Leaving Neverland

[Robert Lynch]

12 minutes ago, Razzberry said:

I'm skeptical about his "vitiligo". Has it ever been confirmed by credible medical sources?  It usually leaves very patchy skin and I don't recall ever seeing this on him. Over the years he just got gradually whiter, but that's not how it works. 

I think his plastic surgeries ended him looking like an Anime character as time went on. In my opinion, MJ was afraid to age. He wanted to stay young looking for life.

[kathe5133]

30 minutes ago, Razzberry said:

I'm skeptical about his "vitiligo". Has it ever been confirmed by credible medical sources?  It usually leaves very patchy skin and I don't recall ever seeing this on him. Over the years he just got gradually whiter, but that's not how it works. 

I've always been skeptical about that.  You are right.  It's patchy not a uniform white.  I think I heard that he bleached his healthy skin to match, but I don't know where I heard that.  Yeah, he has vitiligo.  This is from a man who claimed he never had plastic surgery on his nose!

[Melina22]

Wow. Looking at a picture of his real face next to the face he ended up with is so shocking. He was unrecognizable. The saddest thing is that his original face was really nice, perfectly attractive. 

[Simon Boccanegra]

I was skeptical of the vitiligo claims during MJ's life, but the medical examiner who performed the autopsy (Dr. Christopher Rogers) listed it in the findings in his report, and testified to same in the wrongful death suit against MJ's physician. I have no reason to believe Dr. Rogers was lying for Michael posthumously. He certainly spared no detail in reporting other unusual findings. The lips were tattooed pink, the eyebrows were tattooed dark, and the front of the scalp was tattooed to blend with wigs, for example.

So I think the vitiligo was something truthful that MJ used as a public justification for his extreme measures...while also denying he had taken any extreme measures. Actually, that describes his comments on his relationships with children, too, substituting "I never had a childhood" for "vitiligo."

That Billboard piece on Reed, Robson, and Safechuck was great. I was just thinking about how back in the '80s, they devoted an entire issue to the MJ phenomenon. It was full of testimonials and tributes from other music stars, from younger wannabe music stars, and from industry suit types. If you weren't in the industry, Billboard in that era could be awfully dry reading, but that week it was one long tongue bath. Diana Ross's tribute was very strange. If memory serves, it was a full-page B&W picture of her full of diva hauteur, and the only words were "So, Michael. You saw the Wiz, and you got what you wanted."  

Who would have guessed, all these years later, print media would give way to websites, and Billboard would be running an interview with now-grown men alleging sexual abuse at MJ's hands?

Edited March 22, 2019 by Simon Boccanegra

[Umbelina]

1 hour ago, izabella said:

I don't see that at all.  Do you have pictures or something that leads you to believe that?

1 hour ago, Razzberry said:

I'm skeptical about his "vitiligo". Has it ever been confirmed by credible medical sources?  It usually leaves very patchy skin and I don't recall ever seeing this on him. Over the years he just got gradually whiter, but that's not how it works. 

If you google his name, Prince Michael, and vitiligo a few photos come up.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/michael-jacksons-son-suffer-loss-pigment/story?id=11064783 

[Melina22]

I just learned something! I finally googled vitiligo. For some reason I thought it was something that didn't affect white people, probably because I've only ever heard it discussed in relation to black people like MJ or Winnie Harlow. So it's possible Prince Michael has it. 

That said, after studying their photos, you can't convince me that either Prince or Paris are biracial, which they'd have to be if MJ was their biological father. I could be wrong, of course, but that's my opinion. If I'm right MJ wasn't the biological father, and the vitiligo is a red herring. 

None of this actually matters, since adoptive parents can be wonderful. I guess it's the lying that bothers me. And the puzzle of why someone would deliberately go about creating children for themselves who don't look remotely like them or anyone in their family. In itself it isn't wrong, just... odd. 

[ruby24]

8 minutes ago, Melina22 said:

None of this actually matters, since adoptive parents can be wonderful. I guess it's the lying that bothers me. And the puzzle of why someone would deliberately go about creating children for themselves who don't look remotely like them or anyone in their family. In itself it isn't wrong, just... odd. 

Well, assuming he wasn't infertile or something, I do think the obvious answer to this is his pedophilia. It's very disturbing, but we really have no idea if he abused his own children. These were kids that couldn't be taken away from him, which is what he always wanted.

And if he was convinced in his own warped mind that this was about "showing love" then there's nothing to say he wouldn't have abused his own kids. Like someone said earlier in the thread, the classification of pedophile he was tends not to target their own relatives, which could explain why he may not have molested other Jackson kids, like his nephews and cousins. 

But he went out of his way not to biologically father his kids himself. So...that may have something to do with it.

And I mean the boys of course, given his patterned history. Paris seems the most publicly screwed up, but I kinda wonder if she was the most neglected by him of the three kids. He really never showed any interest in girls at all (and frankly I'm sure that he neglected all three of them a lot and left them to the nanny, given his addiction problems- that story Wade relayed was very telling. He was completely unfit to raise kids even if he wasn't a child molester).

Edited March 22, 2019 by ruby24

[sistermagpie]

10 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

Well, assuming he wasn't infertile or something, I do think the obvious answer to this is his pedophilia. It's very disturbing, but we really have no idea if he abused his own children. These were kids that couldn't be taken away from him, which is what he always wanted.

Although they eventually would be taken away from him by time--he lost interest in the boys as they got older.

It's also just possible that he wanted children who looked in a way he thought was pretty. As someone else said, he seems to have had a lot of issues with his own natural looks that might get into complicated feelings about his family or his race or who knows what else. So he may have just gone for features he thought were the most attractive, including on himself.

[doodlebug]

9 hours ago, izabella said:

I don't see that at all.  Do you have pictures or something that leads you to believe that?

Someone posted a photo upthread of Prince Michael on the beach where he appears to have vitiligo under his arm, I think.  It is not confirmed and it could be a lot of other things, including issues with the sunlight and the camera.  I only brought it up because it had been mentioned here before.

 

6 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

Although they eventually would be taken away from him by time--he lost interest in the boys as they got older.

It's also just possible that he wanted children who looked in a way he thought was pretty. As someone else said, he seems to have had a lot of issues with his own natural looks that might get into complicated feelings about his family or his race or who knows what else. So he may have just gone for features he thought were the most attractive, including on himself.

Anyone who uses sperm or egg donation has the opportunity to choose donors with certain characteristics whether its eye color or nationality or even talents.  I have friends who have 3 kids, all conceived with donor sperm.  When they were ready to have kids, they checked out the sperm bank specifically looking for donors with fair skin, light hair and eyes because that was similar to their coloring.  They also looked for donors with a college education as well as some athletic ability because both of them were college graduates and both had lettered in varsity sports in high school. They then purchased all of the vials of sperm available for the donor they wanted (I think it was 10) so that all their kids would have a better chance of looking like siblings.  Melissa Etheridge and her ex-wife admitted that they asked David Crosby to donate for their child because they wanted to share their love of music and, since Melissa's partner was providing the egg, using a donor with musical talent would possibly help them to have a kid with Melissa's interest in music.

In Michael's case, perhaps, with all of his crazy and abusive family members and maybe even because of his own issues, I'd like to think that maybe he used a donor to have kids because he didn't think the Jackson family genetic heritage was worth preserving.

[MilkMachine]

Barbara Streisand says she believes the men, but they were "thrilled" to be there and "it didn't kill them."

I wish I could read the original interview in the Times, but it's paywalled. This is a summary of the Jackson stuff, from (apparently) a longer interview.

[Razzberry]

Streisand: "You can say “molested”, but those children, as you heard say [the grown-up Robson and Safechuck], they were thrilled to be there. They both married and they both have children, so it didn’t kill them."

What a stupid thing to say.

I wonder if Jackson's creepy life-size dolls were 'anatomically correct'.

Edited March 22, 2019 by Razzberry

[Umbelina]

4 hours ago, Razzberry said:

re: the mothers

I've been reading dozens of articles trying to sort this out with no luck. Historically mothers are too often blamed whenever something bad happens, but I'm not convinced that's the case here.  The fathers just didn't have the time or the relationship with Jackson that the mothers did. 

From Slate:

"The mothers of Safechuck and Robson, both of whom gave extensive interviews for the film, come across as pushy managers eager to compromise their family relationships and their children’s safety for access to stardom and a life of luxury. Both took their kids out of school for weeks at a time to follow Jackson around. Both accepted lavish trips and gifts from Jackson—including, in the case of Safechuck’s mother, an entire house. And both ended up basically transferring parental duties to Jackson for prolonged periods of time."  

Rolling Stone asks: How Culpable are the Parents?
 

Quote

As a parent myself, after I watched the first part of Leaving Neverland, I started to wonder, under what circumstances would I have made the same decisions that the Safechucks and Robsons did? What if there had been a chaperone in the bedroom during sleepovers? What if the celebrity in question had been a goofy, non-threatening everyman, like a Tom Hanks or Chris Pratt type, and not one of the most famous, Elephant Man-skeleton-owning weirdos in the world? As I started asking myself these questions and attempting to justify their decisions to myself, I realized the truth: under the right circumstances, any parent would have made the same choices these parents did, because few of us are truly impervious to the lure of money and celebrity and ease and the fairy-tale allure of a mysterious stranger showing up to make your problems go away.

It is easy to judge the Robsons and the Safechucks and the Brobergs, but then again, it is easy to judge any parent to whom a horror or tragedy has befallen; otherwise, our brains simply can’t make sense of it, can’t comprehend the breadth of the injustices of the universe. Otherwise, we could stumble upon the truth: that it could just as easily happen to our children, too.

[Melina22]

I hope there's more to Barbra's quote than just that. If she really meant that, it shows a stunning lack of understanding of child abuse. She's not a stupid person, so I'm going to hope she was misquoted. If not... I'd rather not know, to be honest. I think I'm going to declare a personal moratorium on thinking about pedophilia for at least a couple of months, just for my mental health. 

That said, tonight I plan to watch the 20/20 on Diane Downs, who murdered her children. (I'm my own worst enemy 😁) 

[Robert Lynch]

Listening to Michael Jackson's music will never be the same

Wow. The beginning with the woman and her child on the subway. Just wow...

If R. Kelly gets this treatment, then MJ deserves the same disgrace. Unfortunately, that won't happen. With the mural in the East Village and a MJ musical heading to Broadway next summer, I doubt anything could change.

[Melina22]

It's hard to picture an MJ Broadway musical at this point. I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't happen. 

Still, I hope people don't start taking it upon themselves to announce who we're "allowed" to listen to, and shaming the people who make different choices. That would make me very uncomfortable. And irritable. 

[Robert Lynch]

It's a hard choice. You can't make a decision of so and so did this or that. It gets really complicated after a while. I think Wade said it better than most is that it doesn't matter if you will listen still to MJ music or not. All that matters to him is the abuse is told finally.

[doodlebug]

3 hours ago, Melina22 said:

It's hard to picture an MJ Broadway musical at this point. I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't happen. 

Still, I hope people don't start taking it upon themselves to announce who we're "allowed" to listen to, and shaming the people who make different choices. That would make me very uncomfortable. And irritable. 

The producers of the musical have already cancelled a pre-Broadway run in Chicago.  That occurred just before HBO ran the documentary.  They claimed that an actor's strike prevented them from participating in musical workshops for the show so they wouldn't be ready in time.  Actor's Equity pointed out that they lost 12 days of rehearsals and, considering it happened in February and the show wasn't opening in Chicago until October, it seems like the workshop time could've been made up without too much trouble.  Make what you will of that, but it seems like there was something other than the strike that factored into the decision

https://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/theater/ct-ent-michael-jackson-musical-cancels-0215-story.html

 

8 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

But would that make the fathers less culpable? To me it just makes them culpable in a different way. 

Sure it was the mothers who were interested in knowing Michael themselves and who were pushier about their kid's career. It was entirely Joy Robson's idea to split up her family and use Jackson and Wade as her ticket to LA--nobody seems to have been under any illusion then that she wanted a new life for herself and not making some big sacrifice for Wade. The distance was the one thing protecting him for a while. Wade's father was taken out of the picture against his will and then really didn't have a way of knowing what was going on, so he's a special case.

But if Safechuck just left it up to his wife to take responsibility for anything that might be going on between his kid and Michael Jackson then he gave up his parenting duties just as much as she did. It's not like he didn't know his kid was on tour with Jackson or sleeping with him in a different hotel suite. One could just as easily say that it reflects better on the mothers that Jackson put a lot of effort into convincing them he was harmless and that he cared about them and their family rather than just assuming they'd give him the same access as a stranger, like Dad. 

There are plenty of photos of Safechuck's father with MJ on tour and at Neverland.  He was a willing participant.  There was also the notorious LaToya interview where she spoke of MJ writing checks to a sanitation worker whose son was molested.  Safechuck's father ran a waste disposal business.  However, Safechuck said his father died shortly before the documentary was filmed.  He said he was worried that his mother was emotionally fragile due to the loss and the interview would be too hard for her.  I wouldn't be surprised if he specifically requested not to speak about his father due to the proximity of his death to filming.  

Edited March 23, 2019 by doodlebug

[biakbiak]

SHUT THE FUCK UP BARBARA

Etb: I didn’t intentionally misspell her name but I am not correcting it because fuck you!

Edited March 23, 2019 by biakbiak

[ruby24]

So I can honestly say that I never thought I'd hear THAT kind of a defense of him. Wow, that's...something else.

In some way the people that refuse to believe the truth because they're such big fans and they don't want to give up the music, or their fandom- that's one thing. Because on some level they know if it IS true, then they can't be fans in the same way and they just don't want to give it up.

But this, to believe the truth and want to somehow start excusing pedophilia itself- wow, that's a whole different realm. 

I understand the need for society to figure out a way to deal with non-abusing pedophiles. It's classified as a psychiatric disorder and there should be some way to deal with these people and get them treatment so that they don't endanger children. But Michael Jackson enabled and indulged his sickness for decades, preying on children and abusing them, taking their innocence and futures and ruining they and their families lives. That's unforgivable. 

[Melina22]

If Barbra actually said the things being attributed to her, is it possible she's suffering from early onset dementia? I'm not being sarcastic. It seems inconceivable to me that she would actually say this stuff unless she's losing it. She's too smart and savvy a person. Or so I thought. 

[AgentRXS]

What the actual fuck? Not many things leave me speechless but...wow Babs. Wow.

11 hours ago, kathe5133 said:

I've always been skeptical about that.  You are right.  It's patchy not a uniform white.  I think I heard that he bleached his healthy skin to match, but I don't know where I heard that.  Yeah, he has vitiligo.  This is from a man who claimed he never had plastic surgery on his nose!

Its really sad that someone with such immense natural talent and gorgeous looks could be so psychologically fucked up. Can't say I really blame him for not wanting to pass along the Jackson genes, but damn his natural born kids would have probably been gorgeous too. Damn you, Joe Jackson.

[Simon Boccanegra]

I think Streisand just doesn't get it. We all have our blind spots, but this seems more offensive in light of some things she's complained about, and how loudly she's complained about them, like those pictures of her house on the internet. (It got a whole "effect" named after her!) On that background of not-infrequent displays of personal aggrievement, she appears to be diminishing trauma these men suffered as children, trauma they're obviously still struggling with, family support and all. It all suggests she has a warped sense of scale and no small amount of privilege.  

And she is the mother of a grown son herself. Maybe I shouldn't assume this, because there are all kinds of parents (see Leaving Neverland), but I would hope a story like this one would reach her on that level. If someone had done similar things to Jason, even if it had started out with him being "thrilled to be there," wouldn't she have been ready to kill the perpetrator herself? 

Edited March 23, 2019 by Simon Boccanegra

[merylinkid]

5 hours ago, Melina22 said:

If Barbra actually said the things being attributed to her, is it possible she's suffering from early onset dementia? I'm not being sarcastic. It seems inconceivable to me that she would actually say this stuff unless she's losing it. She's too smart and savvy a person. Or so I thought. 

Just justifying another rich reclusive singer's disgusting behavior.     Her sense of privilege is strong.    Dementia does not make you say things you don't really believe.   It just removes the inhibitions to say things you know you shouldn't say in polite company.   Even if she were having dementia, which is probably not the case, those thoughts are still on her head.   

As for Jackson's kids, he didn't want black kids.    If he were their bio dad, there was a chance they would look like him.   So he used donor sperm and a white blond woman to be the mom, instant white kids.

[A.Ham]

If in fact she did say it... wow.

I read the replies for a little bit and saw this one which I was one of my favorites:

[andromeda331]

1 hour ago, A.Ham said:

If in fact she did say it... wow.

I read the replies for a little bit and saw this one which I was one of my favorites:

Great comment. What a horrible thing to say. Well, they must have enjoyed it? Oh, so its okay Barbra for adults to have sex with children? Nothing wrong with a man in his thirties having sex with a seven year old? Because hey they probably enjoyed it? What is wrong with you? That's vile, horrible and disgusting. There is absolutely nothing okay with what Michael did. How dare you reduce child abuse like that.

[Swartz]

I hope Barbra pays the price for her vile comments.     Truly makes me wonder how many in Hollywood think the way she does.    I hear all these stories about child abuse happening in HW.   I wonder how much these folks know 

[sistermagpie]

5 minutes ago, SnK said:

I hope Barbra pays the price for her vile comments.     Truly makes me wonder how many in Hollywood think the way she does.    I hear all these stories about child abuse happening in HW.   I wonder how much these folks know 

I think age has something to do with it too. I remember hearing how people seemed to have talked about the Polanski rape back in the day--when he gave a 13-year-old Quaaludes etc.--and people seemed to think nothing of defending his behavior and holding the girl responsible. It seems like in the 70s there was a real strain of thought that people (for people read men) to follow their sexual urges wherever they led. I think it was Anjelica Huston who saw the girl leaving someplace and made some comment about how this was obviously a 13-year-old who knew what she was doing, etc. Basically calling her a slut. I felt like there was some of that in Barbra saying that his "sexual needs were his sexual needs" or whatever.

I wish she'd been pressed on blaming the parents because if she's claiming the kids were thrilled to be there etc., what's she blaming the parents for? It's just strange the way she does obviously feel that something was wrong here. She just wants to blame everyone except the person committing the crime. The parents were wrong for letting the kids sleep with him. The kids were wrong for being thrilled to be there. Michael had "needs" that were in his DNA.

[andromeda331]

3 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

I think age has something to do with it too. I remember hearing how people seemed to have talked about the Polanski rape back in the day--when he gave a 13-year-old Quaaludes etc.--and people seemed to think nothing of defending his behavior and holding the girl responsible. It seems like in the 70s there was a real strain of thought that people (for people read men) to follow their sexual urges wherever they led. I think it was Anjelica Huston who saw the girl leaving someplace and made some comment about how this was obviously a 13-year-old who knew what she was doing, etc. Basically calling her a slut. I felt like there was some of that in Barbra saying that his "sexual needs were his sexual needs" or whatever.

I wish she'd been pressed on blaming the parents because if she's claiming the kids were thrilled to be there etc., what's she blaming the parents for? It's just strange the way she does obviously feel that something was wrong here. She just wants to blame everyone except the person committing the crime. The parents were wrong for letting the kids sleep with him. The kids were wrong for being thrilled to be there. Michael had "needs" that were in his DNA.

I remember that too. It was absolutely sickening the way everyone flocked to defend Polanski and blame the poor victim. Hell, people loved it. It was like a badge of honor. What was done to that poor girl was disgusting and horrible. Badgering, threats, trying to force her to take back what she said about the "poor man". Every single one had no problem defending a rapist and blaming the victim.

And the really sad thing is That hasn't changed. From Hollywood to everywhere in the country. It still happens. People practically trip over themselves to defend the poor boy or man who was accused while the victim is treated like the criminal. They are always blamed no matter what happened.  The whole "what was she wearing, why was she there, how much did she drink, she took it the wrong way, she was a slut, she just wants to ruin him" bullshit that's been going on since the beginning of time. And despite it being 2019 that still hasn't changed. You can still find that happening in every state in the country. There are hundreds of cases every single year. The man rarely goes to jail. Why are so many people flocking to defend the abusers? Why is it still okay to molest, abuse or rape anyone? Or don't want his life to be ruined over "one mistake"? Why is that still seen as a mistake and not a crime? Why is that okay? Why doesn't any of the blame get put on the abuser? Why doesn't anyone ask how could he rape woman? How could he molest and rape children? why is it okay to ruin the life of the victim but not the abuser? Its disgusting at how many people are defending MJ. Its disgusting the children who were abused are being blamed. But its still as common everywhere. 

[ombelico]

http://www.espn.com/espnw/sports/article/26322939/ucla-gymnast-katelyn-ohashi-new-floor-routine-viral-star-removes-michael-jackson-music-leaving-neverland 

[Razzberry]

Reed's question is probably rhetorical, but to me her comments reveal (among other things) a sense of entitlement and real contempt for fans.  The silence of other celebrities on this whole issue strikes me as either cowardice or a circling the wagons against the ungrateful unwashed masses who should be thrilled to be allowed in their presence.

[Brattinella]

I've been noticing this for some time, the attempted normalization of pedophilia.  I am hoping this Barbra thing creates a groundswell of disgust for pedophiles (and enablers) and results in a permanent pariah-state for them (and jail time) no matter WHO they are.

[wendyg]

The Guardian has a summary of the Streisand interview. Bonkers: https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/mar/23/michael-jackson-barbra-streisand-leaving-neverland

[Melina22]

As shocking as her statement is, I don't think we can jump to the conclusion that people generally aren't against pedophilia. Just look at the massive reaction to Leaving Neverland, where millions of people believe Wade and James and completely support them, despite their previous love of MJ's music. 

I feel confident that if I were to poll all the people I know, and every person on the main street of my town, the majority would be strongly, if not violently, opposed to pedophilia. 

Obviously not everyone in the world is against it, or there would be no perpetrators or victims, but I don't want to give in to the idea that pedophiles are everywhere. I don't want to wildly overestimate the percentage of people who are in favour of child abuse, because that just stokes people's fear and anxiety in a way that I don't believe is backed by evidence. 

Do I believe MJ molested Wade and James? Absolutely. Do I believe large percentages of my country's population would do the same to children if they could? No. 

[sistermagpie]

2 hours ago, Razzberry said:

Reed's question is probably rhetorical, but to me her comments reveal (among other things) a sense of entitlement and real contempt for fans.  The silence of other celebrities on this whole issue strikes me as either cowardice or a circling the wagons against the ungrateful unwashed masses who should be thrilled to be allowed in their presence.

I think celebrity is like any other kind of power. There are those who will abuse it and those who have it who automatically identify with others who do even if they're not abusing it the same way. With celebrities it's probably also complicated by the whole craziness of their situations. They hold all this power and get all sorts of advantages, but they can also fall out of favor and be joke has-beens hanging around anyone who's still interested in their old fame.

I can see why people wouldn't feel like they had anything to add specifically because they were celebrities. I mean, they would obviously know there are plenty of star-fuckers out there and plenty of them have probably taken advantage of them and even gotten away with stuff because they were celebrities, but they'd also know just how willing people are to trade that to be near fame. And they're also on the receiving end of actual public opinion unlike a lot of very powerful rich people nobody knows about. Barbra Streisand's been so famous for so long she might only see the world from the perspective of the beleaguered celebrity who sees other people as always trying to get something from her

[RabbitEars]

I have not been able to get James' thousand yard stare out of my head. I hope Wade & James are receiving all the support in the world.

A relative is studying social work and hopes to be a counselor. I've made them promise to watch all four hours of this + the Oprah discussion because it's such a powerful illustration of the insidious ways families and kids are groomed. I imagine therapists are having clients walk in seeking help after seeing this.

[Blakeston]

I'm sure people will think I'm crazy, but I really think it's very possible that Michael's kids were his biological children. I've seen enough side-by-side photos (here are some good examples) to convince me that he has a real resemblance to both Blanket and Paris.

And there are multiple photos of Prince that display his vitiligo. I suppose Michael could have sought out a white sperm donor with vitiligo, but isn't it more likely that some of his kids just came out light-skinned? And if he chose white sperm donors for his first two kids, why didn't he choose one for Blanket?

As for Barbra Streisand, it's been obvious to me for some time that the woman is truly "off." I hope this helps some of her hardcore fans shake off the idea that she's infallible. (I guess that's one thing she has/had in common with Michael - fans who treat them like gods.)

[DuckyinKy]

Diana Ross just weighed in via Twitter:

This is what’s on my heart this morning. I believe and trust that Michael Jackson was and is A magnificent incredible force to me and to many others.
STOP IN THE NAME OF LOVE

Is this opposite day?

[Neko]

7 minutes ago, DuckyinKy said:

Diana Ross just weighed in via Twitter:

This is what’s on my heart this morning. I believe and trust that Michael Jackson was and is A magnificent incredible force to me and to many others.
STOP IN THE NAME OF LOVE

Is this opposite day?

Nah.  Diana Ross was a good friend of MJ's, so of course she isn't going to believe he was guilty.  I think he even planned on giving his kids to her, in case his mother died.

Edited March 24, 2019 by Shakma

[biakbiak]

Is there anything more Diana Ross than making this about her including quoting a song of the Supremes?

[Scarlett45]

I saw what both Barbara said and what Diana said. I still believe Wade and James and feel what happened to them was awful. 

Michael did have vitiligo. Most black people who have it try to go to a shade close to their skin tone, but MJ obviously had issues with his blackness and used his skin condition as an excuse to bleach his skin. 

I don’t know if the kids are biologically his. I do think he wanted children that would be attractive (in his mind), and Paris is especially beautiful. I hope he didn’t hurt his own children, of course kids can love their abusers but it was clear to me that they all loved him. I don’t think he had children just to have kids to molest- 1. There are for easier/less expensive ways to do that, 2. The kids would only be the age he was “into” for a small window of time, 3. Why have a girl?! They had IVF back then. 

8 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

I think age has something to do with it too. I remember hearing how people seemed to have talked about the Polanski rape back in the day--when he gave a 13-year-old Quaaludes etc.--and people seemed to think nothing of defending his behavior and holding the girl responsible. It seems like in the 70s there was a real strain of thought that people (for people read men) to follow their sexual urges wherever they led. I think it was Anjelica Huston who saw the girl leaving someplace and made some comment about how this was obviously a 13-year-old who knew what she was doing, etc. Basically calling her a slut. I felt like there was some of that in Barbra saying that his "sexual needs were his sexual needs" or whatever.

I wish she'd been pressed on blaming the parents because if she's claiming the kids were thrilled to be there etc., what's she blaming the parents for? It's just strange the way she does obviously feel that something was wrong here. She just wants to blame everyone except the person committing the crime. The parents were wrong for letting the kids sleep with him. The kids were wrong for being thrilled to be there. Michael had "needs" that were in his DNA.

Yes. There’s a certain attitude that the sexual needs of MEN are the most important thing in the world and if someone is abused or hurt because of that, 1. It’s the parents fault for not protecting the kids enough (in the case of minors), 2. It’s the victims fault for not screaming hard enough or fighting back. In the case of the poor woman in AZ that is in the vegetative state it was her family’s fault for not making sure her tubes were tied after she hit puberty or allowing her to have a male nurse. It’s never ever the fault of the abuser (as long as he doesn’t break their ribs etc) because well his sexual needs are the most important. 

[A.Ham]

1 hour ago, DuckyinKy said:

Is this opposite day?

Certainly feels like it. Even with the explanation about Diana Ross being close friends with him, it’s like, ok, who is next on this celebrity apology tour? Ok, well, I suppose one ca say that Diana is not able to be objective about the situation. So does she get a pass in excusing his behavior? That’s a grayer area for me.

Back to Barbara—her statement is, at best, tone deaf, and at worst, hand-waving child abuse. 

12 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

That's a vile, horrible and disgusting. There is absolutely nothing okay with what Michael did. How dare you reduce child abuse like that.

Yup. Thank you for stating it so succinctly.

[Kostgard]

43 minutes ago, A.Ham said:

Certainly feels like it. Even with the explanation about Diana Ross being close friends with him, it’s like, ok, who is next on this celebrity apology tour? Ok, well, I suppose one ca say that Diana is not able to be objective about the situation. So does she get a pass in excusing his behavior? That’s a grayer area for me.

Back to Barbara—her statement is, at best, tone deaf, and at worst, hand-waving child abuse. 

Diana just says she doesn’t believe the allegations, which...fine. Barbra is all, “Oh, I totally believed it happened. But...whatevs. It didn’t kill them, so it’s all good.” Which...yikes.

I wonder about the timing of this. The film has been out for nearly a month now. I wonder if the Jacksons are calling in favors.

In other news, You guys, James is okay.

Quote

After the documentary was released, many viewers became concerned with Safechuck's wellbeing, and on March 20, the director of Leaving Neverland gave a welcome update on the Jackson accuser. "Women feel very protective of James. We have had quite a few emails from people asking about James. 'Is there anything I can do?'" Dan Reed said on the podcast Reality Life With Kate Casey. He continued,

"James is in a pretty good place. When he did the interview back in February 2017 he was perhaps more fragile, definitely more fragile than he is now. He has been through a lot, but he’s in a great place now. He’s going to be in therapy for the rest of his life. He knows that, but he is strong. I think Sundance was a real turning point for him, to have that public validation of his story. To have people believe him and stand up and give him an ovation instead of standing up and shouting at him and calling him a liar. So that has been transformational, with the way this film has been received. It has been transformational for both Wade and James."

Even though I too walked away from the documentary thinking he looked like a wreck, I’m amused at the idea that Dan Reed has been getting a ton of emails from people all, “Seriously - is he okay? Should someone check on him?”

[Robert Lynch]

I was never a fan of Diana Ross or Streisand because their divatudes always seemed so off-putting. Judging from the comments, it seemed my opinion of them hardly changed.

[Blakeston]

Honestly, I came away from the documentary feeling like James and Wade were pretty much equally troubled (with Wade's emotions seeming slightly less raw than James'.)

It was the look on James' face at the Oprah interview that really made me worried about him. I honestly can't recall ever seeing someone with such a blatant look of complete devastation. Do we know when that was filmed?

[merylinkid]

7 hours ago, Kostgard said:

He has been through a lot, but he’s in a great place now. He’s going to be in therapy for the rest of his life.

But hey, according to Streisand, he's okay.   Yeah someone who needs therapy for the rest of their lives is just hunky-dory.   

I can kinda understand Diana Ross' view. He's been her friend since he was a little kid.   She doesn't want to see his image tarnished.   People defend their friends.  She simply doesn't want to believe it.     Although this is the one of those things you should just SHUT UP and not express them out loud.   Barbara's opinion just is "I need to insert myself into this issue for reasons."

As for the assertion about about how if you asked people on the street their view of pedophilia, sure most would say it's wrong in answer to a general question.   But ask them about allegations about someone they like.   Doesn't have to be someone famous, say the local Scout Leader.   "Oh no, Mr. Smith wouldn't do that.   Look at all he does for the kids (umm yeah think about that statement for a second).    He gives so much of his time away from his own family to make sure those kids have the full scouting experience.   He goes to church every Sunday.  He couldn't have done the things he is accused of."   People are capable of great mental gymnastics when its personal.  

[Growsonwalls]

Actually what I think it is is that in the showbiz industry older powerful men taking advantage of younger (or VERY young) people is so commonplace that to people like Barbra and Diana Ross it is absolutely normal. They might even have the attitude of "hey I went through it and I turned out fine. Why can't they turn out like me?" I do know Diana Ross was very young when she began a long relationship with Berry Gordy of Motown. Who knows whether it was consensual. They even had a child together. 

[Melina22]

10 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

They might even have the attitude of "hey I went through it and I turned out fine. Why can't they turn out like me?" I 

Very astute observation. 

[Kostgard]

2 hours ago, Blakeston said:

Honestly, I came away from the documentary feeling like James and Wade were pretty much equally troubled (with Wade's emotions seeming slightly less raw than James'.)

It was the look on James' face at the Oprah interview that really made me worried about him. I honestly can't recall ever seeing someone with such a blatant look of complete devastation. Do we know when that was filmed?

 I believe it was filmed in February. The film premiered at Sundance in late January and this was filmed not long after.

He did look pretty devastated, but I think part of that was nerves and the raw emotions of being in a room full of survivors who had just watched his story and were crying. He looks way less distressed in the interview with Gayle King, which I think was conducted within days of the Oprah interview. And as the Oprah interview went on, he visibly relaxed a little and was even funny in moments at the end. So I don’t think he walks around every day looking the way he did in that interview.

No doubt he’s still really going through it, but he seems very cognizant of where he is and isn’t in denial about anything, which seems the most important part to me. And I think his emotions stand out even more because he’s there next to Wade, who I think is a little more stoic in nature and has a much easier time with these interviews due to the media practice he’s had with his career.

Edited March 24, 2019 by Kostgard

[Simon Boccanegra]

Everything @Kostgard just said, plus, as big an issue as this is in the psyches of Robson and Safechuck, I don't think it's consuming them. They're not always intensely focused on it for the purpose of a one-hour special, a four-hour documentary, or an interview in which the one and only subject is "my relationship with Michael Jackson." They have good things in their lives too. I'm not really worried about them...except inasmuch as they're now targets for the harassment of lunatics. 

Speaking of which, I was reading someone on Facebook yesterday (the friend of a friend) tearing his hair about how now we're "destroying art," with the obligatory comparisons of Jackson to various dead writers/painters/sculptors who did this or that. As if Michael Jackson's music is ever going to be hard to find, for anyone who wants to seek it out. And as if the decision of some people just not to listen to it, for any reason, is a crime against art.  

[TigerLynx]

2 hours ago, merylinkid said:

As for the assertion about about how if you asked people on the street their view of pedophilia, sure most would say it's wrong in answer to a general question.   But ask them about allegations about someone they like.   Doesn't have to be someone famous, say the local Scout Leader.   "Oh no, Mr. Smith wouldn't do that.   Look at all he does for the kids (umm yeah think about that statement for a second).    He gives so much of his time away from his own family to make sure those kids have the full scouting experience.   He goes to church every Sunday.  He couldn't have done the things he is accused of."   People are capable of great mental gymnastics when its personal.  

This.  There are people all the time in everyday life who don't want to believe someone they know is guilty of child abuse, spousal abuse, rape, sibling abuse, etc.