First published at 365gay.com on August 4, 2008
A recent Newsweek article ("Young, Gay and Murdered") about Lawrence King-the cross-dressing gay 14-year-old fatally shot by a classmate last February-has prompted many accusations of "blaming the victim." In it author Ramin Setoodeh asks:
How do you protect legitimate, personal expression while preventing inappropriate, sometimes harmful, behavior? Larry King was, admittedly, a problematical test case: he was a troubled child who flaunted his sexuality and wielded it like a weapon-it was often his first line of defense. But his story sheds light on the difficulty of defining the limits of tolerance.
And later:
For [many teachers and parents] the issue isn't whether King was gay or straight-his father still isn't convinced his son was gay-but whether he was allowed to push the boundaries so far that he put himself and others in danger. They're not blaming King for his own death-as if anything could justify his murder-but their attitude toward his assailant is not unsympathetic.
Let's start with the obvious. The murder of Larry King was wrong.
It's tempting, and maybe prudent, to end there. Because anything else said, particularly anything critical of King's behavior, will look like a "but": "The murder of Larry King was wrong, but…"
No-the murder of Larry King was wrong, period.
There is, however, more to be said, not with a "but," but with an "and." So here goes.
By most accounts, Larry King was something of an obnoxious presence at school, engaging in behavior that at least bordered on, and probably crossed the line of, harassment. Assuming these accounts correct, Larry King should be blamed. Not for his own murder, obviously, but for some of the behavior that preceded it. He wasn't perfect.
Yet there are many complicating factors. First, it is unseemly to speak ill of the dead, especially dead children, most especially dead murdered children.
Second, both King and his killer Brandon McInerney came from rather troubled backgrounds, and both were merely kids-factors that mitigate responsibility generally.
Third, some of King's obnoxiousness was an understandable defense mechanism against others' cruelty. (For example: tired of being taunted in the locker room, he got revenge by ogling the boys as they changed clothes.)
And fourth, any criticism of King will strike some people as homophobic or transphobic, as some of it certainly has been.
All of that said, one can criticize bad behavior without in any way suggesting that it warrants murder, much less premeditated murder. Such may be the case of Larry King.
The important thing now is not blame; it's learning from what happened. Doing so requires a candid look at what went on and why, with an eye to reducing the likelihood of similar tragedies.
In assessing the case, Setoodeh focuses on whether Larry was allowed to push too far. He's certainly correct that if teachers had reined in some of King's misbehavior, he might well be alive today.
Isn't that blaming the victim? Not in itself (though other aspects of Setoodeh's treatment are admittedly troubling). To say that King's misbehavior was causally connected to his killing is not to say that King was in any way morally responsible for his killing. (Technically speaking, even King's showing up for school was causally connected to his killing: had he not been there, he would not have been killed as he was.) A causal factor is not the same as a justifying factor.
But King's misbehavior wasn't the only causal factor, and we must be careful not to ignore others. Among these was teachers' discomfort in discussing GLBT issues, leading them to feel a false dilemma between "We need to let him express himself" and "We need to prevent disruptive behavior." Freedom of expression never justifies sexual taunting, gay or otherwise, just as sexual taunting never justifies murder.
Moreover, there was teachers' failure to rein in other students' harassment of King-a causal factor Setoodeh scarcely considers.
There were other factors as well, including troubled family backgrounds for both youths, and McInerney's access to a gun. Had any of these been absent, King might be alive today.
Most of all, let's not forget McInerney's apparent belief that it's better to be known as a killer than suspected as a homo. Why did McInerney kill King? Perhaps the simplest answer is that he was embarrassed by King's sometimes unpleasantly expressed crush on him. His "solution" was to shoot King in the head, twice, as the latter was sitting quietly in an eighth-grade classroom.
And that was wrong, period.
Corvino, John
{ 97 comments }
← Previous Comments
Actually, Pat, King had MORE rights than the other students, given that he had a lesbian vice-principal sending out emails that flatly told teachers they could not and should not stop him from doing whatever he wanted, including violating the dress code, in the name of “tolerance”.
NDT, it was well demonstrated that other students violated the anti-bullying policies (I’m assuming the school had one). Don’t know under what “name” this continuous bullying was allowed to happen, but it did. So, on this point, King had no special rights over the other students.
No, Richard; what is sick is that liberal gays encouraged an emotionally-disturbed child to behave in a deliberately-disruptive fashion and to sexually harass other children.
Who are all these liberal gays (plural) that did this? And how do you know they were liberal? And the one gay (don’t know if she was liberal) apparently tolerated such behavior, but how do you know she encouraged to sexually harass other children. What’s even sicker is that the school tolerated the bullying against King in the first place.
Let’s see….James McGreevey, Bonnie Bleskachek….the list goes on of gay people who have sexually harassed others, then claimed their sexual orientation makes them immune to charges.
NDT, you’ve repeated this false statement several times. Even when you’ve provided links, they, in no way, support your point. McGreevey and Bleskavich are detestable individuals. But there is no evidence that they stated that their sexual orientation made them immune to charges. In Bleskavich’s case, she said the actions for which she has been charged did not happen, and the false charges were made because of homophobia. I haven’t seen any evidence where Bleskavich said her sexual orientation excused sexual harassment. If you want to state that, in your opinion, you believed (privately as opposed to publicly claiming) that Bleskavich felt her sexual orientation gave her a free ticket to sexually harass, go for it, and the rest of us can give your opinion the due it deserves.
Meanwhile, Timothy, that is meaningless, given that children like Larry King are apparently taught that sexually harassing others is their “right” and is a normal part of “self-expression” when you’re gay.
If Larry King was “apparently taught” these things, why do you fail to address that the bullies were “apparently taught” that bullying is “their ‘right’ and is a normal part of ‘self-expression” when, well whatever these bullies are.
And there, ladies and gentlemen, is the buzzer indicating that DUMP has run out of arguments.
Not surprising; after all, he and his fellow liberal gays (blah, blah, blah)
NDT, the buzzer went off again. You ruined any valid point you’ve made by this tactic.
I think, as the father, he sort of has the right to stake his claim about how his son’s memory and tragedy is employed by even well-meaning promoters within the HateCrimeVictim industry. Maybe he isn’t the sharpest dad, but he has a right to protest the ex-appropriation of his son’s tragedy.
MichiganMatt, I agree that Mr. King is entitled to state what he feels about his tragedy. I’m not even going to disagree with the point that he made. It just struck me that Mr. King doesn?t appear to be as not “anti-gay” as he says he is. No evidence, just a gut feeling. Since that’s all it is and perhaps I’m making more of this than it really is, I’ll just leave it at that.
It is one thing to be effeminate, but to dress like a woman? Wear nail-polish? That’s a visual-statement. At my job, we have a guy who’s a drag queen at night in gay bar. He’s VERY effeminate, he doesn’t hide who he is, but he comes to work in a professional attire. He knows people would freak out if they saw him in a dress at work.
Bobby, for various reasons, I don’t think it was a good idea for the school to allow Larry King to dress like a girl. I know it was a bad idea for the school to tolerate his harassment of McInerney. And whether it was right or wrong for Larry to dress like a girl, I know it was a bad idea for the school to tolerate the bullying against him.
Workplace is a different situation. We’re dealing with adults now. I’m glad your colleague wears professional attire as he should, but I’d like to think it isn’t because people would freak out. My brother has a trangendered colleague, and people did freak out (including one that had to go to therapy) when she was allowed to wear women’s professional attire. Anyway, I’d love to be able to wear shorts and a tee shirt to work everyday, but I know it’s not appropriate.
You know, I feel the same way about jews who wear a yarmulke or a star of David. Why are you advertising who you? That’s what I think. Why are you provoking people? Why are you standing out from the crowd? My point is this, if you are gonna stand out from the crowd, then you better know how to defend yourself, if not, you’re better off blending in.
When I was in grad school, there was another student who grew up in China. He basically said that the key to survival was to not stand out from the crowd and blend in. Unfortunately, it does appear that in 2008, we still have to somewhat adopt this attitude in this country.
I have no problem with any person who wears attire or accessories that obviously state what religion (or whatever) one belongs to. It doesn’t bother me when a Jewish person wears a yarmulke or a Christian wears a cross. I admit I’m a little bothered when I see Muslim women wear veils (or whatever) to cover their faces only because I wonder if they are coerced to do so. I am not bothered so much that a boy wears girls clothes. I think it’s become more of a big deal, because of the reaction it caused. I wonder if everyone concerned took a who cares attitude, if King would have stopped dressing like a girl. I also wonder if, in his mind, that was his way to defend himself against the bullies. He couldn’t fight back with his fists, so he sought other ways (some defensible and some not) to fight back. I imagine this was a good part of the reason King provoked people. Keep in mind that others got the ball rolling and provoked him.
For the most part, a bully doesn’t want anyone to get in his way, visually or otherwise. The really cruel ones go out searching for targets, the rest are the ones you try to avoid, you walk the other way if you see them, you don’t make eye contact, etc. I’m assuming King failed to do any of these things. As for his bullies, nobody expects them to be smart. Bullying isn’t based on smarts, it’s based on sadism which can be a great source of pleasure for some people.
I’m not sure what King’s initial approach to his bullies was. Whatever it was, it apparently didn’t work. Anyway, I agree with your point here. But what I’ll add is if we’re not expecting bullies to be smart, then why should we expect the victim of a bully to be smart?
NDT, it was well demonstrated that other students violated the anti-bullying policies (I’m assuming the school had one). Don’t know under what “name” this continuous bullying was allowed to happen, but it did.
And later:
If Larry King was “apparently taught” these things, why do you fail to address that the bullies were “apparently taught” that bullying is “their ‘right’ and is a normal part of ‘self-expression” when, well whatever these bullies are.
Unfortunately, Pat, you have no proof that there was an email sent out specifically saying that they were to be allowed to do what they wanted in the name of self-expression, like there is for Larry King. You also have no proof that they were encouraged to continue to act in this fashion and be free from punishment, as there is proof that Larry King was.
Who are all these liberal gays (plural) that did this? And how do you know they were liberal?
Easy; the gay and lesbian people who ran this so-called “gay youth group” and the lesbian school administrator.
And as for knowing whether or not they were liberal, it seems more than odd that a conservative gay person — you know, the people who are regularly castigated for being “closeted” and not “outspoken” enough — would tell a child with a history of emotional disturbance and antisocial behavior that it was “normal” behavior for gay and lesbian people to dress in opposite-gender clothing, to act like the opposite gender, and to make unwanted sexual advances and comments to their classmates. That’s much more a function of the gay Democrats and liberals, endorsed by Nancy Pelosi, who claim that dressing children up sexually, taking them to sex fairs, and encouraging them to behave sexually is celebrating “community, diversity, and sex-positive self-expression”.
NDT, you’ve repeated this false statement several times. Even when you’ve provided links, they, in no way, support your point.
What those links make obvious, Pat, is that McGreevey and Bleskachek both tried to deny and excuse their sexual harassment of other people and their behavior based on their sexual orientation. They blamed other peoples’ “homophobia” and insisted that they did nothing wrong, even as they used the powers of their offices to coerce and retaliate against others for sex.
It is exactly this attitude that we see here with Larry King. Gay and lesbian liberals encouraged an emotionally-disturbed child to dress in opposite-gender clothing, to act like the opposite gender, and to make unwanted sexual advances and comments to their classmates, supported him as he did it, and prevented any form of discipline against this child’s disruptive behavior.
Unfortunately, Pat, you have no proof that there was an email sent out specifically saying that they were to be allowed to do what they wanted in the name of self-expression, like there is for Larry King. You also have no proof that they were encouraged to continue to act in this fashion and be free from punishment, as there is proof that Larry King was.
NDT, do you have a link to the exact contents of this email? I’d like to see this proof that Larry King was encouraged to sexually harass his schoolmates. I don’t believe I stated the school encouraged the bullies, but instead, either tolerated it and/or let it happen without punishment. Proof: Larry King was continually harassed and bullied by the students. And guess what happened, he retaliated. Just as some kids retaliate with their fists, King retaliated in another fashion. Yes, he should have been disciplined for any harassment that was not defending himself. But, as I said, I’ve pointed out that the school administration dropped the ball in dealing with King’s bullies and King. So far, I’ve only seen you criticize the school for failing to deal with King.
Easy; the gay and lesbian people who ran this so-called “gay youth group” and the lesbian school administrator.
So you have proof that any of them encouraged King to sexually harass other students, even when unprovoked?
And as for knowing whether or not they were liberal, it seems more than odd that a conservative gay person …
Maybe it was odd before the days of Larry Craig or Rev. Haggard.
That’s much more a function of the gay Democrats and liberals, endorsed by Nancy Pelosi, who claim that dressing children up sexually, taking them to sex fairs, and encouraging them to behave sexually is celebrating “community, diversity, and sex-positive self-expression”.
LOL. I guess Bleskavich will be resurrected next.
What those links make obvious, Pat, is that McGreevey and Bleskachek both tried to deny and excuse their sexual harassment of other people and their behavior based on their sexual orientation. They blamed other peoples’ “homophobia” and insisted that they did nothing wrong, even as they used the powers of their offices to coerce and retaliate against others for sex.
It’s only obvious to you, NDT, because you conveniently conflate two things here. True, Bleskavich did deny that she sexually harassed her subordinates. True, she did say it was because of homophobia the she was (wrongly, in her contention) accused of sexual harassment. I still have not seen any evidence that Bleskavich admitted that she sexually harassed her subordinates and should not be punished because of her sexual orientation.
True, Bleskavich did blame others’ homophobia and insisted she did nothing wrong. True, she did use the power of her office to coerce and retaliate against others for sex. But you incorrectly link these two ideas to say that she has stated that she should get away with the sexual harassment because of her sexual orientation.
Worse yet, even if it is true that Bleskavich and McGreevey did contend that they sexually harassed others, but should not be punished because they are gay, that’s a distorted opinion from two detestable creatures.
So this connection to what happened with King is dubious. You have not established that these persons encouraged and supported King to sexually harass other students.
Again, I am not defending King’s harassment, because it was wrong. But it was also wrong that King was bullied to begin with, and the school did very little, or nothing about it. I’m not sure why your only focused on King’s behavior. These bullies are also at fault, and even more so, because they’ve started it.
Northdallass said “And there, ladies and gentlemen, is the buzzer indicating that DUMP has run out of arguments.
Not surprising; after all, he and his fellow liberal gays (blah, blah, blah)”
He doesn’t need any arguments, your BS is entirely transparent and refutes itself.
Your suggestion that liberals taught king to sexually harrass others is too stupid and patently false to need adressing. Similarly your statement that Bleskachek and Mcgreevy claimed their orientation made it okay to harass others is clearly BS. Saying “I didn’t do it and they are attacking me out of homophobia” in no way is a statement that “I did it but my orientation makes it okay”.
By all means though don’t let the obvious stop you from continuing to make a fool of yourself and tar all conservative republicans as drooling hate-mongering idiots.
Pat said “I’m not sure why your only focused on King’s behavior.”.
It should be obvious by now Pat, Northdallass wears blinders, he won’t see wrongdoings by anyone other than gays, he wants to paint King and gays as the offenders and ignore the bullying and murder of king by a heterosexual. By Northdallass’s morality, if a gay commits a wrong he’s evil, if a straight commits a worse wrong, its irrelevant, might as well not have happened.
So you have proof that any of them encouraged King to sexually harass other students, even when unprovoked?
Looking at the timeline of events, what becomes immediately obvious is that Larry King’s behavior only seemed to become more disruptive AFTER he had been moved to Casa Pacifica, started attending these “gay youth group” meetings, and going to the school administrator’s office.
What else had changed?
And that leads us to this:
True, Bleskavich did blame others’ homophobia and insisted she did nothing wrong. True, she did use the power of her office to coerce and retaliate against others for sex. But you incorrectly link these two ideas to say that she has stated that she should get away with the sexual harassment because of her sexual orientation.
Why do you think, Pat, that when she was so obviously doing these things, which are clearly sexual harassment by anyone’s definition, that she felt she was doing nothing wrong?
Because she thought what she was doing was normal gay and lesbian behavior.
Just as McGreevey thought, by saying “I am a gay American”, that he could excuse his corrupt and criminal behavior as something that gays normally do — a belief reinforced by the numerous gay and lesbian organizations who lauded him as “courageous”.
Just as Larry King thought that it was “normal” behavior for gay and lesbian people to dress in opposite-gender clothing, to act like the opposite gender, and to make unwanted sexual advances and comments to their classmates — a belief taught, encouraged, and reinforced by these “gay student groups” and this lesbian school administrator.
The question at the core of the Larry King debate is why an emotionally-disturbed child was encouraged to engage in behavior that resulted not only in harm to himself, but in harm to others, in the name of “tolerance”. Furthermore, as can be seen in the examples of Bleskachek and McGreevey, teaching gay people that they need not follow the rules of civilized behavior and that anyone who dares criticize them is “homophobic” and “intolerant” creates situations like the aforementioned, in which openly discriminating against people who refuse you sexually is dismissed as “not doing anything wrong”.
The reason I am focused on King’s behavior is because society has already made it obvious that shooting people is wrong; Brandon McInerney wouldn’t be sitting in a jail cell if it weren’t. My concern is in recognizing and putting a stop to the gays and lesbians who are putting a distorted view of homosexuality into the minds of emotionally-disturbed children and then, when it backfires, claiming society’s “homophobia” is to blame.
PriyaLynn, I’m not really sure why you insist on making nearly every posting in everythread a personal attack on NDXXX rather than sticking to the merits of the debate –or even staying on topic.
It seems to me you’re one of those classic “angry gays” who carries around so much baggage when it comes to criticizing gays who don’t march to your orders, your tune, carry your water… that it almost always becomes personal.
Frankly, I haven’t always agreed with NDXXX, but at least he can stay on topic and debate the merits of the issue… you just seem to want to scratch eyes and toss dirt.
How about spending some time reflecting on improving your own contributions here instead of your angry gay ventings.
Pat, part of the problem with King’s sexual harassment of McInerney is that our own gay culture promotes (via porn, fictionalized novels, etc) the image of the ultimate humiliation of str8 males can be secured by a bullied gay in seducing them into m2m sexual conduct… it’s a large segment of the porn industry, ficitionalized novels, colloquial youth discussions, etc. And, afterall, when gays are bullied and authority figures seem uninterested in restricting/curing the environment… well, it’s time to get even… bring on the ultimate humiliation: time to make that bully my bitch.
And, in fact, our gay culture promotes that sickness by projecting sexual fantasies that involve str8 males. When the civil lawsuits begin, I bet legal counsel will be able to document King’s exposure to that underbelly of our gay community.
As gays, we ought to be working to improve our community by standing up and protecting the fettered innocence and moral constructs of gay youth, instead of wantonly promoting a culture that idolizes gay youth sexual experimentation at the earliest possible stages… and telling them –hell, telling any youth for that matter– that sex as a youth is part of their destiny of discovery. It isn’t; it shouldn’t be.
Some kids might be ready –the majority not. So let’s keep in mind that our own community’s culture failed King, too… not just with bad advice about getting even, but the “education” of King into a self-corrupting gay culture bent on exposure rather than prudent education.
—-
Richard2 opines: “It is really sad, that gay conservatives are jumping at the chance to use a dead kid for their partisan politics.”
What utter bunk! I’m not a gay conservative but that line is sheer inversion of reality.
The accurate and level charge is that King’s & McInerney’s tragedy is being used by the GayHateCrimes industry and gay activists to promote their agenda of “free expression at any cost” for gay youth.
Gay conservatives using the tragedy? Bunk. Anti-gun liberals using it to promote further restrictions –yeah, right here. Liberal pro-education interests pushing for more money to solve a problem that schools fail to address –yeah right here (which you’ve done, Richard2).
Gay activists trying to capitalize on Kings’ & McInerney’s tragedy –oh yeah. That’s why King’s father complained his son’s memory was being used by gay activists in a manner he deemed inappropriate?
NDXXX comments: “The interesting thing is how teachers, teachers’ unions, and the Democrats who support them all say the same thing: “Give us more money or your children will be hurt — since it’s not worth it to us to stop them from doing so.” In most places, that’s defined as blackmail.”
Correction: in innercity Michigan Democrat strongholds, that’s defined as continuous re-election.
Looking at the timeline of events, what becomes immediately obvious is that Larry King’s behavior only seemed to become more disruptive AFTER he had been moved to Casa Pacifica, started attending these “gay youth group” meetings, and going to the school administrator’s office.
(Looks for proof, sees there is none). Okay, so you’re offering this based on your observation and what is obvious to you. I guess it’s not obvious to me, because sometimes teens do things, good and bad, even when they’re not encouraged to do so.
What else had changed?
Moving to a new school, and all that’s inherent with it is more than enough.
Why do you think, Pat, that when she was so obviously doing these things, which are clearly sexual harassment by anyone’s definition, that she felt she was doing nothing wrong?
I have no idea. All I can tell you that plenty of people who are clearly guilty state publicly they are not. And then try to come up with reasons for it.
For example, I think OJ Simpson was clearly guilty of murder, yet he publicly proclaimed his innocence. It worked, didn’t it? But as rotten as he is, even he didn’t publicly say, “I murdered two people, but because of my race, I shouldn’t be punished.” He contended he shouldn’t be punished because he maintained his innocence.
Just as McGreevey thought, by saying “I am a gay American”, that he could excuse his corrupt and criminal behavior as something that gays normally do — a belief reinforced by the numerous gay and lesbian organizations who lauded him as “courageous”.
I completely agree with you that McGreevey is a detestable character. As to what McGreevey thought he could get away with, I’m afraid I’m not a mindreader. And you’ve shown that you are an awful mindreader (which, by the way, most humans are, so don’t take it personally), so you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t agree with you on that point.
I don’t understand how one could think that McGreevey could be considered courageous. The very few that I did meet who had that view did not think he was courageous because he was corrupt and/or thought he could use his sexuality to excuse being corrupt.
Just as Larry King thought that it was “normal” behavior for gay and lesbian people to dress in opposite-gender clothing, to act like the opposite gender, and to make unwanted sexual advances and comments to their classmates — a belief taught, encouraged, and reinforced by these “gay student groups” and this lesbian school administrator.
Again, no evidence that King was encouraged.
The reason I am focused on King’s behavior is because society has already made it obvious that shooting people is wrong; Brandon McInerney wouldn’t be sitting in a jail cell if it weren’t. My concern is in recognizing and putting a stop to the gays and lesbians who are putting a distorted view of homosexuality into the minds of emotionally-disturbed children and then, when it backfires, claiming society’s “homophobia” is to blame.
Homophobia is still a problem when a teen male, who was sexually harassed by another teen male, feels he has to solve this problem by shooting the harasser, but would most likely not have done that if the harasser was a girl.
But you have still failed to address the fact that King was bullied in the first place. Obviously, King’s harassment was wrong. But what about the bullying of King that started this in the first place? Why is King making unwanted advances, dressing up like a girl, sexually taunting others so bad, but vicious name calling, slamming one into lockers, and whatever bullies like doing these days tolerable?
Michigan matt, the day I see you stop your own lies and call out Northdallass for some of his constant repetative lies is the day I might think you’ve got something worthwhile to tell me.
How about you condemn his repeated insistance that “liberals taught king it was normal behavior and encouraged him to sexually harrass other students” or condemn his repeated lie that Bleskachek and Mcgreevy claimed their orientation made it okay to sexually harrass others. And talk about being offtopic, contrary to your lie that Northdallass is on topic, bleskacheck and Mcgreevy are off topic and he brings up this offtopic discussion on thread after thread.
And by the way Michigan Matt, everything I said was on topic or brought up by Northdallass first so stuff it.
Northdallass said “Looking at the timeline of events, what becomes immediately obvious is that Larry King’s behavior only seemed to become more disruptive AFTER he had been moved to Casa Pacifica, started attending these “gay youth group” meetings, and going to the school administrator’s office.”.
That’s a well known logical fallacy called “post hoc ergo prompter hoc”. Its the same error that says there were no nuclear weapons until women got the vote.
What is clear is that King’s sexual harrassment came after he was bullied for being gay. Only a willfully blind partisan excludes that as a possible cause of his actions.
Moving to a new school, and all that’s inherent with it is more than enough.
Except that that happened in September; King’s behavior did not become disruptive, nor did his sexual harassment of others, begin until January, after he had started going to “gay youth group” meetings.
Again, no evidence that King was encouraged.
Ample evidence. His social workers and the “gay youth group” were actually buying and providing him with the means to buy women’s clothing and makeup; his school administrators were sending out emails making it clear that he should be allowed to do whatever he wanted.
But you have still failed to address the fact that King was bullied in the first place. Obviously, King’s harassment was wrong. But what about the bullying of King that started this in the first place?
Does the latter excuse the former?
Homophobia is still a problem when a teen male, who was sexually harassed by another teen male, feels he has to solve this problem by shooting the harasser, but would most likely not have done that if the harasser was a girl.
“Would most likely” is speculation. What you’re saying is that, because Larry King found it gratifying to sexually harass boys, reacting to that was “homophobic” — sort of like how Bonnie Bleskachek claimed that holding her accountable for her retaliation against heterosexual men and women who wouldn’t have sex with her was “homophobia and sexism”.
Pat said “Again, no evidence that King was encouraged.”
Northdallass said “Ample evidence”.
Pat was referring to evidence that “liberals encouraged king to sexually harrass his classmates”. You have no evidence for that, its simply preposterous. If King wanted to wear makeup and girl’s clothes that’s his choice and his classmates problem if they didn’t like it. He wasn’t hurting anyone by doing that.
Pat said “But you have still failed to address the fact that King was bullied in the first place. Obviously, King’s harassment was wrong. But what about the bullying of King that started this in the first place?”
Northdallass said “Does the latter excuse the former?”
Its a mitigating factor. It’s you who’s totally ignored the bullying of king that started it. Its you who apparently thinks that was excusable. You’re so filled with hate of gays it hasn’t even occurred to you to pay lip service to saying it was wrong to bully and murder King.
Northdallass said “Bonnie Bleskachek claimed that holding her accountable for her retaliation against heterosexual men and women who wouldn’t have sex with her was “homophobia and sexism”.”.
She said she was innocent she never said holding her accountable for something she actually did wrong was homophobia and sexism, she said they falsely accused her out of homophobia and sexism.
How about it Michigan matt, do you want to drop the partisanship for a minute and condemn Northdallass’s repetition of that lie?
Pat said “Homophobia is still a problem when a teen male, who was sexually harassed by another teen male, feels he has to solve this problem by shooting the harasser, but would most likely not have done that if the harasser was a girl.”
Northdallass said “Would most likely” is speculation. What you’re saying is that, because Larry King found it gratifying to sexually harass boys, reacting to that was “homophobic”.
“Larry King found it gratifying to sexually harrass boys” is speculation, don’t condemn someone else doing what you immediately follow with yourself. Most people think King didn’t get any gratification out of sexually harrassing boys, they think he did it as a defense to the anti-gay harrassment he received. The idea that he was excited by coming on to those antogonizing him, his enemies, is decidedly less likely.
Pat was referring to evidence that “liberals encouraged king to sexually harrass his classmates”.
Pat was referring to a statement that said the following:
Just as Larry King thought that it was “normal” behavior for gay and lesbian people to dress in opposite-gender clothing, to act like the opposite gender, and to make unwanted sexual advances and comments to their classmates — a belief taught, encouraged, and reinforced by these “gay student groups” and this lesbian school administrator.
As I demonstrated, these groups purchased the clothing, purchased the makeup, and encouraged King to wear them; furthermore, as the article points out, King’s behavior prior to joining these groups and meeting with the lesbian school administrator was remarkably different and far less focused on sexually harassing others.
Its a mitigating factor. It’s you who’s totally ignored the bullying of king that started it. Its you who apparently thinks that was excusable. You’re so filled with hate of gays it hasn’t even occurred to you to pay lip service to saying it was wrong to bully and murder King.
In short, King’s sexual harassment of others was excused because he was bullied. Got it.
She said she was innocent she never said holding her accountable for something she actually did wrong was homophobia and sexism, she said they falsely accused her out of homophobia and sexism.
She was well aware of the fact that she was demanding sex from people, that she was retaliating against people who turned her down, and that she was discriminating against people in whom she had no sexual interest.
The reason that you spin for her, Priya, is because you, like her, believe that those are normal behaviors for gay and lesbian people.
“Larry King found it gratifying to sexually harrass boys” is speculation, don’t condemn someone else doing what you immediately follow with yourself. Most people think King didn’t get any gratification out of sexually harrassing boys, they think he did it as a defense to the anti-gay harrassment he received.
Which means, of course, that most people think it was all right for King to sexually harass other children.
The idea that he was excited by coming on to those antogonizing him, his enemies, is decidedly less likely.
This child was obsessed by sex and sexual orientation, as his comments make clear. Why else would he be doing that?
I said “Pat was referring to evidence that “liberals encouraged king to sexually harrass his classmates”.”
Northdallass said “Pat was referring to a statement that said the following:
“Just as Larry King thought that it was “normal” behavior…to make unwanted sexual advances and comments to…classmates — a belief taught, encouraged, and reinforced by these “gay student groups” and this lesbian school administrator”.
You’ve presented no evidence of this whatsoever. The baseless assertion is absurd.
Northdallass said “King’s behavior prior to joining these groups and meeting with the lesbian school administrator was remarkably different and far less focused on sexually harassing others.”.
Once again that is the “post hoc ergo prompter hoc” fallacy, makes just as much sense as saying before women got the vote there were no nuclear weapons. Only a biased partisan would reject out of hand the anti-gay bullying of King as a reason for his harrassment of his bullies.
Northdallass said “In short, King’s sexual harassment of others was excused because he was bullied. Got it”.
Mitigated is not excused, do I have to take you through the dictionary yet again? Its you who can’t bring yourself to condemn the bullying and murder of King, the liberals on this board have repeatedly said that King’s revenge harrassment was wrong. You’re so filled with hatred of gays you can’t bring yourself to criticize heterosexuals even when they commit murder.
Northdallass said “[Bleskachek] was well aware of the fact that she was demanding sex from people, that she was retaliating against people who turned her down, and that she was discriminating against people in whom she had no sexual interest.
Once again, you speculate after condemning others for speculating. You don’t know that, you judge her guilty because she’s a lesbian. I don’t know what happened with Bleskacheck and as this is off topic I don’t need to fret over the details to decide any more than I fret over the details of every accusation against a heterosexual to see if they are guilty.
Northdallass said “The reason that you spin for her, Priya, is because you, like her, believe that those are normal behaviors for gay and lesbian people.”.
Poppycock. I don’t believe anysuch thing and I didn’t spin (unlike you), I stated the facts. Bleskacheck said she was innocent and she was falsely accused due to homophobia and sexism. She NEVER said “I did it but its okay because of my orientation.” – that’s your oft-repeated lie. I don’t know if she did it or not but I do know you’re lying about what she did say.
I said “Larry King found it gratifying to sexually harrass boys” is speculation, don’t condemn someone else doing what you immediately follow with yourself. Most people think King didn’t get any gratification out of sexually harrassing boys, they think he did it as a defense to the anti-gay harrassment he received.”.
Northdallass replied “Which means, of course, that most people think it was all right for King to sexually harass other children.”.
No one said that. In fact several liberals on this blog have condemned King’s harrassment of his classmates. Myself and perhaps others think that when you attack someone who attacked you first that that is a mitigating factor.
I said “The idea that he was excited by coming on to those antogonizing him, his enemies, is decidedly less likely.
Nortdallass said “This child was obsessed by sex and sexual orientation, as his comments make clear. Why else would he be doing that?”
Once again you’re speculating that he was obsessed with sex when you’ve condemned others for speculating that if it had been a girl harrassing Mckinny she wouldn’t have been killed. It wouldn’t be a surprised if he was obsessed with his orientation given that he was being harrassed because of it. As to why else he would be coming on to his classmates, you’re well aware of the likely reason: A Child being harrassed for being gay might seek revenge and realize that a gay come-on would be very annoying to a homophobe and an excellent way to seek revenge.
I’d stay and deflate Northdallass some more, but I have a life to live and his repetition of lies is obvious to all reasonable people so my work here is done.
I’m not kidding guys, ND30 is a professional troll. Read the article linked below and tell me he doesn’t meet every criteria listed. His internet mask is exactly like that of other professional trolls interviewed in the article. His repeated bated posts are plainly written just to provoke an angry response. It was painfully obvious to me after reading the article just what we are dealing with here. Don’t play his game.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Except that that happened in September; King’s behavior did not become disruptive, nor did his sexual harassment of others, begin until January, after he had started going to “gay youth group” meetings.
Oh, I get it. And you simply put these two things together because they happened about the same time and said one must be connected to the other. Despite your “in depth” analysis, I’m not convinced.
Ample evidence. His social workers and the “gay youth group” were actually buying and providing him with the means to buy women’s clothing and makeup; his school administrators were sending out emails making it clear that he should be allowed to do whatever he wanted.
And these emails (link?) made it “clear” that he should be allowed to do whatever he wanted. Assuming these emails said that, I am far from convinced that this meant that he could sexually harass students. And I’m damn sure it didn’t mean that he was allowed to kill those he wanted to. I haven’t seen the emails, and even if you are accurately relaying the contents, and since I doubt the administrators were trying to invoke “exact words” here. It may be possible that King assumed that these emails gave him carte blanche to sexually harass students. Heck, I wouldn’t doubt it, since his bullies had carte blanche to bully King.
Does the latter excuse the former? I think I’ve stated before that King’s sexual harassment of McInerney was wrong, so no, I’m not excusing it. At most, it is a mitigating factor if King was acting this way if it was in response to him being bullied, especially if McInerney was one who also bullied King (just as if King decided to physically fight back against his bullies). By the way, I don’t know if McInerney was one of the students who bullied King.
But I still haven’t seen you criticize the students who bullied King. If you believe there are mitigating factors, I’m all ears for that as well.
“Would most likely” is speculation.
That’s correct. “Would most likely” would indeed imply speculation. So, of course, I could be wrong. However, I think it is a very reasonable assumption. I’ll leave it to the readers to use their common sense and their own experiences and observations and draw their own conclusions.
What you’re saying is that, because Larry King found it gratifying to sexually harass boys, reacting to that was “homophobic”
I have never implied, let alone said such a thing. If I did, then I would be calling myself a homophobe. I stated again and again and again that King sexually harassing another student was wrong.
What I did say that if it was a girl who sexually harassed McInerney, it would not have led to him killing this girl. The harassment is still just as wrong. The fact that we have a double standard in the different reactions to these two situations means that homophobia is still prevalant.
sort of like how Bonnie Bleskachek claimed that holding her accountable for her retaliation against heterosexual men and women who wouldn’t have sex with her was “homophobia and sexism”.
Once again, you have not provided evidence that this had happened. Let me repeat why your statement was false.
It’s only obvious to you, NDT, because you conveniently conflate two things here. True, Bleskavich did deny that she sexually harassed her subordinates. True, she did say it was because of homophobia the she was (wrongly, in her contention) accused of sexual harassment. I still have not seen any evidence that Bleskavich admitted that she sexually harassed her subordinates and should not be punished because of her sexual orientation.
True, Bleskavich did blame others’ homophobia and insisted she did nothing wrong. True, she did use the power of her office to coerce and retaliate against others for sex. But you incorrectly link these two ideas to say that she has stated that she should get away with the sexual harassment because of her sexual orientation.
If you still maintain your statement is true, please refute my above argument and state exactly where in this argument I am incorrect.
I shouldn’t have to repeat this for the umpteenth time. This, in no way, excuses Bleskavitch’s behavior. What she did was wrong. I don’t think we need to embellish it with unnecessary falsehoods.
Once again that is the “post hoc ergo prompter hoc” fallacy, makes just as much sense as saying before women got the vote there were no nuclear weapons.
Again, Priya Lynn ignores the fact that, prior to his attendance of this “gay student group”, King’s behavior did not involve sexually harassing others or dressing up in women’s clothing. She also ignores the fact that the same social workers who took King to this group also purchased for him and provided to him women’s clothing and makeup and encouraged him to wear them.
You don’t know that, you judge her guilty because she’s a lesbian.
So according to Priya Lynn, these behaviors are perfectly acceptable for a lesbian.
Not terribly surprising.
Mitigated is not excused, do I have to take you through the dictionary yet again? Its you who can’t bring yourself to condemn the bullying and murder of King, the liberals on this board have repeatedly said that King’s revenge harrassment was wrong. You’re so filled with hatred of gays you can’t bring yourself to criticize heterosexuals even when they commit murder.
And again, Priya Lynn makes it clear that King’s sexual harassment of others was excused.
Pat, part of the problem with King’s sexual harassment of McInerney is that our own gay culture promotes (via porn, fictionalized novels, etc) the image of the ultimate humiliation of str8 males can be secured by a bullied gay in seducing them into m2m sexual conduct… it’s a large segment of the porn industry, ficitionalized novels, colloquial youth discussions, etc. And, afterall, when gays are bullied and authority figures seem uninterested in restricting/curing the environment… well, it’s time to get even… bring on the ultimate humiliation: time to make that bully my bitch.
Matt, I am not an expert on gay pornography themes, and I have never seen this theme of gays going after the straight boy theme in novels as you contend. Even if I assume that this is true, I think it’s a huge stretch that this played even the slightest role in what happened to King. Perhaps there will be such evidence at the trial. We’ll see.
As gays, we ought to be working to improve our community by standing up and protecting the fettered innocence and moral constructs of gay youth, instead of wantonly promoting a culture that idolizes gay youth sexual experimentation at the earliest possible stages… and telling them –hell, telling any youth for that matter– that sex as a youth is part of their destiny of discovery. It isn’t; it shouldn’t be.
I agree with you there. And I see you have included all youth. I’ve maintained that no one under 18 should have sex. It’s a really bad idea for lots of reasons. Of course, this is not going to stop teens from having overactive hormones. Boys are going to love, lust, yearn after girls (mostly) and vice versa. And for the most part these reactions are healthy and part of the development of teens. But we need to get to the point where we stop stunting this same type of growth of gay teens. We need to be at the point that boys are not harassed simply because they are (or perceived to be) attracted to other boys. I believe this was a significant reason (among others) that King behaved the way he did, and believe that under circumstances I mentioned above, his behavior would have been much better. Do I know this for sure? No, of course not. It is entirely possible that even if homophobia did not exist, King could still have behaved poorly. Unfortunately, we’ll never know for sure.
Some kids might be ready –the majority not. So let’s keep in mind that our own community’s culture failed King, too… not just with bad advice about getting even, but the “education” of King into a self-corrupting gay culture bent on exposure rather than prudent education.
I’m not sure what advice the gay community gave King. If it was bad advice, then the gay community failed King. As I mentioned a few posts above, there were lots of failures here.
Off topic, a bit…
DUMP has a unique perspective on which to venture his claim that NDXXX is a troll and one who is just playing games. Of course it’s not true because DUMP is pathologically adverse to veracity.
You see, DUMP is exactly that: a professional troll who can’t abide anyone dissenting from his gayLeft orthodoxy… nay, gayLeft dogma. And he’s a particularly nasty sort of troll, too.
DUMP is better known by the prior names he used here & elsewhere: Charles Wilson, wet willy and four other fake names he used to steer the thread’s discussion in his favorable direction with false attributions of praise for particularly vicious “insights” he posted under other troll-names.
He pushed trolldom to a point at IGF last spring whereby the IGF editors had to threaten him with banishment, blocking and banning.
DUMP has now been banned or blocked by nearly a dozen websites where his particularly viscious personal attack style won him the dubious honor of being banned. When blocked, DUMP resorts to finding different names and IPs in order to cirumvent the blocking, until finally outed and the newer name and IP is added to the list of blocked entries. And if that doesn’t define “game”, I’m at a loss.
On some sites, DUMP has been issued repeated demerits by the webmasters and his meanspirited personal attacks were ultimately removed by the webmasters.
He’s then threatened those webmasters with litigation, threatened them that if they didn’t allow his comments to remain he’d stalk their site until he secured satisfaction.
He’s even been so notorious that he was blacklisted from an entire site of military blogs after they tolerated his venom and special evil to a point where decent, interested readers were driven from the site.
On a special blog he created to document his passion for venom and cyberscorn, he once explained what motivated him to take such unjust and extreme measures: “I love pissing off and exposing sanctimonious gay sellouts”. That blog had the tremendous readership of 17 people in the last 6 months it was current… and I wouldn’t doubt 15 of the readers were plants by DUMP.
So for DUMP to accuse anyone of being a troll seems to be an unparalleled example of hypocrisy at its pinnacle.
To be advised is to be forewarned; DUMP calling someone else a troll is pure hypocrisy.
PriyaLynn, I have no problem with holding NDXXX accountable for his statements when they are out of line –I’ve done that repeatedly (sometimes without humor) in many threads over at GayPatriot, Malcontent and other sites we mutually frequent.
What I won’t do is take orders from you about when and where I am to do those things because, as you well know, you’ve got a penchant for ND30-badgering that nearly eclipses your native BushDerangementSyndrome… “nearly” I wrote… I don’t think your BDS could be eclipsed by any one thing.
Toss in your very healthy self-professed egotistical monopoly on the truth “problem” and we’ve got a full-out case of arrogance on your part… “my work is done”? What a stuffed load you present.
Like I said, you’ve got a lot of bags packed with something like NDXX-derangement and until you start to unpack those bags and focus in on the merits of the debate, I’m going to take a pass on your smug and arrogant directive to chastise NDXXX.
I hope I didn’t use any words that challenged your nearby dictionaries, PriyaLynn.
Pat offers: “Matt, I am not an expert on gay pornography themes, and I have never seen this theme of gays going after the straight boy theme in novels as you contend”.
Well, good for you Pat that you aren’t an expert on gay porn themes… nor am I but I do read about the absesses in our culture at sites other than IGF –maybe you need to expand your reading circle a bit?
The theme of a bullyed gay getting even with his str8 tormenter is an old one and I doubt you need be an expert on porn to have been exposed to it. Part of the fantasy involves humiliating the str8 bully… as well as the excitement of domination of your enemy.
And if you haven’t caught wind of the gay fantasy of an embattled gay making a str8 bully his bitch, well, I wonder what kind of “gay awakening” you’ve been exposed to…. I’m told that the internet gay porn industry is rife with gay-on-str8 fantasy sex and there are mainstream sites which promote exclusively that fantasy to gays.
Like I said, I’m sure a competent legal counsel in one of the many lawsuits that will surely follow from the King/McInerney tragedy will explore to what extent King was exposed to the roleplaying… and while I can’t be certain I am disproportionately sure that King sought to sexually harass McInerney via McInerney’s peers for the explicit reason of taking on his tormenters by humiliating them in front of their peers.
Drama in most young adult gays is bad enough to make daytime soaps look tame by comparison… in a middle schooler with identity issues, drama must have been on full flame.
And again, for the gay hysterics here (not you Pat) I don’t condone McInerney’s cold blooded murder of King. But I don’t think gay activists appropriating him as a “gay innocent” works, either.
Matt, points well taken. First of all, I was not implying that since you knew about these themes, that you watched porn or read these novels, etc., in case you thought that. I assumed that you got this information elsewhere. I’ll be happy to check this information out (link?). In the meantime, I still doubt that any of this has any connection to the Larry King shooting.
And if you haven’t caught wind of the gay fantasy of an embattled gay making a str8 bully his bitch, well, I wonder what kind of “gay awakening” you’ve been exposed to…. I’m told that the internet gay porn industry is rife with gay-on-str8 fantasy sex and there are mainstream sites which promote exclusively that fantasy to gays.
Again, I don’t doubt this. I figured there are various other themes as well. But these are fictional themes. Just as I’m sure straight porn has several fictional themes as well. What I think is more dangerous and pervasive is something like the Sopranos, which has a much wider audience than gay porn. Some people even glorify what some of these vicious characters did. If this fictional account becomes connected to reality, I think you’d agree that this would be much worse. But such a connection is also tenuous at best.
Like I said, I’m sure a competent legal counsel in one of the many lawsuits that will surely follow from the King/McInerney tragedy will explore to what extent King was exposed to the roleplaying… and while I can’t be certain I am disproportionately sure that King sought to sexually harass McInerney via McInerney’s peers for the explicit reason of taking on his tormenters by humiliating them in front of their peers.
Okay. Let’s assume that King somehow knew about this gay porn theme. If King sought to sexually harass McInerney in the way that you stated, then I’m afraid I can almost justify his behavior. Remember, King was bullied and humiliated in front of his peers as well, and now you’re saying that this was likely his way of exacting revenge.
Anytime we here of a story of a victim of bullying react by one day, standing up to the bully and beating the crap out of him, we all applaud the victim who was able to humiliate the tormenter. The good news is that usually the bullying stops, and that episode is over. Some people cannot fight back physically, and if they tried, it would just make the situation worse. So King’s way to fight back was to humiliate his tormenters.
I guess my question is why is it apparently okay for a victim to strike back using violence but awful when it involves striking back using unwanted sexual advances. Because we are hurting a straight boy’s feelings? And ignore the fact that King’s feelings were hurt. Are you saying that McInerney’s humiliation was somehow worse than the humiliation that King suffered?
I’m not trying to say King was a total innocent here. There does appear to be evidence that King went beyond getting back at his tormenters. And also it would be a shame if McInerney was not one of the persons who bullied King in the first place. I just don’t see how the shame that McInerney apparently suffered was any worse than what King suffered. I would still maintain that even if this gay porn theme was connected to this tragic incident. I also maintain that if the school administration dealt with the initial bullying by doing its job (no extra money), this incident would never have happened.
Pat, thanks for the clarification on who might or might not be an expert on porn themes (wink). No, I don’t have a ready link for you.
To answer your primary question, I don’t think it’s acceptable for anyone to use violence to strike back at an opponent or tormenter unless their personal safety is at imminent risk. I’ve fought enough playground fights in my life to know that walking away is far harder option for most than swinging those predicatably wild punches and supposedly standing your ground.
I think McInerney’s and King’s bullying was wrong and one was not worse than the other. What is fundamentally immoral is that certain administrators and staff, as well as social workers, were ineffective or (I think) negligent in stopping the bullying, verbal violence and intimidation.
I still think that to move through this tragedy’s ultimate trajectory and not have the gay community DEMAND and work for accountability for those administrators, staff and social workers is tantamount to our community letting down all gay youth –and youth in general.
Shame on us if we let that happen.
Matt, I agree pretty much with what you said. I would only add that the WHOLE community should demand accountability from the administrators. All the victims of bullying and harassment deserved better.
I think McInerney’s and King’s bullying was wrong and one was not worse than the other. What is fundamentally immoral is that certain administrators and staff, as well as social workers, were ineffective or (I think) negligent in stopping the bullying, verbal violence and intimidation.
Agreed.
I would cast serious doubt on the notion that gay pornography is an accurate representation of, “gay culture”. Straight porn is not an accurate represnetation of, “straight culture”.
Even if it were truthful, one would have to demonstrate that a minor, King, was given access to a tremendous amount of gay porn.
Likewise to argue that this gay-straight alliance club that he — King — went to was telling him to sexually harass people is rather dubious.
I also have not seen anything to suggest that this student club was telling King to have sex.
I hope someone here is not trying to imply that you cannot be gay or straight without being sexually active. The most effective way to keep kids from having sex is 24/7 adult supervision. How that happans is another story.
Larry was being harassed, on a daily basis, because he was effeminate, wore women’s clothing and make-up. Apparently, while being harassed by one of more typical bullies, he may have verbally harassed them.
Again, if I call John’s Mother a, “dirty, low down, stinking whore” and he replies, “So is your mother”, I would look a bit silly if I turned around and complained about harassment. Pot is calling the kettle black and all of that.
Some adults should have stepped in, but again we would need to know which adults, knew what, when and what they did in response to it.
I suggested various reasons why it is possible the adults in these two kids lives did nothing.
More broadly we might want to think about the safety and health issues for GLBT youth in general. This will send many such youth further into the closet, especially if they go to the same or nearby schools.
Depending on what the conseqeuences are, it may encourage straight youth to engage in copy cat violence.
Richard2 writes: “I would cast serious doubt on the notion that gay pornography is an accurate representation of, “gay culture”".
No one said it was, Richard2, so save your casting of serious doubt; but, it was nice try at spinning a simple, near-obvious point into yet another one of your classic silly overstatements.
Like it’s been said, they haven’t even gotten to the criminal trial portion of this unfolding tragedy and there’s still the bevy of civil lawsuits where it’s likely competent legal counsel will examine all the angles of this tragedy.
So save that “serious doubt” of yours for something that warrants a little casting.
Richard2 writes: “I would cast serious doubt on the notion that gay pornography is an accurate representation of, “gay culture”".
You said: No one said it was, Richard2,
Um yeah, someone here certainly did just that. But it is nice to see that you seem content to live in your own little fantasy land.
Richard2, maybe you can provide the quote in this thread where someone wrote gay porn is an accurate representation of gay culture?
Just point it out, ok?
And when you can’t… please scramble up an apology omelet?
We’ll all be waiting for that one, I bet.
Hmmm. A few posts above. Not too hard to find;
“is that our own gay culture promotes…seducing them [heterosexual men] into m2m sexual conduct…”
“it [porn] [is] a large segment of the [gay culture] with… ficitionalized novels, colloquial youth discussions, etc.”
“is that our own gay culture promotes…seducing them [heterosexual men] into m2m sexual conduct…”
—That’s no different than straight men hitting on lesbians, or straight porn movies about lesbians are being turned straight.
Gay military porn movies do feature seemingly straight guys going gay. And there are porn websites that claim to hire straight men for the purposes of gay sex.
The difference is when you take your desires out of the fantasy world and into the real world. In my own experience, I did hit on a gay that was straight, but unlike King, that guy used to go to gay bars and liked the
attention. He was a cock tease.
And there are women who hit on gay men, sometimes getting them drunk and screwing them.
But let’s be clear here, straight men are a dangerous game, they’re highly volatile and unpredictable. So unless a straight man goes to a gay bar, is really open minded and secure in his sexuality, keep your hands to yourself. That’s how I see it.
Richard, the above comment was an exercise to focus your attention on what you CLAIMED those statements are –you said that translated into “gay porn is an accurate representation of gay culture”. I didn’t write anything of the sort.
I am taking issue with your inaccurate characterization that those words to somehow construe my words to mean that gay porn is an accurate representation of gay culture.
Look, getting you to understand that is probably beyond your reasoning powers because you’re the very guy who takes whatever is said and turns it into a ridiculous misstatement or silly extension.
The thread was talking about fantasy themes in gay porn promoted by our culture… fantasy, Richard2. And King’s possible exposure to said fantasy themes and the likelihood that some sharp lawyer in one of the civil trials will explore that avenue in deps.
Fantasy themes of humiliation by gays on their str8 bully tormneters… who always turn out to be improbably and wildly passionate lovers for the gay guy… all the gay guy needed to do was get his bully in touch with his own true, closeted nature. And the gay guy earns himself a butch lover tossed in with the humiliation sequence, too.
Fantasy themes, Richard2. Oh, wait, in YOUR world that means “an accurate representation of gay culture”.
Like I wrote, save casting all your doubt on what constitutes accurate portrayls of gay culture –fantasy themes in porn ain’t one of ‘em.
MM seems to be trying to squirm or flip-flop his way out of controversy. It is clear what he said, and if he wants to backtrack or change his mind, he should do so.
A person would be hard pressed to find out why — when a gay kid is gay bashed — a gay person would be attacking gay porn for promoting te seduction of straight men, unless the person felt that the porn was a major part of gay culture.
Otherwise, you are saying that gay porn promotes the seduction of straight men but is not really a major part of the ‘gay culture’ and thus cannot be tied to an argument about kid being killed for hitting on aother kid…
In that case you are basically spouting off total and utter nonesense.
I have never seen anything to suggest that King had ready access to gay porn, much less the gay porn that you seem to know soo much about.
I suspect this is a simple matter of the fact that we are dealinhg with kids and kids do a lot of things that they are not suppose to do, which is why we do not want them having kids and why they need –relativily — decent and sane adults in their lives.
Richard2, no squirming here. You said someone said something; I asked you to cite that statement. If you couldn’t find it, apologize.
You cited your own reading of what those words meant. You failed; no apology forthcoming. I get it.
And I love the little attempt at demeaning me with “gay porn you seem to know soo much about”.
Nice try Richard2; how very little of you.
Now, what was that about apologizing? Oh yeah, you just keep misconstruing and mis-stating. How gayDemocrat of you.
Um, yeah MM you are certainly squirming.
I reposted a quote, its implications were clear and now you are trying to squirm out of it.
I have never seen any credible source to suggest that Larry had access to gay porn, or gay porn that encouraged him to sexually harass straight people or that gay porn is a major part of ‘gay culture’ and that its telling gays to harass or seduce straights.
I have also not seen any credible evidence to suggest that the youth support group he went to was telling him to sexually harass anyone. Apparently, you feel differently about it.
Givne that I have not seen any credible evidence to — gasp — actually back up what was clearly said about gay porn, I must assume that someone is speaking from their own personal experience or just (as I heard once too many times in my childhood) whistling-you-know-what.
Personally I do not have any great objections to adult pornography per se, although I certainly do not want kids being exposed to it and somepeople can become addicted or overly obesssive about it.
So, unless you happen to be a prudish prig, their is no way you can think that I am trying to demean you by noting your apparent extensive personal experience with gay porn, although your fantasy about seducing straight men, might warrant some concern.
Richard2, honest “Mr (so-called) Independent”, there’s is zero squirming at this end… it’s a simple fact that you took a statement from me and ran it to a conclusion you’d now like to wiggle out of with all possible fervor… because, despite your protests, the little smear job of yours didn’t take.
You said you’d cast some doubt on the notion that “gay porn is an accurate representation of gay culture”. Of course, that’s not what I said and you know it.
Neither did I –despite your repeated and shallowly ineffective attempts to imput that was what I said.
You came up with that nonsensical overly broad indictment… not me. I said there’s a well-known undercurrent theme in gay porn that includes gay-str8 tormenter episodes where the weaker gay party suddenly comes to sexually dominate his str8 tormenter. Simple as that and it doesn’t require years of reading and exposure to porn, as you imply the judgment would reasonably require.
As for any further claims about what you THINK young King had access to or not, well I can only say that’s what you THINK but there’s no credible proof beyond your own limited -but highly independent- experience.
Whether you are a porn addict or not, Richard2, is immaterial. You THINK you know what the case is all about but, as I contend, this case will likely unfold beyond your limited –albeit “independent” perspective- when attorneys in the civil lawsuits have the opportunity to research what exactly King knew, what he was exposed to, what he did with other peers.
Just like you think a fair restatement of my words construe to “gay porn is an accurate representation of gay culture”, I’m betting you’ll be wrong again.
You really do need to read for comprehension, Richard2; not for what you want to THINK is there.
It’s a simple –and difficult for you– as that.
And like another infamour Richard here, King Richard Rosendall, I’ll let you have the last, improbably fair (sigh) word on this.
MM;
I am an Independent, while you are an avowed gay partisan. I suspect you care far more about promoting your party then you do gay rights.
Now I am not saying that is always a bad thing. We probably need gay partisans just as we do need gay Independents and minor party supporters.
However, you rather bigoted attacks against Independent do not help the tone of this discussion, which should be out the many problems facing gay youth.
I have not launched any ‘smear’ job on you. I do not know you from Adam, much less know you enough to want to waste the time on you in that way.
“there’s a well-known undercurrent theme in gay porn that includes gay-str8 tormenter episodes where the weaker gay party suddenly comes to sexually dominate his str8 tormenter.”
What does this have to do with a middle school bullied kid named Larry?
Are you suggesting that he had access to gay porn? Are you suggesting that he was being told to sexually harass other people? Are basing your statements on credible and hard facts? Or are you just whistling Dickie?
I have very little personal experience with porn, certainly not enough to be willing to make broad statements about what is common or uncommon in gay porn.
not to step into a pissing match, but i think michigan-matt has made a good or fair point (although i disagree with him on somethings talked about so far) and richardII just wants to avoid it no matter what
matt of michigan said this
And, in fact, our gay culture promotes that sickness by projecting sexual fantasies that involve str8 males. When the civil lawsuits begin, I bet legal counsel will be able to document King’s exposure to that underbelly of our gay community.
As gays, we ought to be working to improve our community by standing up and protecting the fettered innocence and moral constructs of gay youth, instead of wantonly promoting a culture that idolizes gay youth sexual experimentation at the earliest possible stages… and telling them –hell, telling any youth for that matter– that sex as a youth is part of their destiny of discovery. It isn’t; it shouldn’t be.
Some kids might be ready –the majority not. So let’s keep in mind that our own community’s culture failed King, too… not just with bad advice about getting even, but the “education” of King into a self-corrupting gay culture bent on exposure rather than prudent education.
richardII took that and rewrote it as this I would cast serious doubt on the notion that gay pornography is an accurate representation of, “gay culture”
“rewrote” is a good word to describe what you are trying very hard to do, richardII
and it is not working for me
matt of michigan never said what you portray him as having said
time for you to apologize to him and to those of us who had to read his repeated explanations and your dishonest recreation of his words
jake
my bad, the italics off and on switch did not work
i meant those quotes to show up different than the main part of my thoughts
jake
Jake, thanks, first off.
Second, you’re right about Richard2 rewriting and shifting (no, you didn’t imply that; I did) the focus of just about any debate issue when he gets caught spinning.
Of course, he won’t ever, ever, ever see what HE does as being wrong or intelletually dishonest. He’s an avowed “independent” and he can’t do wrong since he’s above it all, by his calculations.
Richard2 took my words and twisted them around until he thought they meant “I would cast serious doubt on the notion that gay pornography is an accurate representation of, “gay culture”".
Of course, I never wrote that gay porn was an accurate prepresentation of the gay culture but, to Richard2, that doesn’t matter. Like his fellow-named King RichardJRosendall, both men believe that if they heard it through their selective filters a certain way, then that’s the way it is.
For them, it’s case closed in the minds of closed minds.
Richard2 was supposed to apologize if he didn’t find someone (other than himself) saying “I would cast serious doubt on the notion that gay pornography is an accurate representation of, “gay culture”"
Did he apologize? Heck no. Case closed.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.