Some people are pretty amazing at keeping it together when they're blitzed.

Legally speaking, you would then probably be considered to be in good faith. If anybody else could confirm that she didn't appear drunk off her ass, anyway.
 
Legally speaking, you would then probably be considered to be in good faith. If anybody else could confirm that she didn't appear drunk off her ass, anyway.

It didn't get anywhere before she passed out, so no worries there. The point stands that not every situation is as clear as Michael Cera's hookup scene in Superbad.
 
As a cop if I see this I'm gonna A) let her BF get a few licks in and then B) take you to jail. If I'm off duty I'm gonna kick the crap out of someone, still arrest them and then let local PD take them to jail.

You will A) have a short career B) lose most of your net worth.
 
It's definitely not very cut & dry in the cases where the guy is also very drunk. However, in cases where the guy is more or less sober, understanding when someone is unable to consent should not be very hard.


This assumes that no one is lying. Drunks and sex breeds lies.
 
It didn't get anywhere before she passed out, so no worries there. The point stands that not every situation is as clear as Michael Cera's hookup scene in Superbad.

Nobody will disagree with that. If every legal issue were clear-cut, there'd be no need for lawyers. Still, I'd rather this rule have grey areas, than abolish it and let pseudo date rapists carry on with impunity.
 
Best shot is having good boxing, footwork and wrestling.
 
You have got to love the tangents these threads take. From Rener Gracie describing how to deal with multiple attackers to the law involved with rape when a women is intoxicated.

On an unrelated note, its not as hard as you would think to not get into fights.
 
So ... do you think that sober guys taking advantage of semi-conscious drunk chicks should be deemed acceptable?

First of all, if you are drunk you are still responsible for your actions if you kill someone, if you rape (as in actually rape) someone, rob a bank, say something stupid, do something hilarious, and literally everything else in the world you do.

But if you have sex with someone else they are "raping" you. Who you have sex with is the one and only thing you are not responsible for while you are drunk according to our legal system. So I'm supposed to believe that there is something so inhuman and unearthly about sex that basic and common sense rules of life that apply to literally everything else in the world don't apply to sex? Attitudes like this are what's responsible for the insane hysterics toward human sexuality that I've been talking about.

People in our society throw the word "rape" around all over the place in a way that indicates to me that they have no idea what a serious allegation it is. Giving drunk sex the same label as pinning a 10 y/o girl down to the ground by her throat and pounding her while she's screaming "no" makes a joke out of rape.



Shemhazai said:
There's a slight difference between being squeamish about victimless nudity, and not tolerating predatory sexual behavior.

Of course there is, but that's not the point.

Our astronomical overreaction to victimless nudity illustrates my point about our society's irrational hysterics toward sexuality and my belief is that these hysterics are responsible for (among many, many other things) our excessive and inappropriate use of the words like "rape" and "sexual predator".

These are labels that can ruin a man's life. You believe it's a just reprisal to a man who causes a woman 2-3 minutes of discomfort by slapping her on the ass? That's what I mean by "overreaction". It's like eye-for-an-eye times a billion.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top