Each day I check Google News for headlines in Fort Worth, where I live, and for LGBT news from around the world. Today, a headline in The Fort Worth Star-Telegram immediately caught my attention: “Fort Worth hairstylist gets probation for photographing man in locker room.”
The story, posted today on the newspaper’s website, explains that Eric Lee Kilgore, 35, of Fort Worth pleaded guilty last week to “a charge of improper photography,” and was sentenced to one year of probation after taking a photograph last September of “an unsuspecting man” getting dressed in the locker room of a gym in Colleyville.
Apparently, Kilgore was in the locker room at the gym, and saw a naked man who caught his eye. As the man was getting dressed, Kilgore surreptitiously pointed his camera at a mirror that was reflecting the naked man’s image and snapped the photo. Kilgore told authorities he didn’t know the man in the photo, and that the man had no idea he was being photographed.
Ordinarily, I would assume, no one would have known about the photo. But then Kilgore apparently dropped his camera. Another man and his son found it and turned it in to employees at the gym, who then looked through the images to find out who it belonged to. That’s when they found the picture from the locker room and called police.
The Star-Telegram says Kilgore could have been sentenced to up to two years in jail.
Now, I really don’t like the idea of people snapping sneaky photos of other people in locker rooms or dressing rooms. I consider that a gross invasion of privacy. And depending on whom they are taking photos of, it could get into some real sticky areas (like, for instance, if it happens to be someone who is underage).
But my problem with this story is The Star-Telegram’s choice of headlines.
Was it necessary to point out in the headline that Kilgore is a hairstylist? I mean, is his occupation really that integral to the story that it should be included in the headline? As my co-worker John Wright said, if he were a plumber, would they have put that in the headline?
I don’t think so. I think including “hairstylist” in the headline — in the story at all, for that matter — is a kind of subtle (or maybe not-so-subtle) homophobia, an effort to play into stereotypes about gay men. I mean, we all know that all gay men are limp-wristed, lisping hairstylists or florists, right? So by including that in the headline, The S-T was making it a point to tell everyone that the person was a gay man and using that to play on another stereotype, the idea that all gay men are sexual predators lusting after — and likely to try and molest — all straight men.
So I’m calling this headline a major fail on the part of The S-T. What do you think?
I agree, Tammye. Good call. Totally unnecessary and inappropriate.
The detail had nothing to do with the story and was definitely inappropriate. I think a witty pun with caught or capture would have done just fine.
If I’m given a phone that was dropped or supposedly lost, I would…
1. Just keep it and wait for the owner to return. I mean, it’s a cellphone, people feel lost without them.
2. Scroll through the CONTACTS icon…NOT THE PHOTOS SECTION.
3. Put in in a lost & found section until the owner returns.
Not once would I make the added effort of going through their phone. I mean, why? What are they looking for?
I get the feeling that the gym employees were being nosy and decided to go through the phone. I think it’s a violation of privacy from the gym. Yes, he shouldn’t be taking those photos, but some fault IS to the gym and its employees.
(scratch the last posting…I wrote #2, then thought about it and decided that I wouldn’t even go through the phone at all…it just seems ‘not right’)
If I’m given a phone that was dropped or supposedly lost, I would…
1. Just keep it and wait for the owner to return. I mean, it’s a cellphone, people feel lost without them.
2. Put in in a lost & found section until the owner returns.
Not once would I make the added effort of going through their phone. I mean, why? What are they looking for?
I get the feeling that the gym employees were being nosy and decided to go through the phone. I think it’s a violation of privacy from the gym. Yes, he shouldn’t be taking those photos, but some fault IS to the gym and its employees.
There is a correction to the story. The son and father that found the camera did not turn it in to the gym employees. They took it home and started looking through the pictures. So they basically stole the camera. They looked through the pictures and called the police. I know Eric personally and I saw the picture in question. It was not a nude photo at all. It was the back of a guys back. No rear end, not frontal nudity. He had lost close to 100 pounds and admired the guys back muscles. Nothing oogy about it. The people that “found” the camera saw other pictures of adults doing adult things on the camera and I guess they decided not to keep the stolen property and called the police to come clean. You shouldn’t take pictures of people in locker rooms. He knows it is wrong. He is still paying for the mistake. Sad that these people over reacted by calling the cops. People never seem to give others the benefit of the doubt.
Anyone know if he is still a hairstylist? I used to go to him all of the time when I was younger… he really is phenomenal at hairstyling. I have an important function coming up and thought i’d check 😛