Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Neue_Regel2024 t1_ivs3mff wrote

There was a lot of cocaine used in this picture.

8

buckzer0 t1_ivs4mzr wrote

That's Michael Jackson, the king of pop, in the middle there right?

17

MonicaRising t1_ivs4vfn wrote

Why does everyone of them look like a wax figure?

9

ElectricPeterTork t1_ivsawt3 wrote

The Village People weren't even put together until 1977, so I doubt this is 1976 unless the Leather Guy owned a TARDIS.

7

Background-Role7111 t1_ivsf7w6 wrote

Some of their pupils are so dilated they look like wax sculptures

2

tvnr t1_ivshjww wrote

Completes… what?

4

benway-md t1_ivshlvk wrote

That mustache was seriously epic.

3

backstage13 t1_ivsm55u wrote

Bruce digs this whole celebrity I can be anybody thing. Picked up some pointers from MJ, and body changing tips from Jane.

0

PreOpTransCentaur t1_ivsn7il wrote

If you told me every person in this photo was in gender swapped drag, I'd believe you without question.

−1

Earl_N_Meyer t1_ivspwmi wrote

I lived through the seventies and forgot that they had seven members. I assumed they could only spell four letter words. I had to look it up in their wikipedia article which also turns out to have this awesome bit:

With record sales soaring, Morali and Willis saw the need to create a permanent group. They took out an ad in a theatre trade paper which read: "Macho Types Wanted: Must Dance And Have A Moustache."

6

RS_C187 t1_ivt27ff wrote

This was either the line to do cocaine in a bathroom stall at Studio 54 or some kind of charity benefit for children….possibly both.

4

bamboobable t1_ivt6bym wrote

Indian dude by far the most lit in the picture

0

chimp20 t1_ivtorso wrote

The Indian has him a handful🫱🏽

1

oroborus68 t1_ivu8wbp wrote

That's before Michael cut off his nose to spite his face.

1

footcandlez t1_ivv0fa8 wrote

Because the Village People's image was intentionally crafted to be common gay masculine archetypes that were very well known to gays (e.g., leather sex pigs like Mr. Slave), but it completely went over the public's head who saw them as just traditional masculine iconography.

1

footcandlez t1_ivv0ptz wrote

Yes! Their image was intentionally crafted to be common gay masculine archetypes, but it completely went over the public's head who saw them as just traditional masculine iconography.

2

VictoryJuice t1_ivvv2zt wrote

IT'S MAAAM!!!!!! GODDAMMIT MAAAMMMM!!!!

1