Leaving Neverland

[sistermagpie]

15 hours ago, CeeBeeGee said:

Love's also had a creepy print ad where a little girl was made up to look like a full-blown woman, again with the tagline about how innocence was soooooo sexy. GROSS.

This commercial was used so well on The Americans, making everyone say, "WTF, this was a real ad at the time?" And I feel like I remember it, but how did it not freak me out at the time?

I remember being also shocked in the movie Shampoo when Carrie Fisher's character sleeps with Warren Beatty and I believe she's supposed to be 13 or 14. It seems like at that time people very strongly were claiming that as soon as a girl even barely hit puberty she was a woman, it was just edgier. Iirc there was a conversation that revealed that the backstory of Marion and Indy in Raiders of the Lost Ark was that they had an affair when she was 15. Like specifically she wasn't 16 because 16 was more of an adult.

I mean, in Taxi Driver with Jodi Foster at least that's supposed to be showing the sad truth of life. There absolutely are children that age being used that way. I don't remember her having sex or sexy scenes really in the movie. It's a slightly different thing than the ad. 

But of course with MJ, he was going in the opposite direction, claiming that because they were children there couldn't be anything sexual going on. His whole persona was that he was doing cutesy innocent things like water pistol fights and amusement park rides and dancing with kids etc. He claimed he liked kids because they weren't part of any sort of sexual world etc.

[ruby24]

12 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

This commercial was used so well on The Americans, making everyone say, "WTF, this was a real ad at the time?" And I feel like I remember it, but how did it not freak me out at the time?

I remember being also shocked in the movie Shampoo when Carrie Fisher's character sleeps with Warren Beatty and I believe she's supposed to be 13 or 14. It seems like at that time people very strongly were claiming that as soon as a girl even barely hit puberty she was a woman, it was just edgier. Iirc there was a conversation that revealed that the backstory of Marion and Indy in Raiders of the Lost Ark was that they had an affair when she was 15. Like specifically she wasn't 16 because 16 was more of an adult.

I think a lot of people still think that, tbh. 

[Razzberry]

Maybe I've been thinking about this stuff too much lately, but there's an ad on TV (for toilet paper? not even sure)  that's been creeping me out.  A father and daughter are in the bathroom and he's teaching her how to shave her legs using "long smooth strokes".  WTH, is it me?

[Blakeston]

2 hours ago, kicksave said:

I think it is widely known or at least speculated that MJ had his dentist as the sperm donor for both of the older children and the egg/womb donor was the dentist's assistant at the time. The youngest child has unknown donors but it appears that at least one of the donors has an Hispanic background. 

Is there any actual evidence of that, or are those just rumors?

[SunnyBeBe]

1 hour ago, Razzberry said:

Maybe I've been thinking about this stuff too much lately, but there's an ad on TV (for toilet paper? not even sure)  that's been creeping me out.  A father and daughter are in the bathroom and he's teaching her how to shave her legs using "long smooth strokes".  WTH, is it me?

I know. And, the girl looks like she might 15-16 years old, which is way past the time most girls learn how to shave their legs.  (At least in my area.)

And, Loretta Lynn was married to her husband at age 15 back in 1948!  There's even a bedroom scene about the wedding night in the movie Coal Miner's Daughter.  I know they were married, but, still......times were different I suppose.  (I'll admit, I've always really liked that movie, but, do question that part.)

I have been thinking a lot lately about the recent comments from Streisand and Ross about MJ and his victims.  I'm going to guess that it's being discussed over on the other thread about sex abuse, since, I didn't see any other mention of it here. 

Edited March 26, 2019 by SunnyBeBe

[Umbelina]

2 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

This commercial was used so well on The Americans, making everyone say, "WTF, this was a real ad at the time?" And I feel like I remember it, but how did it not freak me out at the time?

I remember being also shocked in the movie Shampoo when Carrie Fisher's character sleeps with Warren Beatty and I believe she's supposed to be 13 or 14. It seems like at that time people very strongly were claiming that as soon as a girl even barely hit puberty she was a woman, it was just edgier. Iirc there was a conversation that revealed that the backstory of Marion and Indy in Raiders of the Lost Ark was that they had an affair when she was 15. Like specifically she wasn't 16 because 16 was more of an adult.

I mean, in Taxi Driver with Jodi Foster at least that's supposed to be showing the sad truth of life. There absolutely are children that age being used that way. I don't remember her having sex or sexy scenes really in the movie. It's a slightly different thing than the ad. 

But of course with MJ, he was going in the opposite direction, claiming that because they were children there couldn't be anything sexual going on. His whole persona was that he was doing cutesy innocent things like water pistol fights and amusement park rides and dancing with kids etc. He claimed he liked kids because they weren't part of any sort of sexual world etc.

That Baby Soft perfume ad was effective though.  A huge number of girls in my high school started wearing it, as did I.  None of us thought, at the time, that there was anything weird about it, probably because we were about the age of the model, and didn't think of ourselves as children.  When it came on The Americans so effectively, since the lead male spy was being ordered to seduce someone that age, it was extremely powerful on many levels, and one of those levels was "OH WOW, it looks completely different to me now, what the hell were they thinking?"

I think for me at least, I wore it was because I really loved the smell.  I still do like the "baby powder" smell, I have a perfume oil with that smell right now.  (Also vanilla scents, but also Joy, and Ysatis, so...)

Also, that scene with Carrie Fisher in Shampoo was from real life as I recall, possibly her life?  I don't feel like googling, but it wasn't simply a Hollywood movie fantasy.

There were, as I recall, significant objections about Brooke Shield's being used in the prostitution film  Pretty Baby at twelve years old, people and the press did not just accept it as OK.  I specifically remember articles about her mother being on set the entire time, and blah blah.  How Brooke feels about it as an adult:

Teens were rebelling against a lot of stuff, and some of it was very good stuff, a corrupt war, friends dying in Vietnam who couldn't even vote, political corruption, segregation and prejudice, and the standards of the older generation lost respect among quite of few of us.  The sexual revolution was part of that, the pill brought freedom to woman (and yes, girls) that had never been available before.  Marriage itself was examined, and "relationships" evolved, not all necessarily led to sunshine and roses, but frankly, closely examined, neither did those from the past.  Women's rights were fought for, frankly, just as much as during suffrage.  In huge part, part of those rights had to do, not only with jobs, but also with sexual rights.  Did we teens think of themselves as "women?"  In many cases yes.  Was that exploited by some?  Of course.

Neither Taxi Driver, nor Pretty Baby bothered me at the time, and frankly, still don't.  Sue Lyon was 14 in LOLITA from 1962 and that one?  Did bother me, even though I didn't see it until years later, and had already secretly read the book at about 14.  James Mason was in another kind of creepy film in 1969, Age of Consent with a nude Helen Mirren, then 22, a film which bothered me more, mostly because of the creepy ending, the rest of the film was not terrible, but the ending, to me anyway, made the whole film become pot bellied aging men's fantasy, and not in a good way.

Sorry for veering a little bit, but all the talk of the big bad seventies at all excusing or explaining MJ's behavior simply doesn't add up for me.  It was an interesting time, a revolutionary, perhaps naive, and certainly controversial time, and yes, that included reexamining sexuality and "norms."  Was there more hedonism then than in the so called "good old days" of the Mad Men or other eras?  Of course not.  The real difference in that generation was that women stopped being simply the wife and mother, and that time had growing pains, and those certainly included some exploitation.  More than before?  I honestly don't think so, but women started talking about options, about orgasms, about choosing paths closed or restricted in previous generations, from employment, to sex, and beyond.

Still, even the so-called wild seventies didn't condone or imply that 7 or 10 year old children were sexual fair game, the "standards" (such as they were) at least seemed to hold until a child hit puberty.  

That was NEVER OK, except among pedophiles, and frankly, pedophilia was around long before the seventies came around, or frankly, long before Columbus set sail.

Edited March 26, 2019 by Umbelina

[Guest]

On 3/25/2019 at 12:36 PM, Razzberry said:

Another head-scratcher - The medical examiner confirmed that MJ had vitiligo, and apparently his oldest alleged son has it too.

It looks like his spray tan is wearing off not vitiligo. Prince is his son but he has no Jackson DNA.

[Umbelina]

On 3/25/2019 at 12:33 PM, Scarlett45 said:

I think in the case of Diana, if you just do not believe abuse or ANYTHING inappropriate ever occurred, you can be accused of having you head in the sand but you’re still being logically consistent and morally centered. 

I think Diana just doesn’t believe it- I vehemently disagree with her, but SHE doesn’t believe it. 

Barbara was saying that she believed it all happened but that it wasn’t “that bad” and “they were thrilled”- to me that’s corrupt on a moral level. 

You know, at first I kind of wondered if BS had also been abused by the "industry" in that way, her statement that they had married, and enjoyed it, and were fine now?

So, I googled.  She denies any personal abuse, but her reasoning/words might give some clue, other than just "perhaps she was drunk when she said that." 

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/03/21/barbra-streisand-like-mayim-bialik-says-her-nose-spared-her-from-sexual-harassment/ 

This is about "me too" but it's this part that sparked something, for me at least. 

Quote

“Never,” she replied at the PaleyFest when she was asked if she had suffered any casting-couch-type abuses as a young actress and singer.

Barbra Streisand speaks at the Women’s March in Los Angeles in 2017. Photo by Emma McIntyre/Getty Images) 

In her conversation with producer Ryan Murphy, Streisand reflected on her status as an atypical icon, saying “I wasn’t like those pretty girls with those nice little noses. Maybe that’s why (I wasn’t harassed). I have no idea.”

and this:
 

Quote

Similar to Streisand, Bialik described her “prominent” nose and said she was aware that being “awkward, geeky, Jewish” made her different from her contemporaries, who she says were praised for their doe eyes, pouty lips and curves. Bialik added that she had enjoyed certain upsides of not being “a perfect 10” throughout her career.

“As a proud feminist with little desire to diet, get plastic surgery or hire a personal trainer, I have almost no personal experience with men asking me to meetings in their hotel rooms,” she wrote. Perhaps most controversially, she wrote that she had enjoyed the “luxury” of being overlooked by predatory men because she always dressed modestly and never acted flirtatiously with men.

italics mine.

Blaming the victims, or excusing predatory behavior seems to be a habit of hers, as is referencing looks.  It feels way too much like resentment towards those born or altered into conventionally pretty.  Perhaps that is her main issue with having any empathy for victims, certainly when she speaks off the cuff anyway.

I always kind of admired her for not getting her nose "done" or blowing up her boobs with silicone.  Props for that, but apparently, not being "a perfect 10" may still bother her.

Edited March 26, 2019 by Umbelina
last comment

[Scarlett45]

10 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

You know, at first I kind of wondered if BS had also been abused by the "industry" in that way, her statement that they had married, and enjoyed it, and were fine now?

So, I googled.  She denies any personal abuse, but her reasoning/words might give some clue, other than just "perhaps she was drunk when she said that." 

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/03/21/barbra-streisand-like-mayim-bialik-says-her-nose-spared-her-from-sexual-harassment/ 

This is about "me too" but it's this part that sparked something, for me at least. 

and this:
 

italics mine.

Blaming the victims, or excusing predatory behavior seems to be a habit of hers, as is referencing looks.  It feels way too much like resentment towards those born or altered into conventionally pretty.  Perhaps that is her main issue with having any empathy for victims, certainly when she speaks off the cuff anyway.

I always kind of admired her for not getting her nose "done" or blowing up her boobs with silicone.  Props for that, but apparently, not being "a perfect 10" may still bother her.

I’m not excusing Barbara’s ridiculousness and victim blaming of BABIES, but I know a few much kinder and very intelligent women who do think their less than conventionally attractive looks spared them from being sexually assaulted as teens and young adults. They don’t blame “pretty women” for being assaulted, they just think their lack of beauty made the predators over look them. 

It’s the internalized misogyny and the idea that “fat (or insert undesirable trait here) girls don’t get raped”. Which I think is hogwash. Anyone can be a victim of violence, yes certain groups are more vulnerable than others but we are all human.  

Wade and James were babies- BABIES! Not even teens on this side of minority (which would still make it wrong to blame them). Victims cannot win. If they go on to have a happy life “oh it didn’t effect them”; if they are depressed and suffering it’s “get over it”. Awful. 

[TigerLynx]

Those remarks by Streisand are disturbing, but not new.  Victim blaming has been going on for centuries.

I wonder if the prosecutor in 2003 thought he would get more information or witnesses against MJ as time went on, or believed this would be his only chance to possibly prosecute even if he didn't have a slam dunk.

The jurors who originally voted MJ guilty should have stood their ground even if they only ended up with a hung jury.  That would have been better than an acquittal.

[Kostgard]

This Slate article has been sitting in a tab on my browser for a while, and I just got around to reading it. And Geez Louise - every time I think things were bad I read how things were worse. Like this:

Quote

Joy admitted—while insisting that this was all normal and fine—that Jackson sometimes called her in the middle of the night asking her to bring her small son to him. Little Wade Robson once arrived at Neverland at 1:30 a.m. and went straight to bed with Jackson

Just...what?

It also points out that there were times when Wade's mom couldn't find him at Neverland and got upset and talked to the staff about it, only to be reprimanded by MJ for causing a fuss. 

I went into the documentary thinking "How could anyone allow this to happen to their child?" then after watching it, I thought that I at least kinda understood how they were groomed and how it happened. But then I go and read how MJ was doing his version of a sick and twisted booty call and she would drop her kid off in the middle of the night. Or the fact that he got mad at her for being upset that she couldn't find her child and she didn't take that as a sign that she should grab Wade and run for the hills. The article also points out that all of the Neverland moms were probably jockeying for the "favorite" position just like the kids were and I can see that happening, but that doesn't paint the parents well, either. 

I try to have some empathy for the parents because being in the presence of someone that famous can make you do stupid stuff. But at what point do you go, "You know, NONE of this is cool. This guy does not get to dictate what happens to my child and doesn't get to tell me to chill out when I can't find him" and walk away? I guess the one thing I can understand at this point is why Wade and James haven't been able to forgive their mothers yet.

[sistermagpie]

3 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Sorry for veering a little bit, but all the talk of the big bad seventies at all excusing or explaining MJ's behavior simply doesn't add up for me.  It was an interesting time, a revolutionary, perhaps naive, and certainly controversial time, and yes, that included reexamining sexuality and "norms."  Was there more hedonism then than in the so called "good old days" of the Mad Men or other eras?  Of course not.  The real difference in that generation was that women stopped being simply the wife and mother, and that time had growing pains, and those certainly included some exploitation.  More than before?  I honestly don't think so, but women started talking about options, about orgasms, about choosing paths closed or restricted in previous generations, from employment, to sex, and beyond.

To me it also seems like people were just older at younger ages then. I used to think it was just me being a kid that made teenagers seem older to me than I was when I became one--and I'm sure there's part of that. But it's also just a fact that before that--meaning not the 70s but before that as well--it was completely normal for girls to be married as teenagers, period. It seems like now teenagers are treated way more the way pre-teens and younger would have been treated in the earlier parts of the 20th century--not in every way, but certainly in a way that changed the way people views an adult and someone that age. I remember once reading an old romance comic from the 50s and the high school girl was excited to go out with her brothers' friend who was, like, 24. This was not only fine but seemed to be the best way to go--the guy was mature and could support a wife etc.

It does seem like there was a certain line of thought in the 70s--not held by everyone--where some behavior was seen as throwing off old-fashioned restraints in ways I would consider just predatory--though honestly I don't think that was a new thing at all. The part about men's sexuality being uncontrollable wasn't the new part, the new part was talking about stuff openly, which led to questioning it. It seems like having sex with a 13-year old wasn't the new thing, it was the idea that any nice girl, whatever age, could want sex for herself and not for the man.

So yeah, while I do think that some generational differences might explain the reactions of different people, I don't think any of it applies to a grown man sleeping with or having sex with pre-pubescent children. That really has nothing to do with the other stuff, which was just more about how teenagers (not children) could interact with adults sexually. I do think there's a big change there, but none of it applies to Michael Jackson. He *wasn't* openly sexualizing those children--he didn't want them sexualized, in fact. He wanted them looking and acting like kids. The generational shift that seems possibly relevant to me is more just how people talk about sexual abuse. That's central to the documentary, really, is these guys trying to explain how sexual abuse can be pleasurable and non-violent and that can be used against the victims even more.

[Umbelina]

12 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

To me it also seems like people were just older at younger ages then. I used to think it was just me being a kid that made teenagers seem older to me than I was when I became one--and I'm sure there's part of that.

I think the draft was a big part of seeming or feeling "older."  Friends our age were dying, or being maimed, other friends were still being horribly discriminated against, and women were quite literally, fighting their way into having rights, to their body, to jobs and education previously refused or heavily discouraged, to all of it, and certainly to 18 year olds being allowed to vote as well.

The issues were mature, and real, and most of us hadn't had helicopter parenting, grew up not even being allowed in the room during adult conversations, so we had our own.  Sex was a small part of that, not the focus of it.

13 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

So yeah, while I do think that some generational differences might explain the reactions of different people, I don't think any of it applies to a grown man sleeping with or having sex with pre-pubescent children. That really has nothing to do with the other stuff, which was just more about how teenagers (not children) could interact with adults sexually. I do think there's a big change there, but none of it applies to Michael Jackson. He *wasn't* openly sexualizing those children--he didn't want them sexualized, in fact. He wanted them looking and acting like kids.

Exactly! 

It bothers me that equating a time with all kinds of social revolution, and sexual revolution could possibly, in any way, have either encouraged, empowered, or condoned MJ's pedophilia.  It had nothing whatsoever to do with it.  More permissive or open sex never meant sex with children, especially prepubescent children.

When I was 16 I had a crush on a guy who was 20, and I think, looking back, it was mutual.  At the time I really didn't "get" why he pulled away from me, citing my age as the only reason.  Now, if I could, I would thank and applaud him. 

13 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

The generational shift that seems possibly relevant to me is more just how people talk about sexual abuse. That's central to the documentary, really, is these guys trying to explain how sexual abuse can be pleasurable and non-violent and that can be used against the victims even more.

Yes, and I'll add Oprah's special to that awakening.

I think the documentary opened eyes in many ways, far beyond MJ and his behavior, and hopefully, it will do a great deal of good.  Even some people who may not give a crap about MJ or even have HBO, but Oprah put her entire show on Youtube for free, and I think people will watch that.

Eyes were opened, and hopefully that means more children will be protected, and more parents wary.  Celebrity pedophilia may be easier, but honestly, the methods are the same, whether bishop or rock star.

14 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

But it's also just a fact that before that--meaning not the 70s but before that as well--it was completely normal for girls to be married as teenagers, period. It seems like now teenagers are treated way more the way pre-teens and younger would have been treated in the earlier parts of the 20th century--not in every way, but certainly in a way that changed the way people views an adult and someone that age. I remember once reading an old romance comic from the 50s and the high school girl was excited to go out with her brothers' friend who was, like, 24. This was not only fine but seemed to be the best way to go--the guy was mature and could support a wife etc.

I wonder.  At 17 or 18, and certainly by 19 perhaps, but most people would have raised eyebrows at anyone 16 and under marrying, even in "the olden days."   I don't feel like researching, but marriages at 16 and  still happen in many states now, I do wonder if the stats are all that different. 

There is just a vast difference for me between discussing children and those a few years past puberty.  Both are creepy, but in significantly different ways.

[Ashforth]

Nothing that happened in the 1970's had anything to do with MJ sexually assaulting little children - children as young as seven years of age - in the 1990's. Or anything to do with him getting away with it for so long.

He got away with it because of the power he had as a mega-moneymaking machine, the bizarre (to me) worship that so many people had for him, the protection afforded to him by people who knew what was going on but did nothing (in the case of staff, they were under the threat of ruin if they spoke up because they had signed non-disclosure agreements, which are actually common for employees of celebrities but are not intended to be used to keep them from reporting crimes), and his astonishing skill at manipulation of his victims and their families, along with so many others.

[CeeBeeGee]

29 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

It bothers me that equating a time with all kinds of social revolution, and sexual revolution could possibly, in any way, have either encouraged, empowered, or condoned MJ's pedophilia.  It had nothing whatsoever to do with it.  More permissive or open sex never meant sex with children, especially prepubescent children.

That's...really not at all what I said, or meant. I didn't address the "social or sexual revolution" at all.* And specifically what I said about MJ (the topic) was this:

Quote

Anyway, I wonder if on some level MJ wasn't trying to take advantage of that lack of boundaries.

IOW, I certainly don't think, nor did I say, that Michael's actions were caused by what was around him, but rather that he could take advantage of the laissez-faire attitude toward sex with children by explaining it away. In his case he made constant protestation of "it's all love, it's all beautiful." Roman Polanski kept dismissing concerns about his rape of the thirteen year old by saying disdainfully how prudish we Americans were. Same dismissal, same attempts at normalization. And there were hordes of people who agreed with them, who did not see anything wrong with MJ's actions towards the boys in his household.

This is partly why I actually have more sympathy with the mothers. I really think they were gaslighted by all the people in MJ's orbit, by his star power, by all those people who handwaved away their concerns, said he was just a big child, it was innocent, it was all innocent. It doesn't excuse why they ultimately didn't listen to their own instincts--I keep thinking about James's mom noticing how the suites kept getting farther and farther away, and Wade's mom finally (only not really) putting her foot down and defying MJ, they must absolutely hated themselves, remembering that, why didn't I listen to myself and follow through?--but I don't think they're monsters. NOBODY was pointing out the weirdness. NOBODY. MJ was enabled not just by his entourage but by the entire entertainment industry, including the media. Jordyn must've had incredible courage to be the first one to say it out loud.

*As a quick aside, the obsession with underage girls in the '70s--specifically men normalizing the sexualization of underage girls--IMO had much less to do with the sexual revolution (which was healthy and normal) and more to do with a reaction to the women's movement. Women wants rights and power, men feel threatened so they start turning to younger and younger girls.  (You can see this nowadays--who's the guy who always has much younger girlfriends? The one who wants to be in control, and feels he can't hack it with women his own age.) Sure, there's some overlap which is why I don't exactly know how to feel about the young groupies who had sex with Bowie et al. and do not feel they were victims. But I think the vast majority of this thing was a reaction to women's liberation. Anyway, this is off-topic so I won't say more.

[Umbelina]

Just so you know @CeeBeeGee, my post wasn't specifically directed at yours.

For those interested in the Polanski rape?  This is a must read recent interview with his victim, in the general Hollywood sexual thread.

 I do think both pedophilia and old dude being attracted to young girls has been around for a very long time, possibly forever, and one decade didn't make a damn's worth of difference in that. 

(off topic a bit)  I think the two things that did influence sex with young girls were the discovery of the pill, and AIDS, one to make things simpler, and the other to either encourage finding a virgin or alternately, to keep it in their pants, or get or stay married, depending on the guy and culture.

MJ wasn't special.  His tactics weren't unique.  He used the same basic ideas of all pedophiles who wanted an on going sexual relationship with children.  He just had more money and fame to throw at it, and hide behind.   Do I think his "childlike personae" was a deliberate part of his methods?  Yes, I think it's highly likely it was.

The whole "I just love children and being around them!" crap though?  Your local scout master could be saying the same thing, and people send their kids on overnight camping trips with those men.  So could the "funny uncle" or the local priest, or the concerned teacher willing to give private tutoring, or the guy who coaches sports, and just wants to take little Jimmy out to practice his catching. 

Edited March 27, 2019 by Umbelina

[sistermagpie]

25 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

The whole "I just love children and being around them!" crap though?  Your local scout master could be saying the same thing, and people send their kids on overnight camping trips with those men.  So could the "funny uncle" or the local priest, or the concerned teacher willing to give private tutoring, or the guy who coaches sports, and just wants to take little Jimmy out to practice his catching. 

Yes, one of the ironic stereotypes about child molesters is the idea that they look like greasy creeps. (SNL did a funny skit about this iirc with Steve Buscemi). But in reality of course they don't "look like" child molesters. That kind of person wouldn't appeal to kids and parents. Michael Jackson could only be as weird as he was because of all his money. Nobody else could hit the exact pose he did, so they have to behave more like the adult who just cares about kids as a mentor.

It's also ironic talking about the normalizing how Polanski and Jackson basically were coming from opposite sides. Polanski was saying Americans were prudes for thinking there was anything wrong with him drugging and having sex with a 13 year old. Jackson was saying people were sex obsessed for thinking he would ever do anything sexual to a 9 year old boy.

Jackson was also unique in that however many people defended him, there were so many running jokes that he was a pedophile. And everyone knew the jokes were actually meant to be taken seriously.

[Blakeston]

12 hours ago, Giant Misfit said:

It looks like his spray tan is wearing off not vitiligo. Prince is his son but he has no Jackson DNA.

That's exactly what vitiligo splotches look like on a light-skinned person.

I'm a fairly pale person who uses spray tan sometimes. I've never had one small blotch of me that was paper-white while the rest of me was golden brown.

6 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

It's also ironic talking about the normalizing how Polanski and Jackson basically were coming from opposite sides. Polanski was saying Americans were prudes for thinking there was anything wrong with him drugging and having sex with a 13 year old. Jackson was saying people were sex obsessed for thinking he would ever do anything sexual to a 9 year old boy.

Yeah, Michael's pose allowed him to appear to be rebelling against the sexual excesses we've been talking about. It probably appealed to a lot of "family values" advocates.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Blakeston said:

That's exactly what vitiligo splotches look like on a light-skinned person.

I'm a fairly pale person who uses spray tan sometimes. I've never had one small blotch of me that was paper-white while the rest of me was golden brown.

Paper white, weekly spray tanner here—I've had missed spots that look like that. But...could he have vitiligo? He sure could but he didn't inherit it from his adoptive father.

[doodlebug]

1 hour ago, Giant Misfit said:

Paper white, weekly spray tanner here—I've had missed spots that look like that. But...could he have vitiligo? He sure could but he didn't inherit it from his adoptive father.

About 2% of the population has vitiligo, it could be that Prince is just one of those random people.  Also, didn't Debbie Rowe work for a dermatologist?  A lot of people choose to work in areas of medicine where they've got personal experience.  Maybe she had vitiligo too and that was part of the reason they initially bonded?

Not a dermatologist, I'm an OB/GYN, but the photos of Prince, presuming there was no photoshopping, do indeed look like vitiligo.  I've missed spots with spray tanner myself and it never looked like that.

[andromeda331]

9 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

Yes, one of the ironic stereotypes about child molesters is the idea that they look like greasy creeps. (SNL did a funny skit about this iirc with Steve Buscemi). But in reality of course they don't "look like" child molesters. That kind of person wouldn't appeal to kids and parents. Michael Jackson could only be as weird as he was because of all his money. Nobody else could hit the exact pose he did, so they have to behave more like the adult who just cares about kids as a mentor.

It really is. Everyone is busy looking and keeping their eyes out for that guy the creepy greasy guy at the park with no kids or kids game with no kids, or the scary violent guy. Not that those don't exist and you need to watch for. But so many of them are the nice guy. The nice and friendly coach willing to practice with your kid extra, the friendly priest, your uncle or brother who just loves your kids so much, the popular teacher, etc. Despite how many times those types end up being child molesters. People still don't watch out for those people. They don't question their child slowly spending more and more time with that person. They don't question any odd behavior or why an adult is so interested in spending so much time with their child. You need to watch for those types every bit as much as the scary creepy guy.

MJ is similar but he also did so many things that would and should of raised red flags. He claimed to love kids but he didn't do anything that someone who loved kids would do. Usually they start camps, scholarships, start a charity, fundraising, get involved in stuff, he invited them to his home to play, for play dates, he created his home as a huge play house with everything that kids would love. He was surrounded by boys but rarely surrounded by adults. Calling them his "best friends", he gave parents trips to get them away from the boys, he put their hotel rooms further and further away from their boys, he admitted to sleeping in the same bed as the boys, he called up a parent and asked them to bring their son to him at one in the morning. Most of these things were known but no one questioned.

[mamadrama]

My feelings about the doc:

I never really doubted that MJ had inappropriate relationships with the boys, but I didn't guess the gravity of the situation until now. I think a big part of me always thought that MJ was developmentally stunted and that his actions, while not justified, were at least explainable. That doesn't make it better, but in trying to come at it from my therapist background, that's at least how I tried to understand it. However, this doc made me rethink his culpability. The fact that he went out of his way to lie and cover up what he did shows that he had complete awareness of not only his actions, but the legality/immoral facets of them. I guess I didn't expect him to have been so devious. I wasn't cutting him any slack before, but I'm judging him in a completely different light now. I feel so bad for the men. 

I've seen people say, "Well the boys loved him and they weren't afraid of him!" Yeah, well, that's sometimes how that shit works. When I was in elementary school, one of my male teachers sexually molested several of the male students in my class-right in the very front of the classroom before all the other kids. This teacher was funny, good looking, charismatic, and highly popular. That's kind of how he got away with it-we kids WANTED to be around him, wanted his attention. And he preyed upon that. Those are some of the scariest predators. 

[andromeda331]

10 hours ago, Umbelina said:

 I do think both pedophilia and old dude being attracted to young girls has been around for a very long time, possibly forever, and one decade didn't make a damn's worth of difference in that. 

MJ wasn't special.  His tactics weren't unique.  He used the same basic ideas of all pedophiles who wanted an on going sexual relationship with children.  He just had more money and fame to throw at it, and hide behind.   Do I think his "childlike personae" was a deliberate part of his methods?  Yes, I think it's highly likely it was.

Oh, they have existed since the beginning of time. It was only in the last few decades that it became a crime. Before one could marry a twelve year old and no one blinked an eye. MJ wasn't special and yes he used the same tactics other pedophiles used. Including trying to normalize it. So that he can continue to molest boys and not have to worry about going to jail. They are part of the reason we have consent laws. 

[TigerLynx]

11 hours ago, Umbelina said:

The whole "I just love children and being around them!" crap though?  Your local scout master could be saying the same thing, and people send their kids on overnight camping trips with those men.  So could the "funny uncle" or the local priest, or the concerned teacher willing to give private tutoring, or the guy who coaches sports, and just wants to take little Jimmy out to practice his catching. 

And in some cases, it is actually true.  There are teachers who actually tutor their students because they need it.  There are parents who take turns being the scout leader or little league coach.

However, any adult calling me, I don't care how famous or rich they are, and asking me to bring my nine year old child by to sleep with them, would have alarm bells going off.  I completely understand how MJ was able to manipulate the children, and to a certain extent the parents, but at that point not thinking something strange was going on, and following up on it, wasn't just bad parenting, it was stupid and negligent.

[izabella]

2 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Oh, they have existed since the beginning of time. It was only in the last few decades that it became a crime. Before one could marry a twelve year old and no one blinked an eye. MJ wasn't special and yes he used the same tactics other pedophiles used. Including trying to normalize it. So that he can continue to molest boys and not have to worry about going to jail. They are part of the reason we have consent laws. 

One can still marry a child if the parents give permission.  And apparently they do give permission.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_States

Quote

So, given one or more of these exceptions, as of January 2019:

17 states have no minimum age of marriage in some cases.

2 states have a minimum age of 14.

5 states have a minimum age of 15.

19 states have a minimum age of 16.

7 states have a minimum age of 17.

Quote

According to Frontline, who looked at almost 200,000 cases of child marriage from 2000-2015:

67% of the children were aged 17.

29% of the children were aged 16.

4% of the children were aged 15.

<1% of the children were aged 14 and under.

Overall there were 51 cases of 13-year-olds getting married, and 6 cases of 12-year-olds getting married.[2]

According to Unchained At Last, the youngest girls to marry in 2000-2010 were three Tennessee 10-year-old girls who married men aged 24, 25 and 31 in 2001. The youngest boy was an 11-year-old who married a 27-year-old woman in the same state in 2006.[3]

[andromeda331]

17 minutes ago, izabella said:

One can still marry a child if the parents give permission.  And apparently they do give permission.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_States

I wish I could be surprised that parents do give permission. They should be thrown in jail along with the adult trying to marry their child. There is no excuse for marrying your twelve year old, eleven year old, ten year old or anyone under the age of 18 to an adult. 

[Brattinella]

21 hours ago, Razzberry said:

Maybe I've been thinking about this stuff too much lately, but there's an ad on TV (for toilet paper? not even sure)  that's been creeping me out.  A father and daughter are in the bathroom and he's teaching her how to shave her legs using "long smooth strokes".  WTH, is it me?

No, it isn't you.  How does the dad know how to shave legs, and more importantly, WHY is he shaving them in the wrong direction?

[ari333]

On 3/26/2019 at 5:22 AM, Razzberry said:

It very well could be photo-shopped.  Comparing pictures with Jackson's real face before he turned white it seems even clearer that these kids aren't biracial and almost certainly not his biologically.  Yes I've got too much time on my hands.

Who is the white dude in the upper picture? in the middle

[Razzberry]

That's his oldest boy Prince, shown here as a youngster.

[MilkMachine]

I read somewhere--maybe in this thread--that he dyed Prince Michael's hair when he was little. That certainly seems to be the case here. Ugh. I mean it's the least of his crimes but it just seems like evidence that his children were possessions to him, IMO.

[Brattinella]

45 minutes ago, MilkMachine said:

I read somewhere--maybe in this thread--that he dyed Prince Michael's hair when he was little. That certainly seems to be the case here. Ugh. I mean it's the least of his crimes but it just seems like evidence that his children were possessions to him, IMO.

Yikes!  How old is Prince there, three?  Who in the hell would BLEACH their toddler's hair at age three?

[kicksave]

23 hours ago, Blakeston said:

Is there any actual evidence of that, or are those just rumors?

Evidence of all the donors? The dentist admitted to it but walked it back after considerable pressure from the Jackson family. The oldest boy looks like him...Paris's looks exactly like her mother. There was a story out there a while ago about the youngest child's egg donor being Hispanic...not sure who then sperm donor is, maybe the dentist.

[Robert Lynch]

It's weird how Wade Robson had the biggest MJ connection by far. I remember his rap duo called Quo back in the mid 90s, as well as a couple of appearances on 90s shows like Picket Fence and Family Matters. It always amazes me as to how much of a dominant force he was then. Those 90s styles were on point back then. You might laugh at the fashion, but we all wore that look. Flannel shirts, buzz cut hairdos, you name it. 

[Umbelina]

The thing is, your child can be molested by, for example, your husband who lives with all of you.  It happens all the time.  Also, there really are men out there like John Ray Jr., PhD, better known as his pseudonym for the novel Lolita, Humbert Humbert. 

There was case, very like the Lolita novel recently in the news.  Man marries divorced or widowed woman who has an attractive child (attractive to them) or even more than one child.  That man has specifically targeted a woman, "groomed" her in today's language, specifically so he has handy and ready made children to molest. 

The friendly guy from your church who is taking his boys camping and offers to take your son along as well, after all, they are the same age, or school mates, does that really raise any warning signals?  After all, you've known him and his wife for years, he leads the choir, he coaches little league, are you really going to object to a boys camping trip?

These guys hone their craft, much as MJ did, he had more toys in his toybox to make that happen, but this kind of thing is going on every single day with relative nobodies.  They don't look threatening at all, you usually know them well, because they have made that happen and put themselves in the places where there is prey.  It's almost never "stranger danger" at all, it's your neighbor who babysits for you, or the Priest who hears your confession, or maybe it's even closer to home than that.

I've been thinking about what a parent can/could do here, you obviously can't keep your child in a bubble, and you don't want them to fear everyone either.  I think that maybe, from a very early age, you just start talking about private parts and let them know that they will NEVER be in trouble with you, but that anyone else touching those should not be, so no matter what that person may say to them, they need to come to you and tell you right away.  Ditto removing clothing, or touching them.  Keep adjusting that training for age.  ???

The other problem is, sometimes the parent will simply not believe it.  It can't be her husband!  It can't be his younger brother!  It can't be the scout leader from church!  It can't be grandpa! 

So before that step of talking with the children, I guess the real first step is educating the parents, that yes, it CAN be, and most importantly, you need to listen and believe at least enough to investigate it.  There may be an explanation in some cases, maybe the child had an accident, and the neighbor helped him out of wet pants and into something else, or something like that.  The child should not have to be the one to make a decision about whether something adults are doing is OK, that's your job.

In that recent case, the divorced woman refused to believe her children (all of them were being molested) because "he loves me."  They told her, she slapped them for lying.  From training at school, the oldest one then told another adult at her school, and that's how it all finally stopped.  The mother blamed the children completely.

What I'm really hoping is that this special and especially the Oprah follow up, have educated a few more parents about how seductive pedophiles can be, not just to the child, but to the parent.   If the take away from this is just all about MJ's actions and not the process, we will have lost a huge opportunity. 

[Razzberry]

I think there's so much to be learned from this.  Pedophilia and the sexualization of children is obviously more widespread than we'd like to think.  I applaud France for banning those hideous child beauty pageants, and enjoyed reading Samantha's (of the infamous Polanski incident) interview.  I agree with her on many points, but have problems with others.  Not everyone is so resilient or as capable to come through it unscathed as she seems to be.  You can see the difference in personalities with Wade and James, who seems more fragile.

Re: Jackson paternity:  It's been very confusing but I think we can finally put this to bed so to speak.

[DangerousMinds]

Paris looks just like Debbie.

[Brattinella]

8 minutes ago, DangerousMinds said:

Paris looks just like Debbie.

Yes, but Prince, IMO, looks nothing like that doctor.

[Catgyrl]

40 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

Yes, but Prince, IMO, looks nothing like that doctor.

You really don't see a resemblance here? 

[formerlyfreedom]

Topic, please. We don't need to deep-dive on the paternity of the Jackson children. Thank you.

[Robert Lynch]

I know Michael was 5'9, but James and Wade are a couple of inches taller than MJ. I recalled the teenage James with Lisa Marie and Michael during the trip and James seemed to tower Michael then, too.

[Robert Lynch]

Paul McCartney shocked by Leaving Neverland allegations

[IntrovertRed]

Quote

Gayle King said she asked a child psychologist why the hell Wade would still associate with MJ, go to his funeral, try to get a job with his estate if he had been abused, and the psychologist said that happens all the time because the victim still feels like they have a relationship with the abuser (Did not getting the job have anything to do with him coming forward? Who knows. He doesn’t dispute the timeline of events. But that doesn’t confirm or deny anything. Even if it did, doesn’t mean he’s lying). James reported that he severed contact with MJ himself in 2005 when he refused to testify, but was still very saddened at his death because it meant they would never be friends again. This is how the abuse effs people up.

I learned this firsthand as I learned of sexual abuse my husband suffered when he was a child by a family member.  He had suppressed and buried it for so long, he didn’t tell me until we were together almost 20 years. When the family member died a couple years ago, he even spoke at this person’s funeral and had everyone crying with a beautiful tribute. After I told him I couldn’t believe he said all of it knowing what happened, he just said that he still loved him even though he hated him too.  And he was also kind of relieved he was gone because he was worried it would come out (I take some comfort that I never liked this family member, and he was an asshole to me).  Anyway, it’s all something I can’t ever pretend to understand, but hearing people blame the victims, “why did they wait so long to come forward,” and there are just SO many reasons. What is hard is hearing my husband’s family talk about this person almost as a martyr because none of them know what happened. I wish they did but my husband thinks it won’t help anything except to make his parents feel bad, though I’m of the mind that I’d want to know if it were my kid, especially with the way they worship this person now.  But it’s not my story to tell.  And I absolutely believe Wade and Jimmy. I even see some of my husband in Jimmy, who I hope is in therapy (his wife too). 

[Robert Lynch]

1 hour ago, KLJ said:

I learned this firsthand as I learned of sexual abuse my husband suffered when he was a child by a family member.  He had suppressed and buried it for so long, he didn’t tell me until we were together almost 20 years. When the family member died a couple years ago, he even spoke at this person’s funeral and had everyone crying with a beautiful tribute. After I told him I couldn’t believe he said all of it knowing what happened, he just said that he still loved him even though he hated him too.  And he was also kind of relieved he was gone because he was worried it would come out (I take some comfort that I never liked this family member, and he was an asshole to me).  Anyway, it’s all something I can’t ever pretend to understand, but hearing people blame the victims, “why did they wait so long to come forward,” and there are just SO many reasons. What is hard is hearing my husband’s family talk about this person almost as a martyr because none of them know what happened. I wish they did but my husband thinks it won’t help anything except to make his parents feel bad, though I’m of the mind that I’d want to know if it were my kid, especially with the way they worship this person now.  But it’s not my story to tell.  And I absolutely believe Wade and Jimmy. I even see some of my husband in Jimmy, who I hope is in therapy (his wife too). 

That was a beautiful statement and I wish some MJ fans could take that in consideration about abuse. Some might argue it is about money or whatever. I don’t think it’s that. It is about living with it for years and exposing the truth. I know hardcore fans don’t want to think MJ as a child abuser, but sometimes that’s the truth. He did the deed after all.

[Growsonwalls]

Here's the thing about "I just love kids and want to be around them." There are wonderful people in the world who devote their lives to helping kids. They are teachers, mothers, aunts, grandmothers, social workers, librarians, nurses, doctors, writers (J.K. Rowling -- how much joy did she bring to kids?), etc. Of the many people I've met who have devoted their lives to helping kids, not a single one insists on sleeping in the same bed with said kids. Not a single one isolates kids from their families. I'm a teacher and every year kids I adore graduate and go to college. At graduation I always cry my eyes out. But I'm happy for them, because I realize I've taken them as far as I can, and they have to move on. 

If MJ wanted to "love kids," he could have done so in ways that absolutely would have been proper and fine. He could have visited sick kids in the hospital. He could have started a school or scholarship, the way Lebron James has. He could even have brought kids to trips to Disneyland. All of this would have been under the umbrella of "normal." But all of MJ's activities with kids focused on HIS needs. He wanted adorable dancers in his concerts, in his commercials, to tour with him, to sleep with him, to have sex with him. That's not someone devoted to kids. That's someone who thinks of kids as a way to satisfy his needs.

[Robert Lynch]

Will.I.Am thinks Leaving Neverland is racist smear campaign

Really? And your evidence is.....thought so. 

Case close. 

[Brattinella]

2 minutes ago, Robert Lynch said:

Will.I.Am thinks Leaving Neverland is racist smear campaign

Really? And your evidence is.....thought so. 

Case close. 

Oh God, who cares what YOU think, William?  All the rest of us know what it is.

[Neko]

A pedophile is a pedophile, regardless of race.  That is all I have to say about that.

[Simon Boccanegra]

Quote from Inquisitr piece above:  

Quote

For McCartney, that is perfectly understandable, despite the fact it may affect his own music sales given that the pair collaborated on a number of different songs.

And that number would be...three? Two that most people have even heard of, because "The Man" has never been more than an obscure album cut. I certainly can't hum a bar of it. 

I'll just say I doubt anything involving Michael could make Paul worry over his music sales in the next quarter. He was in a popular group at the beginning of his career with three other guys. They recorded a lot of stuff.   

I think "friends" may be overstating the Paul/Michael relationship too. They collaborated for a short time, probably got along well enough, and then their relationship soured over Michael's swooping in and acquiring The Beatles' catalog, as well as the way he allowed the songs to be used (John's "Revolution" to sell sneakers, et cetera). I doubt, given their significant differences, they were having heart-to-heart talks or hanging out. Besides which, I love Paul, but he is not known for forming enduring bonds with musical collaborators (other than, of course, the late, lovely Linda). There's a reason Phil Collins, Eric Stewart, Elvis Costello, and others worked with him and then never did again; why the Wings lineup was constantly changing, and why he rarely returns to the same album producer, even when an album is well received. For all his public affability, he is not the easiest man.

Edited March 30, 2019 by Simon Boccanegra

[Robert Lynch]

11 hours ago, Shakma said:

A pedophile is a pedophile, regardless of race.  That is all I have to say about that.

True. I read the whole thing and I wished I haven't. Especially when you considered the two former bodyguards who were at MJ's side for only brief periods of time. 

Edited March 30, 2019 by Robert Lynch

[qtpye]

I am not surprised at the nonbelievers. Remember there are people who still think the earth is flat and that the earth is only 100,000 years old because that is what the Bible says and no amount of facts or evil science will ever change their minds.