Eso pasa por subestimar el poder de combate y la fuerza de las chicas. Muchas de ellas tienen una técnica depuradísima y una gran fuerza física que los chicos no se imaginan.
Jack The Ripper Ok, but you're missing something. That kind of men has mental disorders. Could be more strong but not smart so a trained woman still having more chances than a regular one. She will not beat him but willl have more resources to escape.
Jack Donovan once wrote: A woman has much to gain and very little to lose by competing with a man who she thinks she can beat. No one will think her less of a woman for losing, because womanhood has nothing to do with competing with men. But if she beats a man, it will be a triumph of David over Goliath. Men will cheer her on, because in squaring off with a man she shows courage, and everyone loves an underdog. But what does the man have to gain? He shows no courage by entering the ring with a woman. He is expected to win. If he does, his victory is shallow and unsavory. He gains no honor in beating a woman-the idea is offensive even to a modern man’s vestigial sense of chivalry. Imagine the sportscaster shouting about how he “really slaughtered her.” How ignoble! And if he loses, the loss is so much more humiliating. While her womanhood is never in question, his masculinity is on the line. He ends up looking like a poor specimen of manhood. Women won’t respect him, and men will be ashamed to be associated with him. He would be better loved by all for cheating and obviously throwing the fight, or for graciously bowing out. To give maximum effort and be bested by a woman is emasculating, no two ways about it. The same rules simply don’t apply. “Apples and oranges.”
Jack Donovan once wrote: (A woman has much to gain and very little to lose by competing with a man who she thinks she can beat. No one will think her less of a woman for losing, because womanhood has nothing to do with competing with men. But if she beats a man, it will be a triumph of David over Goliath. Men will cheer her on, because in squaring off with a man she shows courage, and everyone loves an underdog. But what does the man have to gain? He shows no courage by entering the ring with a woman. He is expected to win. If he does, his victory is shallow and unsavory. He gains no honor in beating a woman-the idea is offensive even to a modern man’s vestigial sense of chivalry. Imagine the sportscaster shouting about how he “really slaughtered her.” How ignoble! And if he loses, the loss is so much more humiliating. While her womanhood is never in question, his masculinity is on the line. He ends up looking like a poor specimen of manhood. Women won’t respect him, and men will be ashamed to be associated with him. He would be better loved by all for cheating and obviously throwing the fight, or for graciously bowing out. To give maximum effort and be bested by a woman is emasculating, no two ways about it. The same rules simply don’t apply. “Apples and oranges.”)
![YoungBoy Never Broke Again - Missing Everything [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dTYeMZGzOzw/mqdefault.jpg)
the guy was taking it so easy on her, but nice work tho
Eso pasa por subestimar el poder de combate y la fuerza de las chicas. Muchas de ellas tienen una técnica depuradísima y una gran fuerza física que los chicos no se imaginan.
guys are so much stronger that girls
no shit sherlock... Anyway, a girl with some training will get more chances to escape from a rapist. That is the point. Unless the rapist be bruce lee
InamberI I mean if he's tryna kill her then rape her I doubt any women will have a chance. If the guy ain't some junky he'll succeed
Jack The Ripper
Ok, but you're missing something. That kind of men has mental disorders. Could be more strong but not smart so a trained woman still having more chances than a regular one. She will not beat him but willl have more resources to escape.
InamberI Nah
Jack The Ripper But it doesn't matter. If she's trained and he's not, bad result for him. That simple.
Jack Donovan
once wrote: A woman has much to gain and very little to lose by competing with
a man who she thinks she can beat. No one will think her less of a woman for
losing, because womanhood has nothing to do with competing with men. But if she
beats a man, it will be a triumph of David over Goliath. Men will cheer her on,
because in squaring off with a man she shows courage, and everyone loves an
underdog. But what does the man have to gain? He shows no courage by entering
the ring with a woman. He is expected to win. If he does, his victory is
shallow and unsavory. He gains no honor in beating a woman-the idea is
offensive even to a modern man’s vestigial sense of chivalry. Imagine the
sportscaster shouting about how he “really slaughtered her.” How ignoble! And
if he loses, the loss is so much more humiliating. While her womanhood is never
in question, his masculinity is on the line. He ends up looking like a poor
specimen of manhood. Women won’t respect him, and men will be ashamed to be
associated with him. He would be better loved by all for cheating and obviously
throwing the fight, or for graciously bowing out. To give maximum effort and be
bested by a woman is emasculating, no two ways about it. The same rules simply
don’t apply. “Apples and oranges.”
Why are you repeating the same comment you made four years ago ?
@@jayachandran.a I was not aware that my reply had been repeated. But if it was it is because it is still true. and relevant.
@@etillemanunya6338what are you on about?? There's no shame in losing....his respect is the same as that of a girl.... everybody wins and loses
Lucky boy. Ariana is gorgeous!!!
So girl who wrestles beats boy who doesn't and your line is aways a male putdown really proud huh
It's just a way to push their narrative
what belt is she
wow that boy is so small
Nice.
No excuses, she beat him
Jack Donovan once wrote:
(A woman has much to gain and very little to lose by competing with a man who she thinks she can beat. No one will think her less of a woman for losing, because womanhood has nothing to do with competing with men. But if she beats a man, it will be a triumph of David over Goliath. Men will cheer her on, because in squaring off with a man she shows courage, and everyone loves an underdog.
But what does the man have to gain? He shows no courage by entering the ring with a woman. He is expected to win. If he does, his victory is shallow and unsavory. He gains no honor in beating a woman-the idea is offensive even to a modern man’s vestigial sense of chivalry. Imagine the sportscaster shouting about how he “really slaughtered her.” How ignoble!
And if he loses, the loss is so much more humiliating. While her womanhood is never in question, his masculinity is on the line. He ends up looking like a poor specimen of manhood. Women won’t respect him, and men will be ashamed to be associated with him. He would be better loved by all for cheating and obviously throwing the fight, or for graciously bowing out. To give maximum effort and be bested by a woman is emasculating, no two ways about it. The same rules simply don’t apply. “Apples and oranges.”)