I can’t quite describe how this makes me feel. I’m a gay man who grew up before Stonewall and gay lib and all the rest. The fact that he was out in public openly with his boyfriend is not the main point of the story is, I guess, the best part.
I do not, of course, wish to claim any part of his behavior or his character. Any positive feelings I have are not about him, but about the way the story is presented.
That’s all. I’m 63 and I truly never thought I would live to see this day.
Roddy
I’ve got to think that alcohol or some other intoxicant helped create this perfect storm of a beating that landed the victim in the hospital with so many injuries.
I don’t get what the problem is, could you explain it? The opening paragraph seems just fine to me. It tells the reader “Hey look here, there was an argument over some soy sauce and it landed one person in the hospital and the other with felony charges…read on!”
That’s the idea behind the opening paragraph. There’s no judgements whatsoever made in the article about the sexual orientation of the people involved, nor do I think any are implied or meant to be inferred. I could see a similar opening paragraph if a similar situation happened between a heterosexual couple. Though it might not work out the same because when a man beats a woman the public tends to take a much nastier view. The fact that he’s gay is hardly even mentioned.
Wait, nevermind, I get it.
I kinda tripped over this sentence in the OP:
"The fact that he was out in public openly with his boyfriend is not the main point of the story is, I guess, the best part. "
I thought you had a problem with the way it was written. Like they were making a big deal out of them being a gay couple. Got it. You were saying that you’re glad it’s not the main point. :smack:
Nevermind.
I think it’s brilliantly written. You’re reading through the sentence and thinking “OMG a gay football player and…wait, “soy sauce and underpants”? Never mind the gay thing - tell me about that!”.
But he’s only 30, so I would guess he’s not very “former”.
I guess I need to work on my OP writing skills. Some of the responses to this thread leave me puzzled. When I said it was a terrible story, perhaps that was the ambiguous part.
So to be clear, the events related are terrible, not the writing of the story.
Roddy
No, I got what you meant. The orientations of the two men were incidental to the newsworthy part and nothing was assumed that gay couples are prone to violence or unrequested saucing of rice.
For what it’s worth, Roddy, I caught your meaning right away and also thought it was cool that the “his boyfriend” part was just another facet of the article, which was focused on the abuse.
I barely notice stuff like that anymore, and that makes me happy. It’s kind of like when I was a kid I grew up in a pretty lily-white town and thus tended to notice nonwhite folks, but nowadays I get uncomfortable when I go to areas where everybody’s white because it just looks wrong. Like Planet of the Pale or something.
That’s the reaction I got when I went to the Great America mall in Minneapolis. The occasional non-pale family stood out quite a bit (and the ones I saw seemed to huddle together for comfort).
Disclaimer: this was at least 15 years ago, so things may have changed there since then.
Roddy
My goal in life is to leave as confusing an archaeological trail as possible. If I can get just one future historical linguist to write a paper on rice saucing, my life will have been worth it.
I was going to point out that this is an article from the website of the San Francisco Chronicle, where people’s sexual orientation is referenced incidentally all the time without comment, but then I saw in the OP’s profile that he lives in SF and works at a newspaper. Is this really that unusual to you? After all, this is the (successor to the) newspaper that published the headline Board gets a straight white male when Gavin Newsom was appointed.
