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