[thunk]

Technique? Adult supervision? Fitness? Safety? Proper size matching? You've misunderstood the point.

Sure, they sound melodramatic, cheesy and sentimental talking about their fight club. But at least they're out there doing it, venting, and participating in some mostly rules-free shenanigans.

And "sexually charged" is the condescending weenie's way of simultaneously saying the participants are closeted homosexuals, and that being gay is a bad thing.

Naysayers manage to anger me and tire me out, all at the same time.

[alinajaf]

> But at least they're out there doing it, venting, and participating in some mostly rules-free shenanigans.

This is unnecessarily dangerous. You can go to a Muay Thai class, train up for a few months and kick three shades of shit out of each other if you want to. The difference is that with experienced teachers who will show you how to avoid injuries, the likelihood of serious accidents goes down.

Exposing yourself to unnecessary risk when you have safe alternatives isn't manly, it's stupid.

> ...participants are closeted homosexuals, and that being gay is a bad thing.

No one said being gay was a bad thing. Repressing gay feelings and letting them out through violence on the other hand isn't so great IMO.

[thunk]

> Exposing yourself to unnecessary risk when you have safe alternatives isn't manly, it's stupid.

Sometimes it's OK to just be stupid, and uneducatedly kick the shit out of each other, as long as cries of "Uncle" are respected. The lack of framework and authority is important for some types of catharsis.

> Repressing gay feelings and letting them out through violence on the other hand isn't so great IMO.

My point is that whenever guys roughhouse, some chronic non-participant will always call it homoeroticism, and since that sounds like a good, intellectual reason to justify their nonparticipation, other bystanders will smugly agree. It's a cheap jab.

[true_religion]

The likelihood of serious accidents goes down, but it doesn't go down to zero.

So choosing a no-rules barred fight club versus a boxing ring is a matter of line drawing, and judgement calls.

Many people draw the line at no fighting at all, and call all boxers "stupid". Is that fair? And if it isn't, why is it fair for you to call Fight Clubbers stupid simply because they're willing to expose themselves to more risk than you?

Fight Club isn't a direct equivalent of Boxing/Muy Thai/etc. with merely added risk of injury.

[prawn]

"Exposing yourself to unnecessary risk when you have safe alternatives isn't manly, it's stupid."

Free climbing a rock face vs taking the stairs?

People get their kicks in different ways.

[generalk]

  > But at least they're out there doing it, venting, and participating in some mostly rules-free shenanigans.

You're obviously starting from the viewpoint that this is a noble activity. That's not necessarily the case. Fight Clubs are romanticized, and who hasn't wanted to try to put one together after watching the film or reading the book, but it's only awesome until some guy shatters a cheekbone or something.

As the saying goes, the only place a gunfight is romantic is in a James Bond novel.

[thunk]

I actually started from the viewpoint that I hate all the hating that goes on around here sometimes, and worked backward from there. I don't feel strongly about fight clubs one way or the other.