Leaving Neverland, Michael Jackson Documentary, HBO

[action]

I'm following the story as brought by the docu, and the thing is, it doesn't really stand the test of too much digging.

like the following.

they claimed MJ had a new favorite "every year or so". it is also claimed that yes, he didn't assault the majority of the children in neverland, but he had his favorites and he assaulted them. It is also claimed that as an adult, he still had his adult hormones regardless of his peter pan world he built around himself. Ok noted, but then something is still a bit "off".

 He had his favorites and he assaulted them (and not the other ones, the majority of his invites). but considering the period of time we're talking about here, from the 80s until well in the 2000s, let's say he had 15 years of "activity".... how much "favorites" are we talking about here? 15? Who are these people, and what do they have to say about jackson?

Shouldn't there be, I don't know, at least 15 accusations, or more? Or did he go with long periods, where he had a favorite but didn't assault them?

I'm just laying the image painted by the docu  on MJ's life, but there are really big gaps that don't fit this image..... until further eventual allegations

Edited March 9, 2019 by action

[alfierose]

5 minutes ago, action said:

Shouldn't there be, I don't know, at least 15 accusations, or more? Or did he go with long periods, where he had a favorite but didn't assault them?

 

More allegations may well come. One of the things that is clear from Leaving Neverland and also the doc I mentioned above is how complicit these children felt in what was happening even to the point of wanting it to continue. The 12 yr old girl in the above doc did everything she could to be with her abuser after he was convicted, she wanted to marry him and have his children.

This stuff takes years for people to process and accept as being criminal and abusive. I don't think it's coincidence that both Robson and Safechuck finally reached that understanding after becoming fathers themselves. If there are others that haven't spoken up, and I'm pretty convinced there are, it will be for a multitude of complex reasons none of which are their fault.

Conversely it's likely there are children who spent time with him that he didn't touch. This doesn't mean he didn't abuse any.

[SoulMonster]

17 minutes ago, action said:

 He had his favorites and he assaulted them (and not the other ones, the majority of his invites). but considering the period of time we're talking about here, from the 80s until well in the 2000s, let's say he had 15 years of "activity".... how much "favorites" are we talking about here? 15? Who are these people, and what do they have to say about Jackson?ns

Why would there be 15 victims? And not just 3? Why do you persist in thinking a pedophile will not be able to curb urges for periods?

Secondly, why do you think all the victims would step forward and talk about what happened? Victims are frequently shameful over what happened, especially if they think they consented to the acts. Some would also be scared away from the intense media coverage they would receive. Some might also suppress the memories and only later come to grips with what occurred and then, maybe, speak about it.

[action]

15 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Why would there be 15 victims? And not just 3? Why do you persist in thinking a pedophile will not be able to curb urges for periods?

 

is that such a strange thing to consider? From the docu, I get that he pretty much raped the witnesses daily.

why would he "not" assault his other favorites?

pedophilia is not something you can switch on and off. it's there all the time, the urge is there all the time

Quote

Secondly, why do you think all the victims would step forward and talk about what happened? Victims are frequently shameful over what happened, especially if they think they consented to the acts. Some would also be scared away from the intense media coverage they would receive. Some might also suppress the memories and only later come to grips with what occurred and then, maybe, speak about it.

well, these two did come forward didn't they? it took lots of effort and they went through a lot, but eventually they did.

time will tell if there will be more

[DieselDaisy]

There is less information between the Chandler and the Arvizo thing. But up to the Chandler thing in 1993 you had a list of consecutive ''special kids'' (and I do not mean ''special'' in that they were inherently abused) that Michael took about with him and seems to have heightened to a position above the other kids. They were of course heavily photographed with Michael. It seems to go ''Wade, Culkin, Chandler'' at least. 

Even if you think he was innocent of paedophilia, this was just weird beyond parallel when you think about it.

[SoulMonster]

7 minutes ago, action said:

is that such a strange thing to consider? From the docu, I get that he pretty much raped the witnesses daily.

why would he "not" assault his other favorites?

pedophilia is not something you can switch on and off. it's there all the time, the urge is there all the time

well, these two did come forward didn't they? it took lots of effort and they went through a lot, but eventually they did.

time will tell if there will be more

I believe many pedophiles are aware that what they do is wrong and make an effort to not do it. Assuming Michael Jackson, or any other pedophile, would almost automatically molest all the time given the opportunity, is a weird way to look at any urge or desire, whether it is abnormal or normal. I don't fint it at all implausible that there could be periods when Michael Jackson for various reasons did not molest boys, even when they were in reach. 

I am a heterophile man, doesn't mean I fuck every woman I can. Why would pedosexuality be any different? 

Yes, these two came forward. Is your logic now that since these two came forward then automatically everyone else who might have been molested must then come forward, too? How does that work? Why can't victims be sufficiently different that they either look at what happened differently, react to it differently, and find different ways of coping with it?

Edited March 9, 2019 by SoulMonster

[action]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

I believe many pedophiles are aware that what they do is wrong and make an effort to not do it. Automatically assuming Michael Jackson, or any other pedophile, would almost automatically molest all the time given the opportunity is a weird way to look at any urge or desire, whether it is abnormal or normal. I don't fint it at all implausible that there could be periods when Michael Jackson for various reasons did not molest boys, even when they were in reach. 

I am a heterophile man, doesn't mean I fuck every woman I can. Why would pedosexuality be any different?

Yes, these two came forward. Is your logic now that since these two came forward then automatically everyone else who might have been molested must then come forward, too? How does that work? Why can't victims be sufficiently different that they either look at what happened differently, react to it differently, and find different ways of coping with it?

Ok let's say he oppressed his urges for long periods, and didn't rape boys. You rightly make the comparison with a heterosexual who doesn't shag every woman. It's a good point you make. But what you'll mostly find, is that the "urge" will have to be satisfied one way or another. Heterosexual will resort to "normal" porn, and pedophiles to child pornography.

if we then review the house search by the FBI, we see that no such child porn was found. Adult porn was found. Now I don't want to sound cynical, but If I'm a heterosexual I wont watch gay porn, it's just not my cup of tea and doesn't get "the job done" if you know what I mean. 

My point is, the more you try to connect the loose ends, the more it all falls apart.

No I'm not saying that every victim "should" come forward. I'm not that big of an asshole. I'm just making the observation that many haven't, and that we'll just have to wait and see

[EvanG]

I don't think rape is the right word in this context.

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, action said:

Ok let's say he oppressed his urges for long periods, and didn't rape boys. You rightly make the comparison with a heterosexual who doesn't shag every woman. It's a good point you make. But what you'll mostly find, is that the "urge" will have to be satisfied one way or another. Heterosexual will resort to "normal" porn, and pedophiles to child pornography.

if we then review the house search by the FBI, we see that no such child porn was found. Adult porn was found. Now I don't want to sound cynical, but If I'm a heterosexual I wont watch gay porn, it's just not my cup of tea and doesn't get "the job done" if you know what I mean. 

Now you are also making the assumption that being pedophilic means one isn't turned on by adults, at all. Like it is totally black or white. Sexuality isn't always like that. For instance, people can be both heterophilic and homophilic at the same time (biphilism, or bisexual, right?). Maybe Michael Jackson got his rocks off with adults, too? I don't find that implausible at all. Didn't he also have a few kids? Not saying that is proof he was into women, too, just that it is absolutely conceivable. Or maybe he just jerked off from the memories of his daily non-sexual interaction with kids? Also possible. Or maybe he practised celibacy for large periods of his life? Also entirely possible.

[DieselDaisy]

You're operating on the assumption that there is an ''ideal'' (pardon the expression) paedophilie, 

- Paedophile committed paedophilia against x number of kids, so it stands to reason that this person committed paedophilia against every kid he came into contact with.

- Must have committed acts consistently, without chronological gaps.

- Child pornography a prerequisite. Heterosexual porn shouldn't really be present.

Thus if any of the above break down, he is not a paedophilia.

[alfierose]

2 minutes ago, action said:

Ok let's say he oppressed his urges for long periods, and didn't rape boys. You rightly make the comparison with a heterosexual who doesn't shag every woman. It's a good point you make. But what you'll mostly find, is that the "urge" will have to be satisfied one way or another. Heterosexual will resort to "normal" porn, and pedophiles to child pornography.

if we then review the house search by the FBI, we see that no such child porn was found. Adult porn was found. Now I don't want to sound cynical, but If I'm a heterosexual I wont watch gay porn, it's just not my cup of tea and doesn't get "the job done" if you know what I mean. 

I think you have to look at it through the lens of an incredibly disordered individual. 

If you can go watch the Abducted in Plain Sight documentary - here was a predator fixated on little girls, he had prior for it but served very little jail time. He became so obsessed with on particular child he had an eight month sexual affair with her mother and also managed to engage her father in sexual activity all with the one goal of getting to the child. Clearly he was capable of sexual acts with adults.

The adult porn doesn't really mean much and we also know it was something he used to show the young boys.

[ZoSoRose]

48 minutes ago, EvanG said:

I don't think rape is the right word in this context.

If the allegations are true it is definitely rape

[EvanG]

40 minutes ago, ZoSoRose said:

If the allegations are true it is definitely rape

I was referring to what I was saying earlier, but... call it what you will, it's messed up either way.

And action, you should have watched it on npo3 instead of canvas, it was on at the same time, they had a pre- and after show with a psychologist there who has worked with thousands of molested kids, and she answered a lot of the questions you seem to have.

[action]

36 minutes ago, EvanG said:

I was referring to what I was saying earlier, but... call it what you will, it's messed up either way.

And action, you should have watched it on npo3 instead of canvas, it was on at the same time, they had a pre- and after show with a psychologist there who has worked with thousands of molested kids, and she answered a lot of the questions you seem to have.

I only ever watch the dutch TV when belgium is playing against the netherlands, and I like to hear the dutch commenters when their ass is kicked by the red devils 

[EvanG]

6 minutes ago, action said:

I only ever watch the dutch TV when belgium is playing against the netherlands, and I like to hear the dutch commenters when their ass is kicked by the red devils 

I don't blame you, it happens so rarely, that when it does happen you want to hear the surprised reaction : )

 

[action]

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Now you are also making the assumption that being pedophilic means one isn't turned on by adults, at all. Like it is totally black or white. Sexuality isn't always like that. For instance, people can be both heterophilic and homophilic at the same time (biphilism, or bisexual, right?). Maybe Michael Jackson got his rocks off with adults, too? I don't find that implausible at all. Didn't he also have a few kids? Not saying that is proof he was into women, too, just that it is absolutely conceivable. Or maybe he just jerked off from the memories of his daily non-sexual interaction with kids? Also possible. Or maybe he practised celibacy for large periods of his life? Also entirely possible.

 

2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

You're operating on the assumption that there is an ''ideal'' (pardon the expression) paedophilie, 

- Paedophile committed paedophilia against x number of kids, so it stands to reason that this person committed paedophilia against every kid he came into contact with.

- Must have committed acts consistently, without chronological gaps.

- Child pornography a prerequisite. Heterosexual porn shouldn't really be present.

Thus if any of the above break down, he is not a paedophilia.

of course I'm making assumptions. Doesn't everyone in this thread?

[DieselDaisy]

One thing, Michael Jackson is/was unprecedented thing. Glitter was just some washed-up crap glam act. But Michael - well there has been three of that stature, The Beatles (as a collective), Elvis and Michael Jackson. To people who didn't live through the '80s and early-mid '90s it is hard to express how ubiquitous Michael Jackson was. And his talent - genius even - is evident for all to see. Further, he created this world that was uniquely his own, his ranch with its own zoo and fairground, the children and the Peter Pan facade, compulsive buying, taking up entire suites of hotels, chums with other high profile celebs such as Liz Taylor. 

He had unbelievable levels of celebrity, wealth and (with those things) power. All this demonstrates a certain uniqueness to his position. He could pose as this asexual childlike schmaltzy being and project this image worldwide. 

[SoulMonster]

17 minutes ago, action said:

 

of course I'm making assumptions. Doesn't everyone in this thread?

But do you think it is a correct assumption that pedophiles are not able to curb their urges and that some of them cannot possible also be turned on by adults? Because surely not all assumptions are equally strong. 

I wouldn't say that I assume your assumptions are wrong, I would say they are wrong. Period. 

Edited March 9, 2019 by SoulMonster

[action]

9 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

But do you think it is a correct assumption that pedophiles are not able to curb their urges and that some of them cannot possible also be turned on by adults? Because surely not all assumptions are equally strong. 

I wouldn't say that I assume your assumptions are wrong, I would say they are wrong. Period. 

strawman argument; I never argued that "all" pedophiles can't curb their urges yes or no. 

it's impossible to make assumptions about "all" pedophiles. But I'm not making assumptions about "all" pedophiles, I'm making assumptions about jackson. I don't know about all pedophiles.

The thing I'm doing here, with jackson, I try take given facts (the declaration of facts as given by the victims, coupled with jackson's own behaviour and curious interview in the living with MJ doc, along with the results of his house search).

It's possible that some peadophiles can't resist their urge to rape children, just as it is equally likely there are others who can.

you say my assumption is wrong, period. Ok, so you say jackson could stop his behaviour whenever he wanted. Could be true, but then the two victims in the docu are telling a story (they were raped every day, multiple times) doesn't quite match up. the facts that they describe, isn't really fitting of the image of a pedophile who can curb his urges

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, action said:

strawman argument; I never argued that "all" pedophiles can't curb their urges yes or no. 

it's impossible to make assumptions about "all" pedophiles. But I'm not making assumptions about "all" pedophiles, I'm making assumptions about jackson. I don't know about all pedophiles.

The thing I'm doing here, with jackson, I try take given facts (the declaration of facts as given by the victims, coupled with jackson's own behaviour and curious interview in the living with MJ doc, along with the results of his house search).

It's possible that some peadophiles can't resist their urge to rape children, just as it is equally likely there are others who can.

you say my assumption is wrong, period. Ok, so you say jackson could stop his behaviour whenever he wanted. Could be true, but then the two victims in the docu are telling a story (they were raped every day, multiple times) doesn't quite match up. the facts that they describe, isn't really fitting of the image of a pedophile who can curb his urges

Then why won't you accept that Michael Jackson could have curbed his urges? Your argument basically rests on the assumption that he couldn't have been a pedophile because there seems to have been long periods where he didn't molest any kids. I mean, yes, pedophiles are monsters but not the type that will jump on every kid in sight. They can control their impulses, to varying degrees, even when the chance presents itself.

I don't really find it hard to believe that when a pedophile first starts molesting a child then it is easier to do it again, to that child. Partly because he got away with it, with that child (the children's parents didn't immediately call the police, the child was sufficiently subservient/pliable, etc).

I think you need to look at pedophilia differently. Pedophiles are humans with an abnormal sexual desire, but that sexual desire can be controlled, suppressed and stimulated like any other sexual desires. So if you can go without sex for a long time, then why shouldn't a pedophile? If you can be in a room with a members of the opposite sex (assuming you are an heterophile) without molesting that person, why shouldn't a pedophile also be able to do that? If you realize you can get away with something, aren't you more likely to repeat that action? If you realize something you do is damaging to others, wouldn't you try to not do it? And so on.

And now I won't talk more about pedophilia.

[DieselDaisy]

Can we start writing paedophile correctly?

Thank you in advance. 

[Stress Fracture]

36 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Can we start writing paedophile correctly?

Thank you in advance. 

Pedophile is the correct American English, no?

To make it easy for everyone, let’s just stick with calling Michael Jackson a nonce.

[Ratam]

19 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Now you are also making the assumption that being pedophilic means one isn't turned on by adults, at all. Like it is totally black or white. Sexuality isn't always like that. For instance, people can be both heterophilic and homophilic at the same time (biphilism, or bisexual, right?). Maybe Michael Jackson got his rocks off with adults, too? I don't find that implausible at all. Didn't he also have a few kids? Not saying that is proof he was into women, too, just that it is absolutely conceivable. Or maybe he just jerked off from the memories of his daily non-sexual interaction with kids? Also possible. Or maybe he practised celibacy for large periods of his life? Also entirely possible.

@SoulMonster i read that  MJ kids are surrogacy.

[Lio]

6 minutes ago, Ratam said:

@SoulMonster i read that  MJ kids are surrogacy.

Hard to imagine any of them are biologically MJ's? Or is it just me?

 

[Scream of the Butterfly]

19 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

I believe many pedophiles are aware that what they do is wrong and make an effort to not do it. Assuming Michael Jackson, or any other pedophile, would almost automatically molest all the time given the opportunity, is a weird way to look at any urge or desire, whether it is abnormal or normal. I don't fint it at all implausible that there could be periods when Michael Jackson for various reasons did not molest boys, even when they were in reach. 

Usually if a pedophile is aware that what he's doing is wrong and is making an effort not to do it, it involves keeping some distance from children to avoid temptation. The fact that Jackson continued sleeping with children suggests that he either wasn't a pedophile or wasn't trying to curb his urges.

 

19 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

I am a heterophile man, doesn't mean I fuck every woman I can. Why would pedosexuality be any different? 

Do you often invite women over just so you can share a bed while trying hard not to act on your urges?