𝒐𝒇𝒐𝒅𝒐𝒙𝒊𝒊𝒆

First off, what are Janov’s core beliefs, and how homophobic was he really?

Ive compiled various extracts from Janov’s book, The Primal Scream, which should provide you with an impression of his fundamental beliefs concerning homosexuality. I have also bolded sections of these extracts that I believe could have resonated with John, further alluring him towards Janov’s pseudoscience.

‘The homosexual act is not a sexual one.It is based on the denial of real sexuality…A truly sexual person is heterosexual. The homosexual has usually eroticised his need so that he appears to be highly sexed. Bereft of his sexual fix, his lover, he is like an addict without his connection; without his lover, he is in the pain that is always there but which is drained off sexually. But sex is not the ultimate goal — love is.’ (pg. 302)

‘If a man makes love to a woman but is totally involved during it with a fantasy about men, I would call the experience homosexual. The motions one goes through are less critical than the internal situation. When a person actually makes love to a member of his own sex, it means he is more totally involved in the symbolic behaviour…He has given up the battle and become more completely what he is not…There are men and women who have homosexual marriages but do not recognise the fact.’ (pg. 302-3)

‘It has been my experience that homosexuality may derive from any number of permutations of family interaction. A homosexual boy can have a weak father, tyrannical father, no father.What matters is that the boy has a need for a loving father…Many homosexuals do not seem to realise what appears so obvious — they are in pursuit of substitutes…What gives the sexual search of the homosexual such intensity is the need to feel loved at last and so to find an end to nagging tension.’ (pg. 303-4)

‘I do not think we are dealing with bisexual so much as with neurosis. So many of us have been deprived of love from both parents that there is often a lingering need for love from either sex.’ (pg. 308)

Additionally, there have been contemporaneous articles written by Janov and other primal therapy doctors, which offer further clarity concerning Janov’s stance on homosexuality. @eppysboys made a post (x) shedding more light on Janov’s beliefs concerning sexuality, so I would encourage you to read through that for further information on this topic. But for the purpose of this essay, I have collected extracts which especially focus on Primal Therapy being used as a means of ‘gay conversion therapy’. 

“[Janov] claims that primal therapy has cured alcoholism, homosexuality, smoking…” — Boca Raton News, (June 16. 1971)

“Critical of the decision of the American Psychological Association in 1973 to remove homosexuality as a neurosis in its Diagnostic Statistic Manual, Janov called the decision a “disservice to homosexuals. It tells them that they are well when they are wracked with Pain and tension.” [The Primal Institute Newsletter, October, 1979, pg. 4]” — The Origins of Homosexuality: Insights From The Deep Feeling Psychotherapies by John A. Speyrer

“On occasion homosexuality has been reversed after a person has re-experienced very early and deep pain. Often homosexuality is a symbolic act out of early unmet needs and for that reason there are different scenarios or sequences of events which lead up to the first homosexual act.” — The Origins of Homosexuality: Insights From The Deep Feeling Psychotherapies by John A. Speyrer (c. 2000s)

“So if homosexuality is normal it cannot ever be treated and changed? I have found that not to be true. A few of my homosexual patients do change after many many months of therapy and very deep probing into the brain and the unconscious… If patients could be helped back into their remote history we would see the pain involved into homosexuality…” — On Homosexuality as a Normal Variant of Human Sexuality by Arthur Janov (c. 2012)

“Is homosexuality genetic? We have successfully treated it, which makes the assumption that it is a disease.” — What Is More Important Genes or Epigenes? By Arthur Janov (c. 2015)

“A priest who seduced one of my patients over years left him homosexual. It was the only “love” he ever got and he was seduced by it. That is, all of us get seduced by our need.” — So Why Are We Gay by Arthur Janov (c. 2013)

“Janov declared in a 1971 interview, for instance, that he could fix everything from alcoholism and menstrual cramps to “homosexuality.” It’s a position he does not refute when I ask him about it in an email, claiming that “we have done it” in “restricted circumstances,” before writing, oddly, that “I assume you are gay but do not pay attention to the hyperbole.” — How Primal Scream Therapy Has Survived Five Decades of Strangeness and Controversy by Oliver Hotham (Feb. 22 2016)

Finally, there have been former primal therapy patients who have testified that PST was used as an approach to conversion therapy. These two extracts come from Janov’s writings in The Primal Scream:

‘“Each new sexual contact left me slightly dissatisfied, and I never knew why,” a former homosexual told me. “I thought it was a penis I wanted, the bigger, the better — until I got it. Then I needed more and more. After I felt how much I wanted my father, I knew that it wasn't a penis I wanted. I guess I became a screaming fag because I could never scream for that bastard.”’ (pg. 304)

‘Another patient, whose parents were “dead” inside and completely unfeeling, said, “I know now why I used to be so hung up on blowing guys. I think I was literally trying to suck some life from someone.” What homosexuals, both male and female, seem to agree upon after Primal treatment is that each of their previous homosexual contacts seem to mean “Mommy (or Daddy), love me!” If we can agree that homosexuality in most cases is this need for parental love, we can then say that the aim of homosexuality is heterosexuality.’ (pg. 304)

Sorry, but his reason for blowing guys is SO funny >:) 

Janov also details the experience of a lesbian named Elizabeth, and uses her testimony a case-study to present PST as a “cure” for homosexuality. The testimony is pretty long, so I won’t list it here — but if you do want to read it, here is a digital copy ofThe Primal Scream book found on the internet archives; her testimony begins on page 110 (x).

Intrigued by all of this, I reached out to academic and author of the book Debunking Primal Therapy, John Smith. I emailed him, enquiring into whether he knew anything about Janov’s homophobia, and how it was incorporated into his therapies. He told me that throughout the early 2000’s–which was when Smith underwent PST, and subsequently denounced it–no one within the primal community wasreally homophobic, including Janov, although some patients retained the belief that homosexuality could be caused by traumas. By ‘no one was really homophobic’, what Smith was getting at was that by the 2000s, Janov probably would not insist or pressure someone into undergoing conversion therapy—because despite clearly holding onto his homophobic stances from the seventies, his blogposts indicate that he had to accept social change, probably recognising that if he were to come out with blatantly homophobic speech in the 21st century, he would both lose part of his following, and his credibility within the scientific community. Janov’s views clearly are homophobic, but theres definitely an element of him trying to conceal this judgement, dressing it up as pure scientific speculation. 

Following this, Smith mentioned: 

“However, during group therapy when people argued, I imagine there was some hateful words said in anger, even in the 2000s and beyond.

In the 1970s is when Janov would have been the most rough with his words towards gay people.”

Through our correspondence, I asked Smith if he knew of anyone who had testified to PST being used as an anti-gay therapy technique, and he told me of two encounters with other patients which suggest that it was, though he cant be certain:

“One gay man…who I came to know and like…carried on doing quite a lot of primal therapy from 2000 to 2003, and eventually he came out as straight, and introduced us to his girlfriend. I often wonder what was said in his therapy. Another older lesbian remained a lesbian I think, although was celibate for all the years she was in therapy I think, (2000s).”

The final extract I have collected, concerns the anti-gay primal therapy enforced upon Peter Gajdics, author of The Inheritance of Shame. It is worth-noting that the doctor detailed is not Janov (he is Dr. Alfonzo), and therefore Janov is not accountable for the treatment inflicted upon the author. I have no idea if Dr Alfonzo was trained at the Primal Institute Clinic* and/or if he had any kind of relationship with Janov—but this was still a doctor who read Janov’s works and practiced his therapies**, and so I thought the extract was worth including, as additional evidence of PST homophobic roots.

“In May 1997, I mailed a five-page letter of complaint to one of Canada's colleges of physicians and surgeons. Essentially, the complaint stated that the doctor ran a cult in which I was excessively overmedicated, forced into providing free labor, subjected to his homophobic dogma, and treated in an effort to ‘cure’ me of my homosexuality.” — ‘Surviving a Therapeutic Cult’, The Gay & Lesbian Review by Peter Gajdics

(*It’s possible that he was personally affiliated with Janov, considering that Janov insisted it was essential primal therapy doctors be trained at his clinic [see: “By a series of interrogations—the details of which Janov has kept secret for fear of their being used by untrained therapists—a patient is slowly regressed to childhood.”, “…primal therapy must be administered only by workers trained at his institute.” (x)]—but I’m not going to make that leap without solid evidence.)

(**Confirmed by this article: “Alfonzo grounds Gajdics’ treatment in questionable re-parenting theories and a book called The Primal Scream by Arthur Janov.”)

So it’s clear Janov has advocated and administered anti-gay therapeutic practices.

But is there evidence to suggest that sexuality was even a topic of conversation between John and Janov?

In my research on this topic, I've found that peoples key objections to the ‘anti-gay therapy’ argument tend to stem from the belief that there is no evidence to suggest John and Janov discussed sexuality, let alone John’s bisexuality. As someone who tends to lean towards scepticism, I can completely understand where people are coming from here! But my main reason for deciding to tackle this subject, actually stems from believing that I’ve got new evidence to contribute to the discussion, which Ive never seen surfaced before. 

Something I've always felt was surprisingly overlooked in discussions of Janov’s therapy, comes from Phillip Normans book, John Lennon: The Life (bare with me here people—I’m aware, its Norman, but hear me out). In one chapter, he details an interview conducted between himself and Janov, where he testifies that Brian was a talking-point during Johns therapy sessions. Here’s the extract:

“[John and Janov] talked…about Brian Epstein…‘He knew Brian had adored him, and there was a lot of guilt there about the way he'd depended on Brian yet mistreated him,’ Janov recalls. They talked about John's notorious Spanish holiday with Brian in 1963 and the (to John) insignificant physical encounter that had resulted. The more Janov heard about Brian, the more he longed to have had him as a patient. ‘God, that was a tragic story. There was someone who needed therapy even more than John did.’” (pg. 641)

I recognise that with Philip Norman, there’s reason to question his assertions, because he’s prone to writing in a he-said-she-said manner, and so placing full-reliance on him can be a challenge. So I thought id weigh out the arguments for-and-against believing him here:

Pro: Norman wrote the book at a time in which Janov was still alive; if he had been misquoted, he could have disputed the claim.

Con: Perhaps there were legal considerations involved that would have prevented Janov from clarifying Normans quote. 

Pro: There is a direct quote from Janov (“there was a lot of guilt there about the way he’d depended on Brian yet mistreated him”)

Con: The question of why Norman didn’t continue this trend by directly quoting Norman on Spain ’63 is raised.

Pro: Janov mentioned in other interviews that he discussed Brian with John (more on that in a moment!).

Personally, I don’t see any particularly compelling arguments to dissuade me from believing Norman here. My theory concerning the reason why Norman didn’t just directly quote Janov on their discussion of the Spain ’63 trip (which admittedly is a bit of a tinhat theory) could be because it just wouldn’t have quite fit within Normans narrative on Johns sexuality, and how he viewed his relationship with Brian. Norman insists that the physical encounter between John and Brian in Spain had been insignificant, though I wonder where Norman got that impression from. If the encounter had little to no significance, why would John still be talking about it in therapy almost a decade later?* Did this not at least raise a few red flags that this experience—which was probably Johns first (perhaps even his only, though that depends which sources you believe and how much) physical homosexual experience—maybe had some personal significance for him? I realise that without a full transcript of Normans interview with Janov, I can’t prove this, and so it is just my own little theory that I'm throwing out there. Additionally I wouldn’t want to hyperbolise and imply that the experience in Spain was That Significant that John still needed to analyse and discuss it in therapy (ill return to this in a minute though)—really, in my opinion, his discussion of Spain with Janov speaks more to the point of John’s sexuality being an important part of his identity which grappled with than it does the actual experience in Spain. 

Of course, it’s also possible that Janov could have stated something to the effect of “we talked about Spain, and the physical encounter there was insignificant for John…”—but that raises the question of, why not just directly quote him on that? To me, there’s just something fishy about the way in which Norman paraphrased Janov here; it comes off as though he’s more interested in reinstating his own heteronormative understanding of Johns sexuality here, rather than providing an unbiased, objective narrative of his interview with Janov.

(*Id like to note that its also worth considering the aftermath of the holiday, with all the rumours, teasing, Pauls 21st birthday etc. and how this would have traumatised and inhibited John, in relation to his sexuality. Theres also his relationship with Brian overall, and the trauma of his sudden death. These are both interesting discussion points—but for the most part, I'm discussing Johns sexuality from a historiographical perspective here, not so much exploring the discourse concerning Spain 1963 or the John relationship between John and Brian. The purpose of this footnote is really just to clarify that I'm not trying to downplay the varying factors surrounding Spain—outside of the actual, physical encounter—that could have impacted Johns relationship with his sexuality; I'm more-so just asking the question: what compelled the author to perceive Spain as insignificant?)

But I digress. Assuming that Janov did in fact describe Johns feelings towards Spain as being “insignificant” (and assuming too that Janov was being truthful), we should consider why John might have recalled them as such. It could very well be that under the care of Arthur Janov, John would have been too embarrassed or ashamed to admit to any deeper feelings and/or impacts the physical side to his sexuality might have had on him. Again, in saying this, I am not trying to imply that John must have been passionately in love with Brian, or that his experience in Spain necessarily had to have been that meaningful or life-changing. It might have been; it might not have been. He might have enjoyed it; he might have hated it. But it’s besides the point: it’s really more about John’s sexuality being a very present part of who he was, and that for John to have dismissed Spain as insignificant, therefore presumably dismissed his sexuality as being a significant part of himself. If he ensured that people concluded his physical attractions were not in question, this would probably have ended the conversation about whether he was romantically attracted to men. Knowing that John was working with a doctor who considers homosexuality to be “aberrant behaviour”, I would presume that it would be uncomfortable to talk about your same-sex attraction with any real sincerity or insight to a doctor who, quite vehemently, holds opposing beliefs on the subject; there would always be a supposed level of judgement. Perhaps even more-so, I can imagine that detailing your relationship with your sexuality and your actual feelings towards it, to a doctor like Janov, would be awkward and unnerving. Even before the therapy, John would denote his physical experience with Brian with an almost altruistic and nonchalant attitude [see: “I let him toss me off.”, “So what harm did it do…No harm at all.”—from In My Life by Pete Shotton(x)], and so for John to have written the experience off as “insignificant” to Janov, would not have have been out of character. 

So, the Phillip Norman quote was one thing, but I was still seeking further evidence to support it. After doing deeper research on Janov, and looking for interviews in which he spoke of his experiences in working with John, I came across yet another compelling reason to believe the Norman quote: Janov himself spoke about John having discussed Brian Epstein during therapy. This comes from the official Primal Therapy website:

“I've rarely seen pain like John's, and I've seen a lot of pain,” says Janov. “It was mostly about his mother but quite a bit about Brian (Epstein) that I can't talk about...” (x)

Admittedly, we can only speculate as to what Janov was alluding to here–but in combining both this interview with the Norman one, it’s likely that John had discussed Spain ’63 with him. Even the words “I can’t talk about [it]” suggest to me, through their vagueness, that there was a physical experience, of which John detailed in therapy, because of the potential legal repercussions that might have ensued had Janov explicitly stated anything about John being bisexual. Surely, if Janov were to have stated something to the effect, “John talked about Brian being a troubled figure” there couldn’t have been any legal repercussions—and so it seems that their discussion and details of the explicit relationship John had with Brian would have to have been the main legal concern.

Janov also discussed Doctor-Patient confidentiality in interview here: 

‘…“Some stuff I can't tell you because it was inside the therapy,” says Janov…Doctor patient confidentiality prevents him giving a description of what took place during a session with Lennon but issues dealt with are predictable enough. Janov tells me that the only reason he is able to talk about Lennon's treatment now is that Yoko has given him written permission. But his claim never to have spoken about his treatment of Lennon previously is untrue; he did give such an interview to a UK magazine 5 years ago.’ (x)

We can discern from this that what Janov can and will disclose about his PST sessions with John, is largely dependent on what Yoko will allow. Ultimately, he had to be careful in what he made public about his therapy sessions with John—and going back to the Norman quote even, we know that he had his own conflicts with Yoko concerning the legality of certain extracts from his book (see: “[Yoko] was waiting with two lawyers…she and the lawyers tried to pressure me into turning over the interview tapes…Under our agreement, Yoko had no prerogative to withdraw her quotes, let alone demand the tapes.” (x) — this articles also worth a read for the “masturbation” line, lol). So Janov was never at liberty to disclose whichever details he would have liked to, without the permission of Yoko.

Furthermore, in an episode of their podcast @anotherkindofmindpod pick up on the point of how conversion therapy might have been inflicted onto PST patients, with it being incorporated as a form of aversion therapy. Aversion therapyis a type of behavioural therapy that involves repeatedly pairing an unwanted behaviour with discomfort—often the aversive reinforcers are chemically or electrically induced. It is typically used to treat bad habits (eg. smoking), but also used to treat behavioural issues (which at the time of 1970, homosexuality would have been seen as). Since John is documented as having felt nausea and vomited during his stay at Janov’s clinic, its inferred that this was probably due Janov inflicting aversion therapy onto him. AKOM then speculate as to what John would have used aversion therapy for, concluding that it was it was most likely used as an attempt at conversion therapy: 

Daphne: “…Janov inflicted conversion therapy on John at this time; all the pieces fit. What else is he doing aversion therapy about? Is Janov trying to cure John smoking? I don’t think so.”

Phoebe: “No I definitely don’t think so! In fact, Janov told them that they should indulge themselves during therapy…” (from 37:30) (x)

With the knowledge that Brian and sexuality were both topics discussed during therapy, it seems implausible to me that Janov’s homophobia would not have saturated the conversation. And going back to Janov’s fundamental beliefs and practices, we know that he did consider homosexuality to be symptomatic of mental illness, “aberrant behaviour”, and that “a truly sexual person person is heterosexual”. We also know that Janov was heavily-influential towards Johns thinking throughout the early seventies, and that John clearly considered him a leading authority in psychology by placing his trust in his practices, as well as later paralleling him with the Maharishi and referring to him as a “daddy” [Johns words not mine lol—see: All We Are Saying, interview with David Sheff]. 

Since I feel it’s been established that Brian was a discussion point during John’s PST treatment, we can combine this with our knowledge on Janov’s unequivocal stance on homosexuality as a symptom of mental illness—and as well with him being a trusted influence on John. With all this, it would stand to reason that Janov’s homophobic dogma would have affected Johns judgements of homosexuality. 

So is there evidence of a negative shift in John’s discussion of sexuality, following his primal scream therapy?

Often in response to this, we see people cite various interviews from 1970-71—especially the notorious Lennon Remembers. Im sure most of us Beatle groupies scholars know what it is, but just for anyone who might want their memories rehashed: Lennon Remembers was a book published in 1971, consisting of a lengthy interview from December 1970, between John Lennon, Yoko Ono and Jann Wenner, the co-founder and editor of Rolling Stone Magazine (x). Whilst for some time the book was viewed as a definitive piece concerning the Beatles legacy, the interview has been largely denounced in recent years. Despite the validity of the Lennon Remembers narrative being subject to criticism, we can still discern from it valuable insights into Johns mentality throughout the late 60’s and early 70’s—and given that the interview was conducted the same year John underwent primal therapy, it becomes an invaluable record of the short-term effects Janov had on him.

Throughout the interview’s transcript (x), John is seen to use the term “fag” on six separate occasions, which I have collated below:  

W: Let me ask you about something else that was in the Hunter Davies book. At one point it said you and Brian Epstein went off to Spain.

L: Yes. We didn’t have an affair though. Fuck knows what was said. I was pretty close to Brian. If somebody is going to manage me, I want to know them inside out. He told me he was a fag. I hate the way Allen is attacked and Brian is made out to be an angel just because he’s dead. He wasn’t, you know, he was just a guy. (pg. 86)

[…]

W: What do you think of the Stones today?

L: I think it’s a lot of hype. I like “Honky Tonk Woman” but I think Mick’s a joke, with all that fag dancing, I always did. I enjoy it, I’ll probably go and see his films and all, like everybody else, but really, I think it’s a joke. (pg. 90)

[…]

L: I have the same kind of hope for “Working Class Hero.” It’s a different concept, but I feel it’s a revolutionary song.

W: In what respect?

L: It’s really just revolutionary. I think its concept is revolutionary, and I hope it’s for workers and not for tarts and fags. I hope it’s what “Give Peace A Chance” was about, but I don’t know. On the other hand, it might just be ignored. (pg. 110)

[…]

W: What do you think the effect was of the Beatles on the history of Britain?

L: I don’t know about the “history”; the people who are in control and in power, and the class system and the whole bullshit bourgeoisie is exactly the same, except there is a lot of fag middle class kids with long, long hair walking around London in trendy clothes, and Kenneth Tynan is making a fortune out of the word “fuck.” Apart from that, nothing happened. We all dressed up, the same bastards are in control, the same people are runnin’ everything. It is exactly the same. (pg. 122)

[…]

W: Why Warhol?

L: Because he is an original, and he’s great. He is an original great and he is in so much pain. He’s got his fame, he’s got his own cinema and all of that. I don’t dig that junkie fag scene he lives in; I don’t know whether he lives like that or what. (pg. 167)

[…]

L: Brian was very hard to live with, y’know, to take. He had a lot of tantrums and things like that—like most fags do, y’know, they’re very insecure. (1:38:05) (x)

What seems apparent from this interview, is that there is a level of judgement in the way in which John talks about gay people. In fairness, this hostility is compliant with Johns judgements of basically Everyone And Everything at the time (with the exception of Yoko and Janov), so it could be said that it’s not uncharacteristic of him; but it seems notable to me just how much of this judgement was concentrated onto the queer community. When we observe things such as his liberal use of slurs, it suggests a lack of respect for queer people. The infamous “I hope it’s for workers and not for tarts and fags” line especially evokes this, because the sentiment here is effectively that queer people are a lesser cause then workers—which additionally seems implicitly associated with straight, cis-gendered, “masculine” men, considering that John has disassociated the advocation from women and queer people. Theres also a sense of pity placed on the queer community, but underpinning this pity again seems a level of judgement—for instance, in saying “most fags…[are] insecure”. 

Another line which especially sticks out to me is: “I think Mick’s a joke, with all that fag dancing, I always did.”. It’s the added ‘I always did’ which seems to me to be the most revealing detail, because it’s a rejection of his old self. Theres a level of embarrassment felt in John ever having had any real (or even just perceived) appreciation for Mick as a performer, perhaps stemming from a form of projection. It’s like me pretending I didn’t have an Arctic Monkeys phase when I was 13 by passionately hating on them. It is, in a sense, an attempt to dislocate himself from his past and reconstruct a new image, which aligns better with what he now deems a more appealing public-image. 

AKOM also highlight the aforementioned podcast episode, that when John emerged from Janov’s therapy, he publicly renounced the Beatles, and especially the Lennon/McCartney relationship, to what they would term an “epic degree”:

“…we definitely know that [John] emerged from Janov’s care publicly renouncing the Beatles and his life work with the Beatles, to an absolutely epic degree. And that he also came out with super homophobic speech and ideology for the next year of his life; that he trashed the entire Lennon/McCartney catalogue, and their partnership; lied about how close they were, lied about them never writing together, and smeared the living shit out of Paul McCartney…John renounced Paul, the way you would renounce a religion.” (from 31:25) (x)

Again, its a way rejecting the person he once was, and this need to ‘reject’ and ‘rebuild’ his identity suggests that someone had probably tapped into and promoted certain insecurities within him—and Johns insecurities naturally had residue within the Lennon/McCartney relationship. Thats of course not to say that Janov’s ideologies were the only facet driving the Lennon/McCartney discourse throughout 1971, only that Janov's promotions of a rejection of bisexuality relayed into Johns relationship and feelings towards Paul.

Compiling the various interviews from 1970-71, especially considering the Lennon Remembers extracts which immediately followed his therapy, there is a common hostility in his attitude towards facets of his sexuality—things like rejecting Paul, pitying Brian and implying that to be gay is almost to be hopeless (“junkie fag scene”, “insecure”), his rejection of gay-rights causes (“I hope its for workers”) etc.—it all points towards an attitude encouraged by Janov’s therapy which testified that homosexuality was the product of immense Pain and trauma. 

[If you want to hear more commentary on Johns change in perspective on sexuality, id recommend listening to the AKOM episode since they go into more detail on this and provide further evidence.]

But if John did receive conversion therapy, why did he revert back to bisexuality? 

Look, I don’t have to tell you that conversion therapy doesn’t work, and that those who administer it are quack-doctors. We all know that. So I'm not going to focus on disproving conversion therapy in this essay, because I think we’d all just say: whats the point? We already know It’s bullshit. But what it is worth questioning is that, if anti-gay therapy was an influence on John, then why (following PST) did he persist in hinting at his sexuality, joking about it, experimenting with it, supporting queer minorities—and throughout his lost weekend, you could say he even embraced it. The question is really what changed between Janov & John? You’re welcome to contribute if you have any theories of your own, but here are three things that came to mind for me:

‘The dream is over’: disillusionment with Janov

As mentioned earlier on in this essay, there are obvious parallels between Johns relationship with the Maharishi and with Janov—and one of those key resemblances comes in the form of an all too familiar love-and-reject pattern. I’ll explore the disintegration of this relationship in more depth in future additions to this series, investigating and analysing what initially attracted John to Janov as a leader, and what changed for him—but for now, ill just keep it noted that when John did the Lennon Remembers interview, he still maintained a high-regard of Janov’s work, albeit, at times it seems cracks in the relationship are beginning to show (for instance with, “I still think that Janov’s therapy is great…but I don’t want to make it into a big Maharishi thing.”). In later years, John would come to reject his initial assessments of Janov, and with that I would imagine he’d be led to question the ideologies he was presently holding.

It’s interesting to look at Johns attitude towards queerness as told in his submitted poem for the gay liberation book (x), as opposed to beliefs of Arthur Janov. He writes:

“Why make it sad to be gay?” 

The sentiment doesn’t have to be intrinsically and solely tied towards Janov, but it does evoke the earlier extracts of Janov’s, in which he insists that being gay is a product of mental turmoil, caused by birth/childhood trauma. But here John’s rejecting this, questioning why should we insist that being gay is a “sad” thing instead of just accepting it as “O.K.” (as he would write in the second line). Again, I wouldn’t know if the poem was directly inspired as a response to Janov, but it is evocative of Janov’s beliefs through its contrast to them. 

‘I love you more then Yesterday’: reconciling with Paul

(This was a point brought to my attention through a post by @everything-aflutter, so massive credit due to them here, and please do go read through their post!)

When John underwent PST, his relationship with Paul was at its most fraught, and regardless of what position you take in the Who Was Most At Fault argument, it is still evident that John’s attitude towards Paul was in a deeply bitter and resentful phase, as evidenced by Paul stating, “I think we were pretty weird at the time. Id ring John and he’d say, ‘don’t bother me.’” (x)

Paul further supports this, in saying:

“If you look at interviews and stuff with John, from around about that time he was in Imagine [documentary] he kind of admits that he’s having problems with himself. So, well, the first thing you do when you’re having problems with yourself is you bitch about someone else. And the closest person was me…He had a real go at me. I personally think it was ‘cause he was trying to clear the decks for Yoko. He’s got a new love, he’s trying to say to her, “Look, baby, I love you. I hate those guys.” And I think—you also have to remember John was going through a lot of problems. And you know, as they say, people, when they’re going through problems, come out with that kind of stuff. You know that, we all know that. When you’re in a bad mood, the first thing you do is badmouth somebody else. You don’t want to badmouth yourself…Some of the times, he was having other sorts of problems…So—like most of what John said, I take it with a pinch of salt. I love him still. I don’t care what he said, you know. Even if he badmouths me, I still know that he was a great guy, and that he loved me.”

Paul draws upon the hostility (or “bitchiness”) John held during this time period as being a manifestation of his own internal problems. Perhaps if John could determine that his bisexuality was just a falsehood or “the denial of real sexuality”, he could then begin to find an external source for all his problems and his frustrations in life—in this case, Paul.* His resentment towards Paul was no longer a product of his own internal problems (internalised homophobia, self-hate, insecurity etc.) but rather a product of Pauls personality and behaviours. 

However, when John appeared to take a more relaxed position on the matter of sexuality—especially his own sexuality—it seems no coincidence that he had, at least to some degree, mended his relationship with Paul. Im not claiming that Johns relationship with his own sexuality being good or bad was solely reliant on his attitude towards Paul (and vice-versa in his relationship with his sexuality not being reliant on Pauls attitude towards him), but overcoming and reconciling the stresses that existed between them was a healing facet towards John becoming more comfortable with his sexuality. 

(*With other matters though, John would point to people such as his parents or Aunt Mimi as being the sources of all his issues. Again, I plan to discuss this more in future additions to the series)

Furthermore, he would come to address his sexuality and its relationship to Paul, in interviews such as his one with Sandra Shevey (again, credit to @everything-aflutter for bringing this to my attention through their post!), stating:

“It’s a plus, it’s not a minus. The plus is that your best friend, also, can hold you without…I mean, I’m not a homosexual, or we could have had a homosexual relationship and maybe that would have satisfied it, with working with other male artists. [faltering] An artist – it’s more – it’s much better to be working with another artist of the same energy, and that’s why there’s always been Beatles or Marx Brothers or men, together. Because it’s alright for them to work together or whatever it is. It’s the same except that we sleep together, you know? I mean, not counting love and all the things on the side, just as a working relationship with her, it has all the benefits of working with another male artist and all the joint inspiration, and then we can hold hands too, right?”

Though this interview may not have been a direct “coming out”, it was still acknowledging the undercurrent of sexuality which existed within his relationship and feelings towards Paul. Interviews like this suggest a personal-growth on Johns behalf from the former hostility directed especially at Paul, to an admittance of an internal conflict.

‘In this bar things were laissez-faire’: an easier-going attitude

[Sorry, but I couldn’t resist throwing in a quick reference to the Slap that is I Was Dancing At A Lesbian Bar ;)]

Similar to the last point, I think a part of Johns relaxation towards matters of sexuality was in part due to a different environment. Whilst in the earlier part of the 70s he had distanced himself from meaningful relationships with people such as Paul, Cynthia, Julian etc. and instead displaced their presence with that of Yoko’s and Janov’s—throughout the mid-70s he surrounded himself with the presences of people like David Bowie, May Pang, Elton John, and at times even Paul. 

Perhaps through his lost weekend period he came to address his sexuality through a more relaxed-mode. It might have offered him the opportunity to Explore Each Others Bodies (as the kids say) with other men, in a way that he hadn’t so-much allowed himself to do before; rather than having lust be an extension of love, in this period he could have just explored it as something simple and flirtatious and ‘fun’. Even if he didn’t engage in any physical activity with other men during his Lost Weekend era*, it’s still suggested that he was coming to terms with his sexuality, it seems, almost vicariously, as May Pang recalls him being “really curious about who was and wasn’t gay”, writing: 

"John made no judgements of homosexuality but but was really curious about who was and wasn’t gay…he knew that his appearance at a gay club might start rumours about his own sexuality and it made him laugh. He told me that there had been rumours about him and his first manager, Brian Epstein and he usually didn’t deny them…then I was the one who was laughing."(source: Loving John by May Pang)

(*Though it does seem likely to me that he would have, I understand that the sources suggesting such are often questionable)

In comparison, isolating himself with a figure like Janov we’ve established would have inhibited his sexuality. Ive spoken about this before, but I don’t believe that there was ever a period of time where John was truly comfortable with his sexuality and identifying with it—but it is evident that his discomfort towards his sexuality did vary widely, with 1970-71 arguably being his peak in terms of internalised-homophobia, and with his lost weekend period being the time at which he had dissolved himself the most of this homophobia. One way this divergence towards self-acceptance presented itself was through joking (though also hinting) about his own sexuality in interviews—for instance, his “probably I’d have to marry a rich old Lady or man” quip. That he joked about his sexuality in interviews especially suggests to me that he was beginning to embrace his identity with a more relaxed attitude, albeit in small doses. I think its pretty common for queer people to initially come-out through cryptic jokes, because coming-out for the first time, even if it is to people you know hold no judgements towards queerness, is for most people still an unnerving experience. It’s easier to test the waters first; to make comments obscure enough to brush off, but with enough significance to discern a real reaction from another person. What this attitude also shows though is a light-heartedness towards sexuality—a recognition that really, it doesn’t have to be “wracked with Pain and tension” as Arthur Janov insisted, but simply a part of a persons identity. It can be fun; it can be easy; it doesn’t have to be shameful.

So while Janov told him homosexuality was a product of mental illness and “the denial of real sexuality”, perhaps within the presences of more an accepting environment he saw the flip-side to this.

I think it was really a combination of these three circumstances (his detachment from Janov’s ideologies, his (partially) mended relationship with Paul, and a more relaxed environment) which allowed him to finally let go of a lot of Janov’s influence; they all go hand-in-hand-in-hand. 

Conclusion: 

What seems evident is that Janov affected John’s perceptions of sexuality. 

Whether John actively sought out conversion therapy, in an attempt to convert his sexuality, I doubt we’ll ever know. But three things seem clear: 1. Janov was homophobic, 2. Janov and John discussed sexuality in therapy, and 3. how John viewed homosexuality appeared to become more negative immediately following Janov’s treatment. 

Overall, Janov’s promotions of massive misconceptions concerning sexuality, combined with Johns trust in his practices and ideologies, as well as the vulnerable state John was mentally in even prior to his stay at the Primal Institute, were all factors which led to him growing increasingly self-conscious and insecure about his sexuality—which later had residue in his feelings and treatment of people like Paul.

Bibliography & further reading:

1. AKOM Podcast - Pizza and Fairytales: Love is Wanting (episode 3) (x) (discussion of Janov begins around the 20:10 mark) — @anotherkindofmindpod

2. Janov’s continued homophobic stance’s (x) — @eppysboys

3. Quote and discussion of PST effects on John (x) — @phoneybeatlemania-bit-the-dust

4. The Psychology of John Lennon (x) (around the 2:14:26 mark) — Dr. Kirk Honda

5. A counter to the gay conversion therapy argument (x) - @queerlennon 

6. Johns anti-gay stance in 1971 (x) — @everything-aflutter

7. Debunking Primal Therapy (blog) (x) —John Smith

8. Crazy Stories of Primal Therapy: Cautionary tales to chill the bones from participants in Janov’s cultlike therapy (x) — John Smith

9. How Primal Scream Therapy Has Survived Five Decades of Strangeness and Controversy (x) — Oliver Hotham

10. Review: Anoxia: The Cause; And Primal Scream Therapy: The Cure-All (x) — James V. Kohl

11. Surviving a therapeutic cult (x) — Peter Gajdics

12. Primal Scream: A Persistent New Age Therapy (x) — Martin Gardner

13. Understanding Lennon/McCartney vol 3: The Seventies (x) — Breathless345

14. John Lennon and Primal Therapy (x) — The Primal Centre

15. The Primal Scream: The Cure for Neurosis (x) — Arthur Janov

16. The Biology of Love (x) — Arthur Janov

17. Primal Institute Q&A (see: Martin) (x) — Primal Institute

18. Janov's Reflections on the Human Condition: The Simple Truth is Revolutionary [aka Janov’s blog] (x) — Arthur Janov

19. Primal Scream & Genital Character: A Critique of Janov & Reich (x) — Charles R. Kelly

20. Lennon Remembers (x) — John Lennon, Yoko Ono & Jann Wenner 

21. Loving John — May Pang

22. Gay Liberation Poem (x) — John Lennon

23. Aversion Therapy Uses and Effectiveness (x) — Kendra Cherry