Why are you so against the rejection in India? How are you so sure that Paul reciprocated John's feelings? I'm curious because of your recent post about the ULM series. You said the evidence doesn't seem to support this. Why is that?
Hi! I've made many posts about this before. But my basic line of thought is this: We can all agree that it's pretty obvious John was in love with Paul. Just see the way he looks at Paul. And even Yoko noticed it and implied it. It stretches belief that Paul could miss it for 10 years, then "suddenly" it comes to a head in India. John was very bold, impulsive and often lacked self-control. He even kissed men he barely knew in the mouth before in the early 60s (and in front of Paul!). And Paul and John spent a lot of time alone, in hotels, in Paul's house (especially in 1967), etc. I's very unlikely that John would have waited 10 years to make a move. And if John had made a move earlier, and Paul shut him down (or John felt he was turned down), the friendship would almost certainly have soured immediately, especially given John’s volatility. But the opposite happened: they were intensely close throughout the early and mid 60s. That only makes sense if either (a) Paul reciprocated to some degree, or (b) nothing happened yet. But (b) contradicts everything we know about John’s impulsiveness. And that’s without even getting into things that clearly show Paul was in love with John (the songs he wrote about John, the way he looks at John, the signs of romantic jealousy, the intensity of his grief after John's death, etc.) because then this post would go on forever, lol. So their relationship did sour in 1968, we just don't know for sure why. The unrequited feelings theory doesn't really hold up though, at least not to me. There are millions of reasons why relationships end.
Hey, I hope you don't mind me reblogging this. :) I think we are both having a healthy debate in good faith, so I assume it's cool to engage about this topic (esp since I came up in the ask). First of all, I think it's ludicrous to suggest that Paul did not reciprocate John's FEELINGS. I think Paul was every bit as in love with John as John was with him. There's loads of testimony from Paul himself to prove this a dozen times over! So I agree with you on that one. As to the sex issue, I have to disagree- I think sex can be very complicated and there are actually a million scenarios, including some we surely haven't even thought of. I don't necessarily think it's a simple "if A, then B." I agree that a scenario of John finally makes his move in India, Paul says thanks but no thanks and John then goes on a revenge rampage is super unlikely. Just not necessarily for the same reasons you do. We don't know that sex was what broke them up, we have no real reason to think it was. But something upset John, and it's very hard to eliminate possibilities when so many exist.
Of course it's ok! Thank you for reblogging and for such a thoughtful reply! 💕 I really appreciate that we’re on the same page about Paul. I’m glad we both agree on that. Where I still lean a bit differently is about timing. My point wasn’t so much about sex specifically (I don't think I mentioned sex on my post), but about John’s personality. He was impulsive, bold, and rarely shy about expressing attraction (even kissing near-strangers in front of Paul). Given that he and Paul spent so much time alone together, it feels unlikely to me that John would sit on those feelings for a full decade. That's why I mentioned John making some kind of move earlier than 1968 (not necessarily sex, but something that let Paul be aware of this feelings for him). If he had revealed them much earlier and felt rejected, I think we’d have seen cracks in their closeness long before 1968. But instead, they stayed intensely close through the mid-60s. So, personally, I think it's not crazy to say that they were more than friends before 1968 and they both knew it, at least to an extent. So for me, the India “rejection” theory doesn’t really fit John’s temperament or the durability of their bond up to that point. Especially because they were very friendly during the entire India trip, and hugged each other warmly before Paul left for London, according to witnesses. They were also very close later in NY, according to Larry Kane. I do agree with you that “something upset John” and we’ll probably never pin it down neatly. But as I said, there's are millions of reasons why a relationship can end.
I think we are almost completely in agreement, actually. :)
"So, personally, I think it's not crazy to say that they were more than friends before 1968 and they both knew it, at least to an extent." 100% agree, not crazy at all. But I think knowing and talking about it openly are very, very different things. A discussion (which turned into a terrible row) could've blown things up, not because of "rejection" or "unrequited" feelings, but because of just fumbling a hard-to-have conversation. Or avoidance. Or hurtful words. Etc. "So for me, the India “rejection” theory doesn’t really fit John’s temperament or the durability of their bond up to that point." Well, same, but I'm not arguing for that! But something happened, and whatever it was made John bitter and hurt for the rest of time. If John & Paul were lovers in 1968, that would mean everything was groovy until John just abruptly threw it all away?!? Why? And if he did just dump his boyfriend of what, 5-6 years out of NOWHERE... Why would he expect ex-boyfriend to be OK with that? with no explanation? And to be OK with him bringing his new girlfriend into their workplace every day? HUH? That makes no sense either. **I vote that we eliminate the term "rejection" in all future discussions- it seems such a triggering word for people and always devolves into nastiness. John and Paul loved each other, we all agree and should therefore just concede that point and stop arguing about it.
I don't think it was so sudden. Their relationship continued being intense in 1968. Yoko noticed it just weeks after being in the studio (there's something definitely very strong between John and Paul), Francie also noticed it, and Apple staff called Paul "John's princess" at that time too. I have a theory, and it's that John ranting about Paul wanting a "complete family life" and that Linda "knows what he wants and has give it to him" has to do with John's hurt. Paul wanted a family and kids. If John wanted their relationship to become more serious, this would absolutely be a problem. Even though they were both in love with each other, they had different wishes at the time. John talking about Yoko and saying that now he can finally "hold his best friend without..." tells me he wanted a serious/open relationship with his best friend (who could that be?). As much as Paul loved John, he would never agree to that, as it was still risky (even though homosexuality was decimalized in 1967, which is something people rarely bring up, and it could motivated John to want something more serious with Paul). So these differences could have caused tension between them. And let's remember that Paul was very jealous of Yoko (and not just because she was interfering with his musical partnership with John, or annoyed because she was in the studio all the time). Paul has admitted it, Francie noticed it, and John himself said it (he said "he was jealous because up until then, Paul had all my attention, all my love"). So, as you also said, the feelings were clearly romantic from both sides. Paul himself said that they both "spurred each other into marriage", and that he "got with Linda" after "feeling left out of the picture" by John being with Yoko. And John then rushed to marry Yoko afterwards. To me this is classic ex behavior. If they weren't in some kind of romantic entanglement, it's very hard to explain this. And it's hard to believe that two people who were crazy in love as they were would never make a move on each other, at least once. I don't know if you have read my previous posts, but I've been in contact with someone who's doing research on this and has interviewed a few people close to Paul in the late 60's, and they all agreed they were more than friends, based on many behaviors they witnessed (they weren't always so subtle about their love for each other). They didn't know the full extent of it, of course, as no one knows what John and Paul did behind closed doors. But that's what convinced me of them being far more than friends.
Paul wanted a family and kids. If John wanted their relationship to become more serious, this would absolutely be a problem. Even though they were both in love with each other, they had different wishes at the time. That's a fine theory, but wouldn't John feel rebuffed by that? The point I'm always trying to make is that this would feel exactly the same as a rejection, even if Paul loved him equally and they were sexually involved (to whatever degree). This is why whether or not they were having sex isn't really that important. The question is what broke them apart?
Exactly! I feel that John was angry and hurt because of that. He might have actually felt it was a rejection, even if Paul wasn't rejecting him. Maybe Paul thought he could have a family and keep his relationship with John as it was before, both at the same time. Who knows? (John was married to Cyn and Paul was dating Jane while they had their own relationship, however far it went). But John likely wanted something more exclusive with Paul. And because Paul showed romantic jealousy towards John being with Yoko, that tells me Paul didn't want their relationship to end. John probably wanted to get a reaction from Paul.
We have reached symbiosis! :) I also think it's probably something like this, either with or without sex (I don't have a preference either way and think both could potentially fit the theory, which may be the only point we disagree on).
