Oh Great, Boston City Councilor Stephen Murphy Wants to Ban Minors from Attending MMA Fights


(At first, I chose this image because I couldn’t think of anything appropriate to use for this piece. Now, I’m not sure there’s anything more appropriate. Via The Boston Jam.)

From visa issues to Chael Sonnen’s struggles to obtain a therapeutic use exemption for TRT, it feels like almost anything that could inconvenience the UFC’s return to Boston for UFC on Fox Sports 1:1 has. So I guess it shouldn’t be too surprising to see that just weeks before the event, an anti-MMA activist is doing his part to bring as much negative publicity to the sport as possible. What is surprising, though, is that this isn’t necessarily just another instance of “crazy person says something stupid about MMA.”

Boston City Councilor Stephen Murphy – backed by “Parents Say No to UFC” – has filed a resolution that aims to ban minors from attending MMA fights. Before we go any further, two things are important to point out. Number one, obviously Parents Say No to UFC is run by the Culinary Union. Number two, this bill has no chance of becoming a law before the August 17th fight card, so don’t sell that ticket you bought for your son (or daughter!) yet.

So why is Murphy so opposed to allowing minors to watch MMA? His reasoning is pretty much the same mixture of cognitive dissonance and “Think of the goddamn children!” that you’d expect from a person who is likely being paid to be offended by a combat sport. Via BostonMagazine.com:

According to Murphy, fighters from the UFC, which is the professional level of the mixed-martial arts sport, have joked about rape, used foul and abusive language that’s demeaning to women, and used homophobic slurs, all of which, he said, set a bad example for Boston’s youth. He said the sport uses alcohol sponsors to fund the fights, which adds to the negative image that can be imposed on children.


(At first, I chose this image because I couldn’t think of anything appropriate to use for this piece. Now, I’m not sure there’s anything more appropriate. Via The Boston Jam.)

From visa issues to Chael Sonnen’s struggles to obtain a therapeutic use exemption for TRT, it feels like almost anything that could inconvenience the UFC’s return to Boston for UFC on Fox Sports 1:1 has. So I guess it shouldn’t be too surprising to see that just weeks before the event, an anti-MMA activist is doing his part to bring as much negative publicity to the sport as possible. What is surprising, though, is that this isn’t necessarily just another instance of “crazy person says something stupid about MMA.”

Boston City Councilor Stephen Murphy – backed by “Parents Say No to UFC” – has filed a resolution that aims to ban minors from attending MMA fights. Before we go any further, two things are important to point out. Number one, obviously Parents Say No to UFC is run by the Culinary Union. Number two, this bill has no chance of becoming a law before the August 17th fight card, so don’t sell that ticket you bought for your son (or daughter!) yet.

So why is Murphy so opposed to allowing minors to watch MMA? His reasoning is pretty much the same mixture of cognitive dissonance and “Think of the goddamn children!” that you’d expect from a person who is likely being paid to be offended by a combat sport. Via BostonMagazine.com:

According to Murphy, fighters from the UFC, which is the professional level of the mixed-martial arts sport, have joked about rape, used foul and abusive language that’s demeaning to women, and used homophobic slurs, all of which, he said, set a bad example for Boston’s youth. He said the sport uses alcohol sponsors to fund the fights, which adds to the negative image that can be imposed on children.

Do I use this space to make a “I guess Boston’s athletic scene has enough real rapists and murderers” comment, point out the fact that all four of the city’s major professional sports teams are sponsored by Anheuser-Busch, or do I just point out how ridiculous the concept of expecting a person to automatically be a great children’s role model because he/she is good at a sport is? I’ll pick the second option, because arguing that a professional sports league being sponsored by an alcoholic beverage company corrupts our children in ways that other professional sports leagues sponsored by alcoholic beverage companies aren’t requires such an advanced level of bullshitting that I admire anyone sleazy enough to do it with a straight face.

But Murphy isn’t alone in making generic arguments against letting the children of Boston watch MMA. We also have a plain old vanilla “violent entertainment ruins children’s minds” argument:

Diane Levin, a professor of early childhood education at Wheelock College, backed Murphy’s resolution, and “strongly urged” that the City Council pass it.

“Because of how children think, they are especially vulnerable to learning the harmful lessons that directly witnessing entertainment violence can teach—about how people treat each other, about the role of violence in society, that violence is fun and exciting with few consequences, and that grownups glorify and value it,” Levin said. “Everyone who cares about the wellbeing of children and the wider society should call for a ban on children attending Live Cage Fighting events.”

And an appearance from the Culinary Union themselves:

An advocacy group comprised of parents, doctors, and professors are also supporting Murphy’s efforts, and have started a petition and website sponsored by national movements like the National Organization for Women, the Boston Women’s Fund, the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, and Teachers Resisting Unhealthy Children’s Entertainment.

The group, known as “Parents Say No to UFC,” supplemented their campaign message and petition page with a video that shows gruesome shots from various professional fights, including bloody contenders punching each other in the head repeatedly.

How wonderful.

Based on all of these super logical, totally original arguments against MMA, do you think that the sport is in any kind of real danger in Boston? Or is this just another minor inconvenience surrounding a card that has been full of them?

@SethFalvo

Josh Thomson Makes the Best-Worst Anti-Gay Marriage Argument Yet [UPDATED]


(Have I mentioned how the weddings themselves are yet? Because they. are. FAAAAAAAAAAABULOUSSSSS!!.) 

Before we even get started, we’d like to give a big congratulations to the MMA community in general. According to the counter that hangs in the back of the office, it has been 20 business days since once of us said something both mind-blowingly ignorant and completely unprovoked via a social networking device! Twenty whole days…


(Have I mentioned how the weddings themselves are yet? Because they. are. FAAAAAAAAAAABULOUSSSSS!!.) 

Before we even get started, we’d like to give a big congratulations to the MMA community in general. According to the counter that hangs in the back of the office, it has been 20 business days since once of us said something both mind-blowingly ignorant and completely unprovoked via a social networking device! Twenty whole days…


Thomson continued presenting his airtight argument on his Facebook page:

Look, I personally don’t give a shit who you marry but my question to you is, why is it okay for gays to marry and your gonna turn around and tell the guy he can’t marry the lil girl next door or the teacher she cant marry the lil boy in her class? Siblings, animals, etc. Why can’t they be happy like gay people an heterosexual people?

I’m not against gay marriage, I’m also not for it. I don’t care! I do care what it may lead to In the future once you change the definition of marriage for gay marriage. You can’t say that it doesn’t open the door way for other topics like I mentioned. I know it sounds crazy but people will bring these types of issues to the table once the definition is changed. 

Right, Josh, because two consenting adults choosing to marry one another is exactly the same as an adult snatching up a minor, who isn’t legally old enough to make any life decisions of that importance, or an animal, which has no voice in the matter because it lacks the ability to effectively communicate a stance with us human beings. Your logic is flawless.

[UPDATE] 

Well, well, well…it appears that Thomson is going with an even older standby for his apology than the one he used for his original argument, the classic “It was taken out of context” assertion (Via BJPenn.com):

“I am not against gay rights or gay marriage in anyway,” stated Thomson. “My comments were completely taken out of context by some members of the media and I have since removed them out of respect for anyone who may have been offended. It was not my intention to offend or hurt anyone.”

J. Jones