Well, the first famous one. Macaulay states that he wasn’t a fan of his music and that’s maybe why they were friends. He would call him, jerk, or fathead and MJ would laugh.
It’s part of Macaulay’s version of things that leans me toward a regressive/Peter Pan complex than towards pedophillia.
But we’ll never really know, will we? Maybe if someone finds some secret papers or diary in MJ’s house or if Macaulay or some other kids change their story we’ll get some light, but till then, in this case, it’s what he said, what the boy said, and what really happened.
The fact that he evidently didn’t molest Macaulay Culkin or Webster is not particularly meaningful. I think even he had the sense to know he could never get away with diddling the famous kids.
Uh, I think I would actually put more faith on fact with Perez Hilton’s articles (Facetious). CERTAINLY never Maureen Orth. :rolleyes:
Kind of like getting a movie review from TV Guide.
At least Macaulay KNEW him. Maureen Orth didn’t. There are other articles from Huffington Post and Vanity Fair praising the weird icon.
Either you are a fucking rambling idiot or this shows how cool you are referencing the 43rd episode of the 78th season of obscure Spike TV show. How brilliantly fucking original and cool you are. :rolleyes:
“sense” ? Are we talking about the same Michael Jackson ? The one with the detachable nose ?
@**dgrdfd **: he’s quoting/modifying the lyrics of a Devo song. They were before your time, evidently. Used to be big in the 80s. And weird. But that, they still are
It’s almost as if there’s a fear that the word homosexual will be tainted if associated with pedophilia. When you term someone a heterosexual you don’t rule out the fact that they may also be a pedophile, necrophile, etc. It’s exactlly the same with homosexual, it simply refers to the attraction for one’s own sex and does not rule out the fact that the person may have a taste for the prepubescent, the dead, etc.
Voice from neighboring apartment: Princess Diana is dead! I can’t believe it! She’s dead, she’s dead, she’s de-he-he-sob! Scissorjack: OH YES OH GOD YES YES YES!
Uncomfortable pause. Second voice from neighboring apartment: Have a little respect for the dead, asshole.
If an adult male non-mega celebrity held kid-tastic pool parties exclusively for young neighborhood boys, and later had his young guests sleep in his bed so they could “share stories, play games, wrestle around, and just have fun!” I don’t think we’d be having these elaborate discussions with people pondering his innocent Peter Pan-ness, how they never actually caught him red-handed with his hand on a kid’s penis, and how people are unfairly judging him.
I’m pretty sure that discussion would not be occurring.
Yes, but no-one would start a Pit noting that Gary Glitter is a heterosexual.
It’s the mindless assumption that homosexual and homosexual-paedophile are interchangeable terms that is disturbing, and it’s not a trend restricted to this thread.
Only for the reason that you would never hear about it. By most accounts these were just kid-tastic pool parties. His status made him a target that allowed others to go after him for his money and paint a less than savory picture of him.
Isn’t the above explanation just as likely if we do not have any solid evidence that he was hurting those kids, and plenty of accounts of how kind and caring he was toward the kids that were there? Does it make you feel better to assume that he was a pedophile based on evidence you would never in a million years convict him for?
He wasn’t my friend, I didn’t know him, and I didn’t have any attachment to his music. I just don’t understand how his pedophilia is “common knowledge” when the evidence suggesting such is so terribly scant.
Also, in response to Dio’s comment that because Michael paid the money means he was guilty, I would say that the parents accepting a settlement is a sign that he was not. If someone touched my kid, I wouldn’t want a fucking penny, I would want his head.
As a 51 year old adult male I realize there is spectrum of how well adult males get along with young kids and find enjoyment in interacting with kids. Having said this romping with kids is one thing, but seeking out and constructing opportunities to sleep with unrelated kids is quite another. Re evidence being “so scant” if it quacks like a duck, files like a duck, and waddles like a duck maybe you are expecting an albatross, but I’m pretty sure a duck is in the offing.
