Monday, December 8, 2014

The Truth About Womens' Perception of Men Fighting

The vast majority of women claim to generally be appalled by violence.  As many as 80% of  women respondents say that violence between men is a turn off, leaving just one in five as actually admitting they are turned on by such confrontations.  Yet, non-scientific anonymous polling suggests that the number of women who are actually thrilled or turned on by male on male violence could be as high as 70% of the female population.  So where does the truth lie?

A recent example of behavior that is incongruous with the dainty, "we girls don't like your violence" stance is the release of the song, "Prizefighter," sung by Trisha Yearwood, featuring Kelly Clarkson on vocals (both pictured).  Here's just a sample of the lyrics:

"Here you are face to face, with you greatest test of faith
It lookin’ good but you wouldn’t run even if you could
Cause you know whats on the line, it’s win or lose, do or die
Every swing’s coming fast and the punches knock you back.

When you hit the ground, you find your wings
You go one more round when that bell rings
They say you’re done, but here you come
You’re a hammer hittin’, spittin’ fire, PrizeFighter
When you’re sweating from the fear, you look it the eye
Turn the sound of defeat into your battle cry
Stakes are down, you’re outta luck
Look at you, smiling with a shiner, standing higher

When you see ‘em shake their heads, that’s when you start seein’ red
From your head down to your toes, you find your glory, strength and hope
Come on, come on, comeback kid show ‘em how you never quit
You’re gonna rise from the pain, like a hurricane."

This song was principally written by two lovely ladies, Jessi Alexander and Sarah Buxton (both pictured).  To be sure, the song is metaphorically about celebration of the never-give-up spirit.  But it just as well romanticizes the concept of the man who gets in the ring to fight another man, and the fortitude to fight the other guy to the last.  These ladies could have chosen other examples through which to celebrate the indomitable spirit they wished to convey, but instead, their choice was a man who is a prizefighter.  Even if it is just in the subconscious realm, women still greatly admire the man who fights in the ring, endures the pain, and faces down his enemy.  The "knight in shining armor" remains a viable and understood concept in the minds of women today, even though that expression harkens back to a much more violent time, some 400 or more years ago.

And what was society's response to this song?  It reached as high as number 33 on the Billboard 200, peaked at 42 on the Billboard Country Airplay chart and gave Ms. Yearwood the number 7 country album in the nation, in terms of sales, for the last 3 weeks.  In other words, the American society generally approved of this feminine glorification of the man who is a prizefighter.

According to demographics provided by audience studies, about 35% of all fans of MMA fighting are women.  More than 15% of the fans of boxing, wrestling and hockey are women, as well.  Women make up an astounding percentage of the fan bases for some very violent movies, like Gladiator, 300, Fight Club and Never Back Down, as well as a majority of the audiences for Starz' most gruesome series, Spartacus, and HBO's Game of Thrones.  Untold thousands of women have "liked" extremely violent material on Facebook, including Felony Fights, Bloody Street Fights, The Craziest Fights, etc.  

Certainly, there is a great deal of difference between seeing men fight in real life and watching similar violent activities on TV, a computer monitor or a movie screen.  But those are all inventions of the last 75 years.  Seeing violence from this distant vantage point sanitizes the affair of any real world consequences, making it more "safe" for women to watch.  Before that, many romantic novels consisted of stories where men were brought into conflict over the love of the main female character. And before that, well, you just had to see or hear about a real life fight in order to get your fix.  Given the history of mankind, there was often plenty of violence for them to watch or hear about.

Society has taught since Victorian times that a lady does not countenance such ruffianism. In part, conflict leads to instability and upheaval; something most of us do not want in our lives.  And so, today, many women have been trained out of their natural desire to watch men in conflict with other men, whether in the normative sense or out of fear of chaos.  Many others repress their natural desires on the subject to appear conformist with such norms, and some will sheepishly conceal their desire without repression.  Finally, there is that 20%, one in five, that unabashedly tell the world that they get off on watching men fight.

As usual, the truth lies somewhere in between.  It is significantly more than the 20% who admit it.  It is significantly less than "all."  Judging by external factors that indicate an interest in watching violence, or agreeing in the glorification of violence, it is fair to estimate that anywhere from one-third to one-half of women actually enjoy being a spectator to a genuine "man vs. man" fight.  Factors such as the men involved, the type of fighting, the potential consequences, the reason behind the conflict and more will dictate whether the particular woman finds the experience to be thrilling, or horrifying.  But generally speaking, about half of women will get a thrill out of male on male violence, whether they admit it or not.

You can see Ms. Yearwood perform the song Prizefighter here: 


  1. I think this analysis is fairly accurate in saying that as much as 50% of all women love violence, or even men on men violence, like fist fighting or war. I might even estimate myself that the percentage of all women who love violence or are thrilled/aroused by it may be as high as 60 to 65 percent in reality. As you know ALL WOMEN LIE, so you know to never listen or pay any attention to what women or girls say, but instead (watch what women/girls do). Always watch women's eyes and faces to see what they are watching, (if there is a fight or conflict nearby), or even the simple mention or announcement of a (fight or conflict that is maybe just started or is happening nearby or outside from where you and her are). Watch her eyes. Do they seem to open wide with excitement or light up? Study her (expression on her face). (Is there a slight smile) as if she is imagining or anticipating excitement of thrilling violence?

    1. I think that will tell you everything you want to know.

    2. Also, you study her facial expressions, does her face have an angelic glow? LOOK INTO HER EYES. Can you see that old wicked thrilling glow of bloodlust? Look for any or all of these signs, because that will tell you what you want to know! !...``Mmmmm".

  2. I agree with Jon - there are so many little giveaways in her expression when she senses/suspects MvM violence. A sudden gleam to the eyes, a little excited breathlessness when she speaks of the occurrence. Look for it, you will find it. Better still, subtlety bring up the subject in an innocent way and draw her out and before she can conceal her emotions you will get that brief insight into her true desires and feelings towards male on male competition. It is such a turn-on to do this to them byetheway.

  3. A good example of how the above tactic can be used is mentioned on the forum here. Posted by Gladius70 on 19/05/12, is goes:

    "Fantasy is nice but to me the hottest things ever have been actually seeing women enjoying violence or having them admit to you that they love it and they would love nothing more than two gladiators fighting over them or a pair of duellists wanting them.

    On the subject of gladiators, I remember well the occasion of taking a married female friend to the British Museum. In the Roman Britain section there is a display of gladiator helmets and weapons. As we looked at them I saw my opportunity and I asked whether she would have liked to have seen real gladiators? There was no hesitation, not a moment 'Oh Yes' she replied 'Strong sweaty men fighting it out, I'd love to watch that' But she added '...not the animals though...she wouldn't want to watch the animals being killed.' It did amuse me but, it was also fighting turned her on...and if it was to the death so much the better. Our affair started in the gladiator part of the British Museum. I gave her a cuddle in my aroused state and we had clearly found our inner fire as we started kissing passionately for the first time right there."

  4. You may be referring to, inter alia, the non-scientific poll As of today it stands at 75% for sexual arousal for fair victories, with a further 13% that likes it, so make it 88%. Arousal on what in short can be regarded as bullying, is at 47% with an additional 11% liking it , just short of 60%.
    Repulsion plays virtually no role in fair fights and a small one in bullying. I think considerably more than half of women are thrilled by of male on male violence in reality. Agreed, the sample in the poll is small, but if 20% does not even beat about the bush in a reliable poll, that is also an indication that the real figure is rather higher than lower.

    There are other Misterpoll polls in this vein. Once again, it is not scientific and fantasy can also play a role. However, it confirms that women on a primal level like to see dominance and brutality. Fairness play no role. It does not matter if a hefty 6’6 hunk is dominating a 13 year old underweight boy who did not look for the trouble. Dominant men may do what they like. Bullying serves purposes like preventing harassment from young horny boys and weakling men. They should be broken in pro-actively. However, what is remarkable is that sometimes their boyfriends or brothers or who-ever are the sufferers. This does not change anything at all. All that counts is the sight of a dominant man torturing and humiliating another. The clits and tits stand at attention and the pussy juices flow. It may all be in fantasy, but some cases may be real.

    There were various periods in history. In the cavemen era it worked more or less like with animals. The strong men mated and the weakling not. It may have happened that mating took place immediately after a fight, alongside a loser that tried to come to consciousness and had to endure the sight of the finishing. That is if he survived at all. Then came civilisation and law. There were however still remarkable violence and legal fighting to the death. Prudery versus licentiousness also changed through the centuries. During the Roman era extreme cruelty took place in arenas. Full, real copulation were staged in dramas. There were less of that in the dark ages, but the violence did not actually subsided. Later there were sex-crazed kings with mistresses. This was somewhat frowned upon, but on the other hand was institutionalized. If you were a king, you obeyed nobody. In the 19th century there was prudery again, which came to an end when the independent flappers of the 1920s lifted the skirts. Clothing became skimpier than ever since the troglodyte days, when little was worn and even then was taken of at will, in front of anyone.

    Now g-strings and nothing else are acceptable on beaches, full nudity too. But where is the violence? Why do you not see young muscular studs competing for girls on beaches? Good question. Maybe too much civilisation and retro-prudery. It shifted to the private room. Otherwise fighting take place in backstreets, with some actual unwanted effects, or in combat rings, where safety and rules spoils the fun. You seldom see a KO and a winner is not allowed to rub his victory in for one moment. Apart from WWE which is probably the best substitute, but we knows it is so fake.

  5. More hardcore sexualiized violence and bloodshed are moved to the movies. It is still highly simulated. There is this one scene where the female lead character laughs about a fight taking place near her. It is the most open portrayal of enjoyment I have ever seen. Yet the fight is in the form of projections of swinging weapons in the background.

    Why are violent movies involving women enjoying it, almost always historical? The same goes for my favourite – bodice rippers or romantisized rape. It is part of the said sanitation process. Lets put it behind us. It does not happen any more. We are no longer turned on by violence and dominant men. How wrong!

    The human stays an animal. We have mannerisms like dressing smartly to boxing rings and violent stage or movie productions . Deep down, it is the survival of the fittest, the strong man dominating the weak and the female admiring it.

    1. You're right about that. No matter how civilized society thinks it can become, and no matter how many laws da gub'ment wants to make to try to regulate or control human behavior, deep down in all our hearts, we humans will always be primitive ANIMALS

  6. I tried that subtle drawing out once with a very sexy, somewhat older married woman when the time presented. I asked if she or women she knows, likes fighting. Her answer was somewhat undecided, it depends on circumstances she said. She did however mention and giggled about a situation where her husband refused to fight. She did not call him a coward, neither supported his decision. Then I mentioned the schoolboy pinning habit, mentioning also that I saw one case of an adult on a boy. That she said is immature, but neither condemned it in strong terms. I could not go as far as to say what really happened. The adult man was very big. The boy of about 14 or 15 was also big for his age but no match. I could not mention that the big man rode the boy for several minutes and it was for sure a matter of pain and humiliation, though the boy tried to be brave and fought back the tears. Some schoolboy pins are mild. When the hurting stopped the big guy still sat on the boy for a minute or so, gloating arrogantly. I think this was a matter of the pre-emptive putting new of new entrants to the fucking game, in place in time. The boy was pretty, big for his age, already showing some muscle. Unfortunately no girls were present at the scene, but it was still in the open where anyone could arrive. In my naivety I would have thought the said woman would have been more anti-violence given her high level of education. But yes, I should have known by then, it does not work like that.

  7. I have this hot colleague, let us anonimize her as Suzy. She once paged through a magazine during teatime. She seemed rather bored and paged through fast. Until she reached an article on MMA. There was a picture of a man just defeated, the winner sat on top of him. I already read the magazine and thought it rather inappropriate to show such a picture in a family magazine with a children's section elsewhere, so children would see it too. This made Suzy pause, she read the article entirely. She did not comment and it was long ago, but I thought I saw a gleam in her eye and a mouth slightly upturned in one corner. As sadistic smile? Further she had her forefinger on her lip but was not about to wet it to turn a page. The finger was actually slightly in her mouth. Imitating a penetration as if she longed for it?

  8. Suzy had two other hot friends coming to tea often, Lina and Carol. Lina was graduated but some of her work included handling animals. For that they wore a sleeveless overall with long slits under the arm. The females usually wore a t-shirt under the overall, the men usually not, neither did Lina. Lina's teatime chair was situated sideways to mine. Her breasts were small, and with her wide gasping overall I often had a view as if she had nothing on, apart from the bra of course. I could simultaneously see the cups and her back and the straps. The bras were dainty and sheer. Anyway I am sidetracked. Suzy on some weekends came in with Lina and helped her taking care of the animals (feeding, inspecting for health etc.) A dog pinned another and Suzy remarked "you nasty bully!" Oh that is natural, Lina said, and gave her a whole lecture on dominance and submission in nature. Her interest was wildlife, she gave many examples. Conservation ethics is strange. An animal will be helped or put out if its injury was caused by humans. If an animal was crippled and dying by predators or a victorious opponent, he was left to its own devices even if tit took hours to die. Suzy told me much about that the next Monday.

    On another day Carol was present. Suzy had a problem in that she had to take in a friend's tomcat, she already had one. One of them would have to submit to the other. After hissing and fighting, the old cat went lying down in submission. She explained again the principle of dominance and about submission postures. Dogs turn on their backs. Carol, a very horny and naughty girl, said she knows the principle and rather coldly said "males must sort out each other". Suzy then went on to mention that females similarly go lying down to show surrender to males. Carol all of a sudden laughed "yes, like us, we go lying on our backs and open our legs!" She then waved a finger at me and said "you should not listen, cover your ears". I don't know if I blushed, but by then I discreetly lowered my arms and folded my hands over my crotch. The whole dominance thing so openly discussed by them, already turned me on. I hardly needed pump action, my full hard-on pressing against my underpants was good enough to make me cum. I said to Carol that she is very forward, she laughed harder and got up "let me leave before I said something worse". Teatime was up anyway otherwise she would have stayed. Suzy looked highly amused but did not say anything about her poor boss's plight. When she also got up I made a beeline to the toilet where I noticed a huge wet precum spot right through to my upper pants. I think Suzy anyway noticed that and the remnant of the erection. I had to stay sitting in my office for a long time for the upper spot to fade. I had to deal with a wet jockey for the rest of the day, like the girls on the internet reporting needing to change panties after seeing a man crushing another.

  9. The good old young days... I later read up a lot on dominance in humans, including non-violent expression. Dominant men sit with their legs wide open. They display their genitals even if covered. So does dominant and / or horny women. These 3 are not really domineering, but also do not take nonsense. All 3 also sat with their legs open when wearing pants, they seldom wore skirts. However both Suzy and Carol had on occasions mini-skirts on and I had glimpses of their panties, they simply did not care. They loved sitting crossed legged, barefooted and whole bodied on chairs. I once found them all 3 sitting like that, chattering like mad. Suzy is rather tall and up to today can put herself like that on a typist chair! She is extremely supple. Otherwise with legs dangling down, they and other women wit such personalities sit with their legs as wide open as possible regardless of societal frowning. Suzy with her suppleness occasionally sit almost with her legs at 180 degrees. Not always but I noticed that when a hunky male was present... and she is long married now!

  10. I have gone through my notes and found this poll which I saved, but it is no longer on the internet I am afraid.

    “Do you think it's cruel for the stronger fighter, to make a weaker guy submit with a hold where the loser can't take the pain, but can't do anything about it?”

    Fifty three percent agree about the cruelty factor, but “still like to see it”, 13% feel “strong boys should be able to do whatever they want to weaker boys”, 13% think it is not cruel, leaving only 20% that think it is wrong.

    This poll (let us call it no 2) is blind re fair dominance vs bullying. Yet “strong boys … do whatever they want to weaker boys” implies bullying as well. Let us read between the lines and compare it with the other one (no 1).

    Agreeing that it is cruel shows some conscience factor. This is however neutralized. Similarly the ones that voted “unfair” in Poll 1 may have done it for ethical reasons. Some of them may still find themselves highly randy from such an observation.

    Taking it from the other side, repulsion. In Poll 1 33% are against bullying, 11% unqualified and in strong terms. Some 22% only said it is unfair, which we have just said does not necessarily exclude admiration for unfair triumph. Lets say half of those are also fully opposed to it and that correlates with Poll 2 at around 20%. Remarkably low.

    If you correlate the 50% who relishes harsh painful holds with the shameless 50% who have no hang-ups about being aroused by bullying, you get the same picture. Add to that the “ I like it” in poll 1 and “strong boys should be able to do whatever they want to weaker boys” you arrive again at some 65%.

    I have to look for the other polls which actually have even a more unsympathetic slant for losers, if I remember correctly.

  11. Yes!!...I know what you're referring to. You're talking about MR. POLL website. Yes,..I have seen and read da polls you are referring to here. They got some good polls at (Mr.Poll). Ha, Ha.

  12. Yes, Jon, this is from Misterpoll. I have a good collection printed once for reference. I revisit them now. BTW, the girl appearing on the upper right of this article looks like Minki van der Weshthuizen, the model. Her previous husband was knocked down in front of her, but I have no further information. They divorced a while afterwards and she is now married to a rugby player, sought after manly men.

  13. The poll: Observing a fight - gender differences. retrieved 6 Jan 2015.

    Good insights are gained because the question is stated to both genders alongside each other. However, since the available percentage score is divided between both genders, one has to multiply by 2 to calculate each gender’s opinion to 100% A zero vote from one gender seems to skew the picture however.

    On “Do you feel bad for the loser” and option “Yes, it is horrible to be in pain and humiliating to lose”, females voted, in effect, confirmation by 22%. No girl voted “I like watching someone's misery while it happens, but will feel bad afterwards”. The last option : “Not at all - the law of the jungle dictates that there will be losers and winners” is in effect 68%. Unlike with the males, it is either sympathy or a remorseless lack of it. These stats again confirm broadly what was found in polls 1 and 2.

    At the question, “at the end of the fight” there is not much support by girls for options other than “ the winner should torture and humiliate the loser mercilessly and at length”. That is 46%. Being magnanimous to the loser is at 18%, again the almost 20%. However, compare the torture with the previous option, just a rub-in, at only 8%. The middle ground, just verbal humiliation, again has no votes.

    “In the days after the fight:” Leaving the loser alone, the dom/sub relationship has been established, has 32% support, higher than the usual trend of around 20%. It is significant that it is less than half of the male view of 68%. Forty percent of females wants the winner to take the loser down again and repeat the process as often as he likes. The dominance must be re-confrmed. A decisive outcome at the first fight is not enough for these girls. At least it is not so much different to those that believe once was enough. The quest for further takedowns is however twice that what men believe should be practiced.

    The last question “When a winner starts to hurt the loser cruelly, what will you do?” is interesting. Combat ethics determine that it should not be done. If the one combatant communicates submission, it should stop there. Twenty two percent of girls demand an end to the cruelty (not much pleading from their side). The middle ground for a change provide valuable information. Girls are not really in a position to break up fights, hence zero. The low 16% passive onlookers are not in line with the general perception, or that I at least, have. Our lovelies again do not disappoint at 44% for “Encourage the winner to hurt him even harder”.

    This poll confirms again that the “nice” girls are at 20%, maybe a maximum of 25% or a quarter of the population. The belief in a law of the jungle or natural dominance is almost 70%, but let us trim it down to 65% to be line with the other polls. The questions further down are of a more extreme nature, so one can understand the lower, in the 40% range, for the cruelest option. It is still remarkably high.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...