Leaving Neverland

[TigerLynx]

I can't fault people for liking Michael Jackson's music.  I'm not even surprised by people who don't want to believe the allegations.  In the 1980s, it wasn't just that MJ was a superstar, he was a child entertainer who started out poor, became rich, and was supporting his entire family.  He also gave a lot of money to charities, and to help children.  There are really no words to describe what it's like to discover someone who you thought was a good person turning out to be a pedophile.  It doesn't help that there were so many people willing to cover up the truth for MJ just like they did for Cosby and all the other rapists, pedophiles, abusers, etc.  Even the parents of these children were willing to look the other way so long as they were able to get money from MJ.

[Inquisitionist]

6 hours ago, TigerLynx said:

 Even the parents of these children were willing to look the other way so long as they were able to get money from MJ.

"Looking the other way" suggests the parents had explicit knowledge of Jackson's actions and condoned them.  I don't think that's an accurate or fair characterization.  The parents had been seduced as many people have been in the past by a very sly con man who had them convinced (and not just them) that he was still a child himself.  I think Part I makes it very clear just why these parents were so trusting, and why many other parents would have been, too. 

 

Also, to those who have criticized the moms for telling the early stories in a happy, light-hearted way:  those were the feelings they had at the time, and I can understand that they'd still view the good times that occurred before they knew of subsequent events in a positive way.  No one is just one thing:  Michael had elements of a monster, but he also had elements of a kind, generous person.  Similarly, the parents can feel outrage at what they finally learned that their sons endured, but still cherish the happy memories that were separate from those events.  Reconciling the contradictions that exist in all of us is part of being a mature human, IMO.

[Scarlett45]

A former classmate and Facebook friend of mine shared this- he works as an abuse counselor (I have his permission to share anonymously). I respect his insights as a human being and a professional so I wanted to share here. 

So I’ve watched all 4 hours of this documentary and consumed much of the cultural criticism about it and I’m going to say what I need to say and be done with it because everything those men have to share just resonates too much with all that I’ve heard and continue to hear from survivors I’ve worked with...

There’s not a doubt in my mind that they are telling the truth..........

Generally speaking sex offenders parse between rapists who happen to target children and pedophiles who exclusively target children.

Of the latter there are fixated pedophiles and regressed pedophiles. 

Regressed offenders are psychologically mature, identify as adults and prefer the company of adults, tend to offend when they feel the lack of power and control in some other area of their life, and usually target children in their family, regardless of gender.

Fixated offenders are not psychologically mature. They identify as children, prefer the company of children, and are usually developmentally stuck at an age when they were offended against or acutely traumatized some kind of way. They usually offend against boys around their own developmental age and they usually have no kinship relation with their victims.

Michael Jackson is obviously a fixated offender. He makes me feel the same way the fixated offenders I’ve counseled made me feel and his victims tell the same truths that the survivors I’ve worked with tend to tell.

[ruby24]

Wow, that describes him to a tee. That's definitely it.

I had wondered if he was likely to have abused his own sons- that description makes it sound like it's possible he didn't, because of the kinship relation. But does that mean genetically? Because obviously his kids were not his DNA either.

I've never heard those classifications before. So the reason behind the targeting of boys is because he's identifying with his own psychological state. So that could mean that he's not technically gay either. I mean, he definitely assumed the boys must be straight, because he had them watching straight porn. And Wade saying he thought it was weird that Michael would want to know about his sex life with girls later. Huh.

I feel about 95% sure that he was raped/abused as a boy. 

Edited March 9, 2019 by ruby24

[Scarlett45]

14 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

Wow, that describes him to a tee. That's definitely it.

I had wondered if he was likely to have abused his own sons- that description makes it sound like it's possible he didn't, because of the kinship relation. But does that mean genetically? Because obviously his kids were not his DNA either.

I've never heard those classifications before. So the reason behind the targeting of boys is because he's identifying with his own psychological state. So that could mean that he's not technically gay either. I mean, he definitely assumed the boys must be straight, because he had them watching straight porn. And Wade saying he thought it was weird that Michael would want to know about his sex life with girls later. Huh.

I feel about 95% sure that he was raped/abused as a boy. 

Just because someone wants to look at a certain type of pornography doesn’t necessarily mean anything about their sexual orientation. Enjoying heteroporn doesn’t mean someone is heterosexual. Enjoying gay porn doesn’t make someone gay.  I see lots of people commenting on this so I wanted to speak on it.

I never thought MJ was gay- he’s a pedophile, they aren’t related. 

I could certainly see a pubescent or teenage boy/girl being curious about sex or sexuality (so someone James’ age when he was being abused). Exposing the child to pornography is a grooming technique- sexualizing the atmosphere AND giving them access to something illicit that they aren’t supposed to have. Creating an environment of secrecy. “Porn and candy”. That’s very different that when two adults in a consensual sexual relationship (even just a hook up) want to watch porn together for whatever reason. 

[doodlebug]

15 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

Wow, that describes him to a tee. That's definitely it.

I had wondered if he was likely to have abused his own sons- that description makes it sound like it's possible he didn't, because of the kinship relation. But does that mean genetically? Because obviously his kids were not his DNA either.

I've never heard those classifications before. So the reason behind the targeting of boys is because he's identifying with his own psychological state. So that could mean that he's not technically gay either. I mean, he definitely assumed the boys must be straight, because he had them watching straight porn. And Wade saying he thought it was weird that Michael would want to know about his sex life with girls later. Huh.

I feel about 95% sure that he was raped/abused as a boy. 

I think there is no doubt MJ was abused, probably sexually, as a kid.  His father abused him in other ways, too.  I think MJ was a straight up pedophile who had no interest in having a sexual relationship with any adult, male or female.  The description of a fixated pedophile seems to be right on target in his case.  I don't think it is really correct to categorize a pedophile as either straight or gay.  Their victims are chosen because of their age.  Some pedophiles might choose little girls, others, little boys; but I think it gives the incorrect impression to imply that their behavior is comparable in any way to sexual relationships between adults, gay or straight.  

[Scarlett45]

4 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

I think there is no doubt MJ was abused, probably sexually, as a kid.  His father abused him in other ways, too.  I think MJ was a straight up pedophile who had no interest in having a sexual relationship with any adult, male or female.  The description of a fixated pedophile seems to be right on target in his case.  I don't think it is really correct to categorize a pedophile as either straight or gay.  Their victims are chosen because of their age.  Some pedophiles might choose little girls, others, little boys; but I think it gives the incorrect impression to imply that their behavior is comparable in any way to sexual relationships between adults, gay or straight.  

Exactly. Ding ding. (Bolded mine)

I also think it may be easier for male peodphiles to target young boys because on average girls are watched more, kept closer to home, socially and physically. Girls are also taught to watch out of sexual predators at an early age. We are talk to talk about how we feel and what’s going on in our day. 

I do think girls are more likely to be abused by someone they trust in their immediate circle, and will have guilt and shame around sex. 

[sistermagpie]

47 minutes ago, Inquisitionist said:

Also, to those who have criticized the moms for telling the early stories in a happy, light-hearted way:  those were the feelings they had at the time, and I can understand that they'd still view the good times that occurred before they knew of subsequent events in a positive way.  No one is just one thing:  Michael had elements of a monster, but he also had elements of a kind, generous person.  Similarly, the parents can feel outrage at what they finally learned that their sons endured, but still cherish the happy memories that were separate from those events.  Reconciling the contradictions that exist in all of us is part of being a mature human, IMO.

Also all those stories by this point must be so automatic for them. Often they are fun stories. Like that ridiculous time when Michael had the Safechucks "break him out" away from the paparazzi (as Oprah said, that as a set up--of course he didn't need their help to get anywhere). Or even Joy talking about how she got to know the chimps at Neverland really well. For them, that's all this experience was and it led to funny stories they would of course share with others. Not even in a namedropping way.

For the boys *all* their stories about him come back to sex, even the pre-sexual ones, because the relationship was always about an unhealthy obsession and isolation. It was always painful and confusing even when it was, in their minds, wonderful and fun. The mothers have an extra layer of distance built in because they honestly didn't know what was going on and might still detached from it.

James said he didn't know what his mother's reaction to the doc was because he basically disassociated while watching it with her, but I wonder if hearing the details made it more real for her. Joy, we know, skipped over those parts.

[ruby24]

For anyone who's wondering, here's Latoya being interviewed by Katie Couric in 93:

What I find interesting about her in this is that she's not saying she SAW Michael doing anything with boys. All she insists on is basically her mother's suspicions of him, of what he's doing, and seeing the checks that he gave to some parents. The stuff about him ignoring the brothers is true, the stuff about him supporting the whole family is true. And so's the fact that Michael and Latoya lived at home for a LONG time with their mom.

I think she's telling the truth here. Yes, she doesn't have evidence, per say, but I really believe that Katherine Jackson knew what he was doing as far as back as the early to mid-80's. And that she was upset about it, angry, distressed over it. She was complicit because she never did anything to prevent it or stop him, but apparently she did have some sort of conscience to be distraught over it.

I mean, it sounds like Katherine is the one who must have actually seen something more. Or maybe it was just her knowing Michael and her intuition as a mother that told her what was really going on with him. She IS the one who allowed her children to be abused physically and sexually at the hands of their father all that time, so she does not escape blame in any way. 

Edited March 9, 2019 by ruby24

[Neko]

56 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

I had wondered if he was likely to have abused his own sons- that description makes it sound like it's possible he didn't, because of the kinship relation. But does that mean genetically? Because obviously his kids were not his DNA either.

One thing I've noticed about MJ's kids is that the two sons never have anything public to say about him, or the family; that seems to be Paris's domain.  I am not an expert on these matters (far from it), but I have always found it odd that the sons, especially the oldest boy, never seem to say a word in defense of their father, unless they have, and I'm blanking on it.  Anyway, it's interesting.

[sistermagpie]

56 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

I had wondered if he was likely to have abused his own sons- that description makes it sound like it's possible he didn't, because of the kinship relation. But does that mean genetically? Because obviously his kids were not his DNA either.

I wonder if "family" in that description is more about relationships than DNA. That is, the regressed pedophile is a person who is psychologically mature and has relationships with adults. But then they feel out of control and have an impulse to act out--so they act out on children they know and have access to. I would bet that could apply not just to biological relatives but people related by marriage or even family friends who are close enough to be like family. Iow, they don't go hunting for kids, they start fixating on kids they have relationships with already.

As opposed to the fixated person who has relationships to kids that are more exclusively about them being friends with the kid, if that makes sense. They don't have an adult/child relationship like you would with a son (adopted or biological) or a nephew or whatever. You only have the relationship where you're "both" kids and you're friends on the same level.

I wouldn't be surprised if the threats both types used were different too. The regressed person might feel more comfortable using their status as an adult when it was convenient--telling the kid his parents wouldn't believe him, threatening to hurt people in their family etc. Michael's threats were about how *he* was vulnerable as a child.

Of course, we don't know what Michael's relationship with his own kids was like. He seems to have had enough power and freedom to just be a child with them while technically being their father, I guess.

[Melina22]

You're absolutely right, Shakma. They've never said one thing. I hope that doesn't mean anything. Maybe it doesn't. 

I'm starting to feel a little obsessed and overwhelmed by this subject. Just me? I'm going to have to step away a bit, for a while. 

I think I'm going to binge some Star Trek Discovery, or for a pure guilty pleasure, a few episodes of I Didn't Know I Was Pregnant. I'm hoping these will wash my brain out a little. 

But I'll be back here eventually. The comments are too interesting. 

[Scarlett45]

4 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

I wonder if "family" in that description is more about relationships than DNA. That is, the regressed pedophile is a person who is psychologically mature and has relationships with adults. But then they feel out of control and have an impulse to act out--so they act out on children they know and have access to. I would bet that could apply not just to biological relatives but people related by marriage or even family friends who are close enough to be like family. Iow, they don't go hunting for kids, they start fixating on kids they have relationships with already.

That’s what I think. Unless you work in certain professions, most adults only have intimate (and by intimate I mean close and regularly occurring, NOT sexual) relationships with children in their family, or family like relationships. Family isn’t just about genetics. 

11 minutes ago, Shakma said:

One thing I've noticed about MJ's kids is that the two sons never have anything public to say about him, or the family; that seems to be Paris's domain.  I am not an expert on these matters (far from it), but I have always found it odd that the sons, especially the oldest boy, never seem to say a word in defense of their father, unless they have, and I'm blanking on it.  Anyway, it's interesting.

Paris is the more extroverted and outspoken of the three. She wants to be a performer. I can very well believe that she’s the family spokesperson and natural leader for these reasons, not because her brothers disagree with what she’s saying. 

[TigerLynx]

28 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

For anyone who's wondering, here's Latoya being interviewed by Katie Couric in 93:

What I find interesting about her in this is that she's not saying she SAW Michael doing anything with boys. All she insists on is basically her mother's suspicions of him, of what he's doing, and seeing the checks that he gave to some parents. The stuff about him ignoring the brothers is true, the stuff about him supporting the whole family is true. And so's the fact that Michael and Latoya lived at home for a LONG time with their mom.

I think she's telling the truth here. Yes, she doesn't have evidence, per say, but I really believe that Katherine Jackson knew what he was doing as far as back as the early to mid-80's. 

Katherine Jackson put up with Joe Jackson for decades, and Michael Jackson paid ALL of her bills even after he moved out on his own.  If Katherine Jackson didn't speak up against Joe, why would she say anything about her son.

19 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

I wonder if "family" in that description is more about relationships than DNA. That is, the regressed pedophile is a person who is psychologically mature and has relationships with adults. But then they feel out of control and have an impulse to act out--so they act out on children they know and have access to. I would bet that could apply not just to biological relatives but people related by marriage or even family friends who are close enough to be like family. Iow, they don't go hunting for kids, they start fixating on kids they have relationships with already.

As opposed to the fixated person who has relationships to kids that are more exclusively about them being friends with the kid, if that makes sense. They don't have an adult/child relationship like you would with a son (adopted or biological) or a nephew or whatever. You only have the relationship where you're "both" kids and you're friends on the same level.

I wouldn't be surprised if the threats both types used were different too. The regressed person might feel more comfortable using their status as an adult when it was convenient--telling the kid his parents wouldn't believe him, threatening to hurt people in their family etc. Michael's threats were about how *he* was vulnerable as a child.

Of course, we don't know what Michael's relationship with his own kids was like. He seems to have had enough power and freedom to just be a child with them while technically being their father, I guess.

It seems, and it's hard to know for sure because so many of these people keep changing their stories, that Michael Jackson had children he was just friends with, while there were others he molested.  Not only did Culkin and Feldman say MJ never harmed them in any way, Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arvizo both changed their stories and said MJ didn't molest them.  Jackson paid the Chandlers $22 million to go away, and Gavin Arvizo's family had a history of committing fraud, perjury, and extortion.  Wade Robson testified that MJ didn't molest him, but then admitted later he had.

[Robert Lynch]

Paris is a pretty girl, but those tattoos do her no favors.

[ruby24]

And if Michael was a fixated pedophile, his father was regressed one. It makes perfect sense. An abusive adult who takes out his dominance on his own children, regardless of gender.

Edited March 9, 2019 by ruby24

[Kostgard]

22 minutes ago, TigerLynx said:

Katherine Jackson put up with Joe Jackson for decades, and Michael Jackson paid ALL of her bills even after he moved out on his own.  If Katherine Jackson didn't speak up against Joe, why would she say anything about her son.

It seems, and it's hard to know for sure because so many of these people keep changing their stories, that Michael Jackson had children he was just friends with, while there were others he molested.  Not only did Culkin and Feldman say MJ never harmed them in any way, Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arvizo both changed their stories and said MJ didn't molest them.  Jackson paid the Chandlers $22 million to go away, and Gavin Arvizo's family had a history of committing fraud, perjury, and extortion.  Wade Robson testified that MJ didn't molest him, but then admitted later he had.

Did Jordan change his story? From what I understand, he has not spoken publicly about it since getting the settlement. I know at the 2005 trial MJ’s lawyer said that Jordan changed his story, but there was no proof offered, and Jordan himself did not testify (and in fact had left the country so he wouldn’t have to testify). His mother testified saying she saw no abuse, but also admitted that at that point she hadn’t spoken to her son in 11 years (he emancipated himself while still a minor. Unsurprisingly, his family was totally effed up too and his dad also committed suicide). According to this, Gavin hasn’t spoken publicly about MJ since his trial, either.

The same article says Dan Reed tried reaching out to both, with no success. He wrote Gavin a letter, but got no response. He tried tracking Jordan down, but had no luck (according to the article, Jordan has changed his name/identity).

As for Katherine, I wondered what role she played in MJ’s reported negative view of women (James and Wade said he would tell them that you can’t trust women). I wonder if that was just to drive a wedge between the boys and their mothers to further isolate them, or did MJ resent Katherine for not protecting him when he was a child.

[ari333]

Paris looks like MJ. I dont think he had sex with the mother but was the sperm donor

Also about Lisa Marie ..she wanted a singing career . What better way to get one than to marry the king of pop. It worked for him and it worked for her

Additionally if he loved children so much why were there never any little girls included? Or children of color? Just little white boys

[ruby24]

1 minute ago, Kostgard said:

As for Katherine, I wondered what role she played in MJ’s reported negative view of women (James and Wade said he would tell them that you can’t trust women). I wonder if that was just to drive a wedge between the boys and their mothers to further isolate them, or did MJ resent Katherine for not protecting him when he was a child.

Both, I bet.

[TigerLynx]

From what everyone says, and again can't really know for sure, Michael adored his mother.  Maybe that changed over time as he got older.  However, his Will left everything to his children and his mother.

[ruby24]

Just now, TigerLynx said:

From what everyone says, and again can't really know for sure, Michael adored his mother.  Maybe that changed over time as he got older.  However, his Will left everything to his children and his mother.

That doesn't mean he didn't still resent her for not protecting him. 

[Scarlett45]

3 hours ago, ruby24 said:

And if Michael was a fixated pedophile, his father was regressed one. It makes perfect sense. An abusive adult who takes out his dominance on his own children, regardless of gender.

Yes Joe was an awful nasty violent human being. I do believe he abused Latoya and Rebbie sexually as well as boys physically (at minimum) I can also believe that Janet may have been spared as the baby and the family being “rich and famous” as she was coming of age. Joe had other targets for his anger and was generally happier with life in later years. 

2 hours ago, ruby24 said:

That doesn't mean he didn't still resent her for not protecting him. 

I agree. You can love someone deeply and be very angry at them. 

 

2 hours ago, ari333 said:

Additionally if he loved children so much why were there never any little girls included? Or children of color? Just little white boys

My theories are:

1. Accessibility (MJ tended to target children who were performers or had aspirations to perform, statistically most of those children will be white) and/ or Oppurtunity (parents tend to shelter girls more than boys)

2. Personal detachment (a little black child or child of color may have reminded him too much of his own abuse 

3. Self loathing- MJ hated being black so much he felt better being around white children. He also targeted attractive white children, the child he wished he could’ve been. 

[car54]

I just watched the second episode and now I am so angry I want to punch people.  A lot of people.

I want to go piss on Michael's grave, I am glad Johnny Cochran died a painful death, I want ALL the Jacksons to lose all the money they still suck out of his music, I want to punch those mothers.  Both of them.  I got so enraged hearing Stephanie express joy when he died so he could not hurt other children--when her enabling allowed him to continue to hurt more kids after her son was molested.    

And I particularly want to punch that damn juror who voted to let him off because she didn't like the prosecutor. 

[Neko]

I don't think Michael exclusively targeted white boys.  Emmanuel Lewis was black, of course.  I don't know the ethnicities of Brett Barnes, Jordan Chandler, Omer Bhatti, or Gavin Arvizo, but they look like people of color, to me.  When he did go for white boys, they seemed to be the of the blonde, blue-eyed variety, but I don't think that's all he went for. 

2 hours ago, Melina22 said:

I'm starting to feel a little obsessed and overwhelmed by this subject. Just me? I'm going to have to step away a bit, for a while. 

Nope, not just you.  I've watched the documentary twice, now, even though it's sick.  I find the whole subject grotesque and fascinating, like a car crash.

Edited March 9, 2019 by Shakma

[Inquisitionist]

2 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

I also think it may be easier for male peodphiles to target young boys because on average girls are watched more, kept closer to home, socially and physically. Girls are also taught to watch out of sexual predators at an early age. We are talk to talk about how we feel and what’s going on in our day. 

This comment ties to an observation in the movie Spotlight.  Priests tended to abuse boys because of (a) greater access (e.g., altar boys, boys clubs) and (b) the shame factor (boys were easily cowed into silence).

[DangerousMinds]

2 hours ago, TigerLynx said:

Katherine Jackson put up with Joe Jackson for decades, and Michael Jackson paid ALL of her bills even after he moved out on his own.  If Katherine Jackson didn't speak up against Joe, why would she say anything about her son.

It seems, and it's hard to know for sure because so many of these people keep changing their stories, that Michael Jackson had children he was just friends with, while there were others he molested.  Not only did Culkin and Feldman say MJ never harmed them in any way, Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arvizo both changed their stories and said MJ didn't molest them.  Jackson paid the Chandlers $22 million to go away, and Gavin Arvizo's family had a history of committing fraud, perjury, and extortion.  Wade Robson testified that MJ didn't molest him, but then admitted later he had.

Sean Lennon and Mark Ronson  also spent a lot of time alone with Michael, and although they do say Michael would turn on the porn when they were there (as 12-year olds), they deny that he ever touched them sexually.

[Scarlett45]

18 minutes ago, DangerousMinds said:

Sean Lennon and Mark Ronson  also spent a lot of time alone with Michael, and although they do say Michael would turn on the porn when they were there (as 12-year olds), they deny that he ever touched them sexually.

No (normal) adult man watches porn with 12yrs old boys. Don’t believe that story. Something else is fishy. It’s likely he was trying to groom and they had a strong negative reaction so he didn’t continue to abuse them. 

[DangerousMinds]

1 minute ago, Scarlett45 said:

No (normal) adult man watches porn with 12yrs old boys. Don’t believe that story. Something else is fishy. It’s likely he was trying to groom and they had a strong negative reaction so he didn’t continue to abuse them. 

Oh, I agree it wasn’t normal. As 12-year old boys they described having the silly adolescent “look, boobs!” reactions. Of course we don’t know if anything more happened, just that they deny it did.

[ruby24]

21 minutes ago, Scarlett45 said:

No (normal) adult man watches porn with 12yrs old boys. Don’t believe that story. Something else is fishy. It’s likely he was trying to groom and they had a strong negative reaction so he didn’t continue to abuse them. 

Yeah, there's definitely the chance (probably likelihood) that MJ tried to start the grooming process with boys who didn't respond to it, so he veered away from them. 

He seemed to be very careful about which ones to target. I bet there were also parents who didn't go for it either, never allowing their kids to spend the night with him, etc.

[Growsonwalls]

41 minutes ago, DangerousMinds said:

Sean Lennon and Mark Ronson  also spent a lot of time alone with Michael, and although they do say Michael would turn on the porn when they were there (as 12-year olds), they deny that he ever touched them sexually.

My feeling that the watching of the porn was part of the grooming process. It would also weed out boys he felt would not be as susceptible. I don't think it's an accident that Wade and James both seem like they were always shy and withdrawn. Michael probably weeded out the boys who were spunkier, who were more talkative and sociable. 

I think that might also contribute to the guilt/shame issues Wade and James feel. The feeling that there were boys who were let off the hook, so to speak, but MJ targeted them specificially.

[Razzberry]

On 3/5/2019 at 7:26 PM, Growsonwalls said:

I wonder if MJ ever felt that the day would come when he'd have sexual urges for his own children, and he unconsciously wanted to die so he demanded more and more dangerous drugs from his doctor.

Call me cynical but he may even had the children with that purpose in mind all along.   No more dealing with troublesome parents, lawsuits, or risk of exposure.

It's interesting that Priscilla Presley was only 15 when her parents allowed her to live at Graceland.

[ruby24]

1 minute ago, Razzberry said:

Call me cynical but he may even had the children with that purpose in mind all along.   No more dealing with troublesome parents, lawsuits, or risk of exposure.

It's interesting that Priscilla Presley was only 15 when her parents allowed her to live at Graceland.

Unfortunately, I do think this is a possibility. And to be honest...that would also explain why he didn't use his own DNA. 

People always wondered that, why he would choose to have white kids rather than use his own sperm. If he wants kids so badly and he's going to be using a surrogate anyway, why do that and not be his own donor? Unless he was trying to create the "type" of child he liked.

[Ambrosefolly]

2 hours ago, ruby24 said:

Unfortunately, I do think this is a possibility. And to be honest...that would also explain why he didn't use his own DNA. 

People always wondered that, why he would choose to have white kids rather than use his own sperm. If he wants kids so badly and he's going to be using a surrogate anyway, why do that and not be his own donor? Unless he was trying to create the "type" of child he liked.

 

 

Joe Rogan on his podcast said that Michael sounded just like Italian castrati, male singers casterated as young boys in order to preserve their child voices with adult lungs. Conrad Murray (the doctor charged with his death) said that Michael was chemical castrated when he was younger and never went through puberty. 

[Brattinella]

13 minutes ago, Ambrosefolly said:

Joe Rogan on his podcast said that Michael sounded just like Italian castrati, male singers casterated as young boys in order to preserve their child voices with adult lungs. Conrad Murray (the doctor charged with his death) said that Michael was chemical castrated when he was younger and never went through puberty. 

Well, you have just blown my mind, and I absolutely believe that is true.  What a fricking monster that father was!  Joe I hope you rot in hell!

[Penman61]

13 minutes ago, Ambrosefolly said:

Joe Rogan on his podcast said that Michael sounded just like Italian castrati, male singers casterated as young boys in order to preserve their child voices with adult lungs. Conrad Murray (the doctor charged with his death) said that Michael was chemical castrated when he was younger and never went through puberty. 

These two sources have questionable credibility, to say the least.

Sorry to go there, but didn't both Wade and James talk about Jackson ejaculating?

[Brattinella]

Castrati can ejaculate, so can pre-pubescent males.

[Irlandesa]

3 hours ago, DangerousMinds said:

Sean Lennon and Mark Ronson  also spent a lot of time alone with Michael, and although they do say Michael would turn on the porn when they were there (as 12-year olds), they deny that he ever touched them sexually.

He could have been grooming them.  But 12 is getting awfully close to puberty.  And while puberty didn't end his abuse, especially with Wade, it does seem like it started when they were much younger. 

[Penman61]

11 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

Castrati can ejaculate, so can pre-pubescent males.

Yes, but without testosterone, do you want to?

[ruby24]

9 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

He could have been grooming them.  But 12 is getting awfully close to puberty.  And while puberty didn't end his abuse, especially with Wade, it does seem like it started when they were much younger. 

With some of them. His favorite age to start seemed to be 9-10. Wade was younger, but then Jordan Chandler was older- Michael met him when he was 12. 

So I guess it wasn't set in stone.

[Ambrosefolly]

14 minutes ago, Penman61 said:

These two sources have questionable credibility, to say the least.

 

I don't know about Conrad Murray, but I think by that point, he had nothing to lose or gain, but listen to castrati on Youtube, the last one, then listen to Michael at 11, 15 and 22. He maintains the same range and has that high pitch speaking voice that everyone, both fans and haters alike, used to make fun of. Joe Rogan didn't have inside knowledge, he was only making an observation. A doctor thinks that he was put on cyproterone, which not only helped with the acne that Michael suffered as a teen, but stopped his larynx from growing. 

[Simon Boccanegra]

This has been one of the best threads at Previously TV all week, even though the topic is unpleasant in the extreme. Very insightful and respectful. Good showing, everyone.  

A few things:  

I thought I'd be more upset with his die-hards than I have been. I've had invective directed at me for comments elsewhere on the internet in reaction to the documentary, but it just rolls off of me, because in a way, his biggest fans are also showing the residuals of "grooming." They were conditioned for years to accept more and more bizarre behavior from him, and they kept expanding their parameters of "acceptable." Parameters for MJ and MJ alone, that is. They'd never countenance the same behavior toward children from a fortysomething neighbor. 

Now, they cannot let go of an image of MJ as ethereal unicorn and accept that he could have perpetrated horrors out of a network procedural drama. That's essentially what I wrote in my first post in this thread, before Leaving Neverland had been seen publicly anywhere but the Sundance Festival.

On "muting": I don't judge people either way. If it's impossible to listen to Michael Jackson without thinking about what he almost certainly did to children, don't. If you can separate the elements and still get enjoyment from things he gave the world when he was in the recording studio, that is also fine. I'm detached, in that I was not a big fan. I thought he was very talented; the Jackson Five had a lot of good songs, and Off the Wall and Thriller were very good albums. But MJ was never really "my" pop star, and from Bad onward, I liked him less and less. Even his singing became increasingly mannered and stiff, and by "Scream" he was "harrumphing," as one critic put it at the time.

So I have to do some calculus and ask how I'd feel if this were, say, Prince, whose music I love more of. Prince too has had disturbing allegations made against him, if less disturbing ones, and they haven't gotten this much laser focus. But that could change any day in the present climate. 

I do listen to a lot of performances of music composed by long-dead people who I know were awful in various ways. It's not quite the same thing when it comes to composers, because the music is being recreated by others, so there's a layer of separation. But what I'm getting at is that I can compartmentalize. Other people may choose not to, especially if listening means a financial contribution to an estate. I do not think there is a right answer. You have to arrive at what works for you.  

On the sameness/diversity of the kids: Near the end of the Bashir special, we do see a very large assortment of children at Neverland riding on the train with MJ and then getting junk food from an onsite vendor. (MJ, with the food vendor, behaves like one of the kids in a way I find very icky rather than exculpatory.) There are girls in that group, and various shades and ethnicities are represented. But all of the ones who got this extreme one-on-one attention were male...no doubt a great relief today to any girls invited to Neverland, and their parents. If an entry at that "MJ and Boys" blog is to be believed, Michael was fine with Gavin Arvizo bringing his brother along on a trip to Miami, but he did not want the sister around.

Edited March 10, 2019 by Simon Boccanegra

[Brattinella]

19 minutes ago, Penman61 said:

Yes, but without testosterone, do you want to?

Ask a man.  My brothers used to jack off before puberty.  I don't think they produce semen, but something comes out, I am sure.

[Kostgard]

I don’t think this has been posted here yet but Gayle also interviewed Wade and James.

They go over some of the same stuff, but there’s also new info, like they talk about the lawsuits a bit, and Gail asked a question folks here had - if MJ were still alive, would they still come forward? Wade said yes, assuming he had the same experience of becoming a father and all that clarified for him, and it would be about sending MJ to prison rather than a civil suit. James wasn’t sure if he would have been able to come forward if MJ were still alive (not surprising, considering where he’s at emotionally).

They both look a bit more relaxed than they do in the Oprah interview. I think being in that room full of survivors was just very emotional for them.

Edited March 10, 2019 by Kostgard

[Robert Lynch]

Those photos of James with MJ were so unnerving. He always looks like he is trying to stay happy. 

[Neko]

1 hour ago, Simon Boccanegra said:

So I have to do some calculus and ask how I'd feel if this were, say, Prince, whose music I love more of. Prince too has had disturbing allegations made against him, if less disturbing ones, and they haven't gotten this much laser focus. But that could change any day in the present climate. 

That's a very good point.  I love Prince, but I can't deny he could be an asshole, especially towards much younger women.  So, I can't really fault anyone for still liking/listening to MJ's music.  I can't even say for sure that I will never listen to it again, I just can't do it, now.  It's all too fresh.

[ruby24]

23 minutes ago, Shakma said:

That's a very good point.  I love Prince, but I can't deny he could be an asshole, especially towards much younger women.  So, I can't really fault anyone for still liking/listening to MJ's music.  I can't even say for sure that I will never listen to it again, I just can't do it, now.  It's all too fresh.

I think this is something that will never go away. It's there throughout history. Sick people have produced long-lasting art in our culture. Just one example is Lewis Carroll, the author of Alice in Wonderland- almost certainly a pedophile (look him up). Yet Alice in Wonderland is a book that people will never stop reading. And finding out about Lewis Carroll is a bit of a weird footnote, like whoa, that guy was like that?

I don't agree with banning the art itself or throwing it out. You can't erase things from history or existence or pretend that it never happened. The Simpsons just pulled the episode where MJ guest-starred the other day- I'm not really a fan of stuff like that either.

On the other hand, I'm sure it's absolute hell for victims of his to have to hear his music all the time, to be surrounded by constant reminders of their experience and abuse. That's not fair to them, it's horrible. But how do you remove him or his legacy from the world? I don't think you can. So it's a hard question. The more time goes by, the more the art becomes a historical artifact, so to speak. I'm sure 100 years from now Michael Jackson's music will still be around and listened to, and people will find out simultaneously when they look him up about what he was. 

It's really hard in this case, because he's already dead, but his victims are still alive and relatively young, with many years ahead of them. If he was still alive, and victims were starting to speak out, I think absolutely there should be a push for him to go to prison, for people to boycott the art so that his victims can receive justice. But because he's dead, he's already a historical figure. All we can do now is listen to the victims, believe them, support them. You can make his reputation and his name as synonymous with this as it is with his music. Would getting rid of the art help anything anymore? (That can't really be done anyway, I don't think, it's too ubiquitous). 

3 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

Edited March 10, 2019 by ruby24

[Robert Lynch]

You think if MJ was diagnosed with this unhealthy impulse much earlier by some psychologist or doctor, would he have spared the kids he was with altogether? Or was it too late either way? I mean, he could have started a PSA or something. 

Edited March 10, 2019 by Robert Lynch

[ruby24]

2 hours ago, Kostgard said:

I don’t think this has been posted here yet but Gail also interviewed Wade and James.

Yeah, there is some new stuff in that interview. James saying that Michael would tell him they're not gay after it started, and both of them saying he told them never to talk to the staff at Neverland. Also it was interesting here when Wade says he did start feeling uncomfortable when he was 11-12 and when he saw Michael less, that whenever he did see him he'd just immediately only want to molest him and do nothing else. And that he saw him frequently disappear with another boy and then come back an hour later, many times with a bunch of them there.

God, he was sick. There must have been SO many. Both of them say in this they think there were a lot more. James says he doesn't expect them to come out just because they are, but I still wonder about that third victim that Dan Reed interviewed (because he almost came out, and was considering it, so it's someone who has already accepted that it happened). 

[Slovenly Muse]

Wow. I just watched that Living with Michael Jackson documentary, and holy hell. Not that I didn't already 100% believe the accusations, but his comments on children were really quite damning. And the way he and Gavin were leaning on each other and holding hands in that interview... it was really chilling. What's more, and I almost can't BELIEVE this hasn't been brought up previously in this thread, but in that documentary, he denied anything inappropriate happening with children in EXACTLY the same awkward, emphatic, mounting hyperbole way of speaking that he used IN THE SAME INTERVIEW to deny that he'd had ANY cosmetic surgery or other work done to change his appearance (apart from his nose so he could breathe more easily while singing), and that his change of skin colour and entire facial structure had been the result of... puberty. In his 20s. (But he hadn't really changed that much, that's just "ignorance." 🙄) How could anyone find his word on ANYTHING credible after that? It was actually eerily reminiscent of listening to Trump talk about his crowd size. Dude, we can see it with our eyes.

I was a young teenager when all this went down with MJ, and I wasn't familiar with the case or really with his music, but I do remember feeling profoundly affected when he died. His was the only celebrity death that really hit me, and I barely knew anything about him. The problem was, I think the public didn't quite believe he was innocent of the molestation charges, and couldn't quite embrace him fully... but also didn't quite believe he was guilty, and couldn't really condemn him. So the world was living in this weird grey area, where the only thing we could figure to do was to ridicule him for his appearance and turn him into a figure of public mockery. Nowadays, we tend to be a bit more sensitive to body dysmorphia than in the past. For example, most people know now that if someone is suffering from anorexia, the worst thing you can do is tell them they're too skinny... they don't need to reinforce the idea that their body is wrong and they need to change it, this only makes the problem worse. But in the 90's it became almost a trend to joke about models and actresses needing to "eat a sandwich" as some sort of fucked up way of combating eating disorders. My impression, when MJ died, was that he had been mocked, ridiculed (seriously, I remember some of those comedy bits, and they were savage), and driven deeper into the grips of the personal, psychological issues that had caused him to alter his appearance and behave so eccentrically. In a way, I felt like the world mourned him so affectionately because we were afraid WE had killed him, and we had never, and would never, get closure on the accusations against him, or be able to see him come back from the brutal treatment he'd received from the media, and it really kind of felt like we had ridiculed this sensitive, damaged man until he retreated into an addiction that killed him. This hit me hard at the time. I have a great deal of empathy for the suffering MJ went through as a child, and the suffering he went through later in life as a cultural punching bag, but it is absolutely crystal clear to me that he sexually abused those children, and got away with it through sheer starpower. He needed help as a child when he was being abused, and people were too enamoured with his talent to do anything. He needed help at so many points in his life (including help with his impulses to engage in sex acts with children), and everyone who could or should have intervened decided to bury their heads in the sand and just enjoy his music.

It's too late for Michael, but we can still intervene to help his victims, by believing them, by not ignoring what happened to them and blindly venerating "The King of Pop," and by giving them the space and respect to heal in their own way, in their own time. We can let others who may have potentially been victims control their own narrative, rather than rampantly speculating and hounding them about what may or may not have happened. We can watch for the signs of grooming, especially when we see red flags with celebrities, and we can remind ourselves that no one's talent is greater than another person's life. If the documentary made anything clear, I hope it's that. So much love for James and Wade, who showed incredible strength coming forward. I hope they inspire others to do the same, even if only to themselves or their loved ones.

[CrinkleCutCat]

On 3/6/2019 at 4:51 AM, sistermagpie said:

[my snip for space]

In the interview both men talking about how often MJ cried reminded me of an ep of Manhunter where they talk about sociopaths imitating emotions to manipulate people. 

A couple of times MJ mentions circumstances  “...brings tears to my eyes” which pricked my attention.... rather  than the circumstance making him feel sadness he focuses on the need to have tears because he can’t relate to the emotion/sadness.