This doesn't sit right with me. A species does not exist based on something as brittle as some ego-stroking social contract. Apes have the same genital layout as us, and I doubt they have the same unconscious desire to maintain this alleged facade of masculinity. They, and we, have made it this far with this apparent Achilles heel.
No, it's more likely that the groin is not an Achilles heel. It's more plausible that we have the ability to protect that area, quite readily, given that it is quite necessary to do so in order to reproduce, and that a threat can come from beyond the species.
Any failure to defend the groin is likely an artificial one, induced by the expectation of a regulated sport, or a situation where the fight is more about dominance than incapacitation. Even in the latter situation, outrage is more likely to be at disregard for the purpose of the fight than that the offender has suddenly dropped the veil on masculinity as a whole.
I'm no professor of sociology, and I am a man, so maybe the brainwashing has gotten to me, but I found the explanation a stretch at best.
Most dominance contests among non-human animals are also non-lethal. It's very common for there to be a sort of "rules of engagement". For instance, cobras don't strike each other when they fight --- they do this weird body-slamming thing.[1] Rams never sneak-attack each other side-on, they only square up. There's a good explanation of this in The Selfish Gene.
These behaviours come from the pay-off matrix. The stakes of these contests are often low, in comparison to the possible losses if your competitor fights dirty, too. So it's not worth the risk of breaking the rules of engagement first.
So: yes, kicks to the balls might be a winning strategy. But if you shoot first and miss, you might get kicked. Even if you win 90% of fights with your groin shot, you'll take enough groin shots back that this is not worthwhile.
Some bullshit in the article. Kicking the groins is not only encouraged but effective on self-defense. All traditional martial arts have groin attacks.
The article is only talking about "dominance" fights, and in this case not hitting low is about not fighting dirt, and it exists so people don't keep going back for revenge in an endless retaliation cycle. If two men square off and one wins clean, the conflict is settled.
Yup. Any decent self-defence training will include attacks to the groin. The advice is usually to swing hard and, in the words of my old ju-jitsu instructor, "obliterate their junk".
If you can land that kind of a hit, you'll have a great opportinity to run from the assailant.
Interestingly, I was taught the opposite - that because men are hard wired to protect that area (and it's easy to protect) the groin is a good target of opportunity, but other targets like the head (eyes, nose, throat) or solar plexus are likely to be more effective.
> that because men are hard wired to protect that area
It amazes me how fast my body can respond to a nut shot whereas I can't even catch half the time. Anytime someone's gone for my groin, (and it's only ever been women) my thigh has moved to deflect the foot/knee without my even noticing.
Strange logic. It's much easier to take someone out with a groin kick than any kind of head hit, specially if you're not a boxer.
Kicking the groin requires almost no technique. If you just aim at the inner thigh and kick upward as hard as you can, inevitably you hit the groin. If you're close, you can knee. Hitting someone's eyes or throat enough to incapacitate, on the other hand, isn't nearly as easy.
Groin attack is a recurring theme on Karate, which emphasizes bare hand fighting, and in Muay thai it's almost a primary target. That's how effective it is.
As you suggest, there is a big difference between self-defence and two manly (but somewhat inebriated) men going out to the carpark to prove to each other and everyone watching that they are manly men who do manly men things.
Fight cultures are about establishing pecking orders, not about finishing someone off. The easiest way to find out if you are in a fight culture is to try fronting. If this gets you out of a fight, you are somewhere fairly normal, however if you are in a fight culture, you will be immediately jumped on by people who are overjoyed at finding somebody else who is up for a proper barney.
In addition to the counterarguments already mentioned, here is another: a kick to the groin, even well placed, is not always guaranteed to bring a man down. If you are really in a life or death fight it is possible for a man with that much adrenaline in his system to keep going. It is painful but it doesn't actually disable his fighting ability in any way if he can push through the pain.
I think that generally most guys don't hate each other enough to inflict that kind of pain unless it is a life or death situation. And if you are in a life or death situation there are better options to incapacitate the opponent.
No, it's more likely that the groin is not an Achilles heel. It's more plausible that we have the ability to protect that area, quite readily, given that it is quite necessary to do so in order to reproduce, and that a threat can come from beyond the species.
Any failure to defend the groin is likely an artificial one, induced by the expectation of a regulated sport, or a situation where the fight is more about dominance than incapacitation. Even in the latter situation, outrage is more likely to be at disregard for the purpose of the fight than that the offender has suddenly dropped the veil on masculinity as a whole.
I'm no professor of sociology, and I am a man, so maybe the brainwashing has gotten to me, but I found the explanation a stretch at best.