Log In
Register
3.46pm
17 January 2013
Offline
fabfouremily said
John was messed up on drugs, Preludin I believe, and Paul was in bed with a “bird”, sometime when they were in Hamburg. John came in the room and cut up all of her clothes with scissors. I always thought that despite him being on drugs, it seemed like a weird jealousy thing…It does seem like the kind of thing someone jealous would do upon finding their partner in bed with somebody else, but it could have another explanation. Maybe Paul was meant to be on stage or something? Do we know the exact circumstances of this event?
I don’t think John was infatuated with Paul otherwise he would have tried it on at least once (we don’t know for sure that he ever did). Nothing stopped him with anyone else, did it? I think he loved him in a brotherly way, and he admired him. I don’t think there was anything sexual in it.
I read a quote from Yoko one time about how she had suspected that John had at one point wanted to have an affair with Paul, but he had not been into it. I can’t find it now so I can’t source it to anything, but it was Yoko that had (allegedly) said it. We’ll never know for sure, it’s just speculation… but who knows.
As for the cutting up the clothes thing, when I find the actual story (it’s in my Anthology book and I believe it was George that told the story) I will post it here. I don’t think Paul was supposed to be on stage, I think he was way to driven to do something like that.
"Please don't bring your banjo back, I know where it's been.. I wasn't hardly gone a day, when it became the scene.. Banjos! Banjos! All the time, I can't forget that tune.. and if I ever see another banjo, I'm going out and buy a big balloon!"
4.18pm
30 October 2012
Offline
I’m currently reading the Bob Spitz biography, and it tells me that John and Brian Epstein went on holiday together in Spain. Apparently, they would go to bars and John would ask Brian about random men to see what he thought of them. I can’t remember exactly what he said, but he referred to a time during that holiday as the most “gay” experience he’d had. It doesn’t matter to me either way. I’m not homophobic at all.
Questo abrigado tanta mucho que can eat it carousel
4.39pm
9 July 2013
Offline The trip to Spain with Brian was what really started all the speculation. It always struck me as odd that John would leave Cynthia after she just gave birth to Julian (though that is “typical” John Lennon ) to go to Spain with Brian. I mean, I know he was no Father or Husband of the Year, but that is kinda’ odd to do that (since he was with him 99% of the time anyway.) Surely John knew what Brian had on his mind. He used to tease him mercilessly about being a “pansy” or some other horrible gay term. I think it is more probable than not that Brian and John hooked up at least once. I don’t believe he and Paul ever did. If Yoko said John wanted to do it with Paul, then I really don’t believe it. She disliked Paul and she had a very caustic tongue…she’s not all that credible in my opinion. By the way, she had her “friend” move in with her three months after John’s death (I have to look up his name). He stayed there at the Dakota for something like 23 years. Yoko is another character who will never be understood!
"And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
5.07pm
14 October 2012
Offline I don’t believe for one second that John was gay with/for Paul or Stu or Brian. During that era it was barely legal so I don’t think that it was on their wavelengths, or that anyone would have really considered it (apart from Eppy, obviously. Maybe he was infatuated with John but I don’t believe anything happened). In the 50s/ early 60s weren’t they all a bit, “Ooh, he’s a queer *nervous snigger*” but post AYNIL and with Yoko John was tolerant of everything and everyone, and the world in general was becoming more gay-friendly, so he was more accepting and pro gay rights. If he’d lived, it would have been interesting to see if/how he was involved in AIDS awareness and stuff like that, especially considering he was a friend of Elton John.
"I don't think we were actually swimming, as it were, with shirts on, 'cos we always wear overcoats when we're swimming,"-
George Harrison, Australia, June 1964
5.24pm
8 November 2012
Offline bikelock28 said
I don’t believe for one second that John was gay with/for Paul or Stu or Brian. During that era it was barely legal so I don’t think that it was on their wavelengths, or that anyone would have really considered it
It wasn’t just “barely legal,” it was completely illegal. But what does legality have to do with anyone’s orientation or leanings?
parlance
The following people thank parlance for this post:
Mr. Kite, Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<5.38pm
8 November 2012
Offline 
LongHairedLady said
I read a quote from Yoko one time about how she had suspected that John had at one point wanted to have an affair with Paul, but he had not been into it. I can’t find it now so I can’t source it to anything, but it was Yoko that had (allegedly) said it. We’ll never know for sure, it’s just speculation… but who knows.
That’s from Philip Norman’s bio on John (the Shout! author who’s now writing a bio on Paul). From this book came “Paul’s immovable heterosexuality,” which may be the most ridiculous phrase ever conceived. The complete quote:
“John’s wounded anger was more that of an ex-spouse than ex-colleague, reinforcing a suspicion in Yoko’s mind that his feelings for Paul had been far more intense than the world ever guessed. From chance remarks he had made, she gathered there had even been a moment when – on the principle that bohemians should try everything – he had contemplated an affair with Paul, but had been deterred by Paul’s immovable heterosexuality. Nor, apparently was Yoko the only one to have picked up on this. Around Apple, in her hearing, Paul would sometimes be called John’s Princess. She had also once heard a rehearsal tape with John’s voice calling out “Paul . . . Paul . . .’ in a strangely subservient, pleading way. “I knew there was something going on there,’ she remembers. “From his point of view, not from Paul’s. And he was so angry at Paul, I couldn’t help wondering what it was really about.’ “
As for the cutting up the clothes thing, when I find the actual story (it’s in my Anthology book and I believe it was George that told the story) I will post it here.
Found the quote at Google Reads:
“One time Paul had a chick in bed and John came in and got a pair of scissors and cut all her clothes into pieces and then wrecked the wardrobe. He got like that occasionally, it was because of the pills and being up too long.”
Some versions of the quote also has John calling the woman a whore, but I think that’s fanciful injection from fans, and as you can see from the link, this is the direct quote in Anthology.
parlance
8.46pm
17 January 2013
Offline 
Your knoldege never ceases to amaze me. Thank you! 
Those are exactly the quotes I was looking for! 
parlance said
That’s from Philip Norman’s bio on John (the Shout! author who’s now writing a bio on Paul). From this book came “Paul’s immovable heterosexuality,” which may be the most ridiculous phrase ever conceived.
"Please don't bring your banjo back, I know where it's been.. I wasn't hardly gone a day, when it became the scene.. Banjos! Banjos! All the time, I can't forget that tune.. and if I ever see another banjo, I'm going out and buy a big balloon!"
8.53pm
3 May 2012
Offline ^ So he might have just done it because of how tired/angry/frustrated he was and not necessarily because Paul was hooking up with someone. We’ll never know for sure.
parlance said
bikelock28 said
I don’t believe for one second that John was gay with/for Paul or Stu or Brian. During that era it was barely legal so I don’t think that it was on their wavelengths, or that anyone would have really considered itIt wasn’t just “barely legal,” it was completely illegal. But what does legality have to do with anyone’s orientation or leanings?
parlance
I agree with parlance here. It wasn’t made legal until ’67, Brian (and, of course, many other people) was gay before then. If you happen to be homosexual, then you’re homosexual. The only difference is that people tended to completely hide it.
Moving along in our God given ways, safety is sat by the fire/Sanctuary from these feverish smiles, left with a mark on the door.
(Passover - I. Curtis)
9.00pm
14 October 2012
Offline ^^ Sorry, I stand corrected. I never remember when it was legalised in the UK. What I meant was that cos it was illegal, it wan’t really a thing which was particularly at the forefront of people’s consciousness, if that makes any sense. Being gay for someone wouldn’t be a thing you’d think of at the time. However I wasn’t there, so I’m just speculating on opinions at the time.
"I don't think we were actually swimming, as it were, with shirts on, 'cos we always wear overcoats when we're swimming,"-
George Harrison, Australia, June 1964
9.14pm
3 May 2012
Offline I think that if those feelings are there then they’re there and, even if you try to hide them from yourself, you’ll feel whatever you feel as much as you may not want to. I’m with you, though, that you may not have been as sexually curious as people have been since. Of course, all speculations, but that’s what I think.
Moving along in our God given ways, safety is sat by the fire/Sanctuary from these feverish smiles, left with a mark on the door.
(Passover - I. Curtis)
9.57pm
8 November 2012
Offline fabfouremily said
I think that if those feelings are there then they’re there and, even if you try to hide them from yourself, you’ll feel whatever you feel as much as you may not want to.
Yes, that’s my point.
I’m with you, though, that you may not have been as sexually curious as people have been since. Of course, all speculations, but that’s what I think.
Good point.
On a related note, RIP Virginia Johnson.
LongHairedLady said
Your knoldege never ceases to amaze me. Thank you!
Aw, thanks! ;->
parlance
10.46pm
1 November 2012
Offline Scoun said It doesn’t matter to me either way. I’m not homophobic at all.
I find it highly amusing that most of the people posting on this topic have to add this apology and can’t just talk about the subject without anxiously worrying that someone might think they are homophobic. It reminds me of that Seinfeld episode where every time Jerry or Kramer or George made a joke about a gay guy, they felt obliged to add — “Not that there’s anything wrong with being gay”.
The only difference is that Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld (the writers) had a sense of humor about the whole thing — something that seems gravely lacking here.
The following people thank Funny Paper for this post:
Mr. KiteFaded flowers, wait in a jar, till the evening is complete... complete... complete... complete...
11.18pm
23 May 2013
Offline
Funny Paper said
Scoun said It doesn’t matter to me either way. I’m not homophobic at all.
I find it highly amusing that most of the people posting on this topic have to add this apology and can’t just talk about the subject without anxiously worrying that someone might think they are homophobic. It reminds me of that Seinfeld episode where every time Jerry or Kramer or George made a joke about a gay guy, they felt obliged to add — “Not that there’s anything wrong with being gay”.
The only difference is that Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld (the writers) had a sense of humor about the whole thing — something that seems gravely lacking here.
I think you’ve just summed up every single post on this thread, congratulations, you get it.
My feelings on the situation, I mean, it surely is possible, but I don’t exactly dismiss it. The only time i really dismiss it when the annoying shippers come along and are like “wow!!! lol!!! dey are SO gay!!!” and I’m pretty sure everyone’s been there to pretend to dislike something completely just because the other people who like it are absolutely bonkers and repulsive, right?
I’m not sure if i’d call the things that are talked about on here evidence or not, but I do remember finding somewhere yoko saying that John wanted to try sex with Paul for bohemian purposes.
I’m dubious, neither here or there.
Everyman has a man who loves him
Everywoman has a woman who loves her
1.39am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline Funny Paper said
Scoun said It doesn’t matter to me either way. I’m not homophobic at all.
I find it highly amusing that most of the people posting on this topic have to add this apology and can’t just talk about the subject without anxiously worrying that someone might think they are homophobic. It reminds me of that Seinfeld episode where every time Jerry or Kramer or George made a joke about a gay guy, they felt obliged to add — “Not that there’s anything wrong with being gay”.
The only difference is that Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld (the writers) had a sense of humor about the whole thing — something that seems gravely lacking here.
I don’t think its a lack of a sense of humour but fear of being accused of being a homophobe or upsetting someone unintentionally. Its easier to apologise or explain your position before someone takes an innocent comment and blows it up into a full blown national incident and calling for arrests and public floggings, of which such people do exist. And the same can be said for Muslims, Christians, Feminists, Satanists, Frogists, Blueists, Treeists and anything else you can think off. Some people in the world are easily offended, some are looking for a public execution asap, many others are not.
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
Mr. Kite"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
2.53am
18 April 2013
Offline There are many ridiculous phrases in Norman’s biography. I’m not a fan of his writing style. In fact, he focused so much on John being gay and described his clothing and shoes in such detail at every point of his life that I assumed Norman himself was gay, until I saw at the end he has a wife. How can a straight man know so much about fashion? “Not that there’s anything wrong with being gay.”
Anyway, personally I think that if John had come on to Paul it might have been a big embarrassment to Paul and he might want to cover it up and say that John wasn’t bisexual or gay in order to save himself the trouble.
And for Paul to say that John wasn’t gay because he never saw him having sex with a guy doesn’t really mean anything. John probably would have wanted to hide it, because everything points to him being in the closet, and it was illegal anyway.
It’s all speculation, but personally I can easily see John as bisexual.
"If you're ever in the shit, grab my tit.” —Paul McCartney
10.28am
3 May 2012
Offline parlance said
fabfouremily said
I think that if those feelings are there then they’re there and, even if you try to hide them from yourself, you’ll feel whatever you feel as much as you may not want to.Yes, that’s my point.
I’m with you, though, that you may not have been as sexually curious as people have been since. Of course, all speculations, but that’s what I think.
Good point.
On a related note, RIP Virginia Johnson.
Oh, I hadn’t heard she’d died 
Thanks for pointing that out.
Moving along in our God given ways, safety is sat by the fire/Sanctuary from these feverish smiles, left with a mark on the door.
(Passover - I. Curtis)
5.18pm
21 November 2012
Offline This is something I’ve never thought of. But there are some good and interesting points on both here and that website. I personally don’t think he was really gay, but he may have been bisexual or just curious.
Oh and I’m taking most things Yoko says with a pinch of salt. I have my doubts about a lot of things she says about John.
7.57pm
9 July 2013
Offline Way to go, Linde…I don’t trust Yoko Ono when it comes to John (not to be mean…or “not that there is anything wrong with being Yoko Ono” to paraphrase Seinfeld). I just don’t think she gives us the truth all the time (which is understandable…everyone wants the world to think reality is whatever they determine it to be). She wants “the record” to reflect what she wants it to reflect. She has even said that she never sent John on the lost weekend. There are too many other witnesses to that to prove that is untrue, to include May Pang. She conveniently forgets about the little liason she had with a musician in Chicago while John was in LA. Oh well…this is off-topic. Bottom line, I’d bet John tried it once with Brian but that doesn’t make him gay or bi. And, if Paul knew that for sure, he’d never admit it to the rest of us.
"And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
2.06pm
Reviewers
29 November 2012
Offline 
Scoun said
I’m currently reading the Bob Spitz biography, and it tells me that John and Brian Epstein went on holiday together in Spain. Apparently, they would go to bars and John would ask Brian about random men to see what he thought of them. I can’t remember exactly what he said, but he referred to a time during that holiday as the most “gay” experience he’d had. It doesn’t matter to me either way. I’m not homophobic at all.
Your first mistake is reading the Spitz book! I hate that pile of shit with a passion. Yes, the trip did happen, as did that conversation, but just about everything else in that book is wrong.
As for John, I think he did have a curiosity, but this was a guy who also had sexual fantasies about his mother, so clearly as much as we all love him and how talented he was, he had some other stuff going on in his head that we’ll never truly know about. And it doesn’t impact my enjoyment of his music or writings in any way.
The following people thank DrBeatle for this post:
Mr. Kite"I know you, you know me; one thing I can tell you is you got to be free!"
Please Visit My Website, The Rock and Roll Chemist
Twitter: @rocknrollchem
Facebook: rnrchemist
2.09pm
Reviewers
29 November 2012
Offline parlance said
LongHairedLady said
I read a quote from Yoko one time about how she had suspected that John had at one point wanted to have an affair with Paul, but he had not been into it. I can’t find it now so I can’t source it to anything, but it was Yoko that had (allegedly) said it. We’ll never know for sure, it’s just speculation… but who knows.
That’s from Philip Norman’s bio on John (the Shout! author who’s now writing a bio on Paul). From this book came “Paul’s immovable heterosexuality,” which may be the most ridiculous phrase ever conceived. The complete quote:
“John’s wounded anger was more that of an ex-spouse than ex-colleague, reinforcing a suspicion in Yoko’s mind that his feelings for Paul had been far more intense than the world ever guessed. From chance remarks he had made, she gathered there had even been a moment when – on the principle that bohemians should try everything – he had contemplated an affair with Paul, but had been deterred by Paul’s immovable heterosexuality. Nor, apparently was Yoko the only one to have picked up on this. Around Apple, in her hearing, Paul would sometimes be called John’s Princess. She had also once heard a rehearsal tape with John’s voice calling out “Paul . . . Paul . . .’ in a strangely subservient, pleading way. “I knew there was something going on there,’ she remembers. “From his point of view, not from Paul’s. And he was so angry at Paul, I couldn’t help wondering what it was really about.’ ”
As for the cutting up the clothes thing, when I find the actual story (it’s in my Anthology book and I believe it was George that told the story) I will post it here.
Found the quote at Google Reads:
“One time Paul had a chick in bed and John came in and got a pair of scissors and cut all her clothes into pieces and then wrecked the wardrobe. He got like that occasionally, it was because of the pills and being up too long.”
Some versions of the quote also has John calling the woman a whore, but I think that’s fanciful injection from fans, and as you can see from the link, this is the direct quote in Anthology.
parlance
Thanks for pointing those out. I would actually completely believe those quotes from Yoko…maybe not necessarily the content completely, but that she said it, sure. Norman’s book was the authorized biography, with Yoko’s blessing, and he interviewed her a lot for it. She only revoked her authorization at the end (right before publication) because she felt he portrayed her too negatively (which is a joke, he treated her far too KINDLY), but he published it anyway.
"I know you, you know me; one thing I can tell you is you got to be free!"
Please Visit My Website, The Rock and Roll Chemist
Twitter: @rocknrollchem
Facebook: rnrchemist
1 Guest(s)
