--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote:
I've heard is that he was a case of > arrested development. He never had a real childhood, > and he remained very immature emotionally. It was > easier for him to relate to children than to adults > (especially given his superstar status, where all the > adults he knew wanted a piece of him), so he > surrounded himself with children, who at least > wouldn't try to take advantage of him. At the same > time, he could model the loving father he never had. > He was essentially redoing his own childhood. > You know where this came from? Michael Jackson describing why his desire to sleep with young boys (never young girls) was not a case of homosexual pedophilia, but instead was ...you know...an innocent 'ting. I have heard interviews with physiologists tearing this nonsense apart. Having a working showbiz childhood doesn't make it necessary to sleep in the bed with only boys of a very specific age. There is another name for this behavior. And how exactly is sleeping with young boys regaining his lost youth? Boys don't sleep with each other. They don't make out with each other and Michael has been seen making out with dozens of young boys by his staff, by stewardesses on planes, by parents who realized they had made a big mistake to trust him. And you don't need pictures of naked young boys to reclaim lost youth either and hundreds of pictures were seized at Neverland. And exactly how many decades of being a child does it take, 5 of them? No pity party for superstar millionaire Michael. And people who have done business with him know him as a ruthless, super ambitious business man, (without the girlie voice act, he doesn't usually negotiate with that voice.) And who says he had no childhood? He lived the privileged life of a superstar who got to do exactly what he loved. He was adored by fans everywhere he went and got to hang out with the top performers in the field he had the highest affinity for. In what way is it not having a childhood to have to practice your art till you become great at it and then perform for adoring crowds? You know who had no childhoods? All the other kids in his rough neighborhood who never got to fly in planes and do what they loved and who had disinterested parents with no dreams or ability to discipline their kids. His brothers have disputed his abuse claims about the dad and who knows maybe he was a total prick. But he raised a whole slew of rich successful kids making a living expressing their art for millions. I wonder if raising a bunch of kids in a shitty neighborhood can make an ambitious dad a little rough? Can you imagine raising that many boys? Michael had an artist's dream childhood and it was no worse than any kid who is in the Olympics or successful at a young age. Other troubled child stars act out with drugs or age appropriate philandering when they get older, nobody else is creating situations for young boys to sleep with them. Name one other person with Michael Jackson's no-childhood-syndrome who ended up this way? It was also pointed out that Michael has numerous non-pedophile brothers who went through the same childhood with their father. (With the exception that they got less adulation in the group.) You know what they would do on the road once they got famous? Bang lots of chicks. There is no psychological support for this self-serving thoery that actually describes the childlike persona of many pedophiles. Michael was only unusual due to the cash, other than that he was a textbook predator. And being childlike and having an unusual rapport with kids is the predator MO. They surround themselves with the things kids love to lure them close. You know what non-pedophile men do? They learn to cook and play the guitar to lure WOMEN closer. I know this for a fact. At least now I have a better understanding of why he got away with it all those years. The fact that you would even repeat his own excuse as if it is a legitimate psychological thoery amazes me. The hit piece on Sneddon was lame and had nothing substantial to do with this case. Trying to demonize a prosecutor as being "obsessed" when he was trying to bring a molester of children to justice after the first case's victim was paid off in millions is the lamest kind of ad hominem attempt. If you had evidence of a person being a pedophile and it was your job to bring him to justice, do you think you might be a bit "into" it? It is not evidence of misconduct in the case. snip from another post: Me:> Michael Jackson was a child molester Judy: "Quite sure of that, are you? Have some insider info?" me: (I name a book written by the molested child's uncle.) Judy from another post: Just thought it was pretty funny that immediately after you (mistakenly) dismissed the two detailed Wikipedia articles as "put up by fans," you'd tout a book about the case written by a close family member of the accuser." Me: So insider information is requested and then when it is provided,(I offer an insider's account of what went down by the family member not covered by the gag order of the MASSIVE settlement) it is evidence of tainted information because it is TOO insider. Without reading the book of course. Fans and a person with a front row seat on this tragedy have nothing in common. There is plenty of blame to go around. The parents who pimped out their kids to get a taste of the high life around Michael are a sordid group of misfits who did the wrong thing. I have contempt for most of them too. This posting topic started because I made a joke about Michael's death. And when Richard accused me of being prejudiced for making it, you piled on, defending both Richard and Michael. Nice work.
