In a strict and somewhat limited sense self-defense is physical action, as a response to an attack, aiming at avoiding the enforced situation of violence. This is not a very good definition and here is why.
In the 16th century, duels were common in Europe. The best swordsmen were the superstars of their time. Some of them put down their thoughts in writing and therefore we know today that in a fight for life or death the targets were the head (arteries in the throat) or the chest (heart, liver, lungs, large blood vessels) if one wanted to quickly kill ones opponent. A hit in the foot gave no points.
But above all it was a matter of not being killed or wounded. I live, therefore I won was a common viewpoint.
Let us see self-defense in this way. Then it is a matter of avoiding unnecessary violence, of not being in troubled areas, of not provoking/tempting possible aggressors, to leave a suspicious area, etc. In short better flee than fight.
Great masters of old tried hard to live safely, not to take unnecessary or foolish risks. It was considered shameful to loose ones live in trivial circumstances. Ueshiba sensei, founder of aikido, even went as far as saying that it is a matter of not having any enemies.
OK, but if that cannot be avoided, then what? If I am attacked in spite of all measures of precaution or if someone else is attacked and I must defend that person. What happens then?
Such situations are not duels. They are not competition. There are no rules. They are extremely stressful.
Another human being intend to kill you! It is so dreadful that the flow of blood through the brain is affected. It has been established by new scientific research on bank robbery victims that you can become "petrified", incapable to act, because the restriction of blood flow in your frontal brain lobs literally drains your decision-making capability away.
Your adversary is prepared to violate the strongest taboo we know: to kill another human being, someone of your own species. Are you prepared to use necessary violence in order to survive?
In sexual assaults perpetrator and victim often know each other. Can you imagine using as much violence as possible against someone you know and who normally behaves decently and is perceived by all as a nice person?
We normal humans are handicapped from the outset since we, as opposed to the attacker, have a very high mental threshold against using violence and also we must not be so scared that we become passive.
An attack may come suddenly without warning, or after a longer or shorter buildup period. If we are attacked and respond to the attack with a defensive move we are already in an inferior position since it is better from a tactics point of view to attack then to defend.
Do not believe in the myths spread about Japanese sword fighters finding that he who attacked lost and that it was better to wait out the attack in order to use an opening in the attack for a defense. Miyamoto Musashi, one of the finest swordsmen of all time with more than 60 duel victories writes in his book Gorin No Sho about utsu, to consciously deal a blow, and about ataru, to preconsciously deal a blow: To ataru … is done so as to be able to utsu afterward. Musashi actively created the opening he needed for dealing the fatal blow.
We realize that self-defense is an unfortunate name since it leads our thoughts to fend off, block, dodge, parry, deflect, etc, when in reality there is a case of self-attack.
An effective self-defense system must be.
1. Adaptive so that it can be adjusted to the severity of the situation.
2. It must have techniques that can be used by so called automatic action if suddenly and unexpectedly attacked.
3. An effective self-defense system must allow, and this is important, a preemptive attack. That is to attack first and so forcefully that there is no need for a follow up.
next >
