|
Post by goldberry on May 25, 2005 8:30:20 GMT
The issue - for me - was never if it was OK or not to be gay. I don't think anyone has the right to tell anyone else how they should behave. We have to behave as we feel and be true to our real selves. That's fine.. it just came across a little aggressive is all. I just think maybe it isn't ethically cool to tag someone with an image that wasn't existent beforehand. It could be seen as deceptive (as if the whole concept of a Faul in the first place isn't deceptive)! You say yes, I say heck no. We have a difference of opinion. Not much we can do about that except be cordial about it. True, ..I just don't see being gay as offensive. Once again, Goldberry, just want to say I truly didn't mean to offend you. If I did, please accept my apology. Sam That's cool. Thankyou
|
|
|
Post by defhermit on May 25, 2005 8:55:09 GMT
wow madtitan, quite a turnaround...
either you think that Faul is purposely acting gay to defame JPM, or you are faulting him for displaying his true self when he should be "performing" at all times.... either one, in my opinion, is ridiculous...
oh well, whatever....
|
|
madtitan125
Contributor
"There is no knowledge that is not power!"
Posts: 126
|
Post by madtitan125 on May 27, 2005 6:21:24 GMT
Turnaround? There's no turnaround.
The subject of Faul misrepresenting the one, true JPM in a way that maybe wasn't overtly heterosexual came up. I agreed that Faul is/was guilty of this.
Now, there seemed to be a misunderstanding as to whether I, or some of the others may have had a problem with homosexuality itself.
I stated that it doesn't seem to conform with our physical design or function, but that a person's right to choose overrides anyone else's opinion on the matter.
It could be seen that initiating the acceptance of alternative lifestyles, along with the abandonement of traditional standards (please see Faul's early propoganda videos) and the advent of widespread drug use were all part of the same plan. These are the ideas that were pushed using The Beatles' considerable reach and influence.
Maybe we are getting too bogged down in the details of Faul's performance. Faul probably shouldn't have been misrepresenting himself as ANY VERSION of Paul in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by gracemer on May 27, 2005 6:58:48 GMT
Good post madtitan. It hadn't occurred to me that Faul had done more than promote drugs, but I think you're on to something there.
|
|
|
Post by goldberry on May 27, 2005 7:36:39 GMT
Faul probably shouldn't have been misrepresenting himself as ANY VERSION of Paul in the first place. But is that his fault? This is my point, no-one here knows.
|
|
|
Post by BeatlePaul on May 27, 2005 9:53:07 GMT
This thread has a good point .... but NOW none of you know the real reason....
Stay in tune and you will see that.....
|
|
|
Post by BeatlePaul on May 27, 2005 9:54:13 GMT
Faul probably shouldn't have been misrepresenting himself as ANY VERSION of Paul in the first place. But is that his fault? This is my point, no-one here knows. Agreed. Geoffrey-Billy was a performer and that is not his Fault...
|
|
|
Post by abbey on May 27, 2005 14:29:18 GMT
First, I have nothing against gays. I have a friend who is gay and has been open and honest and I can ask him anything about the gay lifestyles and queens, etc. He is a great friend.
My hangup is his gay actions while claiming to be Paul. If he would admit who he is, he can be as campy as he wants.
Epstein was interested in the Beatles because he had the hots for John. John was bi-sexual and would have preferred Paul, but Paul was NOT into men. Also Stu and John were bi-sexual and had their fling
Brian liked John; John liked Paul; Paul liked only females.
|
|
|
Post by goldberry on May 27, 2005 14:41:49 GMT
From a press conference held on August 18, 1964: Q: "How do you like not having any privacy?" PAUL: "We do have some, you know." JOHN: "We just had some before. Didn't we, Paul?"
lol.. sorry couldn't resist!
|
|
|
Post by defhermit on May 27, 2005 16:15:10 GMT
First, I have nothing against gays. Heavens, where did I get that idea? "You're right he would not have been caught dead in that one pose or any of those poses for that matter. Paul was all man, all the time. " "Paul was a man all the way and Faul/Bill was a.........just a minute the word(s) will come to me.......bisexual, faggie, scary, freaky, weird. Can anyone add to these?" "The man is truly weird....not even sure if I should refer to him as a man. Totally weird, totally fem, totally crude. What's with the chains and bamboo "fencing" Is he into S&M ?" "And we all know James Paul would NEVER have worn anything pink, purple, fuscia. In the 60's those were considered "gay" colors and real men wouldn't be caught dead in them." "I can't believe we have something like that representing James Paul. Bet he's turning over in his grave. "
|
|
|
Post by defhermit on May 27, 2005 16:32:07 GMT
Turnaround? There's no turnaround. "Good grief, Sister Mary! That is horrible! What a weirdo. And Goldberry, what do you mean "more power to him"? Do you think this is cool? Do you think this is OK?" "James Paul was very much a man, not......................this!" "Biologically, our bodies were designed to procreate. Apart from surviving, this is our main function." "The crime Faul, and Bowie, and all of these frootloops perpetrate is that they have been influencing generations of young men to abandon their masculinity in favor of...(shudder!)......this. And that lifestyle has to be a horror story. All of this homo-ism (how about that for a new word!) is anti-life." These were quotes from your first post in this thread. Generally anti-homosexual, spewing bile and informing us how evil homosexuality is. "No need to get huffy! I'm not out of line to think that we have our reproductive equipment not by accident." "Presenting a preening, fey version of one of the greatest musical geniuses of all time just is not cool! Sorry, Charlie! But then again, neither is gay-bashing, either!" "And no hatred to Faul or anything like that. Even though he was probably shouldn't have put forth this version of the image of JPM, I still think everyone involved in this investigation would welcome him with open arms if he ever wanted to be honest." These are quotes from your second post. Here you retreat from some of the meanness of your first post, but still attempt to hold onto your "hetero is better" theme. "Trust me, I have many friends who are like that and I love them all. I wouldn't necessarily choose that for my son, but that doesn't mean I don't love my friends. I know they love me. The issue - for me - was never if it was OK or not to be gay. I don't think anyone has the right to tell anyone else how they should behave. We have to behave as we feel and be true to our real selves. " And there is the quote from your third post. Here, it's not your right to tell anyone how they should behave. So, yeah, that's what I meant by turnaround, dude.
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on May 27, 2005 17:32:49 GMT
|
|
madtitan125
Contributor
"There is no knowledge that is not power!"
Posts: 126
|
Post by madtitan125 on May 27, 2005 18:47:53 GMT
Defhermit,
There may have been a little "meanness", as you call it, in my earlier post. For goodness sake, Faul does look a little frooty in some of these pics! Or not?
My story is the same: like some others, it does upset me a little that Faul seemed to present his version of "Paul" that maybe wasn't all too masculine. Oh, well.
Some here apparently are bothered personally by this. I have to say I see that side of the story.
That doesn't mean that I am going to side with someone who sets themselves up to tell people how to live their lives, or that one way is better than the other.
If you believe that a designer exists somewhere (everywhere?) like I do, you have to also acknowledge that if there is any judging to do - the designer will have to do it. Not me!
I personally wouldn't like to be represented in ANY manner that wasn't factual. Just as a gay person wouldn't appreciate being misrepresented as straight after the fact when they couldn't do anything about it.
A lot of liberties have been taken with the character of "Paul". Liberties on a lot of different fronts.
Most members of this forum have an affinity for the one, true James Paul. I feel I am one of them.
The concept of "The Beatles" is one that is very deeply interwoven into my consciousness. The music, the images, the feelings that their music have infused me with during this lifetime.
Those feelings were strong enough to name my firstborn son after one of my favorite Beatle songs of all time: Hey Jude.
When people find out my son's name, they always think it is of a Biblical origin. I have always been kind of proud to correct them: "No, that is The Beatles!"
Since coming upon this board a couple of years ago, with all of its information, photos, video, and most importantly the speculationinvestigation and deduction of all the good people here, I have had to question everything I thought I knew about The Beatles.
Now, I have had to stop and wonder what exactly it was that this music was putting into my brain. Now I have to question everything, just like of all of us here have had to do.
Seeing these pics of Faul was brought about the feelings I guess someone would have if they found out someone in the family was a cross-dresser. In other words, it's not something you'd hope for.
There would almost certainly be some disappointment. There would more than likely be some embarassment. Especially, if that person were someone close to you.
I think that's what everyone here is going through a little bit. The anger that comes with finding out something embarassing about someone that was close to you. That's all.
|
|
|
Post by defhermit on May 27, 2005 19:02:26 GMT
it wasn't "everyone" that was gay bashing... it was you and sister mary and a few others...
it's fine if you want to be less nasty than you were... but I'm not letting you say that you never did, because you did.
btw: I used the term "meanness" as a substitute for what I really thought, "gay-bashing".... and you putting quotes around it doesn't mean the word doesn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by defhermit on May 27, 2005 19:11:22 GMT
"Seeing these pics of Faul was brought about the feelings I guess someone would have if they found out someone in the family was a cross-dresser. In other words, it's not something you'd hope for."
Why would I give a shit if a relative was a cross-dresser?
What the hell do I care what other people are sexually attracted to? As long as the person they want to bone can consent to said boning, my part in that transaction is nil.
|
|
|
Post by cavendish on May 27, 2005 20:28:38 GMT
Defhermit, why are you so hostile about this. I think that madtitan is doing his best to soften what he originally said. He has tried his best to explain his feelings & why he reacted the way he did. All I'm getting off of you in alot of your recent posts is hostility. Why do you care if we're upset over Bill acting Bi ? Total - I don't care about the backward masking in Yellow Submarine. Paul was NOT gay. John probably put that in there to piss him off. John knew that Paul was a prig when it came to dealing with "queers". That's what they called gay people back then. In the early 1960's, the word gay wasn't used to mean homosexual. It meant "happy". The sign meant that Paul was the happy-go-lucky Beatle. I haven't even looked over the earlier posts because I don't want to get nauseous. It makes me sick that people are sticking up for Bill's representation of Paul. It is NOT RIGHT what he has done to Paul's reputation. Because of him, most people now believe that Paul was bi-sexual. Before I even came to this forum, I remember reading in various places that Paul had slept with Mick Jagger & David Bowie. Like I stated in another thread, Paul would be MORTIFIED to learn that the person representing him behaved in such an effeminate manner ! In his time period, & in his culture, it was still considered deviant behaviour ! And NO this is NOT gay bashing. As I stated in another thread, most of my best male friends are gay & I was married to a gay man for 3 years ! I loved him for who he was. His sexuality was not who he is ! You & Goldberry have turned this thread into a travesty. It was meant to show that Bill couldn't be Paul because they have totally different body language. Look what it's been turned into. It's being used to attack Paul's sexuality. You're attacking someone who is not here to defend himself. That's just disgusting I wish I had the ability to close this thread, because I honestly cannot see any further good coming from this !
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on May 27, 2005 21:17:36 GMT
It's not backwards.
|
|
|
Post by defhermit on May 27, 2005 21:33:31 GMT
Defhermit, why are you so hostile about this. I think that madtitan is doing his best to soften what he originally said. He has tried his best to explain his feelings & why he reacted the way he did. All I'm getting off of you in alot of your recent posts is hostility. Why do you care if we're upset over Bill acting Bi ? Total - I don't care about the backward masking in Yellow Submarine. Paul was NOT gay. John probably put that in there to piss him off. John knew that Paul was a prig when it came to dealing with "queers". That's what they called gay people back then. In the early 1960's, the word gay wasn't used to mean homosexual. It meant "happy". The sign meant that Paul was the happy-go-lucky Beatle. I haven't even looked over the earlier posts because I don't want to get nauseous. It makes me sick that people are sticking up for Bill's representation of Paul. It is NOT RIGHT what he has done to Paul's reputation. Because of him, most people now believe that Paul was bi-sexual. Before I even came to this forum, I remember reading in various places that Paul had slept with Mick Jagger & David Bowie. Like I stated in another thread, Paul would be MORTIFIED to learn that the person representing him behaved in such an effeminate manner ! In his time period, & in his culture, it was still considered deviant behaviour ! And NO this is NOT gay bashing. As I stated in another thread, most of my best male friends are gay & I was married to a gay man for 3 years ! I loved him for who he was. His sexuality was not who he is ! You & Goldberry have turned this thread into a travesty. It was meant to show that Bill couldn't be Paul because they have totally different body language. Look what it's been turned into. It's being used to attack Paul's sexuality. You're attacking someone who is not here to defend himself. That's just disgusting I wish I had the ability to close this thread, because I honestly cannot see any further good coming from this ! Okay, so, now, I'M attacking someone's sexuality? Okay... Why am I hostile? Because it makes me angry when people call homosexuals evil. Which is what a lot of threads around here would boil down to if people like me and Goldberry weren't here to call out people when they start saying insane things. Why do you feel the need to defend madtitan? Can he not defend himself? I cited what I felt were statements that pointed out how his comments have been at odds with each other. He said the issue for him was never about whether it was right or wrong to be gay, when in fact he DID make statements to the effect that it was wrong to be gay. It was only AFTER someone called the gay-bashers on it that they then "softened" their approach. Mission accomplished.
|
|
|
Post by cavendish on May 27, 2005 22:39:31 GMT
As I just stated twice in two different threads, I do NOT consider homosexuality evil. Not do I GAY BASH. It upsets me just as much as it upsets you to see people refer to it that way. The way I understand it, most gay people are born that way. I've read that there is actually a past of their brain that is slightly different than average people. They have no more control over their sexuality, than someone who was born with a difference in their brain can help having seizures. It's just the way it is. Again, I find it offensive that Bill felt it was necessary to change people's perception of Paul. When he was alive he was seen as this cute, boyish, naughty ladykiller. Now when people think of him, they think of him doing all those weird effeminate things. I've seen plenty of photos of Bill where he's acting just like any other bloke. No weird prancing & posing. He did that stuff & posed that way to be "cute". I don't find it "cute" at all. It's almost as if he's doing it on purpose to demean the man. It's definitely not fair to Paul.
|
|
|
Post by defhermit on May 27, 2005 23:04:51 GMT
I think it's crazy that you think he would do that to demean JPM, but okay I guess anything is possible.
And most people do NOT think Paul McCartney is gay. If you said that to the average guy on the street they would ask you what the hell you were talking about.
|
|
|
Post by goldberry on May 28, 2005 8:13:01 GMT
Let's just drop it.. let the biggots be biggots. I don't really give a crap what they think to be honest! Bill can do whatever the hell he wants.. it's hardly gonna destroy life as we know it
|
|
madtitan125
Contributor
"There is no knowledge that is not power!"
Posts: 126
|
Post by madtitan125 on May 28, 2005 9:15:54 GMT
The purpose of this thread was served, my dear Ms. Cavendish. The photos posted by Chris & SMA definitely show a clear difference in body language. Body size, body shape, etc., etc.
Even though some of us here hate the fact that Faul decided to portray the character of "Paul" with a degree of glam-styled posing that made Bowie, Rod Stewart, Lou Reed, and the flaming Mick Jagger infamous, I believe we all know, like and respect gay people. A lot.
But even they would be the first to tell you that they aren't exactly what anyone would consider masculine. I know them to even call each other "girl", for goodness sake!
Last post on this topic: No one hates gays around here. No one here is a biggot. We just don't like that Faul associated that image with JPM. He had no right. That's all. THE END.
|
|
|
Post by BeatlePaul on May 28, 2005 10:46:21 GMT
The purpose of this thread was served, my dear Ms. Cavendish. The photos posted by Chris & SMA definitely show a clear difference in body language. Body size, body shape, etc., etc. Even though some of us here hate the fact that Faul decided to portray the character of "Paul" with a degree of glam-styled posing that made Bowie, Rod Stewart, Lou Reed, and the flaming Mick Jagger infamous, I believe we all know, like and respect gay people. A lot. But even they would be the first to tell you that they aren't exactly what anyone would consider masculine. I know them to even call each other "girl", for goodness sake! Last post on this topic: No one hates gays around here. No one here is a biggot. We just don't like that Faul associated that image with JPM. He had no right. That's all. THE END. Madtitan.... you can read my mind...
|
|
|
Post by BeatlePaul on May 28, 2005 10:49:53 GMT
Still my guitar gently weeps I don’t know how you were diverted You were perverted too I don’t know how you were inverted No one alerted you.
|
|
|
Post by goldberry on May 28, 2005 12:46:59 GMT
cryptic much
|
|