Eleanor, don’t confuse “was accused of” with “provided…”. There was never any proof, and in cases like this, the law is actually extraordinarily broad if you must know the truth. No matter what, if a kid in my neighborhood says to a parent: “Mommy, Sam was playing basketball with me and he touched me weird”, there will be an investigation. I will be presumed guilty until such time as the testimony of the child breaks down, or the “touching” is explained, or something else major happens.
If the investigation goes any further than questioning, not only would it all be made public, but I’d likely be indicted and forced to prove myself. In a case like that, the shadow of “sex offender” or “indicted, but not convicted of a sex crime”, will always linger.
So, no, the law is not narrow. The law is rather broad and all complaints are taken seriously when children are involved. Overly broad even. THey have begun charging and convicting men in my part of the state with sex crimes based on them sitting at playgrounds and not doing anything-with no touching, no priors, nothing.
To be honest, no. People who have had a limited, or no childhood at all often want to relive it, and one of the best way to do so is to spend time with children, see the world through their eyes. Heck, even people who have had a good childhood like to relive theirs through children (often even more so). That some of you confuse this with SOME pedophiles who have been abused as a child and compulsively need to relive that experience because of a complex mixture of having been sexually conditioned, seeking to understand their abusive parents, and so on. If MJ spends the night with one of these boys, and even if they have a few drinks, then yes, he may be older and so on, but its also understandable, harmless, and I suspect children would generally love it. I personally, as a child, loved hanging out with adults.
You’re not expressing reservations and you’ve got that rope clenched in your white-knuckled fist already quite firmly.
As if he’s ever going to be able to hang out with boys alone by himself ever again. That has already been taken away from him by you, and many others. You want him to lose all of his money as well. You sure love someone who’s found not guilty. Remember how I said lynch-mob? If he’d see a shrink at this point, you’d only see it as an admission of guilt. In his position, I wouldn’t even see a shrink to discuss a video game addiction.
Funny…I’m having a hard time finding anywhere I or anyone else suggested we lynch Mr. Jackson…and that’s even amoung those who feel he was wrongfully aquited. I believe someone went so far as to suggest he could use consuling. Whereas my OP had nothing to do with whether he was gulity of what he was charged with or whether or not he was a “child molester” in the traditional (legal) sense.
But, this (as i was trying to make clear) has nothing to do with his legal staus. But…does the existence of a legal system negate the use of common human reason? I base my idea that he’s a creep entierly on what he has said and admitted to. And yes, i do believe he doesn’t think he’s a creep for what he’s said or admitted too…I base it on how I felt when such attention was directed at me.
Then you would be wrong. I started the thread because what i’ve seen MJ do reminds me a lot of what had happened to me. It has nothing to do with his being wealthy or famous (beyond the fact that I wouldn’t know about him otherwise, and that being wealthy and famous makes it easier for him to do what he does). If you are suggesting what I said was bourne out of…an obssesion with Michael Jackson??? Then I honestly don’t know what to say. Except that I’m disgusted.
And while I’m here I’ll reply to Mangetout who said somethng sort of similar to Arwin, but in a saner fashion…I agree with everything you said…essentially. But I do believe MJ fallls of the other side of repecting other’s rights. And very much on the side of self gratification and manipulation.
And beyond that…thanks everyone. I felt I needed to say it.
I have no reason to be proud of myself here-pride doesn’t enter into.
how about you stop painting me with the hysteria brush? And get off you righteous high horse. I see from your post that you advocate giving boys a few drinks. You have no crediblity here, for me anyway.
I would NOT take MJ seeking help as an admission of guilt–Jeebus, what a mind!
I would take it as a courageous and healthy step towards overcoming some major childhood issues that he has. As for my happiness in his losing his fortune–quite the contrary–I wish he had used that money for good: charities and the like. He has noone to blame but himself if and when he goes broke. I made the point that the loss of the $$ would stop the attraction that he and his compound have for parents of young boys.
GaWd -thanks for heads up–I hadn’t realized that I was equating the two here. Point taken.
And I also see your point about the law being broad–in fact, what you describe is very scary shit indeed. It is well nigh impossible to predicate absolute standards of appropriate behavior. So, innocent people are falsely accused and guilty ones are found not guilty(general remark-not implying guilt here for MJ).
I find my curious about the families who send their kids to Neverland–the kids don’t think anything of it except as a huge treat–but the parents…
Do you? Do you? Hanging out with adults,yes, maybe being some adults romantic, emotional (whether or not it’s sexual) subsitute? Not so much fun. I know becuase…I know.
Eleanor, many people don’t see the difference between the two, which is why “Indicted but not convicted” can still fuck up a person’s life…even if falsely accused.
I think it’s quite likely that he molested children. However, there has never been a credible witness to that effect that didn’t just take the money and run. Until such time as that happens, there isn’t anything the law can or should do him.
He has a right to go out and try to make a living, we have the right not to buy his music or attend his concerts if we don’t like his lifestyle. It would be great if he sought psychological help, and for all we know he already has. His lawyer says he’ll stop bringing kids into his bedroom, let’s hope he keeps that pledge. But most importantly, even with his not guilty verdict, any parent that lets a young boy go to Neverland is negligent in their parenting duties. He can have the most perverse desires in the world, but if his supply is cut off then he can’t act on them. So keep the kids away from him and there won’t be a next time.
All I can say is that whenever I think of the Michael Jackson case, I hear George Carlin in the back of my mind saying “You have a child fetish.” That seems to sum up his creepiness perfectly for me.
Understandable? Michael Jackson is a 46-year-old strange-looking man. I cannot possibly comprehend (looking at it from the child’s perspective, an older man’s perspective and an outside observer’s perspective) a single reason why it is “understandable” that a 46-year-old man wants to spend the night, sharing his bed with children who are unrelated to him, especially if they “have a few drinks.” Not understandable, at least to me.
Harmless? Spending an hour at the park chatting with a 46-year-old man, sure. A 46-year-old male teacher? I’ve had several. Sharing a bed with a 46-year old man? maybe. “Having a few drinks?” In my opinion, not so much (note that I realize he was acquitted of this…I’m addressing your post specifically). Even assuming emotional damage (or physical molestation) isn’t occurring, an unrelated adult giving “a few drinks” to a child (especially unsupervised, and assumedly without permission from the parents) IS dangerous. We aren’t talking about an underage college freshman getting drunk at a frat party here, or even drinking after a highschool prom. This kid was in junior high.
Children would generally love it? I’d be creeped out as all hell. The amusement park would be fun, sure, but a weird-looking 46-year-old guy being intent on liquoring me up and sleeping with me?
Harmless? How is it “harmless” to give a recovering cancer patient with only one kidney alcohol?
And he’s had 20 years to relive his childhood. And even speaking as someone who had a pretty damned good childhood, I can tell you the concept is highly overrated.
In other words, even IF he had given them alcohol, it would have been totally harmless, is what he seems to be saying. I was pointing out that no, even if all he did with this kid was let him have a beer or two, it would not have been harmless.
On what basis do you conclude that Jackson uses children as a romantic or emotional substitute?
If we must indulge in remote psychoanalysis, it seems more reasonable to conclude that Jackson is motivated by the feeling that he was denied the experience of what childhood is supposed to be about, and so continually provides other kids with what he considers to be the ideal childhood experience. The kids that he allowed into his household were all either economically disadvantaged or child stars, whom he could reasonably be believed to think might be missing out, as he sees it.
What is Jackson’s view of a normal childhood? Maybe whatever good things he remembers from before the Jackson 5 made it big, when the 7 people in his family shared a tiny three-room house?
People naturally respond viscerally when there’s talk of the guy “sharing his bed” with juveniles – we get an image of them spooning in their p.j.'s, whether we want to or not. Never mind that the he didn’t share his bed with them when he was, you know, in it.
Now, I certainly think there are others who have been much more successful at dedicating large parts of their lives to helping children have better childhoods. (Of course these people have the advantage of living in the real world.) But there’s no reason to assume the most sinister motivation for Jackson’s actions – and there’s no reason to assume that the kids he comes into contact with are be harmed, physically or emotionally, until there’s some evidence to suggest that’s true.
Uh, no, Larry Mudd, he did INDEED say he slept in the same bed with many children.
Either way, his whole, “Children are the face of God, so innocent, so pure, I would kill myself if there were no children,” shows an unhealthy objectification of childhood. Children aren’t angels, they’re human beings. They’re not all pure, innocent beings of light. And bringing help to children-he wants to build an amusement park in Africa. I’d think these kids need basic food, medicine, education, etc before they need some fancy Afro-Disney that most of them probably couldn’t even afford to get into. Hell, a small public playground would suffice. I don’t think his idea of childhood is based on reality. Being a kid is great in many ways, and not so great in others.
Even if he’s not harming children, he needs to get help for himself, and for HIS children. They don’t need a big Man-Child-they need an adult. If he wants to be a father, to take care of his children, then yes, he has to grow up and act like an adult.
Except that he’s not providing a healthy environment. Forget the alcohol and molestation charges for a minute. Kids who stayed on his ranch for extended visits would end up running amok. Provoking the animals in the cages. Throwing stuff off the top of the ferris wheel, at people. Throwing garbage into the pool. Eating only junk food, staying up till all hours, never doing homework. He spoiled kids; well behaved children went to the ranch and emerged as full-bore brats. That is not helping them.
He’s close to the youngest, I think the second youngest. So he spent less time in poverty than most of his siblings. And his siblings don’t seem to have this arrested development.