There have been some interesting and insightful comments from
everybody so far. But I do some further questions/clarifications;

Phase: That's a nice theory, but I didn't join martial arts to be
enlightened, I joined them for the 'martial'. I do not at all follow
Ueshiba's enlightened reasoning or pseudo-religious philosophies,
which is why I generally prefer Yoshinkan over other styles of
aikido. I prefer to follow Kancho sensei's notion of martial arts;
hard trainig (and at least in his time, hard fighting). Even he has
applied his aikido in violent or lethal situations. As for Ueshiba,
well, he wasn't always 'enlightened' and made quite a point of
maiming and killing people before he saw the light. Besides, it's
pretty easy to say something like fighting is childish or improper
when, at the drop of hat, you can annihilate just about any opponent.
It something entirely different when you study a martial art, say
things like that are childish, but then can't apply the techniques to
save your life.

Charles: You have some great points here. But consider this example.
My younger brother studies a traditional style of karate where they
learn kata and traditional stances. It's also a full-contact karate
dojo where students are ecouraged to compete and fight. Like aikido,
they have a focus on the basics (kata, stances), but they also
deevote time to full-contact fighting to apply their principals and
techniques in fully dynamic situation. My brother has never lost a
fight inside or outside of the ring, and, although modified to fit
the situation, he fights in a rather textbook, conventional form
(more or less like a kickboxing or kyokushin stance). This is what I
am geting at. We study a traditional martial art, which prides itself
on its ability to allow small people defend against larger people,
yet rarely puts into practice this assuption (aside, of course, from
law enforcement offciers, but part of this is that fact that they
must attempt to restrain individuals without harming them, something
you won't get from muay thai). I agree that a shihonage is a
shihonage (not necessarily in kihon form), but it's different when
one tries to apply it against someone intent of knocking you
unconscious with a flurry of punches and grabs. Comments?

Gordon: I agree that no dojo can replicate real life encounters, but
some prepare a bit better for them. I also definitely agree with your
comment about mental preparation. This is key for any situation,
especially for avoid confrontations altogether.

My point here is not to criticize aikido. As I have said, I am a long
time student of the art. I am just curious to know how people
reconcile the fact that, essentially, we are studying a 'martial'
art, one that Kancho sensei (who actually went out of his way to
fight people) has proven to be effective, but one that has no built-
in means of testing whether its concepts and principals work. Even
some dojos that do practice more realistically, as Daryl was
mentioning, almost always submit to the conventions of standardized
aikido, and do not feature competant, resisting, and aggressive ukes
with which to contend.

My theory is that people tend to join aikido for reasons other than
fighting or self defence. Aggressive people tend to gravitate towards
aggressive styles (muay thai, jiu jutsu, boxing), while some aikidoka
tend to study the art for other-than-martial reasons. I am curious
about what the 'martial' part means to people, hence my initial
questions.

Nice comments everyone!

CBB