#i've never ran a big blog before or done anything like this so honestly i'm a bit terrified | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

thecoleopterawithana · 5 years

Note

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!

#John Lennon #paul mccartney #yoko ono #the beatles #asks me why #I'm not a homosexual or we could have had a homosexual relationship #he could be a real soft sweetie #paul is a concept by which we measure our pain #touching is good #and when i touch you i feel happy inside #the person I actually picked as my partner #johnny #macca #alistair taylor #Brian Epstein #Tony Sheridan #Horst Fascher #meta #my stuff

160 notes · View notes