She’d had 20 lovers in two years. Now Linda was out to snare Paul McCartney

Originally Posted by maribeatlecrazy

Yes, sure! I didn't mean to say Paul was a saint or anything like that. I just mentioned Linda's case because it's much more dificult to find men who accept a woman like Linda than the other way round.

That is silly and not true imo. If you find your true love it really doesn't matter how many men of women there were before...
This is just 'Devil's Radio'

Originally Posted by hibgal

Well, so was I! I don't see why 'the public' should hold an opinion one way or the other. It's nothing to do with them.

Oh, phew! I kept searching for an opinion I could not find!

....

Nope, still nothing!

Originally Posted by hibgal

Well, so was I! I don't see why 'the public' should hold an opinion one way or the other. It's nothing to do with them.

Exactly, nothing to do with anyone else.

Don't get your knickers in a twist over nothing. Wait till I post something truly controversial.

You?? .......post something controversial Hib NEVER!!!!!

Originally Posted by taxgirl

That is silly and not true imo. If you find your true love it really doesn't matter how many men of women there were before...
This is just 'Devil's Radio'

Well, maybe we had different life experiences. I'm speking for myself: it's not easy to find men who don't care about how many guys his wife/girlfriend went to bed with in the past.

A person is NOT their past and people change all the time. So what if they'd known others before meeting each other? Like what's the big deal about that?

Paul and Linda were open and honest with each other and they loved and cared about each other and that is what makes for a rock solid relationship.

Originally Posted by hibgal

Don't get your knickers in a twist over nothing. Wait till I post something truly controversial.

lol ~ OK, I will... but make it really juicy, ok? (j/k)

But to those who say it has nothing to do with "the public"... I agree if you mean it's not for us to tell Paul what to do, but we can have opinions and share those opinions in public forums... Paul is, after all, a public figure, is he not?

I truly don't understand why people object if we the public comment on the decisions made by public figures... or if we comment on a posted article that criticized a public figure. I mean, who the hell really cares what we think about Paul's love life anyway? It's just fun to talk about...

Paul + Linda 4evah! Peace y'all...

Originally Posted by taxgirl

That is silly and not true imo. If you find your true love it really doesn't matter how many men of women there were before...
This is just 'Devil's Radio'

Silly or not, in many societies it's still true! There's one set of rules for men and another for women. Probably not so much where you and I live but still reality in other parts of the world.

Not to be nitpicky but, doesn't Devil's Radio have to do with gossip? Sorry but I can't see the connection between social mores and idle talk.

Originally Posted by hibgal

Silly or not, in many societies it's still true! There's one set of rules for men and another for women. Probably not so much where you and I live but still reality in other parts of the world.

Comparing that might create a loooong conversation. For example, in certain parts of the world it's been a common issue for many centuries and still today, that a man has women as his wives even living under the same roofs in numbers large enough to set up a women's football team, whereas 'where you and I live' it's a criminal offence.

Not to be nitpicky but, doesn't Devil's Radio have to do with gossip? Sorry but I can't see the connection between social mores and idle talk.

It's mainly about gossip but not entirely and here at Links has become a common description for also certain 'news stories'.

Originally Posted by FPSHOT

Comparing that might create a loooong conversation. For example, in certain parts of the world it's been a common issue for many centuries and still today, that a man has women as his wives even living under the same roofs in numbers large enough to set up a women's football team, whereas 'where you and I live' it's a criminal offence.

Exactly. Making this a short conversation ; in a perfect world there would be one set of rules for everyone but, since we're not living in a perfect world, there isn't.

It's mainly about gossip but not entirely and here at Links has become a common description for also certain 'news stories'.

That may be so, but we weren't talking about Linda/Paul per se at this point but male/female moral expectations - weren't we?

Originally Posted by hibgal

Exactly. Making this a short conversation ; in a perfect world there would be one set of rules for everyone but, since we're not living in a perfect world, there isn't.

In my view, setting up rules will often create problems.

Originally Posted by taxgirl

I'm convinced Paul loved her for the right reasons, as she loved Paul.
If she hadn't passed away they would still be together imo.

I agree, taxgirl. It's hard for me to believe they would have stuck together as they did if it had been about the fame and/or the money.

Typical "current" " news" article from the daily nailed.
Not worth the spam folder even.

It's something that criticises, comments on something from over 40 years ago, above all it's about someone who isn't here anymore? Add lots of speculations So how can you discuss and comment on it as it being the full truth.

I can only see this article being in bad taste, and nothing more.

Originally Posted by hibgal

Exactly. Making this a short conversation ; in a perfect world there would be one set of rules for everyone but, since we're not living in a perfect world, there isn't.

That would be boring, but maybe I misunderstood.
But why must there be one set of rules everywhere. And what must these set of rules be? The values we hold here in the west?

However since we live here in the west and not in any of these other societies, and Paul does, and Linda did as well. I can only comment on things seeing it in our light of day, with our values.

Then it's really of no concern how many people you had before getting married, before you find the right one. 100 before is nothing, 1 during is a lot.
Unless you are having a free relationship or whatever.

Originally Posted by hibgal

That may be so, but we weren't talking about Linda/Paul per se at this point but male/female moral expectations - weren't we?

Also but not only and always. The original article anyway is gossip.

Originally Posted by maribeatlecrazy

Well, maybe we had different life experiences. I'm speking for myself: it's not easy to find men who don't care about how many guys his wife/girlfriend went to bed with in the past.

You have a point, but I am sure you will agree that's not the faulth of the wife/girlfriend. Paul cleary didn't have any problems,
and there is really not much that can be said further imo.

Originally Posted by Legs

That would be boring, but maybe I misunderstood.
But why must there be one set of rules everywhere. And what must these set of rules be? The values we hold here in the west?

I think we're talking in circles. maribeatlecrazy said that in her society male and female sexual experience is judged by different standards. taxgirl said that it's silly and untrue. I disagree. In most of the world there's that double standard. I guess things got a bit confused with the introduction of FP's ladies football team.

Also but not only and always. The original article anyway is gossip.

I agree with that.

Originally Posted by Legs

That would be boring, but maybe I misunderstood.
But why must there be one set of rules everywhere. And what must these set of rules be? The values we hold here in the west?

However since we live here in the west and not in any of these other societies, and Paul does, and Linda did as well. I can only comment on things seeing it in our light of day, with our values.

Then it's really of no concern how many people you had before getting married, before you find the right one. 100 before is nothing, 1 during is a lot.

Nice, Legs I would not want to have to manifest the rules/habits of for instance the jungle people.

Finding the right one can also happen after getting married btw. Source; the numbers of divorces.

Oh ferfuckssake, here we go again.......I dunno about you guys, but the maneating groupie baggin' her quarry story just never really washed with me. I never trusted anything that sounded so self servingly vindictive that still repeated 40 years on with virtually the same dialogue still ever-so-conveniently intact. Besides, knowing Mac as we all do (well, not in the literally sense of course, but jut the fact that we know he were'nt no pushover back then when it came to women and who the hell he wanted to be with), the last thing a Northerner of good sound male chavinist stock like him would do would be to chuck a glamourous creature like the redhead in favour of a "groupie". I mean come ON folks! A Scouser, even with one as well known as Paul wasn't about to settle on a bubble headed mantrap...like Danny Fields said, women were at his side by HIS choice and leasure, not the other way around. Besides, did'nt that stupid "I'm gonna marry a Beatle" story finally get reputed by the guy who was actually responsible for starting it? Namely Pete Townshend? AT HER MEMORIAL SERVICE?? And those quotes supposedly by Nat Weiss etc.....um, edited down and taken out of context just a wee bit?? How boring to rehash rearrange and distort what's already been in print a thousand times just to write a book and claim that it's your own "hard earned research"....how boring indeed.

And the declaration of whoa, she had 20 lovers in 2 YEARS....so the fuck WHAT??? Its the 60s ya dope!! The Sexual Revolution, the Free Love Hippie days, the Summers of LOVE ya dumb hicks! How in all honesty can you possibly compare the attitudes about ANYTHING back then with what's going on today??? Not only is that supid but irresponsible and downright ridiculous.

Originally Posted by maxeythecat

Its the 60s ya dope!! The Sexual Revolution, the Free Love Hippie days, the Summers of LOVE ya dumb hicks! How in all honesty can you possibly compare the attitudes about ANYTHING back then with what's going on today??? Not only is that supid but irresponsible and downright ridiculous.

Maybe not exactly the words I would chose myself but that's true too. Lots of people lived like that back then (well, some still do) and Linda's lifestyle wasn't by no means considered excessive of the era. Besides, the testimony of time - nearly 30 years of marriage - can't be sneezed at and should be enough to prove that she had what it took to keep Paul happy.

And maybe she said she was going to marry Paul before she met him. How unusual. Seems like half the girls in the 60s said the same thing and some are still saying it today!

Originally Posted by Maia 66

Paul is, after all, a public figure, is he not?

I truly don't understand why people object if we the public comment on the decisions made by public figures... or if we comment on a posted article that criticized a public figure.

That's another thing. Who decides when somebody loses all their common human rights and privacy to become a public figure? Can you appeal the judgment? I can see when it come to political figures that there should be a certain transparency; after all they're supposedly working for the common good. I don't see why this should be extended to their private lives unless it directly affects their carrying out of duties. I do NOT at all understand how this public figure crap can apply to a person doing nothing more than writing and performing music!