Monk wearing Gauntlet's Unarmed Strike Damage

[Jonathan Haley]

Gauntlet:

"This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets."

Monk's Unarmed Strike:

"A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown above on Table: Monk. The unarmed damage values listed on Table: Monk is for Medium monks. A Small monk deals less damage than the amount given there with his unarmed attacks, while a Large monk deals more damage; see Table: Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage."

Would this mean that a RAW, a Monk attacking with a gauntlet, since it is 'for all purposes other than having potential lethality considered an unarmed strike', would use his increased unarmed strike damage, overwriting that listed for gauntlets which is copied from the entry for normal unarmed strikes?

[Jonathan Haley]

Follow up question: If it is an unarmed strike, thus qualifying for the damage increase, would it also be correct to assume it would similarly qualify for flurrying because it's considered an unarmed attack?

Flurry:

A monk may substitute disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuversfor unarmed attacks as part of a flurry of blows. A monk cannot use any weapon other than an unarmed strike or a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows. A monk with natural weapons cannot use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows attacks.

[NikosBlu]

The way i see it, the gauntlet is considered an unarmed strike for the purpose of attacks of opportunity, or casting. And since it's not a monk weapon (it doesn't have the monk special ability listed) you can't make a Flurry of Blows with it.

In other words "these are the weapons of weak men. I don't need these, my own body is a weapon."