Morrissey "not homosexual" - statement at true-to-you.net

"Unfortunately, I am not homosexual. In technical fact, I am humasexual. I am attracted to humans. But, of course ... not many".

-MORRISSEY, Sweden, 19 October 2013.

http://true-to-you.net/morrissey_news_131019_01

WOW! Quote of the year. Well, we heard it from the man himself--he is humansexual. And like most humansexuals, he is not attracted to all men and all women. He is selective.

I have decided, just now, that I too am humansexual.

 

[Mrs. Phyllis Torgo]

This is maybe my favorite Morrissey quote ever.

 

[Rob Falgiano]

Typically smart Moz humor. Gotta love it. Looking forward to getting my book in the post.

 

[Anonymous]

lame, boring, and who cares--would have been important if he came out--instead being witty overshadows substance.

 

[Bluebirds]

I must say that this statement is Moz at his weakest.
He had the opportunity to be direct in a book he just released, but no....
Release the book then clarify it after as people are not interpreting it in a way you want. What next? Weekly press releases to clarify what he meant on page 4, 39, 112 et al....?
Perhaps if he had written in a clearer and less ambiguous manner...
Instead of trying to maintain this Kenneth Williams, skirting round the issue, vague, cryptic, overly evasive way of talking about an issue that carries far less of the stigma of previous ages, he might need not need to clarify his position with an equally non-direct statement where he again says a definitive 'I'm not..' and backs it up with total ambiguity.
It feels like an attempt to maintain mystique as an afterthought.
I find telling us what he's not rather than what he is rather passe now.

An attempt to maintain mystique or the realities of repressed sexual attraction under the auspices of a 1960s Irish Catholic upbringing?

Anyway who cares, if you can't read between the lines?

 

[Anonymous]

An attempt to maintain mystique or the realities of repressed sexual attraction under the auspices of a 1960s Irish Catholic upbringing?

Anyway who cares, if you can't read between the lines?

He is his own worst enemy often. I think to assert his language/statements in the book and subsequently about his sexuality are linked to a Catholic repressed childhood is tripe.
He would like us to believe he had an existence like Wilfrid Brambell, Kenny Williams or Charlie Hawtree, but there's enough evidence to suggest he is anything but repressed.
The Smiths should be a gay band... challenges this.
His iconography - androgynous Bowie, The Dolls... challenges this.
Cleverly written, coded, ambiguous lyrics playing to he and she... challenges this.
Being really in love (said via interviews) and happy challenges this.
He is astute and cunning in how he has manufactured his influences, his ambiguity, celibacy, reclusiveness, explosive kegs between his legs etc.... most of it is totally male orientated.
As for reading between lines, yes - we can do so.... but it helps if you don't then release a statement to try and explain exactly what you hid inbetween them.
If he was so concerned about what he is or isn't... why allude to anything in the book...
So, he causes himself more grief yet again.
Perhaps you are right - perhaps its his form of flagellation?
I look forward to his next statement telling us what he really meant...
I guess he's planning the second edition already.

I

 

[billybu69]

Not a homosexual, he just helps them out when they're busy.

 

[Anonymous]

Moz is being a sweet guy in helping out people with poor reading comprehension skills. Let's face it, most people are less intelligent than Moz and me. Thus, if they need correction on their reading comprehension, Moz is generous enough to help.

NotLiterallyButMetaphorically

I read this statement as a direct response to all the recent media articles stating that he's come out as gay. Which he hasn't. And that is how I've interpreted the "unfortunately".
Spot on jdbabz. ^^

 

[Anonymous]

I don't think this is a big surprise. Since 1982, Morrissey conveyed that Love between humans has nothing to do with sex. Totally straight guys, much like me, had...have..will have a crush on Morrissey that has nothing to do with the act of sex. Morrissey turned out to be the most honest and true artist I have ever "known". Morrissey is not homosexual. He falls for specific humans...regardless of whether they are the soft or hard option (stolen from Pet Shop Boys).

 

[Anonymous]

I can fully sympathise with Morrissey on this one. I tried being exclusively homosexual for a while, but I had to stop as it made my bum sore.

 

[chrisarclark]

The magic and mystery is gone- it's such a sad time to be a Morrissey fan.

 

[celibate]

and I am celibate


'and they say he's mentall'... none explosive kegs, just give me some tasty honey with biscuits...

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

Yeah, seems obvious enough. I imagine that he rejects the term 'bisexual' because of its limits - he is signifying that he could be attracted to a trans* person or someone who rejects being labelled male or female. We don't really have a word for that, unfortunately -

Pervert? Deviant?

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

Moz is being a sweet guy in helping out people with poor reading comprehension skills. Let's face it, most people are less intelligent than Moz and me. Thus, if they need correction on their reading comprehension, Moz is generous enough to help.

NotLiterallyButMetaphorically

He has spent years writing this and now finds himself explaining what he "rly" meant? Our definitions of intelligent vary quite considerably.

Just for the record, a bloke with a romantic and/or sexual attachment to another man is not "humasexual", he is a homosexual. If he also has a romantic and/or sexual attachment to a woman, he is bisexual. If he solely has a romantic and/or sexual attachment with a woman he is heterosexual. We do not need to invent words for states we have words for already.

 

[Anonymous]

He has spent years writing this and now finds himself explaining what he "rly" meant? Our definitions of intelligent vary quite considerably.

Just for the record, a bloke with a romantic and/or sexual attachment to another man is not "humasexual", he is a homosexual. If he also has a romantic and/or sexual attachment to a woman, he is bisexual. If he solely has a romantic and/or sexual attachment with a woman he is heterosexual. We do not need to invent words for states we have words for already.

Morrissey is bisexual. He's being self-parodying in still skirting around the issue or the word, despite it being incredibly clear in the book. It's quite funny.

 

[Anonymous]

"Unfortunately, I am not homosexual. In technical fact, I am humasexual. I am attracted to humans. But, of course ... not many".

-MORRISSEY, Sweden, 19 October 2013.

http://true-to-you.net/morrissey_news_131019_01

Is he ashamed to be ‘labelled’ a homosexual?

Why, if he doesn’t like labels, make another one up?

It is shame he can't be brave enough like hundreds of thousands of other people & be a 'label' that many people have died for.

 

[Anonymous]

He is his own worst enemy often. I think to assert his language/statements in the book and subsequently about his sexuality are linked to a Catholic repressed childhood is tripe.
He would like us to believe he had an existence like Wilfrid Brambell, Kenny Williams or Charlie Hawtree, but there's enough evidence to suggest he is anything but repressed.
The Smiths should be a gay band... challenges this.
His iconography - androgynous Bowie, The Dolls... challenges this.
Cleverly written, coded, ambiguous lyrics playing to he and she... challenges this.
Being really in love (said via interviews) and happy challenges this.
He is astute and cunning in how he has manufactured his influences, his ambiguity, celibacy, reclusiveness, explosive kegs between his legs etc.... most of it is totally male orientated.
As for reading between lines, yes - we can do so.... but it helps if you don't then release a statement to try and explain exactly what you hid inbetween them.
If he was so concerned about what he is or isn't... why allude to anything in the book...
So, he causes himself more grief yet again.
Perhaps you are right - perhaps its his form of flagellation?
I look forward to his next statement telling us what he really meant...
I guess he's planning the second edition already.

I

An astronomer was asked what is the most complicated thing in the universe, their response was the human brain.

Your anwser is one of several things or more than one

(1) He wants to be with a man but has tremendeous guilt ( good lord, get on with it, with all the pain he has caused, at this point, I don't believe Jesus would care)

(2) He is extremely afraid to have a REAL bond with a woman which includes sex oh yes and talking with them after. Marriage, children,
shared bank account, the uncomfortable questions.

(3) He cares a lot of what his fans think of him and doesn't want to be judged ( you mean like he doesn't want three websites that talk about him constantly?)

If you want to know what the solution is you need to wait for the next post.

 

[Girlmostlikely]

Although this statement did seem a bit unnecessary I adore the phrase "humansexual". Morrissey has always said he can't/doesn't want to be defined as heteo, homo or bisexual. So, he makes up his own word. Brilliant.

He shouldn't care what people say about his sexuality regarding the book, but if there going to talk, what's wrong with steering the conversation the way he wants. I hope "humansexual" finds it's way into the popular vernacular.

 

[Girlmostlikely]

The magic and mystery is gone- it's such a sad time to be a Morrissey fan.

C'mon! He has revealed a bit but much of the personal info was still left a bit ambiguous. I think this is an exciting time to be a Morrissey fan! It's so great to see him "up" after the last year he's had. The success of the book will hopefully lead to more opportunities (suitable record deal..maybe?!?) and a golden time for our Moz

 

[Gejo]

I never had a problem with been gay myself, like many other people don't have a problem for been straight, bisexual or transgender. I do not have a problem with people's sexuality. I do NOT CARE if Morrissey is gay, straight, bisexual, humansexual or metrosexual. I always liked him and I always will. It is not my business with who he goes to bed or not. I do not admire him -or anyone- for his sexuality if not for what he does and who he is. Why is the world still so worry about it? Why everybody likes labels so much?

 

[realitybites]

Yeah, seems obvious enough. I imagine that he rejects the term 'bisexual' because of its limits - he is signifying that he could be attracted to a trans* person or someone who rejects being labelled male or female. We don't really have a word for that, unfortunately - some have put forward 'pansexual', which evokes the great god Pan and fertility rituals. 'Humasexual' is as good as anything, but really, can't we just be sexual?

Pervert? Deviant?

Is that perverted? Deviant maybe... if deviant means deviating from the norm. And norm... as in a statistical average. But there is nothing wrong with loving a man with breasts. Breasts are nice... an added bonus.

I say love whomever you wish to love. And sleep with whomever you wish to sleep with. Just use protection.