Law School Discussion

Poll

What do you all think of Ozzie Guillen's use of a certain homophobic slur and his past remarks linking homosexuality and pedophilia?

I think they're despicable.
8 (10.7%)
I'm glad he apologized.
3 (4%)
I don't care too much.
5 (6.7%)
Whatever, Mariotti IS a f*g.
9 (12%)
I'm glad Selig fined him.
7 (9.3%)
I wish MLB would use the opportunity to speak out against homophobia.
6 (8%)
I wish the Sox had disciplined him/would discipline him.
8 (10.7%)
I wish the Sox would use the opportunity to speak out against homophobia.
6 (8%)
Selig was wrong to fine him.  Free speech: Hello?
2 (2.7%)
His apology was enough for me.
3 (4%)
That was one weak ass apology.
7 (9.3%)
I always liked Guillen.
4 (5.3%)
I never liked Guillen.
3 (4%)
Other (please explain)
1 (1.3%)
What the heck are you talking about?
3 (4%)
I am Ozzie Guillen and/or I want to know what y'all think
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 23

Ozzie Guillen's impolitic remarks

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Ozzie Guillen's impolitic remarks
« on: June 22, 2006, 04:25:03 PM »
I'm just curious about what people think of this incident.  I've gone back and forth.

I know the poll is flawed, but I hope it prompts some discussion anyhow.

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: Ozzie Guillen's impolitic remarks
« Reply #1 on: June 22, 2006, 04:41:44 PM »
I'm just curious about what people think of this incident.  I've gone back and forth.

I know the poll is flawed, but I hope it prompts some discussion anyhow.


I don't like what he said, and "apologizing" doesn't negate it.

Also, from your options I like:

I wish MLB would use the opportunity to speak out against homophobia.
I wish the Sox had disciplined him/would discipline him.
I wish the Sox would use the opportunity to speak out against homophobia.

I agree with all of these things, Halfie.  I also "always liked Guillen."  You can actually choose up to 6 options on the poll, so feel free to go back and vote for more than one or any of these things if you want.  This goes for all of the future voters too!!!

I thought his apology was especially weak because it didn't acknowledge any wrongdoing and merely stated that the word means something different to him (he's been around long enough to know exactly what it signifies) and that he didn't intend to offend anyone. 

Also, I simply don't trust anyone who would use the term "fag" in that way in that context.  I am not a humorless, self-righteous 'mo (or I try not to be), but I think this is quite different from making a gay joke on a discussion board or with a group of friends or whatever, especially given the (reported) pervasive homophobia of pro baseball locker rooms and stuff. 

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: Ozzie Guillen's impolitic remarks
« Reply #2 on: June 22, 2006, 04:49:33 PM »
Wiki:

The publicity surrounding the Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal, which included many cases of pederastic relationships, has heightened these concerns. Many organizations focus on these concerns, drawing connections between homosexuality and pedophilia.[30] According to a study commissioned by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops,[31] under the auspices of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and an all-lay review board headed by Illinois Appellate Court Justice Anne M. Burke, "81% of the reported victims of child sexual abuse by Catholic clergy were boys." The review board went on to conclude that, "the crisis was characterized by homosexual behavior," and in light of this, "the current crisis cannot be addressed without consideration of issues related to homosexuality." One of John Jay's researchers, Louis Schlesinger, argued, however, that the main problem was pedophilia or ephebophilia, not sexual orientation and said that some men who are married to adult women are attracted to adolescent males.[32]

A number of small-scale studies by Dr. Carole Jenny, Dr. A.W. Richard Sipe, and others have not found evidence that homosexuals are more likely to molest childen than heterosexuals.[33][34] One study by researcher Dr. Kurt Freund suggested a higher occurrence of pedophilia among homosexuals, but didn't indicate a greater likelihood to molest children.[35]

Some researchers, like Johns Hopkins University psychiatrist Dr. Frederick Berlin, say it's flawed to assume that men who molest young boys are attracted to adult men and say that attaction to children is a separate orientation of its own. Others, like psychotherapist Dr. A.W. Richard Sipe, also argue that the sexual deprivation that occurs in the priesthood could lead one to turn to children and that boys are more accessible to priests and other male authority figures than girls.[36] A study by Dr. A. Nicholas Groth found that nearly half of the child sex offenders in his small sample were exclusively attracted to children. The other half regressed to children after finding trouble in adult relationships. No one in his sample was primarily attracted to same-sex adults.[37]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia_and_homosexuality#Association_with_child_abuse_and_pedophilia

What are you trying to say, BB?

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: Ozzie Guillen's impolitic remarks
« Reply #3 on: June 22, 2006, 04:53:11 PM »
What I like about Guillen is that he speaks his mind without thinking.  What I dislike is that I often find myself disliking what his mind contains.

Exactly!   :D

p.s. I think you can remove your vote and re-vote if you are so inclined.  But I'm not so concerned about the integrity of my altogether unscientific polling results, so don't feel any pressure either.

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: Ozzie Guillen's impolitic remarks
« Reply #4 on: June 22, 2006, 04:56:20 PM »
p.s. I think you can remove your vote and re-vote if you are so inclined.  But I'm not so concerned about the integrity of my altogether unscientific polling results, so don't feel any pressure either.

Yeah I found the little option for doing that.  Added a few votes.

 ;D I tried to make the poll as loosey-goosey as possible.

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: Ozzie Guillen's impolitic remarks
« Reply #5 on: June 22, 2006, 05:38:19 PM »
Oh, were you going to cite evidence?  By all means, proceed!

The evidence, some of which I already cited, is mixed. Read what I posted and when you see a number, that's a source available at the original website.

Ummm...how did you do on LR and RC, BB?  I don't see any studies in that article that suggested that there was a connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse.  Could you point me in the right direction?

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: Ozzie Guillen's impolitic remarks
« Reply #6 on: June 22, 2006, 05:43:05 PM »
The real problem seems to be that these are all very small studies, so definitive answers are hard to come by. Even what I just cited (especially the difference between the first and second parts of the conclusion) is inconclusive.

The Freund study is very small.  But it also explicitly distinguishes between pedophilia (the erotic orientation toward or interest in children) and child sexual abuse.  It says that homosexual men are no more likely than heterosexual men to abuse children.

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: Ozzie Guillen's impolitic remarks
« Reply #7 on: June 22, 2006, 05:50:21 PM »
The Freund study is very small.  But it also explicitly distinguishes between pedophilia (the erotic orientation toward or interest in children) and child sexual abuse.  It says that homosexual men are no more likely than heterosexual men to abuse children.

Halfie, however, did not:

There is no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia, breadboy, htfh.

Okay, well, let me further distinguish, then.

Freund found that among people who were erotically attached to children, a higher proportion were attracted to boys than one would expect given estimates of the adult homosexual population.  But there is little indication that androphilic or homosexual pedophiles are also interested in adult men; their erotic connection is specific to children.  They are not "gay men."

Dr. Nathaniel McConaghy (McConaghy, N. Pedophilia: A review of the evidence. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 32(2), 252-265, 1998) concluded, "The man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women" (p. 259)

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: Ozzie Guillen's impolitic remarks
« Reply #8 on: June 22, 2006, 06:01:37 PM »
Would you agree that this issue needs larger studies and that truely definitive answers, at this point, escape us?

Not really.  I don't think it's a particularly helpful set of questions.  I'm more interested in things like psychological and sociological profiles of molesters, what kinds of public policies prevent molestation, etc.

What do you think is interesting or helpful about it?  I am genuinely curious.  Do you think that that we could learn more about how to prevent child sexual abuse by knowing this?  Given that the vast majority of adults (whether they are homosexual or heterosexual) are not molesters and have no pedophilic orientation, what good does it do us to know whether the incidence of attraction to girls or boys is proportional to the incidence of adult heterosexuality or homosexuality in the population?

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: Ozzie Guillen's impolitic remarks
« Reply #9 on: June 22, 2006, 06:10:50 PM »
I think you're right, Halfie.  Plus, I wanted to talk about Ozzie Guillen.  Does anyone want to talk about Ozzie Guillen, homophobia and baseball, gays in professional sports, etc.?