#touching is good

[coupleofdays]

All bow down before the Nintendo DS Dommy Mommy:

[crepesuzette2023]

https://www.tumblr.com/alvamarleen/67986195805/les-encastr%C3%A9s-2005-by-agn%C3%A8s-geoffray?source=share

john and paul in others?

Oh, bless you, anon! Yes, absolutely!

Them. Touching is good, but (as always!) Lennon & McCartney go too far.

"I wish I had sat and just hugged John all the time when we were together. (…) I'd just sit around and hug him forever. That's the depth of my feeling for him". Paul McCartney, 2020

[thecoleopterawithana]

Visit Original Link

Paul McCartney is asked about his favourite Lennon composition (18 November 2020).

BUXTON: Speaking of John, I have a question from Louis Theroux.

PAUL: Alright!

BUXTON: And he wants to know what your favourite Lennon song was, from the Beatles era.

PAUL: From the Beatles era, there’s a few. You know, they always ask you, “What’s your favourite song?” But there’s a few. “Strawberry Fields Forever” I loved. “Across The Universe” I loved. “Julia”, which is about the mum he couldn’t live with. So I loved the poignancy of that. ‘Cus I’d been with him, ‘round to Julia’s house to visit her. And I could— I knew how deeply he loved her. So, “Julia” I’d go with. And then later, from his post-Beatles work, “Beautiful Boy”, about Sean, was I think a really great song.

BUXTON: Yes, with the “Life is what happens to you / While you're busy making other plans” line.

PAUL: You know, the boy’s no slouch! I mean, now I can look back on it and think, “God, what a lovely guy! How privileged was I to run into him, in Liverpool?” And I think we both felt the same about each other. Just a really quite chance meeting. It was through a mate of mine that I met John, but it was by chance, there was no set up. We didn’t go to the same school, but I went to the same school as the guy who introduced us. So, you know, thinking back on it, I do think, “Oh god, we were very lucky.” I was thinking the other day, actually— I thought, “I wish I just sat and hugged him, all the time we were together.” But as you know, Adam, that would probably be slightly out of line. But it’s the kind of thing you think, you know, “What about that?” But guys didn’t do that kind of thing where I’m from.

BUXTON: Yeah, maybe that’s what alcohol's for, though.

PAUL: [Laughs] What, hugging a lot?

BUXTON: Yeah, enabling you to hug and be hugged.

PAUL: Yeah, well, I know what you mean...

BUXTON: It shouldn’t just be alcohol.

PAUL: I know what you mean. You know, what happens in later years, now looking back on it all, you just think of little things. You think, “Oh, that’s why that happened!” Or whatever. Or you may just think, “Oh, just sit around and hug him forever.” ‘Cus that’s the depth of my feeling, for him. 

[thecoleopterawithana]

I follow your blog for a while now and I'm surprised how you now post things about their " bromance " when in the past you were clearly referring to an unrequited crush from Lennon toward McCartney. Have you changed your mind ? I find it confusing now.

Hi there, dear anon!

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that this ask was prompted, among other things, by me reblogging this scientific study about nonsexual physical affection between male friends, and my more abundant usage of the tag "When you're the best friend that I've ever had".

I just want to start by saying that I believe the development of our opinions as we gain more information is something to be expected and even welcomed. If one is trying to understand what really happened, it won't do to get too attached to one particular narrative or the other. So if you find yourself thinking that perhaps things weren't quite as you believed they were, that's okay.

I must also clarify that — and perhaps I'm mistaken — I don't remember ever "clearly referring to an unrequited crush from Lennon towards McCartney." Especially because I don't think I’ve ever held those certainties about the levels of reciprocity in their relationship. If I ever used this kind of absolutist language before, I apologize.

That being said, at this point in time, I still think that there were romantic and sexual elements to their relationship. But however these elements manifested, I do believe that they were still just a facet of their dynamic. A facet that, to be honest, seems to me to be dwarfed by their friendship and creative partnership.

(At the same time I say this, I question if it's even possible to untangle the complexity of their feelings and neatly categorize them as intellectual, creative, professional, platonic, romantic, sexual, spiritual, etc. — whatever any of this means — and weight their “value/importance” against each other.)

But what I mean by my previous statement is that whatever romantic or sexual tensions existed, I don't feel like those were their main focus or the lens by which their relationship was colored. That whatever they may have felt, wanted, or done, I think in their minds they were best friends and creative partners first.

Even within John — who arguably was the one to more clearly express his want for more physical contact, including of the sexual kind — these wants don't appear to me to be just physically motivated. 

I've spoken before about how, for the romantic John, at a certain point, sex needed to be about more than just physical pleasure.

Growing up in an amatonormative society, he'd come to see a monogamous amorous (romantic/sexual) relationship as the ultimate manifestation of intimacy. A testament to the emotional closeness in the relationship. The final proof that he was loved.

So rather than having sex with Paul being the final victory for some long game a “blue-balled” John was playing, the sexual relationship was a “means” for an emotionally assured “end”.

That’s one of the reasons why I believe that India and its fallout was not about the negotiation of a sexual relationship, but rather a need for reaffirmation of their emotional one.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to portrait the emotional side of things as somehow more valuable or virtuous than the physical. I’m just presenting my perspective of how perhaps it was like for them.

And maybe this is why there seems to be confusion regarding my thoughts on how their love manifested. After all, strong emotional bonds are present in both platonic and amorous relationships. 

So I don’t feel as if me focusing on how they were best friends, “mates”, “bros”, necessarily excludes considering an amorous (romantic/sexual) side to their dynamic. But I choose this focus because it appears to me that the non-amorous aspects of their relationship were the most prevalent. 

And that doesn’t make their relationship somehow “less” or diminishes the love they had for each other one bit.

[thecoleopterawithana]

Hello, I'm the last anon you answered to. I'm sorry if I came out as defensive because it wasn't my intention. In fact I've always thought that John was bisexual until I started questioning everything. ( I'm a bisexual guy myself and I'm perfectly happy with the way I am ! ) It's just that I feel like Yoko would just say whatever she wants on John to suit her agenda. John's sexuality had always been an interesting topic and dropping something like that would gaib her publicity this is why I --

I question the authenticity of her claims. She could have lied about it just to attract attention… And I’d be disappointed because John was in fact my idol and he gave me the strength to come out as bi to my family. But there’s so many anecdotes about him being homophobic that it just makes me sad and this is why I hardly doubt that he was a bisexual man…As for the Cynthia quote I heard her say something like “ John was afraid of homosexuality just like everyone ) in a video on Youtube –

I am very conflicted because I’ve watched videos of John ( interviews etc ) and many comments said that he was very skilled at manipulating people and wasn’t as honest as he appeared to be, which is why I doubt. John had always been the rebellious type and I started thinking that he was using the bisexuality topic to shock and make people talk about it which is disappointing. Was he dropping hints that he was bi to piss off people and make publicity ? This is what I believe : (There is also -

Something he said to Alaister Taylor where he said that he was trying to spread the rumor that he was gay or bi just for fun and he told him that he would never shag a man because just the thought of it turned him off… Yet he also told him that he adored Brian so much that he would have done anything with him ( he contradict himself here. ) So yeah I didn’t want to be rude. I apologize. I think I need reassurance. Could you please analyse everything I said if u don’t mind please ? : (

-

Anon 2

At the very least all these years later isn’t it circumstantially suggested that John had very private gay encounters, and was uncomfortable making them public, yet wanted to hint at them so he could deal with this matter int he future? He was protecting his privacy and his ego, and perhaps wasn’t yet ready to reveal either his encounters or mixed feelings of bisexuality. His encounters have been protected by those with whom he was involved, people thameant a lot to him, no?

-

Anon 3

hey! by any chance, do you have knowledge of the quotes where john said “sex with girls felt like a performance after the first time” and “i was never sexually attracted to women before yoko”? i am SURE i’ve seen the first one somewhere on tumblr, though the second one is more of a quote of a quote so i’m not sure if it’s real or not dfkdjk thanks, anyway!

-

Anon 4

Hello! Is it true that John used to be very attracted to the drag scene in St Pauli ( I guess that was the town I read about ) and that basically the drag / gay scene made him feel comfortable and at home? Says a lot about him!

-

@tbhmarjj

I adore you, thank u for this blog and ur beautiful mind. i doubt johns bisexuality at times tbh considering he went to great lengths for publicity and he wanted to be an LGBT ally, be cool and outspoken and as he himself said it was trendy to be bi. but then again he was obsessed with Paul in so many ways and he was the embodiment of John’s ideal man. beautiful, talented, intellectual. I’ll be patiently awaiting ur posts exploring Paul’s views on johns sexuality.Thank u

-

Hello again, anon! 

I want to begin by thanking you for getting back to me after I answered your ask and for clarifying where you were coming from when you wrote it. It really is quite hard to fully get the tone of a written message, especially one that is so short that you have no context to draw from to get the emotional meaning behind it. It really appeared to me when I read it that the concern was not who was saying it (Yoko) but about what was being said (John was bisexual). I can now see that was not the case and I appreciate that you’ve made that clear. 

I also hope you don’t mind, but I’ve taken the opportunity to include in this answer all of the other asks I’ve been receiving regarding John’s sexuality. It’s clearly a topic of great interest in this community. So I’ll be attempting to address all the points raised here. Again, this is nothing definitive; only my personal readings of the situation as I find it at the moment.

Before I do answer, though, I’d just like everyone to take a deep breath and a step back. Let’s try to examine this topic a bit more objectively. 

I understand that sex is kind of major in our society. Our notion of identity is tightly bound to our classified sexuality and gender. Sexual relationships (or amorous relationships) are seen as the epitome of human connection and the ideal everyone should be striving for. And people fundamentally want to be loved and not alone, so it makes sense that figuring out who is a potential companion (and if that companion is interested back) is such a big deal.

But despite these layers of meaning and societal pressures, we should keep in mind what sex represents, essentially, from an evolutionary point of view. 

For social animals who derive pleasure from sexual stimulation, sexual intercourse is – like all the other kinds of affection – a way to build connections. 

If you want to find examples in nature, just look at our ape cousins, the bonobos. The also called pygmy chimpanzee lives in a matriarchal society where sexual behaviour plays an essential role in strengthening social bonds, lowering tension and keeping the peace. Bonobos don’t discriminate between gender or age (except between mothers copulating with their own adult sons, so as to prevent cross-breeding). It’s the true “free love” society; evolution took “make love, not war” and ran with it. 

Our own culture seems more similar to that of bonobos’ northern neighbours, the common chimp. Their patriarchy is more conservative regarding sexual intercourse, which is mainly used for reproduction purposes, and their power structure is based around intricate political games, where males form alliances and try to get public support in order to overthrow the ruling party.

I find it endlessly curious to look at these two species, whose physical separation by the Congo river made them diverge so starkly in their social organization, and compare them to the struggle between these same two natures that we find in our own society. 

All this to say that, from a simply biological point of view, I have to agree with John and Yoko when they say that everyone must be bisexual. If sexual intercourse as a social behaviour is, inherently, all about establishing bonds and connections, the extent to which those connections are “allowed” to be built depends entirely on the hierarchal structure that same society is trying to preserve. In other words, what is classified as morally right or wrong is more reflective of the rules in place to keep that society working as it is, than it is of what is naturally present as a drive. 

If your brain is primed to seek pleasure and sexual intercourse brings you pleasure independently of the partner’s gender, then the partner’s gender should be inconsequential.

But unlike bonobos, humans are kind of touchy about touching. So there are other levels of information influencing behaviour. The processes of socialization – of internalizing the norms and ideologies of society – and enculturation – by which people learn the dynamics of their surrounding culture and acquire values and norms appropriate or necessary in that culture and worldviews – are as determinant as the genetic factors influencing behaviour. In fact, this added education can be so effective in curbing your “primal instincts”, that one might forget they have them in the first place. 

Thus, the concepts of gender identity and sexual orientation are a constantly shifting construct based on the various interactions between your genetic makeup and social influences. 

I just think that, in order to have this discussion, it’s important to separate the various levels of it and be clear about which we are referring to.

There is the basic evolutionary drive to seek pleasure and form connections.

There is the social education about that same drive and how it is allowed to manifest itself.

And integrating all these different signals and information – various potentials which manifested as attraction – there finally is a behaviour, a choice.

And finally, there’s the external point of view of other members of society looking in and trying to discern other people’s drives and how they relate to their choices (that’s us now). The problem is, we often throw our own drives and choices into the mix, especially with regards to something as personally defining as sexual orientation. 

So we have to make very clear in our minds what is the end goal here. Why are we interested in discussing this topic? Are we looking to discern as much of the truth as we can get it, objectively trying to understand these human beings? Or are we trying to confirm our own projections on them? And please, don’t take me wrong. All these are valid reasons to be interested in a subject. Often how it resonates with us, so personally, is vitally important to reaching a greater understanding about ourselves and learning how to communicate that to others. 

But in the same way a piece of music can make you have a transformative emotional experience that the artist didn’t necessarily go through, it’s important to remember that our own inner-life might be affecting how we examine others. Better be mindful of what we project, lest we think are finally seeing inside another person when in fact we are only looking at our own reflection. (And honestly, I believe getting to truly know ourselves in this processes can be a hundred times more valuable than knowing the other. By learning to recognize ourselves we can better understand other people and vice-versa.) 

So if it is important to you that John is bisexual, my honest opinion is that all the information can be read in a way that confirms it. We’ll hardly ever know for sure, and based on what we do know, that can certainly be the takeaway. 

But if we want to objectively examine John’s sexuality, we shouldn’t bring in a confirmation bias. Meaning that we should be emotionally detached from the outcome, as long as it is as close to the truth as we can get. But this is only where I’m coming from, and I’m a bit of a scientist. It’s totally fair if you’re not in it for the same reasons. Though again, working under the assumption that you want to know my stance on it, let’s proceed.

I understand your reservations regarding Yoko as an unreliable narrator. To analyse Yoko’s motivations would be an interesting topic, but one which I will not go in at the moment as I don’t feel sufficiently informed about Yoko as a person to give an extensive examination.  

But in my opinion, there is a whole lot of other information available from which to draw from other than Yoko’s statements. 

I also get your and @tbhmarjj‘s concerns about John’s declarations during the 70s. But it’s the same question I posed in the previous post: Was the “bisexual chic” fad of the 1970s merely a publicity stunt for those involved? Even if it was, did it make the experimentations undertaken any less true? Were they just faking it for the press or were they finally allowed to try and be open about it? 

Because I come from the biological background that places sex as a positive social interaction like any other, meaning that its purpose is to create bonds and the pleasure is our “reward” for doing it, I tend to believe that the behaviours were genuine. The drive there is real. As real as the internal constraints that would act on them as a result of societies shifting expectations and permissions. And this socialization is as determinant in the creation of sexual attraction as anything. So based on our definition of sexual orientation, all those bi rockstars of the 70s could have effectively stopped identifying as bi once the new social norm overrun their own internal drives and the previous less conservative status quo. That didn’t make them less bi when they were. 

It’s funny, but in terms of gender and sexuality, nothing is real so everything is. 

So yeah, I think that John could have been bisexual the second he felt he was. But because the social tide was likely to shift, it was better to also maintain a measure of deniability: it was just for show, it’s not serious, I was just taking the mickey out of you and you fell for it! Of course John was smart enough to leave space there to retract. He and Paul had mastered the art as communicators through song. They could claim them to mean everything and nothing as it suited them. As Anon 2 says, it’s a protective measure. 

So I think that at some point in time, John genuinely identified as bisexual. Now whether he acted on it or not is another questioned entirely. As Anon 2 points out, there are various circumstantial accounts, but these are always tougher to verify. 

I tend to believe Yoko when she says:

So did Lennon ever have sex with men?

“No, I don’t think so,” says Ono. “The beginning of the year he was killed, he said to me, ‘I could have done it, but I can’t because I just never found somebody that was that attractive.’ Both John and I were into attractiveness—you know—beauty.”

I ask what she makes of the people outside the building, the crowds still at Strawberry Fields.

Ono misunderstands, or mishears (or is simply focused on the last strand of our conversation), and continues to talk about sex.

“I don’t make anything out of it. When you’re not really interested in that sort of sex, you don’t think about it. Both John and I surprisingly were very passive people. Unless somebody made a thing out of it, if they made a move, I wouldn’t even think about it.”

— in Yoko Ono: I Still Fear John’s Killer by Tim Teeman for the Daily Beast (13 October 2015).

At least I believe he at least never “fully” did it, in the sense of full-blown anal sex. I think there might have been “milder” homosexual interactions, such as handjobs, that could be rationalized as not entirely gay (the thing with Brian in Spain being one of them.)

Regarding the drag scene in Hamburg Anon 4 was asking about, I agree that it also provides information about John. Though I think it’s mainly about his gender identity rather than his sexual orientation (though the two are invariably linked in the construct as well).

Here are some quotes about it:

With his four months’ greater experience, Sheridan was an ideal guide to the Reeperbahn’s more exotic diversions, like the Schwülen laden. Stu Sutcliffe later wrote home in amazement that the transvestites were ‘all harmless and very young’ and it was actually possible to speak to one ‘without shuddering’. Though raised amid the same homophobia as his companions, John seemed totally unshocked by St Pauli’s abundant drag scene; indeed, he often seemed actively to seek it out. ‘There was one particular club he used to like,’ Tony Sheridan remembers, ‘full of these big guys with hairy hands, deep voices—and breasts. But they used to make an effort to talk English. There was something about the place that seemed to make John feel at home.’

— In John Lennon: The Life by Philip Norman (2008).

And according to Horst Fascher (bouncer at the Indra Club and the Kaiserkeller):

It wasn’t just girls that were on offer to young english rockers. Monica’s Bar was Hamburg’s notorious transvestite club. For one or two English musicians, Monica’s was just another part of the Hamburg experience.

HORST FASCHER: One night Monica said, “Come, come and look. One of your boys is in the séparé.” “And who is it?” And she said, “One of the Beatles.” “Let me look”. She said, “Be careful. Look only sneaky-like.” But I did. I grabbed the curtain, pulled it aside and there was sitting John in… in a position with that girl, and you know. He felt really ashamed and I said, “John, don’t worry man. I did that all before.”

— In The Beatles Biggest Secrets. [Transcription is my own and I’m not too certain of it.]

Though there certainly might have been an aspect of sexual interest to it, I think John’s fascination with the drag scene was also the kinship with the queerness he felt inside himself; mainly in regards to him wanting to express his more sensitive side, which is coded as feminine in our society. So I think seeing men indulging in femininity and nonnormative behaviour resonated with him.

Also, I think it’s even more important to understand John’s relationship with sex in general, regardless of the partner. 

To that end, the quote mentioned by Anon 3 is of special relevance:

When I was a kid, I wanted to shag every attractive woman I saw. I used to dream that it would be great if you could just click your fingers and they would strip off and be ready for me. I would spend most of my teenager years fantasising about having this kind of power over women. The weird thing is, when the fantasies came true they were not nearly so much fun. One of my most frequent dreams was seducing two girls together, or even a mother and a daughter. That happened in Hamburg a couple of times and the first time it was sensational. The second time it got to feel like I was giving a performance. You know how when you make love to a woman that the moment you come, you get a buzz of relief and just for a moment you don’t need anyone or anything. The more women I had, the more the buzz would turn into a horrible feeling of rejection and revulsion at what I’d been doing. As soon as I’d been with a woman, I wanted to get the hell out.

— John Lennon to Alistair Taylor (Brian Epstein’s assistant), 1965. In his autobiography With the Beatles: A Stunning Insight by The Man who was with the Band Every Step of the Way (2003).

And another important passage is in reference to Janov’s Primal Scream Therapy:

Well, his thing is to feel the pain that’s accumulated inside you ever since your childhood. […] The worst pain is that of not being wanted, of realising your parents do not need you in the way you need them. When I was a child I experienced moments of not wanting to see the ugliness, not wanting to see not being wanted. This lack of love went into my eyes and into my mind. […] Most people channel their pain into God or masturbation or some dream of making it. […] But for me at any rate it was all part of dissolving the Godtrip or father-figure trip. Facing up to reality instead of always looking for some kind of heaven.

— John Lennon, interviewed by Robin Blackburn and Tariq Ali for Red Mole (8-22 March 1971). [I really can’t stop pointing to this quote as one of the most important in order to understand John Lennon.]

As he reiterates in ‘I Found Out’ (1970): Some of you sitting there with yer cock in yer hand / Don’t get you nowhere don’t make you a man

To me, John’s pursuit of sex is, like most things in his life, essentially about filling this black-hole of emotional pain. He internalized the lack of love from his parents, which went into his eyes and mind, until he himself believed he was unlovable. This lack of self-esteem translates into a lot of pain and the need for an external solution for that pain. 

The external solution is not wanting to feel so vulnerable any more. This can be achieved either by trying to seize control, by exerting it over others or having them look up to you (e.g. “fantasising about having this kind of power over women”; “some dream of making it”). Or it can be achieved by handing control over and being taken care of (e.g. “people channel their pain into God”, “I’ve seen religion from Jesus to Paul”.)

Sex as an activity can play into these various dynamics: it can be used to feel power over others, as John started out; it can be used as an escapist distraction, like a drug (e.g. “you get a buzz of relief and just for a moment you don’t need anyone or anything”); and it can be used as giving yourself over and being loved, looking to receive that which you can’t get from yourself. 

As time passed and the first two solutions stopped working, I think John focused on the third: sex in the context of an emotionally close relationship as the ultimate intimacy and proof that he was loved. And because he wanted to absolve himself of responsibility, to be taken care of, his partner needed to be someone on the other end, someone who had control. In our culture, this reads as a masculine figure (e.g. “father-figure trip”). 

This may be from a female, whose masculine qualities were what attracted John in the first place:

In this intense, intimate and revealing original cassette recording of a private conversation in 1969 between John Lennon and Yoko Ono, the couple speaks primarily about Yoko’s past relationships, her music and art, and their random views on sex, love, promiscuity, and homosexuality. […] [Lennon] adds that he had never met an attractive woman that had sexually aroused him to any great degree.

— Description of the 45-minute audiotape auctioned in 2009 by Alexander Autographs.

I used to say to him, ‘I think you’re a closet fag, you know.’ Because after we started to live together, John would say to me, ‘Do you know why I like you? Because you look like a bloke in drag. You’re like a mate.’

— Yoko Ono, interviewed for New York Magazine (25 May 1981).

Or the partner he was looking for could be found in the (often dominant) person he was most emotionally invested in his whole life. 

All I want is you / Everything has got to be just like you want it to

And in a society that establishes that the closest two people can be, the greatest intimacy they can share, the ultimate declaration of love is to live in a monogamous amorous relationship, is it any wonder that John felt he could only believe in their relationship if they were together like that? Is it any wonder that he would doubt Paul’s affections because Paul apparently wasn’t willing to express them like that? 

JOHN: It’s a plus, it’s not a minus. The plus is that your best friend, also, can hold you without… I mean, I’m not a homosexual, or we could have had a homosexual relationship and maybe that would have satisfied it, with working with other male artists. [faltering] An artist – it’s more – it’s much better to be working with another artist of the same energy, and that’s why there’s always been Beatles or Marx Brothers or men, together. Because it’s alright for them to work together or whatever it is. It’s the same except that we sleep together, you know? I mean, not counting love and all the things on the side, just as a working relationship with her, it has all the benefits of working with another male artist and all the joint inspiration, and then we can hold hands too, right?

SHEVEY: But Yoko is a very independent person. Isn’t it— [inaudible]

JOHN: Sure, and so were the men I worked with. The only difference is she’s female.

SHEVEY: But you didn’t find it difficult to make that transition?

JOHN: Oh yeah. I mean, it took me four years. I’m still not – I’m still only coming through it, you know.

— Interview with Sandra Shevey (June 1972).

I know I keep posting this quote, but I don’t think he can make it more obvious than that: it’s not about the sex. Or rather, the sex is not the primary thing. 

He didn’t push all those years because he was uncontrollably horny for Paul. John just wants a physical manifestation, a more tangible “proof”, of his emotional connections. He wants to be able to hold hands, be held and perhaps also have sex with his best friend; he needs those proofs of love through the means of physical affection because he won’t believe Paul’s love for him is there otherwise (or that it’s as great as John’s).

Would society normalizing other kinds of relationships – such as friendships – to be as important or on the same level as amorous (romantic/sexual) ones, have helped John and Paul? Most likely. 

Would society normalizing same-sex amorous relationships have helped John and Paul? Perhaps. (For this one we would have to look more closely at Paul’s needs and desires.)

All this to say that John’s idea of sexuality was extremely influenced by society, and in his case, the rule “amorous relationships are the normative ones” outweighed the “heterosexual relationships are the normative ones”. 

The conflict occurred when from Paul’s perspective, the priority of the rules was the other way around. I think Paul was ready to ignore society’s norm and live his life with his friendship with John as the most important relationship. But he also wanted a heterosexual one. (But more on that on a post of its own.)

For now, I hope I have more or less managed to express my thoughts on the matter of John’s sexuality. 

Thank you so much for reading through all that and for reaching out in the first place! I truly appreciate it!

[thecoleopterawithana]

Did I Ever Take You In My Arms

[Another instalment in the ‘Touching Is Good’ series, following themes previously explored in ‘I Want To Hold Your Hand’.]

The gesture of holding someone or being held in their arms is one of the best-known forms of physical affection. It is no wonder then that the concept makes frequent appearances in romantic songs, including the ones where our young Beatles express their idea of being loved:

Hold me tight Tell me I'm the only one And then I might Never be the lonely one So hold (hold) me tight (me tight) Tonight (tonight), tonight (tonight) It's you, you you you

And if Paul was asking for cuddles in 1961, by February 1963 both John and Paul were offering them, in one of those back-of-the-bus, truly conjoined writing sessions. 

I've got arms that long to hold you And keep you by my side I've got lips that long to kiss you And keep you satisfied

So, I think we’ve established “holding” as one of their idyllic expressions of love. And if John seemed to establish “holding hands” as a shorthand phrase for his desires of physical affection, the next step to a proper full-on hug came to be invaluable in the communication of what they couldn’t say in words:

To Taylor's dismay, the three Beatles greeted them with hugs and kisses. "This is the new thing!" Lennon told him. "You hug your friends when you meet them and show them you’re glad to see them. Don’t stand there shaking hands as if everyone’s got some disease! Get close to people!"

— John Lennon, picking up Derek and Joan Taylor at the airport, 28 May 1967. In Joe Goodden’s Riding So High: The Beatles and Drugs (2017).

John dives deeper into the subject some months later, in a heart-wrenchingly raw examination of his feelings of depersonalization, of becoming adrift “alone on a draft in the middle of the universe”, and how contact (and of the physical kind) with the other Beatles – specifically Paul – helps anchor him to reality: 

If I am on my own for three days, doing nothing, I almost completely leave myself. I’m at the back of my head. I can see my hands and realize they’re moving, but it’s like a robot who’s doing it. I have to see the others to see myself. Then I realize there is someone like me so it’s reassuring. We were recording the other night, and I just wasn’t there. Neither was Paul. We were like two robots going through the motions. We do need each other a lot. When we used to get together after a month off, we used to be embarrassed about touching each other. We’d do an elaborate handshake just to hide the embarrassment… or we did mad dances. Then we got to hugging each other. Now we do the Buddhist bit… arms around. It’s just saying hello, that’s all.

— John Lennon, interview with Hunter Davies (late 1967).

The “Buddhist bit” refers to the practice of “hugging meditation”, as observed by @monkberries in this post. 

Introduced by Zen Buddhist monk and peace activist Thich Nhat Hanh in the late 60′s, it rose out of the need to adapt his teachings – mutual understanding as the way to spiritual intimacy – to the body language of the West, as he recounts in his book How To Love (2014):

In 1966, a friend took me to the Atlanta Airport. When we were saying good-bye she asked, “Is it all right to hug a Buddhist monk?” In my country, we’re not used to expressing ourselves that way, but I thought, “I’m a Zen teacher. It should be no problem for me to do that.” So I said, “Why not?” and she hugged me, but I was quite stiff. While on the plane, I decided that if I wanted to work with friends in the West, I would have to learn the culture of the West.

At the core of the practice is the very conscious choice to be aware of the presence of this other human being in your arms, and just how they make you feel. Necessarily, it involves a shedding of the usual “Northern men” hang-ups, in order to enter a state of true communicative openness and emotional honesty.

According to the practice, you have to really hug the person you are holding. You have to make him or her very real in your arms, not just for the sake of appearances, patting him on the back to pretend you are there, but breathing consciously and hugging with all your body, spirit, and heart. Hugging meditation is a practice of mindfulness. “Breathing in, I know my dear one is in my arms, alive. Breathing out, she is so precious to me.” If you breathe deeply like that, holding the person you love, the energy of your care and appreciation will penetrate into that person and she will be nourished and bloom like a flower.

And this phrasing made me wonder if John started to pick up on his idea that “Love is a flower and you have to water it” even back then.

Thich Nhat Hanh goes on to explain the specific procedures of the practice and the philosophy behind it:

Hugging is a deep practice; you need to be totally present to do it correctly. When I drink a glass of water, I invest one hundred percent of myself in drinking it. You can train yourself to live every moment of your daily life like that.

Before hugging, stand facing each other as you follow your breathing and establish your true presence. Then open your arms and hug your loved one. During the first in-breath and out-breath, become aware that you and your beloved are both alive; with the second in-breath and out-breath, think of where you will both be three hundred years from now; and with the third in-breath and out-breath, be aware of how precious it is that you are both still alive.

When you hug this way, the other person becomes real and alive. You don’t need to wait until one of you is ready to depart for a trip; you may hug right now and receive the warmth and stability of your friend in the present moment. (...)

When we hug, our hearts connect and we know that we are not separate beings. Hugging with mindfulness and concentration can bring reconciliation, healing, understanding, and much happiness.

We can see how this technique might have been crucial in helping John come down and become aware not only of others but especially of himself; how it helped him heal and become more confident than usual in the notion that he is indeed loved and not alone. 

For Paul, it was perhaps a difficult, but nonetheless essential exercise in emotional frankness and vulnerability, where he really had to come to terms with his own feelings, and more importantly, open up his heart enough to accept that same love back.

But the perfectly in tune state of ‘67 would soon be disrupted (sadly, but not surprisingly) by a breakdown in communication. 

On the advantages of the new “boat”, John had this to say:

It’s a plus, it’s not a minus. The plus is that your best friend, also, can hold you without… I mean, I’m not a homosexual, or we could have had a homosexual relationship and maybe that would have satisfied it, with working with other male artists.

— John Lennon, interview with Sandra Shevey (June, 1972). 

So it appears that at some point, John’s need for physical intimacy had been left unsatisfied (due to internal or external pressures remains to be known).

Though earlier, on March of that same year, Paul had made a cover of Gerald H. Nelson and Fred B. Burch’s song “Tragedy”, popularized Thomas Wayne and the DeLons in 1959. It ended up not being included in Wings’ Red Rose Speedway (1973), but the chorus goes as follows:

Oh, come back Have me here Hold me, love Be sincere You've gone from me, oh, oh, tragedy    

What did come out on Red Rose Speedway was a second “Hold Me Tight”:

I've waited all my life for you Hold me tight Take care of me and I'll be right Hold me tight, hold me tight Hold me tight, hugga me right Hold me tight, squeeza me tight Hold me tight, hugga me right Hold me tight, Hold me tight, Hold me tight

Eventually, when re-approaches were made, John and Paul would take up hugging again as a show of affection. 

When I opened the outer door, I saw it was actually Paul and Linda. They’d been singing "We Wish You A Merry Christmas.” I was really surprised and said, “I think you’re looking for the guys in the bedroom.” As they came in, everyone was really happy to see each other. John and Yoko jumped up when Paul and Linda walked into the bedroom. They were obviously excited to see each other again. There was a lot of hugging and catching up, and we had a round of tea.

— Bob Gruen, John Lennon: The New York Years  

They [John and Paul] seemed like giddy school chums. Hugging, patting each other on the back… like high-school buddies who hadn’t seen each other for a long time and really liked each other.”

— Bob Gruen, on the Christmas meeting between the Lennons and the McCartneys (December 1975).

But there was still an ocean between them, and sometime in 1976, John seemed to be in an especially wistful mood, as he sang on a demo of “Real Life”:

Was I just dreaming or was it only Yesterday

I used to hold you in my arms

And now a baby, and a another on the way

[Indescernable] in a farm

Now must we be alone?

If it don’t feel right, don’t do it

If it don’t look right, look right through it

If it don’t feel right, don’t do it

Just call him on the phone

But in the end, just when tentative steps where being taken for there to be more open communication again, the possibilities were ripped from their arms:

If I had known John was going to die, I would have made a lot more effort to try and get a better relationship with him. But when he started slagging me off I was not prepared to say ‘Well, you’re quite right’, because I’m human. My big regret was that I could have told John to listen and put my arms round him.”

— Paul McCartney, interview for the Titbits Magazine (November 1983).

This and other regrets Paul explores in the beautiful song “This One” (first demo recorded on 29 December 1986), where he deals with his past reticence to more clearly demonstrate his love: 

Did I ever take you in my arms, Look you in the eye, tell you that I do, Did I ever open up my heart And let you look inside.

...

Did I ever touch you on the cheek Say that you were mine, thank you for the smile, Did I ever knock upon your door And try to get inside?

...

What opportunities did we allow to flow by Feeling like like the timing wasn't quite right? What kind of magic might have worked if we had stayed calm, Couldn't I have given you a better life?

Did you ever take me in your arms, Look me in the eye, tell me that you do? Did I ever open up my heart, Let you look inside?

If I never did it, I was only waiting For a better moment that didn't come. There never could be a better moment Than this one, this one.

Paul would go on to continue using the promise of hugging and physical affection as a demonstration of love in his music, as heard in the chorus of Flaming Pie’s (1997) “Calico Skies” (written in August 1991):

I will hold you for as long as you like I'll hold you for the rest of my life 

Overall, this lesson in bodily affection as a clear expression of your love is one  Paul would indeed treasure for the rest of his life, as he fondly recollects:

You remember little things about people. I remember sort of seeing [John] and he comes in and gives me a hug and says 'Touching is good.' I'll never forget that. Touching is good. So I do a lot of hugging now.

— Paul McCartney, interview with Jim Axelrod for CBS News (17 September 2005).

[marioshi64]

I'm flabbergasted that this is an actual website, and it's NOT a porn site: but a Nintendo commercial for the DS 

[marioshi64]

Some of these are insane, especially DreamLand 2's commercial