The 1981 gay pride march in Huddersfield - Morrissey spotted in photos?

If you ask me, that's him, no doubt.


20200710_094349.jpg


Link to article:



Also:

What do we think about him? Spotted in another picture from the article.

full
 
Last edited by a moderator:

reelfountain

Well-Known Member
Attending a gay march in 1981 is exactly the kind of thing a young Morrissey would have done. He was always interested in identity and sexuality. He wanted a feminism-style movement for men. This, however, does not mean that he is a practicing homosexual. It simply means he was interested in a scene that back then would have been highly rebellious, edgy and transgressive.

It would have been the polar opposite of what gayness or the gay scene is nowadays - media and corporation-endorsed and pushed as "clean" and "family-friendly".

Fans love to presume and speculate, but not once has he announced "I am gay". There is a reason for this and also why Morrissey would never attend a current-day Pride march and has never flown its flag. He is not a practicing gay man.
 

Hovis Lesley

Well-Known Member
Attending a gay march in 1981 is exactly the kind of thing a young Morrissey would have done. He was always interested in identity and sexuality. He wanted a feminism-style movement for men. This, however, does not mean that he is a practicing homosexual. It simply means he was interested in a scene that back then would have been highly rebellious, edgy and transgressive.

It would have been the polar opposite of what gayness or the gay scene is nowadays - media and corporation-endorsed and pushed as "clean" and "family-friendly".

There is a reason why Morrissey would never attend a current-day Pride march and has never flown its flag. He is not a practicing gay man.
Is he an expert gay man?
 

nickbatcave

Active Member
Attending a gay march in 1981 is exactly the kind of thing a young Morrissey would have done. He was always interested in identity and sexuality. He wanted a feminism-style movement for men. This, however, does not mean that he is a practicing homosexual. It simply means he was interested in a scene that back then would have been highly rebellious, edgy and transgressive.

It would have been the polar opposite of what gayness or the gay scene is nowadays - media and corporation-endorsed and pushed as "clean" and "family-friendly".

Not once has he announced "I am gay". Fans love to presume and speculate. There is a reason why Morrissey would never attend a current-day Pride march and has never flown its flag. He is not a practicing gay man.
He practices a lot actually
 

reelfountain

Well-Known Member
He practices a lot actually
His gay fans want him to be just like them. But Moz is a unique individual.

He will never fly that tacky flag so beloved of corporations now. Being gay is no longer edgy or transgressive but blandly mainstream.

It's more rebellious now to be straight and proud.
 
Last edited:

Nerak

Reverse Ferret
But that's exactly my point. If they had portrayed him in a less nerdy and dull way (while still staying true to the sources) and had thrown in some of the more glamorous bits like being chased from gay clubs with his best friend and hanging out at wine bars with gay hairdressers and all the glam and punk stuff it would have been far more interesting and would have stuck out.

And would appeal to a smaller audience.

It would be better, but it would have a lower budget.
 

GirlAfraidWillNeverLearn

The Courage to Get on People's Tits
And would appeal to a smaller audience.

It would be better, but it would have a lower budget.
I still disagree and the fact that recent biopics about gay artists that didn't shy away from portraying their sexuality were huge successes (whether they're "good" or not is another discussion) kind of contradicts your assertion.
 

nickbatcave

Active Member
I still disagree and the fact that recent biopics about gay artists that didn't shy away from portraying their sexuality were huge successes (whether they're "good" or not is another discussion) kind of contradicts your assertion.
We just need a Velvet Goldmine version where they change the names and make it queer (but we still know what it's about)
 

Nerak

Reverse Ferret
Attending a gay march in 1981 is exactly the kind of thing a young Morrissey would have done. He was always interested in identity and sexuality. He wanted a feminism-style movement for men. This, however, does not mean that he is a practicing homosexual. It simply means he was interested in a scene that back then would have been highly rebellious, edgy and transgressive.

It would have been the polar opposite of what gayness or the gay scene is nowadays - media and corporation-endorsed and pushed as "clean" and "family-friendly".

Fans love to presume and speculate, but not once has he announced "I am gay". There is a reason for this and also why Morrissey would never attend a current-day Pride march and has never flown its flag. He is not a practicing gay man.

It's the opposite - going to a pride march in the 80s makes it more likely you're gay than it would now. Then it was a protest. Now it's a carnival.
 

GirlAfraidWillNeverLearn

The Courage to Get on People's Tits
Myself and anyone else who thinks out of the box.

unique
definition from
Oxford Dictionary of English

unique /juːˈniːk /
▸ adjective being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else.
.
▪ (unique to) belonging or connected to (one particular person, place, or thing):
a style of architecture that is unique to Portugal.
▪ particularly remarkable, special, or unusual:
a unique opportunity to see the spectacular Bolshoi Ballet.
▸ noun archaic a unique person or thing:
some of Lamb's writings were so memorably beautiful as to be uniques in their class.
– ORIGIN early 17th century : from French, from Latin unicus, from unus ‘one’.
There is a set of adjectives—including unique, complete, equal, infinite, and perfect—whose core meaning embraces a mathematically absolute concept and which therefore, according to a traditional argument, cannot be modified by adverbs such as really, quite, or very. For example, since the core meaning of unique (from Latin ‘one’) is ‘being only one of its kind’, it is logically impossible, the argument goes, to submodify it: it either is ‘unique’ or it is not, and there are no in-between stages. In practice the situation in the language is more complex than this. Words like unique have a core sense but they often also have a secondary, less precise sense: in this case, the meaning ‘very remarkable or unusual’, as in a really unique opportunity. In its secondary sense, unique does not relate to an absolute concept, and so the use of submodifying adverbs is grammatically acceptable.
 

GirlAfraidWillNeverLearn

The Courage to Get on People's Tits
We just need a Velvet Goldmine version where they change the names and make it queer (but we still know what it's about)
I'm in as long as Ewan McGregor has some role in it. He's good at playing priests 😆
 

Trending Threads

Top Bottom