Not a big fan of it. I don’t see any benefit of my kids taking part in violent games. I don’t have any problems with a person’s right of self defense. However, I expect my kids to develop their self-defense in their heads far before getting physical. Maybe some of it comes from my experience as an educator. I use mental jujitsu daily as I work to keep my hormonallly-challenged and insecure middle schoolers on the right path. Middle Schoolers are emotionally charged and quicker to violent thoughts, talk, and actions than adults are on the whole. The kids that think of violence and talk of violence are the ones that are far likely to be getting into physical fights in order to “defend” themselves. This “defense” far too often, is just a physical way to defend their honor, rather than their personal safety. Typically, some dumbass has posted false and insulting claims about them on Snapchat or other social media. I find that students habituated to “playing violent” or “talking violent” far often skip the mental part of self-defense that includes asking oneself, “Is the stuff this person posted, or said, true? If so, I should rethink my choices, if not, they are a fraud and I’ll respond with “whatever...” and move on with my life. Students that come to school with the expectation that violence is an absolute last resort are able to find peaceable resolutions to their problems and are happier and more successful. That’s how I hope to raise my kids.
So, I am working this through my own head as I post, so please bear with me and keep in mind that I never post with the intent of causing offense. I do not intend to criticize the way you parent, and I don't expect you to make a single change in the way you do things. ... ... ... This strategy seems totally viable as long as one vital premise is true. That premise being some formulation of the idea 'My child has a high probability of not being face-to-face with a violent person.' or ' My child has a high probability of being able to avoid situations where they are face-to-face with a violent person.' I think that non-violence is important politically. I think that non-violent problem solving is not only mature and sensible but also probably morally superior to violence-exclusive problem solving. I think that there is also a non-zero chance that I will at some point in my life have to defend either myself or someone I love, such as a spouse, child or sibling from someone or something with violent intent. You addressed this when talking about 'defense' as it relates to honor, and I do think that there is a cop-out there, in schoolyard situations and similar. I also think that we are not yet advanced enough as a species that individuals can forgo some amount of ability to protect themselves from violence. A certain amount of common sense and thinking ahead plays into that, an example being that I am unlikely to get mugged because I do not frequent places where muggings take place. However, each day, some amount of people are violently assaulted by strangers either for their cash/accessories or purely because someone had a bad day, was off their meds, was on some meds they shouldn't be on, etc. Because of where we are at in our cultural (Possibly biological) evolution, I think that it is a responsible thing for everyone to know a certain amount about self defense. I also think that there is such a thing as a healthy relationship with physical discomfort/pain. Certain difficult experiences give perspective on life's challenges, and a certain amount of re-sensitization to the actual, real-life effects of violence (Pain hurts!) acts as a countermeasure to our hyper-exposure to violence in media. I may be totally wrong. It may be that the only way for the species to advance with regard to interpersonal conflict is for each and every person to turn the other cheek 100% of the time, sometimes to extremes. That may be true. And if it is, well, iron my loincloth and call me Tarzan.