ash!

okay so last post scratched if you saw it because i forgot about the existence of this beatles song. anyway.

you all know the infamous live performance of "call me back again" where paul possibly sings "i call your name (john)"? i've never actually believed that i've been a bit of a silent killjoy because i hear "child" just as equally as "john"

well i convinced myself about it because you know the beatles song "i call your name"

it was mostly written by john and Already you can see the lyrical similarities to "call me back again" and like on its own that wouldn't actually convince me of anything at all beyond that they wrote together a lot and that paul was maybe being a lil tongue in cheek using a song john mostly wrote to do his yaoi howling. HOWEVER......

i actually listen way more to the mamas & the papas' cover from 1966:

and on the one Exact shared line with "call me back again" you'll never guess it lmfao

in the exact same whispery voice he does in that live performance. and he very Obviously would've heard this cover given it's a cover of one of their songs.

I think it's the way they looked at each other—the unguarded way they checked each other out. To me the songs they wrote are even more revealing, but many people dismiss that as wishful thinking, arguing that lyrics are always open to interpretation. But their eyes don’t lie, and their own words about each other only make that clearer.

Billy Lacaster: How's Paul like? I heard he was gay. Francie: He could have gone that way, but he didn't. He really didn’t dig fucking that much, if that’s any kind of answer.”

David Puttman: Paul fucked everything that moved — yet didn’t seem to want to.

Francie: He settled right into a chair, with me on his lap. The kisses started on the neck and worked their way into more interesting places. He seemed to rush into it, as if thinking about meant he wouldn’t make it. The relationship began on his ‘save me’ lament, not on a rush of sexual flashes. […] It’s not important sometimes if a person isn’t particularly good in bed. He had his hang-ups, and I think that he felt sometimes that he wasn’t manly enough.

Bill Harry: George had hundreds and hundreds of affairs. John Lennon was probably the most highly sexed Beatle, but I would put George next after him. (I know this one doesn't mention Paul but it's interesting he didn't seem to believe Paul was as "sexed" as the others).

Ken Brown: Paul didn’t bother with girls at all in those days. [1958-1960]

Francie’s quotes are from 1968, when Paul was in a very depressed and unstable state, so you could argue that what she described may have been circumstantial and not representative of him in general. But the other quotes are not from 1968, and they paint a similar pattern. I know this seems a bit different from the usual “sex gladiator” image Paul is given,and yes, he did sleep with a lot of women. That part isn’t in dispute. But the comments above make things feel more complicated, and they align with other things I’ve heard. It suggests that Paul’s womanizing may not have been driven solely by libido, but at least partly by performance — a kind of defense mechanism, maybe even a way to constantly reassure himself (and others) that he wasn't "queer". As I’ve discussed many times, Paul’s sexuality was questioned much more often than people realize, and his habit of repeatedly — and unprompted — stressing how “ungay” or “secure in his sexuality” he was only seems to reinforce that idea.

Bob Spitz, 2006

To me this supports my theory that the reason why biographers use suggestive language when talking about John and Paul it's because they were told things, but can't tell them explicitly. Just look at the things Bob himself said in his book and interviews:

Now this of course doesn't consider a lot of people (like Yoko) and factors but hey, this is the rough outline that makes the most sense to me out of anything I ever came up with (I'm not like... married to this - we will likely never know) and if I tried to explain what I think about the rest as well, we would be here until tomorrow. Phew.

Wow!! Thank you so much for sharing this, anon. You have a beautiful mind. Here's my thoughts.

- They were fucking each other and other men from the beginning, probably starting in Hamburg.

-- Yep. And women, obviously..

- John started to get more and more attached to Paul as time went on and pushed for a relationship.

-- I'm sure you didn't mean to make it sound this way, anon, but it feels very one-sided the way you put it. Paul may not have been as expressive as John by a long shot, but I think he was every bit as attached to John. I will agree that John did most of the dramatic reaching for increased depth in the relationship, but that's because he was an oscillating attachment in a relationship with an avoidant attachment which made him act usually in an anxious role. It's not that Paul didn't want to be close with John, it's just that when your mind works like Paul's does, you have no idea what a close relationship actually looks like. You have no idea what the other person sees you're lacking. I actually also tin-hat about John pushing for a relationship sometimes, but I don't think he would've seen any need for that until they were done touring. I don't know where you had the beginning of that pushing in your mental timeline, but I'd put it at the end of 66, after The Family Way and How I Won the War.

- Paul was willing to compromise on this to some extent, but valued family, security, and comfort, and enjoyed being with Jane.

-- I would love to know what you mean by compromise, here. If you mean he was willing to prioritize John and act in many ways like they were in an exclusive relationship without actually defining anything, I would agree, although with the caveat that in my view that's not him compromising with John that's just actually what he wants. I think one of the biggest desires in Paul's heart, for his whole life, (starting when he was like five, according to him) was to be a father. So I agree with you there. He wants to be both the things he admired in Jim and the things he always felt he deserved but never got from Jim. He loves kids, he understands how their hearts work etc. I might disagree on the security and comfort things, depending on what you mean by those things. Paul definitely craves financial security and safety from "getting in trouble". But other than that I think it's actually John that craves security, not Paul. As far as Jane goes, I think you were just trying to be polite and respectful to her, but I really don't think they generally enjoyed each other's company. You can have happy times with anyone, but I think for the most part they loved the idea of each other, and clashed terribly.

- During/after the India trip they got outed.

-- I would not be too surprised if this was true, but would love to see more evidence for this part of the theory.

- Jane and Cynthia broke up with Paul and John because they found out they were gay for each other or they were embarrassed that other people found out.

-- I disagree with half of this one. The idea of Cynthia breaking up with John is not super plausible to me, especially over something like this. On the way home from India, John confessed to her that he'd been rabidly cheating on her their whole marriage and she described it as actually one of the most tender and loving moments in their marriage. (((My tin hat is he told her about Paul here actually and it was a bit like Benny and Carmen from Overcompensating only they've been abusively married for years and it's the 60's.))) Then the fact that Cynthia found John and Yoko and sort of just left -- I think she actually apologized -- and was like okay how can we make this work? So I don't see it with Cynthia. Jane, I could absolutely see. Especially if she was worried about it getting out. There goes her professionally beneficial relationship. Plus Jane always hated John and she actually expected a modicum of respect from her fiance. I think she would've done it.

- Paul was paranoid about them being outed on a major scale in New York. This comes out in part in the form of threatening messages to Apple employees (who were referring to him as John's princess at the time)

-- Let's say your idea that they were outed in India to some people they really didn't trust was the case. Yes. Absolutely Paul would've been absolutely terrified paranoid out of his mind like that meme where the woman keeps seeing queer language everywhere and she's absolutely distraught would've been him. And he's definitely not acting mentally well. The whole time he's either high as fuck laughing at every word out of John's mouth or high as fuck dissociated to another dimension. I also definitely think the John's Princess -> evil postcards idea is very believable. And again, if he's in this paranoid state from something happening (the loss of control fear and the getting in trouble fears rearing their heads ready to kill) I can totally see it.

- Paul getting with Linda and getting her pregnant made John push more forcefully for a relationship.

-- He was Definitely pushing for Something during Get Back. And I tend to agree with you. I think by that point, what John wanted, was One Person. He wanted Paul to be able to hold his hand and pet his hair in the studio and be the person he went home with every night as well as his best friend and collaborator who it was handy to fuck. I struggle to imagine why he would think Paul would go for that, after the whole John's Princess thing ('what will people think I am in our creative partnership? Who writes the lyrics and who takes it up the ass?') and after Linda is carrying his child. (Like Paul's not going to feel immediately indebted to and protective over and responsible for and enamored by that person) I know John is aware of that and terrified and that's what you're saying but still.

- At the divorce meeting, John also announced that he wanted to come out publicly. Paul and Klein get him to promise he won't yet.

-- My thing with the whole wanting to come out publicly is this: then why didn't he? And why the hell would Yoko co-sign that? I do think the idea of Klein knowing is fascinating because my brain went like this thinking about that possibility. Yeah they would both (Paul and Klein) agree coming out would be bad for business ->But why wouldn't Klein ever out them after things went sour with Paul and then later everyone else? -> Because Paul would sue the shit out of him. -> oh, maybe that's part of why Paul went so strong with the law. To prove he was playing hard ball.

- John gets cold feet about leaving, Paul breaks it off privately and then ends the partnership Jane style.

-- I totally think John got cold feet. A mistake in many ways, he called it, as pointed out on AKOM. The whole breakup, like you said, was John continuously trying to push for some kind of change from Paul. Which you're saying is a relationship and a public one. Late 69 to early 70 was John regretting early-mid 69 and trying to walk it back and Paul being too (depressed, angry, scared, tired) to accept John's attempts at reconciliation. He did call John and they had the whole 'that makes two of us' conversation before he published that self interview, too, so I think you're right there as well.

[Hi Dennis. How was the lion feeding?...?]