Why Pet Shop Boys?

| Comments | No TrackBacks

I'm busy watching a rather good programme about the Pet Shop Boys on Channel 4.

The pair always remind me of the 80s and early 90s for a number of reasons. For one, I remember have a really storming argument with my first serious girlfriend about the respective merits of the U2 and Pet Shop Boys versions of Where the Streets Have No Name. I, of course, was on the side of the latter.

The main reason, though, was the absolutely delicious rumour that went around school that they called themselves The Pet Shop Boys due to something unspeakably disgusting and sexual and perverse involving hamsters and bodily orifices. (It's amazing how much in the 80s involved small mammals in inappropriate places. Remember Freddie Starr?)

Of course, when I grew up a little, I really started enjoying their music, but those playground concepts linger�

The sad thing is that, should such a rumour be circulated about a current celebrity, I'm sure no-one would blink an eyelid. Boy bands? They perform worse acts before breakfast. Or, indeed, during breakfast. Or even with their breakfast. That's the problem with a celebrity- and hedonism-obsessed media. It takes all the sheer dirtiness out of rumours. How dull is that?

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Share on Tumblr

No TrackBacks

TrackBack URL: http://www.onemanandhisblog.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1494

Comments

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Adam Tinworth published on May 24, 2006 11:35 PM.

links for 2006-05-24 was the previous entry in this blog.

links for 2006-05-25 is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Subscribe to OM&HB

Subscribe via e-mail:

Social Networks

One Man's Activity

Archives