PAUL in GQ MAGAZINE
-
he didn't hurt anyone, he didn't rape anyone. yup, the prostitutes story is far from being glamorous but hey,
he had sex, he's human. yes maybe he should have kept these stories for himself but he was a young man ''living the dream'' . He is still the same talentend, generous, kind and extraordinary human being . -
The stories are indeed old news. It's not like Paul volunteered them; it was the writer trying to do something edgy I guess. If you've ever read GQ before, it's not unusual for them. Access to Paul isn't common, so spending the time asking about it to me is a total waste. Paul could've said, "C'mon, man, really? " but he went along with it. The interviewer also asked him about microdosing which I never heard about. Paul is also aware that he has grandkids now and doesn't want to encourage this kind of behavior.
I was surprised how long the interview went on in the magazine.
-
RADIANCE wrote:
I don’t expect anyone to agree with me. But I’m completely DISGUSTED in Paul. Some things need to go left unsaid. The stories in the new GQ article of the group masturbation and the threesome with prostitutes...
Just absolutely disgusting. Up until today I have adored Paul. But this changes my feelings completely. I regret I wasted so much money on tickets to this upcoming tour. I don’t even want to see him live now.
I don’t know what he’s trying to do by making all of this public but it’s apalling.
And no, I’m not some old lady. I’m 36 and I’ve loved Paul since I was a child.
I mean, why talk about that?!
DISGUSTING!!!
I have always tried to separate my admiration of an artists talent I like from them as a person. In most cases, I stick to enjoying their talent and do not get caught up with what they are like as a person. This information is not shocking or surprising to me, none of the Beatles were choirboys. Should he have left this unsaid, that is really his choice. If it upsets you, then sell your tickets. I am quite sure you will be able to sell them and even make a small profit - lol. BTW - my mother (God Rest Her Soul) was a huge Frank Sinatra fan. She knew at times he was not a very nice man but she loved to hear him sing and one of the happiest moments in her life was when my brother and I took her to see Sinatra in concert.
-
I just realized last night I had a math brain fart. 36+36+1=73, not my actual age which is 63!
Radiance, Yankeefan is right - you will have no trouble selling your tickets on here!
-
RE:Masturbation...There are those that do it and those that lie. End of story.
Oh boy! What a surprise! A young man with raging hormones jerked off to Bridget Bardot, and then a few years later that same person, now HIGHLY successful had sex with pretty hookers in Vegas no less.
Im sure the other 3 have similar stories, as well as the Stones,Bowie,Elton,Freddie,Who,Jimi,even Bieber, as well as the president of the USA.
Paul is a rockstar not a priest..Oh wait!
-
maccasfangirl30 wrote:
All celebrities have done things that they should not have. He was young then. Paul is very respectable now. If Paul wanted to share it let him. it is better to hear from Paul himself than a made up story by the press. I too appreciate Paul's honesty. Don't punish Paul for the troubles he has had in the past. Try looking at all the good he is doing now. I still respect Paul whether or not he has had a good or bad past. Paul is very kind amd caring person and thats what counts.
Agree, maccasfangirl30. Paul is human like the rest of us, don't see any reason to judge or shame him.
I've read about these stories before, in books and magazines, it's nothing new, they didn't make me dislike Paul then, and don't make me dislike him now. He was a normal, healthy, young man. People do evolve and grow.. he eventually met Linda and they had a very good home life and family. In addition to being a creative musical genius, I sense he is a kind and compassionate person, with a good heart, and tries to make the world a better place through various endeavors he believes in. I think he does try to live a good and honorable life, and the best life he can under a microscope, which sometimes isn't easy...
-
LadyLeslie wrote:
maccasfangirl30 wrote:
All celebrities have done things that they should not have. He was young then. Paul is very respectable now. If Paul wanted to share it let him. it is better to hear from Paul himself than a made up story by the press. I too appreciate Paul's honesty. Don't punish Paul for the troubles he has had in the past. Try looking at all the good he is doing now. I still respect Paul whether or not he has had a good or bad past. Paul is very kind amd caring person and thats what counts.
Agree, maccasfangirl30. Paul is human like the rest of us, don't see any reason to judge or shame him.
Plus, all his “whoring around” stopped when Linda arrived in London in mid-Sept. 1968. He told her he had “sowed all his wild oats” and wanted only her and to get married. They were inseparable (except for his jail time in Japan) until her death in 1998. So from the age of 26 to almost 56 he was a faithful husband. And all indications are that he has been the same with Nancy since they began dating. (The fact that he dated her while still married to HM does not bother me at all)
-
Nancy R wrote:
LadyLeslie wrote:
maccasfangirl30 wrote:
All celebrities have done things that they should not have. He was young then. Paul is very respectable now. If Paul wanted to share it let him. it is better to hear from Paul himself than a made up story by the press. I too appreciate Paul's honesty. Don't punish Paul for the troubles he has had in the past. Try looking at all the good he is doing now. I still respect Paul whether or not he has had a good or bad past. Paul is very kind amd caring person and thats what counts.
Agree, maccasfangirl30. Paul is human like the rest of us, don't see any reason to judge or shame him.
I've read about these stories before, in books and magazines, it's nothing new, they didn't make me dislike Paul then, and don't make me dislike him now. He was a normal, healthy, young man. People do evolve and grow.. he eventually met Linda and they had a very good home life and family. In addition to being a creative musical genius, I sense he is a kind and compassionate person, with a good heart, and tries to make the world a better place through various endeavors he believes in. I think he does try to live a good and honorable life, and the best life he can under a microscope, which sometimes isn't easy...
Plus, all his “whoring around” stopped when Linda arrived in London in mid-Sept. 1968. He told her he had “sowed all his wild oats” and wanted only her and to get married. They were inseparable (except for his jail time in Japan) until her death in 1998. So from the age of 26 to almost 56 he was a faithful husband. And all indications are that he has been the same with Nancy since they began dating. (The fact that he dated her while still married to HM does not bother me at all)
Agree with everything you wrote, Nancy! We were saying the same thing, I think, only using different words. I believe he grew as a person when he became involved with Linda, and understood for the first time what a real committed relationship was, and realized that's what he wanted, and was through with being a playboy.
When he was a young man, in his late teens and early 20s, women were throwing themselves at him on a daily basis, he was the hearttrob of millions, and I'm sure the attention was very flattering. Because he spent so much time composing and in the recording studio and on tour, and later working for Apple, I don't think he had a lot of time to give to commit to a relationship. I think he truly tried to have that with Jane Asher, but it was much easier for him to get his enchiladas on the side, so to speak, lol, and just get his lovin' on the run... (to copy the lyrics from The Joker by the Steve Miller Band... those lyrics are so Paul in the 1960s, lol.... but I digress......)
Not condoning young men going out and trying to "fook anything that moves" (in Liverpool dialect, lol), just saying where I feel Paul was at in his carefree bachelor days, before Linda, so understand how he (or anyone in his position) would have reacted in the same circumstances, and at the time of the '60s.
People shouldn't judge unless they've walked in his shoes and understand things from his perspective I think.
-
To the other posters who are "disgusted". It's 2018 and sex is everywhere. In your face! If you don't like it, don't participate in society. The fact is, the things Paul talked about have been written in interviews many times, over many years. John Lennon talked about masturbating with the others as kids, next to the "t....and a.." in Playboy. The only new thing I read was about Paul having two hookers. Big deal! The Beatles were at the beginning of the "Sexual Revolution". They cut their chops in a town full of porn and hookers. It's history. It's neither dirty or disgusting. It's all in your mind, you know?!
-
RADIANCE wrote:
Sorry but I find it hard to respect him when he says he enjoyed the threesome with the prostitutes. I mean, if he would have said...”yeah, we did some bad things I’m not proud of...” that would be different.
Bruce...nothing is wrong with talking about sex. But this is not just sex he is talking about. This is grotesque. It’s shameful.
Just highly disappointed. I could have gone without knowing all of this. Now I can’t look at a photo of him and John without thinking what nasty things they did. Ive been such a huge fan of him for so long. Always thinking what a cute, sweet man he is. The only celebrity I’d ever want to meet. And this just tarnishes everything.
Sorry but my morals just have a higher standard I guess.
He should have kept this private. I mean, normal people don’t go around talking about their sex life. Or how many prostitutes they’ve had.
Its sickening.
Why do people feel they need to share everything?! I hope he daughter, Beatrice, never gets a hold of that article.
maccasfangirl30 wrote:
All celebrities have done things that they should not have. He was young then. Paul is very respectable now. If Paul wanted to share it let him. it is better to hear from Paul himself than a made up story by the press. I too appreciate Paul's honesty. Don't punish Paul for the troubles he has had in the past. Try looking at all the good he is doing now. I still respect Paul whether or not he has had a good or bad past. Paul is very kind amd caring person and thats what counts.
What Paul did is pretty typical behavior for young, single men. And, personally, I'm offended by your apparent disdain for sex workers. Not everyone believes being "respectable" is a high ideal. When it comes to sex, there are 2 kinds of people: Those who have done (or longed to do) things that would shock respectable sensibilities and those who lie. Bravo to Paul for not putting on a fake show of "I deeply regret my youthful indiscretions." He's not a ****ing politician, and I admire him all the more for it.
And lordy, it's not like Paul's randiness wasn't an open secret. The joke in London in the late '60s was that his blood type was ... penicillin.
-
LadyLeslie wrote:
Nancy R wrote:
LadyLeslie wrote:
maccasfangirl30 wrote:
All celebrities have done things that they should not have. He was young then. Paul is very respectable now. If Paul wanted to share it let him. it is better to hear from Paul himself than a made up story by the press. I too appreciate Paul's honesty. Don't punish Paul for the troubles he has had in the past. Try looking at all the good he is doing now. I still respect Paul whether or not he has had a good or bad past. Paul is very kind amd caring person and thats what counts.
Agree, maccasfangirl30. Paul is human like the rest of us, don't see any reason to judge or shame him.
I've read about these stories before, in books and magazines, it's nothing new, they didn't make me dislike Paul then, and don't make me dislike him now. He was a normal, healthy, young man. People do evolve and grow.. he eventually met Linda and they had a very good home life and family. In addition to being a creative musical genius, I sense he is a kind and compassionate person, with a good heart, and tries to make the world a better place through various endeavors he believes in. I think he does try to live a good and honorable life, and the best life he can under a microscope, which sometimes isn't easy...
Plus, all his “whoring around” stopped when Linda arrived in London in mid-Sept. 1968. He told her he had “sowed all his wild oats” and wanted only her and to get married. They were inseparable (except for his jail time in Japan) until her death in 1998. So from the age of 26 to almost 56 he was a faithful husband. And all indications are that he has been the same with Nancy since they began dating. (The fact that he dated her while still married to HM does not bother me at all)
Agree with everything you wrote, Nancy! We were saying the same thing, I think, only using different words. I believe he grew as a person when he became involved with Linda, and understood for the first time what a real committed relationship was, and realized that's what he wanted, and was through with being a playboy.
When he was a young man, in his late teens and early 20s, women were throwing themselves at him on a daily basis, he was the hearttrob of millions, and I'm sure the attention was very flattering. Because he spent so much time composing and in the recording studio and on tour, and later working for Apple, I don't think he had a lot of time to give to commit to a relationship. I think he truly tried to have that with Jane Asher, but it was much easier for him to get his enchiladas on the side, so to speak, lol, and just get his lovin' on the run... (to copy the lyrics from The Joker by the Steve Miller Band... those lyrics are so Paul in the 1960s, lol.... but I digress......)
Not condoning young men going out and trying to "fook anything that moves" (in Liverpool dialect, lol), just saying where I feel Paul was at in his carefree bachelor days, before Linda, so understand how he (or anyone in his position) would have reacted in the same circumstances, and at the time of the '60s.
People shouldn't judge unless they've walked in his shoes and understand things from his perspective I think.
I wrote my post before I saw your edited version with the added paragraph! Lol! (Great minds think alike)
-
Bruce M. wrote:
RADIANCE wrote:
Sorry but I find it hard to respect him when he says he enjoyed the threesome with the prostitutes. I mean, if he would have said...”yeah, we did some bad things I’m not proud of...” that would be different.
Bruce...nothing is wrong with talking about sex. But this is not just sex he is talking about. This is grotesque. It’s shameful.
Just highly disappointed. I could have gone without knowing all of this. Now I can’t look at a photo of him and John without thinking what nasty things they did. Ive been such a huge fan of him for so long. Always thinking what a cute, sweet man he is. The only celebrity I’d ever want to meet. And this just tarnishes everything.
Sorry but my morals just have a higher standard I guess.
He should have kept this private. I mean, normal people don’t go around talking about their sex life. Or how many prostitutes they’ve had.
Its sickening.
Why do people feel they need to share everything?! I hope he daughter, Beatrice, never gets a hold of that article.
maccasfangirl30 wrote:
All celebrities have done things that they should not have. He was young then. Paul is very respectable now. If Paul wanted to share it let him. it is better to hear from Paul himself than a made up story by the press. I too appreciate Paul's honesty. Don't punish Paul for the troubles he has had in the past. Try looking at all the good he is doing now. I still respect Paul whether or not he has had a good or bad past. Paul is very kind amd caring person and thats what counts.
What Paul did is pretty typical behavior for young, single men. And, personally, I'm offended by your apparent disdain for sex workers. Not everyone believes being "respectable" is a high ideal. When it comes to sex, there are 2 kinds of people: Those who have done (or longed to do) things that would shock respectable sensibilities and those who lie. Bravo to Paul for not putting on a fake show of "I deeply regret my youthful indiscretions." He's not a ****ing politician, and I admire him all the more for it.
And lordy, it's not like Paul's randiness wasn't an open secret. The joke in London in the late '60s was that his blood type was ... penicillin.
Hell, once Brian became their manager in 1961, he was constantly making sure they got “the clap” taken care of in Hamburg. They must have finally wised up since it was a condom Paul and Pete nailed to the wall and lit on fire! Lol!
-
I think Paul should get a break; who hasn't been wild as a buck at times while very young (well, apparently some haven't), and when you add to that all the world was at their feet just crying out to them to be theirs for the taking; and Paul himself said he and George and John, later Ringo, never expected in a million years to be such international sensations so when Beatlemania happened it came as quite a disorienting jolt...most of us can't even imagine such galvinizing world changing success for ourselves on that level, it was the zenith of show biz glory, and they from a city but a down to earth salt of the earth type city where they tell it like it is...no females back then complained about the Beatles making a pass ! LOL, quite the opposite with the girls being the hunters more than the hunted, though the Fabs seemed usually on the alert for opportunities and didn't let them go by. They were very bright and noticed everything. I'm bending over backwards to excuse Paul and the boys, but I don't like to see him dissed. Pete Shotten was avid to describe even the most intimate details in his two vivid books, so I was already familiar with those types of adolescent male "parties" from his explicit stories and I had always heard boys did that, anyway. I'm glad Paul had many, many good times. I guess. And don't begrudge it to him. I didn't realize he'd say "mother f------er" so often in an interview, LOL, it kind of made me laugh how he does it here. That interviewer kept egging him on wanting "exclusives." Quincy Jones provoked him. I didn't know Macca went through a phase of killing frogs as a child. That one kind of threw me for a minute. He's more than compensated with all his animal and nature loving ways since then, helping the animal kingdom and the environment.
-
Paul McCartney's and Quincy Jones' slow-moving squabble
By Sam Wolfson - Thursday 13th September 2018
-
About killing frogs--he was just a small tyke, didn't know any better; he's felt badly about it all this time. He was forgiven long ago by the man upstairs. He was and is truly sorry.
-
Cool to read Paul is open to microdosing in the future. We could get a really wild McCartney III out of that.
The sex stuff shouldn't be shocking. He was world famous and the ladies were throwing themselves at him so why not as long as he was hurting anyone. At least he never did what John did to Yoko in '72 and cheat on Linda with her in the next room overhearing it all.
The frog story has been around for years also. What was he 10-12 years old? He's always felt guitly about it. Check out the Rupert and Tuesday films.
If I had a dollar for everytime Paul said the F word it would pay for his concert tickets twicefold.
I want to hear more about their transvestite story that has been rumoured about for so long.
-
I was quite surprised when I read this article serialised in the Daily Mail . Not sure why Paul felt the need to go over this , but as others have suggested , perhaps it was brought up in the interview , and Paul isn’t in to denial ( the LSD 1967 television interview for a start ) .
Radiance , if you are reading this I have to say that I think no less of Paul for revealing this stuff ( there’s been so much “ scandal “ on the Beatles in print that nothing would surprise me )
what I would say is that I’m less than impressed with the other members on here who appear to be attempting to make you feel uncomfortable for feeling the way you do . Totally not on .
If you have a code of conduct that you feel is acceptable to you then I applaud you for it. I’ve done things I’m not proud of but I’m trying to be the best I can be , and I certainly won’t critiscise you for having an opinion if something is acceptable or not .
As a Fellow Paul fan I hope you can see past the bits in this interview that don’t impress you and accept he’s just a human doing the best he can .
Some people can’t see past his current vocal abilities or material , and that for me is a far bigger crime .
-
cb70 wrote:
Cool to read Paul is open to microdosing in the future. We could get a really wild McCartney III out of that.
The sex stuff shouldn't be shocking. He was world famous and the ladies were throwing themselves at him so why not as long as he was hurting anyone. At least he never did what John did to Yoko in '72 and cheat on Linda with her in the next room overhearing it all.
The frog story has been around for years also. What was he 10-12 years old? He's always felt guitly about it. Check out the Rupert and Tuesday films.
If I had a dollar for everytime Paul said the F word it would pay for his concert tickets twicefold.
I want to hear more about their transvestite story that has been rumoured about for so long.
For the transvestite and John story, read Mark Lewisohn’s book Tune In!
-
I think it's okay to stand up for Paul, defend Paul. I always have, in my heart if not always in a post. He doesn't really need it though, he's fine. He's a good person and a great musician and songwriter. Also, I realize some people are more prudish or puritanical and easily offended, than others. They shy away from seeing sexuality addressed openly. Sexuality is a part of life, though, obviously. I've read many explicit passages in works by acclaimed novelists like John Updike, Philip Roth, Erica Jong, Norman Mailer, Henry Miller and more recent writers which sometimes made me blush, turn red, and always thought to myself, "That's not porn, it's literature. They consider all that a part of human life, which it is, and therefore a valid topic in their writings."
-
SusyLuvsPaul wrote:
I think it's okay to stand up for Paul, defend Paul. I always have, in my heart if not always in a post. He doesn't really need it though, he's fine. He's a good person and a great musician and songwriter. Also, I realize some people are more prudish or puritanical and easily offended, than others. They shy away from seeing sexuality addressed openly. Sexuality is a part of life, though, obviously. I've read many explicit passages in works by acclaimed novelists like John Updike, Philip Roth, Erica Jong, Norman Mailer, Henry Miller and more recent writers which sometimes made me blush, turn red, and always thought to myself, "That's not porn, it's literature. They consider all that a part of human life, which it is, and therefore a valid topic in their writings."
I think it's OK to stand up for Paul too. I do it pretty much everytime someone has a pop at his voice at 76 ! (which atually does my head in )
What I don't think is OK is to make salty comments to someone becasuse they DO have a problem with say the rvelations in the GQ interview . There's really no need for responses like " well i'll have your tickets if hes such a dissapointment" (paraphrasing I know ) or " sex is part of life - get over yourself" etc.
Just say "i'm ok with what Paul has discussed- it doesn't affect me" . we don't need to make people feel intimidated .
