From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: Model Mugging (long)
Organization: Twilight Zone
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:25:51 GMT

In article <12510007@hplsla.hp.com> natalies@hplsla.hp.com (Natalie Schuchard) writes:
>
>Interest has been expressed for the Model Mugging classes,
>this list was compiled in 1990 so I don't know how up to date 
>it is,  but here it is.
>                 Natalie
>
	[snip]
>
>Model Mugging is a self defense and empowerment course designed to 
>provide women with a knock-out defense against a single unarmed assailant. 

	So I asume that it may not be very effective against a single armed
	assailant or multiple assailants.  Rapists are very often armed.
	That's one mark against.

>Model Mugging is different from most other self defense courses in some 
>important ways.
>
>- Model Mugging trains women in life-like, full-force rape scenarios, the
>women's bodies are trained to learn and remember the feel of delivering
>knock-out blows. 

	Could you explain what this means, exactly?

>Women fight *full-force* against the "model mugger" (a male instructor in a 
>protective suit). The body is taught to remember
>these techniques, like riding a bicycle, the body doesn't forget. It does
>not require constant practice to remain effective.

	This is begining to appear as dangerously unsound, but let's suspend
	disbelief for a bit longer...
>
>- M.M. concentrates on ground defenses, since virtually all rape victims
>end up on the ground. This works for the woman's advantage, since the 
>ground is her strongest position if she knows how to use it. 

	This can be quite correct, but is not necessarily so.

>In a woman's 
>body, her strength is concentrated in her hips (as opposed to the upper 
>body in a man.)

	This is completely false.  A man's greatest strength also issues from
	the hips.  They just tend to also have greater upper body strength,
	on the average.  It could come as a rather unpleasant surprise to some
	poor girl that tried to use this in a less than proficient way against
	a male that also knew how to play the same game.  It sounds like MM 
	training counts on the statistical probability that a man will not know
	how to fight from the hip.  This is valid, but the student should be 
	made well aware that this could backfire on them.  Are they made aware
	of this posibility?
>
>- Model Mugging also trains a woman's mind. Women are taught how *not*
>to be victims. They are taught that fear and anger can be focused and
>channeled to her advantage, they need not paralyze her. She is taught
>that she has the right and the choice to fight an attacker and that
>she has the power to win.

	This is very valuable IMO, but are they given exercises that they can 
	do on their own after the seminar is over?  As my poor memory grinds
	and clanks along, I seem to recall that this course is no more than
	a few weeks long.  In a few weeks I doubt that a person that has spent 
	a lifetime thinking like a victim can break such an unfortunate set of
	habits.  This is a very good start, but is not sufficient in itself
	and I don't think it does anyone any good to fill someone's head with
	many lofty and optimistic ideas and perhaps even the misleading
	impression that they are now sufficiently transformed such that they
	are reasonably equipped to survive what could well be a life and death
	struggle with another person.  Are the students made aware of the
	extreme limitations of such a course?
	
>- Any able-bodied woman can learn these techniques.
>
>- Model Mugging asks its graduates to report back to them if they are
>ever attacked. Of the women who have reported back to M.M. of attacks,
>all those who chose to fight, knocked out their attackers. Some of 
>these women had taken the class up to eight years before they were 
>attacked. You need not have been recently trained to be effective!

	Of those who called, how many trained in other fighting arts?
	How many were in truly serious attacks?  What I mean by this
	is that a rapist may not be hell bent on getting what he wants.
	Those half baked atttempts are relatively easy to handle.  If
	a rapist is looking for and expecting something easy, I can see
	them being easily defeated by a very determined and pissed off
	defender, even if she has zero training.  With some training I
	can see the stupid bastard getting what he deserves and more.
	But in the case where a rapist is quite hell bent and physically
	capable of successful implemetation, I see great problems for
	any woman that is not properly equipped to deal with such a
	situation.  Fighting back against such a person when your repertoire
	of techniques is not well honed could get you real dead in a hurry.
	Rapist gets pissed and stops caring whether or not he kills you.
	This gets real dangerous real fast, and in such situations you will
	want to have training that will not fail you.  I am not by any means
	convinced that this can be provided by MM, given the time limitations,
	though it sounds like it could be a good place to start.

	I also wonder how many victims who were unsuccessful failed to
	make contact.  Women generally do not like broadcasting such things
	to anyone.  It seems they'd rather forget about it as quickly as
	possible and get on with their lives.  Can't blame `em either.
	These statistics don't really say that much.

>The few women who chose not to fight reported minimal after-rape trauma.

	Is this attributable to the training?  That would be nice (so to speak)

>Choosing not to fight is always an option. But it is the woman's
>choice, which makes the difference.

	It still is not clear to me that MM really gives the woman the
	actual choice, as opposed to a REAL choice, i.e. choice backed
	up by effective power.
>
	[snip]
>
>- Knowing when and how to fight back can be the difference between life
>and death, between being raped and not being raped. 

	This sounds like the single most valuable ability that MM can
	give to it's students.  It also sounds like the one that is
	most likely to be effectively deliverable.  Very valuable IMO.

>I have taken the class, and I am confidant now that if I choose to fight 
>an attacker, I could knock him out. 

	What about against a trained fighter?  Please forgive me if my tone
	is a bit strong here, but I know many people that, if they were
	rapists, would not only be hard to knock out, but could kill you
	VERY easily and in short order if you were to get them pissed off
	enough.  I'm not trying to piss on your parade, but I think you
	are best served if you are made aware that there are some folks out
	there that you are not going to to be able to mess around with unless
	you are either very well trained or very lucky.  Just be aware for your
	own sake.

>This does not mean that I think I
>am invincible, that is unrealistic. There are indeed situations where I
>might very well choose not to fight in order to survive. I trust myself
>to make that decision and if I choose to fight, I trust that I can knock
>the attacker out and avoid being sexually assaulted.

	Ah! Clarification.  Thank you.

	I don't know much of anything about MM, but I *do* know a fair bit 
	about combat.  Physical combat is no joking matter and it can get
	real messy and dangerous, especially if you try to do the Bruce Lee
	when you don't really know how.  What worries me about courses such as 
	MM is the potential for giving misleading impressions as to how well 
	the student can hope to fare not only on the average, but in the 
	boundary cases as well.  I guess when you have seen so many charlatans
	peddling shit that has probably gotten more than a few persons killed,
	you tend to view anything that could even possibly be snake oil with
	a very cautious eye.

	If you have anything definitive about some of the questions that I've
	posed here, I would be sincerely interested in hearing them.

	-Andy V.
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts