Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

The Beatles Were Bi

I'm shocked... A friend of mine's dad was in Germany when the Beatles played there and he swore it was common knowledge that John and Paul were an item (an open secret). And another friend saw an underground magazine in the 80s that talked about how they had an affair from '63-'68, and it started in Paul's father's house and Paul's brother knew about it. The mag said that George Martin found out about it when they were in Miami and Brian was good at keeping the press from finding out.

How did we not hear this?

by Anonymousreply 600November 20, 2009 1:48 PM

In JOHN LENNON: THE LIFE by Philip Norman, he says that John had a thing for Paul, but I would have a hard time believing that Paul is bi. I don't remember where I heard it, but the staff at Apple would sometimes refer to Paul as "Mrs. Lennon" because John was so much in love with Paul. If that's true, John's bitterness over the Beatles' break up makes more sense.

by Anonymousreply 1June 14, 2009 7:25 PM

The Apple staff also referred to Paul as 'John's Princess'.

Paul was upset about the break-up too. Remember the pic on his album of two beetles fucking? I could believe it.

by Anonymousreply 2June 14, 2009 7:29 PM

R2, Were the fucking beetles on Ram or McCartney? I don't remember that. I did love the photo of John holding the ears of a pig on Plastic Ono Band to satirize Paul's holding the ram's horns on Ram.

by Anonymousreply 3June 14, 2009 7:34 PM

Fucking beetles were on the RAM album.

by Anonymousreply 4June 14, 2009 7:36 PM

I resent performing for you fuckers tell me what do you know. A lot of faggot middle-class kids wearing long hair and trendy clothes. Look, I'm not your fucking parents and I'm sick of uptight hippies coming knocking at me door with a fucking peace symbol. Get this: fuck that! I don't owe you fuckers anything and all I've got to say is "Fuck you!" The sky is blue.

by Anonymousreply 5June 14, 2009 7:43 PM

Awesome if it's true. They were both hot in the early days.

by Anonymousreply 6June 14, 2009 7:44 PM

We did not hear this because it's made-up bullshit. You don't think that sometime in the past 40 years this somehow wouldn't have come out?

by Anonymousreply 7June 14, 2009 7:46 PM

Paul was so adorable in those days. But then John went for someone really ugly.

by Anonymousreply 8June 14, 2009 8:02 PM

I think someone's been reading a bit of beatleslash.

by Anonymousreply 9June 14, 2009 8:25 PM

We did not hear this because it's made-up bullshit. You don't think that sometime in the past 40 years this somehow wouldn't have come out?

----------------------------------------

Homosexuality was still illegal in Britain up until 1967. The Beatles formed in 1960. I'm afraid they would have been jailed, idiot.

Every reason for keeping quiet.

Plus, people would rather admit to murder than admit to gayness with close bandmates/friends, esp. in the public eye, esp. back then.

I just keep an open mind because no-one really knows these people.

by Anonymousreply 10June 14, 2009 8:35 PM

The others were buggers but not me.

by Anonymousreply 11June 14, 2009 8:37 PM

That's because nobody would even fuck you with someone else's, r11.

by Anonymousreply 12June 14, 2009 8:40 PM

Yeah, and Truman Capote was banging Sophia Loren.

by Anonymousreply 13June 14, 2009 8:41 PM

True, R10. And bi men back then would have followed the wife/kids route because that's what was expected of them. That doesn't mean their breakup would have been less painful.

by Anonymousreply 14June 14, 2009 8:43 PM

None of the Beatles were queer or bi or whatever the groovy term is these days. They were simply fab and dressed well.

by Anonymousreply 15June 14, 2009 8:45 PM

John married Yoko just a couple of months after Paul married Linda. Their weddings were like anger weddings.

by Anonymousreply 16June 14, 2009 8:49 PM

At the time John and Yoko got married, it's pretty likely Paul was about the last thing on his mind. According to most accounts, John was completely enthralled by Yoko at that time (and not in a romantic way but more in the way a cult-member is enthralled by their leader). He and Yoko were quite nasty to the rest of the Beatles, as well as most of the people who worked with them. This was because they were oblivious to and dismissive of all other human beings.

During the recording of "The Beatles," John had a bed brought into the studio so that an ill Yoko could be there 24/7. She had him convinced that she was his artistic equal (and, therefore, one of the two greatest artists of all time).

I think that any indication of love for Paul that John may have expressed would simply be an extension of his histrionics. He was living out a (common) script in which he's abandoned by everyone he ever loved (beginning with his mother who died when he was a teenager, long after she'd abandoned him to live with his aunt). "Loving" Paul allowed him to include Paul in the list of people who victimized him this way--if he didn't love Paul, then it wouldn't hurt when Paul (for numerous reasons) pulled away.

Paul, in the meantime, seems like a homebody schlub who always needs a woman in his life to sit around and smoke pot with.

by Anonymousreply 17June 14, 2009 9:14 PM

There's no way that I believe McCartney was or is bi-sexual. I totally agree with R17's analysis of the situation.

The one thing that does seem to be pretty much agreed on is that Brian Epstein had a thing for John Lennon and Lennon took advantage of that by mind-fucking Epstein, if not literally fucking him, which is in some dispute.

by Anonymousreply 18June 14, 2009 9:23 PM

So many books have been written about the Beatles often with contradictory themes about their attitudes during this time period and during the 70s. John was away from Yoko for 14 months in the 70s (his Lost Weekend) during which he saw a lot of Paul. So really anything is possible. Like R10 said, I'm keeping an open mind because we don't know these people.

by Anonymousreply 19June 14, 2009 9:25 PM

It's not that I want or need to believe it, I just can't fathom r17 and r18 who stoically buy into the public image and PR-sanctioned twaddle novellas of these lives as written by hacks, fans, journos and agents the world over.

They could be absolutely anything behind the image and we wouldn't have a clue. I don't say they didn't love their wives or have affairs with other women but that doesn't preclude men from carrying on together in secret either.

It just wouldn't surprise me is all.

by Anonymousreply 20June 14, 2009 9:32 PM

I agree with R20. So much has been written about them that it's almost like that PR sanctioned storyline has been burned into peoples' brains. Even gay men can't fanthom the possibility that there's more to the story.

by Anonymousreply 21June 14, 2009 9:37 PM

Paul was/is too much of a pussy hound to have ever been bi. It's a known fact that, especially in the early days, he was pretty much fucking everything on two legs with a vagina.

by Anonymousreply 22June 14, 2009 9:42 PM

Paul wrote this song about his relationship with John, when they had fallen out, just after The Bealtes...listen to the words....though I don't believe they had an affair, personally.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 23June 14, 2009 10:13 PM

Good point R20 and R21. Most of these stories never cover Paul's death in that car crash in 1966, and, of course, the fact that George's father was black doesn't show up in the sanctioned stories. Neither does Ringo's glass eye or the 15 years he spent in prison.

by Anonymousreply 24June 14, 2009 10:22 PM

Actually, during the "Lost Weekend" period, John was hanging around with Harry Nilsson and had a new, younger girlfriend, May Pang. I don't remember hearing he was hanging out with Paul at the time.

Look, anything is possible. I only said that I don't believe Paul was bi. If any of them were bi, I would vote for John.

by Anonymousreply 25June 14, 2009 10:35 PM

May Pang herself said they saw Paul all the time, R25. Once he got back with Yoko he stopped seeing Paul.

by Anonymousreply 26June 14, 2009 11:11 PM

Paul's the epitome of macho manliness. No way he could be bi.

by Anonymousreply 27June 15, 2009 12:03 AM

John and Paul had "wank" sessions when they were teenagers. It was documented in at least one book. I never read about anything else other than some teenage experimentation.

by Anonymousreply 28June 15, 2009 12:07 AM

Here's a pic of them as teenagers. They weren't wanking, but they sure were cute.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 29June 15, 2009 2:18 AM

At least once a year this nonsense turns up.

R17 was as close to the mark as anyone. John had abandonment issues, and the relationship with Paul was more like that of two highly competive brothers. To understand John's worship of Yoko, keep in mind what was happening between late 1966 and mid 1968. Paul was assuming more creative control over the band, and George was getting more respect as a musican. With the death of Brian Epstein (another person who abandoned John), I am not surprised Yoko emerged as someone who could fill in the deep insecurities John felt.

by Anonymousreply 30June 15, 2009 2:59 AM

Thanks for the conjectural psychoanalysis, ranger. It's about as meaningful as every other uninformed post in the thread.

by Anonymousreply 31June 15, 2009 3:07 AM

There are a lot of posters (Hi, OP!) who use Datalounge as a vehicle for expressing their fantasies.

by Anonymousreply 32June 15, 2009 3:11 AM

R31: By the way, did you know that the walrus was Paul? Really. John said so. And if you play "Sgt. Pepper's" backwards it proves...

by Anonymousreply 33June 15, 2009 3:18 AM

I remember Paul on the Tom Snyder Show years ago. Paul was with Linda via sattelite from England. Snyder remarked that Paul, as a Beatle had his pick of groupie girls. I remember clearly, Paul adding "and Boys Tom". It didn't get a laugh. It wasn't said that way. I was surprised and always remembered it.

by Anonymousreply 34June 15, 2009 3:18 AM

How on Earth would you know that John had abandonment issues, ranger/R33? Not that I necessarily believe OP, but I don't see how you can justify that without having known him personally.

by Anonymousreply 35June 15, 2009 3:25 AM

"Paul was/is too much of a pussy hound to have ever been bi. It's a known fact that, especially in the early days, he was pretty much fucking everything on two legs with a vagina."

Then eventually moved on to anything with ONE leg and a vagina.

by Anonymousreply 36June 15, 2009 3:42 AM

No one personally knows that John had abandonment issues, but if you read enough books, plus John's interviews, it's reasonable to have that opinion. If we had to go on knowing any of The Beatles personally, this thread wouldn't be happening.

by Anonymousreply 37June 15, 2009 3:49 AM

Sure someone writes one book, then the next person writes a book with that same context, and so on. Surely they're not going to write what's being suggested, they'd open themselves up to lawsuits and lots of angry beatles freaks.

I don't know if I believe this fully, but I don't disbelieve it either. They certainly seemed close, whatevers that worth. Stranger things have happened.

by Anonymousreply 38June 15, 2009 5:08 AM

Such BS. Epstein supposedly lusted after Lennon but there's no way those blue collar stooges as youngsters would have touched each other.

by Anonymousreply 39June 15, 2009 5:13 AM

The trick is to avoid reading anything written about them. The truth is to be found in everything never written about them. The books, articles, etc. consist of publicity and conjecture, so we can assume they are false. The facts consist solely of the things we imagine that have never been verified.

by Anonymousreply 40June 15, 2009 2:24 PM

lol at r40. I guess that's as good as anything!

by Anonymousreply 41June 15, 2009 2:37 PM

[italics]He was living out a (common) script in which he's abandoned by everyone he ever loved (beginning with his mother who died when he was a teenager, long after she'd abandoned him to live with his aunt). "Loving" Paul allowed him to include Paul in the list of people who victimized him this way--if he didn't love Paul, then it wouldn't hurt when Paul (for numerous reasons) pulled away.[/italics]

You can say John's reaction after the break up was caused by abandonment issues, but it was Yoko herself who told Philip Norman for his book that she suspected John's feelings for Paul went much deeper than anyone knew.. because of how angry he was after the break up. Yoko also tried to keep them apart during the 70s, not telling John about Paul's phone calls, etc. But I think she tried to keep everyone from John, not just Paul. Also there was wild speculation that she tipped off the Japanese authorities that Paul was carrying pot when he was arrested and jailed for nine days in Japan. But that's really getting into tinhat territory.

by Anonymousreply 42June 15, 2009 6:26 PM

fail with that formatting.

by Anonymousreply 43June 15, 2009 6:26 PM

[italic]italic test[/italic]

by Anonymousreply 44June 15, 2009 6:27 PM

Posted again:

[italic]He was living out a (common) script in which he's abandoned by everyone he ever loved (beginning with his mother who died when he was a teenager, long after she'd abandoned him to live with his aunt). "Loving" Paul allowed him to include Paul in the list of people who victimized him this way--if he didn't love Paul, then it wouldn't hurt when Paul (for numerous reasons) pulled away.[/italic]

You can say John's reaction after the break up was caused by abandonment issues, but it was Yoko herself who told Philip Norman for his book that she suspected John's feelings for Paul went much deeper than anyone knew.. because of how angry he was after the break up. Yoko also tried to keep them apart during the 70s, not telling John about Paul's phone calls, etc. But I think she tried to keep everyone from John, not just Paul. Also there was wild speculation that she tipped off the Japanese authorities that Paul was carrying pot when he was arrested and jailed for nine days in Japan. But that's really getting into tinhat territory.

by Anonymousreply 45June 15, 2009 6:28 PM

"I never give you my pillow..."

However, I think the BEATLES breakup was because John did fancy Paul and wanted to take it to a physical level but Paul was pretending to be oblivious so he didn't have to deal with the situation.

John had earlier been besotted with Stu Sutcliffe, that's pretty obvious. He tried it on w/Brian Epstein - that holiday in Spain - but Brian and he weren't compatible. Eventually John realized it was all about Paul, or should be, because they had such an effective partnership.

He was always talking about how good-looking Paul was and he "fell for Paul like everyone else." Also that when the BEATLES broke up it wasn't about the band it was about Paul and him getting divorced and Paul was his first wife.

He resented Linda's presence right off.

If Paul had (been able) to put out sexually, then the BEATLES would have stuck together or broken up as a foursome and Paul and John would have continued to work with other bands or as a duo. That was their ultimate plan anyway, even back in the beginning days of BEATLES.

I agree John was attracted to Yoko more as if she was his guru. He'd tried other gimmicks both before and after Brian's death - he was quite the addictive personality - but Brian was the only one who - in combination with Paul's influence - knew how to restrain John from his most self-destructive tendancies, which was positive for his productivity as a musician and songwriter.

Note how once Brian and Paul were both out of his life, John was so unproductive he "lost his muse" for many years while living under Yoko's yoke. She was the worst thing ever happened to him. In fact, would he even have been living in NYC if it hadn't been for Yoko, who was a native?

by Anonymousreply 46June 15, 2009 6:43 PM

[italic]In fact, would he even have been living in NYC if it hadn't been for Yoko, who was a native?[/italic]

Well, jeez, R46, I'm no fan of Yoko's, but I'm not sure we can blame her for John's death. A crazy guy makes it his life's mission to kill you, he'll find you wherever you're living.

by Anonymousreply 47June 15, 2009 6:51 PM

I agree with you R46 except I think they would have broken up anyway even if an affair did happen, because neither would have wanted to be seen as 'queer' in that day and time. So they would have gone the wife/kids route eventually. I'm not totally convinced they didn't consumate in some way, although that may be just the romantic in me.

by Anonymousreply 48June 15, 2009 6:58 PM

Good point, R47. Chapman traveled from Hawaii to get to John in NY. (Sorry to hijack the thread.) On everything else, I think R46 is spot on.

by Anonymousreply 49June 15, 2009 7:04 PM

During an interview in the 80s, Paul answered the question: "If John could come back for one day, how would you spend it with him?" Paul's answer: "In bed".

That makes me wonder if what R46 says is true, and Paul later regretted not putting out.

by Anonymousreply 50June 15, 2009 7:16 PM

R46 was fun! Maybe there is something to it - if not primarily sexually, perhaps psychologically with inevitable sexual undertones. Plus, look at McCartney's admitted bossing John around, and compare it to Lennon's maso-lapdog patterns with the Ono.

But it's not like Paul has had no issues. He fucked around behind fiancee Jane Asher's back with Francie Schwartz, turned to the dogface talent-free veg-vag heiress from whom he was inseparable, and then goes for the younger stump model. Now he's dating Nancy Shevell, who looks like Jane Asher!

by Anonymousreply 51June 15, 2009 7:20 PM

The reason I don't think John and Paul were hot for each other is (a) they'd known each other forever and (b) they worked together for so long. That's a recipe for boredom, not exquisite sexual tension.

John could have been gay. He certainly was bisexual and admitted it himself. Paul, who knows. He hasn't publicized his personal life to the extent John did.

by Anonymousreply 52June 15, 2009 7:27 PM

John did not see a lot of Paul during his Lost Weekend away from Yoko. He played music with Paul once during this period, and it was the only time he and Paul played together outside of the Beatles. He made plans to stay with Linda and Paul at their ranch in AZ, but never went there.

He spent more time with Ringo than with Paul during this time.

by Anonymousreply 53June 15, 2009 7:43 PM

>> Now he's dating Nancy Shevell, who looks like Jane Asher!

She is a Republican. Her ex-husband (if she is finally divorced from him) is a GOP pol in NY. She doesn't look a bit like Jane Asher. Like Jane and Linda, she is a girl from a posh background. He really deceived himself with that legless wonder Heather. She must have convinced him her family had been wealthy, because Paul didn't cotton to girls who didn't come from money.

by Anonymousreply 54June 15, 2009 7:52 PM

If you look at other bands - the Rolling Stones (Mick and Keith), Aerosmith (Steve Tyler and Joe Perry, aka The Toxic Twins), U2 (Bono and the Edge)and I'm certain many other bands - the two leads have a very, very intense love/hate relationship that could be (wrongly) interpreted as a intimate relationship. And John and Paul are just another example of this.

Something about creativity, major egos, mind-altering substances and a very close working relationship create this dynamic.

by Anonymousreply 55June 15, 2009 8:04 PM

Any idea of a Paul/John affair is hogwash.

by Anonymousreply 56June 15, 2009 8:20 PM

"She must have convinced him her family had been wealthy, because Paul didn't cotton to girls who didn't come from money."

She's a pathological liar, but around the time of the marriage she was going around telling horror stories about her impoverished youth, rather than claiming to have come from money. I heard one interview where she said her father gave her and her sister a pound a week grocery money, so they had to steal to keep from starving to death. I'm sure she told Paul worse things, and one of the ways she got him was by playing on his sympathy.

So, that's enough about heterosexuality. More about bi Beatles1

by Anonymousreply 57June 15, 2009 9:20 PM

I thought John occasionally used a rent boy in the 70s- but he was more likely to go after oriental women (in the 70s at least.) I recall reading this in a short book written about John and Yoko in their Dakota days in the 70s when John was hooked on heroin.

The others I think were pretty straight. And so was John essentially.

Old friend of mine- best friend really, is a Lennon freak and general Beatle freak and has read everything. He even bought an appartment in the Dakota (incredible building), in part, because of his facination with Lennon (although he bought it after he was murdered.) But he did get to know Yoko.

Their manager Brian Epstein was gay.

by Anonymousreply 58June 15, 2009 9:30 PM

>>Their manager Brian Epstein was gay.

No!

by Anonymousreply 59June 15, 2009 10:27 PM

Fwiw, a friend of mine met Yoko years. Said she was charming, funny, and not at all like the "Dragon Lady" of Beatles lore. What is interesting is that Lennon would refer to Ono in interviews as "mother." That says something about the relationship right there. This same friend (in the radio business, btw)also met Linda McCartney and told me that she was...well, difficult to say the least.

Interesting how both Lennon and McCartney were ultimately drawn to such very strong women.

by Anonymousreply 60June 15, 2009 11:47 PM

"If you look at other bands - the Rolling Stones (Mick and Keith)"

I read that John caught Mick and Keith in bed together in the 60s (and ran off to tell Paul, btw). So maybe there was intimacy between other bands, sex was free back then with lots of orgies, etc.

by Anonymousreply 61June 16, 2009 12:02 AM

"John did not see a lot of Paul during his Lost Weekend away from Yoko."

May Pang said they did, citing several instances. Also there was an interview with Julian where he talked about seeing Paul during this time period in John's other NY apartment (the one he had without Yoko).

by Anonymousreply 62June 16, 2009 12:44 AM

Both Marianne Faithfull & Anita Pallenberg have said that Mick wanted to shag Keith.

by Anonymousreply 63June 16, 2009 1:58 AM

R47

I made no mention of John's murder. I was questioning the likelihood of John residing in NYC instead of London itself or England if he and Paul had stayed together as collaborators or even as a couple (whether friends or lovers, considering the thread we're in).

It's your mind took you to that other place. I don't blame Yoko for John's murder.

by Anonymousreply 64June 16, 2009 6:51 PM

I thought Mick had shagged Keith - that's a different thread, but since it's been brought up here.

I thought Brian Jones said they'd all shagged each other - leftoever from that English school system where boys played with boys. But eventually, the two song collaborators - Keith and Mick - froze Brian out so it was no longer three in a bed. Mick and Keith are both practical men, Mick particularly the walking calculator. Brian wasn't useful, so out he goes (of the band).

by Anonymousreply 65June 16, 2009 6:55 PM

Beatle biogs annoy me, they are never impartial because they are always written by Lennon fans. Philip Normans book was a crock of shit.

by Anonymousreply 66June 16, 2009 7:17 PM

I read Mai Pang's book as well as the book by the Tarot card reader for Yoko. It's funny how Paul is absent most of the time but his presence is all over the place.

For instance, when Paul was in jail in Japan, John was having the guy do daily readings on Paul's condition, obviously concerned if Paul were being mistreated (raped, tortured). When it was over with and Paul was released John was all "thank god, I felt I was holding a vigil." The card reader called him on his professed lack of sympathy for Paul when in fact it was obvious he still cared a great deal for the man. John was a bit amused at being caught out.

When John was with Mai and Paul showed up it was faux casual, as John was very sensitive to Paul and watched him all the time. Once David Bowie was there and kept playing his single over and over again, and John was bored with it but resignedc to it but when he saw Paul was bored - but too polite to say anything - John told David they'd heard the song enough. David's ego wounded, of course.

In L.A. John and Paul had a jam session in a studio with other musicians, incl. Harry Nielsen. I don't think it was recorded.

Seems that visit John and Paul went walking along the beach together. Unlike Yoko, Mai was strongly encouraging the reunion of the duo. And Linda just wanted whatever Paul wanted.

When Paul wasn't there, a musician working in the studio with John had John grab him and really kiss him. The guy said he would have shoved John (who was drunk) away but it was John Lennon and he didn't want to offend. So he relaxed into the kiss and that's when John threw him off calling him "Faggot!"

It seems this activity in L.A. with Paul and John getting back together as friends caused a panic in Yoko, because she was on the phone to John calling him home and she sealed the deal by getting pregnant right away with Sean.

After that, he wasn't writing anymore, it wasn't in him.

But when DOUBLE FANTASY came out (regaining his lost confidence) he felt strong enough to reach out to Paul again.

by Anonymousreply 67June 16, 2009 7:19 PM

Okay, sorry, R46/R64. Not sure why I interpreted it that way.

by Anonymousreply 68June 16, 2009 7:30 PM

According to Anita Pallenberg--who was told this by Brian Jones--Jagger slept with Jones. Who did what to whom it still not known. Marianne Faithful points out in her memoir that Jagger tried to get something going with Richards, but the latter was not interested. As for Lennon's "Lost Weekend" (which lasted 18 months), there was a session in studio with McCartney (the bootleg has been around for years). Not much of session (everyone is coked out), and according to people who were there (e.g., Stevie Wonder)at first the tension was very, very evident.

by Anonymousreply 69June 17, 2009 2:10 AM

Great story R67, they had such a fascinating relationship. It's almost like John wasn't sure about what he wanted or was in major denial.

by Anonymousreply 70June 17, 2009 3:24 AM

The Beatles breakup wasn't caused by Paul trying to avoid a physical relationship with John. Most long term successful bands, follow a pattern where the members are very tight and unified when they are young and struggling. Fast forward a few years, and the members have grown apart, caught up in their own families, wealth and ego. U2 is one of the only bands I can think of whom somehow managed to stick together through the long haul.

At the end of The Beatles run, Paul and John were more under the influence of their wives than each other. Everyone always talks about Yoko breaking up The Beatles, but they forget that Linda McCartney's family were advising Paul about the disaster that was Apple Corps. Paul wanted to go with the advice of the family advisor, the other 3 Beatles with Allen Klein. John resented Linda for that by itself, and of course, Paul resented Yoko for trying to insert herself into The Beatles creative process.

If you go back even further than that, many believe that the end of The Beatles started when Brian Epstein died. They did make the bad decision to start Apple Corp and the individual members of the group started to work seperately in the studio. For example, during the recording of The White Album, The Beatles were not often in the studio together, recording their parts on songs on their own time.

It's also forgotten that it wasn't only John and Paul that wanted out of the group, George and Ringo were fed up too, feeling that their songs were not being used.

John and Paul grew up and grew apart. Of course their feelings for each other were always complicated; they were childhood friends sharing a common background and having gone through extraordinary experiences with each other during their shared career.

by Anonymousreply 71June 17, 2009 5:43 AM

It's amazing to me how you can come to Datalounge and find the scoop about gay people flying under the radar that no other site will have! No where else in the world can you find the real facts about so many supposedly straight people that DL insiders know for a fact were actually indulging in the homosex!

What a great public service Datalounge is!

by Anonymousreply 72June 17, 2009 1:19 PM

I don't doubt some of the publicly-accepted causes of the break-up like the conflict between Klein/Eastman and the influence of the wives. But that doesn't preclude the bi story either. They obviously had strong feelings for each other whether they were intimate or just really close friends. So much so they seemed to want to continue whatever it was in the 70s.

by Anonymousreply 73June 17, 2009 1:42 PM

Playing in Hamburg's red-light district when young; taking LSD (as well as pot, pills, heroin, booze); participation in Primal Scream therapy; interest in Edgar Cayce; interested in and supportive of radical politics/groups; interested in, and did experimental music film and art; posed nude on record cover when certainly no one else was; creative and curious - how could he not have had a gay experience?

by Anonymousreply 74June 18, 2009 6:56 AM

I believe it was in Hamburg where they had sex with prostitutes, who turned out to be trannies.

by Anonymousreply 75June 18, 2009 1:22 PM

Another story. John and Paul were sharing a room on tour and John found Paul in bed with a female groupy. John became jealous and proceeded to cut the young girl's clothes into pieces.

by Anonymousreply 76June 19, 2009 4:26 PM

"How did we not hear this?"

Maybe because it's horseshit? Really, this is truly desperate gossip. It's a fantasy, really: John and Paul in bed, fucking and sucking! Wooooooo! It never happened. Their musical partnership was close and enduring, but they were NOT into fucking each other.

Paul wasn't gay. There are rumors of John swinging both ways, especially with Brian Epstein, but it's mostly speculative. John was asked about whether he and Brian were lovers; he said no, but that it was "a pretty intense relationship."

by Anonymousreply 77June 19, 2009 9:09 PM

I believe them when they say they weren't gay. Funny how people make the point by saying they weren't gay, instead of bi.

by Anonymousreply 78June 20, 2009 12:37 AM

[quote] John was asked about whether he and Brian were lovers; he said no, but that it was "a pretty intense relationship."

No one admitted to homosexual behavior in those days. Certainly one of the most famous people in the world wouldn't.

by Anonymousreply 79June 20, 2009 4:30 PM

And yet another friend said John told him he let Brian toss him off. So who do you believe?

by Anonymousreply 80June 20, 2009 4:33 PM

I met someone years ago who was with Paul in Greece and he said they slept together...I believe him...he was a gorgeous somewhat femme conceptual artist..

by Anonymousreply 81June 20, 2009 4:55 PM

Interesting R81. Did he say what they did? Like was Paul a bottom or top?

by Anonymousreply 82June 20, 2009 5:06 PM

Anymore stories?

by Anonymousreply 83June 21, 2009 2:45 AM

Yes, more stories.

I love this thread. It is much nicer than all the other depressing Soup Line/ Iran/ Burqa threads at the moment.

Love me do.

by Anonymousreply 84June 21, 2009 2:48 AM

There was a guy who claimed that John repeatedly asked him to suck him off in the 70s. This guy was essentially straight so he declined. But he also said that after he found out John had died, he wished he had agreed to do it. Anyway, this guy apparently looked like Paul because someone who saw them talking at first thought he was Paul. Also this guy claimed that John kept comparing his mouth to Paul's - "Your mouth is as pretty as Paul's", something like that.

by Anonymousreply 85June 21, 2009 3:07 AM

Funny how nobody ever thinks homely Ringo was bi-sexual or gay.

by Anonymousreply 86June 21, 2009 4:20 AM

R86, Some people were when were trying to guess the gay pop star legend on another thread.

Ringo was actually kind of cute in the early days.

by Anonymousreply 87June 21, 2009 4:29 AM

Ringo pings for me, as does John and Paul. George comes across as the straightest.

by Anonymousreply 88June 21, 2009 4:35 AM

I agree, R88.

by Anonymousreply 89June 21, 2009 4:38 AM

r29, that picture is from the filming of Help! in 1965. John would've been 24 and Paul 22, not teenagers.

by Anonymousreply 90June 21, 2009 4:39 AM

I'm uncertain as to whether they were ever physical, but they certainly had an obsessive sort of romantic relationship.

by Anonymousreply 91June 21, 2009 4:46 AM

Words from the ass are so much more credible than those from the mouth. The mouth is too close to the brain.

by Anonymousreply 92June 21, 2009 4:47 AM

A girl named Francie Schwartz lived with Paul after Paul broke up with Jane. This was in the early days of John and Yoko, and Paul tried to be nice to them by letting them move into his house for a few weeks while they were getting a place of their own. Francie posted on a Beatles fan board for a while and claimed Paul was visibly upset when he heard John and Yoko having sex in the next room. She claimed he had to leave the house often and frequented gay bars to get his mind off being replaced by Yoko. She also claimed Paul wrote a note to John and left it on the mantle referring to Yoko as his 'Jap tart'. This ultimately was part of the reason why John was so upset with Paul in the days after their break-up. Keep in mind that Francie was hateful of Paul after he dumped her, so I take what she says with an appropriate amount of salt.

by Anonymousreply 93June 21, 2009 5:56 PM

The Beatle 'secrets' special, which shown on BBC America several times, alluded to John and Brian Epstein having an affair.

There was also this swishy old queen being interviewed, he was part of the Beatle inner circle in the 1960s. He claimed that he and John had threesomes with females, mostly groupies, but that he also got it on with John. I don't remember his name.

C'mon, who really knows? John is dead, he can't verify or deny this gossip. George is dead too, he can't comment on the stories that he always used hookers, while married to both wives.

by Anonymousreply 94June 21, 2009 6:11 PM

I actually trust the gossip more after they are dead because dead men can't sue. That's when people start to tell the truth, even though it might be embellished.

by Anonymousreply 95June 21, 2009 6:16 PM

I always thought that anyone who could fuck Yoko, could fuck anything. Where's the great leap in this revelation? If memory serves me, Yoko was fabulously wealthy and knew how to use a strap-on in the sack. She knew how to get the baby batter out her men.

by Anonymousreply 96June 21, 2009 6:23 PM

"Keep in mind that Francie was hateful of Paul after he dumped her, so I take what she says with an appropriate amount of salt."

Francie Schwartz was basically a groupie, things never end well when you date a groupie. Linda Eastman was a groupie with a camera. She fucked many a of the musicians she photographed before Paul started dating her.

Paul obviously had a thing for American Jewish chicks! Still does, he's currently dating a wealthy Jewish Manhattan socialite.

by Anonymousreply 97June 21, 2009 6:27 PM

Yoko was from money, a banking family. She was supposedly cut off at some point. No wonder she set her eyes on a very wealthy Beatle, all the while claiming she had "no idea" who John was.

What a load of bollocks, most of the hip art crowd in NYC, London and wherever, knew who The Beatles were! My late grandmother even knew who John Lennon was at the time. Yoko was full of shit.

Even Andy Warhol knew Bob Dylan, especially as Bob was dating Edie Sedgewick. If Yoko honestly thinks the press and fans believed she had no idea who John was, she's even crazier than I thought.

by Anonymousreply 98June 21, 2009 6:33 PM

they have some interesting photos at this gallery site, under "Tom Murray"

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 99June 21, 2009 6:46 PM

That link just goes to one photo R99.

by Anonymousreply 100June 21, 2009 6:54 PM

ok, here's page one of his photos, then you can click at the bottom to page two

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 101June 21, 2009 6:59 PM

.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 102June 21, 2009 7:01 PM

Howard asked Paul about this rumor about John Lennon being attracted to him. Paul said that he grew up with John and they slept in the same bed in hotel rooms and stuff and never once did he see any hint of that. Paul said that he thinks that there would have been a hint of it somewhere that he was gay, if he was gay. Paul said he doesn't think it's true at all.

Howard said that he read that John was so attracted to him that he was sort of at his mercy because he was so in love with him. Paul said he likes that theory but he really doesn't think it's true. He said that you can make up theories about anything and it doesn't make them true.

by Anonymousreply 103June 21, 2009 7:04 PM

As if he would tell Howard Stern if it were true.

by Anonymousreply 104June 21, 2009 7:09 PM

He's been on Stern a couple if times in fact. He said the first time George advised against him being on the show as he was worried Stern would hound him for details, LOL. Yes, Paul's story is he slept with John "a million times" and John never tried anything.

"Howard said that he read that John was so attracted to him that he was sort of at his mercy because he was so in love with him. Paul said he likes that theory but he really doesn't think it's true. He said that you can make up theories about anything and it doesn't make them true."

Actually he didn't quite deny this part. He said he likes that theory, then he went into the part about how anyone can make up theories.

by Anonymousreply 105June 21, 2009 7:17 PM

Yes, it's just an interview r104, but how often has Paul ever been asked THAT question before?

Howard always asks the questions that are on everyone's mind, like asking Pete Townsend about that kiddie porn website he got busted for. (Pete immediately hung up)

Paul's long history with women doesn't really point to anything gay.

Some book is out now that says John was infatuated with Paul and Paul could make John do anything he wanted. Howard asked him about it.

If true, why would Paul have to lie about it? John is long gone.

by Anonymousreply 106June 21, 2009 7:20 PM

Because Paul wants to protect the Beatles legacy. And I think he still wants to lie about John because any implication that John was gay/bi will eventually come back to him since he and John were so close.

by Anonymousreply 107June 21, 2009 7:26 PM

exactly, R107

by Anonymousreply 108June 21, 2009 7:28 PM

Nice pics, R99/R101. Paul in pink... They really were cute.

by Anonymousreply 109June 21, 2009 7:40 PM

Just delete the rest of the URL, which will take you to the main page, then type in 'Tom Murray' into the website's Search option.

by Anonymousreply 110June 21, 2009 7:49 PM

there is even one where John pretends to be dead

by Anonymousreply 111June 21, 2009 7:56 PM

Paul and Linda's marriage was basically a lesbian relationship.

by Anonymousreply 112June 21, 2009 8:29 PM

"Howard always asks the questions that are on everyone's mind, like asking Pete Townsend about that kiddie porn website he got busted for. (Pete immediately hung up)"

Kind of off-topic, but what was the deal with Pete Townsend and the kiddie porn? Didn't he claim he was "doing research" or something?

by Anonymousreply 113June 21, 2009 10:09 PM

Pete Townsend: He claimed he was doing research. I believe the charges were dropped but someone else may know more details.

by Anonymousreply 114June 22, 2009 12:10 AM

Doing research, my butt

by Anonymousreply 115June 22, 2009 3:50 AM

[block]I met someone years ago who was with Paul in Greece and he said they slept together...I believe him...he was a gorgeous somewhat femme conceptual artist..[/block]

R81, was this in the 60s or later?

by Anonymousreply 116June 22, 2009 2:03 PM

Any more stories?

by Anonymousreply 117June 24, 2009 1:30 PM

Nothing in this thread convinces me one way another that Paul and John weren't screwing around from age 13 until at least the mid 70's, I was with my best friend and even though he came out in college, he never outed me til I came out myself at 30. By the same sign, nothing in this thread convinces me that they were doing that either.

Mostly, I do not look at Paul and think "no way that was happening" and I look at John and think "yeah, it's likely".

Unless Paul decides to say so, or Yoko claims John filled her in, we will never know the truth.

by Anonymousreply 118June 24, 2009 1:51 PM

I believe they met when John was 17 and Paul was 15. But I agree with the rest, R118.

by Anonymousreply 119June 25, 2009 12:51 AM

Off topic, check out this rather 'gay' photo of Jimmy Page and this shirtless guy.

Any gay rumors re Zeppelin? All fans ever read about was the band's constant involvement with female groupies. There was a photo of Plant kissing their fat slob late manager, but not much other talk of Plant & Page being together.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 120June 25, 2009 5:01 PM

Bump for more bi Beatles.

(More interesting than MJ)

by Anonymousreply 121July 11, 2009 7:48 PM

McCartney and Fraser 1967 hmmmmm!

by Anonymousreply 122July 11, 2009 8:18 PM

Frasier, a gay art dealer Paul spent time with. Died of AIDS in the 80s. Care to elaborate?

by Anonymousreply 123July 11, 2009 8:53 PM

McCartney-Fraser LSD buddies very VERY close. McCartney paid his bills to the end.

by Anonymousreply 124July 11, 2009 9:13 PM

Did they have sex?

by Anonymousreply 125July 11, 2009 10:45 PM

I heard a rumour years ago that Paul and Linda were involved with threesomes with other men. Has anyone heard this?

by Anonymousreply 126July 12, 2009 5:21 PM

Denny Laine was Paul's best buddy for 9 years. Then suddenly nothing, cut away like a dead branch, no explanation, ever.

by Anonymousreply 127July 12, 2009 5:49 PM

Denny Laine cut away from Paul after Paul was arrested in Japan. It wasn't that sudden, I think he was just fed up with Paul's pot shit.

by Anonymousreply 128July 12, 2009 5:52 PM

I thought Laine left Wings after Paul didn't want to tour any more, after John was killed. Paul became paranoid that he was next, and didn't tour for quite a while. I did hear there was bad blood between Paul and Denny, am wondering why.

by Anonymousreply 129July 12, 2009 6:06 PM

Denny Laine is hardly a pot virgin. Walking away from being a member of the McCartney family really would be cutting of your nose to spite your face. What has he done since? He didn't walk he was pushed, but why?

by Anonymousreply 130July 12, 2009 6:08 PM

Denny was kept around in the 70s to make John jealous. Then when John was gone, Denny wasn't needed anymore.

by Anonymousreply 131July 12, 2009 6:12 PM

Linda needed a shoulder to cry on. So would you if you were married to Macca. Denny Laine had broad shoulders.

by Anonymousreply 132July 12, 2009 6:16 PM

It's a shame Jo Jo Laine is no longer with us. She would never have kept quiet during the Heather Mills carry on.

by Anonymousreply 133July 12, 2009 6:26 PM

Heather Mills...now what is she doing now? Do you think she still hooks up with Macca for post-divorce crazy, mad sex?

by Anonymousreply 134July 17, 2009 11:00 PM

Heather Mills trails round after her snooker playing boyfriend. She was in the tabloids recentley non to happy a vegan restraunt she used to own had become a fish and chip shop. (or something like that).

by Anonymousreply 135July 18, 2009 6:15 AM

Didn't Heather Mills move to the U.S. to try and become relevant? Paul moved here to spend more time with Nancy, but it's also because his daughter with Skank-Mills is here.

by Anonymousreply 136July 18, 2009 12:59 PM

Paul lives in the US now?

by Anonymousreply 137July 18, 2009 1:58 PM

So it's true Paul is bi? I know someone from that inner circle who swears it's true...

by Anonymousreply 138August 9, 2009 10:15 PM

So do I, r138.

by Anonymousreply 139August 10, 2009 2:18 AM

Paul has taken to going about in NY without a disguise, without a bodyguard. To the grocery store, on the train... I'm a little worried for him.

by Anonymousreply 140August 10, 2009 2:38 AM

Why not give us more info, R139. We're all anonymous here.

by Anonymousreply 141August 10, 2009 1:07 PM

I wonder if the unofficial biographer Geoffrey Gulliani (probably not the right spelling) knows of this board? He'd be as happy as a pig in shit spreading gossip about McCartney.

by Anonymousreply 142August 10, 2009 2:40 PM

I have posted before that a friend of minem, I know, had a fling with Paul in Greece in the late 60's I think it was. He (my friend) was gorgeous...artsy performance artist, etc...

I mostly believe him..

by Anonymousreply 143August 10, 2009 2:58 PM

My memories of Lennon/Ono are dominated by their nude pics on their Two Virgins LP.

Lennon had an ugly, mottled, uncircumcised penis, and Ono had a massive bush.

I've still got the album tucked away in my attic somewhere.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 144August 10, 2009 10:12 PM

Did your friend give more details R143? Like is Paul a top or bottom?

by Anonymousreply 145August 11, 2009 12:12 AM

bump...

by Anonymousreply 146August 11, 2009 12:34 PM

I often get the feeling that non of the Beatles biographers like McCartney very much. Why is that?

by Anonymousreply 147August 11, 2009 12:58 PM

Jealously? A lot of the biographers really like Lennon and take his word as gospel from the early 70s, when he was on his anger kick. Of course, John still loved Paul and talked about it in interviews in the late 70s, but some Lennon fans like to think John didn't like Paul. I guess the (friendly) competition between the two men manifested itself in fans of each.

by Anonymousreply 148August 11, 2009 1:03 PM

I read a biography on Paul McCartney by Chet Flippo - I think that was his name - even that felt mean spirited.

by Anonymousreply 149August 11, 2009 1:13 PM

Has anyone here ever read a memoir by Francie Schwartz, she had a fling with McCartney in 1968. The memoir is supposed to have some gossip on McCartney's sexuality.

by Anonymousreply 150August 11, 2009 1:27 PM

This gay thing is interesting, but I think untrue. Of course, Epstein (the management) was gay, so it wouldn't be beyond reason that one of the Beatles would be gay...this later mirrors the rumours about Robbie Williams during his Take That under the management of Nigel Martin-Smith.

Lots of my family and their friends grey up with members of Beatles and knew them during the college/Cavern years, and none have ever brought up a rumour about Paul, John or any of the others being gay/bi, and believe me in 1950/60s Liverpool, England any such rumour would have spread like wild fire.

If John and Paul (or any others) had been fucking, it would have come out via John during his NYC years (who was so arrogant he wouldn't give a shit what anyone thought of him) or later via Yoko Ono.

by Anonymousreply 151August 11, 2009 2:08 PM

Nope, Heather Mills bought a very successful Brighton (UK) seafront fish restarant and promptly turned it into a vegan cafe.

by Anonymousreply 152August 11, 2009 2:25 PM

A direct quote from the Chet Flippo biog.

And he told Schwartz about Linda Eastman, about how the two of them had "made contact" instantly on meeting. "Well", Schwartz wanted to know, "why the hell aren't the two of you strapping it on together then?"

Strapping it on?

by Anonymousreply 153August 11, 2009 4:20 PM

[italic]If John and Paul (or any others) had been fucking, it would have come out via John during his NYC years (who was so arrogant he wouldn't give a shit what anyone thought of him) or later via Yoko Ono.[/italic]

I don't think he was arrogant enough to admit that. Maybe he would have later in life.

Yoko Ono did mention it, as revealed in Norman's latest book, how John was attracted to Paul. She couldn't mention if Paul felt the same way or if she knew that they actually had an affair because 1) maybe John wouldn't have admitted it to her, 2) Paul is still alive.

by Anonymousreply 154August 12, 2009 1:22 AM

Paul may have experimented in his younger days, but I don't believe he was gay...don't see a gay man marrying Heather Mills. The rack she has...the supposedly uber-sexuality...nope, I think Paul likes the ladies..and sex was what attracted Paul to Heather.

Now John Lennon,hmmmm. I never fully understood the attraction to Yoko...Only, maybe that she was a mother-figure to him? She seemed way stronger than him, like she probably bossed him around, & he took that for mothering & ,hence, fell in love. There's something deep that went on there.. I feel very sorry for Julian.

And No, I've never read a Beatles biography.

by Anonymousreply 155August 12, 2009 4:15 AM

In summary, The Beatles were straight, and boring as Hell.

by Anonymousreply 156August 17, 2009 12:09 AM

Is Paul the bi musical legend that was posted about in that gossip thread from a couple of months ago? The source said it was someone you'd never expect, over 65, white, and he had been in the R&R Hall of Fame.

by Anonymousreply 157August 17, 2009 1:38 AM

Ran across this today, someone quoting Lennon's rants about why the Beatles broke up...

[i]"The Imagine singer sat down with Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner shortly after the Fab Four parted ways and revealed a few home truths about the real reasons behind the split, something the four former Beatles have rarely spoken about.

Wenner released the tapes for celebrated rock journalist Mikal Gilmore's study on what tore the band apart, which appears in the upcoming issue of the publication.

The 1970 tapes have also been released to Entertainment Tonight, which aired Lennon's comments on Wednesday.

Lennon can be heard telling Wenner, "We sold out... and I felt sick."

He also takes aim at longtime songwriting partner Paul McCartney, stating, "We got fed up with being sidemen for Paul."

Lennon suggests the Beatles break-up was a long time coming and the "music died" when they first hit the big time in the early 1960s, adding, "That's why we never improved."

And he was less than happy when his bandmates disrespected and "insulted" his wife Yoko Ono, adding, "They despised her... It seemed I had to be happily married to them or Yoko, and I chose Yoko."

Lennon goes so far as to suggest that the Beatles' most peaceful member, George Harrison, was the one who really drove a wedge between Lennon and the band over his treatment of Ono.

He states, "George insulted her right to her face and I didn't hit him, I don't know why. Ringo (Starr) was alright but the other two really gave it to us. I'll never forgive 'em."[/i]

Well whatever George said, it was probably 100% true, and perfectly appropriate.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 158August 20, 2009 11:54 PM

R158: The tapes reveal nothing new. Read "Lennon Remembers," which was published in RS in 1971--and later put out in paperback. Everything is there: the anger, the bitterness, and most of all Lennon's attempt to "remember" the past the way it did not happen.

As much as I loved Lennon, he was never someone you could trust on The Beatles. Arguing the band never improved is absurd--listen to "She Loves" (1963)and "Girl" (1965). Then listen to "Strawberry Fields Forever" (recorded in 1966, released in 1967). In less than 4 years, the band made a quantum leap in the musical performances. What Lennon never would accept was the fact that (a)heroin, (b)Ono, and (c)the disaster called Apple were all the undoing of the band.

For all the slagging against McCartney, he (and Harrison)saw what a disaster Apple was becoming. Unfortunately, McCartney did not want Allen Klien in charge--and he was right, in the long run. Harrison had no use for Ono, but at that point I think he had begun to feel it was time to move on. What is interesting is how much of Harrison's first solo album was conceived during the recording sessions for "Let It Be" (in fact, there are bootlegs of the band recording "All Things Must Pass" in the studio). What I think drove Lennon over the edge for the rest of his life was that McCartney quit. Yes, yes, Lennon "quit" the band in October of 1969, but it was a "secret," and I have always believed that Lennon wanted the band to turn into what Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young sometimes has been: four soloists who on occasion record together. Interesting fact. Do a Google search for interviews with Lennon and Harrison in 1970 after McCartney left. They maintained the band would reform and record.

Until McCartney sued at the end of 1970 to break up the band. That was it--and Lennon until he died never got over the fact that it was McCartney who actually finished off the group once and for all.

by Anonymousreply 159August 21, 2009 12:09 AM

I didn't read all 9 or 10 pages of this thread so I don't know if anyone's brought it up - Paul's eyebrows alone make me thing he's done it with men. My gaydar says so.

by Anonymousreply 160August 21, 2009 12:18 AM

R158, that interview is old and was recorded during John's angry period. I wouldn't believe that bs. Here is some excerps from a new Rolling Stone artice that will be released this month:

Why the Beatles Broke Up: The Story Behind Our Cover

After all, they had believed so deeply in love as a means to personal and social redemption, there was no way they could leave each other without breaking both their times and each other's hearts.

Through all my research, certain conclusions became inevitable, and they managed to surprise me a bit: The Beatles' end was an accident, a maneuver by John Lennon that went horribly wrong.

It's long been known that the Beatles in fact ended when, in September 1969, Lennon announced to his bandmates, to his wife Yoko Ono and to manager Allen Klein that he was leaving his famous group, even as the album Abbey Road was meeting with the biggest sales the Beatles had yet known. Several months later, as this article chronicles, Paul McCartney also announced he was leaving the Beatles, though unlike Lennon, he said so publicly.

Though there are numerous moments in the group's chronology of dissolution that were crucial events, this move by Paul was perhaps the most critical of them all. He had loved the Beatles more than the others had � he had certainly loved John more than John had loved him � and it was due to Paul's resourcefulness and tenacity that the Beatles held together and moved forward so remarkably after the death of the manager who had made them famous, Brian Epstein.

it is also fair to say that without McCartney, the Beatles would not have mattered in history with such ingenuity and durability. Also, unlike Lennon, McCartney understood that the Beatles' four members would never create so much wonder separately as they had collectively. So for Paul McCartney � the only Beatle who had never left the group in a fit of pique or out of whim � to leave meant, in fact, the Beatles were over. He wasn't about to play any games about his love for what the Beatles were, nor was he going to dishonor his own pain.

McCartney had simply been forced into an impossible position by John Lennon, George Harrison and Allen Klein. At least two of those men should have loved Paul as much as he loved them, but instead they had come to resent what they saw as his drive and his domineering ways. Who knows what Lennon and Harrison thought would have become of the Beatles had it not been for McCartney � the only opinion they ever offered on the matter was that they had never expected to survive past Epstein's demise. The fact that they did is also what made them great forever, but no doubt in the midst of their unprecedented reality, any outside perspective was impossible; they were, after all, a notoriously insular outfit.

To the degree that any of this is tragedy � given that all things must pass � then it's indeed a manifold tragedy. Harrison and Lennon were profound men who understood the necessity for hope and fellowship, and yet they were also men who could be profoundly petty and ungrateful. Both of them early on came to dislike the reality of the Beatles' massive audience � "Fucking bastards, sucking us to death," John Lennon told Rolling Stone in 1970 � and both men became uncharacteristically obsessed with financial eminence near the group's end.

But what I found most troubling, most tragic, in all of this was two things: Both Lennon and Harrison (Lennon, clearly, in particular) did their best to sabotage the Beatles from mid-1968 onward, and when it all came irrevocably apart, I believe that both men regretted what they had wrought. I don't think that John Lennon and George Harrison (but Lennon, again, in particular) truly meant the Beatles to end, even though they might not have known it in the moment. I think they meant to shift the balance of power, I think they meant for the Beatles to become, in a sense, a more casual form of collaboration, and I think they clearly intended to rein in Paul McCartney. But they overplayed their hand and � there's no way around it � they

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 161August 21, 2009 3:03 AM

But they overplayed their hand and � there's no way around it � they treated McCartney shamefully during 1969, and unforgivably in the early months of 1970.

The immediate aftermath was as dramatic as everything that led up to it, though that isn't something we had the room to track much in this article, given its already considerable length. Lennon was furious and hurt when Paul said he was leaving � he too knew there would be no repairing this, even though he had already been indicating he thought the band would resume � and he and McCartney soon launched into some sour exchanges in interviews and in song.

When McCartney sued to dissolve the band's partnership, the three other Beatles claimed in court papers that they saw no reason to dissolve, that there was no real incompatibility that would prevent them all from continuing to make music together. They were saying this for legal and financial reasons, of course, but on some level, John Lennon, George Harrison and Ringo Starr almost certainly meant it. They had thrown away something special, and the man they chose to align themselves with, accountant and manager Allen Klein, turned out to be somebody they lost faith in. After that happened, they again had Paul McCartney to thank, because his legal actions at the end probably saved their legacy. But the other Beatles never apologized to McCartney for how they handled him in 1970. Some things healed with time, but some losses were eternal. Near the end of his life, John Lennon said, "My partings are not as nice as I'd like them to be. I regret a bad taste to it."

by Anonymousreply 162August 21, 2009 3:15 AM

I saw Paul recently in concert, and while his face has aged (like most people his age), he's surprisingly still f*able at 67.

by Anonymousreply 163August 21, 2009 3:50 AM

That writer sure loves Paul.

by Anonymousreply 164August 21, 2009 4:18 AM

"That writer sure loves Paul."

Not completely. In the same article the writer names John as the real genius of the group. So tiresome.

by Anonymousreply 165August 21, 2009 4:35 AM

Paul will eventually get more credit, but they will wait until he is dead.

I read that book about the recording of Abbey Road/Let it Be - it was kind of sad, all that fighting.

by Anonymousreply 166August 21, 2009 4:44 AM

I saw a show called Beatles Secrets. One guy said John was seen getting a bj from a transvestite in Hamburg. Another guy said he had sex with John "with a girl between". The consensus was John would try anything sexually that was offered. Paul being more discreet, but one guy said he thought for weeks that Paul was 'queer' when he came to Hamburg, due to mannerisms and 'eyebrows'. Make that what you will.

by Anonymousreply 167August 21, 2009 1:22 PM

From the latest Radio Times:

Paul: "The people who say John was gay didn't share the same bed with him like I did."

Yeah right, Paul.

by Anonymousreply 168August 25, 2009 4:37 PM

New biopic coming up, hopefully with gay content!!!

"The early days of the Beatles has been told on-screen before, in the 1994 film Backbeat, but never with Brian Epstein as a central character. Now Hollywood is planning to film a script about the Liverpudlian manager and entrepreneur who brought the Fab Four to the public's attention and secured them a contract with EMI, according to Variety.

"Tony Gittelson's screenplay A Life in the Day centres on the man who discovered the Beatles in 1961 and was their guiding light until 1967, when he died of a drug overdose at the age of 32. The film is expected to focus on the formation of the band."

So, who should play John, Paul, George, Ringo, and Brian?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 169August 27, 2009 3:41 AM

start a separate thread (I'll play)

this thread is for sexuality rumors

by Anonymousreply 170August 27, 2009 3:56 AM

I'm a bit confused by the OP's claims. A friend of yours Dad is just a fan but manages to find out that John and Paul were having an affair? I mean some of these guys closest musical and personal counterparts can never answer with clarity but some random fan can find it out? I'm not saying it is or isn't true but I'm just curious as to how your friend's father could have possibly found this out.

by Anonymousreply 171September 26, 2009 3:53 AM

So R171, are you saying even George and Ringo aren't sure what up with them?

by Anonymousreply 172September 26, 2009 5:28 PM

[quote]I'm a bit confused by the OP's claims. A friend of yours Dad is just a fan but manages to find out that John and Paul were having an affair? I mean some of these guys closest musical and personal counterparts can never answer with clarity but some random fan can find it out? I'm not saying it is or isn't true but I'm just curious as to how your friend's father could have possibly found this out.

It's called "psychosis".

by Anonymousreply 173September 26, 2009 5:38 PM

A bit off topic but here's what John and Yoko said about George in the 1971 interview:

Int.: Let's talk a bit about George. He's perhaps the most enigmatic Beatle. Are you saying George is more conventional than he makes himself out to be?

John: There's no telling George. He always has a point of view about that wide, you know. [John places his hands a few inches apart.] You can't tell him anything.

Yoko: George is sophisticated, fashionwise. . . .

John: He's very trendy, and he has the right clothes, and all of that. . . .

Yoko: But he's not sophisticated, intellectually.

John: No. He's very narrow-minded and he doesn't really have a broader view. Paul is far more aware than George. One time in the Apple office in Wigmore Street, I said something to George, and he said, "I'm as intelligent as you, you know." This must have been resentment, but he could have left anytime if I was giving him a hard time.

This is very cruel. And John does not seem that angry at Paul in this interview. He seems to miss him.

by Anonymousreply 174September 26, 2009 5:45 PM

John really was a world-class douchebag, huh?

by Anonymousreply 175September 26, 2009 5:50 PM

I don't get it R175, John basically described George as stubborn and narrow-minded. Yoko is the one who's casting doubts about his level of intelligence.

by Anonymousreply 176September 26, 2009 5:56 PM

John also implied George was superficial with the trendy comment.

by Anonymousreply 177September 26, 2009 6:01 PM

Did you see the George interview on the Dick Cavett show? He did seem quite sullen and stubborn. John, on another episode, was quite lively and likeable.

George also seemed angry and negative in the book on Abbey Road/Let it Be. They were all fighting at that point, but it was not clear what George's problem was.

by Anonymousreply 178September 26, 2009 7:00 PM

Well obviously Ringo and George would have known but I'm referring to the other musicians who have worked with them. I am just wondering how someone could find this out. I am genuinely interested in how a fan could find out that two musicans are together.

by Anonymousreply 179September 26, 2009 8:06 PM

Heard John Lennon was turned down by Paul many times due Paul's 'immoveable heterosexuality' as a researcher put it. Don't know why but this made me lol

by Anonymousreply 180September 26, 2009 9:54 PM

Made me lol too because Paul doesn't seem like the straightest of guys.

by Anonymousreply 181September 26, 2009 11:25 PM

Makes me lol too because Paul doesn't seem that straight.

by Anonymousreply 182September 26, 2009 11:55 PM

From Beatles Biggest Secrets:

Tony Barrow, Beatles press officer, said that Yoko was a strong influence on John, and may have told him he could do best without Paul. But Tony believed in the back of John's mind was a desire to get back with his first "girlfriend", to get back with Paul since they had so much history together. [yes, he used the word girlfriend.]

by Anonymousreply 183September 27, 2009 12:03 AM

R179, maybe musicians and others close to them (like Elton John) do suspect or know, but aren't telling. Paul's still alive and seems rather protective about that kind of thing, others wouldn't want to upset him. He must have a bit of clout in music circles.

About George, he did seem rather bitter about the Lennon/McCartney partnership. He had no one to write with, and LenMc songs mostly got preference on their albums.

by Anonymousreply 184September 27, 2009 12:47 AM

I'm a 22 yr old girl who was practically raised on Beatles music. So, as you can imagine I have watched maybe every Beatle docu, and interivew i can find. I read all the threads here I found some hitting the nail on the head where these two men are concerned. Watching some Beatles' interviews led me to one conclusion, at some point John Lennon was maybe in love with Paul, he would spend practically the whole interview staring at Paul, it was knid of uncomfortable at times as u can tell by watching Paul. I believe that Paul and John were in love but in the platonic sense. At the height in their career they were the most important aspect of each other lives and came to depend on each other. OT: In terms of the Beatles movie Rupert Graves about 10 or 20 yrs ago would have made a convincing Paul.

by Anonymousreply 185September 27, 2009 11:35 AM

How exactly did George Martin find out about it in Miami? He walked in on them spooning? lol

Kinda off topic but it has always amused me that ppl get more riled up over John having the hots for Paul but nobody seemed to query John having the hots for his own mother. Guess homosexuality beats incest anyday eh?

by Anonymousreply 186October 13, 2009 11:45 PM

Beatles have attracted a lot of hard-core fans over the years, many of which do not want their magic 'poluted' by homosexuality. Which is why they get aggravated by the gossip.

by Anonymousreply 187October 14, 2009 12:46 AM

Well i am a girl of the 70's totally obsessed with the beatles and for some reason i never believed john or paul being an item, but the camera never lies. Several pics exist that capture john and paul giving each other some rather curious looks. So anything is possible.If John or Paul were an item good for them doesn't and def can't effect me or anyone else now.

by Anonymousreply 188October 14, 2009 1:54 AM

My parents were like 60s flower children and for them it was common knowledge that the break-up of John and Paul were like lovers breaking up. It was not talked about in the media like the elephant in the room.

by Anonymousreply 189October 16, 2009 3:05 AM

There's a rumour that a tape exist that Yoko has from a recording session the Beatles were having and it had John calling out to Paul in a 'sexual' and seductive way. Hmm what i wouldn't pay to hear that

by Anonymousreply 190October 23, 2009 2:53 PM

Imagine if Perez Hilton existed then he would have def outed those two. His policy is whether your gay or not he will out the whoever is hot and in the news.

by Anonymousreply 191October 23, 2009 2:54 PM

I was born in Liverpool and was a child of the Sixties I was around at that time and i can def tell u John and Paul were a couple. I've seen both of them together many times I worked in Whitechapel 50 yds away from Brian's record shop. The truth will never be printed while Paul is alive

by Anonymousreply 192October 24, 2009 10:51 PM

Hey R192, tell us stories about what they did. Hold hands? Kiss?

I don't know why Paul just doesn't say so at this point. No one will hate him for him. In fact it would be very cool.

by Anonymousreply 193October 24, 2009 11:24 PM

Personally I think that ppl will not be able to listen to the beatles and view them on stage the same if they were to find out John and Paul were together. I remember after Mark Feehily came out my sister who was obsessed with him literally destroyed all his posters and stopped listening to Westlife's music. She said the thought of him being with a guy disgusted her! (I am also a girl btw) so Paul knows this and hence will never reveal it. As a previous poster put it, it will 'pollute' their idea of them.

by Anonymousreply 194October 25, 2009 12:04 AM

It would shock a lot of people if any of the Beatles, esp John or Paul were gay/bi. They have a very wide fan base.

by Anonymousreply 195October 25, 2009 12:12 AM

They admitted to wanking together. Isn't that considered a sexaul activity?

by Anonymousreply 196October 25, 2009 12:20 AM

There's a tape of the Beatles recording in the studio and Yoko is there with John and u should see the look Yoko keeps giving Paul. I have seen my friends give their bf's old girlfriends those exact looks! Also I can't help but think that John sometimes brought Yoko in the studio and constantly kiss and lay his head on her to mindf*ck with Paul.

by Anonymousreply 197October 25, 2009 12:23 AM

A groupie named Francie was living with Paul when John and Yoko were there. She said Paul would become visibly upset when he heard J/Y having sex. Then he'd run off to gay bars and stay out very late.

by Anonymousreply 198October 25, 2009 12:30 AM

"Beatles have attracted a lot of hard-core fans over the years, many of which do not want their magic 'poluted' by homosexuality."

And other hard-core fans would be thrilled. Google "Beatleslash" if you want examples.

by Anonymousreply 199October 25, 2009 6:12 AM

What a great thread. More, please.

by Anonymousreply 200October 25, 2009 9:40 AM

Man this thread rules! I am really shocked that no one has the guts to publicly expose John and Paul yet. Everyone is comfortable making John out to be this love sick puppy after Paul but if someone was to reveal it was the other way around the Beatles fans will flip.Lol! I wonder if John would have told Yoko about it and Paul knows this and suddenly had a change of heart to Yoko even praising her in a docu that looked as though he did it under duress.

by Anonymousreply 201October 25, 2009 11:42 AM

Lol Beatles shash man those girls are twisted! But seriously how do you go from Cynthia Lennon and Paul Mccartney to Yoko Ono? People said she was a witch who cast a spell on John, for some reason I find that believable.

by Anonymousreply 202October 25, 2009 12:07 PM

Yoko has a song and album called "Yes, I am a witch."

by Anonymousreply 203October 25, 2009 12:37 PM

I have no idea if Paul & John had something going on but i have recognized John looked considerably happy when he was around Paul but with Yoko not so much. Despite the fact he proclaimed to love Yoko more than anyone else, he always looked incredibly miserable in all his pics with Yoko, even Cynthia talked about it in her book. It seemed like he forgot how to smile and laugh when he was with Yoko.

by Anonymousreply 204October 25, 2009 12:48 PM

Can someone please explain to me what exactly is an underground mag and further more how do you get your hands on one?

by Anonymousreply 205October 25, 2009 2:39 PM

I see they've given the psych patients internet access again.

by Anonymousreply 206October 25, 2009 2:48 PM

Yoko does have evidence which is part of the reason she gave Paul so much hell all these years. Nothing was said in the past because it would also implicate John, now she doesn't care so much.

by Anonymousreply 207October 25, 2009 2:54 PM

I highly doubt what that Francine groupie said about Paul is true. I doubt Paul would be brave enough to go to gay bars being the big star that he was. And further more how the hell did she know what he was doing once he left the house? Did he tell her he went to gay bars or did she go with him? I do believe though he would have been upset if he heard John and Yoko. I saw a pic of John, Paul and Yoko at some event all sitting together and Paul seems to be literally fighting tears.

by Anonymousreply 208October 26, 2009 11:48 AM

Lol I thread made my day! I mean isn't it obvious Paul and John had something going on! Just watch their body language whenever they were together, i mean of course two goodlooking bi guys (my sister was a personal assistant to Paul in the sixties and says its common knowledge) would get together.

by Anonymousreply 209October 29, 2009 11:45 AM

Ok guys someone told me sbout this site and i have been loving it so far. Anyway my great uncle who lived in Liverpool told me a story some years ago. He told me that John and Paul actually were living together at some point during the sixties (John even stated it in a 70's interview) and he is invited by a friend of his to a party that John and Paul are having at their house. He said as he walked in he saw Paul, who was walking aroung in nothing but a white shorts and John some feet away playing pool. He said throughout the day John and Paul is behaving like a regular couple and he is shocked since so many other ppl are there. Later in the evening as he is getting ready to leave Paul casually walks over to him and thanks him for coming and he leaves. He told me this some yrs after John's death because he was sure Paul would heve admitted they were a couple, well it has not happened and I don't think he ever will. I really don't know what to make of this story since he was the first person I ever heard claiming John and Paul to be a couple but apparently he is not the only one!

by Anonymousreply 210October 29, 2009 11:59 AM

When Paul is dead someone will out him. Lol believe me, someone always waits til someone can't query them and they will reveal the truth.

by Anonymousreply 211October 29, 2009 12:33 PM

Brits, in the sixties, playing pool - yeah right!

by Anonymousreply 212October 29, 2009 12:41 PM

Actually there are pics of John and Paul in the sixties playing pool at someone's house. I don't know if the story the poster gave here is true but i saw a pic of Paul in a white shorts with John playing pool. The pic is in photobucket.

by Anonymousreply 213October 29, 2009 12:57 PM

Really...what is this need for John and Paul to have been gay? Isn't the music they gave to the world together enough?

by Anonymousreply 214October 29, 2009 1:58 PM

Amen 214

by Anonymousreply 215October 29, 2009 4:48 PM

Man ppl have an active imagination in this thread.

by Anonymousreply 216October 29, 2009 10:34 PM

"Really...what is this need for John and Paul to have been gay?"

I don't think people are saying they're gay, but bi. Of course they are not gay, they are not the kind of guys who would have bearded that long. Except we'll never know with John. It's no stretch to think they could have been both bi. They are in an artistic field which tends to have a high percentage.

by Anonymousreply 217October 29, 2009 10:49 PM

I don't think for a moment John or Paul were gay, nor bi either but bi is easier to believe than gay. As for the poster who asked 'what is the need for them to be gay?' Nobody suggested there was a need for them to be gay, I think they are just reporting what they heard(or what they fantasize about).

by Anonymousreply 218October 29, 2009 11:01 PM

it's not such a stretch to think they may have been bi-curious or dabbled in the homo-sex.

by Anonymousreply 219October 29, 2009 11:27 PM

Man the queens here write like the Supernatural slash girls. Get over it, it did not happen!

by Anonymousreply 220October 30, 2009 2:26 AM

I do think "something" happened between John and Brian Epstein in Spain in 1963, but I've heard others say that John said it was just Brian touching him, no actual sex.

I think John, always naturally curious, allowed Brian to do that, but I don't believe that he was either bi or gay.

And Paul? Come on, there are scores of stories in the Beatle books about what a pussy hound he was when the Beatles were touring! He was rarely without a girl in those days. Even while he was already "seriously" dating Jane Asher. In fact, legend has it that Jane caught Paul in bed with Linda Eastman and that's why she broke off their engagement in 1968.

So no, I definitely don't buy Paul as bi or gay either.

IMO, this is all nothing more than some serious wishful thinking.

by Anonymousreply 221October 30, 2009 3:04 PM

Umm... I'm not saying Paul was bi either but having girls on your arm means absolutely nada in the entertainment industry. I mean Duncan James from Blue was described as a pussyhound and he turned out being bi, ppl were shocked when they found out Martin Rossiter from Gene was bi, even Mick Jagger the ultimate pussy chaser is said to have slept with men and there are many other 'womanizing' musicians who sleep on both sides of the bed. So don't believe everything PR puts out there.

by Anonymousreply 222October 30, 2009 3:49 PM

I agree with R222. All that means is the Beatles and later Paul himself had a strong PR machine.

by Anonymousreply 223October 31, 2009 1:22 AM

So accroding to this thread John was having an affair with Paul in the Hamburg days, when it has been alleged he also was 'in love' with Stu Sutcliff and already in a relationship with Cynthia and also said to be sleeping with every prositute in the red light district at those times. Man I got to give John his props, if this turns out being true!

by Anonymousreply 224October 31, 2009 3:39 AM

Lol when I read this thread I remember my father who used to describe the Beatles as John the witty one, George the quiet one, Ringo the funny one and Paul the queer one. He always insisted that Paul had something fem about him and he was actually surprised when he heard how much slutting around Paul did with his groupies.

by Anonymousreply 225October 31, 2009 3:43 AM

My parents raised me on Beatles music. My mom even took me to a huge Beatles "convention" in NJ in 89 or 90. Anyway, I remember people at this convention talking about how John's song "Starting Over" was his "apology" and "love song" to Paul. It was pretty much spoken as fact by everyone. They mentioned that the lyrics referenced quite a few Paul songs, as well as his band Wings. John usually hid clues or in-jokes in a lot of his lyrics, so this actually doesn't seem completely far-fetched.

Whether it was written as a romantic song for Paul or just as a peace offering to an old friend, I still get a little teary now when I hear it now.

(I'm including a link to a fan-made video that has the lyrics. Just ignore the cheesy images in the beginning.)

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 226October 31, 2009 4:19 AM

I listened to that song and now as u mention it, it does sound like a love song. AWW!

by Anonymousreply 227October 31, 2009 5:02 AM

One thing I never understood about this whole John and Paul story. According to Phillip Norman's book Yoko realised that John might have had feelings for Paul, the staff at Apples realised John had feelings for Paul, even ppl i know believe John had feelings for Paul. So only Paul who is touring, travelling and sleeping in the same bed with John NEVER realised it. I mean come on! Is he acting naive or is it really not an act?

by Anonymousreply 228October 31, 2009 12:39 PM

I remember reading something in Howard Stern's book that kind of puzzled me. He said about Paul and Linda, for that marriage to have lasted like it did, Linda must have 'fucked Paul up the ass real good for the last 20 years'. I thought that was interesting.

by Anonymousreply 229October 31, 2009 2:59 PM

You delusional queens really do have great imaginations. It's just too bad you can't use them for something more constructive.

by Anonymousreply 230October 31, 2009 3:28 PM

LOL! '...f*ck him up the ass for twenty years' that's some funny shit!! Man the thought of Linda strapping on one and servicing Paul is really hilarious!

by Anonymousreply 231October 31, 2009 7:34 PM

Stern also said linda *tied him up*, then fucked him up the ass.

by Anonymousreply 232October 31, 2009 9:44 PM

Wow for a veggie Paul sure seems to be addicted to the meat. Makes me wonder is he ever cheated on her when the hold strap on thing wasn't enough.

by Anonymousreply 233October 31, 2009 10:25 PM

If we're going strictly on eyebrows, yes, Paul's gay.

by Anonymousreply 234October 31, 2009 10:36 PM

Am I the only one who thinks that a guy making his wife f*ck him in the ass with a strap on is well a pervert? I mean just picturing soft spoken, pretty Linda being made to do that just makes me cringe. I might have an easier time believing John and Yoko doing this type of thing.

by Anonymousreply 235October 31, 2009 10:44 PM

Bailey photo of John and Paul

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 236October 31, 2009 11:34 PM

I bet he didn't dare ask Heather Mills to do that shit! If he did I bet she would have revealed it by now.

by Anonymousreply 237October 31, 2009 11:38 PM

Heather Mills does not strike me as a timid person who wouldn't do things. Did you follow the divorce press stories?

by Anonymousreply 238October 31, 2009 11:46 PM

Heather def. is not timid, hence I am pretty certain what Paul could have persuaded Linda to put up with he would not ask Heather to.

by Anonymousreply 239October 31, 2009 11:55 PM

Heather used to stump his hiney.

by Anonymousreply 240November 1, 2009 12:43 AM

Man I am always amazed at how well PR works in entertainment. You mean to tell me that John and Paul were embrioled in an affair and some 40 yrs later no one has any evidence or are willing to publicly state it? This means two things it never happened or PR were better at their jobs than those today who can't seem to keep anyone's personal life personal.

by Anonymousreply 241November 1, 2009 4:10 AM

Paul only hooks up with women who are kinking who will do that shit. Yes, that's why Heather Mills is now a millionaire.

by Anonymousreply 242November 1, 2009 5:05 AM

Paul likes women to do that because it reminds him of when John used to do him. He'll trust very few guys to do him (they might talk), but there have been a few.

by Anonymousreply 243November 1, 2009 6:46 AM

Hmm... and all this time i thought it was John who was the sex crazed maniac!

by Anonymousreply 244November 1, 2009 11:13 AM

I remember watching the DVD of the Beatles in America. There is a part in the DVD where the camera follows Paul and he is seen going into John's room along with Cynthia. I wondered why don't Paul just go into his own room and give John and Cynthia a break? They hardly get to see each other. Well after reading this thread things kind of making more sense in my mind. Lol

by Anonymousreply 245November 1, 2009 11:18 AM

[quote]I remember watching the DVD of the Beatles in America. There is a part in the DVD where the camera follows Paul and he is seen going into John's room along with Cynthia. I wondered why don't Paul just go into his own room and give John and Cynthia a break? They hardly get to see each other. Well after reading this thread things kind of making more sense in my mind. Lol

WOW!! You sure blew that case wide open, huh? I guess there's no question that John and Paul were getting it on. What would we do without the psychotic queens of Datalounge?

by Anonymousreply 246November 1, 2009 1:04 PM

'WOW!! You sure blew that case wide open, huh? I guess there's no question that John and Paul were getting it on. What would we do without the psychotic queens of Datalounge?'

Man someone sure is touchy, first of all I am not a 'queen'or what ever else you refer to your fellow gays as, I am a straight female. And I never said Paul and John were anything more than writing partners. I simply pointed out something I Saw on DVD, whatever John and Paul did was their business.

by Anonymousreply 247November 1, 2009 1:25 PM

I decided to read this thread cause I was expecting to get some laughs and some harmless gossip but some of the post here is shocking. I mean this is a gay gossip site and some posters here, whom i am assuming is gay, seem insulted and offended by the fact that someone will suggest John and Paul were more than friends. Talk about self loathing!

by Anonymousreply 248November 1, 2009 1:47 PM

R247 = R248. Nice try, psycho.

by Anonymousreply 249November 1, 2009 5:28 PM

Of course I am the same person asshole! Guess your a regular Sherlock Holmes. I am still trying to figure out why I am a psycho, because I insinuated that John and Paul might have been a couple? To be honest I have no idea nor does anyone for certain besides Paul(who will never reveal it) and John(who def can't reveal it).

by Anonymousreply 250November 1, 2009 6:22 PM

Ah come on..... Let's here some more stories.

by Anonymousreply 251November 1, 2009 7:50 PM

No, actually we're just good friends.

by Anonymousreply 252November 1, 2009 7:56 PM

That's you Paul? lol

by Anonymousreply 253November 1, 2009 8:08 PM

On that show Beatles Secrets, one of the musicians in Hamburg said he thought Paul was 'queer' for months after he first met him. Why would he think Paul was gay that long, especially since they were supposedly banging strippers constantly?

by Anonymousreply 254November 2, 2009 2:09 AM

Well in Paul's defense he couldn't help being so pretty.

by Anonymousreply 255November 2, 2009 2:19 AM

"I mean just picturing soft spoken, pretty Linda being made to do that just makes me cringe."

Ugh sorry, not soft spoken nor pretty. But if she can fuck a mean male pussy, that's what he must have found attractive about her.

by Anonymousreply 256November 2, 2009 2:55 AM

There are ppl who considered Linda to be pretty? From what I hear she was a very strong woman and like John those qualities were attractive to Paul.

by Anonymousreply 257November 2, 2009 2:42 PM

Found these extracts from a message board, it's a good read so I thought I will post it here:

There has been a long-standing rumor that John Lennon was gay or bisexual.

There are the testimonies of several people that point in this direction.

One is that of his step-mother, Pauline Jones Lennon, who married his estranged father when she was 19 in '69. She said that when he was relaxed, there was definitely something feminine about him.

Another is that of his friend, Pete Shotton, who was a member of one of the original Beatles line-ups. To explain his testimony, in April of 1963, John and the Beatles' homosexual manager Brian Epstein went on a vacation in Barcelona, Spain. It has long been rumored that John and Brian became lovers during this trip, or they at least had gay sex.

This testimony is quoted from his 1988 book, "John Lennon In My Life:"

"I visited John at Aunt Mimi's a few days after his return to England, and when he started in about how much he enjoyed Spain, I could hardly resist taking the piss out of him. 'So you had a good time with Brian, then?' John didn't so much as crack a smile. 'Oh, fuckin' hell,' he groaned. 'Not you as well, Pete! They're all fucking going on about it.' 'Actually, Pete,' he said softly, 'something did happen.' John then went on to confide the particulars to me. 'Eppy just kept on and on at me. Until one night I finally pulled me trousers down and said to him, --Oh, fuck it, Brian! Just stick it up me arse then.-- And he said to me, --Actually, John, I don't do that kind of thing. That's not what I like to do.-- I said to 'im, --Well, then, what do you like to do, what kind of thing do you do?-- He said, --I'd like to just hold you.-- So I let him toss me off (Liverpool slang for "make love to me").' 'That's all?' I said. 'Well, so what? What's the big fucking deal, then?' 'Yeah, the poor bastard. He's having a fucking hard enough time anyway. He got roughed up some by a dockworker in a loo because Brian tried to get him to toss him off. So what harm did it do then, Pete?' John asked me. 'The poor bastard can't help the way he is.' 'What's a fucking wank between friends?' I said."

Another is that of Tony Manero, the inspiration for the New York magazine story that later became Saturday Night Fever.

In May 1974, Manero was walking alone through Greenwich Village when he spotted John, singer Harry Nilsson, and another fellow strolling down the street.

"John was my idol. I walked up to him and said, 'I know a lot of people hassle you, but I just want to thank you for your music. You've helped me through a lot of bad times.' Outside Jimmy's Bar, he said, 'Why don't you come inside for a drink?' After we ordered, John switched seats to sit next to me. He said to me, 'Are you gay?' When I told him I wasn't, he looked really disappointed. He could have been joking, but he wasn't. My initial reaction was fear. And yet I wouldn't leave because it was John Lennon. I said to him, 'No, man, I don't go that way.' 'Are you sure?' he said, 'give me head.' I remember Harry was 'borrowing' $100 bills off him. At one stage I went out and when I came back, he was talking to this woman and he said, 'Pauly.' I thought he meant Paul, meaning McCartney. So John turns around and says, 'No, he's much prettier than Pauly. He's got a nicer mouth than McCartney. Paul's got a small mouth.' Then he turned to me and said, 'Let's go out and get some chicks.' This man was giving me a dream to pay millions for. John almost admitted his gay tendencies. So anyway, we went out walking and he put his arm around me. He said, 'It feels good to hold someone. You know what I mean?' Prior to that, he said, 'There is nothing wrong in being gay. Two people exchanging feelings is not wrong. Did you ever try it?' People were following us. We were wasted, and he put his arm around one girl and said, 'Suck my cock.' He stuck his tongue down her throat. We were loaded. Somebody stole the hat right off his head."

Lennon and company meandered over to the Pierre Hotel on Fifth Avenue, where he and Nilsson shared three adjoining suites, rooms 1608, 1609, and 1610.

"There was Harry's bedroom, John's, and a living room with a keyboard. He gave me a guitar, but it was later stolen. After we returned to the hotel he propositioned me again. After he died, I wished I'd done it. He tried to kiss me. He put his arm around me. John was making moves on me like a guy would a chick. When I said 'Halt,' it was finished, and we laid down together on the couch. I love the guy. I never asked him if he'd had sex with a man, but it was obvious to me he had. I stayed at the hotel sleeping on a spare bed next to his for about a week, but he never attempted it again. There were feelings and looks, though. He was very loving, like when a guy is very lonely. The man was bisexual. There are no two ways about it. He was feeling me out."

We turn to Pete Shotton again for the testimony. The two of them dropped acid one night in 1967, they ended up in his attic, and they both passed out on the floor. The next morning, they were awakened by the maid trudging up the attic stairwell. John woke up and on hearing her footsteps, suddenly shot to his feet saying, "Oh Christ, she'll think we've been fucking!"

A famous British radio and television broadcaster, Gloria Hunniford, was a guest at a London bash in 1965 when she and a friend happened to pass by a bedroom door. They peeked inside and what should they find but John Lennon passively engaged in anal sex with a well-known male celebrity photographer. They quickly shut the door and the secret was kept for a long time.

by Anonymousreply 258November 2, 2009 4:58 PM

I saw the Bealtes secrets and found it strange when that guy said he thought Paul was queer. I also found it strange he thought so for months even though Paul was allegedly sleeping with so much prositutes.

by Anonymousreply 259November 2, 2009 6:42 PM

I never heard any of the accounts given in that story. Surely sounds like Lennon though.

by Anonymousreply 260November 2, 2009 6:44 PM

What is particularly comical about this thread is the fact that the OP post his fictious Beatles story never, returns, and leaves all DL queens to fight amonst themselves as to whether the story has an inch of truth. Obviously if this thread had an inch of truth he would have returned and give at least some inch of evidence instead of hear-say!

by Anonymousreply 261November 3, 2009 10:39 PM

I have no idea if John and Paul were anything more than writing partners, but the Bailey pictures taken of them are beautiful. Though John putting his head on Paul's head reminds me of another pic John took with Yoko, the exact same pose, it was kind of curious....

by Anonymousreply 262November 4, 2009 12:22 AM

[quote]A friend of mine's dad was in Germany when the Beatles played there and he swore it was common knowledge

Oh brother.

Is there anyone dumber than a gullible DL queen?

by Anonymousreply 263November 4, 2009 12:29 AM

"but the Bailey pictures taken of them are beautiful."

John is so posessive in those pics.

by Anonymousreply 264November 4, 2009 1:59 AM

In an 1985 interview Paul Mccartney claims John's popular song 'Jealous Guy' which I always assumed was written for Yoko was actually written for him. Whether this is true or not I have no idea but listen to the lyrics of that song and it is clearly written as a apology to a current or former lover.

by Anonymousreply 265November 4, 2009 2:48 AM

Paul would like to believe every Lennon post-Beatle song was written with him in mind. The song is obviously written for Yoko.

by Anonymousreply 266November 4, 2009 2:54 AM

Jealous guy was written for Paul. Check the lyrics and it's obvious. They don't apply to Yoko at this time.

I was dreaming of the past And my heart was beating fast I began to lose control I began to lose control

I didn't mean to hurt you I'm sorry that I made you cry Oh no, I didn't want to hurt you I'm just a jealous guy

I was feeling insecure You might not love me anymore I was shivering inside I was shivering inside

I didn't mean to hurt you I'm sorry that I made you cry Oh no, I didn't want to hurt you I'm just a jealous guy

I didn't mean to hurt you I'm sorry that I made you cry Oh no, I didn't want to hurt you I'm just a jealous guy

I was trying to catch your eyes Thought that you was trying to hide I was swallowing my pain I was swallowing my pain

I didn't mean to hurt you I'm sorry that I made you cry Oh no, I didn't want to hurt you I'm just a jealous guy, watch out I'm just a jealous guy, look out babe I'm just a jealous guy

by Anonymousreply 267November 4, 2009 3:09 AM

My sister and I constantly argue over the whole Jealous Guy song. She insists it is an apology to Yoko but I feel the lyrics are more relevant to Paul glad to see I am not the only one who believes this.

by Anonymousreply 268November 4, 2009 3:19 AM

Paul said John told him the song Jealous Guy was for him. Why is that so hard to believe?

by Anonymousreply 269November 4, 2009 3:35 AM

"There is a part in the DVD where the camera follows Paul and he is seen going into John's room along with Cynthia."

Maybe Cynthia was fucking Paul with a strap-on too?

by Anonymousreply 270November 4, 2009 3:59 AM

Nah that I can't see, Heather and Linda, sure, but Cynthia is too decent a lady to do that sort of thing. John really screwed up letting a nice lady like Cynthia leave i his life.

by Anonymousreply 271November 4, 2009 10:20 AM

I had no idea Jealous Guy was written for Paul, I always believed it was written as an apology for Cynthia. People say Starting Over was written for Paul as well but I'm not sure about that one, based on the video I will say it was written for Yoko.

by Anonymousreply 272November 4, 2009 12:10 PM

"John really screwed up letting a nice lady like Cynthia leave i his life."

He never loved Cynthia, he only married her because she was pregnant. They only got together in the first place because she pursued him, and did everything she could to please him; he didn't return her feelings, but liked having a follower. When she got knocked up he married her like a good Northern man, but cheated constantly. And then he met Yoko.

Cynthia never could have saved him, there just wasn't enough of a relationship there.

by Anonymousreply 273November 4, 2009 3:35 PM

R258 so you can cut and paste from Snopes, cute.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 274November 4, 2009 3:51 PM

LOL! Well I DID say I got it from a message board. Found it facinating so I decided to share it with fellow, DLers.

by Anonymousreply 275November 4, 2009 6:25 PM

I agree with the previous poster who said John did not really love Cynthia but it can be argued he never really loved Yoko either. It has been allegedly by many sources that John and Yoko's relationship had very little to do with romantic love but rather, leader and follower or mother and son type love.

I don't care what anyone else says hear in my fangirl head John's only true love was Paul! Despite his over the top 'romance' with Yoko.

by Anonymousreply 276November 4, 2009 6:30 PM

Why in the hell will John write 'Jealous Guy' for Paul? When did he ever make Paul cry?

by Anonymousreply 277November 4, 2009 6:45 PM

"When did he ever make Paul cry?"

You don't know much about Beatles history. During Paul's bitter breakup with the Beatles (i.e. John), Paul was terribly distraught, almost having a nervous breakdown.

by Anonymousreply 278November 4, 2009 7:42 PM

A friend of mine has Francine Schwartz book 'Body Count' after reading it I was shocked it didn't cause a greater stir. She basically outs Paul in the book. In the book she stated that Paul would go out 'raving' as a way of avoiding John and Yoko's presence in the house.(I asked my mother and apparently going out raving in the late sixties only meant one thing) Also,throughout the book she described Paul as whimpy and behaving like a rejected lover. She is also one of the few ppl to ever describe Yoko as a kind and decent person. I think its pretty obvious to those who are not complete homophobes or totally naive that John and Paul relationship was more than a musical partnership. I think those close to them know it and even some media personnel but Paul McCartney is too respected a musician and person to be publicly 'humiliated' by the revelation.

by Anonymousreply 279November 4, 2009 10:08 PM

Is there a point to this post? John is dead and Paul old and will never talk so all anyone can do is speculate. Well I guess specualtion is the point to this thread....

by Anonymousreply 280November 5, 2009 11:50 AM

[quote]I think its pretty obvious to those who are not complete homophobes or totally naive that John and Paul relationship was more than a musical partnership. I think those close to them know it and even some media personnel but Paul McCartney is too respected a musician and person to be publicly 'humiliated' by the revelation.

Oh, brother! So now we're homophobes if we don't join in on your fantasies? Honey, anyone can write a book. ANYONE. Wild innuendo and speculation sells those books.

by Anonymousreply 281November 5, 2009 2:05 PM

R281, Paul actually said something like that to Howard Stern earlier this year when Howard asked him about Philip Norman's claim that John had contemplated having an affair with Paul.

Paul said they're nice theories but he doesn't think they were true particularly because he knew John and he never ONCE got any idea that John had a thing for him. But he said--it's a nice theory and it only proves that ANYBODY can write a book about anything if you have nice theories.

by Anonymousreply 282November 5, 2009 2:24 PM

Awhile ago, Paul was asked by a music magazine what he would do if John ever came back (a fantasy question) for a limited time (ala Carousel)? Paul said he'd spend it with him in bed. Whether he was kidding or not, I thought it was an odd reply.

by Anonymousreply 283November 5, 2009 2:55 PM

Paul also said he knew quite a lot of John's secrets but we would NEVER tell them as long as Yoko and Cynthia are alive.

by Anonymousreply 284November 5, 2009 2:56 PM

Paul didn't exactly deny it on Stern. He said he likes that theory, but anybody can come up with theories. He never said he and John were never involved.

I found it interesting that Stern would pursue that line of questioning. The speculation had always been more about John and Brian, not as much John and Paul. Yet Stern went there.

by Anonymousreply 285November 5, 2009 3:19 PM

"Paul also said he knew quite a lot of John's secrets but we would NEVER tell them as long as Yoko and Cynthia are alive." Yeah like Paul is some saint. Both John and Paul has skeletons in their closets (no pun intended) no one will expose John because speaking ill of the dead is not PC and well.. the guy is not here to defend himself. And Paul, the dude has acheived a 'god' like status and no one will dare embarass him.

by Anonymousreply 286November 5, 2009 7:34 PM

I listened to Paul's interview on Howard Stern and I also found it strange that Paul did not just flat out say IT DID NOT HAPPEN, that him and John were nothing more than friends. He just simply shrugged it off, anyway that may mean absolutely nothing but it was quite odd.

by Anonymousreply 287November 5, 2009 7:36 PM

I always find it funny when anyone mentions homophobia ppl assume it means they hate gays. Homophobia means fear of gays and that is exactly what Beatles fans are afraid and further repulsed by the thought of their working class heroes being bi. And I use the word bi because there is NO way John or Paul were gay.

by Anonymousreply 288November 5, 2009 7:39 PM

I aint kidding I'm a gay and I don't want to believe John and Paul had a gay relationship. I just want to believe that two straight guys can love each other deeply without sex being involved.

by Anonymousreply 289November 5, 2009 8:15 PM

I agree with the previous poster, John and Paul were best friends, that's it! Not everyone is gay or bi...

by Anonymousreply 290November 5, 2009 9:02 PM

Jealous Guy written for Paul? Lol only Paul and some delusional queens would like to believe this. The song which also had a video was written and dedicated to Yoko. Apparently John put her through alot of shit early in the relationhip and John wrote the song as an apology.

by Anonymousreply 291November 5, 2009 10:28 PM

Where but in someone's fantasy world did Paul EVER say that "Jealous Guy" was written for him? When and where? (How about never?) Nuts! That song was written for Yoko. Yoko talked about John's jealousy and his violent streak (like his first wife Cynthia did in her book).

by Anonymousreply 292November 5, 2009 10:53 PM

Paul McCartney states in the February 1985 issue of Playgirl: "He (John) used to say, 'Everyone is on the McCartney bandwagon.' He wrote 'I'm Just a Jealous Guy,' and he said that the song was about me. So I think it was just some kind of jealousy." So yeah Paul did say it but I think its something he wants to believe.

by Anonymousreply 293November 5, 2009 11:05 PM

The only song that John ever admitted to that was written especially for Paul was "How Do You Sleep" from his 1971 Imagine album. And that was ANYTHING but a love song.

by Anonymousreply 294November 5, 2009 11:11 PM

I heard that '(Just Like) Starting Over', which was recorded sometime in the late 70's was written for Paul but who knows?

by Anonymousreply 295November 5, 2009 11:36 PM

Well the lyrics of Starting Over does seem more relevant to Paul. I guess because he keeps talking about spreading their 'wings' and starting over. Wings was the name of Paul's band at the time.

by Anonymousreply 296November 6, 2009 2:15 AM

Paul has always been a liar why would any one believe anything he has to say. Death took the wrong Beatles.

by Anonymousreply 297November 6, 2009 9:09 AM

I don't wish death on anyone but saying death got the wrong Beatle is well a bit harsh. But as long as we're going there its ovbvious between John and Paul who the more decent man was. According to numerous accounts John was rude, a homophobe (at least to Brian Epstein), a wife abuser, an abuser to everyone around him in general, a drunk, a druggie, and well he chose a hoe before his bros. He also gave alot of lip service for peace but did very little where donating money to charity was concerned. And worse of all treated his first wife and son to abusive language and abandoned them. Paul by all accounts is always pleasant, friendly and according to Julian was the Beatle who was the most considerate and kind to his mother and him. He was also mature enough to allow John and Yoko to stay in his house even though seeing them together hurt him terribly. So if we're talking about 'assholery' alone, the bullet got the right Beatle.

by Anonymousreply 298November 6, 2009 10:17 AM

McCartney is a contol freak and egomaniac. I expect he is very difficult to deal with, but considering his life this is nothing, nothing at all.

by Anonymousreply 299November 6, 2009 11:06 AM

Despite the fact that both John and Paul were difficult in their times, neither of them deserved to be killed, that's the sad part about John's murder. What is really sad is that John and Paul couldn't have settled their diffences before John's death. They had one of the most enduring friendships and successful musical partnerships in music history and it shouldn't have ended in such a nasty way.

by Anonymousreply 300November 6, 2009 11:27 AM

Fuck off R-297! What an ignorant douche bag you are.

John and Paul had a truly deep and loving friendship and partnership. I do not know if it was ever sexual but that does'nt matter to me. I appreciate the wonderful music they BOTH produced. It's also obvious that Jealous Guy was either to Cynthia or Paul or most likely both, the lyrics just do not make since in referance to Yoko. Nor does Two of Us make since to be about Linda as Paul has claimed.

by Anonymousreply 301November 6, 2009 1:32 PM

The reason why I don't believe they were very a couple is because John and Paul are/were too vain and extreme egomaniacs to ever bottom for each other. Both would be constantly fighting for the top.Lol!

by Anonymousreply 302November 6, 2009 2:12 PM

R300.

MARY! or, rather TARDO MARY!

by Anonymousreply 303November 6, 2009 2:39 PM

What exactly are you trying to say 300?

by Anonymousreply 304November 6, 2009 2:49 PM

Yes, fuck off R297.

John was the dominant one in that relationship, if fact John is the only guy Paul would let dominate him. That's what so special about it... and tragic too -- Paul no longer has anyone to keep him in line.

by Anonymousreply 305November 6, 2009 2:55 PM

R300, Actually it didn't. Paul said he was glad that the last conversation he had with John was very pleasant. However, according to Paul, John and George were not on good terms when John died.

by Anonymousreply 306November 6, 2009 3:34 PM

R306, John said that too. In one of his last interviews, John himself said he was a bit miffed at George because, according to John, George didn't include him in his autobiography that had just come out recently or something. John was hurt by the exclusion. So that is true.

by Anonymousreply 307November 6, 2009 3:39 PM

John and Paul made up for the most part before John died. They saw each other during John's lost weekend, and even when John sailed to Bermuda. That was largely kept quiet.

by Anonymousreply 308November 6, 2009 3:41 PM

It's known to Beatlephiles that John and Paul did see each other in LA during John's "lost weekend" period when he was estranged from Yoko and with their secretary May. But I didn't know the bit about Bermuda. Was that the summer of 1980?

by Anonymousreply 309November 6, 2009 3:45 PM

R307, But John has a history of disparaging and dismissing George and being very condescending toward him and his talent. Yes, Paul could be uppity with George but he NEVER dismissed nor disparaged George's talent nor his contributions to the Beatles. And he always made it a point of saying that George was his mate whom he brought to John when the band was being formed. Paul always referred to George as his baby brother, which seemed to amuse George because he said Paul was only a year older.

Paul also went to see George perform during his Dark Horse tour. Okay, he and Linda were in disguise (very obvious it was them and Rolling Stone caught them trying to be incognito) but at least Paul had an interest in George as a musical artist which John never really did unless it was for propping John up.

by Anonymousreply 310November 6, 2009 4:22 PM

In an interview recently released John is heard boasting that he and Paul would give all of their worst compositions to George or Ringo to sing. He is also head saying that the Beatles were him and Paul; completely excluding and neglecting George and Ringo's contributions.

by Anonymousreply 311November 6, 2009 4:44 PM

R310, I didn't say I agreed with John, I was just posting what I read he said about the George situation in one of his last interviews. I agree that John could be very dismissive about George, and so could Paul, at least during the Beatle years. John and Paul would only let George have one song per side on an album, even after George's songwriting had greatly improved and he had written many more songs he wanted to record, they still only allowed him that much space on Beatles' records. Why do you think his first solo album was a triple one? He had that many songs built up over the years from all the ones he wasn't allowed to include on the Beatle records.

But John could be pretty dismissive of Paul too. In that same interview(I believe it was the Playboy interview), he and the interviewer went over a lot of Beatle songs and it was fascinating to hear John's take on them. Who wrote which one, who helped who out on what part of them. Invaluable info for a Beatles fan. Anyway, they came to the song "Let It Be," and I remember John said something like "That's all Paul. It could've been Wings," Meaning he didn't hold "Let It Be" in much higher regard than Paul's solo Wing songs of the 70's. But that was John, he could be downright nasty at times, even about his former bandmates.

And to be perfectly fair, Paul was downright dismissive of some of John's solo stuff too at times.

by Anonymousreply 312November 6, 2009 4:49 PM

I just completed Phillip Norman's book 'The lives of John Lennon' and if all the accounts are true, John really lived a sad life. The portrayal of the 'relationhip' she had with Yoko was eye opening and showed how vulnerable John was in his final days. One part of the book really stayed with me and it was something John allegedly muttered after he had a violent tussle with May Pang. He allegely said, 'I don't want to be in love, it hurts too much.' I don't know why but that always made me feel great deal of sympathy for him. He was obviously a very wounded man.

by Anonymousreply 313November 6, 2009 4:49 PM

I always wondered if John and Paul were really having an affair, what was Paul doing when John was being a complete homophobic asshole toward Brian Epstein? I mean if a guy is screwing me in private and being a bigoted jackass in public I would have called him out on it.

by Anonymousreply 314November 6, 2009 5:12 PM

Have no idea about John and Paul as a couple but John certainly displayed some closet case homo tendancies. A complete homophobe to openly gay Brian Epstein only to go on a 'vacation' with said manager, his obsessive relationship with Stu Sutcliff and later Paul, marrying a woman because she got pregnant then leaving her for a woman who basically looks like a dude in drag and his reported mysogynic attitude and behaviour toward women.

by Anonymousreply 315November 6, 2009 6:51 PM

There was no such thing as "openly gay" in England in the 1960's. Homosexuality was still illegal at that time so nobody would have been that obvious about their gayness, not even Brian, it was all still very closeted, because it had to be.

by Anonymousreply 316November 6, 2009 8:36 PM

"Paul no longer has anyone to keep him in line."

Or to fuck him up the ass.

by Anonymousreply 317November 6, 2009 8:42 PM

OMG! that final comment made my spit on my keyboard!! But my dear, when you're Paul Mccartney there is always someone willing and able to f*ck you in the ass.

by Anonymousreply 318November 7, 2009 12:57 AM

I read Brando Unzipped and The lives of John Lennon a week apart and after I was left wondering between John and Marlon who was the bigger loveable c*nt and just how much women each slept with. I lost count! They maybe have about a million between them. I know you all are maybe wondering wtf Brando has to do with John but man Brando was a beast if the book is factual and by all reports he did not care what ppl thought of him, if you were hot whether man or woman he will screw you. I was left wondering if John was more honest to himself if all his self loathing crap could have been avoided and he would have been a happier man.

by Anonymousreply 319November 7, 2009 1:33 AM

My favourite part of Lennon's book was when Lennon, Harry Nilson and some other guys went over to see Yoko during the Lost Weekend. As the book described it they felt like they walked in the Ice Age because Yoko's demeanour was so cold, anyway apparently she was surveying the group and was expressionless and one of John's companion's asked her, 'What is it Yoko, you want me to suck your dick?' Man I just laughed my ass off just thinking of the entire situation. Guess it's not only me who sees her as a dude in drag.

by Anonymousreply 320November 7, 2009 1:57 AM

What about Paul and Brian Epstein? I watched the BBC "Beatles Secrets" too and the most surprising thing I heard was from Francie Schwartz, Paul's ex gf (before Linda) who said one time she was in his house and she found a letter addressed to Paul. She read it--it was a love letter to him from Brian.

by Anonymousreply 321November 7, 2009 4:42 AM

I have no idea if they were ever physically involved but those two had a very close and almost tortured dynamic. They were obsessed with one another but not in a sexual/physical--more in an artistic/commercial way. They alternately fed off each other and energized the other. The competitiveness brought out the best of them when they were in the Beatles and bred the worst in them whey they were pursuing solo careers.

Also, I do agree with what Richard Schickel said about them in his Newsweek cover story detailing John's murder, how John plainly loved--and hated--Paul as the brother he never had.

by Anonymousreply 322November 7, 2009 4:46 AM

Well Brian def had taste apparently he hit on Pete Best at one time, John and I am now hearing about Paul. Notice how he stares clear from Ringo and George!

by Anonymousreply 323November 7, 2009 11:07 AM

What I always found strange about the whole Paul and John (i.e Beatles break up) is the way John told Paul Beatles was over. Apparently he told Paul he wants a 'divorce' and told him thus with Yoko practically attached to his hip. I could just picture the look on Macca's face as he watched his husband walk off with his new wife.

by Anonymousreply 324November 7, 2009 11:23 AM

Francine Schwartz was on a mission to out Paul as a bi, she alluded to it in her book and later in Beatles secrets but no one took the bait.

by Anonymousreply 325November 7, 2009 11:27 AM

During the times of Beatlemania, homosexuality or even bisexuality was not spoken of, so no way would John and Paul ever be thought of as anything other than 100% all man. But I guarantee if Lennon/McCartney partnership existed today some gossip mag would have created some story and forced the truth out (whatever the truth is) one way or the other. But for now John and Paul? We'll never know.

by Anonymousreply 326November 7, 2009 6:17 PM

I agree with the previous poster. In today's society where 'Is he?' or 'Isn't he?' dominates all aspects of entertainment, Paul and John would have been the Jake and Austin,Leo and Lukas, Elijah and Dominic,Ed and Chace, Jared and Jensen, every picture scruntinized and 'sources' questioned to prove their their is more to their relationship than friendship. Also, since neither John or Paul chose to marry gorgeous women, their wives would have been labelled 'beards.'

by Anonymousreply 327November 7, 2009 6:30 PM

What got to me with the whole John and Yoko relationship was the fact that they had to prove they were so in love and 'oversexed.' I mean every picture they took always looks like they just had a quickie. John was on a mission to prove something to someone.

by Anonymousreply 328November 7, 2009 6:40 PM

I have no idea if John and Paul were ever an item, but after the break up of Beatles John went a little over board in his attacks to Paul. I mean just listen to the lyrics of 'How Do you Sleep?' That was one angry dude...

So Sgt. Pepper took you by surprise You better see right through that mother's eyes Those freaks was right when they said you was dead The one mistake you made was in your head Ah, how do you sleep? Ah, how do you sleep at night?

You live with straights who tell you you was king Jump when your momma tell you anything The only thing you done was yesterday And since you're gone you're just another day Ah, how do you sleep? Ah, how do you sleep at night?

Ah, how do you sleep? Ah, how do you sleep at night?

A pretty face may last a year or two But pretty soon they'll see what you can do The sound you make is muzak to my ears You must have learned something in all those years Ah, how do you sleep? Ah, how do you sleep at night?

by Anonymousreply 329November 7, 2009 6:46 PM

This is a gossip site and no one has stories or gossip about John and Paul 40 yrs later? What everyone in their inner circle has died?

by Anonymousreply 330November 7, 2009 7:32 PM

Kinda of off topic but I was watching some old Simpsons episodes & I only recently realized that that all the surviving Beatles appeared on the show. I can't help but wonder if John Lennon would have appeared on the show and how he would have been written in.

by Anonymousreply 331November 8, 2009 2:23 AM

South Park would have done JohnPaul in the closet.

by Anonymousreply 332November 8, 2009 5:00 AM

Yeah only South Park would have had to balls to parody JohnPaul in that way!

by Anonymousreply 333November 8, 2009 10:42 AM

Funny how some people here are stating that Starting Over is about Paul while in the video John and Yoko are practically having sex! That's a wierd way of apologizing to a former partner...

by Anonymousreply 334November 8, 2009 11:32 AM

I don't get why we want to claim either John or Paul as bis. Both were/are major egomaniacs, and John and particular was a known homophobe throughout the Beatlemania craze. If he was in fact bi and subjecting Brian to his tirade of verbal abuse, that just makes him a bigger asshole.

by Anonymousreply 335November 8, 2009 11:49 AM

My mom has had a crush on Paul McCartney since the 60's and every Beatle and Wings records or posters there is, I'm pretty sure she has them. Anyway she religiously watches Beatles DVDs to this day and just a week ago she was watching Beatles anthology for about the 60th time. While watching it I couldn't help but notice Paul's mannerisms were so effeminate it kind of surprised me. Since I have known myself my mother has been going on about what a beautiful man, Paul was and while I don't dispute that (the guy was ridiculously goodlooking) I found him to be too fem in his mannerisms for my taste (I'm a girl btw) though I don't think Paul is a homosexual cause of his reported love for the fairer sex, my gaydar went off quite a bit watching Beatles early interviews. As for John who knows def did not get any reading from him but he has had his moments. As I have seen from some footage of him after the Beatles break up. So I guess there may be a possibility there was something between John and Paul. Who knows? John and Paul were the two biggest rock stars of their time, and if they were involved my reactions would be the same as when I heard Mick Jagger and David Bowie had got it on, how was anyone else affected? and Who the hell cares?

by Anonymousreply 336November 8, 2009 12:04 PM

Didn't believe it initially but after watching the Bailey photoshoot of them I wouldn't dispute it. They looked pretty couple like in those photos, John looked like he was on the verge of kissing Paul.

by Anonymousreply 337November 8, 2009 12:19 PM

Thought I was the only one who found those Bailey pictures kind of intimate. Also I saw a picture taken of John in the 70s in his home studio and on the wall he had a blown up pic of one of the Bailey photos. It kind of shocked me because I'm surprised Yoko would allow his to put it up!

by Anonymousreply 338November 8, 2009 1:59 PM

"John and particular was a known homophobe throughout the Beatlemania craze."

That's very typical of closet cases, to be homophobic. John would have been homophobic in those days if he was ashamed of his inner feelings. Also John went through periods of depression in the 60s. That was blamed on weight, but I suspect it could have been other feelings he had.

Going on mannerisms alone, Paul seems the most effeminate. John has his moments, but even Paul said John is more 'manly' than he.

by Anonymousreply 339November 8, 2009 3:58 PM

I 100% agree with the previous poster's assessment John's behaviour toward Brian is classic closet case behaviour. I always assumed that John's unrequited sexual feelings for Paul was a major factor in the Beatles break up. His over the top sexual behaviour and unseperable relationship with Yoko was a kind of 'UP YOURS' toward Paul.

by Anonymousreply 340November 8, 2009 4:17 PM

I suspect John did love Paul, and those feelings contributed to their bitter breakup and John's angry retort in the 70s. I think Paul did love John too, but maybe in a more brotherly way. Otherwise he's done a pretty good job appearing straight in the media.

Paul probably realized what John's feelings were later after he died, and then kicked himself for not giving John what he needed to keep that relationship going. That might have contributed to the way Paul now talks longingly about John, when he says things like he'd want to spend the day in bed with John (if he could come back for one day). This is just him showing regret for what could have been.

by Anonymousreply 341November 8, 2009 4:31 PM

John behaviour during and after the split of Beatles was nothing short of the antics of a spurred lover. John and Paul involved in the 60's? Sure, I can believe that. John was obviously in love with Paul. Despite the fact that Paul loved John, Paul is a realists and loved women too much and hence knew full well that marrying a woman was the most practical route. So in John's mind Paul 'chickened' out of their relationship so to get back he hooks up with Yoko and flaunts the 'relationhip' in Paul's face; as if to say 'I got over you.' He acts like he is totally over Paul but still can't resist having him around him during his 'Lost Weekend.' Believe me folks someone will spill the beans, sooner or later.

by Anonymousreply 342November 8, 2009 4:32 PM

'Otherwise he's done a pretty good job appearing straight in the media.' Maybe in the media but I have thought of Paul as 100% straight.

by Anonymousreply 343November 8, 2009 5:03 PM

Wait, there are ppl who exist in this world who have seen footage of Paul McCartney, who are not deaf, blind or dumb nor lives under a rock, who actually believe he is 100% hetero? Really?

by Anonymousreply 344November 8, 2009 6:02 PM

John at 1:45.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 345November 8, 2009 6:15 PM

I don't get it. He acts like he's strung out on something...Am I missing something?

by Anonymousreply 346November 8, 2009 6:22 PM

don't hate each other here

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 347November 8, 2009 6:36 PM

John and Paul quite friendly during his "May Pang" days

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 348November 8, 2009 6:41 PM

Actually the photo at R347 was by Linda McCartney and 348 was by May Pang. Seems like the people who knew them caught them more relaxed, revealing their closeness, unlike press photos.

by Anonymousreply 349November 8, 2009 6:47 PM

My favorite part of May Pang's "Loving John" book was her description of her first meeting Paul and Linda. This was when John was in LA. It had been some time since John had seen Paul and was a bit nervous about it. But when they saw each other, according to May, it was clear their closeness had never left. But what intrigued and amused May was Linda McCartney's thick British accent (considering Linda is from Long Island). Later after May and John left, they talked about Paul and Linda. May, still amused by that accent, said to John, "That's some accent Linda had." To which John (bless him--he might have been an SOB but he was funny and smart), "Yeah. Not bad for a JAP."

by Anonymousreply 350November 8, 2009 8:25 PM

"Maybe in the media but I have thought of Paul as 100% straight"

But all you've seen is his persona created by the media. Celebrity personalities are rarely similar.

by Anonymousreply 351November 8, 2009 8:41 PM

I actually left out 'never' I have never thought of Paul as 100% straight and I am beginning to view John 'macho' persona, as just that a persona. He may not have been 100% hetero either.

by Anonymousreply 352November 8, 2009 8:49 PM

I am yet to see two straight guys look so into each other as John and Paul seem in the pic in 347 post.

by Anonymousreply 353November 8, 2009 9:13 PM

I saw an interview with Paul and Linda a while ago and I was surprised when I later read she was not from Britain. I don't get it because her husband has a British accent, she automatically becomes British?

by Anonymousreply 354November 8, 2009 9:19 PM

What amazes me the most about John Lennon was his ability to be a total douche, an asshole and even a bully and still have ppl defending him to the last. His untimely death has a lot to do with it I guess. Anyway why I decided to state this one this thread is one simple reason, why would anyone in their right mind have a relationship with this guy? He wasn't that hot! I mean I get his first wife was attracted to his 'tough' guy persona, but why would Paul bi or otherwise involve himself sexually with that SOB?

by Anonymousreply 355November 8, 2009 10:35 PM

The only person around who has the guts to out Paul and John is sensationalist reporter and author Darwin Porter, he has outed Paul Newman, Marlon Brando, James Dean and Merv Griffin as bisexuals. Maybe he can do some 'investigating' and give us the score on what really went on between the two writing partners.

by Anonymousreply 356November 8, 2009 10:50 PM

R354 needs a new brain.

by Anonymousreply 357November 8, 2009 10:55 PM

"but why would Paul bi or otherwise involve himself sexually with that SOB?"

He had an aggressive, charasmatic personality that attracted people to him. Most people felt it.

by Anonymousreply 358November 9, 2009 12:12 AM

"but why would Paul bi or otherwise involve himself sexually with that SOB?" Maybe because sex with a closet case is the best sex to have.

by Anonymousreply 359November 9, 2009 2:07 AM

'The reason why I don't believe they were very a couple is because John and Paul are/were too vain and extreme egomaniacs to ever bottom for each other. Both would be constantly fighting for the top.Lol!'

That post made my day!

by Anonymousreply 360November 9, 2009 3:37 AM

In the music circles it is spoken as a fact that John and Paul were a couple (My Dad was a musical director in Liverpool). Their affair started long before 1963, but came to a halt after Stu Sutcliff became the central person in John's life, hence the reason Paul hated Stu so much and even to this day blames his dislike of Stu on his lack of musical ability. Even Stu's sister said that Stu and Paul were fighting for John's affections. After Stu died Paul became the centre of John's world again and he remained that way until Yoko repalced him.

by Anonymousreply 361November 9, 2009 10:04 AM

I remember watching the coverage of John and Linda's wedding in '69 in Liverpool with my parents and their friends and I remember overhearing my dad's friends discussing what Paul saw in her since he could have done better, then suddenly one of them blurst out, 'She maybe has an 8 inch one.' I always wondered what made them say that about their local hero, Lol now it makes sense.

by Anonymousreply 362November 9, 2009 10:17 AM

Yeah I heard they had to screw each other's brains out before a good song could come to them...

by Anonymousreply 363November 9, 2009 10:25 AM

I don't know if John and Paul ever got it on but I would have given my entire paycheck to watch them go at it in their prime though.

by Anonymousreply 364November 9, 2009 10:30 AM

Heard from a friend awhile ago Paul and Linda had threesomes with other guys. So anything is possible.

by Anonymousreply 365November 9, 2009 10:56 AM

We will know the truth or someone's form of the truth when Macca dies. Believes me everything is revealed after someone dies.

by Anonymousreply 366November 9, 2009 12:09 PM

Since everyone is anonymous here, I guess I can give a bit of info I got from a female friend of mine who at one time was Paul worked as one of Paul's assistants. According to her Macca is a bisexual, who makes no secret of this when he is around his inner circle. She does not know for certain if John and Paul were involved but she suspects it since to this day whenever John's name is brought up he acts in her words 'like a widow' and he also addresses John in present tense. He would say things like, 'John thinks that the music should be like this,' and during his bitter divorce from Heather he was saying, 'John says that this is getting nasty.' Kind of creepy. She claims he always talks about Linda and obviously misses her very much. As for the threesome rumours she heard ppl talk about it and would not put it past him. She is also certain that the BI about the bisexaul Rock&Roll legend over 65 yrs was Paul.

by Anonymousreply 367November 9, 2009 12:44 PM

Hmmmm... maybe John still talks to him if he's in the present tense.

by Anonymousreply 368November 9, 2009 1:24 PM

She is also certain that the BI about the bisexaul Rock&Roll legend over 65 yrs was Paul."

Please repost this BI.

by Anonymousreply 369November 9, 2009 2:47 PM

'John thinks that the music should be like this,' and during his bitter divorce from Heather he was saying, 'John says that this is getting nasty.'"

What??? Is he talking about Beatles music and remembering how John wanted things arranged? That's the only way I can rationally explain this--unless Paul conducts seances in his house regularly to talk to John.

Weird.

Does George talk to him too? Paul loved George like a little brother, even though there was a year's age difference.

by Anonymousreply 370November 9, 2009 2:49 PM

So if we are to believe r367, not only were John and Paul lovers, but apparently Paul is now nothing more than a confused old man who goes around and still talks about John in the present tense, as if he's still around.

Okey dokey.

by Anonymousreply 371November 9, 2009 3:54 PM

The guy who worked with Linda on her cookbook also said Paul refers to John in the present tense. This was back in the '80s.

by Anonymousreply 372November 9, 2009 5:07 PM

I can believe Paul refers to John in the present tense. It is how some people handle grief. It's a form of denial, though you know the person is dead, at the same time you can consciously not deal with the implications.

Paul is the one who wrote LET IT BE in honor of his mother, who was named Mary. The lyrics are about her in the present tense, though she died when he was a child. "Mother Mary comes to me, speaking words of wisdom..." Sounds like he has John doing the same.

by Anonymousreply 373November 9, 2009 6:44 PM

I don't think John and Paul had a sexual relationship, though I think John wanted it that way.

Always thought I WANT YOU (I WANT YOU SO BAD) was about Paul, with the attached SHE'S SO HEAVY dealing with Yoko. John's addiction to Yoko seemed not about love, but like she was his salvation (from his misery with Paul). "It's driving me mad, it's driving me mad." John was going a bit insane there.

Meanwhile you've got Paul taking a turn with "I never give you my pillow, I only send you my invitation, and in the middle of the celebrations I break down." Something like that. "Boy, you're going to carry that weight" has to do with Paul taking on the burden of not fulfilling whatever obligation he felt John was asking of him. Hence the BEATLES - and more importantly to them - the Lennon-McCartney partnership collapsed.

VH1 did a speculative movie about them (TWO OF US), when Paul met up with John in NYC in the '70s. They definitely inferred John was attracted to Paul, even had the John in the film try to kiss Paul and Paul throwing him off and treating it as a joke.

by Anonymousreply 374November 9, 2009 6:51 PM

Yeah I heard about Paul referring to John in present tense a while ago. A friend of mine's father wife has been dead for almost yrs and he talks about her like if she just stepped out; its a form of grief I guess... Its really sad.

by Anonymousreply 375November 9, 2009 7:14 PM

'Always thought I WANT YOU (I WANT YOU SO BAD) was about Paul, with the attached SHE'S SO HEAVY dealing with Yoko. John's addiction to Yoko seemed not about love, but like she was his salvation (from his misery with Paul). "It's driving me mad, it's driving me mad." John was going a bit insane there.' Man that is some intense shit right there, in the song he is almost pleading.

by Anonymousreply 376November 9, 2009 7:19 PM

I highly doubt John and Paul were ever physical but they certainly seemed obsessed with each other.

by Anonymousreply 377November 9, 2009 7:31 PM

VH1 did a speculative movie about them (TWO OF US), when Paul met up with John in NYC in the '70s. They definitely inferred John was attracted to Paul, even had the John in the film try to kiss Paul and Paul throwing him off and treating it as a joke."

Jared Harris (Lane Pryce of "Mad Men") played John and Aidan Quinn played Paul. Jared was excellent! I remember that moment you're referring to. John and Paul have donned hats, as if they're attempting to walk outside in disguise and both are feeling cheeky. John leans over and kisses Paul on the cheek to which Paul responds, "Is my name Brian?"

by Anonymousreply 378November 9, 2009 8:23 PM

How is it that everyone alludes to the fact that John crushed on Paul for years yet Paul seems shocked by the revelation?

by Anonymousreply 379November 9, 2009 8:41 PM

'I don't know if John and Paul ever got it on but I would have given my entire paycheck to watch them go at it in their prime though.' Yep me too.

by Anonymousreply 380November 9, 2009 9:15 PM

'John behaviour during and after the split of Beatles was nothing short of the antics of a spurred lover. John and Paul involved in the 60's? Sure, I can believe that. John was obviously in love with Paul. Despite the fact that Paul loved John, Paul is a realists and loved women too much and hence knew full well that marrying a woman was the most practical route. So in John's mind Paul 'chickened' out of their relationship so to get back he hooks up with Yoko and flaunts the 'relationhip' in Paul's face; as if to say 'I got over you.' He acts like he is totally over Paul but still can't resist having him around him during his 'Lost Weekend.' Believe me folks someone will spill the beans, sooner or later.' I believe this assessment.

by Anonymousreply 381November 9, 2009 9:35 PM

this is in Wikipedia under Stuart Sutcliffe:

"In 2001, Sutcliffe's younger sister, Pauline (a former psychotherapist) published a memoir which included claims that Sutcliffe and Lennon had a homosexual relationship. She also wrote that the cerebral haemorrhage of which Sutcliffe died of was caused by an injury inflicted by Lennon in a jealous rage while in Hamburg."

I know the cause of Sutcliffe's injury has been debated, but what is this about Stucliffe and Lennon having a homosexual relationship? Is that common knowledge?

by Anonymousreply 382November 9, 2009 9:43 PM

I read in a magazine a while ago that it was common knowledge that John and Stu were 'in love' as the magazine phrased it. Stu's sister also said in an interview some yrs ago tht she thought of them as a couple but kept her mouth shut because she thought it might embarass her family.

by Anonymousreply 383November 9, 2009 10:00 PM

Is the Albert Goldman book worth reading?

by Anonymousreply 384November 9, 2009 10:06 PM

Stuart Sutcliffe by the way was incredibly handsome, in a James Dean/arty sort of way.

by Anonymousreply 385November 9, 2009 10:33 PM

It is a good read but I warn you if you are a advent Lennon fan and believe in the 'saint' image of him it may distort the view of him a bit.

by Anonymousreply 386November 9, 2009 10:35 PM

I am not sure about Paul and John but I am sure of John and Stu, they were known lovers in the Beatles' Hamburg days. They lived together for a while and after Stu left the Beatles and stayed in Hamburg with Astrid, John wrote him alot of love letters.

by Anonymousreply 387November 9, 2009 10:40 PM

Stu looks so modern, so way ahead of his times. In the photos with the other Beatles, they all look 1950s and he looks more like a person would today, or in the 80s or 90s.

by Anonymousreply 388November 9, 2009 10:44 PM

Yeah Stu was certainly a catch. He was referred to as the 'James Dean of Hamburg' when Beatles played there. He was also said to be extremely modest and shy; he was shocked by the attention he was getting by both girls and guys, stating he thought he was the least attractive of the bunch.

by Anonymousreply 389November 9, 2009 10:57 PM

It seemed like John grieved for Stu up to his last day because according to Yoko, John would mention Stu everyday. Also the cover of Double Fantasy of John and Yoko nuzzling, is the exact pose of Stu and Astrid kissing in a photoboot in Hamburg.

by Anonymousreply 390November 9, 2009 11:01 PM

I believe that John might have been bi but I doubt he acted on these tendancies until the 70's or at least until he hooked up with Yoko. John was so closeted in the 60's that he hated anything remotely homosexual and hence will never have had a relationship with either Stu or Paul.

by Anonymousreply 391November 9, 2009 11:26 PM

I don't know if I'll bother with the Goldman book. It seems it is full of inaccuracies, and among other things portrays the crook Allen Klein as a saint.

by Anonymousreply 392November 10, 2009 12:16 AM

In one interview, John said Stu had been his soul mate, and then Paul became his soul mate.

I think John may have loved them but was too homophobic to admit his feelings even to himself. Paul may have realized it, not wanting to acknowledge it. And then he kicked himself later for not giving John what he needed. Which may have led to his bisexual experimentation later.

In the 70s, May Pang wrote that John was drunk and grabbed and kissed a studio musician. The guy was straight but relaxed into the kiss because it was Lennon. Then John pushed him away, calling him 'faggot'. John must have been very disgusted with himself.

by Anonymousreply 393November 10, 2009 12:44 AM

Man I can tell you about how torturous it is having the hots for a straight guy, esp if that straight guy is a good friend of yours. It was extremely difficult for me because he was homophobic and would have severed the friendship def if he found out. So John having to hide his love for Paul for all those years must have been hell(If this was the case).

by Anonymousreply 394November 10, 2009 1:12 AM

Well I don't think Paul would have been homophobic about it. He hung with lots of gay people in London. But it would have still been hard for John if Paul wasn't interested and he was. But I tend to think Paul had feelings too, because he went through his own set of jealously about Yoko.

by Anonymousreply 395November 10, 2009 1:21 AM

Yeah Paul was good friends with Long John Baldry, who was an open homosexual in the 60's, even inviting him to a Beatles special. So I don't think Paul was remotely homophobic, just maybe not interested in John that way.

by Anonymousreply 396November 10, 2009 1:27 AM

So if Paul felt nothing for John, was Francine Schwartz lying when she said Paul was extremely upset when he heard John and Yoko having sex in the other room?

by Anonymousreply 397November 10, 2009 1:28 AM

He maybe just got physically ill at the thought of his best bud screwing that ugly hag.

by Anonymousreply 398November 10, 2009 3:32 AM

George Martin said Paul got Linda as revenge of sorts for John getting Yoko. So John did the initial leaving at that point, and Paul was the one who acted like a spurned lover.

by Anonymousreply 399November 10, 2009 3:42 AM

Yeah, I always get that feeling that though Paul loved Linda, Paul used Linda in the beginning as a kind of 'two can play that game' jab at John. Linda's story is almost identical to Yoko's, both came from an exremely wealthy family, both devoid of any musical ability and yet insist on being on stage singing with their husbands and both attached to their husbands at the hip during their marriage, even stating that they can't bear to be apart from their husbands for more than a week. Yeah John and Paul def were trying to wound each other with their choice of wives.

by Anonymousreply 400November 10, 2009 1:11 PM

What always surprised me was the fact neither showed up for each other's weddings. I mean, after being close for so much years, and yet not show up for each other's 'happiest day of their lives' was really strange to me.

by Anonymousreply 401November 10, 2009 3:01 PM

Am I the only one who looks at that pic and sees they are on the verge of screwing each other senseless?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 402November 10, 2009 4:20 PM

Who can blame John eh? Macca sure was a beautiful guy.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 403November 10, 2009 4:24 PM

This my sister and I favorite pic of John and Paul.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 404November 10, 2009 5:40 PM

I don't know about Paul but in the 70's John was pretty much an open bisexual. He was hanging around with Elton John and his gay friends and was referred to as 'Catherine' by the crowd. I also heard a rumour that he got it on with Mick Jagger in the 70's. But who knows about that one?

by Anonymousreply 405November 10, 2009 6:04 PM

The fangirls swoon on Youtube over this vid.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 406November 10, 2009 7:43 PM

What a misleading name for this thread. When I saw the name I said no way were the Ringo and George bi, Paul and John I can believe.

by Anonymousreply 407November 10, 2009 11:31 PM

'What always surprised me was the fact neither showed up for each other's weddings. I mean, after being close for so much years, and yet not show up for each other's 'happiest day of their lives' was really strange to me.' Why would either show? Paul hated Yoko and John hated Linda...

by Anonymousreply 408November 10, 2009 11:50 PM

'Am I the only one who looks at that pic and sees they are on the verge of screwing each other senseless?' Paul looks like he is waiting for the photographer to leave. Lol

by Anonymousreply 409November 11, 2009 12:31 AM

That pic at R402 is obviously sexy. Sometimes I wonder why they were posed that way. They did have a gay manager...

by Anonymousreply 410November 11, 2009 2:17 AM

Paul is pretty cute here

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 411November 11, 2009 4:42 AM

and here

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 412November 11, 2009 4:52 AM

not fighting

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 413November 11, 2009 4:54 AM

Everywhere people stare Each and every day I can see them laugh at me And I hear them say

Hey you've got to hide your love away

The song, according to musician/singer Tom Robinson, is a reference to Brian Epstein, the group's manager, who was homosexual (homosexuality was a criminal offence in Britain at the time).

by Anonymousreply 414November 11, 2009 10:03 AM

Like the title track of the Help! album, You've Got To Hide Your Love Away was a chance for Lennon to lay bare his emotions in song.

"You've Got To Hide Your Love Away is my Dylan period. It's one of those that you sing a bit sadly to yourself, 'Here I stand, head in hand...' I'd started thinking about my own emotions. I don't know when exactly it started, like I'm A Loser or Hide Your Love Away, those kind of things. Instead of projecting myself into a situation, I would try to express what I felt about myself, which I'd done in my books. I think it was Dylan who helped me realise that - not by any discussion or anything, but by hearing his work."

by Anonymousreply 415November 11, 2009 10:26 AM

Everyone assumes 'You've Got To Hide Your Love Away' is about Brian's feelings for John but I can also believe it is about John telling himself he had to hide away the love he has for Paul.

by Anonymousreply 416November 11, 2009 11:24 AM

Oh, good grief! I love the Beatles too but this thread is starting to degenerate into the worst kind of slash.

by Anonymousreply 417November 11, 2009 11:25 AM

Everyone hates Yoko for placing herself in the middle of Beatles rehersals and not letting John out of her sight but can you blame her? If my husbands ex (I'm going with what I have read here) looked as good as Paul did in the late 60's, and I looked like... well Yoko, I would keep him at my side at ALL times also.

by Anonymousreply 418November 11, 2009 11:44 AM

'Oh, good grief! I love the Beatles too but this thread is starting to degenerate into the worst kind of slash.' Well since no one can post any Beatles stories, what's left to do?

by Anonymousreply 419November 11, 2009 11:55 AM

R373, Let it be was written about Maharishi not Apul's mother....they changed Mahrishi to Mother Mary after they fell out with him...

by Anonymousreply 420November 11, 2009 12:03 PM

Yeah I heard Maharishi was hitting on the Beatles' women, which the subsequent falling out. I have a hard time believing this but thats what I heard.

by Anonymousreply 421November 11, 2009 12:22 PM

Everyone blames Yoko for breaking up the Beatles and they are actually partly correct. What she did was break up John and Paul; she was the 'other woman' in the relationship, which led to their 'divorce' (John's words not mine) and the eventual dissolution of Beatles as a band. The nasty divorce was very public and even gave my parents' divorce a run for their money. So in short because of the way their relationship ended, I guess I can see JohnPaul as being something more than writing buddies.

by Anonymousreply 422November 11, 2009 12:52 PM

Sexy Sadie was written about the Maharishi chasing Mia Farrow's sister Prudence (as in "Dear...) around the commune.

by Anonymousreply 423November 11, 2009 12:56 PM

Kind of OT but anyone ever read the comments ppl on youtube leave to any of Lennon's songs/videos? You would think John was up for sainthood, 'I would give my life for him to come back for 1 day,' 'The kindest man to ever walk this earth,' 'All he wanted was peace on Earth,' umm yeah he was a real saint. Beating the shit out of guys in the Hamburg days, beating all of the women he ever had a relationship with(he almost choked May Pang to death during the Lost Weekend) and treated the guys who had to put up with his shit during the Beatles craze like crap when he met his 'mother.' Even his son Sean is reported to refer to him on tape as a 'wife beating asshole.' I can just imagine what these fans would say if they ever heard he was in fact a fudge packer.

by Anonymousreply 424November 11, 2009 1:28 PM

Whenever I hear the name Yoko I chuckle, because I just think of the self righteous, narcissitic, bull crap John pulled when he was with her. All the videos I have seen of them together are so over the top. Videos of them naked kissing, bathing together in a tub, Yoko combing her hair while John blowdrys it, taking two steps and stopping to kiss, I mean come on! Everyone who worked with them, whether in the studio or as assistants at home has publicly stated it was all an act; it has also been alleged that they barely even slept in the same bed during the 70's. While good ole Paulie slept in the same bed with his good friend John 'million of times' while on the road. I don't know who were the better actors John and Paul acting like they were just close friends or John and Yoko acting like they were so much in love.

by Anonymousreply 425November 11, 2009 1:48 PM

Paul and John bi? Ok I'm game. So I am going to assume Paul was the top and John was the bottom, since John acted like such a jealous bitch after the Beatles split.

by Anonymousreply 426November 11, 2009 2:13 PM

According to Beatles biographers, Paul usually shared rooms with George. He only shared a room with John once and that was during the filming of "Help."

by Anonymousreply 427November 11, 2009 2:53 PM

I heard that too. So I was wondering when was the 'million of times' Paul and John shared a room, as Paul stated in Howard Stern's interview. Guess maybe during the Hamburg days.

by Anonymousreply 428November 11, 2009 3:02 PM

Paul and John traveled a lot together on holiday, to Paris to Spain. When they went to Liverpool they stayed in Paul's father's house. Each time they slept in a little twin bed. Maybe the sleeping arrangements in the bio's were a re-direction.

by Anonymousreply 429November 11, 2009 3:17 PM

'When they went to Liverpool they stayed in Paul's father's house.' Really? That is where the OP claimed it all started (the affair). Man, can you imagine anything more disrepectful than getting it on with a hot (married?)bandmember in your father's house, when getting with a dude was illegal. Is there a better recipe for AMAZING sex? LOL

by Anonymousreply 430November 11, 2009 6:49 PM

'Paul and John traveled a lot together on holiday, to Paris to Spain. When they went to Liverpool they stayed in Paul's father's house. Each time they slept in a little twin bed.' You mean by themselves or with their wives and or fellowband members?

by Anonymousreply 431November 11, 2009 7:21 PM

"When they went to Liverpool they stayed in Paul's father's house. Each time they slept in a little twin bed.'

You mean by themselves or with their wives and or fellowband members?"

I would image just by themselves. It would be hard to fit wives and other band members in the same twin bed.

by Anonymousreply 432November 11, 2009 8:25 PM

'Paul and John traveled a lot together on holiday, to Paris to Spain. When they went to Liverpool they stayed in Paul's father's house. Each time they slept in a little twin bed. Maybe the sleeping arrangements in the bio's were a re-direction.' This was pre-Beatlemania? Because I can't imagine during Beatlemania these two guys could travel to these places undetected.

by Anonymousreply 433November 11, 2009 9:05 PM

John and Paul went on holiday together? That's one part of Beatle history I have never heard.

by Anonymousreply 434November 11, 2009 9:07 PM

Didn't Paul get bored with the whole India trip and that's when John lost interest too? As if when Paul was bored, John was. If Paul was interested, John was.

Also in the official BEATLES bio written while they were getting SARGEANT PEPPER together, Paul was the only one living in the city and the other Beatles were out in the country and John was bored, bored, bored except for those hours he was in London with Paul.

John's buddy Pete Shotten (?) wrote a book and disses the whole John & Paul combo as barely there, especially after J&P stopped collaborating so much on music. Even has it the "some are dead and some are living" IN MY LIFE lyrics refers to himself only as the "living" one John loves with the "dead" being Stu. The memoir of Shotten (sp?) is tremendously self-serving so is to be taken with a grain of salt.

But fans who latch onto John do try to minimize Paul's influence as a result. I remember one biographer of John claiming "I want to turn you on" from A DAY IN THE LIFE track was quintessential John, like it couldn't get any better than that lyric, and yet Paul contributed that lyric as the bridge or hook John needed for the song. John sings it, is all.

by Anonymousreply 435November 11, 2009 9:33 PM

R434: With all my past BEATLEMANIA knowledge, I didn't know that one either.

There is a heavily researched book out there that purports to be the DAY-TO-DAY journal of all the BEATLES activities. Maybe there's something in that.

However, what was missing from that same book is that both Paul and Ringo were present at MONTEREY POP festival in '67. (I think the year was 1967.) I have an older sister who ran into them both there. Paul is never mentioned anywhere as having attended.

by Anonymousreply 436November 11, 2009 9:36 PM

From what others who knew them have said, Paul's resentment of Yoko was about him realizing he was no longer in charge, especially as he had been after Brian's death. I think others have put it that Paul was no longer John's princess. IMO John wanted that threat out there. As in, put up or shut up, Paul. I don't think Paul was a prick-teaser, but John was at breaking point and willing to try anything.

To me, it seems John's appropriation of Yoko was to push Paul into a physical commitment but Paul countered that with Linda, really pissing off John. Because John was infuriated when he and Paul took their trip to NY to plug APPLE and Linda was there. Perhaps he counted on one-on-one alone time w/Paul and Paul check-mated him.

by Anonymousreply 437November 11, 2009 9:39 PM

That was always my assessment of the John/Paul/Yoko/Linda situation. John was no longer Paul's lapdog after Yoko came into the picture.

by Anonymousreply 438November 11, 2009 9:47 PM

I'm sure I read that John got some money from an aunt on his 21st birthday and he used it to pay for a holiday with Paul in Paris. This would have been in 1961.

by Anonymousreply 439November 11, 2009 9:54 PM

John Lennon was a brilliant guy where music and wit were concerned but at the same time he needed a leader and whatever his leader did he followed. When he was hanging around with Stu (who was rumoured to be his first true love) he suddenly developed an interest in writing poetry and art and was said to be inseperable from Stu even moving in with him. When Stu died and Paul took over the role of his leader, he pretty much became Paul's 'bitch' to put it lightly. It has been reported that Paul can basically get John to do anything. Then Yoko enters the picture, the eccentric avant grade artist and peace activist and suddenly he is interested in avant grade art and peace. John boasted in an interview that he was uncontrollable but this couldn't be more incorrect; he had his wild ways but he needed someone to yank his chains when he lost control. Paul revelled in having this role for all those years and suddenly Yoko comes along and takes that role away. Can you blame the guy for hating her?

by Anonymousreply 440November 11, 2009 10:03 PM

Paul was John's 'leader' in may ways, but John often asserted his dominance in other ways putting Paul in his place, letting Paul know who's boss. It worked well for them while it lasted.

by Anonymousreply 441November 11, 2009 10:10 PM

During the Beatelmania years, they took some vacations together as a group, but I've never read about the "special holidays" Paul and John went on together. I'd like to know the documentation of that. I have heard about the infamous trip to Spain Lennon took with Brian Epstein, where Lennon supposedly fucked Eppy.

If anything, their relationship reeks of unacknowledged sexual tension rather than the fallout of an actual affair. There was definitely a love/hate thing going on, as they were such opposites in personality types.

by Anonymousreply 442November 11, 2009 10:20 PM

Paul talks of their trip to Paris many times on John's nickel. That's where John and Paul got the idea for their mop-top hair cuts. I suppose it was before Beatlemania.

by Anonymousreply 443November 11, 2009 10:25 PM

The "moptop" haircuts were the idea of Astrid Kirchherr, Stuart Sutcliffe's German girlfriend.

by Anonymousreply 444November 11, 2009 10:31 PM

'If anything, their relationship reeks of unacknowledged sexual tension rather than the fallout of an actual affair.' Really? Then Francine Schwartz was exaggerating when she said he was physically upset over hearing J/Y doing the deed in the next room? If she wasn't then I don't see how Paul would have been upset over hearing his friend banging Yoko.

by Anonymousreply 445November 11, 2009 10:34 PM

Stu was even still alive when Paul and John went to Paris. It's documented in a letter Stu wrote to his sister. Stu misunderstood and thought the Beatles were finished because 'John and Paul ran off to Paris'.

by Anonymousreply 446November 11, 2009 10:36 PM

Why is it such a stretch of the imagination that this guy was at least bi?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 447November 11, 2009 10:37 PM

Another one.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 448November 11, 2009 10:39 PM

r435 "I'd love to turn you on" is the actual lyric. Subtle difference, but it was enough to get the song banned by the BBC in 1967.

by Anonymousreply 449November 11, 2009 10:43 PM

r439, I believe you are right, and I also remember reading that George and Pete Best(the Beatles' drummer at the time) were less than amused.

by Anonymousreply 450November 11, 2009 10:45 PM

r446, well Stu was never that bright.

by Anonymousreply 451November 11, 2009 10:49 PM

You don't have to bright to notice that two of your friends have gone to Paris.

by Anonymousreply 452November 11, 2009 11:00 PM

'If anything, their relationship reeks of unacknowledged sexual tension rather than the fallout of an actual affair.' Really? Then Francine Schwartz was exaggerating when she said he was physically upset over hearing J/Y doing the deed in the next room? If she wasn't then I don't see how Paul would have been upset over hearing his friend banging Yoko."

What the fuck does that have to do with whether or not Lennon/McCartney had actually fucked? They might not have even understood that the jealousy they had for each other may have been rooted in subconscious sexual feelings (if that was the case). That kind of shit happens all the time.

by Anonymousreply 453November 11, 2009 11:06 PM

Ok dude no need to use profanities. They may have been together, they may have not. The point of the thread is to speculate.

by Anonymousreply 454November 11, 2009 11:11 PM

Sorry, R454. I forgot where I was.

by Anonymousreply 455November 11, 2009 11:16 PM

or this one

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 456November 11, 2009 11:18 PM

all you need is love

by Anonymousreply 457November 11, 2009 11:21 PM

John and Paul were two musical equals, who wrote beautiful music together and understood each other. Sex might have complicated things and that is why Paul might have avoided it, well that or he is really not into guys. Who knows?

by Anonymousreply 458November 11, 2009 11:57 PM

If only.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 459November 12, 2009 12:41 AM

What is John doing proposing to Paul? Lol

by Anonymousreply 460November 12, 2009 1:23 AM

I don't know much about the Paul and John dynamic but if I was around and Paul didn't want John I sure as well would have taken him.

by Anonymousreply 461November 12, 2009 1:36 AM

r459, that's a still from "A Hard Day's Night," just more of John and Paul goofing around.

by Anonymousreply 462November 12, 2009 2:30 AM

I thought so. I rewatched that show and John looked really good in that show better than Paul actually.

by Anonymousreply 463November 12, 2009 2:41 AM

John displaying his dominace.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 464November 12, 2009 2:47 AM

I saw a pic once of John and Paul wearing women's underwear in Hamburg. Someone needs to post that.

by Anonymousreply 465November 12, 2009 3:39 AM

How do you define sex? They admitted they wanked together, maybe wanking each other. They met when they were teens, maybe they experimented together. It's documented they shared women together in the same bed. I have no doubt they had a close attachment from these experiences, and maybe it was hard to move on from each other and settle down later in life.

by Anonymousreply 466November 12, 2009 4:17 AM

John and Paul goofing off in Hamburg. I lol whenever I see this pic.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 467November 12, 2009 12:06 PM

Kind of OT but anyone notice how hot Pete Best was during the early Beatles years? He was much more attractive than John and Paul.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 468November 12, 2009 12:09 PM

I guess as teenagers Paul and John might have experimented but I am fairly certain it ended as soon as Beatles were established.

by Anonymousreply 469November 12, 2009 2:35 PM

'How do you define sex?' Well I define it as the male's penis being inserted into some hole in the human body. Since wanking is nothing near this, then John and Paul did not have sex.

by Anonymousreply 470November 12, 2009 3:35 PM

That's an incredibly narrow definition R470

by Anonymousreply 471November 12, 2009 4:03 PM

Love this thread!

by Anonymousreply 472November 12, 2009 4:06 PM

What about George and Ringo? Were/are they bi? Either ever do it with John or Paul? Or we don't care one bit if they did. They're not hot like John and Paul, right?

by Anonymousreply 473November 12, 2009 5:34 PM

Pete Bests good looks were the reason he was kicked out the band. Brian Epstien tried it on with him. As far as I have read Pete and John were the only two he tried it on with. Brian liked young men who looked like they could kick the shit out of him.

by Anonymousreply 474November 12, 2009 6:58 PM

John and Paul went on quite a few trips together.

Paul invited John to go with him on a weekend trip to his families house and yes, they did share the same bed. According to Paul they topped and tailed it. One head is on the bottom and the other one had his feet on top.

Their first trip to Paris, they were supposed to go to Spain, but decided not to. They became lazy and they were in Paris together. John got b-day money from his aunt and he invited Paul. No one knew the where the two were. George and Stu actually thought the group was over because John and Paul not only went away but didn't go to their booked gigs.

John and Paul's relationship was needy, obsessive, insane, loving, full of jealousy, envy and sexualized.

by Anonymousreply 475November 12, 2009 8:17 PM

R474: Not to correct you, but that's only part of it. The other part was John, Paul & George were hanging out with Ringo as his personality complemented their own. They thought how it wouldn't be so great having this outsider (Pete Best) in their band when Ringo was an insider all ready and they just had to replace drummers. They did the best thing for the band, just before they hit it big, which was great timing on their parts. They required the balance they needed with the addition of Ringo.

by Anonymousreply 476November 12, 2009 8:32 PM

I heard that when George Martin agreed to produce their records, he did not want Pete Best because he wasn't a good drummer. He would produce them if they got rid of him.

by Anonymousreply 477November 12, 2009 8:36 PM

Actually r477, George Martin said he wouldn't use Pete Best in the studio, he would use a studio drummer instead, but that Brian and the others could decide what they wanted to do with Pete on stage themselves.

It just so happened that the group wanted to get rid of Pete anyway and bring Ringo in at that point. So it worked out perfectly, for the band, not so much for poor Pete.

And Brian, who wasn't in on the "oust Pete" conspiracy, was the one who had to go and tell him, as none of the other Beatles had the guts to do it themselves, not even John.

by Anonymousreply 478November 12, 2009 9:36 PM

Well I consider gay sex to be that way anyway. One must be the pitcher and the other the catcher.

by Anonymousreply 479November 12, 2009 10:29 PM

I remember reading somewhere that Ringo refered to John and Paul as an 'old married couple, with their two children.' The 'two children' reference always got me, I can imagine how frustrating it must have been for George particularly, who I am sure wanted to write and sing songs for the Beatles but couldnt get his songs on any records because Mommy and Daddy's songs always first preference.

by Anonymousreply 480November 12, 2009 11:20 PM

I have no idea if John and Paul were a couple but their break up as a team was sure like a messy divorce. Mud slinging from either side, breaking-up and making-up over and over again, and resenting the presence of a second party in the relationship. Their break up reminded me of the break up of my ex and I.

by Anonymousreply 481November 12, 2009 11:42 PM

'John and Paul's relationship was needy, obsessive, insane, loving, full of jealousy, envy and sexualized.' Best assessment I have read here so far.

by Anonymousreply 482November 12, 2009 11:45 PM

'Pete Bests good looks were the reason he was kicked out the band. Brian Epstien tried it on with him. As far as I have read Pete and John were the only two he tried it on with. Brian liked young men who looked like they could kick the shit out of him.' This statement makes it sound like, if you didn't sleep with Brian he would kick you out the band.

by Anonymousreply 483November 13, 2009 3:22 AM

Brian's former secretary wrote a book (that hasn't been released yet) where she says she caught a Beatle having sex with Brian in his office. She hints it wasn't John but was Paul.

by Anonymousreply 484November 13, 2009 3:31 AM

Speaking of John and Paul traveling together, I remember reading something about them visiting one or the other's relatives and performing in a small club, just the two of them. The only details I remember is that they slept together in the same bed and they called themselves 'The Nerk Twins'.

by Anonymousreply 485November 13, 2009 3:37 AM

'Brian's former secretary wrote a book (that hasn't been released yet) where she says she caught a Beatle having sex with Brian in his office. She hints it wasn't John but was Paul.' Wow I will be first in line to buy this book.

by Anonymousreply 486November 13, 2009 3:42 AM

I wonder if Jane Asher ever fucked Macca up the ass?

I don't want to think about it.

by Anonymousreply 487November 13, 2009 11:07 AM

Since the thread is all about speculation, I am going to submit my take on the whole John and Paul relationship. In my opinion John and Paul had a relationship beyond musical partnership and it maybe went on for years beginning from their teenage years into the early years of the Beatles. One thing I believe led to the break up is this: I believe John Lennon was gay and Paul McCartney is bi, but seems to lean toward women. I know John slept with hundreds of women, was married to two women and fathered 2 children but that means absolutely nothing, this was what was expected of a man in these times. In my opinion John displayed all the facets of a closet homo, he relentlessly hassled Brian Epstein over his homosexuality (and was the only Beatle to do so), had a close, intimate relationship with Stu and was said to become insanely jealous when he saw him with anyone else (slapping Cynthia when he saw her dance with him), extremely aggressive/abusive toward women, yet had loving relationships with both Paul and Stu who he both considered at some point in time to be his 'soul mates.' He even admitted to Yoko he loves her because she looks like a dude in drag and Yoko admitted in a later interview that she considered John a 'closet fag.' In Phillip Norman's book someone close to John admitted that John seemed to have an intense, deep seated hatred for women; he apparently never considered them his equals. Paul on the other hand maybe dabbled with men but loved women too much to have a extensive relationship with a man. John used Yoko as a means to pressure Paul to love only him, but though Paul was insanely jealous of Yoko, he simply found Linda as a means of mindf*cking with John. The two great loves in Lennon's life were both bi who 'betrayed' him and their relationship to be with women. Stu got engaged to Astrid staying in Hamburg and Paul later married Linda. Everyone close to John would always consider him to be extremely self loathing and his homosexuality may have had alot to do with that.

by Anonymousreply 488November 13, 2009 11:08 AM

When the Macca passes on and his secrets are let out of the closet (no pun intended), his life will make John Lennon look like a saint.

by Anonymousreply 489November 13, 2009 11:14 AM

'I wonder if Jane Asher ever fucked Macca up the ass?' Doubt it, but walking in on John and others doing it maybe got to be too much.

by Anonymousreply 490November 13, 2009 11:31 AM

I always wondered why John slapped Cynthia but not Stu if he was jealous. I mean if you see your girl dancing with another dude and your this macho tough guy, why don't you punch the guy out? Either the thought of Stu dancing with someone else got to him or John just loved hitting women or both.

by Anonymousreply 491November 13, 2009 11:35 AM

I'm amazed this thread still exists. Surely McCartney has 'people' who watch the internet.

by Anonymousreply 492November 13, 2009 12:09 PM

Lol good point, now that you point it out I am really surprised.

by Anonymousreply 493November 13, 2009 12:15 PM

r488, I agree with everything you said except there is no way John was 100% gay. He was maybe bi but with a greater appreciation for guys.

by Anonymousreply 494November 13, 2009 1:04 PM

Do any photo's of Paul naked exist? We've all seen John's todger after all.

by Anonymousreply 495November 13, 2009 1:05 PM

A friend of mind claims that she knows an old drug buddie of John and Yoko and she claims that the guy told her that Yoko has some comproming information about Paul and boost it when she was high. Apparently when John was high as well he gave Yoko quite an earful about Paul. Paul apparently knows this and was forced to change his tune about Yoko and pretend to suddenly respect her. I wish I knew what the info was. Man if sex tapes existed back then!

by Anonymousreply 496November 13, 2009 1:54 PM

I remember reading somewhere that Yoko has some recording from a Beatles studio, that has John calling out to Paul in between takes in a 'sexual way' or so the article put it. Though she makes it clear in Phillip Norman's book that John feelings for Paul was unrequited I think there is more to the story.

by Anonymousreply 497November 13, 2009 2:03 PM

"Though she makes it clear in Phillip Norman's book that John feelings for Paul was unrequited I think there is more to the story."

She has to say that now because Paul is still alive and would sue. She can't project what Paul's feelings may be in the matter.

by Anonymousreply 498November 13, 2009 2:10 PM

'Man if sex tapes existed back then!' Lol I wish so as well.

by Anonymousreply 499November 13, 2009 2:51 PM

I have nothing to add since I have never heard anything about John & Paul being a couple, I just wanted the thread to reach 500.

by Anonymousreply 500November 13, 2009 10:56 PM

I just meant R483, that Pete was kicked out because John and Paul wanted to be the centre of attention.

by Anonymousreply 501November 14, 2009 7:58 AM

Does this settle it?

John: "Paul had a nice idea about opening up a white house where we would sell white china and things like that. Everything white you know which was pretty groovy, and it didn't end up like that. It ended up with Apple and all this junk and The Fool and all the stupid clothes and all that"

by Anonymousreply 502November 14, 2009 8:11 AM

re 502, I am trying to understand John's statement. This is after the Beatles break up I guess.

by Anonymousreply 503November 14, 2009 10:39 AM

In all post-Beatles interviews about the Beatles John always comes across as a ungrarteful douche.

by Anonymousreply 504November 14, 2009 10:42 AM

So what was that marriage to Heather Mills about?

Lots & Lots of sex is the only conclusion I could reach....Hmmmmmm.

Paul seemed to want a female partner in life. John seemed to want a mommy.

by Anonymousreply 505November 14, 2009 12:01 PM

I don't think anyone can dispute Paul's obvious love for pussy. I think that is why the OP said he heard he was bi. He obviously married Heather for the sex. I am still not convinced Paul is bi, I can't see the dude having a go at it with a guy.

by Anonymousreply 506November 14, 2009 1:27 PM

"So what was that marriage to Heather Mills about?"

Maybe she was willing to f*ck him up the ass.

by Anonymousreply 507November 14, 2009 1:32 PM

John Lennon obviousloy had some serious mummy issues and searched for a mother figure in every serious relationship he had with women. Cynthia mothered him and Yoko mothered him and scolded him which he thrived on. The guy seemed to be fixated in the oedipus complex.

by Anonymousreply 508November 14, 2009 1:33 PM

There is absolutely NO WAY, Paul was into guys. My grandfather knew him in Liverpool and would always describe him as a man whore.

by Anonymousreply 509November 14, 2009 1:36 PM

Paul seems like the type of bi who would dabble with guys but could not bring himself to have a serious relationship with one. His emotional connections seem to be with women (aside from John). Perhaps it's his upbringing or need to conform. I often wonder if things would have been different if these guys had happened 20 years later.

by Anonymousreply 510November 14, 2009 1:44 PM

'Maybe she was willing to f*ck him up the ass.' I think you have posted here before, lol. I always wondered how can a 'straight' guy bring home a dildo and ask his wife to f*ck him up the ass. Especially for a man like Paul who has so much to loose if something like that was to be released to the press.

by Anonymousreply 511November 14, 2009 1:45 PM

I guess I can believe John and Paul experimenting as teenagers or as young men. I always looked at it as 'experimenting' for Paul because he is straght and taken alot more serious to John because he was bi.

by Anonymousreply 512November 14, 2009 1:48 PM

I was a total man whore right up to college. I literally bedded hundreds of women and now I idetify myself as a gay man. So don't let someone's 'whoring' fool you it may just be overcompensation.

by Anonymousreply 513November 14, 2009 1:58 PM

"I always wondered how can a 'straight' guy bring home a dildo and ask his wife to f*ck him up the ass. Especially for a man like Paul who has so much to loose if something like that was to be released to the press."

You'd be surprised how many 'straight' married men ask for ass play from their wives. Heather had been known as a high-paid prostitute for rich men. Of course she'd know all the techniques to please, and would know how to be discreet. Why would she talk about it if she's married to the guy? Ask yourself why she got such a huge settlement. And remember, in spite of all, Paul is still the father of her child.

by Anonymousreply 514November 14, 2009 1:58 PM

A man who can ask his wife to fuck him with a dildo is a decent enough fella in my opinion, considering the other ways of getting what you want.

by Anonymousreply 515November 14, 2009 2:15 PM

My sister told me her bf asked her to strap on one and penetrate him, well least to say she dumped him on the spot.

by Anonymousreply 516November 14, 2009 2:22 PM

John would have had a few choice words for Heather Mills. Too bad we missed them...

by Anonymousreply 517November 14, 2009 2:32 PM

The Heather Mills thing wasn't just about the sex - he probably thought she was a soulmate.

Because Heather seems to be a pathological liar with BPD and no conscience, and those people can convince you of anything for a while. They'll find out everything you like or want, and pretend to just happen to like or want exactly the same things. And once they've got you hooked, they turn your life into a living hell.

Poor McCartney, now that she's had his baby he'll never be able to get rid of her.

by Anonymousreply 518November 14, 2009 2:43 PM

I wonder if John was alive if he and Yoko would have still been married. If not what he would have said about their romance now.

by Anonymousreply 519November 14, 2009 2:47 PM

There's no way John and Yoko would still be married, they were headed for divorce in the late 70s, and they no longer stayed in the same room. John would probably be making jokes about it now, saying he must have been on heavy drugs in those days.

by Anonymousreply 520November 14, 2009 2:51 PM

"...and those people can convince you of anything for a while. They'll find out everything you like or want, and pretend to just happen to like or want exactly the same things. And once they've got you hooked, they turn your life into a living hell." Wow did Heather attend the school of Yoko Ono?

by Anonymousreply 521November 14, 2009 2:51 PM

In a new biography of Paul McCartney, Paul is described as the underappreciated mom, John the ne'er do-well dad, George the sulky teenager and Ringo the child who is in the corner playing with his trains.

I've always felt sorry for George and Ringo, imagine having to deal with the John and Paul dynamics.

Yoko and John's marriage in his final days was basically a farce. Yoko had her lover. They had separate bedrooms. They were more friends and business associates than husband/wife.

John was making touring plans and he couldn't wait to go back to England and show Sean around. It was also rumored that John and Paul were planning on working together again. Yoko's influence on John was finally on the wane.

by Anonymousreply 522November 14, 2009 5:29 PM

Who was Yoko's lover while John was still alive? Sorry, I'm way behind on my reading.

I would have been surprised had John & Yoko ever split up. He seemed to need her to boss him around.

by Anonymousreply 523November 14, 2009 6:52 PM

John only needed Yoko when he was still on drugs. Hopefully he would have gotten over the drugs eventually, and Yoko would have also fallen by the wayside. But who knows, John may have died anyway -- he was very much the addictive type.

by Anonymousreply 524November 14, 2009 7:10 PM

Brian's former secretary wrote a book (that hasn't been released yet) where she says she caught a Beatle having sex with Brian in his office. She hints it wasn't John but was Paul."

THe love letter to Paul from Brian that Francie Schwartz found in Paul's place makes even more sense.

When will this book be released? I must order it asap!

by Anonymousreply 525November 14, 2009 7:28 PM

'Who was Yoko's lover while John was still alive? Sorry, I'm way behind on my reading.'

Soon after John's murder Yoko moved in a guy called Sam something, a bisexual painter; she was with him for over 20yrs I believe. It has been alleged that she was with him long before John's murder and was moving him in not long before John's death.

by Anonymousreply 526November 15, 2009 1:13 AM

I heard John and Paul shared groupies, I wonder if they shared Brian too. If so Brian was a lucky SOB.

by Anonymousreply 527November 15, 2009 1:16 AM

This thread makes me wonder about the real meaning of those two beetles screwing on the back of McCartneys Ram album.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 528November 15, 2009 2:38 PM

Don't forget that two weeks after John's murder, Yoko's lover was seen in John's clothing.

by Anonymousreply 529November 15, 2009 3:32 PM

I am a fan of the Beatles, and admittedly I never listened to much of Paul, John, George or Ringo's solo efforts, I never listened to the Ram album but saw the cover of Paul holding the ram's horn. But I never saw the two beetles f*cking pic before. I wonder what was Paul's explaination for that depiction.

by Anonymousreply 530November 15, 2009 5:01 PM

I don't think Paul ever gave an explanation for it himself R530, other commentators just assumed that's how Paul felt he was being treated by the other Beatles.

by Anonymousreply 531November 15, 2009 5:09 PM

If what I read in Phillip Norman's book John Lennon is factual then John was def a bisexaul who loathed the gay aspect of himself so much it tortured him. If John was born 20yrs later in a more tolerant world he might have been happier person.

by Anonymousreply 532November 16, 2009 2:14 AM

Whether John and Paul were ever a couple, I have always felt like after their 'divorce' Paul was the one who was left looking like the underappreciated housewife. Paul is a brilliant songwriter and doesn't get the recognition he deserves for the Beatles success and the role he played in holding the 'family' together. John was the one who was unfaithful in the 'relationship,' whatever it was, and the person who intially filed for 'divorce' and acted like a complete tool when his ever loyal 'wife' announced the seperation before him. Funny how a new book looks at the Beatles dynamics like a family because I always looked at it that way.

by Anonymousreply 533November 16, 2009 2:24 AM

Umm... what is John looking at?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 534November 16, 2009 2:29 AM

oh please 534, don't embarass yourself.

by Anonymousreply 535November 16, 2009 2:33 AM

Some guy was writing a book based on John Lennon's diaries and in an interview he talked about how shocked he was when he read some John's diaries. Apparently John seemed obsessed with Paul and almost every thought he had in his head was dominated by Paul. Whether Paul was his lover or his musical equal John was obviously bordering on psychotic where Paul was concerned. For some reason this pic always make me have an immense amount of pity for him, he appears so lonely.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 536November 16, 2009 2:36 AM

Paul is so adorable in this pic. If John was even slightly bi, I don't see how he could have not felt attraction.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 537November 16, 2009 2:39 AM

Re: 534, don't worry your not the only one who thinks John is checking out Paul, the pic is actually called 'buttcheck' in photobucket.

by Anonymousreply 538November 16, 2009 2:42 AM

'oh please 534, don't embarass yourself.' How can I? It is an anonymous gossip site. We are here speculating if an affair happened between two men, (1 dead, 1 old) over 40 yrs ago. We are all embarassing ourselves to some degree.

by Anonymousreply 539November 16, 2009 2:45 AM

Sorry, I like these pics but it looks like John is just closing his eyes in that one.

by Anonymousreply 540November 16, 2009 2:46 AM

'Paul is so adorable in this pic. If John was even slightly bi, I don't see how he could have not felt attraction.' Yeah Paul was almost too adorable at times. If John really was bi and had someone this cute around him almost every minute of every day and not being able to anything about it, must have been unbearable.

by Anonymousreply 541November 16, 2009 3:10 AM

'Umm... what is John looking at?' Someones got a dirty mind.

by Anonymousreply 542November 16, 2009 3:12 AM

Brian and Paul.

In the Anthology, Paul talks about going back to London early after they found out Brian had died. He even went inside Brian's house to find out what happened. Did he go there to remove evidence implicating him? (Not in his death but some sexual contact)

by Anonymousreply 543November 16, 2009 3:56 AM

Maybe Brian had a sex tape of them, or nude pics of Paul or phone sex tapes Paul left him... please Paul went to Brian's house to pay his respects.

by Anonymousreply 544November 16, 2009 10:29 AM

John wouldn't have been looking at anything R534, he hasn't got his glasses on.

by Anonymousreply 545November 16, 2009 12:08 PM

Paul probably removed the love letters. Francie found at least one in Paul's car.

by Anonymousreply 546November 16, 2009 12:28 PM

I really love the Beatles, this thread has reminded me of that, can you imagine a rock band writing a song like Yellow Submarine nowadays. The Beatles were for everyone from kids to grannies. Rock music is so far up it's own arse.

by Anonymousreply 547November 16, 2009 1:54 PM

R543:

I would imagine Brian had gay porn in the house. Maybe Paul was there to clean it out. The other Beatles didn't care as much about appearances as Paul did, which is one reason Brian counted on Paul to share the same sensibility when it came to Beatles-PR.

Probably drugs there as well. No doubt Paul wouldn't have wanted anything like that found. He probably knew where the secret stashes were.

by Anonymousreply 548November 16, 2009 8:59 PM

Am I the only one thinks Paul got fucked by the stump?

by Anonymousreply 549November 16, 2009 8:59 PM

R546: If Brian was writing love letters to Paul, I wonder if they were politically motivated rather than expressing a genuine affection? Brian was supposed to be worried towards the end that his bad business deals were about to be exposed and also that the Beatles didn't need him anymore since they stopped touring.

Paul was always said not to be Brian's type, Paul not exactly rough trade. In fact Paul might have felt a bit "what's wrong with me?" in regards to that, as if Brian should apologize for not crushing on him.

I remember in THE LOVE YOU MAKE and perhaps elsewhere that Brian was said to be afraid of Paul, that he was the only Beatle intimidated or frightened him. The others were easily manipulated, I guess, which is easy to believe. But Paul wasn't so easily charmed by people as the other Beatles were. He was just more discerning in general. Guess that worked for him until Heather, that is, but no one's perfect.

by Anonymousreply 550November 16, 2009 9:02 PM

LOL r549.

I thought Paul would have played hard ball with the Stump. Was surprised that he paid out so much in a divorce settlement. With all of the fucking, I guess Stumpy earned it.

by Anonymousreply 551November 16, 2009 9:37 PM

I always assumed the big divorce settlement Paul agreed to pay to Heather was hush money. I don't know about the stump in the hiney business (lol) but I can believe she maybe strapped it on in the bedroom.

by Anonymousreply 552November 17, 2009 12:48 AM

I think Brain was attracted to both John and Paul, John for his aggresive charm and Paul for his beauty. If John and/or Paul did have sex with Brian I think both J&P did it for power not attraction.

by Anonymousreply 553November 17, 2009 12:56 AM

If Paul ever got it on with Brian it was maybe just to mind f*ck with John. I was an avid watcher of HBO OZ and complexity of Beecher/Keller's relationhip always intrigued me; whenever Beecher hooked up with any guy in jail, Keller would always sleep with the same guy or kill him (both ways guaranteed the guy would not go with Beecher again). That is the same rational Paul might of had if he ever slept with Epstein (he obv couldn't have killed him). If Paul ever did the deed with Brian it was due to insane jealousy and resentment over John sleeping with ole Epstein during the infamous Spain vacation, rather than being attracted to Brian himself and John in return would get upset over Paul's 'whoring' and return to him.

by Anonymousreply 554November 17, 2009 1:01 AM

John and Paul, John and Brian, Paul and Brian, I wonder what George and Ringo was doing with all that gay sex going on around them. Lol!

by Anonymousreply 555November 17, 2009 1:03 AM

R554, that makes a lot of sense I tend to agree. The two did seem to have a jealous streak regarding each other.

by Anonymousreply 556November 17, 2009 1:09 AM

>>>he obv couldn't have killed him

You never know...

**twilight zone music**

by Anonymousreply 557November 17, 2009 1:11 AM

I can believe John had the hots for Paul but I am still not sold to the idea Paul reciprocated the feelings. Paul looked annoyed generally when John made any type of contact with him. This clip is very telling.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 558November 17, 2009 1:23 AM

I don't think the clip tells anything, R558, except Paul was worried about what others might think. They were performing on stage. If anything, it makes me wonder why Paul was nervous about it.

by Anonymousreply 559November 17, 2009 1:30 AM

Apparently rumours were beginning the swirl about J&P around those times and John was not helping matters with his flirtatious behaviour toward Paul.

by Anonymousreply 560November 17, 2009 1:38 AM

Seriously, how can Paul status or prestige be affected if he just comes out and say, 'Yes, I had a relationship with John'? I think ppl will respect him for telling the truth and the messy break up between them will make alot more sense to ppl.

by Anonymousreply 561November 17, 2009 1:45 AM

This thread is so awesome because I feel like I am not completely delusional in my belief that J&P were a couple. I remember reading the article in Rolling Stone mag entitled 'Why the BEATLES broke up' and it talked about the band wanting to go in opposite directions, tension during sessions, George and Ringo feeling underappreciated, blah blah blah, and the end of it I remember thinking, yeah, John no longer boinking Paul had nothing to do with it?

by Anonymousreply 562November 17, 2009 1:52 AM

I remember when the Coleman Beatles book hit and what a complete scandal it was to even it have it suggested that John was bi or gay.

by Anonymousreply 563November 17, 2009 6:49 AM

Coleman Lennon book, oops.

by Anonymousreply 564November 17, 2009 6:52 AM

Everyone is entitled to believe what they want to believe concerning the J&P relationship but why are some posters here intent on making Paul out to be some fetish freak? I mean ok he might have had a couple gay flings in his times but do u guys really think the guy will make his wife use her stump to ass rape him? Come on! The guy my be alot of things but I highly doubt that at his age he is as gay sex craving as to divulge in what ppl are posting here.

by Anonymousreply 565November 17, 2009 11:48 AM

There are enough gays/bi role models in the world to pass around, so why are ppl here trying to convince themselves that John and Paul, two completely straight egomaniacs, were/are bi?

by Anonymousreply 566November 17, 2009 11:56 AM

ringo poots!

by Anonymousreply 567November 17, 2009 12:03 PM

Clearly the stump thing is sillines R565, but there's now't fetishic(?)or wrong with liking anal play.

by Anonymousreply 568November 17, 2009 12:06 PM

Wow this thread is starting to sound like the storyline of a soap. Now Paul was getting it on with Brian to make John jealous? What's next Paul and Michael Jackson were blowing each other between takes of 'Say, Say, Say'?

by Anonymousreply 569November 17, 2009 12:10 PM

r:567 Really? Seriously?

by Anonymousreply 570November 17, 2009 12:13 PM

Are you young R565?

by Anonymousreply 571November 17, 2009 12:26 PM

'there's now't fetishic(?)or wrong with liking anal play.' There is something wrong with a straight married guy liking anal play.

by Anonymousreply 572November 17, 2009 12:43 PM

'Who spells people 'ppl'?'Umm... me its called shorthand, why the hell should I spell the entire word when you understand what I mean?

by Anonymousreply 573November 17, 2009 12:46 PM

As someone on a board I read most eloquently put it: us gays, bisexuals, or whatever we call freaks call ourselves are on a mission to make all good looking, talented guys out to be one of us. John and Paul are/were as straight as they come. OK

by Anonymousreply 574November 17, 2009 12:49 PM

"Umm... me its called shorthand, why the hell should I spell the entire word when you understand what I mean?"

Because you're giving away that you're the same person disagreeing with yourself.

by Anonymousreply 575November 17, 2009 12:55 PM

I actually saw the other posts use 'ppl' so I assumed that was what everyone here was using. Still cuts back on writing the whole word.

by Anonymousreply 576November 17, 2009 12:58 PM

Paul and John? Maybe but John and Stu more than one source confirms it. I read somewhere that after Stu died John asked Astrid for Stu's scarf and shades. The same shades he wore throughout the first Beatles tour and he would sometimes wear the scarf as well. I have no idea if this is correct, but this pic has Stu with the shades.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 577November 17, 2009 1:07 PM

Well, if we're getting into soap or fanfic territory..... and if there was some speculation re John & Paul during the touring days...

I know John wrote a lot of love songs in the day, but the title and theme of YOU'VE GOT TO HIDE YOU LOVE AWAY put me in mind of an illicit relationship, that John was broadcasting his crush and everyone was warning him off that.

Obviously it can't be about Cynthia and he never fell in love with any of his female flings. A female pronoun is used but that's to be expected. But it's an odd theme lyrically, like how did he even come up with that idea, unless Brian or someone warned him:

Here I stand head in hand Turn my face to the wall If she's gone I can't go on Feelin' two-foot small

Everywhere people stare Each and every day I can see them laugh at me And I hear them say

Hey you've got to hide your love away Hey you've got to hide your love away

How can I even try I can never win Hearing them, seeing them In the state I'm in

How could she say to me Love will find a way Gather round all you clowns Let me hear you say

Hey you've got to hide your love away Hey you've got to hide your love away

by Anonymousreply 578November 17, 2009 10:01 PM

'...other commentators just assumed that's how Paul felt he was being treated by the other Beatles.' I remember when I bought that record my mom spent a considerable amount of time trying to figure out what it signified. It was so hilarious, 'Um...ok, two beetles having sex, am I missing something?' Not me though I just automatically assumed it meant John f*cking Paul (or vice versa), since I always assumed that it was an open secret that they have been doing just that for years.

by Anonymousreply 579November 18, 2009 4:53 AM

Paul may have dabbled in the early years of his career but I think his bi tendancies stopped when he married Linda.

by Anonymousreply 580November 18, 2009 10:21 AM

Paul Mccartney bi? Yeah right, the guy loves pussy too much.

by Anonymousreply 581November 18, 2009 10:24 AM

Paul likes BIG TITS to much to be bi. He didn't even like Heather breast feeding because he wanted his tits.

by Anonymousreply 582November 18, 2009 4:03 PM

Paul has the best PR campaign of any celebrity in the last 40 years. Look how people are so convinced that wimpy guy is so straight.

by Anonymousreply 583November 18, 2009 6:37 PM

'Paul has the best PR campaign of any celebrity in the last 40 years. Look how people are so convinced that wimpy guy is so straight.' Whew I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one who saw right through the guy.

by Anonymousreply 584November 18, 2009 9:34 PM

'Paul likes BIG TITS to much to be bi. He didn't even like Heather breast feeding because he wanted his tits.' I hope this was sarcasm.

by Anonymousreply 585November 18, 2009 10:27 PM

Anyone who can believe Paul is 100% straight can also believe his perfect eyebrows were never trimmed.

by Anonymousreply 586November 19, 2009 2:33 AM

The truth will come out when Macca passes on. Suddenly evidence emerges about soemone's sexaulity just when they are not here to defend themselves. Just look at what they did to Paul Newman, one of the most decent guys in showbusiness.

by Anonymousreply 587November 19, 2009 12:58 PM

John and Paul might have had feelings for each other, but no way would either risk acting on it. They both had too much to loose.

by Anonymousreply 588November 19, 2009 1:24 PM

[italic]There is something wrong with a straight married guy liking anal play.[/italic]

I don't know if r572 was just trying to be inflammatory, but I don't think most people here would agree with that. The prostate responds to stimulation, regardless of sexual orientation. Some lesbians like penetration with objects that are not penises; doesn't make 'em straight.

by Anonymousreply 589November 19, 2009 4:47 PM

The thing I always found creepiest about Heather Mills was how much she looked like a young Linda McCartney. In a way that seemed like Paul didn't just have a "type," but was actually trying to replicate the other relationship.

by Anonymousreply 590November 19, 2009 4:49 PM

'The thing I always found creepiest about Heather Mills was how much she looked like a young Linda McCartney. In a way that seemed like Paul didn't just have a "type," but was actually trying to replicate the other relationship.'

What's creepy about that? Everyone has a type. Paul's type at was/obviously busty blondes. Which I guess makes him very straight.

by Anonymousreply 591November 19, 2009 11:09 PM

'The prostate responds to stimulation, regardless of sexual orientation.'

I get that, but no straight guy would like anything inserted in his anus in order to stimulate his prostrate. If that was the case guys would be lining up to have their prostrate examined. Any straight guy will agree that having a chick suck him off, or ride him is stimulation enough. Any guy who would allow a woman to penetrate him with anything and call it 'anal play' is either not 100% straight, a pervert or both.

by Anonymousreply 592November 19, 2009 11:15 PM

Goodness, R591/592--I believe you're one of those internet "trolls" I've heard so much about.

by Anonymousreply 593November 20, 2009 2:46 AM

"Any guy who would allow a woman to penetrate him with anything and call it 'anal play' is either not 100% straight, a pervert or both."

This may actually be the most juvenile thread going. How did you even get here?

by Anonymousreply 594November 20, 2009 4:36 AM

Lol I'm a troll because I am speaking the truth? No self respecting straight man likes his anus being penetrated with anything, admit it. Us fags do.

by Anonymousreply 595November 20, 2009 12:25 PM

I am still trying to figure out how stating on a post that Paul likes busty blondes helps to validate the OP's claims that Paul and John had an affair.

by Anonymousreply 596November 20, 2009 12:30 PM

Ignore the last two post he is obviously trying to get something going. Back to J/P gossip!

by Anonymousreply 597November 20, 2009 12:50 PM

Kind of off topic, but a friend of mind thinks that Ed Westwick looks alot like a young John Lennon and therefore should be cast as him. What do you guys think?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 598November 20, 2009 1:07 PM

Young John Lennon

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 599November 20, 2009 1:10 PM

There is slight resemblance, but I think there will be riot if that dweeb us casted as JL.

by Anonymousreply 600November 20, 2009 1:48 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!