Does a bloodied face signify the end of a fist fight?
December 7, 2014 2:21 PM Subscribe
I am trying to find some confirmation (or refutation) of the idea that at least in some contexts (schoolyard fisticuffs and other low-stakes, non-lethal brawls) the bloodying of one combatant's face is a kind of an "okay, the fight is over, we have a winner, everyone go home" signal.
I feel like I've read this idea before - that it satisfies something primal and archetypal about a violent confrontation - mostly when the violence is status-driven, as opposed to, say, a violent crime where the stakes might be higher and the outcomes more dire.
In Facing Violence, Rory Miller talks about how social dominance contest (what he refers to as the "monkey dance") has very recognizable steps: the stare/verbal challenge, posturing, chest push/poking, looping overhand right punch. According to his observations, this sequence is so universal it almost seems hardwired.
I'm looking for an expansion of the next steps (especially from a sociology/biology/anthropology angle, hence the category "science & nature"), and whether there's support for the idea that the bloodying of the face is used with any frequency as a signal of the winner or the end to the confrontation. (This is not to deny that within subcultures wildly different variations of the rules exist - ask Billy Batts.)
I feel like I've read this idea before - that it satisfies something primal and archetypal about a violent confrontation - mostly when the violence is status-driven, as opposed to, say, a violent crime where the stakes might be higher and the outcomes more dire.
In Facing Violence, Rory Miller talks about how social dominance contest (what he refers to as the "monkey dance") has very recognizable steps: the stare/verbal challenge, posturing, chest push/poking, looping overhand right punch. According to his observations, this sequence is so universal it almost seems hardwired.
I'm looking for an expansion of the next steps (especially from a sociology/biology/anthropology angle, hence the category "science & nature"), and whether there's support for the idea that the bloodying of the face is used with any frequency as a signal of the winner or the end to the confrontation. (This is not to deny that within subcultures wildly different variations of the rules exist - ask Billy Batts.)
That was not my experience when working in A&E, no. Of course it's possible that I was only seeing the minority who didn't stop on drawing blood, but most of the fights I saw the results of were between people too drunk to make that sort of rational decision to stop fighting. The fights were usually one aggressor vs sort-of innocent non-aggressor, and both sides' mates often piled in to 'help'.
posted by tinkletown at 3:25 PM on December 7, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by tinkletown at 3:25 PM on December 7, 2014 [3 favorites]
Best answer: I don't have any actual links to back this up, but anecdata, but i live and work(and have for years) in a part of town that is just wall to wall bars and drunk people, with fights and dumb shit going down constantly. The front door to my work is bookended by bars. My house is surrounded by them. I also grew up in another area that was similar.
So as i said, no actual science backing this up, but i have noticed repeatedly so many times that i lost count that basically no fight progresses beyond this point. It's the point of inevitable bystander intervention, unless no one is watching it go down.
Once everyone squares off, gets a couple shots in, and someone has a bloody nose/lip/etc, someone(or several people) always grabs one or both people, or pushes them apart, or whatever. Sometimes the person with a bloody nose actually has a broken nose or something and needs to go to the hospital, but from outside appearances it's so often bloody nose/lip = it's over and someone stops it that it's worth noting.
So yea, to expand on what tinkletown said above, in a vacuum both people would keep fighting. It's just that people always seem to make the call to stop them at that point.
posted by emptythought at 4:14 PM on December 7, 2014 [3 favorites]
So as i said, no actual science backing this up, but i have noticed repeatedly so many times that i lost count that basically no fight progresses beyond this point. It's the point of inevitable bystander intervention, unless no one is watching it go down.
Once everyone squares off, gets a couple shots in, and someone has a bloody nose/lip/etc, someone(or several people) always grabs one or both people, or pushes them apart, or whatever. Sometimes the person with a bloody nose actually has a broken nose or something and needs to go to the hospital, but from outside appearances it's so often bloody nose/lip = it's over and someone stops it that it's worth noting.
So yea, to expand on what tinkletown said above, in a vacuum both people would keep fighting. It's just that people always seem to make the call to stop them at that point.
posted by emptythought at 4:14 PM on December 7, 2014 [3 favorites]
Best answer: What emptythought said. I also only have anecdata, but unless it's an actual fight fight, they don't go beyond that. In my experience, the fight ends when someone is bloodied, or seriously down (i don't know how to quantify "seriously down" but it's something like "stunned", or "submissive" or something. It's weird, cause I feel like I know it when I see it, but there's no way to explain it to third parties). Going after someone when they have a bloodied face, or they've already "lost" is considered shitty, as is getting back up and going at it once you've lost. I don't have any evidence to back up your hypothesis, but it feels accurate to me.
This might help your research: I know in some martial arts classes I've done, the instructor has kind of talked about this point, either saying that you really need to put somebody down when you attack, or alternately saying that you shouldn't let down your guard and assume the fight is over once your opponent is bloodied. And it's a hard thing to do, emotionally/instinctually.
posted by DGStieber at 9:22 PM on December 7, 2014
This might help your research: I know in some martial arts classes I've done, the instructor has kind of talked about this point, either saying that you really need to put somebody down when you attack, or alternately saying that you shouldn't let down your guard and assume the fight is over once your opponent is bloodied. And it's a hard thing to do, emotionally/instinctually.
posted by DGStieber at 9:22 PM on December 7, 2014
I got my ass kicked enough all through school that I can pretty confidently say no, getting your face beat in until it bleeds does not make the bullies stop. They stop kicking your ass when they're good and ready, and not a moment before.
posted by xedrik at 10:31 PM on December 7, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by xedrik at 10:31 PM on December 7, 2014 [1 favorite]
Best answer: I think it depends on what kind of fight it is. If it's a "we're not enemies, really, but we need to know which one of us is manlier" sort of fight, or a "get the fuck away from me" sort of fight, then once someone achieves dominance or satisfies their goal by drawing blood, it's over. But if it's a "you have wronged me and I am so enraged that I can't stop myself from trying to make you dead" kind of fight, or a "I need to make sure you never ever mess with me again" sort of fight, or a "I am a sociopathic bully who feeds off of the tears of the weak" sort of fight, then I think blood alone is unlikely to end it.
In my experience (and I'm a criminal lawyer, so I see/hear about lots and lots of fights), most fights are the first sorts of fights. People either want something concrete (like to have the other person stop bothering them, or to get the other person to stop talking shit about them) or they just want to show that they can hit someone. That's the most common. But if you're in the second category, where the end goal is just to mess someone up, then you're not going to stop until you're forced to stop or until the other person is messed up.
posted by decathecting at 9:32 AM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
In my experience (and I'm a criminal lawyer, so I see/hear about lots and lots of fights), most fights are the first sorts of fights. People either want something concrete (like to have the other person stop bothering them, or to get the other person to stop talking shit about them) or they just want to show that they can hit someone. That's the most common. But if you're in the second category, where the end goal is just to mess someone up, then you're not going to stop until you're forced to stop or until the other person is messed up.
posted by decathecting at 9:32 AM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
An honorable fight is over when a combatant is incapable or unwilling to continue it. Otherwise it's just an attack, which has no rules, and is only over if the attacker is restrained or personally satisfied. If you're completely unfamiliar with honor culture fighting, check out some fight compilations on World Star Hiphop, if you aren't too alarmed by the source (they aren't as bad as you might imagine if you've never seen them, but they are physical fights).
The bloody face thing sounds like a bizarre and alien supposition of a signifier of anything.
posted by deathmaven at 10:55 AM on December 8, 2014
The bloody face thing sounds like a bizarre and alien supposition of a signifier of anything.
posted by deathmaven at 10:55 AM on December 8, 2014
Response by poster: Thanks all! I think xedrik's account relates nicely to following paragraph - I'm thinking of the first sort of fight ("who's manlier"/honor culture) but bullying, rage, out-and-out attacks are all different things.
posted by BleachBypass at 12:44 PM on December 9, 2014
posted by BleachBypass at 12:44 PM on December 9, 2014
Response by poster: Also, thanks to NotMySelfRightNow for just helping me out with the phrase "first blood" - that lead down some interesting paths on my search.
Also, tinkletown's comment made me aware of watching out where I look for my data - only the broken noses (and worse) will end up in accident and emergency, so I'd better watch out when I'm drawing conclusions.
posted by BleachBypass at 12:48 PM on December 9, 2014
Also, tinkletown's comment made me aware of watching out where I look for my data - only the broken noses (and worse) will end up in accident and emergency, so I'd better watch out when I'm drawing conclusions.
posted by BleachBypass at 12:48 PM on December 9, 2014
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 2:44 PM on December 7, 2014