Writing is tough. I had a few weeks following the end of Spring semester to come to the blog and write a few things.
All I got out was the monstrously tedious Brett Barnes entry. It was a damned good one and worth it.
Now, I have no time again, as I am taking courses at the moment: anatomy and more mathematics. Neither one is conducive to allowing free time.
The unfortunate happened following my latest entry: I was hit with writer's block. To the skeptics, it exists and, if you've been writing for a number of years as I have, it is not at all a foreign concept. I had myself ready to write a new edition to the Jacko saga but I was hit with a blockade: I just couldn't get out of it the whole of last week.
So, I have nothing new to offer.
My promised entries on Michael Jackson's books and the settlement, just to name a few, will come...just not now. For my entries on the books, I thought I would wait until I got my hands on more of the materials. And I am getting my hands on more materials.
But I must mostly blame it on writer's block. I even crumpled topics written on paper to pull from a hat in hopes it would get me motivated, get my juices flowing. I scribbled notes and notes but it was pointless.
Now, that last frustrating week has passed and I am busy again.
I will try to crank something useful out when I have time. I don't want to say, "Please, wait until July," but that might be the case. I hope you all appreciate the 'head's up'.
Some parting thoughts:
A while ago, I thought it was a good idea to write a post on La Toya Jackson. As we all know, for the past two decades, Michael Jackson's sister has been all over the place with regard to her brother and family, saying Michael was guilty and her family was abusive, and then saying he was innocent, that her family was simply 'tough' for the children's own good, and that all of her critiques were orchestrated by her late husband, Jack Gordon.
La Toya is a hard individual to adequately pin down. I find her incredibly truthful and honest but I also believe she is a fragile and mentally broken woman, the inevitable result of a life of victimization. This, of course, makes it difficult for one to decipher whether her 'tales' are true or false, false in the sense she is simply 'parroting' the stock Jackson tripe.
I know La Toya Jackson told the truth about her family, and there was never any muscling done by Jack Gordon to tell 'tall tales'; if any muscling was done, it was to get her to 'spill the beans'!
Her anecdotes about abuse were verified by Michael Jackson himself, who, in spite of his knack for deception, not only consistently stuck to the tales of beatings and emotional cruelty dealt out by his father (although he did not mention the sexual abuse) but also helpfully demonstrated the result of such treatment in his own life: the sexually inappropriate relationships with young boys and the inability to maintain successful relationships with other adults.
Her anecdotes about abuse were verified by Michael Jackson himself, who, in spite of his knack for deception, not only consistently stuck to the tales of beatings and emotional cruelty dealt out by his father (although he did not mention the sexual abuse) but also helpfully demonstrated the result of such treatment in his own life: the sexually inappropriate relationships with young boys and the inability to maintain successful relationships with other adults.
A recent interview with Janet Jackson on CNN's Piers Morgan Tonight, Janet Jackson implicated both parents--Joe and Katherine Jackson--as 'disciplinarians', just as La Toya Jackson stated in her book and on the various talk shows she went on:
MORGAN: Yes. I mean, would you say, when you look back on your relationship with your father, is he predominantly a good man, do you think? How would you position him?
JACKSON: I think my father means well. I think he means well and wants nothing but the best for his kids. I just think that the way he went about certain things wasn't the best way. But, you know, it got the job done. And that's because of maybe how he was raised, doing what he thought was best, not knowing any better. So you know --
MORGAN: You tell the story in the book on one occasion you cite when you're getting out of the bathtub and he whacks you. How old were you then?
JACKSON: I was very young. I remember being younger than 8, let me put it like that.
MORGAN: That's pretty bad.
JACKSON: Yes. And I can't remember what it was that I did. I can't remember if I truly deserved it. My father has never touched me aside from that time. He's never put --
MORGAN: But he did the boys quite a lot.
JACKSON: Yes.
MORGAN: He's got a physically disciplinarian --
JACKSON: Yes. When my -- when my brother Randy and I, when we came along, I think my parents got kind of tired having nine kids and raising these children. I think they became -- and everyone says you guys get -- you guys have it so easy, my other brothers and sisters would say, and my parents were a lot more lenient with us, and I thought they were very strict.
MORGAN: Does he -- does he ever tell you that he loves you?
JACKSON: Yes, he has.Of course, one does not get the full effect of the interview if one missed her pregnant pauses when this subject was broached. Janet Jackson predictably sugar-coated her upbringing but this is not surprising behavior, by any means, from a Jackson child.
But, again, note that she implicated both Katherine and Joe Jackson in abusing the children, the same thing La Toya had claimed in the 1990s.
Additionally, she added she has no relationship with her father, similar to Michael Jackson:
MORGAN: How do you get along with him now? Honestly.
JACKSON: Well, you think I'm going to sit here and lie to you?
MORGAN: Maybe.
(LAUGHTER)
JACKSON: That's wrong. We don't speak that much.
MORGAN: When did you last talk to him?
JACKSON: Honestly it's not often. Not --
MORGAN: Weeks? Months?
JACKSON: It's been -- oh, no. It hasn't been months, not like that. A few weeks ago.
MORGAN: Do you feel sad about that? Do you feel sad you don't have a relationship with him that is better?
JACKSON: Not anymore. I used to. [...]
If we take note of statement analysis, Janet's answering his initial question with a question is a 'buying time' tactic, which allows the interviewee a few to think of a more adequate answer; usually this denotes that a sensitive or difficult topic has been broached. To Janet's credit, she continues on truthfully, indicating that she not only has very little contact with her father but that she also has no regrets about it.
Can one blame her? While particulate affection for his children may reside somewhere within Joe, it is masked nearly completely by a cold and clinical view of them as products, or, in Michael's case, embarrassment and maybe even utter contempt for that proverbial 'black sheep' of the Jackson clan.
Joe Jackson never cared about Michael. The cruelty is despicable.
All of this is important in understanding La Toya: she was never lying about her abusive parents, including Katherine. To whit, the Jackson children have expressed affection for 'Mother' but, as an astute observer, one has to wonder why Katherine simply told Joe Jackson, in the midst of his beating Michael, that he was going to kill the boy, not that he should stop and never do it again.
At the very least, the Jackson matriarch was an accomplice.
Let's not confuse this with 'discipline', the explanation-du-jour given by Jackson children to justify such maltreatment. The years of terrible abuse have marred indelibly most of the Jackson sons, demonstrated in their complicated and failed relationships with women.
But let's return to La Toya Jackson.
As previously stated, I disbelieve La Toya Jackson was telling fibs about her family in the 1990s simply because I find her to be an honest person; the caveat of this with regard to La Toya is that she is capable of honestly repeating the talking points by given by whoever is running the show.
This does not apply to Jack Gordon, by my estimation, simply because Jack Gordon could not have known most of the stuff she revealed.
Yes, regardless of the numerous things La Toya has said since escaping Jack Gordon's 'clutches', I am saying she has always been the sole originator of the alleged 'stories' about her life as a Jackson and about Michael.
Most essential to point out, however, is that La Toya Jackson has always wanted to defend her brother, even if what she stated next was diametrically opposed to that internal drive. She would say something to the extent of, "I don't believe my brother would do such a thing," but following it up with, "I just don't know," and "I couldn't say."
In December 1993, La Toya Jackson gave her infamous public statement broadcasted from Tel Aviv, Israel where she implicated Michael in the alleged molestations of boys.
To be fair, La Toya Jackson does not reveal exactly what the money was for; by her mother's reactions, of course, coupled with the fact former secretary, Jolie Levine, frequently saw Michael Jackson in bed with Jimmy Safechuck during the Bad Tour and, as a result, considered her boss to be a 'chicken hawk', we can reasonably conjecture that these checks seen by La Toya and her mother were the gifts and monies of legend given to the parents of Michael's 'special friends'.
I should mention that I happened to see an old recording my late grandmother made of La Toya Jackson on Geraldo Rivera's 1990s television talk show; she revealed many intriguing things. Interesting to note about the tape was that La Toya mentioned bleaching creams Miko Brando used to fetch for Michael; she stated she would frequently tell her brother that they could be carcinogenic and harmful. She also stated he was not injecting himself to make his skin white, which had been a rumor at the time.
This is in direct opposition to the lie peddled by Michael Jackson's defense attorneys in 2004, who tried to claim that the blood stains on Michael Jackson's underwear were from injections of a medication to deal with his 'vetiligo' (sic), as attorney Susan Yu wrote. Having told that lie, one can assume that the alleged 'contamination' of these blood stains by cocaine claimed in a later document--the idea that cocaine metabolites were not excreted in his blood but rather cocaine in its pure form was simply on the stain--was also a lie!
Michael Jackson was snorting cocaine. This is the most simple and most logical explanation for why he'd have cocaine on his belongings or in his blood.
In 1995, La Toya Jackson, coiffed in a blond wig, sat down for a bizarre interview with Inside Edition, still clinging to her accusations that her brother was a pedophile.
Similarly to Staikos, that Miko Brando also abided by the "keep your kids away from Jacko" guideline, given that he has always had positive things to say about Michael, makes one wonder how well known Michael's attraction to boys was to employees besides the Neverland Five, Bill Bray, and Bob Jones. I thought the following photo caption from Victor Gutierrez's book Michael Jackson Was My Lover curiously corroborated the statement given by Brando:
As previously stated, I disbelieve La Toya Jackson was telling fibs about her family in the 1990s simply because I find her to be an honest person; the caveat of this with regard to La Toya is that she is capable of honestly repeating the talking points by given by whoever is running the show.
This does not apply to Jack Gordon, by my estimation, simply because Jack Gordon could not have known most of the stuff she revealed.
Yes, regardless of the numerous things La Toya has said since escaping Jack Gordon's 'clutches', I am saying she has always been the sole originator of the alleged 'stories' about her life as a Jackson and about Michael.
Most essential to point out, however, is that La Toya Jackson has always wanted to defend her brother, even if what she stated next was diametrically opposed to that internal drive. She would say something to the extent of, "I don't believe my brother would do such a thing," but following it up with, "I just don't know," and "I couldn't say."
In December 1993, La Toya Jackson gave her infamous public statement broadcasted from Tel Aviv, Israel where she implicated Michael in the alleged molestations of boys.
La Toya later claimed on Larry King Live in March 2003 this was farcical and she had been forced to read from a cue card written by Jack Gordon:
KING: One other thing on Michael. You did once criticize him in December in a news conference in Tel Aviv. You said you won't be silently (sic) collaborator of his crimes against small, innocent children. What did you mean?
L. JACKSON: Management.
KING: You were instructed to say that?
L. JACKSON: Exactly.
KING: No, explain that to me.
L. JACKSON: Actually, during that particular time in Israel, I believe it was, yes -- we were going there and I had no idea why we were going to Israel. He told me I need to go on vacation, so he went to Israel and we got to the hotel, Larry, and at the hotel all of these cameras were everywhere and I, of course, was in the limo and no makeup on, nothing and I said, Gee, I didn't know that they were having an award show here at the hotel. And I thought it was Academy Awards or some thing because photographers were every where.
He never told me any thing. And we got there and they were screaming my name and he gave me the paper and said, Here. And I put the glasses on and he said, Read this to the public.
KING: And this was -- And you said, "I cannot and will not be silent collaborator of his crimes against small, innocent children. I think Michael needs help." This has not been -- "This has been going to since 1981. It's not just on children."
It also said, "Forget about the stupid star. Forget about the icon. If he were any other man sleeping with boys you wouldn't like him."
L. JACKSON: I didn't know if it would go that far, but...
KING: You were reading that.
L. JACKSON: Yes, off of a card from what he -- I had never seen it before in my life -- it's like -- and he says, You better read it.
KING: Wow.
L. JACKSON: Management, meaning that that control and that power, which is something that I have taken all of this time out to stray away from. I don't need that to be manipulated that (sic) in my life.
KING: How did you let yourself get that?
L. JACKSON: You know what, Larry? I think about that today and I say, Jeez. I think it comes from growing up in a religious family not really knowing the world, not really knowing how people are and how people are and how they will manipulate you and use you and force you. It was a very, very abusive situation.
KING: And he could manipulate -- even into criticizing and attacking your brother?
L. JACKSON: It was very abusive and it's things that should not be said, things that you keep to yourself, but it was done.
But I'm so happy now because I'm better because I'm in a much better position. I'm in a positive space. And I want to keep it that way. I don't like to dwell on that. It's the past.
I do not believe a word of it. Although I find the handy deception detection technique of statement analysis to be generally applicable to most people, La Toya is a hard woman to read. The only thing one must do is try to find corroboration to her statements.
And, again, La Toya mentioned things that would be unknown to her then-husband.
I believe La Toya's statement from Tel Aviv is one of the most powerful statements against Michael Jackson with regard to his molestation woes. She revealed what she knew, knowledge that could only come from her being a Jackson.
Later on, she gave an interesting interview to Katie Couric from the Today Show, once again tight-roping between defense of her brother and telling what she knows. Please take note that La Toya has always been upfront about what she knows and what she does not know.
It should be noted that Couric's hostility towards La Toya was rooted in the public's fealty to Michael Jackson and the Jackson family. All of this is, of course, is demonstrative of irreproachable celebrity credibility.
Remember, most of the American public believed Michael Jackson was a victim of 'extortion' in 1993.
Remember, most of the American public believed Michael Jackson was a victim of 'extortion' in 1993.
By the next year, La Toya Jackson was giving more specifics. According to a transcript referred to in Diane Dimond's Be Careful Who You Love, La Toya Jackson appeared on a talk show manned by Geraldo Rivera in February 21, 1994 and spoke of the checks she'd seen as referenced to in her Tel Aviv statement. From pages 36-37:
"Why are you so cinvinced in your head that he is guilty?"
"Because of what I've seen, because of what I know, because of what my mother has done,"... "Because of what she showed me. Because of the things that she says to me about Michael, that I refused to believe at the time. My mother actually was screaming for me one day, and I ran into the room. I--frantically--I thought something was wrong, something had happened. And she was showing me this check and I said, 'Yeah, so. What about it?' And she says, 'Well, look at it.' And the check, of course, was one and a lot of zeros behind it. And she says, 'Latoya, this is one million dollars!' I said, 'So?' And she goes, 'But look who it's written to.' And, of course, at that particular time it was... Written to the last name of the little boy that he was with all that time. But it was written to the father, and not to the little boy. It was in the father's name. And [Mother] called [Michael] a very bad name. There was another check behind that, and I said, 'Mother, please, let's leave.' I said, 'We shouldn't be in here I don't want this.'"
"And you recognize the name?"
"Yes."
"All right. Don't tell us the name, but describe the person to whom it was written--the father."
"I don't know the father."
"Was he a show business person?"
"No. The father, supposedly, is a garbage collector--or, was a garbage collector, I should say, at that particular time."As noted by Dimond, this boy was Jimmy Safechuck.
These photos are beyond disturbing, especially when considered with the fact Michael Jackson was accused numerous times of sexually abusing his 'special friends', not to mention he owned books of featuring nude young boys; not atypical of couple in love, Michael Jackson shows a possessiveness for his young 'playmate'. The photo on the bottom was used in a newsletter by the NAMBLA organization.
To be fair, La Toya Jackson does not reveal exactly what the money was for; by her mother's reactions, of course, coupled with the fact former secretary, Jolie Levine, frequently saw Michael Jackson in bed with Jimmy Safechuck during the Bad Tour and, as a result, considered her boss to be a 'chicken hawk', we can reasonably conjecture that these checks seen by La Toya and her mother were the gifts and monies of legend given to the parents of Michael's 'special friends'.
I should mention that I happened to see an old recording my late grandmother made of La Toya Jackson on Geraldo Rivera's 1990s television talk show; she revealed many intriguing things. Interesting to note about the tape was that La Toya mentioned bleaching creams Miko Brando used to fetch for Michael; she stated she would frequently tell her brother that they could be carcinogenic and harmful. She also stated he was not injecting himself to make his skin white, which had been a rumor at the time.
This is in direct opposition to the lie peddled by Michael Jackson's defense attorneys in 2004, who tried to claim that the blood stains on Michael Jackson's underwear were from injections of a medication to deal with his 'vetiligo' (sic), as attorney Susan Yu wrote. Having told that lie, one can assume that the alleged 'contamination' of these blood stains by cocaine claimed in a later document--the idea that cocaine metabolites were not excreted in his blood but rather cocaine in its pure form was simply on the stain--was also a lie!
Michael Jackson was snorting cocaine. This is the most simple and most logical explanation for why he'd have cocaine on his belongings or in his blood.
In 1995, La Toya Jackson, coiffed in a blond wig, sat down for a bizarre interview with Inside Edition, still clinging to her accusations that her brother was a pedophile.
[video no longer available]
La Toya, as it bears repeating, has since altered her opinion on her brother, Michael. She now believes him to be innocent.
However, one should look at all of her statements. It was convenient for La Toya Jackson to feign having been a victim of brainwashing when she was suddenly alone and in need of allies; so simple was it for her to return to the Jackson nest and claim it had all been a terrible lie.
But how could she have possibly told stories about her family and about Michael Jackson that went on to be effectively corroborated by other accounts and events if all of it was made up? There is little doubt in my mind that La Toya Jackson was manipulated by Jack Gordon to make money off of Jackson family dirt; however, I do not believe, despite La Toya's mea culpas, that she was forced to tell untruths about her family and brother.
She simply was 'forced' to tell secrets. Recall that I mentioned Katherine Jackson got Howard Mann, a Jackson business partner, to destroy a 'salacious' piece of property found in the Michael Jackson storage haul obtained from Henry Vaccaro. Tabloid magazines had offered to pay seven-figures (millions) for this since-destroyed mystery item.
There are tons of Jackson secrets, apparently.
Michael Jackson's fans take her 'change' as evidence she had always been lying. And, for sure, my belief in that she told the truth about her family and her brother in the 1990s can be seen as the flipside of the same coin. However, again, given the corroborating evidence supporting La Toya Jackson, I believe it's not exactly the 'same thing'.
Additionally, sort of tangential to unimpeachable witnesses like Jolie Levine, according to a Prosecution brief with regard to character witnesses for Michael Jackson, former Neverland employees Norma Staikos and Miko Brando stated they would not allow their own children to be left alone with Michael Jackson. The statements would be used against Michael if the defense wanted to bring out individuals vouching for his 'good character'.
The accounts are interesting.
It is well known that Staikos fled the United States for Greece, her native country, before she was ever able to be questioned by law enforcement investigating the Jordie Chandler allegations. It was only following the 1994 settlement with the Chandlers that she returned to testify before the investigating grand jury; simply, given that the Chandlers were silenced by the multimillion dollar payout, she did not have to reveal anything about the young boys Michael Jackson entertained.
That she would not allow her own children with Michael Jackson is interestingly corroborated. According to Orietta Murdoch, Staikos suggested she keep her son away from Michael; from page 148 of Be Careful Who You Love:
In quiet conversation, there was talk among the office staff about all those extravagant gifts Jackson doled out to the boys, the ones [Norma] Staikos called his "little boyfriends." They'd talk about his sense of possessiveness toward them, too. At one point, Staikos even warned Murdoch to keep close watch on her own son--and never leave the boy alone with the star. Staikos never explained why, and Murdoch was too afraid to ask any questions.
Murdoch said she took Staikos's warning seriously and never brought her son to the office when she believed Jackson was going to be there.Apparently, Staikos was giving out the advice by which she also abided. According to this woefully short article abstract, guards suing Michael Jackson alleged that Norma Staikos also functioned as a person who arranged for payouts to the parents of Michael's 'special friends'.
Similarly to Staikos, that Miko Brando also abided by the "keep your kids away from Jacko" guideline, given that he has always had positive things to say about Michael, makes one wonder how well known Michael's attraction to boys was to employees besides the Neverland Five, Bill Bray, and Bob Jones. I thought the following photo caption from Victor Gutierrez's book Michael Jackson Was My Lover curiously corroborated the statement given by Brando:
This all is just a few things to think about until I find some time to write.
And, yes, I did write this in one sitting, in spite of my writer's block. This piece was exponentially less difficult to write than the others. Besides, I am again trying to gather my materials for the books entries.
Be back soon.
~ Desiree, P.I.
473 comments:
1 – 200 of 473 Newer› Newest»@ Desiree
Even with writer's block your posts are still really interesting. I have a lot of footage of Latoya dissing her family and MJ in particular. But nothing to different from the video you have included in your post. I believe that she was right on the money in 1993, too many things she has said have been repeated by other sources. For example I heard her talk about a game that she and MJ would play about imagining that Papa Joe was dead and who would cry. Later on I heard MJ tell the same story to the Rabbi except he said that it was Janet that he played in with. Also the stories about the little boys being hidden until the parents were asleep or out, this was borne out by the Hayvenhurst 5 in their depositions and on interviews that I have seen. The pictures you display of MJ and Jimmy Safechuck are creepy, MJ looks more in love with him than he did in the photos of him and LMP! Keep up the good work!
Desiree, I'm excited to hear you are getting your hands on more materials, regarding his books. I can't wait for that post! It should be a shock!
Man, Joe Jackson is one cold hearted dude, those videos just hurt my soul. Poor Michael, I bet he would be so sad if he knew Joe cared more about some record company than the death of his own son. He only saw Mike as a cashcow, nothing more. Notice how he said "we," referring to his family, "lost the biggest superstar in the world". Why would her not say son? That level of attachment and viewing Mike as a moneymaker rather than son is probably the reason he was able to allegedly pimp Mike to businessmen when they were just starting out in the industry. Why care if he only saw Mike as a commodity?
Latoya told the truth in 1990s, about her family and her brother. Jack Gordon may have been abusive but that didn't stop her from, as you said, revealing things only she would know. Her flip-flopping is just evidence on how strong the Jackson brainwashing is. I can't help but wonder if Katherine beat Latoya after she came back to the fold. some sort of punishment for speaking the truth, right? Even with Jermaine, too, I wonder how he was let back in after the "Word to the Badd" song, his saying Mike might be guilty in 1993, and of course, the infamous "Legacy" book with Stacy Brown. One wonders how that dynamic plays out. And since the Jacksons know what is said about them and Mike is true, HOW did Latoya go about seeking forgiveness?
I agree with Sarah, those pics of Jimmy and Mike are creepy. I don't think I've ever seen Mike be as comfortable around a woman as he is around those boys, save him acting on stage at concerts hugging his fanatics. He always looks so possessive of them. But that's what people saw. Remember that pic of him with the Barneses, and he had (insisted that) Brett Barnes on his lap with his arms gripped around his waist? Beyond sick, especially in light of your last post. Those boys didn't stand a chance, did they?
Jessica, Joe is a hypocrite and he was so cruel for Michael. My blood boiled when Jason came out, Joe spoke against him saying that Michael wasn´t gay and that time the fans supported him...I still remember on of them saying "I never believed Joe Jackson but that time I believed him!"
Grrrrrrrrrr.....
Hi Desiree,
great post (as always!). Wish I could write like you WITH writer's block - can't manage that myself WITHOUT writer's block.
Joe promoting his new label by using his own son's death as publicity is despicable. There really is NO excuse for this man - what a heartless thing to do. He also seems quite cheerful in the video, almost like he's thinking: "Wow, cool, people want me talking into their cameras again. GREAT!!! My son's dead but hey, who cares? I get the opportunity to make some more money".
WTF?!!!!!????
And yes, I think your husband can possibly pressure you into a lot of things. But not into saying your brother's a pedophile if it's not true. I must admit that I believe LaToya to be a little dim-witted but I certainly cannot imagine her to lie about something like this (especially since she appears not to hold a personal grudge against Michael for something he did to her).
Here's the article:
JACKSON 'S EX-GUARDS MAKE NEW CHARGES
Sun-Sentinel - Saturday, March 26, 1994
Author: Reuters
Former security guards for Michael Jackson have filed an amended version of their lawsuit against the singer, adding allegations that he used young boys as "sex toys" and that his staff made payoffs to keep them silent.
In documents filed on Thursday in state court, the five former employees cited incidents in which Jackson - dogged for months by sexual molestation claims - was alleged to have been seen fondling and holding boys.
It alleged that Jackson 's former accountant, Norma Staikos, arranged for payoffs to the children and their parents "to keep Jackson 's illegal activities with the young boys secret."
Jackson has been under criminal investigation since August by prosecutors looking into allegations by a 14-year-old boy that the pop star molested him.
Jackson , 35, settled the boy's civil lawsuit in January.
Suzy, fans said that? LOL! Oh they hate Joe when Mike talked about how he beat him, but they love him when he says Mike wasn't gay. Now they are the hypocrites. How would Joe know if he was gay or not? He didn't even have a relationship with Mike until the very end, and he was still kept at a distance. He wouldn't know.
Brenda, thanks for pasting the article. Those bodyguards are the ones who worked at Hayvenhurst, and I know that Norma Staikos was one of the defendants in that lawsuit. Curious how she fled a few days before he deposition and only came back after the settlement. Easy to talk when you don't have to worry about your words being used against your beloved employer. Since Jordie wasn't going to testify, there was no fear, all she had to do was deny everything and stick to the script. Talk about getting away with it.
"My blood boiled when Jason came out, Joe spoke against him saying that Michael wasn´t gay and that time the fans supported him...I still remember on of them saying "I never believed Joe Jackson but that time I believed him!"
Grrrrrrrrrr....."
I'm not surprised. When Joe Jackson claimed that Michael was the biological father of Omer Bhatti, MJ fans had a collective orgasm. They desperately want to believe that MJ was a ladies man.
youtu.be/irfm-x2i_3w
I wish Michael was gay. I wish this blog was all about the men Michael had affairs with through the years.
Instead we have those creepy pictures of Michael with little Jimmy Safechuck. We have Michael on the phone with kindergarteners. I even saw that so-and-so Joe Jackson on an old video from the 70s saying how the then 15 year old Michael loved children. Could the pattern have been setting just that early?
Michael played to the crowd. Whatever crowd. To the heterosexual crowd, Michael was straight. To the homosexual crowd, he was gay. The closest to the truth was that Michael had a deviant sexual problem. I think he played to the boy-abuser group because he preferred to abuse little boys. But Michael served only Michael.
It is revolting that that boy-abuser group would post that picture on their site. Was Michael their shining example? A man that lied and manipulated his way into families for the sole reason of abusing children? Is that what they stand for? Or Michael trolling Kindergarten children for future abuse? Is that it? Are these men so delusional that they think that kind of behavior is alright?
I wanted to talk about LaToya but it bothers me that these "men" put targets on these little children. Boy or girl, it's just plain wrong.
LaToya. Great blog, Desiree, btw. Even with writer's block your blog outshines most of what's on the internet. The two Jacksons that have revealed the most secrets are LaToya in '93 and her book and Jermaine with Legacy. LaToya and Michael were very close at one point. Kathy Hilton even said how it was the three of them that hung out. And did anyone catch that comment about Michael and LaToya dressing alike in Andersen's book? However, Legacy was gearing up to be the real tell-all. Everything in that proposition is looking truer and truer everyday.
Michael and sex. When I was talking about heterosexual and homosexual, I was not talking about who Michael's sex partners were. I was talking about the mind games Michael played with people. Michael's deviancy led him to seek out little, tiny children still learning to read and write. That's criminal. Would he have sex with adult men? Absolutely. He had many male partners through the years. Jason painting (in all likelihood) oral sex in a car as a grand love affair is a joke but it doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
Joe Jackson is a horrible man and his influence wounded Michael in a deep way. And it set something in motion ...
Frenchie, that "Omer Bhatti is his son" rumor is crap. Why do these fans think that Mike was this special black man that can have nonblack looking mulatto kids? It's ridiculous. I can see one time but 4 times, with 3 different mothers? LOL, impossible.
Actually there was a fan under the "Explosive Proof" post that even tried to link Mike with June Chandler. I quickly put her in check with the facts. That rumor, too, is bullshit. But they linked all these dumb youtube videos that allegedly proved Omer was his kid. Omer looks like Riz Bhatti, period. He was a very light kid, how the hell does he have black in him to be Mike's son? Fans are crazy. They need to come to he realization that Wacko didn't like the ladies.
Jessica:
The fans think that MJ is a special black man who can have mulatto looking kids for the exact same reason that MJ was born a black man who could evolve into an Asian looking woman with black straight hair! LOL LOL Sorry, I couldn't pass that one up. LOL
Regarding LaToya's book, "Growing Up In The Jackson Family", what did you think about it? I honestly thought that it wasn't too bad of a book, considering it came from her, and I find her to be dense. I believe pretty much most of the stuff that she said about the abuse of her siblings from Joe to be very true, as well as how manipulating Joe and KATHERINE could be, including Michael's "mystery" checks that she and Katherine discovered....That damn faggot! LOL I also believe she was telling the truth when she confessed about Michael's sexual abuse of those young boys back in 1993. However, her new book coming out won't be worth shit.
Katherine, was someone that LaToya became suspicious and very mistrusting of once she actually saw her mother for who she really was....as she said it, "she would throw the rock and hide her hand". Momma Katherine was the guiding force behind all the abuse and cruelty in that family...Joe was just the "executioner", as she would tell him what to do and how to do it. Wow, can you imagine that? That's pretty heaving coming from your own child about you as parents. No how no way is Katherine Jackson a sweet and innocent old lady! She can fool the public, she can fool Oprah Winfrey, but she can't fool everyone. Hell, I'm not even sure if she did fool Oprah to be quite honest. Oprah being a sexually abused child herself, probably saw right through her...She must have thought to herself when she interviewed Katherine last year, how in the hell does a mother who is supposed to be loving, caring, and protective of her own babies, allow a sick and sadistic man like Joe abuse her children?... And MJ thought of her as an angel and saint?! Well I guess they didn't call him Wacko Jacko for nothing. lol How such twisted thinking....If MJ thought she was a 'saint' considering all the abuse that she 'condoned' in that family, then that might explain the real mentality of MJ...he probably thought he was loving children "pure and innocently". So messed up. LOL IMO, Katherine is just as evil as Joe. LaToya was right about her. Being a product of that family has to be challenging and come at a high cost...no wonder most of the Jackson children turned out the way they did; the roots of that family tree were poisonous and no good.
Did you read, "Jackson Family Values", by Margaret Maldonado Jackson? I found that book to be a good read. As I was telling someone earlier on this blog, that Jermaine and all the Jackson brothers were DOGS. Marlon seemed to be about the only one who was at least half way decent. Jermaine was a complete asshole!!! LOL In the book where she talks about how the family utilized plastic surgery, Mr. Jermaine didn't like the work of the family's plastic surgeon, Dr. Steven Hoefflin, and chose to go with another surgeon on his own. Every time I see Jermaine, his face looks more and more like one of the California Raisins. lol Well, at least he didn't turn out looking like an alcoholic looking housewife like his brother Michael. Not only that, but what's up with Jermaine's hair do? IMO, It looks dufus looking with that black dye ink looking scalp and hair...yuck. LOL Perhaps it's just me, but I don't find it sexy at all.
Lady C,
I was laughing my ass off about Mr. "California Raisins" Jackson! He so looks like that, to the point I shake my head when I see him. His cheeks have permanent lines in them...and that nose! LOL He probably goes through a whole jar of gel everyday to get that look, LOL. Slick the permed hair in place with the gel then add the black spray paint to coat it for maximum effect. LOL.
You know, I wonder about Oprah. She clearly does not view Mike in a favorable light, neither does Gail King, and I know it's because of the sex abuse allegations. I wonder if she knows things that the public doesn't know, perhaps because Hollywood is a very small place and word spreads fast (although many bad deeds go ignored). She clearly thinks he was a pedo, as well. I didn't see her interview with Katherine Jackson, but she probably doesn't think highly of her either. She might like everyone except the parents and Mike. You say how she wanted Lisa Marie to spill the dirt on him; Oprah was encouraging it. And how could you not have antipathy for Katherine Jackson? She allowed all of the abuse to occur; she knew what Joe was doing to those kids. Mike was the way he was because of what happened to him, and they have the audacity to whitewash the madness from the family's life story. It's criminal.
Regarding Mike's mindset, I never thought of it that way, that he could just be thinking that "That's what you do with kids" because he had it done to him. Many pedos have been abused as children, and to use Dr, Drew's phrasing, "it's the gift that keeps on giving" if one doesn't get appropriate therapy. And we all know that the Jacksons are fans of sweeping everything under the rug, so it's doubtful that Mike ever got any adequate treatment for his childhood trauma.
I never got to read Latoya's entire book but at first I thought that she was making a lot of it up (typical fan thinking) but Mike even acknowledged that what she wrote about his parents was true. Some of the things in there are not true, like Mike getting beat up in the South by racists. Chris Andersen's book told the true story about that. He also said that allegedly they were going to include the sexual abuse Mike experienced as a child but it got scrapped. What I find interesting is why Latoya painted her brother as an angel in her book, but then you have her and Jack Gordon going around hinting at more "unbecoming" aspects of her brother, namely him being interested in kids. She always tried to shyly distance herself from saying anything directly but still not outright denying it. Of course, Jack Gordon couldn't have known these things about her family, so, to me, it's pretty apparent that she was the supplier of the anecdotes.
Lady C,
I have the "Jackson Family Values" book, paid $100 for it (!), but I've yet to read it. I honestly was a little peeved that she would say unequivocally that Mike was innocent of the Jordie Chandler scandal. She wasn't around him nor was she there when the acts took place, so to say he didn't do it is wrong. You either say he was guilty, as the family that was paid $20 million to shut up and go away claimed, or you say you don't know. But never innocent. Just because you know someone doesn't mean you KNOW them. But anyway, I should read it, soon. I did flip through it and the part about Jermaine almost raping his ex-wife Hazel Gordy jumped out at me. Just imagine the type of things Jermaine (and all of the kids really) had to go through as a child to think that that was a viable way to get a point across. It had to be horrible because you have Janet with the body image problem who has a tepid at best relationship with her father; you have Latoya that is a shell of a person who is easily manipulated by people; the brothers (excluding Marlon) with their philadering ways, especially Jermaine and Randy (who beat up and cheated on his pregnant first wife) that share the SAME BABY MOMMA; and of course you have Michael Jackson, the manchild-turned-child molester. I can only imagine what happened in the small house on 2300 Jackson Street, and the big house on Hayvenhurst.
Everyone:
Thanks for the compliments with regard to my 'writer's block' writing. I promise to find time to write sooner than July.
These were bits of two posts that I had lying in my drafts and I decided to write on them. Although I don't drink, I would love to get in a booze-fueled conversation with Norma Staikos. I bet she'd have tons to say about Jacko.
Angela:
That's what fans don't understand about the coercion aspect of La Toya's relationship. Gordon definitely squeezed the details out of her but that was all La Toya Jackson. In 1991, Gordon called Jacko a pederast. Why call a man not exhibiting any pedophilic behaviors a pedophile?
You don't call a man that, unless he's odd when it comes to kids. These accusations go back years, apparently.
Joe's treatment of Michael breaks my heart. The sad thing is that I believe Michael tried to get along with his father; I think Joe Jackson was always an abuser and always disliked Michael because Michael was 'sensitive' and 'gay'.
By the way, Angela, if you look at the first video in this Youtube playlist, you'll be able to hear Jordie speaking with Dr. Richard Gardner.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?p=PL4A25A3A4F99BCFC6&feature=playlist-comment
Brenda:
Michael Jackson was gay. He also liked young boys. His homoerotic books prove that he liked adult males, albeit younger ones, but males nonetheless.
Jason Pfeiffer never stated his fling with Michael was a grand love affair. He told me point-blank it was a 'boring' fling. And, yes, it did happen.
The Jimmy-Michael pic used by NAMBLA was in a pamphlet scanned by Victor Gutierrez in his book. You can barely read the text but they wrote something to the extent of, "...suddenly the air seems fresher, clearer..." speaking of Michael Jackson being a sort of spokesperson for their movement.
That is why I find the book by Carl Toms invaluable: pedophiles know their own. Since I am black, it seems as if I can tell someone has a drop of black in them, and I'm fairly accurate.
Wasn't accurate about Jacko's kids anyway, although I think I was simply in denial about it. I didn't want to realize Jacko bleached his skin and had white kids because he hated being black.
At any rate, I agree with you about his playing both sides. But, all things considered, he was definitely more deceptive with the straight thing.
You know, the NAMBLA guys chose that photo because it was unwittingly ironic. The devious glint in Jacko's eyes...
We all know what he was up to. Jolie Levine helpfully revealed that Jacko was up to 'chicken-hawkery', LOL.
He has so much love in his eyes for Jimmy in the first photo, more so than any picture with Lisa Marie (right you are, Sarah). It is hilarious, actually. Again, everyone knew; they just hid it.
Only the fans have continued to remain dense.
@ Desiree
I'm glad to see that parts of the doco I shared with you guys has hit YT. It is quite chilling to hear Jordan's actual words. in several interviews I have heard both Roger Friedman and Stacy Brown state that once they heard these recordings they felt compelled to believe the boy was telling the truth. There is another British documentary from Channel 4 called Michael Jackson's Boys from around 2005. I have tried to downloand it but with no luck. Apparently it is very good, has the usual players in it, but still worth a look. I have a friend in the UK looking for it for me.
The person that owns the playlist you linked calls their channel Ducking Butter, LOL I guess everyone knows the significance of duck butter! YUK!
I can not believe that people call what Michael did love. In what world is that love? What manner of human being would consider the abuse of a child love?
You are absolutely right about those child abusers knowing their own, Desiree. And Michael's explanations line up with their tripe.
In the beginning, the articles about Jason claimed it was a grand affair. He has since backed away from that claim. Fling might be an exaggeration, too. It all started in the car, didn't it?
These boy-abuser groups try to align themselves with any group that has legitimacy. It's a shame that gays allow them. When it came to adult men, Michael scratched an itch. He wanted a little oral sex and asked Jason to give him a ride home. Done. But Michael centered his life on the process of abusing children. Michael suffered from a deviant sexual arousal because he was obsessed with abusing children. Not young males. Children. Michael was calling five year olds. Remember when the maid said that Michael would spend hours pouring over pictures of child performers? Hours. I didn't believe her when I read it but now I do. And pictures of child performers were found in the raid.
What Joe did to Michael's psyche was criminal. Not the lack of childhood crap Michael droned on about. As more accounts come out, Michael had a full private life. He rode around the neighborhood on his bike, went to the skating rink, and wherever else he wanted to go.
It was the discipline without love, it was the exposure to adult sexuality at a young age, it was the need to keep so many secrets at such a young age. It turned Michael's sexuality inside out. Instead of growing up to have normal healthy adult relationships, he was a deviant.
Sarah,
The video is available through Blast Films in the UK.
Joe is such an asshole. I do feel sorry for Michael in that way, I can't imagine what must have been like to grow up with him. However, that doesn't justify Michael's criminal behaviour. Like many people usually point out, none of the other brothers bleached their skin or molested little boys. And they grew up in the same environment that Michael did, they were rehearsing, performing, etc... since they were really young, they were exposed to adult sexuality, and they were physically abused by Joe as well.
Michael was already obsessed with little boys when he was about 15/16. At the age when normal kids usually start dating and stuff, Michael was avoiding any contact with girls, and talking on the phone with a 5 year old boy. I mean this seemed to be something "natural" for him. Would it really have been different if he had grown up in a normal family? I usually wonder that. From what I know, pedophilia is not genetic, but how is it possible then that some men who were abused as children don't become sexual predators? What is it that makes some of them different? I find it hard to understand that someone's sexuality suddenly "diverts" into a twisted and sick attraction to children. I'm more inclined to believe that pedophiles are already born with some kind of "predestination" to have an attraction to children, therefore those children who have it and are sexually molested (or suffer some kind of traumatic experience) grow up to become child molesters themselves. The rest of victims of sexual abuse can have problems in their adult relationships because of what happened to them but they are still either straight or homosexual, not attracted to little children.
Ok, I'll stop rambling now lol. Just so no one jumps at my throat or anything, I don't have extensive knowledge about biology or genetics, so this is just an opinion.
Not me, Elena. I won't jump at your throat for wondering why. I've wondered why, too.
I don't think it's because they were abused because only around 30% of polygraphed offenders had been sexually abused (without the polygraph 60% claimed abuse).
I mentioned the polygraph because there is one thing that holds true of molesters, they are liars. "You think that when I'm asked, Did I do it? that's when I lie. I've been lying every day for the last twenty-five years (p. 40).
It seems to start in adolescence. "A deviant arousal pattern appears to begin early and to be as rigid as normal heterosexual or homosexual preferences, and as resistant to change. In early adolescence, when most of us are finding peers attractive, the dreams of preferential child molesters are filled with much younger children. They start masturbating to these fantasies of sex with children, and for some of them it becomes their exclusive form of sexual fantasy (p. 69-70)."
"A significant percentage of child molesters do not seem to know how to connect with adults, and they alleviate their loneliness through children whom they find more trusting and accepting (p. 72)."
Those two quotes really makes me think we should focus in on teenagers more closely. If a teenager is having difficulty establishing and maintaining relationships with peers and is turning increasingly to younger children, maybe they need help. Maybe the deviancy could be stopped before it becomes rigid and set.
My guess? Their bodies are developing normally but socially they are functioning below normal. Something in their psyche doesn't allow them to reach out to peers. Fear? Fear of rejection? Maybe physical or emotional abuse has decimated their self-esteem.
Here's something else. Pedophiles go after children before they've reached puberty. It's like the teenage predator wants to have sex without having sex. They're going after a child that has not matured physically for sex. What is that about? Is there something in their background that makes them want to hide or repress sexuality. And nobody but an expert would automatically suspect them of abusing children, either. It's like a warped mind game of sex without sexuality: (1) the child is not physically mature (2) young children are sexually naive; they don't even understand what's happening and (3) nobody suspects the teenage offender. Something in his environment and psyche is twisting his sexuality and causing this break.
Maybe it's a perfect storm of many different elements.
One thing we do know is that their compulsiveness can be extradinary. And 60% of boy-abusers will abuse again within six months of completing treatment.
"These men--and they are usually men for reasons we also don't understand--are part of our communities, part of our network of friends, and worse yet, sometimes part of our families. Some of them are doctors and lawyers, and some are academics who publish studies. No one has all the answers about how to stop them, nor even why all of them do what they do. But at least we should have the decency as a people to stop making excuses for them (p. 76)."
I agree with Elena's thinking, and it's understandable because who would want to be attracted to children? It just has to be innate, right? It's such a horrible mental illness to be afflicted with if you are someone living in a western country. But there are culture that see nothing wrong with it, so I guess it is really subjective to label pedophilia as "deviant".
An act is considered deviant if it goes against society's morals and values. So if pedophilia was condoned, or I should say, if sex with "minors" was condoned by a particular society, it wouldn't be deviant. The Native Americans of Central and South America practiced ritual killing and often incorporated this ritual into their sports; a soccer (or football) game where the loser would be sacrificed to the gods. The society saw nothing wrong with killing and consuming blood and human parts. But when the Spanish came over, these rituals were labeled both deviant and demonic and served as a powerful excuse to exterminate the Natives from the region. There we pre-colonial societies in the Polynesian Islands that saw no harm in sexual contact between adults and kids, and no harm befell the adult or the child, and the society did not implode. This practice however was seen as deviant by the European Christian explorers. I could list tons of examples of so called "deviant" behavior.
But the central point is that it is subjective. And the specific topic of pedophilia has been seen as both okay and deviant depending on the society. So is it inherently deviant? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. It depends on the culture.
Our western culture, since we have incorporated Judeo-Christian religion, has put pedophilia in the deviant category. But even this is a recent addition, for in America, only within the last 120 years or so we've decided 14, 15, 16 year olds are "too young" to make sexual decisions. This is good because at the same time, our culture has created the concept of adolescence where a fully biologically mature human is relegated to child status until an arbitrarily defined age is reached to qualify as an adult. These young adults, to be sure, are not mentally ready to be "adults" in the sense that they don't have not fully acquired the skill set necessary to navigate the world. They say, on average, the frontal lobe of the brain is not fully developed until a person is 22-24 years old; this part of the brain is involved in decision making. I wonder if this is an instance nature and nature mingling: because our culture baby's biologically mature humans, has the development of the frontal lobe slowed down to prevent a person from going against the adolescence society has created? Maybe.
As for pedophiles in our society, I'm not defending their behavior, but I think it is wrong not to show a little compassion. Seems like this is a sexual orientation that starts very young and is very difficult to treat. Couple that fact with the reality of the way society treats these people. It's not conducive to changing their behavior.
Are they criminals? Well, yes, they are because we have laws that forbid an adult from having sexual contact with children. But I think we need to not be so quick to pick up the pitch fork when we spot a person dealing with this sexual orientation. I think we need to realize that if you live in a society with certain rules of behavior, most people will want to stay in line with those rules; this preserves harmony. So something has made these people into pedos and we need to learn why. Early contact with sexuality is a factor, regardless of what a polygraph says. Something had to happen to them to associate sex with children. Environment is an extenuating factor here.
I think we need to understand rather than condemn, because pitch-forks and torches do nothing to prevent the "problem", especially if this is a mental disorder (according to the rules of our culture) that is linked with sex. It's similar to incarcerating drug users, will that stop people from wanting to buy and use drugs? No. If they hurt a child they should be punished and I am not excusing molestation, but I personally refuse to be a part of the mob that says "These people are deviant criminals, and they deserve to be treated as such".
Jessica:
Hey girl, you need to read JFV, it's interesting. Howver; I do agree with you about how she saw MJ. But of course at the time when I did read the book, it was way before I discovered Desiree's blog and wasn't too sure of what to think about Michael; had an inkling in the back of my mind, but wasn't absolutely sure....but now I am. LOL You paid $100 for it? Wow! I bought mine on Amazon for about $32.00. Well, anyway, other than what you mentioned about her feelings towards MJ, I don't think you'll be disappointed. lol
Yes, Mr. "California Raisin" was a DOG! He must have put the whammy on Margaret, because she put up with a lot of shit from him. He never had an money, he owed so much money to his first wife Hazel for back child support that he couldn't pay, and it was her that was always trying to find ways for him to make some money to pay the child support; she directed the Jackson Family mini series, she was alway responsible for moving them around from place to place because Jermaine was off busy doing who knows what; she seemed like the 'back bone' of the family, where as he wasn't. She and Jermaines' first wife, Hazel, were on rocky ground in the beginning, but things between them improved as they both had life with the "California Raisin" in common, and they became friends. She said he even gave her an STD and intimidated her doctor in a threatening way as not to tell her about it...he couldn't keep his thing in his pants and was too busy screwing anything that wasn't tied down. Randy, like you said, was a 'very busy man' also with several babies in tow and the 'baby momma drama'....Tito, I have to say, I was a little disappointed in. He seemed to have had a good woman who appeared to be a good wife and mother; only to screw that up too by screwing around on her. Jackie, well let's just say, that Enid wasn't that interesting anymore, and Paula Abdul was his pick of the bunch; what a bitch. Like I said before, Marlon out of the whole bunch seemed to be the only decent one. Although; he and his wife had their ups and downs as well, he chose to hang in there with here and work things out the right way. After the Jacksons split up, Marlon went his own way and got into real estate, and from what I've heard he has been very successful. His wife, Carol, is gorgeous, btw. As for MJ, well we know the shindig behind that one. LOL
Jessica
(cont.)
RJT, mentioned in his bio about MJ, that according to James DeBarge, that Hayvenhurst was aka "House of Horrors". DeBarge said that MJ was like a 'ghost' walking about the place who was distant and sad a lot of the time. He mentions an incident where MJ walks in on him and Janet making love, and how he just casually got in bed with them and said that he too, wanted to be in love with someone....Aw, poor, Michael, he was so messed up, sometimes I think he was beyond approach; he had reached the point of no return. Interesting enought though, RJT mentions how James DeBarge said that Janet was believed to have been pregnant at one time during their marriage and had an abortion? I'm not sure of this, as a lot of what RJT tells in his book is biased and 'sugar coated', but I have heard that story before I read his book. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if that particular incident was true. Joe, Katherine, and even MJ, didn't want their daughter Janet, marrying someone from the likes of James DeBarge; as they all wanted the marriage annuled. James was also known to have been a drug addict as well, and that too caused a lot ot problems between them. I think even Margaret referres to Hayvenhurst as the "House of Horrors" as Joe Jackson was an absolute terror.
Speaking of Hayvenhurst, I was watching "Celebrity Ghost Stories" on A&E, and Jermaine Jackson was on there...He was talking about Hayvenhurst, and said that it was haunted. While staying there, he and his brothers were encountered by ghost on various occasions as the land that the house sits on was a grave site to Native Indians. lol
That was a hearty defense. But what it failed to point out is that we weren't discussing the abuse of adolescents or sexually mature teenagers. That is not the definition of a pedophile.
A pedophile purposefully chooses to abuse children who have not matured sexually. Jimmy looked around nine in that picture. Michael was calling five year olds.
Are people cruel to each other? Do the strong afflict the weak? Why go back to previous civilizations? Boy-abusers prove your point in modern society. And while the majority of boy victims suffer the wounds from their abuse in silence, child molesters cry long and loud when faced with the consequences of their crimes.
Is the root cause innate? I don't know but it shouldn't be used as an excuse. If it is innate, they should seek help. Not harm innocent children. Why drag these young children into their mess? And why waste time justifying criminal acts? Just get help.
There are no pitchforks. They're criminals like any other criminal. They get their day in court. They go to jail if found guilty. Why is it so rare for a criminal to admit they did wrong and were justifiably jailed for it? Why is it always everyone else's fault? No matter the crime.
"If they hurt a child they should be punished." Sexual abuse harms children; therefore, child abusers should be prosecuted. Prosecuted and exposed to prevent future abuse not punished for the sake of punishment. Since when has our justice system turned into a mob?
Of course the act of molesting innocent children is condemned. It is wrong. Just plain wrong. But since when has condemning an act and seeking treatment become mutually exclusive?
These men are sexually abusing our precious children and yet there's no mob, no pitchfork. They are being studied but they don't like what they hear. They want to write their stories as poor, poor me. They don't want to have to hear about their lies and manipulations. Their cruel disregard for the feelings of others. And their single-minded mission to abuse young children. And yet there is no mob. No pitchfork.
It's a myth that drug users are in jail for using drugs. They're in jail for their actions while on drugs. Child molesters aren't in jail for their fantasies. They're in jail because they have acted on those fantasies and abused a child.
Compassion? These guys are oozing with self-pity. They have all the compassion in the world for themselves and none for their victims or the families. And still no mob or pitchforks. Just the justice system.
---
JFV is a great book, Lady C. It was full of juicy inside gossip. And it confirmed a lot of what LaToya said in her book. Was I the only one that found it disturbing that Michael watched his sister in that situation and then climbed into the bed?
Jessica:
Michael Jacksons' upbringing and childhood played a large part in who he bacame as an adult and what he did. When you were talking about how early contact with sexuality is a factor, maybe Michaels' exposure to sexuality at a very early age may have helped set 'in motion' the foundation for his sexual behavior and pedophilia. For example, when he was a young boy, he saw sex all around him; from the strippers at the bars they performed in, from the groupies that his brothers used to sneak into their bedroom and have sex with, from the women that his father Joe used to cheat on Katherine with, to the prostitutes that he would constantly come in contact with at the hands of this father Joe. IDK what he saw or experienced when he was a young child to have turned out the way he did. We always talk about how MJ was abused, physically and sexually, as a child...I have to wonder if his brothers were also sexually abused? Physical abuse was rampid among all of the Jackson children, and sexual abuse took place among the older girls as well, although; I don't think that Randy and Janet were sexually abused.
Although I may be completely out of the ball park on this one, I'm not sure if the examples I mentioned even fit the puzzle in any kind of way. It's just a hunch. If it does play some kind roll in MJ's sexual behavior, I'm not sure exactly as to how it fits into his pedophilia?...that' what I cant' figure out. Therfore, what you said about pedophilia being a sexual orientation at a early age may be a strong possibility...almost to be compared to homosexuality as those individuals have said that they "knew" at an early age who they were attracted to. I think that as much as homosexuality is discussed out in the open, perhaps pedophilia should be discussed as well. I mean, not that it's not discussed at all, but I think it's something that society needs to look a little more in depth and try to understand more as to what makes a pedophile really tick and why that is....after all, there is a reason for EVERYTHING; it just doesn't happen by chance alone. Now with that, please understand that I'm not condoning the criminal behavior of pedophilia, because according to the law, it is a criminal act that should be punished. But we should try to better understand what goes on in the mind and life of a pedophile and what makes them the way they are other than see them as monsters who prey on children Like you said, it is a mental disease...and like I said in a previous post earlier, it is one of many mental diseases that is yet to be fully explained. IMO, I don't believe it's something that a pedophile has control of, and whatever sexual experiences that they encounter early in life only impacts or 'firmly sets' the yearning even more....more until it eventually becomes them; who they are. I admit I don't know a whole lot about all the ins and outs of pedophilia other than what we discussed on this blog, what I've read, and from what my mother has come across in her field of Social Work. While it is a very disturbing topic to digest, I have to admit it is interesting. BUT I do believe that since we live in a society that has certain laws in place towards the treatment of children, pedophilia is something that needs to be looked upon as a crime and treated as such. However; it is a crime that has mental abnormalities embeded of which proper treatment and rehabilitation is so very crucial to recovery....And a while possible diagnosis has a favorable outcome while the individual is young, some times it is not possible as the individual 'falls through the cracks' for whatever reason as did MJ. Had he gotten help early on, it may have been a different outcome for him.
Brenda,
Well technically speaking, a pedophile is one who abuses young children, but how often is the label used to define the sexual interest in everyone who is underage? Even in Lanning's profile, he called them all preferential child molesters, even if the person prefers teens. Someone who used to comment on here all the time, for example, thought of sexually mature teens as "older children". Pardon my French but that is bullshit; they are not kids and as many people can tell you, they were having sex at that age. Only people trained in clinically diagnosing mental disorders and/or psychologists and psychiatrists make the distinction between a pedo and a hebephile.
Michael Jackson may have groomed these special friends at a young age, but it seems like he liked them when they were pubescent, maybe even prefers them that age. So it could be argued as well that he was not a pedophile but a hebephile.
You said they are liars, but why wouldn't they lie? They have a sexual orientation that is considered deviant, why admit it? So they could be condemned? Basic conditioning theory could explain why they lie: rewards and punishments. The fittest of organisms survive when they can effectively adapt to their environment; in the case of the pedo, lying about their proclivities helps them to navigate through an environment that condemns the sexual attraction to children. They are criminal to the extent that they commit a crime, but are they inherently criminal? I don't know.
As a whole, sexual abuse hurts children. But some could argue that the shame and embarrassment that comes from the abuse being revealed is more harmful than the act of molestation itself, excluding penetrative sexual contact and/or force (some argue that penetration might not harm children; I disagree with that).
I think you should read Dr. Richard Gardner's book "Sex Abuse Hysteria", and James R. Kincaid's "Erotic Innocence: the Culture of Child Molesting" to get a few different perspectives. Gardner doesn't condone abuse at all but he is much more nuanced, as a child psychiatrist, to see that molestation doesn't have to be as ruinous, to both the child and the perpetrator, as society makes it out to be. Kincaid discusses the obsession people have with "putting away" child molesters, to the point that they get gratification from always talking about sex abuse. He points out also that we have a "look but don't touch" relationship with the sexuality of children. Both books are very interesting.
I think you need to get away from viewing the whole issue as a zero-sum game where the child loses and the pedo wins. As quiet as it's kept, it's much more grey than black or white.
I reiterate that I'm not condoning molestation of children, it's wrong. But, like Dr. Gardner, it's not appropriate to get into hysterics regarding what he calls "non-coercive sexual contact". Forcible rape of children is disgusting and wrong and they should be fully punished; that behavior has absolutely no defense.
Read the books and you will exactly see how our justice system has turned into a mob. That is almost a ridiculous statement since there are glaring inequities in our system, especially regarding who gets punished and for how long. More often than not, the punishment does not fit the crime. Does a man honestly deserved a mandatory minimum of five years for touching a child inappropriately, a touch that could have lasted a few minutes, if that? I don't excuse it, but that is a huge amount of time in proportion to the crime. It shouldn't even be seen as a felony. Our system is ridiculously Draconian regarding child molestation. I mentioned a while back that Louisiana law that would have made it a crime punishable by death to rape a child 12 and under. That is excessive, especially considering that raping a women in some areas receives a far shorter prison sentence. Rape is wrong and there are far better ways to punish a person that commits a crime of this nature than kill him. The child has not died and can with treatment fully recover.
Condemning the act and seeking treatment aren't mutually exclusive, but let the punishment fit the crime and there is no need to dehumanize a child molester in the process. This is a far different ball game than a murder or robbery; this is a mental illness, and a sexual orientation that has proven to be just as tenacious as being straight or gay. So that fact requires a little bit more forethought before a society brings out the pitchforks (yes, the pitchforks).
Lady C,
Exactly, exactly. That's what I'm saying, we need to be a little more nuanced in our treatment and research into this behavior, and a little less ignorant. These are people after all, people with a deviant sexual orientation. I do believe that Mike was ruined because of what he saw and experienced as a child and I most definitely think that he was shaped by it. I think he developed a hatred of women because of his upbringing. I think he started to orient himself to men since he disliked and was repulsed by women. I truly believe that. And I believe that he oriented himself toward children because he was sexually abused and didn't get treatment. He might have associated violence and deviance with adult sexuality, and thought of children as clean and pure. Not all victims become abusers, but I think that if you don't get help at the right time there is a likelihood of continuing the cycle.
I don't condone this behavior either because the law says it is a crime, and to disavow the law leads to chaos. I favor order. But we need to use more wisdom in our sentencing. As you said, this is a crime in which a mental illness is at the root. It requires more care regarding the punishment, treatment, and rehabilitation.
Brenda,
You don't need to redo the Middle Ages, with actual pitchforks and torches, to still have that mentality. We as a society act as a mob regarding certain crimes. This is a fact. Now whether it always holds over to the court is another question, but the fact that a community can run a ex-convict out of town is a testament to the power of people en masse.
You act as if these people are sociopaths, and I don't think that is an accurate assessment. Many of these people are regular citizens that have jobs and pay taxes and are law-abiding (outside of the child molestation bit, if they have offended). As we all know, this makes them harder to detect, but it also shows that outside of their sexual attraction to kids, they are normal. So do they truly deserve to be treated as badly as they are?
I'd have self-pity if I was a pedo. It's a horrible state to be in.
By the way, are you talking about both situational molesters and pedos, or are you talking just about pedos? Because if you are referring to the situational type, then I agree with you. They molest because the moment moves them, and that is dangerous.
I'm leaving way too many comments, but Lady C, I gotta pick up that book! Sounds really good. I think Jermaine owed Alejandra some child support too, and you know he had Mike pick up the bill for her upkeep when he put her at Hayvenhurst. What a deadbeat! LOL
Those Jacksons, I just shake my head at their antics. Someone should write the true story of them all, maybe someone like Kitty Kelley. We know JRT kisses too much ass to be too harsh on those fools. LOL.
James Debarge's account of Mike is interesting to me. Mike was so attached to his sisters wasn't he? Way more than to his brothers. No wonder he was so effeminate, not to mention trying to get into bed as Janet and james were doing it sounds a little weird. What straight guy would want to do that? LOL
I think Jermaine must have been hurting for cash with that haunted house story. What new, right? LOL. And he must have read a little of Stephen King's "Pet Sematary" to come up with that crap. That Indian grave site explanation is tired and overused. He needs to get it together.
By the way, did you ever see the show the brothers had on A&E? Jermaine came off as a diva and very self-absorbed. The other brothers were cool though.
"I don't think it's because they were abused because only around 30% of polygraphed offenders had been sexually abused (without the polygraph 60% claimed abuse)."
Hmm, that's interesting. I wish it was better publicized. When it's repeatedly suggested that most child predators were sexually abused, it sort of implies that abuse survivors should be viewed differently--more suspiciously than the rest of the population. But, of course, the truth is anyone can be a pedophile no matter their past experiences.
Sexually victimized males already struggle with feelings of shame. Some might be willing to come forward and endure painful teasing and jabs about their sexuality, but how many can handle being labeled a pedophile because of what happened to them?
I read an article recently about hand dominance. One negative quality that was more prevalent in left-handed men was pedophilia. I believe the average left-hander was three times more likely to be a pedophile than the average right-hander. So according to those statistics, left-handers also have a higher probability of becoming pedophiles than sexual abuse survivors do. Now of course, the overwhelming majority of left-handed men are NOT pedophiles, but since they are more likely to be than the general population, should we be more distrustful of them? Should we wave around those statistics and make every left-handed guy feel ashamed the way we sometimes do with abuse survivors? Of course not! There is no simple formula that leads someone to pedophilia, and singling out any one group does more harm than good. I'm sure there are a slew of factors (both neurological and environmental) that contribute to it which we will never understand.
Child molestation is a subject that can garner strong reactions. In most people, it's to protect children. Others have different theories and motivations. Therefore, Jessica, you and I have both felt compelled to post comments.
Why the deception about Michael? Let's not try to muddy the waters. None of those boys were teenagers when the abuse started. The grooming started at five. We've listed enough boys that age. The abuse started and continued years before the boys reached adolescence. The general public and MJ fans can pretend they don't know but Desiree's excellent research doesn't give us the luxury of ignorance.
The cultural argument will never be a good argument. If culture was a standard, would you suggest women bound their feet as the Chinese women once did? Or what about the surgery to women's sexual organs performed in some African cultures?
The blame game is interesting. It is everyone's fault but the molester. So far, we have the parents, society, and the law. Who's next? The child? What did one pedophile say? The three year old seduced him. He was a victim to the wiles of a three year old.
Who else but a criminal thinks jail is an unfair consequence of a crime? The innate argument is a horrible argument. During an episode of American Justice a man was confessing, he was asked why? Why did you do it? He said in this contrite voice that it was something in him that made him do it. What was it? The rape and murder of two women. Just because something is in you doesn't make it right.
Something in preferential child molesters compels them to act with criminal intent towards children. Yes, it's a hard truth. Who wants to be that person? But admitting the problem is the first step towards getting help. They will not seek out the help they desperately need as long as they play the blame game and try to justify their actions.
I never said that they were psychopaths. Some are but preferential molesters tend to be law-abiding in other areas of their life. As a matter of fact, they tend to look like good guys on the outside. It's why people let them into their homes and families. It's not until it's too late that their real intentions become clear.
If I could speak to these guys, I would say to them to get help. Just get help. Don't make one more excuse. Don't wait one more day. Get help. Do it for yourself, your family and the children.
***
According to that book, Michael watched his sister have sex. Close? For once, I may be speechless. The impression is that Michael had no intention of announcing his presence.
Imo, boy-abuser groups are going to be disappointed in Michael. Not as disappointed as MJ fans but disappointed nevertheless.
Jessica:
Yes, I did watch "The Jacksons" on A&E, and for the little time that it was on the air it was okay. I remember watching an episode where Jermaine was having a heart-to-heart with the rest of the brothers regarding his refusal to leave Motown to join them at CBS Records. He seemed as if he was deeply hurt as
he was crying, and that whole 'situation' was something that had been festering for years and finally came to a head I guess. He said that he didn't mean to hurt them, but he was torn between staying and leaving as he was still married to Barry Gordy's daughter, Hazel, at that time, and he felt 'obligated' to Motown for all that they had done for the Jackson Five, so he stayed.
On another episode, Tito was grilling some fish outside on the grill; he had marinated it in some alcohol. He said that he would have to keep it quiet because Jermaine couldn't have alcohol because of his Islamic religion; so he didn't tell him. Jermaine ate it and didn't know. LOL Jermaine did come off as being a self- absorbed diva though. I can only imagine it's because during the later part of his career he had nothing really going for him, and he couldn't compete with his brother MJ, so his self absorption was the only real thing going for him....Poor thing. LOL
Even though Tito cheated on his wife and they divorced, I have to admit that he and Marlon are two of my most favorite of the Jacksons. I've always loved the deepness of Tito's voice; so sexy to me. LOL In the book, JFV, I got the impression that Tito and his wife, Deedee, were having 'couple' problems and it was something that didn't really come into play until later on in their marriage; in the years prior, they seemed to have been doing okay. For Tito, I think he felt that his wife was not paying him much attention and affection; as he had a big appetite for sex and she didn't...and it was because she had 3 growing sons to look after; being a mom and doing all the 'mom' activities that active mothers do, etc., it made it difficult sometimes for her to fulfill her "wifely duty". I guess he decided to get his needs taken elsewhere and got caught. Outside of that fact, I still like him.
Marlon seemed liked the smart one; he stayed off a lot to himself with his wife and family. I guess te Jackson family "drama" got to be too much for him and knew that it would probably be best to stay away from that whole scenario all together; or it would have ruined him.
Jessica:
The whole 'Pedophilia' thing seem to me at least to be very complex. Although it's a mental disorder, it is probably the hardest one to control, and is extremely difficult to treat successfully. To say if they have a problem or if it's innate, they should get some help, is the most obvious answer. Yes, they should get help, but realistically getting help a lot of times is just not as simple as it sounds. For one, its a fact that most pedos rarely seek help VOLUNTARILY from mental health professional. Instead, counseling and treatment is often the result of a court order not on the volition of the pedophile. While a pedophile may be forced to get help through the order of the court, it's unfortunate that it was not diagnosed and treated earlier...Chances are that if a court order was imposed, the pedophilia was determined later on in life and had escalated to the 'problematic' phase. Also a lot of times some pedophiles, not all, looking from the inside out don't think that they don't have a problem to began with...they think who they are is just as normal as is breathing. Second, If a person does come to the realization that they possibly might be a pedophile predator, they are very reluctant to come forward and seek therapy and counseling out of fear that they may be turned in to authorities. This is very true among some pedophile predators who have not offended and refuse to act on the impulses despite their urges to do so...they find this to be a hindrance a lot of times....They strongly feel that something is not quite right with them, and they want help because they know they need it, but are hesitant to open up to anyone about it out of fear of being criminalized and turned into the authorities. These particular people feel that they're in a 'catch-22' situation; I damned if I do it, I damned if I don't. Not I'm not saying that they should ignore the signs and forget about seeking treatment, but I do feel that the system does not make confronting the disorder in the proper way that it should any easier for those who might be a pedophile predator. Yes, it's a disorder that most times cannot be controlled by the pedophile themselves, but is is also a disorder that is dangerous in that it can harm and emotionally scar a child emotionally for life. Not to mention that if left 'unchecked'/untreated, can land one in prison as pedophilia is a crime by law.
I think that society needs to go about looking into pedophilia in a different way. Because it's a mental disorder that is so complex and has so many "entities" to it, it needs to be brought to the forefront and not
shunned as a 'secretive' disease that it is....It's become too taboo, and this mindset needs to change if we as a society want to go about making positive change in this arena. I only say this because Pedophilia by law is a crime, and it's a crime that has increasingly escalated in recent years, and it doesn't seem to be slowing down. Education is good, but 'complete' education on ALL levels needs to be addressed...not just to parents who have children, teachers, clergymen, etc., but also within the family unit itself. IMO, education
on the disorder should also be introduced at an early education level, not just limited to the college level such as psychology or sociology. If you're going to attempt to understand the subject of pedophilia in it's entirety and what we as a society can do to help those with the disorder, you have to start very early...As pedophilia usually starts early on in life rather than later on, although; pedophilia can start any age age. Open access to medical treatment and counseling should be made available to all who need it, and should also be made available to those who want to voluntarily seek treatment WITHOUT the fear of being "branded" as a criminal when they have not acted on their impulses.
Jessica
(cont.)
I hope what I'm saying makes sense, and I do empathize with those who were/are the victim of a sexual predator; it was wrong and their offender should be help responsible....I'm just for once trying to understand from the pedophile predator's point of view, inside looking out, what makes them the way they are and why...I'm NOT excusing their behavior by any means. While I don't consider myself to be an arrogant person, I will toot my own horn on this one, as having the courage to openly acknowledge and discuss something that is a 'dark and deep' seeded secrete in our society, and attempting to understand the logic and reasoning that goes on behind it, instead of choosing to continue to shun it and be completely ignorant about it. As I told Ms. Dd earlier in the post, knowledge is power while ignorance is danger. Diagnosis of pedophilia early on rather than later is key and factors such as awareness and education need to be in place to increase the chance of that happening. Not that pedophilia should be handled with 'kid gloves', but it is a mental disorder that should be more receptive and handled like any other mental disease...but it should be treated in it's early stages if at all possible before it becomes problematic.
Being here on Desiree's blog is entertaining, but it also has been a learning tool for me as it has really made me think more and more about MJ and the topic of pedophilia...not just because he was a celebrity, but because he was a human being stricken with a mental illness that goes greatly undetected in our society. Pedophilia is among the average person and those who we hold to high standing. Listening to the various comments on the topic has forced me to see it from all angels and that's a good thing. LOL
It just really saddens me that a person like MJ, who was very blessed to have access to any resource available to him fell through the cracks, and it didn't have to be that way and it shouldn't have been that way...But when your life is short-circuited from the very start because you lack the proper ingredients of a healthy family relationship,and that being something out of your control, you're most likely, but not always, predestined for a life of struggle and hardships. This was the life of MJ...had he had a loving and meaningful relationship with his parents, and not endured abuse, but was 'accepted' by his family he would have had a healthier, different and perhaps a happier life. Pedophilia probably would not have been a factor since some believe that pedophilia is the result of being sexually abused, being exposed to sexuality at a very early age, or dependent on a person's interactions with their parents at an early age. For MJ homosexuality may/may not have been an issue, but if he was gay and his family was more accepting of it and loved him for who he was rather than for what he was, he would have been just that, gay and not a pedophile. This is just my opinion; not an absolute...I hope not to offend anyone, but I'm just being honest in how I feel and I wanted to share it.
Oh well, enough talk about pedophilia for a while, next time well discuss something different, okay. LOL
Brenda, we will have to agree to disagree. But I will say you are wrong about the culture thing. culture defines how we act, and we all have different cultures. Female circumcision is bashes in the West because WE view it as wrong. That doesn't make it inherently wrong. The same with foot binding. You need to become more culturally relative. The fact is is that pedophilia was not condemned in other cultures. Why is that? I don't know, but that was/is the way it is. I suggest you read the books I mentioned to get a less narrow perspective.
Lady C,
I agree with what you said, and I appreciate that you are not a part of the lynch mob that refuses to even acknowledge that this issue is far more than just a criminal committing a crime. It's a deeply ingrained socialized behavior that is extremely hard to treat. We just need to be more nuanced. I'm not condoning this behavior because it can have ruinous effects on the child, but I just don't want to dehumanize a person that carries such a large burden, because that doesn't solve anything.
But enough about pedos in general, LOL. Desiree's blog just gets out the truth about Michael Jackson...which is far more interesting than debating the morality in how we treat pedophilia and people who suffer from this disorder.
Desiree, I haven't seen Susana lately. I hope she wasn't scared off by being falsely labeled "pro-predator".
Brenda, that wasn't right, or true.
"Female circumcision is bashed in the West because WE view it as wrong. That doesn't make it inherently wrong." Really? You're right, Jessica. That's a good place to stop.
Susana's posts speak for themselves.
Thank you, Desiree, for exposing the truth about Michael Jackson. It continues to be a learning experience. A rich learning experience about Michael and other things.
Jessica, your comment about Susana threw me off because I thought we had already discussed it. I had to shuffle through quite a few comments but I was right.
It was part of a conversation in a previous blog. Ideas were presented, discussed, and left there.
Could it be Susana is busy? We all have lives. Maybe she's attending to hers. Or maybe she's like most of us and she agrees with Desiree's findings on LaToya. Opposing viewpoints tend to spark conversation. We all give this post a hearty thumbs up.
And to put what I said in context:
Brenda said...
Thank you, Jessica, for your post. I'm sorry if I gave the impression I was discussing all of Susana's posts. Just the issue of groomed parents.
I haven't participated in this discussion but I have read everyone's comments. I believe it is pretty pointless to continue on with this debate.
Brenda:
The reality is you are absolutely incapable of being rational on this issue. You should know full well that 'precious children' is totally arbitrary. You are a one-woman lynch mob; I think I've said this before.
I agree with Jessica: I think you had some nerve to label Susana 'pro-predator'. That's overboard, simply because she disagreed with you. The difference between you and everyone else is that you have it set in your head that there is no redeeming qualities in pedophiles, which is totally incorrect.
It's almost ironic that you bloviate about the Myth of Stranger Danger and yet you hold an equally rigid belief that everyone who touches a child--not even penetrative sexual contact or force or violence--is some sociopathic super-villain when that is just not the case at all.
These are afflicted people. Yes, their actions are their own and no one is to 'blame' but themselves. However, you could stand to employ a little nuance and exercise a bit of compassion.
If you had a son who was interested in young kids and he fondled a child, there is no doubt in my mind that you would not want him to be labeled some irreparable deviant, regardless of your politics. I think this goes to explain how people like Bill Bray knew what Jacko was up to and yet said nothing, or why Bob Jones lied on the stand: because they liked Michael, saw beyond his flaws, realized he was a tortured soul, and couldn't imagine this man being in jail. It doesn't make it right but no one can be that staunch and inflexible when they know the person.
I see nothing wrong in saying this: I believe it is exponentially worse to be attracted to kids almost unalterably than being molested by an adult or older teen.
Why? The reason is quite simple: when you are molested, there are tons of therapy options to choose from; you are enveloped, for the most part, in love and support; people want to help victims in all fashions. We cannot say the same for the child-lover. He is labeled perverse, an insufferable deviant, worthy and targeted for death. People say he cannot change; as a result of this, they scoff at the idea of finding treatment methods that could work and just want to put these guys in prison.
In prison, they are beaten and sometimes killed. The horrible irony of that is the people who target these 'sex offenders' are people who have committed murder or assault, crimes much worse than touching a child.
Additionally, your view of the US Justice System is naive. First of all, you are wrong about drug offenses: most people imprisoned for drugs are there due to possession, i.e. having used the drug. Anyway, the US Justice System imposes ridiculously Draconian sentences on 'sex offenders'.
Fondling a kid once should get no more than 6 months in jail. If Michael was to have been put in jail for what he did to Jordie Chandler--the kissing, oral sex, and masturbation--it should be nothing over 2-3 years, maybe less, and definitely not in a maximum security prison.
At any rate, it is totally pointless to continue in this exchange. I can imagine you are the type to sit on your couch and cheer at the TV when Chris Hansen and Perverted Justice catch these baited 'predators' on 'To Catch A Predator'.
For someone like you, there can never be shades of grey, these people can never be human. And that level of intolerance, inhumanity, and bigotry is a shame. These men are afflicted, regardless of how, and I think, at least, they deserve a little compassion.
There are much worse things that can happen to a kid than being sexually molested by a non-violent adult: physical abuse, neglect, rape, torture.
Being molested by your typical groomer, with his pretty manipulations, is low on the list.
I hope you take Jessica's suggestion and look at Dr. Richard Gardner's book 'Sex Abuse Hysteria' and Thomas Kincaid's 'Erotic Innocence'. They are good books and you are in need of a different perspective, stat! Maybe it would stop some of your silly strawmans.
I'm not advocating pedophilia here; I'm advocating an end to lynch mob-style, reactive BS that does nothing to help society. I will always believe this: I think people get off on the child molestation stories in the weirdest way imaginable.
You seem a little crazy, and it is unfortunate. Disclaimer: I do not have kids nor have I been molested, but I don't think fitting into either category gives you more credibility.
And, yes, when I said Michael had love in his eyes for Jimmy Safechuck, I meant love. It's pretty obvious.
Yeah, Brenda, but you called Susana 'pro-predator'.
And Jessica is right: even female genital mutilation is relative. We all live in the context of what's preferable in Western society; we are programmed and it is hard to escape.
Of course, there are things that are wrong even when one tries to be relative but many things can be argued as not being wrong, unfortunately, when you get down to the bare bones of the issue.
Personally, I am a huge animal lover. Animals are innocent and can never understand why they are forced to undergo human cruelty. I know people would argue I should be culturally relative on such barbarism as Mediterranean bullfighting. To me, it has absolutely no purpose other than to feed an intrinsic Romanesque bloodlust that is of uniquely European derivation.
But I am sure someone will disagree. Perhaps if I lived in Portugal, Spain, or France, I may think differently.
That's cultural relativism. I still cannot imagine how torturing an animal for sport can ever be relative but I may think differently on this particular 'sport' if I was a Spaniard. I will say this, though: I rather be a Michael Jackson 'special friend' than a defenseless, scared animal about to be impaled in front of a cheering crowd by some nut in a sparkling jacket!
No contest!
Honestly, the issue for me is that others are willing to see your viewpoint and you seem willfully unable to return the favor. That is a problem...
It should be clarified that all things that are violent and forced are wrong. Violence is a willful and deliberate violation of another person or being. I think we can all agree that anything incorporating violence and force should never be tolerated.
That's how I see it, at least.
about to be impaled in front of a cheering crowd by some nut in a sparkling jacket!
This unintentionally seems to describe Michael Jackson. Perhaps if his exploits with Brett were on a concert stage, I'm sure the description would fit.
Still would rather be a 'special friend' of any pedophile over a feedlot cow, pig, or chicken or lab rat used in psychology studies.
Jessica:
I finally finished reading the rest of my book, All That Glitters. It was a pretty good book...it gave me a more in depth understanding of the 1993 Chandler Case.
You know I recall reading in Chris Andersen's book, that MJ had attempted to start a line of stuffed animals to replicate the menagerie that he had a Neverland, as well as some line of shoes and clothes...but the whole thing went bust. That was interesting to know...growing up with Jacko during that particular time, I really didn't pay that much attention to his 'marketing' products. I don't know if he had a perfume/cologne line while he was alive, but I read somewhere that after he died, his estate had an L.A.-based company, My DNA Fragrance make a cologne for MJ by using samples of his DNA excreted from his hair follicles. WTF?!! LOL LOL I read one of the comments on it, and it said that it smelled like baked beans mixed with soap suds in a nice kind of way. Aw Shit. LOL I know that MJ preferred to wear womens' perfume instead of mens' cologne as "Black Orchid" and "Bala A Versailles" were two of his most favorite perfume scents to wear....I'm sure that they were also some of the fragrances that were 'put away' by his maid when he was being investigated. lol I heard that BAV was nice smelling and fairly complex as it has a spicy, floral, patchouli mix to it with good staying power. Black Orchid I heard was also nice with good staying power, but can be overwhelming at first; a scent you have to 'grow into', but also pricey. IDK, me personally have never tried them before. But back to the Michael Jackson's DNA perfume...the comment used to describe the scent should have said something like this....The scent made from Michael Jackson's DNA...one spray and the boys will come running! LMAO Let me shut my mouth. LOL If his estate did come up with something like that, only the Jackson Family could have been behind it....After all it's all about 'moo-la' as far as they're concerned. lol
Hell I'm surprised the MJ fans didn't come up with the idea themselves first...if it was at all possible and completely up to them, they would have done it using the "saliva" that was embedded in his mattress. LMAO!
Just a little something to lighten the mood and put the pedophilia scenario aside for a while. LOL
Brenda:
Jessica and Desiree are right, there is no further use in debating the point. We as human beings want compassion, and we should on some level try to extend the same for others, regardless of our differences...and that is not condoning but simply trying to understand.
Being aflicted with pedophilia is a very awful the burdensome ordeal to deal with...it haunts you everyday and doesn't go away. A disorder so terrible that some have compared it to being addicted to crack; you want to get off the stuff, but it keeps 'calling' you and you can't. It's a problem that has many sides and should be examined from ALL angles; it can't be chalked up to just 'black and white'...some shades of gray should be permitted. I pray that you don't EVER have to find out what that's like up close; whether it be a loved one, close family member or friend...Because if you ever do find yourself to be in that predicament,life like always, will challenge you...and the words you say and judgements you proclaim will be like "roosters coming home to roost".
Lady C,
LMAO! That perfume is a pure money grab because they know dumbass fans will quickly buy it because it has Mike's DNA in it. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the more crazy fans tried to drink the stuff so they could have "Eau de MJ" inside them. It reminds me of the rumors about taking some of Mike's hair and creating diamonds from it. I wouldn't be surprised if the Jacksons, especially Joe and Katherine, came up with the idea for the cologne. Baked beans with soap suds? LOL. That doesn't sound like a winning combination.
I always wondered why Mike preferred ladies' scents. Maybe he wanted to be a lady and attracted all the hot guys? Like the ones he saw in his books, LOL. Know wonder he wore lipstick, eyeliner, and false lashes. Yuck.
Lady C, I just had a thought. Maybe someone with a bottle of "Eau de MJ" could get some of Paris, Prince, and Blanket's hair and do a paternity test on it! Then we will find out the truth if he was the father. LOL. Seems like on Jason's blog, the fans are still stupidly thinking that he is the father of those kids. SMH. Use some common sense, people. LOL
Brenda, for what it's worth, I enjoy your comments. Everyone here has made some excellent points and some "wtf" ones, but I love that the positions are built up from a solid foundation of research and intelligence. It makes reading the different perspectives worth my time.
Before I discovered this blog, I used to visit some of the vindicate sites. Nearly every comment I read on them was a pile of rot built on the foundation of crazy...at first I thought it was satire.
"Seems like on Jason's blog, the fans are still stupidly thinking that he is the father of those kids. SMH. Use some common sense, people. LOL"
I doubt MJ was their biological father, but those kids don't look entirely white to me. Maybe Brett's the daddy! Wouldn't that be a shocking twist? lol
Frenchie:
I never really thought of that...Brett being the father of those kids. I guesss where MJ is concerned anything is possible. Since you said that, who knows, maybe even Frank Cascio could be right in there too, since there are so many claims of "I'm that baby's daddy" from everyone. LOL Let's remember that after Michael died there were several reports of 'seed droppings' everywhere...MJ had sperm coming from every direction. lol
Jessica:
LMAO. No, I don't think that making a parfume from the hair samples of Pince, Paris, and Blanket would be such a good idea...there's too much of a risk of being possibly disappointed at the true paternity of MJ's children. If the truth revealed, the fans wouldn't be able to wrap their heads around that one, and the feelings of possible homosexuality would start to seep in and take over...it would be to hard on them. Or better yet, let's just say, it would be the poison to "spoil the scent". LOL
I was reading fans opinion about Katherine´s interview on Oprah. They´re mad because she admitted Michael had more than two plastic surgeries (Oh Really?!)and he was addicted to plastic surgery and may have had a drugs problem.
LOL it´s enough to watch his face and see it!
What I really wanted but it will not happen:
Katherine admitting Michael was gay!
Lady C and Frenchie,
I was wondering if they could do a DNA test on the "Eau de MJ" perfume, and compare that with kids' hair. LOL. Really, all they would have to do is take some of Mike's brothers' hair and if their DNA is a 50% match with the childrens', well, we would know that Mike genetically manipulated their genes and made those mixed kids look white!
I don't think Paris and Prince are not white, I think they may be like Spanish, or Italian, or maybe Greek...basically some darker skinned European ethnicity. But they definitely aren't black or I should say half black. Maybe there is a remote possibility of a mulatto or quadroon man's sperm being used. But I doubt it. Mike obviously could not fathom loving a black child. They always say he didn't want to look like Joe Jackson and that's why he had the nose jobs. Maybe he didn't want to see Joe in his kids' faces either, so he didn't use his own sperm.
Fans always argue that he wanted (allegedly) to have a baby with Lisa Marie and there was never any mention of using a sperm donor, so why would he use one with Debbie Rowe? But I think he wouldn't have risked using a sperm donor with her because then he wouldn't have had as strong a footing on getting into the whole Elvis estate. So he would have been forced to have a black child. But Debbie was a nobody and had nothing, so he could have used any white man's sperm he wanted. But Blanket is clearly NOT black at all. He looks Hispanic. Why don't any of these kids have curly hair? That's usually the hallmark of a mixed kid, especially if the father was all black like Mike was. Or at least have dark skin.
Frenchie, I don't have any problem with Brenda's comments either, since for the most part I agree with her. Just not on the "pedo=monster/evil/unhuman" thing. But she's smart and well read, unlike Jacko fans that try to argue BS points that make no sense.
"Since you said that, who knows, maybe even Frank Cascio could be right in there too, since there are so many claims of "I'm that baby's daddy" from everyone."
Haha. I think a Frank and Debbie union would just be too much ugly to produce Paris and Prince.
Frenchie:
What exactly is a 'wtf' comment? I am sure people are entitled to their own opinions but I have yet to make one of those myself.
Yes, I am biased.
As for Brenda, I enjoy most all comments but I don't like hysterical tirades on my turf; I suggest those individuals get their own blogs. That behavior should get people deleted but I try to be fair and open-minded.
But I am human: I find her vitriol unfortunate and disturbing.
However, she can certainly post within reason and she has done so. I don't know what's going on lately. Perhaps she's made a recent trip to the library.
Brenda, tone it down, if possible.
Jessica,
I get your point but if Michael used a donor with Debbie, he could have had used one with Lisa. He said himself in the 80´s he wouldn´t have kids of his own.
In the Darwin´s Porter book Jacko: His Rise and Fall, there´s a passage about a sperm donor for Lisa and even a rumor that Michael would assist Lisa being penetrated by other man...LOL that last one is a no sense.
Fans who believe they´re Michael´s true kids said that Michael still loved Lisa so much that he couldn´t have sex with Lisa so he had them through a test tube...LMAO! Even a gay guy can have sex with a woman, even if Michael loved Lisa that much he could have had sex with other woman!
Jessica requested that the conversation end. I acquiesced. Yet I came to the blog today to find the subject reopened.
A quick clarification, Desiree. Jessica used the lynch mob comment. The following is a direct quote:
“Jessica said...
Brenda, not to be mean, but you should reel in the crazy just a tad bit. You sound a bit like a one woman lynch mob!”
The comments from some about Susana have been very kind and supportive.
I've been steadfast in saying that the sexual abuse of young children is wrong. I've limited my comments to children under twelve. Yes, I have said that criminal acts should be prosecuted. I never once said persecuted. I've also advocated therapy. My hope is that the predator would get therapy before molesting a child. For that I've been accused of being a one woman lynch mob, irrational, narrow-minded, hysterical, sounding like a demagogue ... and the list goes on.
I believe I've expounded enough on the subject. I found your comments far more interesting, Desiree. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. The exchange of ideas is the highest outlet for human intellect.
Once again, it has been requested that the subject be closed. Once again, I'm acquiescing.
Thank you for this, Frenchie:
"Haha. I think a Frank and Debbie union would just be too much ugly to produce Paris and Prince."
That was my first lol moment of the day. I was laughing again just typing it.
"I've been steadfast in saying that the sexual abuse of young children is wrong. I've limited my comments to children under twelve. Yes, I have said that criminal acts should be prosecuted. I never once said persecuted. I've also advocated therapy. My hope is that the predator would get therapy before molesting a child. For that I've been accused of being a one woman lynch mob, irrational, narrow-minded, hysterical, sounding like a demagogue ... and the list goes on."
Don't make me puke. This is a simplification, regardless if you want to acknowledge it or not. You have such a condescending "holier-than-thou" tone, and I don't understand it. The insinuation from the quote above is that you were attacked because you believe sex abuse is wrong, molesters need therapy, and crime should be punished. That is entirely inaccurate, since no one would disagree with that. You were never attacked, I for one suggested that you extend a little more compassion for those suffering this horrible affliction and possibly read a few books to get a less narrow perspective--less narrow meaning outside of the stock sex offender profiling books. That doesn't me you as a person are necessarily narrow-minded. However, empathy and understanding is more conducive to preventing this child abuse problem than labeling ever pedophile as the devil incarnate. That's your position, I got this from your words. With that being said, I still think you are mart and well-read. The next step would to be more empathetic.
Take that whichever way you would like. "Attack" or constructive criticism, I couldn't care less at this point.
A quick clarification, Desiree. Jessica used the lynch mob comment.
No, I've said it a few months ago...
I never once said persecuted.
Come on, you implied it.
For that I've been accused of being a one woman lynch mob, irrational, narrow-minded, hysterical, sounding like a demagogue ... and the list goes on.
Ha, I like the victim card. Brenda, you only set up the pins and handed me the bowling ball. I'm just saying.
I found your comments far more interesting, Desiree.
I bet you did.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
It's not "Desiree speaks...so listen..." for nothing.
Once again, I'm acquiescing.
I'm glad to hear that.
Suzy,
I've never read any of the comments from the Oprah and Katherine Jackson interview...but from what you're telling, it's not surprising at all. The MJ fans are a "different breed", and anything or anyone that goes against their 'carved in stone' belief about him will find fault with it or that person. You realize that it was his very OWN mother who confessed on public television that MJ was lying and had several facial surgeries; more than what he told the public....again, what she said went against "the law" of MJ. She of all people would know what he had and what he didn't have. But on the other hand, you have some one who was not a relative of MJ, such as his make-up artist, Karen Faye, and she says that MJ was not gay but a red-blooded man who definitely liked women. BS! LOL But the fans like that and don't find fault with her because she doesn't go outside of that 'realm'.
The reality is, it doesn't matter if you were close to MJ or not; meaning sibling, parent, niece, nephew, inner circle, or 'special friend', if you say something that goes against 'the law' of MJ, the fans will chew you up and spit you out! lol
Yeah, to hear the words, "He was gay", fall from her lips....well, let's just say that there would have been a few minutes of 'somber silence' across the world coupled with MILLIONS of jaw droppings only to be met by a thunderous sound of loud wailing and screaming...you'd thought the world was finally coming to and end. LOL
"What exactly is a 'wtf' comment?"
One that I read and think "wtf".
"I think they may be like Spanish, or Italian, or maybe Greek...basically some darker skinned European ethnicity."
I don't know, my father is Lebanese, and I only wish I could get as dark as them. Then again, they do live in SoCal so they're probably in the sun all the time.
Anyway, stop spoiling my fun. Paris totally has her "daddy's" ears...
http://goo.gl/W4ow3
http://goo.gl/xwdVP
Suzy,
Let me get this straight...there are fans that say that Mike loved Lisa Marie too much so that's why he didn't have sex with her? Am I hearing that right? LOL That doesn't make any sense.
But I would just think that having a kid with Lisa Marie would be good for him, in terms of the Elvis estate or maybe just if he wanted any chance at regaining custody when he and Lisa divorced. But it makes sense though, if he used a sperm donor for Debbie, he would use one for Lisa.
By the way, are you "IWantTheTruth" on Jason's blog, the one that posted the thing about Mike having google-eyes for Chad White? LOL, they got so mad, and to think, they are the same people that will think Mike was with a woman just because he's next to her in a picture. What hypocrites!
Lady C,
I think the fans have selective attention. They will take in what they like and everything they don't like, they a) ignore it like it was never said or existed (for example, the semen stains in his bed), or b) get so angry that and completely denigrate the character of the person who said the "offensive" Michael jackson-related statement, tot he point that everything this person says is now viewed as suspect. It's like intellectual voodoo, they twist and turn things until they fit the accepted Michael Jackson narrative.
If Janet Jackson came out and said that Mike was gay, I'd think cream my silks, LOL! Get ready with your lawn chair, your cool drink, and your popcorn and watch the Jacko fans burn all their CDs, posters, tee shirts, and books. Just thinking about the aftermath of that revelation makes me smile. LOL
Frenchie,
That is not a wtf comment. LOL. As a black person, I don't think they have black blood, and I don't want anyone to tell me anything about that. LOL. That's my perspective.
Frenchie,
You
mean
Brett
is
her
daddy.
Laughing my ass off!!!!!!! Times infinity! I kinda see the resemblance, I'll be damned.
Jessica:
"If Janet Jackson came out and said that Mike was gay, I'd think cream my silks, LOL! Get ready with your lawn chair, your cool drink, and your popcorn and watch the Jacko fans burn all their CDs, posters, tee shirts, and books."
Yes, watching 'the bonfire' would be like watching 'the destruction' of Milli Vanilli all over again...whoever said that history doesn't repeat it's self was lying.lol
lol. Jessica, I didn't quote you as an example to Desiree's question! I quoted you to reply to you.
Now back to MJ/Brett's love children...
Here's Prince:
http://goo.gl/j5PgR
http://goo.gl/x1J1M
Compared to his "Aunt" Karlee:
http://goo.gl/Zo5lA
Verrrrry interesting
For the record, I don't actually believe BB is their bio father, but it makes for an awesome conspiracy.
I really wonder if the men who have claimed to be the biological fathers, are the fathers. Or if not, did Michael give them reason to believe they were.
So many of these type of off the wall comments have turned out to be true. No matter how unbelievable at first blush. I'm reluctant to dismiss them out of hand.
Sharon Oreck met Joe Jackson when she produced Janet Jackson's Nasty video. He was horrible to everyone including Janet. This is how Sharon summed up Joe as a parent:
"Because it doesn't matter how many zillions you make, or the number of rhinoplasties you get, and/or how exactly you were able to squeeze a chimpanzee, six million gold records, and a full-size hyperbaric chamber into your own personal bedroom, you just will not flourish if the people who are supposed to bring you up are the same ones who intend to hold you down. Joe Jackson is a great big bully whose livelihood depends on his children not growing up, because the smaller they feel, the bigger he looks. If Joe's children ever achieve any kind of autonomy or self-awareness or professional hegemony, they will remember to fire his *ss and replace him with a manager who's competent or polite or savvy enough to pretend that he might care if they actually live or die (p.83)."
Her remarks are scathing but they seem right on the money to me. She also worked on Michael's In the Closet video.
Frenchie:
I know you are being facetious but it's a good exploration into the optical tricks fans use to delude themselves into believing Michael Jackson was the father of those children.
Honestly, you cannot tell someone's relatedness to another person by photographic evidence alone. How many times have women went on Maury for paternity tests and shriek that their kid has the guy's ears or nose and they end up being incorrect?
I admit that I fell into the same trap of believing--based on photos and more than a little bit of wishful thinking--that those kids were Michael's.
I just think it's faulty.
The kids are light-skinned and have very smooth hair and slight features. The likelihood of the kids being his is just slim.
Someone left a comment under another post the other day and said that the kids said on twitter they were biracial/black. That's just crazy to me seeing those kids are not black.
It's a ploy on the Jacksons' part, I think.
Okay, Frenchie, my bad, LOL. Makes sense now that I read it.
Laughing my ass off once again with the Brett Barnes "baby daddy" pics. The resemblance is uncanny, even though we know that he isn't the father...unless Mike was interested in getting a sperm donation from a 15 year old Brett (which he might have been, yuck). I think Desiree hit the nail on the head with the point about using picture comparisons. The world is filled with 7 billion people, you will be able to find many unrelated individuals that possess similar features.
I just know those kids aren't Mike's. The point about the sun is a good one; they're in a hot climate with a lot of sun so tanning is easy, especially since kids their age go outside a lot. I was much darker when I was younger, a medium brown, now I'm a light-medium yellow brown. It's a two shade difference.
We forget how light they really are, especially Paris:
http://www.dyfuse.com/files/images/prince-paris-jackson.thumbnail.jpg
http://www.india-server.com/news-images/jacksons-daughter-paris-jackson-wishes-8814.jpg
http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/22400000/HQ-Paris-at-the-Mall-in-Calabasas-5-30-2011-paris-jackson-22494479-750-1000.jpg
http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/22400000/HQ-Paris-at-the-Mall-in-Calabasas-5-30-2011-paris-jackson-22494487-1906-2000.jpg
That is not a black man's child. Period.
I also wonder if Paris and Prince have the same father. They look nothing alike, not even remotely, in my opinion. He looks like an Italian kid.
http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/22200000/BJ-and-PJ-blanket-jackson-22209324-464-580.jpg
Look at how pale Blanket is. As Tom Mesereau said POINT BLANK, Mike had "two white children and a Hispanic child...so what?"
http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/22200000/BJ-and-PJ-blanket-jackson-22209324-464-580.jpg
http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/22200000/blanket-blanket-jackson-22222872-407-182.jpg
I don't get the insistence on why they want the kids to be biologically his. Is it because he said it, so he would be lying to them if it wasn't true? If he lied about this, what else did he lie about? Child molestation?(yes) I'm just trying to wrap my head around their logic.
"Someone left a comment under another post the other day and said that the kids said on twitter they were biracial/black. That's just crazy to me seeing those kids are not black."
I think it's unlikely that they're half black, but I'm not sure MJ would have been dumb enough to use two white parents on Paris and Prince, and then insist he was their biological father. My guess is that their sperm donor was half black or less.
Ups Jessica,
I meant Debbie! LOL According t them Michael still loved Lisa so much that he couldn´t have sex with Debbie, that´s it.
Hum...yes! It´s me LOL! Really there´s a video on youtube as a "proof" that Michael wasn´t gay because he was with women...LMAO! Simple pictures with him next to women...what it proves?
At least in the pic with Chad he leans too much to him...it´s strange considering they´re two men...lol
Suzy,
LOL, okay. It thought that was what you meant, Debbie.
I saw the pics of him and Chad on a gay website and even the blog owner and some of the commenters thought Mike looked into him. But how could he not be...Chad White is young and delicious! LOL. That fans on Jason's blog said he looked drunk at the party, or high, but maybe because he was drunk, Mike forgot that he wasn't supposed to get too close to the hot young guy or people would know the truth. Mike slipped up! LOL
Frenchie,
I don't think Paris and Prince have the same father. They look nothing alike. Their coloring, too, is different in my opinion. Did you see the pics of Paris I linked? That is a white girl and there is no way she has black blood. I do think Mike is that dumb, that he would make a bald-faced lie in front of the whole world. Some say he was high in the Bashir doc, maybe that explains it. His own attorney said they were white and Hispanic and added the "so what" part, like saying it didn't matter if they weren't his. Quincy Jones said Mike didn't want to be black and that they talked about it a lot; he said "just look at his kids".
Mariah Carey looks white, but her dad was a really light-skinned Afro-Venezuelan, so it would make sense that she and her brother and sister are so pale. Same with Quincy Jones' daughters, he was much more light-skinned. Michael Jackson on the other hand, was medium-dark brown with a large nose and kinky hair. The other Jackson children's kids are much more biracial looking. Jermaine's sons from Margaret Maldonado have curly hair and tanned skin and she is white and Mexican.
Those kids are what Mesereau said they are: white and Hispanic. No black.
Jessica,
If the myth that a drunk man always says the truth is true, so even if Michael was drunk he would just following his true feelings, right? LOL
Honestly fans always have the dumbest excuses for deny Michael´s any contact with other man. Funny because in other occasion they would say that Michael would never get drunk! *sigh*
btw, I was thinking here,what do you think about Jason´s statement about Lisa? I mean, we have almost all the fans world believing Lisa was Michael´s love life and Jason himself said that he talked bout her?
Maybe he just wanted to soft things and not saying Michael was 100% gay? lol I don´t know what to think.
"I really wonder if the men who have claimed to be the biological fathers, are the fathers. Or if not, did Michael give them reason to believe they were."
How nutty would it be if MJ really went around requesting sperm from friends? He did have unusual collections (I.E. mannequins, exotic animals, young boys, etc.) so I guess it's possible.
Suzy,
I always thought that it didn't matter what Mike said about Lisa to Jason. I mean people say a lot of things and do another. i think actions speak louder than words, and Mike's actions didn't say "love". He never seemed committed to her or that he loved her. And Lisa clearly felt that as well, or she wouldn't have went around bashing him the way she did.
I also think that it's curious that he would even say anything about Lisa when he was with Jason. Did he say them before or after a sexual encounter with Jason? I see it as "Yea I wanna do it with you Jason, but I still think Lisa was beautiful and sexy, so I'm not really 'gay-gay'". LOL.
I don't think Jason was saying it to "soften the blow" to the fans. I think he was just being honest. However, Desiree did say he told her things that he didn't say on the blog. So we can only wonder what these things were.
Jessica:
Remember a few days ago when I asked you that question concerning Marc Schaffel and Debbie Rowe?..Well, I ran across another article about the two of them online where they both went to Tokyo together to view a documentary video that he was doing. Call me crazy, but I seem to think that Marc and Debbie's relationship is a lot deeper than whats been said. I mean, I know they're good friends and all, and I'm sure a lot of that has to do with MJ being the 'common link'...however I think there's much more than meets the eye. What I can't figure out is why is/has Schaffel been such a very close friend to her and even more so now that MJ's dead? I read an interesting article that was written up in The Dallas Observer about Schaffel's 'rocky' business relationship with Jackson. According to one of the porno industry's film distributors, Stan Loeb, Marc Schaffel told him that he and MJ were very close, so close that they were childhood friends. At first Loeb was very skeptical of what Schaffel had told him, but it wasn't until he got a call from Schaffel telling him that he decided to leave his employ and go work for MJ for a 'business proposition'. It was then that Loeb was convinced of what Schaffel told him.
IF that's true, Schaffel knows a lot about MJ than what we think....He 'blackmailed' MJ about some 'privileged' information that he had on him, and threatened to spill some of the beans if MJ didn't pay the monies owed to him. Well I guess MJ paid up because there were no beans spilled. lol If he and MJ go back as far as he says they do, then I'm sure he's seen a lot and heard a lot of MJ's 'secret life'. My suspicions about him and Rowe are just a hunch....I can't put my finger on it, but I have a funny inkling that Schaffel did some 'business' for MJ long before he officially started working for him in 2001 for the 9/11 'Starmania' concert that MJ was involved in. Could he possibly know the pregnancy 'arrangement' between Rowe and Jackson? Could he possibly know who the real father of MJ's two older children are? I don't care what people say, there is not a drop of black blood in Prince and Paris; there's no way. They look too white to be bi-racial; not to mention the hair texture; too straight. I have three bi-racial sisters, and they don't look completely white; they have natural curly hair wavy ; it's not bone straight. They all came from parents where the father was black; light skinned with the same distinct facial features as MJ, and their mother was blond with blue eyes. MJ was 'born' a black man; he had very distinct negroid features; dark skin, large nose, and prominent shaped lips. With those features, most likely they would have been passed on to at least two of his off spring; if not one. I also read somewhere where friends of Rowe thought that her proposal to have MJ's babies had a 'built in' bonus for him, as he specifically told them that he wanted his children to have blond hair and blue eyes. I know there's been so many claims coming out of the wood work about paternity of MJ' kids, but someone out there knows the truth, and it could be right under our noses, who knows. However I don't think that comparing pictures can be an 'iron clad' test or even come close in determining possible paternity.
Jessica:
(cont.)
But what gets me is that how could MJ not know anything about his childhood friend's heavy involvement in porno? I think that whole 'naivety' on MJ's part is complete BS ! lol MJ was lying; he probably knew of Schaffel's porno career but was just too embarrassed for the public to know that he would get himself involved with someone like that. Not to mention it would be like 'the pot calling the kettle black' based on all the 'enough porno to sink a ship' that was seized at NL. But anyway, my gut feeling tells me that it's a good possibility that Schaffel, MJ, and Rowe all have a LONG history together and A LOT in common. Another thing, If MJ was childhood friends with Marc, I'm sure that Marc was very much able to turn MJ on to a lot of males who were gay and the 'network'. lol
Lady C,
All i know about Schaffel and Debbie Rowe's relationship is that it seems that they met in 2003 when Mike was trying to get her to participate in the rebuttal show to Bashir's documentary. Mike promised to let her see the kids if she complied and I think it was then that she started to have correspondence with Schaffel. I suspect since Mike reneged on the deal, Debbie was talking to Schaffel to get through to Mike. I think a friendship developed. I have no idea if they all knew each other before this.
Also, I remember watching something on TV about Mike and how he was as a father and Schaffel said he was a good day blah, blah, blah, and the interviewer asked if Mike knew about Schaffel's background and he said he didn't want to get into that. It was pretty obvious that Schaffel knew Mike was aware of his porn past. Mike knew and he only feigned ignorance. His people disavowed Schaffel in Mike's life and that Mike had nothing to do with anything about Michael Jackson. But months later, even after this statement, Schaffel was still around as ever. He was even there when Mike dangled Blanket out of the window--and Mike had just previously claimed he and Schaffel were through! All of that was BS. He knew and he didn't care. I suspect that Mike liked him because of his gay porn past, I really do.
Schaffel and Mike were definitely close and he had lots of info about Mike that he got from their phone conversations. When he threatened to reveal things about Mike's "sexual proclivities", Mike quickly stopped trying to use Schaffel's past as a way to discredit him. I think what Schaffel could have revealed was gay in nature because I think to myself why would a man that was accused of being gay and a pedophile and was never seen with women want to cover up any hetersexual proclivities? It would only help his image if people would know he was a normal man. so they have to be gay in my opinion. Couple that with the fact that Schaffel was not only a gay porn producer, he is gay himself. The probability that the "sexual prclivities" were gay in nature is very high. Either that or they were unusual and illegal proclivities...perhaps something about his fondness for pubescent boys? Could be.
About paternity, he was not the bio dad. No way in hell. Katt Williams made a hilarious point that Mike told us things that didn't make "no goddamn sense". Excuse the profanity but he said you can't "stick a ni**a dick in a white woman and come out with blonde, blue-eyed babies". LOL. He's dead right and only idiots would believe that he was the father. I linked those pics of Paris Jackson and to me, it's a done deal that she is a little white girl. I would be more inclined to buy the whole "Jacko is the bio dad" argument if Mike was light-skinned and was less nappy-headed and big-nosed (not that being big nosed and nappy headed is bad LOL), like Quincy Jones. But I saw Rashida Jones on TV today and she even still looks mixed, and Peggy Lipton is blonde and blue eyed like Debbie Rowe. So it's impossible that those kids have black in them. If his lawyer said he had 2 white kids and a Hispanic kid and they were the ones trying to get the paternity issue to not be brought up during Debbie Rowe's testimony AND the fact that the divorce settlement barred her from even mentioning paternity, I'm inclined to believe that the probability for Mike not being the father is very high. I also think all three of his children have different fathers.
Lady C,
It would make sense that he would think of Debbie being the bio mom to Paris and Prince as a good thing because of her coloring, seeing that he dyed Prince's hair blonde shortly after he became a toddler. I think that alone validated Debbie's statement that he views his children as possessions and that he was a sociopath. Prince was a baby why would you subject him to painful hair bleaching? He isn't a little dress up doll. SMH. I want to know why? Why did he have to love white people more than his own people? It's just too tragic.
Are they still homeschooling Blanket Jackson-Barnes? He seemed so withdrawn during their Oprah interview. Isolating him from other children his age can't possibly be good for him.
Lady C,
Marc is one of that people in Michael´s life who needs a shot of "anaesthesia" xD (remember Stuart?)
And remember how the Jackson family got furious when Marc flew with Debbie to Japan for present his unauthorized documentary? Like, fear about what he could put in the movie?
And look that picture:
http://kingofpop-kids.com/photos/albums/Photo%20Personelle/2003/Prince%20et%20mike/princemichael.jpg
Frenchie,
LOL! BJB is still homeschooled, from what I know. When I saw the Jackson 3 with Oprah, I thought Paris was okay but Prince and Blanket where like feral animals. They didn't know how to behave in front of company. All the other grandchildren were polite and respectful but the Jackson 3 were shy. Paris warmed up but Prince and Blanket were a hot mess. It's as if they never had any exposure to strangers, and come to find out from Katherine Jackson, they really didn't have any friends, outside of Mike's grown up special friends like Omer Bhatti and Brett Barnes. Mike clearly did see them as "all his" and he isolated them for his own enjoyment so they would be supremely attached at the hip to him. It's pretty sick. But luckily the oldest two seem to be getting along fine now, Blanket still seems a little bit feral.
Suzy,
Don't let the fangirls see that pic, they are gonna think all the women in that picture are Mike's lovers. LOL.
But definitely shows that Mike and Schaffel were pretty darn close.
But I took the pic from a fan site LOL.
How I´d love that Marc write a book...but a true tell all!
P.S-I´m a naughty girl. Once I saw the red lipstick I began to think what Michael would do with his mouth o.o xDD
Suzy, I'd love that too. I bet he knows all the intimate details of the Michael Jackson that the fans don't want to know about. Jason doesn't know enough, although I'd love to hear about what he and Mike did.
LOL, do you mean what Mike would do to a man with that red-listicked mouth? LMAO
Jessica and Désirée,
I've been on a little vacation outside the island where I live since past Sunday, and I've just came back yesterday. I recommend Brenda to travel to other countries every once in a while. Her views are a little close-minded and maybe travelling could expand them.
I have replied to Brenda in the other entry. I read the message the other day, but I had not the time, and wasn't in the mood for replying.
I was tempted to reply to her accusations, but I'm too old to have to justify myself to this gilipollas. I'm posting here for months and you all know what my stance on MJ and paedophilia is. I even disagree with Désirée on the Polanski affair, lol. If this girl could not spot a hyperbole, is not my problem.
I'm feed up with this kind of games of fans and non fans, and have to justify to all those retards that you arent a hater, or a racist, or a victim or a paedophile, a Prince cook sucker or whatever stupid idea they come up, because you have an opinion. She can think I assassinated JFK, I could care less.
If I reverse on her this same way of thinking, I could have used her words when she said there is an uncle paedophile in every family (!!)to conclude she is one of those yokels whose genogram is very simple, and maybe this is the reason for her to be the way she is.
I'm trying to catch all the comments on the interesting entry.
Susana,
I'm glad you were just on holiday rather than her presence pissing you off enough to make you not come back.
I read you response. Made a lot of sense. Now if only she would read it and take it to heart.
By the way, there is some retarded fan under the "Brett Barnes" post and "No Girls Allowed" post claiming to be a Mensa member. LOL. He can't even refute Desiree's posts so in usual fanatic fashion, personally attacks her credibility.
When will these people grow brain cells? SMH
Jessica, the reason the fans are so insistent that the kids are biologically michael's is because admitting he used non-black sperm is an implicit admission that he rejected his race.
Michael would be dumb enough to claim two white or Jewish kids were biologically his. He was dumb enough to make all kinds of claims that seem ridiculous to most intelligent people (vitiligo, only 2 operations, conveniently falling in love with Lisa Marie just in time to divert attention from jordy, blanket has 2 black parents, sharing his bed with kids, etc). MJ fancied himself a master manipulator but was actually quite incompetent at manipulating the public. His lies may have worked on hardcore fans, starstruck 10 year olds, and money hungry parents, the vast majority of the public stopped falling for MJs act in 1993 and by 2003, he had become such a pariah that he left the US to live in exile. After his death though all was forgiven because his musical genius is great that people want to give him the benefit of the doubt regardless of how transparent his lies were.
Also keep in mind that MJ thought he could hide his kids from the public with masks. As long as no one could see their face, no one would be able to categorically say that those kids were not genetically his. I think that was the real purpose of the masks.
Opinionation,
Yes, I think that is definitely one of the reasons. But why should that be so shocking to them, really? I mean, like everyone else, they have saw his appearance change with the bleaching and the nose jobs and the straight wigs/hairpieces. They had to suspect something was wrong.
But do you think many of the fans would really care if he rejected his race? I don't think so. Being that racially aware and empathetic is not that common, and I don't think many of these fans are capable of contemplating the socio-psychological implications of racial self-hatred. Many of the fans now like him pale and pasty, so I don't think that they would care if Mike was self-hating. Maybe the black fans would care though. Maybe many of his white fans (NOT ALL of course) are flattered because such a remarkable musician wanted to emulate them. I kid you not, some prefer him "white" and dislike him black.
But some of the fans do not think that the children are his, so that reason can't explain it all, don't you think? I think they are so insistent about his kids' paternity because if he was lying of this they would wonder what else he was lying about, like the molestation, his marriages, and his sexuality. Those are the "meat-and-potatoes" issues that all of the fans care about.
I think if they imagine that his kids are his biologically, it helps the belief that he was straight and capable of being with a woman, regardless if he used artificial insemination.
Opinionation,
Yep, those masks were used to hide their faces, as the Rabbi had suggested. They were not to protect their identity from kidnappers.
I agree also that Mike was absolutely dumb enough to suggest those kids were his. This is why: he had spent so much time cultivating a white exterior and persona that he, mentally, started to believe he was white and no longer black. So why couldn't real life white kids be his? I think he fully believed that he was white and his words showed as much. When he talked about black music, for example, he viewed himself as completely distinct from the blacks he talked about; an observer rather than a member. Also, in the Primetime Live interview in 1995, he said he loves "black", referring to color. He said "...I loved...I love black, I love black." He said loved in the past tense (after Saywer had asked him 3 times before he even answered), showing he saw himself as no longer black. He saw himself as white. And what black person says "I love black"? They'd said "I love being black".
I think he believed that he could have white kids because he was now "white". He must have been in a state of psychosis by that point.
Jessica, good point about the fans wanting to believe MJ is straight, and believing he fathered his own children helps them maintain that delusion. I do think the fans are in great denial about mj's alleged racial self-hatred. They don't connect the dots because they don't want to and they're not that intelligent on average. Most of the smart fans saw through MJ's lies years ago and moved on. Those who stayed loyal are largely the dumbest 10% of MJ's once huge following and MJ is able to fool them into thinking he loves being black by praising Africa and the rhythm of blacks and by claiming to be a victim of a racism (which was probably true to a small degree). It's also possible MJ did learn to love blacks towards the end because they remained loyal while white America (who he allegedly wrecked his face and skin to look like) eventually turned on him and crucified him. But more likely MJ just pretended to love blacks because he knew they were the only ones left to defend him during his trial, and was probably hoping the threat of black riots and civil unrest would keep him out of jail. He saw the way blacks rioted over a nobody like Rodney king and so he decided to allege that he too was a victim of police brutality.
I think the fans sincerely believe MJ had vitiligo and don't see anything odd about wanting to correct a big nose. The fans tend to have low IQ's so they look at MJ's actions piece by piece, failing to synthesize the larger pattern.
And yes I do think a lot of MJ's fans care if he rejected his race. For black fans, MJ was a huge source of pride because he came along when there were few black role models (especially for blacks living outside the US) and he displayed genius as a singer, dancer, composer and even business man (purchasing the beetles catalog). For MJ's white fans, they felt cool, trendy and rebellious for dancing to a black guy's music. Because fans of both races took such pride in MJ's blackness, it's incredibly disillusioning to think MJ himself felt shame. How could you be proud of MJ as a black man if MJ was not proud of being black? How can whites point to their love of MJ as proof they are not racist if they are idolizing a guy who hated blacks? After all the decades they've invested into MJ, it's way too late to admit they were wrong.
I don't think white fans need MJ to turn himself white to validate their whiteness. Whites already feel validated. All they have to do is look at all the white presidents, white TV shows, white billionaires, and white Jesus hanging on the wall. Everything about society screams white is right, to the point where whites felt the need to like MJ just to be counterculture and fashionably subversive. When MJ started looking white, they had the best of both worlds. They got street cred for loving a black without having to love a black who looked black, as long as they were delusional enough to believe he was an innocent victim of vitiligo.
And regardless of how much MJ may have wanted to be white, i don't think he was ever delusional enough to think he actually was. He didn't seem psychotic to me, although Ian halperin claims he was diagnosed as schizophrenic when he was younger (I would give anything to read that psychological report if it exists)
Opinionation,
"The fans tend to have low IQ's so they look at MJ's actions piece by piece, failing to synthesize the larger pattern."
Absolutely, absolutely. And that is why they continue to ignore all the evidence that is presented on this blog and how they maintain the ability to defend a man that is clearly and most likely guilty of child molestation. "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts"; that truism holds for Michael Jackson. he is not exempt from the law of the jungle.
No, I do think the black fans care about his racial self-hatred and, to a smaller degree, some of his more enlightened non-black fans. But do you really think the concept or perception of idolizing a black musician to prove that a white fan is not racist is enough of an intrinsic drive for them to give two figs about his self-hatred? I don't know if it is, but maybe it could be based on the fact that Mike was a musician "back in the day" where there was still a slight divide between black and white music. But I don't really think that that is an explanation, LOL. I think black and minority fans might care and thus they stick to a delusion about his vitiligo and his children, but most others don't care.
"But more likely MJ just pretended to love blacks because he knew they were the only ones left to defend him during his trial, and was probably hoping the threat of black riots and civil unrest would keep him out of jail. He saw the way blacks rioted over a nobody like Rodney king and so he decided to allege that he too was a victim of police brutality."
If that is true, damn, he needed to get it together! But I just don't think that Mike really liked his people all that much, outside of a friendly distance. Not that he hated black people, because I think he more hated black on himself than on others.
"When MJ started looking white, they had the best of both worlds. They got street cred for loving a black without having to love a black who looked black, as long as they were delusional enough to believe he was an innocent victim of vitiligo."
Really? I don't know if anyone would ever see a white person liking Michael Jackson as having street cred, LOL. When you had him spinning in sparkly jacket, the high-pitched voice, the monkey, and the Jheri curl, I'm pretty no one saw him as the most manly and intimidating of creatures. Do you think whites saw him as being able to validate their "black card"? I don't think so, especially when you had black leaders like Louis Farrakhan saying he was a sissy. If you wanted street cred, better to have like Run DMC or LL Cool J, or even Prince.
I still believe that Mike thought of himself as white. Maybe he wasn't a clinical psychotic, but he even he said if you tell a lie long enough, you start to believe it. I think he started to believe he really had vitiligo and believe that those children were his. His words reveal he saw himself as non black.
But why do you think that he would claim the kids were his if he knows that isn't possible or true?
Jessica:
Yep, it's very sad that he could not learn to embrace his race. Being African-American myself, I love who I am and my race. I can't see my self being any other way because it's who I am, and I don't mean that in a offending way either. IDK, maybe if I were abused in the way that he was and made to feel less than
human, if indeed that was a factor that played in his self hatred, I might see myself differently, but I truly don't think that I would. I LOVE being a black 'sista'! lol
Suzy:
I wasn't able to open the link to see the picture. Perhaps I did something wrong? IDK, I'll try it again.
Frenchie:
I was watching an episode of Oprah Winfrey:Behind the Scenes, and when she interviewed Katherine Jackson, there was some discussion about the children going to regular schooling. Mrs. Jackson said, that initially Prince and Paris were starting to go to private school, and Blanket was going to stay behind and continue with home schooling. However; Blanket saw how much fun his sister and brother were having that he decided that the wanted to do the same....So perhaps Blanket is now going to private school like the others. In that particular interview, he was very withdrawn, and based on the body language, it's apparent that Prince and Paris are very protective of their little bro. I hope they're going to school outside of home and having that interaction with their peers. It's one thing to want to protect your children, but to completely 'closed them off' from society is unhealthy and will only encourage anti-social behavior which can bring about hostility, aggressiveness, and low self esteem. Going to school out side the home and establishing friend relationships is something very positive for them. Can you imagine what it must have been like for them all those years with MJ being secluded like a hermit just like him; not having any real friends or even children over for something as simple as a birthday party....according to MJ's body guards, they said the birthday parties were usually that way.
Opinionation:
As far as the masks are concerned; I read somewhere that MJ said that it was Debbie Rowe's idea to cover the children's faces with masks....I don't believe that for a second. That was Michael's idea...just like it was his idea to walk out in public wearing a surgical mask. lol The paternity identity of MJ's children is a joke. lol The 'paranoia' of the public finding out about their paternity is so bad that they can't even get a regular hair cut without having to go through the 'ritual' of having each and every hair strand gathered and taken by the family. Well I suppose donating any hair to "Lock of Love" is out of the question. lol Makes me wonder though, what do they do if they need medical attention and blood is needed for lab testing? I know because MJ was a JW they don't believe in blood transfers, so that wouldn't be an issue. But since the family was so paranoid about the hair cutting, aren't they worried that any blood taken from the children for testing could possibly get into the 'wrong hands' and be tested for blood type and paternity? Or is a family member 'present' in the lab when the blood is being tested? lol I'm sure they already have that 'base' covered. Blacks stepping up to support MJ during his trial was something that MJ was counting on....Only in America are you reminded that you're black when you step out of line.
I too, read about MJ having schizophrenia in RJT's bio. A psychological report would be interesting if one exists.lol
Lady C,
I knew you were a sista like me, LOL. I was going to ask but I didn't want to offend you. Anyways, I should be more sympathetic to Mike's identity struggles but it truly gets under my skin.
Just to think that Mike isolated those kids from their peers while he was alive is just so sad. Lonely birthday parties? I wonder if the kids ever felt the difference? That's very selfish of him to do that to his children. I think Blanket may be a little damaged from his early childhood upbringing, he seems so shy, unlike his sister and brother. There seems, in my opinion, hat there is a lot of fear of strangers inside of him. Hopefully he will outgrow it.
Jessica:
Yes, I'm a sista, LOL. What was it about me that gave it away? If you wanted to ask me, that would have been fine; no offense would have been taken.
I have to admit, the way how the fans of MJ are so determined to believe that he's not gay, was the same way I first felt about MJ's struggle with his race. There was a time that I so much 'wanted' MJ to really be black, if that makes any sense at all. No matter how much he seemed to be changing before my eyes, I thought that he truly had Vitiligo and that was the real cause for his 'lightness' , but I started to see more and more and more changes about him and his mannerisms to the degree that I could no longer deny it...It was obvious to me that he'd become a 'self hating fool'; he didn't like his race or his people. If I hadn't grown up with MJ like I did when I was a kid, I would have never known who he was when he 'transformed'. Can you imagine, the newer generation and how they identify with MJ... I'm sure they heard all the jokes that people poked about him and thought, so what's the big deal? Well, the big deal is that they never knew him when he was black; for them he's always been 'white'. LOL For them, MJ was always seen as one person, however; we saw him as 'two' different ppl. As a matter of fact, I had noticed too that MJ didn't seem to be all that interested in beautiful black women as well; but later I would discover that he wasn't interested in ANY woman. lol Him not being interested in woman was something I could handle, but for him to reject his own self and race was very difficult for me to accept...I lost a lot of respect for him. I didn't care how much he insisted that he was a 'Black American' or how much money he threw to the NAACP or any of that; I was convinced other wise. I know that Hollywood is a small place that has several black celebrities...I'm curious to know what they "really" thought of MJ; did they feel that he was self hating and hated the black race? When you mentioned Oprah a few comments back, I really do believe she didn't care too much for him. One mainly due to the child allegations and the other because of his skin bleaching. Kittie Kelly said in her bio about Oprah, that when she interviewed him in 1993, Oprah really didn't 'buy' the Vitiligo bit; it was BS to her. She could see right through Mr. Jackson that he had a problem with his 'blackness'.
I feel sorry for Blanket, I get the feeling that he sees himself as a "third wheel" for some reason. For the sake of all of MJ's children, I hope they can somehow 'recover' from their isolation from society and establish some meaningful relationships and lead a normal life; as much as 'normal' will allow that is.
All you said in the last comments shows how dumb are that fans, because a gay men can have sex with a woman (and they obviously don´t know it), so even if the kids was his, it would proof nothing. I´m a regular in many MJ boards and what I get is, simply they want to believe Michael, no matter what their eyes see. Even after his very own mother have admitted he was addict to plastic surgery and he lied about the two plastic surgeries, they still want to believe him and Katherine is a evil woman lol.
I´m a different fan, I read between lines. For example, when Lisa gave that interview to Oprah she was asked about Michael being a molester. Her answer was "I don´t know I wasn´t in the same room as him when he was with the children" or something like that. Soo if you´re a thinking person,you ask yourself, if he really loved her that much, if the marriage was so real how she couldn´t even answer that straightly? If their marriage was real, her answer would be No, he never did such a thing!
And the fans still wonder why many people still believe the marriage was a sham? Lisa isn´t a smart woman. She even used a phrase very commonly used by fans on boards when she talked about their four year date...
Jessica, maybe I'm reading too much into what motivates MJ's white fans. I think the simplest explanation for why MJ's fans (black or white) deny his alleged racial self-hatred is the same reason they deny his alleged pedophilia. Obsessed fans want to believe their messiah is a saint, and believing he rejected his own race or molested kids is inconsistent with this view. The 2 worst things you can accuse someone of in our society are being a racist and being a child molester so naturally MJ fans will rally to the idol's defense when he is accused of such sins. The other issue is MJ fans want to believe MJ was persecuted because the powers that be could not tolerate a rich and powerful black, and so admitting that MJ too may have had a problem with blacks confuses the narrative. They want to only view him as an innocent victim of racism, and never someone who could be racist himself because that would make him as bad as his evil persecutors and the fans just can't have that.
Lady c, you read about MJ's alleged schizophrenia in the JRT book? You probably mean the Ian halperin book because I thought that was Ian's exclusive scoop. Ian doesn't strike me as particularly credible in general, but this schizophrenia angle does sound intriguing partly because I saw an MJ fan on a message board accuse Latoya of being borderline schizophrenic because of her talk of ghosts, so perhaps it runs in the family.
Lady C,
LOL it was the way you wrote. It had "flava" LOL. I always can tell be the writing style.
LOL about him being a "self-ahting fool". Perfect choice of words and all too true, I first saw Mike when he was "white" so I just knew him as that. After he died, I was so annoyed at the way some fans forgot he was black, so I guess I overcompensated by deluding myself into believing that he was still black under it all, that he really had vitiligo and that he wore the straight wigs because a fade would look a hot mess LOL. I was sickened the first time I watched the "You Are Not Alone" video and when I saw him on the Primetime LIve interview. I couldn't believe I was looking at a black man. And deep down I knew his ass didn't believe he was a black man either. I won't lie so I'm being completely honest here, I was more amused than I probably should have been when I discovered through research that he was a gay pedo. I just though he deserved it for turning his back on his people and having those white children. How dare he? I know, that is bad. Now, I feel sorry for him, but at that momment, I was amused.
Oprah didn't buy Mike's viti-lie-go bullshit? Another eason to like Oprah, LOL. I always said to myself why would he wait 5 years to explain why he was the color of a ghost? It makes no sense unless he was hding it. And funny thing, Latoya now says that there was a member of their family that had vitiligo, when before she said in detail that he was using creams to lighten his skin and that there was absolutely no one in relation to them that had the disease.
Suzy,
Yes, they want to believe him. It's as simple as that. He's there idol and if their idol was a liar, what would they do? They've wrapped their entire lives around a fallible human being, so they hope he is as good as he is in their fantasies. How sad. It's a delusion.
So everyone is a liar to them, evenhis own mother? I know a lot of fans still don't think he was a drug addict even though Janet Jackson said very matter of factly that he was. Look how they explained the semen stains away!!! They acted like they were either a) not semen, or b) the semen got there on its own in a way that has nothing to do with Mike, when really the only logical explanation for having another man's semen in a man's bed is because these men were havign sex. It was a total of 3 different men's semen in Mike's bed and in bedsheets that he kept, what more do you need to show he was gay?
Lisa Marie is ridiculous. She knows that everything about that marriage was a sham and she admitted as much before he died. Now, she is acti8ng like they were soulmates. Only a dumb fan couldn't see through her bullshit. Maybe I'm worng, but I never heard her say anything about Jason's claim about having a gay fling with Mike. That's telling.
Opinionation,
I think the most simplest explanation is the best one. Him lying about paternity makes him look absolutely crazy and unscrupulous, so if he was lying about that, why wouldn't he lie about being a pedophile? Especially when the fans KNOW (even if they won't admit it) that there are aspects of his relationships with young books, the fact that he had nude boy books, and the molestation allegations and subsequent payouts, that look undeniably suspicious.
It all becomes more plausible that he lied about child molestation if he lied about something as huge as being the biological black father of two white children and a Hispanic child.
But I'm willing to bet that if it was finally revealed that he had lied about the vitiligo and paternity, there would still be some people, maybe not a lot, that would still see him in a positive light.
Very good entry, Désirée.
I read almost all the comments. You have written a lot! Interesting conversations.
Lady C, your comment on Michael looking like an alcoholic housewife has cracked me up LOL.
On the first video, for a woman stressed out, fresh off a plane, threatened with death by her husband, reading a note that had never seen, and basically saying that his brother is a paedophile to the press, LaToya is calmer than I was when I take a nap. His body language and gestures, reinforce every sentence. And those strategic pauses...
I remember these images clearly. This video is one of the most devastating testimony against Michael. For me definitely confirmed that he was a paedophile.
In 1991 (two years before the scandal) the press quoted Jack Gordon telling the story of the 1 million dollars check to the "special friend", courtesy of Latoya, of course. In my opinion, they were blackmailing MJ with those stories. Maybe they reach an agreement or a business proposal for J. Gordon before the book came out, but MJ failed to meet his compromise, and this is the reason why Latoya changed her tune after the book was published.
I saw another video of her saying Michael couldn't STAND women, and confirming the marriage with Lisa Marie was a publicity stunt and they lived in different houses.
Michael and LaToya were described by Norman Winter as two “giggly sisters” when they lived together at Hayvenhurst. They dressed alike and were very close. Latoya mentioned recently that they slept together many times while living in NY during the filming of The Wiz. I don't have brothers but I have cousins, and I find strange for relatives to sleep together when adults. I don't think something incestous happened, lol. For me this is another clue that MJ was gay and “inoffensive” in bed with a woman.
Also I think one of the reasons why LaToya played his love interest in the Say, Say, Say video and MJ wanted her aswell in the The Way you Make Me Feel and Thriller video (Frank Dileo opposed) instead of Ola and Tatiana is, nepotism apart, because he avoided having to interact with girls. Imagine how stressful for him having to justify his disinterest in them, and how evident it would be for the crew, the comments, etc.
Am I the only one thinking LaToya's life is almost as sad and strange as Michael's was?
Susana,
Actually there´s a video of LaToya saying that?! wow! Months after Michael´s death when asked if he was gay she said "absolutely not".
But I can understand.
I'm trying to find the video. It was in the 90s. The interviewer was a woman, but I don't know her name.
Susana,
I agree with you on the LaToya video 100%. She seems very calm and sincere and is angry at the right points (when talking about the little boys) and very emotional when it makes sense for her to be so (her voice becomes a little bit choked when she mentions that she was herself abused by Joe). So either she is a supreme actress or she is telling the truth. I tend towards the latter.
Also: who would say that they were sexually abused by their own father if it isn't true? Another thing that struck me in that video is this: none of the Jacksons seem to have problems with Katherine. Here LaToya mentions Katherine as a sort of witness, i.e. that it was Katherine who showed her the checks, and therefore implicates her in the whole statement. Katherine was alive and kicking and I think it's always risky to involve someone in a testimony who can contradict your statements. LaToya could simply have said that she saw the checks herself, there would have been no need to mention Katherine. If I had lied about something like that, I would not have mentioned my mother.
So, all in all, I think LaToya was telling the truth and the Jackson family later put the pressure up and made her retract, maybe with the subtle hint that if MJ were exposed as a pedophile, they would all become social pariahs. Also, very important, no more spongeing on Michael.
Anyway, yes, I agree, LaToya's life is a sad one as well, maybe even sadder than Michael's because she didn't have the artistic abilities to compensate and derive pleasure from success.
Very sad indeed.
That is a very good point, Susana, about Latoya's demeanor. I never thought of that. You'd expect her to mess up if it was her first time reading it and she was doing it all under duress. It seemed like she at first read from the card and then it looked like she was just speaking off the top of her head.
Everything she said when she was away from her family was the truth, and once she got back into the fold, she started to lie again. I think this was her one true moment of clarity.
Also, she said to Barbara Walters after Mike's death that "we don't know do we?" about whether or not Paris, Prince, and Blanket were his bio kids. Then, later on, she said to a foreign TV show that Mike was the bio dad of Prince because Prince had vitiligo and that it ran in the family. But in 1993 she said there was not relative and that Mike was brought bleaching creams by Miko Brando when they lived at Hayvenhurst. So her stories are always changing, depending if she is with or against her family. Jack Gordon may have been abusive, but at least with him she was able to speak out.
I agree that his close relationships with his sisters, Latoya and Janet, are indicative of him being effeminate and gay. Any red-blooded male would not have had to be told twist to cast a sexy girl as their opposite in a music video. That he wanted Latoya, and that he was in his mid-20s at the time, shows that there was some issues with women, absolutely.
About Latoya and her comments on Mike's marriage to Lisa Marie, I saw a video from 1994 at I think it was a book signing r something she was doing and someone asked he what she thought about her brother's marriage, and she said she was happy for him and that she wishes them the best, etc. But then in 1995 after the divorce, she said the whole marriage was a business arrangement because Lisa wanted to be in the entertainment industry and Mike wanted to rescue his image. She did say it was a sham because Mike had absolutely no interest in women. So both statements are pretty interesting and you have to honestly wonder what caused her to go from wishing the union well to saying it was a sham. It could be honesty or it could be something else.
But I do know that when asked if Mike was gay by Barbara Walters she quickly said no, but when Walters asked her if she thought her brother was a pedophile, it took her longer to answer. They could have edited that way but it looked like one continuous take. Interesting her hesitation.
Jessica I wonder Joe´s reaction when LaToya said Michael hadn´t any interest in women lol.
As for her quick answer, if she claimed in the past he had no interest in women, so after his death maybe she could answer convincingly he wasn´t maybe because that was the year which Jason came out first and Halperin´s book also. Maybe she expected that kind of questions? She had nothing to gain at all claiming he was gay (kind of).
I remember reading a interview with Mark Laster when he was asked about Halperin´s book and if what was in it was true. He denied the gay claims and his disease. Later he said that Michael had difficulty having a relationship with women lol.
Like you all have mentioned, Latoya is ALWAYS changing her stories. She's totally contradictory, so for me, she barely has any credibility (regardless of what she says). And you are doing now just what fanatics usually do, using the part of the story that's convenient at the moment. And don't get me wrong, I agree with you about MJ. I wouldn't find it surprising if they really found those checks for the little boys' families, the LMP marriage sham, his lack of interest in women etc...But still I wouldn't take Latoya as a credible source. She doesn't even seem to be mentally stable in my opinon.
By the way, she recently (well, earlier this year) came to my country and she was on a talk show saying how wonderful MJ was (and how much he loved children...). She painted him as a saint, a big misunderstood, and of course denied the pedophilia allegations. She talked about how united her family is (yeah sure lol) and how absolutely wonderful and loving is her mother. She didn't even mentioned Joe in this interview, and when the host tried to talk about him she kind of changed the subject. I remember one of the last questions was "Do you think Michael ever fell in love?" and she took a looong time before answering (she even seemed about to say something interesting) and finally she responded "Well, I guess you'd have to ask him that..."
Well, all in all, completely different from the 90s interviews. I mean how do I know when I should or shouldn't believe her?
Elena Maybe he felt in love...but with who, she couldn´t say ;)
"Paris warmed up but Prince and Blanket were a hot mess. It's as if they never had any exposure to strangers, and come to find out from Katherine Jackson, they really didn't have any friends, outside of Mike's grown up special friends like Omer Bhatti and Brett Barnes. Mike clearly did see them as "all his" and he isolated them for his own enjoyment so they would be supremely attached at the hip to him."
LOL. It sounds very "Grey Gardens" when you put it that way--where MJ's the controlling former singer 'Big Edie', Paris is the vivacious daughter 'Little Edie', and Prince and Blanket are those wild raccoons they fed Wonder Bread to in the attic.
Elena,
LOL, please don't compare me to a fanatic! Yuck, LOL. I agree with you about Latoya, you never know which story is the truth and which is make believe. That being said, you just have to look at it logically and remember that there is truth in her statements. this isn't like a court of law where a credibility problem basically means that the person's story is instantly deemed useless.
I see it Latoya as a very fragile and easily manipulated by all sides. But it is interesting to note when she made her disclosures. The first claim the Mike was a pedophile came back in 1991, 2 years before he was even accused of molesting a child. So how could that be a bandwagon thing of she and Jack Gordon riding the coattails of the Jordie Chandler accusations? As Desiree said in this piece, only Latoya could have known information of that nature because she lived with him. To me, at least, it just doesn't seem like this was a lie.
Also, the stuff about him having vitiligo and using bleaching creams, I think she was being truthful about that because of how Mike himself waited a full 7 years before even explaining to anyone why he was getting lighter. And if he had such a severe case of vitiligo, why would his parents and brothers back in the early 90s look confused about him having, as they put it, "some kind of skin disease" if they had relatives that had it. Wouldn't they be aware of it, and wouldn't they have mentioned a relative at that time instead of wait until he was dead to start claiming that? It just doesn't make sense to me.
Also, her claims of being abused by her father sexually are entirely plausible. she also claimed Mike was sexually abused, and was going to put her, Rebbie's and Mike's abuse in her book back in 1991, according to Chris Andersen's book. Allegedly there was a demand for money from Mike or he offered money to keep his abuse out of the book. No money ever exchanged hands, though it was kept out of the book. I agree with Angela that it's highly unlikely that you would claim sexual abuse in the public if it never happened. It's not something that you just make up. And even Jermaine Jackson confirmed the allegations, although now he and Stacy brown deny anything was ever salacious in their book "Legacy" (but Stacy Brown is not telling the truth since he is back in with Rebbie Jackson had has allegedly denied even agreeing with Bob Jones' take on things!).
But think about it: why would she tell the truth about her parents now? Just because she is singing a different tune now does not negate her previous statements. Abusive parents such as Katherine and Joe Jackson, have an incredible hold over their children and it is easy to make an abused child lie for their parents. Kids naturally will do what their parents say, even if it means denying being abused. And we all know the Jackson children were abused children. True, she went from one abusive situation to another but I always think back to how would Jack Gordon know all those intimate details if he was never around? That's where I'm stuck.
Latoya is definitely a hard nut to crack. Interesting about her visit to the talk-show in your country. Her answers are stick Jackson answers in my opinion. Telling that she didn't really answer the question about him being in love. Well, given what everyone else says about Mike, he was never really interested in relationships with women, or with anyone for that matter, but maybe Latoya didn't want to say it like that.
Suzy,
I wonder if people had an agreement with Mike that they would never tell people he was gay. I mean all they say is that they don't know or no, but then how do you explain is lack of interest in women and him cavorting around with young males? They say he was asexual, but clearly that isn't true, given the amount of nude and sexually explicit materials, of both men and women, they found in his home. They don't even say lie and say he liked women, they just say he loved his music more and never been in a real relationship. It's very telling.
Frenchie,
LOL! That sounds too funny, I've never heard of "Grey Gardens". But from what was said on Oprah, I think Prince might have been the favorite, so I guess the wild raccoons are Paris and Blanket...LOL.
Not to divert the topic of La Toya Jackson, but with regard to Michael Jackson's obvious self-hatred, I was wondering whether he'd propositioned Lisa Marie Presley for white babies and when she didn't bite, he went to Debbie Rowe (who was a fan)?
We do know that Michael Jackson forbade her never to talk about paternity and got his lawyers to keep that out of his 2005 trial.
Perhaps there's a lot Lisa Marie has not told about Jacko and the kid thing (different from the official 'kid thing'). Maybe she felt regretful that she'd lost Michael Jackson because she did not want to be artificially inseminated with white sperm to produce white babies for this crazy bleached black man. But Debbie Rowe was all for it.
Because there is no way those kids have a drop of black blood in them, regardless of what I've written in the past. What I believe happened was Jacko had underwent his transformation--the skin bleaching, the wigs, the nose jobs, the chin--and he believed he was white.
I strongly believe Michael Jackson no longer saw himself as black. I believe he had completely dissociated by then.
He went through trying to look like Diana Ross (and he really did resemble her) to trying to look like a young Liz Taylor (there was actually an old issue of the National Enquirer that did a side by side of Michael and Liz and I could see where they were going with it).
Anyway, Jacko also wanted children. The problem was two-fold:
(a) He'd been accused of child molestation and no one--regardless of his celebrity status--would allow an accused pedophile to adopt children.
With this, Michael Jackson knew adopting kids was out of the question.
(b) Michael believed himself to be white but knew, given his black DNA, he would never, ever be able to produce the white children that would naturally be the progeny of a white man.
Seeing all of this, the only logical conclusion would be that Jacko had to get sperm from from a white man and put it in some hapless white woman (i.e. someone like Debbie Rowe).
The fans get me with the vitiligo business. It's a total farce. I believe Michael had applied gradually lighter skin and body makeup until he made his 'big reveal' in 1991's 'Black or White'. I think he'd always been white underneath and was waiting for the perfect moment to show the world that he was as white as he felt.
Even then, it took two more years before he explained why his skin was nuclear explosion white. The song 'Black or White', my God, just look at the images the video presents. It's almost like the purpose was to show off Jacko's new look while assuaging away the freak factor most people would feel after having seen this guy in the Jackson 5 and in 'Thriller' when he was still black.
"Don't worry, it doesn't matter if I'm black or white--I'm still Michael!"
I really, really believe it was a scam. I don't know if it was the execs working with Jacko or Jacko sprang the results of he and Arnold Klein's Frankensteinian experiments to turn a black man white on the execs and they had to then work around it post haste...but it was something.
Fans like to hold up the autopsy report as proof that he'd had vitiligo but the reality is the pigmentation issues are in no way an indication of natural vitiligo. I'm confused when they say he had several areas of depigmentation; depigmentation would indicate that there was a lack of pigment. But I thought he was all white and had universal vitiligo?
Unless he was still brown and was simply wearing powder white make-up this whole time. I know Tom Mesereau stated Michael had patches on his back and wore white makeup.
I don't know: the story does not seem to add up to me.
Sammy Sosa never got as white as Michael Jackson did but he is definitely proof that one can bleach their skin.
I believe the reason fans want to believe Michael had vitiligo is simply because if he lied about that disease, and showed that he was really, truly bleaching his skin, it would reveal to them that he was a grand manipulator and capable of even more horrendous lies by their book, i.e. his homosexuality and his being a pedophile.
I think for only some it has to do with race but for most, it has to due with lies and the vitiligo thing would be a huge lie.
The children thing, too, would be another monstrous lie. (In my opinion, he only said he was the father of those kids because he ordained their birth, is on their birth certificates, and believes himself to be a white man so, to him, it would make perfect sense to claim paternity.)
Intelligent people know what's a lie and what's the truth. Any black man looking like Michael Jackson will not have children who look the way those three do. Only stupid, low IQ people would think Michael Jackson fathered those children.
And only stupid, low IQ people would still believe he was innocent after all that has been presented over the years and what has been presented on this blog... ;-)
I think Opinionation is right: the existing "Michael Jackson's INNOCENT!!" fans are the dumbest 10 percent of all of the fans he's ever had.
Or, alternately, they are the dumbest 10 percent of people in general...
Ladies
Lisa Marie has not always been truthful about MJ. Take a look at this link.
http://www.hotmommagossip.com/2010/04/02/my-name-is-earl-star-jason-lees-ex-slams-scientology/
I have recently been doing a bit of research into Scientology and have found a fair bit of info on the MJ and LMP union. It seems that it may have well been coordinated by the CoS.
One minute LMP pretty much said Michael was an arsehole who used her and left her high and dry and when he died he was her soulmate and the "most intoxicating man" she had ever met. I wonder what her current husband thought of that? It was probably all staged anyway! There are also some interesting quotes from the Stanley brothers who are step brothers to Elvis, I will post all the links soon.
Sarah:
I don't, for one second, believe Jason Lee's ex. I don't believe Lisa Marie ever said that to her nor do I believe she worried about her children's safety in Michael's presence.
Jessica, you should watch Grey Gardens sometime. It's a documentary about Jackie Kennedy's aunt and cousin. They were socialites whose fortunes faded, and they ended up as recluses in a decaying mansion surrounded by stray animals. To cope, they retreated into a fantasy world built on what could have been. It's really good!
Now back to MJ's kids. You're right about the boys coming off a bit feral. Blanket practically looked like a frightened caged animal during the interview. I remember Katherine made a comment once about Blanket being too young to go to school. She also kept referring to him as "the baby" rather than using his name. He's nine! How will he ever learn to socialize properly when he's kept cloistered and treated like an infant? I wish Diana Ross would just snatch him away from Katherine, brush his hair, and enroll the kid in school. He should at least have a shot at normalcy.
Frenchie,
I already put Grey gardens in my Netflix queue! Interesting what wealth does to a person's mind, especially if the rich person has no job or responsibilities. It's called the caviar curse; all the money in the world and no direction. I don't envy that!
I wonder why they treat Blanket like he's a baby. Maybe he is stunted mentally? I don't know, but that is very bizarre. When I was 9, if felt like I knew everything. I was not ever treated like a child. I was watching "The Golden Girls" by the end of elementary school! LOL.
God, I want to know what Mike did as a father. The children really have nothing huge to say about him except that he gave them candy and coke all the time and that he cooked french toast, but I bet that is just because they are young. I just wonder how many times the nanny, Grace, had to take over for Mike and raise the children. I absolutely believe his kids adore him, but was it because he was a big kid or a responsible parent? I mean, let's be honest here, how good of a parent can you be if you are a drug addict? Maybe they can have moments of brilliance but it just seems unlikely, especially when you watch shows like "Intervention" and see how much the addict is focused on getting high.
Desiree,
I agree with you about Lisa Marie. I think there is definitely more to the story than meets the eye. In JRT's book, he quotes where she says that the reason that she didn't want to have kids with him was because she could image how ugly the custody battle would be. But then, she always said that she was truly in love with him and that that was the reason they got married and that she was devoted to being his wife. But why then would she immediately think about a divorce and the subsequent custody battle as the reason she wouldn't have his children? I thought she loved him from the get go? It's well known that Mike wanted kids from the get go so you'd think that if she was really in love with him, at least in the beginning, they would have had children. So in my mind, Lisa is either lying about loving him and the reason they married or lying about the reason she didn't have his kids. Why think about a custody battle so soon after marriage if they were in love. Mike said in the Rabbi's book that Lisa had wrote him letters after the divorce saying she'd have 9 kids for him, but he wasn't interested.
So why in when she was doing the press junket for her album did she describe a custody battle as the reason for not having kids, if earlier she was willing to now have 9 kids for him, but earlier still while she was married to Mike, she wouldn't have kids? It all very confusing. Her stories make no sense, to me at least.
The song 'Black or White', my God, just look at the images the video presents. It's almost like the purpose was to show off Jacko's new look while assuaging away the freak factor most people would feel after having seen this guy in the Jackson 5 and in 'Thriller' when he was still black.
"Don't worry, it doesn't matter if I'm black or white--I'm still Michael!"
LOL! That must have been the reason for that being the first song, since he took 4-5 years between Bad and Dangerous. I guess he was "preparing himself" with the creams. And the said thing is is that it worked. The whole thing worked. People probably wondered what was up with his skin but no one was going to call him out on it.
Effeminate
Michael was very effeminate. The Karen Faye video and some other behind the scenes videos really show it. I think he was close to LaToya and Janet because he should show that side of himself and it was accepted.
But his sense of boundaries seems way off to me. Common sense would tell most people, and Michael was well past grown, not to cast your sister as a love interest. I hope most men wouldn't seek out nude pictures of their sister and comment on them. Nor climb into bed with his sister and her husband when the couple is in a romantic mood.
Michael and Randy were also very close at around the same time.
Schaffel
When I first heard about Schaffel, I just assumed that Michael made his acquaintance through Arnold Klein because Michael loved porn. Michael had a lifelong love of porn. The asexual image was a pr construct from the very beginning. Michael was deeply interested in all things sexual. The Stan Loeb quote was interesting.
Children
Michael's children remind me of children raised in military households. Michael admitted in the Boteach book that he never settled in one place for long. They were always on the move. They would make friends for a little while, we have pictures to show them playing with other children, then Michael would move on.
LMP's kids
A woman could be married to a child molester and not know it. I read a book by a woman who had no idea about her husband. When Michael complained that LMP considered her children hers, I thought he was referencing the adoption thing. But now I'm wondering if that meant that she wouldn't let her children go off alone with Michael.
Jessica, I think Paris adored MJ but I don't think prince did. Blanket seemed a little jealous of all that prince got away with, but I don't think prince has fond memories. In fact I've seen some of the fans bashing prince for not showing enough emotion. Lol. That's what I hate about the fans. You don't even have to do bash MJ for the fans to hate you. If you're simply neural or silent the fans will attack, like when they attacked celebs who were silent after MJ's death. I think MJ had a normal father-child relationship with Paris because she's a girl. I don't think he had a normal relationship with the boys because he tries to relate to male chidren as peers (or worse)instead of the normal way fathers relate to their sons and I think that wiered them out, especially prince because he was old enough and smart enough to see how strange MJ was. But because Paris is a girl, MJ only related to her as her father, so she has fond memories and cried at his memorial
Elena,
I agree with Jessica 100%. Personally, I put in quarantine and analyse everything I read about him, so, I don't consider myself a fanatic.
LaToya could have made up all sort of rumours... and more “marketable”.
At the time, Mike was very reclusive and the general public didn't know anything about his private/sentimental life. He had legions of fans (and non fans) eager for any new information about him.
LaToya could have contradicted the asexual goody goody two shoes image he portrayed telling hookers visited Hayvenhurst night and day for sex orgies with Michael, or that she caught him fucking a famous Hollywood actress in the kitchen before an important award ceremony... or an actor lol. It is sort of “scandalous” because the public appreciate those juicy details, and could have arisen the interest in the book, and at the same time, many fans would be delighted. BUT kids? Who comes up with a rumour like that if there is no truth in it.
As Jessica mentioned, the time line is important too. How many knew MJ did have so intense relationships with kids back then? I didn't followed him at the time, but my perception was that he was a closeted homosexual. Those images at Neverland surrounded by kids and Mickey Mouse, were a pose for his corny followers. You know, like all those actresses and models who said they are vegetarians, hate fours, admire Mother Theresa, want to adopt a child from Bangladesh and are very concerned for the survival of the mottled fly of Bostwana... when we suspect they could care less, lol.
Latoya was telling all the things we knew after the 1993 scandal in 1991 in the press, and to Roseanne Barr: the sleepovers, the checks, the obsession for specifics boys... She said his brother needed help, thats very telling, IMO. I bet she was sure he will be convicted.
Angela,
your last paragraph is gold.
Brenda,
When I first heard about Schaffel, I just assumed that Michael made his acquaintance through Arnold Klein because Michael loved porn. Michael had a lifelong love of porn
But why introduce Mike to a gay porn producer? Schaffel made only gay porn. That's the interesting question, and the one the fans don't want to hear.
When Michael complained that LMP considered her children hers, I thought he was referencing the adoption thing. But now I'm wondering if that meant that she wouldn't let her children go off alone with Michael.
Lisa Marie has always maintained that Mike was good around her children and she never saw the pedo side of him nor did she ever suspect that side. I have no reason to really disbelieve her on that front; she seems very truthful.
Opinionation,
That is such an interesting perspective! And it really makes sense, considering how well Paris interacted with Oprah after overcoming the normal initial shyness. Prince and Blanket...not so much. I agree, Blanket was pretty quick on the draw to say that Prince was able to do whatever he wanted, unlike he and Paris.
Maybe Prince was old enough to see him strung out on drugs or maybe, God forbid, something happened to him? I don't want to infer that, but it does cross my mind.
And what do you really expect from the fans? Mike is their possession and they will protect him to the death, even if that means hating his son who fails to supply them with all the gushing stories that would fulfill their fantasy image they have of "MJ the father".
God, can't a kid hate his dad without the ridicule of outsiders? LOL
Tavis Smiley had one of the best quotes ever about a generation of black americans. He was lamenting the fact that black people would pass by a black owned business to shop at a white owned business. He said, "They think the white man's ice is colder."
It's been a long fight to get rid of that white is right mentality. Michael grew up in the middle of it. Beauty was still based on the white European body type.
Janet tells a story in her book about when she and Michael were at the skating rink (I know, the man who never got out of the house, right), Michael pointed out a Caucasian girl and said something to the effect that her beauty was perfect. Janet said how it made her feel less than because she didn't fit that body type at all.
Magazines like Ebony and Jet were vital because we, as a race, could proclaim our beauty. It was very rare in the mainstream.
Michael was the epitome of a beautiful black man but that wasn't his idea of beauty. He went through his awkward years and grew into a very handsome black man. But I really feel that that wasn't his ideal and he went to work redesigning himself.
It is sort of “scandalous” because the public appreciate those juicy details, and could have arisen the interest in the book, and at the same time, many fans would be delighted. BUT kids? Who comes up with a rumour like that if there is no truth in it.
Yep, yep. That's why I believe her. Why say kids when no one was ever thinking Mike was a pedophile? Why claim that in 1991? It makes no sense. I think she was speaking from the heart about the things only she would have known about. Great point, Susana.
I see dreko no pro Jacksons sites have requested your services huh? I know because you are still here. But keep worrying. All know you are for sell the the highest paying pimp. Maybe they'll throw you a few cents to sell your fake expertise, because you dreko know what most people have always known, if there's a chance for you to "make it" out there somewhere writing all good things about MJ, you'll drool all the way there, jumping at it the first offer like a dog for it's first bone of the day.Dreko you are for sell to whoever get you attention. My regards to Diane Dimond. She's almost as ignored and obsolete (not quite to your low level yet) as you are dreko. BTW you be so surprised to know who I REALLY am.
Toodies now, you have not came a long way Dreko.
Brenda wrote:
"A woman could be married to a child molester and not know it. I read a book..."
Oh, God!
I agree with you about his bond with his sisters. Janet and La Toya are liberal. As Jermaine had said, no man wants a gay brother. Women are more tolerant of that.
Anyway...
The link Sarah posted is crap. Jason Lee's wife is not telling the truth and was on a one-woman mission to stop Scientology's 'evils'. It seemed fishy when I first read it. Lisa Marie Presley is either a damned good liar or she told the truth about her former husband: she never had misgivings about her children being in his presence.
Perhaps that part of Jason Lee's wife's quote was embellished by the magazine or she's just lying.
Who knows. I just believe it isn't true.
Susana:
"Those images at Neverland surrounded by kids and Mickey Mouse, were a pose for his corny followers. You know, like all those actresses and models who said they are vegetarians, hate fours, admire Mother Theresa, want to adopt a child from Bangladesh and are very concerned for the survival of the mottled fly of Bostwana... when we suspect they could care less, lol."
Absolutely! Michael Jackson was a total fake. I know some egoists can donate to charity to make themselves feel god-like but how deep is it really? It was all a sham.
It's the same image stupidity that has fans believing in his paternity of those two white and one Latino kids. 'Corny' is right: liking Michael Jackson is not cool given his 'freak factor'. Even when I still liked Michael and believed he was innocent, I could never, ever bring myself to say it out loud. Because I knew that most people thought he was a pedophile.
To think it used to bother me so much when people called him a pedo and said he was not the father of his children. Wow, I must have been totally delusional!
After Conrad Murray's trial, people are going to be like, "Michael who?"
It's almost sad. He's sold the most records of anyone and yet his whole legacy is tarnished because of his addiction to drugs and boys.
Opinionation:
Why do you think Prince may not like Michael?
Michael pointed out a Caucasian girl and said something to the effect that her beauty was perfect.
That's why he wanted to be white and wanted white children and generally socialized with whites and non-blacks only.
Michael was the epitome of a beautiful black man but that wasn't his idea of beauty.
Haha, no. Hell no! He wasn't bad looking but no, definitely not worthy of that title. there are way batter looking men that Mike, easily. LMAO at that one, sister. He still should have loved himself.
Sorry, I didn't go back over old ground. We've been over the fact that Michael had sex with adult men. So if Michael loved porn and he did, he would want to see gay porn, too.
Michael's collection was very varied. He had straight porn and gay porn. He had hardcore, fetish, and artsy porn. And he had a huge collection of nudes: men, women and children.
I addressed two different LMP thoughts in one paragraph that I should have broken up.
(1) LMP saying she wasn't in the room was a pc kind of statement. It's taken a little out of context because in the same quote she does say she never saw anything. So I was saying wives don't always know. An author discovered her husband was a molester and now networks with other women like herself.
(2) I wasn't implying LMP was suspicious about Michael and her children. I was just looking at a Michael quote from a different angle. As I learn more about Michael, I revisit quotes. But I was looking at the quote from Michael's p.o.v. not LMP's. Why Michael felt LMP considered the children only hers. I now know he liked to take children on trips without the parents. And I now know he liked to use the trust and family argument.
Michael was a bit of a Pied Piper and he would ask parents to allow him to take their children on trips. The frequency he did that and the fact parents said yes makes my jaw drop. Boys and girls. I don't think he was molesting all of them. This was just Michael's pattern.
I don't know if she allowed him to be alone with her children or not. Whenever Michael is pictured with them, she seems to be close.
black male:
Dreko? Really? LOL. What about Dree and Dre?
And I doubt you are anyone of importance.
Brenda:
I agree with Jessica. Michael Jackson was not the epitome of black male beauty. I'm sorry; it was his face but it was not that good-looking at all. Compare him to Tyrese, or Tyson Beckford, or Tiki Barber, etc. Even Seal, with his facial deformity, looked better than pre-nose job Jacko, regardless of his nice smile.
He did not need to go any further with his face around "Don't Stop Til You Get Enough". But he needed that nose to be taken in. I don't mean to sound like Joe Jackson but, no, he was not good-looking before his nose job.
By the way, are you black, Brenda? Wow, wouldn't have expected that given your comments.
I always thought only white people thought Michael Jackson looked good! :-)
As for the Tavis Smiley quote, it makes me think of an episode of 'Sanford & Son' when Fred Sanford went to the dentist. He found out his dentist was black and freaked out because he did not believe blacks to be as 'capable' as whites were.
This is not a race blog but I could go on and on about the origins of that way of thinking. My grandmother called it, "Crabs in a barrel."
Michael Jackson's self-hatred is probably the most legendary and visible. Imagine if blacks and Latinos could bleach their skins the way he did. There would be TONS of Michael Jacksons running around!
To say a white girl's beauty is perfection, hang out with white families and have mostly white special friends, bleach your skin, wear silky wigs, whittle your nose down to the width of a pencil, call black people "splaboos"... you have to be self-hating. There's just no other logical conclusion.
So sad he couldn't even love black children enough to have his own black kids.
Honestly, the Jacksons are all racists. He learned it from Katherine Jackson, according to Bob Jones.
That's why I know those kids are not his. He would never use his own sperm. Because it's BLACK sperm.
Are we talking about the same generation? A lot of young adults point to Michael during the Bad era as his handsome years. To each his own. I was referring to Michael before surgeries, color changes and the Jheri curl.
"But I was looking at the quote from Michael's p.o.v. not LMP's. Why Michael felt LMP considered the children only hers."
Yeah, I was confused by your previous statement.
Interesting. Hadn't thought of it like that...
Well, when one thinks of it in the way you've mentioned, Brenda, I can possibly see how Jason Lee's wife could be telling the truth. I did not find her credible at all, mind you, but perhaps she had a personal beef and since Lisa Marie is a Scientology die-hard--a proselytizer, too--and Jason Lee's wife is anti-Scientology, maybe that 'secret' was 'let slip' as a way to get back at Lisa Marie.
I don't know. Lisa Marie always seemed honest about not suspecting the pedophilia. But anything's possible.
Her children were always with her in paparazzi photos with Michael Jackson but I always thought it was because Michael Jackson was more into her kids then her and, if she wanted to be with him, he said, "No, bring your kids with you."
"I was referring to Michael before surgeries, color changes and the Jheri curl."
Yes, I know.
He was not attractive before that first nose job circa "Off the Wall". Not hot enough to be called the epitome of black male attractiveness.
Desiree, it's hard to articulate why I don't think prince liked MJ, it's just a vibe I get from him, and some of the fans have noticed the same thing. It's the lack of emotion he showed at the memorial and his lack of entbusiasm in interviews, especially when compared to Paris. Its speculation but i just don't think it's a coincidence that MJ's only child who is grieving him is the girl. As your blog has documented, MJ had no interest in girls or women, but I suspect this lack of interest actually allowed him to have a healthy relationship with his daughter because he was able to love her as a father should love his daughter, instead of some unhealthy kind of weird obsessive love. I suspect Paris remembers that innocent healthy fatherly love and misses him enormously.
Opinionation:
So are you suggesting that maybe Prince (Blanket cried at the memorial) got the brunt of Michael's weird obsessive boy-love?
After all, you had Blanket immediately suggest Prince was Michael's favorite. But then you'd wonder why Prince would be so disconnected.
Or perhaps Prince is resentful of Michael because he had to share his father's affection with other young males?
I would not go far and suggest Michael Jackson sexually abused Prince Jackson but he was definitely the right hue and the right age. I wouldn't put it pass Michael to predate upon his own child. I doubt it occurred but it's possible, seeing he has a definite boy obsession.
I guess I always chalked up Prince's reactions (or lack thereof) to their cloistered upbringing. But, then again, Paris seems well-adjusted.
Or maybe Prince is just a typical nonchalant teenager?
All three boys who came forward about their molestation (Jordan, Jason, and Gavin) had darker features and two of them were Hispanic. I'd like to think that MJ wouldn't abuse his own children, but if he did, my suspicions always jump first to Blanket. Between his despondency and his similarities to MJ's other victims, I can't help but worry.
What concerns me even more is that if Blanket or Prince do exhibit some behavioral problems as a result of abuse, I doubt Katherine would put them in any sort of treatment for it. She's from a different time when parents just didn't do that sort of thing.
You definitely have a point about Latoya. Even if you just wanna cause controversy you don't go around saying your brother's a pedophile (of all the things she could say) if she didn't really believe it. That's not the typical lie you make up about anyone (even if you don't like him at all), let alone your own brother. I just wouldn't take her words as gospel.
And regarding the kids, I think you're all reading too much into it. Of course everything is possible and I guess MJ could have done something inappropriate to Prince (he was indeed the "right" age) but I don't think that's the case. Some people just don't show much emotion. I'm pretty serious and quiet, which makes people think I'm "insensitive" when it's not the true. I just don't go around crying when I'm sad lol And same goes for Blanket, of course it would be good for him to go to school and socialize. But I think he's just naturally shy. And anyway, we haven't really seen this kids in normal conditions, because I'm pretty sure I wouldn't behave the same way on a Oprah interview (being watched by who knows how many people) than on a daily basis.
About MJ before surgery. Well maybe I wouldn't say the most beautiful black man ever (and I don't think you could come up with a person who fits that definition anyway) but I do find him very attractive. Maybe after the first nose job (which wasn't really that much of a change from his original nose) that's when I find him best looking. Let's say between 79-81. Take this pic for example: http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/1626/66373463.jpg Would you really say that guy is ugly/unattractive? But then again I don't like the men that Desiree mentioned so maybe it's just a matter of tastes lol
Frenchie I too would like to think MJ wouldn't abuse his own children, but genetically they seem not to be his children. I'd hate to think that was one of the reasons he chose not to use his sperm. I think if MJ was an abuser, and in my opinion he was, at some point he would have got tired of having to manipulate and bribe and legally defend himself from all those parents just to get access to their kids. If MJ was an abuser, at some point I think he would have desired children that he had complete and total control over, with no one to answer to or explain himself to, just complete uninterrupted access to some kids in the privacy of his vast estate for as long as he wanted. The only way to achieve such access would be to pay some woman to make him a legal father with sole custody.
I find it interesting that MJ didn't send his kids to school. He claimed this was because he was afraid of jealous teachers picking on them, but I wonder if he was really afraid of teachers asking the kids too many questions or suspecting something was off with the kids or maybe he was afraid the kids would talk to other kids and learn that other fathers don't act like MJ. I wonder if Prince was at an age where he was starting to discover this which might explain why he was less emotional about MJ's death than fans had hoped.
You raise an interesting paradox about MJ. He appears to have made himself pure white, but several of the kids he hung out with were a little on the dark side, either Hispanic, middle eastern (Omar), Jewish-blasian (jordy) and whatever Brett barnes is.
Something else I've always wondered about. Way back in the 1980s, MJ claimed his favorite race was east Indians, and the darker they are the more beautiful they are. Perhaps this partly explains why he trusted Martin basher. East Indians are interesting in that they have skin color of negroids (blacks) but the skull shape, facial features, and body type of caucasoids. I consider them tropical caucasoids. In fact when MJ first got his nose job but his skin was still dark, he began looking a little east Indian (Dark skin but mor caucaoid features). Apparently this look didn't satisfy him and he eventually married his new Caucasoid nose with Caucasoid skin color.
Opinionation:
I see your p.o.v. about Prince concerning MJ. I don't know if it has anything to do with him not liking MJ, but rather than the fact that Prince may not have been that happy of a child growing up around his father MJ.
As for Paris, I do believe she was "daddy's little princess"...no pun intended, as I read somewhere that Michael really wanted to name her "Princess" after she was born, but Debbie Rowe wouldn't have it; she thought Paris was more appropriate. Anyway, I think Paris saw 'daddy' as her hero. In Ian Halperins' book, he mentions how MJ was concerned about Paris being angry with him if he didn't make it to Father's Day, as MJ felt that his days were numbered and getting closer.
Prince most of the time seemed to show no facial expression. I find that to be true in quite a few of the photos of him, especially when he was younger...he hardly ever cracked a smile. He just didn't seem to be a very happy
child, IMO. However I could be way off base;Prince could have actually liked MJ, but may just be the kind of person who doesn't show much emotion... there are some people just that way. Paris seemed to be a little more cheerful than he was. There was even one photo that I recall of her kissing MJ. According to Rabi Schumley's book, MJ saw Prince to be just like him; very timid person who would allow someone to take advantage and walk all over him - he wouldn't stand up for himself. Paris on the other hand was more aggressive and a 'fighter'; she didn't take any shit from anyone and could stand her own ground.
As for Blanket, well like I said to Jessica earlier, he reminds me of someone who thinks of them self as a 'third wheel'. He seems like the little 'lost boy' who can't seem to find his way or where to fit in. It's sad. I always hated the fact that Michael named him "Blanket"....It's just as bad as Gwenyth Paltrow naming her daughter,"Apple". The world is a cruel place and children can be cruel just as well....parents should be more mindful of what they name their children; after all, they're the ones who'll get the brunt of it, not the parent. Michael should have known better, but again what can you expect from someone who secludes their children like hermits and cloaked their faces with scarves and masks as if they're going to a funeral or Halloween Party when they do go out in public?
As far as MJ being diagnosed with Schizophrenia, I'm almost positive that I first read that in JRT's bio. If I can find the page number, I'll list it for you. I remember it distinctly because I found it kind of surprising about MJ and that book was the very first book that I ever read on MJ. While I'm not sure about the schizophrenia reports; IMJ had MANY sides to his personality... a lot of his mannerisms and habits: his poor social skills, inability to make friends, fear of people/public and being a 'recluse' , his high level of focus in honing his craft--often to the point of absolute perfection; hence the 'moonwalk' and learning repetitive dance moves from his mentor, James Brown...His high level of imagination with well thought out details and obsessive single interest--his creation of Neverland and 'Peter Pan' and obsession with children; boys especially, his unusual eating habits--his bro. Tito once said that MJ was a vegan, so much to the point he became addicted to carrots; he ate so many that his hands turned a little orange in color... his inability to sleep; his mind was always 'working' non-stop, although I believe his drug use helped contribute to most of that, his extreme sensitivity to pain--his bro.
Elena,
regarding the kids, I agree with you. Not all people express their emotions the same way. In my case, when I'm really, really deeply hurting, I'm blocked for some time until I'm able to verbalize my feelings or cry, etc.
Plus, I think Prince was like the adult in the family. The bodyguards said that, due to cash problems, the family at times had no staff around. No maid, no nannies... Michael was a drug addict and drank a lot. It is frequent that children who live with drug addicts assume the role of the adult sometimes. It was reported that MJ overdosed in Bahrain two times, and in the US in an hotel. The kids made a call to the emergency services. I bet Michael was too drugged up to watch after them all the time. Kids mature faster when they are exposed to difficult situations like this, and Prince had two younger siblings to take care of as well. Maybe his fortitude is related to this. Possibly he was aware that his father could die at any moment. As Désirée mentioned, his age stage could be also a factor.
There is one detail I noticed at the funeral. Latoya was sitting next to Katherine and Prince made her move to take her place. He surrounded her with his arm. It seems insignificant, but in my opinion that denotes the child shared her emotions and wanted to be near to comfort her.
What fans say is totally irrelevant.
I really don't think Michael molested his kids. He was a paedophile, but this doesn't mean he was a monster in every situation. The nature of the relationship with the special friends was different: Michael did fall in love, like adults do with other adults. Perhaps he considered his children taboo, also like adults do with family members. In my opinion he loved them. He wasn't the parent of the year and treated them like possessions, an extension of his ego and all the examples of bad parenting you have mentioned and many more, but I think he loved them. In the Bashir documentary, when commenting on his father abusive ways, he put a big emphasis when said that people abused not necessarily become abusers and how he wanted his kids to trust and not fear him. This was one of the few instances where he sounded sincere to me, and I always wondered if he was exclusively referring to the physical abuse... He was very assertive.
What Blanket said about Prince getting away with everything is an innocent comment to me. So typical between siblings. A little jealousy is part of the growth. Prince is the eldest and sure he was entitled to do things that Blanket wasn't at the time. I'm the youngest in my family, I know what Blanket is talking about, lol.
Sorry for my bad English. Today I'm a little spacey (?)
Opinionation
(cont.)
Jermaine said that Michael always had a very low threshold for anykind of pain, the obsession with his looks-- we all know about that one, lol....The amalgamation of “clutter” in his home, his inability to understand innuendos, the sheer need to be in control of everything and to manipulate-- his constant need to fool others through lies and false beliefs even to the point of hurting people and not thinking twice about it., and the struggling and escapism, when his defense crumbled-- he NEVER could take responsibility for anything; it was always someone else to blame....But yet, despite of all this, MJ was a musical genius, and he had a way of using this to 'mask' his social disabilities...or at least he tried to. MJ was an interesting character....Like a diamond with many facets and flaws, I don't think there is any one way to "label" Jackson; he was this, that, and a whole hell of a lot more all wrapped up in one package. However, there are at least two of those facets that are pretty much yell out the words, pedophile, gay, and sociopath. LOL
But your comment on how MJ probably couldn't relate to his sons as a father but instead as 'peers' makes sense to me...But since he didn't see females in that compacity, fathering was probably easier and came more 'natural'.
Brenda:
IMO, I don't think MJ was all that great looking when he was teenager and beyond. I say beyond because the time frame between 'OTW" and "Thriller" was so short there was no real time to adjust to the 'improved' MJ after he had his first nose job. When he was a teenager during the "OTW" era, it wasn't his looks that made him appealing....I think it was more to do with his 'image'; the clean cut "goody" kind of guy that a girl might bring home to meet her parents. While "A" nose surgery did do him good during the "OTW" era although for a very short time, he should have stopped right there...He didn't need to pass 'GO' and collect two hundred dollars. lol although plastics can do "wonders" for people, it can also do "horrorifics", especially for those who abuse it or use it as an 'identity change'.... I'm sure Joan Rivers can attest to this. While growing up with MJ, I saw him to be a regular "average" guy, I didn't think that he was all that handsome of a black man at all. My 'handsome' black man would be someone like Tyson Beckford, Wesley Snipes, Dennis Haysbert, Blair Underwood, Mekhi Pfieffer, Gary Dourdan, and Lorenz Tate just to name a few....but like you said, to each his own.
Frenchie:
I think that you have a point about MJ possibly abusing his own children. He may not have said it, but his actions as to how he treated his children and 'isolated' them from the world, was probably MJ's way of just protecting his ass...it had absolutely nothing to do with protecting his children. Like Opinionation said, he probably was 'paranoid' of the someone from the outside asking 'prying' questions and feared that his children would 'talk too much'. MJ was very adamant about 'training' his kids to not over indulve in conversation, and I think it worked....looking from the response of his two sons in the Oprah Winfrey interview, it says a lot. I can just imagine what Prince and Blanket thought of Oprah during her interview of them; she was asking too many 'personal' questions and had no buisness doing so; even though to us what she asked them was really nothing. The children's 'imprisonment' was nothing more than to a ploy used by MJ to continue his "what happens with MJ stays with MJ"---, lol. Who knows, perhaps years from now we may be in for a real surprise to learn about what life was 'really' like behind closed doors growing up as one of MJ's children....my gut feeling tells me, that IF that ever does happen, the stories between Prince and Blanket could probably have a similar connection...in not so nice kind of way. Paris' story on the other hand, would probably be completely different; totally opposite. IF that were the case, could you imagine the 'fire works' going off from that one? lol ....BUT then again, IF something really did go on between MJ and his sons, like Brett Barnes, they may decide to 'hibernate' it and keep it to them selves...after all, NO ONE is safe from harm from the MJ fans; not even family. I would truly hope that MJ wouldn't cross that line even if the children he ordained at birth were not biologically really his, but with MJ you never really know.
There's room for many ideals of black male beauty. Tyrese is gorgeous. I think of Seal as being more sexy than anything else. He has a certain magnetism. The picture you posted was handsome, too, Elena. I guess I'm partial to this look:
http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff461/MJJ08/74276643_10GroupZZ.jpg
http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff461/MJJ08/00190GroupZZ.jpg
But Michael didn't like looking back to these type pictures. I read somewhere that Michael would buy up photos like these. It was implied that he didn't like them and didn't want them on the market. He wouldn't even use the original photo from Off The Wall when it was re-released.
Elena, I tend to agree with you about the kids. I don't really think something happened to them that was sexual. I think they may just be shy. Feral because of a lack of socialization and structure, but shy nonetheless. However, I do think that they are better off without him, regardless of how much they say they love their father. Mike just cloistered them in that big ol' house with no one their age to play with. I mean all of the reports that said they had no friends, it was sad because they are too young to be loners. As an older person that has world experience it's okay, but young children? No. They seem happy now and at least they have normalcy with the Jacksons, regardless of how crazy, greedy, and/or unscrupulous they appear to us. Mike was a drug addict and from reports, he was strung out and kept letting Prince eat candy and his teeth started to rot. What kind of parent is that? It may sound heartless to say but it was a blessing in disguise for Paris, Prince, and Blanket, although I do think Mike loved his kids very much.
And we can't forget that he was a pedophile with an obsession for boys. That wouldn't be good thing to raise kids like that, under even the best conditions. That I agree with Opinionation on. There could have been some weird boy obsession going on.
Well maybe I wouldn't say the most beautiful black man ever (and I don't think you could come up with a person who fits that definition anyway)
Yea, he wasn't. Not even close. But he wasn't horrendous or anything, and he definitely had that spark that made up for it (thinking about the "Don't Stop Til You Get Enough" video). Actually, I think if you look back at the J5 era, I personally think Jermaine and Jackie where the best looking, so it wasn't a surprise that they got a lot of groupies. Let's face it, all of the Jacksons got fucked over in the looks department with the extreme nose jobs, LOL. Janet looks strange, almost like her brothers, like she's a "he", LOL.
But it really is a matter of opinion. I think there is/was a most beautiful *insert race* man/woman, but they may just be a regular person or they could have lived a 1000 years ago. It doesn't have to be anyone well known.
But that pic of Mike? Eh, I've seen better. He just really isn't all that cute. To me at least. :)
Opinionation,
Debbie Rowe said Mike was a sociopath that saw his children as his possessions. I would not be surprised if he keep his kids out of school because he didn't want people telling them about his past indiscretions and paternity. I don't buy the excuse he used about the teachers picking on them because many famous celeb kids go to regular (private) school. I think he was setting them up for failure shutting them away like that crippled rich boy in "The Secret Garden".
I bet he was scared about the paternity thing the most, though. Any idiot can see those kids are not his.
Opinionation:
I never thought he was trying to look East Indian. I always thought he was trying to look like Diana Ross.
But Michael didn't like looking back to these type pictures. I read somewhere that Michael would buy up photos like these. It was implied that he didn't like them and didn't want them on the market. He wouldn't even use the original photo from Off The Wall when it was re-released.
Really? Wow, now that is sad. Even if you think your face is ugly, it's still your face! Just get over it. And I'm guessing that he preferred the Thriller to previous images of himself? Or maybe just Bad and beyond?
I always wondered if looking like Joe Jackson was really the reason he got the surgeries. I just do buy it. There had to be another reason for such a drastic transformation, besides viti-lie-go.
Lady C,
LOL, I cosign with you about Mike's looks. He just wasn't that cute, for most of his career, although he will always have one of the best smiles. I think for some, liking his personality or music makes them think he is cuter than what was reality. I think that if Mike was a regular guy, people would be less into him. But to each her own. My sister liked Vincent D'Onofrio for a hot second because she liked how weird he was on Law & Order. Now, she's like "yuck, what was I thinking!" LOL.
As for handsome, I think Allen Payne when he was in "Jason's Lyric" and "Vampire in Brookyn" is really hot! LOL. Much better than Mike, for me at least.
Susana,
I think you may be right about Blanket. Sibling rivalry. And yes, I was thinking the same thing about Prince having to "look after things" when Mike was high. He seems very mature. Both of the older ones do. I think Grace was the one that was truly the parent. Mike could have been a fun playmate most of the time.
Opinionation,
You wonder why the discrepancy between his preference for Indians and his later appearance. Maybe he was going through "anything but black, but not white" phase. and if he liked Indian people's appearance so much, why choose an ugly fat white woman to bear his kids, instead of a beautiful Padma Lakshmi type? Some people think that Blanket's real mother might be Indian, but than that would automatically mean Mike (as usual) was not the father.
Elena:
You have a very good point about Prince possibly taking on the role as the 'parent'. It's a proven fact that children who are the product of a substance abuse family, take on the responsibilities of the other siblings because the actual parent in unable to do so. They themselves learn to adjust and find themselves growing up quite quickly. I didn't realize that MJ had overdosed that many times. The sad thing is that these children find themselves robbed of their childhood just to be abruptly throttled into adulthood.
I have to wonder though, what was MJ really like as a father to those kids. He didn't seem much like a strict disciplinarian, but the times that I have seen his children, they seem to be well mannered. However; I think a lot of that had to do with their nanny, Grace. She gave them structure and boundaries. That's not to say that MJ did not, but he was a lot more 'liberal' and laid back than Grace. He was probably an easy 'push over' compared to her. After all were talking about someone who didn't live by any rules but made them up as he went along.
Susana,
Yes, Prince probably was the adult taking care of his younger siblings because of Mike's problems. Who can forget the media repeating how Dr. Murray called for Prince to come up when Mike was unconscious/dead from the propofol.
But then again, him having to see his father in such dire conditions of overdosing and being removed because he was high could explain why Prince shows no emotion. It's possible that he is resentful of Mike's carelessness with his health and his dependency on drugs and his lack of responsibility because he was always high. So Opinionation could be on to something; there could be more than meets the eye.
Prince wasn´t so emotionless at the memorial:
http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/12300000/Prince-crying-at-memorial-prince-michael-jackson-12301550-120-81.jpg
At least looks like he´s tring to fight tears or something.
Someone here can´t see the pic with Schaffel. It´s enough to past the link in the browser:
http://kingofpop-kids.com/photos/albums/Photo%20Personelle/2003/Prince%20et%20mike/princemichael.jpg
Each time I see Marc´s pics for some reason I feel I have to laugh.
"In one of the first phone messages, from 2001, Jackson said, "Marc, it's Michael. ... Marc, please never let me down. I like you. I love you. ... I really want us to be friends and conquer the business world together. Please be my loyal, loyal friend. I love you.''
:p LOOOOOL
Jessica:
I really do have my reservations about MJ possibly molesting his children. If MJ was someone who apparently didn't think that he had a problem and was doing nothing wrong, then he probably had no means of slowing down even with his own children. I think the constant 'lye' that he fed to the public about his innocence with children gave him such a firm foot hold his mind, that he eventually 'believed' it and it became reality to him...it was like a mind of the battlefield for him. I know that sounds very sick, but even though he had his own children, chances are that would not stop him. If anything, it was probably more of an advantage than a disadvantage....they were his children and not a strangers, being his children probably gave him more 'reason' to sleep with them, he would be able to see them nude, and probably apply the 'nursing' techniques that he gave Brett without any question or scrutiny from anyone else, they probably were not conditioned like the levitators and probably shared the secrets of "the box". They were at his disposal 24/7-- they wouldn't be any reason for midnight 'bootie calls', lol. This also probably gave him 'cover' from most of the public; at least for the fans, that is. The way they see it is, if MJ wouldn't/couldn't hurt a child of the world, he most definitely wouldn't hurt his very own. MJ's cold calculations and manipulations was dependent for the most part by his "fans"....as long as he had a majority, it didn't matter what the minority thought. MJ was always "hungry" to be #1; have more fans, popularity and record sales than anyone artist. He was a phenomenon, and I think he intensely pushed for that because he 'needed' to have that adulation on his side to secretly justify who he really was; he depended on it. Again, this was just a "piece' of his manipulation strategy...the fans were/are delusional to the picture of the whole puzzle. lol
I'm also certain to that MJ was adamant about having Debbie Rowe permanently terminate her parental rights to Prince and Paris, because not doing so would put MJ at a huge risk. If she was allowed to see her children, there would be the possibility of 'something' getting told, and she would have to interfere. As we all remember there were some things that she wouldn't stand for; MJ's involvement in NOI and her concern of Blanket with the 'stun gun' incident...and she's not even Blanket's mother to begin with. Although Michael and Debbie were close, I'm sure he saw her as a "levitator", and her involvement with the children had to be absolutely forbidden. So he throws some money her way, and as a result she sings, "MJ is the best dad to those kids, and they really don't need me". In a sick sense, the same way MJ 'seduced' his special friends' parents, he did the exact same to Debbie...the only difference is that there was an official contract was put in place and it was for life. His fling with his special friends wasn't; only until he grew tired and wanted a new 'toy'. lol
BTW, Allen Payne, yes he too is good looking bro. LOL
I don't think Michael was capable of healthy love and he didn't know the meaning of boundaries. The Schaffel quote may be funny but it's troubling because it's part of a pattern with Michael. The Quindoys showed up for an interview and Michael asked them if they loved him. When Michael said goodbye, he would tell the tiny four year old twin girls, "promise me you'll love me forever." Who makes someone else's four year olds promise that? It was as if Michael used love as a weapon or obligation. And it happened to Jordie, too. On one hand, Michael had a deep need to be loved but on the other hand, he seemed to use love as manipulation.
Michael is a mystery. There are some things about Michael I cannot comprehend. What was with Michael's obsession with Shirley Temple? I have no idea why a grown man would be obsessed with Shirley Temple. And he was. I read it in the Boteach book and thought Michael was lying. He said that he used to have a staff member decorate his hotel rooms with Shirley Temple pictures and stuff. I said to myself, here goes Michael again. Then I found a picture of a staff member carrying a huge picture of her into Michael's hotel from '95. And another anecdote came from a paparazzi photographer that said the best way to get Michael to come over was to wave a picture of Shirley Temple. And there were dolls and pictures of her at Neverland. What was that about?
And Michael was an underhanded manipulator. It has come from other sources that he did interfere with his siblings' careers. David Gest says that Janet had asked him to be her manager. When Michael heard, he pretended that he wanted Gest to manage him just long enough for Janet to sign with someone else. Janet got the last laugh because she signed with McClain and the rest is history. Michael interfered when Jermaine was supposed to work with L.A. Reid and Babyface. And Walter Yetnikoff, head of Sony Music at the time, was asked not to release a single.
After learning those things, I really believe that Jermaine's Legacy was as close to the truth as a Jackson could get.
Michael served Michael. "It's like finding a bird with a broken wing. In some ways Michael's a little broken. You become protective of him. You want to nurse him back to health. You want to make him happy. But deep down a strange phenomenon is taking place. In believing that you're safe and in control, you let your guard down and become vulnerable to manipulation without realizing it. His ability to sense who you are and how you can be manipulated is highly refined. By the time you figure out that the helpless sparrow is actually a vulture that can rip the meat off your bones, it's too late."
***
He let other people's children run wild but he was a bit of a hypocrite because he never allowed his children to do the same. From anecdotal stories, Michael was a disciplinarian. He wasn't physical with his children. He used gentler methods but he let his children know there were rules of behavior.
Brenda, I think MJ's obsession with Shirley temple was just MJ's alleged flaming homosexuality showing. Glamorous flamboyant females in show business such as shirley temple, Liz Taylor, Barbara Streisand, Judy garland, cher, oprah, dianna Ross and Madonna often attract a fanatical gay male following. So MJ was obsessed with Shirley temple and I think Judy garland, allegedly tried to look like Diana Ross and then Elizabeth Taylor. He also liked to have Barbara Streisand playing while he went on the ferris wheel.
@opinionation
I know the ladies mentioned were gay icons but Shirley Temple? Are you sure? Gay guys are into little Shirley Temple? I just had a vision of a transvestite performer dressing like Shirley Temple during a revue, lol. Not quite the same as Diana Ross.
The height of irony: Michael went on and on and on when he was alive about how disappointed people were to see him grow up. And how that hurt. Well, when Michael met Shirley Temple in the 2000s, he wept. He told her some weird stuff about bliss and whatever. Michael stuff. Here's the irony, during their conversation Shirley felt compelled to apologize to Michael because she grew up. I wonder if Michael ever saw the irony.
Brenda and Opinionation,
Mike's interest in Shirley Temple could be innocent or it might not be. I say this because, as I said before, Desiree let me see some of the pictures from the books he had. I don't want to reveal too much because she was going to show them all in a post, but let's just say that it could be something more to his liking of her as a child.
Not Shirley Temple! Nah. It can't be anything like that. Can't. No way.
I think opinionation hit the nail on the head. I think it's one of Michael's "That's so gay" moments.
Brenda, most gay men are attracted to adult men and they worship flamboyant adult women like cher, madonna,Judy garland etc.
But MJ was allegedly a gay man attracted to young boys so perhaps the flamboyant females he worshipped included a little girl (Shirley temple)?
This is total speculation but it sounds logical.
"Something else I've always wondered about. Way back in the 1980s, MJ claimed his favorite race was east Indians, and the darker they are the more beautiful they are. Perhaps this partly explains why he trusted Martin basher. East Indians are interesting in that they have skin color of negroids (blacks) but the skull shape, facial features, and body type of caucasoids. I consider them tropical caucasoids. In fact when MJ first got his nose job but his skin was still dark, he began looking a little east Indian (Dark skin but mor caucaoid features). Apparently this look didn't satisfy him and he eventually married his new Caucasoid nose with Caucasoid skin color."
Now that you mention it, MJ did seem interested in South Asian culture. Deepak Chopra was his spiritual teacher for many years and one documentary reported that MJ used to put statues of life-sized Sikh soldiers outside of his hotel room for protection (lolwut). Of his special friends, Omer is half-Pakistani, and I heard something about Brett being Indian/black on one side.
Maybe MJ just happened to be fascinated by the culture and people and there's nothing more to it than that, or maybe because of his self-loathing, he wanted to alter his identity and that was the easiest transformation for him. Then, when MJ achieved that look and realized he still wasn't happy with himself, he continued tweaking until he became that cosmetically mutilated ghost of his former self. It's tragic; MJ spent his entire adult life looking for self-content, but the more he tried the more he destroyed himself.
Brenda, you of all people would not think that if you saw the pictures that I am talking about! And you won't think that we you see them. I guarantee that.
Could it be the case of a gay guy (not allegedly LOL) liking a flamboyant yet young girl? could be? Could it also be something else? It could be that too. Opinionation is right, gay guys love outspoken outrageous women, but a little child? I don't know about that. It just seems unlikely.
The idea that Michael Jackson followed Shirley Temple because he was gay--even a gay pedophile--is pretty specious. Gay men idolize sexually mature, assertive, almost masculine women, such as the divas he was close to. Shirley Temple being idolized by Michael Jackson was because he liked kids. And Shirley Temple is the quintessential adorable, quirky, innocent child.
When I first read Shmuley Boteach's book--when I was a fan of Jacko's--I was severely creeped out by his obsession with kids. Of course, I had believed he was not a child molester, but I definitely thought he used kids almost like a drug.
The way he discussed them... it was strange. Now knowing that he was a pedophile, it all makes since in hindsight. His obsession with Shirley was because she was a child. We don't know if he followed her as she entered teenhood.
"Not Shirley Temple! Nah. It can't be anything like that. Can't. No way."
Well this is a bizarre change, especially coming from someone who believes Michael Jackson molested Tatum O'Neal. I'd think you'd jump at the chance to link Michael to another child-centered sexual obsession.
You'd understand the attraction of Shirley Temple to adults (and especially a pedophile like Jacko) if you read James Kincaid's "Erotic Innocence: The culture of child molesting". Shirley Temple was a product for adults, not kids.
Putting that fact and Jacko's kid obsession together equals a pretty strong case for a pedophile's infatuation.
Opinionation, I love your comments most of all but that explanation, I have to say, was a little off. I actually think that's why I like your posts...
Lady C,
That's an interesting take on Mike's kids. I however don't think that he did anything inappropriate with them. But if he did, I have no doubt that those reasons you listed would be reasons he would use to validate abusing them. I always wonder why pedophiles might draw the line with certain children and not others. Some pedos will molest their own kids will some will only molest other people's children. It seems like intra-familial abuse is done more by situational molesters than pedophiles.
I hate to even think that Mike would do that, and I don't think he would, I absolutely just don't. He preferred to mess with other people's sons. Is it "better" to molest your own children or other people's? No child should be abused, but I wonder what kind of justifications these people make to themselves.
About Debbie, I think he just wanted her to have his children. Nothing more, nothing less. No romance, no marriage. She was just a brood mare. I think her presence would have most definitely complicated things for him. Even though she doesn't seem to have a particularly strong maternal instinct, I have no doubt she would have stopped him from doing some of the things he could have done more easily when he was a single parent. But it's pretty sick how a mother can give her children away for money...and then act like he was the best dad ever but say to the cops he was a sociopath, and then lie about ever saying it on the stand.
Just shows that there are some strange characters in the world of Michael Jackson.
Jessica:
You know the funny thing that I noticed about one of the 'characters' of Michael's world, is that they started to look real 'hard' after a while, lol....Being involved with MJ in his f***'d up world actually takes a toll on you. I was looking at some pictures of Debbie Rowe on line, and I said, WTH? She looks really bad. I guess life with MJ after all was really hell. LOL There were a few pictures of her I suppose when she was younger, and she didn't look that bad... Not that she was ever a raging beauty; not even close, but she looked average, IMO. But now she's looking bow-wow! It is very unfortunate that she could give up her own kids for money like they were candy and not have any sincere interest or concern about them...I couldn't find it in my heart to do that.
LMP's involvement with MJ took somewhat of a turn, but not to the degree that it had on Debbie. The last time I saw LMP was on Oprah, and she didn't look too bad, although I have seen her look a lot better. She had gotten chubby and put on some weight, and had a ton of eyeliner around the eyes. All she needed was some heavy eyeliner to complete the look and pull off the Tammy Baker tarantula eyes. lol Perhaps she seemed to fare well compared to Deb was because her "sham" was 'light' as Desiree would say - lol, and it didn't involve any Jacko kiddos whereas Deb's did.
Desiree:
Your take on MJ's fascination with Shirley Temple was very simple...nothing complicated about it. MJ was unusually fascinated with her because like you said she was a small child, and children were who he was attracted to. While Ms. Temple was a big production back in the 30's, she was also a popular favorite for 'Disney Channel-styled porn' for that particular time. She was a magnet for adult attraction...Like you said, Temple's involvement in making films for Hollywood had nothing to do with appealing to children but to adults; it was an adult fantasized, particularly male, idea. If you look at several clips of her old movies, it doesn't take you long to figure that out. I mean, look at the way she was portrayed and dressed; in hot pants, underwear, real short skirts or dresses that didn't cover anything, the way she posed or 'strutted' while doing her dance and singing routines; not to mention to who or what she was singing about. In "Polly Tix" a very young ST is strolling down the aisle of a bus full of men to whom she was singing and batting her eyes with her hand on her hip and twisting her littl rump...From the mens' reaction they were 'drawn' to her. To the public Ms. Temple may have been the adorable, blond curly-haired cherub who sang, I'm A Good Ship Lollipop, but to Hollywood and men, she was 'pint size' sex fantansy that opened the door to a more child sex-crazed frenzy; one that would continue over the years to the present using various child movie stars like Brooke Shields and Jodi Foster--prostitutes. I even read somewhere that Macaulay Culkin; in his movie, Home Alone, was partly chosen for his blond hair and cherry-red veluptuous lips ...Something that MJ was very turned on by....sickening. His looks were seen as 'erotic' being identical to that of Marilyn Monroe. I find it to be creepy if you ask me. The whole 'child sex symbol' fantasy kind of reminds me of the Jon Bennett Ramsey pagentry girls who are practically babies themselves, but are made to dress in full adult women garb drenched in makeup, strutting across the stage like a hooker on the strip. The innocence and lost youth of these young children are robbed by the obsession of sex symbolism in our culture. It's very sad.
Kinda off topic - Have you guys seen "MJ's secret childhood"? I saw it yesterday (along with a similar TV special about him that was on YouTube so maybe I mix some quotes from both of them) Well the thing is they were talking about a girl called Theresa Gonsalves, she was a big fan of MJ in the 70s and got to meet him at least twice. The first time it was in Las Vegas in 1974. She said his brothers were all pushing him with her and stuff but he was too shy (although we know that wasn't the only reason why he didn't want to lol) So finally they went to his room but nothing happened (no surprise there). He actually asked her if she believed in the devil, what a way to start a conversation with a girl lol I think he pretty much tried to scare her and used his religion as an excuse so she wouldn't think he was gay or something like that. Then in 1977, when he was living in NY with Latoya (while shooting “The Wiz”) she met with him again. She mentioned that Michael’s mother also wanted to hook him up with her, which according to her it was something she tried with lots of girls…Then she said and I quote her exact words: "One time we were in a room in his house and we had a moment where we were about to kiss and then Latoya walked in on us and it never happened. Then, he proceeded to explain to me that something had happened to him when he was a child that prevented him from going that far with someone. He never told me what had happened." We know he didn’t want sex with her for obvious reasons and he would just tell her excuses to avoid it, but I found it very interesting that he said that. According to his words he couldn’t go that far with “anyone”. We know almost for sure that’s not true, but he seemed to really be unable to go that far with a woman. There are gay men (a lot of them actually) that are married to a woman and have kids, and obviously had sex with their wives. And even if they’re not married it’s not like they’re totally incapable of having sex with a woman. And these are average guys, we’re talking about a rich celebrity with plenty of opportunities (groupies and what’s not) to hook up with women and even if he was totally gay I find it weird that he never ever got to (or at least it seems as he didn’t). So maybe it was indeed something bigger than him being gay/pedophile/whatever…
Besides that, they also talked about the relationship between Joe and Michael. Ronnie “Jackson” (he was supposed to be a cousin in the J5 days, he played the organ) was talking about the early days rehearsals with Joe and stuff. He mentioned that, when Michael was about 6/7 he told him very seriously “Without me, this group would be NOTHING”. Ronnie laughed while telling this and he said that the boy was right. He said that Michael soon realized just how important he was to the group and his ego grew with him lol. Then he said something interesting, he thought that Joe was very jealous of Michael. He really really always wanted to be a performer, and as much as he tried he never even got a record deal. And he had no choice but looked for the money elsewhere, and had to start working at the steel mill. However he saw how his son got it so “easy” and had the talent to get what he always dreamed of. Joe obviously was the first one interested that Michael succeeded but at the same time he couldn’t stand that a little kid was getting what he had been incapable of. Ronnie thinks that was one of the reasons Joe “hated” Michael and any reason was good to beat him. Well, it was an interesting take, and after all he knew them and was there to see how it all went down, especially the early days. (Again I’m not sure if this was from the “Secret Childhood” or the other one)
Desiree
We all agree MJ liked kids, but what was the nature of his attraction to Temple? Some of you seem to be implying that MJ was sexually attracted to Temple. But I thought we agreed that MJ was gay. Some of you are all over the map when it comes to MJ's sexuality. You simultaneously believe he lusted after skinny little boys (jordy) enormous fully grown men (Jason) and now even cute little girls (Shirley temple). What next? Bubbles the chimp? His pet snake? Anything except women. I don't buy it. No ones sexuality is that eclectic. The preponderance of evidence suggests MJ was a gay child molester. There's no evidence of him having sexual relations with anyone over 21 except for the occasional cash starved man or woman who comes out of the woodwork for their 15 minutes of tabloid fame.
And there's no evidence he was into little girls. On the contrary Desiree wrote a brilliant post about how no girls were allowed at Neverland, unless MJ was forced to tolerate the sisters of the little boys he befriended to maintain good relations with their families, and thus access.
Thus I think the simplest PLAUSIBLE explanation for why MJ worshipped Temple (most people worship in a temple LOL) is the same reason he worshipped gay icons like Liz taylor and Diana Ross. Maybe Temple was a role model or maybe he fantasized about being a cute little girl like Temple who could charm all the little boys, but given all the evidence that he was gay, I think it's very unlikely that he was sexually attracted to Temple. He had a shrine to Liz Taylor but I don't see anyone suggesting he was sexually attracted to her despite the fact that she too was very pretty in her youth.
I just think we need a coherent theory of MJ's sexuality and the idea that he was attracted to little boys and little girls and huge grown men does not sound very believable.
I read that Shirley Temple visited Michael around 87 or 88 in Neverland.
About Michael´s abuse as a child: Someone said here that maybe Michael liked rough anal sex because when he was molested it aroused him (I think I read like that). But as for a woman who is molested, it seems that it´s diferent. A MJ fan said during a discussion about Michael and Lisa´s marriage that a sexless marriage is possible because she was abused as a child and she is a married woman who doesn´t have sex with her own husband. Her abuse traumatized her and she isn´t able to have sex.
So when a man is abused as a child feels pleasure in the future but a woman not?
Sorry if that subject is harsh.
I read many claims from many gay men who were abused as kids.
Elena,
I've seen that doc, and yes, it's pretty interesting, although it could have been a little more salacious, for me at least. I know the fans didn't like so I knew it had to be good in that regard. Theresa Gonsalves was the one talking about her early experiences with Mike, and funny now how she claims they went "all the way" on more than one occasion. Here though, she describes a weird, yet completely platonic friendship with Mike. There is no mention of sex. So we know that she is not telling the truth. She described Mike as a frightened,religious, completely ascetic young male. Not the sex fiend she claims in her "tell all" book.
But anyways, there is a story that I read in Maureen Orth's article that she quoted from JRT. It was when he was filming "The Wiz" and was living with Latoya in New York. They had friends, who were all women, over, and Mike was asking them if they had read anything about child abuse, and the girl quoted in the piece said that Miek was completely fascinated with child abuse, in all of its forms and wanted to read and know everything about it. It's pretty interesting and I think it correlates back to that story aout somethign happeneing to him as a child that he'd never told. I believe he was probably talking about sexual abuse. Jonny Jackson said he saw it happen to Mike, Latoya was going to mention it, and even Bob Jones said Mike said something about it to him, albeit very cryptically. It's an important part of his story since many times sexual abuse can be the gift that keeps on giving if treatment isn't sought. Interestingly, that statement analysis guy Mark McClish mentioned how Mike referred to himself as a "child" rather than a kid or a boy. He said that is often an indication that a person was sexually molested before their 18th birthday. I guess that is something McClish learned in law enforcement but it seems like that does correlate with Mike's life.
Interesting about Joe being jealous of Mike. Maybe that could explain why he also allegedly allowed business men to abused Mike, and for Joe to also sexually abuse him. Perhaps to knock him off his "high horse"? Sad.
I too have always wondered why Mike never had any groupies (I believe he hasn't because I'd think, given all the other rock stars' groupies telling about their one night stands, there would too be some women that would have stories about being with Michael Jackson). He even told Barbara Walters that the song "Dirty Diana" was about all the groupies from the J5 days and his brothers' trysts with them. He even seemed disgusted talking about them with her! People have said that Mike would check out "pretty girls" but I wonder if he wasn't just doing that to fit in? I mean, he has absolutely not history of interest in women, and actions speak louder than words. But I am curious as to what you mean about something being bigger than him being gay or a pedo?
Opinionation, I get what you mean. I was merely talking about the pictures and what they could mean. I guess you'd have to see them to understand. I do however believe that Mike was interested in young males, through the range of boy to young adulthood. And as Desiree's post showed. he had very very little interest in even the sisters of his special friends. In the Rabbi's book, Mike showed very little interesting in a 14 year old gorl that was wanting to meet him. He met her, and that was about it. He was completely disinterested. had it been a young boy, I think there would have been a different outcome.
However, you must realize that pedos like children first and foremost, so even if they do have a gender preference (he was a gay pedo, so he liked boys) it would not be uncommon for them to like a child out of their norm. It's about age first. I'm not saying unequivocally that he had a thing for Shirley but given that she was a very sweet, innocent child it's not far-fetched. He clearly was obsessed with her as a child, and I wonder if he lost interest in her when she grew up (like most of her adult fans did; they like her as a kid).
But I merely was offering up an explanation for his obsession with Shirley Temple using the photos I've seen. A hypothesis, really. Not set in stone.
Actually, the quip about him possibly wishing he was a young girl to seduce the little boys was both hilarious and interesting. Ray Chandler posited that Mike was a fixated pedophile "'ones that desire to remain childlike' and 'adapt their behaviors and interests to the level of the child'...'They are identified mainly as men and their primary interest is in boys, with whom they develop boy-to-boy relationships.'" So maybe since he was gay and wanted to be childlike, wanting to be a child coquette like Shirley Temple would make sense, to get the boys? LOL, it's just speculation.
Opinionation, there is a category that covers that range of sexual interests. Michael's early exposure to adult sexuality had consequences. However, that does nothing to diminish the fact that Michael was a boy-abuser and obsessed with abusing very young boys.
Wow, the Shirley Temple movie reviews were new to me. I was a kid who liked Shirley Temple movies. I didn't know that was extraordinary. Her clothes wouldn't fit today's fashion but that's what children wore. I have a picture of my mom from that era wearing a dress that length. People could look at anything and make it salacious but Shirley Temple movies? Well, I can't argue the point. This whole boy-abuser thing has shocked the hell out of me. People targeting little children ... why not throw Shirley into the mix for good measure. That's a depressing thought.
Michael and groupies. Funny thing about Michael is that he did a lot of things we have no idea about. Who knew Michael would check out the monitor before a concert and invite a girl to his dressing area? And somehow the room cleared. The only story I've heard is completely innocent. But who knew Michael would do something like that? We all heard about Michael having kids in his dressing area but sending his stage manager to grab a female fan? If we didn't know that, what else don't we know?
Desiree, I know what Michael was capable of doing. He was too bold. Knowing what I know now, I wouldn't let any child within 100 feet of him. As for Michael and little girls, I wouldn't make a big deal out of the girls because Michael was first and foremost a boy-abuser. However, girls were always around and not just little sisters. I don't think people noticed them because (1) Michael was obsessed with little boys and (2) their age.
The testimony of Michael's staff threw me off because they implied that girls were never at Neverland or Hayvenhurst. But I'm reading stories of girls that were there and they didn't seem to have brothers. The girls didn't make an impression on the staff which is fine by me. Hey, as long as they weren’t invited to any secret rooms. Hopefully Michael was capable of a decent friendship with a child.
To All:
In my last comment, I wasn't trying to confuse anyone. LOL. I only mentioned the stuff that I did about ST because of some articles that I read on child stars and sexuality. I never was a fan of hers, but my mother growing up was, and when she went to school for social work degree, they talked about this subject concerning ST a lot. When she first told me about it, I laughed and thought it was stupid thinking, but when she broke it down and told me what they discussed and how it portrayed that way in society and from a sexual view, it kind of made sense to me. In watching some of Temple's movies, I thought it was all innocent at first until I learned this....Understand, I'm just referring do Desiree's input about Kincade's book, Erotic Innocense, and the adult attraction to young stars like Temple. This is where I appologize for the confusion as I probably didn't make my self that clear. How MJ's fascination with Temple comes into play with that, I'm not exactly sure. It may have absolutely nothing to do with sex at all. I just reasoned that his life long infatuation was because she was simply a child and he had an unusual fondness for children; sex/gender really wasn't the first thing that crossed my mind...I was thinking a child. But it does make you wonder, if she was a person who he was fascinated with for a long time and kept all kinds of photos of, why would he still continue to be fascinated by her long after she 'grew up'? After all, it was the 'growing up' thing that turned him off because the innocence was gone. It seems to me that she would no longer be of any interest to him. But by the same token, he was also drawn to Elizabeth Taylor who was also a young star, but she did grow up. They continued to have a long friendship up until he died? IDK, can't really explain it.
Maybe Desiree can shine more light on the subject...lol Again please except my apologies for not making myself clear. My bad. LOL
He wasn't fascinated with the grown-up Shirley Temple, Lady C. Hence the irony that she felt compelled to apologize to him for growing up. He collected photos of her as a childstar. He hadn't even read her autobiography.
Michael and groupies. Funny thing about Michael is that he did a lot of things we have no idea about. Who knew Michael would check out the monitor before a concert and invite a girl to his dressing area? And somehow the room cleared.
He did this? Where did you here about this? I've never heard that, which you'd think would be something he want people to know (if it's true) because people think he was a gay child molester. Wouldn't that help his image? And if this is true, why does every one, even the ones that say he was straight, say that he was still "disinterested" in the whole relationship thing, with men or women?
I don't know if I buy it.
However, girls were always around and not just little sisters.
Always? I think that's being a little too generous, don't you think? If the staff doesn't remember girls, and they would know since they were there, he probably didn't have girls there. Regardless of age. One or two doesn't make "generous". LOL. Even staff that were protective/supportive of Mike don't remember a significant amount of female presence around him.
Lady C,
I understood your comment! LOL. It made sense to me because I've read Kincaid's book. No apologizing necessary. :) Mike clearly only liked Shirley's image when she was a child. He preferred it that way because he was a pedophile and pedophiles like children first and foremost. It didn't have to be about sex for him, but it was definitely because she was an adorable child.
Brenda:
You are right, MJ did have pictures of ST when she was a child star. But what I'm not understanding is why would he continue to keep her child star photos around him? Even after she was an adult, he still did this. He still kept her pictures and memorabilia around; even to the point like you said, decorating his hotel rooms with it. IDK, maybe his extreme fondness for her was nothing more than liking a young child star or perhaps it was a simple reminder to him of how she 'used to be', the innocence, purity, of childhood...something that MJ was very big on. It may have been a sense of childhood 'nostalgia' for him?...Who knows. Not that it means anything, but MJ also kept pictures of other young child stars; he kept an old picture of LMP when she was a young child on his bed nightstand. He did the same thing with pictures of Elizabeth Taylor and Mac Culkin, perhaps not to the same extent as Shirley Temple, and all those people are grown.
Anyway, D's posting of her next segment should be interesting. We'll see what it brings. lol
Lady C,
Isn't it bizarre that he'd keep kid pictures of adults that he was friends with? I wonder why he did that. Why not just have pictures of them when they were the age he met them (most being when they were adults)?
It's a little weird. But like you said, he was big on the whole"child=innocence and purity" thing.
Opinionation:
I agree that a consensus should be established in terms of Jacko's sexuality. I will posit that Michael Jackson's general sexual interest was in males, specifically young boys to young adult men.
According to Shmuley Boteach's book 'The Michael Jackson Tapes' his inner circle (sans Grace Rwaramba) consisted entirely of men, not to mention he liked to play "Who's Gay?" guessing games based upon what male seemed to be 'attached' to him.
Although it's entirely speculation, I believe that was his way of seeing which men he could 'woo'--a la his history of being pimped to businessmen on the Chitlin' Circuit with the Jackson 5--and either have his way with sexually or use sex as a a way to get things, appealing to what he thinks a gay man might want.
(I'm basing that on some conversations with a source.)
I know Jacko's sexual interest was not so varied that he would have screwed anything that walked. Also, I'm not insisting that he was into boys and then men and then little girls but never women.
Michael Jackson's fixation on Shirley Temple was due to the fact she was a child, possibly the most adorable child to have ever lived, a personification of innocence. I should not insist that it was 'sexual', however, his liking of Shirley was because he was a pedophile.
If he adored her in the way a gay man loves his strong, invincible divas, then why not follow her career as she blossomed into womanhood? Why had he not read her book?
The simplest explanation to all of this would be that Michael Jackson was hooked onto Shirley's child image, not her as a person.
Back to his sexuality, I see the need to look at all possibilities when seeming deviations to the de facto belief--that he was a gay pedophile--present themselves.
We know about the heterosexual porn found along with the homoerotic artbooks and the gay porn book, 'Man: a sexual study of man'. We know that the heterosexual porn was also found on computers along with foreign male semen stains on his bed mattress, in sheets, and in underwear kept with his own underwear.
All of those deviations need a rational explanation, even if they, holistically, do not outweigh his most obvious sexual proclivities.
One of Michael Jackson's books, 'In Search of Young Beauty', has naked young girls in it and they are more prominently featured than the young boys. These young girls make one wonder if he was, too, interested in pubescent girls.
Of course, the other explanation was that, given the cover of the book featuring a young boy, he thought it would be filled with nude boys like his other beloveds, "Boys Will Be Boys" and "The Boy", and simply made an error in purchasing the title.
I have some insider information along the girl child tangent, as well, that I will discuss in that entry when I get around to writing it.
But the point is that all of this--Shirley, 'In Search of Young Beauty', and the info that I have--needs to be explained somehow. The result may seem as if it's all over the place but it is what it is.
The general truism for his sexuality is an interest in young people. According to all of his victims and alleged victims and 'special friends', it seems that, specifically, he was into boys, not girls.
But maybe a special girl could catch his eye?
Again, something has to explain these seeming deviations. However, I think it's safe to say these would be extreme exceptions to the rule. In the rabbi's book, he mentions a 14-year-old girl Michael Jackson couldn't have given two squirrel shits about--tangential to his treatment of sisters as ancillary and his general lack of girls at Neverland--but we all know had the 14-year-old girl been a boy, he would have been especially interested.
My point-of-view: he was a gay pedophile or, more accurately, I feel, a pedophilic homosexual.
Brenda:
With regard to girls 'always' being at Neverland, I doubt it. The help didn't remember girls, only boys. That's enough for me. You'd think if he had girls 'always' around him, he'd be seen with them as a way to quell the speculation about his boys-only persona.
And the groupie thing, please...
Suzy:
Where did you read that Michael Jackson liked rough anal sex because he was molested?
Elena:
I know of the some of the story of what you're talking about. While I didn't see the actual program itself, I read about it....The guy that you referred to as MJ's cousin, his name was Johnnie Jackson. Actually he really wasn't related to the Jackson Family at all, the Jackson's took him in as one of their own when he was a small child, however; he was killed in a stabbing altercation a few years ago. I also read that he was very close, knew and saw a lot of what happened behind the scenes. I don't think that he really talked a whole lot about what it was really like growing up with the Jacksons; probably out of fear of Joe Jackson I'm sure and being 'kicked' out of the family.
Michael telling him about how the group 'relied' upon him is true. MJ knew that and played it to his advantage a lot of times. He used his success as leverage over his siblings. Remember how his brothers wanted MJ to join them on the Victory Tour? MJ was very rebellious and didn't want to join, but he knew that the tour wouldn't be a success without him. They, especially their father Joe, had to use MJ's mother, Katherine "to break" him so to speak. Her coaxing Michael would usually get him to do things that he was set against. The Jacksons' recording of 2300 Jackson Street was another "cry for help"....again without MJ on board the album would be flop; and it was. Usually these the gigs were needed because the family always claimed they were low on money or broke...something that MJ always resented. He pretty much had them wrapped around his finger. Anyone in the music business choosing to work with MJ had to work with him exclusively; they couldn't be working with his siblings at all....Jermaine and Janet both got to know that all too well. Even MJ's long time lawyer, John Branca, was someone that MJ wanted exclusively. However; Branca still continued to serve his other clients in the music business, but was very dedicated to MJ and gave him priority over the others. MJ's sister, Janet, however; was someone not to be reckoned with. According to Bob Jones' book, TMBTM, Michael could not control Janet, and that really bothered him. She had become just as popular and successful, if not more, as her bro. Michael. He couldn't stand being upstaged by one of his very own. lol Although she was signed to one of the biggest record deals in history, it didn't stop MJ's jealous and mean streak from showing...He'd throw the success of "Thriller" back in her face. As Jones put it, MJ told her, "You still won't break any of my records, Diva! You will never outsell me!" MJ also had a reputation of signing his family members to his own record label, and would help them to produce songs, but when it came time to release; he wouldn't release or if the song did get released and look like it could be a hit, he had it pulled....He liked the 'dangling carrot' theory obviously. He was a cocky and preoccupied with only himself.
Elena:
(cont.)
The story of Theresa Gonsalves is two fold; depending on which story out there you read. According to JRT's book, it was pretty much like you said; it stopped short of her wanting MJ to kiss her because of LaToya. However; Gonsalves does have a book out that she's written herself about her extended relationship with MJ called, "Remember The Time". I read it and as I posted way back earlier in this blog, most of her book can be chalked up to fantasy. For instance she speaks on two occasions where she and MJ supposedly had sex; one time in his bedroom at his and LaToya's apartment in N.Y. and another time in MJ's car. We know most likely that this did not take place. From my personal perspective, Gonsalves writes the book from her stand point of how she 'wished' things had happened with her and MJ vs. what 'actually' did happen. Some of her writing style is a little 'creepy' at time with some of the 'off the cuff' comments that she makes. It seems to me that she has a lot of 'holes' in her story about him that don't add up. However the story about MJ asking her about the devil is true. According to Gonsalves, the version that JRT mentioned his book about her and MJ is not true. She says it didn't stop short of MJ wanting to kiss her, but it was that particular moment in time that led to her and MJ's first sex session. lol As a matter of fact, she said because of JRT's version of their story was not accurate, she decided to tell the story on her own by writting a book...As she puts it, "I'm telling our story my way". But, yes she did meet, MJ/J5's on a few occasions, and wrote many letters to MJ...She even has a copy of a letter that LaToya wrote her which can also be found in her book. All in all, her book about MJ is very "colorful". LOL
Perhaps MJ's reason for telling her that he couldn't go that far with "anyone" was for the exact same reason he told his friend, Kenneth Choi, according to Chris Andersen's bio, "MJ Unauthorized", that he couldn't be with a woman...MJ who was talking to him privately told him why he couldn't be intimate with a woman,"Only a woman can destroy me". That's all he said on that and didn't give a specific reason why.
There has always been talk from MJ's siblings that he experienced something real bad and traumatic when he was younger; something having to do with being locked in a room with a couple of hookers who were hired to 'work' him over. 'Supposedly' this was something that was orchestrated by his father Joe, and even maybe his brothers since they were used to 'experiementing' with groupies and wanted to break their brother in. According to MJ's sister, Rebbie, he was very traumatized by whatever happened to him in that room, although she wouldn't say 'who' was responsible for the incident.
I found this on an MJ forum:
http://boyculture.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/24/mj_04_2.jpg
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk23/shopniryan/torubbers.jpg
All the fanatics were like "awwww how cute!!" I was like WTF??
Elena:
An interesting tidbit about Theresa Gonsalves' book that I failed to mention...When she went to Las Vegas to meet Michael for the very first time, she said that she was shocked at how he acted like a 'spoiled brat' upon their first acquaintance. She and the J5 were all in the elevator along with their manager, Bill Bray, and Michael said something to Bill in an very irritating way...MJ had no idea she was in the elevator with them until he saw her and asked his manager who she was. Bill told Michael that she was the girl he had spoken with over the phone and was there to see him. Once he realized who she was, he immediately changed his attitude! She said she was really surprised to see him acting that way towards an adult; something she wouldn't never thought of doing as it was disrespectful to elders....Now that IS something I do believe she was being truthful on. LOL
Lady C:
Yeah I know about the book she wrote, but I took it for granted that she was lying lol. However, I think she was telling the truth about what happened in Las Vegas and in NY.
I've heard about that story about MJ being locked up in a room with 2 older prostitutes before. And I wouldn't find it surprising at all if Joe did that. After all he doesn't "believe" in homosexuals, like he said on that interview with some british guy (don't remember his name). And I also read that he told his sister (I thought it was Janet but you said Rebbie...who knows) about it but he didn't really say what they did there (Or his sister didn't wanna say it). That may have been really traumatic for Michael.
About Michael sabotaging his siblings' careers, I don't know why he did it. I mean I don't think none of them would have made it bigger than him anyway. Jermaine is a very good singer but that's it, I don't see anything special about him apart from that. And I never really cared about Janet, I don't think she's a particulary amazing singer (she's a good dancer though). And I don't know if she was ever bigger than Michael in the USA but definitely in Europe she's always been more "Michael Jackson's sister" and from 2004 she's "The Michael Jackson's sister who showed a boob on the Superbowl", so yeah, I don't think he had too much to worry about lol. As for the rest of brothers, I'm not sure if they even tried but if they did they probably weren't much succesful 'cause I've never even heard about it.
About Theresa's first meeting with MJ, well I actually was surprised to read that. He always seemed to be very polite to everyone, but of course he was in front of the camera so who knows...
"A MJ fan said during a discussion about Michael and Lisa´s marriage that a sexless marriage is possible because she was abused as a child and she is a married woman who doesn´t have sex with her own husband. Her abuse traumatized her and she isn´t able to have sex.
"So when a man is abused as a child feels pleasure in the future but a woman not?"
Suzy, that really can't be pinned down to a male vs female response. The effects of childhood sexual abuse are as varied as the children themselves. While some might develop a fear of physical intimacy, there are others who may become promiscuous or display mental health symptoms like PTSD, depression, addiction, or suicidal thoughts. Then there are those who remain relatively stable and unchanged.
As far as feeling pleasure goes, well, I suppose that depends on the sort of abuse they endured. But really, unless torture was involved, chances are it felt good at some point. That's just a natural physical response in all of us. Feeling pleasure during abuse just adds to a child's confusion.
Desiree, I think I´ve read it in that blog, a comment that someone did.
Frenchie, thanks to the explanation. I´ve read about some gay men who are molested in theur childhood so I thought there´s a relation in some cases.
I found that article:
http://gawker.com/5323166/the-gays-do-not-want-michael-jackson-thank-you-very-much
Suzy:
"A MJ fan said during a discussion about Michael and Lisa´s marriage that a sexless marriage is possible because she was abused as a child and she is a married woman who doesn´t have sex with her own husband. Her abuse traumatized her and she isn´t able to have sex."
Hearing that LMP was abused as a child, I'm shocked to say is new to me. I do know that she had problems with drug/alcohol abuse, but didn't know she was sexually abused. I was surprised to hear that especially since she's always talked about how close she was to both of her parents and the kind of relationship they had...perhaps if she was abused it was at the hands of someone else? Do you happen to know who she was abuse by?
Anyway, I dont' buy the fact that a sexless marriage was possible while married to MJ because she was supposedly sexually abused, IMO. lol Even though she didn't have the 'wild and crazy' sex that she's always claimed of having with MJ, I'm willing to bet she was sexually active, and to a great degree. Sexuality may not have happened in her marriage to MJ, but it definitely happened in her other marriages, and I even believe with her current husband.. I find it very odd that she would be married and have sex with her first husband and have two children with him, next marry MJ and not have any sex at all, only to get married again to Nick Cage and have sex with him, and get married again to her fourth husband and have sex with him as well as two beautiful baby twin girls.?? IF child abuse was an issue, how could she bring herself to have sex with the other men and not MJ? Was there something in particular about MJ that prohibited that? LOL C'mon, LMP, doesn't strike me as the 'sexless' type...she had a rebellious spirit growing up and probably had been 'around' the block many times. She's been married outside of MJ three times to actor/musicians who are also not so 'quiet' themselves, so I really doubt that she wanted a sexless marriage for that reason; I don't see that in her. But as I said before, I wasn't aware/sure of her abuse reports. If anything, she strikes me as the kind of person who enjoys sex - just a vibe I get. I believe she didn't have sex with MJ or at least the kind she claims she did, and it wasn't because of child abuse...I believe it was because HE couldn't have sex with her. Why? Because, according to Michael, he could never be intimate with a woman; it would totally destroy him. That to me is an implied statement of possible homosexuality.LOL
However, it was reported in JRT's book, that it was her father, Elvis, who didn't want to have sex anymore with LMP's mother, because after she became pregnant, he thought it was 'weird' to have sex with the mother of his child...hence from that point on they had a sexless marriage. As a result, her mother felt neglected and had extra marital affairs before they divorced. According to JRT, LMP was determined not to have that kind of marriage with Michael.
This is a little off topic, but I just read an article in the June 2011 issue of Vanity Fair about Elizabeth Taylor's last years. It had a couple of funny things about Mike in them.
1) Mike did in fact have a shrine to her in his Neverland Ranch, according to Corey Feldman. He described it as like what you'd see in a church.
2) Mike described Liz as like both "his wife and his mother." Interesting he'd say "like his wife" when she was a certified "fag hag", so he'd never have to be with her physically.
3) A close friend of Liz said indeed Mike was trying to look like her with the plastic surgeries, at first, but he had "ruined himself" in the process. Remember in the 80s when everyone was saying he was trying to look like Diana Ross (and even in JRT's book he said in the 80s Mike would have his driver sometimes refer to him as "Miss Ross")? Well this looking like Liz Taylor was when he was "white".
4) Liz has always defended in the child molestation allegations, but there was one time where she felt she had to put her foot down. It was when Miko Brando had been "rounding up kids for a sleepover". The friend said that Liz stormed up to Mike and demanded he stop with the foolishness because she was had grandchildren herself and "even if the sleepovers were innocent, he was on dangerous ground". So he still was having sleepovers (duh) with boys after the whole Chandler affair.
5) Mike, according to Liz and her inner circle, was very innocent about certain things, especially sex. When Mike was going to do the infamous MTV Music Awards kiss with LMP, he had called Liz beforehand and asked her "How do you go about kissing a girl?" and "How would you want to be kissed?". Liz answered saying liked you want to go into their soul. Remember that he was 35 years old, and he is asking how would you kiss a woman. Seems like he had little experience in that department, contrary to popular fan belief.
Liz Taylor loved Mike adored Mike and she was "empty" after his death, she was actually packing her bags to head to London to see the opening show when she found out about his death.
She knew a lot about him, secrets and all. So that tweet where she never denied him being gay when she was reprimanding Arnold Klein makes even more sense. I believe she'd never tell he was gay but at the same time she'd never deny the feelings a gay person had either, since she loves the gay community. The privacy and intimacy Liz shared with Mike was the reason she refuse the offer to speak at his memorial.
LOL no Lady C, the fan is the one who was abused. I wasn´t very clear really.
Jessica, so did really Liz claimed that Michael asked her how to kiss a girl along her inner circle? Is there any proof of that? Interesting considering how the fan base love Liz so much. I wonder what they would think about that!
Liz used to defend Rock Hudson for the gay allegations, she knew he was though. It makes you wonder why she didn´t the same thing with Michael. When I first heard about Liz blasting Klein over it I thought she had denied. It was funny read the fans reaction to that. A proof they really don´t know if Michael was gay or not. They were really fucked up lol. Some of them tried to took more information from Liz on twitter. A fan even asked if she was upset by the lack of confidently or other thing...
btw did you heard about Tatum O´Neil? It seems she stated that Michael was an addict or something in an interview. The fans are bashing her on twitter...
Lady C,
Lisa never really was specific about what kind of sex that she and Mike had, to my knowledge. All that salacious information was from JRT's book. I only remember that she would always just say "it was consummated" and that she wouldn't bee in a relationship that wasn't physical. But she never was saying it was crazy or an of that stuff. I have never personally heard or read any proclamations to that effect, outside of JRT and he doesn't even used direct quotations. All his info is from a confidante or close friend. She just said it happened and it was normal; she doesn't go into detail about it. which to me is interesting only because I think it would be good for his whole image if people would think that the marriage wasn't a farce.
Diane Dimond say her mutual friend with Lisa Marie told her that Lisa said Mike was too afraid to have sex, something that makes sense given the Liz Taylor anecdote I read. I don't know, I have a hard time disbelieving Diane Dimond because Lisa doesn't throw anyone a bone to make her claim of having had sex with Mike believable. she didn't even mention any of that in her Myspace message she wrote after his death. So I think that the public's view, and a few of Mike's own people's opinion, that the marriage was a sham, at least on Mike's end, it an accurate one for right now.
Elena,
Thanks for those disturbing pics. The rules of the Rubberhead Club are bizarre to say the least, and not normal for a grown man. But it is normal for a fixated-type pedophile that relates to his victims in "boy-to-boy" type relationship.
I don't know which sister was is it that said at the 2005 trial, Karlee Barnes or Chantal Robson, that they had never heard of an Applehead, Doodoohead, or Rubberhead club, only the words apple-,doodoo-, and rubber-head. Sounds just like what Ken Lanning said in his profile that pedophiles will often create secret clubs for them and their victims that no one else knows about. Mike sure does fit this profile!
Suzy,
The only proof is the article and the author of the piece interviewed extensively members of her longtime inner circle, and they are the ones that said it, because as we all know Liz is not around anymore. So that's the proof, and I think it's good proof too. The fans will probably only believe it if they heard the actual conversation between Liz and Mike. But this is a very reputable magazine and the article was very flattering to Liz and her life as a whole. Vanity Fair loves Liz.
But Liz didn't deny he was gay, at all. That was my first reaction, "Why didn't she deny he was gay?". Liz probably always knew he was gay and respected his right to stay in the closet. She did that for all her gay male friends back in Old Hollywood. She knew how to keep a secret. And why should Mike have came out? He would have been dumped by his fans and cease to be a world famous celebrity. These fans are very homophobic.
I haven't heard about Tatum O'Neal. The fans need to wake up. Janet said he was a drug addict. Are the going to call for her head too?
3) A close friend of Liz said indeed Mike was trying to look like her with the plastic surgeries, at first, but he had "ruined himself" in the process. Remember in the 80s when everyone was saying he was trying to look like Diana Ross (and even in JRT's book he said in the 80s Mike would have his driver sometimes refer to him as "Miss Ross")? Well this looking like Liz Taylor was when he was "white".
This is something that’s always confused me a lot about MJ. Did this mean he wanted to be a woman then? Because being gay isn’t the same as being transsexual. A gay man likes other men, but it doesn’t mean he wants to be a woman. However, if you asked a transsexual he’d say he’s not a gay man, but a straight woman. Because they feel they were born in the wrong body. MJ by his last days looked like a tranny, like he had made an incomplete sex change operation. He started wearing make-up (on and off stage) since he was very young, and I guess there’s no need no mention his speaking voice. I never saw him dressed as a woman though (as far as I know…). On the other hand, if he really wanted to be a woman he had all the means (and the money) to do it and we know he certainly didn’t fear the operating table.
By the way, this is from an interview in 1979 (when there were already rumors about MJ wanting to undergo a sex change operation and that he was taking hormones in order to maintain his high voice): “There’s a reason why I was created male. I’m not a girl. And what kills me the most and makes me want to break down in tears is when little kids, seven and eight, come to me asking me that. I say, no, and please tell all your other little friends it’s not true.”
5) Mike, according to Liz and her inner circle, was very innocent about certain things, especially sex. When Mike was going to do the infamous MTV Music Awards kiss with LMP, he had called Liz beforehand and asked her "How do you go about kissing a girl?" and "How would you want to be kissed?". Liz answered saying liked you want to go into their soul. Remember that he was 35 years old, and he is asking how would you kiss a woman. Seems like he had little experience in that department, contrary to popular fan belief.
Yeah, he was so innocent…I guess none of his porn included any kiss to a girl?
Yeah, he was so innocent…I guess none of his porn included any kiss to a girl?
I know right? LOL. That's what I find so funny, every single person tries to act like he was so disinterested in sex or sexuality. But he had a lot of materials that had women and men in them. so how was he so innocent? Even those that say he was straight still say the same thing, he was in love with his craft so he didn't have relationships or he didn't have good examples of healthy relationships, in order to explain his lack of women. I mean EVERYONE says he was innocent man-child.
But porn doesn't make you a skilled lover, and just because you look at porn doesn't mean that you have lovers in the real world. Many men who look at porn actually are horrible lovers because they only think about pleasing themselves, what makes them cum. And many of these men have trouble getting in successful relationships with women, so it's not that far fetched.
Besides, he asked how to kiss a women, but he knew how to kiss a boy, according to Jordie Chandler. Maybe Mike thought it was a whole different thing? I mean we have a lot of evidence to show he was probably "doing it" with boys, but that really doesn't translated to being an acceptable lover to a woman. He really didn't have any experience along those lines that has been credibly shown, and his reluctance to be with women is epic.
About his trying to look like Liz, that's what the friend said. I think Mike didn't want to be a woman but I do think he appreciated feminine beauty, the gentleness of it and maybe he thought having that kind of beauty was better than having a masculine type of beauty. So that was why he had the surgeries to look like Liz, according to the close friend. That's why he had the surgeries to feminize his face and he wore those female fragrances as well. We all know he loved her looks and Diana Ross's too.
So Michael wanted to look like Liz, too? It's weird how much it keeps coming up that Michael wanted to look like this woman or that woman.
I read this French article awhile back that was talking about Michael and LMP. It was strange because it was saying that you know they are in love because they look alike. wth? But if you looked closely at the picture, they were wearing a similar shade of lipstick and their eyebrows were arched alike and their hairstyle was similar. I chalked it up to a bad translation but now ...
(1) Diana Ross
(2) Elizabeth Taylor
(3) Siedah Garrett (yes, there's an old article that said they they were looking alike, lol)
(4) LMP
I'm trying to remember if Tatiana said something, too.
@ Jessica and Desiree
You both had similar thoughts on the little girls so I thought I'd combine them.
I meant through the years rather than daily when I said always around. Michael has befriended little girls since the 70s. I wouldn't leap from befriending to molesting. I'm just saying that they were around and he chose to befriend them eventhough they don't appear to be little sisters.
The staff made it clear that Michael was obsessed with little boys. We all agree that Michael was a boy-abuser. But they didn't name every boy Michael spent time entertaining. During the trial, they only named the ones that had been publicized. There were many more suspicious relationships.
When the girls visited, they weren't really noticeable because there were so many more boys. The girls were probably part of a group of children. Michael liked a kiddie entourage. I don't blame the staff. There was a sea of boys. Why notice an occasional little girl? But that doesn't mean she wasn't there.
Michael wasn't interested in the plight of the teenager Boteach mentioned but he was solicitious of the younger girl.
Michael, Groupies, and Other Stuff
Michael was Michael. He did what he did whatever that was. With the exception of abusing little boys, there's a lot of open space. But it does not extend to healthy sexual relationships with women. I wouldn't necesarily expect to find evidence of a woman on his mattress in Neverland. But that doesn't mean Michael never did anything. With Michael's nasty sense of humor, there was a reason he kept giving LMP pearl necklaces, imo. Boteach didn't call Michael raunchy for no reason.
What's sad is that some people would try to make a grand romance out of that. It was Michael being Michael. Who knew what motivated him? It could have been as simple as scratching an itch.
Brenda:
Your 'always there' was clear enough in your previous post. Don't back-pedal just because it makes little sense. Assuming that girls were 'always' at Neverland but 'unnoticeable' is just ridiculous. Staff did not notice anyone but boys. I think there is a reason for that: girls weren't around.
Do you not agree that that is a more reasonable explanation as to their scant presence at Neverland, and the fact staff did not recall girl children Michael Jackson took interest in?
Likewise, I think it is fairly specious to assume that the girls present were not sisters. Almost all of the girls we've heard of were sisters, and, as I had posted a while back, we know that Marie-Nicole Cascio, who obviously was at Neverland as much as her brothers, received disparate treatment.
All the evidence available shows he was not into girl children, his adoration of Shirley Temple notwithstanding.
"With the exception of abusing little boys, there's a lot of open space."
I agree with what Opinionation had stated previously: no one's sexuality is that eclectic.
"But that doesn't mean Michael never did anything."
I agree, but the likelihood is pretty slim.
"With Michael's nasty sense of humor, there was a reason he kept giving LMP pearl necklaces, imo."
Uh no. The most likely explanation is that he knew women like jewelry; he'd give it to Liz Taylor and his mother. Also, it would be the least he could do roping her into that sham.
He and Lisa Marie's marriage was a farce used to quell the pedophilia rumors. I doubt they even had sex often, if at all.
I'm sorry, but your conclusions tend to make my eyes roll: the most likely conclusions are most likely. I think you could stand to use a qualifier in your comments and a bit of common sense. That cannot be acquired through reading books....
I agree with what Desiree said, the most likely things are most likely. If the staff didn't recall seeing girls at Neverland, it was because they were not around in the numbers that would make them remember their presence. What stuck out in the staff's collective memory was young and teenaged boys. They weren't always trying to say he had boys around and only notice boys around just because he was accused of pedophilia so they'd be on "alert" when they noticed boys over. They just remembered them more than ever seeing girl children that were not attached to the boys he was friends with. It's really that simple.
So the "always there" usage is misplaced.
Also, let's just stick with what we know and not try to assume to know. As far as his sexuality is concerned, the most thorough and convincing evidence is that he was a pedophile with an unyielding interest in boys of various ages. Pedophilia is a sexual orientation in and of itself. I mean, its as solid as it gets with regard to that being his primary and possibly sole sexual interest. Then, we have the fact that he was gay, from the rumors to anecdotes to an actual man that is sticking to his story about having had sexual encounters with Mike and gay materials found at his home. His only like to being straight is the porn and his marriages, which isn't really a whole lot of evidence.
Just because you may think that pedophilia isn't a lifelong sexual orientation (instead referring to it as a "sexual arousal") doesn't mean you have to go filling in the blanks with unsubstantiated and,frankly, bizarre conclusions that don't really correlate to what we know. Opinionation is right; it's getting a little unbelievable.
He wasn't fucking everyone that smiled at him.
And the pearl necklace thing? LMAO at that one. So you think Mike bought Lisa Marie pearl necklaces because somehow it represents how cum would look around the neck of a woman whose allowed a man to "tit-fuck" her, or cum on her? No. I think the most likely explanation that would correlate with WHAT WE KNOW would be the fact that he thought women liked jewelry. He said so himself in the Bashir doc that he'd give jewels to his mom, Liz Taylor, or a girl he liked at the moment...at that particular moment there was none.
Let's no go crazy here with the off the wall theories. To me, speculation is only useful when it passes the "common sense smell test" and is in line with what's known.
Clarification and backpedaling are not the same. I know what I meant and I stand by it. Michael's story emerges in bits and pieces from many sources. Many people tell a Michael anecdote when telling their own story. And there are those who are now telling their MJ story for the first time.
Desiree, are you really going to tell these little girls and their families that MJ never befriended them? It was all in their imagination?
It’s better to say that the occasional little girls weren’t noticeable because there were so many boys. Michael was a boy-abuser. That was the story.
***
Nobody, Desiree? You’ve met everyone and interviewed them about their sex life? You’ve assembled all the data and now you can definitively say “no one's sexuality is that eclectic?”
You can accept the fact that there are men who devote their lives to sexually abusing little children but you can’t accept that there are people who have sex with men, women and abuse children?
For Michael, it was unlikely but that doesn’t mean impossible. I don’t think he had what I would term a normal sexual relationship with a woman. I think he chose married women who had children instead of single women expressly to avoid intimacy.
If you’re curious about people who are that “eclectic,” check out Patrick Carnes, “Out of the Shadows.”
***
Why are you wasting your time and money at college? You constantly make snide remarks about books. Is it all books or just books that don't coincide with your viewpoint? And why is common sense only common when it agrees with your viewpoint? You cannot possibly assume you are the expert on every subject.
@ Jessica
Your posts and Desiree's are so similar, you could almost be the same person, lol. I already answered the little girl part.
Why did you leave out the most important word "deviant?" I'm sure it was an honest mistake, right? Anyway, I misquoted it as a deviant sexual arousal. However, the term is "deviant arousal pattern."
I know Michael was a boy-abuser. I said so many times. I know Michael was attracted to men.
Where are you getting straight from? It cannot be from anything I posted. A possible sexual encounter doesn't make a person straight.
Why do you assume that because you know some things about MJ, you know everything? Michael led a full and rich private life. We only know the very tip of the iceberg. And in case someone missed it above: No, Michael was not straight.
Post a Comment