- Joined
- Dec 29, 2005
- Posts
- 4,588
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 130
- Points
- 183
- Location
- Plimoth Plantation
- Sexuality
- No Response
- Gender
- Male
I am no great fan of pop music. I floated through the 80s only knowing of Jackson's success from a peripheral point of view. I recall once watching the Thriller video which was quite clever. But that's it.
Yet I found Jackson immensely interesting as a human being. I found him interesting in his ability yes but more in his eccentricity. It made him profound to me. His music was listenable from my point of view. But I'm not beginning this thread to discuss his abilities as a performer and a musician.
As I watch the early morning shows (now -I think sadly - eclipsing Farrah Fawcett's death) I'm interested in getting to the root of who he was as a man.
Last night I met with about twenty of the guys with whom I work.
Without a single exception they said "that perv got what he deserved" (or some version of that sentiment). When I voiced an entirely differing point of view the conversation came to an abrupt stop. I could see the venom shooting my way in the glances of my co-workers (several of whom I've known for nearly twenty years). My take was certainly not a popular one.
Is it as simple as human stupidity? Or is it simpler for many to believe that Michael Jackson was what Americans love to deem a "paedophile"? Oh how so many love to apply that moniker to men whose sexuality is difficult to pinpoint! It grosses me out. The old "gay = paedophile" thing's in there. Not a question in my mind.
And I'm left asking myself what really constitutes paedophilia.
I never once considered him a sexual deviant in any way. And I paid strict attention during his trial.
Additionally- that Martin Bashir did the hour-long tribute/exposé on Jackson on television last night made me livid. Bashir built his career on his eight month access to Jackson back in 2003 (and subsequent aired interview) when he was given full access to the man's life and existence.
I recall the boy who eventually accused him of abuse lovingly placing his head on Jackson's shoulder. My how things change when dollar signs are seen.
It was that Bashir interview which later brought about the charges of child abuse (from which he was eventually found innocent) from that thirteen year old opportunist and his mother.
What never ceases to amaze me is the common mentality of needing to compartmentalize the other human being.
I like that Jackson was an enigma. He was interesting in that. I love complexity and Michael Jackson never let us down in that way.
I hate that I had to experience a group of predicatable heterosexual men basing their opinions on a tabloid press view of a very unusual and talented man. I didn't sleep much last night realizing that most people are just dying to tar and feather anyone who (in their view) deviates from the prescribed societal norm of the day. Horseshit I say.
We're an odd species we humans.
I hope Michael's found the peace now that he never experienced while on this earth those fifty years.
He's certainly earned it.
Yet I found Jackson immensely interesting as a human being. I found him interesting in his ability yes but more in his eccentricity. It made him profound to me. His music was listenable from my point of view. But I'm not beginning this thread to discuss his abilities as a performer and a musician.
As I watch the early morning shows (now -I think sadly - eclipsing Farrah Fawcett's death) I'm interested in getting to the root of who he was as a man.
Last night I met with about twenty of the guys with whom I work.
Without a single exception they said "that perv got what he deserved" (or some version of that sentiment). When I voiced an entirely differing point of view the conversation came to an abrupt stop. I could see the venom shooting my way in the glances of my co-workers (several of whom I've known for nearly twenty years). My take was certainly not a popular one.
Is it as simple as human stupidity? Or is it simpler for many to believe that Michael Jackson was what Americans love to deem a "paedophile"? Oh how so many love to apply that moniker to men whose sexuality is difficult to pinpoint! It grosses me out. The old "gay = paedophile" thing's in there. Not a question in my mind.
And I'm left asking myself what really constitutes paedophilia.
I never once considered him a sexual deviant in any way. And I paid strict attention during his trial.
Additionally- that Martin Bashir did the hour-long tribute/exposé on Jackson on television last night made me livid. Bashir built his career on his eight month access to Jackson back in 2003 (and subsequent aired interview) when he was given full access to the man's life and existence.
I recall the boy who eventually accused him of abuse lovingly placing his head on Jackson's shoulder. My how things change when dollar signs are seen.
It was that Bashir interview which later brought about the charges of child abuse (from which he was eventually found innocent) from that thirteen year old opportunist and his mother.
What never ceases to amaze me is the common mentality of needing to compartmentalize the other human being.
I like that Jackson was an enigma. He was interesting in that. I love complexity and Michael Jackson never let us down in that way.
I hate that I had to experience a group of predicatable heterosexual men basing their opinions on a tabloid press view of a very unusual and talented man. I didn't sleep much last night realizing that most people are just dying to tar and feather anyone who (in their view) deviates from the prescribed societal norm of the day. Horseshit I say.
We're an odd species we humans.
I hope Michael's found the peace now that he never experienced while on this earth those fifty years.
He's certainly earned it.
Last edited: