I disagree! Look at "Queens" with one of the greatest rock band ever!
According to Brooke Shields, MJ was asexual?
- Thread starter elegant20
- Start date
I disagree! Look at "Queens" with one of the greatest rock band ever!
He was ashamed of his race and not just color....features too. Lip surgery, nose surgery...it wasn't just "skin condition." African-Americans should have disowned him because, like O.J., he disowed us.
John Estes
Experimental Member
I've always believed he was asexual and I don't see anything wrong with that.
Rest in peace, Michael; you were the greatest.
Rest in peace, Michael; you were the greatest.
BigDallasDick8x6
Admired Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2006
- Posts
- 3,881
- Media
- 6
- Likes
- 861
- Points
- 333
- Location
- Dallas TX (North Oak Cliff)
- Sexuality
- 99% Gay, 1% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Interesting that none of the people who "know" that Michael didn't have a sexual encounter of some kind have responded to Shad's excellent point above.
I used to know someone who is good friends with a well known commedienne (and had a pic of them together) who was friends with Michael and after the first child molestation charge she told him that "Everyone [meaning the people that know him] know's Michael is a chickenhawk."
"Chicken" doesn't imply underage though, at least in my book.
It's interesting that the discussion is falling into two camps --
1) He was the greatest, leave him alone (a la the crying Britney boy), he never did anything wrong in his life
2) I'm sick of hearing about it, he was a child molester, who cares?
My personal viewpoint is between those two extremes and in my experience all Truth is usually somewhere in the middle. He was probably the greatest entertainer of all time. I think his dancing / choreography skills exceeded even his musical skills even though I like almost everything he wrote or sang. I think he had a terrible childhood and a tragic life. However, I do feel he was probably (none of us were there) guilty of the charges. Nevertheless, I still like him as an entertainer even if I don't agree with all his choices in life. I also have very good friends whose choices I don't always agree with either, but we are still friends.
I think saying he was either good, good, good or bad, bad, bad is an extreme viewpoint. Very few of us are entirely one or the other. He was human. A genius, but still human.
Fredro
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Posts
- 266
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 26
- Points
- 163
- Location
- Crescent City, Florida
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
All the Jacksons had plastic surgery at some point in their life. Hell, even Jermaine's face looked like plastic to me and I believe he is bald, anyway. Look at that painted-on spray on the sides of his head. He must be losing his hair and the guy would be 55 years old on December, thinking he is 20-something all over again. It was just that Michael was an easier target than the siblings. He was the one with most job done. Well, unless you include LaToya, then that's a different story.
B_henry miller
Expert Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2007
- Posts
- 2,917
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 180
- Points
- 193
- Location
- Big Sur, California
- Gender
- Male
Apples and Oranges.
First of all, the band is called "Queen." Second of all, there is no comparison. Michael Jackson was an international mega-star, perhaps the biggest the world has ever known. Queen had some great songs and Freddie Mercury was amazing. But they never even came close to Michael Jackson. Michael Jackson would not have had the massive crossover appeal he'd had internationally if he'd come out of the closet.
Then, there is the demographic. Michael Jackson is black. He started off thoroughly in the black community. I remember the advice Denzel Washington gave Will Smith for his role in "Six Degrees of Separation." Denzel said, "Don't be kissing no man!" Denzel told Will Smith that the black community has so few major stars that they tend to take their on-screen behavior for their real behavior, and that if he kissed a man then the black community would see Will Smith as gay, and this would hurt his career. Go watch Six Degree of Separation and you won't see a kiss between Will Smith and Anthony Michael Hall. It's edited out. The black community is deeply Full Gospel, Baptist, etc., which often also means deeply homophobic.
I don't think Queen was ever largely embraced by the black community. I think it was Queen was an outgrowth of glam rock, a community in which it was seen as cool to be bisexual, as Freddie Mercury was.
I think it was Time magazine that published an article saying that Michael Jackson neutered himself purposefully. The article says that the American public has a fear of black male sexuality, which is why Michael Jackson portrayed himself as a Peter Pan who never grew up and did not have an adult sexuality. He knew that if he was too open about his adult sexuality that he, as a black man, would be percieved as a threat. (Odd as this sounds, some of our drug laws in the US are a result of the racist beliefs people had about black male sexuality. In the early 20th Century Marijuana was believed to be dangerous because it would inspire black men to rape white women.)
I remember Eddie Murphy saying back in the early 1980s that America had no problem with Michael Jackson taking Brooke Shields to the Grammy's because he was perceived as harmless. But they wouldn't like to see him, Eddie Murphy, take her to the Grammy's, "Because they know Brooke would've gotten fucked that night."
So, it wasn't just that he was gay that he had to keep from mainstream America, but that he as a black man had an adult sexuality.
Michael Jackson: The Man in the Mirror | Newsweek Culture | Newsweek.com
The thing about Freddie Mercury is that earlier in his career he would have slept with anyone(male or female). He was known as a swinger and he knew it. It didn't matter to him whom he slept with. He even tried marriage, but for as long as there was a man involved. However, the woman was not interested and he was turned down by her. It was in some interview. I need dig which one it was. It was during the 70s, though. But the sad thing is that what got him AIDS when he died.
And you all know that Freddie Mercury was the first choice to do the duet between Michael Jackson for "State of Shock" before Mick Jagger came in the picture.
And you all know that Freddie Mercury was the first choice to do the duet between Michael Jackson for "State of Shock" before Mick Jagger came in the picture.
Last edited:
According to the court transcripts, the description was *inaccurate*, including the fact the boy claimed he was circumcised. The autopsy confirmed he was *un*circumcised, as was also mentioned at the trial.
D_Lachtmadder Longhorne
Account Disabled
Brooke knew him when she was what 13 and he basically chaperoned her and some tiny actor to something, but at 13 asexual is what she was, not active, interested, not pursuing, wondering, but no sexual vibe because she was a child-and he was way older than her so of course he'd be asexual to her (as in not coming onto her), she was jail bait and way too young. He was being decent. Whatever he did in private doesn't matter anymore, he's dead.
Anyone seen that Joe Jackson interview with Larry King? I swear, his education seems stems from scummerty, if there is such a word. If he didn't have his prize that was Michael Jackson, he would have been an uneducated and abusive trailer park trash old man still living in Gary, flapping his gums at his other children like circus trainers. The way the man is speak is horrid. His lawyer/crook Rowe was no better.
DiabloBoi
Admired Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Posts
- 557
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 864
- Points
- 323
- Location
- Liverpool (England)
- Sexuality
- 80% Straight, 20% Gay
- Gender
- Male
B_henry miller
Expert Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2007
- Posts
- 2,917
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 180
- Points
- 193
- Location
- Big Sur, California
- Gender
- Male
Bury the Never Ending Myth of Jackson as Child Molester
by Earl Ofari Hutchinson
Political Analyst and Social Issues Commentator
Posted: July 8, 2009 08:11 PM
Websites, blogs and chatrooms pulsed with garish cracks about it. Legions of commentators and news reporters snuck it in every chance they got. More than a few of Michael Jackson's fervent admirers and supporters made a dismissive reference to it. Even President Barack Obama in a cautious acknowledgment of Jackson's towering contributions to American music and artistry still made reference to the "tragedy" in Jackson's life which was a subtle nod to it. And New York Congressman Pete King skipped the niceties and flatly said it.
The "it" is the never ending myth of Jackson the child molester. It still hangs as a damning indictment that feeds the gossip mills and gives an arsenal of ammunition to Jackson detractors. This is not a small point. In the coming weeks, there will be a push to bestow official commemorative monuments, honors on and a national stamp for Jackson. The taint of scandal could doom these efforts to permanently memorialize Jackson.
The child molester myth doesn't rest on Jackson's trial and clean acquittal on multiple child abuse charges in a Santa Maria courthouse in June 2005. Only the most rabid Jackson loathers still finger point to that to taint Jackson. The myth of Jackson as child abuser rests squarely on the charge by a 13 year old boy a decade before the trial and the multi-million dollar settlement out of court. The settlement, then and now, feeds the suspicion that Jackson must have done something unsavory and probably criminal, or else why settle?
Sixteen years later, though, the facts remain unchanged. The charge that Jackson molested the boy was brought by the boy's father. In interviews the boy repeatedly denied the charges. This changed only after he was administered sodium amytal, an invasive, mind altering drug that medical experts have frowned on and courts have disregarded in witness testimony.
Prosecutors, police departments and investigators in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara spent millions of dollars, convened two grand juries and probed nearly 200 witnesses that included 30 children, who knew Jackson to try to substantiate the charge. Not a single corroborating witness was found. Nonetheless, a motley group of disgruntled Jackson's former housekeepers, attendants and bodyguards still peddled the story to any media outlet willing to shell out the cash that Jackson had engaged in child sexual wrongdoing. Not one of the charges was confirmed. Typical was this exchange between one of Jackson's attorneys and one of the accusing bodyguards under oath:
"So you don't know anything about Mr. Jackson and [the boy], do you?" "All I know is from the sworn documents that other people have sworn to."
"But other than what someone else may have said, you have no firsthand knowledge about Mr. Jackson and [the boy], do you?"
"That's correct."
"Have you spoken to a child who has ever told you that Mr. Jackson did anything improper with the child?"
"No."
"Where did you get your impressions about Jackson's behavior?"
"Just what I've been hearing in the media and what I've experienced with my own eyes."
"Okay. That's the point. You experienced nothing with your own eyes, did you?"
"That's right, nothing."
When asked at the time about the charges against Jackson, child behavior experts and psychiatrists nearly all agreed that he did not fit the profile of a pedophile. They agreed that the disorder is progressive and there are generally not one but a trail of victims.
The myth of Jackson as child molester never hinged on evidence or testimony to substantiate it, but solely on the settlement. Why then did Jackson agree to it?
No charge stirs more disgust, revulsion, and pricks more emotional hot buttons than the charge of child molestation. The accusation stamps the Scarlet letter of doubt, suspicion, shame and guilt on the accused. The accused can never fully expunge it. There is simply no defense against it. Under the hyper intense media glare and spotlight that Jackson remained under, the allegation no mater how bogus would have been endless fodder for the public gossip mill. This would have wreaked irreparable damage on Jackson's ever shifting musical career and personal life.
A trial in Los Angeles in the racially charged backdrop of the Rodney King beating, the L.A. riots, and pulsating racial tensions in the mid-1990s would have been risky business. A trial in staid, upscale, and majority white, Santa Barbara County would have been even more risky.
Jackson and his attorneys knew that when it came to the charge of child molestation the presumption of innocence, or even actual innocence, is tossed out the window. Though Jackson did nothing wrong, a trial would have left him, his reputation and his career in shambles. The settlement was the only pragmatic, logical and legal way to end the sordid issue.
The settlement under extreme duress must not sully his name and place as an honored American icon. The myth of Jackson as child molester must finally be buried.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His weekly radio show, "The Hutchinson Report" can be heard on weekly in Los Angeles on KTYM Radio 1460 AM and nationally on blogtalkradio.com
http://earlofarihutchinson.blogspot....ackson-as.html
-Hutchinson is correct! It's a "myth" indeed and it's something that continues to come up with the detractors when it comes to Michael. Unfortunately, I think it for people to believe MJ is innocent once and for all two people have to come forward. Unforutunately, I don't think it'll happen, but I'm glad other people can see that MJ was innocent and that he wasn't a monster like so many like to claim.
by Earl Ofari Hutchinson
Political Analyst and Social Issues Commentator
Posted: July 8, 2009 08:11 PM
Websites, blogs and chatrooms pulsed with garish cracks about it. Legions of commentators and news reporters snuck it in every chance they got. More than a few of Michael Jackson's fervent admirers and supporters made a dismissive reference to it. Even President Barack Obama in a cautious acknowledgment of Jackson's towering contributions to American music and artistry still made reference to the "tragedy" in Jackson's life which was a subtle nod to it. And New York Congressman Pete King skipped the niceties and flatly said it.
The "it" is the never ending myth of Jackson the child molester. It still hangs as a damning indictment that feeds the gossip mills and gives an arsenal of ammunition to Jackson detractors. This is not a small point. In the coming weeks, there will be a push to bestow official commemorative monuments, honors on and a national stamp for Jackson. The taint of scandal could doom these efforts to permanently memorialize Jackson.
The child molester myth doesn't rest on Jackson's trial and clean acquittal on multiple child abuse charges in a Santa Maria courthouse in June 2005. Only the most rabid Jackson loathers still finger point to that to taint Jackson. The myth of Jackson as child abuser rests squarely on the charge by a 13 year old boy a decade before the trial and the multi-million dollar settlement out of court. The settlement, then and now, feeds the suspicion that Jackson must have done something unsavory and probably criminal, or else why settle?
Sixteen years later, though, the facts remain unchanged. The charge that Jackson molested the boy was brought by the boy's father. In interviews the boy repeatedly denied the charges. This changed only after he was administered sodium amytal, an invasive, mind altering drug that medical experts have frowned on and courts have disregarded in witness testimony.
Prosecutors, police departments and investigators in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara spent millions of dollars, convened two grand juries and probed nearly 200 witnesses that included 30 children, who knew Jackson to try to substantiate the charge. Not a single corroborating witness was found. Nonetheless, a motley group of disgruntled Jackson's former housekeepers, attendants and bodyguards still peddled the story to any media outlet willing to shell out the cash that Jackson had engaged in child sexual wrongdoing. Not one of the charges was confirmed. Typical was this exchange between one of Jackson's attorneys and one of the accusing bodyguards under oath:
"So you don't know anything about Mr. Jackson and [the boy], do you?" "All I know is from the sworn documents that other people have sworn to."
"But other than what someone else may have said, you have no firsthand knowledge about Mr. Jackson and [the boy], do you?"
"That's correct."
"Have you spoken to a child who has ever told you that Mr. Jackson did anything improper with the child?"
"No."
"Where did you get your impressions about Jackson's behavior?"
"Just what I've been hearing in the media and what I've experienced with my own eyes."
"Okay. That's the point. You experienced nothing with your own eyes, did you?"
"That's right, nothing."
When asked at the time about the charges against Jackson, child behavior experts and psychiatrists nearly all agreed that he did not fit the profile of a pedophile. They agreed that the disorder is progressive and there are generally not one but a trail of victims.
The myth of Jackson as child molester never hinged on evidence or testimony to substantiate it, but solely on the settlement. Why then did Jackson agree to it?
No charge stirs more disgust, revulsion, and pricks more emotional hot buttons than the charge of child molestation. The accusation stamps the Scarlet letter of doubt, suspicion, shame and guilt on the accused. The accused can never fully expunge it. There is simply no defense against it. Under the hyper intense media glare and spotlight that Jackson remained under, the allegation no mater how bogus would have been endless fodder for the public gossip mill. This would have wreaked irreparable damage on Jackson's ever shifting musical career and personal life.
A trial in Los Angeles in the racially charged backdrop of the Rodney King beating, the L.A. riots, and pulsating racial tensions in the mid-1990s would have been risky business. A trial in staid, upscale, and majority white, Santa Barbara County would have been even more risky.
Jackson and his attorneys knew that when it came to the charge of child molestation the presumption of innocence, or even actual innocence, is tossed out the window. Though Jackson did nothing wrong, a trial would have left him, his reputation and his career in shambles. The settlement was the only pragmatic, logical and legal way to end the sordid issue.
The settlement under extreme duress must not sully his name and place as an honored American icon. The myth of Jackson as child molester must finally be buried.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His weekly radio show, "The Hutchinson Report" can be heard on weekly in Los Angeles on KTYM Radio 1460 AM and nationally on blogtalkradio.com
http://earlofarihutchinson.blogspot....ackson-as.html
-Hutchinson is correct! It's a "myth" indeed and it's something that continues to come up with the detractors when it comes to Michael. Unfortunately, I think it for people to believe MJ is innocent once and for all two people have to come forward. Unforutunately, I don't think it'll happen, but I'm glad other people can see that MJ was innocent and that he wasn't a monster like so many like to claim.
D_Lachtmadder Longhorne
Account Disabled
Well, the two who extorted mega bucks out of M.J. should hang their heads in shame for what they did, because innocent or not it DID ruin the remainder of his life. What goes around comes around, and the adults of the children who were encouraged to perjure in court to gain money will live to regret it you'll see. What you sow so shall you reap, I hope that we all get to see it when it does happen. Who will be pointing the finger then.
do you know what i am finaly going to post it.
How the fuck do you know wether he was a child molester or not?
I am a victim of childhood abuse. It started when I was 8 and went on till i was 17 and was commited by a member of my familiy.
It wasnt till I had a break down years later and the truth came out that it turned out and came out it had also happened to my older brothers..
The person in my family who commited these sick sins upon society was an inlaw and even closes member of my family had no idea what was really going on, so how the fuck can Fans who have nothing to do with michael Jackson and know nothing about him apart from the love of his music and be obssessed with and the personna pleade his case and for inncocence.
Trust me it's not normal for anoyone to buy their innocece and thats the real deal of it.
None is ever going to know the real truth now wether MJ was for real or not. The only thing that is for certain is is that he was a music legend in is own right and for that he is right to remememberd.
As for anything else like trying to say that he was the greatest humantarian of our lifetime or he is the greatest loss to mankind is just a crock of shit.
There are to many valid unaswes questions that still need addressing, one of the first being the real paternity of those poor children.
Love the guy for what he achieved but never forget the paths that he walked!!!!
Last edited:
We should know something in about a week or so. It looks like MJ couldn't sleep and his personal Doc (that was hired by AEG, the promoters of his 50 concerts) gave him Propofol and he never woke up from it. :frown1:
