Michael Jackson

I haven't seen Leaving Neverland yet, but I have seen clips and read articles about it.

MJ had been accused several times in his life of child sex abuse, and was found not guilty in court. But...the accusations persist after his death. At this point, I think that at least some of them are probably true. He can't defend himself this time though, if they're not true.

MJ appealed to kids. Who knows why? I liked him when I was 12, too. I adored him. I had a huge poster of him in my room. As I got older I found the theatrics cheesy and the successive plastic surgery strange...then, I came to appreciate his talent again...while acknowledging that he was pretty weird. There was some eccentricity that seemed to come from arrested development. Yet, I didn't know the guy. Those are just opinions based on very little.


I don't want to believe he was a child molester. But, maybe he was. And if he was, he was a sick individual. His friends say he was gentle and kind and generous...can both be true?

If MJ was an abuser, is it still okay to appreciate his talent for what it was - taking into account the whole scope of his life and personhood- parts of which were sad and abusive for him as a child - he didn't have much of a childhood and his father was strict and authoritarian and groomed he and his siblings into stardom ...or do we have to bury his music? What about other artists and entertainers like Spacey or Louis C.K.?

Jackson's accusers stories are worse, in that they paint a picture of Jackson with "kept" boys... held captive on his ranch... While their parents allowed them to go there because it was Michael Jackson and he was offering their kids a future.

For a long time I wanted to believe he was just a big kid who never grew up but never hurt anyone, and he was wealthy enough to be able to live like Peter Pan...that's why he called his ranch Neverland. It's harder to believe he could've been totally innocent now though. Especially after watching his sister LaToya in an old clip, essentially saying she thought he was guilty.

Believe me ... due to infinite connectivity ... humans are not well! It is a relational syndrome that is not well associated with ... kind of mental ... and I'm told by authority that the psyche is in essence not existential!

Is that oude of here or what ...

Does Jackson being a child molester make Thriller any less brilliant or iconic? No, it should not. Anymore than Lovecraft's racism and classism make his stories any less brilliant or iconic in the horror genre.

It does, however, mean we cannot unquestioningly revere Jackson as a person simply on the basis of that creativity. We have to look at all facets of his life, both bright and dark. One can be a great creative talent and still be a terrible person.

Thunderous applause to he in the attic pounding on the keyboard ... and yet disturbing the entire house!

Does elite entrance to university and elite justice raise lowered eyebrows? They too be hairy ...

Given the circumstance to look aside from powerful err ... there's nothing Nu ...

Could he have been both a terrible person and a good person? He’s not here to speak for himself.

I watched an interview, about a year old, with his oldest son, who seems remarkably well adjusted. His other two are pretty typical kids but I can’t imagine this is easy for any of them.

There are lots of people who knew him and continue to insist that he’s innocent and that this post mordem documentary is a hit job. And then there’s Oprah who hung out with his kids and his mom for an interview a couple of years or so after he died, being all supportive, as did her bestie Gayle King...and now she’s interviewing the accusers from the film. Seems opportunistic. I just don’t know. He was weird, a broken person and an artistic genius...I go back and forth as to whether I think he was guilty. The accusations have been going on for so long, and he was acquitted in court.

Whether this is true or not I find it odd that movies are allowed to reveal or defame another persons character without due process in a court of law.
He was found not guilty when it was brought to court for some charges....should we be faulting the court system also?
This is a strange world when this is allowed.....that movie should never have been allowed to be released IMO.

If we can’t separate the art from the personal issues of the artist...there’s going to be less and less to appreciate. After looking up MJ...comments and articles came to my attention about David Bowie allegedly having sex with groupies barely out of Junior High (which seems so gross - but it’s not like we didn’t know rock stars had young groupies - yet he remains one of my favourite musicians of all time)...and Jimmy Paige and Robert Plant...and Mick Jagger...who I read a long time ago, had a bad past with underage girls. It seems like it was sort of endemic in rock n roll.

Waterfall said:

Whether this is true or not I find it odd that movies are allowed to reveal or defame another persons character without due process in a court of law.
He was found not guilty when it was brought to court for some charges....should we be faulting the court system also?
This is a strange world when this is allowed.....that movie should never have been allowed to be released IMO.

Click to expand...

I’m inclined to agree.

Why is nobody questioning the parents who let their kids stay in MJ’s bedroom, in his bed with him? That seems negligent. And weird to allow, even if he didn’t molest them.

Kimmio said:

Why is nobody questioning the parents who let their kids stay in MJ’s bedroom, in his bed with him? That seems negligent. And weird to allow, even if he didn’t molest them.

Click to expand...

Again this may be based on heresay...we dont know.

Waterfall said:

Again this may be based on heresay...we dont know.

Click to expand...

No. He said himself that kids slept in his bed. He was interviewed on camera with one of the kids who slept in his bed, saying it was “natural and loving”, and other parents let their kids stay with him even after allegations were coming out. I want to believe they were innocent slumber parties...that he wanted to act like a kid not molest kids... but that, we don’t know.

Im starting to wonder if theres a racial undertone to charges being brought forward in such cases....is there a higher ratio for black men being charged than white men? Or is it just my mind running amuck?

Kimmio said:

No. He said himself that kids slept in his bed.

Click to expand...

Okay...I assume that means while he was in it too?

Waterfall said:

Whether this is true or not I find it odd that movies are allowed to reveal or defame another persons character without due process in a court of law.
He was found not guilty when it was brought to court for some charges....should we be faulting the court system also?
This is a strange world when this is allowed.....that movie should never have been allowed to be released IMO.

Click to expand...

The US cult of absolute free speech makes banning anything almost impossible there as much as some try. The estate could sue for libel, though, and get it stopped that way. Not sure why they have not (or maybe they have and I have not seen it).

Mendalla said:

The US cult of absolute free speech makes banning anything almost impossible there as much as some try. The estate could sue for libel, though, and get it stopped that way. Not sure why they have not (or maybe they have and I have not seen it).

Click to expand...

There are laws against defamation of character....movies should not be exempt.

Waterfall said:

There are laws against defamation of character....movies should not be exempt.

Click to expand...

Which are civil laws requiring the defamed person, or their estate in this case, to sue as I suggested. If the defamed doesn't sue, then nothing happens.

The world is full of heroes with feet of clay.

Guernica is one of my favourite paintings of all time. I think it must have had a significant positive impact on the world pacifist movement, by its very existence. OTOH, Picasso had some really really s**tty relationships with women that suggest a deep misogyny.

In terms of public response, at this point I don't think it matters. I do hope those who were abused can get any treatment they need covered.
I remember some of the abuse allegations in the 90s. Some of the stuff would have come out before what I even knew what sexual abuse or rape even was, I was lucky where it wasn't something I needed to know as a kid. So when I did hear about some of it later, I still didn't really understand it and I figured if he was doing those things more would have been coming out. I put much of it down to him doing inappropriate things due to his own issues, but not actually abuse and that certainly coloured my views on it for quite a while.

As for those coming out publicly now I think that's tricky. It's unfair for someone's reputation to be falsely tarnished. If people are abused though, shouldn't they be able to do what they need to in order to deal with it? When someone is treated like an amazing person, or their talent coming up often, etc. I can understand the desire for someone who was abused by them to vocalize "hey look at these bad things that they did".

The problem is that those claiming abuse have largely been ignored or even attacked by his fans over the years, which makes it unlikely they've received any help or support. More likely, they've been told they are delusional and need treatment for that, and not that kindly. If the abuse happened, they've effectively been abused again by the repeated failures to deal with that abuse over the years. And with Jackson gone, they may never get what they need short of suing the estate.