New topic
PrintableLuv4oneanotha said: Isel said: I agree with you that Michael's behavior in so far as the slumber parties, particularly with young boys (I haven't heard whether or not little girl's are invited ?) is supsect and NOT the NORM in terms of what society expects from a 45-year-old man. The problem is that as long as these visits have been innocent and improprieties have NOT occurred, then they are LEGAL if not socially acceptable. I'm on the fence on this one coz if I were a member of his family, I would definitely have a heart-to-heart convo with Michael, discouraging this type of activity, no matter how well-meaning his intentions. But it appears to me that people have tried to dissuade him in the past, but Michael simply WILL NOT LISTEN. Consequently, ANOTHER alleged molestation case has reared its ugly head. In spite of his music brilliance, Michael's pride seems to be affecting his good judgment.Obviously, Michael just doesn't realize that in his defiance to be "who he is," he is just setting himself up, over and over again for these types of allegations. I mean, as much as I love Michael, society IS not going to change for him. For a 45-year-old to have slumber parties with little children WILL never be accepted and always be suspect, legal or not. If a 45-year-old teacher would invite his elementary school students to his home, to sleep in his bed, wouldn't we all be questioning his judgment, sanity, and intentions? Of course, most parents would never allow their children to sleep with an adult, in any social setting. But since Michael is a "star" and "multi-millionaire," some parents' judgment is amazingly "impaired" by his celebrity and wealth. As some sort of compromise, if Michael wants to continue to help disadvantaged kids, maybe he should consider having these get-togethers with invited chaperones or maybe even their parents, so his behavior will be above reproach. Hopefully, after he is found innocent of these current charges, then maybe he will be forced to rethink his relationship with these "kids" and their parents. Society is fickle its always been like this Author J.M. Barrie befriended a family of 4 boys and everyone though he was a pedophile and having an affair Society does not think its NORMAL to befriend children i dunno mmm It's not necessarily "befriending" the kids that is at-issue concerning Michael. It's the "sharing my bed" with children that is the problem. As I stated, I don't believe Michael is a sexual predator. I mean, the court is really gonna have to prove it to me coz I won't believe it otherwise and maybe will never believe it. But the problem is that because Michael is so "giving" with his affection with statements like "sharing my bed is one of the most loving things that I can do for a child..." that he is opening himself up time and time again to these types of allegations. I'm not even really concerned so much about public opinion: I'm more worried about the legal cases, pay-offs, and lawsuits that are slowly but surely stripping away everything that he has worked so hard to achieve. I taught high school for a number of years, and the sad reality is that a person who works with children has to be careful. I always left my classroom door open, for example, when students were making up tests after school. I wouldn't socialize with students even though I wasn't that much older because it could put me in a very bad situation. That said, I would offer condolences, advice, and occasional hugs, but I would ALWAYS keep it in a professional context, never a social setting. I mean, after all I was their "teacher" first. I wasn't a friend, per se: I was a mentor, an adult. Kids are so easily influenced and/or confused, so I would always make the distinction very clear, particularly because I was young. That was my job, and my students trusted me to do my job. So as far as Michael is concerned, he can still NEVER BE a "playground" friend, per se, because he is no longer a child. But he can be a mentor, teacher, confidant, advisor, a surrogate parent,etc, all adult roles. And he can STILL be the youthful, innocent, playful person that he is. He can still enjoy their company and help them "find" themselves. But at the same time, he HAS to protect himself and find other, more socially acceptable ways to share his love for these kids. That's really the ONLY problem that Michael has... [Edited 12/11/04 12:03pm] | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
VoicesCarry said: Luv4oneanotha said: if teh child doesn't oppose and nothing sexual is going on its quite innocent I love children too i love to cuddle with them, play with them i don't see anything wrong with it am i potential Offender too? Of course, hell i sleep with my 8 year old neighbor when i babysit, why? because he ask's he can't sleep alone so i get in bed and read him a story, they're not in my imediate family but i've known them for years and its practically family Voices what you have to understand is anyone is a potential offender ANYONE and its usually not the freaks who are doing it its usually the Average Joes that are currupting children your doctors yoru teachers your next door neighbors like me for instance its just easier to pin it on the freak Am i wrong? Michael is a megastar. He is the Boo Radley of America. It is easy for people to pick on him because they are detached from him by his celebrity. But I cannot blame them for harbouring suspicions. but don't you think its kinda unfair to pick on an already neurotic Paranoid individual? sure you can say he brought this all to himself but to be realistic why must we persecute any adult wishing to be Peter Pan so to speak? is it wrong to be childish? or harbor anything childlike why must it be sinister? Thats Not michaels fault thats Societies fault | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Luv4oneanotha said: VoicesCarry said: Michael is a megastar. He is the Boo Radley of America. It is easy for people to pick on him because they are detached from him by his celebrity. But I cannot blame them for harbouring suspicions. but don't you think its kinda unfair to pick on an already neurotic Paranoid individual? sure you can say he brought this all to himself but to be realistic why must we persecute any adult wishing to be Peter Pan so to speak? is it wrong to be childish? or harbor anything childlike why must it be sinister? Thats Not michaels fault thats Societies fault I don't think he's being persecuted for being childish. I think what is unfair that someone (his family, handlers, someone who cares for him) is not getting him the psychiatric help he so obviously and desperately needs. He seems on a path to self-destruction. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
VoicesCarry said: Luv4oneanotha said: of course
but don't you think its kinda unfair to pick on an already neurotic Paranoid individual? sure you can say he brought this all to himself but to be realistic why must we persecute any adult wishing to be Peter Pan so to speak? is it wrong to be childish? or harbor anything childlike why must it be sinister? Thats Not michaels fault thats Societies fault I don't think he's being persecuted for being childish. I think what is unfair that someone (his family, handlers, someone who cares for him) is not getting him the psychiatric help he so obviously and desperately needs. He seems on a path to self-destruction. Of course he's being persecuted for being childish and being around children i don't disagree that he needs psychiatric help concerning he's paranoia,ego,neuroticism but why is it so horrible for a man to use most of his time with children? he gets close to a child.... oooo ahhhhh its who he is | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Luv4oneanotha said: VoicesCarry said: I don't think he's being persecuted for being childish. I think what is unfair that someone (his family, handlers, someone who cares for him) is not getting him the psychiatric help he so obviously and desperately needs. He seems on a path to self-destruction. Of course he's being persecuted for being childish and being around children i don't disagree that he needs psychiatric help concerning he's paranoia,ego,neuroticism but why is it so horrible for a man to use most of his time with children? he gets close to a child.... oooo ahhhhh its who he is Earlier in the thread, you said you found his bedtime tendencies with children rather disturbing. Now, before the first molestation case, Michael was having the children over, and no one cared. I think that gives your answer - he's being persecuted because of specific actions society has deemed inappropriate, not because he likes kids. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Isel said: VoicesCarry said: Just like an acquittal did a lot for O.J. Simpson. P.S. Jackson's image has also been fucked by: -plastic surgery (considering he has to struggle to look human sometimes) -egomania -the whole "I like to sleep with little boys" thing, REGARDLESS of molestation, really freaks a lot of people out; he can justify it any way he wants, but the bottom line is that it's a really bad idea to continue doing this Yeah, I agree with the O.J. reference, but also remember that O.J. lost the civil case against him under a much less burden of proof.(Wasn't it wrongful death??? I can't remember..) So as far as public opinion was concerned, it was either a draw OR the civil case had the CORRECT verdict. To be honest, I'm not even sure about the O.J. case. I would have to really study it before I could actually form an opinion as to his guilt or innocence. I will say this, however, O.J. case is a PERFECT example of the media and public speculating and assuming his guilt BEFORE the trial actually happened. There are just so many variables. Johnny Cochran was brilliant at taking the early mistakes that were made by the L.A.P.D., D.A.'s office, and the prosecution and exploiting them to the defense's advantage, but the bottom line is that those mistakes were made, period. So it is NOT out of the realm of possibilty that O.J. is, in fact, not-guilty. I know that might be an unpopular statement, but one has to really look at how these facts translated to the jury AND the judge's instructions. I'm telling ya, one has to be careful in these situations. The thing with the sleeping with little boys and slumber parties, I just don't think that Michael feels that he is doing ANYTHING wrong. And really, IS he doing anything wrong, per se? Obviously, his behavior is "non-traditional" to say the very least, but as long as there is nothing "sexual" about it and his intentions are innocent, what is the harm in with the slumber parties? That said, in regard to public the behavior is taboo and suspect, so if I were advising Michael, I would certainly tell him that if he values his career and rep, he might want to consider nixing the slumber parties, but Michael seems to be defiantly head-strong, so I'm not sure if any "advice" has done or will ever do any good. [Edited 12/11/04 9:56am] Let me clear this O.J. thing up right now. I accidently bypassed this post. The reason why O.J. was probably acquitted was due to the boy Mark Furhman. Now weirdly, most black men and women will attest to the fact that they really didn't know which side to lean on in that case. I will even admit that I didn't even know if he was innocent or guilty yet. But you know what might have made me lean towards his innocence? It was the slightest case of a police conspiracy or hint of prejudice! And when your boy Mark Furhman repeatedly and candidly said on a "taped" interview the word "nigger" time after time, the LAPD lost Black America! Point, blank and period. That is why the situation with Michael Jackson is like an old wound being re-open to quite a few minorities. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
VoicesCarry said: Luv4oneanotha said: Of course he's being persecuted for being childish and being around children i don't disagree that he needs psychiatric help concerning he's paranoia,ego,neuroticism but why is it so horrible for a man to use most of his time with children? he gets close to a child.... oooo ahhhhh its who he is Earlier in the thread, you said you found his bedtime tendencies with children rather disturbing. Now, before the first molestation case, Michael was having the children over, and no one cared. I think that gives your answer - he's being persecuted because of specific actions society has deemed inappropriate, not because he likes kids. no i said the public found it disturbing the bedtime antics what im saying is their using that fact that he enjoys company with children again him they use that evidence tpo persecute him outside the legal system | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
jojofran said: Isel said: Yeah, I agree with the O.J. reference, but also remember that O.J. lost the civil case against him under a much less burden of proof.(Wasn't it wrongful death??? I can't remember..) So as far as public opinion was concerned, it was either a draw OR the civil case had the CORRECT verdict. To be honest, I'm not even sure about the O.J. case. I would have to really study it before I could actually form an opinion as to his guilt or innocence. I will say this, however, O.J. case is a PERFECT example of the media and public speculating and assuming his guilt BEFORE the trial actually happened. There are just so many variables. Johnny Cochran was brilliant at taking the early mistakes that were made by the L.A.P.D., D.A.'s office, and the prosecution and exploiting them to the defense's advantage, but the bottom line is that those mistakes were made, period. So it is NOT out of the realm of possibilty that O.J. is, in fact, not-guilty. I know that might be an unpopular statement, but one has to really look at how these facts translated to the jury AND the judge's instructions. I'm telling ya, one has to be careful in these situations. The thing with the sleeping with little boys and slumber parties, I just don't think that Michael feels that he is doing ANYTHING wrong. And really, IS he doing anything wrong, per se? Obviously, his behavior is "non-traditional" to say the very least, but as long as there is nothing "sexual" about it and his intentions are innocent, what is the harm in with the slumber parties? That said, in regard to public the behavior is taboo and suspect, so if I were advising Michael, I would certainly tell him that if he values his career and rep, he might want to consider nixing the slumber parties, but Michael seems to be defiantly head-strong, so I'm not sure if any "advice" has done or will ever do any good. [Edited 12/11/04 9:56am] Let me clear this O.J. thing up right now. I accidently bypassed this post. The reason why O.J. was probably acquitted was due to the boy Mark Furhman. Now weirdly, most black men and women will attest to the fact that they really didn't know which side to lean on in that case. I will even admit that I didn't even know if he was innocent or guilty yet. But you know what might have made me lean towards his innocence? It was the slightest case of a police conspiracy or hint of prejudice! And when your boy Mark Furhman repeatedly and candidly said on a "taped" interview the word "nigger" time after time, the LAPD lost Black America! Point, blank and period. That is why the situation with Michael Jackson is like an old wound being re-open to quite a few minorities. I agree with this point. The OJ case was problematic because of Furman's racist comments and evidence tampering. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
VoicesCarry said: Luv4oneanotha said: Of course he's being persecuted for being childish and being around children i don't disagree that he needs psychiatric help concerning he's paranoia,ego,neuroticism but why is it so horrible for a man to use most of his time with children? he gets close to a child.... oooo ahhhhh its who he is Earlier in the thread, you said you found his bedtime tendencies with children rather disturbing. Now, before the first molestation case, Michael was having the children over, and no one cared. I think that gives your answer - he's being persecuted because of specific actions society has deemed inappropriate, not because he likes kids. Michael Jackson is a musician, and I can attest to this fact since I am one myself, that we musicians see the world differntly. The more we are into our craft the more we differ. Michael is a musical genious so his ideology in reference to matters are way different then the norm. That is why I defend him because I "know" he gets his creative juices and inspiration from children. Just as an artist or sculptor will view nakedness as art when some see it as pornography. It is all about personal perception! Maybe it is you who cannot get it. Maybe you are so concerned with others seeing you as a part of popular thought that you will not step outside your boundaries that you have setup for "yourself". | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
jojofran said: Isel said: Yeah, I agree with the O.J. reference, but also remember that O.J. lost the civil case against him under a much less burden of proof.(Wasn't it wrongful death??? I can't remember..) So as far as public opinion was concerned, it was either a draw OR the civil case had the CORRECT verdict. To be honest, I'm not even sure about the O.J. case. I would have to really study it before I could actually form an opinion as to his guilt or innocence. I will say this, however, O.J. case is a PERFECT example of the media and public speculating and assuming his guilt BEFORE the trial actually happened. There are just so many variables. Johnny Cochran was brilliant at taking the early mistakes that were made by the L.A.P.D., D.A.'s office, and the prosecution and exploiting them to the defense's advantage, but the bottom line is that those mistakes were made, period. So it is NOT out of the realm of possibilty that O.J. is, in fact, not-guilty. I know that might be an unpopular statement, but one has to really look at how these facts translated to the jury AND the judge's instructions. I'm telling ya, one has to be careful in these situations. The thing with the sleeping with little boys and slumber parties, I just don't think that Michael feels that he is doing ANYTHING wrong. And really, IS he doing anything wrong, per se? Obviously, his behavior is "non-traditional" to say the very least, but as long as there is nothing "sexual" about it and his intentions are innocent, what is the harm in with the slumber parties? That said, in regard to public the behavior is taboo and suspect, so if I were advising Michael, I would certainly tell him that if he values his career and rep, he might want to consider nixing the slumber parties, but Michael seems to be defiantly head-strong, so I'm not sure if any "advice" has done or will ever do any good. [Edited 12/11/04 9:56am] Let me clear this O.J. thing up right now. I accidently bypassed this post. The reason why O.J. was probably acquitted was due to the boy Mark Furhman. Now weirdly, most black men and women will attest to the fact that they really didn't know which side to lean on in that case. I will even admit that I didn't even know if he was innocent or guilty yet. But you know what might have made me lean towards his innocence? It was the slightest case of a police conspiracy or hint of prejudice! And when your boy Mark Furhman repeatedly and candidly said on a "taped" interview the word "nigger" time after time, the LAPD lost Black America! Point, blank and period. That is why the situation with Michael Jackson is like an old wound being re-open to quite a few minorities. I definitely agree. Mark Furhman was the final straw. It made the defense's side plausible Like I said in my post, I DON'T think that O.J. is guilty in spite of popular opinion, regardless of racial biases. I mean, I'd have to really research the case, but I understand why he was found not-guilty. Well, I've been on here all day, so I gotta go. I've got so much Xmas shopping to do. I really enjoyed our discussion everybody. Bye..... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
jojofran said: VoicesCarry said: Earlier in the thread, you said you found his bedtime tendencies with children rather disturbing. Now, before the first molestation case, Michael was having the children over, and no one cared. I think that gives your answer - he's being persecuted because of specific actions society has deemed inappropriate, not because he likes kids. Michael Jackson is a musician, and I can attest to this fact since I am one myself, that we musicians see the world differntly. The more we are into our craft the more we differ. Michael is a musical genious so his ideology in reference to matters are way different then the norm. That is why I defend him because I "know" he gets his creative juices and inspiration from children. Just as an artist or sculptor will view nakedness as art when some see it as pornography. It is all about personal perception! Maybe it is you who cannot get it. Maybe you are so concerned with others seeing you as a part of popular thought that you will not step outside your boundaries that you have setup for "yourself". No, I'm just not all that interested in having pre-teens share my bed and intimacy  . | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
VoicesCarry said: jojofran said: Michael Jackson is a musician, and I can attest to this fact since I am one myself, that we musicians see the world differntly. The more we are into our craft the more we differ. Michael is a musical genious so his ideology in reference to matters are way different then the norm. That is why I defend him because I "know" he gets his creative juices and inspiration from children. Just as an artist or sculptor will view nakedness as art when some see it as pornography. It is all about personal perception! Maybe it is you who cannot get it. Maybe you are so concerned with others seeing you as a part of popular thought that you will not step outside your boundaries that you have setup for "yourself". No, I'm just not all that interested in having pre-teens share my bed and intimacy .maybe you just hate kids  
"DAMN WHIPPER SNAPPERS GET OFF MY PORCH" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Luv4oneanotha said: VoicesCarry said: No, I'm just not all that interested in having pre-teens share my bed and intimacy .maybe you just hate kids
"DAMN WHIPPER SNAPPERS GET OFF MY PORCH" No, I love kids. But not in my bed. Unless they're:
(a) My own (not yet) or (b) Related to me. [Edited 12/11/04 12:19pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
VoicesCarry said: Luv4oneanotha said: maybe you just hate kids
"DAMN WHIPPER SNAPPERS GET OFF MY PORCH" No, I love kids. But not in my bed. Unless they're:
(a) My own (not yet) or (b) Related to me. [Edited 12/11/04 12:19pm] thats cool some people are more conservative than others different strokes rule the world | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
VoicesCarry said: jojofran said: Michael Jackson is a musician, and I can attest to this fact since I am one myself, that we musicians see the world differntly. The more we are into our craft the more we differ. Michael is a musical genious so his ideology in reference to matters are way different then the norm. That is why I defend him because I "know" he gets his creative juices and inspiration from children. Just as an artist or sculptor will view nakedness as art when some see it as pornography. It is all about personal perception! Maybe it is you who cannot get it. Maybe you are so concerned with others seeing you as a part of popular thought that you will not step outside your boundaries that you have setup for "yourself". No, I'm just not all that interested in having pre-teens share my bed and intimacy .Your usage of certaing verbage in your post shows bias. Look back through your posts and anyone can see that you "add" terms to make it seem erroneous and unconveivable. That imo shows bias and that is what the media has been doing for years. Your a victim of Big Brotha syndrome, meaning that you believe everything that you are told without really pondering over the relevancy of past prejudice, motive, history and vendetta. Anyway I gotta run too. Nice chattin' with you Voice! I think you way cool and am glad we got a chance to discuss this. Be good! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
jojofran said: VoicesCarry said: No, I'm just not all that interested in having pre-teens share my bed and intimacy .Your usage of certaing verbage in your post shows bias. Look back through your posts and anyone can see that you "add" terms to make it seem erroneous and unconveivable. That imo shows bias and that is what the media has been doing for years. Your a victim of Big Brotha syndrome, meaning that you believe everything that you are told without really pondering over the relevancy of past prejudice, motive, history and vendetta. Anyway I gotta run too. Nice chattin' with you Voice! I think you way cool and am glad we got a chance to discuss this. Be good! Huh? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
VoicesCarry said: jojofran said: Your usage of certaing verbage in your post shows bias. Look back through your posts and anyone can see that you "add" terms to make it seem erroneous and unconveivable. That imo shows bias and that is what the media has been doing for years. Your a victim of Big Brotha syndrome, meaning that you believe everything that you are told without really pondering over the relevancy of past prejudice, motive, history and vendetta. Anyway I gotta run too. Nice chattin' with you Voice! I think you way cool and am glad we got a chance to discuss this. Be good! Huh? C'mon who can't love you voices lol  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
of course
but don't you think its kinda unfair to pick on an already neurotic Paranoid individual? sure you can say he brought this all to himself but to be realistic why must we persecute any adult wishing to be Peter Pan so to speak? is it wrong to be childish? or harbor anything childlike why must it be sinister? Thats Not michaels fault thats Societies fault That was a good one!! WOW after few hours of absence the thread has grown "a little"
My questions are quite similar. Why would a pedophile point to his "love" for children the way Mj does it? Gavin (supposed victim) said himself on national TV, that it was his friendship that helped him beat the cancer! I don´t know since when molesting someone is a way of healing? And I agree that the people who find love and interaction with children do not like children THEMSELVES! Like it or not guys! I don´t know what has happened to the society, that something like that is being looked upon as sick! And it´s true that it´s actually "the averige Joe´s" who are the sickest! "When Michael Jackson is just singing and dancing, you just think this is an astonishing talent. And he has had this astounding talent all his life, but we want him to be floored as well. We really don´t like the idea that he could have it all." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Michael is very naive. He must read the papers, watch the news and see paedophilia reported all the time and how despised the perpatrators of this crime are. Society won't deem a forty six year old Father and his thirteen year old Son innocently sleeping together OK, how could he posibly think himself and somebody elses boy could?
Innocent? I think so. But all the same such a silly, stupid thing to do Michael. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I don't think Michael has slept in a bed with a child since 1993. I wouldn't be surprised if this kid is the only one who has sleapt in his room since 1993. Not to mention all the survelance cameras in his home. Michael is a lot smarter then you guys give him credit for.
And who said anything about kissing cuddling Voices Carry?  [Edited 12/11/04 18:49pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
MJ should just plead insanity.Who would argue otherwise? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DavidEye said: MJ should just plead insanity.Who would argue otherwise?
Harsh! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Cloudbuster said: DavidEye said: MJ should just plead insanity.Who would argue otherwise?
Harsh! Harsh but true | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DavidEye said: Harsh but true
He's damaged goods but I don't think he's officially insane. Yet. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Marrk said: Michael is very naive. He must read the papers, watch the news and see paedophilia reported all the time and how despised the perpatrators of this crime are. Society won't deem a forty six year old Father and his thirteen year old Son innocently sleeping together OK, how could he posibly think himself and somebody elses boy could?
Innocent? I think so. But all the same such a silly, stupid thing to do Michael. Replace the word "naive" with "arrogant" and I would agree with you. He went through this 10 years ago and should have known better. He still believes that he is immune to general standards of conduct because he is Michael Jackson. He also needs some serious, serious help. He needed it 10 years ago when this became an issue. Shame on everyone in his family and his inner circle for not making him get help. Good night, sweet Prince | 7 June 1958 - 21 April 2016
Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |