was yoko a kind of julia-sutcliffe substitute for lennon?

[alejandro de tacobell]

i was watching backbeat.. not really a very good movie but good enough.
it's mostly the story of john and stu. not topnotch actors but
adequate. music is secondary as are the other beatles. indeed, astrid
figures more into the story than paul, george, and pete best. and
lennon reminds me of that guy named ian in globe trekker. kinda dorky.

anyway, i couldn't help notice that fact that stu was a painter, an
artist, bohemian... and so was yoko.
the movie makes stu as lennon's doppelganger. lennon mouths the usual
cliches about how art is all bs and nothing matters but hitting the
charts and becoming megastars. but, we know that underneath his
toughguy/rocker/boorish exterior, lennon is a sensitive soul who always
wanted some link with what couldn't be bought or sold. lennon did have
a secret side that was too intelligent, too complex for pop or rock.
there was a suppressed bohemian, an artiste! lennon had the smarts,
the insight, the wit, the briliance, but he was too impatient, too wild
and aggressive to nurture that side of him. he had to become a rock
star. but, having stu around was like being reassured that there was
more to himself--lennon--than the crass rock n roller wanting to hit
the big times. real artistes belonged to a world of their own and
lennon wanted to be a part of this world. but, he was too rough, too
insecure about his education and background to ever feel confident
among these kind of artists, the bohemians. so, he sought acceptance
from the CROWD, the masses. in one scene after stu's death, we see
astrid among the crowd cheering for the beatles; amidst the cheering
and dancing, she turns and walks away. lennon has gained the world but
has lost his soul. he can belong to the people but he can't belong to
the persons that really mattered to him.
to lennon, george was little more than a kid brother type. mccartney
was a musical/professional partner but not a soulmate, a kinspirit with
an eccentric heart. stu was no musician but on some deep level, he was
like a 'demian' character to lennon. his friend, his master. indeed,
stu's lack of musicianship may have been why he meant so much to
lennon. despite lennon's passion for rock n roll, he needed a sense of
attachment to something other than rock, something more elusive,
shadowy, suhtle, sophisticated, and deeply personal. one wonders if
'in my life' in rubber soul was about stu sutcliffe.

another key person in lennon's life was his mother julia. she was a
free spirit, a kind of natural born bohemian and world shaker. if stu
was sensitive and withdrawn, julia was wild and carefree. lennon
clearly inherited much of her personality. but, she had one thing in
common with stu, and that was an indifference to what others thought.
rock n roll, despite its rebel posing, was about a band wanting
desperately to be liked, accepted, and cheered on by the crowd. rock n
roll was a kind of mock aggression. its assualt on the audience was
really what the audience wanted, indeed demanded. the audience was
wilder and crazier than the performers who served the wishes of the
crowd. indeed, look at beatlemania. it was the beatles who ran from
the crazy mobs asking for more and more. in some way, the mob played
and pushed the band more than vice versa. but, julia wasn't anyone to
seek acceptance and approval from others. she did as she pleased and
didn't care what anyone thought.

anyway, both julia and stu died tragically, suddenly. lennon was left
with his beatle members whom he liked but didn't really feel close to.
stu had been like a brother. paul and george and pete(later ringo) were
only partners. and john married cynthia who was devoted but kinda
dull. deep inside, lennon--sensitive despite his rough and tumble
exterior, complex, and inner-conflicted--craved for someone he could
really attach himself to, be one with.

and who came along? yoko. she was a woman like julia. she was an
artist like stu. she was a rather wild and outrageous uncompromised
personality. but, she was an artist and belonged to a 'world of their
own'--that of a cloistered community of artists. this was a world that
the masses or crowds couldn't barge into and stamp with their soiled
feet. thru yoko, lennon rediscovered all that had been lost with the
death of julia and stu. the fact that lennon so faithfully clung to
yoko may have had something to do with guilt complex. maybe, lennon
blamed himself for not having been there to save julia or stu.
subconsciously he blamed himself, so when the world sha* on yoko john
was gonna stick with her, suffer with her, be crucified with her.

it's a wild theory but if there's any truth to this, then maybe
lennon's shacking up with yoko has a certain nobility though to this
day i can't stand the bitch. and, even lennon's untimely death takes on
some perverse meaning. maybe a part of his soul had already died with
julia and stu. he'd drowned out or suppressed his pain with the loud
noise of rock and glamour and money, but perhaps there had always been
a side of him that had sought death, to be reunited with julia and stu.
indeed, consider songs like tomorrow never knows(inspired by tibetan
book of the dead), day in the life, and strawberry fields(with its
funereal mood). there's a sense in lennon's songs that express a total
exhaustion and despair with the world and with his life. lennon's
death was probably the greatest loss and tragedy in rock history but
perhaps it was not entirely meaningless from some metaphysical vantage
point.
though chapman is a sicko and should be locked up forever, in a
demented way he read lennon's mind all too well. underneath the snap,
crackle, and pop of beatles music, lennon's songs had often expressed a
sense of sadness, of a spiritual longing, of philosophical striving for
an higher ideal that was impossible in a world of the masses; his songs
sought reunion with the true, the pure and innocent(in spirit if not
mores), and the personal, the qualities that julia and stu embodied.
as a beatle, lennon realized that the beatles was an obnoxious
mass-market ploy, a commodity, all about dollars and cents. he found
refuge in yoko and tried to search out new meaning. he eventually left
the beatles and withdrew into his private world. he released albums
like 'imagine' and others that were idealistic and personal(though his
maoist/feminist phase was just dumb). but, eventually, lennon just grew
lazy and comfy with his privelege. chapman felt he had to save the
good lennon by killing the corrupted lennon. sick, demented, and
retarded... yet, there is something that chapman felt toward lennon
that lennon felt toward stu and julia. a desire to be associated with
what was true, untarnished by the mobs of the world. there was
something like this in the pscyhology of the kennedy assassination plot
in don delillo's libra. a subconscious reading of history.

[whosoever]

You are nuts. Stop thinking... stinkin' thinkin', that's what these
stupid posts are about.

[D. Phall Tewser]

whosoever wrote:

> You are nuts. Stop thinking... stinkin' thinkin', that's what these
> stupid posts are about.

wow, what a cunt

[Scribbler]

He called her "mother." What does that tell you?

[Slip Kid]

See, 'oever prefers a post with an equal balance of the
juvenile/sexual/insult.

It's pretty easy!

Think: Penislickbragflame.

Not perfect, a good start.
~~~~
Michael

[denni...@yahoo.com]

She could never had replace Sutcliffe in John's eyes. Look at the pics.
Stu was MUCH cuter!

[alejandro de tacobell]

yes, better stu with a wig than yoko.

[frpa...@yahoo.com]

denni...@yahoo.com wrote:
> She could never had replace Sutcliffe in John's eyes. Look at the pics.
> Stu was MUCH cuter!

Also Stu really was an artist. He didn't just talk about being one all
the time.

[Bernie Woodham]

Good theory. But you ignore a couple of things. First, his mom dies. Then
his dependent personality latches on Stu Sutcliffe. Sutcliffe dies. Then
his dependent personality latches onto Epstein. Epstein dies.

He also latches on to Bob Dylan. Dylan dies, (an artisitic death).

Then, out of the blue, Paul McCartney dies. Holy Moley.

No wonder he latches onto Yoko. If she died there would be no great loss.

[Temporary Like Achilles]

He also latches on to Bob Dylan. Dylan dies, (an artisitic death).

Dylan Is Dead (?) Do you really think it's responsible to make that
kind of statement? How would you feel if you were Bob Dylan and read
that about yourself? The country has probably gone downhill since you
made that statement.

:-)

Temporart

[fatt...@yahoo.com]

I think Yoko reminded him of Julia and Aunt Mimi. The two were
opposites: Julia was artistic, free spirited and unconventional. Aunt
Mimi strikes me as mean, bossy, strict, unsmiling and class conscious.

Mimi rarely encouraged John in his interests. She wanted him to be a
pharmacist, an accountant, etc. and he never had the attention span
span in school to do anything like that. John probably felt he could
never get her approval.

Mimi also discouraged John's friendships. She often did not like his
friends and felt they were two "lower class" for "her John." She would
not let Paul or George into the house when they came to call. She was
not happy that he married Cynthia. No one was good enough for her
John. Mimi was possessive of him.

Both women remind me of Yoko.

[user name]

They say that cat Yoko's a bad mother____

[Kathy]

Did you know Mimi?

I only ask because I never heard her mention you and a great deal of
what you just posted is utter bullshit.

[Steven]

I think those are all valid points that you raise............and a very
good post.
And as far as John's "In My Life", he reportedly wrote the song for Stu
Suttciffe and Pete Shotton...............

[sexcanbefun]

<fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118611929.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Interesting.
>

[fatt...@yahoo.com]

Dear Kathy,

Boy, you don't mince words. Have you read any of JOhn's
interviews or Paul's book Many Years from Now? Have you read Mimi's
interviews?

Give me one example where Mimi encouraged John in what he did.

Wasn't Mimi the one who told John "Playing a guitar is alright,
but you will never earn a living at it."

John and Paul would go to Julia's house or someone else's house
to practice; Mimi would not let them in her house. She banned John to
the porch because his practicing annoyed her.

John's mother Julia loved Elvis and encouraged John's interest in
music. She is the one who taught him banjo chords and played Elvis
records for him. Just read Paul's interviews of the book by John's half
sister, Julia Baird.

I could go on and on. Read about 20 or 30 books on the Beatles
(as I have) and dozens of interviews (as I have) and then get back to
me to tell me this is bullshit.

[fatt...@yahoo.com]

I meant to say "Just read Paul's interviews OR the book by John's half
sister . . . ."

[Kathy]

Well. Aren't you impressive?

But I've read way more than 20 or 30 books, dear. Way more. I've even
read Macca's book and Julia Baird's. I also knew Mimi for more than 2o
years and spent time with her in Poole on more than one occasion. I'll
take that over a "dozen" of the interviews you've read all day long.

So please consider this getting back to you. And again, I'll tell you
a great deal of what you're spouting in here about Mimi is pure
bullshit.

I could go on and on, too.

But I'm not going to.

[fatt...@yahoo.com]

Dear Kathy,

Well, if you personally knew Mimi for 20 years, I AM impressed
and interested in your opinion. However, are you saying that John's
statements and Paul's statements are bullshit? Did you know her when
she raised John?

Tell us more about your version of Mimi. How was she with John?

[Kathy]

fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Dear Kathy,
>
> Well, if you personally knew Mimi for 20 years, I AM impressed
> and interested in your opinion. However, are you saying that John's
> statements and Paul's statements are bullshit? Did you know her when
> she raised John?

No. I'm saying that your interpretation of John and Paul's statements
is bullshit. I'm saying your opinion of Mimi being "mean, bossy,
strict, unsmiling" is bullshit.

She didn't discourage John's friendships. She allowed Paul and George
in the house. And when John died, it was Paul she most wanted to hear
from.

I'm saying not everything you read in books can be taken to the bank
and for you to post otherwise is bullshit.

> Tell us more about your version of Mimi. How was she with John?

I have no desire to argue *my* version of Mimi with what a Hunter
Davies or Geoffrey Giuliano might have written 30 years ago.

Been there. Done that. And still have the t-shirt.

[fatt...@yahoo.com]

Dear Kathy,

Well, I certainly don't mean to hurt your feelings. And I am
not interested in an argument, just a friendly exchange. However, now
you say "I have no desire to argue my version of Mimi with what a

Hunter Davies or Geoffrey Giuliano might have written 30 years ago."

So are you now telling us that Davis and Giuliano wrote bullshit too?

I agree that not everything written is completely accurate, but
Hunter Davis is generally very respected.

Are you telling us that Mimi was not strict and bossy with John?
You mean she happily supported his interest in rock and roll? She
approved of his Teddy Boy looks? She liked Paul and George and the way
they dressed? I think Paul says otherwise in his book.

So what I read about her banning John to the porch when he
practised and telling him "A guitar's alright but you'll never earn a
living with it" was all bullshit? John mentioned this quote on TV in
front of millions of people. That was bullshit?

I must retract my statement earlier about her being unsmiling. I
confess in retrospect that was unfair. But from what I have read and
heard, Mimi struck me as class conscious and strict. Of course, I am
sure she loved John very much and meant the best.

[fatt...@yahoo.com]

I am curious. What did Mimi really think of Yoko? And Julian? And
Cynthia? I've seen contradictory interviews by her.

[fatt...@yahoo.com]

>From "Many Years from Now":

page 32

"Not everyone approved of their friendship. John's Aunt Mimi
disapproved because she thought Paul was a working class lad who was
encouraging her nephew to devote time to his guitar . . ."

page 44:

Paul would go around the left side of the house to the back door where
Aunt Mimi would let him into a small conservatory . . . and call "John,
your little friend's here."

Now here is a direct quote from Paul: She would always refer to me as
'your little friend.' I'd look at her. She'd smile. I'd know what she'd
done. She'd know what she done. I would ignore it. It was very
patronizing but she secretly quite liked me. She sort of twinkled, but
she was very aware that John's friends were lower class. John mixed
with the lower classes . . . She was the kind of woman who would put
you down with a glint in her eye, with a smile but she'd put you down
all the same."

[whosoever]

Patented MaccaShit from a book he didn't even write. Cobbled together
from telephone interviews. A vain attempt to rewrite the story of
John's childhood from Paul's POV. At a time when the
Goldman-Seaman-Giuliano horseshit was creating a "false consensus"
about John and Paul was getting ready to make a move. Of course he
changed his mind later when this "author" revealed how the book had
been written and dropped a few choice tidbits about the "revelations"
Paul put into the book about his extremely recently dead wife... My
personal copy of MYFN was tossed on the recycling bin six months ago...
nothing against Ian Hammond for sending it to me... but I read enough
of it so I was not surprised to hear that Paul was suing the author for
violating their "confidential relationship" (apparently all his
relationships are all contractualized, hmmmm?) they'd maintained for
years. Now that McCartnuts saw a chance to stay in front of the
emerging "Story of the Fabs" market, his longtime good friend became a
defendant. So many defendants. So few judges available to rule on the
plaintiff's case... BFD.

Frannie or Schwartz

[RPBeara]

<fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118669474.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Forget it, fat.

Kathy is the real deal and is well known for being exactly what she says.
She knew the woman personally, and her knowledge outguns any books you come
up with.

She was pretty clear. Much of what you say is bullshit. Reading books is
not living life, not *knowing* people. She didn't say ALL that you spout is
bullshit, and she refused to get drawn into a point by point argument about
what IS right and what's wrong.

Perhaps she needs to print it in a book for you to get?

:)

[maxenglish]

Scribbler wrote:
> He called her "mother." What does that tell you?

Good point.

Apparently he fell in love with this exotic artistic theoretician and
they had some kind of rapport. Yoko claims to have never heard of the
Beatles before she met John (unlikely) - other claim Yoko actually knew
John was going to visit her gallery show the day they first met. Ask
Yoko.

As for a Stu replacement - the friend/muse/inspirator/collaborator role
fits him well, something he found to a lesser (greater certainly in the
music domain) degree with Paul. Yoko perfectly fit this role because
together they could stay together literally 24 hours and even produce a
child together and cause a public uproar just by being together.

Lennon did not care who he offended, whether it be the Queen, the other
Beatles, war veterans, the KKK, or his general music-listening public,
thus, Yoko was a great unconscious prod to see how people really felt
about offbeat musical/art concepts and ideas, and artists who were also
Japanese. They would just have to buy his/her albums and deal with it.
People hated Yoko for just about every reason, and John, though
sensitive, really could not have cared less in the end. He couldn't go
on being a Beatle his whole life.

As for a Julia replacement - yes, the encouraging 'Mother' aspect he
found in Yoko in spades.

[frpa...@yahoo.com]

No, it isn't. But not everyone has the opportunity to meet the person,
and books are sometimes the best resource there is. There's nothing
wrong with wanting to learn and read.

[Randy Farrell]

<frpa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118674765.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Absolutely. But one cannot continue to lord these books and interviews over
others as if no one else has read them. Much of this stuff is pure
interpretation.

And Kathy just happened to be the real deal, not just some lying trollette
looking to make a name for herself.
>

[whosoever]

frpa...@yahoo.com wrote:

>But not everyone has the opportunity to meet the person,

That's right, not every author of Beatle histories has met all four
Beatles... in fact, I would venture to say that a majority of authors
never met John *or* Yoko.

> and books are sometimes the best resource there is. There's nothing
> wrong with wanting to learn and read.

That's also true, as I said, most of the books springing from Fred
Semenboy Seaman's admitted lies and slanderous innuendos including what
he wrote here about John and Yoko as well as about me are based on a
foundation of racist sexist hatred and Semenboy-like jealousy.

So you really have to do your homework if you want to play this game of
obfuscation and "get the guests" (yes, it does remind me of "Who's
Afraid of Virginia Woolf" the good old movie version with Liz & Dick).
Most Beatles books are bullshit. But there is consolation: history will
continue to revise and extend its remarks about the Beatles long after
all four have gone on to rock & roll heaven. The only way you or Kathy
or anybody else will ever know the truth is to live long enough to
judge the quality of the historian's research...

FRANCIE SCHWARTZ (The Real Deal)

[Slip Kid]

whosoever wrote:

Dear Sweetness...

(I wrote this before I saw the reactionary :"Hey, Mikey! UP YOURS!")

Anyway...

Amazon ticker:

'Body Count'
13 used & new available from $40.00
Edition: Paperback

[Up from $34.95, last week]

<Snip>

> Most Beatles books are bullshit. But there is consolation: history will
> continue to revise and extend its remarks about the Beatles long after
> all four have gone on to rock & roll heaven. The only way you or Kathy
> or anybody else will ever know the truth is to live long enough to
> judge the quality of the historian's research...
>
> FRANCIE SCHWARTZ (The Real Deal)
>

This description at A-zon doesn't jibe with some of what is posted here:

"Also noted for its lack of explicit sexual detail, this book tells what
living the 60's media myth was really like. From L.A.'s rock publicity
circuit to New York's East side bar scene and ad agency maelstrom, to
London in '68 and back! A survivor's story."
--
Reviews (by critics) contemporaneous with the release were generally
favorable. But 30 years later, readers are full of vitriol.
How soon did the ugliness begin?

(I'll survive without a response - - If you can't write something civil?
Don't...)

~~~~~
Michael

[fatt...@yahoo.com]

Dear RP,

I would be delighted if Kathy wrote a book. But you certainly
can't blame me for relying on interviews by John or Paul, can you?

[fatt...@yahoo.com]

Anyway, to get back on topic, to me Yoko was an Aunt Mimi/Julia
substitute. Some Beatle "experts" theorize that May was a Julia
substitute (fun loving, easy going) and Yoko was an Aunt Mimi
substitute (strict). In other words, because of John's unusual
upbringing by two different women, he would tend to want both women in
his life.

[RPBeara]

<fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118688353.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Dear RP,
>
> I would be delighted if Kathy wrote a book.

Maybe she doesn't want to. You can only read but not listen? I believe it.

But you certainly
> can't blame me for relying on interviews by John or Paul, can you?

Yes, yes I can. That's ALL you rely on, and make a point to drop this
little bomb every single post. How you've read books and interviews. BFD!
Nearly everyone here HAS.

What's already been said applies to you. Since you are allegedly a newbie
here I thought I would mention that Kathy is real Beatle person in long
standing. SOmetimes you should know who you're dealing with.

I'd trust her over a single one of your bewks anyday. And I wouldn't trust
Francie if she told me the sky was blue. or in her parlance, "blew".

>

[Slip Kid]

fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Anyway, to get back on topic, to me Yoko was an Aunt Mimi/Julia

> substitute. Some "experts" theorize that May was a Julia

> substitute (fun loving, easy going) and Yoko was an Aunt Mimi
> substitute (strict). In other words, because of John's unusual
> upbringing by two different women, he would tend to want both women in
> his life.

This isn't the weirdest theory: I heard Paul(s) family was a substitute
for John's non-traditional family!? (And Paul felt responsible for John
and put up with condescending attitude because he saw it as a sign of
insecurity and inferiority!!! - - - (but then Paul was guilty for not
"being there" for John...)
I may have heard dozens of explanations about things that were beyond
anyone's expetise to explain.

Has any psychoanalytical conclusion not been applied to them?

Aren't those guys an those who were close to them among the most
analyzed people who lived?

There were famous people with much more bizarre or pathological behavior
than them, but people are comfortable or driven to apply some deep
seated motivations to them.

I went out on a limb in another thread with Mr. Wilson? - But his
'condition' was admitted by him and he did provide his own insights. I
was probably wrong and only asked donz about how it related to SMILLE...

As far as J,Y,P,L and assorted relatives and friends and associates? If
someone starts to diagram the various influences and connections it is
unlikely they'll end up with anything but more questions and answers and
more complications than simplicity.

I've admitted to speculation and pondering - I hope it is "end-oriented".

I went back and re-read the original post and a few in the thread and
it's a little over the line - - - towards ruminating if not prurient.

Am I the only one who sees some of this crossing into an unwholesome
interest?

No offense Fatt - Maybe you're just taking the bait? How does one
qualify to be in a group who is cited as ""Beatle experts" theorize"? I
thought that is a hit 'n' miss job if one has someone on the couch.

~~~~~
Michael

[fatt...@yahoo.com]

I thought that the purpose of the posted question (Was Yoko a kind of
julia-sutcliffe substitute) to encourage debate and discussion. I
never thought that this question could be or would be answered with
mathematical precision.

And I really don't think I am committing such a crime by relying on
interviews by John, Paul, George or Ringo.

I also don't think it is a crime to read books.

If I disagree with someone or if they disagree with me, it does not
mean that my opinion is bullshit or that their opinion is bullshit. I
would think that if everyone here had the same exact opinion all the
time, this place would be very boring and every posted question would
be answered by one or two responses.

Oh well. I guess I was wrong. OK, from now on, all of us should just
shut up, stop reading books, stop relying on interviews and wait for
Kathy to answer all the questions. Because only Kathy or RP know the
answers.

[Randy Farrell]

<fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118694409....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> I thought that the purpose of the posted question (Was Yoko a kind of
> julia-sutcliffe substitute) to encourage debate and discussion. I
> never thought that this question could be or would be answered with
> mathematical precision.

Personally I thought it was a very interesting premise.

>
> And I really don't think I am committing such a crime by relying on
> interviews by John, Paul, George or Ringo.
>
> I also don't think it is a crime to read books.

Not exclusively, no.

>
> If I disagree with someone or if they disagree with me, it does not
> mean that my opinion is bullshit or that their opinion is bullshit. I
> would think that if everyone here had the same exact opinion all the
> time, this place would be very boring and every posted question would
> be answered by one or two responses.
>
> Oh well. I guess I was wrong. OK, from now on, all of us should just
> shut up, stop reading books, stop relying on interviews and wait for
> Kathy to answer all the questions. Because only Kathy or RP know the
> answers.

I think you are overreacting, although I suppose smarting from criticism is
an easy thing to do.

Kathy never said she knew everything, but she did say she knew Mimi
personally, for 20 years. That's a direct first-person experience and a
long one as well. So if she felt some of your characterizations, which were
strictly off the top of your head, defined Mimi incorrectly then she
probably felt she should speak up. I know I would.

You're not a bad person for reading books. It sounds like you've read an
awful lot of them. But many books feed from prior books and if the first
books have errors they tend to carry on for quite awhile. Maybe forever.

Anyway, I think Yoko being a combination of Julia and Mimi is something I'd
never heard before, and I was somewhat disappointed that Kathy said that a
lot of what you characterized was untrue, because I liked the sound of the
theory.

>

[Slip Kid]

fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I thought that the purpose of the posted question (Was Yoko a kind of
> julia-sutcliffe substitute) to encourage debate and discussion. I
> never thought that this question could be or would be answered with
> mathematical precision.

J-u-s-t... r-e-l-a-x

OK?

Now. I'm all for discussion. I get slapped as much as anyone for my
"what if" posts. Nor to I like the standard of "beyond a doubt" We
aren't a jury. I try to make sure my "what if" has some chance of an "end".

Further, psychological analysis is an area that I am less comfortable
entering: "Was Yoko a kind of julia-sutcliffe substitute?" seems like a
harmless question until one really considers John chose her as his
partner and was with her for over a decade.

One would have to find more than a casual comparison between the two
women to make that connection. It isn't as if John met her when he was
18 and didn't have a clue what a partner could offer. Substitute? I
think it insults his commitment to her.

> And I really don't think I am committing such a crime by relying on
> interviews by John, Paul, George or Ringo.

And the only problem with that is: How were the questions worded? What
were their states of mind?

How much did they "know" about why Y & J bonded? Substitute? A shallow
bond which likely would not last a decade. But "they" knew?

> I also don't think it is a crime to read books.

Line up ten qualified persons who study the mind. Ask them what would
be required to answer the question: "Did X marry Y as a substitute for A
& B?

> If I disagree with someone or if they disagree with me, it does not
> mean that my opinion is bullshit or that their opinion is bullshit. I
> would think that if everyone here had the same exact opinion all the
> time, this place would be very boring and every posted question would
> be answered by one or two responses.

I did not use the word bullshit. I wrote that these types of discussions
tend to become "towards ruminating if not prurient."

> Oh well. I guess I was wrong. OK, from now on, all of us should just
> shut up, stop reading books, stop relying on interviews and wait for
> Kathy to answer all the questions. Because only Kathy or RP know the
> answers.

Neither you or I have the right to tell anyone to shut up. Mine was an
opinion. As is yours.

I asked? I asked if anyone thought it there anything close to an "end"
in this type of discussion. Again, I'm not curious for the sake of it.
It is not an end but a means to get there.

I only offered that this line of discussion does not have an end. Does it?

Please, carry on! I had my say and others can have theirs.
~~~~
Michael

[Randy Farrell]

"Slip Kid" <G...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:NAmre.317233$cg1.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

I found this comment curious, myself. How so? It seems to me that if you
simply compare the free fun-loving personality of Julia with the less
freedom loving Mimi that one could posit that there might have been
something to it. It needn't be sexual whatsoever.

[rfor...@msn.com]

I dunno, the post sounds like it has merit to me, an interesting and
not farfetched series of thoughs about John and his personality. It's
nothing earth-shattering but it's true - John's relationships with his
mother and with Stu were and are integral to thinking about or
understanding the rest of what John did and became later on.

richforman

[Slip Kid]

Prurient need not be sexual.

I used it in the "immoderate or unwholesome interest" sense of the
definition. I see nothing wholesome in that line of reasoning.

Is it a healthy behavior? If one chooses a partner based on that person
serving as a "substitute" for an parent of aunt?
If that is one's conclusion why John chose Yoko? I believe that to be
"immoderate or unwholesome" interest which provides that conclusion - -
Unless one has some concrete reasons that are difficult to apprehend
outside of a clinical setting.

As it is a weak foundation on which to base a relationship and I'd not
assign that as a motive to John without an expert disclosing that as a
reason? No, I don't go "there".
~~~~~
Michael

[Randy Farrell]

"Slip Kid" <G...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message

news:64nre.317311$cg1.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

> Randy Farrell wrote:
>>
> Prurient need not be sexual.

Really? That's news to me.

>
> I used it in the "immoderate or unwholesome interest" sense of the
> definition. I see nothing wholesome in that line of reasoning.

I think it was strictly conjecture and nothing unwholesome about it. That
may just be me though.

>
> Is it a healthy behavior? If one chooses a partner based on that person
> serving as a "substitute" for an parent of aunt?

Of course not. Yet was John the picture of perfect mental health? Are any
of us?

> If that is one's conclusion why John chose Yoko? I believe that to be
> "immoderate or unwholesome" interest which provides that conclusion - -
> Unless one has some concrete reasons that are difficult to apprehend
> outside of a clinical setting.

Well, of course it was pure speculation. Nevertheless, I do not see a
single thing unwholesome about asking if a person might be attracted based
on personality quirks of a parent or relative or anyone else they may have
spent formative years around. Again, we are not talking about sex here.
We're talking about, perhaps subconsciously, recognizing and being attracted
to another's personality based on someone you knew growing up.

Remember, it's been said that it's not how much money you have, nor who you
know, but who you LOOK like. Think about it.

>
> As it is a weak foundation on which to base a relationship and I'd not
> assign that as a motive to John without an expert disclosing that as a
> reason? No, I don't go "there".

I agree, a lot of the speculation has been pretty light in reality. And
this may be as well, I simply don't see why this particular bend of topic
would offend you when you yourself seem willing to speculate about many
things.
>

[Slip Kid]

rfor...@msn.com wrote:
> I dunno, the post sounds like it has merit to me, an interesting and
> not farfetched series of thoughs about John and his personality.

Hey, people get married and stay married for less good reasons. Usually
those who conclude or are able to substantiate such behavior demand a
buttloads of one-to-one analysis with the individual.

Find me a shrink or any expert in human behavior and ask them how much
they need to know before offering a diagnosis.

> It's
> nothing earth-shattering but it's true - John's relationships with his
> mother and with Stu were and are integral to thinking about or
> understanding the rest of what John did and became later on.

And you believe a man's mother (who was dead for how many years before
he got married?) and a young friend (who was gone for how long) is the
primary reason or provides the "answer" why he takes a partner for life
- - and ends up being with her for over a decade?

Um, Yoko wasn't even his first wife. He might have had a clue as to
what a partner was and was not.

I don't know if you've had a partner? How do people usually decide to
commit. How much do relationships from childhood provide the "reason"?
We are all influenced by past experiences. That's a big choice, and
his choice of Yoko was the second time around - - Plus, John wasn't a
kid when he decided upon Yoko. He was old beyond his years as concerns
life's experiences.

Seems like it is a more shallow motive than I'd expect of him. And a
conclusion few can make with the tools we have.

~~~~~
Michael

[Randy Farrell]

"Slip Kid" <G...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message

news:Ujnre.317354$cg1.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

> rfor...@msn.com wrote:
> > I dunno, the post sounds like it has merit to me, an interesting and
> > not farfetched series of thoughs about John and his personality.

>

> Um, Yoko wasn't even his first wife. He might have had a clue as to
> what a partner was and was not.
>
>

As is pretty well known he only married because she'd gotten pregnant.

[Slip Kid]

Randy Farrell wrote:
> "Slip Kid" <G...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:64nre.317311$cg1.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>>Randy Farrell wrote:
>>
>>Prurient need not be sexual.
>
>
> Really? That's news to me.

Well, it's true - -But don't get hung up on it. How about offensive?
I'd be offended if someone claimed I chose a partner as a substitute for
a friend or parent or aunt...

>>I used it in the "immoderate or unwholesome interest" sense of the
>>definition. I see nothing wholesome in that line of reasoning.

> I think it was strictly conjecture and nothing unwholesome about it. That
> may just be me though.

Do you apply that in general? What percentage of the people which you
know do to apply that to? Do you tend to seek a reason why people you
know get married - Outside of traditional motives. (Suspecting they
sought a "substitute" for a relative or friend?) I don't know if I've
ever done that!

>>Is it a healthy behavior? If one chooses a partner based on that person
>>serving as a "substitute" for an parent of aunt?
>
>
> Of course not. Yet was John the picture of perfect mental health? Are any
> of us?

I think John became more healthy than many people I know! Take everyone
you know an put them under the lens John is/was under.
You might not think he was unhealthy at all compared to what you find
out about people you think you know.

We know a helluva a lot about him - - Yet we still do "not know" a lot.

He may have had a long spell of fighting demons. He admitted it!

As he became healthier he didn't ditch Yoko. His claim was she was part
of his solution and not part of the problem. Yeah, she was more than a
proxy for anyone in his past - - as are most partners.

>>If that is one's conclusion why John chose Yoko? I believe that to be
>>"immoderate or unwholesome" interest which provides that conclusion - -
>>Unless one has some concrete reasons that are difficult to apprehend
>>outside of a clinical setting.
>
>
> Well, of course it was pure speculation. Nevertheless, I do not see a
> single thing unwholesome about asking if a person might be attracted based
> on personality quirks of a parent or relative or anyone else they may have
> spent formative years around. Again, we are not talking about sex here.

I'm did not bring sex into it. Forget about sex. I'm missing how Yoko
combined Sutcliffe/Julia into one?

> We're talking about, perhaps subconsciously, recognizing and being attracted
> to another's personality based on someone you knew growing up.

Which is at best a fleeting attraction. How long does that last? Was
Yoko some sort of a clone of Julia and Stu - -combined? She had to be
to have any staying power as a substitute.

> Remember, it's been said that it's not how much money you have, nor who you
> know, but who you LOOK like. Think about it.

"A penny saved is a penny earned."
"Penny wise pound foolish."

Think about that.

I don't know that something as fundamental as a life choice in a partner
is explained by a slogan.

>>As it is a weak foundation on which to base a relationship and I'd not
>>assign that as a motive to John without an expert disclosing that as a
>>reason? No, I don't go "there".
>
>
> I agree, a lot of the speculation has been pretty light in reality. And
> this may be as well, I simply don't see why this particular bend of topic
> would offend you when you yourself seem willing to speculate about many
> things.

OK, I caught the most flack when speculating about The Beatles' not
performing live. Compare that to "Was Yoko a kind of julia-sutcliffe
substitute for Lennon?"

You don't see that the latter requires a serious evaluation of an
person? I was writing about the fact The Beatles quit performing and
how it was not the standard in their profession. I suppose I need more
facts before I dissect "was Yoko a kind of julia-sutcliffe substitute
for Lennon'?
~~~~
Michael

[Kathy]

fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Dear Kathy,
>
> Well, I certainly don't mean to hurt your feelings.

My feelings aren't even close to being hurt.

And I am
> not interested in an argument, just a friendly exchange. However, now
> you say "I have no desire to argue my version of Mimi with what a
> Hunter Davies or Geoffrey Giuliano might have written 30 years ago."
> So are you now telling us that Davis and Giuliano wrote bullshit too?

I am now telling *you*. I'm sure a great many other people here
already know that Davis and Guiliano wrote bullshit. Hunter Davis has
admitted that a lot of what he wrote in the original biography was
white washed. And Giuliano......? You've GOT to be kidding.

>
> I agree that not everything written is completely accurate, but
> Hunter Davis is generally very respected.

I don't care how respected he is. I don't care to argue with you (or
have a "friendly exchange") on every point he mentions re: Mimi. Nor do
I care to do the same with Paul McCartney or anyone else. My argument
isn't what they wrote. My argument was with YOUR description of Mimi.
If you based that on what you've read, then it's virtually meaningless
as far as I'm concerned. If you based it on your own personal
knowledge of Mimi and time spent with her, then we can have a
discussion. But I'm not going to argue with you what I knew her to be
like versus what some Beatle author wrote based on God knows what.

> Are you telling us that Mimi was not strict and bossy with John?

Sure, she was strict. Was she "bossy"? I don't know. What do you mean
by bossy? Make him go to school? Make him clean his room? What? She
was his mother. Was your mother bossy?

> You mean she happily supported his interest in rock and roll?

She accepted there was very little she could do about it. She did pay
for his first guitar. As far as your original assertion that she
wanted him to be an accountant or a pharmacist or a member of some
other mundane profession.....bullshit. She knew he was "bohemian" from
a very early age. And she knew he was not going to end up with a 9 to 5
job. She would have preferred he became an artist but then she
preferred art to rock and roll.

She
> approved of his Teddy Boy looks?

Nope. She hated it. But so what? Does that make her mean? I didn't
much care for his Teddy Boy look either. Again, so what?

>She liked Paul and George and the way
> they dressed? I think Paul says otherwise in his book.

Paul says a lot of things in his book. I couldn't care less. As far as
Mimi was concerned, she liked Paul. She thought he was a bit
big-headed. She got a bit weary of listening to him talk about himself.
But she basically liked him and she kept in contact with him on her own
until it all went sour. He was allowed in her house anytime he came
over and he was invited to her house in Poole many times. She never
discussed how he dressed with me. I doubt that it mattered.

She didn't like George. But then I never said she did. And just for
the record, she didn't feel she knew Ringo that well, but she adored
his mother and thought she was the kindest woman on earth. She also
adored Brian Epstein. So prehaps that can take care of the class issue
and any homophobic problem that may or may not eventually be directed
at her.

> So what I read about her banning John to the porch when he
> practised and telling him "A guitar's alright but you'll never earn a
> living with it" was all bullshit?

Nope. She said it. And she proudly displayed a silver plaque in her
home that said just that. I'm beginning to think you feel she should
have been head of the local Beatles fan club. She wasn't a Beatles
fan. She was John's aunt, and for all intent and purposes, his mother.
He played his guitar whenever he wanted. I wasn't aware that "the
porch" was considered a banishment. Contrary to some households today,
the child didn't rule the roost back then. If she didn't want him
playing in the middle of the livingroom, she probably told him to go
out on the porch. It was the porch, not northern Siberia.

> I must retract my statement earlier about her being unsmiling. I
> confess in retrospect that was unfair.

Oh. You allow that she smiled from time to time? How big of you. Mimi
had a wonderful sense of humor, just as biting at times as her nephew.
She was kind, considerate, compassionate but she didn't suffer fools
gladly. And, as far as I was concerned, not the least bit intimidating.

> But from what I have read and
> heard, Mimi struck me as class conscious and strict.

If you've ever been to England and met anyone of Mimi's generation, you
will find that 99% of them are class conscious. That's the way it is
there and Mimi was no exception. But it didn't rule her life and she
didn't base her friendships on it.

>Of course, I am sure she loved John very much and meant the best.

Yeah, well, as long as she *meant* well. @@

You know, you can discuss if Yoko was a Julia/Mimi substitute all you
want. I'm not the least bit bothered and it's pretty much meaningless
as far as I'm concerned. But I would think it would serve your purpose
and certainly strengthen your theory if you first knew of whom you were
comparing Yoko too. It's my guess you know even less about Julia than
you do Mimi.

As long as you actually *realize* that, analyze to your heart's desire.
But don't for a moment think it you've in any way shape or form come to
any type valid conclusion. They're just words on the screen.

[fatt...@yahoo.com]

Dear Kathy,

Thank you for the interesting post.

What makes you believe Mimi did not like George? What was it
about George she did not like?

[fatt...@yahoo.com]

Did you know Julia? What was she like?

[fatt...@yahoo.com]

Dear Kathy,

You also raise an interesting point about Paul. You mention
that Mimi thought he was a bit big headed. Frankly, whenever I suggest
here at rmb that Paul is full of himself, I get raked over the coals.
I have sensed (again from reading, interviews, video, etc.) that Paul
has an ego (although I assume many stars do too).

My question is this, if you know: did Mimi think Paul was a bit
big headed when he was a teenager and just starting out or did he
become allegedly big headed after he became famous?

And here is another question: what did Mimi really think of
Yoko? I have read contradictory interviews.

[RPBeara]

<fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118720619.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> Dear Kathy,
>
> You also raise an interesting point about Paul. You mention
> that Mimi thought he was a bit big headed. Frankly, whenever I suggest
> here at rmb that Paul is full of himself, I get raked over the coals.
> I have sensed (again from reading, interviews, video, etc.) that Paul
> has an ego (although I assume many stars do too).

Who rakes you? I believe most everyone knows Paul has always had a capacity
for self-love. Even in the 60's we kids knew Paul was just that way. It
was no big.

[fatt...@yahoo.com]

I don't want to name names for fear of attracting some flame throwers.
However there are quite a few die hard McCartney fans here, and to
them, Paul is beyond reproach. If I criticise him, it is akin to
John's "Jesus" remark.

The position of some McCartney fans is essentially "Paul was a member
of the Beatles; Paul had great success in his solo career; he has sold
more records than anyone, etc. therefore he is entitled to be full of
himself."

I personally do not like vanity or conceit no matter how successful
someone is, and prefer the company of someone who is modest and down to
earth.

[RPBeara]

<fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118723682.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

>I don't want to name names for fear of attracting some flame throwers.
> However there are quite a few die hard McCartney fans here, and to
> them, Paul is beyond reproach. If I criticise him, it is akin to
> John's "Jesus" remark.
>
> The position of some McCartney fans is essentially "Paul was a member
> of the Beatles; Paul had great success in his solo career; he has sold
> more records than anyone, etc. therefore he is entitled to be full of
> himself."

It is true he was a Beatle (only 4 people could ever make that claim). It
doesn't give him a ticket to be full of himself, but yeah, sometimes he is.
Sometimes we all are. He just does it more.

>
> I personally do not like vanity or conceit no matter how successful
> someone is, and prefer the company of someone who is modest and down to
> earth.

Well, sure.
>

[rfor...@msn.com]

> > It's nothing earth-shattering but it's true - John's relationships with his
> > mother and with Stu were and are integral to thinking about or
> > understanding the rest of what John did and became later on.

> And you believe a man's mother (who was dead for how many years before
> he got married?) and a young friend (who was gone for how long) is the
> primary reason or provides the "answer" why he takes a partner for life
> - - and ends up being with her for over a decade?

You're going way beyond what I said. I didn't say anything about a
"primary reason" or "the answer," just that these earlier experiences
and relationships could very well have been a factor in decisions later
in life, and that it was an interesting thought to sort of throw into
the mix when thinking about John and his life. Of course the first
post doesn't represent the definitive and complete psychological
analysis of John as an individual, and it's ridiculous to call it a
"conclusion," but I still thought it was a good, thoughtful post.

Yes btw I'm married, and I do believe that, even if it sounds like so
much pop psychobabble, one's experiences and relationships with one's
parents and close friends earlier in life, probably have a great
influence on whom one ends up choosing to partner with much later. (I
didn't get married 'til 41, way later than John's second one!, and it's
not hard to imagine how some earlier relationships and experiences
factored into what I was eventually looking for.)

richforman

richforman

[Slip Kid]

rfor...@msn.com wrote:
>>> It's nothing earth-shattering but it's true - John's relationships with his
>>> mother and with Stu were and are integral to thinking about or
>>>understanding the rest of what John did and became later on.
>
>
>>And you believe a man's mother (who was dead for how many years before
>>he got married?) and a young friend (who was gone for how long) is the
>>primary reason or provides the "answer" why he takes a partner for life
>>- - and ends up being with her for over a decade?
>
>
> You're going way beyond what I said. I didn't say anything about a
> "primary reason" or "the answer," just that these earlier experiences
> and relationships could very well have been a factor in decisions later
> in life, and that it was an interesting thought to sort of throw into
> the mix when thinking about John and his life. Of course the first
> post doesn't represent the definitive and complete psychological
> analysis of John as an individual, and it's ridiculous to call it a
> "conclusion," but I still thought it was a good, thoughtful post.

Sorry, I wasn't "only" adressing you - - I was accounting for the
thread. However, the limits of a subject line also contribute to my
perception that you claim was (if not narrow) difficult to substantiate?
"was yoko a kind of julia-sutcliffe substitute for lennon?" Yes, that
does appear to be a more complex proposition than most of us are able to
address.

I don't mean to stiffle the discussion. I only expresed concern that it
is an area which one should tread carefully -- Where should one draw the
line in examining motives and what information is necessary to pursue
the course? I never said "STOP!". I hope my tone was "Are you
comfortable doing this?"

> Yes btw I'm married, and I do believe that, even if it sounds like so
> much pop psychobabble, one's experiences and relationships with one's
> parents and close friends earlier in life, probably have a great
> influence on whom one ends up choosing to partner with much later. (I
> didn't get married 'til 41, way later than John's second one!, and it's
> not hard to imagine how some earlier relationships and experiences
> factored into what I was eventually looking for.)

Congratulations!

Didn't your experience analysis (after your first marriage) cause you to
pause before engaging in a examination of another marriage?. Others
were not eager to comment, (but lacked the necessary facts to provide
valid evalutions) on your relationship?

I would think you might understand (you were "there") how people are
willing to draw conclusions without knowing what went on inside "your"
four walls.

I'd be the last person to claim that there are not dynamics which are
not related to love and romance. I'm not sure how one is able to flush
out those motives without a more thorough (and individual) analysis - -
Of both individuals?

BTW, I heard a stat that the failure rate for second marriages is higher
than the first time around (don't panic!).

So, no, experience seems not to teach one "too" many lessons!

Carry on (as if you need my permission). You seem to have things in check!
~~~~~
Michael

[rfor...@msn.com]

My marriage at 41 was my first! (Coming up on two years now in just a
few weeks.) Held out longer than pretty much anybody I know!

richforman

[whosoever]

Congrats! Hope you remember your anniversary and get him/her something
special to commemorate the ceremony. Did you do the deed on the 4th of
Jul?

[J.]

"RPBeara" <R...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3h72b2F...@individual.net...

I agree it's no big and would argue further that having self-confidence,
self-esteem or self-love, or whatever you want to call it, is a good thing
generally for most people, and what parents normally hope for their
children. My teenage son has this quality. Amazing poise and
self-confidence and a bit of an arrogant know it all (he IS young and will
be humbled and truly wisened by experience) just as McCartney was since he
was a cooky teenager and young man.

Having a large healthy ego doesn't preclude Paul (or my son) from caring
about other's and their feelings or from any self-criticism and self-doubt.
I can't see how Paul's ego has had a negative impact on the world or
destroyed the lives of everyone around him---so, again, I wonder why fattuch
and other's do make such an issue of it.

J
>
>

[KC]

"J." <janba...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:zKOdnVhmrKB...@rogers.com...

Right now it's Bush and Cheney's egos we should be worrying about.

[i'm good]

"alejandro de tacobell" <cerebur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118567407.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> i was watching backbeat.. not really a very good movie but good enough.
> it's mostly the story of john and stu. not topnotch actors but
> adequate. music is secondary as are the other beatles. indeed, astrid
> figures more into the story than paul, george, and pete best. and
> lennon reminds me of that guy named ian in globe trekker. kinda dorky.

It gets more complicated. It was revealed that Lennon had an affair or
fling
with an Australian woman of an Asian background who is a fasion designer
before Yoko. She is fairly well known but I can't place the name right now.

ig
>

[i'm good]

"alejandro de tacobell" <cerebur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118567407.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> i was watching backbeat.. not really a very good movie but good enough.
> it's mostly the story of john and stu. not topnotch actors but
> adequate. music is secondary as are the other beatles. indeed, astrid
> figures more into the story than paul, george, and pete best. and
> lennon reminds me of that guy named ian in globe trekker. kinda dorky.
>

Anyway, I found this on a website, make of it what you will:

"Flamboyant Australian-Chinese fashion designer Jenny Kee always
reckoned that John Lennon got his taste for Asian women through his
much-publicised(sic) encounter with her."

http://www.urban-living.org/new-2624318-1016.html

[meste...@yahoo.com.au]

Flamboyant Australian-Chinese fashion designer Jenny Kee always
reckoned that John Lennon got his taste for Asian women through his
much-publicised(sic) encounter with her."

***

Like they say... once you go black, you never go back. And one you go
slant, you never recant.

sx

ps yoko was a low talent cow who latched onto lennon during his
extremely prolongued breakdown.

[barbara...@aol.com]

So.....
Yoko as oleo?

[alejandro de tacobell]

Bernie Woodham wrote:
> Good theory. But you ignore a couple of things. First, his mom dies. Then
> his dependent personality latches on Stu Sutcliffe. Sutcliffe dies. Then
> his dependent personality latches onto Epstein. Epstein dies.
>

lennon was never emotionally close to epstein. now, epstein loved
lennon, and at times lennon played along. at any rate, lennon's
dependence on epstein was financial, not emotional. sure, it was a
shock when epstein died, but not like losing sutcliffe.

[alejandro de tacobell]

fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I think Yoko reminded him of Julia and Aunt Mimi. The two were
> opposites: Julia was artistic, free spirited and unconventional. Aunt
> Mimi strikes me as mean, bossy, strict, unsmiling and class conscious.
>
>
> Mimi rarely encouraged John in his interests. She wanted him to be a
> pharmacist, an accountant, etc. and he never had the attention span
> span in school to do anything like that. John probably felt he could
> never get her approval.
>
> Mimi also discouraged John's friendships. She often did not like his
> friends and felt they were two "lower class" for "her John." She would
> not let Paul or George into the house when they came to call. She was
> not happy that he married Cynthia. No one was good enough for her
> John. Mimi was possessive of him.
>
> Both women remind me of Yoko.

i don't think the mimi side of yoko--if such existed--turned john on.
john had an affection for aunt mimi but his youth was all about getting
away from controlling and square aunt mimi. lennon wanted to be free.
julia represented freedom. so did yoko.

[natch]

t-t-t-t-too much time on your hands

[Norbert K]

I know Fattuchus hasn't been active lately, but I am amazed at his/her warm and civil responses to that staggeringly nasty and condescending post.