Reader comments · Morrissey: ‘Unfortunately, I am not homosexual – I am attracted to humans’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Morrissey: ‘Unfortunately, I am not homosexual – I am attracted to humans’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. There doesn’t seem to be a story here even though this is PN’s second attempt to drum up some interest.

    Morrissey seems to have been quite sexually ambivalent or rather asexual throughout his life, it’s not shocking news though is it?

  2. Yawn.

    1. Morrissey say, My boyfriend Jake is gay but not me.

  3. So, Morrissey basically rejects the labels, as most people should.

    Suggesting that there are only three sexualities (G,S,B) is as nonsensical as suggesting there are only three lengths of measure, long, short or medium.

    Human sexuality is far more complex than most seem to believe. Despite all the scientific evidence to show this massive diversity in sexual interests, we hold to these all-encompassing groups like some authority bestowed them upon us.

    We stick to three labels as though it’s some form of gospel, when in fact it’s just a lazy, man-made way to categorize something that is far too complex and diverse to ever be able to be categorized.

    1. Apart from a few exceptions (such as asexual) G, S and B does cover everyone. You might not be happy with the description, but too bad they have you covered.

      1. They cover everyone in the same way that saying “they have long hair, they have short hair, and they have medium length hair” covers everyone too.

        That’s the point, and one that you seemed to have completely missed.

        Like it or not, the three labels describing sexuality are man-made inventions. This is a fact, not able to be debated and not able to be argued. We invented these group descriptions, and Human sexuality doesn’t conform to man-made ideas.

        1. Human sexuality doesnt conform to man made ideas? Are you seriously expecting anyone to buy that junk? Of course it does. Just because the person doesn’t want to be labelled it doesn’t mean they cant be. Very often they can be, very easily indeed.

          1. Again, you are missing the entire point in your desperation to be all things LGBT!

            It’s a scientific fact that you cannot alter nature just by calling it something else. If I call a tree a hedgehog, does it suddenly become one? Don’t be so ridiculous.

            We invented the three sexual labels, this is a scientific fact than no one can debate.

            There are always people in these comments who don’t have the first clue about sexuality and sexual research, and they make it obvious with their statements.

            However much you want to deny it to have an easier life of categorizing people, there is a scale of sexuality asserted through decades of research, perhaps you should look into these scientific studies before claiming that Gay, Straight and Bi was handed down to us by some omnipotent being!

    2. Well, I like men, and only men. I am a homosexual and nothing else! And I am proud of it.

      I am also attracted to other sorts of humans – but certainly not sexually! When it comes to sex and romance, I’m only interested in MEN. I label myself a homosexual. And I am happy for everyone else to label me as a homosexual.

      1. And this is YOUR perception of sexuality, yet you seem to insist that everyone else conform to what you think sexuality is and what labels YOU think they should have.

        How is this any different to a homophobe telling you that you’re just “confused” or that you’re going through a “stage”?

        Why is it okay for LGBT people to dictate to others what their sexuality must be, ignoring the actual science, while screaming blue murder if a straight person were to do the same to them?

    3. I’d like to see him try to reject the title “CAMP” however,
      Morrissey has sacrificed too many gladioli’s to the altar of CAMP for him to reject that title anyway.

  4. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Oct 2013, 1:22pm

    Would he say that his sexual relationship with a man was ‘electrifying’ and glad he didn’t miss it?

  5. So he’s one of those boring pretentious types that doesn’t want to be ‘labelled’, even though ‘labelling’ is just language and essential to describing everything around us.

    Get over yourself..

    1. Is it pretentious to present a scientifically accurate opinion or to disagree with what your personal view is?

      Just because you aren’t able to understand what he means, does not make him wrong.

      1. What makes him wrong is that he doesnt understand simple language. He may consider ‘bisexual’ too large a generalisation, but bisexual he probably is. Either that or he is gay, but straight he isnt. To try to claim its too complicated is just a deflection because he doesn’t like a label that fits.

        He is free to continue his delusion and deflection if he wants, but others will still label him as they see fit.

        1. It’s not surprising he can’t find a long-term partner. Who’d put up with being p**sed around by THAT sort of indecision? I don’t give a flying f**k what ‘label’ he wants. But I like my partners to know what they want … or don’t want …. and not to keep others dangling while they make-up their minds. I suspect he’s just one of those effete, self-indulgent, spoiled brats who wants what HE wants and doesn’t care less about anyone else’s needs.

  6. For the life of me I can’t figure out the attraction to and infatuation that so many gay people have with this man.

  7. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Oct 2013, 3:49pm

    In an ideal world where labels shouldn’t be necessary I could agree with him, but it isn’t that way unfortunately and probably won’t ever be as long as homophobia remains still very deeply ingrained in all societies. If he’s not into women, then he’s gay. Why doesn’t he just accept that? It is what it is.

    1. We have to have labels, its called language. Its ironic that a song writer would reject language. It simply means he doesn’t like the label that fits.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Oct 2013, 8:29pm

        I agree with you.

  8. He is ahead of his time. I won’t live to see the day when people are either in or out of a relationship and the gender of their partner isn’t an issue, but if we continue to progress (sometimes that seems a big if) then that day will come. It will matter no more than whether their partner was blonde or brunette.

    1. I agree that as certain liberal societies continue to evolve bisexuality may increase.

      However, I don’t believe the day will come when homosexual men are as inclined to pus*y as they are to co*k. (Nor will the day come when heterosexual men are as inclined to co*k as they are to pus*y!)

      1. Well hopefully those labels will be redundant. People will not worry about which box they fit into and be more concerned about their partner/relationship.

      2. There will always be people who fetishize certain genitals (and hormonal effects, and mannerisms, and modes of dress).

        Just like there are people who fetishize certain hair colors.

        If the former and latter are given the same social weight, sexual orientation based on the former won’t be any more meaningful than someone describing their orientation as “gingerist.”

    2. Maybe, but this guy is just frightened of the label ‘gay’, because thats what he is. He may be incidentally bi on rare occasions, but he is as gay as anyone and is just not willing to actually say it.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Oct 2013, 8:31pm

        I wonder if heterosexuals object to being called as such? I just don’t think he wants to admit that he’s really gay and proud of it.

      2. Your orientation is whatever your first relationship is and anything beyond that is incidental?

        In your rush to claim Morrissey as gay, you just defined a whole lot of gay people as straight.

    3. I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that without labels, people would stop fitting into the categories those labels presently describe?

      Speaking for myself, and in most likelihood for pretty much every gay male friend I’ve ever had, the label is not what makes me attracted to men. I am attracted to men. period. Remove the label, pretend that there is this “fluid sexuality” all you want, and it won’t make me any more likely to try and have sex with a woman. I’m still only attracted to men.

      I am of the belief that removing the label won’t make any more men bisexual than there are now. If you’re gay, then you’re gay. Changing the label, or removing it, won’t make you any less gay.

      1. If we, as a society, built our system of understanding sexuality based on what hair colors people find attractive, I think we would find more people defining themselves as attracted to a particular hair color or set thereof. Especially if there was stigma attached to liking certain hair colors relative to your own, or liking too many hair colors.

        And there would be people who don’t think hair color is important, or who argue that the lines between hair colors are ultimately subjective, or who claim that having blue hair is actually a valid way of existing and that people attracted to them shouldn’t be automatically defined as either attracted to all hair colors or whatever their hair color was before dying it.

        And these people would be considered ridiculous, and would be mocked if they wistfully wished that hair color was treated like something just as immaterial as gender.

  9. I think he is probably too apathetic to pursue either men or women.
    What he did was he followed his artistic muse and it resulted in a lot of quite lovely song lyrics set to pretty much interchangeable tunes and chord structures.
    I think a lot of bands that followed after owe something to Morrissey and The Smiths and besides my lovely one time neighbour the late actress Avril Angers appeared on the sleeve of the Smiths’ single “I Started Something I Couldn’t Finish” which shows their excellent taste.

    1. Oh no! I didn’t know that Avril Angers had passed away. I really remember her most for calling Mrs Slocombe a silly old bitch in ‘Are You Being Served’ – Avril was Edna Comlozi, who was summoned by a newly-promoted Mrs Slocombe to provide executive washroom soap. Brilliant presence and excellent timing. Okay, I take back a lot of the stuff I said about The Smiths.

      1. Yes, must have been eight years ago, still very much missed I’ve always wanted to see her in that “Are You Being Served” episode, maybe one day.

        1. Thank you so much, I found the episode with Avril, she’s only in it for about three minutes but still nice to see her.

  10. Yes, he’s attracted to humans. But they have to have a schlong.

    I don’t know what’s more grating – his voice or his unabating self-hatred.

  11. E Carpenter 21 Oct 2013, 1:15am

    Morrissey has always been a self-obsessed whinging dickhead. Age and experience have apparently not changed that.

    1. Hahaha. Well said!

  12. Richard the Big Bunny 21 Oct 2013, 8:35pm

    MOZ: Mad for Fanny! (Allegedly)

  13. …there are so many other comments here about this whinging (hide away from the media) poofter that I accept. I really mean for starters who does he think he is? Greta Garbo…. She hated the fact that she was a lesbian and kept it from most. And who likes labels anyway!

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.