Below is a Facebook debate I had with two old friends we'll call Johnny and Max after underdog and former boxer Holly Holm knocked out reigning UFC world mega-champion Ronda Rousey in front of 56,214 fans in Melbourne on Sunday. Johnny kicked off proceedings on Monday morning:

Johnny: Sorry peeps, I know I'm a bit old fashioned but ladies beating the shit out of each other doesn't sit right with me.

Hendo: I love it that women can play all the "boys" sports. It's a litmus that the sexual revolution has been fought and largely won in this country (not entirely mind you - women are woefully underrepresented on boards and in politics).

Having the right to kick another woman's jaw loose in front of 50,000 screaming fans is a great marker of emancipation from the bonds of the kitchen and hairdressers. It's like the old saying goes Johnny, "You can't be a little bit pregnant." You either have gender equality or you don't.

Max: Hendo, do you think it's possible the promoters of this only had the interest of the girls - and women in general - in mind, or that the titillation factor of two good sorts belting each other brought every boofhead's cliched fantasy of "girl on girl" straight to the small minded nongs' TVs?

Hendo: Fight promoters never have the fighters' interests in mind, regardless of  gender. Like all pro sport it came down to dollars and a traditionally hyped fight between two undefeated champions. Is that not OK just on its own? Or does the "titillation factor" mean all contact sport between "good sorts" should be devalued lest some drunk gets aroused? That'd be a shame for female judo fighters, boxers, rugby teams, wrestlers, water-polo teams etc.

Women have it hard enough in sport. We just had the "pussy wagon" slur at Bathurst. That's all anyone remembers of the race those women ran. Shame that. And there's always the barely muted guffawing from men when girls and women dare to play cricket or rugby.

Men like to keep women in a little box, sexualise their physicality and either tut-tut or warn that they're being exploited when they dare to stand up and do what those two women did in Melbourne. As Melbourne Cup winner Michelle Payne might say, "get stuffed."

Max: There's women boxing every other day, plus the other great sports you mentioned enjoyed by many women. My point is that if the two girls were built like Sherman tanks and had mono-brows we wouldn't be having this discussion. They'd be unknown but at least free to partake in their chosen sport.

They were exploited because of their sex over their skill, undeniably skilful that they were. I'm certainly not judging them for that decision or tut-tutting it paternally - just stating a fact champ.

Hendo: Sorry mate, that doesn't compute. They are the best female fighters in UFC history, regardless of whether Max thinks they're hot or not. When you have a world title fight like that, it's going to fill venues.

And let's just say one of the women was deemed to be "hot" and the other "not-hot", do you imagine that would've had an impact on the publicity? I'll betcha it would've been an even bigger deal because some man would have dubbed it "Beauty and the Beast".

Serena Williams has been pilloried for 15 years for not being hot enough - or being "built like a Sherman tank" to borrow from you - but she is the best women's tennis player in the world and fills stadiums. Because of her skill.

Johnny: Boys I don't have the mental capacity to analyse the ins and outs of it. Great athletes but I just don't like seeing women get whacked in the gob, even by another woman.

Hendo: The good news is, that's my column done for this week. Cut and paste.

Johnny: Glad to be of assistance Hendo.

Max: Bollocks Hendo. You are comparing oranges to apples. Women's tennis has been played professionally and covered in mainstream media for decades. Michelle Payne rode a brilliant race and deserved her gutsy win in a male dominated sport. This event is purely a nod to the underlying misogyny of the target audience.

I have an aversion to violence, organised or not. Like Johnny, I may be old fashioned but there are few things worse than watching two young people - male or female - trying to cause brain damage and blood-drawing injury to each other.

Would it sit well for you to have one of your daughters follow this path, and do you really expect that more than 5% of viewers watch for the skill? Much like reading Playboy for the articles, what?

Hendo: Sure I'd support my daughters - I'm not the master of their destinies, they are. I get it you don't abide violent sports (except rugby) but linking that with misogyny is a furphy.

We both know men perv at women in any sport when they're given the chance i.e. when women are in a state of semi-undress; surfing, swimming, tennis, boxing, netball, beach volleyball, UFC ...

You've got your knickers in a twist because Rousey and Holm engaged in a violent sport, not that they were being objectified in the process - otherwise I'll expect to see some hand-wringing and channel changing from you the next time a Victoria's secret ad or Australia's Next Top Model comes on TV.

Women are exploited for their looks everywhere - from the Sunsilk girl to Hollywood and the 20ft bikini babes plastered on surf shop walls. No one bats an eyelid but as soon as two "hot" women get in a cage fight - for which they earn millions BTW - people get a case of the vapours. "Ah! They're being sexually objectified!"

The violence of UFC is one thing, sexualising women is another - and conflating the two in this instance diminishes their achievements. I'm definitely putting this in my column BTW. Gonna call you Max while Sid will be renamed Johnny.

Johnny: Johnny is gonna look pretty dumb.

Hendo: That's the perfect ending Johnny! See, you're not dumb!