Should I not have put the word 'gay' in the headline?

RE: Should I not have put the word 'gay' in the headline?

Jon Bray — Wed, 02 Mar 2016 09:22:18 GMT

Vets also garner a certain amount of trust (a nurse got me a mug which suggests people "trust me, I'm a vet" although I admittedly don't tend to use it to lure people into S&M sessions these days).

It is perhaps relevant in that vets are trusted with access to certain class A drugs (spot quiz; who knows the amphetamine derivative most small animal vets have on their shelves?).

RE: Should I not have put the word 'gay' in the headline?

Francisco Gomez — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 09:52:37 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

perhaps we should draw this thread to a close.

[/quote]

I agree with this. There are also many people who have commented afterwards on points already discussed, making it obvious that they didn't read the whole thread. So from now on, we're only likely to go round in circles.

RE: Should I not have put the word 'gay' in the headline?

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 09:48:15 GMT

Must say, I've found this an interesting discussion. I've been surprised by the turn of events. I mean, I knew that 'crystal-meth sadomasochistic gay sex manslaughter vet struck off' would generate a lot of interest. What I wasn't expecting was the outcry over the inclusion of the word 'gay' in the headline. Caught me completely by surprise.

That, more than anything else, would be my defence against the accusation of doing so for sensationalism. If sensationalism HAD been my motive, I would have included 'gay' in the full knowledge that it would stir things up.

I didn't. The reality is that to me, the word 'gay' is so unremarkable that there is no reason not to mention it. If I was telling the story to a friend down at the pub, I would summarise it as a manslaughter committed by a vet on crystal meth during a gay sex act. The 'eew' bit of it is not in whether or not they happened to be gay, it's in the act which caused the death, which in this case was a gay sex act (the point is not whether the same thing could be done to a woman. Of course it could. But in this case, it wasn't).

I still think that anyone who thinks that 'gay' isn't central to the story is being unrealistic. Looking at the edited headline, I think most people seeing it for the first time would now think it refers to a crime committed by a man against a woman (because there many more heterosexuals than homosexuals, so without being told anything to the contrary, that's the default assumption).

So in summary, for me it was nothing more than a precis of the story. No more. No less. Yes, the headline was sensational. However, the sensationalism lay not in the sexuality, but the fact that 'crystal meth', 'sado-masochism' and 'manslaughter' are three things that one doesn't usually (thank god) hear used in the context of a veterinary surgeon.

Quite obviously a significant percentage of people thought 'gay' should not have been included in the headline. As I said before, perhaps we will only be able to say that homosexuality really is properly accepted when the word gay can be included in a headline like that without anyone thinking twice about it.

And on that point, perhaps we should draw this thread to a close.

RE: Should I not have put the word 'gay' in the headline?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 09:32:17 GMT

Thanks Arlo

Wynne

RE: Should I not have put the word 'gay' in the headline?

J G Wray — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 09:18:24 GMT

[quote user="George Cooper"]Be like Wynne. [/quote]

No thank you.

RE: Should I not have put the word 'gay' in the headline?

George Cooper — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 08:53:05 GMT

Wynne is very lucky. Wynne has a built in interpreter. Wynne's interpreter interprets her words into real meaning. Be like Wynne.

RE: Should I not have put the word 'gay' in the headline?

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 08:47:21 GMT

[quote user="Chris Milligan"]Are you even serious? I once had the displeasure to work with a particularly odious specimen of this profession in Hertfordshire and he came out with stuff like this when he thought few were listening. He thought he was being funny.[/quote]

Chris Milligan, we did cover this earlier in the thread; obviously some thought Wynne was saying that as though homosexuality is a bad thing and the only positive thing is that it doesn't contribute to overpopulation.

That is not what Wynne meant. She just has a firm belief that the world is overpopulated (I agree with her on that), and that since two men cannot together procreate, they cannot together add to the population crisis. There's nothing odious or humourous about it. Just an observation of fact. I agree not especially well worded. But I don't think deserving of opprobrium.

RE: Should I not have put the word 'gay' in the headline?

Chris Milligan — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 08:17:31 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

One positive thing about homosexuality is it doesn't contribute to the overpopulation problem.

Wynne

[/quote]

Are you even serious? I once had the displeasure to work with a particularly odious specimen of this profession in Hertfordshire and he came out with stuff like this when he thought few were listening. He thought he was being funny.

RE: Should I not have put the word 'gay' in the headline?

grumpyoldman — Sun, 07 Feb 2016 18:38:05 GMT

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]that's extremely funny, being me the only self-admitted lefty in here and defending exactly that position...[/quote]

Its ok , my eldest son recently "came out" after a trip to Brazil , I was a bit lost for words initially but commented after some thought, "you could have just gone to Macclesfield", we laughed and lunch continued as planned.

RE: Should I not have put the word 'gay' in the headline?

Francisco Gomez — Sun, 07 Feb 2016 15:59:33 GMT

[quote user="grumpyoldman"]

I can foresee a time ,a moment in the not too distant future where PC positive discrimination will, with the help of those PC socialists offended by the use and misuse of terms such as Gay have the rest of us apologising for being un-gay or none gay.

[/quote]

that's extremely funny, being me the only self-admitted lefty in here and defending exactly that position...

RE: Should I not have put the word 'gay' in the headline?

Glenn Hodgson — Sun, 07 Feb 2016 15:58:55 GMT

I saw this headline.....

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/news/world/police-kill-transgender-man-suffering-from-aspergers-who-gained-viral-fame-last-year-with-calming-dog

Police kill transgender man suffering from Asperger’s who gained viral fame last year with calming dog

RE: Should I not have put the word 'gay' in the headline?

grumpyoldman — Sun, 07 Feb 2016 12:44:16 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]grumpyoldman Ha! Well, you're entitled to your view that it was a turd. But you're wrong in thinking my motive is to polish it. When I know I've dropped one, I normally prefer to try and clean it up before anyone notices![/quote]

RE: Should I not have put the word 'gay' in the headline?

Arlo Guthrie — Sun, 07 Feb 2016 00:19:03 GMT

[quote user="grumpyoldman"]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]So I thought I'd put it to the vote. Have a look at the story, and tell me what you think. If it is the considered view of the members of this forum that the headline should have the word 'gay' removed, then I will do it (against my better judgement), and be guided by it in the future.[/quote]

Some people like watching others trying to polish a turd, if you like you can wrap it in Christmas paper, but in the end we all know what it is.

[/quote]

grumpyoldman Ha! Well, you're entitled to your view that it was a turd. But you're wrong in thinking my motive is to polish it. When I know I've dropped one, I normally prefer to try and clean it up before anyone notices!

RE: Should I not have put the word 'gay' in the headline?

grumpyoldman — Sat, 06 Feb 2016 21:57:09 GMT

Some people like watching others trying to polish a turd, if you like you can wrap it in Christmas paper, but in the end we all know what it is.

RE: Should I not have put the word 'gay' in the headline?

Nhombokisheni — Sat, 06 Feb 2016 16:26:13 GMT

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

It wasn't a justification for being offensive. It was just a general reason why I think society should be a bit less offence-averse.

[/quote]

So... I was thinking about all these politically correct business and whether or not some words (or expressions) should be allowed for the public write/read. Or, on the other hand, the very act of censorship is fuelling and adding argument to those who in fact discriminate against minorities.

So I go into the shower and see this product on the side and think... - Oh! my white British blond girlfriend using this!, I thought she was much more inclusive than this! I mean, she chose a bl**dy Spaniard to spend her life with!-

Nothing further from a racial slur, the people of 'Good Things' didn't probably think how offensive the 'Stay Clear' product could be. I wonder if we should press to have the product removed from the shelves... And what is more! What would our friend Nhombokisheni think about it!

Of course, as well wanting to make my small point, I hope you get the joke and laugh, rather than branding me a horrible word

[/quote]

Every word has context....the reader has a choice to be exegetical or eisegetical........there is nothing contextually that will make me pause about this product label.....apart of course from the fact that the catch phrase is meaningless jargon!!!!!!!

Going back to the OP, it's clear that eisegesis ruled.........it's not everything that "appears" to "imply" to mean/offend that actually does......what happened to giving the benefit of the doubt????? I don't personally think we are helping by tip-toeing around the use of the word gay.....it's here to stay and its time we view its use in the same light as short man, white man, foreign vet, Irish woman, etc. It don't mean the adjective refers to everyone in that category.

By the way....not all "straight" couples do it as nature intended.....I have seen weird things to distasteful to repeat (I am a firm believer and practice what nature intended!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

RE: Should I not have put the word 'gay' in the headline?

Arlo Guthrie — Sat, 06 Feb 2016 15:21:36 GMT

[quote user="ruths"]man who self identifies as gay kills another man (we don't know if he was gay or bisexual) by xxxx (use a description of what he did) after taking crystal meth.'[/quote]

Whatever you do, don't give up the day job to become a headline writer, Ruths

RE: Should I not have put the word 'gay' in the headline?

ruths — Sat, 06 Feb 2016 13:55:16 GMT

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]

[quote user="ruths"]

Im scratching my head now becuAse maybe they should have said male vet (or ex vet) (or not vet at all) kills man in drug fuelled sm sex acts.....

[/quote]

What about the 'S&M' word? The use of that word here and elsewhere implies that it is wrong to practice 'S&M' (which is illegal in the UK), despite ethically 'S&M' consisting in two consenting adults. However this is actually legal in Germany. Would you say that in Germany the word should be omitted but not in the UK? Otherwise you would be discriminating that minority that practices 'S&M' without breaking the law.

How many more words do we need to censor to be politically correct?

[/quote]

i think thst is a better description of the sex- and is without judgement.

Using the word gay to describe a sexual act is an odd thing to do - I think that it's more appropriate to say something like...

'man who self identifies as gay kills another man (we don't know if he was gay or bisexual) by xxxx (use a description of what he did) after taking crystal meth.'

Or some thing that is factual and non sensationist.

In my opinion it's not about censorship- it's about accuracy.

I'm wary of the agenda of people who twist accuracy so they can make a sensstional headline.

( obviously, I'm not a journalist so my headline could be improved whilst preserving accuracy and making it more readable)

RE: Should I not have put the word 'gay' in the headline?

Lucy Fleming — Sat, 06 Feb 2016 13:27:49 GMT

[quote user="ruths"]Many headlines were based around the fact that a vet ( I know- this is moot)[/quote]

I found it interesting how many made the point that he was a 'government vet' - I suspect the government part was more relevant to many people! How we do love/hate to learn about the peccadillos (sexual or otherwise) of our politicians...

RE: Should I not have put the word 'gay' in the headline?

Francisco Gomez — Sat, 06 Feb 2016 13:27:15 GMT

[quote user="ruths"]

Im scratching my head now becuAse maybe they should have said male vet (or ex vet) (or not vet at all) kills man in drug fuelled sm sex acts.....

[/quote]

How many more words do we need to censor to be politically correct?

RE: Should I not have put the word 'gay' in the headline?

ruths — Sat, 06 Feb 2016 13:19:16 GMT

Arlo, we are discussing the nature of words and how they imply things without actually saying those things.... So it's ironic that you have made a badly worded justification of your right to offend -)))

And when you discuss the lack of outcry around the use of the word 'vet ' in the wider media... We werent actually talking about this, tho. Your OP and your title was about whether or not you shoudk use the word 'gay' in the headline.

and my reply was the fact that the fatal element of the sex acta could happen in both sex between two men, sex between a man and a woman or sex between two women (or multiples thereof)

so, there's no need to define the sex as gay or not gay as it's not relevant.

I suspect that most people don't have sex that could be fatal ( or we would see more sex related deaths) so THIS aspect of the sex is the defining thing.

Many headlines were based around the fact that a vet ( I know- this is moot) killed a man in drug fuelled sado maschistic sex

Now, here's another thing I've just realised - none of the headlines have said the vet was a man...

Im scratching my head now becuAse maybe they should have said male vet (or ex vet) (or not vet at all) kills man in drug fuelled sm sex acts.....

RE: Should I not have put the word 'gay' in the headline?

Francisco Gomez — Sat, 06 Feb 2016 11:40:34 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]Nothing further from a racial slur, the people of 'Good Things' didn't probably think how offensive the 'Stay Clear' product could be.[/quote]

Must say, I'm not sure I see the racial slur in 'Stay Clear'. In relation to skin, it just means 'blemish fee'.

[/quote]

At least it doesn't say 'Stay White'! You imagine!?

RE: Should I not have put the word 'gay' in the headline?

Arlo Guthrie — Sat, 06 Feb 2016 11:35:06 GMT

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]Nothing further from a racial slur, the people of 'Good Things' didn't probably think how offensive the 'Stay Clear' product could be.[/quote]

Must say, I'm not sure I see the racial slur in 'Stay Clear'. In relation to skin, it just means 'blemish fee'.

RE: Should I not have put the word 'gay' in the headline?

Francisco Gomez — Sat, 06 Feb 2016 11:26:44 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

It wasn't a justification for being offensive. It was just a general reason why I think society should be a bit less offence-averse.

[/quote]

Of course, as well wanting to make my small point, I hope you get the joke and laugh, rather than branding me a horrible word

RE: Should I not have put the word 'gay' in the headline?

Arlo Guthrie — Sat, 06 Feb 2016 10:14:55 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]Arlo - I think it is cowardly bowing to pressure and changing the headline.[/quote]

Michael Woodhouse Objection noted. But as Francisco said, whether or not the word appears in the headline is not as important, I think, as the fact that the discussion surrounding its removal is on record.

[quote user="ruths"]I think it was the extreme sex that killed the man. I won't go into details as they really are not eas reading, but the sort of things that happened to the dead man could have been done to a woman with the same result.

So - I stlll think 'gay sex' wasn't necessary [/quote]

Of course, strictly speaking you're right. But since when was 'necessary' the defining requirement when deciding what adjectives to use when telling a story/ writing a headline? You yourself make the point that you don't see the need to describe him as a vet outside the context of a vet website, and yet I don't hear howls of anger about the fact that most of the media reports did exactly that.

[quote user="ruths"]and another thing, Arlo,

You said -'I think I should also make clear that whilst I don't set out to offend people, and certainly not gratuitously, I also reserve the right to cause offence.

Why? Because we all need to be offended from time to time. We all need to experience that end of the spectrum of human emotion in order to fully enjoy the other end, if you understand what I mean. And wouldn't the world be a duller place if we didn't have something to be offended about from time to time?'

I am not convinced that this is a justification for being offensive. It feels bullish for you to decisde what people need to feel so they can feel something else. Why is it up to you?[/quote]

I worded that badly. Of course I'm not sitting here thinking: "Ruth really hasn't got a fully calibrated barometer of human emotion. She needs some offence in her life today." That would be an extraordinarily arrogant way of thinking.

It wasn't a justification for being offensive. It was just a general reason why I think society should be a bit less offence-averse.

[quote user="ruths"]true, we have free speech and anyone can can say anything they like. But with this, I believe there is responsibility. Just becuase you CAN offend, doesn't mean you shouldn't look at your words and see if they might be offensive. I find the 'it's my right to say what I like and stop being so precious/flimsy/wet and weedy' just doesn't cut it as a mature and responsible approach to conducting discussions[/quote]

I agree with you.

[quote user="Robin Grimmer"]I think perhaps you should have chosen a more subtle title Arlo, -

"It Shouldn't Happen to a Vet"![/quote]

Laughed out loud. Yes, but one half of a storyteller's job is to write the story, and the other half is to get people to read it!

RE: Should I not have put the word 'gay' in the headline?

Robin Grimmer — Sat, 06 Feb 2016 08:17:42 GMT

I think perhaps you should have chosen a more subtle title Arlo, -

"It Shouldn't Happen to a Vet"!