#johns psyche

He’d say, “My dad left home when I was three, and my mother got run over and killed by an off-duty policeman outside the house, and my Uncle George died. Yeah, I’m bitter.” He told me once he thought he was a curse on the male line of the family because his dad had run away, and then he went to live with Auntie Mimi and Uncle George. Then George, whom he’d really liked, died. His mum was run over after she’d visited him, while walking to the bus stop down the street where he lived. He idolised her. Just having to accommodate all that would make you want to put up a few defences. The point is that most people don’t tend to show their emotions unless they are in private, but deep down, people are emotional, and all I’m really saying in this song is, “Love isn’t silly at all.”’

No straight man would accept John treating him like his literal girlfriend for years. It would become very annoying and inconvenient after a couple of months. And John wouldn’t take until 1968 to realize his mate wasn't into him. It's not logical.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions but the Sad Homo in Love With Oblivious Hetero Friend angle doesn't reflect the two way street nature of their relationship.

Reminder that John caught Paul's eye way before he even acknowledged his existence. In a very heterosexual way Paul doodled this hot Teddy Boy's face all over his notepad. Boomers would say it was hero worship. Wait until they find out.

Re: this post (i think?)

I mean, I agree that “Sad Homo In Love With Oblivious Best Friend” doesn’t reflect their relationship in the truest sense, because Paul also held pretty strong affections for John, and their relationship certainly was two sided and with many complexities. But I don’t think that that ultimately proves Paul isn’t heterosexual*; and I wouldn’t describe Paul as being “oblivious” because, to some degree, I think he recognised that Johns behaviour and attachments to him weren’t entirely normal - im not sure if he contemplated the possibility that John might have been attracted to him, and so in that sense he might have been “oblivious”, but certainly I think he recognised their somewhat eccentric relationship. As evidence of this, you could perhaps turn to certain anecdotes relating to Johns cruelty, and Pauls subsequent defences of it (theres a specific one involving Jane Asher, but I can’t find it, so if anyone has that source please send it to me; I wanted to use it answer a different ask as well!). It feels as though Paul could comprehend that John’s responses to certain aspects of his life (specifically, his relationships) could be invasive and improper, but it seems like Paul would rationalise this by saying “ah well…thats just John - he’s allowed to be rude cause he’s John and other people just don’t get him etc.”

(*Im not saying that he’s 100%, undoubtedly heterosexual either; I just don’t think the initial point really “proves” he isn’t heterosexual - J/P’s dynamic is convoluted, so in a lot of ways it’s difficult to come to any unequivocal conclusion with this stuff.)

It’s complicated, but I think that ultimately Paul valued his relationship with John to such a degree that he would tolerate almost all of Johns “vices” above all else. Paul needed John, just as John needed Paul* - and so he was willing to let almost anything go, practically loving him unconditionally.

(*Though id say John “needed” Paul more then Paul needed John, because I don’t think John was necessarily mentally capable enough to get by on his own. John tended to need people, whereas Paul I think was more structured and independent.)

But I also think that, although in a lot of ways John appeared to treat Paul as though he were his partner - eg. following him on dates, expecting preferential treatment over Jane (Pauls girlfriend) - I wouldn’t say they were necessarily physically close enough, especially during the mid-60s, to say that he treated Paul like his literal girlfriend. Because Paul lived in London, whilst John lived in the suburbs, they weren’t in such close proximity to one another that they suffocated within their relationship. And I think that really this detachment allowed Paul to maintain the relationship, but it didn’t allow for any actual growth between the two - and, really, Pauls hesitance to be open with John probably caused the relationship to regress. (Perhaps this was the issue in India: they were around each so much that the intimacy got to be overwhelming and they panicked?)

As for John not realising Paul didn’t return his feelings until 1968-ish (which im not saying is what happened, im just responding to the ask) I think it’s possible that even John didn’t really recognise - or perhaps failed to acknowledge? - the attraction that existed between him and Paul, for quite a few years. Surely he must have recognised that it was there by the time the band disbanded, and he in all likelihood recognised it was there before all the conflict really began. But im not sure if you could ever pinpoint when exactly he recognised the attraction: my guess would be that he probably felt something during their teddy-boy era, but didn’t quite know what to make of it, and then this attraction only grew more complex and convoluted from there on. Maybe he finally came to terms with this being actual homosexual attraction that he felt towards Paul, around 1965-ish? Im not sure, but I feel as though with that being an era of “awakening” for them, that might have allowed John to really self-reflect upon these feelings within him.

I don’t think its right that he was attracted to her - but I also feel like its wrong to throw it into the barrel of reasons why he was a bad person.

…‘As an adult, he consequently vacillates between overstimulation of the self and feelings of inferiority…A history of inconsistent attachment can lead to defences such as dissociation, splitting and self-soothing strategies…which may lead to a deep sense of alienation and the inability to maintain meaningful and intimate relationships.

It is well known that people with narcissistic deficits often find it hard to empathise. They can be highly social…and, in the same breath, they can push people away when relationships call for vulnerability or intimacy. ‘Despite this’ says Richard Hughes, ‘narcissistic people are ofter “merger” hungry. Lennon was. He idealised. He needed to “twin”, and he “mirrored”. I think about his significant relationships with Brian Epstein, Paul McCartney and Yoko Ono in particular, and there is definitely a sense of where does one end and another begin?”