tbh. this website is never living down turning Blackpool, the most aggressively hetero song Paul ever put to tape, into a gay thing. I saw that and had to rethink every life decision I'd ever made, no offense.
Anonymous asked:
https://youtu.be/4mCbU4eys5k?si=1AwD60ANjLkHyq0V opinions?
I've watched this before.
My opinion is that it's quite funny, I like the deadpan delivery. Personally though – and I know this is largely a me thing – I find it hard to deal with this sort of half-serious, half-joking speculation outside personal conversations with people I know well.
Like, if you want, I can engage with this whole video as a serious argument, but I don't think anyone actually wants that, even though the format of the video strongly suggests it. I find it hard to believe the presenter doesn't to some extent believe (reciprocated) McLennon Is Real, but presenting the evidence in this jokey way sort of makes arguing against it impossible without being called a killjoy, which is frustrating if you don't agree with all of it.
I wanna say one thing: the Pyramus and Thisbe thing is in my opinion so utterly irrelevant lmao. And the way it's being framed here – completely devoid of context, like the fact that the entire gag of that bit of Midsummer Night's Dream is that it's two men, the fact it's a gag at all, or the fact that John and Paul did not decide to do this play – is a thing I find kind of annoying about this type of "I will prove to you, average person, that my theory is true." Because non-fans watching this have no context to respond to any of it with anything but agreement.
#there's a phenomenon in gaylor circles#where they'll go “I explained gaylor to my clueless boyfriend and he believes it too now!”#and it's like yeah no shit! it's very easy to convince uninformed people#and that's why they're so fucking mad at taylor fans who dare to disagree with them because they actually know what they're talking about#ask#anon#discourse#meta
idontwanttospoiltheparty reblogged
Anonymous asked:
What do you think the idea of Paul’s sexuality shifted from / to? Do you think there’s been a shift from thinking straight to bi?
Genuinely asking, I can never tell what the popular opinion is!
Maybe I'm completely wrong here, but my impression when I joined bug tumblr was that there was no consensus re:Paul's sexuality. It was an open debate and most opinions were seen as valid even if there was disagreement.
At some point, there started to be weird backlash against the concept of Paul being straight – it was seen as "defending" his heterosexuality (rather than defending the concept of taking people at their word in general?), as an inherently "lame stance" (rather than a conclusion one could draw about him like any other), or even directly called homophobic because it opposed the idea of "two men being unapologetically into each other" (no matter how much people actually tried to explain why they thought the way they did).
"No hetero explanation for this" used to be kind of a joke but it isn't much anymore – and it's certainly not actually an invitation to provide an alternative reading of stuff (which is why I find it incredibly frustrating).
Now, it appears to be deeply unpopular to simply say "the things Paul has said about himself ring true to me". Maybe it's not actually the majority opinion that Paul was definitely not straight, but voicing any other stance is definitely rare at this point.
It is weird to see the shift from, "people are the only ones allowed to define themselves," to "no, despite Paul explicitly defining himself as straight and having exclusive hetero relationships, I want him to be gay."
The disturbing part I see is the reliance on outdated, homophobic stereotypes: he wore flower shirts in the 60's, he has long eyelashes, his facial features are "pretty," all of which are "evidence" against him. There is a U shape where slash shippers go all the back around to thinking it's okay to perpetuate gay stereotypes because they like the concept of two guys doing it.
@bidisasterhawkeye thank you for your addition.
I do want to clarify something, (and this isn't necessarily in disagreement with the addition, just an extra thing I'd like to consider):
I understand that celebrities can be closeted and therefore relying purely on self-identity can lead to false negatives. I mean, most people on this site will agree that John was not straight, even without him really confirming this to us personally (YMMV greatly regarding what you think he specifically expressed publicly – but there's a reason this is still a somewhat niche take on John).
I also understand that there's an at times very blurry line between stereotypes and queer culture as a concept, and people will often be looking for "clues" when they have nothing better to go on. I don't think it's inherently harmful to assume someone's sexuality from looking at them if you don't make it that person's problem, because pattern recognition isn't a thing humans can really help – however, it does become questionable when someone's stated identity doesn't overrule the vague "vibes" one gets from them.
Aside from conversations of whether or not this type of speculation is offensive – because that does not appear to be a thing this site is able to reach any type of consensus on – it ticks me off on a purely logical level: if you aren't willing to accept the clear words someone says about something essentially only they can know* (plus don't have any strong evidence they aren't being truthful ), then what would in fact convince you that your theory is wrong? Is it nothing? Well fine, but then don't be surprised if people don't take unfalsifiable speculation very seriously.
*I know there's a group of people who think Paul was bi but is HIMSELF not aware of this. My brothers in Christ, that's a guy you literally do not know.
Anonymous asked:
What do you think the idea of Paul’s sexuality shifted from / to? Do you think there’s been a shift from thinking straight to bi?
Genuinely asking, I can never tell what the popular opinion is!
Maybe I'm completely wrong here, but my impression when I joined bug tumblr was that there was no consensus re:Paul's sexuality. It was an open debate and most opinions were seen as valid even if there was disagreement.
At some point, there started to be weird backlash against the concept of Paul being straight – it was seen as "defending" his heterosexuality (rather than defending the concept of taking people at their word in general?), as an inherently "lame stance" (rather than a conclusion one could draw about him like any other), or even directly called homophobic because it opposed the idea of "two men being unapologetically into each other" (no matter how much people actually tried to explain why they thought the way they did).
"No hetero explanation for this" used to be kind of a joke but it isn't much anymore – and it's certainly not actually an invitation to provide an alternative reading of stuff (which is why I find it incredibly frustrating).
Now, it appears to be deeply unpopular to simply say "the things Paul has said about himself ring true to me". Maybe it's not actually the majority opinion that Paul was definitely not straight, but voicing any other stance is definitely rare at this point.
the consensus on Paul's sexuality on this site has shifted so much since I joined in summer 2021, even though virtually no new information on the topic has come out since.* so... how much do the discussions we have, our own interactions with the material and with each other as a community, influence our assessment of the sources? answer: I think it's a lot – which isn't necessarily a problem; discussions often foster new and good ideas. but maybe it should be born in mind more.
*I guess your mileage might vary regarding how "conclusive" Get Back is to you – but the consensus continued to shift well after Get Back's release.
The Lovers That Never Were is actually about ME and the song The Lovers That Never Were because I can never make posts about how much I love it for fear of someone hijacking the post.
idontwanttospoiltheparty reblogged
can i say something a lil mean
sometimes I wonder if the proliferation of John Was Gay Not Bi as of late is because people have moved on from even debating whether Paul was or wasn't bi and then, faced with Actually Good Evidence, go: oh JOHN DIFFERENT
idontwanttospoiltheparty reblogged
listening to Paul's post-1998 output has given me perspective on how people relate his music to John and his life in general that I could not have fully imagined even like two months ago
this is gonna sound kind of bitchy but it's always eyebrow-raising to me how people will act like John is a great centrepiece of Paul's music (and this isn't to say that John the person wasn't or isn't a hugely important figure in Paul's life, nor that no songs are about him – we know that some are! and I suspect sentiments around or related to John snuck their way into a notable amount of Paul's writing) when even with the biggest widely accepted canon of Paul songs about John is, what… 20 songs maybe? The man has more than 300 post-Beatles songs!
And listening to his music chronicling his time mourning Linda, getting remarried way too fast and coming out of that marriage a bit scarred and wary, and then finding happiness again……… like it's all pretty easy to find most of that in the songs from that period. (and it's often blatantly obvious on Certified Mess Album Driving Rain, I might add) I just don't feel like he's as much of an enigma as he's made out to be sometimes.
I don't know. This is hard to put into words but Paul has an entire life outside his ex-songwriting partner and people are free to mostly be interested in that one relationship, but I sometimes feel like people conflate their own bias towards McLennon for reality.
also: I think it's Quite Funny when peeps on my dash shittalk Taylor and then apply swiftie logic when interpreting Paul McCartney songs........
people will call ME over-serious but I don't freak every time someone says Lennon-McCartney were like brothers even though they reffered to themselves as such
my favourite thing is listening to Paul's full discography, thinking a song no one on here's ever mentioned is maybe about John or at least could be interpreted that way, and then not telling this website.
ngl as a tik tok hater and mclennon contrarian every time someone complains about bealtes tik tok being mean about mclennon or whatever, i simply chortle
I think it's quite possible Dear Boy is in some abstract sense also inspired by John because probably Paul and Linda bonded over feeling fucked over in their "previous lives"… but dismissing the real and believable explanation Paul provided for the song – namely that it's directed at Linda's previous husband (and Linda is a credited writer on this song btw which is actually NOT the case for every song on Ram) – just feels like the most direct refusal to accept that these are real people who have a life outside your ship.
Like, just 'cause YOU don't give a shit about Melville See Jr. – which is fine; he's not a person much is known about anyway – doesn't mean Paul (or LINDA) doesn't.
#like. it's not like The Long And Winding Road where Paul is clearly being cagey.#it's just an explanation which makes perfect sense but you happen not to like it because it messes up the fanvid in your head#also re: John saying it was about him. AFAIK the source for that is Peter Brown so major pinch of salt.#and even if: John can think a song is about him and be wrong. he of all people is not immune to “Everything Is About Me”-ism lol#fiona.docx#lyrics#ram#lp#discourse#meta
Anonymous asked:
I'd like to know what perplexes you about the previous poll... I don't understand if it's 100% serious or not, if people here truly truly believe that mclennon happened or it's just for fun.
To me the most likely is either weird platonic or john having feelings for paul... I don't know if it makes sense
I agree with you it's unclear how serious people are – if they aren't I just kind of don't see the point in the poll overall
I also think there's people who use romantically-coded terms like "in love" when they don't necessarily mean John and Paul had something non-platonic going on, but they want to emphasize how significant they were to each other, and this may further muddy results. I like the term "weird platonic" lol.
My take is more that the evidence base for feelings from John's side is a lot stronger than on Paul's side, and the one-sided scenario "checks out" to me. That doesn't mean it couldn't have been reciprocated but I just don't see a strong case for it.
I could go on and on. but lucky for me, my mum knows about McLennon now. unlucky for her though
no but.... I do wish we would talk about the difference between "if I assume A then it probably is the reason for B" and "B can only follow from A".... they are not the same thing
Anonymous asked:
thoughts on the poll you just reblogged? the results kinda surprised me but also not lmao
it continues to be WILD to me that John's widow said with her whole chest that it seems to her that John had a thing for Paul and explicitly clarified that she didn't think something was going on the other way around and this is somehow not even acknowledged.
like: maybe Yoko was protecting herself against Paul backlash (but then why mention this at all????), maybe she just knows more about John's feelings than Paul's. I acknowledge these possibilities but I wish we could be more honest about the nature of the evidence base here.
I could say a lot more lol, but I'll leave it at that.