There’s no reason his regressive personality couldn’t also mean he was a child molester. If he had the mind of a child but the hormones of an adult, combined with the fixation on young boys, he could very well have molested the children. And it wouldn’t matter whether he was an actual pedophile or not. (A large portion–if not a majority–of child molesters are not pedophiles.)
That said, if he did, you’d expect it to be something he did with all the children in his bed, and at least Caulkin says that he was never molested. Then again, maybe it was more a grooming thing for allowing him to be alone with the children later.
I find the fact that he thwarted the rules of society to be less rather than more indicative that he was a molester. If he usually acted normally, then this would be an aberration. But I think he came off as the type of person who thought that he didn’t have to listen to societal norms.
You may see him getting in a lot of legal trouble. I think he saw it as if he survived a lot of legal trouble. The fact that he continued doing what he was doing does not seem so suspect if he thought the trial vindicated him. I don’t think you can say one way or the other on that.
I believe that he was unhealthily fixated on young boys. But I do not buy that that, in and of itself, does anyone any harm. And I do not hold Jackson responsible for the suspicions of others that it was sexual.
Though, again, it might have actually been sexual. All I know is that most pedophiles are not nearly as weird as Jackson, and I find any indication that his weirdness is proof of his guilt to be very odd and even somewhat troubling, as I know quite a lot of good, weird people.
Reminds me of Humbert Humbert’s justification for the rape/carnal knowledge of his step daughter. In other words, pure fiction twisted into a sick justification.
I don’t know if he ever touched a kid. But he is most definitely a pedophile, in the sense that he is attracted to prepubescent boys.
The fact that he was emotionally eight years old is the reason why I think he was a child molester. Emotional immaturity is a widely held hypothesis for pedophilia (cite - pdf).
Exactly right. Pedophiles are emotionally regressed people who see themselves as childlike. That’s why they’re attracted to children. Combine a child-like emotional state and an adult’s physical sexual maturity, and what do you think is going to happen?
Pedophile of course is not the same thing as child molester. You can be sexually attracted to children without raping them, I am sexually attracted to adult women but I’ve never raped an adult woman, even when I was really horny and she was really hot.
But “He’s innocent and like a child” is not exactly evidence that he wasn’t a pedophile. Real children don’t have adult bodies with adult sexual function. Michael Jackson did.
Could you explain this, or link to the wiki’s or some such? I know there’s likely some fine-line psycho-babble involved which make it technically true, but it feels like “not all alcoholics are addicts”.
You can have a sexual attraction to prepubescent children, but not have sex with prepubescent children. Like I mentioned earlier, I have a sexual attraction to adult women, but I’ve never raped an adult woman.
If for some reason I wasn’t ever able to have consensual sex with an adult woman, I still wouldn’t rape one. Pedophiles are attracted to children, but can never have consensual sex with them. That means any sex between a pedophile and a child would be rape. It’s possible for pedophiles to decide to not rape children, even if they have the desire to rape children they still don’t have to do it.
WADR, I think you have answered the wrong question.
It was not “most pedophiles are not child molesters”. it was
[QUOTE=BigT]
A large portion–if not a majority–of child molesters are not pedophiles.
[/quote]
I understand that a pedophile would want to have sex with a prepubescent child, but thru moral effort would stop himself from doing so. The question is why someone who is not a pedophile, and was not sexually attracted to prepubescent children, would nonetheless molest one.
As mentioned, I suspect it has to do with the difference between sex with an eight year old vs. sex with a thirteen year old. Both are “sex with a minor”, legally, but calling them both “child molesting” is a little misleading. IMO.
Not to excuse sex with thirteen year olds, but it is not quite the same thing.
I think it’s obvious Michael Jackson had sexual feelings for children. Whether he indulged them is anyone’s guess. I guess this should be called the Lewis Carroll syndrome.
In one of his books, FBI agent John Douglas presents a list of acceptable activities for pedophiles. It does including using stuffed animals and life sized dolls as masturbation aids.
Really, though, despite his taste for photographing little girls in the nude (all perfectly innocent by Victorian standards, that), there was nothing about Lewis Carroll’s character that would make a responsible parent hesitate to trust him as a babysitter. (For a little girl, that is. I wouldn’t put him to watch a boy, Carroll hated little boys.)
Yep, sorry about that. Not all pedophiles are child molesters is not the same thing as not all child molesters are pedophiles.
If we replace “child molester” with “statutory rapist” then the picture gets clearer. Many people who commit statutory rape aren’t pedophiles, because the rape victim was post-pubescent. I have no idea if this fraction is greater than 50%, but it sounds plausible.
And, for crying out loud, I wish people would stop blaming poor OJ for murdering his ex-wife when the *WHOLE LEGAL SYSTEM AND CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES SAID HE WAS INNOCENT. *
Hold on here; aren’t getting bats caught in your hair supposed to drive you crazy? Then, methinks that the ‘-shit’ addendum is like the ‘-ass’ in ‘ugly-ass’. Mystery solved, per hh.