Michael Jackson: Should he be revered?

Remove all ads!

My reverence is more along the lines that I always held out hope that he would get help and become (something close to) normal again. To realize and take stock of the depth of his weirdness and make amends to those he may have hurt. Yes, I was a fan of his, especially when I was younger - but I never excused his behavior towards those kids. That's a big part of why I always hoped he'd find redemption.

 

A thought struck me the other day that would explain quite a lot of things in Michael Jackson's life. What if his abusive father or even Michael himself castrated MJ before he got into puberty? No-nuts MJ would explain the high voice, his lack of growing up, his complete lack of body hair, his non-adult body and his identification with small boys. He exhibited many of the signs I know of a castrati singer. None of his children are obviously his, sure the more you mix the paler you get but Michael's "children" do not have a touch of "negro" in them.

 

Haha that made me laugh, and think...

It could possibly be true, would explain a lot.

 

IMO it think his music sucked...every single bit of it. His dance moves weren't anything to write home about either...sure he "invented" the moonwalk, but seriously, when have you ever seen anyone do that in the past 20 years? Oh yeah, then there was the child molestation...while he never was convicted in court, I think it's pretty obvious that he was a serious perv.

Michael Jackson and Billy Mays are two people I'm glad to have off this world. I would gladly trade them both to have the young Farrah Fawcett back!

 

Billy Ocean invented the moonwalk

 

Not to be overly graphic, but I am about 60% sure that there was no penetration involved with MJ and the boys he slept with. Props to Michael if he didn't. But being in bed with a much older man fondling you is still not good for little boys (or little girls, for that matter.) It's still damaging -- extremely damaging.

It's one thing when a kid is scared and comes to cuddle with a parent. It's totally different when it's a stranger and it's the stranger actively seeking out such intimate contact.

Nog:

Yes but most kids don't sleep in the same bed. Certainly when my daughters had sleepovers I never had them sleeping in the same bed as their friends. That may have been the norm 50 years ago but it really isn't now, IMHO.

Jackson was warped by his odd life, and he didn't have much control over the early part of it, but his later actions, coupled with the fact he could have easily afforded extensive counselling rather than seeking solace in the arms of little boys, makes me think quite poorly of him as a human being.

 

Was it too 80s? I know for a lot of people the 80s sound is out of favor and not very cool, atm. Or do you dislike the soul and Motown genre? As I mentioned on another thread, I can appreciate the genre, but I'm not a big listener. I have very little of it in my own collection.

 

This is true, but you have to remember that people who are sick rarely realize it. Part of their sickness is that their behavior is abnormal and destructive, and yet they believe it to be correct and rational, and it's everyone else who's the crazy one. In MJ's case, he probably saw his affection for children as the only rational way to be - to love children unabashadly in a world where so many children die of starvation, disease, abuse, etc. He was dead wrong in terms of the most healthy way to express that love however, big time, IMO. But if no one around him was trying to convince him otherwise, they were simply unsuccessful at convincing him he needed help, or were just too weak of character to even try for fear that the gravy train would stop, then it's understandable (though not forgivable) that his condition would deteriorate so much, without him personally ever seeing the need for therapy.

I think we can all agree that Michael Jackson's situation was definitely unique.

 

There seems to be some disfunction here -- "props to Michael if he didn't"? No respect at all if he didn't, none is necessary. I've never had a parent, who pick up their kid from a playdate with my kids say, "I really respect you for not penetrating my child."

"No penetration" is a basic requirement for child care;failing to follow that simple rule is criminal. Following the 'no penetration' rule is called being a normal adult -- no respect, no thanks, and no kudos are necessary.

 

Good point.

 

No, he didn't. He first did it with "Billie Jean" in 1983. The moonwalk has been around since the 50's. Marcel Marceau used it all the time. James Brown did it in 'The Blues Brothers" (1980). David Bowie did it in the 60's.

I saw kids doing the moonwalk on streetcorners in the 70's.

 

The two strangest things about all of this are that he didn't have a will, and that he is currently $50 million in the hole. Of course, an albumn and a tour could have fixed the latter problem. I don't revere MJ, but that's because I don't revere any musician. In fact, I'm one of the few people who don't listen to music. I went on vacation last week with my family, and it was the first time I listened to music in weeks. I cannot say that I'm not a fan of MJ's music, as I'm not really a fan of anyone's music.

Wouldn't the autopsy have revealed this?

 

Jackson also owned the Beatle's catalogue. I know Paul really disliked that. They are in the process of resmastering all the Beatle's recordings (for years now). I'm sure that's going to be worth big bucks once the new recordings are released.

 

It's a shame with all the money the Beattles made during their time that they couldn't outbid a money powerhouse like MJ for their own catalogue. Unfortunately the Beattles got big too early to make the massive fortunes that later entertainers of the same fame did. Though, I don't see why anyone would try to outbid them on their own stuff. That's just Greedy...

 

You are quite right, BoV. Here is more on what may have happened:

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/MichaelJackson/story?id=7952215&page=1

 

Aldeth it would probably reveal it to the people who did it but are they at liberty to divulge what they find in the corpses they cut open?

 

Probably not, but i'm sure for the right price.....

 

Geez, guys. What I meant was that it is obviously a good thing if he didn't penetrate them -- if he had the urge to do so and he didn't (that is to say, he resisted the urge), then I am glad that he at least didn't cross that line.

It's kind of like being grateful to someone for not killing the kid in terms of ridiculousness, I understand, but I believe that as damaged as the kids are, it would have been worse had he penetrated them in any way, shape or form.

 

I think they would have such a liberty. Is it all that different to report that he ODed on drugs in terms of invasion of privacy? I do remember an news story a few years back where members of this religious cult were voluntarily surgically castrated and that was all over the news. The reason we knew they were castrated was it was discovered during autopsy. (This was the religious group that committed mass suicide when a comet came by, and they thought there were aliens or some other rubbish with the comet and they had to kill themselves for their spirits to meet up with the comet. - Yeah I know it sounds looney - but so is voluntary castration IMO.)

 

It is loony but was a moderately common practice not so long ago to castrate young boys with nice voices for them to keep it and be able to reach tones no one else could. These boymen were the great stars of their time. It is just a crazy theory of mine that this is what MJ did but it sure has a certain logical appeal.