Jackson a harmless pedophile?
March 11, 2005 8:49 AM   Subscribe

It is impossible to read this sexuality material from the University of Missouri and not conclude that Michael Jackson is a pedophile. But then you read about the inconsistencies in the current case and wonder if he has ever actually acted on his pedophilic urges; the overwhelming majority never fulfill their fantasies.
posted by johnnydark (46 comments total)


 
the overwhelming majority may not act it out, but they likely do not have the means, the cover story of being a pop star that kids would want to visit, or the Neverland ranch to conduct acts in.
posted by brucec at 9:08 AM on March 11, 2005


A bit of a railroading post.
I kind of feel sorry for the freak just because no fair trial could ever have taken place.....'innocent until proven...'
I still reckon the accused shouldn't be publically named until convicted.
That said, as a society we possiby have some work to do in schools or whatever to try to curb the incidence of pedophilia. Fuck knows what though - a bit hard to police and rehabilitate thought crimes. Sad.
posted by peacay at 9:26 AM on March 11, 2005


I'm reluctant to damn Michael Jackson as a paedophile without knowing all the facts. Until I do, I'm much more willing to damn him for being crap and having truly bonkers cosmetic surgery.
posted by Decani at 9:28 AM on March 11, 2005


I'm avoiding the Jackson case entirely, but how does that brief page defining pedophilia make it impossible to conclude that he isn't one?
posted by rcade at 9:42 AM on March 11, 2005


The Jackson trial is a freak show, and on its shoulder sits the cable media like HST's proverbial "jeering, masturbating raven." Do not participate.
posted by coelecanth at 9:47 AM on March 11, 2005


I'm avoiding the Jackson case entirely, but how does that brief page defining pedophilia make it impossible to conclude that he isn't one?

.
posted by thirteenkiller at 9:47 AM on March 11, 2005


It is impossible to read this sexuality material from the University of Missouri and not conclude that Michael Jackson is a pedophile.

Bunk. There have been allegations in that direction, but Jackson still has not been convicted, therefore he is presumed innocent. The fundamental principle of democratic jurisprudence involved here is referred to "presumed innocent until proven guilty"; this means that until somebody has been proven guilty of some crime in court s/he is to be presumed not guilty. That is, until Jackson is convicted of a sexual crime against a minor child you have no proof that he is a pedophile -- unless you were an eyewitness and so should should come forward.

Of course someone could "come out" publicly as a pedophile whether involved in any juridical proceedings or not, in which case you'd be justified in taking his/her word for it, but to my knowledge he has made no such public declaration and in fact denies the allegation.

Again: in the absence of a criminal conviction or a confession, you have no basis for concluding that Michael Jackson is a pedophile -- just as I have no basis for concluding out loud that you are a felonious rapscallion and a torturer of puppies. In fact, you have just publicly libelled Jackson in front of all MetaFilter, and I do believe he'd be entitled to sue you.

Note that I don't give a flying fuck about Michael Jackson's personality, his music, or this case against him, nor do I believe he really hurt anybody if he did do it. (He's accused of giving a boy a hand job; it's nothing I'd condone or encourage, but it's hardly fatal either.)

Furthermore I do believe he and his defenders are correct: this charge would have never been brought if he'd have paid the boy's mother off like they say she wanted -- and it is very plausible that she could have stuck her kid with Jackson in order to set him up for blackmail. However, of course I must emphasize that this is only speculation on my part; I have no basis for concluding definitely that this boy's mother is an extortionist and perhaps a facilitator of a criminal sexual act, and she too is -- can you guess? -- innocent until proven guilty, so one should give these remarks no more weight than one would give a tabloid article about the U.S. Senate being run by space aliens.

Anyway, if Michael Jackson had never met any boy or indeed if he had never been born, the bedrock principle of American criminal jurisprudence would still be that -- here it comes again! -- one is to be presumed innocent of any crime until proven guilty of one. If this principle is taken away, or allowed to fall into disuse, we'll have a police state -- all the U.S. would be tantamount to one big Gitmo.

Otherwise, hey, can you prove you don't torture puppies? What if I were to produce a "personality profile" of a "typical" animal abuser, and then say of you "it's impossible to read this and not conclude that johnnydark is an animal abuser"?

* * *

On preview, I'm glad I'm not the only person reminding you of this principle.

And yes to what Decani said: it is painfully obvious that Michael Jackson has had some work done on his face. Every time I see a picture of him I wince: this person is a 46 year old. Black. Man. Who through the magic of surgery has made himself look like a cartoon rendition of a 30 year old woman -- I'd say a self-hating Jewish woman as I haven't known anybody else who would so drastically alter her natural nose. (And while I'm at it, I ain't that keen on hair-straightening either.)
posted by davy at 9:52 AM on March 11, 2005


and so should should come forward

(I hate it when bad editing mars an otherwise perfectly good rant. I just hope I spelled everything right.)
posted by davy at 9:54 AM on March 11, 2005


I kind of feel sorry for the freak just because no fair trial could ever have taken place

You're right, with his kind of money, I doubt any jury will find him guilty.

(yes, presumed innocent, still wouldn't leave my child with him)

(He's accused of giving a boy a hand job; it's nothing I'd condone or encourage, but it's hardly fatal either.)

Robbery, rape, in of themselves are not fatal either. Using your example I'm guessing anything short of murder isn't something you'd condone or encourage, but not that big a deal.

And all those boys breaking down on the stand in trials against priests? Hey, it wasn't fatal, at least in the physical sense.
posted by justgary at 10:06 AM on March 11, 2005


The only thing that has amazed me about the whole circus is the people who honestly believe that, guilty or not, Jackson might actually go to jail. If (and after yesterday's fiasco, I've shifted toward "when") Jackson is convicted, he'll if anything plea into a massive in-house rehabilitation facility in Beverly Hills while Neverland gets sold off and everything else goes into escrow.

That said, I don't know if Jackson's guilty, and like all of these stupid celebrity affairs it's silly to act like a legal expert based on the 2% of all evidence in the case we're actually privy to because that's what shows up on TV. But based on twenty years worth of escalating interviews and "official" documentaries, I think it's clear that Jackson is by any standard of the word certifiably insane. Bubbles and the ferris wheel have nothing to do with that- Elvis was also eccentric, but he wasn't insane. Extravagance in this situation is the mechanism for Jackson's insanity.

This is a "man" who harnessed all the suffering of a deprived childhood into an imaginary fantasy world. With success, he was given something every other child on earth is not- the abilty to actually manifest it. Unfortunately, Michael's desire to perpetually remain a child was countered by nature. He could buy new toys, and even new faces, but he couldn't stop puberty. Or sexual response. He's like those horror stories you hear about parents who lock their child in a basement, only Jackson locked himself in.

Is he a pedophile? It's unknown. But any pedophilia is hindered by the fact that he seems mentally incapable of understanding what that is. It is that very reason Jackson will never go to jail: the defense can, and will, argue that sending Jackson away from his self-made cell will cause a complete shock to his system that would literally destroy him. And frankly, they'd be right.

Before we all die, there will be a syndrome named after him, coined by whatever Harvard professor is the first to complete a 200-page analysis of what is quite possibly the most amazing example of long-term denial combined with post-traumatic stress disorder in the history of recorded medicine. In all honesty, it would be a shame to end this all by simply saying Jackson is pedophile. Jackson is much more of a footnote in medical science than something as simple as that.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:14 AM on March 11, 2005


Don't know if he's guilty or not. Don't care. This is the first time in the whole case I've even let this thing enter my daily life. (Go MeFi!) But either way my child is never spending any time with him or his messed up friends.
posted by filchyboy at 10:20 AM on March 11, 2005


If he is a pedophile, what I found most disturbing is that he has so much to lose, yet he's unable to control his compulsions.
posted by disgruntled at 10:21 AM on March 11, 2005


he has so much to lose, yet he's unable to control his compulsions

you DO understand the meaning of the word compulsion, right?
posted by quonsar at 10:42 AM on March 11, 2005


He's perfect capable of being both not guilty and a pedophile all at once, just like it's possible to go through life as a pedophile without breaking the law.
posted by mendel at 11:03 AM on March 11, 2005


Really nicely written (and thought), XQUZYPHYR.
posted by scratch at 11:08 AM on March 11, 2005


That said, as a society we possiby have some work to do in schools or whatever to try to curb the incidence of pedophilia.

The interesting thing is that cases of these type are becoming rarer all the time due to all the attention in the media, parents are very watchful of their kids these days, and law enforcement has become very good at catching these guys.

Before we all die, there will be a syndrome named after him

Not necessary, the syndrome he suffers from already has a name, The Howard Hughes Syndrome. This is the syndrome whereby a person becomes so rich that he can surround himself with toadies who won't be honest with him.
"Howard, you're wearing kleenex boxes on your feet, you need help."
"Michael, it's not healthy for anyone except burn victims to have this much plastic surgery."

As an interesting side note, there hasn't been much research done on the area of peadophilia, but what research has been done seems to indicate that for most of these guys access to child porn is enough to satisfy their urges. It seems likely that if digitally manipulated images, don't want to use real children for obvious reasons, were available we might have less pedo's.

Having said all that, I think that Michael is probably not a pedo. I think he is just trying to live the childhood he never had.
posted by berek at 11:11 AM on March 11, 2005


I wonder if anyone in the trial will point out the culpability of the parents. MJ has been charged with this before, yet they let the kids go over and sleep in his bed. Many times. And don't ask what happened?

I agree with everyone that he has obvious problems. But the parents didn't notice....

Of course that doesn't make MJ less guilty, or prove that he is or make him less culpable. But the parents should be penalized too. Them seem like opportunists using their children to make some bucks.
posted by Red58 at 11:23 AM on March 11, 2005


Pedophilia involves reoccurring sexual arousal and desires or fantasies involving sexual impulses toward a pre-adolescent child or children. The pedophile must be above age 16, and the sexual attraction must involve a child of age 13 or younger who is at least 5 years younger than the adult.

So spesific. A 16 year old and a 12 year old: not pedophelia by their definition. But a 16 year old and an 11 year old. And not a 15 year old and an 8 year old.

Whatever.

Bunk. There have been allegations in that direction, but Jackson still has not been convicted, therefore he is presumed innocent. The fundamental principle of democratic jurisprudence involved here is referred to "presumed innocent until proven guilty"; this means that until somebody has been proven guilty of some crime in court s/he is to be presumed not guilty.

There's a huge diffrence between whats 'true' in the eyes of the law and what's actualy 'true'. It's perfictly resonable for me to say "Micheal Jackson is probably a pedophile", but that dosn't mean he should go to jail. Who knows if he really did anything to this kid? I certanly don't. What I don't understand is why that guy keeps hanging around with small children.
posted by delmoi at 11:36 AM on March 11, 2005


davy >>> He's accused of giving a boy a hand job; it's nothing I'd condone or encourage, but it's hardly fatal either.

I have sat here for ten minutes attempting to compose a response to the vast arrogance and unfeeling nature of that statement.

Belittling the abuse of a child in that manner is breathtaking. We're talking about a small human being here, someone who should have been protected by the adults around him--including MJ. (Side note: I believe the mother should have been charged as well. How any parent, after the revelations and accusations of the past 15 years, could allow their child to be alone with MJ is beyond me. But I digress.) For you to dismiss that in such an offhand manner is both disgusting and sad.

And yes, I'm fully aware that the word 'alleged' should appear in that paragraph. The mistake you're making about the presumption of innocence is that is entirely a legal concept, and not one that has much bearing on the real world. Did OJ kill Nicole? Obviously. Could not be proven in a court of law, due to a whole lot of factors which had little bearing on the actual facts of the case. Has MJ abused numerous children? Almost certainly.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:37 AM on March 11, 2005


In fact, you have just publicly libelled Jackson in front of all MetaFilter, and I do believe he'd be entitled to sue you.

Oh puh-leez.
posted by delmoi at 11:37 AM on March 11, 2005


I just have to say that "innocent until proven guilty" means that the courts should presume innocence, not that the rest of us can't blab on about our opinions.
posted by nequalsone at 11:37 AM on March 11, 2005


but what research has been done seems to indicate that for most of these guys access to child porn is enough to satisfy their urges.

What research is that? All the research I've seen shows that pornography intensifies sexual desire, in whatever direction the porn 'goes'. Maybe we should be showing pedophiles MILF porn. But probably no porn at all would be better.
posted by delmoi at 11:44 AM on March 11, 2005


Hmm, this thread reminds me of some guy who used to post on Kuro5hin all the time, aperantly he had been 'abused' as a child, but liked it, and was all for "loving relationships" between adults and children. He mentioned once that he planned on getting his daughter (yeah, he had one) a vibrator when she was five.

I'm pretty sure it was this guy but I don't really remember. Just thought I'd share.
posted by delmoi at 11:57 AM on March 11, 2005


He's accused of giving a boy a hand job; it's nothing I'd condone or encourage, but it's hardly fatal either.

Belittling the abuse of a child in that manner is breathtaking.


He's doing no such thing. He's merely pointing out the idiocy of the whole situation. We in America have adopted this puritanical view that says that any act of sex involving a minor is tatamount to horrific abuse which will scar the child for life. The truth is that children have a wide gamut of reactions to sex just like adults do. There are people for whom being introduced to sex at an early age by an older person was a great thing and there are others for whom it was traumatic. And yes, the primary determinant in most cases seems to be the use of coercien or violence, just like it is for adults.

Speaking for myself, not being introduced to sex at an early age made me one fucked up adult who has massive insecurities and hangups.
posted by berek at 11:59 AM on March 11, 2005


Undoubtedly, the notorious video clip of Jon Benet Ramsey participating at a Colorado beauty pageant has found its way into the video libraries of pedophiles across the country.

Undoubtedly bunk.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:50 PM on March 11, 2005


I'm perfectly prepared to see Jackson cleared of all charges, if he's innocent. Equally, if he's guilty, I'm willing to accept the jury's verdict on that.

"All the research I've seen shows that pornography intensifies sexual desire"
[hands up] Opposite here. I'll cast around in the dark and venture that I'm not the only man in the world who works like this.

Glad to see the world's open minds gathered around such a grand table.
posted by NinjaPirate at 12:57 PM on March 11, 2005


It seems he is using the OJ defense. You know, the victims and the cops are even worse people than the accused, therefore the celebrity must go free.

I hope he really IS innocent, he had some brilliant fluffy pop songs back in the day that I enjoy now and then. I don't want my mp3 player to make me think of pedophilia when I'm listening to my vapid 80's pop collection.
posted by acetonic at 12:58 PM on March 11, 2005


I just have to say that "innocent until proven guilty" means that the courts should presume innocence, not that the rest of us can't blab on about our opinions.

Libel laws vary between jurisdictions. You're probably covered if you can stand up and say "of course I was only talking shit" (or however one would phrase that in court), but still.

Outside of a courtroom it's a slippery slope, but a rather short one: Richard Nixon almost wrecked California's trial of Charlie Manson when he publicly spoke his opinion that Manson was guilty; and among us mere mortals disregard for the few protections the law affords us from State power will lead inevitably to their atrophy -- to the voluntary abnegation of democracy by the people. One must be eternally vigiliant about that too.

Another argument in favor of being mindful of that principle (as with so many others) is the "what if it was you" rule. What if it was you on trial for something, especially something widely considered to be a horrible and immoral offense?
posted by davy at 1:00 PM on March 11, 2005


I'm glad berek made that comment about how adolescents (the "child" was 13) re-act to sex. I'm close friends with a man who lost his virginity at the age of 13 to his mother's best friend (in her forties). Legally, this act would be considered rape. When he first told me, my re-action was that he must have felt abused, since it was the clear that the woman seduced him, but rather he found it to be a very positive experience and is not in the least bit scarred by it. This not to say that I would encourage such behavior, but merely that it is not always as scarring and deterimental as it is usually portrayed.
posted by miss-lapin at 1:17 PM on March 11, 2005 [1 favorite]


I can only wish I was introduced to sex at the age of 13 by a 40 y/o woman, but that is a different discussion.
posted by eas98 at 1:31 PM on March 11, 2005


berek wrote: There are people for whom being introduced to sex at an early age by an older person was a great thing and there are others for whom it was traumatic. And yes, the primary determinant in most cases seems to be the use of coercien or violence, just like it is for adults.

My case was different: it was people around my own age who were more likely to imply, threaten or employ coercion or violence; older people were far more likely to beg and offer money, gifts or dinners. Then there's the thrill of being paid for receiving a blowjob by somebody I'd let blow me for free just because he seems nice enough -- and I really enjoy blowjobs. (Note to the moralizers: at the time I was not of legal age in that state, i.e. a "VULNERABLE CHILD" -- of 15 and a half.)

And oh, do I have to clarify the difference between "pedophilia" and "pederasty" and drag in ancient Greek and contemporary Afghan "normality", or will someone else do it? My arm gets tired, and anyway as you've seen I really can't write for toffee.
posted by davy at 1:35 PM on March 11, 2005


Richard Nixon almost wrecked California's trial of Charlie Manson when he publicly spoke his opinion that Manson was guilty;

Richard Nixon was the Cheif Executive of the government that was trying Manson. We're just a bunch of anonymous nobodies on a website. Big difference.
posted by jonmc at 1:51 PM on March 11, 2005


Richard Nixon was the Cheif Executive of the government that was trying Manson.

Actually, no. That would have been California Governor Ronald Reagan.

We're just a bunch of anonymous nobodies on a website.

Speak for yourself.

Big difference.

You are missing the point. But then you don't need our vaunted rights & freedoms, do you?
posted by davy at 2:40 PM on March 11, 2005


davy, what the hell are you talking about?

Or more precisely, what the hell are you proposing, that nobody be allowed to discuss or speculate about this case (or any other for that matter)? And why precisely? We're not on the jury, we're not judges or lawyers on the case.

But then you don't need our vaunted rights & freedoms, do you?

Don't presume to specualte on what I might need, junior. Or you can continue giving us your blowjob history, although that 's more appropriate to the parking lot at the local 7-11, frankly.
posted by jonmc at 3:19 PM on March 11, 2005


He's accused of giving a boy a hand job; it's nothing I'd condone or encourage, but it's hardly fatal either

He's also accused of giving alcohol to a child undergoing cancer treatment with only one functioning kidney which could indeed have been fatal.
posted by fshgrl at 4:06 PM on March 11, 2005


sending Jackson away from his self-made cell will cause a complete shock to his system that would literally destroy him.

My current best guess is that MJ won't survive the trial, let alone prison. At the very least, I'm expecting a pills-and-liquor suicide attempt. Not that I want it to happen or anything, but right now it seems the most likely next act in this particular circus drama.
posted by mediareport at 8:39 PM on March 11, 2005


He's also accused of giving alcohol to a child undergoing cancer treatment with only one functioning kidney which could indeed have been fatal.

Point taken, though even so that's dosage-related -- and giving the kid wine is NOT what he's been charged with. Nor are people sitting around gabbing about how awful it is that (they hear) Jacko provided an alcoholic beverage to a minor. And besides, he has not yet been convicted of doing anything wrong to anybody.

You're reaching but it ain't working. Try harder.
posted by davy at 8:59 PM on March 11, 2005


davy, what the hell are you talking about?

Mainly, a principle you don't understand.

you can continue giving us your blowjob history, although that 's more appropriate to the parking lot at the local 7-11, frankly.

Read what berek said and then my response to that again. No, better yet, I'll be merciful: berek said that he doesn't buy that "transgenerational relations" _necessarily_ and _always_ awful for the kid, though apparently for him it was a bad thing; I said that for me it was a hoot that I sought out and found rewarding -- that it was people around my own age that I had trouble with. So that, while (as perhaps I should have said) I feel bad that berek's experiences weren't as pleasant and profitable as mine, yes, berek was correct in saying, quote, "the truth is that children have a wide gamut of reactions to sex just like adults do. There are people for whom being introduced to sex at an early age by an older person was a great thing and there are others for whom it was traumatic."

berek then said "the primary determinant in most cases seems to be the use of coercien or violence, just like it is for adults"; that was also not what I experienced, so I replied that in my case "it was people around my own age who were more likely to imply, threaten or employ coercion or violence; older people were far more likely to beg and offer money, gifts or dinners." (So maybe I just got lucky with my older suitors; then again, most of us who *liked* it are too intimidated by public opinion to say so, so it's hard to know what's really usually what.)

That is, my own personal experience with the subject helped form my views of it -- my blowjob history is entirely appropriate. (We can't all just absorb our values from watching Oprah or something.)
posted by davy at 9:32 PM on March 11, 2005


Me: (He's accused of giving a boy a hand job; it's nothing I'd condone or encourage, but it's hardly fatal either.)

justgary: Robbery, rape, in of themselves are not fatal either.

So apparently you feel giving a pubescent male person a handjob is as bad as robbery or rape; I disagree. (I have been robbed, raped, and worse, and lemme tellya, I'd rather have a handjob from Jacko -- and for your sake I hope you would too.)

Using your example I'm guessing anything short of murder isn't something you'd condone or encourage, but not that big a deal.

jg, I'm thinking you've shown little capacity to grasp my values, nor willingness to try; in fact, I think it's not just your sarcasm that's lame.
posted by davy at 9:51 PM on March 11, 2005


Davy, would it change your opinion on the seriousness of the charges if the accuser were a 15-year-old female? Why/why not?
posted by aberrant at 10:32 PM on March 11, 2005


Personally, I tend to agree with those who say that sexual acts with children can be judged by the degree of coercion or violence in the act, regardless of the age of the other party, with a few important caveats.

For one, there is a power imbalance between an adult and child that will naturally colour a sexual relationship. This isn't unique to child-adult situations, and there are ways to alleviate this. Firstly, empower children by acknowledging their sexual curiosity as natural. This could prevent true sexual predators from trapping children in abusive relationships because they were initially curious and feel too guilty or ashamed to report the abuse.

This leads into how society treats children and adults in this situation. The typically hysterical response can harm the child, especially if this was a more consensual relationship. Essentially, what is tacitly said to these children is that they are irreparably damaged, bereft of innocence and irrevocably tainted by these acts. For children who were complicit in the relationship, such a reaction is sure to make them feel deeply guilty or ashamed. This is essentially what Kinsey said was the most damaging aspect of child sexual abuse where there was no evidence of violence or coercion. I don't know if any subsequent studies have corroborated his conclusions, but in many ways they seem very sound.

In general our view of child sexuality is grossly atavistic, especially with regards to the changes in attitudes towards sex in the last 50 years. The prevailing attitude is essentially that children are not interested in sex, that they are asexual, and under no circumstances would ever freely wish to engage in sexual acts, especially not with adults.

While I am fully aware that children by their nature can often be incapable of giving fully informed consent to sexual acts, this doesn't mean there is a magic age at which consent becomes possible. So why is such a ridiculous fiction reflected in criminal law?

So what would I have instead of age of consent laws? Well, I think that instead of an arbitrary age threshold, a statute giving the judicial system some degree of oversight (gasp!) in this case would be the solution. In the case of alleged sexual abuse of a minor, it would be up to the judicial system to determine not only if sexual activity took place, but if the minor freely consented to it. This will end a lot of problems that these age of consent laws already face. How can laws that equate a violent rapist of small children and a 25 year old woman fucking an eager kid of 14 be sane? A child rapist is not the same as a 20 year old charged with raping his 16 year old girlfriend by her disapproving parents. We have to learn to accept that children are not asexual beings and that consensual relationships between children and adults will happen; treating them as rape not only destroys the lives of both child and adult, but it ignores the distinction between consensual sex and rape for the sake of a legal convenience.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 11:54 PM on March 11, 2005


jg, I'm thinking you've shown little capacity to grasp my values, nor willingness to try; in fact, I think it's not just your sarcasm that's lame.

Davy, no sarcasm implied, just following your ignorant logic.

This has nothing to do with values. It has to do with you taking your experiences and applying them to this case. It has to do with your inability to understand that though it may not be a big deal to you, it may be an entirely different thing to this boy. Every case/example is different, and your experiences are just that, yours.

And there is middle ground here, despite your need to group everyone in two value modes, the oprah crowd and those with open minds.

Long story short, you can preach all you want in your anonymity (isn't the internet great?), a parent would be crazy to leave his child with Michael Jackson, and a parent would be crazy to leave his child with you. As faulty as the court system is, at least they attempt to figure out who is indeed criminal and who is just plain sick.
posted by justgary at 4:44 AM on March 12, 2005


it's too bad that so few people are actually paying attention to the actual trial - including so many who are posting on this thread.

within the first few days of the trial the brother of the accuser and the sister admitted to lying, infact the sister admitted that the mother had also lied.

apparently that doesn't mean very much to this enlightened group.

but go ahead, feel free to speculate on michael's alleged crimes and continue to ignore this clan of admitted liars and golddiggers and a sneering prosecuter who has been after mr. jackson for years.
posted by tsarfan at 4:50 AM on March 12, 2005


justgary, darling, I think you may wish to go visit some nice man and lay on his couch. Davy has freely offered his views, from his experience, as an illustration in counter to the notions of abusive contact. In turn, you have announced that a parent would be "crazy to leave his child with you" (meaning, Davy). That's really low, and the problem is clearly your own. You have some kind of hang up? Did someone hurt you as a child?

Davy's points are perfectly reasonable in the thread. If you aren't mature enough to deal with it, perhaps you should go find a nice children's website where you will be properly shielded from adult discussion. I can appreciate that some people would be more comfortable in such an environment. Sexuality is a very adult topic, and many adults can't handle it in any rational way.

Of course it is all the more difficult when we're talking about a major celebrity with such a strange life. And it is extremely difficult whenever sexuality and children come into the same discussion. Goodness, the whole idea of simply explaining sex to our own children is a major discomfort to many people. But such is the nature of this thread.

Michael may have molested that boy, maybe not. Personally, I'm inclined to doubt it, because from the things I've heard, I think something entirely different was going on, and I don't think it was anything harmful to the boys hanging around with Michael.

The real perverts in this case are the people who've already decided Jackson is guilty, simply because of what they've heard/seen/read in the media--Without having a shred of expertise in sexuality in general, much less in the issues that one might suppose would arise with a child star, grown to an adult.
posted by Goofyy at 7:58 AM on March 12, 2005


I am wondering if after hearing about Jackson masturbating a child in the news day after day we are supposed to become desensitized to such acts, and he is thusly aquited.

I am sure that for many of us the initial shock value has faded slightly; and that is the first step in accepting deviant behavior as normal.

Too bad Cali can't put it all on PPV and recoup some of the legal expenses.
posted by buzzman at 1:18 PM on March 13, 2005


giving the kid wine is NOT what he's been charged with

Actually he is. Child endangerment.
posted by fshgrl at 4:08 AM on March 14, 2005


« Older The Apocalypse Will Be Televised   |   We eat ham and jam and spam a lot Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments