Or connect using:
Create an Account
Your OpenID URL:
Apr. 3rd, 2007 @ 12:07 am
About this Entry
Leave a comment
April 6th, 2007 09:38 pm (UTC)
But that's my point. She WASN'T married to a Beatle. In fact - just examining what little we can see whilst peering into the murky depths of that relationship - she was barely
a Beatle. Paul was clearly not the most important thing in her life (not saying he should have been; just saying he wasn't) - so why SHOULD he pass on all these "opportunities" he was getting for a girl who (to coin a phrase, ahem) "just wasn't that into him"? You know, if you want that level of fidelity, you better be prepared for that level of commitment. And it appears that Jane wasn't.
And I'm not talking only literal matrimony here - I just mean a mutual understanding that this is The One, the person with whom you intend to spend the rest of your life. And while a lot of people seem to believe that's what Paul and Jane had (or want to believe it, or assume it, or whatever) I'm not at all convinced they ever did.
Of course, all of this is speculation anyway...we know so little about Paul and Jane (and, boy, could I do a rant on them!) None of us really knows squat about why they got together or how they interacted or why they didn't work out. I know Jane had issues with Paul's level of commitment as well - in particular, how emotionally attached he was to the other Beatles, especially John. But until I see some new evidence that leads me to rethink it, I'm going to go with my gut and assume they were never really as serious about their future together as people generally believed.
I don't like the idea that it's the fault of the woman for trusting that her man won't screw around on her while she's out of his sight.
Ah, ah, ah! Be careful what you assume there, little missy. ;) I never said this was a male/female issue at all. If Jane was screwing every good-looking guy she fancied while she and Paul were apart, I have no problem with that, either...(and if Paul had a problem with it, fuck him
the double standard he rode in on.) They weren't "married," either factually OR emotionally.
April 6th, 2007 10:14 pm (UTC)
You're right, they weren't married. But they were engaged, which to me means a certain level of committment. You might not be married, but you're not exactly single either. Is it really ok to screw around until you say "I do"? Anyway, I I can't answer why they got engaged if they weren't committed, and sure, it's not adultery if you're not married. But I would still hold a fiance to the same level of fidelity as a would a husband. Maybe that's just me.