• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Official - Michael Jackson was scum

So what I'm getting is some people here would happily let their kid sleep in bed with an adult male with a fixation in Peter Pan and nude pre-pubescent "art" of kids.

I seriously doubt you would be happy with the idea

It depends on what you mean by " sleeping with". If you mean actual sleeping, then no, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Contrary to the impression that the media gave during the trial, I'm finding no evidence that he had sex with any boys.

If he was attracted to boys but never acted out on that, then you are talking about condemning someone for a thought crime.
 
It depends on what you mean by " sleeping with". If you mean actual sleeping, then no, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Contrary to the impression that the media gave during the trial, I'm finding no evidence that he had sex with any boys.

If he was attracted to boys but never acted out on that, then you are talking about condemning someone for a thought crime.

All good.

If it were my nephew's it wouldn't happen.

Just choice of personal precaution I suppose.

"Tommy. This is Michael. He acts like a 10 year old and has a plastic face. He loves Peter Pan and gets into nude kiddie "art".

He owns a chimp who looks nervous

He wants to share his toys in exchange for you getting into bed with him for the night.

Mum and me have discussed it and we think you'll have fun. Bye"
 
Perhaps someone who actually knew the man would have a different impression.

Even the golddiggers had a different impression, up until the time they saw there was some money to be had.
 
I never had a very good opinion of Jackson, though no doubt he had talent in his field, which I care little for anyway. But certainly there were many people eager to see him convicted of crimes, and though he certainly also used his formidable resources to fight those accusations, as who would not, it seems unlikely that he could have succeeded against good evidence, especially given that the interest of those pursuing him has outlived his involvement. Did he pay people off? Sure. He had tons of money and wanted people to stop messing with him, and it's possible even that he was stupid and wrong to do so.

Somewhere we have to decide where the line between fact and innuendo is drawn, what we can rightly consider evidence of guilt, what we can rightly consider punishable. When we get near that line, it's inevitable that many people will be offended and some people will disagree. That's as it should be. The freedom to be normal is empty rhetoric for windbags like Fidel Castro. Freedom and justice are, as always, tested at their very edges.
 
I don't deny the dude was a geniuse musically

Still wouldn't put a kid any where near him
 
If he was attracted to boys but never acted out on that, then you are talking about condemning someone for a thought crime.

I think one could reasonably discern Jackson's insisting on getting a young boy alone and into his bed, even if no molestation occurs, to constitute "acting out" on that attraction. In any case, the "sentence" - resulting from such thought-crime condemnation - of not letting a child be alone with Michael Jackson or sleep in Michael Jackson's bed is hardly some kind of draconian torture.
 
Last edited:
I think one could reasonably discern Jackson's insisting on getting a young boy alone and into his bed, even if no molestation occurs, to constitute "acting out" on that attraction.

Well, it would be necessary to prove both halves of that equation. First, you have the attraction, and IMO the state was unable to do that. Just letting the kids sleep in his bed is certainly pushing -or crossing- what most of us would consider reasonable boundaries. But if the intent was simply trying to provide some kind of fantasy version of the perfect childhood -as MJ envisioned it- then no real crime is involved; not even thought crimes.

In any case, the "sentence" - resulting from such thought-crime condemnation - of not letting a child be alone with Michael Jackson or sleep in Michael Jackson's bed is hardly some kind of draconian torture.

I do agree with this. Back to the "pampered celebrity" issues. Someone should've told MJ "No, this is not the right thing to do" long before any of these allegations were ever made.
 
What about the kid who accurately described Jackson's junk, including details that could only be known by "lifting", who was then paid off.

Did that actually happen?

Or that bloke in the UK who freely admits Jackson masturbated while on the phone with him, but is actually fine with it because Jackson was his "friend"?
 
What about the kid who accurately described Jackson's junk, including details that could only be known by "lifting", who was then paid off.

I don't know. I can think of ways that might've happened that did not involve molestation, but I don't know.

I do know I once saw a foster father's junk...and stored the image away just in case I needed an ace-in-the-hole for getting the hell out of there. Of course, I fully intended to carefully omit the fact I saw it in a photograph taken while he was sound asleep that I found while snooping through his personal belongings.
 
I don't get why people look at the Peter Pan stuff and toys and think "pedophile". What those things say to me is "trying to have a childhood too late because he never had a chance to be a child when he was a child". How in the world does acting like you want to be a child and adopting the traits of a child equal wanting to screw a child? I like screwing women, but have never wished I were a woman or collected things women would be more expected to collect or watched, read, or listened to things with primarily female audiences. (For that matter, many would make the opposite association: that a man who adopts conventionally feminine behaviors is less likely to want to screw women!)

It's like looking at someone with a bunch of paintings & statues of dragons, and watching people insist "that person must really love poodles".

For that matter, Peter Pan is rather more precise and specific case for "wanting to be a child, not screw one" than most childhood-oriented things. The Peter Pan story itself is explicitly about the transition from childhood to adulthood and whether going through it is necessary, and Neverland is a mishmash of children's things thrown together in a way that looks like a wistful view of the life of children from the outside... created by another man who had lost his chance at childhood and been personally confronted by the idealization of never growing up for different reasons (and who I think was also accused of pedophilia).

I've had some samples of life out in the middle of the forest that have stuck with me my whole life, and I've tried to find ways to get back to that or at least as close as I can (including going for forestry as my first career before I had to walk away from it for professional & ethical reasons). The happiest times in my life have been out in the woods, either at my family's place when I was young or when I worked in forestry or on my vacations since leaving forestry, but there have been far too few of those compared to the long stretches of time I've had to waste not in forests. The fact that I'll never be rich enough to really live that ideal makes me sad any time I'm reminded of it. My ideal world would be one where not just I but everybody could live that kind of dream life... I imagine that being accused of pedophilia for being nostalgic about childhood or wishing one could be a child again would be a bit like if I were badgered with perpetual accusations of wanting to steal or ruin someone else's forest land.
 
Last edited:
Well, it would be necessary to prove both halves of that equation. First, you have the attraction, and IMO the state was unable to do that.

I don't think that's true at all. Firstly, the problem wasn't the state being unable to prove attraction. As I said early on, I think the material they uncovered combined with what we already know about Jackson's activities establishes his attraction beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson was infatuated with prepubescent boys. He rather blatantly favored their company in comparison even to other children; he needed to have access to them, to be close to them, to physically touch them. He needed to spend time alone with them and privately express love and affection for them, and have that affection accepted if not reciprocated by them. He went to unusual and very extensive lengths to accommodate these wants or needs. I think it takes a pointed refusal to consider the facts in the most reasonable light to assert that Jackson's predilection for young boys is a matter of serious contention.

But simply being a pedophile isn't illegal, and it isn't what he was on trial for. He was on trial for molesting a particular child, and the state had trouble proving the specific alleged incidents of abuse actually happened.

Just letting the kids sleep in his bed is certainly pushing -or crossing- what most of us would consider reasonable boundaries. But if the intent was simply trying to provide some kind of fantasy version of the perfect childhood -as MJ envisioned it- then no real crime is involved; not even thought crimes.

The matter of the bed is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. I think it is wholly inappropriate for an adult to be seeking out and forming close personal affectionate relationships with unrelated children the way Jackson did. Each step beyond that - arranging time alone with those children, and then taking them alone into his bedroom, putting them in his bed - just increases the impropriety by another order of magnitude. And finally, even if we are to allow for the sake of argument that Jackson's need for personal relationships with young boys was a purely emotional rather than sexual one, the fact that he engendered trust and insinuated himself into the lives of their families in order to gain access to boys of his preference so that he could use them to address this need is still willfully exploitive and wrong.
 
Last edited:
If he was attracted to boys but never acted out on that, then you are talking about condemning someone for a thought crime.

I'm good with that. Because to condemn them for an actual crime, I have to allow the crime to occur - something I'm not keen on.
 
I don't think that's true at all. Firstly, the problem wasn't the state being unable to prove attraction. As I said early on, I think the material they uncovered combined with what we already know about Jackson's activities establishes his attraction beyond a reasonable doubt...

... I think it takes a pointed refusal to consider the facts in the most reasonable light to assert that Jackson's predilection for young boys is a matter of serious contention...

Still haven't read the link, yet, I see.
 
I don't get why people look at the Peter Pan stuff and toys and think "pedophile". What those things say to me is "trying to have a childhood too late because he never had a chance to be a child when he was a child". How in the world does acting like you want to be a child and adopting the traits of a child equal wanting to screw a child? I like screwing women, but have never wished I were a woman or collected things women would be more expected to collect or watched, read, or listened to things with primarily female audiences. (For that matter, many would make the opposite association: that a man who adopts conventionally feminine behaviors is less likely to want to screw women!)

(snip)

For that matter, Peter Pan is rather more precise and specific case for "wanting to be a child, not screw one" than most childhood-oriented things. The Peter Pan story itself is explicitly about the transition from childhood to adulthood and whether going through it is necessary, and Neverland is a mishmash of children's things thrown together in a way that looks like a wistful view of the life of children from the outside... created by another man who had lost his chance at childhood and been personally confronted by the idealization of never growing up for different reasons (and who I think was also accused of pedophilia).

(snip)

Thank-you. This speaks a lot to my way of thinking about it. MJ never had a real childhood. He dreamed of it, craved it, needed it -but never got it. Later, he had this idea he could create a fantasy world for other kids who he thought were being denied normalcy so they wouldn't go through what he did, and also I suspect he saw it as a way to experience it vicariously.

Many of the people who choose to be foster parents do so for the same reasons. They have this deep desire to provide for someone else's children whatever they didn't have for themselves. A normal life -toys, clothes, school, etc.

But, some of them -and I include MJ in this group- missed out on so much they don't really know what they missed. They read books, and hear stories and watch television 'til they form all kinds of fantastical opinions.

They form an image in their minds of the pattern on the cloth, but without any real knowledge or understanding of the fibers. They allow or do inappropriate things because they do not have the whole picture.

The fabric they create is lovely on the surface, but the weave is crooked -and in some cases the warp is showing all over the place.

I don't think Jackson intended any wrongdoing at all. I think he had a fantasy image that no one dared tell him wasn't really a good idea, and I think he was genuinely shocked that anyone, anywhere found fault with his efforts.

I also think he was so insulated for so much of his life he really didn't understand the sharks in the water, and how vulnerable he was making himself to their predations by trying to share his fortunes and help those he thought he could do so many good things for.
 
I can't help but remember how damning everything seemed at the time of the trial from the media coverage, and then years later to find out how much of that was completely made up and reported distortedly for ratings. The lesson I learned was to not trust media, particularly if they are reporting something "juicy".

Well yes, perhaps. But remember that Liberace perjured himself in court by denying that he was homosexual...and won the case!!!:eye-poppi
 

Back
Top Bottom