Professional Documents
Culture Documents
By Michael Bailey | July 1st 2009 12:11 PM | 210 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
J. Michael Bailey MORE ARTICLES Michael Jackson: Erotic Identity Disorder? Was Michael Jackson A Pedophile? Transsexual Smokescreen: Ignoring Science In The Man Who Would Be Queen
All Articles
ABOUT MICHAEL I am Professor of Psychology at Northwestern University. I study sexual orientation and related traits such as sex atypicality and gender identity...
View Michael's Profile
Michael Bailey
Search This Blog
The predictably massive postmortem analysis of Michael Jackson has focused on both his enormous talent and his spectacular strangeness. Although there is lively debate whether Jackson or Elvis Presley is the all time King of Pop, there is no question which of them is the King of Weird.
Elvis Presley had his quirkssecret meetings with Nixon, shooting at television sets, and of course, drug abuse. But these did not compare with Michael Jackson's bizarre physical appearance, abetted by untold plastic surgeries; child-like speech; enjoyment in sleeping with (and perhaps "sleeping with") boys; obsession with Peter Pan; and of course, drug abuse.
Jackson's weirdness, unlike Presley's, was publicized for years before his death. So it is disappointing to read the banal psychological interpretations of his behavior. The most common thread is that Jackson's cruel and ambitious father robbed Michael of his childhood.
Slate's Jacob Weisberg wrote, back in 2005: "Almost everything that seems freakish about him can be explained by his poignant, doomed effort to get his stolen childhood back."
Really? How many musicians, athletes, and actors have had overbearing parents who made their childhoods miserable? How many of these resemble Jackson in any way whatsoever: the freakish surgically altered face, the affected voice, Neverland, llamas and chimps, and sleeping with pubescent boys?
A unique person like Michael Jackson requires a unique explanation. Furthermore, Jackson's weirdness was so multifaceted that it presents both a challenge and an opportunity. An hypothesis that explains only one unusual fact is not so useful. One that can explain several is much more so.
I propose an explanation of Michael Jackson that, if true, can explain several seemingly unrelated things: the molestation accusations and interest in children, the obsession with Peter Pan, and the facial surgeries. I think that Michael Jackson had an erotic identity disorder. What was Michael Jackson's sexual orientation? He was married twice to women and may or may not have fathered three children. Still, his sexuality was the subject of considerable speculation. I recall hearing him speak for the first time during the 1983 Motown 25 special and concluding that he was probably gay.
Other people must have had the same impression because his mother protested around that time: "Michael isn't gay. It's against his religion. It's against God. The Bible speaks against it." I wasn't convinced. In a recent story printed in the British press, a reporter claimed to have met two of Michael's gay lovers. Now, even if these reports are true, I don't think that Michael Jackson was gayalthough my reasons are different than his mother's. To be sure, some gay men marry women, and there are surely many famous heterosexually married performers whose private sexuality is
homosexual. But in important ways, gay men do not behave like Michael Jackson did. They do not get elaborate facial surgery that makes them look freakish, for example. They try to maximize their desirability to other gay men, and gay men enjoy conventionally handsome and masculine faces.
When I thought Jackson was gay, it was because of his unusual manner of speech. Since then, I've studied gay speech and learned that I was wrong. Although there is a gay accent prevalent in many gay American men, Jackson didn't have it. And gay men don't raise the pitch of their voice the way that Jackson did.
Nor do gay men seek the company of pubescent boys, especially to share their beds with. As everyone knows, Michael Jackson was twice legally accused of sexually interacting with boys. The first boy was 12 when the alleged molestation began in 1992. The second was 13 when the alleged abuse occurred in 2003. (A third accusation, involving a somewhat younger boy, was settled out of court for $2 million in 1996.) I do not know anything more about these incidents than is available in the public record. Unsurprisingly, Michael Jackson denied committing any offense. He was never put on trial for the first accusation and was found not guilty of the second. I have no reason to question that verdict, but keep in mind that criminal convictions require certainty "beyond reasonable doubt."
Still, if I had to bet on what is most likely, I would bet that he did molest a boy, at least the one from 1992. In that case, the criminal charges were dropped, and Jackson settled with the boy's family, reportedly for $20 million. Jackson insisted that he wanted to pursue the matter in court but that the insurance company made him settle. (With unintended irony, he later said: "I didn't want to do a long drawn-out thing on TV like O.J. and all that stupid stuff.") The idea that an insurance company forced him to settle a nuisance claim for millions of dollars seems unlikely, both to me and to the lawyers I consulted. To be sure, there was also evidence in both cases that the families were financially motivated. But with Jackson's financial assets supporting the best lawyers and publicists, it is unsurprising that
Though inconclusive, the repeated molestation charges and rumors were worrisome. And even Michael Jackson admitted that he loved to sleep in the same bed as children. (It seems that he preferred boys to girls.) That's what precipitated the criminal investigation in 2005. Neither several accusations of sexual abuse of boys nor his admission that he loved sharing his bed with boys necessarily meant that Jackson was sexually attracted to boys. But it is a reasonable hypothesisarguably, the most reasonable hypothesisthat he was. So for now, let's assume that Michael Jackson was sexually attracted to the boys he was accused of molesting. What was his sexual orientation? Jackson was sometimes accused of being a pedophile. "Pedophilia" refers to the sexual preference for children who have not yet entered puberty. The word "pedophilia" is used too imprecisely these days, sometimes to refer even to teachers who have sex with their 16 years old students. That is an incorrect usage, because 16 years old students are usually sexually mature. Those teachers have bad judgment but are not pedophiles.
Jackson's alleged victims were in an age range intermediate between biological children (who have not entered puberty) and sexually mature individuals (who are well into, or beyond, puberty). Although we can't know for sure, without a medical exam from the time of the alleged abuse, it seems most likely that Jackson's alleged victims were pubescent, meaning that they were in the early stages of puberty. Such children have some pubic hair development, and some breast budding if they are girls, but are otherwise quite physically immature. I have seen pictures of naked pubescent children. (They are used by Canadian scientists to assess sexual preferences in sex offenders and are legal for that use there.) I believe that most normal men would find those images to be strange looking and much less appealing than images of more sexually mature women.
The word for sexual attraction to pubescent children is "hebephilia" (pronounced "heebuhfeelia"). Hebephilia appears to be a distinct sexual orientation from pedophilia, and it is somewhat more common. If the rumors and accusations are true, then Jackson appears to have preferred pubescent boys, and so would have been a homosexual hebephile.
Homosexual hebephiles and pedophiles are not gay. Gay men are sexually attracted to physically mature men and are no more aroused by male children than straight men are by female children. Furthermore, unlike gay men, homosexual hebephiles and pedophiles did not tend to start out as feminine boys. (As far as we can tell, all hebephiles and pedophiles are men. The rare woman who molests children is more likely to have a mental illness than a stable sexual preference for children.)
Some hebephiles have some flexibility in their sexuality. Sometimes they are attracted to children below their ideal age. Sometimes they are attracted to adults above their ideal age. But their ideal partner's age is still 11-14, and their ideal partner's body is pubescent.
Hebephilia and pedophilia are sexual orientations, just like normal heterosexuality and homosexuality. Also like normal sexualities, they are not just sexual. Not only do straight men have sex with women, they also fall in love with them, court them, bond with them, and sleep in the same bed with them, often without anything overtly sexual occurring. There is no reason why hebephiles and pedophiles would not also have feelings of love and attachment, as well as sexual attraction, towards children.
To reiterate, I do not know if Michael Jackson molested any boys. But I think he might have, and if he did, he was probably a homosexual hebephile. If he was, it can help explain other aspects of his strange persona. Before I say how, I need to take another sexual detour, this one an inversion.
Pedophilia and hebephilia are specific examples of a general class of sexual disorders calledparaphilias. Other paraphilias include sexual masochism and sadism, exhibitionism, zoophilia (sexual attraction to nonhuman animals), and fetishism (sexual excitement for nonhuman objects). No one knows what causes paraphilias, although I strongly suspect that they are inborn errors of brain development. For some reason, paraphilias occur almost exclusively in men, and not uncommonly, they co-occur in the same person.
One paraphilia that may be relevant, in a general way, to understanding Michael Jackson isautogynephilia. Men with autogynephilia are sexually aroused by the idea of themselves as women. Thus the name: auto (self) gyne (woman) philia (love). Males with autogynephilia most often discover during puberty that it turns them on to dress in women's clothing, especially lingerie.
They go through a stage where cross dressing in private is intensely sexual. Some men with autogynephilia have sexual fantasies about having female genitalia, and many of these men acquire them. Autogynephilia is probably the most common motivation in the United States for sex reassignment surgery among males becoming female.
Autogynephilia is a special kind of paraphilia because it represents an inversion of the desired object inside the self. Autogynephilic men are like straight menthey love women except that the woman an autogynephile loves most is the woman he creates inside himself. I know, I know, this is a strange and difficult concept. It might help to provide an additional example. The most extreme autogynephile I have ever known did not only cross dress but would at some other times would glue (yes glue!) fake vulvas over his penis, wear fake breasts, and film himself (as a pseudo-woman) engaging in pornographic acts with a male dummy. This was highly erotic to him. This person eventually got surgery and is now living as a woman.
Do not confuse autogynephiles with individuals such as gay drag queens or homosexual males who decide to become women. Homosexual drag queens and transsexuals are exclusively and unambiguously attracted to men, and they do not cross dress or behave like women, or imagine that they have female genitalia, in order to excite themselves sexually.
I refer to paraphilias such as autogynephilia as "erotic identity disorders." Autogynephilia isn't the only erotic identity disorder, but it is the most common one. This is because heterosexuality is the most common sexual orientation. So if an inversion error happens, it is most likely to happen in an otherwise heterosexual man. Most autogynephiles retain some ability to be attracted to real women, that is, women who live outside themselves. In erotic
identity disorders, the kind of person a man desires to become is identical to the kind of real, external person he is most attracted to.
A much rarer erotic identity disorder is the sexually-motivated desire to become an amputee. A subset of men are erotically driven to have particular limbs amputated (usually, but not always, one of their legs). These men often admit sexual fantasies about being amputees, and tellingly, they are usually very attracted to amputeesjust as autogynephiles (who want to be women) are usually very attracted to women. This erotic identity disorder (technical name: apotemnophilia) is much rarer than autogynephilia, presumably because attraction to amputees is much rarer than attraction to women. Apotemnophilia is an erotic identity disorder because sexual desire for amputees has been inverted to the self, causing a sexual desire for oneself as an amputee.
Michael Jackson probably did not have autogynephilia, and he certainly did not have apotemnophilia, but he may have had something similar, another erotic identity disorder.
was.
Michael Jackson Finally Gets His Own Computer Virus Who Is King? Michael Jackson Vs Sir Isaac Newton Michael Jackson: Erotic Identity Disorder? Michael Jackson - Freakishness Explained? Michael Jackson: The Castrato? Comparing Jackson to a great singer of the past who
COMMENTS
The word "pedophilia" is used too imprecisely these days, sometimes to refer even to teachers who have sex with their 16 years old students. That is an incorrect usage, because 16 years old students are usually sexually mature. Those teachers have bad judgment but are not pedophiles... Hebephilia and pedophilia are sexual orientations, just like normal heterosexuality and homosexuality...
Feel free to call me narrow minded, but the effects of pedophilia and hebephilia on victims is dramatic and enduring. A homosexual orientation is typically not significantly damaging either emotionally or psychologically to consenting adults, but therein lies the problem - consent. At what age do you feel a child can make a quality decision concerning his or her sexuality? These days, with adolescence extending well into the 20s, it would seem that individuals under the age of majority as defined by law, are ill-prepared to make such a determination. And excuse me once more, but many of my clients would strongly disagree with you that pedophilia (which I do use broadly to encompass hebephilia) is merely a sexual orientation. The devastating permanence and pervasiveness of childhood sexual assaults cannot be disregarded or justified. One sex offender that I was acquainted with tried to defend the sexualization of his then 5 year old daughter by saying that until social services got to her, she considered his molestations to be normal. The implication was clear - that incest and pedophilia are ok, and individuals should be left alone to practice both freely. It would have been interesting to observe his daughter's initial reactions, for I will bet she did not feel their relationship was legitimate. Laura Hult | 07/01/09 | 14:55 PM
I'm not quite sure what it is about Professor Bailey's post that causes you to believe that he disagrees with you...He labels them paraphilias, for God's sake.
There are paraphilias, and then there are paraphilias. For example, having a fetish for say rubber clothing does not necessarily mean anyone is going to get hurt. A physical act of pedophilia does involve injury to another. Prof. Bailey states that "hebephilia and pedophilia are sexual orientations, just like normal heterosexuality and homosexuality". Perhaps this was badly worded, but as it stands, hebephilia and pedophilia are equated with hetero and homosexuality, thus lending social legitimacy to both practices. Laura Hult | 07/01/09 | 16:00 PM
Hebephilia, pedophilia, heterosexuality and homosexuality are also all english words, but that doesn't equate them or lend social legitimacy to any of them. Of course they are all sexual orientations. Hebephilia is sexual attraction to pubescent kids. Pedophilia is sexual attraction to prepubescent kids. Homosexuality is sexual attraction same sex partners. Heterosexuality is sexual attraction to opposite sex partners. All of this is noncontroversial and beyond dispute. The point of the post was not to make a moral statement about any sexual orientation but rather to make a statement about Michael Jackson's sexual orientation. I'm sure Professor Bailey agrees that homosexuality and heterosexuality are "good" sexual orientations because they don't harm anyone, and hebephilia and pedophilia are "bad" sexual orientations because they harm kids. Nothing in his post is inconsistent with any of that. Am I missing something? Do you disagree? Anonymous (not verified) | 07/01/09 | 16:35 PM
Unless you are Prof. Bailey, I would think it risky to claim this. Nothing in his post is inconsistent with any of that. Am I missing something? Do you disagree? I disagree based on the following excerpts, which raise many red flags in my mind: A unique person like Michael Jackson requires a unique explanation. Why? Although I feel empathy for Michael Jackson, he was after all just another person with problems. An ordinary diagnosis will do just fine. Nor do gay men seek the company of pubescent boys, especially to share their beds with. A dangerous assumption, for some do (reference NAMBLA). The word "pedophilia" is used too imprecisely these days, sometimes to refer even to teachers who have sex with their 16 years old students. That is an incorrect usage, because 16 years old students are usually sexually mature. Those teachers have bad judgment but are not pedophiles. At young ages, a few years of maturity has a huge effect on the ability to participate in social interactions. A 16 year old student is in a highly vulnerable position, the teacher in a position of authority and trust. A student actively producing sperm or releasing eggs, referred to as "sexual maturity" by Prof. Bailey, does not represent a magical point where sexual relationships can begin with adults, but rather represents the start of a prolonged journey towards adulthood. The student is not an adult at this age. The teacher is an adult and has violated not only social convention, but also his or her ethical position of authority and trust. That"bad judgment" was exercised is an understatement. Some hebephiles have some flexibility in their sexuality. Sometimes they are attracted to children below their ideal age. Sometimes they are attracted to adults above their ideal age. But their ideal partner's age is still 11-14, and their ideal partner's body is pubescent. Prof. Bailey attempts to make a significant distinction between pedophiles and hebephiles, and then use the less familiar (and less emotionally charged) word to describe adults victimizing 11-14 year old children, possibly to destigmatize the activity. There is no reason why hebephiles and pedophiles would not also have feelings of love and attachment, as well as sexual attraction, towards children. This is an unsubstantiated claim at best. According to the SOs I've encountered, none have expressed a deep, adult-like love and affection for their victims. Rather, the opposite was true, and the child was simply"in the wrong place at the wrong time" , as one SO put it. Laura Hult | 07/01/09 | 17:53 PM
I'm not quite sure of your point. Are you saying that you believe something in Professor Bailey's post suggests that he believes that adults having sex with pubescent or prepubescent children is morally
justifiable? If so, that takes a lot of reading (misreading?) between the lines. I suppose we can just ask him. Professor Bailey, if you are reading this, do you believe that adults having sex with pubescent or prepubescent children is morally justifiable? Yes or no will do. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/01/09 | 20:30 PM
At what age do you feel a child can make a quality decision concerning his or her sexuality? These days, with adolescence extending well into the 20s, it would seem that individuals under the age of majority as defined by law, are ill-prepared to make such a determination.
This is a bit of a gray area to me, although I understand the argument. As I'm sure you're aware, while this tends to be a viewpoint that many people share, my concern stems from the fact that it doesn't seem to be applied with equal certainty when the teen-ager is male. In addition, more importantly, this clearly goes completely against the idea of trying teen-agers as adults for crimes. After all, if a teen-ager can be held accountable for an act of violence, it is a difficult argument to suggest that they aren't equally mature to determine their sexual behavior. If a 16-year old can't make a quality decision, how would we try them for a crime like rape? Is it strictly the violence, the sexual element ... ? In addition, we have the problem that many teen-agers at this age are themselves engaged in sexual activity amongst their peers. Once again, the problem is that if they lack the ability to make such decisions, then isn't the problem THEIR behavior, and is it really controllable? In many ways this is no different than the poor quality decisions people (especially teenagers) make with alcohol, drugs, etc. There is little doubt that all of these have the potential to wreak havoc on someone's life. However, poor choices or not, isn't it possible that there isn't anyone to blame except themselves. that criminalizing it solves anything. I can agree that I don't think that it is appropriate for a 30+ year old to be sexually active with a teen-ager, but ultimately that's my opinion. I'm not sure that the "quality" of a decision is a necessary consideration to criminalize an activity. Gerhard Adam | 07/01/09 | 17:18 PM Often, I suspect that older adults make for easy targets because their behavior is on the fringes, but, even if the consent is of poor quality, I'm not sure
This is a bit of a gray area to me, although I understand the argument. As I'm sure you're aware, while this tends to be a viewpoint that many people share, my concern stems from the fact that it doesn't seem to be applied with equal certainty when the teen-ager is male. In addition, more importantly, this clearly goes completely against the idea of trying teen-agers as adults for crimes.
I too am amazed and dismayed at the treatment of juveniles within our judicial system. Perhaps the best solution is to bear in mind that while these individuals may have the exterior appearance of adults, inside they may be little more than children and are deserving of societal protection and special provision as determined by each individual case. In addition, we have the problem that many teen-agers at this age are themselves engaged in sexual activity amongst their peers. Experimentation between peers is in my mind completely different than sexual victimization by an adult. It is not the activity, but the intent behind the activity. The adult is secretive about his or her conquest (and passes that secrecy plus shame to the child), while the teenager revels in the ability to "score" with one of the pretty cheerleaders. I have never heard of a teenager or child boast about sexual activity with the old man next door. Laura Hult | 07/01/09 | 18:09 PM
Perhaps the best solution is to bear in mind that while these individuals may have the exterior appearance of adults, inside they may be little more than children and are deserving of societal protection and special provision as determined by each individual case.
This gets back to my other comment, which is that whether they are adults or not, they are operating in a world where they may commit "adult" acts and have to reap the consequences. There is no doubt that there are some evil teenagers, just as there are adults and I certainly wouldn't want to see them handled with leniency just because they're "immature".
In many ways, society has become too protective of children and young adults and consequently has empowered them to exploit their age to legal advantage. The most obvious problem is that the courts are ill-prepared to truly evaluate and assess anything on a case-by-case basis. These things can be complicated enough without the restrictions of the legal system in providing the information necessary to truly come to an understanding of the individuals involved.
In the end, whether we like it or not, I don't believe these are problems that society or the law can solve. It comes back to how tuned-in the parents are to their kids behavior.
The adult is secretive about his or her conquest (and passes that secrecy plus shame to the child), while the teenager revels in the ability to "score" with one of the pretty cheerleaders.
That may be true in some situations, but in the eyes of the law a 19-year old and a 15-year are committing a crime. I don't believe the 19-year old can legitimately be considered an "older adult" (this is based on the law generally considering a three-year window to be considered peers). Often the accusation of statutory rape is leveled by a parent that simply wants to control a daughter from dating an older teen-ager. While I can appreciate the sentiment, I think it is stretching the boundaries to which the law can legitimately be applied. In this kind of situations, there is little doubt that the secrecy may be a result of parental prohibition, rather than the fact that either party views their activities as wrongful. What I find the most disturbing, is that the focus invariably seems to be on the trauma associated with taking advantage of young women. Of far greater concern to me, is the young men that having been unwittingly pushed into fatherhood and the attendant responsibility that entails, and the courts have barely batted an eye at the offender (to add insult to injury several cases determined that the teenage boy owed child support -http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberthirtysix.htm ) In general, this whole area is far too emotionally charged with too many parties willing to charge in with halfbaked notions about how to solve these problems. This is something that requires eliminating the moral issues and emotions and try and determine whether anything can reasonably be done and to what extent. Except in the cases of force and/or coercion, it may be that people have to live with their bad choices.
This gets back to my other comment, which is that whether they are adults or not, they are operating in a world where they may commit "adult" acts and have to reap the consequences. There is no doubt that there are some evil teenagers, just as there are adults and I certainly wouldn't want to see them handled with leniency just because they're "immature". In many ways, society has become too protective of children and young adults and consequently has empowered them to exploit their age to legal advantage. The most obvious problem is that the courts are ill-prepared to truly evaluate and assess anything on a case-by-case basis.
Which is why I stated that each case should be handled individually. It is unacceptable for us as a society to sit back and bemoan the state of our judicial system, but do nothing. In particular a good deal of responsibility should fall within my profession, for we do have the ear of judges from time to time and are in a position to educate as well as perform required evaluations. But you are quite correct that personal responsibility has apparently fallen out of vogue. That may be true in some situations, but in the eyes of the law a 19-year old and a 15-year are committing a crime. I don't believe the 19-year old can legitimately be considered an "older adult" (this is based on the law generally considering a three-year window to be considered peers). Often the accusation of statutory rape is leveled by a parent that simply wants to control a daughter from dating an older teen-ager. While I can appreciate the sentiment, I think it is stretching the boundaries to which the law can legitimately be applied. In this kind of situations, there is little doubt that the secrecy may be a result of parental prohibition, rather than the fact that either party views their activities as wrongful. Do you recall how it felt to be those ages? I do to some extent and remember that there was a significant difference in the maturity levels of a sophomore in high school, and the person who had been out of high school for a couple of years. Even back in my high school days, there were parents who would place restraining orders on the older teenager, typically after talking over the situation with police officers. Still, a few younger teens ran off with their older lovers - and get married. Usually they were back home within a few weeks after running out of money. What I find the most disturbing, is that the focus invariably seems to be on the trauma associated with taking advantage of young women. Of far greater concern to me, is the young men that having been unwittingly pushed into fatherhood and the attendant responsibility that entails, and the courts have barely batted an eye at the offender (to add insult to injury several cases determined that the teenage boy owed child support).
Perhaps being in the field gives me a different perspective, because in general it is the boys who have been molested that receive the most attention and intensive care. Girls appear to be a bit more resilient, possibly because we have targeted them educationally for longer. While I do not disagree that there are injustices, maybe dads (or other caring male relatives) could take a more pro-active role and explain to their sons that sex without protection just invites disaster. Nevertheless, as you pointed out earlier in your post, there are consequences to our actions. This is something that requires eliminating the moral issues and emotions and try and determine whether anything can reasonably be done and to what extent. Here I do disagree - morality, ethics, and a teenager's role in society need to emphasized, not abandoned. If the teen is seen as an integral part of the community and has certain responsibilities and obligations that lead naturally to adult responsibilities, then we may have the beginnings of a workable plan. Laura Hult | 07/01/09 | 22:20 PM
Here I do disagree - morality, ethics, and a teenager's role in society need to emphasized, not abandoned. If the teen is seen as an integral part of the community and has certain responsibilities and obligations that lead naturally to adult responsibilities, then we may have the beginnings of a workable plan.
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I was referring to the morality and emotions of those that want to place their own values on the situation instead of considering the reality of solutions that might work. In other words, I don't think there's any benefit in people advancing their own agendas and trying to "wish" the world a certain way. It's like the abstinence programs .... perhaps it's a reasonable idea, but what's the backup plan? In those cases, my concern is that people are attempting to foist their own beliefs on individuals rather than determining what is needed and what may actually work. Gerhard Adam | 07/01/09 | 22:41 PM
It's like the abstinence programs .... perhaps it's a reasonable idea, but what's the backup plan? In those cases, my concern is that people are attempting to foist their own beliefs on individuals rather than determining what is needed and what may actually work.
Indeed! :) Thank you for a lively and considered debate! Laura Hult | 07/02/09 | 00:05 AM
I too am amazed and dismayed at the treatment of juveniles within our judicial system. Perhaps the best solution is to bear in mind that while these individuals may have the exterior appearance of adults, inside they may be little more than children and are deserving of societal protection and special provision as determined by each individual case. Are you serious? You are certainly right that it should be determined on a case-by-case basis, but I must say, I am rather as amazed and dismayed as you are...conversely. I think it's appalling how few teenagers get tired as adults and literally get away with (less punishment than they should for) murder, rape, assault, etc. While it's true that teenagers often have bad judgment, it is also true that most are perfectly capable of understanding the repercussions of their actions and SHOULD know that these things are morally reprehensible. I anticipate that some people will assume I am overestimating teenagers; however, that has been my opinion since I realized that it was an issue, somewhere around the age of eleven or twelve. It saddens me to think that so many teenagers commit crimes, fully aware of their actions, and are tried as juveniles because adults underestimate them and their capacity to understand consequences. It is one of many flaws in our justice system (by which I mean the United States, though from my understanding other countries have similar problems; I cannot speak for them, though). Anonymous (not verified) | 07/02/09 | 00:00 AM
I anticipate that some people will assume I am overestimating teenagers; however, that has been my opinion since I realized that it was an issue, somewhere around the age of eleven or twelve. It saddens me to think that so many teenagers commit crimes, fully aware of their actions, and are tried as juveniles because adults underestimate them and their capacity to understand consequences. It is one of many flaws in our justice system (by which I mean the United States, though from my understanding other countries have similar problems; I cannot speak for them, though).
This problem will not go away easily or quickly, for it has been decades in the making. The Great Depression, the advent of television and its ability to disseminate permissive ideas and concepts coupled with the relative navet of audiences, and WWII all contributed to the way Boomers were raised. In short, because our parents had it so rough we were spoiled rotten, coddled, and otherwise made to feel we weren't responsible for anything. Many of the children that Boomers raised are now even worse. So what shall we do to correct this situation? My feeling is that re-education and re-introduction to personal responsibility must be done in the same way that the original permissive ideas were presented - with repetition and over time. It's not going to be a quick fix, however with the economy crashing the process may proceed more rapidly than I expect. Already families are having to move back in with each other, with everyone working and contributing to household income. Neighborhoods are beginning to pull together. Hard lessons about responsibility and obligation are being learned. This is why I advocate the evaluation of each juvenile offender individually. Social change is happening, and we will get back to some good fundamental values, but I'm not eager to throw away a generation of offenders because we (Boomers) didn't do our jobs. If a bit of special consideration and training can salvage these individuals, then let's do it. Laura Hult | 07/02/09 | 10:42 AM
One big problem in the use of the word paraphilia is that it is ill defined. The way it has been used in psychology has changed as various sexualities moved from taboo to socially acceptable. So I see what he is trying to do in calling these "sexual orientations" rather than paraphilia's. I have more to say but I'll say it after reading part two. Dont tase me bro Hontas Farmer | 07/01/09 | 18:24 PM
As a gay man I take offense at his generalizations. Different strokes for different folks. Some gay men find effeminant men attractive. "Although there is a gay accent prevalent in many gay American men" Oh really? Do tell. Is it the lisp perhaps. Do limp wrists also accompany this gay accent? Those are enough examples for me to totally think this guy is a quack or a professor at some conservative religious college.
Me thinks he needs to take a refresher course on human sexuality. He sounds like he got his education back in the 50's. Oooo, I am so angry right now. I'd slap him if he were in the room with me but he looks gay so I glad he's not.
Great post with good points! :) BTW, if the professor is from the same Northwestern University in Evanston, IL that I am acquainted with, it is one of the more liberal campuses around. Laura Hult | 07/01/09 | 22:26 PM
Professor Bailey is one of the most well published researchers on human sexuality in the field of psychology. He is also tenured in one of the most respected psychology departments in the country. You say he needs to take a refresher course on human sexuality? He literally wrote the book. When Bailey makes generalizations like "They try to maximize their desirability to other gay men, and gay men enjoy conventionally handsome and masculine faces" he is doing so based on his own research into the topic. Yes, it is controversial because many would prefer that stereotypes not be found in scientific research. Nevertheless (either because of socialization or some sort of stereotype threat interaction) these findings are accurate and it would be a disservice to pretend they don't exist. Remember that psychology operates in averages and generalizations. Last time I checked, Dr. Bailey had never published anything that said "David D. and all of his friends speak with the stereotypical homosexual accent". Anonymous (not verified) | 07/02/09 | 10:31 AM
He spins out quite a lot, yes. Yet much of it doesn't pass common sense tests. It's mind-boggling how people seem to take his personal 'theories' as some sort of gospel. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/02/09 | 16:42 PM
I wouldn't say anyone is taking his theory on MJ as gospel really. In a sense in saying that Michael had some sexual issues Bailey is only saying what people already think. Afterall MJ was accused of child molestation, twice. He settled civil suits out of court, twice. I'm not saying MJ did anything...but allot of people think he did , or that he was sexually strange in some other way. As for TMWWBQ and the theory in that book. It's not "his personal theory", and no one takes any theory as gospel. (I guess the HBS notion is taken as gospel but that's more of a wishful thought than a theory that could be objectively tested.) One more thing. It is most interesting that in this discussion one see's non transsexual admitted autogynephile who is offended by the notion that transsexual autogynephiles exist, and transsexuals who are offended (more understandably) by the notion of autogynephilia. :-/ Dont tase me bro Hontas Farmer | 07/02/09 | 17:20 PM
He doesn't even use the term theory. He has a speculation, maybe a hypothesis, but first he wanted to address what everyone in the media was dancing around; was Jackson a pedophile? His answer was no but he did believe Jackson had a disorder. Science often speculates on things we can't prove but can converge on an answer about. This is certainly one of them but it's a discussion topic. Too many people go nuts because they think very item under discussion is a personal attack on their existence or lifestyle. It isn't. I have only read a few of Bailey's things, just like the rest of you, but he does not seem to be in the agenda business. Science is about explaining what might otherwise be unexplainable. Hank Campbell | 07/02/09 | 19:23 PM
I'm sure you are aware that many of the comments from the "transcommunity" on this, will have little to do with MJ. (JIC and for the rest of the readers) Those comments will have nothing to do with what Dr Bailey wrote here and now. They are referring to "The Man Who Would be Queen" (Bailey 2003) and the theory due to Ray Blanchard that there are two types of transsexuals. One type non-homosexual motivated by an autogynephilic desire to become a woman. The other type homosexual and motivated by their taste for hetrosexual men to become women. (Female to male transsexuals are not addressed by Blanchard's theory) It is considered offensive by many because as they read it: The theory defines transsexual women by their "sex assigned at birth", instead of
gender identity. ' ' assigns specifically masculine sexual drives to MTF transsexual women (i.e. That of a heterosexual cross dresser to autogynephilc transsexuals, Or that of a extra horny gay male to a homosexual transsexual) Many in the transcommunity fear that if this theory were accepted even a little it would lead to non-homosexual transsexuals specifically being denied acess to surgery and other transition related medical care.
Those are the major concerns I have seen written and heard spoken.
I wouldn't disagree with the expressed concerns you list. Aspects of Bailey's work might be seen as a threat to someone's very existence and that adds potency to the rejection of his theories. However, I wonder if the main issue that is that his observations seem simply not to match the experiences of those whose lives are wholly immersed in transsexualism and are rejected not simply because they are found to be offensive, but that they are seen to be wrong. The topic is immensely complex and controversial. The focus on sexual acts and sexual orientation seems to me to be overly stressed and the impact of societal pressures to conform to the norm are insufficiently explored. For many people, perhaps most, the issue is simply not about sex. It is about one's place in society. And it is about society's perceptions of people and about normativity, where adherence to the norm becomes an "ought". The pressures to conform are immense and, frequently, very damaging. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/03/09 | 02:57 AM
Reply to This
Link
However, I wonder if the main issue that is that his observations seem simply not to match the experiences of those whose lives are wholly immersed in transsexualism and are rejected not simply because they are found to be offensive, but that they are seen to be wrong.
The problem with that is that there are people who say that Blanchard's theory matches their experiences. i.e. Anne Lawrence, the people at transkids.us (which is no longer up). That said some of the concerns I have listed are shared by them as well. i.e. The people at transkids.us myself included do not think that our transitions were notivated soley by our sex drives. If we have done adult work it's not due to being "especially well suited" it's due to being black or hispanic and transsexual with the discrimination those bring. Then having to finance transition without the resources others have. Why have you not heard that? {rant} One thing that has rubbed me the wrong way from the start is how the concerns of those would would be labeld "homosexual transsexuals" are largely subordiated to the controversy over autogynephilia. Even going so far as to deny the existence of people who could be ID'd as transsexual as children, declaring to be fake any transsexual who even by loose association identifies themselves as a "homosexual transsexual" et al. The whole thing took on the character of a witch hunt. History shows being on the side of the witch hunters is never a good bet. The so called "transcommunity" as another blogger puts it, has become dominated by what she calls "White women born transsexual". Transsexual women who from their stations of relative privillage look down their noses at the black and hispanic sisters who must struggle to survive. They assert that they are driven by neurology...but at the same time, if you have ever done sex work to pay the bills, or have decided to live without SRS you are not a transsexual. Their rhetoric is 10X worse than anything in TMWWBQ yet they get a pass. {/rant} Dont tase me bro Hontas Farmer | 07/03/09 | 12:53 PM
Reply to This
Link
I agree with you David D; when I read "I recall hearing him speak for the first time during the 1983 Motown 25 special and concluding that he was probably gay." that swept away any doubt I had about this article being purely speculative and not based on science at all. It is nicely written, but it isn't about Michael Jackson - it is more a general discussion about various kinds of sexuality. Obviously, no one who didn't know Michael Jackson personally can say the first thing about his very personal life. It is totally non-scientific and in my opinion highly questionable - to put it kindly. This article is driving a lot of traffic to the blog - and good for scientificblogging.com, I'm sure, but I'm afraid I find this is hurting science in general as it is so speculative. Michael Jackson's image was eccentric. That is all we can say, we outsiders. I guess we can all agree that he was a tremendous artist, though :-) Bente Lilja Bye is the author of Lilja - A bouquet of stories about the Earth Bente Lilja Bye | 07/14/09 | 13:29 PM
I agree with you. I hope I live long enough to see that being gay is viewed as normal, being eccentric is viewed as a positive twist on life by providing another way of looking at things, and that labels no longer exist. I don't know why we can't just determine that certain behavior is wrong or harmful without dissecting it into thousands of pieces and giving ourselves headaches. Michael Jackson needed urgent care and boundaries and an alliance of discerning people to confront him and give him no way out. He wanted help and support. He asked for it a thousand times. Anonymous (not verified) | 08/16/09 | 21:01 PM
A voice of reason. As I read this my thought was, how unethical and unscientific, to attempt to analyze Jackson based on rumor and speculations recycled through tabloids and into mainstream media. Like analyzing a fictional character in a novel. The least Bailey could've done is to speak with people who actually knew Jackson. He could start with Dr Wayne Dyer who considered Jackson to be one of the most spiritually evolved people he'd ever met. Many people who actually spent time with him trusted him explicitly with their children. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43YkTHNAb00&feature=player_embedded As did the mother of Ryan White, AIDS victim, whom Jackson befriended. And, Dave Dave, whose father doused him with gasoline and set him afire. And many others.
If you remove the speculation that there was a sexual attraction to the young men in his life, you might be able to see him as an ally for young men. He had been a mentor from an early age in his JW religion. See if A-sexual fits for you. Androgenous. A balance of masculine and feminine energies. As for Jackson's voice, listen to his brother Jackie speak? And the infamous allegations, there is ample evidence to indicate the first allegation was Extortion and the second, Malicious Prosecution. How the first case came to be settled- it's in a court document, and yes it was the insurance company's decision. Jackson may have eventually agreed, but initially refused a settlement.He had refused payment to Chandler in negotiations that went on before the allegation was made. Ironically, the $20 million was exactly what the father had been trying to get from Jackson so he could give up dentistry and write a screenplay. The boy made no allegations until his father put him under Sodium Amytal for a routine dental procedure. And planted suggestions? The second boy made no allegation until the DA made a visit to his home and referred the family to the same lawyer and shrink that was involved in the first case. The second boy has admitted that Jackson was innocent. The first refused to testify in the second case and Jackson's attorney had witnesses prepared to testify that the alleged victim had told them that his father made him lie. Journalists who bothered to ferret out the truth- Mary A Fisher, Aphrodite Jones, Charles Thomson, Geraldine Hughes (secretary for the attorney who represented both boys). Their works are online. It sometimes happens that bad things happen to good people. Jackson's respect and genunie caring for children made him an easy target- for allegations and speculative diagnoses. Perhaps now, his own, unique 'disorder'. LOL I'll read Part 2 tomorrow. Not sure I can stomach it tonight. Anonymous (not verified) | 03/01/11 | 01:02 AM
@David D Frankly, I expect nothing less from Bailey who continues to confuse autogynephilia with gender identity. A quack, indeed. But then,making outrageous claims sells copy. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/02/09 | 05:03 AM
queens" and transsexuals." Thus, "homosexual drag queens and homosexual transsexuals are exclusively and unambiguously attracted to men...." Anonymous (not verified) | 07/08/09 | 17:55 PM
It is absurd to say that transsexuals are homosexual males. This is wrong and completely inaccurate. And there could be a homosexual male who is also sexually aroused by the thought of him being female (as an object of sexual desire of another male), which does not indicate autogynephilia at all. The terms are so badly confused by Bailey. Homosexual males are male by gender whether or not they are sexually aroused by feminine things in themselves. Transsexuals are female by gender identity though they may not be sexually aroused by the female in them. Autogynephiles have just a paraphilia, so, they are just males who wish they could be females for sexual obsessions. That's the ultimate truth and needs no further investigation to confuse people. Sam (not verified) | 07/12/09 | 12:45 PM
Professor Bailey, as a heterosexual autogynephilic with no desire to transition, I'm not sure whether to be amused or offended at your assertions. You hold the title of "professor" -- one would assume the caliber of your research to be a little higher. aq (not verified) | 07/02/09 | 16:15 PM
Reply to This
Link
once again Bailey proves/shows how much of an idiot he is. Talk about spouting crap. Talk about a full out sexually fixated narcissist. Oner need only spend a few hours to read up on the various, junk, studies he has done over the years and how he came to his "brilliant" conclusions to understand his constant desire to deal with his own sexual issues. Now the guy can read minds, dead ones at that, uses false autopsy reports and just plain makes it up as he goes. What's the matter Micheal, you need attention that much? femme (not verified) | 07/03/09 | 20:00 PM
And so the professor further reinforces what is already blatantly obvious. This article is another example of the ramblings of a sexually obsessed, fantasist-cum-quack who doles out pseudo-science with his one free hand. AJ A James (not verified) | 07/04/09 | 04:48 AM
but it was gradual and as far as plastic surgery, they did an excellent job in accomplishing the look he wanted. He looked great. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/04/09 | 15:46 PM
Priscilla was only 14 years old when he met her. Both should be remembered as the Kings of Hebephilia.R. Kelly and Jerry Lee Lewis will be the princes. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/07/09 | 10:40 AM
I'm not concerned with people's "opinions", it's just the obvious ignorance and cliche-mongering of Bailey's posts that annoys me. Your views about being gay and having mental disorders also are ignorant. I don't know why you'd care about my mental health, and apparently you haven't heard about NARTH, but oh well. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/08/09 | 04:19 AM
I'm not concerned with people's "opinions", it's just the obvious ignorance and cliche-mongering of Bailey's posts that annoys me. Your views about being gay and having mental disorders also are ignorant. I don't know why you'd care about my mental health, and apparently you haven't heard about NARTH, but oh well. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/08/09 | 04:19 AM
michal jackson was a strange individual. Homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals, they are mentally ill. Anyone who has anal sex male or female has some serious issues. That hole is for relieving the bowels and farting. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/07/09 | 10:24 AM
Way back when men used to lay with young boys, people were naive to homosexuality. I do believe that those young boys were being molested and abused. Just because no one suspected anything does not mean that they were not being abused. Children were physically abused alot more often in olden days. So I would believe that they were also sexually abused. Men also married younger girls back then.Sounds to me that you would like to lay with a couple of young boys.Back to Michael Jackson, Michael may not have molested the young boys, but he is not the saint alot of people are painting him as.We can not prove either way so lets just leave it alone. THE FREAK IS DEAD! He was not a gift from god! everyone wants to credit him for where music is today, I give more credit to James Brown. Who do you think Michael was emulating as a child. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/08/09 | 14:27 PM
Way back when men used to lay with young boys, people were naive to homosexuality. I do believe that those young boys were being molested and abused. Just because no one suspected anything does not mean that they were not being abused. Children were physically abused alot more often in olden days. So I would believe that they were also sexually abused. Men also married younger girls back then.Sounds to me that you would like to lay with a couple of young boys.Back to Michael Jackson, Michael may not have molested the young boys, but he is not the saint alot of people are painting him as.We can not prove either way so lets just leave it alone. THE FREAK IS DEAD! He was not a gift from god! everyone wants to credit him for where music is today, I give more credit to James Brown. Who do you think Michael was emulating as a child. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/08/09 | 14:27 PM
must say one thing, all you people who think Micheal Jackson is capable of hurting a child are the ones who truly need help not Micheal. He was pure and would never hurt a child. Its people like you and the
congressman that think that way and who are the real perverts. I wish there were more people in this world who were like Micheal Jackson, the world would be a better place. He was loving, giving and donated immense amounts of money to charities what have you done??? other than buy YOURSELF STUFF and drive your fancy cars. Before you judge someone know the whole story and dont just listen to the awful media because its horrible stories like this that sell not the trulth unfortuantely. As a mother i would leave my children with Micheal and not one second have doubts as to wheather he would hurt my children. He was a legend and deserves all the attention he is getting. For all you selfish, rude, hating people that have nothing better to do than insult micheal SHAME ON YOU If you saw it with your own eyes then you can accuse him otherwise please keep quite and let the world mourn a wonderful artist, man and father Anonymous (not verified) | 07/07/09 | 17:26 PM
How do any of us know what Michael was like....We do not know and the media will give small bits of info. and piece other bits of info.together to create the person they want us to think the person is. So for those who want to see Michael as a great person you do just that and those of you that don't you do just that but let there be no shame. That's the problem some people like to shame others into being and doing things the way they want things viewed. Be free, be you and do you. Its all an opinion and we all have that right to one. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/14/09 | 12:23 PM
Bury Mr. Jackson in Gary, indiana johnny (not verified) | 07/08/09 | 16:56 PM
It's a shame that a "Professor," of psychology no less, at a prestigious institution such as Northwestern doesn't know what he is talking about. It is YOU, "Dr." Baily, who is confusing terms and definitions. Gender identity and sexual orientation are completely separate, transsexuals are not "homosexual men" (they're transsexuals!), and the theory of autogynephilia is espoused by a limited number of people in the field, mainly because it's unproven. Where did you get the ridiculous statistics that autogynephilia is the most common motivation for sex reassignment surgery? Medical transition of transsexuals is the most common motivation for SRS! Someone should send your inaccurate blog to your department chair. I hope you do not see clients, and if you do, I have sincere pity (and concern) for them under your care. Anderson (not verified) | 07/09/09 | 00:04 AM
interest in boys. In my opinion Michael was mentally ill and theres alot more to it than just a missed childhood. Janet Jackson was also in show business at an early age and does not seem to have the behaviors of her older brother. Maybe his brain isn't wired right or something. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/09/09 | 09:12 AM
I am a white female who was sexually abused as a child. In my opinion, I really do not think Michael Jackson molested children. I would think my opinion would count a little, since I know what it is like to be a victim. After finding out how much money the parents received, and the books that were publish by Jordan Chandler, his sister and his uncle, it is so obvious the entire family wanted to ruin Michael Jackson's career and life for money. Jordan Chandler's father Evan Chandler knew the worst thing a man could EVER be accused of is "child molesting". Evan Chandler did a terrific job convincing the world. Maybe people should put Evan Chandler's under a microscope, now.. After what happened to me, I could never publish a book about what happened. I think I would have jumped off a bridge if my family started telling my story and publishing books. People who are legitimate victims do not want to talk about this unless they know it is going to help other people and maybe not even then. I was never a Michael Jackson fan but these accusations should really stop, whenever I hear them I just want to scream. I never heard the biggest child advocate in the world "John Walsh" warning parents about Michael Jackson. Has anyone? It was clearly the parents fault for allowing their children to stay with him, which makes me believe the parents had ulterior motives. Even after the first allegations, parents allowed it ! Seem a little odd? I bet other victims would agree with me.. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/11/09 | 09:32 AM
It is so weird to say that transsexuals are homosexual males. The truth is that transexuals have a female gender identity and homosexual males have a male gender identity though many gay men might like to don feminine objects as sexual objects too which again does not mean they are autogynephilic. Bailey does need a refresher course so that he does not end up labelling all feminine males and boyish tomboys as transsexuals or autogynephiles. His definitions would only add to more confusion among other people,so, I request him to stop his comments unless he learns more. The ultimate reality is that paraphilias are just paraphilias and they never reflect inborn gender identity. Sam (not verified) | 07/12/09 | 12:56 PM
Transsexualism is transsexualism, the root causes do not matter. In the theory that Dr. Bailey subscribes to there are no "true transsexuals"....just transsexuals who are ALL equally "true". The homosexual transsexual, former feminine boy come woman, is just a true as the autogynephilic not so feminine male come woman. It is a distinction but not difference. What matters is that the person always functions better after they begin living as a female. Dont tase me bro Hontas Farmer | 07/15/09 | 19:25 PM
When anybody's paraphilias are met in real life, he would obviously perform and live better and more happily, it's common sense. So, no wonder that the autogynephile would be happier after transition. Does that mean you give vent to all types of anomalous paraphilias and let people do whatever they want? Remember, this is democracy but not a hooligan's land. Bailey should be ashamed of himself. He has caused great shame to Europe and USA. Angrygay (not verified) | 07/16/09 | 00:25 AM
"Angrygay" you do realize that to allot of people being gay is a paraphillia. :-/ People in glass houses.... Dont tase me bro Hontas Farmer | 07/16/09 | 02:19 AM
PEOPLE WHO THINK MICHAEL JACKSON IS PEDO TYPE IN GOOGLE jodan chandler says it all
In my Jackson Freakishness Explained article posted herein, I speculate that the loveless sterile way that Jackson grew up may have contributed to his similarly freakish level of talent. I don't know what went on in his home, but would note that he was acquitted in a criminal trial. I've been on a jury, and although the system is not perfect, I think it is good enough that he would have been convicted if he was clearly guilty. Thus I make the assumption that he is not clearly guilty, although I'm not familiar with the trial, including what he was specifically found not guilty of. The whole situation is sad. It is sad that such a talented guy had such demons inside. It is sad that Joe Jackson seems apparently incapable of human emotion. And, it is sad that either Jackson had inappropriate relations with some children, or the parents of some children used their children to try to gain from an innnocent and naive superstar.
professions, so are sad being females afterall. Support that also if you want. Do just anything, right, you morons? Cook (not verified) | 07/16/09 | 05:43 AM
Who said jack about changing sex? Are you talking about my article on MJ? If so then I think maybey you read the title and greatly misunderstood both it, and the process of transgender transition.
I did not mention about Jack changing sex. I referred to your above comments: " What matters is that the person always functions better after they begin living as a female." Cook (not verified) | 07/20/09 | 11:33 AM
'Michael Jackson' didn't have a childhood he was abused by his father both physically and emotionally. he lacked a good male rolemodel. This made MJ feel unworthy, insecure, lonely and without love. his thinking became warped and his psyches became deeply wounded, An important part of why MJ was like this he never grew up but remained a hurt child. I honestly Believe that MJ was a Pedophile I think he did hurt that boy. People always use the excuse of the whole 'the family wanted money' But no one ever listened to the other half of the story. Just because you ":think" Michael Jackson was Innocent doesn't mean he was. Michael was happy with himself he wasn't just any person he was the "King Of Pop" so he couldn't possibly be bad. Michael earned this boys trust, he became close to the boys family he took his time to "groom" this boy the way he wanted him. He seduced him with gifts,money,trips etc... The boys father was not in the kids life MJ knew that so he wanted to make the boy "think" he cared about him just has much. And I don't care what anyone else thinks Michael Jackson did molest Jordan Chandler, and I believe that he made Jordan feel ashamed and made Jordan feel that he was the bad one, So I feel for Jordan because I do think he was abused. Look up Traits of a pedophile- and read what it tells you MJ fits all of the traits but people are so blinded by his fame that you can't see past that because under his whole Image he was a troubled man who needed help. I just feel sorry that he never tried to seek that 'help'. Michael was an amazing entertainer but he was not a very good person. Anonymous (not verified) | 08/06/09 | 20:57 PM
Michael Jackson was not born with any genetic disroder, so do none of the GLBTs, All psychologically abnormal people in this world have a wounded childhood in some or the other way though they can't recollect it. A girl becomes a lesbian when in her childhood she has learnt to despise femininity. A common evidence which suggests this is that most gays to a great extent exhibit narcissism or are highly
self-obsessed or egoistic. This shows that such weird thoughts stem from a broken childhood or a distorted way of upbringing. So, the same case applies to Jackson as well. He was a mentally castrated male as due to his wicked father, he began to despise males and masculinity, and hence went on to love children. He might as easily have become a homosexual and developed SSA tendencies.. Cook (not verified) | 08/07/09 | 03:24 AM
As for his surgery hobby, I can relate to that totally. If money was no object when I was 14 I would have done exactly the same thing. Michael said "you wanna die" and I totally understand that. I used to wish I was aborted and my parents were selfish for having a baby knowing they carried recessive ugly genes. Jackson was also fascinated with genes. Jackson was a dreamer and a fantasist, like me. This come about from having a bad chilhood and developing a vivid imagination to escape from it. He would have dreamed about being beautiful when he was younger and because of the vivid mind it would have seemed real to him, and then had surgery to turn it into actuality. Anonymous (not verified) | 08/26/09 | 22:45 PM
under oath. If they had evidence in 1993, Sneddon would have arrested Michael Jackson and charged him with child molestation, instead the police investigation went on for more than a year and no charges were ever brought. Jackson was found not guilty in 2005 because he was NOT GUILTY. The prosecution presented NO evidence to support Gavin Arvizos claims that Michael Jackson molested him. Instead all the evidence, even the prosecutions evidence pointed to the fact that Gavin and his family were a bunch con-artists trying to pull the biggest con of their careers with the help of the mainstream media. People like to claim Michael Jackson was a pedophile based on these idiotic lines of reasoning. 1. Hes spends time with kids instead of women, therefore he is a child molester. If so how come all the kids he spends time with arent accusing him? How come all the victims that exist in your imaginations never come forward with allegations. Hes had thousands of kids at Neverland over the years, and only three accusers, all whose parents happen to be con-artists chasing after money. 2. He paid them off so hes guilty. Do you know the difference between a civil case and criminal case. WTF is something as serious as child molestation doing in civil court instead of criminal court. If you think someone molested your kid you go straight to the cops, you dont call your lawyer and file a lawsuit and then refuse to cooperate with the police once you get a settlement. Explain to me where in the settlement http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041jacko1.html does it say the money is contingent upon the accusers failure to cooperate with the police. It was the Chandlers decision and theirs alone to run after taking the money. If you bother to read it (I know its to difficult for idiots) youd notice MJ claimed hes innocent in the settlement and accuser and his lawyers agreed to sign it. By this idiotic logic, Janet Arvizo and her children were telling the truth when they claimed that a JC Pennys security guard beat and sexually abused her because JC Penny settled with her for more than 100,000. Please. 3. He had money so he beat the rap. Martha Stewart, Paris Hilton, Chris Brown, Madoff, etc. I guess did not have enough money to beat the rap. Michael Jacksons trial was one of the most expensive trial in U.S. History. It cost taxpayers 2.7 million dollars. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Michael-Jackson-s-Trial-Costs-27-million... Sneddon had been chasing after Michael Jackson for 12 years and he still could not find any evidence or credible witnesses, despite ransacking Neverland twice with 70 police officers, setting up a hotline for alleged victims to come forward, and traveling around the world looking for victims. 4. OJ Simpson got away with it, so Michael Jackson got away with it too. People who think OJ is guilty can point to evidence, something that MJ haters have a hard time doing. By that same logic, Charles Manson is also innocent because some people are wrongfully convicted. Therefore, we should release all convicted criminals from prison. 5. "He sleeps with boys." This is not illegal. If you want to use this as proof of his guilt, then at a minimum the boys he's sleeping with have to be the ones accusing him, NOT you. This didnt happen in the Michael Jackson case, contrary to popular belief. Gavin Arvizo the boy accusing him in 2005 never slept in bed with Michael Jackson, according to the Martin Bashir interview and witnesses at the trial. He slept in the guest room with his family. Macaulay Culkin, Wade Robson, and Bert Lewis, all testified they slept with Jackson in the early 90s and nothing happened. Do you know better than them what happened to them? Jordie Chandler (the boy got the settlement in the early 90s) skipped the country so he wouldn't have to testify in the 2005 case. Gee, I wonder why? 6. There was lurid testimony. Little' boys never lie (the boy was 13?). When a child speaks we should believe them I can give lurid testimony about you too. I wonder if that makes it true. Heres one of my favorites from you tube. On the witch hunt for victims Diane Diamond comes across a boy who could give lurid testimony that Michael Jackson molested him and details of his time at Neverland. She believed him
and wasted months trying to corroborate his story and even gets the police involved. Turned out this kids a liar whod never even met Michael Jackson. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3GbPkR-ne4 Anonymous (not verified) | 10/05/09 | 01:16 AM
No there is not enough evidence. You can't even argue with me on the evidence. You name drop, a bunch tabloid reporters, all of whom have a financial interest in Michael Jackson being a pedophile and being found guilty so they could continue their sensational reporting. They all wanted him to be guilty, from the moment the charges were brought in 1993. It would have been the biggest fall from grace in history. Imagine the one of the most famous people in the world, guilty of the most heinous crimes and going to prison. That would have been a great story. The extortion angle isn't a big enough story. The public LOVES sex scandals. Don't be retarded and tell me just because a bunch of tabloids say he's guilty, therefore it must be true. Point me to the evidence that suggests he's guilty. Also, you're lying. It was not 25 million dollars. Go click on the link I provided for you in my post and figure out how much money it was. This is another example of ignorant sensationalism. The truth is not interesting enough, you have to make stuff up. As for your 'hush money' claim go to, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_(litigation), and learn what a civil settlement is. I even addressed that piece of nonsense in my original post. Its telling that you have nothing better to argue. The same thing goes for your '3' is a pattern, is BS. I already addressed that in my original post. LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE, and use logic, stop repeating i How can he be a pedophile and associates with thousands of
kids, and even bragged about sleeping with them, and have only 3 alleged victims, all whoms parents are scum bag con-artists (this is a proven fact). That makes no sense. If you wanna talk about patterns, there has been a pattern of Michael Jackson publicly befriending boys for the past 30 years of his life. There is a pattern of boys DENYING that Jackson ever molested them. MJ always talked about how much he loved children in all of his interviews. He had nothing to hide from anybody. How do you explain the 30 kids the police interrogated in 1993 all of whom, except for the maid's son (maid happens to be a crook who was paid by Diane Dimond to say Michael Jackson is a pedophile), denied Jackson molested them. Plus the three men who actually SLEPT with Michael Jackson when they were children and claim he did not molest them. Contrast this with Gavin and Jason, who did not have a close relationship with Jackson and did not share a bed him, yet they claim he did molest them. Those two boys have parents with dubious motivations and its telling that they are the only ones making accusations. Jackson's lifestyle made him a sitting duck for child molestation accusation. Whats shocking is that there were so FEW allegations, from dubious sources. Finally, you are lying about the Rabbi. He did not think he did something unholy to children, he took the politically correct route and said he does not know, BIG Diffference. Again, another example of fudging the truth to try to prove your point. Anonymous (not verified) | 10/11/09 | 01:21 AM
The one question I hear no-one asking in the press or blogland in general is:- why was Michael Jackson taking an extreme drug? What made a relatively fit man known for abstention from the early part of his career until the mid-1990's, end his days in a made-to-measure trauma room? A star by the age of 10, catapulted into superstardom after the success of his first two solo albums, his dominance in the music industry coincided with the multimedia explosion of the late 1980s. One of the first of the new breed of artists to fully explore the potential of synergistic promotion of product as a vehicle to reach new audiences, by 1991 the 'Michael Jackson' brand, had penetrated the consciousness of the entire developed and most of the undeveloped world. With such unprecedented accessibility came also unprecedented pressure. Pressure to maintain and exceed his own standards, constant deconstruction by the press, and emotional isolation as the gilded chains of a life lived under the microscope bound ever tighter. There is no room here to list the enormous contribution he made to the lives of children all over the globe. His efforts are a matter of public record and the information regarding them is easily obtainable on the web. Suffice it to say, Michael saw children not as people-in-waiting, but as bonafide, sentient personalities whose process and concerns were worthy of respect and protection. Using his fame and wealth to radically benefit the lives of such young people was something Michael believed to be his ultimate purpose here, and it is in this light that we can perhaps understand the catastrophic, internal damage the public cauterization that came from 1993 onwards must have done to him.
Something rotten has been decaying at the the heart of our media for some time now, but it took the death of one of its favourite page-fillers to expose the reality of what the cumulative effect of deliberate mental and emotional attack on a person actually looks like. It must surely now be apparent that the existing regulatory checks and balances within the media are totally inadequate and further, that those monitoring capabilities are unable to prevent the now standard take aim and destroy default position the media now typically seems to operate from in relation to the subjects it goes after. Michaels early death was not a given. Only the most imperceptive would deny that the anaesthetic that killed him was, in reality, just a formality. What killed Michael Jackson was the sustained agony of being put through a baseless, protracted trial in full view of the worlds lens - knowing if found guilty, he would be removed from his childrens lives. And even after his acquittal, facing relentless vilification by a media that chose to simply disregard a verdict they found economically inconvienient. British journalist Charles Thomsons clear analysis of the recently released FBI files which can be viewed at: http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2010/01/fbi-files-support-j... - finally and absolutely debunks the myth of Michael Jackson as child molester. Thomsons point by point breakdown of the files reveals not only the inability of both the FBI and the LAPD to provide any evidence of criminal wrongdoing by Jackson in an investigation that spanned over a decade, but also the continuing inference by the media of exactly the opposite of this. It is important to note that there is a profound difference between the FBI stating that X and Y were alleged, and the FBI saying they investigated X and Y and found X and Y to be proven. Thomsons review of the files is thus required reading for any who wish to seperate the facts from the soundbites which have largely dominated the media reporting on them. Because the truth is, after the most thorough investigation the American taxpayers money could buy, one of the world's foremost intelligence gathering agencies and the LAPD came up with precisely nothing. Instead we were served a collage of cut-out articles from a UK tabloid, the dubious recollections of an unverifiable woman on a train, and two ex-employees who only came forward after the 1993 allegations broke and who, coincidentally, were also hawking a tell-all book to anyone who would listen. Long before Dr Murray ever wrote his first 'feel-good' prescription, a lie of epic proportions would set in motion a cataclysmic series of events that would bring Michael to the state of profound depletion we saw in 2005. Evan Chandler - a known brutalist, and Janet Arviso, a proven welfare cheat and compensation chaser, manipulated the American criminal system and a willing media to bury Michael under the worst label society has determined exists. No proof was required, the suggestion was enough. And the world watched on the edge of their seats, as the obvious perjury of the witnesses was overlooked in the stampede to crucify a man previously so celebrated. The inevitably, frenzied media coverage of Dr Murrays impending trial which will replay the details of Michael's dying moments for months to come, has now already begun its crescendo. It is more than a little
disturbing to observe how quickly those same people who actively colluded in the degradation and erosion of Michaels spirit and dignity for over 15 years, have regrouped to focus on Dr Murray as the 'fall guy' for the part he played in Jackson's death. Murray's culpability cannot be denied, but he was far from alone in his opportunism. Where were the voices now wailing about wasted resources and the rights of taxpayers when Tom Sneddon authorized the use of millions of dollars of federal money to pursue Michael in his deeply personal and blinkered 'takedown' of the, then biggest pop star on the planet? Michael Jackson didnt bankrupt the City of Angels; they fell all by themselves. For a country that can shine so bright when it chooses to what America did to this man stands as one of the most shameful examples of engineered cruelty and unmitigated persecution to be witnessed in modern times. p.s Short version: Michael Jackson was not a pedophile. Deborah Ffrench (not verified) | 01/14/10 | 18:30 PM
Considering the picture of this mr Bailey, I think he probably is an homosexual and has autogynephilia but certainly does not have apotemnophilia. In any case he certainly looks like he has an erotic identity disorder. No wonder he became an "expert" on the subject. Anonymous (not verified) | 10/05/09 | 03:06 AM
Somedays I have my doubts to MJ's guilt. I sure wished Jordie had taken the stand, some of the Jackson fans I must given them credit can be very convincing with they theory and evidence, but Michael lied too much and June Chandler on the stand is very convincing. Chinchilla (not verified) | 10/10/09 | 00:21 AM
explains his reasons for doing so. Corporations agree to settle lawsuits all the time. Bill O'reilly agreed to settle his sexual harrassment lawsuit. Settling a lawsuit is not an admission of guilt. There is NO EXCUSE for the Chandler family's behaviour. There is no explanation, for their behavior other than the fact that they pulled a successful con. Anonymous (not verified) | 10/11/09 | 02:59 AM
I am buying this argument=I am not buying this argument Chinchilla (not verified) | 10/10/09 | 00:25 AM
A. Not really. (4908-4909 (20-15)) They made him come out with a lot more stuff that he didnt want to say? Huh? They kept pushing him so much that he wanted to hit them in the head?? These are not the words of someone simply trying to hide a molestation. This appears to be a flat-out admission. Many observers who chimed in were completely stunned that this witness would make a statement like that. This also fits with the defenses theory that these adults were leaning heavily on this kid back in 1993 to make an allegation against Jackson. Anonymous (not verified) | 10/11/09 | 03:12 AM
Chinchilla, those "facts that cannot be disputed" which you present are only testimony. And witness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence the is. So they can, indeed, be disputed. Along with those testimonies, there were testimonies from people like Macaulay Culkin, Wade Robson and Brett Barnes saying that they were not molested. The prosecution presented witnesses saying they saw Michael molest Culkin, yet not only he denied it repeatedly, and even under oath in court, but he remained friends with Michael Jackson. The prosecution preseted as well a witness saying she saw Michael Jackson taking a shower with 8 year old Wade Robson. That witness was no one else than Blanca Francia, the mother of Jason, the another kid (now
man) who accused Michael of molesting him. She claimed she saw that, but she didn't contact the authorities nor did she even quit her job. And her son was often there. Don't you think that had she been telling the truth she wouldn't have allowed her son there?. Wade Robson - who, as Macaulay Culkin remained friends with Michael until his death, went to court to deny he was molested. So what you have is testimony against Michael and testimony on his favour. And the witnesses on his favour had NOTHING to win from it. That is not the case with the witnesses against him, many of whom had been fired for stealing (and only after that had made their claims against Michael), and had sold stories to tabloids. And who would have been able to make a lot of money from civil lawsuits and selling stories to tablids had Michael been convicted. Cristina (not verified) | 10/28/09 | 10:54 AM
LOL. Go back and watch the video you posted. Notice where the doctor says he was TOLD LATER that the descriptions totally and absolutely matched the description of the genitalia. (I wonder by who.. Tom Sneddon??) In other words HE DID NOT SEE JORDIE'S DESCRIPTION and did not know if it was a match. You would think that they would use the same doctors who were present for the strip search to then go back and help the police analyze the pictures to see if it matched. That doctor claimed he did not see Jordie's drawings/descriptions. He was TOLD that they did match. He doesn't really know. You don't know either, so you can't claim they were. Randy J. Tarrobarelli wrote about the strip search in his autobiography. He also said the boy was able to give detailed descriptions about the blemishes, however he also claimed MJ was circumized when he was not. Big detail to miss when you claim to be having all that oral sex and masturbation with Michael Jackson. One could easily argue he'd probably never even seen MJ's penis. The father used his contacts inside the hollywood doctors network (he was dentist to the stars) to get details about MJ's Vitligo. In Tarrobarelli's book he claimed that when Evan first learned that MJ befriended his son, he was able to get in touch with MJ's doctor in order to find out about about MJ's character. I wonder what else was he able to find out about MJ and Vitligo using his contacts? Even in that video, the doctor explains that the problems with MJ's penis are typical for the people with his disease. How could Jordie miss the fact that MJ was uncircumcized, if he really did see MJ's penis? The Chandler case just looks like a well orchestrated scam. MJ's defense probably would have easily bounced on that in the 2005 trial and thats why the prosecution were so hesitant about using this supposedly accurate description of MJ's penis as evidence. They made a last minute bid, right b4 the jury were about to go into deliberations to show these pictures (after they'd lossed their credibility with jury by suboring perjury and calling Debbie Rowe to the stand and nothing to loose)They obviously did not have much faith in those pictures. Before the trial began they begged the Judge to use all sorts of things as evidence against MJ, including the 1993 settlement (which was refused because MJ's insurance company paid the Chandlers http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/032205mjmemospprtobj.pdf) and prior bad acts(which blew up in prosecution's face); however, they forgot about those supposedly accurate pictures. Please. Pictures didn't
match. If it did it would have been Tom Sneddon's smoking gun at the very beginning of the 2005 trial. At the end of the trial when its clear they lost their case, they just wanted to show off MJ's spotted prick. To give the jury something sweet to remeber him by while they deliberated. The pro-prosecution judge refused to allow it for precisely that reason. Anonymous (not verified) | 10/30/09 | 01:37 AM
"Don't you see Jason is the missing link. I would be more incline to believe Michael had there been no Jason. " You are wrong.Haven't done your research well. He is no missing link. Jason Francia is not an anonymous victim that just popped out of nowhere in 2005 to shock the world. (media now wants you to believe that) Jason and his mother have been intricately linked to the case since 1993. Everyone, including the prosecution and Mary Fischer knew about him in 1993. He was the Diane Dimond purchased victim. Mary Fischer and everyone with a brain, in 1993, had a lot of reasons for doubting his molestation claims in 1993. Go to google news archives and search for articles between 8/1/1993 and 12/31/1993 with the name 'blanca francia'. Blanca Francia (Jasons mom) was on Hard Copy (Diane Dimonds show) and in other tabloid magazines telling MJ molestation stories for a fee. She fed the media flames and played a pivotal role in the destruction of MJ's reputation in 1993 (thats probably why MJ decided to pay her). She even suggested to Diane Dimond, on national TV, that MJ molested her son (Jason). She was quite a vocal and prominent character back then. The police originally did not pay attention to her because she was nothing but tabloid trash. She was being PAID by Diane Dimond to come up with her stories in 1993 (after she was fired in 1991). If her stories were true, she would have reported them to the cops in 1991 (she already lost her job so what was she afraid of?), not to Diane Dimond for money. When in 1993 called to repeat her tabloid stories to a grand jury, she cracked up and admitted she lied for money. Jason himself admitted back then he was coerced by the cops into coming up with his tickling story. Mary J. Fisher, as a serious journalist, felt no need to mention Jason Francia in her article. She didnt know the police were so desperate in 1993 they had turned to the tabloids for corroborating evidence. LOL. There was even a PBS documentary called Tabloid Truth: The Michael Jackson Scandal that investigated the danger of the Francias and other tabloid bought witnesses. You think someone molested your kid and/or you saw someone molesting other boys you go to the cops first, not Diane Dimond for money! Anonymous (not verified) | 10/30/09 | 10:11 AM
Believing in MJ's innocence is like believing in Santa Claus, it makes you feel all warm and fuzy, but it is also imaginary. For extortion to work you have to have something to blackmail with, eg David Letterman. Jordan Chandler's father might have been a dubious character, I believe so, but it does not mean something untowards did not occur, and you cannot prove otherwise. Persons like to qoute that infamous tape where
the father says - helping the boy is irrelevant to him, but curiously never question why he would want to destroy Michael's career. If it were all about money then Chandler wouldn't have to give a damn about MJ's career, let it sink or swim. However, he wanted to hurt MJ. Permanantly. Oh, I re-read the Mary Fischer expose, and something jumped out at me. Why did Michael Jackson pay 2.4 million to Blanca Francia? According to Ms Fishcer, Blanca Francia "told Dimond that she had witnessed her own son in compromising positions with Jackson -- an allegation that the grand juries apparently never found credible." Curiously Michael Jackson and his lawyers did, hence the pay day! What did Michael Jackson know that the grand jury did not? During the 1995 Diane Sawyer interview with Lisa Marie Presley & Michael Jackson, Diane (a non-tabloid reporter) hinted at the out of court settlement with another child; however, Michael denied this. It came back to bite him in the ass in 2005 when he, and his lawyers finally had to admit: Yes, there was another molestation settlement! Listen, I don't hate Michael Jackson, and I am not out to bash him, I just think people ought to reseach the cases, and stop calling him a saint, and an angel. I was one that never believed the accusations against him, but since reseaching the cases I now believe in the possibility. I was on Michael Jackson's side, but while reading the court transcripts I found something I did not expect to see: June Chandler under oath saying her son had not spoken to her for 10 YEARS. A son that loved her, and lived with her for 13-14 years of his life suddenly made her persona non grata. That was powerful testimony, and the smoking gun for me. I do not know how you justify that in your mind, but something about it does not sit well with my spirit. Chinchilla (not verified) | 10/30/09 | 19:03 PM
Nobody says MJ is innocent. He is definitely guilty of inappropriate relations with children (ironically not Jason or Gavin, only Jordie). He admitted/bragged to it in the Bashir documentary. The question is whether he is guilty of sexually abusing kids, which based on the evidence is not likely. He slept with so many other kids without consequence. Those kids and families continue to defend him. The motives and behavior of the people making the accusations are suspect. Evan Chandler could extort MJ because he was sleeping with Jordie. Thats a bad situation to put yourself in and then be accused of sexual abuse. The million dollar question is, why did Evan Chandler feel the need to extort MJ for molestation? He could have ruined his career, sent him to prison and got money, etc. the LEGAL WAY. Why risk going to prison for extortion for molestation that did happen. Makes no sense. On tape, Evan admits he doesnt care about his son. His son is irrelevant to him, the accusations were all about what he could get for himself, not his son. So you cant tell me hes mad at MJ for hurting his son. He wasnt even involved in his sons life b4 MJ took interest. He had his own personal vendetta against Jackson that could stem from many reasons such as failing to advance his film career or make him a millionaire celebrity (he was trying to sue MJ again for 60 million and an album EVANSTORY in 1995, so much for being afraid of the media circus and wanting to get on with his life as an excuse for refusing to cooperate with the police) Jordie is now estranged from BOTH parents. He is suing his father
too.http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/decisions/appellate/a0422-05.opn.html He could blame both of his parents for ruining his life regardless of whether or not molestation took place. http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=P8iO1wRHegY I think the bigger circumstantial evidence was Jordies refusal to testify for the prosecution in 2005. June signed the settlement and testified so that should put to rest claims that the settlement prevents him from testifying. If MJ never molested him and Jordie regrets the whole thing, what other way does he have to show his regret than not testifying in 2005 trial? I dont think he would legally want to come out and say the whole thing was a lie because that might open him up to lawsuits, perjury charges and might make him even more hated. Its impossible to prove a negative.If youve ever been alone with kids, kids can come back and say you did anything to them and there is no way to disprove it. The only way to defend your innocence is to prove they/ their parents have dubious motivations. Therefore, all people whove ever been accused are forever tainted, not just MJ. You can say believing in their innocence is also like believing in Santa Claus. The fact that children are accusing you means you are guilty because nobody lies about molestation. Even if you prove your accuser is a con-artist extortonist who has a history of making false accusations, that does not prove youre innocent. Dangerous line of reasoning. In that case why do we bother with trials, why cant we convict people based simply on the accusation? Anonymous (not verified) | 10/31/09 | 23:52 PM
You are assuming things about the Chandlers that you cannot know. How exactly do you know he loved her for the first 13-14 years of his life. You don't know what Jordie's relationship with his mother was like. Its obvious that Evan Chandler did not love his son, his son accused him of beating him and he is on tape saying he doesn't care about his son. So I don't know what you are talking about as far as the parents are concerned. As if they were a loving and caring family that MJ broke apart. Yeah right. Again with the Francias that I already addressed. What did MJ know? MJ knew that in 1996 if another child molestation lawsuit was filed against him it would kill his career no matter how ridiculous their claims were. He had many logical reasons to settle it quietly for 2 million. It cost less than the damaging publicity and legal fees that would result from another lawsuit. Point is those people were already interviewed by first Diane Dimond and then the police in '93. No one took them seriously then. Police didn't try to file charges on Jason's behalf, grand jury didn't believe his mother in '93 nor did they believe them again in 2005. Jason's testimony was bizarre and reminded them of Janet Arvizo.http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/13/ng.01.html Go read court transcripts from Francias lawyers. http://floacist.wordpress.com/2007/10/16/court-transcripts4-05-2005. They admit settlement wasn't paid until 1996. 3 yrs. AFTER Francias participate in police investigation and Dimond interview, without filing criminal charges. You don't know if MJ even knew about them when Diane Sawyer interviewed him in 1995, even if he did it was none of her business. Again, in the settlement he admits no wrong doing and points out the damages Francias civil claims would do to his reputation as a reason for paying them and these people with no principles agree to sign it for the money.
Correction to something that you said "Debbie Rowe had nothing to loose". OF COURSE she did, at the time she was in bitter custody battle with Michael Jackson, she wanted to be a part of her children's lives, and Michael was not permitting it because he had sole custody. She testify on his behalf so that he would be lenient with her and the kids. Don't forget Debbie Rowe was irate when MJ took the children out of the country to live in Bahrain without letting her know. Debbie Rowe thought that she had given up all her perental right, but a judge informed her that was not the case, and after the 3rd molestation case broke Debbie wanted her children back. That is why she turned on the prosecution and testified for Michael Jackson. So she would not have to go through a bitter custody battle. Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/01/09 | 20:48 PM
"Jason had nothing to gain from going to court. He was a 24 year old man on the witness stand crying. Grown men don't cry because they feel like it." Of course Jason Francia had everything to gain from continuing to lie. He had 2.4M reasons & the possibility of his mother being criminally charged. I would be crying too if I thought I would have to give up the money & the lie would come to light. Obviously the jury did not believe him with all those crocodile tears--in fact during the break someone in the media reported to the judge that they believe the jury were outside mimicking him & laughing. His tears did not Allie (not verified) | 12/29/09 | 16:08 PM
Great article on sexuality, I'm a musician, a reasonably successful one, meaning, I pay my bills with music related services. I'm probably a pervert, but I'm not falling into any of the above described categories of strange sexualities as far as I can tell. Here's what I have to say... MJ was a great performer, like everyone else in his family. He was a very twisted individual and he shouldn't be canonized as some kind of musical saint, he very likely did horrible things to himself and young boys. Furthermore Quincy Jones wrote and arranged those tracks we all danced to, not Michael Jackson. MJ was the delivery system for Quincy's music. Since Quincy didn't sleep with little boys, it's
more newsworthy to talk about MJ. If you doubt my claims, research Quincy Jones, I think you'll find that he is the common thread among a great number of outstanding musical recordings and compositions. Anonymous (not verified) | 10/21/09 | 16:29 PM
Anonymous, Do you only read pro-Jackson material? Have you ever read the articles (all) published by Maureen Orth, or Diane Dimond? Maureen Orth is the late widow of Tim Russert, and as you know Tim's reputation as a journalist is solid. I am not pulling information from News of the World, or the National Enquirer which can be called tabloids. I am reading and listening to investigative journalists. Honestly why would they stake they reputation on unfounded claims? I am a fair minded person. I do plan on eventually reading Moonwalk, and Michael Jackson Conspiracy, and I
have read the Mary A Fishcer report (3 times). I have read the exposes on the pro-MJ websites like the Floacist. What I want to know is do you read what I read? Do you not see that they make good points? Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/01/09 | 12:18 PM
I haven't read Diane Dimond's trash and don't plan to. However, I have read the Vanity Fair articles a couple of times and I find them criminally biased. For instance, in the 2004 article Maureen Orth actually believes in the prosecution's conspiracy theory. She believe Janet Arvizos story that she was kidnapped and held prison at Neverland. WOW. At the trial, those claims were proven to be ridiculous. Thats my smoking gun on the credibililty of Maureen Orth's 'investigations'. She writes as truth any outlandish story an ex-business associate tells her (ie. Voodoo story) without any evidence, just gossip/rumor. Doesnt stop and think maybe person telling her stories has an agenda because she herself has one. Her articles are overly long and spend most of the time focusing on Michael Jackson's bad appearance, his debt, media business, and drug addiction, as if thats evidence Jackson is a pedophile. She's just trying to make him look as bad as possible and doesn't provide any evidence toward MJ's guilt other than the stories the accusers tell. Orth's last piece was truly criminal because it whitewashed what had just been proven about the Arvizos in court. Instead of acknowledging how wrong her 2004 article was she makes excuses for Janet Arvizo. She ignores the inconsistencies in the kids stories and attacks Messerau for 'treating them like criminals'. Well if you want to send a man to jail for 20 years these 'kids' (big teenagers 15,14, 18) should know how to tell the truth to a jury about what did or did not happen to them. Also, something Orth said in her last article that really pissed me off, was that MJ would never associate with the Arvizos if he didn't have an ulterior motive. My god. She totally disregards all of the humanitarian work that MJ has done for the past 30 years and all the thousands of sick, needy children that visit Neverland. MJ was a good humanitarian. These allegations would have more weight if they acknowledged that MJ was a nice HUMAN BEING(not a crazy monster from outerspace) who betrayed people's trust because of a secret compulsion to molest boys despite his good works. Instead, they're just running smear campaigns and have to work to present the jury and public with an alternate version of reality, where MJ is a demon who humps mannequins, licks boys heads like a cat,etc., and kidnaps people to forces them to say nice things about him. LOL. Despite her bias, I like reading them because it shows the accusers side of the story (at least I hope Maureen Orth isn't just making stuff up) which still doesnt add up. I found it interesting how she tries to excuse Evan Chandler. She explains why he demanded money before going to the police. What kind of parent doesn't want their son's molester to go to jail? Isnt that illegal? She claims he didn't want the media attention. Sure. Why'd he file the 1993 lawsuit instead of laying low and waiting for the police to conclude their investigation? liar. She also claims their was a conspiracy of Jackson fans in 1993 to harass his family. I believe this. She said he settled because the pressure was too high on him and his family. Yeah right. How does he explain his SECOND lawsuit in 1995 in order to get 60 mil and an album deal? More media attention. He's obviously not afraid of raising a ruckus when it comes to getting money, he's just afraid of dealing with
the cops in order to put his son's supposed molester in prison. Also, Orth cites that slanderous book, MJ was my lover. MJ successfully sued the author for slander. Yet Orth believes its okay to cite this book as evidence. At one point she misrepresents Wade Robsons testimony. Thats not what he actually said in the court transcripts. What Orth's 'investigation' demonstrates is that MJ had a lot of enemies stemming from his business dealings, who Orth liked to associate with and get as many sensational stories as possible from. Many people wanted MJ to go to jail so he could loose his stake in the Beatles catalog. Aphrodite Jones claimed that MJ believed his enemies at Sony were paying some of the prosecution witnesses. That would make logical sense to me in the case of the Francias, and other tabloid witnesses who already have a history of taking money for molestation stories. Although there is no evidence for it. It makes more sense than Orth's idiotic claim that MJ paid Jordie Chandler not show up. If that was the case why didn't he remember to pay June Chandler? And oh yah, I thought MJ was about to go bankrupt so how can he afford to guarantee that Jordie could 'write his own ticket' if he didn't testify. You admit you havent read Aphrodite Jones book. Its the only book that uses the actual court transcripts. Its not only about MJ its also about the lies of the mainstream media and their financial incentive in perpetuating the myth of MJ as a crazy pedophile. They stood to make billions out of MJs prison adventures reports. Theyd already made billions off of Whako jacko stories. No one would publish Jones book because it was pro-Jackson. She self-published. People like Diane Dimond have made careers for themselves off of MJs downfall. Maureen Orth had nothing to loose in slandering MJ and her bosses probably encouraged her to do it since it was mainstream media policy. Basic example is compare the sensational media reports about MJs health right after he died from credible reporters to the actual autopsy results and the evidence in the This is it film. They are liars and have been lying about him or years. Anonymous (not verified) | 11/07/09 | 02:30 AM
To answer you directly, I read many things (Fischer, Orth, Jones, many 1993 newspaper articles, websites, etc.) and do my best to get to the truth of what I am reading. Notice when I use the Floacist I never quote anything any blogger says, I point you to the TRANSCRIPTS and COURT DOCUMENTS they post to make their points. The pro-jackson sources tend to be more grounded in facts than anti-jackson sources. Anti-Jackson sources just use spin/imagination and the accusers stories to make their points, even though the accusers actions/behavior contradict their stories. I pointed out many of the biases and half-truths in Orth's pieces. Orth doesn't really contradict anything Fischer says about the Chandlers. She just leaves them out or tries to excuse them. She completely ignored the Arvizos credibility problems and blamed it on the 'Jackson operatives'. As if its normal for a family to con and cheat so many people.
Althought this article is about Michael Jackson's sexual proclivities I would like to digress for a moment. You mentioned the "the sensational media reports about MJs health right after he died from credible reporters to the actual autopsy results." I do not know how accurate those autopsy results are as there has been no official confirmation from the coroner's office, also the reports states that Michael Jackson was 5.9', but his mugshot has him at 5.11'. In This Is It he looks closer to the latter. A good investigative journalist, or anyone seeking the truth looks to corrobarate the claims of their sources. I believe Michael Jackson had a serious drug problem, everyone backs up the other. Grace the Nanny, Deiter Weisner the former manager, Brian Oxman, Arnold Klien, Dr. Susan Etok etc, etc, etc. The man himself even admitted this during his 1993 molestation statement, and further confirmed it on his Blood On the Dancefloor album in the song Morphine. What alot of people think is, the autopsy results showed major organs like the liver, heart and kidneys were reletively healthy, and take that to mean he was not an addict. I take that to mean he was not an addict 365 days a year, but rather had lapses of sobriety. MJ definetely had substance abuse problems which contributed to his early demise, it is not uncommon for someone in his profession. Take a look athttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWBDCkjeGrI where he takes about being under the influence of pain medication. Back to sexual molestation allegations. It is funny the one kid I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Michael Jackson was Gavin Arvizo. However, Micheal Jackson's best friend/dermatologist for 20 years ratted him out recently on TMZ. Arnold Klien said Michael Jackson called wine Jesus Juice and gave it to kids, (he also said alot of other things that I will mention at a later date). As you know Gavin said MJ called wine Jesus juice and served it to him in soda cans. Here you have one of Michael Jackson's inner circle friends backing up this claim by Gavin. Interesting don't you think? You cannot say Arnie Klien is lying, or he is a disgruntled ex-friend because up until the time of Michael Jackson's death they were close. People came and went out of MJ's life but Arnold Klien was a constant, what he says cannot and should not be dismissed as trash. Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/07/09 | 19:50 PM
MJ drank and he gave wine to his adult visitors. No evidence, not even from prosecution witnesses he gave it to kids. Who ever argued that MJ didn't call wine Jesus Juice? Everyone in MJ's inner circle knew he called wine Jesus Juice, including Klein. That actually works against Gavin's claims. He could have learned about him calling wine Jesus Juice, simply by hearing him talking about it to other adults. Anonymous (not verified) | 11/08/09 | 14:21 PM
Another thing. A flight attendant (prosecution witness) testified that MJ drank wine in soda cans during flights with Gavin and his children, although she didn't see him giving wine to Gavin or any other kid. He actually drank from the cans to try to hide the fact that he was drinking. Its possible that MJ didn't fool Gavin on that flight. Gavin (being the shrewd kid everyone says he was) knew he was drinking wine from the soda cans. Thats why he was able to claim MJ gave him wine in soda cans. Same thing is possible with Jesus Juice. Anonymous (not verified) | 11/08/09 | 14:42 PM
Well, I found Arnie Klein's interview with Harvey Levin very interesting. I am not the kind to gravitate towards tabloids, but in this case they landed one of MJ's inner circle pals I couldn't resist. Please tell me you are not buying that ridiculous explanation about peeing in cups as the reason Jordie could ACCURATELY described Michael Jackson,s penis. It is a bit convenient and hard to swallow just like the sodium amythal thing. When are people going to realize that the path of least resistent is the truth. Jordie ACCURATELY described MJ's genetalia because something unholy took place between them, and the $20,000000.00 settlement conveniently took place only after the pictures were taken. Why is that so difficult to fathom? The whole explanation sounds so farfetched. Michael Jackson said lies runs sprints, but the truth is a marathon. If that is the case then by his own definition Jordan Chandler is telling the truth. It has been nearly 20 years, and there is still no changing in Jordan's testimony. Furthermore, his uncle has written a book, "All that Glitters", and his little sister, Lily, has also written a book. The behaviour is very extreme if it were a lie. I liked Michael Jackson, but at some point you have to examine the cold hard facts and wake up to the truth. Granted there is no hardcore DNA evidence in this case, but as social workers cited, there soldom is. Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/09/09 | 09:36 AM
You have just shown your true colors. Fact is I caught you lying not once but TWICE in order to try to prove your point. 1st about what that dr. who was present for the strip search and second about what Arnie Klein said. This is getting pretty ridiculous.
Also, was Arnie Klein present for the strip search in 1993? Did he also see Jordie Chandler's drawings and do a comparison to know if it matched? Did the interviewer see Jordie Chandler's picture and MJ's penis to do comparisons? Neither of them really know if the pictures matched. Interviewer claimed the pictures matched and Klein has no way of knowing if they did or did not match so he came up with that ridiculous story for the interviewer. He wasn't there and neither was the interviewer. He admit, like most of MJ's 'friends', he had little contact with him when he was going through his problems. So what does he know about the case? I have already addressed this line of nonsense. How can you claim you had all that oral sex and masturbation with MJ to the point where you can identify blemishes on his penis and yet not know that he was uncircumcized? He claimed he had too much interaction with MJ's penis to not see that. At 13 he was old enough to know the difference between circumcized and uncircumcized. Makes the 1993 case look like a scam. They used their knowledge of MJ's vitiligo to claim their were blemishes on his penis, yet didn't know he was uncircumcized. Boy did not see penis. As for prosecution wanting to use it as evidence. TIMING IS EVERYTHING.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7993269/ Go read this article slowly and carefully and try to use some critical thinking skills about what the prosecution says the pictures show. What I have told you so many times in this blog. What MJ's defense told the judge in explanation for not using the pictures. Go read this article.http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0328051jacksonpast1.html. Go read top of thishttp://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/032205mjmemospprtobj.pdf. PAY ATTENTION TO THE DATES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have more than proven my case. You are back tracking. Soon I'm just gonna have copy and paste my previous posts. Anonymous (not verified) | 11/11/09 | 14:35 PM
Too slow. I might have to break it down for you. You want to prove to a jury MJ is a pedophile. Which evidence are you most likely to beg the judge to use first. A. The 1993 Settlement documents to prove that MJ admitted guilt by paying. (only MJ's insurance company paid. LOL) B. "Prior bad acts" (only we want to use witnesses who say they saw MJ molesting boys, not the boys themselves cuz they might say otherwise. LOL.) or C. Proof that Jordan Chandler accurately described MJ's penis in 1993. Anonymous (not verified) | 11/11/09 | 14:44 PM
Reply to This
Link
I know it might be hard for you to carefully read the MSNBC article. So here is key qoute. "They then had the accuser draw a picture of what he thought the genitalia looked like. Prosecutors claimed the picture contained a blemish that was unique to Jacksons anatomy." They're not even claiming the boy accurately described MJ's genitalia. They claim he described ONE BLEMISH JACKSON. what about the rest? How many other blemishes did he draw that kinda sorta might match but don't. Then theirs the false cicumcision claim. Please. Jury bout to go into deliberations, so lets give them something nice to remember Jackson by. "But defense attorney Robert Sanger called the photographs an unfair surprise and said prosecutors had not even hinted that they were going to try this tactic in advance." Judge agreed with Defense. Maybe they would have avoided this successful argument from the defense if they asked to used the pictures EARLIER!!! They were just bluffing. I'm calling your bluff. Anonymous (not verified) | 11/11/09 | 14:55 PM
"I know it might be hard for you to carefully read the MSNBC article." Well aren't we snippy. Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/13/09 | 23:32 PM
I am just reading your post, so no I have not read the links. I also do not appreciate you calling me a liar, just like you read articles to prove your point, I read articles to prove mine. I report what I read. I do not know what you do for a living, but I doubt that you are an investigative reported; therefore, like me you get your information online. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/13/earlyshow/leisure/books/main64... - Watch the video too http://www.statementanalysis.com/jackson/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5906855 I am a skeptic, I do not believe something because it is on television, or the print media unless it can be sustantiated. I do not believe the investigators (journalists & law enforcement) are/were picking on Michael Jackson, I honestly believe they were trying to get to the truth, and belived what they were reporting. If there is another truth then Michael Jackson should have filled in the blanks. You have to look at this from the point of view of someone seeking answers. I go in search of the truth and the ONLY investigative reporter I found took Michael Jackson's side is Mary Fischer. Compare that to every news agency not just the 2005 trial, but the 1993 as well, and the balance of power is skewed. Anyone would find that alarming.
Aprodite Jones did change her mind. For what it is worth settling the 1993 molestation case was the biggest mistake of Michael Jackson's & Jordan Chandler's lives. Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/13/09 | 23:20 PM
The difficulty in arguing the 1993 case is, it never went to trial: criminal or civil. The incrimating evidence like the photos, and God knows what else have been sealed. All we have to go on is, what has been leaked to the media, also a star witness has died. So, what it boils down to is circumstantial evidence like June Chandler's testimony, and Evan Chandler's tape recording. You also have to consider that Scott Peterson was convicted on circumstantial evidence. I know you are going to tell me that evidence from the 93 case was introduced in the 2005 case under the prior bad acts law, but lets not get carried away. This was not Jordan Chandler's case, but Gavin Arvizo's. The jury was asked to convict, or acquit on whether Gavin was/was not molested, not Jordie. Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/09/09 | 12:48 PM
These are questions I have always wanted to ask a diehard Jackson fan. Please I am curious. What makes you so sure that he is innocent? Why so quick to dismiss the accusations of the 3 little boys? Had it been the guy next door would you be so convinced? Do you believe that because he was an humanitarian that he could not be a pedophile?
Have you considered that he gave away all that money to ease a guilty conscience, or to over-compensate for that guilty conscience? How long have you been a MJ fan? What would it take to convince you otherwise? If you saw the photos with your eyes, and read the genetalia describtion would you then be convinced? Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/09/09 | 16:30 PM
Also, if it were the guy next door, his NOT GUILTY verdict would probably let him go on with his life. There wouldn't be all these people claiming to know better than a jury still calling him a pedophile. And how do you explain the COURT documents I posted before where it explains that MJ's insurance company paid all that money? Anonymous (not verified) | 11/11/09 | 15:39 PM
Q2) Did J. Michael Bailey ever meet or come into contact with Michael Jackson? A) No. Q3) Would you want J. Michael Bailey working for you after reading this peice of nonsence? A) Most probably not. Seany (not verified) | 11/10/09 | 19:33 PM
Heres the reasonable doubt: The fact that Jordan did not accurately describe Michael genitals. Jordan claimed MJ was circumcised, which is not the case. Jordan did accurately described discloration, but so was the rest of MJs body. In a civil litigation the standard is very low. The plaintiff wins if the preponderance of the evidence favors the plaintiff. Jordan Chandler refused to testify in the criminal case when learning he could receive money in a civil case. It could be said that this was his objection all along since he could have done both, that is, put Michael in jail and take his money. MJ decided to settle the case because he did want to go through any long drawn out trial which would have cost him more in attorney fees, cost, etc. than to settle. MJ would have lost even more money trying this case instead of continuing with his career making music and touring, which brought in more money than he settled the case for. Maybe this decision was wrong since those of you who don't understand the legal process have assumed he is guilty. Anonymous (not verified) | 11/11/09 | 13:54 PM
It sounds like you need to do your own research instead of depending on TMZ, et al the trashy tabloids news. I suggest you search: Evan Chandlers phone conversation with Dave Schwartz. This is a taped recorded conversation leading up to the 1993 molestion charges against Michael Jackson. Also go to Wikipedia, they seem to be accurate on both the 1993 and 2005 molestion cases. This should clear up any doubts you may have about MJ innocense. Anonymous (not verified) | 11/12/09 | 21:18 PM
Been there done that, did nothing for me. By the way I read Mary K Fischer 3 times. Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/13/09 | 19:30 PM
Geraldine Hughes, the then sole legal secretary of Barry Rothman who represented Jordan Chandler, comes forth to set the record straight about what really happened behind the scenes in the 1993 child molestation case against Michael Jackson. Ms. Hughes states she witness MJ being set-up. I suggest you read Ms. Hughes book "Redemption" and/or view her interview on Bill O"Reilly atwww.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110184,00.html. Furthermore, the police who investigated stated they found... GASP... straight adult porno. How they tried to tie that in to pedophilia is ridiculous. One person put it best when they said "What we found out is that Michael Jackson is a 49 year old who drinks wine, watches porn, and has a bad back. Who knew?" In other words absolutely nothing incriminating. Investigating his accusers lives is far more interesting. Both of them had parents who had criminal histories of suing for false claims in the past. If you don't believe these reliable sources then you must have witness MJ in the act. Anonymous (not verified) | 11/13/09 | 22:12 PM
I would like to recant my previous postings on calling Michael Jackson a pedophile, that was wrong of me. My opinion is not the law, and he was never proven guilty by a jury of his peers. Someone called me out on it, and they were right. However, I still have my doubts to his innocence. Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/12/09 | 18:19 PM
"I'm calling your bluff." Well I see your bluff, and I raise you 3. See my response beneath your 11/11/09 | 14:55 PM posting. Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/13/09 | 23:59 PM
Actually you are a liar. You lie about what you read/seen. You've done it not one but THREE times to try to prove your points. I was willing to give you a pass the first time. I assumed maybe you misunderstood what the Doctor said about the strip search in the 1st video you posted. After that, you deliberately lied about Dr. Klein's TMZ interview and I caught you. Again you lied about Lily Chandler writting a book (unless you can post a link for this book, I'm assuming you're lying again). You have failed to defend any of your claims. You posted a bunch of articles on 11/11. What do those articles you posted have to do with anything? How do they prove any of your points? All And I've came accross that silly statement analysis article before. What does that prove? All it shows is someone's got a lot of time on their hands and not enough sense. I have defended all of my points by addressing all of your arguments directly. You can't do that with mine. Your other claim about investigative reporters is lame. How many 'investigative reporters' (who actually conducted their own investigation not relying on someone else's) were there in all? What exactly did they investigate? An intelligent person should be critical of everything they read. Its not enough that you can find an article that says what you want to hear (ie. that TMZ reporter claims the pictures matched therefore you
believe him becuase you want to) Its not enough that Aphrodite Jones claims MJ is innocent. What are her sources?They happen to be trial trascripts, DCF interview transcripts, legal evidence, jury foreman, etc. What are Maureen Orth's sources? They happen to be interviews with the Arvizos, Chandlers, Tom Sneddon (who has acted more like the Arvizos and Chandlers lawyer, than a prosecutor over the years) and 'anonymous business associates'. Imagine if Aphrodite Jones wanted to write a pro-Jackson book claiming he was innocent and all she did was interview Michael Jackson, his family, his lawyer, and friends. She'd be laughed out of the park. Yet for some reason Maureen Orth gets away with doing that for the accusers and calls it an investigation. Anonymous (not verified) | 11/15/09 | 15:55 PM
that Jacksons relationships with boys were not casual. By its very definition the word unique means uncommon and rare. For Jordan Chandler to be so explicit at the very least shows inappropiate behaviour happened. Nowhere in the article did I read there was a mismatched, but I am not calling you a liar. As for Lily Chandler's book I did read that somewhere online if I should come across it again you betcha I will post it. The links that I sent to you especially the Msnbc & CBS ones were to explain how the molestation occured, and what triggered Evan Chandler's suspicion. Mary Fischer herself said it was a particular weekend stay by Jackson at Evan's house that the relationship between him and MJ broke down. The articles explained why. Am I lying here as well? I have always believed that pedophilia is not learnt, but more a matter of bio-chemistry. Therefore, Michael Jackson was not going to wakeup at the age of 35 with a sudden inkling for pubescent males, it would have had revelations earlier, hence Terry George. Terry George is a British millionaire (no need to sell stories to the tabloids) who claims a 19 year old Jackson called him (he was 12 at the time), and proceeded to have a sexually graphic conversation with him about how he was masturbating himself. Terry George is on Youtube, and you can google him as well, then come back and call me a liar again. As for Aphrodite Jones, I don't trust her. She was front and centre of the lynch mob, and now she is in tears watching TII. How gullible does she think sensible people are. I will not say anymore on AJ because it calls for speculation. Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/17/09 | 18:54 PM
article is that prosecutors were grasping at wind to try to prove their point. Jordie did not even give a fully accurate description MJ's penis. They were claiming Jordie only accurately described only ONE 'unique blemish on MJ's penis'. Come on, is this blemished shaped like a star? Think about how idiotic that is, considering the fact that they are admitting their were other spots on MJ's penis that Jordie Chandler did not correctly describe and also there's the false circumcision claim. That is bizzarely impossible that boy happend to remember only one blemish and not all the other details. Basically police told the boy to draw MJ's penis and he drew for them a spotted penis. Walla there are spots on MJ's penis justs like their are spots from vitiligo on the rest of his body, however he also happens to be uncircumcized contrary to the boys claims. Prosecutors think one of the spots look like a spot Jordie drew (highly subjective). They wanted to try to use that as evidence, however weak it may be. At the end of the trial they just wanted to shock and gross the jury out. Anonymous1 (not verified) | 11/19/09 | 02:14 AM
Now maybe you could help me out with something. Wasn't Michael Jackson suppose to be dating Stephanie Mills around the time you said he was dating Tatum O'neal? Incidentally which is around the time of Terry George. Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/19/09 | 14:40 PM
you guys are all stupid, Michael Jackson was a STRAIGHT man and never molested anyone. he had many girlfriends and was married, you guys are just all jealous of him Anonymous (not verified) | 11/19/09 | 10:10 AM
Reply to This
Link
No he wasn't serious about Stephanie Mills. He didn't spend a lot of time with her. She claims she had a crush on him. He spent more time with Tatum O'Neal and even wrote about her in his autobiography. Even Taraborelli dedicated a chapter to MJ's close relationship with Tatum O'Neal in his biography. And I watched a documentary called Michael Jackson's secret childhood a while back where they interviewed Terry George. In it Terry George pointed out that the sexaul part of his conversation with MJ was just a small one time part of hours long conversations that went on for months. The media decided to pick up on it and blow out of proportion to try to make it look like MJ was a pedophile abusing him. Also that documentary came out while MJ was on trial and they were trying hard to make it look like MJ was a pedophile. It actually had the opposite effect on me because his relationships with kids go way way back and have been very public. Why can't Tom Sneddon who'd find any other accusers to corroborate the Chandlers and Arvizos stories? Pedophiles, specifically the preferential boy-lovers that Diane Dimond claimed MJ matched the profile of ALWAYS have hundreds of victims and almost always have child pornography. Are all the other kids lying to protect MJ? Only the Chandlers and Arvizos with parents who happen to be con-artists are telling the truth. Anonymous1 (not verified) | 11/20/09 | 21:56 PM
And I agree with the anonymous poster. People do hate MJ. Its there right to do so. However, they can't make stuff up as their reasons for hating him and expect to be taken seriously. Chincilla has failed to make a case for MJ being a pedophile. I have sucessfully refuted each and everyone of his/her claims. However, its his/her right to believe whatever wants to believe regardless of the evidence. Anonymous1 (not verified) | 11/20/09 | 22:24 PM
No need to guess my gender I am female. I have tried to make you see why people believe Michael Jackson was a pedophile, and they are not just pulling this stuff out of their behinds. Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/21/09 | 02:48 AM
The truth seems to be making headway among some sources. For the first time I found a media source that admits the settlement came from MJ's insurance company. I already posted court documents that prove this fact, however, the mainstream media has always chosen to ignore that fact in their reporting, until now. The truth is slowly emmerging and MJ will be vindicated. http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/11/18/jackson.accuser.suicide/inde... Anonymous1 (not verified) | 11/20/09 | 23:05 PM
Correction Chinchilla, police chose not to go after MJ in 1993 when he was the most powerful celebrity on the planet. They never had enough evidence to file charges against him. They had been investigating him since August of 1993 and were never able to get an indictment. Sneddon kept the case open for 6 years after the Chandlers ran off in the hopes that someone anyone will come foward to make accusations. It never happened.
They didn't go after him until 2003 when he had long fallen from grace, and was widely regarded as 'Wacko Jacko' and a crazy pedophile by the media and the general public. And the case they brought against him was an embarrassment to the legal system. They would have never dreamed of bringing a case like that against anyone but 'wako jacko'. Anonymous1 (not verified) | 11/21/09 | 13:11 PM
Also, if a family made claims like that against anyone, I think its the responsibility of the police to do a thorough investigation. However, the police investigated MJ for years and still could never file charges against him. Even in June of 1995, when MJ and Lisa Marie did an interview with Diane Sawyer claiming that he'd been cleared, Sneddon popped out and said no the case is still open and they are STILL investigating MJ. My god, they've investigating the man already for TWO YEARS and could not file charges. All of this is because MJ is a famous celebrity. If it were the guy next door they would given it a break already. Sneddon clearly had an unhealthy obssession, probably because of the prestige and career advantages of prosecuting a celebrity. Police can investigate someone all they want. They need to come up with evidence before they can arrest and charge someone. Anonymous1 (not verified) | 11/21/09 | 13:56 PM
Oh, and I have to repeat the Chandler settlement has always been the stuff of legends for people who believe MJ was guilty. It has always been the excuse for why the police could not charge MJ with a crime. In reality, settlement neither prevented Chandler's from testifying, nor was it even Michael Jackson's money!! After all these years, its finally being admitted by even the media that the Chandlers have been enjoying MJ's insurance company's money who settled with them for 'global claims of negligence'. And I read many newspaper articles from 1993 which reported developments in the Michael Jackson case. At first all of those articles pointed out the crucial fact that MJ had not even been charged with a crime. Even the innocent until proven guilty mantra did not apply because no charges were even brought. Just rumors,gossip, and speculation. So its absolutely ridiculous for you to try to use the fact that the police investigated someone for crimes that they never charged them with, as evidence that the person is guilty of a crime. (What crime exactly, since no charges were even brought?!?) In 1993 Michael Jackson was charged with a crime by the media,not by the authorities. Then the media fraudulently used that settlement to convict him of a crime. Anonymous1 (not verified) | 11/21/09 | 14:57 PM
@Anonymous1 (not verified) | 11/21/09 | 14:57 PM Can we put down the knives for a moment, I would like to ask you a genuine question, and would like your honest opinion. Are the Glenda tapes real? Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/23/09 | 21:56 PM
Wow...this article is all over the place...not really sure where Michael fits in this despite the author's efforts. Other than the fact of adding "Michael Jackson" to any blog and getting some hits because people are Googling his name, what was the point of including his name in a discussion of sexual orientation and preferences? And when we got to limb amputations, I was really lost (and bored). When you write an article about someone you don't know, have never treated, and based on media reporting and then have to post a caveat every other second sentence admitting you have no idea if he did this or that, then, well, you are entering pretty dangerous territory and being very irresponsible. Michael for one thing was in *show* business. He, like many other entertainers, had multiple plastic surgeries. He, like, many other singers also dressed androgynously - for reasons that may range from he wanted to make sure he gained a gay audience to he knew it made him controversial and therefore meant he would keep his name in the spotlight. I can think of quite a few rockers who dressed that way, wore makeup, had long hair, and engaged in outrageous or controversial public behavior. If you bothered to do *any* research at all before writing this article and veering all over the place, you may have had a "reasonable" doubt that he molested any of the children that accused him. I don't know what attorneys you consulted, but entertainment attorneys can tell you that their clients are often accused of sexual misconduct and they are often counseled to settle quietly as the accusation alone is enough to ruin careers - whether or not they are guilty. At any rate, the FBI investigated him for many years. I would like to veer off into things I don't know, for what the heck you seem to, and postulate that the FBI probably had him under surveillance and tapped his phone as part of their investigation. We do know they made forensic investigation of 16 of his computers and found nothing, of a provocatively labelled VHS tape and found nothing, and interviewed accusers around the world and never found enough evidence to bring their own federal charges against him. And if their records are to be believed at one point the FBI even declined to bring charges that he violated the Mann Act. I again will take a stab at it and assume they would have if they thought they had something against him. So while some of Michael's action were questionable, there is no evidence he did anything criminal - after 10 years of investigation by law enforcement, including the FBI, forensic examination of his clothing, bedding, DNA, bodily samples, fingerprints, computers, residences, and a trial, in which prior "bad acts" were introduced, no one definitively proved he did anything. You are reaching. You know nothing about this man and you have never psychologically evaluated him. You are using media reports and your own impression of him that were honed by years of those media reports, much of which has now been proven to be false or distorted. He was a public figure, whose public behavior can be exaggerated and designed to keep themselves in the public eye. You do not really know his private behavior. I think your article and speculation about the psychological/sexual makeup of someone you don't know is absolutely egregious. Paulie (not verified) | 12/29/09 | 02:59 AM
Reply to This
Link
One could also say Elvis was a pedophile because Priscilla's parents allowed her to live in Elvis's home from the age of 14. He was a grown man in his 20s then. I have often wondered about parents who could so something of that nature. Granted his parents also lived there, but who knows what went on behind closed doors? In her book Priscilla maintains she was a virgin til she married Elvis, but before that she pleasured him in other ways (she declined to expound). Allie (not verified) | 12/29/09 | 17:07 PM
wow
excellent analyses! see more on mj: http://aliciabanks.vox.com/library/post/this-is-not-it---mourning-the-et... alicia banks (not verified) | 12/31/09 | 05:23 AM
Reply to This
Link
Wow...yet another psychologist practicing arm chair psychology on the Internet, using the tabloids as his basis for analysis! What a riot! Michael Jackson was one of the most interviewed, most photographed, most scrutinized personalities in all of history. I've seen much footage of him where he appears perfectly sane, normal (whatever that is) and utterly in control of himself and his surroundings. I would call him nothing close to "spectacularly strange." This kind of judgment comes from those who have done little of significance in their lives and cannot allow another to be spectacularly talented without bringing them down to the judge's level. One must remember that targeting Michael Jackson as tabloid fodder was spectacularly profitable for the tabloids! Those who cannot see that are incredibly naive and not capable of mature discernment. Also, the author of this indictment of one of the most gloriously talented individuals the world has ever seen doesn't mention if he's ever read Michael's autobiography ("Moonwalk") or Michael's subsequent work, "Dancing the Dream." Has he critiqued Michael's work or does he rely solely on unreliable works such as "Be Careful Who You Love" and other flat out lies by questionable authors? It certainly sounds like the latter. In short, Michael Bailey is just another know-nothing as far as Michael Jackson is concerned. He's never met Michael Jackson, nor has he ever talked to anyone who's ever known Michael Jackson. What a waste of cyberspace. Damn...another 30 minutes of my life I'll never get back. He's just pandering to what some people do best: gossip about others to fill their sad and lonely days. By the way, I saw Dolly Parton on Larry King last night. What that woman has done to her face via plastic surgery is nothing short of tragic, yet we don't see Michael Bailey dissecting her on the Internet. Why is that? SoCalGal (not verified) | 01/03/10 | 22:49 PM
Chandlers ran off. Also about Terry George, after reading the FBI files and rethinking it, I regret my previous post about him. The reason I was so sympathetic to his claims before was because I saw him on a documentary called "Michael Jackson's Secret Childhood" where he was defending Michael Jackson and saying the phone conversation was really no big deal. He implied that the media had blown everything out of proportions and said he did not believe Michael Jackson was really a pedophile. He confused me about the seriousness of his accusations. Now I think its pretty bizarre. I've also heard that he was a rich business man and therefore he had no reason to sells stories to the tabloids. When I read the tabloid article from the Sun in the FBI files, I began to question his motives. First of all I thought his accusations just came out in 2004, I didn't know he was a part of the original 1993 tabloid circus. According to the article in the FBI files he was a disc jockey in 1993, not the rich businessman of 2004. Considering the tabloids have paid all the other disgruntled ex-employees including the Francias, its highly likely he was paid for his original story in 1993. The FBI files also demonstrate that after the Chandler accusations erupted Terry George went straight to the British tabloids with his story. He didn't think to contact the authorities. The authorities only found out about him through the tabloid. Also, don't know if this is important, but the files state they declined to file charges against MJ based on these accusations. I don't know if its because it was too long ago or if it was because even they were suspicious of Terry George's motives. These FBI files have shed more light on Terry George. I also wonder, considering the DA's desperation in 2005, why he didn't include Terry George in his list of prior bad acts? Suspicious. Also, who does this sort of thing? What does he have to gain by talking to the tabloids and doing TV documentaries and writing (bragging really) about his supposed 'relationship' with Michael Jackson on his blog, while at the same time defending MJ and saying he does not believe he was a pedophile? According to Charles Thompson (very knowledgeable journalist), he has a successful PHONE SEX business!!! Are you kidding me? LMAO. http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2010/01/fbi-file-reveals-at... So maybe, it was his Michael Jackson allegations that helped in become this 'successful businessman' who has nothing to gain by talking to the tabloids. LOL. And as Thompson points out Terry George has no evidence, other than a picture taken with Michael Jackson in 1983, 4 years after he claimed MJ tried to have phone sex with him... hmmm. For all we know he could have been an obssessive fan who had his picture taken with MJ in 1983 after meeting him just once. And again, if this really happened what incentive does Terry George have in talking to tabloids and going on MJ documentaries, instead of cooperating with the authorities ? Could he just be promoting his phone sex business? Anonymous1 (not verified) | 01/14/10 | 16:09 PM
Reply to This
Link
The only thing that is absolutely amazing in this discussion is the number of people that are willing to take hearsay evidence, third-party allegations, and assertions that no basis in fact and make an accusation against another person as if it were proven fact. It doesn't matter what you personally think or believe, since that doesn't constitute evidence. For everyone that thinks it's perfectly OK to accuse Michael Jackson of being a pedophile, just ask yourself how you would defend yourself should a similar accusation ever be made against yourself. Do you think that you'd escape the knowing smirks and innuendos? As for the individual that brought up the testimony of identifying Michael Jackson's penis .... How absurd are we going to get? Are all men automatically criminals to the point of where members of the same sex can't be in a locker room together because of age differences? Why on earth would someone think that it is perverted that two males of different ages may have seen each other nude? The next time you go to the gym and are in the locker room (or showering) ... take a good look and see if there might be 13-14 year old boys around.... and then consider whether a supposedly rational, thinking adult can actually assert that this kind of nonsense is evidence of a crime? This kind of foolishness goes on far too frequently in this country. People need to grow up and realize that the news and television does NOT constitute a trial nor a legal proceeding. Stating accusations as if they were fact, is simply irresponsible. There are no exceptions, there are no excuses. If you don't have hard legal evidence for any of your statements that you're little more than a backyard gossip. The law operates the way it does (sometimes poorly) precisely so that ALL OF US, are not subject to the interpretation of mobs and their sense of justice. So every time someone accuses Michael Jackson of a crime that hasn't been proven, they are showing how little respect they have for the protections that are intended to ensure that none of us is convicted by innuendo. Gerhard Adam | 01/14/10 | 18:53 PM
What has changed is my reading list, I have since read Aphrodite's book, Ian Halperin's & Randy Taraborrelli's. I still habour very strong suspicions on Michael Jackson's innocence especially after Taraborrell's book. Here is what I believe in my heart. Michael Jackson either sexually molested Jordan Chandler, or Jordan believes he was sexually molested by Jackson. Oringinally I dismissed the Sodium Amythal explanation given by Mary Fischer, but after other reads it does seem a little more plausibe, but still a stretch. Given the fact that only 2 people know for sure if it were used Evan and Torbiner, and Evan is dead that leaves one to back up or debunk the story. Diane Dimond and Geraldine Hughs do not believe that the drug was administered to the kid. Incidentally the prosecution wanted to call Jordan Chandler to the stand in 2005, and any claims made by a victim while under the influence of sodium amythal is not admissible in a court of law. I doubt Sneddon would have risked it. I do have doubts about Gavin's claims, but Jordan's is very disturbing reading. After reading all these books the only reason I am even entertaining the sodium amythal explanation is, that in Michael Jackson's world everything is back-to-front & upside-down. This is a place were the twight light zone and main street happily co-exist. I don't fully buy Aphrodite's claims of a conspiracy. I think the public fuelled by the media were/are deeply suspicious of Michael Jackson's relationship with young boys. Lets pretend for a moment that his association with them was as he claims innocent, it is still not normal behaviour for a man to be sleeping with young children just for the fun of it. Granted Michael Jackson is an unconventional character, but it is still unseemly. How would it look if Larry King made such a declaration? In addition what was clear to me in the Aphrodite book and FBI report was the sheer zeal in which the prosecution wanted to bring Michael Jackson to his knees. If the 2005 case had a weak foundation and they knew it, the intention then was ruination. It almost worked. What would have caused such intense feelings for MJ? Something about the 1993 case did not sit well with them. I have since come to realize that this case is a mute point, it does not have the burden of proof a criminal trial would reveal, and all we are left with is innuendos, speculations, and second/fourth hand information. Jordan or Michael never took the witness stand in this case, and as far as I know Michael never gave a deposition with his side of events. Chinchilla (not verified) | 01/21/10 | 00:17 AM
Lets pretend for a moment that his association with them was as he claims innocent, it is still not normal behaviour for a man to be sleeping with young children just for the fun of it.
That's just rubbish. I'm really tired of everyone assuming that as soon as a "man" is involved then his every action must be viewed as a potential perversion. There is nothing wrong with a man sleeping with his son or
his grandson, just as no one would think anything of a mother/daughter or granddaughter situation. I am really tired of the implicit innuendo that a "normal" man doesn't engage with anyone, as if he's some rabid animal that can't be left alone without supervision. So the only question is whether it is normal to sleep with strangers. The main question to consider is whether it is "normal" to have an amusement park whereby you invite hundreds of strangers to visit and participate. If that's your version of "normal", then I would argue that you can't suddenly allege that sleeping together is somehow perverse. The only reason why people raise their eyebrows is because they're imagining a complete stranger in their own environment. However, the problem is that having a complete stranger over at your house would, in itself, be unusual, so by extension is everything you would do. If you made them a sandwich for lunch that would be unusual for a complete stranger. So, it pays to have a context and the simple truth is that Michael Jackson was constantly surrounded by hundreds of strangers, so his involvement with them is NOT unusual and shouldn't be construed within the same context as you might view the goings on at your own home or a neighbors. They aren't in the same world. Gerhard Adam | 01/29/10 | 17:51 PM
"The main question to consider is whether it is "normal" to have an amusement park whereby you invite hundreds of strangers to visit and participate." No, to have an amusement park in your backyard is not normal for a celebrity. The very definition of normal means ordinary, everyday, run-of-the-mill etc, but Michael Jackson was not your ordinary celebrity next door. Personally I don't believe he built an amusement park as a lure for kids, but rather for their genuine enjoyment. However, something is odd when a grown man relates to children better than adults even if it is not untowards. MJ needed to address the root of his dysfunction. No doubt the dysfunction was also an asset which he channelled into exceptional music and dancing. Chinchilla1 (not verified) | 01/31/10 | 10:17 AM
"The very definition of normal means ordinary, everyday, run-of-the-mill etc" Well, sort of. Normal is a statistical distribution of the relative frequency of states for a whole population. In this case state = mode of behavior. By the nature of such things most people's behaviors will fall within +/one or two standard deviations from the peak of the curve, and that's what most people mean when they talk about being normal. Less relatively frequent states are represented at the extremes, the left & right tails of the distribution. Those regions represent eccentrics, behaviors which are comparatively rare. For a large enough population, there's bound to be someone whose behavior is eccentric, seemingly odd. It's odd, but not really "abnormal", because statistical dynamics will generate odd behavior at some rate which is small but to be expected. Jackson wasn't abnormal. He was eccentric.
It is not Grenda tapes, it is Glenda Tapes. I have not been able to confirm if they are authentic, or made by an impersonator. Just so you know they are on Youtube. Chinchilla (not verified) | 01/21/10 | 00:20 AM
So, I looked online and found out a few things about the 1993 case: - Evan Chandler was a screen writer, and dentist, who was looking to Jackson to finance his new movie and renovate his home. He initially wanted $20 million which is about the amount the settlement was for. - The insurance company made the settlement against Michael's wishes as documented in ACTUAL LEGIT PAPERS. More legit than the ones you read/referenced, if you did at all. - The lawyer used by the Chandlers was also used by the Arvisos as was the same psychologist. - Chandler drugged his son, with a solution that is known to make people susceptible to suggestion which is how he got the confession in the first place. - Jordan had filed charges against his dad for physical abuse. - Jordan was ordered to pay his dad an allowance from the settlement he gained after he tried to get away from him. - Evan Chandler tried to get more money out of Jackson after the settlement. - Jordan Chandler DID NOT accurately describe Michael's genitalia. Look at how much information I obtained from a simple google search on the 1993 allegations. Was that really that hard to do? People who claim that MJ was sexually abusing childen are just going by the news stories they hear and I have learned that you can't always trust journalists or articles, because they just end up reporting the same thing the other one says, so there's a real lack of basic fact checking on anything. As for MJ's statement about sleeping in the same bed with kids, there is a part of the interview that they have recently added into the documentary after his death. In that scene he also said "There's nothing wrong with GIVING your bed to a child." After watching various Michael Jackson interviews it had become apparent to me that he had a hard time expressing himself. This was because of him being sheltered his entire life and not being able to have normal social situations. Being shy myself, I understand his plight, especially when you are put under pressure. Even Macaulay Culkin confirmed in an interview the same thing and stated Michael would not sleep in the same bed as them. Isn't it a little weird that Michael would only target 2 victims in over 10 years of his life? This isn't the case of Gary Glitter or the Roman Catholic Priests that were all accused of sexually molesting children, so why should it be any different for him? It just goes to show your complete ignorance and refusal of seeking out knowledge and I feel terrible for the students that look up to you for guidance. Anonymous (not verified) | 02/21/10 | 06:26 AM
now
sort:
http://cure4lupus.org/media/michael_jackson_lupus.htm http://www.buttonmonkey.com/misc/maryfischer.html floacist - michael jackson, www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article/1196633 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People-v.-Jackson, www.newswithviews.com/Tong/dean117, www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHV03txW8xc, eurweb.com/story/eur54470.cfm http://www.independent.com/news/2009/jul/09/michael-jackson-triumph-and-... http://elitestv.com/pub/2009/07/celebrity-scales-michael-jackson-the-wou...? conspiracy book by aphrodite jones and redemption book by geraldine hughes. The Untold Story of Neverland dvd by Larry Nimmer. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1205624/The-black-girl-turned-wh... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1201841/I-turned-black-white-H... http://site2.mjeol.com/video/video-2005-mesereau-had-witnesses-ready-to-... http://explosivemuzik.com/2009/07/01/video-michael-jackson-the-footage-y... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wh4960S3RQ http://www.thesilencedtruth.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl... http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/403276-post-h... http://site2.mjeol.com/video/video-timor-tii-dancer-speaks-about-mj-eng-... http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/fire-martin-bashir.html http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/exclusive-michael-jacksons-guitar... http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/110013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzpptd4BBVU http://www.independent.ie/national-news/friends-remember-michaels-specia... http://www.counterpunch.org/vigo06302009.html http://www.counterpunch.org/reed06292009.html http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1901538/interviewing_michael_ja... http://www.mjfanclub.net/mjforum373/showthread.php?t=5119 http://www.uncf.org/Campaign/News/mj.asp http://www.tjmartellfoundation.org/PressReleaseDetailnone.aspx?release=4... http://www.mjfriendship.de/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=... www.mjtruthnow.com http://www.zimbio.com/Hip+Hop+Culture/articles/NYrfi5fp_1n/Micheal+Jacks... www.charles-thomson.net http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?noframes;read=64536
http://www.saratoga.com/horse-racing-blog/2009/06/horse-sense-pop-stars-... http://www.mj-777.com/?p=1624 http://www.jacksonaction.com/index.php?page=search.php&id=5264 http://jetzi-mjvideo.com/books2/con/con0xl.html (conspiracy book) http://jetzi-mjvideo.com/books2/red/red1zf.html (redemption book) Jan (not verified) | 03/24/10 | 12:58 PM
Yes, it is true, once I was black! You get darker in the sun and get admired for that. But I am sick and you hit me for it. The sun you love so much can kill me. In former times I loved to be outside in the light, too, now I can nearly only go out at night. And you make your fun out of it. If I hadn't become the Michael Jackson you know today, then I would also be like that: I would be a white black with curls and a thick niggernose for which everybody would tease me. Well, now you tease me because of my little nose. Maybe I would already be dead because I couldn't protect myself so good as I can today. Would you prefer it when I was dead? Or when I had never existed? But then you wouldn't have my music! Would you like to do without 'Billie Jean'?! My music you love though, don't you? Just not me. But I create the music to make you happy. You torture me with your disgraceful words. Words can sometimes hurt so much more than punchs. Often I sit in an edge and cry. I ask God for what I have to suffer, what a reason I've given you. Cause I never did harm to anyone. I am afraid of you 'cause you've hurt me so badly. And I don't even defend myself. I simply hide behind my masks. Oh, how I hate these masks! Under them I can hardly breathe. But I have no choice, it's the only way to protect myself. But you don't like it when I protect myself. You'd prefer to kick a defenceless man in his face. but this favour I won't do you. I don't need to be ashamed for anything I've done. And as I can see at you, dear Unknown there are people who understand my message. My friends and me, we don't go into the war with tanks. We come with sunflowers to all of you even though you laugh at us and snap our flowers off. Maybe you will understand not before not only the flowers but the whole sun goes out. With my music, with what I do I would like to bring a light into the world. But is it necessary that I kill myself until someone believes me? And until someone believes me that I just want to do good things and that I suffer from your hate? But then you would be outraged: "And the children?!" Particularly you would say that, you who would love the most to take my children away from me. You say they aren't my children. You say I couldn't educate them. How do you want to know this?! And is it important then what blood is flowing through their veins when I would die for them? Your jealousy and your hate make you blind for what love means. You don't know me, nevertheless you have already judged me! You, those reporters who hammer me at the cross in the morning, you listen to my music in the evening! That is not fair! You are not interested in what you write if it just attracts readers and causes headlines. But my name is enough to attract the people. Why is it always necessary to denounce me? Why don't you write something positive, there you wouldn't have to search so long! Why do I have to be 'Wacko Jacko'? Can't you see that the only one I'm hurting is myself?! You hunt me like I was a piece of cattle. Isn't there anybody who sees that I'm also a human being?! Where do you have your heart? Where do you have your mercy? Where do you have your love? If just one out of ten people who get this letter tries to understand me, already then my life is it worth being lived. MICHAEL KNEW HE WAS NEVER REALLY ALONE HE ALWAYS HAD US HIS FANS HE WROTE TO HIS FANSITES AND ONCE A FANS FOUND THIS AND SHOWED IT TO US AS WE CRIED I COULDN'T HELP BUT SHOW IT TO ALL THESE HATEFUL PEOPLE SO HERE YA GO FOR U MICHAEL MY LOVE YOUR PAIN WILL NEVER GO UNREAD downtorideforthejackson5 (not verified) | 04/08/10 | 00:34 AM
mainstream media and record companies refuse to sign stars past their early teen years and quickly look to replace them once they start to look old around 27 to 28 years of age, this is especially more true in the past during Michael's time). Second, Michael apparently hated his appearance, probably because he was abused as a child, or was not well socialized, or both, and most people like this tend to lack a sex drive or sexual arousal all together, forcing their sexual desires to a complete repressed state. Add to that a repressed child hood due to the circumstances of being a celebrity with the money to do what you want but not the freedom to enjoy it, I don't understand how Michael Jackson could have been a pedophile, or whatever this article chooses to call him, rather it seems more likely that he was a self-loathing confused being. Anonymous (not verified) | 04/22/10 | 08:29 AM
Absolute lie pedo neno. The 1993 settlement specifically states that neither party would talk about the other - EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF A CRIMINAL TRIAL. In fact it is illegal to pay off a witness not to testify. The actual document is online neno peno you can probably find it and read it yourself and not look so stupid in the future. The DA actually tried to get the 1993 "victim" who was by that time and adult to testify at the 2005 trial. He left the country to avoid facing Jackson in court.
We all no he was a pedo why would he pay of the familys of the children he abused his music was great but he was a weird man a pedophile who got kicks out of touching little children everyone get your head out your arse and open your eyes Josh (not verified) | 06/25/10 | 03:22 AM
if the media had treated these revelations the same way they treated Jackson. Some people think the media ignored it because Presley was already dead and no longer in the public eye and there wasn't much to be gained. I have read that the book and these revelations have driven a wedge between Priscilla and Lisa Marie, but I don't know that for sure. Joyce (not verified) | 02/15/11 | 22:43 PM
I have read this article with great interest and understand perfectly what is being portrayed. All these accusations could indeed be true if we had any facts. It is too easy to speculate Jackson was any of which you suggest, but we only have media driven stories. Nobody here ever knew Michael Jackson, nobody here ever knew who he really was, so it is very difficult to establish anything. Michael Jackson didn't go to award show's with leggy beauties, he never hung out at the playboy mansion, and as disappointed as some may be - he had no reputation for being a womaniser. So does that make him a child sex offender? To me and many others it was Jackson who was far too easily taken advantage of, frequently manipulated and black-mailed by a sob story - this particular accusation being the ultimate betrayal. As I stated, nobody here knew Jackson, so what makes people think they know anything? It is of course the media projected image which Jackson himself invented - the old razzle dazzle, which in the end destroyed him. The non-human superstar - the untouchable - the weird and bizarre Michael Jackson. All this led to his own demise, people wanted to believe ALL the allegations because there was nobody else like him. Maybe it was media jealousy?, the game of " throw them up and tear them down?" but in the final throw of the dice Jackson was portrayed exactly as the press had wanted him to be "wacko Jacko" . Who would believe him? Only his rabid fans? You speak of gay lover's as though it was absolute truth, yet there are many woman who claim to have been in sexual relationships with him - by the way - with no financial gain. Let's suppose Jackson had been a woman, one who surrounded herself with children and made her home a sanctuary for the sick or underprivilged, would we judge so harshly? I think not. There are rumours that Jackson was possibly A sexual (not attracted to either sex) which is why he led a quiet secluded life and prefered the company of children who he could relate to. They were the little people who were less critical of his appearance and nonjudgemental of his child-like behaviour - is this possible? perhaps. It would be interesting to know just how many people Jackson helped through out his life time, how many lives he inspired, and how much money he gave away to charities. The joy he brought to millions (if not billions) with his music and entertainment. The ultimate showman - one we had never seen before, when he sang - people listened and when he danced - the world stood still. The media have a lot to answer for - really. The rise of the king of pop in the last twelve months is sickening. The press celebrate him as though nothing ever happened, and continue to shamlessly print " Tribute
edition" magazines because they know it will fly off the shelves. How sad it is we need to judge on the needy credibilty of a newspaper -and how sad that Michael Jackson is once again top of the tree in music entertainment , not only because the sheep society need a shephard but - because he is dead! Confused? (not verified) | 06/27/10 | 12:51 PM
Some of The symptoms include Wearing hats and even eccentric clothing Problems initiating and maintaining relationships Perfectionism (undergoing cosmetic surgery and behaviours such as excessive moisturising and exercising with an aim to create an unattainable but ideal body and reduce anxiety. Body modification may change one's appearance. This is repetitive, or focused on one or more areas or features that the individual perceives to be defective Drug abuse (often an attempt to SELF-MEDICATE). (In 1993 he admitted he went to rehab because of the abuse of certain medications) Feeling self-conscious in social environments; thinking that others notice and mock their perceived defect(s). Strong feelings of shame. Social and family withdrawal, social phobia, LONELINESS and self-imposed social ISOLATION. Major depressive disorder symptoms. Avoidant personality: avoiding leaving the home, or only leaving the home at certain times, for example, at night. This disorder have some compulsive behaviors such as: Attempting to camouflage the imagined defect: for example, using cosmetic camouflage, wearing baggy clothing, maintaining specific body posture or wearing Hats. (Explanation for the surgical mask) Use of distraction techniques: an attempt to divert attention away from the person's perceived defect, e.g. wearing extravagant clothing or excessive jewelry. Seeking reassurance from loved ones. Excessive dieting or exercising, working on outside appearance. (It's known that most of the time, he ate only once a day) Obsession with plastic surgery or dermatological procedures, often with little satisfactory results In extreme cases, patients have attempted to perform plastic surgery on themselves, including liposuction and various implants with disastrous results. Eating disorders, such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa, are also sometimes found in people with
BDD Around 37% of people with BDD will also experience Social Phobia[14] and around 32% suffer from obsessivecompulsive disorder.[14] The most common personality disorders found in individuals with BDD are avoidant personality disorder and dependent personality disorder, which conforms to the introverted, shy and neurotic traits usually found in BDD sufferers. Cause. BDD usually develops in adolescence, a time when people are generally most sensitive about their appearance. Psychological Teasing or criticism: It has been suggested that teasing or criticism regarding appearance could play a contributory role in the onset of BDD. While it is unlikely that teasing causes BDD (since the majority of individuals are teased at some point in their life), it may act as a trigger in individuals who are genetically or environmentally predisposed; likewise, extreme levels of childhood abuse, bullying and psychological torture are often rationalized and dismissed as "teasing," sometimes leading to traumatic stress in vulnerable persons.[15] Around 60% of people with BDD report frequent or chronic childhood teasing.[15] Parenting style: Similarly to teasing, parenting style may contribute to BDD onset; for example, parents who either place excessive emphasis on aesthetic appearance, or disregard it at all, may act as a trigger in the geneticallypredisposed.[15] Personality Certain personality traits may make someone more susceptible to developing BDD. Personality traits which have been proposed as contributing factors include: [17] Perfectionism Introversion / shyness Neuroticism Sensitivity to rejection or criticism Avoidant personality Common locations of perceived defects Skin (73%) Hair (56%) Weight (55%) Nose (37%) (sounds familiar?) _______________________________________________________________________________________ He always said he felt ugly, even in his latest years. The most recent comment was in 2003, in the infamy
Bashir interview. That part was behind the scene but now It's all over youtube. "Body dysmorphic disorder causes sufferers to believe that they are so unspeakably hideous that they are unable to interact with others or function normally for fear of ridicule and humiliation about their appearance. This can cause those with this disorder to begin to seclude themselves or have trouble in social situations. More extreme cases may cause a person to develop love-shyness, a chronic avoidance of all INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS". I don't think his surgeries had anything to do with your pan-sexual theory, especially for the fact that you used some of the tabloids to build your little argument. His ex-wife Debbie said WHAT? Once again, a Tabloid believer. Anonymous (not verified) | 09/06/10 | 01:35 AM
AND absolutely yes, his Insurance Company payed the agreement, which was a Negligence accusation. The father change at last minute his accusation and claimed that it was a NEGLIGENCE instead of molestation. This is why the Insurance Company took part of in that minute. Did you know that MJ filed charges against Chandler (father's kid) for EXTORTION? I bet you didn't. Because most tabloids didn't tell. I HAVE ALL THE TRIALS TRANSCRIPT AND DOCUMENTS where his attorney PROVES that his INSURANCE COMPANY DID THE PAY. Let me know if you need them. _________________________________________________________________________________________If you took a few seconds to educate yourself on the subject, instead of spreading rumors, you'd see that nobody bought anyones silence. In the documents (that are public now, but nobody cares to read them) it plainly says that the Chandlers are free to prosecute this case. Nothing stopped Evan Chandler from getting the money and walking right into a police station. Oh, yeah, one thing did stop him. He was lying. _______________________________________________________________________________________AND Yes, MJ did have a lot of surgeries in his nose and admitted himself to have made a cleft in his chin. A CLEFT IN HIS CHIN! That ISNT the most FEMININE of characteristics, is it?. He wore makeup, but lets put all the rockers and male celebrities that wear makeup in the same sack, shall we?? John John (not verified) | 09/06/10 | 02:12 AM
Hmm lets see he slept with little boys and had cameras outside of his bedroom not rocket science. yeah he wasn't convicted but neither was OJ its called money. Anonymous (not verified) | 12/03/10 | 16:42 PM
So the police and district attorney's are either idiots or corrupt. Which is the bigger crime? Gerhard Adam | 12/03/10 | 17:08 PM
Hmm lets see he left his door unlocked and ignored the alarms so the 2003 "victims" brother could see him molesting his brother not once, but twice. And all this was after he had known the "victim" for 2 years, but oh by the way, he waited until after the Bashir interview aired to molest the kid. Even if you do shallow this you also have to get around the fact that the brother described something entirely different than what the "victim" described - oops. Read the unembellished trial transcripts (they are available on line) then you will actually know the difference between OJ and MJ and know why the jury, who unlike you heard all the evidence, acquitted him. Anonymous (not verified) | 02/15/11 | 21:32 PM
I have been a Professional Dominatrix in NYC for over 15 years AND I have a degree in Cultural Anthropology from Columbia University, School of General Studies, 1973 AND I studied in close tandem with Margaret Mead on mother/child dyad research. I was accepted into the graduate program in Anthropology at Columbia, but dropped out due to financial problems. I am an expert on crossdressing as I have met and dressed over 500 men from ALL walks of life who secretly have been crossdressers for their entire adult lives. I have MDs, college professors, judges, etc who use my services, as I am a highly educated, highly understanding professional. That is to say, men who crossdress will tell me FAR more honest, anecdotal truths about their secret lives than they will do to their doctor, their psychiatrist or any theoretical expert on secret secual paraphilias. Michael Jackson was clearly a crossdresser and suffered from severe body dysmorphia. The vast majority of crossdressers begin around the age of 7, when they are either "latch-key" children of divorce, left alone at home, and in a sense, their precocious pre-pubescent sexuality, and their sense of abandonment and loneliness, leads them to explore their mother's bedrooms. They begin to dress in their mother's lingerie in an effort to gain closeness and intimacy with the mother. All cross-dressing is an effort to regain emotional closeness with the mother, perhaps a closeness that never existed. In cutting edge psychology today, it is acknowledged that the mother/child dyad and bond is ABSOLUTELY necessary for the development of human relational skills. See Dan Siegel's work at UCLA on why children become on bullies, etc. How ironic that after 40 years, Margaret Mead's work on mother/child bonding has now proved itself to be in the forefront of understanding how our species and our pre-frontal cortex is hard-wired for intimacy with the mother, without which, individuals become sexually dysfunctional, socially dysfunctional, and prone to an enormous array of psychological problems.
Karl Jung wrote extensively about crossdressing and his paradigm of the animus and anima, he suggests that crossdressing is an effort at individuation, or the human impulse to have a more integrated understanding of mind. Michael Jackson's mother would, of course, vehemently deny her son's sexual paraphilias as she is an ardent member of the Jehovah's Witness religion, which has a fundamentalist approach to human sexuality. Anything outside of married sexuality for the purpose of procreation is considered taboo and sinful. It's quite clear if you look at progressive photographs of Michael over the years, that he transitioned very gradually (a word the transsexual community uses) from male to female. Although he did not get a breast implant or have his male genitalia changed (although that is possible and we will never know), it is clear that he patterned his face after that of an idyllized "goddess" celebrity; I would suggest either Liz Taylor or Diana Ross. As for his private sexuality, he was clearly a pedophile and wanted nothing more than to be in love with, have sex with (as the older woman) a young boy (his stand-in). Basically, Michael Jackson's weirdness was ALL about the ultimate and ONLY universal human taboo, incest. He wanted to be the mother having sex with the male, young child. How do I know this? Because literally 1,000s of men call me and masterbate to this sexual fantasy. In most men's cases, it remains a secret and favorte masterbatory fantasy. In Michael's case, because of his fame, insane wealth, and his inherent isolation from mainstream life, he acted on these fantasies, and when caught, simply paid off anybody he could to cover up the truth. I also believe he basically committed suicide by pharmaceuticals because living with incessant incestuous, paraphiliac belief systems DOES inevitably lead to increased hard drug use and severe depression. DominaNY (not verified) | 12/11/10 | 13:52 PM
There is absolutely no credible evidence that Michael Jackson ever molested a child. Any alleged molester subjected to the intense scrutiny that he was under would have been found out with some corroborating evidence, such as trophies, DNA evidence, or images. Nothing of the kind was ever found. All we have are
two accusers. The second so laughable as to be laughed out of court and the first with plenty of evidence that it was a setup. A lot of smoke, much of it created by accusers looking for money and prosecutors looking for revenge and a political payday, but not much fire (corroborating evidence). It is interesting to note that after his death, there have been no more claims of child sex but plenty of claims of sex with consenting adults, nearly all females. The one homosexual claim was by an Arnie friend or worker. That claim has been dropped. And all the females claimed that Michael Jackson produced their love child. Again accusations made with the clear intent of getting money. Everything else is nothing but speculation and none of it very credible since no psychologist was in his confidence, examined him, tested him, or psychoanalyzed him with his participation and consent. Therefore, everything here is pure speculation and based on the public personna of a performer. What you see publicly is not what you get privately. People who actually spent time with him, have nothing but kind things to say about him. I rather go with what someone who has at least spent some time with him have to say. Paulie (not verified) | 01/29/11 | 13:28 PM
His children are proof of his parenting skills. From what I've seen and heard of them they would make anyone proud. Anonymous (not verified) | 02/15/11 | 21:19 PM
Bashir is the sort of person who could stab a person and, with cool and calm demeanor, go on to ask why the victim is in pain. He is disturbed by Jacksons ostensibly eccentric behavior and concerned for the children, all the meanwhile inflicting psychological torture on the father. The manipulative journalist exploits Michaels sensitivity. He throws Michael off balance and then points to his angst as evidence of character flaws. At times his interrogation borders on sadism. Knowing it will open painful wounds, he nevertheless pries into Michaels demons. Perhaps what Bashir was really looking for in his ideal subject was a cold hard rock rather than a human being. What he found instead was a saint. By Filip Panusz Jan7 (not verified) | 02/28/11 | 16:08 PM
Anonymous
Homepage:
Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite><TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe><u><span> Lines and paragraphs break automatically. Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
Notify me when new comments are posted All comments Replies to my comment CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.
Post Comment
Preview
KNOW SCIENCE AND WANT TO WRITE? Register Now To Get Your Own Column! WHAT'S HAPPENING
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Top Articles New Comments SB News Introduction To Radiation Everything And Nothing Science 2.0 FAQ How Google Saves Billions In Taxes Death, Science and Intelligent Design Addicted To Being Good? The Psychopathology Of Heroism Can A Man Really Get Pregnant? Sure, But It Might Kill Him
Vitamin D levels linked with health of blood vessels Smoking did not influence breast cancer risk among obese women Metabolic syndrome may increase risk for liver cancer Avoiding or controlling diabetes may reduce cancer risk and mortality Large Veterans Health Administration study shows 'last resort' antibiotics use on the rise more
J. Michael Bailey MORE ARTICLES Michael Jackson: Erotic Identity Disorder? Was Michael Jackson A Pedophile? Transsexual Smokescreen: Ignoring Science In The Man Who Would Be Queen
All Articles
ABOUT MICHAEL I am Professor of Psychology at Northwestern University. I study sexual orientation and related traits such as sex atypicality and gender identity...
View Michael's Profile
Michael Bailey
Search This Blog
In Was Michael Jackson A Pedophile? we dismissed the idea that Michael Jackson was gay and the unlikeliness of his being a clinical pedophile along with being an autogynephile. So what was he?
The idea behind erotic identity disordersthat sometimes the sexual object can be inverted into the selfwas first proposed by two important Canadian sexual scientists, Kurt Freund and Ray Blanchard. In their seminal paper, they focused on a series of real cases of pedophilic sex offenders who each appeared to be erotically aroused by the idea that they were children. Two of the pedophiles enjoyed putting on boys' gym clothes and pretending to be boys, while masturbating. Another fantasized about being a 10 year old boy whenever he fondled children. Another requested a consultation with a plastic surgeon in order to make his penis look more childlike. These men might be called "autopedophiles." Like
autogynephiles (who want to become women and are attracted to women) and apotemnophiles (who want to become amputees and are attracted to amputees), autopedophiles have the sexual desire to become what they love, namely children.
Freund and Blanchard noted that none of the pedophiles they studied had erotic identity disorders as intense as typical autogynephiles do. They speculated that perhaps "aspirations of paedophiles who wish that they could be children are simply more limited by surgical realities."
The night of Michael Jackson's death, one television news show focused briefly on Jackson's nose. A commentator speculated that the evolution of Michael Jackson's nose was unconsciously motivated to reduce physical similarity with his father's. In its final form the disastrous nose was indeed very different from his father's (and his own, original) nose, but that speculation ignores the equally odd remainder of Michael's face. I am not expert enough in plastic surgery to speculate about the precise procedures that Jackson had, but one only has to look at a chronicle of the evolution of his face to be convinced that the surgeries were vast. Indeed, his autopsy report declared that he had had at least 13 plastic surgeries.
Normal people would hate to look like Michael Jackson did near the end of his life, and so normal people tend to assume that the surgeries were a series of big, compounded mistakes that Jackson must have regretted. Bad plastic surgery surely happens. But when it does, it is generally recognizable as a poor rendition of an aesthetically pleasing goal. Not so, Michael Jackson's face, which resembled nothing in the actual human, living world. Moreover, it has seemed to me that there was something coherent about the redesign of his facecoherent, not normalsuggesting that there was method in his madness. If so, the 13 surgeries may be explained by something other than 13 different errors of judgment.
Even if Michael Jackson's face had never seen a scalpel, even if one were simply to listen to an audiotape of him talking (not singing), one would have to conclude that he was one strange dude. The high, breathy voice with the hyper-sincere tone was not his natural
manner of speech. Reportedly, when he got mad or surprised, he manifested a "big deep voice." This suggests that the former, his public voice, was an affectation.
The face and the voice were both unnatural, and he went to a lot of trouble to have them. What was he trying to say and show with them? He told us, quite directly, the most likely answer.
"I am Peter Pan," he said, more than once. He lived in Neverland. His second wife, Debbie Rowe, said that in order to get in the mood to have sex with her, Jackson dressed up as Peter Pan and danced around the bedroom. She said: "It made him feel romantic."
Jackson and I are about the same age, and I remember the Disney cartoon Peter Pan quite vividly. According to Wikipedia, in the Disney cartoon "Peter appears to be in late childhood, between 10 and 13 years old." I recently reexamined the cartoon version of Peter Pan, and sure enough, some of the facial features matched: the nose, for example. Peter Pan had pointed ears. Sure enough, a photograph of Jackson exists showing an ear that was described as "mangled by plastic surgery" but looks like it just might be a surgeon's attempt at pointy.
Some things don't quite match between Michael and Peter, however. Cartoon Peter Pan's voice was more masculine than Jackson's public voice. (Jackson's voice is more similar to Mary Martin's, the woman who played Peter Pan on Broadway and in a television special.) And Jackson's long hairapparently a wig over a nearly bald scalpis a clear non-match.
Am I seriously suggesting that Michael Jackson was a homosexual autohebephile whose erotic goals included resembling Peter Pan and having sex with pubescent boys? I sure am. If I am right, then somewhere there are images of Peter Pan that Michael Jackson brought to a plastic surgeon. There are also computer-generated images of the surgeon's plans for Jackson's face. But I am less certain that Peter Pan is the inspiration of Michael Jackson's
plastic surgeon than about the general idea that Jackson was trying to be a pubescent male.
If my theory is right, what was Michael Jackson's inner life like? Paraphilias usually reveal themselvesat least to those who have themduring adolescence. If I am right about his sexuality, then Jackson certainly had crushes on pubescent boys during puberty, perhaps when he himself was pubescent. But he grew up, and the boys he was attracted to didn't.
If he was attracted to pubescent boys, he undoubtedly felt great shame about it, due to both homophobia and the near-universal loathing of child molesters.
If he was erotically aroused by the idea that he was a pubescent boy (Peter Pan or not), then he probably suffered as his body became a man's. Analogously, autogynephilic males often experience intense gender dysphoria, longing to possess feminine bodies, and loathing their male bodies.
Because he became rich, Michael Jackson had an opportunity that would have eluded others with similar desires. He could remake himself, physically and behaviorally, into the boy he wanted. In some sense, he may have actually believed that he was a boy.
But whatever joy such delusions may have brought him would have been repeatedly interrupted by entirely adult concerns like the criminal accusation and trial, his financial difficulties, and the realization that talent fades with disuse.
*********
Does my theory say anything about the origins of Michael Jackson's tremendous talent? There are some correlations between sexuality and abilities. For example, gay men are vastly overrepresented among professional dancers and fashion designers. This may reflect their increased interest in and dedication to dance and fashion, rather than natural talent per se. Autogynephiles tend to be gifted in technical, mathematical, and scientific pursuits, with computer scientist being the prototypic autogynephilic occupation. But we don't really
know anything about the occupational interests of hebephiles, much less autohebephiles. Although there have been rock stars accused of child molestation, it doesn't seem as if there has been an excess of such accusations (in the way, say, that a disproportionate number of figure skaters died during the AIDS epidemic, presumably because they were gay).
It seems plausible that an adolescent Jackson might have sublimated his forbidden urges into work and musical ambition. But even before he was eight years old, Jackson was a phenomenon in his hometown of Gary, Indiana, and he was only nine when he led the Jackson 5 to win Amateur Night at the Apollo Theater. I don't think my theory, or any available theory, has much to say about why he was one of the greatest performers ever. Whether or not my theory is correct, there will never be another Michael Jackson.
Michael Jackson was one of the most talented performers who ever lived. He also may have been sexually attracted to young boys, and if so, he probably molested at least one. His demons led him to do bizarre things that might still be comprehensible in light of my hypothesis. If any of us had been born with those demons, we might well have done the same or worse. His greatness led to many wonderful things, including the joy of many children. To appreciate his legacy we will have to accept that people are complex, with admirable and problematic aspects frequentlyusuallycoexisting. If Michael Jackson's life helps us to understand that, it may well be his most important gift to us.
was.
Michael Jackson Finally Gets His Own Computer Virus Who Is King? Michael Jackson Vs Sir Isaac Newton Was Michael Jackson A Pedophile? Michael Jackson - Freakishness Explained? Michael Jackson: The Castrato? Comparing Jackson to a great singer of the past who
COMMENTS
Thank you for sharing! That is without a doubt the best hypothesis I have ever heard concerning Michael Jackson's strangeness. It follows the clues. It seems to make sense. It explains many things. One thing it does not explain is why the veils and other facial coverings he wore and the children wore? However, that may not be related to his other behaviour. We will have no post hoc, ergo prompter hoc here. Thanks again!
The cover up of his face was because he suffered from lupus. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/15/09 | 01:30 AM
would like to leave a gift to us then I suggest that in future he writes articles based on fact and not on fantasy. Dr Chris Cooper (not verified) | 11/29/09 | 15:36 PM
This hypothesis is only analyzing who the media portrayed him to be and not who he actually was. if you actually study who Michael was and not media lies, you'll see a loving man and father. Liking Peter Pan and liking to play like a child does not mean you are gay or like boys. my father has always told me he was Peter Pan and was the neighborhoods favorite playmate and because of this i have always had a great appreciation for holding on to the child inside us. And now i play childish games with my kids. I climb trees and go on the swingset. i like to stay young. Michael was a responsible human to people, animals, and the Earth. People took advantage of him and lied to get money from him. He had less plastic surgeries than many people in Hollywood. His father always told him he was ugly. It wasn't about wanting to look like a boy. He dated his wife for years after their divorce. His bodyguards talk of how he looked at girls like any other man. He was as normal as someone can be who can never go out of his house without being mobbed and having people lie about you and people all over the world believing horrible things about you. Study the real MJ before making stupid theories on media lies. Anonymous (not verified) | 05/28/10 | 00:22 AM
That was an interesting read on MJ. Many people I know think along the same lines as you that his strangeness was 100% mental. i.e. He simply affected a high voice, (even when under high stress which, as you know from knowing transsexuals is not a simple thing to do), "bleached" his skin, etc.
I still like my explanation that he was either by some condition (or the action of his father with Michael's cooperation) castrated. I wrote a big long piece about it. It's in the related links so I will not waste space repeating it. Some mix of both explainations could be true. Either the type of sex drive you describe could lead him to castrate himself.... to preserve his boyishness. Alternatively having a cronic medical condition which caused vitiligo, and suppressed his puberty could lead him to the behavior we all saw. No matter the expliaination Michael was not "normal" or "ordinary" in any way, for better or for worse. Perhaps our society places too much value on being normal or ordinary. One more thing Dr. Bailey. These men might be called "autopedophiles." Like autogynephiles (who want to become women and are attracted to women) and apotemnophiles (who want to become amputees and are attracted to amputees), autopedophiles have the sexual desire to become what they love, namely children.
Are you a glutton for punishment or what!? Surely you must know how that will read to many in the "transgendered community". They will interpret that sentence into an equation of all those things. They will say that you equate peadophiles with lesbian/bi transsexual women. Please please clarify that before your words are twisted. I personally have no issue with your use of Dr. Blanchard's theory anywhere that I have seen it. You have a right as a human being and as a scientist to theorize freely. Dont tase me bro Hontas Farmer | 07/01/09 | 19:07 PM
I still like my explanation that he was either by some condition (or the action of his father with Michael's cooperation) castrated. I wrote a big long piece about it. It's in the related links so I will not waste space repeating it.
As do I, for there are far too many cases where parents feed off of their children. A sexually mature MJ might have put a hole in someone's pocket. You have a right as a human being and as a scientist to theorize freely. For the record, I concur but will take issue with something that could as you say, be "twisted" to suit a self-serving agenda. Laura Hult | 07/02/09 | 00:13 AM
In the wake of Jackson's death I have been reading a number of articles on him to better reconcile myself with how to feel about one of the 20th Century's greatest performers. Love him for his boldness, artistry, the sweetness of his voice? Indulge myself in the sentimentality of how his music captured my adolescence, and every time I hear one of his songs, I am shot back through my own time tunnel to people and places I experienced? Or loathe the man for what he certainly was.......... a narcissistic, meglomaniacal child abuser? I choose to love the music and reject its creator. Your article is most insightful but I think is too understanding of the dysfunctional soul of Michael Jackson. We are entirely too forgiving of his perversion for our own, selfish benefit. He hugely entertained us. Would a similarly bizarre, common man with a predeliction for young boys have gotten off scott-free as Jackson did? I know not. Let's not forget, in the collective public hysteria following Jackson's death, that the victims of his child abuse will carry this with them for the rest of their lives. He robbed them of their innocence and marred them emotionally. It is statistically significant that a large percentage of child abusers were themselves molested as children. That's some legacy Michael Jackson has left. Leslie (not verified) | 07/02/09 | 00:35 AM
Thank you, Leslie, for articulating my feelings on this person, this entertainer. I, too, have been struggling with this. I choose to remember that sweet little boy with the voice of an angel. And the children he ruined. Suzanne (not verified) | 07/15/09 | 22:41 PM
"What he certainly was"???. How on earth can you be so sure that he was a child abuser?. Just let me remind you that a whole jury didn't get to that conviction after hearing all of the evidence and witnesses (and therefore knowing far more than you about it). Shame, really. Cristina (not verified) | 09/21/09 | 23:20 PM
What a bunch of bull....He had a dysfunctional personality ,but who is completely excepted from it now days . ALL THE ACUSSERS WHERE SERIOUSLY SICK PEOPLE . To my opinion an after reading through lines i do strongly believed he wasn't a child molester at all.So save you comment about the victims cause is no real .What's wrong with you people !!!. He wqs a victim of the system With all respect from Holland Anonymous (not verified) | 03/12/10 | 18:16 PM
Passed Michael Jackson is the cover of OK! magazines latest issue. Remenbering Jacko's childhood beginnings in the Jackson 5 to his last moments. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/02/09 | 01:59 AM
his own country. After his passing, his fans try to remember him for who he really was. Mr. Bailey you could have mentioned all the cheritable organizations that he gave to or how he helped bring people from other countries and cultures together. Mr. Baily you decided to do a piece on what kind of weird person he is. Remember Mr. Bailey you will be judged in the end also. What will people say about you. Gmoney (not verified) | 07/02/09 | 14:10 PM
On behalf of the trans community, SHUT THE FUCK UP. Hailo (not verified) | 07/02/09 | 18:31 PM
On behalf of the science community, that's not how things get done. Hank Campbell | 07/02/09 | 19:05 PM
On behalf of the science community, that's not how things get done.
+1 Furthermore no one should think they can speak for the whole "transcommunity". We haven't held any elections to choose our spokes people.
no one should think they can speak for the whole "transcommunity". We haven't held any elections to choose our spokes people.
On behalf of the rest of the entire planet, I wholeheartedly concur, Hontas! ;) Patrick Lockerby | 07/02/09 | 19:21 PM
Furthermore no one should think they can speak for the whole "transcommunity". We haven't held any elections to choose our spokes people.
There is also the old Native American saying that we cannot criticize another's way of life until after walking a mile in their moccasins - or something close to that. Laura Hult | 07/03/09 | 00:14 AM
I have walked the same mile as the commenter. Dont tase me bro Hontas Farmer | 07/03/09 | 01:18 AM
Ooops! I think my comment was taken as criticism directed at you. It wasn't intended that way, just trying to lend support for your position. Sorry. Laura Hult | 07/03/09 | 06:55 AM
On behalf of the science community, that's not how things get done.
Indeed. Only through the collection of information with attendant discourse and exchange of ideas and opinions, are we going to get anywhere. Being silent does not accomplish anything. Laura Hult | 07/03/09 | 00:12 AM
My first thought upon hearing that you had written an essay on Michael Jackson was, Oh no, you too! Seems like one can't get away from journalistic essays about him since he died. But upon reading this I was very
pleasantly surprised, because you managed to do much more than simply write about Jackson on a personal level. It was a perfect illustration of the process in which one examines a set of facts, eliminates irrelevant possibilities, then considers more likely ones until finally reaching a point of relative sureness. Your conclusions make a lot of sense to me. I'm sure further research would provide more verification and more insight into the specifics of how he saw himself, and whether he saw his condition as a mere facet of self, or as demonic possession. This is definitely worth further looking into, as it's a area not explored. At least I am unaware of any research in this area Lisanne! (not verified) | 07/02/09 | 22:32 PM
You are not doing our profession any service by labeling MJ with two terms, of which one is hotly disputed and the other falsely expressed. Also, its always helpful to address the
emotional side of a human being, aside from sex, talent, and looking only at one possible pathology.
This is one of the more insightful responses (lacking in the 'I know more about X than you could because I am X' unscientific and illogical randomness of others) but what is the alternative? tried to provide some answers. Obviously you can write an article on the matter too. It's easy to criticize work someone else does (for He was only going to ever talk with sycophants, including in the medical community but people have questions and Bailey
free, no less) in the interests of science outreach but we have to keep in mind that this took a lot of work and lacking more insight it remains speculation - Bailey never said otherwise. So what is your hypothesis? Hank Campbell | 07/03/09 | 13:06 PM
I think your response is better thought out than the author of this theory. There is no one simple explanation for why Michael was the way he was. In the end he was a human being deserving of dignity and everyone who is jumping on the bandwagon to condemn him should look at their own Man in the Mirror and keep their theories to themselves. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/04/09 | 23:21 PM
What is so special about it? Would it be so different from any heteronarcissist who got stuck in an impasse? Anonymous (not verified) | 07/03/09 | 03:59 AM
I think Michael was a great entertainer. From what I've read, he was abused as a child. I'm not sure that's part of your theory but it sounds as though he kept dealing with that later in his life. Also, there is what we already know, that some celebrities in the past, and some now too, conceal their true sexual orientation and others may also be transgender or wish they could be but they are in the limelight and if it's a male celebrity, wanting to keep their female fans dreaming about going on a date with them, even though it probably would only happen in their dreams. But of course, they will keep buying their albums and going to their concerts. If a rock star suddenly tells the world he's gay, then isn't that rather risky to his continued fame and fortune. Back to what you wrote about Michael, actually it's very difficult for me to say but it seems there could be more than one issue. I liked him as an entertainer and hope everyone is fair with him and his family. Scott (not verified) | 07/03/09 | 06:43 AM
Perhaps Michael Jackson was an autohebocaucaphile? Anonymous (not verified) | 07/03/09 | 07:33 AM
A 'CNN reporter.' The motivation remains a mystery of science. Hank Campbell | 07/03/09 | 15:26 PM
"Hmm...I wonder why this theory was not espoused while he was still alive..." Because he just thought it up, much like The Sun came up with the fake autopsy report, and wanted to get in on the feeding frenzy with the rest of the bottom feeders. "What is the DSM term for someone who uses celebrity deaths as a vehicle for attention seeking? What would be the sexual motive which underlies that phenomenon?" In this case, you call it "Micheal Baileying" Having read different articles this man has written, it seems to me he has some fixation on sexual issues and is maybe trying to figure out, or share with the world, what is going on with himself. femme (not verified) | 07/03/09 | 20:21 PM
Natalie you are so wrong. It is hard for me to keep calm in telling you how wrong you are. First of all you say something you came up with by interviewing a half dozen or so crossdressers in a Chicago gay bar without even letting them know what they were being interviewed for. 1. The ladies Dr. Bailey wrote of by pseudonym ARE NOT CROSSDRESERS! They are and have been transtioned, post op women since the 90's or earlier. I have seen and spoken to them in person and I will personally vouch for the fact that they look better than 90% of the people who write that bit of nonsense. (Repeated over and over again from something written with anger in 2003 by the illustrious McCloskey.)
2. Dr. Bailey did not come up with autogynephilia Ray Blanchard did. I'll bet you have a well formed opinion of this without even actually reading his book (even the passages quoted on various websties) because if you had you would know that.
It's odd logic to imply Hontas must be a shill if she disagrees with you, while you would likely regard yourself as interested in truth, fairness and decency - which makes your multiple personal attacks on people here rather ironic (though "anal millinery" was at least funny). The distinction is a scientist versus an advocate with blinders on. I got no dog in this fight but I know the shrill reactionaries here are not interested in correcting Bailey's science or accuracy, they're interested in promoting an agenda, in some cases, or just engaging in a personal war. Hank Campbell | 07/05/09 | 22:00 PM
I know Science is a very human occupation, where although we may aspire to some Olympian objectivity, we always fail to some degree, but it seems that this area has gone way beyond the acceptable. Yes, you're right, there's too much agenda-promotion, and precious few facts. Actually, none really, in this article. None in rebuttal either. Lots of blanket statements such as "Autogynephiles tend to be gifted in technical, mathematical, and scientific pursuits, with computer scientist being the prototypic autogynephilic occupation." - which as a statement should be susceptible to proof or disproof, and for which solid evidence omitting conformation bias is lacking. All the work on vaginal plethysmography is less than useful, as the control groups never included women who had had vaginal reconstruction due to radiation treatment or remedy of vaginal dysgenesis. I can't account for how such a basic flaw in the methodology could have been countenanced. The work may be salvageable by further experimentation on natal vs reconstructed vaginas in cisgendered women, and preoperative trans men, but given the less than wholly reliable results from plethysmography generally, all of the work based on this technique must be viewed as dubious. I await Dr Bailey's work using MRI scans on gay men. That would be difficult to screw up, and I'm certain peer-review would catch any minor errors. I just hope he extends his work into other areas, as MRI scans on women, both trans and cis, have so far contradicted the strong form of the autogynephillic hypothesis, while confirming the weak one. I better explain - the weak form says that autogynephilia exists as a real phenomenon in some women, cis- and trans-. The strong form says it never exists in cissexual women, and always exists in transsexual women (as opposed to surgically altered gay men). Even more important than these issues though, we need more light, less heat. That can be difficult when both sides are busy pouring Hydrazine on. Zoe Brain (not verified) | 07/06/09 | 00:55 AM
I await Dr Bailey's work using MRI scans on gay men. That would be difficult to screw up, and I'm certain peer-review would catch any minor errors.
Actually, using (f)MRI would get him more criticism here than out and out conjecture
like speculation on Michael Jackson's sexuality, since it is almost useless for anything other larger population studies and gay men are unlikely to have different brains. Hank Campbell | 07/06/09 | 01:30 AM
S10. The Neurobiological Evidence for Transgenderism 1. Brain Gender Identity Prof. Sidney W. Ecker, M.D. 2. Transsexuality as an Intersex Condition Prof Milton Diamond, Ph.D. 3. Novel Approaches to Endocrine Treatment of Transgender Adolescents and Adults Norman Spack, M.D. Dr Ecker's presentation is available at http://cs.anu.edu.au/~Zoe.Brain/BGI %203.3.2.ppt Abstract: Gender Identity is that innate sense of who you are in this world with reference to your sexuality and behavior, not necessarily corresponding to your genitalia and reproductive organs. Transgenders are atypical and think as the opposite gender. Certain areas of the brain have been shown to be sexually dimorphic. They are different in structure and numbers of neurons in males versus females. Protein Receptors for the sex hormones in different areas of the brain (limbic and anterior hypothalamic) must be present in sufficient numbers to receive those powerful hormones. There are androgen receptors (AR), Estrogen Receptors (ER), and Progesterone receptors (PRs). ARs or ERs are predominant at different times in different parts of the human brain. Hormone receptor genes have been identified in humans, which are responsible for sexually dimorphic brain differentiation in the hypothalamus. The groundwork in brain gender identity is gene-directed and takes place by forming male and female hormone receptors in the brain before the gonads and hormones can influence them. Multiple genes acting in concert determine our sexual identity. The human brain continues to make neurons and synaptic neuronal connections throughout life. This contributes to Gender Role Behaviors making individuals in the continuum of gender identity. Gender behaviors must be differentiated from gender identity (Hines). Gender Identity cannot be predicted from anatomy (Reiner). Brain gender identity is determined very early in fetal development, but gender expression, expressed as behaviors requires hormonal, environmental, social and cultural interactions, which evolve with time. One cannot deny the profound effects of Testosterone, Estradiol and other steroids on genital differentiation in-utero or their effects on behavior from birth or the physical and mental cross gender changes caused by exogenous hormones, but gender identity is determined before and persists in spite of these effects. The comparison may not be appropriate, but I am reminded by some of the work on Autogynephilia et alia of the ever-increasing complexity and detail in the various psychological theories behind the formation of stomach ulcers, before the helicobacter organism was found to be causal - at least in the majority of cases.
There are studies which indicate that homosexual males have brains which are a little different from those of straight males. Brain response to putative pheromones in homosexual men by Ivanka Savic, Hans Berglund, and Per Lindstrm a The testosterone derivative 4,16-androstadien-3-one (AND) and the estrogen-like steroid estra-1,3,5(10),16-tetraen-3-ol (EST) are candidate compounds for human pheromones. AND is detected primarily in male sweat, whereas EST has been found in female urine. In a previous positron emission tomography study, we found that smelling AND and EST activated regions covering sexually dimorphic nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus, and that this activation was differentiated with respect to sex and compound. In the present study, the pattern of activation induced by AND and EST was compared among homosexual men, heterosexual men, and heterosexual women. In contrast to heterosexual men, and in congruence with heterosexual women, homosexual men displayed hypothalamic activation in response to AND. Maximal activation was observed in the medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus, which, according to animal studies, is highly involved in sexual behavior. As opposed to putative pheromones, common odors were processed similarly in all three groups of subjects and engaged only the olfactory brain (amygdala, piriform, orbitofrontal, and insular cortex). These findings show that our brain reacts differently to the two putative pheromones compared with common odors, and suggest a link between sexual orientation and hypothalamic neuronal processes.
This is a selected list of the articles citing this article and based on it's work.
o o
High Fetal Testosterone and Sexually Dimorphic Cerebral Networks in FemalesCereb Cortex 2009 19:1167-1174 Abstract Full Text
o o o o
A. Brancucci, G. Lucci, A. Mazzatenta,
and L. Tommasi Asymmetries of the human social brain in the visual, auditory and chemical modalitiesPhil Trans R Soc B 2009 364:895-914
o o o
o o
W. Zhou
and D. Chen Encoding Human Sexual Chemosensory Cues in the Orbitofrontal and Fusiform CorticesJ. Neurosci. 2008 28:14416-14421
o o o
o o o o o o o o o
S.-h. Hu, N. Wei, Q.-D. Wang, L.-q. Yan, E.-Q. Wei, M.-M. Zhang, J.-B. Hu, M.-l. Huang, W.-h. Zhou,
and Y. Xu Patterns of Brain Activation during Visually Evoked Sexual Arousal Differ between Homosexual and Heterosexual MenAm. J. Neuroradiol. 2008 29:1890-1896
o o o
o o o
C. Ciumas, A. L. Hirschberg,
and I. Savic High Fetal Testosterone and Sexually Dimorphic Cerebral Networks in FemalesCereb Cortex 2008 0:bhn160v1-bhn160
o o o
o o o o
H. Berglund, P. Lindstrom, C. Dhejne-Helmy,
and I. Savic Male-to-Female Transsexuals Show Sex-Atypical Hypothalamus Activation When Smelling Odorous SteroidsCereb Cortex 2008 18:1900-1908
o o o
o
D. F. Swaab Sexual orientation and its basis in brain structure and function Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008 105:10273-10274
o o
Full Text
o o
I. Savic
and P. Lindstrom From the Cover: PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008 105:9403-9408
o o o
o o o o
H. Berglund, P. Lindstrom, C. Dhejne-Helmy,
and I. Savic Male-to-Female Transsexuals Show Sex-Atypical Hypothalamus Activation When Smelling Odorous SteroidsCereb Cortex 2007 0:bhm216v1-bhm216
o o o
o o o o o o o o o o
K. Schiltz, J. Witzel, G. Northoff, K. Zierhut, U. Gubka, H. Fellmann, J. Kaufmann, C. Tempelmann, C. Wiebking,
and B. Bogerts
o o o
A gender- and sexual orientation-dependent spatial attentional effect of invisible imagesProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2006 103:17048-17052 Abstract Full Text
o o o
H. Berglund, P. Lindstrom,
and I. Savic Brain response to putative pheromones in lesbian women Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA2006 103:8269-8274
o o o
Human "Pheromone" Brain Response and Sexual Orientation JWatch Neurology 20052005:2 Full Text Not to mention all of the articles which were cited by the researchers in the first
place. There is ample evidence that sexual orientations are inborn, immuatble, only differing from culture to culture in how they are expressed.
But this is why I said we would have made more fun of him doing that sort of brain study using MRI or fMRI. Looking at individual brains and comparing them to other individual brains and noting differences is not good science; my brother and I would show different brains too yet it has nothing at all to do with sexuality or gender. Hank Campbell | 07/06/09 | 11:06 AM
(unreferenced) tabloid article and "common knowledge" amounting to gossip and rumour. And to base it all on a paper stating a set of unevidenced conjectures that are thirty years old. A single fMRI image set would be overkill. Zoe Brain (not verified) | 07/08/09 | 05:46 AM
Maybe one day you can explain to me why so many in the "transcommunity" treat the assertion that sexual orientations are inborn and "hardwired" as endorsement of Blanchard's theory? Hank, If I understand your point correctly you mean that MRI studies can at most tell us about large samples of people and would be of limited use to saying that person A is transsexual, homosexual, hebesexual, pheobeseual, or AutoJhonnyDeppophiliic? Dont tase me bro Hontas Farmer | 07/06/09 | 11:44 AM
Reply to This
Link
Not even that, unless we start telling people who otherwise aren't that they must be hebesexual based on brain scans - because they are not designed for that kind of accuracy yet they are misused a lot. It's not so simple as saying a homosexual will have a different sized hippocampus and all homosexual men will have brains that look different from other sexualities and genders yet similar to each other. It just doesn't work that way. Hank Campbell | 07/06/09 | 11:54 AM
Because the MRI does not tell what a person is thinking, only what part of the brain is active in response to a stimulus. Dont tase me bro Hontas Farmer | 07/06/09 | 13:20 PM
Who am I? Google or Bing my name, read everything good or bad. I have nothing to hide and nothing to prove. As for what you said about the people Dr. Bailey wrote of what gives you the right? How do you figure those ladies who you don't know aren't just like you. Hell, they are the ones who of anyone on earth have the best reason to be offended by anything, it was written in reference to them. Who are you to feel that you can say such things about those ladies?
Your excellent sources contradict each other. Aside from some half truth's, and omissions which I have responded to on this website what's at Oii is true, and contradicts what is written on Andrea James's website. Oii shows pictures of me, a transsexual woman which are from reliable media sources. Pictures from school board meetings held during Ramadan (roughly September) 2008.* Whereas according to AJ's website I'm a fake. I can't be fake and be at a school board meeting. As for my having multiple internet identities, that is both a security measure and a way of keeping my worlds separate. How much sense would it make for me to use the same username here as on my adult website? * As for being an apologist for Bailey. Nonsense. I say that the only people who should be as offended as you act about anything Dr. Bailey wrote live right here in Chicago. The same people you calledcrossdresser's in a gay bar.
Now how about you. Who are you and what makes you so credible? What gave you the right to add another insult to the people Bailey wrote about? *Yes I am a transsexual woman, scientist (grad student), and have done adult work, and when I pray I in arabic faceing Mecca. I just am what I am, I am learning how to do what I want to do, I don't get paid (much) for learning so I need money, and I believe in god. If those are hard things to belive I submit that you are the one with a problem of cognitive ability. I am no different that other physicist who acted more like a cabby and visted topless bars or a gay autistic computer genius. (refering to Richard Feynman and Alan Turing respectively). Dont tase me bro Hontas Farmer | 07/09/09 | 14:20 PM
So basically you are a older transitoner who hates younger people like me. I have to be younger I'm 29 and you were/are in the Air Force for 22 years, you had to have been at least 18 when you joined so you are at least 40. Basically your difficulty is because of your deep seated insecurities and loss of white male privileges. Bailey is just a smokescreen. It explains your hostility to me, and it explains why you would also deride as "gay cross dressers" the post op transwomen Bailey wrote about pseudonymously. In particular the ones he labeled as "homosexual transsexuals. People you never met and who were directly at least from their point of view, had their confidence betrayed, and were directly insulted by Bailey. Which is really interesting since compared to any of them including Anjelica Kieltyka ,you likely look like a hard ugly brick with features that could cut glass and chip diamond! Your probably old ugly and just can't handle that they, increased their options as a side effect of transition while yours decreased dramatically. Then there is another thing from AJ's excellent website which you consider beyond repraoch, and take every word seriously from... You with your glowing millitary career etc meet a few of her criteria for an online fraud! In particular: 13. Remarkable accomplishments Fakes frequently claim they are very talented at something (won a competition, attend an exclusive school, work as a model, hold a state/national record).
Where as with me you can, ironically thanks to AJ and Curtis Hinkle, find out information which basically supports many of my "extraordinary" claims. My own web presence proves the rest. YOU can present no such proof to back up your glowing millitary career. Which I am sure you told of to get plenty of manly back slaps and hi fives from the people here :roll:
You folks can make a sexual metaphor for anything. Hank Campbell | 07/10/09 | 12:34 PM
Actually, I was in Montreal to give support to another friend of mine. There are very, very few of us whose transition was a matter of natural change rather than therapeuticallyinduced transition. OK, that's not quite true, there's perhaps 5000 in North America, but almost all go from (partly, somewhat, or completely) female-looking at birth to (partly, somewhat, or completely) male-looking later, which can either induce or cure transsexuality, but I digress. Anyway, there's fewer than 20 of us that are definitely confirmed to have had a partial male-to-female natural transition happen, and apart from a few cases where the etiology is known, it's not well-understood. In theory, there may be a dozen ways this can happen, but not all have ever been observed, and some cases don't match any of the theoretical causes. I was there to give moral support to Katie in her surgery. Unlike the natural FtoM cases, the results are never naturally functional, and are ambiguous at best. Surgery is required to remove dysfunctional now internal glands and ensure urinary function, but it's still pretty scary. Usually we go for a complete reconstruction, neo-vagina, the works. There are so few of us, that travelling halfway around the world from Canberra to Montreal was worth it, even if it emptied my meagre savings. Here's what I wrote shortly afterwards: --------I've just spent a month of my life with some of the most wonderful people on the planet. Looking at it objectively, consider a gathering of women comprising: A sound tech from Los Angeles; An NCO in the Canadian Armed Forces; A former US Artillery Officer and Tall Ship Sailor from Philadelphia; A world-renowned GeoScientist from Hawaii and her Fabulously talented Architect partner; A trainee nurse from Boston with a profoundly autistic teenage son; A Rocket Scientist from Australia; an on-call Radio-Tech with the ability to debug broadcasting antennae across the whole of North America from her cell-phone; a Radiographer from New England; I mean, this is a group that would be considered spectacular
over-achievers anywhere else. Some of the kindest people on the planet too, and the most courageous. They had to be, as so many like us don't survive to middle-age. Why were they there, having travelled anything from hundreds of kilometres to halfway round the planet? To give support to two of their number who were having major surgery. They were there out of Love. ---------And of course, to partake in the conspicuous consumption of genuine Quebecois Poutine. In public too, at a Kosher Deli. Zoe Brain (not verified) | 07/11/09 | 08:00 AM
I have meet almost all of the major Chicago based players in the Bailey book affair at some point. The ladies that Natalie called crossdressers ,are not. Though we disagree about our specific feelings on Bailey and his book I have never had a problem with any of those people. It irks me to no end when I hear some jealous person like Natalie calling them horrid names, calling them men, when in fact they are very...well how to put it... It's really hard to Imagine them as men, and real easy to Imagine Natalie as the big male privileged chest beating gorilla she acts like. Dont tase me bro Hontas Farmer | 07/10/09 | 16:09 PM
I would like to see if you have the guts to come here to Chicago and tell "Maria/Juanita",Gabrielle Schaffer (whom I believe was "Kim"),
and Anjelica Kieltyka ("cher")what you said. I want to see you tell them that you think.. I took note of the neat little tie-in with one of your previous works, the whole autogynephilia thing, something you came up with by interviewing a half dozen or so crossdressers in a Chicago gay bar without even letting them know what they were being interviewed for. Natalie 7/5/09 15:03 I am calling your BS. You by callig those ladies, who really do not like Bailey's book, or Blanchard's theory,"crossdressers" reveals that the theory is not what's eating you. What's eating you is plain old jealousy! Now as for your activities here..... I'd like to put on my full DEU-1A, medals and all, and see if you have the bollocks to say that to my face. Really is that a physical threat how lady like. :roll: Yes I would say that to your hard bricky face which even with $20,000-$40,000 in FFS probably looks a fool. I would say that to you because I don't fear you and I am not impressed by your medals and irrelevant epaluets. I would say it to you because if you wanna read someone who looks better than you, then expect not to get read in return, your a fool.
Reply to This
Link
She's not the only one who is "older". I somehow resent that remark. Natalie may have been career military, but I am career Rail worker. No one here hates younger transsexuals especially me since I live with one. She looks to me as her mother although she has been more of a guiding force in my transition. BTW I am post op and almost 50. Youngsters like you should be damned grateful for oldsters like us since you have never have had to experience living in the wrong body for more than half of your life. Next time you pray to Allah you better include that in your thanksgiving and you bloody well better mean it too. I would not be so quick to discount the experiences of others out there who have completed their transition, such as I or Natalie especially since you have not walked in her shoes and you sure haven't walked in mine. I do see there is a distinct snobbery to your writing however and I chalk this up to the simple fact that you have never done anything physically laborious in your young life. If I am correct, you appear to be a career student, that isn't hard, hon. Traci (not verified) | 07/14/09 | 10:33 AM
Compute the Bahaba scattering cross section and show your work, then tell me how hard what I do is. Second, a wise woman once said that "transition is an ongoing process" so talk of being "finished" is total nonsense. No one can do a lifetime of socialization in a couple of years of RLT.
Hontas I took your offer up and ran a google on your name as you suggested. Unfortunately what I discovered was deeply disappointing if accurate. I think most of what I read is summarized at this web page: http://www.intersexualite.org/Hontas-Farmer.html I would be interested in reading your rebuttal. Thank you. Denise Norris (not verified) | 08/28/09 | 02:53 AM
Dr Bailey uses as his primary source about MJ's plastic surgery a report from the UK tabloid "The Sun" . Perhaps he'd be willing to speculate similarly on another report from that august publication, 'Jacko's ghost at Neverland'. OK, enough of the snarkiness. Truth is truth, even if it comes from less than wholly credible sources. But is it true? I think we would have had some confirmation from a second source by now if it were. It seems to me though that, like much of the work by CAMH, there is an awful lot of conjecture, theorising and wild speculation, and not a lot of actual evidence supporting it. Reasonable for a blog entry as a fanciful conjecture, but to call it a "theory" overstates the case. Zoe Brain (not verified) | 07/06/09 | 00:19 AM
Zoe, MJ's plastic surgery is common knowledge here in the USA. We all know what black people look like, they aren't day glow white, and don't have the nose he had. Where It bears mentioning once again is that I don't actually agree with Dr. Bailey's assessment on this. Before he wrote his article I wrote Michael Jackson:The Castrato? Which is nothing like his idea. I suspect based on one of the anon comments that you may have read this already (I don't know which is why I
dislike anon comments...no accountability). However some people need reminding...ie a certain blog which I will not give more traffic by linking it, whic now claims that Dr. Bailey's idea is racist, and that I'm lending it credibility. :-/ I guess Mr. Hinkle never heard a Chris Rock comedy routine where far worse is said and laughed off because allot of people belive it. A large number of people belived, and still belive, that MJ was just nutz, cuckoo, crazy, a pervert etc. Dont tase me bro Hontas Farmer | 07/06/09 | 07:48 AM
All i can say he was never convicted of peaodophila unlike Gary Glitter so you cant say he is a peado if on all counts he was accused he was never convicted.... Anonymous (not verified) | 07/06/09 | 10:25 AM
Reply to This
Link
Of course you can say he was a pedophile. The majority of pedophiles are neither caught nor tried nor convicted. They are still pedophiles. sittingbytheriver (not verified) | 07/07/09 | 13:58 PM
All i can say he was never convicted of peaodophila unlike Gary Glitter so you cant say he is a peado if on all counts he was accused he was never convicted.... Anonymous (not verified) | 07/06/09 | 10:26 AM
away through a simple theory of sexual attraction. They say that if the only tool you have is a hammer pretty soon everything begins to look like a nail. Certainly there is nothing wrong with trying to test a theory in every instance where it may be applicable but the astounding lack of scientific method is nothing short of a sin. For example in the article above we have the assertion that some pedophiles are sexually attracted to the image of themselves as children. This is of course, unsurprisingly, true because being aroused by the image of yourself as a child is actually a very common fetish. What exactly does this theory of autoparephelia tell us about these people? Actually very little. Are pedophiles more or less likely to be autopedophiles then the general population? We don't know because there is no control group. What about those people who are aroused by acting child like yet are not aroused by children themselves? How do these people fit into this theory of autoparephilia? In reality all this theory does is divide people into two broad categories. Those that try to become more like the object of their sexual desire and those that do not. What has been grossly overlooked is whether there is a correlation between action and desire or not. For example some men are aroused by wearing womens' clothing. Bailey would call this an "Erotic target location error." What Bailey and his colleagues conveniently gloss over is the fact that many straight women and gay men are also aroused by wearing certain items of womens' clothing. On top of this very few straight women or gay men are aroused by wearing mens' clothing. You might argue that women do not suffer from these "paraphelias" but what about gay men and why are women aroused by womens' clothing? Blanchard and Bailey go through increasingly complex mental acrobatics in order to explain away these inconsistencies with their theory but it does not take a PhD to figure out the simple, obvious, explanation for these observations is that there is some sexual connotation culturally associated with womens' clothing. Karen (not verified) | 07/07/09 | 23:51 PM
To close, wouldn't taking hormones at a very med to high dose since puberty, alter your sexuality and entire being? Yes, you can somewhat be born this way but I don't think so in this case. tannerps2004 (not verified) | 07/09/09 | 21:34 PM
Yes! I have seen cases of affectations in guys or particular person I knew, where they were born with a little to much estrogen or a hormone inbalance, but from observing The Jacksons, that family had enough testosterone then you could say grace over before they started monkeying with themselves! tannerps2004 (not verified) | 07/10/09 | 13:25 PM
medicine. As an Economist I would say that this crap is more philosophical study not medicine. Michael Bailey has crossed the line of the ethics of medicine. His thoughts should be considered as testing his own ideas rather than science. Heli (not verified) | 07/10/09 | 19:03 PM
Hontas.
We do need to have a little honesty here. J. Michael Bailey has not from my understanding ever spoke to Michael Jackson, Much less actually spoke to him in any clinical context. A lot of the content of his article about Michael Jackson reads like applying clinical terms to the many and varied media descriptions of Michael Jackson. Bailey's article is a very detailed example of speculation. But as a scientist yourself, you have to agree, the article certainly is not scientific. This does seem to be a hallmark of Bailey's writings. he would make a brilliant tabloid journalist. But as his chosen profession is that of psychology professor/sexologist. this style of writing does not work too well in a scientific context. Stephen Wayrough Anonymous (not verified) | 07/10/09 | 19:25 PM
Your theory really does help make sense of the obsession with Peter Pan, with the non-stop face altering, the anorexia, and the desire to have non-stop slumber parties with pubescent boys. Kat (not verified) | 07/10/09 | 19:37 PM
I'm wondering where all the skin mags taken from his private residence during his trial fall into play in this strange theory? The vast majority covered women and hetero sex. It doesn't take a vast amount of research to find quotes from MJ about the discomfort he suffered as he hid under the bed during the Jackson 5 glory days when his older brothers pleasured themselves with adoring fans. That doesn't seem to fit in here either. This isn't theory, it is total speculation based on tabloid news. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/10/09 | 21:37 PM
some of the changes -- the strong jaw, the cleft chin -- that is hard to reconcile with trying to look like a child. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/11/09 | 00:19 AM
poor human being.. born with a debilitating (brain) disease,,,,all these crazy over the top talents...raised by a mother fucker father....hoW else would you cope// oh and LUPUS sure as hell doesn't help Anonymous (not verified) | 07/11/09 | 02:02 AM
think the term "autogynephilia" is a complete crap and should be thrown away into the dustbin. Rather, professional counselling should be set up. This is where the similarity between researchers and sorcerers is. They are just into thinking everything as inborn, unavoidable. They are a redundant being today, I must admit. Thomas (not verified) | 07/12/09 | 13:17 PM
Angry, What makes you think that Dr. Bailey's current posting has anything to do with transpeople? This piece really is not that unique. People have thought that there had to be somehting psychologically wrong with Michael Jackson for him to alter his body the way many thought he did. Is what Dr. Bailey is saying here really so new? There are many people who Consider these words from Rabbi Shmuley Boteach in "No Holds Barred: The Eulogy you won't hear for Michael Jackson": There were also Michael's broken relationships. Two divorces, estrangement from brothers and sisters, and extremely questionable and perhaps even criminal sexual activities. Or in an interview reported here in which he discusses the Martin Bashir interview of Michael Jackson. If you have watched the coverage on MJ's death on TV you know who Rabbi Shmuley is. He was a friend of Michael Jacksons for a period of time and has no axe to grind with him. There are allot of people who think things like what Bailey has written in this blog. Bailey really isn't saying too much new here. As for the nature of my comments if it is your contention that people you don't want to hear should just shut up then yes I will defend his (and your) right to free speech. He as a right to write things like this, you have a right to tell people to shut up, and other people have a right to ignore you and talk/write anyway. Ain't America grand! Natalie, I guess all black people look the same to you.
How I characterized you? You started the reading session, baby. Now your really commanding trying to tell people to STFU is really unbecoming a lady, but very becoming of Gunnery Sargeant Hartman, who I am sure you are a twin of. Only a racist could think that I look a thing like Emanuel lewis. Dont tase me bro Hontas Farmer | 07/14/09 | 00:21 AM
Reply to This
Link
This may be because that Professor Bailey is comparing Michael Jackson to various infantile images while peddling what appears to be a racist view of Michael Jackson. Perhaps Hontas Farmer has picked up on this and is not feeling all that comfortable at this moment. It is perhaps worth pointing out that many of us feel deceived by Professor Bailey and perhaps Hontas Farmer will be the next to feel this sense of betrayal. Alice (not verified) | 07/14/09 | 09:22 AM
I don't "identify" as either. Those aren't identities they are diagnoses or psychological designations. They only really gain meaining when large groups of people are considered.
Black Comics have said worse things about Micheal Jackson than what Bailey has written here. Take Chris Rock for example.
WARNING: THE BELOW YOUTUBE PLAYER's VIDEO'S SHOW RAW BLACK COMMICS. IF YOU HAVE A PACEMAKER AND HAVE NEVER SEEN RAW BLACK COMMEDY I SUGGEST YOU WATCH A FEW EPISODES OF THE JEFFERSONS FIRST, TO GET READY.
Now tell me that what Bailey has written here is any more "racist" than what those Black commics said about MJ. In particular what Katt Williams says. LMFAO IF ANYTHING KATT WILLIAMS OUGHT TO SUE BAILEY FOR PLAGARISM!
LOL. But you see what I mean? This blog posting is nothing compared to what black people ourselves thought of Michael. Dont tase me bro Hontas Farmer | 07/14/09 | 13:49 PM
Wow. This theory is certainly mind-blowing and eye-opening, and I agree that the whole "he just wants his childhood back" thing is played out and pointless. But I don't think his plastic surgery is all that strange. Other celebrities' skin has mysteriously become lightened as they've become more and more famous (Lil Kim) and many, many other celebrities are clearly addicted to plastic surgery. I know he wasn't particularly nice to look at towards the end, but frankly, neither are most people with tons and tons of plastic surgery. When it comes to editing, knowing when to stop is key. Though he mastered the skill of "editing"
appropriately when it came to his wardrobe, music, or art of any form; when it came to editing himself through surgery, he understandably had no clue when to stop seeing as how you can't have a lifetime of training to comprehend the nuances of when to stop. The Peter Pan theory is nice, but frankly I don't think it's that far off from the original theory you cast down. They're both revolving around the idea that all that Neverland talk we heard about was the real Michael. Yes, I'm sure he loved children and Neverland Ranch and unquestionably he crossed several boundaries with children. But he crossed several boundaries everywhere (music, surgery, art...). The man didn't even see boundaries for the most part. Also, I read in several places that he had severe breathing problems...couldn't that account for the light voice? Also, if you believe this was his condition...how do you account for his children? How does someone who gets surgery to look like a pubescent boy and purposefully alter his voice just to act like and get along with other children and at the same time want to be a parent to children? I'm not saying he was the most conventional father of the year, but it's never been indicated that he abused his own children in anyway. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/14/09 | 04:06 AM
saying people are born to be some way or the other. He offers no treatments for the same, so, he is a useless fellow. He is an enemy of normal as well as trans people. I advise all to shun him. Rob (not verified) | 07/14/09 | 10:32 AM
+1 I totally agree with this remark. Dr. Bailey especially in his book, presented sterotypes of homosexuals, which could have a germ of truth, as if they were universal facts. Perhaps he would say he was writing a simple book, for simple minded persons? That's no excuse.
gay men enjoy conventionally handsome and masculine faces. I've studied gay speech inborn errors of brain development. Homosexual drag queens and transsexuals are exclusively and unambiguously attracted to men, and they do not cross dress or behave like women, or imagine that they have female genitalia, in order to excite themselves sexually. Really? How many musicians, athletes, and actors have had overbearing parents who made their childhoods miserable? How many of these resemble Jackson in any way whatsoever This article is entirely shocking to me. I have only skimmed the above comments but feel confident from what i have read that this article inspires reactions similar to mine in many others. (whew!) i was particularly astounded by dr, bailys many generalizing assertions such as " gay men enjoy conventionally handsome and masculine faces " or " Homosexual drag queens and transsexuals are exclusively and unambiguously
attracted to men, and they do not cross dress or behave like women, or imagine that they have female genitalia, in order to excite themselves sexually." Of course there are exceptions to these rules (which are not substantiated or sited in any way in this scientific article!) i mean can we at least get a "generally" or a "usually'?? this read like a an animal planet episode ... or worse, a excerpt out of some social-Darwinist paper. i am not sure (nor is it on my to-do list to get sure) if michael jackson abused any children or what his deepest sexual desires were (if any). i DO know that I (a heterosexual female with no history of abuse or mental illness) am delighted by and enlivened by the company of children (for me, female children - those close to or approaching adolescence are particularly refreshing - likely due to my having had like most I think - both the most wonderful and terrifying times of my life in those typically mixed days), when i am feeling for one reason or another alienated, shy or just sick of adult in-authenticity, i generally gravitate toward kids if they are to be found at the moment. i happen to also be "obsessed" with peter pan - having been since childhood - and EVEN as an adult (when i was still single in my 20s) i'd often say i loved "impish" boys finding myself attracted to small and elf-like men as well as women occasionally - and ALSO i do not imagine i am very strange or out of the ordinary for my need to feel attractive in order to be aroused sexually - what i mean is - when i am feeling attractive (after donning a new dress and some good lip gloss for instance) i am FAR more likely to end up in bed w/ my husband than on a day when i have remained in my slippers and have garlic breath. AND since i have never been blessed with large breasts or a curvy more womanly figure (in fact most of me at age 31 looks almost identical to my 12 year old self - no exaggeration) i have long since decided to "go with it" celebrating my own "impishness". so the result has been this: a dating history and marriage which tends toward partners who are attracted to (presumably) somewhat androgynous, small, girlish, women and who themselves are not much larger and only slightly more 'masculine' than myself. Wow, maybe mr. baily or one of his collegues would like to diagnose me? perhaps even invent a new inborn error of brain development name for my condition? No need to meet me in person though the lack of tabloid articles on me may make it more difficult to make a scientific diagnosis. i also experienced vocal chord nodules as an adolescent - since i was a classically trained singer at the time, it was pretty distressing to lose my vocal tone and range as a result. after visiting vocal therapists and surgeons, i learned that the only hope to regain my lost singing voice was to raise my speaking voice far above its "natural" register. i went to therapy and they made me talk JUST like michael - i joked about it then! i couldn't do it though many singers do or undergo surgery in addition or instead - but my hunch is that michael jackson did in order to maintain a singing voice which made him famous and which was destined to change unless he worked very hard to maintain it. dr. baily seems to have avoided a number of these quite logical possibilities for MJs behaviors and appearance. I also have lupus and my father has vitigo. MJ was diagnosed with both of these presumably by a doctor who physically met with him. It is ridiculous to hypothesize about his physical and emotional health or appearance without taking these conditions into account. My father is Italian American, not African American and even on his relatively light skin, the condition has manifested as (interestingly) a white glove which over time has slowly spread up his arm and has thus far reached his neck. This is not subtle it is snow white and his doctor has told him that if he is interested in remedying the cosmetic appearance (which he is not) topical whitening agents could even things out a bit over time. I assume this is what MJ has done and it makes a pretty good case for vitigo as the reason for his famous white glove pretty brilliant, no? Lupus causes a host of mental and physical symptoms. Also, my father was not so great at parenthood and happened to have a huge nose which i inherited. if i could mess with my nose as easily as plucking my eyebrows (as MJ presumably could) and my physical
appearance was extremely visible and essential to my career, i may have taken it to an extreme as well. the author is very naive to site MJs style of dress and long hair etc as sign of mental defect - has he checked out the manner of dress and makeup etc of almost every male pop artist who enjoyed major fame in the 80s?? MJ is a manly man in comparison to many of them. and i would argue that there are LOTS of other once child stars who have had a hard time moving out of the cute kid persona in adult hood. look at drew barymore. how is she any less child-like than MJ? (though Dr. baily seems to use traditional gender roles as his main measure for normalcy allowing for much more child-like behavior from the weaker sex) this guy may have been bizarre - but lets not forget he was a humanitarian. he had been abused as a child yes, and longed to give the gift of fantastic memories to other kids - and perhaps to do the same for himself. i read that he said once that water balloon fights and climbing trees were his favorite pas-times. i'd put both pretty high on my list - but would guess many wouldn't since sadly most adults can't remember the last time they did these things. i'd challenge anyone to try it first before judging MJ for loving them so much. Im not saying michael Jackson wasnt mentally ill Im just really unconvinced by this article by mr. baily and its particular diagnosis nor am I convinced that it is an important addition to psychological science in general. But hes the expert is he??? so from a woman who is aroused by her own child-like body and men/women who are as well, who loves kids and even lets her own and their friends sleep all night in her bed, who is fascinated by peter pan, who wishes she had the discipline to feign a voice like michael's as he had, who has actually had LOTS of gay friends who according to this article are abnormal in their abnormal-ness, who thinks it is a complete shame if it is actually true that a man who enjoys helping and spending time with children as much as i do is almost certainly a predator and who thinks this article is no less smutty and useless than any tabloid crap in the grocery isle today (I think he is actually citing a tabloid in his article and no scientific research either) i say, he's dead if he victimized anyone he will not do it again. There is no other reason to dwell on the inner-workings of michael jacksons sexual desires or mental health. That last paragraph or so of the above article was such a crock of slapped on BS - we have nothing to learn from an article like this one or by trying to dehumanize one man who was challenged in ways none of us could totally comprehend. I was under the impression that a psychologist needs to at least MEET a patient before making a diagnosis. In general, if psychology (and science in general) is all about these broad generalizations - ie. gays do not... or cross dressers always... then there is nothing scientifically useful to learn from a case like Michael Jackson in whose life the confounding factors were so extremely exemplary and unique. this article alone could make an already insecure or identity-confused individual crazy - glad i am assured enough myself not to feel shame at my own similarities to MJ. i say to the author - go fly a kite or climb a tree - assure yourself you have no interest in such odd activities. - look at your favorite actress (assuming you are heterosexual) - notice her youthful skin - her 100 lb body assure yourself that she'd be more attractive with wrinkles, a belly, ass and sagging boobs. but be glad she's over 18 and a woman be glad you arent attracted to anything resembling a 12 year old. - put on a nice suit and get a haircut - look in the mirror and assure yourself that there is nothing about looking your best your sexiest - that makes you more in the mood for sex - play with your kids, or someone elses kids - better yet hang out with a kid (an adolescent male one) that has been neglected and abused and now is dying of cancer - show him the time of his life and when he is scared at night since he's supposedly approaching deaths door, DO NOT let him sleep in your bed or do and see how satisfying it is to see a kid feel safe on account of your generosity. or notice how uncomfortable you were with that whole experience, how inappropriate it felt to spend so much time with a child -
especially to have a boy in your bed - notice how VERY uncomfortable you feel - and report back. You will perhaps notice - those whose skin crawls at the thought of this (as maybe yours does) are perhaps the more 'creepy' among us... i hope you find instead that it is perfectly fine and generous to extend generosity toward children in this way. when you have done these things, re-read your article and notice how ignorant and small it seems in light of true human complexity. ann (not verified) | 07/14/09 | 22:56 PM
I speculated in an article herein that Michael's freakishess may be related to the extemely unique, seemingly loveless (love is different from adoration) way he was raised. You have to wonder. James Hawkins | 07/15/09 | 10:16 AM
Yes these ideas could make some sense out of the strangeness of MJ's life. It's possible that being castrated, or having a muted puberty could effect someone mentally in the ways that Dr. Bailey describes. It's possible that being in the kind of mental state Bailey describes, could lead to castration. If none of these possibilities is true, then all we have is a intractable mystery, a man who behaved in a very strange way. Eccentricity and genius often go together, MJ was standard in that respect. Thankyou for the support. I just don't see what some people think this has to do with the "transcommunity". MJ went through a transition, but not of the transgender kind. Dont tase me bro Hontas Farmer | 07/16/09 | 19:47 PM
Basically it's connected because something unrelated he wrote offended you. Because he offended you that justified your calling the women he actually wrote about "crossdressers". I suppose you could say you were acting on this old "information", this oft repeated lie which revictimizes the only actual concievable victims in this affair.
Because he offended you no one anywhere should ever listen to anything he says about anything ever.
All that matters is that Natalie was offended and everyone else, including other simmilarly offended people it's seems don't matter. Only Natalie counts....you sure do seem to love yourself.
Here's some reading matterial for you Natalie. I think you should read and comprehend something about yourself.
in either one or the other of their artificial, sex fuelled pigeonholes, or we're liars. That, to me, is the height of arrogance, and if BBL is going to be allowed a mouthpiece, BBL opponents should be as well. This whole damn thread about MJ is just a continuation of Bailey's fetishes, as far as I'm concerned. Natalie (not verified) | 07/17/09 | 22:12 PM
Yes, exactly. Michael Jackson was not trans anything. Other than the most passing and tangential of mentions....this article has nothing to do with transsexual/transgenderism, nothing what soever. Natalie... What would it matter which one of Blanchards categories would most closely describe me? This isn't about me, and it isn't about you. The reason I pointed you to Lawrence's words on narcicistic rage is because you are acting like a rageing narcicist. You have taken something about Michael Jackson, a African American, non-trans, pop singer... and made it about a member of Canada's Airforce, namely you.
seems to be a working scientific method in America that a young man gets a business idea: It would be great to write a book about his adventures amongst the nonconformists and deviants, that are in accordance with his own perception of life in conflict with his heteronormative, cisgender supremacist prejudices. His only criteria is that it satisfies the vast bad taste of the majority and their prejudices. Later this young man can retire in the West sellind his own brand of penis enlargement pills. This time Bailey just followed his behavioral pattern or strategy. In order to get famous he wanted to surf with the publicity of a recently died celebrity. Because he needs to become famous, and transsexuals as well as Michael Jackson are only his hobbyhorses on his way to stars. Heli (not verified) | 07/18/09 | 02:12 AM
He's not writing about a transsexual he's writing about Michael Jackson! WTH! Dont tase me bro Hontas Farmer | 07/18/09 | 13:33 PM
It's so sad that they fail to realize how much damage they cause the community as a whole by being disrespectful of others. Any relevant discussion of this article is now almost totally impossible. I suppose that was their goal, and they've succeeded at that. But they've also convinced a number of people that Lawrence and Dreger are right. Even some people who had never heard of either of them before reading these comments. Hang in there, Hontas Lisanne Anderson (not verified) | 07/18/09 | 17:27 PM
But Michael Jackson isn't trans anything! WTH are you talking about? Dont tase me bro Hontas Farmer | 07/20/09 | 23:15 PM
is based on his own perceptions. The method is discriminating, similar method as the white men used to study the Orient. The method is based on Bailey's own assumpions and prejudices. Edward Said describes how the prejudices work in his book Orientalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism_(bo ok). Bailey represents to me the same colonization but based on cisgender sexism and heteronormativity. Heli (not verified) | 07/21/09 | 01:30 AM
I find this professor's work and that of those he seems to associate with very strange, they use big words to deliver what look like insults. "Autogynephile" (Man who wants sex with himself as a woman.) "Homosexual Transsexual (Seems to refer to Latino transsexuals the professor thinks are only fit for prostitution.). Everything he says seems to drip with hatred. When I saw Hontas farmer's link telling you to read an explanation, it read like "You feel hurt by this? that is because you are a dirty stinking pervert!!!" What have you transsexual people done to deserve that? Jennifer (not verified) | 07/17/09 | 19:40 PM
Don't feel sad for natalie. Natalie called the women that Dr. Bailey wrote about. People who did not like what he wrote, who complained about his conduct, formally, some of whom are listed on Lynn Conway's website as "transsexual womens success stories"... crossdresser's. She called them crossdressers that Bailey found in a gay bar. (look above for the link to her comment saying that) That's what she did to deserve what I called her. Or do the feelings only of certain people in the so called transcommunity matter? I have noticed a real current of hostility towards anyone who would remotely
fit/ have been said to fit a certain category. It is almost as if the mere existence of straight* transwomen offends certain other transwomen.
*Just to be crystal in this sentence I mean attracted to men. Given we are talking around BBL terminology that is necessary to write.
Yes and no. If he had said in his book.... "straight transsexual women may be especially suited to prostitution due to their male typical sex drive" Instead of "homosexual transsexuals may be especially suited to prostitution due to their male typical sex drive" I don't think it would have made much of a difference. However their is the fact that little more than token complaint has been given to anything that he said in relation to "homosexual transsexuals"/ straight transsexual women. As I said above, the needs and concerns of straight transwomen have been uniformly subbordinated to those of lesbain, and bissexual transwomen. With few exceptions many so called transacademcis and activist only care about how this whole thing effects them. Take a look at Natalie above. She felt perfectly justified to insult the transwomen that Bailey directly wrote about, most of whom he described as "homosexual transsexuals". People who really did not like what he wrote. As far as natalie was conerned they could have been the transkid "cloudy". The position of the person on Bailey's book did not matter. What mattered was if you were "one of those". You know let me level with everyone here. It's not that I particuarly like they way Dr. Bailey expressed himself. It's that so far part and parcel of the complaints regarding his book have been as much targeted at straight transwomen's life styles as they have been targeted at what Bailey wrote about them. Case in point the kind of attitude expressed by Natalie and many others.
So Dr. Bailey is saying that homosexual transsexual women, are not women but men, who have a male typical sex drive and are best suited for prostitution? I am probably misreading this somehwere, but I thought, from what I read on these blogs that the transsexual women objected to Dr. Bailey's work because he was saying they were in effect, just men living a sexual fantasy. As you are openly (And bravely) someone who is defined by these very terms, how do you reconcile yourself with this sexual model? I would probably feel very uncomfortable about it if I were in your situation. I am interested to know what value you see in Dr. Bailey's ideas when it comes to things like this. Jennifer (not verified) | 07/20/09 | 17:26 PM
I see, most of the complaints about Bailey's writings center on Autogynephilia so you have surmised that most of the women he wrote about in his book were called autogynephilic. That's not what happend at all. You wrote So Dr. Bailey is saying that homosexual transsexual women, are not women but men, who have a male typical sex drive and are best suited for prostitution? I am probably misreading this somehwere, but I thought, from what I read on these blogs that the transsexual women objected to Dr. Bailey's work because he was saying they were in effect, just men living a sexual fantasy.
He wrote that autogynephilic transsexual women were not feminine and were motivated by sexual fantasy. He also wrote that all non-homosexual transsexuals (bissexual, heterosexual, and assexual) were ipso facto autogynephilic. He wrote this about a transsexual woman he called in his book "cher". He wrote that homosexual transsexual women were natrually feminine and motivated by sexual attraction to
heterosexual men. He also wrote that homosexual transsexuals have the male ability to be satisfied by meaningless sex and therefore were "especially suited" to prostitution, shoplifting, and street life. Basically taking stupid risk not unlike young men. He wrote this about transsexual women he caleld in his book, Alma, Juanita, Maria, Kim, Terese, I may be missing one. As you can see there was plenty to complain about regarding what Bailey wrote about so called "homosexual transsexuals". However the complaints of straight transsexual women were largely ignored, and minimized. Afterall he said that we look better.
Reply to This
Link
One should remember that the opinions of mr. Bailey are not harmless. Insurance companies are willing to pay good money and honey for the research that supports them in their fight against the proper treatment of Gender Identity Disorder. Thus mr. Bailey is endangering the embursement of the treatment expenses, that insurances may not cover diseases of this kind that are in accordance with mr. Bailey's opinions, eccentric way of life, and the treatments elective cosmetic surgeries for perverted people, not necessary for the treatment of GID. For that kind of activity there is one word that describes it well, namely a carrion eater Heli (not verified) | 07/24/09 | 01:29 AM
Umm I think that plain ol transphobia or ignorance is responsible for insurers not covering SRS. There is also the idea that it is somehow elective, and the bias that people have against mental conditions. Beyond GID, mental issues are thoght of as being less real, less valid, and less a matter of treatment than a matter of snapping out of it. That general attidued towards mental conditions, which is what GID classifies being transsexuals as, is why we get trouble from insurers. Perhaps we could rally for a more compassionate world for those who are deemed mentally disordered across the board, instead of selfishly lobbying only for something that could benefit (marginally benefit) only our in group.
The high, breathy voice with the hyper-sincere tone was not his natural manner of speech. Reportedly, when he got mad or surprised, he manifested a "big deep voice." This suggests that the former, his public voice, was an affectation >this is what the media reported, and it's a speculation. Evidence needs to be presented to suggest that Michael Jackson's high voice was an affection. Not so, Michael Jackson's face, which resembled nothing in the actual human, living world. Moreover, it has seemed to me that there was something coherent about the redesign of his facecoherent, not normal suggesting that there was method in his madness. >many professionals agree that Michael Jackson suffered from Body Dismorphic Disorder. He always saw defects, especially his nose, in his appearance. He said during the interview he never looked at himself in the mirror. His scalp was severely burned during Pepsi commercial, and had vitiligo. If he indeed suffered from BDD, it is understandable why he had at least 13 plastic surgeries. "I am Peter Pan," he said, more than once. He lived in Neverland. His second wife, Debbie Rowe, said that in order to get in the mood to have sex with her, Jackson dressed up as Peter Pan and danced around the bedroom. She said: "It made him feel romantic." >this is also what the tabloid said. I doubt Michael Jackson had an intimate relationship with Debbie Rowe. They were probably good friends. Debbie said during the interview she offered to have his children. He didn't father them, but he is a father of these children after she gave up a sole custody. She gave these children to Michael as presents. (both Debbie and Michael said this during the interview) Am I seriously suggesting that Michael Jackson was a homosexual autohebephile whose erotic goals included resembling Peter Pan and having sex with pubescent boys? I sure am. >Once again, evidence needs to be presented to suggest that Michael Jackson was a homosexual autohebephile. In some sense, he may have actually believed that he was a boy. >Your theory and analysis are mere speculations. Michael Jackson probably felt he was a boy. He identified himself with pubscent boys. On a emotional level, he was a pubscent boy. That explains why he clicked with boys around that age than adults. Adults including his own father did him wrong and he didn't get normal childhood. He wanted to reexperience that normal childhood, and wanted to absorb that essences from
these pubscent boys. However suggesting that he was sexually arosed by the thoughts of being a pubscent boy or engaging in sexual acts with them is a baseless assumption. He also may have been sexually attracted to young boys, and if so, he probably molested at least one. His demons led him to do bizarre things that might still be comprehensible in light of my hypothesis. If any of us had been born with those demons, we might well have done the same or worse. >we do not know if Michael Jackson was really attracted to young boys sexually. We place so much emphasis on sexuality nowadays. sexual deviation is considered the norm than asexuality. Also pedophiles do not moest once or a couple of times throughout thier lives. it is extremely difficult for them to supress thier urges, so they tend to molest minors repeatedly. If Michael Jackson was sexually aroused by boys, he probably molested these boys who shared the same bed with him many times. Considering his status as a celebrity, there was no way to get away with it, IF he really molested children. He was aquitted of all charges, and after interacting with thousands of children, only two came forward as victims. He certainly made poor choices for sharing the same bed. He set himself up for the recent allegations. But I doubt he actually molested any children. In his own mind, children-especially prepubscent boys are the only people, whom he could relate to. Because he was still at that stage emotionally. It's quite common for boys around that age to do sleepovers. So Michael continued to state sharing a bed is the most loving thing you can do. In his mind, there was nothing wrong with sleeping with children. Because he did not associate that with sexuality. once again this is also my assumption, and the only person who knows what really happened is Michael Jackson himself-or those who were really close to him. I feel he was judged harshly because of his unusual appearance and erratic behaviors. But we shouldn't forget his efforts and significant contributions to the charities, and he is the biggest humanitarian activist as a celebrity. He was a musical genius and is one of the best performers of all times. He is on the guiness world record for his contributions as an artist and humanitarian activist. Y.N. (not verified) | 07/17/09 | 15:51 PM
I wrote on my own blog that I think Michael Jackson may have either been castrated, or suffered a medical condition which had the same effects as castration. That is totally different than Dr. Bailey's idea. I also wrote my blog before Dr. Bailey wrote his article. So how could I be shilling for him here? Oh I'm making the mistake of talking rationally to an irrational person...who self describes themselves simply as an "angrytrans".
If you and Natalie want to "not be silent and will fight back against these junk scientists, and push back to expose their insidious cultural missions", fine, good, whatever. But please do it in an appropriate forum. This thread is to discuss a particular blog about Michael Jackson. Many of us are struggling to reconcile a well-loved cultural icon with a person with obvious mental illness(es) and possible crimes committed against children. Your fight is about something else. Suzanne (not verified) | 07/18/09 | 05:37 AM
false...
amazingly, this professor wrote a research paper based on a tabloid report which later decleared to be
Reply to This
Link
It is rebellious to keep labelling people based on paraphilias they have. It is their private issue and need not be revealed or glorified. Those who do it are no more than foolish ruffians- so be it Dr. Bailey too. Cook (not verified) | 07/25/09 | 13:57 PM
I always say it is great to be a scientist as you must follow your results and publish them if they are controversial or not. However, if you fail to follow your results to avoid controversy, you should fire yourself and find another job as you are no good to science. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
I'm sure if a Michael Jackson fan was reading this he would be rather annoyed. But I could not care as your work is very convincing and I am quite agree with your conclusion.
Oh, and another thing. I was reading an article related to this I wish to recommend: http://searchwarp.com/swa456843-Are-Sexual-Behaviours-Of-People-TodayNormal-Or-Abnormal.htm
personal/sexual identity. By contrast, his hit songs were written to appeal to a larger female audience........one that wanted desperately to believe he was heterosexual. It is unlikely that Michael --- given his secrecy about his personal life, drug addiction and increasing alienation from the world ---- ever really had an enduring adult love relationship. This is profoundly sad. At least he was able to have a loving relationship --- albeit lifestyle --- with his children. I tend to doubt, in the end, that Jackson molested boys; none of the accusers were terribly credible. It is more likely that he was a frustrated gay man, possibly schizophrenic, and did have body dysmorphic disorder, as well as physical ailments such as Lupus and Vitiligo. Leslie (not verified) | 09/06/09 | 02:47 AM
Terrible article i can not believe I wasted my time reading this nonsense. It does not explain anything. It is purely based on your opinion. There is no real evidence to support any of your theories. It is not nice to speak ill of the dead and make up terrible stuff about them. Anonymous123 (not verified) | 07/30/09 | 10:58 AM
someone he wasn't. A sweet kid, a white person, Peter Pan. I can't imagine the high levels of wearing-out that this fact might have produced on his inside. Looking back at his early years, that was a time when he was a handsome black youngster with a wonderful smile, even with the big nose and the dark skin, he was very sweet. Do you think he may have also had an obsessive disorder -dysforia, surgical compulsions- a sort of OCD with made him wear an umbrella and a mask to avoid germs?? Not to mention his med addiction. I feel sorry for him and yet I strongly believe he never did any harm to no kid. Seems to me that Michael Jackson had no sign of sexual issues going on on his inside, just because he was a child inside. He might have suffered a lot and I feel pity for him. Molly Spain (not verified) | 08/01/09 | 23:49 PM
Oh wow, this is article is absurd! It really makes me sad, that people are still writing absurd things about him, even after he is gone. It's so terrible, he had to live through all sorts of crazy assumptions like this when he was alive as well.
For one, Michael Jackson did not have plastic surgery to look like peter pan or whatever! He had plastic surgery because he was very self conscious about himself, especially his nose, because his father abused him and made fun of his nose, saying it was gross, big, ugly and abnormal. He was speculated to have body dysmorphic disorder, which can make a patient have excess plastic surgery, and they are never satisfied with the results, so they keep on having plastic surgery. (Also, he did not bleach his skin, that was another nasty rumor about him - he had vitiligo) He did NOT have plastic surgery to resemble a boy, or to resemble peter pan! He was not attracted to boys, and he did not molest boys. There was no proof, and in fact, those boys that where supposedly "molested" by Michael came out and said they accused him for the MONEY! Michael Jackson was such a kind, caring person. He would never harm anyone, he loved children in a FATHERLY way! He was a normal person, and all these assumptions made about him are absolutely ridiculous, and it's terrible that people made, and keep making all these horrible assumptions about him. I'm so sick of people making assumptions about him! RIP MJ, an amazing person, father, dancer, singer, and humanitarian. He was such a kind soul. Anonymous (not verified) | 08/11/09 | 19:18 PM
I have noticed that some people have opted to remove their post here. I suppose they don't think they came across as well as they thought. Or is it an attempt to make it look like I just kept on replying to myself? I will keep my responses here for future reference. Dont tase me bro
Michael Jackson had part of his ear removed to help reconstruct his nose not to make his ears look like Peter Pan. I think all Michael Jackson's sexual energy was spent in dancing and having sex with the audience. I think he changed his face and appearance like actors change costumes to enter a new phase of his entertainment career. I think he wanted attention more badly than anything else in the world and would do anything to get it even shock people with statements like I sleep in a hyperbaric chamber, I share my bed with boys, and the 2nd half of the black and white video that was very sexual in nature. I think his case does not apply to most people because I think he liked spending time with children because they were the only people who didn't want something from him and accepted him like he was. I think the chances of him being a schizophrenic are greater than an erotic identify disorder which I kinda think sounds a bit made up. Anonymous (not verified) | 09/01/09 | 23:52 PM
PS
surgery. I think he desperately wanted his dad's love and tried to recreate father/son relationships with those kids. He wanted to be a loving affectionate father but people thought evil of it. Also, if he had his own kids earlier, he would not have befriended those families who tried to extort money from him. I do not believe MJ ever molested anyone. He slept in the same room with his 5 brothers until he was 10 so he probably could not sleep well without them around. I think he was desperately lonely. If you have ever been really depressed and low self esteem you know that you do not want to have other people judging you and you can relax and be yourself around kids because they do not judge. He did kiss his own chimp on the lips so maybe he is a little too demonstrative. He wanted a loving family with children. I really do think he was gay but it would have destroyed his career to come out especially with AIDS etc. Anonymous (not verified) | 09/02/09 | 00:06 AM
I am amazed that you expressed every one of my very uneducated theories on his mental condition. I was not familiar with the terminology, but had the exact same ideas about his appearance, behavior and his fervent and unrelenting desire to surround himself with all things children and childlike. I also made the connection between his affection for Peter Pan and his repeated plastic surgery to make his nose more narrow and pointed. Perhaps there was a dual disorder at work or perhaps the makeup he used helped him complete the look that surgery couldn't. Around the time he married Lisa Marie Presley he more greatly achieved the look than at any other time, even sporting a short Peter Pan hairstyle. I'm also not completely sold on the vitiligo excuse for the pale skin. Has anyone ruled officially that he had this disorder? I'm not inclined to believe any of the unethical physicians (dermatologists, plastic surgeons, etc) that he hired. From a purely scientific standpoint, certainly he has to be one of the most interesting physiological case studies. As a fan that grew up loving the Jackson's and Michael Jackson, I can better reconcile my feelings for him if I can conclude that he in fact had a disorder that made him do the things he did. It doesn't however help me reconcile the fact that I strongly suspect that children were victimized as a result of his illness. CCoy (not verified) | 09/04/09 | 05:56 AM
seem to get hollow as he aged or lost weight. 3. I do not believe his nose was detachable. if it was they would have said so in the real autopsy report, not the tabloid version. See Associated Press autopsy results Oct 1. 4. His children wearing mask I believe had to do with the fact that they could go out in public without him and no one knew who they were. Read the David Nordahl article. 5. One thing you did not address in your article was the 2 MJs. If he was a hepophile then how do you explain the verile man on stage. They are videos of MJ on stage performing having massive erections, and french kissing fans. Here is my take. MJ was on stage who he could not be off stage due to insecurities. I believe he was sexually attracted to women, why would he otherwise have stacks of heterosexually magazines. He often said he could sleep on stage and that is where he was most comfortable; therefore, his onstage persona is a crucial glimpse into who he really was. Offstage was the problem. I believe he was a virgin until he met Lisa Marie, due in part to his insecurities and religious beliefs (sex after marriage is a tenent of christianity). We also know he was most comfortable around children they fed something in his spirit. There is no hardcore CSI evidence to the best of my knowledge to link MJ to molesting a child, but where there is smoke there is fire, and I totally believe Jordan Chandler. I believe bacause he found it so hard to have a normal relationship with a woman, he turned sometimes to children to fulfill that closeness. Chinchilla (not verified) | 10/09/09 | 22:50 PM
that spent time at Neverland. Michael Jackson was an innocent man accused of terrible things he simply did not do. Can you imagine for a second how that would feel, and how you would go about proving your innocence? It's pretty hard to prove a negative, ie something that did not happen. This article belongs in a trashy tabloid magazine with all the other made up garbage. Anonymous (not verified) | 10/10/09 | 00:57 AM
You people need to do a lot more research before jumping to the conclusions you come up with on this blog. Yes, MJ was very different than 99.99% of people. That does not make him guilty of pedophilia. I do think that he was a virgin till he got married to Lisa Marie Presley but she has said that they had sex during their marriage. I do not think his marriage to Debbie Rowe was consummated, she was nothing more than a surrogate for his children. I do think it's unfortunate that Michael had such trouble relating to adults in his life. He may have been unable to relate to the people around him because everyone, including his own family viewed him as an ATM machine or a way to make money. The most recent example was the rabbi who published the tapes and book that were made in 2001. You need to listen to these tapes. What the rabbi did was exploitative of MJ. These tapes seem to be therapy sessions. Also, what purpose did the rabbi have to publish MJ talking negatively of Madonna if the purpose of the tapes was to publish a book to instruct parents on how to be better parents to their kids as the rabbi claimed. Even the rabbi betrayed Michael Jackson. Debbie Rowe took money ($10million) to have his kids. Michael was a very troubled man but I do not think he was evil. I refuse to jump to conclusions until all of the facts are in. Anonymous 3 (not verified) | 10/20/09 | 07:15 AM
Pan, I can do anything" while standing on a fountain at his Encino home in 1984 or around that time. He seemed very immature for a 25 year old man. . During his trial, he always would turn to wave to his fans that were at his trial daily supporting him. (I have never seen such committed fans in my life.) These "true fans" were there for him every day, yelling encouraging things to him such as "fight Michael, fight" and "Michael's innocent". At the end of the trial when he was acquitted he looked totally destroyed. Which was much different than the way OJ looked after he was acquitted (OJ was all smiles, didn't lose any weight, didn't look overly stressed out). Poor Michael looked like he was a broken man at the end of his 2005 trial. Compare him to Scott Peterson (who murdered his wife and unborn baby, he looked like he could care less). Would a man who was guilty of these crimes look so totally destroyed even though he was acquitted? MJ was never the same after that trial. His name was tarnished forever. He probably died of a broken heart. I really have sympathy for this man since he died so tragically, I sincerely hope his kids are okay. I think about him and his kids everyday. His story has really touched my heart. I want to believe so much that he is totally innocent of all of the garbage that was thrown at him. His music is amazing, I discover new music (new to me anyway) posted in loving tributes to him on youtube. I never dreamed this man was so talented. I am amazed at his body of work. I'll never forget Michael Jackson. He has definitely left his mark on this world. Anonymous 3 (not verified) | 10/20/09 | 08:17 AM
case. He was overexcited by his fan's presence and he reacted to them like a teenage boy would and did something stupid which he later regretted. The media made it seem like he was trying to throw the kid off the balcony. I saw no such thing. Watching that footage I sometimes wonder if MJ had very high function asperger's syndrome or some other disorder along those lines, he did not seem to be able to form adult relationships, he was very impulsive. He also went on an impulse buying shopping spree in Vegas. I have also seen an unauthorized interview with him where he spontaneously breaks into song and sings, "I'm Peter Pan, I can do anything" while standing on a fountain at his Encino home in 1984 or around that time. He seemed very immature for a 25 year old man. . During his trial, he always would turn to wave to his fans that were at his trial daily supporting him. (I have never seen such committed fans in my life.) These "true fans" were there for him every day, yelling encouraging things to him such as "fight Michael, fight" and "Michael's innocent". At the end of the trial when he was acquitted he looked totally destroyed. Which was much different than the way OJ looked after he was acquitted (OJ was all smiles, didn't lose any weight, didn't look overly stressed out). Poor Michael looked like he was a broken man at the end of his 2005 trial. Compare him to Scott Peterson (who murdered his wife and unborn baby, he looked like he could care less). Would a man who was guilty of these crimes look so totally destroyed even though he was acquitted? MJ was never the same after that trial. His name was tarnished forever. He probably died of a broken heart. I really have sympathy for this man since he died so tragically, I sincerely hope his kids are okay. I think about him and his kids everyday. His story has really touched my heart. I want to believe so much that he is totally innocent of all of the garbage that was thrown at him. His music is amazing, I discover new music (new to me anyway) posted in loving tributes to him on youtube. I never dreamed this man was so talented. I am amazed at his body of work. I'll never forget Michael Jackson. He has definitely left his mark on this world. Anonymous 3 (not verified) | 10/20/09 | 08:17 AM
compassion for the human condition more so than any other celebrity alive, or dead. I do not think he was pretending to be nice, or caring, I think that is who he was. I cannot bring myself to hate MJ even though I think something untowards took place with those kids. Even if the kids agreed to a romantic relationship with MJ, it could never be consensual. Minors can never be consensual to anything romantic with an adult, one has power over the other. I want to be clear. I do not believe any penetration occurred, only fondling, or something else. Lets open up the discussion. Journalist like Diane Dimond and Maureen Orth would have you believe that Michael Jackson was the vilest person on the planet, and the reason why they could never convince a die hard MJ fan is- it simply wasn't true. It is a bit jagged to swallow when you seen the man genuinely caring about the condition of ophanages, and even leaving 20% of his estate to charity. However, that does not mean he wasn't a pedophile. I am just saying he could have been both. It is possible. As for the erection video, I didn't go looking for it, it found me, and I was happy it did. I found it very entertaining, and it only further proved my point that Michael was onstage who he could not be off stage. When he was onstage he was a lion, and king of his domain. Off stage he was lamb around women. Now I do not believe for one second any ridiculous theories that he was gay. He was very much heterosexual, they are just too many examples to pull from. Ian Halperin's book is trash. I am researching everything Michael Jackson. I find him fascinating. In life I was not that interested, but in death I realized a whole different side. I must say if I had to choose 5 dinner guest alive, or dead he would be my second pick after Jesus. Chinchilla (not verified) | 10/26/09 | 17:54 PM
It is hard to believe that someone that loved children that much could purposely hurt them. Experts say that pedophiles do not believe they are hurting children, instead loving them. Still, if Michael Jackson was a pedophile he would have had to know that he was hurting a child. he was too intelligent and well read, also his children were so well brought up. Who knows the truth. I am still to be 100% convinced.
naked female mags. Or the Rabbi Shmuley tapes. Or, the simple fact that Michael Jackson lived under a microscope if he had a gay lover, really there would be irrefutable proof. There is no way he would have been able to hide it . As for the way he looked. What do you say about Prince? Nothing about Michael Jackson was ordinary. The long hair was a wig because he was balding. As for his attraction to little boys I cannot definitively say what that was about. Hundreds of little boys passed his way, but only had 3 accusers. 3 is enough for me. Zero is a better number. I have an unsubstatiated theory about Michael Jackson and little boys. I said it before and I backed it up with evidence: Who Michael Jackson was onstage was would he could not be off stage. The onstage persona was his altered ego. Just like Superman and Clark Kent. Chinchilla (not verified) | 10/27/09 | 21:11 PM
"The thing is we can keep on guessing and guessing but we'll never know the man, or the truth." Of course we will know the truth the truth always comes out. A key to understanding Michael Jackson is reading the lyrics of his music, keeping in mind when they were written. I think the truth is already out there, it is just up to a clever, dilegent person to put all the pieces together. Chinchilla (not verified) | 10/27/09 | 21:31 PM
prove nothing happened? There was no evidence of anything untoward but the media crucified him anyway. It haunted him until the day he died. What a terribly sad ending to a pure hearted soul that wanted nothing more than to please people and make the world a better place. If you want to hear the other side of the story, which the biased media never reported, read Aphrodite Jones book, "Conspiracy", or the GQ article "Framed" for the truth... http://floacist.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/gqarticle-was-michael-jackson-... Anonymous (not verified) | 10/28/09 | 02:52 AM
Correct me if I am wrong here.............the music star Prince is not gay. Had a long relationship with a woman named Appolonia and has been living with (or married to) a long-term girlfriend/wife for some time; he also has children, presumably HIS own sperm cells.
There are millions of explanations for the porn stuff found in the house, like for example the alibi to support a straight behaviour. Maybe he wasn't gay nor straight. Maybe he just didn't like sex and that's it. Maybe he hadn't reached maturity in that aspect either. Anonymous (not verified) | 10/28/09 | 18:11 PM
While yes, Lisa Marie Presley seems to be a straight shooter, we can't be sure of this. She married Michael, perhaps for love but she admitted that he manipulated her. She may have entered into an arranged marriage to help him during the child molestation lawsuit --- and fell in love because he "snowed her" (her quote). Maybe she doesn't want to divulge his real proclivities (men, boys?) because she then would have looked the fool. Note that on Larry King, during the 2005 molestation trial, she was not outwardly supportive of Michael and dodged alot of Larry King's questions to her. Maybe Lisa Marie Presley knew more than we do, and not about having sex with Michael. Anonymous (not verified) | 10/29/09 | 00:15 AM
life, they'll never realize how lucky they were. Wherever you are Michael, I hope you can enjoy the happiness you couldn't have in life. Anonymous (not verified) | 10/29/09 | 20:55 PM
Michael's marrige to LMP was a "business arrangement"? Are you seriously buying that? LMP did not need that kind of "business arrangement", she did not need the money, she had PLENTY of her own. More to the point if he wanted a business arrangement, and a make-believe wife he could have married Debbie Rowe in 1994, and inseminated her back then. "Why not sexual with women?" I've covered that ground already. Chinchilla (not verified) | 10/29/09 | 22:17 PM
partner, and frequently broke away to dance by himself. He freely admitted that he had had his nose and chin done, but emphatically denied doing his eyes or his jaw. The strange, angel look that he had was natural, but abnormal. It might have been hormonal in nature, but might also have been another symptom of some savant or autistic spectrum like disorder. In his autobiography, he mentioned that he thought he was abused more often than his brothers because he fought back with his father. A child fighting back against a much larger, very enraged parent is typically a child with serious social reasoning issues, e.g. with autistic features. Neurotypical children will typically try to placate an angry parent. In the early part of his career, after he left Motown, where questions and answers were rehearsed -- he would not answer reporters questions directly. Janet, his younger sister, was to be heard repeating questions for him. A reporter was warned that Michael would be de-focused and behave strangely, when he was a teen. Janet was obviously very experienced at covering for him from an early age. Michael was a great genius. The amount and quality of his compositions was extraordinary. But there are only so many neurons in the brain. If some abilities are extraordinary, they are going to be accompanied by deficits. I don't think gay explains all this at all, or pedophile either, or auto-hebo whatever it was. People with these issues can pull themselves together for an interview and look normal for the camera. Michael usually could not. He was simply unable even to recognize what would look normal -- just as Einstein always had that bizarre hair do. I say some kind of developmental delay. I believe this delay could have been caused by a childhood genital injury -- but likely also it stemmed from neurological issues. I say he played with children, because his deficits made it impossible for him to interact properly with adults. I say he squandered his money, because his deficits made him unable to keep track of anything other than his art. Anonymous (not verified) | 11/09/09 | 01:18 AM
There are 2 parts... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRY8HAhodXg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kgp9EFBE8MQ&NR=1 From everything I've researched over the years, I only see an exceptional, sensitive, and gifted man that was sadly and grievously misunderstood. It's a shame some people, like these pseudo-scientists, are still writing tabloid-like articles to try and tear him down, even after death. Anonymous (not verified) | 11/09/09 | 06:57 AM
If MJ had abused of children, lots of them would have come out saying so. Don't you agree? M. (not verified) | 11/13/09 | 22:26 PM
generous. Also, if I were a mother and seriously considered that I was being victim of a bribery just in order to let my son 'be' with Michael Jackson, I would run away from him and his world, no matter what, of course without taking no gift. So if you take his presents as a bribery, they speak badly about the receiving part, too. I don't think Michael was the angel his diehard fans think, yet he was an unusual generous artist. His attitude was different -and bizarre, and worrisome. I agree the Martin Bashir stuff was a sad giveaway for Michael. Those who knew him, tell that bizarre things were normal nature in him. I like Michael Jackson a lot and since he died I'm interesting in getting to understand him, but try as I might, I can't. The baby episode you refer to, was really weird and everybody thought so -even the fans. Anyway, while Michael in her early career surrounded himself by John Branca and Frank Dileo, he achieved success as these men were intelligent and knew how to do bussiness - if you read the Taraborrelli book, it's amazing how Branca coped with Michael, and convinced him to always make the best decision, as for example in the Jehova's rejection of the videoclip Thriller . But the minute he dismissed these men, the minute he fell down. To myself, yes he maybe had some mental issues, which were agravated in his 40s-50s. But it doesn't mean he was a child molester or a bad person. I've read he was obssessed with the image he gave in the public eye. The only think I can't work out, is why he spoke about his innocent sleepovers with kids, if this is by far what ruined his image the most. Clearly he lost touch with reality. What did he wanted the kids to sleepover? Still, I think if some kid would have anything to say, he would come out saying it, specially now that he's passed away. In the Randy T. book, it tells that Michael, as a capricious person, 'changed the kid' when he got 'tired', and the mothers were like competitors between them, each one wanted his kid to be the favourite, and everytime there was a 'change of kid', the mothers would try to get next pole position. I mean, as in a 'contest'.- It's crazy, isn't it. Another point is that I don't think he slept with no woman or man or had any affair. I think so because again, if any woman or man would have had sex with him, now that he's dead, someone would come out and say it. As for the Rabbi tapes, well these tapes doesn't surprise me, Michael keeps talking all the time about the lost childhood, the love for children. If the rabbi wanted to give a bad impression of MJ by writing the book, he doesn't, on the contrary. It isn't however hard to imagine how was like to be Michael and why did he lost his plot. He was the number one in his field. His ego was miles away from us. The most balanced mind can lose stability when you are the best at what you do. M. (not verified) | 11/14/09 | 13:08 PM
Reply to This
Link
The entire theory is based on the writers belief that Michael Jackson wanted to look like Peter Pan. (and a little reference to the ever reliable tabloid magazines) Should they be wrong about that assumption, the theory is left with nothingsibbo (not verified) | 12/01/09 | 18:46 PM
my body slows down and I hate the feeling. Worst of all I do not feel like I can cope with the world around me like everyone else does, I simply can't hold a conversation with people. In part I believe this has to do with social anxiety but I don't know. Sometimes I click and I can talk for hours but I will return to my shyness eventually where I am the most comfortable. I am myself at home, but I cannot help changing my appearance (I do not Identify with the person I see in the mirror since it has changed so much in the last couple of years), I want to look different from everyone else, most importantly I think I am running away from who I was since I hated the feeling I had of myself growing up. I am a tad narcissistic and I know this but the cause of it is my appearance and the fact that I was able to do all this things which I assumed had to do with some great achievement on my part. If I am like Michael Jackson which I am assuming I can probably be the closest thing living today aside from some of his other fans I will say that what is of interest and what may seem important to the author of this article is my sexuality. I am not gay nor bi nor even asexual and maybe not even straight. Let me explain, when I was younger I used to be attracted to all the girls and I had a very strong sexual appetite. But I was ugly, I was ridiculed and I became extremely shy and due to certain situation could was isolated. I never got a girlfriend. Which led me to find other ways of handling my sexuality myself. At one point in my life I simply kept doing what anyone else would and kept watching porn and other things until eventually at one point I got bored with everything sexual. I lost my sexdrive at around the age of 18, it has never returned I've had spurts but no actual desire for sex. I thought at one point I might be gay but this proved to not be true. Later on I actually had sex at the age of 23, I got lucky, however, having already lost most of my sexdrive to probably some mental state or lack of being around people, I actually figured that sex was work, it was not pleasurable at all. Also interesting to note, I think a lot about my body, how I move it, what I feel, and what I am doing with it, when I have sex I thinking of all the feeling I have raging through me, it is not some mindless mechanism or act that I do like it might have been when I was a teenager it has turned into some calculated act of motion when I manipulate through my mind. Sadly this has led me not to enjoy sex, and I cannot simply shut my mind off of my body so every single one of my motions is a tad calculated. Something I think Michael Jackson might have experienced. Also hormonally I think I might have something wrong with me but I am not sure. I am almost entirely not physically attracted to anyone. No one meets my ideal of beauty except for this almost childlike girl that was fully mature but her body seemed not to be she was 19 when I met her and I was 21, Now before I am judged a pedophile or hepaphile or whatever, I was attracted to her appearance and not sexually towards her, I attempted to make moves on her but could not and would not have sex with her, and because of that she left me. I am devoid of sexual desire but can hold an erection and ejaculate all almost at will. I seem to be normal sexually except I don't tend to have any sensations of sexual pleasure before or after orgasm. It is my belief that Michael Jackson was the same as me. I however, do not like the company of children, though I can get along with them better than with adult, I believe Michael sought out children mainly due to his desire for human contact rather than for sexual indiscretions. Over the course of my time spent in isolation I will state that I have seemingly gone kinda frustrated and sought out attention and I created this almost fictional world around me.
However, sadly the events of the last couple of years have shattered the world around me and I am now at a loss and I have come to realize that my world existed in my head only. By the way in order to describe me, I am a quiet person almost all my life, I tend to try to make myself look like a girl yet remain a bit masculine. I have a voice that is high which in part I created because I didn't want to offend anyone or speak over them, partly cause I was shy and used to talk in whispers, so I spoke softly, I now speak in this tone exclusively and cannot lower my voice naturally but at times it sounds lower. I am skinny and wish to stay like that because I feel like I can move better and my body hurts less if that makes sense. I have sorta bleached my skin over the years do to insecurites, I was born really tan a hispanic male who was always around white people and grew insecure. But in addition, now a days I just like my skin tone to stay bright and shiny because I stand out and my face looks different when I look paler albeit I cannot keep my skin entirely white but only on some occasions, now that I am older I no longer care about whether or not I have tan skin because of racial issues but because I like the look. By the way, it was never my intention to bleach my skin, just keep it washed so that it glowed and I had a glow, surprisingly this led me to loose some pigmentation overtime, which I have attempted to keep that way, I believe this is why Michael Jackson looked a shade lighter during his bad era as opposed to his thriller era. I do not know whether or not Michael bleached his skin thereafter during his dangerous era. I am unsure if that was his intention. If given the opportunity to bleach my skin I would have considered it do to the fact that it might remove the stigma around looking a certain way. I have long hair and I used to adore it more than I once did because it has the ability to alter the way my face looks and the way that I move. In the end, I simply believe Michael Jackson was like me sexually. After having spent so many years obsessing over sex I simply lost my desire for it do to not being able to create or manifest any relationship with anyone. Later one as I grew older I simply found myself no longer attracted to anything eventhough I have tried, and am now just coping with life and trying hard to love who I am. Case and point I love altering my body opposed to having sex. I get a rush when I look at myself in the mirror which I can no longer get from sex or any other stimulus except maybe music I do not wish to lose this feeling so I oppose over my face. Sorry if this is long and the grammar is horrible I wrote this rather fast just wanted to state something that nobody else might understand. Something Interesting (not verified) | 12/23/09 | 13:19 PM
Dr. Bailey, You should base your research on facts, and not tabloid rumors. For example, you based part of your "research" on the myth that he never invited little girls to these sleepover from 16 years ago. Karlee Barnes, Marie Nicole Cascio, Allison V. Smith, and Mandy Porter are the names of some of these girls. Does knowing that little tidbit change your conclusion? It is obvious you didn't do any fact checking before writing this paper. Marie Orth is not a credible source for anything. Everything she writes is a lie! By the way, to the poster claiming that Jimmy Safechuck was an abuse victim. It is not true. That is just a very old tabloid rumor. In fact, Safechuck got married at his ranch. The FBI files were released last week. The federal government investigated him for 10 years. If there were evidence of "hush money" paid out to people the FBI would have discovered it. LM (not verified) | 12/31/09 | 03:52 AM
over my anxiety disorder and phobias. By now, maturity has sort of helped curb it. When I was in grad school, I had some more cash than I do now...so I guess I'm still paying the price now. Sorry, were we just talking about MJ and anglo-erotic-philia? (sorry that was bad) dweebisis (not verified) | 01/09/10 | 00:38 AM
Obviously his "legacy" is being boosted by the family and record company who need to, if it were true or not, cash their chips while they can.To listen with glee to music partially made by a person who has been associated with child abuse is degenerate. It is a sad day for humanity when a person accused of child abuse is not dogged with interrogation until very clear,certain affirmations of the facts are understood. It shows people don't care, degenerate. D Jonas (not verified) | 02/10/10 | 00:05 AM
The world needs to wake up to sexual predators and not sweep it under the rug like so many regular Churchgoers, or in this case, Sycophantic Emperor's Servants do (defining the very term "fan"). Obviously his "legacy" is being boosted by the family and record company who need to, if it were true or not, cash their chips while they can.To listen with glee to music partially made by a person who has been associated with child abuse is degenerate. It is a sad day for humanity when a person accused of child abuse is not dogged with interrogation until very clear,certain affirmations of the facts are understood. It shows people don't care, degenerate. D Jonas (not verified) | 02/10/10 | 00:06 AM
imagery with negative (Blood On The Dancefloor). The more you look at it,the clearer it is. The world needs to wake up to sexual predators and not sweep it under the rug like so many regular Churchgoers, or in this case, Sycophantic Emperor's Servants do (defining the very term "fan"). Obviously his "legacy" is being boosted by the family and record company who need to, if it were true or not, cash their chips while they can.To listen with glee to music partially made by a person who has been associated with child abuse is degenerate. It is a sad day for humanity when a person accused of child abuse is not dogged with interrogation until very clear,certain affirmations of the facts are understood. It shows people don't care, degenerate. D Jonas (not verified) | 02/10/10 | 00:06 AM
Reply to This
Link
I totally agree with you on your statement. I feel so bad for Michael and people like him, who are judged so harshly without people really taking the time out to get to know the individual. How could thousands of people who don't know him suddenly have such insight into "him" and the people who knew him and loved him not really know him? That's BS. Everyone who ever spent time with him, had nothing but good things to say about him. How normal he was, how much fun, how compassionate, how loving, how manly. I would think they would know more, seeing as they did actually spend time in his presence and all. People can be so cruel. Nikki (not verified) | 02/16/10 | 16:08 PM
First off for those who keep on waffling their OWN speculation that Michael Jackson was a paedophile, go and do some THROROUGH research behind the surface of the media and stop living in ignorance regarding the accusations. 2 good books - Eye openers are, 'Redemption', by Geraldine Hughes, (Truth behind the 93 Allegations)and, 'Michael Jackson Conspiracy' by Aphrodite Jones, (05 trial, the things we did not HEAR/SEE, straight from the court transcriptsEXPOSES the Arvisos for what they truly are). There are TWO sides to EVERY story and for those who are still stuck on the first page and want to get closer to the truth your own independent RESEARCH! Read deep! Here is a starter pack in video form! Jay Leno interviews Attorney Tom Mesereau on "The Tonight Show" - Part 1 of 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cf01v8zDkwk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd1Sv0rz3oI Michael was FRAMED? Michael Jackson Extortion Plot Exposed! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzTntSJot_8 Inside Michael Jackson's trial 1/5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNwbO4uQbYY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXv01YQeeeU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV2uWYefU5s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8hUtn1EGhQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZLRk9WD-6k Aphrodite Jones and Thomas Mesereau: The 'Michael Jackson Conspiracy': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIwehjDPOYU PROOF WITH WITNESSES THAT MICHAEL JACKSON WAS INNOCENT! Michael Jackson Extortion Plot Exposed!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo8wtn-KtwI Now. This article is quiet sick and again, self-assuming and judgemental and some of comments, just as bad!! Since Michaels passing, it seems I have observed many aspects of the human psyche of some people across many forums, articles and in comments regarding Michael Jackson. And yet, here is another one, including some of the comments. The way some continue to pick apart, analyse, psycho-analyse, criticise, antagonise, ostracise, penalise, judge, condemn, make fun of, poke fun at, scorn, ridicule, (I could go on and on), this human being - as if he was some alien from another planet, (and some have already suggested very much the same in their own words.one even stating in an article, something to the affect of he no longer seemed to serve a meaningful function as a human being)How SICK is that?
Who the hell do these kinds of people, (youll if you are one of them), think you are to throw so much dirt at this man/the memory of this man, with such self-assured and often downright self-righteous convention? Unreal and truly sickening to observe this kind of human nature. It is like I am a bystander - observing all this sinful, dehumanising, crazy talk about the man, and I have come to the conclusion that it is truly these kinds of people who are the real *Wackos. I dont EVER recall witnessing so much pathetic and sinful psycho-analyses and judgemental ramblings toward an individual in my whole 47 years on this earth. I am truly saddened and with certain aspects of our so-called, humanity. Some of you need badly need to stand back and slowly observe your own demeanours/characteristics and judgmental traitsfar from perfect and certainly no better than the human being that was Michael Jackson a person who never judged anyone, regardless! Angie (not verified) | 03/07/10 | 15:49 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIwehjDPOYU PROOF WITH WITNESSES THAT MICHAEL JACKSON WAS INNOCENT! Michael Jackson Extortion Plot Exposed!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo8wtn-KtwI Michael Jackson was INNOCENT! PROOF! Tom Mesereau Had Witnesses Ready to Testify Against Chandler http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BhNd3C7dCc Now. This article is quiet sick and again, self-assuming and judgemental and some of comments, just as bad!! Since Michaels passing, it seems I have observed many aspects of the human psyche of some people across many forums, articles and in comments regarding Michael Jackson. And yet, here is another one, including some of the comments. The way some continue to pick apart, analyse, psycho-analyse, criticise, antagonise, ostracise, penalise, judge, condemn, make fun of, poke fun at, scorn, ridicule, (I could go on and on), this human being - as if he was some alien from another planet, (and some have already suggested very much the same in their own words.one even stating in an article, something to the affect of he no longer seemed to serve a meaningful function as a human being)How SICK is that? Who the hell do these kinds of people, (youll if you are one of them), think you are to throw so much dirt at this man/the memory of this man, with such self-assured and often downright self-righteous conviction? Unreal and truly sickening to observe this kind of human nature. It is like I am a bystander - observing all this sinful, dehumanising, crazy talk about the man, and I have come to the conclusion that it is truly these kinds of people who are the real *Wackos. I dont EVER recall witnessing so much pathetic and sinful psycho-analyses and judgemental ramblings toward an individual in my whole 47 years on this earth. I am truly saddened and with certain aspects of our so-called, humanity. Some of you need badly need to stand back and slowly observe your own demeanours/characteristics and judgmental traitsfar from perfect and certainly no better than the human being that was Michael Jackson a person who never judged anyone, regardless! Angie (not verified) | 03/07/10 | 15:56 PM
If a man in your neighborhood was always offering to take boys of that - or any - age range away for weekend trips or sleepovers, no one would think twice about reporting him to the police. and no one has that much facial altering surgery without having serious issues, which is unrelated to the pedophile issue nina (not verified) | 03/23/10 | 02:57 AM
Sorry to disappoint but Michael Jackson did not have any psycho sexual disorders. I know this to be true because my housekeeper worked for him in Bahrain. She, along with her friends that worked for him, have repeatedly said that he had girlfriend who was with him most of the time. Sometimes she would go to Europe or America for short periods but most of the time she was with him and they shared a bed. It was a normal man/woman relationship they said, She was a blonde caucasian woman, younger than him. This is supported by many other people who live in Bahrain as he would be seen out with her occasionally. My husband's employer in Bahrain spent a lot of time with Michael. H claims Michael told him on more than one occasion that Lisa Marie Presley was the love of his life but that he was too immature at the time they were married and that he made a lot of mistakes mostly over not knowing how to compromise and deal with conflict. Michael Jackson was eccentric, highly creative and very bright. He understood show business, it was all he knew. He understood the value of mystique and he cultivated it to the extreme - which is why you have written this article. He was extremely stubborn apparently. He said that he made a promise to himself that once he got free of his father he would never allow anyone to tell him what he could or couldn't do again. This could explain his poor judgement on occasion and why he found commitment anixety forming. As far as the skin bleaching myth is concerned, the autopsy report states that he did indeed suffer from vitiligo as well as lupus. Neither was he castrated according to the autopsy report. His genitalia was normal and he produced sperm. Unfortunately Michael Jackson will continue to be an easy target for the ignorant, the naive and rigid thinkers of this world. It is only their loss that they cannot understand what an outrageously gifted human being he was and why he is so loved and grieved for by so many. Chris (not verified) | 03/15/10 | 06:05 AM
Reply to This
Link
Beside facts provided from other people, I find one more thing interesting. You've said he wanted to be a Peter Pan, he even had a plastic surgery of his ears?! ARE YOU KIDDING US WITH THAT PICTURE?!!!! Is it possible that you don't know MJ had a doubles, and ears are exactly one of physical characteristics we can recognize in what picture real MJ is and in which one is a double?! Check out pictures from This Is It, you'll see his ears are same as 20,30 years ago, as they were for all his life! I can't believe you are profesor and scientific person! Anonymous (not verified) | 05/08/10 | 15:56 PM
I cannot take this seriously. You only did this to gain attention. Period. Anonymous (not verified) | 05/26/10 | 03:24 AM
He (Sneddon) was a parishioner at the Santa Barbara Mission when it was revealed in the early 1990s that 34 boys had been sexually molested by 11 Franciscan friars who helped run St. Anthony's Seminary next door to the Mission. "Pat (McKinley) and I used to go to church up there, and we were clueless, just clueless" of the molestation cases back then, said Mr. Sneddon, speaking of himself and his second-in-command. " He was clueless because he was too busy focusing on Michael Jackson then REAL PREDATORS. For the TRUTH on Michael Jackson there is NEW MEDIA IN TOWN, youtube MJMedia09 http://www.youtube.com/user/MJMedia09 MJMedia09 (not verified) | 05/26/10 | 19:06 PM
that I have seen. How would anyone learn to deal with losing, not just lightening, the pigment of their skin? Of course you may change the way you look when you have to deal with something like that on a daily basis and you have everyone on their dog following you for photos. Has anyone failed to mention how other African American men have straightened their hair? Let's see, again, James Brown and none other than Prince who also sports a long mane at times. Both like the ladies, too. There are so many other lies in this blog that I cannot even attempt to address. Pointed ears? Looking like Joseph? The comment about Debbie? WTF!? People who tend to write literature like this blog tend to be reflecting points about themselves. Is that saying something about you, sir? Anonymous (not verified) | 05/27/10 | 01:02 AM
statement? He was better looking than you could ever aspire to be. Go and research a subject that you know something about before you open your trap to spew such venomous garbage and pass it off as a scientific report. Anonymous (not verified) | 05/28/10 | 10:13 AM
friends, you might be a little better informed. Michael consistently remained someone who not only talked about healing the world with love, but demonstrated this throughout the whole of his life in the way he lived it. His humility, generosity, tolerance, compassion, dedication, tolerance, humor, creativity, art and just amazing talent will be forever remembered. I will miss him always. Shame on you for your small minded, pseudo science. So inaccurate it's laughable! And what's so sad, is many will agree because of the tabloid trash they believe. Just like you. Jenny (not verified) | 07/04/10 | 03:47 AM
Perfectionism (undergoing cosmetic surgery and behaviours such as excessive moisturising and exercising with an aim to create an unattainable but ideal body and reduce anxiety. Body modification may change one's appearance. This is repetitive, or focused on one or more areas or features that the individual perceives to be defective Drug abuse (often an attempt to SELF-MEDICATE). (In 1993 he admitted he went to rehab because of the abuse of certain medications) Feeling self-conscious in social environments; thinking that others notice and mock their perceived defect(s). Strong feelings of shame. Social and family withdrawal, social phobia, LONELINESS and self-imposed social ISOLATION. Major depressive disorder symptoms. Avoidant personality: avoiding leaving the home, or only leaving the home at certain times, for example, at night. This disorder have some compulsive behaviors such as: Attempting to camouflage the imagined defect: for example, using cosmetic camouflage, wearing baggy clothing, maintaining specific body posture or wearing Hats. (Explanation for the surgical mask) Use of distraction techniques: an attempt to divert attention away from the person's perceived defect, e.g. wearing extravagant clothing or excessive jewelry. Seeking reassurance from loved ones. Excessive dieting or exercising, working on outside appearance. (It's known that most of the time, he ate only once a day) Obsession with plastic surgery or dermatological procedures, often with little satisfactory results In extreme cases, patients have attempted to perform plastic surgery on themselves, including liposuction and various implants with disastrous results. Eating disorders, such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa, are also sometimes found in people with BDD Around 37% of people with BDD will also experience Social Phobia[14] and around 32% suffer from obsessivecompulsive disorder.[14] The most common personality disorders found in individuals with BDD
are avoidant personality disorder and dependent personality disorder, which conforms to the introverted, shy and neurotic traits usually found in BDD sufferers. Cause. BDD usually develops in adolescence, a time when people are generally most sensitive about their appearance. Psychological Teasing or criticism: It has been suggested that teasing or criticism regarding appearance could play a contributory role in the onset of BDD. While it is unlikely that teasing causes BDD (since the majority of individuals are teased at some point in their life), it may act as a trigger in individuals who are genetically or environmentally predisposed; likewise, extreme levels of childhood abuse, bullying and psychological torture are often rationalized and dismissed as "teasing," sometimes leading to traumatic stress in vulnerable persons.[15] Around 60% of people with BDD report frequent or chronic childhood teasing.[15] Parenting style: Similarly to teasing, parenting style may contribute to BDD onset; for example, parents who either place excessive emphasis on aesthetic appearance, or disregard it at all, may act as a trigger in the geneticallypredisposed.[15] Personality Certain personality traits may make someone more susceptible to developing BDD. Personality traits which have been proposed as contributing factors include: [17] Perfectionism Introversion / shyness Neuroticism Sensitivity to rejection or criticism Avoidant personality Common locations of perceived defects Skin (73%) Hair (56%) Weight (55%) Nose (37%) (sounds familiar?) _______________________________________________________________________________________ He always said he felt ugly, even in his latest years. The most recent comment was in 2003, in the infamy Bashir interview. That part was behind the scene but now It's all over youtube. "Body dysmorphic disorder causes sufferers to believe that they are so unspeakably hideous that they are unable to interact with others or function normally for fear of ridicule and humiliation about their
appearance. This can cause those with this disorder to begin to seclude themselves or have trouble in social situations. More extreme cases may cause a person to develop love-shyness, a chronic avoidance of all INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS". I don't think his surgeries had anything to do with your pan-sexual theory, especially for the fact that you used some of the tabloids to build your little argument. His ex-wife Debbie said WHAT? Once again, a Tabloid believer. Anonymous (not verified) | 09/06/10 | 20:06 PM
It was ridiculously overpriced at the time, which did make Jackson look like he was being a jerk. If you tell me you want to buy a television at a garage sale and it is $200 and I show up and offer $1000, it's hard not to feel like there is a hidden agenda in your desire. They were pretty good friends prior to that. Now, Jackson was nuts so it may have been an homage that he wanted to own the Beatles rights - and the only good stuff in the Beatles was written by McCartney. But any time you not only outbid the creator of the content, but bid multiples over its assessed value, you are opening yourself up to dislike. Yes, McCartney has some money but he did not spend it foolishly. His kids went to public school and contracts in the 1960s were not like the 1980s - unlike Jackson, who obviously overspent on many things, McCartney never had to declare bankruptcy because he did not bid emotionally on work that his
friends wanted.
Jackson bought the rights as an investment - hardly a "nutty" decision. Prices on valuable items like artwork are jacked up all the time. The rich bid on items considered to be an investment. Prices are based on what the market will bear. Michael had the foresight and willingness to spend money to make money. As far as anyone knows he never used his rightd to the Beatles music contained within the catalog and if he did, he owned them in a legitimate business deal. A double standard here - Michael is "nutty" for making his investment - anyone else would be applauded. Your rationale doesn't wash considering price wars and bidding houses exist and only reflects bias. None can say he bought it to own Beatles' music - he only needed a trip to the record store. Paul was cheap - and stupid - plain and simple. paulie (not verified) | 09/24/10 | 18:09 PM
and no he really doesn't care that much for peter pan.... or at least not like that. What gets him horney is when a woman drops her clothes and he's said that. He isn't homo or any of those other things but he does get horney but only with women and not men or boys. He has never done anything nasty around me and I think he's a very handsome and very attractive man (for women) but he is just scared or shy to have a girlfriend and also I have a relative with a voice softer then his so suck my cock. Sorry but that made me a little mad about the voice and actually it all did but I am not really pissed off. I am just telling you the truth but who will believe you when you say that the most famous man in America is alive??? Nobody thank God, I want Mike to be my friend and if you cause him to come out of hiding then our friendship will be destroyed and I will make you pay so shut up about everything I say. Mike is off drugs and he has been since March I think they said. Also he gets to see his children and family too and he will see his kids this month for Christmas. Also I like Peter Pan too and I am not gay so shut your fucking mouth. Anonymous (not verified) | 12/09/10 | 00:39 AM
this topic is way too complex to be just explained under 2 pages or a comment. your effort was good, but ultimately, it will take ages for this to be settled for good. to conclude, IMO, MJ was probably a homosexual or bisexual, who was both attracted to adults men and teens/pubescent boys. as for adult or young woman, i don't know. i also think that he did not abuse anyone because he was just too much a child living on the neverland and on fairy tales. and had he ever had, he probably would had it in a child-like regressed form, feeling as a young, ie, an identity disorder just like you put it, which probably does not qualify as a crime, but rather as a psychological problem which needs proper diagnosis and care. PS: i'm not sure you intended to be homophofic or not... Anonymous (not verified) | 12/23/10 | 21:30 PM
i found this article both sad and interesting http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196009/Im-better-dead-Im-How-Mi... i'm sure there's a lot more buried somewhere. but the truths always come out. Anonymous (not verified) | 12/23/10 | 22:15 PM
I strongly disagree with you. In my perspective, I believe Michael had his surgerys, yes because he wanted to look more child like, but not for the reasons you believe. He never had a childhood and he believed the
media liked him better as a child. Also, all of the child molestation accusations were later reported as false and he was never accused guilty in court. Anonymous | 01/24/11 | 22:34 PM
they saw him with women UR BS IS WRONG Anonymous (not verified) | 03/06/11 | 22:08 PM
Anonymous
Homepage:
Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite><TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe><u><span> Lines and paragraphs break automatically. Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
Notify me when new comments are posted All comments Replies to my comment CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.
Post Comment
Preview
KNOW SCIENCE AND WANT TO WRITE? Register Now To Get Your Own Column! WHAT'S HAPPENING
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Top Articles New Comments SB News New World Record: Calculations With 14 Quantum Bits Is That A New Massive Particle ? Is That Some Kind Of Higgs ? The Jet Energy Scale As An Explanation Of The CDF Signal Portioning Your Stash Safely Without Chemical Scale Survival Of The Stupidest 8 Great Scientist Pranksters It From Bit - Entropic Gravity For Pedestrians
Roberto Bolli discusses cardiac stem cell treatment for heart failure at Cannon Lecture Scientists develop 'universal' virus-free method to turn blood cells into 'beating' heart cells Reformed Medicaid program must put coordinated care at forefront of efforts Americans' views of college access varied, often inflated NIH researchers identify cause and new treatment for common recurrent fever in children more
When Will Japan Quakes Stop? Science Braces for Shutdown Lethal Drug Export Halted Breast Cancer Gene on Trial The Future is Hard to Predict