#gay men aren't attracted to paul mccartney

[i-am-the-oyster]

Sir Joseph Lockwood

I always got on particularly well with Joe, I liked him a lot. I think he was a very clever man and found him a very charming bloke with a sense of humour. So it never got heavy with Joe. He always had his young personal-assistant guy with him, very charming. It was unusual for us, who'd not seen the head of a big company like that that at close hand; with a private life, just to the side of it all. You were seeing power in high places.

Paul talking about Sir Joseph Lockwood in Many Years From Now (emphasis mine)

The "young personal-assistant guy" (William Cavendish) has written a book. All the official materials refer to him as a "good friend" of Sir Joe, but it seems very clear that they were life partners. (As Paul hinted).

Anyway I thought that was interesting context for Joe's comments about the cover of Two Virgins:

Well, then, why not show Paul in the nude? He’s so much prettier!

The page in Many Years From Now:

[inspiteallthedanger]

You didn’t ask AT ALL, but my theory about Paul’s sexuality is that he and John could’ve fucked six ways to Sunday and he still wouldn’t consider himself gay because a) it was John and b) Paul still loved women, lots of women so many women, my God the heterosexual vibes around that guy, can you believe? And as to the “John never hit on me” thing—1) lol yes, how could he have been any gay at all if he wouldn’t hit on his partner? 2) lol, again, McCartney, he literally hit on you 24/7 /WS

Hello my darling WS. I think we essentially agree actually. I suspect that wanting to bang chicks provided a great deal of cover for any same-sex shenanigans. So the question becomes how much / what sort of shenanigans are we talking about?

One thing that I keep coming back to is that we have evidence that Paul and John were concerned about being seen as 'queer'. Actually, so was Ringo. The only one of them I can't recall a direct quote saying that is George (although it probably is out there). So, it's not like this isn't something they considered and worried about. That to me suggests there were considering their actions and how that would come across. Which, in turns, I think prohibits on-going sexual contact that could have any connection to feelings or go beyond youthful high-jinx that's all in good fun.

Who were they worried might think they were queer is also something to consider. Was this just a wider public thing, or was the fear also something they had between them? Well, Paul simply does not stop talking about how he was constantly stopping himself from showing affection for men. He doesn't attribute that to fear of being seen as queer directly, but he does say it's about not being 'soft' which is essentially the same thing. This is the man that was worried giving up meat meant he didn't have a role in the family anymore. Like, he's got some pretty strict ideas about gender and what that entails. Same with John, the way he talks about same-sex attraction is all about this constant back and forth about being terrified of the idea and being sort of into it. Even when he's talking about having a sexual encounter with Brian isn't not like he ever says he enjoyed it. How often they both make these sorts of comments, in ways not even related to sex, makes me think they aren't just straight up lying, either. Their worldview leaks into all sorts of other areas of their lives.

So, that's why I really don't think there was any sort of affair. It's also why I would believe that literally nothing ever happened outside of the wanking sessions. I'm... not of that belief, exactly, but they were walking a very fine line. The vibe that the break-up has is very much 'something unfulfilled'. There's this sense of longing and missed opportunity that doesn't to me suggest there was anything acknowledged.

Which, is also why Paul can very easily not be lying about John never coming onto him. Of course John wouldn't put himself out there enough to ever ask for it. Neither of them would. That's gay. So it needs to have just happened sometimes. Like sharing a bed and getting a lazy handjob in the morning or being high and communicating through their minds enough for a cheeky blowjob. It's plausible deniability.

Also we do have to in some way tackle Yoko's comment about Paul's 'immovable heterosexuality'. Like, that's coming from somewhere, right? And if John had been having his way with Paul seven ways from Sunday... what gives? I'm assuming that it was that there was some very rigid lines that Paul had decided meant he could go up - put his toe on the edge of even - but never cross. And we all know Paul's bloody minded enough to stick to that, no matter how fucked up he gets. Which is, obviously, where the 'John was pining for Paul' thing comes from. John pushing at the line and sometimes it seems it's going to give. Or maybe Paul walks them up to the line, sways them forward and then runs in the other direction. I'm sure, on the other end of this, that John’s internalised homophobia would not have helped this. Like, if he's in the wrong mood he's probably the first in line to call out 'soft' behaviour. So, Paul's never going to be sure which John he'll get if he tries anything: Oscar Wilde or Marlon Brando (yes, I know Brando was shagging every man that stayed still long enough, but John didn't). So, even if they both had moments of wanting more than they were getting, like, that's a big fucking chance to take by voicing it.

So, anyway. Who knows, but that's where I always end up on it. Which isn’t to say I don’t change my mind sometimes or whatever.