Because we wouldn't want to tarnish hockey's image as the sport of gentlmen
When the New York Times headline is Avery Punished for Vulgar Remark, you don't have to know who Avery is to know that reading the article will in no way inform you what the vulgar remark was.
True to self-censorship form, the newspaper of record-ish will say only that hockey star Sean Avery "used a derogatory term to refer to his former girlfriends, saying that it had 'become like a common thing in the N.H.L. for guys to fall in love with' them."
So what unprintable term did Avery call Elisha Cuthbert et al? Bitches? Hos? Cunts? Chicks?
Nope. Thanks to less scrupulous tabloids (and YouTube), I learned that what Avery actually said was, "I just want to comment on how it's become like a common thing in the NHL for guys to fall in love with my sloppy seconds. I don't know what that's about. Enjoy the game tonight."
Enjoy the game! Such a polite Canadian!
The wire services split on this one, with UPI daring to actually report the most relevant detail of the story and AP opting to protect the delicate sensitivities of hockey fans. Guess whose lead most papers followed?
As far as I can tell, the Times has only used the offending phrase twice and never about a person (once incorrectly in a food article and once in a review of what sounds like an alarmingly bad gay comedy, Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds. Why they printed the full title is anybody's guess). The phrase has gotten the media in some trouble in the past, but not everyone is so demure. Us Weekly used it to describe Ashlee Simpson.
[h/t: Colby Cosh]
Comments
It doesn't really get sloppy until fifths or sixths anyhow.
Posted by: mypalmike | December 3, 2008 11:30 AM
No sloppiness when Magnum XLs are employed. And no pesky life-threatening diseases either.
Posted by: J.D. | December 3, 2008 12:13 PM
It's funny how these strategies fail no matter what. Either a nine-year-old can tell what word is intended -- "a f**king disgrace" -- or nobody can tell what word was used, in which case we all substitute much harsher language.
Posted by: Martin | December 3, 2008 12:36 PM
I agree with whatever the photograph said.
Posted by: TG Gibbon | December 4, 2008 8:23 AM
Since the genesis of the term refers to the immediacy of a follow up sexual contact by a third party, I feel it's an accurate description of the, ah, playing field.
Further, its context is more generaly considered to be demeaning to the person partaking of the seconds, and not the person dishing out the seconds. The comment was, after all, meant to demean the hockey player, and was far less about demeaning the ex.
It is, I suppose, also fair to note the implication is that the party of the first part is also a whore. A term NEVER confused with "Hollywood starlet".
LiLo? We're definitely in @mypalmike's territory of sloppy 5ths and 6ths.
Posted by: pessimist | December 4, 2008 8:48 AM
"[...]Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds. Why they printed the full title is anybody's guess [...]"
My guess is that they didn't want it to be confused with Eating Out 2: Electric Boogaloo.
Posted by: Michael | December 4, 2008 12:34 PM
From the recent NY Times profile of Seth MacFarlane:
"When he goes to Fox with new ideas, Mr. MacFarlane said, its executives get nervous. (His actual language, in a backstage interview at Carnegie Hall, was saucier.)"
What? They crap hollandaise?
Posted by: Jim/The Velvet Blog | December 4, 2008 1:36 PM
From Charlie Gibson's recent interview with George W. Bush when asking about the current financial crisis:
GIBSON: "But was there an 'uh-oh' moment -- and I could probably use stronger language than that -- (laughter)-- when you thought this really could be bad?"
Hmmm, think Charlie was alluding to "Oh, Shit!"?
Posted by: Kathy H | December 4, 2008 4:36 PM