could you elaborate on one of your recent post? The one about the If I Fell postcard, you mentioned various people talking about mclennon's relationship; I got the impression it's mostly men who might imply something but always putting their hands front as to justify they only mean a musical or romantic bond or just their sexuality, while with women they seem more straightforward (Yoko, Jane, Francie, Stu's sister, Leslie Ann Jones ecc...). On a side note, but connected to the same topic, do you think that if John had lived he would have said something explicit about himself and his relationship with Paul, given the self-interview, him admitting to go to gay clubs ecc... in contrast to Paul being so reserved? (I also wonder how he would have responded to all the rumors in the what if he didn't lose John).
The reason we mostly see male biographers writing about or hinting at their dynamic is simply because the vast majority of Beatles biographies are written by men. Lesley-Ann Jones is, sadly, one of the few well-known female authors who has written a Beatles biography and explicitly implied something more between John and Paul. Quite a few male biographers—especially Bob Spitz, Peter Doggett, Chris Salewicz, and Philip Norman—seem to genuinely believe there was something going on beyond a typical platonic friendship, even if they don't know how to define it or how far things went. Yet, they will drop the most suggestive, romantic observations only to immediately backpedal with a "no-homo" caveat in their own way. It isn't very convincing, to say the least. It often feels like these male writers recognize the depth of the relationship, but actively refuse to entertain the thought of it being possibly romantic,"as if the possibility that two men could have feelings for each other is somehow far fetched. Women, on the other hand, seem much more willing to openly consider the possibility. I'm not a fan of Lesley-Ann Jones at all, but I do give her credit for framing things between them romantically without piling on caveats or soft-pedaling her points. As for their inner circle, the women are unequivocally the ones who have made the most revealing and suggestive comments, often with little to no backpedaling: Francie, Marianne Faithfull, Yoko, Pauline Sutcliffe, and even Maggie (though not in public interviews). The issue is that, aside from Yoko, most of these women haven't given many interviews on the subject—and several haven't spoken publicly in years, including Francie. But Jane has famously maintained complete silence about her time with Paul, though there are strong hints that she was unhappy with Paul’s extreme closeness with John, even seemingly implying to Ray Connolly that this was one of the reasons for their eventual breakup. Marianne straight-up stated that there were homoerotic undertones in John and Paul's relationship, comparing them to Mick and Keith, and noted how both bands happened to have gay/bisexual managers. We all know what Yoko said about John's feelings for Paul. Francie explicitly stated multiple times that John (alongside Linda) was the love of Paul's life, and implied many times that Paul was closeted and in love with John. Pauline Sutcliffe claimed she "knew in her heart" that John and Stu had a physical relationship, and speculated that this was the real root of Paul's jealousy toward Stu.
So yes, the most suggestive insights have consistently come from the women. When male insiders or journalists imply something, they almost always try to walk it back. You see men like Howard Stern and Ian Leslie, who, based on things they’ve said previously, clearly aren't convinced it was a 100% platonic relationship—still frame it that way sometimes when speaking publicly. Even Howard once called John and Paul "the greatest love affair in history," only to quickly add, "it just wasn't a physical thing." Bill Maher said something similar, claiming they were in love before hastily clarifying, "I'm not saying there was a gay element here…" And we all know Baldwin and his apology/clarification video, saying that what he meant was that they were in love "creatively". As for why women seem much more open to the idea: in the case of Jane, Yoko, Francie, and Maggie, these women were romantically involved with them. They observed them closely—not as casual friends and certainly not as historical subjects, but as women emotionally invested in these men, with far more reason to pay close attention to their partners' feelings toward others. Also women tend to be much less invested in protecting the "heterosexual image" of men. I've noticed that male writers often instinctively funnel intense male intimacy into safe, conventional categories: friendship--brotherhood--creative partnership, even when the behavior itself is unusually intimate. For a woman observing two men, there is far less psychological pressure to preserve those rigid boundaries. And most importantly, women on average tend to be more attuned to subtle emotional/interpersonal cues and expressions. I think this is precisely what we see within the Beatles' inner circle: the women are consistently the ones who offer the most insightful, nuanced, and revealing observations about John and Paul's dynamic.
As for whether John would have explicitly confirmed anything had he lived, I have mixed feelings. I certainly think he would have continued his lifelong habit of making suggestive comments and sexual jokes, but I doubt he would have confirmed anything 100% sincerely without sarcasm in a public setting—largely because I don't believe Paul would have ever wanted to admit to it. Why would he? Paul would likely be just as reserved about it today even if John were alive; he is deeply self-conscious about his public image. I don't think he would ever want a romantic bond with John to be plastered across the media or to face constant questioning from journalists. I think that's the primary reason why he remains so coy and hesitant to this day. If John were to say anything today, I think that it would almost certainly be delivered in his signature sarcastic and jokey tone, providing just enough plausible deniability for the public to write it off as "John just being John," even if he meant it. While Paul occasionally drops surprisingly unhinged, intimate details that leave you wondering what on earth is going on in his head, he has always been fiercely protective and private regarding his personal relationships. I don't think any set of circumstances would have changed that.
