I watched the Little Richard biopic on TV last night. And the film in a subtle way hinted at his homosexuality. But was/is Little Richard really gay or bi, or was his campness just part of his whole act and mannerism?

whatsgoingon said:

I feel it could be the latter. But it's a good possibility he is/was bisexual.

I think it was all a show.

LittleBLUECorvette said:

I wouldn't actually be surprised if that's all it was either.

Timmy84 said:

I read somewhere that he became a born again Christain and renounced his "homosexual ways". Now, to me that sounded ambigious did they mean he actually renounced his sexuality or just his whole style of campness and flamboyancy.

I know he was married and he has a son, but that doesn't mean much.

Little Richard was/is gay, but unfortunately was raised in a deeply religious environment which means he's been saddled with guilt his whole life. Like Marvin Gaye, Jerry Lee Lewis and many others, he kept his religion in one pocket and a whole loada sin in the other. Ain't no hypocrite like a religious one.

midnightmover said:

Nobody suffers like a religious one either.

He's bisexual. I read his autobiography awhile back

bboy87 said:

Thanks for the confirmation.

bboy87 said:

Translate the word "bisexual" into "torn" and I think you've got a more truthful description. Like I said earlier, Richard grew up in a hardcore hell and fire Baptist church. He believes homosexuality will send you to an eternity burning in the fires of hell. Not metaphorically, but literally. He's made numerous anti-gay statements over the years because of this. He also thought rock and roll was "the devil's music" and renounced it many times, even though he loved that "devil's music". He is a classic example of how religious nonsense can fuck people up, and make them declare war on themselves for no good reason. Given all that, it's hardly surprising that he would have periods attempting to live as a normal straight man, but you've only got to hear him talk and look at him to know that he's gay through and through. But it seems some people are very uncomfortable facing the fact that entertainers they like can be gay. There are many Freddie Mercury fans who still like to say that he was "bisexual" because he had girlfriends in his youth. This shows how hopelessly naive they are. Freddie was a bum-bandit all the way, but he tried to fight it for years just like Richard, who I'm sure is still fronting to this day.

MJ is another example of this phenomenon. Raised by a violently homophobic father and a hell-and-fire Jehovah's Witness gay-hating mother. He avoided facing his sexuality by focusing all his attention on his appearance. All of that was a classic example of displacement. Instead of facing up to the horrible truth (to him) of what he was, he directed all that anxiety into an obsession with his looks, as if that was where the real problem lay. In some twisted way he hoped that if he could get the perfect face, all his problems would disappear. In short, he was avoiding facing up to the real issue. His money and power meant that there was no-one there to give him a reality check. This was the root of his tragedy.

midnightmover said:

Imo, MJ mess up his looks, because he had a problem with his looks regardless of his sexuality. Unless your these people's therapists I don't think you should go around spewing things as facts, when you yourself are nothing more than an observer with an opinion.

Richard's definitely gay or bi. It's not because he's camp I say so, it's just that obvious.


What's up with his issues with Prince? I know he thinks the Purple Wonder stole his act, (and truth be told, where would The Kid be if Little Richard hadn't done it first?) but wtf was he on about when he said he wanted to take Prince over his knee and give him a spanking?

Exactly. I saw the movie and that's the exact impression I got. In the movie, there was a scene where he wanted to watch a guy and girl make out. In another scene, Little Richard was in the car with his girlfriend and he kept telling her that she knows the way he is. And she kept asking him why she couldn't be enough.

He never came right out and said he's gay but he left it mysterious enough so it could be perceived differently in case there was a backlash. I'm the same way with my family. I pushed the limit all the way without actually telling them. That way, if I ever started getting negative reactions from them, it would look like they misunderstood me. Now that my mother has passed, I don't care any more because her opinion of me was the only one that mattered to me. As for the others, if they don't like it, they can kiss my ass.
.
.
[Edited 9/26/07 13:19pm]

whatsgoingon said:

Being clinically obsessed with your looks is itself a gay thing for men. There are plenty of vain men out there, straight and gay, but it's a fact that gay men are more likely to take it to extremes than straight men. As for the rest, yes, it's just my opinion, but my opinion is an educated one based on an understanding of these issues. The very fact that you had to start this thread in the first place shows that this is an area of life you know nothing about. The phenomenon of self-hating gay men is as old as homosexuality itself. It didn't start with MJ, Little Richard, or Craig David (another closet gay you're probably unaware of). But like I said, you know absolutely nothing about this, which is why what I'm saying completely shocks you.

hes bisexual,
i rember seeing an interview and he said something like one minute i would be at an orgy the next minute id be out preching the word of the lord,

something like that, what a man lol

midnightmover said:

What you are saying is NOT shocking to me, another one of your many assumptions. It's the mere fact that you believe that everything that you post is nothing but the truth, and the fact that you truely believe that you know more than you really do. No matter what your opinions are base on you can only know so much about a person you don't personally know.
[Edited 9/28/07 11:51am]

georgeguitar said:

And this shows that he's bisexual....how?

whatsgoingon said:

I'll remember that next time you're talking about MJ lightening his skin.

midnightmover said:

True, I believe that MJ lightened his skin, but it is what I believe because what I see with my all own eyes and at the end of the day I can accept that I may be wrong.

But when it comes to his relationships with other people, including his sexuality I don't pretend to know who he can or can't have a relationship and parade it as a fact.

Already you are challenging people who are saying that Little Richard is "Bisexual". Why is it impossible to believe that Little Richard can not be bisexual and that he can only be 100% homosexual?

whatsgoingon said:

Because I know about human behaviour. Look at how vainandy was describing how he gave signs of his gayness, but also deliberately kept it ambiguous. That is the kind of thing I can spot a mile off, but you and many others can't. Eleven years ago I was telling people that George Michael was gay. They thought I was smoking crack. Two years later they found out that I was right. I knew it because I'd heard a radio interview he did where he was asked if he was gay. He spent five minutes responding without ever giving a direct answer. He was dodging the question. It was obvious right then that he was gay since a straight person would not fudge that issue. And yet these other people had heard the same interview as me and yet they couldn't spot what was so plain to see. I realised right then that most people just simply lack the ability to analyse behaviour clearly, partly because their knowledge of human nature is shallow, but also because their judgement is coloured by their prejudices and their desire to not have their illusions shattered. People live on their illusions and they are very capable of blinding themselves to things that would be uncomfortable. They do it all the time, but of course they do it WITHOUT REALISING THEY'RE DOING IT.

You yourself showed this clearly when you failed to spot how slippery Stephanie Mills was being in that interview. She was clearly walking a fine line between outright lying and LYING BY IMPLICATION. She was implying intimacy and romance without explicitly saying it, dodging questions, throwing little titbits out there without giving any context, etc. etc. You didn't spot this because what she was saying was so pleasant to you. Young MJ going steady with a nice black girl. A lovely thought. It's no wonder your judgement went for a walk. That's the kind of self deception I am always on my guard against. Now I have to take a break now, but I'll be back tomorrow to point out the ignorance and subconcious prejudices of those who want Richard to be "bisexual" rather than gay. Until then, have a nice evening.

midnightmover said:

The reason why you called Stephanie a liar is because you couldn't believe Michael could get that close enough to a black girl to kiss her. Period! It wasn't about her going steady because that was never the impression I got. And whether he kiss her or not doesn't change his sexuality, whatever that maybe.

Your perception was destroyed of who he can or can't kiss. And you couldn't take the fact that someone who actually knew Michael personally said something contrary to what you believe. The fact of the matter is you were not there to know whether she was telling the truth or not.

You have so much vested in your own theories, regardless whether they are valid or not that you leave no room for flexibility, that makes you more shallow than most.

And as for George Michael I wasn't surprise to find out he was gay, it wasn't that shocking.
[Edited 9/28/07 14:19pm]
[Edited 9/28/07 14:24pm]

I remember seeing Little Richard on "Late Night w/ Letterman" back in the early 80's and he said he "used to" be gay. Is he still?..who knows and who cares?

I always considered him the REAL king (or queen) of R&R more than Elvis (who he influenced).

whatsgoingon said:

Yeah, the dude was in a group called WHAM! What more do you need to know?

SPYZFAN1 said:

Quite frankly, considering the era and his up bringing I think Little Richard was quite open in an ambigious way. I am leaning towards him being Bisexual myself, because in the film you got the impression that although he loved women he had another side to him which he wanted to explore and he was quite open about it to the women he loved.

uPtoWnNY said:

In short-shorts and cuff links on his ear for chrissakes...

When George came out, I was like "so? Good for him! "

midnightmover said:

i didnt say that shows hes bisexual i just thought id throw it in cause it amused me,
hes said hes bisexual before, i think that itself is enough

whatsgoingon said:

No. I don't believe Michael is attracted to women of any colour. Period. Black, white, yellow, purple, whatever. Pussy just ain't his thing. Anyone who can't see that is S-T-U-P-I-D. Sure, I mentioned the racial aspect, but it wasn't the real point. The real point is he ain't into girls. Stephanie suggested they had a brief romance, but she was deliberately being ambiguous, dodging questions, saying loads of provocative things like "Michael was a real man!", "I was his only little chocolate drop", "He looked real cute in his underwear" etc, then just leaving the statements hanging there without giving them any context. That is a classic sign of someone who is lying by implication. Giving the strong impression of intimacy, but at the same time leaving it mysterious enough that she can always back out if ever anyone calls "bullshit" on her. You were not capable of spotting this because of your own subconcious fantasies and prejudices. Contrary to what you think I am nowhere near as inflexible as you. If Stephanie had been straightforward and less shifty then I would have taken what she said seriously, but she wasn't. Combine that with the reams of deluded bullshit she's come out with over the years about Mike ("I thought he was going to marry me", etc.)and you have a completely untrustworthy source. Hell, you yourself said she married a Michael substitute. Doesn't that say it all?

Now, duty calls and I must be off, but never fear. I know you're still holding your breath for me to expose the foolishness of you all on the "bisexual" thing. Well, good things come to those who wait so have patience. I will be back.

Timmy84 said:

You all are proving my point without realising it. In hindsight, it seems ridiculous he could have ever been in the closet, but the fact is most people had no clue he was gay. I know this because I had arguments with people about it at the time. I guarantee you if we were on this website ten years ago and I pointed out his homosexuality there would be a ton of fools disagreeing with me. Just like they do with MJ and even Stedman from Five Star, who not only has gay written all over him, but was arrested for indecent behaviour in a men's toilet for godsake. Yet some fools still think he's straight simply because he says he is.

midnightmover said:

She was asked questions on a radio show which was part of a 5 minute interview, which was suppose to be about her music. And what she was specifically ask was "Did she ever date Michael Jackson" and she answered the question, the interviewers wanted her to go into more details like whether they had sex and she said No they didn't have sex, but they had kissed and she use to help him do his laundry and she had seen him in his underwear before. These were direct responses to what she had been asked, so why you expected her to go into full details in a 5 minute radio interview about, HOW, WHEN and WHERE everything took place about a topic she didn't even instigate is beyond me. If she was writing a book about her relationship with Michael than those things would have been more important, but she was basically answering questions put to her. Answers you couldn't take because it didn't fit into your theories about Michael Jackson.

And you keep on saying Michael is not into women because he is gay and that's why such a thing could have never of happened, but we all know that many gay men who have dated, gotten married and had children with women. So why is it impossible to believe that even if Michael is 100% gay that he couldn't have had a little romance with a woman for whatever reason.


And btw this topic wasn't even about MJ, it's about Little Richard. You brought in Michael Jackson to try and validate your theories.

whatsgoingon said:

Let me help you out here. My issue with Stephanie is not that she didn't go into details. If anything she gave too many details and they were mostly strange, irrelevant ones. For instance she spoke about doing his laundry. No-one asked her about that, but she just threw it in there. Doesn't that seem like a strange thing to mention? "Yeah, we had a thing for a while. I did his laundry, you know." When asked specifically if they "tongue kissed" she dodged the question. Why would you not give a straight answer to that question? And please don't tell me she was being a lady. A "lady" would not be saying "He looked cute in his underwear" and "Michael was a real man!" with all that implies. Mike himself has said nothing about any "relationship" with her, yet he's made false claims about relationships with Tatum and Brooke. What's your explanation for that? Do you have one? Actually, to be honest I'd rather you didn't bother answering. Your blinkers are obviously stapled to your head. On to Richard. Give me ten minutes. I'll send it in a seperate post. Stay tuned.