The question that started it all, a harmless one but it certainly sparked plenty of debate. Some mostly went the regular route giving simple advice, from smothering to massages, to one quote that was rather simple. “Fuck her.” Not much more needed there yeah? Others were more elaborate like practicing moves on the girl who was now contractually obligated not to say no, but before it could go much further the idea met some opposition.
Both of them clearly show some disregard for the POW idea, though in the latter’s case it's only because she is against it just happening to anyone, but the intent is the same its not something they naturally see as a good or reasonable thing to do. While the original poster admitted on some level that the former had a point the debate sparked some minor arguments despite that.
Blunt….but also not inaccurate, the matter was further pressed throughout the day but since some of that gets into later points and is somewhat about the characters speaking its best left alone for now. The crux of the issue is there is some back and forth on POW’s and it's clear that it's seen as cruel, a notion which even some defenders of the match type agree with but reason LAW allows it. And it does, but should LAW allow it becomes the next question? One could make the argument that in allowing the POW match LAW is bringing in fans that the public image does not need, anyone who would cheer for something cruel must not be a well adjusted individual right? And drawing those people to LAW means LAW profits off shady actions that happen in POW events. Furthermore while most situations could be chalked up as a means to entertain fans, POW situations are not recorded officially, some wrestlers are allowed to record them of course but thats on there private time and money so the fans see none of it unless the winning wrestler decides to let them see it, there's no means that LAW profits off letting it go on and because of this there’s no guarantee that the wrestler won't take liberties with their prisoners. Inside a ring even for deathmathes or any other affair be it brutal or lewd everything is recorded and supervised by LAW officials if things start to get out of hand LAW can intervene and at the worst stop or end the match prematurely, while LAW gets its wrestlers to sign off on these matches they still aren't looking to see them crippled or otherwise fatally injured, least of all on their property. POW situations aren't privy to this and because of this its not surprising some wrestlers have called for ending Prisoner of War matches all together.
Wanting to broaden my sense of understanding of these matches I asked around for a few other opinions from wrestlers and found many differing answers, the ones I wanted to go into detail on are from Skyler Jones, Jenny Rodouko and Xiomara Tempest
“Are pow matches ethical? Haha Fuck no they aren’t! But that's not the point! Who gives a shit if its ethical or not? Prisoner of war matches are exactly that, prisoners of war. You go into those matches expecting to go to hell and back to win cause its not just a stupid notch on your record. Its about pride, your very life on the line, that's why prisoner of war matches are the ultimate form of humiliation, and the perfect capstone to intense bouts. You’re not just taking a girls body, your taking her pride and feelings and soul. The best part? You have to agree to it. After all its a free place yeah? You’re more than welcome to say no! And look like a total bitch for wimping out in the process. So at the end of the day the idea itself may not be ethical but you can’t say shit when someone is agreeing to it, its like signing a waiver before running with the bulls. You know for a fact there’s a good chance you’ll get trampled but you agreed to it and by doing so give everyone watching permission to point and laugh at your broken body after! That's the exact same logic for this shit!” - Xiomara Tempest
Well, POW fights are something I would qualify as ..... a way to show your power over your opponent, I mean, my debut was just one such fight, I lost it sadly, but it was fun. But personally, yes, I will play with my prisoner if I win a POW fight one day, but then I would give him the opportunity to fight and find freedom. - Jenny Rodouko
"Well, I have a pretty mixed opinion on POW matches, to be honest. It's only something I'd advise doing to someone who really fucking deserves it. People who like to bully other people around, and hurt people who were minding their own business. Those are the people who deserve to be tied up to a pole all night long. What I dislike about it is, like every kind of fight, the person who's in the right doesn't always come out on top. You have good people taken as prisoner all night. That's what bothers me about this. A while back, one of my best friends actually got taken as a POW. When I heard about it, I really made the bitch pay. Don't think she'll be picking on my friend again anytime soon. Heheh." - Skyler Jones
Xiomara’s quote I found interesting for various reasons in that not only does it reiterate another talking point discussed earlier in that these matches have to be agreed upon but in how they are in essence “The ultimate form of humiliation” a way to ramp or spice up a feud or match and make sure that when you win you and everyone know you are proving yourself superior in a way that a standard match could not provide. In truth she has a point in this and could be a reason why the match has such a profound impact for fans even if they don't get to see this play out, they know what comes next and if they were rooting for the other fighter well they go home knowing that they bested there rival in a way that won't be forgotten. Jenny’s experience was valid and I went further when talking to her beyond the quote as she exclaimed why she took the match, and her thought process during her time as a prisoner, while she wasn’t happy she understood and held no malice throughout things, she simply wished she had not lost. Skyler was interesting as well and picking her brain felt important given how she had been apart of the debate that sparked this article, however her issue with the match itself much to my disappointment boiled down the fact that sometimes the person you don't want to win loses and the good don't ‘deserve’ this fate if it befalls upon them. Her personal story which was also featured and defended by her in her tweets also doesn’t justify her stance since as pointed out by many, like any match its an agreed upon, her ‘friend’ had to know what she was getting into and was certainly looking to do the same thing to her opponent as was done to her, plus it seemed less like she was mad she lost the match but instead mad she humiliated her solely to get at Skyler and its clear her issues are one entirely of her perception of the situation rather then anything factual about it, unlike Jenny who actually endured a situation like it and clearly holds none of the bad blood Skyler would like to pretend exists there. Xiomara’s stance on the other hand is comparatively devoid of any sense of bias, she seems to accept the fact that win or lose it's just a big way to prove ones the better women and then make sure the lesson sticks in the head. Wrestling isn't about right and wrong, for every POW where someone undeserving is at risk its important to remember they are there of their own free will, in fact many of these undeserving wrestlers or “faces” as the term goes are not just willing participants they were the ones who suggested the match type, are they really undeserving of it with this in mind? It's like saying they are undeserving of losing, if that was the case they should have worked harder to win as silly and simple as that sounds. I was given a few quotes and honestly there are few that can capture the essence of my thoughts better than Xiomara’s.
On a final note this still leaves the matter of ethics, is the POW match ethical? If LAW had unethical practices it would be within any fan or employee’s right to speak on it, face or heel and regardless of the fact that it's an agreed upon match it hardly matters in the face of this question no one man or woman is the person who decides if it's ethical. To answer this we have to answer the matter of what LAW does itself, and despite my earlier criticism of LAW in its handling of certain matters (Which I of course still stand by) I maintain that LAW is for the most part on top of things when it comes to its wrestlers' health and safety. None of these matches can be done without the consent of its wrestlers; they do not force wrestlers to work injured if the wrestler is hesitant, they have a hospital that tends to their needs close by ensuring that the wrestlers can get treated for any of these injuries or illnesses. While the Prisoner of a POW match is at the winners mercy its for a certain amount of time and they are checked to make sure the prisoner is not kept longer, with HR more than happy to deal with the matter and make sure that any wrestler who goes too far is properly punished for the offense. LAW draws a fine line between when they are responsible for there signed talen and where the talent takes matters into their own hands, the former is uncharted territory which it would be disingenuous to say is without danger given the nature of wrestling but the latter LAW has gone above and beyond to make sure that the fans can be entertained without subjecting anyone to unnecessary risks. LAW is quite clear in its desire to make its foundations ethical and the match is just one of many that are more in the suggestive nature of wrestling history but it is nonetheless fully up to the paying customers and the wrestlers. Will this satisfy many who have doubts still or convince them of the nature of the match? In all likelihood no but ultimately too much leans the ethics of POW matches is slanted towards personal taste rather than the facts about its practice or the practice of wrestling.
-Written by Robin Mendez of LAW magazines writing team.
