Ok…I know. The last thing this board (or probably most boards out there) needs right now is another MJ thread. So if this ends up closed or moved or deleted, so be it. But it’s something I’ve needed to rant about for a while and I’m going to.
And…it is at least, not about the verdict.
it’s not because I have no fucking idea if MJ is sexually interested in children. That is, whatever constitutes 'sexual interest" for him. So I don’t know if he’s guilty but i will accept the ruling of the jury. Fine. But I have very little question that he is romantically interested in children. I don’t need to be in his bedroom or have any special knowedge to know that…I jut need to know what he’s said and done in public.
Putting your hands down a kid’s pants is reprhensible…But so is expecting children to fill the needs of adults in other ways. In fact, that has a lot to do with why sexual contact between adults and children is so evil. Not because sex is evil. because it’s an adult using a child.
And from what i’ve heard…from everything he’s said before, to what he’s said recently (“I would just die if I couldn’t be around children. I would just kill myself”) he’s not looking to help children as much as he’s looking to them to help him with his own emotional problems. That is not the way an adult should deal with a child any more than using them to deal with their sexual problems is.
Why is this a rant? Well because I had the same experience as a child…no sex, although he did make it clear he wanted sex. But mostly he made me feel guilty for not reponding to his emotional needs when, gee…he was being so nice to me.
I felt guilty.
I bet a lot of those kids at neverland feel guilty.
Bravo! Very well put. This is what has bothered me all along about this selfish turd. Ok, so they didn’t prove he committed any physical abuse of these kids but he has admitted to emotional abuse. To bad that isn’t a crime.
If it makes anyone feel the least bit better, the man will likely never revive his career after this.
Much like the OJ thing, when people know someone is guilty, they are then “convicted” in the public opinion, despite what 12 bozos and/or a judge decide.
Sorry, I’ll stop there, soas not to go back into the vierdict.
Well, in his case I think there are things you can do.
He has minor children living with him, and he has endangered them publicly in the past, and on TV to boot. There is probable cause for an investigation of his home situation by relevant state agencies, and they can remove those children or force other sanctions.
I think the army of lawyers deployed around Jackson has been the only thing that has prevented this from already happening.
OK, I’m not going to defend him, because I find him creepy too, but I don’t think there’s necessarily anything intrinsically wrong with an adult having a desire to be with children that borders on dependence.
Certainly it’s wrong to express/gratify that dependence in the form of demand and selfish manipulation, but I can understand how someone (probably not someone who is also other-ways-weird like MJ) could say that their life would be worth much less if they couldn’t spend it with kids.
There’s nothing actually wrong with being very deeply invested in what you find fulfilling - even if such deep investment marks you as eccentric in the eyes of others - as long as the rights of others are respected at all times.
Maybe I’m wrong here, but it seems to me that if he was aquitted of everything, the judge can’t impose anything at all, in terms of restraining orders, etc.
This is what confuses me. If the prosecution screwed up an otherwise solid case, then the jury should have returned guilty in at least something. There were a variety of charges, from outright molestation to giving alcohol to a minor. But they acquitted everything, which seems to say that the jury didn’t consider that there are gradations of inappropriate behavior with children. They looked at the charges as a binary thing. Either “yes” he’s an evil molester or “no” he’s incabable of any inpropriety. Because the prosecution didn’t make its case well, the jury went for the later.
Regardless of what the jury had to say, I find it supremely creepy for a 40something year old man to get on TV holding the hand of a pre-teen boy and say that the most loving thing in the world that you can do is share your bed with a child.
I am aware that parents sleep with their own children, but that kind of thing usually stops before the kid is 12 years old and is usually done out of the child’s need for comfort when sick or frightened by a nightmare or something. It’s not something that a normal, non-creepy adult would do with someone else’s child.
If only :rolleyes:
“You’ll never have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore!”
“Rape charges! That’s it-Tyson’s career is over!”
“(insert name of tele-evangelist here) really screwed up this time. Guess we’ll never here from him again.”
Face it, when people have invested so much emotionally in a celebrity, they have to forgive/protect/deny the obvious screwups, because to do otherwise would be admitting that they have wasted a good part of their lives.
I kind of wished he would have been convicted this time just so that he wouldn’t be allowed to be near children anymore. I’m sure in his head this exonerates him and re-inforces the idea that it is OK to sleep with little boys. Maybe they could pass a law that says that allowing your children to spend time alone with Micheal Jackson makes you an unfit parent, and gives the state the right to take your child away and put your child in protective custody.
True. But, he is deeply in debt, and I don’t think he has enough dedicated fans to earn him enough money fast enough to allow him to keep Neverland. Once he loses that Venus Kidtrap, he’ll have a lot fewer opportunities.
I was having a discussion with someone the other day who argued that I shouldn’t “say he was guilty” because we really have no definitive evidence of it. I argued that he fits the profile of a pedophile, and “if it walks like a duck…” He replied that that was quite true, but that in itself is no evidence that he actually sexually molested a child. I had to agree that he was correct. He wasn’t a “Michael Jackson Defender” by any means, by the way. He was just arguing that one point. I basically agreed to say “I believe he’s guilty” rather than “he’s guilty.” I left the conversation feeling a bit frustrated. I know he’s guilty of something! And you helped me put my finger on what exactly we know he’s guilty of. “Emotional pedophilia” maybe?
Anyway, I think his actions support the contention that he is more interested in gaining the adulation of children than actually helping children. If you want to make an poor 10-year-old think you’re the greatest guy in the world, you build an amusement park for him. If you actually want to help him, you’ll assure his nutrition, shelter, medical care, and education. The 10-year-old sure won’t get as excited about it, but as adults, we know that it is far more important for him and his future. And we can feel good about doing that for him. We don’t depend on the kid jumping up and down and wanting to sleep in our bed to get our validation.
I’m sure Michael is very upset about what he’s been through and probably still believes in some twisted way that he’s the victim here. My guess is that’ll come through loud and clear in any music in the near future, almost Eminem-like, and as far as I know (I’ve never bought MJ) that’s not what has historically worked for him. Two bits says every musical endeavor from now on tanks, each more so than the last.
Oh, and betenoir, I appreciate your perspective and think you nailed a couple of points.
because despite the respect that I give our legal system–it really effs up when it comes to kids, it sucks.
the letter of the law is very often NOT in the best interest of the child/children.
Frankly I am stunned that 12 people think it’s ok to give alcohol to a minor. That alone should have sent a red flag to all of them.
Not to hijack, but the courts not acting in the best interest of the child is tragically displayed in the Baby Richard case. No cite, but it all happened about 10+ years ago. He was taken from his adoptive parents (the only ones he had ever known) just so a man could prove a point. Otto, his “father” gave up custody of Baby Richard about 2 years later, IMS.
Jacko and custody cases are not the same thing, of course. But my point is that while it may have been MJ who was on trial here–it is the boys who will serve the sentence–and theirs may be for life.
to me, that is too high a risk to take. What if he truly was diddling with pre-pubescent boys? Is he creating new pedophiles as he goes?
Who can say? Again, I wish we had the Scottish “not proven” verdict.
I hope MJ loses all his money, frankly, and gets the mental health care that he needs. He, to me, is the prime example of how money can corrupt and entitle a person.
If he wants a comeback, he’s got his work cut out for him. He hasn’t had a hit since the mid 1990s. His last few albums were basically failures. He’s already got a reputation for backing out of deals, not showing up for his concerts. He’s deeply in debt, has quite a few lawsuits pending against him, and from the looks of it, continues to spend beyond his means. He’s obviously on some kind of drugs, his health is poor (at least according to him), and his popularity here in the US is almost nil.
And let’s face it-his most recent songs are just retreads of what was popular during his heyday in the 1980s. He’s a got a reputation (rightly or wrongly) as a child molestor. His so-called charitable works consist of attaching his name to this or that cause, or coming up with grandiose projects that always fail because he can’t be bothered doing the actual work.
So, yeah, MAYBE a comeback is possible. But I’m not holding my breath.