skirtcafe.org

Dude, this story is so tragic. Middle school is such a hard age tobe. I found two very informative articles:

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2 ... ake-sense/

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... 3425.story

Okay! Brandon had a nightmarish upbringing which makes me feel that the two parents should have been neutered and not given the privilege of bringing children into the world and being responsible for their upbringing. A wonderful and ( when you think about it' awesomely frightening) responsibility. BUT that brings us to the slippery slope towards eugenics, which the Nazis advocated, and we don't want to go down that path.
What I think it all boils down to is we, as a civilised human society, are ultimately responsible for each other, and the march of school children and teenagers in memory of the slain kid was the most heartening thing in this whole sorry business. We are all part of each other and it makes no sense to try to live in isolation and cut ourself off from unpleasent realities.

Am I the only person here who sees a physical resemblance between Lawrence King and Mark Indelicato?

For those of you who don't know, Mark Indelicato is one of the stars of the US hit tv series "Ugly Betty"

One is murderded, the other is a star.

What is the difference? Both gay, bot outgoing, both with talent.

sapphire wrote:Am I the only person here who sees a physical resemblance between Lawrence King and Mark Indelicato?

For those of you who don't know, Mark Indelicato is one of the stars of the US hit tv series "Ugly Betty"

One is murderded, the other is a star.

What is the difference? Both gay, both outgoing, both with talent.

Sapphire,

I was thinking the same thing. Coincidence? BTW, I thought that Mark
was 'gay' only for the show. He is quite a good young actor. The show
is 'finaly' starting to showcase his talent.

Uncle Al
Ducanville, TX

ChristopherJ wrote:

Strikes me, the 'victim' may well have brought this (while fully deploring the over-reaction, and subsequent consequences) upon himself.

That comes across to me as a homophobic comment, and I'm not comfortable with it at all.

I'm not gay and so have no axe to grind here, but that boy *did not* bring this (his murder) on himself. All that he did was to express affection for another human being - and to wear clothing of his own choice. Neither deserves a violent death, in my opinion.

I get more than mildly annoyed when folk rush to 'defend' people who choose a homosexual lifestyle (or make homosexual advances) as if they are 'always the victim' and are seemingly 'unable to defend themselves'. If anyone thinks persistent unwanted homosexual advances are just 'expressing affection', they are, I'm sorry to say, either sadly deluded or very naive. Perhaps, if such folk had been personally subjected to such behaviour (especially persistently from someone they knew well), they might well think differently. It still counts as 'assault' in law.

As for 'homophobia', where's your evidence? As you don't know whether I might, or might not, be homosexual, then, quite honestly, I could find such a comment offensive. As a Wiccan, I take everyone at face value, unless they provide good reason to dislike them. My comment (which you have chosen to take out of context) is merely an open observation - based on personal experience, if you will, but still fully relevant to the limited scenario we have been given.

We don't know the full facts in this case, of course, but it does seem a massive over-reaction - on the part of the murderer - to a 'one-off' occurence. To a US citizen, carrying a weapon of some sort, seems de rigeur. In the UK, it's forbidden. Happens, of course, as 'copycat' incidents are regrettably on the increase.

To a US citizen, carrying a weapon of some sort, seems de rigeur.

No, it is illegal unless you have a permit.

Fantasy abounds

sapphire wrote:No, it is illegal unless you have a permit.

Or it is carried in plain view (ie in a hip holster) in most jurisdictions. The act of possessing the weapon is not illegal, but concealing it is. Using it to shoot other people is definitely illegal.

And no, it doesn't make any sense to me either.

Washington, DC prohibits all handguns but there is there is a finite chance that will be overturned by the supreme court.

Thanks, Sapphire & SkirtDude, for the clarification.

It's very different in the UK! Unfortunately, the recent guns (& knives) amnesties here have, for the criminally-minded faction, played into their hands, somewhat. Even without weapons (or deterants) of any kind, it is now deemed a more serious 'offence', to cause 'actual bodily harm' to any would-be mugger or burgler than they may be intending to inflict on yourself, even if they outnumber you! Carrying ANYTHING which could be deemed 'a form of self protection' is certainly regarded as an offence. Could be an umbrella, walking stick, or even a steel comb!

Mind you, enterprising 'criminal elements' are only too willing to hire out handguns, shotguns or whatever, by the day or week. And I'm talking 'small town' here, not 'Big City'!

SkirtDude wrote:

sapphire wrote:No, it is illegal unless you have a permit.

Or it is carried in plain view (ie in a hip holster) in most jurisdictions. The act of possessing the weapon is not illegal, but concealing it is. Using it to shoot other people is definitely illegal.

I am not sure where you get your information from but...

In the U.S., in what I would call 'most jurisdictions', you are not allowed to carry a loaded firearm in public.

If you are talking specifically about handugns, then there are very few states and municipalities that I am aware of which allow a citizen to carry a loaded handgun.

If you read the laws, they generally state this act is illegal with the exception of those who obtain a CCW (concealed carry weapon permit), certain armed security guards, the military (in the performance of their duties), and law enforcement.

A few places like Arizona, Alaska do allow a citizen to carry a loaded handgun on their person either open-carry or concealed without a permit (Alaska allows concealed carry without a permit - as well as an Eastern state, and Arizona allows non-permit carry of an open-carried handgun).

As far as long guns go... you will find it varies depending on what type of firearm it is, whether you are traveling on a public roadway, whether it is hunting season, etc.

When I lived in Texas, I would get told by too many ignorant people that in Texas, "Everyone can carry a gun and a bowie knife on their person", and this was not in regards to a concealed permit.

Same with Alaska and other states.
People like to romanticize about our 'wild west' attitudes and laws even if these really do not exist.

Fantasy abounds folks!
Best to look it up in the penal code of the jurisdiction you are planning on being in.

btw, I recently flew on Southwest Airlines (for the second time with a gun) and had my concealed carry firearm in my checked luggage.
All this was done according to TSA reg's and federal/state laws.
I declared the firearm and ammunition, they checked my baggage, I signed a declaration, and all went well.
I was able to travel from California to Texas legal and comfortably, then take care of my business in Texas securely, with my daughter in tow.

btw, btw... in this thread or the other recent one concerning violence, someone mentions carrying a firearm and having a feeling of being emboldened? (I'm paraphrasing here)

When I carry my firearm, I am not feeling invincible... or stronger... or more manly... I am much more aware of the potential for serious injury to anyone in my vicinity should something go wrong.
I am much more aware of my surroundings, and my behavior.
Although I sometimes carry a firearm, it is insurance that I do not wish to use... just like my life insurance.

But... it is one more tool available to me to help protect my body and my life and that of my daughter.

If anyone thinks persistent unwanted homosexual advances are just 'expressing affection', they are, I'm sorry to say, either sadly deluded or very naive.

We need to remember, these kids are only 14. If we locked up every 14-year-old kid who makes unwanted sexual advances, our juvenile detention system would be overflowing in no time. Sexual harassment is illegal for adults, but innapropriate advances by children are not the same as sexual harassment by adults. Same thing with violence; if you hit someone it's assult. But if your kid hits another kid, it's just another fight on the playground.

Why should we hold gay 14-year-olds to a higher standard of maturity than straight 14-year-olds? I cannot support the idea that heterosexual advances by 14-year-olds are innocent but homosexual advances are not. Frankly, I think they're both kind of juvenile, these kids are only 14!

As for guns... gun control can prevent "casual" misue of guns, which is different from organized crime syndicates that will get the guys any way any how.

This kid got the gun from somewhere, and the way he obtained it was clearly not legal; although the gun itself was probably obtained and maintained in a legal fashion. But had guns been less available, he would likely not have had access to the gun.

This is no different than the debate over, say, pseudoephedrin. It's a great nasal decongestant, but it's also a key ingredient to methamphetamine. To what extent should the society restrict the right of law abiding citizens to seek nasal relief, in the name of fighting the scourage of crystal meth? I'm not personally inconvenienced by gun laws because I have no desire to own a gun. But when I go to the pharmacy to buy sudafed and suddenly I'm treated like a drug suspect --- well, that drives the point home, doesn't it?

I'm not saying what's right or wrong here, but there are two sides to every story.

Bob wrote:

If anyone thinks persistent unwanted homosexual advances are just 'expressing affection', they are, I'm sorry to say, either sadly deluded or very naive.

We need to remember, these kids are only 14. If we locked up every 14-year-old kid who makes unwanted sexual advances, our juvenile detention system would be overflowing in no time. Sexual harassment is illegal for adults, but innapropriate advances by children are not the same as sexual harassment by adults.

Sorry, Bob, I strongly disagree! There's a fine dividing line between an 'unwanted sexual advance' (as in 'boy meets girl' & 'girl rejects boy', or vice versa) & 'sexual harassment', which is, by law, a persistent, unwanted occurrence, irrespective of age or gender.

Bob wrote: Same thing with violence; if you hit someone it's assult. But if your kid hits another kid, it's just another fight on the playground.

Err, yet again, "No, it isn't!" It's assault, or assault & battery, actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm, dependant on the severity of the attack - playgrounds aren't exempt, at least not in the UK.

Bob wrote:Why should we hold gay 14-year-olds to a higher standard of maturity than straight 14-year-olds? I cannot support the idea that heterosexual advances by 14-year-olds are innocent but homosexual advances are not.

Well, for a start, it's illegal (at least it is in the UK!)!

Bob wrote:Frankly, I think they're both kind of juvenile, these kids are only 14!

It would be nice to think that children were, well, children, 'til they reach the age of 18 (or 21!), and then magically become mature adults. I don't think any of my fellow Governors, or especially the teachers, were under any mis-apprehension about what a supposed 'juvenile' thinks, says or does. Their frustrations about having 'discipline' snatched from them by the "PC Brigade" were, and are, all too real.

merlin wrote:

ChristopherJ wrote:

Strikes me, the 'victim' may well have brought this (while fully deploring the over-reaction, and subsequent consequences) upon himself.

That comes across to me as a homophobic comment, and I'm not comfortable with it at all.

I'm not gay and so have no axe to grind here, but that boy *did not* bring this (his murder) on himself. All that he did was to express affection for another human being - and to wear clothing of his own choice. Neither deserves a violent death, in my opinion.

I get more than mildly annoyed when folk rush to 'defend' people who choose a homosexual lifestyle (or make homosexual advances) as if they are 'always the victim' and are seemingly 'unable to defend themselves'. If anyone thinks persistent unwanted homosexual advances are just 'expressing affection', they are, I'm sorry to say, either sadly deluded or very naive. Perhaps, if such folk had been personally subjected to such behaviour (especially persistently from someone they knew well), they might well think differently. It still counts as 'assault' in law.

Why are you so annoyed at Lawrence King, Merlin? Do you have reason to believe he assaulted Brandon McInerney with persistant unwanted homosexual advances? Have you read any news articles that indicated that what King did was more than just a young boy revealing a (probably very shy and tender) crush? From here, it looks as though you are picking on King based on some behavior you have been personally subjected to, (and which was obviously a bad experience for you) and are overreacting to this situation, and not being fair.

How can you really justify the concept that King "brought his murder upon himself"? And do you really mean to say that you think he was only "seemingly" unable to defend himself against that bullet to the brain?

King was a small boy -- artistic, funny, and had only come out as gay and interested in makeup and cross-dressing a couple of weeks before. McInerney was tall, athletic, and an honors student -- but also the child of an abusive father who kept a gun in the house, and had used it against his mother before.

It was right before Valentine's day. According to the Ventura County Star article linked above, King did approach McInerney more than once, and was made fun of and mocked more than once, but it isn't clear that he actually told McInerney more than once that he actually had a crush on him. Maybe he was just trying to work up the courage to speak his crush. Even for a kid with a lot of courage, that would be a hard thing to say.

What is clear is that McInerney's friends were picking on him (McInerney) and saying if King were looking at him/being nice to him/interested in him then HE must be gay also.

The day of the shooting, unlike his habit of the past several weeks, King wasn't even wearing any makeup or girly clothing.

I think McInerney wasn't really shooting King because he hated him. I think he did it because he just couldn't stand the pressure from his friends and everyone he knew picking on him, calling him gay, and making being gay such a bad thing to be called. He shot him to remove the stigma. He shot him to say "look, this guy has nothing to do with me! He can't touch me with his gay cooties! He can't infect me with his gayness!"

Brandon McInerney was known as a good kid, but one who would never back down from a fight. I believe he saw this incident as a fight for his identity. His sexuality had been called into question by his peers, and his status was on the line along with it. He would see that as a threat, and would fight against that threat. But he isn't mature enough to reason his way through it peacefully. He's seen plenty of violence at home, so he reacted violently, with the strongest weapon he could lay his hands on -- his father's gun.

Personally, I really hope he doesn't have to do adult time. I think the kid is obviously suffering from a lot of immaturity, and had shown a lot of potential even though his family had been so abusive and into drugs, etc. Though the murder is tragic and horrible, I don't think it justifies ignoring the problems that got him there. Family abuse, societal homophobia, and the fact that he's a friggin' FOURTEEN-YEAR-OLD-BOY without great powers of reasoning got him there. I just hope we can get some tolerance education bills passed so tragedies like this are less likely in the future.

One thing strikes me, both in some of the posts on this thread, and in the story that the thread is discussing, is the association between masculinity and violence.

It seems to me that for the boy in the story and for many posters on various MUG discussion sites, not to mention for many men in the Real World, threatening or even committing violence is the only reliable way to "prove" one's masculinity. An awful lot of male-on-male violence and even a lot of male-on-female violence falls into this category.

I'd like to think that skirt-wearing men might be beyond this, but I realize that this is just wishful thinking. Just look at how many posts at SkirtCafe end up talking about how the poster is ready and/or able to use force. As for X Marks the Scot, I notice that they have a policy of no posts about guns, presumably because of how fast such threads get out of hand.

This may be beyond the scope of SkirtCafe, but if I can "Make a Wish": could we set as a goal, not just promoting the acceptance of men wearing skirts, but maybe also promoting some "tweaks" in the generally accepted idea of what it means to be a man?

If I can get back onto my soap box, the problem is exacerbated, if not caused, by the entertainment media who yearly, if not faster, ramps up the violence to the point that the accepted method of dealing with a problem is to either beat the s*****r out of it (him/her) or blow it away! Australian soapies used to be full of human interest and ordinary doings of ordinary people, now "Home and Away" portrays a community only marginally less dysfunctional than Bhagdad! So many computer games, beloved of the teens, are also pretty awful in their violent messages. So who is really the responsible party? A disturbed kid who isn't ready for adult reasoning and the eventual, irretrievable consequences of his actions, or the media who has filled his head with the "solutions"?

The cranky old man will now quietly go back to the nursing home

What is the worse statement?

She would come to school or work in items of men's clothing.

or

He would come to school or work in items of women's clothing.

Really, really think about this people. A kid has gotten shot, and the media is making it seem it was because he wore items of women's clothing. Was this kid actually shot because he threatened the weak and feeble man hood of his shooter? Is he shooter perhaps a closeted homosexual? What about the shooter's parents.

I am very sorry this kid was shot, but I do not like the linking of wearing feminine clothing with being gay, like the media did. Actually I am really sick of it.