3 ms·

Well... the school prohibits it. The law actually allows for two combatants to engage in mutually agreed combat as long as they don't kill each other. That's co

Well... the school prohibits it. The law actually allows for two combatants to engage in mutually agreed combat as long as they don't kill each other. That's completely legal.

Doxin 3y ago
I feel like sticking roughousing under "combat" is part of the problem
- dumpsterdiver 3y ago
  Maybe I'm an outlier, but I don't think so... during my teenage years my friends and I were pretty much constantly engaged in friendly combat. I'm talking weak body shots, Charlie horses, red bellies, that kind of thing. All in good fun, but we were absolutely engaged in combat. One of my fondest memories from my teenage years is visiting my older friends John and Kenny (who were only my friends because they used to babysit me), and Kenny put me into an iron cross and called everyone in to laugh at me and give me a red belly. Honestly, it was a bonding experience.
  - mnsc 3y ago
    Can you imagine another man that gets that kinda of abuse as a boy and doesn't look back on it as a fond memory?
    - dumpsterdiver 3y ago
      I mean I considered it a privilege, so yeah I can, haha. I would probably do it again. You know how they say it's the journey that matters, not the destination? It's kind of the same when you're struggling to escape from an iron cross. It doesn't matter that your stomach is being mercilessly slapped and everyone is laughing. That's just the destination. What matters is the bonding experience that was shared as I futilely struggled against Kenny's much larger body.
    - lucaspm98 3y ago
      That's the whole point, boys (especially but not exclusively) need to test risk/reward, physical limitations, and social power dynamics when the stakes are still small. Otherwise men will learn these lessons much more painfully and potentially permanently on a dimly lit street at 3 AM, for example. "Protecting" boys from their conflict resolution while allowing girl's preferred conflict resolution will only stunt their relative development.

Well... the school prohibits it. The law actually allows for two combatants to engage in mutually agreed combat as long as they don't kill each other. That's completely legal.

Doxin 3y ago

I feel like sticking roughousing under "combat" is part of the problem

dumpsterdiver 3y ago
Maybe I'm an outlier, but I don't think so... during my teenage years my friends and I were pretty much constantly engaged in friendly combat. I'm talking weak body shots, Charlie horses, red bellies, that kind of thing. All in good fun, but we were absolutely engaged in combat. One of my fondest memories from my teenage years is visiting my older friends John and Kenny (who were only my friends because they used to babysit me), and Kenny put me into an iron cross and called everyone in to laugh at me and give me a red belly. Honestly, it was a bonding experience.
- mnsc 3y ago
  Can you imagine another man that gets that kinda of abuse as a boy and doesn't look back on it as a fond memory?
  - dumpsterdiver 3y ago
    I mean I considered it a privilege, so yeah I can, haha. I would probably do it again. You know how they say it's the journey that matters, not the destination? It's kind of the same when you're struggling to escape from an iron cross. It doesn't matter that your stomach is being mercilessly slapped and everyone is laughing. That's just the destination. What matters is the bonding experience that was shared as I futilely struggled against Kenny's much larger body.
  - lucaspm98 3y ago
    That's the whole point, boys (especially but not exclusively) need to test risk/reward, physical limitations, and social power dynamics when the stakes are still small. Otherwise men will learn these lessons much more painfully and potentially permanently on a dimly lit street at 3 AM, for example. "Protecting" boys from their conflict resolution while allowing girl's preferred conflict resolution will only stunt their relative development.