In his just-published explosive memoirs 65 My Life So Far, Jonathan King adds credence to the many unsubstantiated rumours of John Lennon's bisexuality. He reports that "two or three times" in the 60s, Lennon stayed over at King's flat with "with several young ladies and was perfectly happy to indulge in a multi-gender session of stimulation." Lennon, according to King, "was the most relaxed and adventurous Beatle."
Madame Arcati will be reviewing the surprisingly frank and graphic book very shortly - meantime to buy a copy click here. A perfect Christmas gift.
75 comments:
"Multi-gender"? How many genders are we talking about?
Does King describe what Lennon did at these "orgies"? Did he do it up the arse, or what? Not like you to stint on details, madame.
Don't be so arse-fixated. It's a bore.
Is Mr. King that anxious to be sued by Yoko Ono and Paul McCartney? What wouldn't one do to spice up their stew! Unfortunately this is last year's news, won't sell much.
Last year's news? You mean, you knew this last year?
And what do you imagine Ono or Macca would sue King for?
Once again the author of Madame Arcati shows a tendency to promote troubled people, from Robin Tablyn to Jonathan King. I don't really understand it unless of course the author is troubled himself,
Last year's news indeed, proof here:
http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/was-john-lennon-gay-no-way-says-paul-mccartney-173876
"And what do you imagine Ono or Macca would sue King for?"
Maybe for being a tad too imaginative? :-)
Last year's news? That link takes you to Philip Norman's book, not JK's. So there were claims in that book, and fresh (additional) claims in this book. A case to answer methinks.
JK's book is self-published isn't it?
Problem is, all those fabricated gay rumors are just a publicity stunt, used to work once but now the tune is getting very tired and boring. Try something else, people.
How do you know they're fabricated? You don't know. You're just wishful.
I'm afraid I'll have to agree with the Anonymous - just a proof that the author is troubled as well.
The reaction to this story is basically homophobic.
I found this story on Digital Spy. Then what do I see, you've posted it word for word on Popbitch. You're haing a larf.
A new low for this website and that's saying something.
Am currently 75 pages into this and it strikes me that the author is almost certainly less troubled than those who say what a troubled man he must be.
Hey; I'm just telling the truth about a magical era - sorry if people believe I should revise it according to modern morality. Strange how some simply cannot accept we behaved in a certain way 40 years ago. It was a wonderful time and doesn't need white washing by the beautiful new paint of this magnificent fresh moral attitude.
I agree, it is troublingly sane. Unlike, say, Mein Kampf.
This whole site is for weirdos. It's crazy and vicious. Popbitch and Holy Moly are must more trustworthy. And who are you anyway?
Then you diddle back to their creches, poppet. It's cold out here.
I agree with JK that the sixties/seventies were the times of innocent sexual freedom. If this is the way he introduces those "special parties", fine. Sadly there's been a change in mentalities and that homo, bi or multisexual theme has become a matter of scandal in the tabloids, and I'm afraid our dear Madame is on the tabloidy side of the fence here. Pity.
"How do you know they're fabricated? You don't know. You're just wishful."
They ARE fabricated indeed, in the sense that the way they are introduced in the media – including your blog – is twisted and false. At the end of the day it only serves the cause of homophobia.
You're a clever hack, I'm sure you get my meaning.
There's no scandal suggested or implied, only a revelation about Lennon's diversity. Sexual innocence - which is a personal condition, never a generational one (on this JK and I may disagree) - should not be confused with discretion: indeed the latter is usually the result of prudery or hypocrisy. I detect a touch of the Victorian table legs about you.
If cock-cunters persist in saying Lennon was exclusively a cock-cunter when in fact, for a while, he dabbled with cock-cocking, that's called news.
Now what else is there to read in the Salvation Army Argus?
"There's no scandal suggested or implied, only a revelation about Lennon's diversity."
A revelation, right, you're just making my point. This wouldn't have been a scoop in the early seventies. Why should it be one now?
To the fabrication person above, no, I don't know what you mean. Either Lennon cock-cocked or he did not. How the story is then reported is another matter, but if "fabrication" is involved then you mean something is made up. The words used in JK's book are faithfully repeated here.
You really must learn to spell out what you mean, literally. Only among friends can you "y'know" your way through an argument.
"To the fabrication person above, no, I don't know what you mean."
Oh really? Then I'm afraid you should read McLuhan again. Or simply... read him. :->
Would not have been a scoop in the 70s? Are you serious? That is only true to the extent such a story might have been covered up. Do you think the tabloids were invented in the Noughties? Take a trip back to the 50s when Lord Montagu created headlines.
Wow, what an avalanche of deleted comments! Panic on board, as it were. Hey, relax, darling!
McLuhan didn't talk about fabrication, but how messages are shaped by a medium for certain sensory effects. There are many ways to report a story, obvious.
"That is only true to the extent such a story might have been covered up."
No, it just wouldn't have been selected as newsworthy information. You're too young to understand.
Instead of a sub editor I have a delete button.
More precisely, a story might not be used because of its tastelessness.
"McLuhan didn't talk about fabrication, but how messages are shaped by a medium for certain sensory effects. There are many ways to report a story, obvious."
Obvious indeed. Do you ever question your own way?
There are about 1500 items on this blog - I invite you to peruse and you tell me.
"The reaction to this story is basically homophobic."
No. What's basically homophobic is the way that so-called "revelation" about Lennon's (alleged?) sexuality is introduced.
No, what's homophobic is the idea that Lennon's sexuality shouldn't be talked about. The arse above has no alternative, just reaction.
I am prepared to concede that Lennon was bicurious. Lots of horny people think of sexual permutations. He wasn't bisexual in the sense he actively sought out other men as well as women for sex. The problem is the labelling - and of course Madame, you never miss an opportunity to get up to some mischief. I see you've even got the story into Australia now.
"No, what's homophobic is the idea that Lennon's sexuality shouldn't be talked about."
Shrugs. The way you're talking about it (as if it were a big deal) is intrinsically homophobic, whether you like it or not. In other words, it sounds like there's a painful contradiction between your own sexual orientation and your journalistic agenda.
"The arse above has no alternative, just reaction."
The correct alternative is the way JK talks about it, as far as I can judge.
I'm in the rather delicious position of being able to tell the truth; most "celebrities" - including myself in previous incarnation - always have to couch their language with discretion but I have nothing to lose by being honest, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody. I don't think John would mind the sentence I've used.
A journalist selects the most interesting info that's news. It's as simple as that.
Jonathan King is a convicted paedophile desperate to make money with salacious revelations about a dead man in his awful rag of a book. Don't buy it, there's no proof to substantiate his claims. King should rot in hell for what he did to those young boys.
RE: last comment by Anonymous..only a jealous, frustrated author could be so angry about another author's book...I feel it is unfair to make a blanket statement about JK's book.."don't buy it?" why? because you are not going to reap in the glory?
"Better to burn out than to fade away"
John Lennon..
s~
So many (usually Anonymous) simple folk who can only believe the media story, the prosecutor story (more juicy; "I didn't do it" is SUCH bad copy), the accuracy of the legal system. One wonders how they can justify their same condemnatory attitude to Sally Clark, Barry George, Sean Hodgson, Sion Jenkins... the list is endless - and do they then completely reverse their opinions when the flawed system discovers their monsters innocent after all? Answer - yes. They are so dim they don't spot the irony.
"A journalist selects the most interesting info that's news. It's as simple as that."
Neither news nor really interesting, your audience replies. Besides, your superficial retort is just another proof of the journalists' legendary hatred for self-questioning. Bye.
"I don't think John would mind the sentence I've used."
Hey John, if your spirit is among us and approves of Mr King's statement, please knock three times. This is a psychic's house, after all. :-)
If it's not news or interesting, what are you doing here then? You plainly have psycho-sexual problems, I hope you get help.
"This whole site is for weirdos. It's crazy and vicious. Popbitch and Holy Moly are must more trustworthy. And who are you anyway?"
errr..shurley shome mishtake.
If Popbitch doesn't pick up this story I'll eat Molly Parkin's hat.
As someone who dabbled in and on the fringes of the music business, the amount of gay sex-either experimental or otherwise was more the norm than not. Modesty prevents me from naming the on-the-surface heterosexual popsters I've seen in a gay clnch.
Anecdotally, I've heard of at least 3 gay scenes that Lennon was involved in and from people I trust. And how would Paul McCartney know what John did ?
And how sensible for King to "self-publish"..keep all the profits...way to go.
Don't we all come here for the weirdos ?
I had sex once with a John Lennon athough he wasn't the one in The Beatles.In fact I had sex with someone called Paul as well.
Never did it with a Ringo though.
Must go-there is someone at my door.
Is that really Jonathan King? The link goes nowhere. It could be Gary Glitter for all we know.
1980 interview with John Lennon and Yoko Ono:
PLAYBOY: What started the rumors about you and Epstein?
LENNON: I went on holiday to Spain with Brian -- which started all the rumors that he and I were having a love affair. Well, it was almost a love affair, but not quite. It was never consummated. But we did have a pretty intense relationship. And it was my first experience with someone I knew was a homosexual. He admitted it to me. We had this holiday together because Cyn was pregnant and we left her with the baby and went to Spain. Lots of funny stories, you know. We used to sit in cafes and Brian would look at all the boys and I would ask, "Do you like that one? Do you like this one?" It was just the combination of our closeness and the trip that started the rumors.
Me thinks:
If Cynthia was pregnant (with Julian), this was in 1962 (homosexuality illegal in the UK). Also consider that in 1980 homosexuality had only been legal in England and Wales for 13 years. This conversation shows a Lennon as candid as society of that time would allow him to be without "burning him at the stake" in the media like he had been for other statements before. Food for thought...
MA darling, it seems to me all those anon comments reek of turd, with all the "quotes" and smileys :-> ?? One wonders what keeps attracting these elements to your site, if it is indeed riddled with "troubled people". Who is truly troubled: grown-ups discussing all kinds of adult matters or repressed individuals "peeping" into this website only waiting for a chance to declare us all weirdos?
ox
> Hey John, if your spirit is among us and approves of Mr King's statement, please knock three times. >
Ha! I'd love that. Just one question now, Vicki: is the headline of this item a quote from Jonathan's book, or is it a journalistic eye-catcher you made up? Honestly. The devil is in the details, as we all know.
"If it's not news or interesting, what are you doing here then?"
Naturally. Once again your usual, overly predictable masterpiece of irrelevancy. Not everyone is visiting your blog because they like it, you know. But okay, I'll admit its global lack of interest is somehow fascinating, seeing it from a critical angle. Satisfied?
My headline is entirely made up - which is to say it is a translation of the facts rendered literal, a good example of McLuhan's law. It is not incorrect. In fact it is correct.
Dear Blithe, great find. I guess Lennon was a top.
As to the twerp who seeks to explain my lack of global appeal, it's a strange person who delves into a website they don't like. Trouble is, your disapproval is a kind of interest. In fact, you are utterly intrigued by me. At night you lie in bed wondering what kind of person I really am. And I don't think the globe has mandated you to say anything.
Paxo. Bumhole. Stuff.
The problem with sexual minorities, nowadays, is that they think everyone should be interested in their desperate attemps to involve the whole humanity in their little difference. The thing is they still feel so insecure about their own legitimacy that they constantly need more famous role models and standard bearers, alive or dead. This is just pathetic, and the fact that almost all the professional internet gossipers are gay doesn't help: that sort of untimely proselytism is actually a lagging factor for sexual tolerance. Think of it.
You wouldn't know whether most professional gossipers are gay or not: that's your prejudiced assumption - part of the Digital Spy mob are we?
As for "minorities", only someone self-consciously a member of the "majorities" would write such crap. What King's book demonstrates is the pointlessness of labels: beneath the image, veneer, a great many people engage in activities attributed to your fabled minorities.
Think on it.
Did it occur to you that I myself might very well be one of those occasional experimenters? I have no prejudices here. I am just pointing out a counter-productive behaviour. Besides, I've heard that the likes of Perez Hilton aren't much appreciated even in GLBT circles.
I try to make no assumtpions. What you call minorities is just language.
Just language? No. Official statistics. It's your panomnisexual statement that's mere assumption.
What official statistics? Just numbers and percentages from language.
"Oh come on, the most prominent ones are openly gay..."
Oh well, if it is true that the most prominent happen to be gay, I'm sure it's just circumstantial. I wonder what websites the likes of Popbitch think of your opinion...
Shit, this "thing" has put us in the position of doing the quoty-thingy. I'm done! It's not like it will ever evolve and improve with arguments. Lost cause... or worthless, for that matter...
LOL. You're in deeper denial than I suspected! Okay, a beautiful life to you.
"This is just pathetic, and the fact that almost all the professional internet gossipers are gay doesn't help"
Not mentioning those countless gay gossip sites, such as DataLounge, Queerty, TowelRoad, AfterElton, etc. I've sometimes witnessed laughable wishful thinking competitions there. Ah well, if that makes them feel better...
speaking of gay gossipers and media interest in former jailbirds and whether it's newsworthy or not-I seem to re-call the life of Oscar Wilde has been a source of countless newspaper stories, movies and books over the decades.
Yes, he should sue.
Ah, but Oscar Wilde is an interesting character indeed: witty, a great writer, overly sensitive and obnoxiously persecuted by a hypocritical society. Very romantic. The ideal standard bearer just behind Alexander the Great. I'm not sure if trying to hijack John Lennon as a posthumous gay icon has any relevancy at all.
Arcatistes don't need icons, dearie. But if there's some interesting goss to be had, we're all ears.
"Ah, but Oscar Wilde is an interesting character indeed: witty, a great writer, overly sensitive and obnoxiously persecuted by a hypocritical society."
well yes but could not one say much of that applies to Mr King as well ?. Afterall isn't 'Una Paloma Blanca" and " Everyone's Gone to The Moon" great literary classics similar to say,'The Little Prince'? ( And The Importance of Being Earnest is really pretty over-rated and dreary isn't it ?
And the allegations are the same-youth fiddling- and surely the M'lud's summing up in King's trial describing him as a "Vile Pervert" should go down in history as one of the great judicial quotes.
No-the only difference I can see is that Oscar drank himself into an early grave and King is a teetottler !
Both wore green as well-Oscar his carnation and King that hideous fright wig !
Frankly, there's too many claims, at too many points in Lennon's life to dismiss the gay rumors. This is why they still continue to this day. Simon Napier- Bell, Tony Manero, and now Jonathan King all have interesting insights beyond Lennon's whitewashing of his "relationship" with Brian Epstein in Playboy. He was bisexual, by the way, not gay.
John Lennon's sexuality is old news. Everyone who was anyone in the industry knew about it. What I want to know is why Paul McCartney, after a successful 30-year marriage and a less successful second marriage, still has a reputation in the music biz as a "bottom." Care to explain, Sir Macca, you and your "immovable heterosexuality"?
Page 98 in The Beatles Anthology, John Lennon quote about why he beat up Bob Wooler for teasing him about Brian & John going on holiday in Spain . "I must have been frightened of the fag in me to get so angry"-John Lennon.
Why are Beatles fans so homophobic? I could give many more quotes from John and others that knew him well that shows John was a sexual adventurer, SO WHAT! Good for him I'd say and as a female fan, a BI John Lennon is HOT!
Post a Comment