Re your post on the narrative surrounding John’s acceptance of his own sexuality
It’s definitely way off the mark for people to think he would have been open to any kind of actual, committed, gay relationship in the 60s in secret or with any level of openness, let alone a fully public one. I don’t think for one second he ever would have approached Paul for some kind of labeled relationship.
But I don’t think it’s divorced from reality that people perceive him as more open about it. While of course we can’t presume to know, but if you believe, as I do, that Paul did experience some level of same-sex attraction and/or experimented in some way- then John was the more open about it of the two.
Like many things in John’s life, he managed to rattle around between both extremes of the horseshoe. I think I relate to John in the way that he deeply yearns to be seen and understood while being absolutely terrified at times of the practice of it. Paul is much happier to keep it all himself thank you very much, never you mind about it, no reason to make a fuss and all that- that old wartime chin up mentality.
John needs his pain and messiness to be observed. The altercations make sense in a backward way- he was more impulsive and open about it, so he gets into more scraps when he feels it’s gone too far out of his control after fanning the flames himself.
But I also don’t think it’s that unusual that he had very different reactions about these things in different circumstances. I think he was willing to have a joke, even be vulnerable and let things slip and also to experiment with men when he felt he was with people he sufficiently trusted. He was a painfully public figure- there are other stories about all four of them having little freak outs when they suspected someone in their midst might be recording/photographing them or might sell them out.
John smacked a journalist’s tape recorder out of his hand when he jokingly went to ask a girl John was chatting up a question with it, according to Larry Kane, then apologised for it after he realised it was only a joke and it hadn’t been on. And that was just the hint of good old fashioned hetero infidelity.
It was illegal and could be utter social death (with the threat physical violence against you) in Liverpool to be outed even as a non-famous person, and that motivated his reactions. But also he was so used to people trying to expose him and sell him out to the press (see people stalking Cynthia and Julian to break the story) I think he was probably genuinely scared that when someone he didn’t trust started ribbing him, it could seriously damage him.
He obviously did go through periods of greater and lesser acceptance- but he beat up Bob then told Pete Shotton about him and Brian quite nonchalantly right afterwards, if I’m remembering right. (Someone correct me if I’m wrong on the order/timeline). And when he falls asleep on the floor of his attic with Pete, he doesn’t freak out about the closeness or no homo Pete, he freaks out that the housekeeper will find them, suspect something and (presumably, he worries) will tell Cynthia or worse. They all had to sack staff for leaking things and stealing things at various points.
Not to justify his reactions- but I think choosing what to share vs the immediate panic of realising someone might be about to find something out or reveal something against your will are very different. And it makes sense he reacted in the second scenario, even if it was obviously in destructive ways.
In 1963, it was far more socially acceptable to beat a man up than to be gay- the story about Bob barely dented them. Whereas Brian had been beaten, arrested and tried for being gay. Hence John’s Marlon Brando/Oscar Wilde quote (which is extra good because Brando also turns out to have had relationships with men which John probably didn’t know lol, but he correctly sensed the artifice and bravado in Brando’s image))
I suspect that through Brian, Victor Spinetti, Bob Fraser etc, he soon came to realise that there was a code of silence in journalism, politics,the law etc if you were a successful person and even if someone rang it in, the English papers weren’t going to run it, and among other factors that chilled him out a bit. And also just greater acceptance of it having been around more gay men and physically being out of Liverpool in much more liberal London. He told Hunter Davies the Brian thing for the book- perhaps he thought he wouldn’t run it, perhaps he wanted him to, perhaps he didn’t think about it either way and just wanted him to know. But whatever the thinking- it was something he chose to share.
Even in the US- I suspect he reacts when he feels he is losing control of the situation, being rejected or laughed at, and maybe this person will go and tell people and make it a joke or an unclean thing- so back out comes the macho front. Even when at times it feels like he wanted people to know, I doubt the fear of suddenly realising someone around him might go and tell on him ever left him. He was resistant to seeing a psychiatrist about his mental health because he was scared they would sell the story and leak his notes. And they very well might have, people did worse.
If he had lived I think he would have chosen to share more on his own terms.
Sorry this was long but I have lots of feelings about Johnny
This all feels like a pretty fair take on John's relationship with his sexuality, thank you for typing it up and bringing up how fame played into the whole thing – (Although slight correction: according to Pete Shotton, John told him about the Spain incident before the Wooler stuff – the rumours basically exploded upon their return, which was like a month before Paul's birthday) – but I'm mainly going to respond in the context of the post you're responding to.
The phrase I used was "on board with the whole gay thing" not "open", and I think these are two distinct things. I would agree that John was more open, because, as you described, John was more open about everything.
Conversely, Paul is a private person about most aspects of his life. And, while I personally don't believe Paul is hiding a queer identity, so his behaviour to me reads as fairly open and shut societal homophobia sprinkled with his personal insecurity regarding his less-than-macho presentation, I also know a fair amount of bi Paul truthers on tumblr think he is pretty unbothered by his sexuality and guarding it mostly because he guards most aspects of his personal life.
So yeah, John was verifiably more open, but even accepting the premise of Paul being some flavour of queer, I don't think you can conclude from his silence that he has more negative feelings towards his sexuality than John demonstrated. People can be open about aspects of themselves that they really don't feel good about.
