sadplampgun

Latest Posts by sadplampgun

I think Stuart is John’s true soulmate—the tender side of his love. Not Paul.

You don’t have to like me for saying it.

John Lennon & George Harrison in Amsterdam, Netherlands | 6 June 1964 © Harry Benson; Leslie Bryce

"jamiroquai" is the name of the hat. you're thinking of "jamiroquai's monster"

Paul McCartney 1963 Tenerife Vacay Moodboard:

it's fucked up and insane that I'll never get to have a freaky freudian thing going on with teddy boy john lennon

do you think yoko loved john when he died? do you think when she says she misses him or says she gets choked up hearing his voice still sometimes that it is genuine or just what she has to say and do as his widow(tm) (not necessarily maliciously but she is very brand and image obsessed.) she seems very cold and stoic so i cannot tell if any emotion on him is genuine or something she forces out to fit that narrative. i guess i just get sad because you can really feel the love when olivia talks about george for example, but with yoko im always wondering if it's just her saying what she thinks people want to hear. he has been dead longer than he was even alive so im not saying she has to be grieving still or anything but i do hate that i feel like i cannot trust anything she says because she says everything so emotionlessly.

Hello anon.

I wasn't going to discuss this but couldn't pass the opportunity of addressing some issues that have been bothering me. People act like I go out of my way to start discourse but it's not my fault I get questions like this. Sure, I could ignore the message but I don't see any reason to hold back.

(I'm not going to put this under a cut, you scroll it down, your finger won't fall off, I promise.)

You've worded your point respectfully and I can tell you don't mean any harm but I need to touch on some of those bizarre stereotypes and misconceptions.

For starters, WHY do tumblrinas think it's not only ok but cool dismissing John and Yoko's marriage as Not Valid™ and questioning the extent of their love?

Oh wait, I know the answer. It's because acknowledging Yoko (or Stu or Brian) goes against their cosmic soulmate McLennon dreams.

Yoko was John's wife, mother of his child, creative partner and manager. One might love or hate her but she exists. Show some basic respect.

It's fine to discuss the JohnandYoko brand, their publicity stunts and manipulation of the media but what I often see is people using that as an excuse to further their shipping preferences.

To be honest, if they were as straightforward as your average boyband fan I wouldn't have much of a problem with it. I might even get amused. It's the self righteousness and "correcting the record" bullshit I can do without.

Contrary to popular belief, it's unlikely John and Yoko were total sociopaths pretending to be in love. I know it might come across as a shock but sometimes people just like each other! It's irrelevant whether they bonded for the "wrong" reasons or even if their dynamics was healthy. It's not up for the public to decide what is acceptable between two consenting people. It might seem toxic, insane or plain abusive to you but sometimes people get a kick out of being miserable together. That's nobody's business.

Maybe if they had circulated more footage of them and their blonde children in the tour bus their choices would've been taken more seriously, who knows.

Now straight to your question: did Yoko love John by the time he died? It's hard to say. Depending on who you ask you'll get very different perspectives. But it doesn't matter. Regardless of the motivations, there was a mutual agreement between this couple and it seemed to be working in their terms. It doesn't have to make sense to the rest of us.

In my opinion, she did love John. For all his serious flaws, he wasn't that hard to love. I doubt Yoko was enough of a Bond villain to be indifferent to a man who was cherished by millions for his humor, brilliance and sex appeal. Which is not to say there wasn't envy, resentment and possessiveness on her part. All of these things can coexist.

It's not out of line wondering whether Yoko's public grief has performative elements. It does. But keep in mind that after December 8, 1980 she wasn't speaking just as a wife or manager anymore but as the beneficiary of John's will. She had a product to sell. Of course she'd promote herself and say things people want to hear sometimes.

Which brings us to Paul McCartney. I wasn't going to drag him into this but since everybody assumes he was the reason John existed (and in total equality with his wife), I don't see why not. Why doesn't anybody ever question HIS intentions?

Do you really believe he's not aware of the cultural obsession with Lennon/McCartney and doesn't use it for his own purposes as well? He cherry picks stories and plays for the audience all the time. But it's considered almost sacrilegious suggesting this might be the case.

Now it's totally fine implying he was just as affected by tragedy as the woman who watched her husband getting shot four times right next to her, when they were returning home to have dinner with their kid.

What THE FUCK is wrong with you people?

Fans project a lot of strange things onto this woman. They'll excuse every thing John and Paul ever did because Dead Mothers™ but Yoko being stoic because she grew up in the middle of Japan's WWII's bombings and almost starved to death is not even considered. She didn't come from background where what we consider appropriate displays of affection were common. Yoko might've been a bad influence on John in many aspects but she was as messed up as him, not a Blofeld mastermind attracting a lamb to slaughter. He walked into the "trap" because he saw something he liked and could relate to.

I'm not above contradictions, I have made some of these mistakes myself. After more careful research over the years and reading some of the most ridiculous takes one could imagine, my opinion on the subject has evolved a lot. I still find most of her business decisions questionable and I'm just as annoyed by her occasional attention seeking behavior. But I always had respect for her as an artistic partner to John. I genuinely enjoy their work together and never hid my opinion that he made his most interesting music after she came into the scene.

Does that make me a JohnandYoko stan? No, because I'm not a fucking weirdo. I look up to people for inspiration but I don't live vicariously through their relationships. I don't need JohnandPaul or JohnandYoko or PaulandLinda to be the fairytale of the century in order to believe in love nor I want a celebrity couple to be my parents.

And before anyone accuses me of shaming people, I wanna say that all your crazy ideas are perfectly acceptable on a fan fiction level. Direct all this creativity to entertaining your fellow fans instead of annoying them with rancid takes. We're starved for content!

(yeah that also includes myself, i'm trying! When I finish my fics it will be all over for the rest of you.)

the thing that so few understand about paul is that hes the weird girl. he’s the girl who thinks too much about every interaction to the point where he cannot emote in a way that doesn’t piss literally everyone off. he has a toxic codependent homoerotic friendship within his own band and he’s STILL the one that consistently gets left out. no one wanted to hang out with him in hamburg. he is strange and sad and does not process any of it and it’s turned him into the weirdest most evil fucking girl in the world and that’s what makes him so compelling

OMG YES. When I FIRST saw The Beatles and my knowledge was along the lines of "they're four identical brothers", John was the first one I learned to tell apart. Because yeah, his hair was lighter than the others' — you could even see it on those awful quality recordings. John stood out. Plus, he has a strikingly different face shape. It took me a while to learn to tell Paul and George apart, lol.......

Is anyone else fascinated by John's hair colour? I was watching the bts of A Hard Day's Night and ofc the other Beatles were there, handsome as usual. But when the camera panned to John, his hair colour made him look so ethereal. Like it was black and white but his hair was SIGNIFICANTLY lighter than the others it made him look otherworldly. Maybe I'm just weird but damn, the man was so mmmmmmm

rough night at the cavern club

you know a joke that never EVER gets old is when a character says smth like “I will NOT go to [place] and that is FINAL” and then it cuts to them in that place I eat that shit up every single time

Ringo Starr & John Lennon at the Southern Cross Hotel in Melbourne, Australia | 14 June 1964 © Neville Waller

Paul is a victim of chronic childhood trauma, whose personality was shaped by three destructive forces: the death of his mother (loss of love), his father's violence (loss of safety), and his unpredictable "care" (loss of trust). His psyche operates in survival mode: suppression of emotions, traumatic attachment to the abuser, and somatization of stress. He experiences an unresolvable internal conflict between the awareness of his father's toxicity and the childlike need for his love. Music is the only light in this darkness. His story is a classic example of a "broken child" in an adult's body, where the pain of the past continues to live in the present

John Lennon in Miami Beach, FL | February 1964 (I)

!

I know I'm dipping my toe into dangerous waters, but the biggest takeaway from Get Back and Paul/Peter's narrativization of the Beatles was really just how much pain and resentment Paul is still holding 60 years later. Which isn't something I can personally judge, given that I haven't been alive for 60 years, much less had an event from 60 years ago heavily influence my ensuing life path, but it does feel like a reflection of his intense antipathy to any kind of self reflection or processing and how this precludes any real possibility that his personal interpretation of his life story will ever change. He's the same guy 60 years later and he sees things the same way, and that's both comforting and a little sad.

Thinking about Paul’s jealousy of Stu’s position in John’s life and his understanding that John considered Stu more of a peer than he (Paul) could be, by virtue of age alone.

Of courseeeeee this was not the full scope of Stu/John vs Paul/John. But it isn’t difficult to imagine a lonely and rejected Paul deciding that age must be THE problem, as it is not his fault and is therefore easier to digest (rather than the idea that Stu was more emotionally open/a better communicator/whatever else).

This line of thought draws an interesting parallel to Paul’s later (real or perceived) competition with George for John’s attention and his continued insistence that George was actually very very very very young (Paul has nearly 8 full months on him). It doesn’t matter that John and George are tripping together or [insert John/George thing here] ME AND JOHN ARE BIG BOYS GEORGE IS only A BABY.

TikTok commenters censoring John Lennon as 'J*hn'

They're cancelling this guy with all their might

Lovely words about Brian Wilson from Paul 💞

David Ash, ‘Our Kind of Girl - By The Beatles’, Daily Express (21 Nov. 1963)

After the show, after the applause, what kind of girl do the Beatles think about in the loneliness of hotel rooms locked against the fans? [...] So I went and asked them: What is your kind of girl? [...] Paul McCartney, 21, told me: “It would be great to have the sort of girl who would darn my socks and cook apple pies and things.” Now that may sound like Platitude 1 (a) from the pop-star's handbook of ready-made quotes. But this McCartney I think says what he means. He continued: “She'd be attractive, but not the big show-biz personality type of girl, or one who's affected, or a dizzy dumb blonde. “She'd be intelligent - but not fantastically brainy, because I'm not - and interested in all kinds of music. Including mine.  “And she'd have to have the right sense of humour. Because we do have what someone called a sense of self-irony. And we laugh at all sorts of off-beat things.”

And physically…?  “I like girls to have long hair (it rhymes with 'her'), interesting eyes, and rather high cheekbones. But not turned-up noses. I have one myself, and it's put me right off them.  “I don't like Elizabeth Taylor-type looks. And I don't like exaggerated hour-glass figures. The figure doesn't matter all that much.  “I like girls in with-it clothes. But some girls look fantastic in just a dirty old sack. Indian girls look great in saris.”

John Lennon was looking around for a scotch. And his face, in serious moments like this, has the fear-neither-God-nor-man quality of a Renaissance painter's aristocrat. At 23, he seems the group's elder statesman. For he is married, with one baby. He talked. Huskily, cryptically. “My kind of girl is, of course, Cynthia. My wife. “I like her looks (she's fair-haired), her cooking; everything about her. I'm an extrovert, and she's the opposite.  “We are both indoor types - that's why I don't mind this life, being locked away behind doors. We live at our mum's or our auntie's or hotels. But wherever I'm with her is home. “People have said that every time she comes down to London to see me she is just trying to patch up our marriage. They say, 'You know what they're like in show business.'  “But that's not true of us. I don't happen to be showbusiness. I married before I was in it. And I haven't changed my mind since."  He added: “Of course, I notice other girls.”

George Harrison - at 20 he's the youngest and (some say) the handsomest - thought he preferred blondes. Smallish ones. Then he decided: "I don't go looking for any special sort of girl. She could be any age from 17 to 40. “I wouldn't like one who was soft (unintelligent). Or one who was terribly intellectual - I wouldn't know what she was on about half the time.  “I wouldn't mind if she were arty, hated pop and loved classical music  “Oh, yes, and I don't like girls with too much make-up.”

Ringo Starr’s sad eyes gazed thoughtful down at his drumstick-balancing fingers and the four rings on them - none of them with any marital significance.  “My girl would be just an ordinary sort of girl, but with just that something different for me,” he said.  “I wouldn’t care if she couldn’t cook very well. She could learn. But I don’t like sitting at home, so I’d want a sociable girl who’d come out every time I wanted to go out.”

Not one Beatle mentioned old-fashioned considerations like social status and family connections.  In their kinds of girl they all looked for a sense of humour, interest in their work, reasonable dress sense, and a complete lack of pretentiousness. 

Did Paul and Robert have an affair or was that just Tara Browne

there is no hard, tangible evidence that paul had an affair with robert fraser or an affair with tara browne – or any man at all, for that matter. 

i do, however, think that robert and paul did share a special connection. over anything else we can speculate, but this, to me, is fact. i will delve deeper into why i think it was special and what exactly i mean by that in a different post, but i think these quotes illustrate a bit:

Robert represented to me freedom, freedom of speech, of view. [x]

Paul visited Robert’s gallery and would often drop by his flat to see who was there and what was happening. Robert was a superb host; he always mixed the latest drinks, had the best drugs, and a room full of interesting people.Through Robert, Paul entered the world of art; he met Andy Warhol, Claes Oldenburg, Peter Blake and Richard Hamilton and, in the course of listening to their conversations, he learned a great deal about art appreciation.Paul: ‘The most formative influence for me was Robert Fraser. Obviously the other Beatles were very important but the most formative art influence was Robert. I expect people to die so I don’t feel a loss but there’s a vacuum where he used to be.’ [x]

Actually I remember one of the most touching conversations we had was about his mum and dad. I said, ‘My mum died when I was young but I think my dad’s great. He’s a real fine man and I’ve got a lot of respect for him and I’m not ashamed to admit it.’ Feeling slight peer pressure as I did admit it. And he said, ‘Well uh uh uhg. I feel the same way about my mother. I love my parents!’ and we had a little moment where we both admitted we loved our parents, which then was not the kind of thing you did. I don’t think I ever had it with the Beatles, it certainly was not a common thing. [x]

Paul saw a lot of Robert during 1966 and in the period leading up to the release of Sgt. Pepper in 1967.PAUL: The way Robert lived, which became the way I lived for a couple of years and which I now figure for a rather aristocratic way of life, would be that he’d ring early in the day and say, ‘What are we doing for dinner tonight?’ It all hinged round dinner. Once he’d had dinner fixed, then he could fill in the rest of the day. It all worked around the event. Robert generally liked to eat down Chelsea: King’s Road, Fulham Road area. The San Lorenzo, the Trattoria.As well as dinner or hanging out at Mount Street, Paul would often put in an appearance at the gallery. ‘Once I got to know Robert, a nice thing would be going to the gallery and helping install an exhibition. Just sit around and smoke a bit of pot while somebody else was installing the exhibition. Helping. Play a little music for him.’  [x]

In my garden at Cavendish Avenue, which was a 100-year-old house I’d bought, Robert was a frequent visitor.One day he got a hold of a Magritte he thought I’d love. Being Robert, he would just get it and bring it.  I was out in the garden with some friends. I think I was filming Mary Hopkin with a film crew, just getting her to sing live in the garden, with bees and flies buzzing around, high summer. We were in the long grass, very beautiful, very country-like. We were out in the garden and Robert didn’t want to interrupt so when we went back in the big door from the garden to the living room, there on the table he’d just propped up this little Magritte. It was of a green apple. That became the basis of the Apple logo. Across the painting Magritte had written in that beautiful handwriting of his ‘Au Revoir’. And Robert had split.I thought that was the coolest thing anyone’s ever done with me. When I saw it, I just thought: ‘Robert.’ Nobody else could have done that. [x]  

So, some time early in 1966, Paul and Robert flew to Paris. They checked into the Plaza Athenee on the Avenue Montaigne in the heart of haute-couture Paris, one of the most fashionable and snobbish hotels in France. Going on a trip with Robert caused a few comments from Paul’s friends. PAUL: “Because he was gay, it raised a few small-minded eyebrows and funnily enough, one or two of them were from within the Beatles: ‘Hey, man, he’s gay, what you going off to Paris with him for? They’re gonna talk, you know. Tongues are going to wag.’ I said, ‘I know tongues are going to wag, but tough shit.’” [x]

There were many good times in Robert’s flat. Through my Beatle connections I’d hire a 16mm projector for the evening […] and I started off with Wizard of Oz.Robert got into this, wow, and he’d get some art movies. We got a lot of Bruce Connors, showed a lot of that. It was a very exciting period. [x]

Robert’s flat was like a second gallery. He had a lot of Dubuffet around that he was trying to sell. I wasn’t too interested in him. He had a lot of stuff by Paolozzi, and I bought a big chrome sculpture which was called Solo, which was in the big Pop Art exhibition they had about two years ago at the Tate. I just said, ‘What is that, Robert?’ Fantastic. He said, ‘What is it? I don’t know. It’s a mantelpiece, a bit of a car, who knows?’I was very happy with that attitude, not too academic. There was no dour art talk. It was much more razzy, loose, lively discussion with him. [x]

They [Paul and Robert] happened to come to the studio one night and were just on a trip, you know, they were seeing things that weren’t there–seeing colours and seeing things that simply weren’t there. [x]

Robert could play the academic game quite easily, he was very knowledgeable, but I think he found it a bit boring. It wasn’t our scene, being academic. I’ve heard him hold his own with academics, but that wasn’t the buzz. The buzz was more of a mixture, a cross-over with musicians, etc.He turned me on to quite a few things, quite a few artists. We went down once on an impulse to see Takis, the great sculptor who did things with tank aerials with little lights on the end. That sort of thing was great.We’d just turn up at someone’s studio, smoke a bit of pot, sit around and just chat art. [x]

i have a lot more quotes in my tag, if you are interested and want to form your own picture of their relationship.

to me, if we see john as paul’s connection to music, robert was his connection to art. 

(lana del rey voice) her pussy tastes like marijuana

that one post that @georgefuckinharrison made about john lennon upskirt pics

I think your tags on the post about Paul's song Suicide got cut off. I was invested, and want to hear the rest of your thoughts :) Maybe you could put it all in a separate post if you don't want to add it as a reblog?

hey, thanks for this ask! It's always nice to have someone that wants to know my thoughts. I'd love to know yours on the subject too!

Okay super long text post under the cut

On “Suicide” 1956 and 1970

My interpretation of the meaning of Paul’s early song “Suicide” and its purpose on his debut solo album

The verse Paul had written in 1956 goes,

“If when she tries to run away

And he calls her back, she comes.

If there’s a next time, he’s okay

Cause she’s under both his thumbs.

She'll limp along to his side

Singing a song of ruin. I’d

Bet he says nothin’ doin’

I, I’d call it suicide.”

The song’s protagonist can’t leave an abusive relationship. The abuser knows it doesn’t matter what they do, the protagonist will always come back. Even when they’re limping, even when they vocalize their knowledge that this relationship is damaging, they’ll always come back, and the abuser is nonchalant. In the end,the singer likens the protagonist’s return to the relationship to suicide.

Just as the woman in the song is under her husband’s thumb, around the time this was written, Paul was very much under his father’s thumb. This was not due to any lack of self-direction or courage on his part. Jim was physically abusive (like the husband in the song) an addict, extremely controlling, and emotionally both unavailable and volatile. Still, in the same way that the woman in the song always goes back to her husband, Paul loved his father. It’s likely that Paul’s unusual degree of deference to his father was a combination of self-preservation and a genuine desire to help and please his father. Jim was also honest and well-liked, a lot of fun, intelligent, talented, a buyer of wonderful presents, and a supporter of Paul as a musician, and Paul felt great admiration and gratitude to Jim. And yet, Paul is not only the protagonist of “Suicide.” He’s also the singer. And the singer knows this relationship is destructive – bad enough to be likened to deadly.

So, “Suicide” is about Paul’s relationship with his father.

Enter John Lennon. Based on John’s perfect knowledge of “I lost my little girl” a full dozen years after being first shown it, I’m inclined to believe John was fully acquainted with the song “Suicide” and though I think pigs would fly before Paul would discuss its meaning with John, it’s not unlikely that he had his guesses.

It is also my tentative belief (based on the wording of the quote in which John talks about Paul and Jim and the issues with control and violence, the fact that John hit a lot of people, but never Paul, and the documented fact that John Lennon is intensely perceptive when it comes to Paul McCartney) that John knew Jim hit Paul. John hated Jim for all the same reasons Paul obeyed him. He hated that Jim was abusive, and he hated that Paul loved him. But. And here’s where I might be stepping on some toes. John and Jim share some important similarities.

Positives first. Both men are praised for being honest to a fault (Jim owning up to gambling debts and John being open and brash in interviews). Both are well-liked by almost everyone who knew them (People go on and on about what a gentleman Jim was, what a stand-up guy. People always think they’re John’s best friend after spending three hours with him) Both recognize Paul’s talent and give him the support he needs to pursue it (John obviously to a much higher degree) Both are described as being the life of the party and the center of attention.

Now negatives. Both men are highly susceptible to addiction. Both men pressured Paul about his lifestyle. Both are known to have been violent toward people they loved (although John was never violent toward Paul. This is important, and will be revisited). Both men had difficulty controlling their emotions or expressing them in a healthy way.

John eventually won his battle with Jim, as he states very proudly that Paul chose him in the end. He stood up to his father, as John claims he constantly begged him to do, and cast his lot with John, their partnership and their music. And, obviously, it was the right decision. Not only because it resulted in the greatest musical collaboration of all time, but because with John, Paul exchanged violence for softness. John was capable of a shocking level of care and tenderness, and for many years that was absolutely lavished on Paul. And I think they were both privately proud of that fact.

Jump to late 1969 / early 1970. John’s actions during the divorce (forcing Allen Klein – another violent and controlling man – on Paul, manipulating – self-admitedly – George and Ringo into turning against Paul, threatening – accidentally or on purpose – to treat Paul the way he’d treated Cynthia in their divorce, etc.) were hurtful enough to Paul that he was, in fact, suicidal (barely finding the strength not to suffocate himself in his pillow, taking way too much of everything, half-hoping he’ll overdose) and when he is finally pulling himself up again, he’s ignoring all John’s attempts to get him to come back (songs, interviews, letters, post-cards).

He puts out his debut solo album, the content of which makes John angry, though to an outsider, there doesn’t seem to be much there in the way of messaging.

Here’s what we get of “Suicide” a the end of “Glasses”, right before “Junk”

“ . . . song of ruin, I’d

Bet he says nothin’ doin’

I’d”

The part Paul chose to include was the abuser’s shrugging lack of surprise that the protagonist has returned, yet again, despite their knowledge that they’re walking back into abuse. I believe Paul’s message to John here is this: You were the one who taught me that there is a certain level of treatment I should expect from people who say they love me. Now that you’re the one who’s hurt me, you have to deal with what you’ve created. I’m not just going to come back to you with my tail between my legs and act like nothing happened. You taught me better than that. I’m really leaving. We’re really over.

John and George visiting Stuart Sutcliffes room. Photographed by Astrid Kirchherr.

“After Stuart’s death, John and George really cared about me. They used to come and see me in my home. It was actually John’s suggestion. John said, ‘Can I see where he used to paint?’ So I said, ‘Of course, you can.’

“In that moment, I had to take a picture of them. I just grabbed this old chair and put it there. And John was so full of emotion, being in the same room where his friend was just painting, that he nearly burst out in tears. And George was all a bit worried. So I just said to George, ‘Well, stand behind him.’ You could see how quickly George understood what it was all about, death and being alive.

Hi. I remember reading a quote by Stuart's sister about some sort of love triangle between John, Stuart and Paul, or something like that. I know she said something about them, but I can't find the source 😓

She didn't really frame it as a love triangle, but she did imply that Paul's intense jealousy of Stu might have been because he suspected there was something going on between John and Stu:

"I have known in my heart for many years that Stuart and John had a sexual relationship but to protect my mother I kept my counsel about it although everything I knew, personally and professionally, pointed towards it. And, with hindsight, it was a lovely happening: two lost boys who needed and found each other. [...] I’ve wondered many times over the years if that’s what some of the antagonism between Stuart and Paul might have been about, whether Paul suspected something [between John and Stu]. None of us directly connected to the Beatles have publicly acknowledged that John had less than conventional sexual attachments." —Pauline Stutcliffe (The Beatles' Shadow: Stuart Sutcliffe & His Lonely Hearts Club)

Imagine being insecure John Lennon gaining a little tiny bit of weight being constantly fatshamed by the press for it and a then a few years later seeing Paul McCartney gaining weight and all he gets is fat ass

December. 1968.

Paul out and about with soon-to-be step-daughter Heather, Margaret Davies and her daughter Caitlin. Praia da Luz, Portugal.

Assuming the photographer to be: Linda McCartney

More photos of this visit to come. Stay tuned in.

okay but can we PLEASE talk about the absolute LIES some of you spread about john lennon’s looks?? “ugly”?? “not handsome”?? are we LOOKING at the same man??

because let’s dissect this crime against humanity:

- that face is LITERALLY a medieval portrait come to life—aristocratic oval, sharp yet delicate, like someone carved him out of history itself

- the EYES. THE EYES. hypnotic almond shape, long straight lashes, the kind of gaze that could either seduce you or dissect your soul

- THE NOSE!!! (we don’t even need to elaborate. it’s a sculpture.)

- and his aura?? PURE SUNLIT CHAOS. a smiley, wild-haired ginger cat with the energy of a flaming comet. fire incarnate.

He had this magnetic pull that attracted everyone

this man was art in human form. if you disagree, i respect your right to be objectively wrong (and also fear for your vision).

...and yes, you could just fall asleep in those straight, bushy eyebrows of his...

John Lennon helping Yoko Ono in her photoshoot for David Bailey, July 18, 1971.

I was deep in the Beatles fandom back in 2018, and there was never this kind of shitstorm against John. All this nonsense was blown up by TikTok. I'll even go further: we actually saw him as the more morally pure one lol, in the sense that he was honest and kind of defenseless because of it – he had that aura about him. All this bitewife stuff is massively overblown. I hope it's just a phase and people will soon leave the murdered guy alone, who by his 40s had become a hardcore feminist and was crawling on all fours for Yoko 😏

(Sorry if my English is a bit rough, it's not my native language)

John Lennon getting harassed by fans (1966)