Log In
Register
2.54am
11 September 2018
Offline
I haven't got time to read through all twenty-seven pages of this thread so can somebody tell me the answer, or am I going to have to wait until Volume 2 or 3 of Mark Lewisohn's biography.
It's perfectly possible to recognise that somebody is attractive without being (sexually) attracted to them, btw.
4.49am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline Tony Japanese said
I haven't got time to read through all twenty-seven pages of this thread so can somebody tell me the answer, or am I going to have to wait until Volume 2 or 3 of Mark Lewisohn's biography.It's perfectly possible to recognise that somebody is attractive without being (sexually) attracted to them, btw.
My answer would be "Who cares? It makes no difference whatsoever".
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
lovelyritametermaid, lovelyritametermaid, The Hole Got Fixed, The Hole Got Fixed, Starr Shine?, WeepingAtlasCedars, AppleScruffJunior, Beatlebug, Tony Japanese"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
4.32am
12 May 2015
Offline 
John was far from the only rock star in the 60s to exhibit bisexual behaviour. Jagger,Townshend,Dave Davies,bowie,lou reed..... the list is endless.
What is interesting is that John seemed to enjoy the attention of being pursued by men and enjoyed that power. He seemed to enjoy being the focus of the proverbial 'tug of love' and getting people to fight for his attention ....without getting too analytical that may stem back to his youth with his mother, father and aunt all pulling at him in various directions.
It's almost certain that he had sexual relationships with Stuart Sutcliffe and Brian Epstein. So I guess he did have 'leanings' in that direction, but so what if he did ?
8.39pm
18 April 2013
Offline I think it's interesting how people tend to come on this thread and say things about the thread being pointless and question why should we care about John's sexuality, when the same people are probably buying books that have photo reproductions of John's shopping list and doodles he drew on airline stationary, which are actually pointless.
Personally, I think knowing that John was bisexual is very educational because his repressed sexuality and his conflicted feelings about it explain some of his violent behavior. Not pointless knowledge at all, at least if you are interested in understanding the psyche of a very brilliant man.
"This Beatles talk bores me to death.” —John Lennon
10.45pm
Moderators
15 February 2015
Offline
Reminds me of when people comment on YouTube videos how much they don't care about or dislike the video or the person, to which I am always compelled to respond, "You cared enough to comment on it, didn't you?" 
The following people thank Beatlebug for this post:
Expert TextpertIt verges from the sublime to the ridiculote
New to Forumpool? You can introduce yourself here.
5.09am
12 May 2015
Offline Expert Textpert said
I think it's interesting how people tend to come on this thread and say things about the thread being pointless and question why should we care about John's sexuality, when the same people are probably buying books that have photo reproductions of John's shopping list and doodles he drew on airline stationary, which are actually pointless.Personally, I think knowing that John was bisexual is very educational because his repressed sexuality and his conflicted feelings about it explain some of his violent behavior. Not pointless knowledge at all, at least if you are interested in understanding the psyche of a very brilliant man.
Maybe. I tend to think John became quite relaxed about his bi-sexuality. He donated drawings and writings to the gay liberation book after all, and the things he and Yoko had to say on the subject over the years don't show someone who was particularly repressed either.
John’s bisexual attraction to other men is clear from his own accounts and of those close to him.
2.43pm
18 April 2013
Offline He beat up Bob Wooler for insinuating he was gay at a party in the 60s.
"This Beatles talk bores me to death.” —John Lennon
1.10pm
12 May 2015
Offline Expert Textpert said
He beat up Bob Wooler for insinuating he was gay at a party in the 60s.
He was a very young, very drunk man though. I tend to think he relaxed about his sexuality over the years, within 10 years he was providing erotic drawings for the gay liberation book. His problems lay elsewhere I feel.
My tuppence worth is that John had genuine psychiatric problems stemming from his childhood, only compounded by his fame and the drug intake he used to try and blank them out. He really needed proper professional help instead of crank diets,gurus and 'cures' like primal scream. It doesn't make his horrible behaviour at times forgivable, but it does allow us to understand. The saddest thing is that while he showed genuine regret and self loathing over his actions across his life, he kept on making the same mistakes.
While there are a lot of unflattering things you can say about The Beatles, they were more fundamentally far more decent human beings than The Rolling Stones for instance. They had literally zero redeeming qualities. I absolutely loathe them to this day.
I'll say one thing about John, he tried and frequently failed to be a good person but he never gave up or stopped realising it was a worthwhile thing to be doing. He said some exceptionally loving and forgiving things in those last interviews he gave that prove it.
The following people thank castironshore for this post:
Beatlebug, Hello little quarrygirl, meanmistermustard1.05pm
26 September 2020
Offline There were many quotes from Yoko that implied what she thought (but people think she's just doing it for attention) like Paul being called John's Princess around Abbey Road studios and the quote 'If Paul was a woman John would have been in love with her' (paraphrasing). Many other mclennon fans think that My little Flower Princess was for Paul as well because he says something like 'my little friend' which they don't think he would refer to Yoko as. 
7.45pm
1 November 2013
Offline I never got any verification for the John's Princess quote.
10.17pm
24 June 2019
Offline Expert Textpert said
I think it's interesting how people tend to come on this thread and say things about the thread being pointless and question why should we care about John's sexuality, when the same people are probably buying books that have photo reproductions of John's shopping list and doodles he drew on airline stationary, which are actually pointless.Personally, I think knowing that John was bisexual is very educational because his repressed sexuality and his conflicted feelings about it explain some of his violent behavior. Not pointless knowledge at all, at least if you are interested in understanding the psyche of a very brilliant man.
John, like Brian, grew up in a very difficult time to be anything that was not considered mainstream or "normal". Maybe John was gay or Bi/ Maybe, if he was, his internal conflicts were solely / partly related, maybe not.
I think, in some ways, John's internal conflicts were a big contributor to his genius.
Turn off your stream, relax and float down mind
5.56am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline Expert Textpert said
I think it's interesting how people tend to come on this thread and say things about the thread being pointless and question why should we care about John's sexuality, when the same people are probably buying books that have photo reproductions of John's shopping list and doodles he drew on airline stationary, which are actually pointless.Personally, I think knowing that John was bisexual is very educational because his repressed sexuality and his conflicted feelings about it explain some of his violent behavior. Not pointless knowledge at all, at least if you are interested in understanding the psyche of a very brilliant man.
I really like John's sense of humour and drawings so I bought those type of books. I have no desire to spend hours reading speculation of whether John was homosexual when no one really knows and there is no definitive answer we can say is so.
As for John's assault on Bob Wooler, he was incredibly drunk at Paul's 21st, was called "queer" and thought insinuations were being made about Brian and himself, we know John had that incredibly violent side to him from previous incidents and it flared here. It's not proof that he was gay or anything happened and John himself said nothing happened between them. John also said in 1971 he wouldn't have cared less if Bob made the same comments then.
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
The Hole Got Fixed"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
7.32pm
15 January 2021
Offline Beatlebug said
Reminds me of when people comment on YouTube videos how much they don't care about or dislike the video or the person, to which I am always compelled to respond, "You cared enough to comment on it, didn't you?"
I agree with that. If he were bisexual, it would be something to note. Not something that would change my opinion of him, but it would be significant.
That said, I don't know enough about the Sutcliffe relationship, so I'm reserving judgment. I'm in the middle of some Lennon bios.
About Epstein... it strikes me that the relationship was one-sided: Epstein was besotted with John, and John encouraged it to control Epstein. It was cruel on John's part. But there was zero sexual attraction.
JMO.
The following people thank Soapchick for this post:
Expert Textpert, Expert Textpert, Expert Textpert6.32pm
18 April 2013
Offline meanmistermustard said
Expert Textpert said
I think it's interesting how people tend to come on this thread and say things about the thread being pointless and question why should we care about John's sexuality, when the same people are probably buying books that have photo reproductions of John's shopping list and doodles he drew on airline stationary, which are actually pointless.
Personally, I think knowing that John was bisexual is very educational because his repressed sexuality and his conflicted feelings about it explain some of his violent behavior. Not pointless knowledge at all, at least if you are interested in understanding the psyche of a very brilliant man.
I really like John's sense of humour and drawings so I bought those type of books. I have no desire to spend hours reading speculation of whether John was homosexual when no one really knows and there is no definitive answer we can say is so.
As for John's assault on Bob Wooler, he was incredibly drunk at Paul's 21st, was called "queer" and thought insinuations were being made about Brian and himself, we know John had that incredibly violent side to him from previous incidents and it flared here. It's not proof that he was gay or anything happened and John himself said nothing happened between them. John also said in 1971 he wouldn't have cared less if Bob made the same comments then.
Actually John said he beat up Wooler because he was “afraid of the fag” in him.
"This Beatles talk bores me to death.” —John Lennon
1 Guest(s)
