Is Micheal Jackson A Pedophile

Was Michael Jackson A Pedophile?
By Michael Bailey | July 1st 2009 12:11 PM | 210 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
J. Michael Bailey MORE ARTICLES Michael Jackson: Erotic Identity Disorder? Was Michael Jackson A Pedophile? Transsexual Smokescreen: Ignoring Science In The Man Who Would Be Queen
All Articles
ABOUT MICHAEL I am Professor of Psychology at Northwestern University. I study sexual orientation and related traits such as sex atypicality and gender identity...
View Michael's Profile
Michael Bailey
Search This Blog
The predictably massive postmortem analysis of Michael Jackson has focused on both his enormous talent and his spectacular strangeness. Although there is lively debate whether Jackson or Elvis Presley is the all time King of Pop, there is no question which of them is the King of Weird.
Elvis Presley had his quirkssecret meetings with Nixon, shooting at television sets, and of course, drug abuse. But these did not compare with Michael Jackson's bizarre physical appearance, abetted by untold plastic surgeries; child-like speech; enjoyment in sleeping with (and perhaps "sleeping with") boys; obsession with Peter Pan; and of course, drug abuse.
Jackson's weirdness, unlike Presley's, was publicized for years before his death. So it is disappointing to read the banal psychological interpretations of his behavior. The most common thread is that Jackson's cruel and ambitious father robbed Michael of his childhood.
Slate's Jacob Weisberg wrote, back in 2005: "Almost everything that seems freakish about him can be explained by his poignant, doomed effort to get his stolen childhood back."
Really? How many musicians, athletes, and actors have had overbearing parents who made their childhoods miserable? How many of these resemble Jackson in any way whatsoever: the freakish surgically altered face, the affected voice, Neverland, llamas and chimps, and sleeping with pubescent boys?
A unique person like Michael Jackson requires a unique explanation. Furthermore, Jackson's weirdness was so multifaceted that it presents both a challenge and an opportunity. An hypothesis that explains only one unusual fact is not so useful. One that can explain several is much more so.
I propose an explanation of Michael Jackson that, if true, can explain several seemingly unrelated things: the molestation accusations and interest in children, the obsession with Peter Pan, and the facial surgeries. I think that Michael Jackson had an erotic identity disorder. What was Michael Jackson's sexual orientation? He was married twice to women and may or may not have fathered three children. Still, his sexuality was the subject of considerable speculation. I recall hearing him speak for the first time during the 1983 Motown 25 special and concluding that he was probably gay.
Other people must have had the same impression because his mother protested around that time: "Michael isn't gay. It's against his religion. It's against God. The Bible speaks against it." I wasn't convinced. In a recent story printed in the British press, a reporter claimed to have met two of Michael's gay lovers. Now, even if these reports are true, I don't think that Michael Jackson was gayalthough my reasons are different than his mother's. To be sure, some gay men marry women, and there are surely many famous heterosexually married performers whose private sexuality is
homosexual. But in important ways, gay men do not behave like Michael Jackson did. They do not get elaborate facial surgery that makes them look freakish, for example. They try to maximize their desirability to other gay men, and gay men enjoy conventionally handsome and masculine faces.
When I thought Jackson was gay, it was because of his unusual manner of speech. Since then, I've studied gay speech and learned that I was wrong. Although there is a gay accent prevalent in many gay American men, Jackson didn't have it. And gay men don't raise the pitch of their voice the way that Jackson did.
Nor do gay men seek the company of pubescent boys, especially to share their beds with. As everyone knows, Michael Jackson was twice legally accused of sexually interacting with boys. The first boy was 12 when the alleged molestation began in 1992. The second was 13 when the alleged abuse occurred in 2003. (A third accusation, involving a somewhat younger boy, was settled out of court for $2 million in 1996.) I do not know anything more about these incidents than is available in the public record. Unsurprisingly, Michael Jackson denied committing any offense. He was never put on trial for the first accusation and was found not guilty of the second. I have no reason to question that verdict, but keep in mind that criminal convictions require certainty "beyond reasonable doubt."
There is certainly a reasonable doubt about Jackson's guilt, at least in my mind.
Still, if I had to bet on what is most likely, I would bet that he did molest a boy, at least the one from 1992. In that case, the criminal charges were dropped, and Jackson settled with the boy's family, reportedly for $20 million. Jackson insisted that he wanted to pursue the matter in court but that the insurance company made him settle. (With unintended irony, he later said: "I didn't want to do a long drawn-out thing on TV like O.J. and all that stupid stuff.") The idea that an insurance company forced him to settle a nuisance claim for millions of dollars seems unlikely, both to me and to the lawyers I consulted. To be sure, there was also evidence in both cases that the families were financially motivated. But with Jackson's financial assets supporting the best lawyers and publicists, it is unsurprising that
his team managed to raise significant doubts.
Though inconclusive, the repeated molestation charges and rumors were worrisome. And even Michael Jackson admitted that he loved to sleep in the same bed as children. (It seems that he preferred boys to girls.) That's what precipitated the criminal investigation in 2005. Neither several accusations of sexual abuse of boys nor his admission that he loved sharing his bed with boys necessarily meant that Jackson was sexually attracted to boys. But it is a reasonable hypothesisarguably, the most reasonable hypothesisthat he was. So for now, let's assume that Michael Jackson was sexually attracted to the boys he was accused of molesting. What was his sexual orientation? Jackson was sometimes accused of being a pedophile. "Pedophilia" refers to the sexual preference for children who have not yet entered puberty. The word "pedophilia" is used too imprecisely these days, sometimes to refer even to teachers who have sex with their 16 years old students. That is an incorrect usage, because 16 years old students are usually sexually mature. Those teachers have bad judgment but are not pedophiles.
Jackson's alleged victims were in an age range intermediate between biological children (who have not entered puberty) and sexually mature individuals (who are well into, or beyond, puberty). Although we can't know for sure, without a medical exam from the time of the alleged abuse, it seems most likely that Jackson's alleged victims were pubescent, meaning that they were in the early stages of puberty. Such children have some pubic hair development, and some breast budding if they are girls, but are otherwise quite physically immature. I have seen pictures of naked pubescent children. (They are used by Canadian scientists to assess sexual preferences in sex offenders and are legal for that use there.) I believe that most normal men would find those images to be strange looking and much less appealing than images of more sexually mature women.
The word for sexual attraction to pubescent children is "hebephilia" (pronounced "heebuhfeelia"). Hebephilia appears to be a distinct sexual orientation from pedophilia, and it is somewhat more common. If the rumors and accusations are true, then Jackson appears to have preferred pubescent boys, and so would have been a homosexual hebephile.
Homosexual hebephiles and pedophiles are not gay. Gay men are sexually attracted to physically mature men and are no more aroused by male children than straight men are by female children. Furthermore, unlike gay men, homosexual hebephiles and pedophiles did not tend to start out as feminine boys. (As far as we can tell, all hebephiles and pedophiles are men. The rare woman who molests children is more likely to have a mental illness than a stable sexual preference for children.)
Some hebephiles have some flexibility in their sexuality. Sometimes they are attracted to children below their ideal age. Sometimes they are attracted to adults above their ideal age. But their ideal partner's age is still 11-14, and their ideal partner's body is pubescent.
Hebephilia and pedophilia are sexual orientations, just like normal heterosexuality and homosexuality. Also like normal sexualities, they are not just sexual. Not only do straight men have sex with women, they also fall in love with them, court them, bond with them, and sleep in the same bed with them, often without anything overtly sexual occurring. There is no reason why hebephiles and pedophiles would not also have feelings of love and attachment, as well as sexual attraction, towards children.
To reiterate, I do not know if Michael Jackson molested any boys. But I think he might have, and if he did, he was probably a homosexual hebephile. If he was, it can help explain other aspects of his strange persona. Before I say how, I need to take another sexual detour, this one an inversion.
Pedophilia and hebephilia are specific examples of a general class of sexual disorders calledparaphilias. Other paraphilias include sexual masochism and sadism, exhibitionism, zoophilia (sexual attraction to nonhuman animals), and fetishism (sexual excitement for nonhuman objects). No one knows what causes paraphilias, although I strongly suspect that they are inborn errors of brain development. For some reason, paraphilias occur almost exclusively in men, and not uncommonly, they co-occur in the same person.
One paraphilia that may be relevant, in a general way, to understanding Michael Jackson isautogynephilia. Men with autogynephilia are sexually aroused by the idea of themselves as women. Thus the name: auto (self) gyne (woman) philia (love). Males with autogynephilia most often discover during puberty that it turns them on to dress in women's clothing, especially lingerie.
They go through a stage where cross dressing in private is intensely sexual. Some men with autogynephilia have sexual fantasies about having female genitalia, and many of these men acquire them. Autogynephilia is probably the most common motivation in the United States for sex reassignment surgery among males becoming female.
Autogynephilia is a special kind of paraphilia because it represents an inversion of the desired object inside the self. Autogynephilic men are like straight menthey love women except that the woman an autogynephile loves most is the woman he creates inside himself. I know, I know, this is a strange and difficult concept. It might help to provide an additional example. The most extreme autogynephile I have ever known did not only cross dress but would at some other times would glue (yes glue!) fake vulvas over his penis, wear fake breasts, and film himself (as a pseudo-woman) engaging in pornographic acts with a male dummy. This was highly erotic to him. This person eventually got surgery and is now living as a woman.
Do not confuse autogynephiles with individuals such as gay drag queens or homosexual males who decide to become women. Homosexual drag queens and transsexuals are exclusively and unambiguously attracted to men, and they do not cross dress or behave like women, or imagine that they have female genitalia, in order to excite themselves sexually.
I refer to paraphilias such as autogynephilia as "erotic identity disorders." Autogynephilia isn't the only erotic identity disorder, but it is the most common one. This is because heterosexuality is the most common sexual orientation. So if an inversion error happens, it is most likely to happen in an otherwise heterosexual man. Most autogynephiles retain some ability to be attracted to real women, that is, women who live outside themselves. In erotic
identity disorders, the kind of person a man desires to become is identical to the kind of real, external person he is most attracted to.
A much rarer erotic identity disorder is the sexually-motivated desire to become an amputee. A subset of men are erotically driven to have particular limbs amputated (usually, but not always, one of their legs). These men often admit sexual fantasies about being amputees, and tellingly, they are usually very attracted to amputeesjust as autogynephiles (who want to be women) are usually very attracted to women. This erotic identity disorder (technical name: apotemnophilia) is much rarer than autogynephilia, presumably because attraction to amputees is much rarer than attraction to women. Apotemnophilia is an erotic identity disorder because sexual desire for amputees has been inverted to the self, causing a sexual desire for oneself as an amputee.
Michael Jackson probably did not have autogynephilia, and he certainly did not have apotemnophilia, but he may have had something similar, another erotic identity disorder.
And we'll discuss that in part 2.
RELATED ARTICLES ON SCIENCE 2.0
was.
Michael Jackson Finally Gets His Own Computer Virus Who Is King? Michael Jackson Vs Sir Isaac Newton Michael Jackson: Erotic Identity Disorder? Michael Jackson - Freakishness Explained? Michael Jackson: The Castrato? Comparing Jackson to a great singer of the past who
COMMENTS
The word "pedophilia" is used too imprecisely these days, sometimes to refer even to teachers who have sex with their 16 years old students. That is an incorrect usage, because 16 years old students are usually sexually mature. Those teachers have bad judgment but are not pedophiles... Hebephilia and pedophilia are sexual orientations, just like normal heterosexuality and homosexuality...
Feel free to call me narrow minded, but the effects of pedophilia and hebephilia on victims is dramatic and enduring. A homosexual orientation is typically not significantly damaging either emotionally or psychologically to consenting adults, but therein lies the problem - consent. At what age do you feel a child can make a quality decision concerning his or her sexuality? These days, with adolescence extending well into the 20s, it would seem that individuals under the age of majority as defined by law, are ill-prepared to make such a determination. And excuse me once more, but many of my clients would strongly disagree with you that pedophilia (which I do use broadly to encompass hebephilia) is merely a sexual orientation. The devastating permanence and pervasiveness of childhood sexual assaults cannot be disregarded or justified. One sex offender that I was acquainted with tried to defend the sexualization of his then 5 year old daughter by saying that until social services got to her, she considered his molestations to be normal. The implication was clear - that incest and pedophilia are ok, and individuals should be left alone to practice both freely. It would have been interesting to observe his daughter's initial reactions, for I will bet she did not feel their relationship was legitimate. Laura Hult | 07/01/09 | 14:55 PM
Reply to This Link

I'm not quite sure what it is about Professor Bailey's post that causes you to believe that he disagrees with you. I'm sure he would agree that pedophilia and hebephilia have significant adverse effects on children and that children should not legally have the right to consent to sex. He labels them paraphilias, for God's sake. The statement that pedophilia and hebephilia are sexual orientations like other more normal sexual orientations does not imply that hebephilia or pedophilia are themselves normal sexual orientations, quite the opposite. I'm sure that Professor Bailey is just as troubled by child molestation as you are. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/01/09 | 15:44 PM
Reply to This Link
I'm not quite sure what it is about Professor Bailey's post that causes you to believe that he disagrees with you...He labels them paraphilias, for God's sake.
There are paraphilias, and then there are paraphilias. For example, having a fetish for say rubber clothing does not necessarily mean anyone is going to get hurt. A physical act of pedophilia does involve injury to another. Prof. Bailey states that "hebephilia and pedophilia are sexual orientations, just like normal heterosexuality and homosexuality". Perhaps this was badly worded, but as it stands, hebephilia and pedophilia are equated with hetero and homosexuality, thus lending social legitimacy to both practices. Laura Hult | 07/01/09 | 16:00 PM
Reply to This Link
Hebephilia, pedophilia, heterosexuality and homosexuality are also all english words, but that doesn't equate them or lend social legitimacy to any of them. Of course they are all sexual orientations. Hebephilia is sexual attraction to pubescent kids. Pedophilia is sexual attraction to prepubescent kids. Homosexuality is sexual attraction same sex partners. Heterosexuality is sexual attraction to opposite sex partners. All of this is noncontroversial and beyond dispute. The point of the post was not to make a moral statement about any sexual orientation but rather to make a statement about Michael Jackson's sexual orientation. I'm sure Professor Bailey agrees that homosexuality and heterosexuality are "good" sexual orientations because they don't harm anyone, and hebephilia and pedophilia are "bad" sexual orientations because they harm kids. Nothing in his post is inconsistent with any of that. Am I missing something? Do you disagree? Anonymous (not verified) | 07/01/09 | 16:35 PM
Reply to This Link
I'm sure Professor Bailey agrees...
Unless you are Prof. Bailey, I would think it risky to claim this. Nothing in his post is inconsistent with any of that. Am I missing something? Do you disagree? I disagree based on the following excerpts, which raise many red flags in my mind: A unique person like Michael Jackson requires a unique explanation. Why? Although I feel empathy for Michael Jackson, he was after all just another person with problems. An ordinary diagnosis will do just fine. Nor do gay men seek the company of pubescent boys, especially to share their beds with. A dangerous assumption, for some do (reference NAMBLA). The word "pedophilia" is used too imprecisely these days, sometimes to refer even to teachers who have sex with their 16 years old students. That is an incorrect usage, because 16 years old students are usually sexually mature. Those teachers have bad judgment but are not pedophiles. At young ages, a few years of maturity has a huge effect on the ability to participate in social interactions. A 16 year old student is in a highly vulnerable position, the teacher in a position of authority and trust. A student actively producing sperm or releasing eggs, referred to as "sexual maturity" by Prof. Bailey, does not represent a magical point where sexual relationships can begin with adults, but rather represents the start of a prolonged journey towards adulthood. The student is not an adult at this age. The teacher is an adult and has violated not only social convention, but also his or her ethical position of authority and trust. That"bad judgment" was exercised is an understatement. Some hebephiles have some flexibility in their sexuality. Sometimes they are attracted to children below their ideal age. Sometimes they are attracted to adults above their ideal age. But their ideal partner's age is still 11-14, and their ideal partner's body is pubescent. Prof. Bailey attempts to make a significant distinction between pedophiles and hebephiles, and then use the less familiar (and less emotionally charged) word to describe adults victimizing 11-14 year old children, possibly to destigmatize the activity. There is no reason why hebephiles and pedophiles would not also have feelings of love and attachment, as well as sexual attraction, towards children. This is an unsubstantiated claim at best. According to the SOs I've encountered, none have expressed a deep, adult-like love and affection for their victims. Rather, the opposite was true, and the child was simply"in the wrong place at the wrong time" , as one SO put it. Laura Hult | 07/01/09 | 17:53 PM
Reply to This Link
I'm not quite sure of your point. Are you saying that you believe something in Professor Bailey's post suggests that he believes that adults having sex with pubescent or prepubescent children is morally
justifiable? If so, that takes a lot of reading (misreading?) between the lines. I suppose we can just ask him. Professor Bailey, if you are reading this, do you believe that adults having sex with pubescent or prepubescent children is morally justifiable? Yes or no will do. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/01/09 | 20:30 PM
Reply to This Link
At what age do you feel a child can make a quality decision concerning his or her sexuality? These days, with adolescence extending well into the 20s, it would seem that individuals under the age of majority as defined by law, are ill-prepared to make such a determination.
This is a bit of a gray area to me, although I understand the argument. As I'm sure you're aware, while this tends to be a viewpoint that many people share, my concern stems from the fact that it doesn't seem to be applied with equal certainty when the teen-ager is male. In addition, more importantly, this clearly goes completely against the idea of trying teen-agers as adults for crimes. After all, if a teen-ager can be held accountable for an act of violence, it is a difficult argument to suggest that they aren't equally mature to determine their sexual behavior. If a 16-year old can't make a quality decision, how would we try them for a crime like rape? Is it strictly the violence, the sexual element ... ? In addition, we have the problem that many teen-agers at this age are themselves engaged in sexual activity amongst their peers. Once again, the problem is that if they lack the ability to make such decisions, then isn't the problem THEIR behavior, and is it really controllable? In many ways this is no different than the poor quality decisions people (especially teenagers) make with alcohol, drugs, etc. There is little doubt that all of these have the potential to wreak havoc on someone's life. However, poor choices or not, isn't it possible that there isn't anyone to blame except themselves. that criminalizing it solves anything. I can agree that I don't think that it is appropriate for a 30+ year old to be sexually active with a teen-ager, but ultimately that's my opinion. I'm not sure that the "quality" of a decision is a necessary consideration to criminalize an activity. Gerhard Adam | 07/01/09 | 17:18 PM Often, I suspect that older adults make for easy targets because their behavior is on the fringes, but, even if the consent is of poor quality, I'm not sure
Reply to This Link
This is a bit of a gray area to me, although I understand the argument. As I'm sure you're aware, while this tends to be a viewpoint that many people share, my concern stems from the fact that it doesn't seem to be applied with equal certainty when the teen-ager is male. In addition, more importantly, this clearly goes completely against the idea of trying teen-agers as adults for crimes.
I too am amazed and dismayed at the treatment of juveniles within our judicial system. Perhaps the best solution is to bear in mind that while these individuals may have the exterior appearance of adults, inside they may be little more than children and are deserving of societal protection and special provision as determined by each individual case. In addition, we have the problem that many teen-agers at this age are themselves engaged in sexual activity amongst their peers. Experimentation between peers is in my mind completely different than sexual victimization by an adult. It is not the activity, but the intent behind the activity. The adult is secretive about his or her conquest (and passes that secrecy plus shame to the child), while the teenager revels in the ability to "score" with one of the pretty cheerleaders. I have never heard of a teenager or child boast about sexual activity with the old man next door. Laura Hult | 07/01/09 | 18:09 PM
Reply to This Link
Perhaps the best solution is to bear in mind that while these individuals may have the exterior appearance of adults, inside they may be little more than children and are deserving of societal protection and special provision as determined by each individual case.
This gets back to my other comment, which is that whether they are adults or not, they are operating in a world where they may commit "adult" acts and have to reap the consequences. There is no doubt that there are some evil teenagers, just as there are adults and I certainly wouldn't want to see them handled with leniency just because they're "immature".
In many ways, society has become too protective of children and young adults and consequently has empowered them to exploit their age to legal advantage. The most obvious problem is that the courts are ill-prepared to truly evaluate and assess anything on a case-by-case basis. These things can be complicated enough without the restrictions of the legal system in providing the information necessary to truly come to an understanding of the individuals involved.
In the end, whether we like it or not, I don't believe these are problems that society or the law can solve. It comes back to how tuned-in the parents are to their kids behavior.
The adult is secretive about his or her conquest (and passes that secrecy plus shame to the child), while the teenager revels in the ability to "score" with one of the pretty cheerleaders.
That may be true in some situations, but in the eyes of the law a 19-year old and a 15-year are committing a crime. I don't believe the 19-year old can legitimately be considered an "older adult" (this is based on the law generally considering a three-year window to be considered peers). Often the accusation of statutory rape is leveled by a parent that simply wants to control a daughter from dating an older teen-ager. While I can appreciate the sentiment, I think it is stretching the boundaries to which the law can legitimately be applied. In this kind of situations, there is little doubt that the secrecy may be a result of parental prohibition, rather than the fact that either party views their activities as wrongful. What I find the most disturbing, is that the focus invariably seems to be on the trauma associated with taking advantage of young women. Of far greater concern to me, is the young men that having been unwittingly pushed into fatherhood and the attendant responsibility that entails, and the courts have barely batted an eye at the offender (to add insult to injury several cases determined that the teenage boy owed child support -http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberthirtysix.htm ) In general, this whole area is far too emotionally charged with too many parties willing to charge in with halfbaked notions about how to solve these problems. This is something that requires eliminating the moral issues and emotions and try and determine whether anything can reasonably be done and to what extent. Except in the cases of force and/or coercion, it may be that people have to live with their bad choices.
Gerhard Adam | 07/01/09 | 18:44 PM
Reply to This Link
This gets back to my other comment, which is that whether they are adults or not, they are operating in a world where they may commit "adult" acts and have to reap the consequences. There is no doubt that there are some evil teenagers, just as there are adults and I certainly wouldn't want to see them handled with leniency just because they're "immature". In many ways, society has become too protective of children and young adults and consequently has empowered them to exploit their age to legal advantage. The most obvious problem is that the courts are ill-prepared to truly evaluate and assess anything on a case-by-case basis.
Which is why I stated that each case should be handled individually. It is unacceptable for us as a society to sit back and bemoan the state of our judicial system, but do nothing. In particular a good deal of responsibility should fall within my profession, for we do have the ear of judges from time to time and are in a position to educate as well as perform required evaluations. But you are quite correct that personal responsibility has apparently fallen out of vogue. That may be true in some situations, but in the eyes of the law a 19-year old and a 15-year are committing a crime. I don't believe the 19-year old can legitimately be considered an "older adult" (this is based on the law generally considering a three-year window to be considered peers). Often the accusation of statutory rape is leveled by a parent that simply wants to control a daughter from dating an older teen-ager. While I can appreciate the sentiment, I think it is stretching the boundaries to which the law can legitimately be applied. In this kind of situations, there is little doubt that the secrecy may be a result of parental prohibition, rather than the fact that either party views their activities as wrongful. Do you recall how it felt to be those ages? I do to some extent and remember that there was a significant difference in the maturity levels of a sophomore in high school, and the person who had been out of high school for a couple of years. Even back in my high school days, there were parents who would place restraining orders on the older teenager, typically after talking over the situation with police officers. Still, a few younger teens ran off with their older lovers - and get married. Usually they were back home within a few weeks after running out of money. What I find the most disturbing, is that the focus invariably seems to be on the trauma associated with taking advantage of young women. Of far greater concern to me, is the young men that having been unwittingly pushed into fatherhood and the attendant responsibility that entails, and the courts have barely batted an eye at the offender (to add insult to injury several cases determined that the teenage boy owed child support).
Perhaps being in the field gives me a different perspective, because in general it is the boys who have been molested that receive the most attention and intensive care. Girls appear to be a bit more resilient, possibly because we have targeted them educationally for longer. While I do not disagree that there are injustices, maybe dads (or other caring male relatives) could take a more pro-active role and explain to their sons that sex without protection just invites disaster. Nevertheless, as you pointed out earlier in your post, there are consequences to our actions. This is something that requires eliminating the moral issues and emotions and try and determine whether anything can reasonably be done and to what extent. Here I do disagree - morality, ethics, and a teenager's role in society need to emphasized, not abandoned. If the teen is seen as an integral part of the community and has certain responsibilities and obligations that lead naturally to adult responsibilities, then we may have the beginnings of a workable plan. Laura Hult | 07/01/09 | 22:20 PM
Reply to This Link
Here I do disagree - morality, ethics, and a teenager's role in society need to emphasized, not abandoned. If the teen is seen as an integral part of the community and has certain responsibilities and obligations that lead naturally to adult responsibilities, then we may have the beginnings of a workable plan.
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I was referring to the morality and emotions of those that want to place their own values on the situation instead of considering the reality of solutions that might work. In other words, I don't think there's any benefit in people advancing their own agendas and trying to "wish" the world a certain way. It's like the abstinence programs .... perhaps it's a reasonable idea, but what's the backup plan? In those cases, my concern is that people are attempting to foist their own beliefs on individuals rather than determining what is needed and what may actually work. Gerhard Adam | 07/01/09 | 22:41 PM
Reply to This Link
It's like the abstinence programs .... perhaps it's a reasonable idea, but what's the backup plan? In those cases, my concern is that people are attempting to foist their own beliefs on individuals rather than determining what is needed and what may actually work.
Indeed! :) Thank you for a lively and considered debate! Laura Hult | 07/02/09 | 00:05 AM
Reply to This Link
I too am amazed and dismayed at the treatment of juveniles within our judicial system. Perhaps the best solution is to bear in mind that while these individuals may have the exterior appearance of adults, inside they may be little more than children and are deserving of societal protection and special provision as determined by each individual case. Are you serious? You are certainly right that it should be determined on a case-by-case basis, but I must say, I am rather as amazed and dismayed as you are...conversely. I think it's appalling how few teenagers get tired as adults and literally get away with (less punishment than they should for) murder, rape, assault, etc. While it's true that teenagers often have bad judgment, it is also true that most are perfectly capable of understanding the repercussions of their actions and SHOULD know that these things are morally reprehensible. I anticipate that some people will assume I am overestimating teenagers; however, that has been my opinion since I realized that it was an issue, somewhere around the age of eleven or twelve. It saddens me to think that so many teenagers commit crimes, fully aware of their actions, and are tried as juveniles because adults underestimate them and their capacity to understand consequences. It is one of many flaws in our justice system (by which I mean the United States, though from my understanding other countries have similar problems; I cannot speak for them, though). Anonymous (not verified) | 07/02/09 | 00:00 AM
Reply to This Link
I anticipate that some people will assume I am overestimating teenagers; however, that has been my opinion since I realized that it was an issue, somewhere around the age of eleven or twelve. It saddens me to think that so many teenagers commit crimes, fully aware of their actions, and are tried as juveniles because adults underestimate them and their capacity to understand consequences. It is one of many flaws in our justice system (by which I mean the United States, though from my understanding other countries have similar problems; I cannot speak for them, though).
This problem will not go away easily or quickly, for it has been decades in the making. The Great Depression, the advent of television and its ability to disseminate permissive ideas and concepts coupled with the relative navet of audiences, and WWII all contributed to the way Boomers were raised. In short, because our parents had it so rough we were spoiled rotten, coddled, and otherwise made to feel we weren't responsible for anything. Many of the children that Boomers raised are now even worse. So what shall we do to correct this situation? My feeling is that re-education and re-introduction to personal responsibility must be done in the same way that the original permissive ideas were presented - with repetition and over time. It's not going to be a quick fix, however with the economy crashing the process may proceed more rapidly than I expect. Already families are having to move back in with each other, with everyone working and contributing to household income. Neighborhoods are beginning to pull together. Hard lessons about responsibility and obligation are being learned. This is why I advocate the evaluation of each juvenile offender individually. Social change is happening, and we will get back to some good fundamental values, but I'm not eager to throw away a generation of offenders because we (Boomers) didn't do our jobs. If a bit of special consideration and training can salvage these individuals, then let's do it. Laura Hult | 07/02/09 | 10:42 AM
Reply to This Link
One big problem in the use of the word paraphilia is that it is ill defined. The way it has been used in psychology has changed as various sexualities moved from taboo to socially acceptable. So I see what he is trying to do in calling these "sexual orientations" rather than paraphilia's. I have more to say but I'll say it after reading part two. Dont tase me bro Hontas Farmer | 07/01/09 | 18:24 PM
Reply to This Link

First off, I can't believe this guy is a professor and of psychology no less. Elvis was the King of Rock and Roll, Michael the King of Pop. To say "I recall hearing him speak for the first time during the 1983 Motown 25 special and concluding that he was probably gay." is utterly dumbfounding to me, especially from a professor of psychology. Or this "They try to maximize their desirability to other gay men, and gay men enjoy conventionally handsome and masculine faces. " As a gay man I take offense at his generalizations. Different strokes for different folks. Some gay men find effeminant men attractive. "Although there is a gay accent prevalent in many gay American men" Oh really? Do tell. Is it the lisp perhaps. Do limp wrists also accompany this gay accent? Those are enough examples for me to totally think this guy is a quack or a professor at some conservative religious college. Me thinks he needs to take a refresher course on human sexuality. He sounds like he got his education back in the 50's. Oooo, I am so angry right now. I'd slap him if he were in the room with me but he looks gay so I glad he's not. David D (not verified) | 07/01/09 | 18:55 PM
Reply to This Link
As a gay man I take offense at his generalizations. Different strokes for different folks. Some gay men find effeminant men attractive. "Although there is a gay accent prevalent in many gay American men" Oh really? Do tell. Is it the lisp perhaps. Do limp wrists also accompany this gay accent? Those are enough examples for me to totally think this guy is a quack or a professor at some conservative religious college.
Me thinks he needs to take a refresher course on human sexuality. He sounds like he got his education back in the 50's. Oooo, I am so angry right now. I'd slap him if he were in the room with me but he looks gay so I glad he's not.
Great post with good points! :) BTW, if the professor is from the same Northwestern University in Evanston, IL that I am acquainted with, it is one of the more liberal campuses around. Laura Hult | 07/01/09 | 22:26 PM
Reply to This Link
Professor Bailey is one of the most well published researchers on human sexuality in the field of psychology. He is also tenured in one of the most respected psychology departments in the country. You say he needs to take a refresher course on human sexuality? He literally wrote the book. When Bailey makes generalizations like "They try to maximize their desirability to other gay men, and gay men enjoy conventionally handsome and masculine faces" he is doing so based on his own research into the topic. Yes, it is controversial because many would prefer that stereotypes not be found in scientific research. Nevertheless (either because of socialization or some sort of stereotype threat interaction) these findings are accurate and it would be a disservice to pretend they don't exist. Remember that psychology operates in averages and generalizations. Last time I checked, Dr. Bailey had never published anything that said "David D. and all of his friends speak with the stereotypical homosexual accent". Anonymous (not verified) | 07/02/09 | 10:31 AM
Reply to This Link
He spins out quite a lot, yes. Yet much of it doesn't pass common sense tests. It's mind-boggling how people seem to take his personal 'theories' as some sort of gospel. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/02/09 | 16:42 PM
Reply to This Link
I wouldn't say anyone is taking his theory on MJ as gospel really. In a sense in saying that Michael had some sexual issues Bailey is only saying what people already think. Afterall MJ was accused of child molestation, twice. He settled civil suits out of court, twice. I'm not saying MJ did anything...but allot of people think he did , or that he was sexually strange in some other way. As for TMWWBQ and the theory in that book. It's not "his personal theory", and no one takes any theory as gospel. (I guess the HBS notion is taken as gospel but that's more of a wishful thought than a theory that could be objectively tested.) One more thing. It is most interesting that in this discussion one see's non transsexual admitted autogynephile who is offended by the notion that transsexual autogynephiles exist, and transsexuals who are offended (more understandably) by the notion of autogynephilia. :-/ Dont tase me bro Hontas Farmer | 07/02/09 | 17:20 PM
Reply to This Link
He doesn't even use the term theory. He has a speculation, maybe a hypothesis, but first he wanted to address what everyone in the media was dancing around; was Jackson a pedophile? His answer was no but he did believe Jackson had a disorder. Science often speculates on things we can't prove but can converge on an answer about. This is certainly one of them but it's a discussion topic. Too many people go nuts because they think very item under discussion is a personal attack on their existence or lifestyle. It isn't. I have only read a few of Bailey's things, just like the rest of you, but he does not seem to be in the agenda business. Science is about explaining what might otherwise be unexplainable. Hank Campbell | 07/02/09 | 19:23 PM
Reply to This Link
I'm sure you are aware that many of the comments from the "transcommunity" on this, will have little to do with MJ. (JIC and for the rest of the readers) Those comments will have nothing to do with what Dr Bailey wrote here and now. They are referring to "The Man Who Would be Queen" (Bailey 2003) and the theory due to Ray Blanchard that there are two types of transsexuals. One type non-homosexual motivated by an autogynephilic desire to become a woman. The other type homosexual and motivated by their taste for hetrosexual men to become women. (Female to male transsexuals are not addressed by Blanchard's theory) It is considered offensive by many because as they read it: The theory defines transsexual women by their "sex assigned at birth", instead of
gender identity. ' ' assigns specifically masculine sexual drives to MTF transsexual women (i.e. That of a heterosexual cross dresser to autogynephilc transsexuals, Or that of a extra horny gay male to a homosexual transsexual) Many in the transcommunity fear that if this theory were accepted even a little it would lead to non-homosexual transsexuals specifically being denied acess to surgery and other transition related medical care.
Those are the major concerns I have seen written and heard spoken.
Dont tase me bro Hontas Farmer | 07/03/09 | 01:44 AM
Reply to This Link
I wouldn't disagree with the expressed concerns you list. Aspects of Bailey's work might be seen as a threat to someone's very existence and that adds potency to the rejection of his theories. However, I wonder if the main issue that is that his observations seem simply not to match the experiences of those whose lives are wholly immersed in transsexualism and are rejected not simply because they are found to be offensive, but that they are seen to be wrong. The topic is immensely complex and controversial. The focus on sexual acts and sexual orientation seems to me to be overly stressed and the impact of societal pressures to conform to the norm are insufficiently explored. For many people, perhaps most, the issue is simply not about sex. It is about one's place in society. And it is about society's perceptions of people and about normativity, where adherence to the norm becomes an "ought". The pressures to conform are immense and, frequently, very damaging. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/03/09 | 02:57 AM
Reply to This
Link
However, I wonder if the main issue that is that his observations seem simply not to match the experiences of those whose lives are wholly immersed in transsexualism and are rejected not simply because they are found to be offensive, but that they are seen to be wrong.
The problem with that is that there are people who say that Blanchard's theory matches their experiences. i.e. Anne Lawrence, the people at transkids.us (which is no longer up). That said some of the concerns I have listed are shared by them as well. i.e. The people at transkids.us myself included do not think that our transitions were notivated soley by our sex drives. If we have done adult work it's not due to being "especially well suited" it's due to being black or hispanic and transsexual with the discrimination those bring. Then having to finance transition without the resources others have. Why have you not heard that? {rant} One thing that has rubbed me the wrong way from the start is how the concerns of those would would be labeld "homosexual transsexuals" are largely subordiated to the controversy over autogynephilia. Even going so far as to deny the existence of people who could be ID'd as transsexual as children, declaring to be fake any transsexual who even by loose association identifies themselves as a "homosexual transsexual" et al. The whole thing took on the character of a witch hunt. History shows being on the side of the witch hunters is never a good bet. The so called "transcommunity" as another blogger puts it, has become dominated by what she calls "White women born transsexual". Transsexual women who from their stations of relative privillage look down their noses at the black and hispanic sisters who must struggle to survive. They assert that they are driven by neurology...but at the same time, if you have ever done sex work to pay the bills, or have decided to live without SRS you are not a transsexual. Their rhetoric is 10X worse than anything in TMWWBQ yet they get a pass. {/rant} Dont tase me bro Hontas Farmer | 07/03/09 | 12:53 PM
Reply to This
Link
I agree with you David D; when I read "I recall hearing him speak for the first time during the 1983 Motown 25 special and concluding that he was probably gay." that swept away any doubt I had about this article being purely speculative and not based on science at all. It is nicely written, but it isn't about Michael Jackson - it is more a general discussion about various kinds of sexuality. Obviously, no one who didn't know Michael Jackson personally can say the first thing about his very personal life. It is totally non-scientific and in my opinion highly questionable - to put it kindly. This article is driving a lot of traffic to the blog - and good for scientificblogging.com, I'm sure, but I'm afraid I find this is hurting science in general as it is so speculative. Michael Jackson's image was eccentric. That is all we can say, we outsiders. I guess we can all agree that he was a tremendous artist, though :-) Bente Lilja Bye is the author of Lilja - A bouquet of stories about the Earth Bente Lilja Bye | 07/14/09 | 13:29 PM
Reply to This Link
I agree with you. I hope I live long enough to see that being gay is viewed as normal, being eccentric is viewed as a positive twist on life by providing another way of looking at things, and that labels no longer exist. I don't know why we can't just determine that certain behavior is wrong or harmful without dissecting it into thousands of pieces and giving ourselves headaches. Michael Jackson needed urgent care and boundaries and an alliance of discerning people to confront him and give him no way out. He wanted help and support. He asked for it a thousand times. Anonymous (not verified) | 08/16/09 | 21:01 PM
Reply to This Link
A voice of reason. As I read this my thought was, how unethical and unscientific, to attempt to analyze Jackson based on rumor and speculations recycled through tabloids and into mainstream media. Like analyzing a fictional character in a novel. The least Bailey could've done is to speak with people who actually knew Jackson. He could start with Dr Wayne Dyer who considered Jackson to be one of the most spiritually evolved people he'd ever met. Many people who actually spent time with him trusted him explicitly with their children. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43YkTHNAb00&feature=player_embedded As did the mother of Ryan White, AIDS victim, whom Jackson befriended. And, Dave Dave, whose father doused him with gasoline and set him afire. And many others.
If you remove the speculation that there was a sexual attraction to the young men in his life, you might be able to see him as an ally for young men. He had been a mentor from an early age in his JW religion. See if A-sexual fits for you. Androgenous. A balance of masculine and feminine energies. As for Jackson's voice, listen to his brother Jackie speak? And the infamous allegations, there is ample evidence to indicate the first allegation was Extortion and the second, Malicious Prosecution. How the first case came to be settled- it's in a court document, and yes it was the insurance company's decision. Jackson may have eventually agreed, but initially refused a settlement.He had refused payment to Chandler in negotiations that went on before the allegation was made. Ironically, the $20 million was exactly what the father had been trying to get from Jackson so he could give up dentistry and write a screenplay. The boy made no allegations until his father put him under Sodium Amytal for a routine dental procedure. And planted suggestions? The second boy made no allegation until the DA made a visit to his home and referred the family to the same lawyer and shrink that was involved in the first case. The second boy has admitted that Jackson was innocent. The first refused to testify in the second case and Jackson's attorney had witnesses prepared to testify that the alleged victim had told them that his father made him lie. Journalists who bothered to ferret out the truth- Mary A Fisher, Aphrodite Jones, Charles Thomson, Geraldine Hughes (secretary for the attorney who represented both boys). Their works are online. It sometimes happens that bad things happen to good people. Jackson's respect and genunie caring for children made him an easy target- for allegations and speculative diagnoses. Perhaps now, his own, unique 'disorder'. LOL I'll read Part 2 tomorrow. Not sure I can stomach it tonight. Anonymous (not verified) | 03/01/11 | 01:02 AM
Reply to This Link
@David D Frankly, I expect nothing less from Bailey who continues to confuse autogynephilia with gender identity. A quack, indeed. But then,making outrageous claims sells copy. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/02/09 | 05:03 AM
Reply to This Link

That's funny, "Dr." Bailey, because I think you have an erotic fixation disorder that causes you to be obsessed with undermining and oppressing transgender and bisexual people. And now you're speculating on the disorders of a dead man you probably never even met let alone had the opportunity to actually study. Hard to take anything you say seriously, you insufferable jackass.
Jackson (not verified) | 07/02/09 | 13:37 PM
Reply to This Link

Michael Bailey wrote: "Do not confuse autogynephiles with individuals such as gay drag queens or homosexual males who decide to become women. Homosexual drag queens and transsexuals are exclusively and unambiguously attracted to men, and they do not cross dress or behave like women, or imagine that they have female genitalia, in order to excite themselves sexually." I hope you aren't saying that transsexuals are homosexual males who decide to become women. That would be totally false, and disrespectful as well. I wasn't a man who decided to become a woman. I was a woman who changed my body to align it with my internal identity. Sex and sexual preference had nothing to do with my decision to change my body. If I never had sex again, my decision to become my true self would have been the same. Living a lie was just too much torture for me. Laura Laura R. (not verified) | 07/02/09 | 13:48 PM
Reply to This Link

"Do not confuse autogynephiles with individuals such as gay drag queens or homosexual males who decide to become women. Homosexual drag queens and transsexuals are exclusively and unambiguously attracted to men, and they do not cross dress or behave like women, or imagine that they have female genitalia, in order to excite themselves sexually." This is irresponsible and inaccurate information. Transsexuals are not "homosexual males who decide to become women" (or lesbians who decide to become men), and transgender people are not as a group exclusively attracted to one sex or the other. Your research and knowledge in this area is clearly subpar, and I would request that you refrain from making such ignorant statements in the future until you take an opportunity to educate yourself. Tonei G. (not verified) | 07/02/09 | 15:24 PM
Reply to This Link

"Homosexual drag queens and transsexuals are exclusively and unambiguously attracted to men, and they do not cross dress or behave like women, or imagine that they have female genitalia, in order to excite themselves sexually." The sentence that precedes this one with which you take such issue refers to "homosexual males who decide to become women." I'm assuming the sentence -- and idea -- at issue, "homoesexual" modifies both "drag
queens" and transsexuals." Thus, "homosexual drag queens and homosexual transsexuals are exclusively and unambiguously attracted to men...." Anonymous (not verified) | 07/08/09 | 17:55 PM
Reply to This Link
It is absurd to say that transsexuals are homosexual males. This is wrong and completely inaccurate. And there could be a homosexual male who is also sexually aroused by the thought of him being female (as an object of sexual desire of another male), which does not indicate autogynephilia at all. The terms are so badly confused by Bailey. Homosexual males are male by gender whether or not they are sexually aroused by feminine things in themselves. Transsexuals are female by gender identity though they may not be sexually aroused by the female in them. Autogynephiles have just a paraphilia, so, they are just males who wish they could be females for sexual obsessions. That's the ultimate truth and needs no further investigation to confuse people. Sam (not verified) | 07/12/09 | 12:45 PM
Reply to This Link
Professor Bailey, as a heterosexual autogynephilic with no desire to transition, I'm not sure whether to be amused or offended at your assertions. You hold the title of "professor" -- one would assume the caliber of your research to be a little higher. aq (not verified) | 07/02/09 | 16:15 PM
Reply to This Link

Are you saying transsexuals don't act like females? I'm confused. Apparently you haven't talked to the right transsexuals. Anyway, there are many issues and it's interesting. Scott (not verified) | 07/03/09 | 07:27 AM
Reply to This Link

In relation to Michael Jackson's interest in pubescent boys, here is a link to an article in Britain's Daily Mirror. http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2009/06/28/first-target-of-michael-j... Whilst I wouldn't regard the British tabloids as the most reliable source, the story does have the ring of truth about it. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/03/09 | 08:51 AM
Reply to This
Link
once again Bailey proves/shows how much of an idiot he is. Talk about spouting crap. Talk about a full out sexually fixated narcissist. Oner need only spend a few hours to read up on the various, junk, studies he has done over the years and how he came to his "brilliant" conclusions to understand his constant desire to deal with his own sexual issues. Now the guy can read minds, dead ones at that, uses false autopsy reports and just plain makes it up as he goes. What's the matter Micheal, you need attention that much? femme (not verified) | 07/03/09 | 20:00 PM
Reply to This Link

Regarding Bailey's previous work, I love how everyone seems to call it "junk science", but nobody has come up with any criticism of his methodology. Instead, it's just "well, that doesn't match up with my personal experience, so his findings must be wrong". Anonymous (not verified) | 07/04/09 | 01:10 AM
Reply to This Link

"My personal experience" comes from both client work and from social and support interaction with over a thousand trans people. I simply do not see what Bailey sees. If nothing else, it raises a question mark over sampling methods, both mine and his. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/04/09 | 02:56 AM
Reply to This Link
And so the professor further reinforces what is already blatantly obvious. This article is another example of the ramblings of a sexually obsessed, fantasist-cum-quack who doles out pseudo-science with his one free hand. AJ A James (not verified) | 07/04/09 | 04:48 AM
Reply to This Link

Michael Jackson was studied by numerous psychologist's (including for the court) that determined he was not sexually attracted to children. One of them, Dr. Stan Katz. People use the word 'freakish' to describe him. I don't think he was freakish. Marilyn Manson, yes. Michael Jackson, not really.. like plenty of people perhaps he wanted in some areas opposite of what he had (skin, nose) I think people were surprised at the change
but it was gradual and as far as plastic surgery, they did an excellent job in accomplishing the look he wanted. He looked great. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/04/09 | 15:46 PM
Reply to This Link

feeling of love and attraction towards a child from a pedeophile?. Man you got that wrong. A child cannot comprehend romantic love, their brains are not mature enough. And so the law of nature tells us thatthere is no way you as an adult can be ''in love'' with a child when a child can never return that love, obsessed perhaps, attracted yes not love. Thats BULLSHIT Anonymous (not verified) | 07/05/09 | 13:05 PM
Reply to This Link

It's really sad when one can only focus on the negative. I believe Michael was a Asexual man but what does it really matter the man is gone the family and friends that loved him are so hurt and want to focus on how great he was, how giving he was and what changes he brought to the world and the music industry. Like how he was the first black entertainer on MTV, bringing some diversity. It so interesting that everyone that had a close relationship or even those that met him had nothing but nice things to say about him. So maybe to the professor (someone that never met him) he was weird but to others his personal life and preference had nothing to do with how he treated them, which one would think that would be the most important thing to remember and talk about. For once can we focus on the good and discard the bad? I love you Michael Jackson and my you rest in peace..... Anonymous (not verified) | 07/06/09 | 11:42 AM
Reply to This Link

What an utter pile of crap. Bailey, learn to shut the fuck up about gay men and our sexual feelings, because you plainly do not know what the fuck you are talking about. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/07/09 | 01:03 AM
Reply to This Link

Don't be mad about someones opinion of homosexuals and michael jackson. If you are gay than I think you have some mental disorder, and need psychological help that does not exist in the U.S.A. If you are a convicted pedaphile I think life imprisonment or death is appropriate. If you like to take advantage of teenagers and their sexual promiscuity, you need to be arrested for statutory rape and sentenced to 10 years, and repeat offenders should get a life sentence.Michael Jackson was a homosexual hebephile in my opinion and should not be glorified as a great human being. Also, Elvis was a heterosexual hebephile,
Priscilla was only 14 years old when he met her. Both should be remembered as the Kings of Hebephilia.R. Kelly and Jerry Lee Lewis will be the princes. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/07/09 | 10:40 AM
Reply to This Link
I'm not concerned with people's "opinions", it's just the obvious ignorance and cliche-mongering of Bailey's posts that annoys me. Your views about being gay and having mental disorders also are ignorant. I don't know why you'd care about my mental health, and apparently you haven't heard about NARTH, but oh well. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/08/09 | 04:19 AM
Reply to This Link
I'm not concerned with people's "opinions", it's just the obvious ignorance and cliche-mongering of Bailey's posts that annoys me. Your views about being gay and having mental disorders also are ignorant. I don't know why you'd care about my mental health, and apparently you haven't heard about NARTH, but oh well. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/08/09 | 04:19 AM
Reply to This Link
michal jackson was a strange individual. Homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals, they are mentally ill. Anyone who has anal sex male or female has some serious issues. That hole is for relieving the bowels and farting. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/07/09 | 10:24 AM
Reply to This Link

Sounds like cowboy likes sixteen year olds Anonymous (not verified) | 07/07/09 | 10:28 AM
Reply to This Link

This is total and utter conjecture. However, the vast amount of words wasted explaining the author's factually unbased opinion might lead some to think he had a proper argument. The author repeats the he thinks MJ did molest children, but gives not even passing evidence to support his belief. There was a time when unrelated adult men could be close friends (and even nap) with a child without people presuming a sexual nature about their relationship. Too bad those times have past in America. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/07/09 | 12:37 PM
Reply to This Link

Way back when men used to lay with young boys, people were naive to homosexuality. I do believe that those young boys were being molested and abused. Just because no one suspected anything does not mean that they were not being abused. Children were physically abused alot more often in olden days. So I would believe that they were also sexually abused. Men also married younger girls back then.Sounds to me that you would like to lay with a couple of young boys.Back to Michael Jackson, Michael may not have molested the young boys, but he is not the saint alot of people are painting him as.We can not prove either way so lets just leave it alone. THE FREAK IS DEAD! He was not a gift from god! everyone wants to credit him for where music is today, I give more credit to James Brown. Who do you think Michael was emulating as a child. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/08/09 | 14:27 PM
Reply to This Link
Reply to This Link
Reply to This Link
must say one thing, all you people who think Micheal Jackson is capable of hurting a child are the ones who truly need help not Micheal. He was pure and would never hurt a child. Its people like you and the
congressman that think that way and who are the real perverts. I wish there were more people in this world who were like Micheal Jackson, the world would be a better place. He was loving, giving and donated immense amounts of money to charities what have you done??? other than buy YOURSELF STUFF and drive your fancy cars. Before you judge someone know the whole story and dont just listen to the awful media because its horrible stories like this that sell not the trulth unfortuantely. As a mother i would leave my children with Micheal and not one second have doubts as to wheather he would hurt my children. He was a legend and deserves all the attention he is getting. For all you selfish, rude, hating people that have nothing better to do than insult micheal SHAME ON YOU If you saw it with your own eyes then you can accuse him otherwise please keep quite and let the world mourn a wonderful artist, man and father Anonymous (not verified) | 07/07/09 | 17:26 PM
Reply to This Link

How do you know he is innocent? How do you know what kind of father he was. That awful media has been painting him as a saint.If more people were like Michael Jackson, then we would have alot more people ashamed of who they are, and trying to be what they are not. For those who want to see Michael as a great person SHAME ON YOU! He was a good artist and dancer but he was not a saint. And he was not proud of how the heavenly father made him. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/08/09 | 14:39 PM
Reply to This Link
How do any of us know what Michael was like....We do not know and the media will give small bits of info. and piece other bits of info.together to create the person they want us to think the person is. So for those who want to see Michael as a great person you do just that and those of you that don't you do just that but let there be no shame. That's the problem some people like to shame others into being and doing things the way they want things viewed. Be free, be you and do you. Its all an opinion and we all have that right to one. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/14/09 | 12:23 PM
Reply to This Link
Bury Mr. Jackson in Gary, indiana johnny (not verified) | 07/08/09 | 16:56 PM
Reply to This Link

"Autogynephilia is probably the most common motivation in the United States for sex reassignment surgery among males becoming female ... Do not confuse autogynephiles with individuals such as gay drag queens or homosexual males who decide to become women. Homosexual drag queens and transsexuals are exclusively and unambiguously attracted to men, and they do not cross dress or behave like women, or imagine that they have female genitalia, in order to excite themselves sexually. "
It's a shame that a "Professor," of psychology no less, at a prestigious institution such as Northwestern doesn't know what he is talking about. It is YOU, "Dr." Baily, who is confusing terms and definitions. Gender identity and sexual orientation are completely separate, transsexuals are not "homosexual men" (they're transsexuals!), and the theory of autogynephilia is espoused by a limited number of people in the field, mainly because it's unproven. Where did you get the ridiculous statistics that autogynephilia is the most common motivation for sex reassignment surgery? Medical transition of transsexuals is the most common motivation for SRS! Someone should send your inaccurate blog to your department chair. I hope you do not see clients, and if you do, I have sincere pity (and concern) for them under your care. Anderson (not verified) | 07/09/09 | 00:04 AM
Reply to This Link

in my personnal opinion on mihael jackson sexual orientation i believe he had in one way a regressive mind when it came to certain aspects of life. many people still don't realize he was at a young age program to be like an adult showman and that is probably why he when he mature wanted to create a childhood that he never had for example he never always had time to play with other childern when he was a kid and he came for simple roots and never had much in life except his talents and that is why i believe he created neverland it was like the playground he never had a chance to play in,and even when the where investigating the moslation case on michael jackson the pychitarist that examined him said that he didn't have the mind of a pedihilla but the mind of an regerssive person who had the mentalty of a10 year old boy which i would believe would result in odd behaviuor i'm not trying to say he had no brains he was unargubly a musical genuis but he always had that ablity i'm only saying that he was the way he was because of his childhood which probably caused he not to mature in the right way in some areas of his life Anonymous (not verified) | 07/09/09 | 00:38 AM
Reply to This Link

Hank you're gorgeous. I think I'm in Love. Peter Anonymous (not verified) | 07/09/09 | 07:12 AM
Reply to This Link

These blogs seem more like an attack on Dr. Bailey's opinion, rather than a discussion of MIchael Jackson's interest in pubescent boys. Whether he was or was not sexually involved with the young boys, we do not know. But we do know that he put himself in a vulnerable position by sharing his bed and holding hands with them. He showed very poor judgement by continuing to sleep with the youngsters after he had already settled out of on two previous occasions for molestation charges. I do not know if he was a hebephile, or a transsexual wannabe, but I can understand why so many people think that he had to have some sexual
interest in boys. In my opinion Michael was mentally ill and theres alot more to it than just a missed childhood. Janet Jackson was also in show business at an early age and does not seem to have the behaviors of her older brother. Maybe his brain isn't wired right or something. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/09/09 | 09:12 AM
Reply to This Link

" Janet Jackson was also in show business at an early age and does not seem to have the behaviors of her older brother. Maybe his brain isn't wired right or something." You do realize that no 2 people are alike--even if they are twins. Two people might have the same experience & react differently. Besides, by the time Janet entered show business, MJ & the bros. had already done all the hard work & paved the way for her. Being the sister of Michael Jackson, I'm sure opened a lot of doors for her. I hope his brain was wired differently, because we don't want the word genius to be overused--do we?. Allie (not verified) | 12/29/09 | 16:20 PM
Reply to This Link
I am a white female who was sexually abused as a child. In my opinion, I really do not think Michael Jackson molested children. I would think my opinion would count a little, since I know what it is like to be a victim. After finding out how much money the parents received, and the books that were publish by Jordan Chandler, his sister and his uncle, it is so obvious the entire family wanted to ruin Michael Jackson's career and life for money. Jordan Chandler's father Evan Chandler knew the worst thing a man could EVER be accused of is "child molesting". Evan Chandler did a terrific job convincing the world. Maybe people should put Evan Chandler's under a microscope, now.. After what happened to me, I could never publish a book about what happened. I think I would have jumped off a bridge if my family started telling my story and publishing books. People who are legitimate victims do not want to talk about this unless they know it is going to help other people and maybe not even then. I was never a Michael Jackson fan but these accusations should really stop, whenever I hear them I just want to scream. I never heard the biggest child advocate in the world "John Walsh" warning parents about Michael Jackson. Has anyone? It was clearly the parents fault for allowing their children to stay with him, which makes me believe the parents had ulterior motives. Even after the first allegations, parents allowed it ! Seem a little odd? I bet other victims would agree with me.. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/11/09 | 09:32 AM
Reply to This Link
It is so weird to say that transsexuals are homosexual males. The truth is that transexuals have a female gender identity and homosexual males have a male gender identity though many gay men might like to don feminine objects as sexual objects too which again does not mean they are autogynephilic. Bailey does need a refresher course so that he does not end up labelling all feminine males and boyish tomboys as transsexuals or autogynephiles. His definitions would only add to more confusion among other people,so, I request him to stop his comments unless he learns more. The ultimate reality is that paraphilias are just paraphilias and they never reflect inborn gender identity. Sam (not verified) | 07/12/09 | 12:56 PM
Reply to This Link

I think that it's due to these doctors as Bailey that more and more paraphilic people are lining up to say they are born transgendered. Many people have gender issues and/or paraphilias in private and it is more common today due to rising consumerism and sexually arousing stimuli all around. There is nothing to call every parahilic person as autogynephile. Desires are just getting manifold these days even among ordinary people, so, it's an age where it's really difficult to identify the real transsexual from the artificial one, so, Bailey's articles only confuse the issue further. Manny (not verified) | 07/12/09 | 13:02 PM
Reply to This Link

The day is not far away when a human being will call into question every fantasy he has everyday and think it's happening to him as he is born like that. Does Bailey want every human on earth to start questioning his gender? Rhodes (not verified) | 07/12/09 | 13:04 PM
Reply to This Link

Why is everything always treated as an aspect of being "inborn" that cannot be controlled through counselling? Maybe true transsexualism is like that, but surely, not the sexual obsession of autogynephiles? I fail to understand why instead of setting up professional counsellors to cure people of sexual paraphilias, people like Bailey always aggravate this world's natural order by saying everything is inborn? This is one of the reasons why I hate researchers and like corporate managers. Researchers only present their own lopsided views, they don't care about preserving the world and its people in reality. It's better we called corporate managers to deal with such issues as they are more practical. Rhodes (not verified) | 07/12/09 | 13:07 PM
Reply to This Link
Transsexualism is transsexualism, the root causes do not matter. In the theory that Dr. Bailey subscribes to there are no "true transsexuals"....just transsexuals who are ALL equally "true". The homosexual transsexual, former feminine boy come woman, is just a true as the autogynephilic not so feminine male come woman. It is a distinction but not difference. What matters is that the person always functions better after they begin living as a female. Dont tase me bro Hontas Farmer | 07/15/09 | 19:25 PM
Reply to This Link
When anybody's paraphilias are met in real life, he would obviously perform and live better and more happily, it's common sense. So, no wonder that the autogynephile would be happier after transition. Does that mean you give vent to all types of anomalous paraphilias and let people do whatever they want? Remember, this is democracy but not a hooligan's land. Bailey should be ashamed of himself. He has caused great shame to Europe and USA. Angrygay (not verified) | 07/16/09 | 00:25 AM
Reply to This Link
"Angrygay" you do realize that to allot of people being gay is a paraphillia. :-/ People in glass houses.... Dont tase me bro Hontas Farmer | 07/16/09 | 02:19 AM
Reply to This Link
PEOPLE WHO THINK MICHAEL JACKSON IS PEDO TYPE IN GOOGLE jodan chandler says it all
rip cant stop crying :( sarah (not verified) | 07/13/09 | 17:40 PM
Reply to This Link
In my Jackson Freakishness Explained article posted herein, I speculate that the loveless sterile way that Jackson grew up may have contributed to his similarly freakish level of talent. I don't know what went on in his home, but would note that he was acquitted in a criminal trial. I've been on a jury, and although the system is not perfect, I think it is good enough that he would have been convicted if he was clearly guilty. Thus I make the assumption that he is not clearly guilty, although I'm not familiar with the trial, including what he was specifically found not guilty of. The whole situation is sad. It is sad that such a talented guy had such demons inside. It is sad that Joe Jackson seems apparently incapable of human emotion. And, it is sad that either Jackson had inappropriate relations with some children, or the parents of some children used their children to try to gain from an innnocent and naive superstar.
James Hawkins | 07/15/09 | 12:31 PM
Reply to This Link

Just any type of paraphilia may exist, including being gay. So, just stop that through psychological counseling, that's it. These researchers are inhibiting addressing counselling by forcing people to accept themselves as born this way. They are an enemy to human psychology. Please kick them out. As for Jackson, a lot could have been done through counseling. But doctors made it worse for him by encouraging him to proceed with his surgery and drugs. The doctors and medical researchers are guilty for this, not Jackson. He was just a victim of human devil of psychology which could be addressed sensibly. What this nonsense of inner life and all? Stupid unscientific thoughts. Angrygay (not verified) | 07/16/09 | 05:37 AM
Reply to This Link

Hontas Farmer, have you gone mad, claiming that people change sex just because they would "perform better in the opposite role"? I guess then you should suggest transforming all women in this world to men since many women are not able to realize their skills in public due to sexual harassment in office,
professions, so are sad being females afterall. Support that also if you want. Do just anything, right, you morons? Cook (not verified) | 07/16/09 | 05:43 AM
Reply to This Link
Who said jack about changing sex? Are you talking about my article on MJ? If so then I think maybey you read the title and greatly misunderstood both it, and the process of transgender transition.
Dont tase me bro Hontas Farmer | 07/19/09 | 19:57 PM
Reply to This Link
I did not mention about Jack changing sex. I referred to your above comments: " What matters is that the person always functions better after they begin living as a female." Cook (not verified) | 07/20/09 | 11:33 AM
Reply to This Link

I think this article speaks volumes more about the hidden world of the author and his agenda. What is conveniently overlooked and unfairly unbalanced in this premature analysis is the reality of Michael's moves - there is nothing childish in his talent. In looking at the author, I see he is not an attractive man and can surmise that growing up with pop cultural icons like Michael must have left him feeling quite inadequate. Furthermore, what kind of man dedicates his life to be a professional in the strange sexual behavior department - probably one who has had to masturbate more than average. Turnabout is fair play. Anonymous (not verified) | 08/02/09 | 19:15 PM
Reply to This Link

Anonymous...yes why don't we do some armchair analysis by virtue of the author's picture and his blogging here of his sexual orientation and apparent other abnormalities. Why bother with facts or information. Let's all just speculate. We can blather on and on about much and nothing and come up with any conclusion we want to.
Paulie (not verified) | 12/29/09 | 18:59 PM
Reply to This Link
'Michael Jackson' didn't have a childhood he was abused by his father both physically and emotionally. he lacked a good male rolemodel. This made MJ feel unworthy, insecure, lonely and without love. his thinking became warped and his psyches became deeply wounded, An important part of why MJ was like this he never grew up but remained a hurt child. I honestly Believe that MJ was a Pedophile I think he did hurt that boy. People always use the excuse of the whole 'the family wanted money' But no one ever listened to the other half of the story. Just because you ":think" Michael Jackson was Innocent doesn't mean he was. Michael was happy with himself he wasn't just any person he was the "King Of Pop" so he couldn't possibly be bad. Michael earned this boys trust, he became close to the boys family he took his time to "groom" this boy the way he wanted him. He seduced him with gifts,money,trips etc... The boys father was not in the kids life MJ knew that so he wanted to make the boy "think" he cared about him just has much. And I don't care what anyone else thinks Michael Jackson did molest Jordan Chandler, and I believe that he made Jordan feel ashamed and made Jordan feel that he was the bad one, So I feel for Jordan because I do think he was abused. Look up Traits of a pedophile- and read what it tells you MJ fits all of the traits but people are so blinded by his fame that you can't see past that because under his whole Image he was a troubled man who needed help. I just feel sorry that he never tried to seek that 'help'. Michael was an amazing entertainer but he was not a very good person. Anonymous (not verified) | 08/06/09 | 20:57 PM
Reply to This Link

Actually research the case and look at all the other boys that Michael Jackson 'groomed' and who have claimed Michael Jackson did not molest them. Just because you are predisposed to believing that Michael Jackson is guilty doesn't mean he was, especially if the evidence contradicts your line of thinking. I guess all the other kids that MJ 'groomed' must have enjoyed their molestation and thats why they are defending to their molester. Jordie Chandler with the help of his con-artist of a father was the only child brave enough to admit that the molestation was wrong. You haters are even more delusional than MJ Fanatics. Anonymous (not verified) | 10/05/09 | 01:34 AM
Reply to This Link
Michael Jackson was not born with any genetic disroder, so do none of the GLBTs, All psychologically abnormal people in this world have a wounded childhood in some or the other way though they can't recollect it. A girl becomes a lesbian when in her childhood she has learnt to despise femininity. A common evidence which suggests this is that most gays to a great extent exhibit narcissism or are highly
self-obsessed or egoistic. This shows that such weird thoughts stem from a broken childhood or a distorted way of upbringing. So, the same case applies to Jackson as well. He was a mentally castrated male as due to his wicked father, he began to despise males and masculinity, and hence went on to love children. He might as easily have become a homosexual and developed SSA tendencies.. Cook (not verified) | 08/07/09 | 03:24 AM
Reply to This Link

I guess "mental castration" has a devastating effect on a person's self-identity and people like Bailey are making it worse for these people by saying they were born with these disorders. Most people who develop cross-gender or anomalous traits, have some distorted chain of events in their upbringing which makes them hate what they are. The example of Jackson's father gives a clear evidence of this. Manny (not verified) | 08/07/09 | 03:27 AM
Reply to This Link

LOLOLOL MJ + Pedophile = Same Anonymous (not verified) | 08/17/09 | 09:20 AM
Reply to This Link

I think Jackson was a homosexual. The more older brothers a male has, the more likely he is to be homosexual, because of hormones in the mother's body, Michael was the 6th male to be born to Katherine Jackson (Marlon had a twin who died). Jackson also was upset at his divorce to Lisa Marie Presley because it "may never happen again" supposedly referring to being able to let himself go with someone. But it seems to me like he was worried may never be attracted to an actual female again. He was a virgin until he met her. Also he was very upset at being accused of homosexuality - would a heterosexual be so worried? Another thing is, if you watch videos of him, the way he expresses himself is very feminine - his face was expressive, and he reads the other person's face, whereas most men have fewer facial expressions and stare rather than flickering across the face. These and many other things lead me to believe he was homosexual, and because of his religious upbringing stunted himself. Jackson was obviously comfortable with children, and maybe the only way he could express his sexuality was with them although he definately wasn't inherently attracted to them. I think he probably did abuse Jordan Chandler. Remember that paedophiles don't understand the emotional damage they cause and child abuse is okay if, for example, it's consented by the child. Or even initiated by the child - this can happen. Paedophiles can feel they are showing the victim love. He said he "would never hurt a child". He wouldn't, not intentionally. Note how he said hurt rather than touch.
As for his surgery hobby, I can relate to that totally. If money was no object when I was 14 I would have done exactly the same thing. Michael said "you wanna die" and I totally understand that. I used to wish I was aborted and my parents were selfish for having a baby knowing they carried recessive ugly genes. Jackson was also fascinated with genes. Jackson was a dreamer and a fantasist, like me. This come about from having a bad chilhood and developing a vivid imagination to escape from it. He would have dreamed about being beautiful when he was younger and because of the vivid mind it would have seemed real to him, and then had surgery to turn it into actuality. Anonymous (not verified) | 08/26/09 | 22:45 PM
Reply to This Link

Bottom line: Michael Jackson was mentally ill and used his fame and fortune for both good and evil. In the end, he got what he deserved; an early death from a bad case of denial. Anonymous (not verified) | 09/12/09 | 15:31 PM
Reply to This Link

Michael Jackson was scary looking and a pedophile. I don't understand how people can just say he wasn't because you enjoy his music. In the end we all have our different opinons on the case and none of us were there. Anonymous (not verified) | 09/21/09 | 21:38 PM
Reply to This Link

MJ was innocent! If people did their research we wouldn't have endless nonsense from world authorities on him. Read redemption by geraldine hughes, conspiracy by aphrodite jones, mary fischer article for GQ magazine in 1994,larry nimmer dvd, floacist - MJ, tom mesereau wanted chandler to take the stand because he had witnesses that chandler had lied to save his family from being poor, jason francia mom got sacked from neverland for stealing then they made a story up. The families were all about greed and extortion. http://www.buttonmonkey.com/misc/maryfischer.html http://floacist.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/the-settlement-did-jackson-admi... http://www.zimbio.com/Hip+Hop+Culture/articles/NYrfi5fp_1n/Micheal+Jacks... http://site2.mjeol.com/video/video-2005-mesereau-had-witnesses-ready-to-... Anonymous (not verified) | 09/29/09 | 15:47 PM
Reply to This Link

All you ignorant fools should actually research the cases before passing judgment or else say you dont know if hes guilty or not because you dont know the evidence. There is no evidence that Michael Jackson ever molested anyone other than the words of proven and admitted liars who couldnt keep their lies straight
under oath. If they had evidence in 1993, Sneddon would have arrested Michael Jackson and charged him with child molestation, instead the police investigation went on for more than a year and no charges were ever brought. Jackson was found not guilty in 2005 because he was NOT GUILTY. The prosecution presented NO evidence to support Gavin Arvizos claims that Michael Jackson molested him. Instead all the evidence, even the prosecutions evidence pointed to the fact that Gavin and his family were a bunch con-artists trying to pull the biggest con of their careers with the help of the mainstream media. People like to claim Michael Jackson was a pedophile based on these idiotic lines of reasoning. 1. Hes spends time with kids instead of women, therefore he is a child molester. If so how come all the kids he spends time with arent accusing him? How come all the victims that exist in your imaginations never come forward with allegations. Hes had thousands of kids at Neverland over the years, and only three accusers, all whose parents happen to be con-artists chasing after money. 2. He paid them off so hes guilty. Do you know the difference between a civil case and criminal case. WTF is something as serious as child molestation doing in civil court instead of criminal court. If you think someone molested your kid you go straight to the cops, you dont call your lawyer and file a lawsuit and then refuse to cooperate with the police once you get a settlement. Explain to me where in the settlement http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041jacko1.html does it say the money is contingent upon the accusers failure to cooperate with the police. It was the Chandlers decision and theirs alone to run after taking the money. If you bother to read it (I know its to difficult for idiots) youd notice MJ claimed hes innocent in the settlement and accuser and his lawyers agreed to sign it. By this idiotic logic, Janet Arvizo and her children were telling the truth when they claimed that a JC Pennys security guard beat and sexually abused her because JC Penny settled with her for more than 100,000. Please. 3. He had money so he beat the rap. Martha Stewart, Paris Hilton, Chris Brown, Madoff, etc. I guess did not have enough money to beat the rap. Michael Jacksons trial was one of the most expensive trial in U.S. History. It cost taxpayers 2.7 million dollars. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Michael-Jackson-s-Trial-Costs-27-million... Sneddon had been chasing after Michael Jackson for 12 years and he still could not find any evidence or credible witnesses, despite ransacking Neverland twice with 70 police officers, setting up a hotline for alleged victims to come forward, and traveling around the world looking for victims. 4. OJ Simpson got away with it, so Michael Jackson got away with it too. People who think OJ is guilty can point to evidence, something that MJ haters have a hard time doing. By that same logic, Charles Manson is also innocent because some people are wrongfully convicted. Therefore, we should release all convicted criminals from prison. 5. "He sleeps with boys." This is not illegal. If you want to use this as proof of his guilt, then at a minimum the boys he's sleeping with have to be the ones accusing him, NOT you. This didnt happen in the Michael Jackson case, contrary to popular belief. Gavin Arvizo the boy accusing him in 2005 never slept in bed with Michael Jackson, according to the Martin Bashir interview and witnesses at the trial. He slept in the guest room with his family. Macaulay Culkin, Wade Robson, and Bert Lewis, all testified they slept with Jackson in the early 90s and nothing happened. Do you know better than them what happened to them? Jordie Chandler (the boy got the settlement in the early 90s) skipped the country so he wouldn't have to testify in the 2005 case. Gee, I wonder why? 6. There was lurid testimony. Little' boys never lie (the boy was 13?). When a child speaks we should believe them I can give lurid testimony about you too. I wonder if that makes it true. Heres one of my favorites from you tube. On the witch hunt for victims Diane Diamond comes across a boy who could give lurid testimony that Michael Jackson molested him and details of his time at Neverland. She believed him
and wasted months trying to corroborate his story and even gets the police involved. Turned out this kids a liar whod never even met Michael Jackson. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3GbPkR-ne4 Anonymous (not verified) | 10/05/09 | 01:16 AM
Reply to This Link

Dude he was a pedophile. It hurts me too, but there is just too much evidence. The most potent: Why would little sweet Jordie not speak to his mother for 10 years? 25 Million dollars is not pocket change regardless of how rich you are. That's hush money Why would all these new anchors say he was a pedophile if he wasn't: Diane Dimond, Maureen Orth, Catherine Crier, Matt Lauder, Diane Sawyer the list goes on and on. Dude one is a one off, 2 is a coincidence, but 3 is a pattern. MICHAEL JACKSON WAS A PEDOPHILE deal with it. I am will to argue with anyone based on months of collecting evidence that your precious MJ was a child molester. Even his Rabbi thinks he did sometime unholy to children. Chinchilla (not verified) | 10/09/09 | 21:38 PM
Reply to This Link
No there is not enough evidence. You can't even argue with me on the evidence. You name drop, a bunch tabloid reporters, all of whom have a financial interest in Michael Jackson being a pedophile and being found guilty so they could continue their sensational reporting. They all wanted him to be guilty, from the moment the charges were brought in 1993. It would have been the biggest fall from grace in history. Imagine the one of the most famous people in the world, guilty of the most heinous crimes and going to prison. That would have been a great story. The extortion angle isn't a big enough story. The public LOVES sex scandals. Don't be retarded and tell me just because a bunch of tabloids say he's guilty, therefore it must be true. Point me to the evidence that suggests he's guilty. Also, you're lying. It was not 25 million dollars. Go click on the link I provided for you in my post and figure out how much money it was. This is another example of ignorant sensationalism. The truth is not interesting enough, you have to make stuff up. As for your 'hush money' claim go to, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_(litigation), and learn what a civil settlement is. I even addressed that piece of nonsense in my original post. Its telling that you have nothing better to argue. The same thing goes for your '3' is a pattern, is BS. I already addressed that in my original post. LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE, and use logic, stop repeating i How can he be a pedophile and associates with thousands of
kids, and even bragged about sleeping with them, and have only 3 alleged victims, all whoms parents are scum bag con-artists (this is a proven fact). That makes no sense. If you wanna talk about patterns, there has been a pattern of Michael Jackson publicly befriending boys for the past 30 years of his life. There is a pattern of boys DENYING that Jackson ever molested them. MJ always talked about how much he loved children in all of his interviews. He had nothing to hide from anybody. How do you explain the 30 kids the police interrogated in 1993 all of whom, except for the maid's son (maid happens to be a crook who was paid by Diane Dimond to say Michael Jackson is a pedophile), denied Jackson molested them. Plus the three men who actually SLEPT with Michael Jackson when they were children and claim he did not molest them. Contrast this with Gavin and Jason, who did not have a close relationship with Jackson and did not share a bed him, yet they claim he did molest them. Those two boys have parents with dubious motivations and its telling that they are the only ones making accusations. Jackson's lifestyle made him a sitting duck for child molestation accusation. Whats shocking is that there were so FEW allegations, from dubious sources. Finally, you are lying about the Rabbi. He did not think he did something unholy to children, he took the politically correct route and said he does not know, BIG Diffference. Again, another example of fudging the truth to try to prove your point. Anonymous (not verified) | 10/11/09 | 01:21 AM
Reply to This Link
The one question I hear no-one asking in the press or blogland in general is:- why was Michael Jackson taking an extreme drug? What made a relatively fit man known for abstention from the early part of his career until the mid-1990's, end his days in a made-to-measure trauma room? A star by the age of 10, catapulted into superstardom after the success of his first two solo albums, his dominance in the music industry coincided with the multimedia explosion of the late 1980s. One of the first of the new breed of artists to fully explore the potential of synergistic promotion of product as a vehicle to reach new audiences, by 1991 the 'Michael Jackson' brand, had penetrated the consciousness of the entire developed and most of the undeveloped world. With such unprecedented accessibility came also unprecedented pressure. Pressure to maintain and exceed his own standards, constant deconstruction by the press, and emotional isolation as the gilded chains of a life lived under the microscope bound ever tighter. There is no room here to list the enormous contribution he made to the lives of children all over the globe. His efforts are a matter of public record and the information regarding them is easily obtainable on the web. Suffice it to say, Michael saw children not as people-in-waiting, but as bonafide, sentient personalities whose process and concerns were worthy of respect and protection. Using his fame and wealth to radically benefit the lives of such young people was something Michael believed to be his ultimate purpose here, and it is in this light that we can perhaps understand the catastrophic, internal damage the public cauterization that came from 1993 onwards must have done to him.
Something rotten has been decaying at the the heart of our media for some time now, but it took the death of one of its favourite page-fillers to expose the reality of what the cumulative effect of deliberate mental and emotional attack on a person actually looks like. It must surely now be apparent that the existing regulatory checks and balances within the media are totally inadequate and further, that those monitoring capabilities are unable to prevent the now standard take aim and destroy default position the media now typically seems to operate from in relation to the subjects it goes after. Michaels early death was not a given. Only the most imperceptive would deny that the anaesthetic that killed him was, in reality, just a formality. What killed Michael Jackson was the sustained agony of being put through a baseless, protracted trial in full view of the worlds lens - knowing if found guilty, he would be removed from his childrens lives. And even after his acquittal, facing relentless vilification by a media that chose to simply disregard a verdict they found economically inconvienient. British journalist Charles Thomsons clear analysis of the recently released FBI files which can be viewed at: http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2010/01/fbi-files-support-j... - finally and absolutely debunks the myth of Michael Jackson as child molester. Thomsons point by point breakdown of the files reveals not only the inability of both the FBI and the LAPD to provide any evidence of criminal wrongdoing by Jackson in an investigation that spanned over a decade, but also the continuing inference by the media of exactly the opposite of this. It is important to note that there is a profound difference between the FBI stating that X and Y were alleged, and the FBI saying they investigated X and Y and found X and Y to be proven. Thomsons review of the files is thus required reading for any who wish to seperate the facts from the soundbites which have largely dominated the media reporting on them. Because the truth is, after the most thorough investigation the American taxpayers money could buy, one of the world's foremost intelligence gathering agencies and the LAPD came up with precisely nothing. Instead we were served a collage of cut-out articles from a UK tabloid, the dubious recollections of an unverifiable woman on a train, and two ex-employees who only came forward after the 1993 allegations broke and who, coincidentally, were also hawking a tell-all book to anyone who would listen. Long before Dr Murray ever wrote his first 'feel-good' prescription, a lie of epic proportions would set in motion a cataclysmic series of events that would bring Michael to the state of profound depletion we saw in 2005. Evan Chandler - a known brutalist, and Janet Arviso, a proven welfare cheat and compensation chaser, manipulated the American criminal system and a willing media to bury Michael under the worst label society has determined exists. No proof was required, the suggestion was enough. And the world watched on the edge of their seats, as the obvious perjury of the witnesses was overlooked in the stampede to crucify a man previously so celebrated. The inevitably, frenzied media coverage of Dr Murrays impending trial which will replay the details of Michael's dying moments for months to come, has now already begun its crescendo. It is more than a little
disturbing to observe how quickly those same people who actively colluded in the degradation and erosion of Michaels spirit and dignity for over 15 years, have regrouped to focus on Dr Murray as the 'fall guy' for the part he played in Jackson's death. Murray's culpability cannot be denied, but he was far from alone in his opportunism. Where were the voices now wailing about wasted resources and the rights of taxpayers when Tom Sneddon authorized the use of millions of dollars of federal money to pursue Michael in his deeply personal and blinkered 'takedown' of the, then biggest pop star on the planet? Michael Jackson didnt bankrupt the City of Angels; they fell all by themselves. For a country that can shine so bright when it chooses to what America did to this man stands as one of the most shameful examples of engineered cruelty and unmitigated persecution to be witnessed in modern times. p.s Short version: Michael Jackson was not a pedophile. Deborah Ffrench (not verified) | 01/14/10 | 18:30 PM
Reply to This Link
Considering the picture of this mr Bailey, I think he probably is an homosexual and has autogynephilia but certainly does not have apotemnophilia. In any case he certainly looks like he has an erotic identity disorder. No wonder he became an "expert" on the subject. Anonymous (not verified) | 10/05/09 | 03:06 AM
Reply to This Link

I love this discussion. Let's be honest, if Michael was guilty of the first molestation, Jordan Chandler, then he was probaly guilty for the others. Due to the fact that the first case never went to trial unlike the last, and the accuser was never cross examined brings us to interesting cross roads. If the photographs of Michael's penis match the description given by Jordan Chandler, then we have a winner. However, those files are sealed for life. Without the public knowing definitively what the pictures look like the Jackson fans have a strong case for extortion. I believe it was both. Jordie's abuse was used by the father to extort money from Jackson. I also believe that June Chandler was not part of the extortion scheme she was a bystander and Jordie was a pawn. Now according to Mary K Fischer the photographs do not match, mainly because Jordie said Jackson was circumcized when he was not. However some have pointed out that an erect penis can look circumcized. I am buying this argument,; Jordie was 13 years old he damn well knows the difference between an erect and flacid penis. I still think MJ molested him, but I can understand why the fans have doubts. For me Jordie sounds and looks believable. Jason is totally believable, Gavin makes me pause especially after the Larry Nimmer documentary.
Somedays I have my doubts to MJ's guilt. I sure wished Jordie had taken the stand, some of the Jackson fans I must given them credit can be very convincing with they theory and evidence, but Michael lied too much and June Chandler on the stand is very convincing. Chinchilla (not verified) | 10/10/09 | 00:21 AM
Reply to This Link

You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to go around, claiming Michael Jackson was a PEDOPHILE, despite all the contrary evidence. That is slander, when even you have your doubts and you can't even make a strong case for it, I can tear each of your claims appart. I forgot to address June Chandler in my other post. Regardless of whether or not Jordan Chandler's molestation claims are true, the entire family's life has been destroyed by what happened in 1993, which I believe due to the actual EVIDENCE (not heresay, innuendo, rumors, half-truths) was an extortion attempt. Plain and simple. Considering the fact that their was already family discord long before Jackson got involved, ie. the divorce, step-parents, bitter custody battle, there could be many reasons why her relationship with her son has suffered. You don't know what they are. It isn't proof of molestation. Your claim that Michael Jackson, molested Jordie and his father was trying to extort Michael Jackson, makes no sense. If the molestation allegation was true, then obviously there would be no need for Evan extort Michael Jackson. He could have BOTH sent Jackson to prison AND collected every penny he earned in civil court. Michael Jackson was worth close to a half a billion dollars at that point in his career. If the molestation allegations were true, ie. the pictures matched Jordie's description, then he would have had no reason to settle for ONLY 15 million dollars and let Jackson get away with claiming that he was innocent in the settlement (if you even bothered to read the settlement documents that I posted you'd know this, instead of claiming ridiculous sums). What people don't understand about a civil settlement is that it takes 2 to settle. People who sue, and then agree to settle for less than what they were suing for oftent do so because they fear they might not get anything in the end. Evan Chandler decided to settle because he was probably scared that the longer the CIVILCIVILCIVILCIVIL (get that through your thick head) case went on the clearer it would become that the allegations were bogus and he is trying to extort money. Again, if it were true that Jackson molested the boy. Why did they refuse to cooperate with the police, not once but TWICE? Why didn't they agree to testify in, CRIMINALCRIMINALCRIMINALCRIMINAL court? Go read the settlement and tell me where in the settlement does it stop them from cooperating with the police. Is such a thing even legal? If Jackson wanted to 'pay em off' why did he wait for them to SUE him for money, before paying them? He could have just paid them from the beginning to say no molestation took place and you'd never know anything about it. Jackson could list many reasons for agreeing to settle a lawsuit. Again go READ the settlement, where it
explains his reasons for doing so. Corporations agree to settle lawsuits all the time. Bill O'reilly agreed to settle his sexual harrassment lawsuit. Settling a lawsuit is not an admission of guilt. There is NO EXCUSE for the Chandler family's behaviour. There is no explanation, for their behavior other than the fact that they pulled a successful con. Anonymous (not verified) | 10/11/09 | 02:59 AM
Reply to This Link
I am buying this argument=I am not buying this argument Chinchilla (not verified) | 10/10/09 | 00:25 AM
Reply to This Link

As for Jason being believable how do you explain the actual court TRANSCRIPT? Q. Do you remember stating in that interview, They made me come out with a lot more stuff I didnt want to say. They kept pushing. I wanted to get up and hit them in the head? Do you remember that? A. No. Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show you the transcript of that? A. Probably not. But you can show it to me anyway. MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. MR. ZONEN: What page, Counsel? MR. MESEREAU: 30. THE WITNESS: Okay. Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to look at that page of the transcript? A. I have. Q. Does it refresh your recollection about what youve said? A. No, it does not. Q. Do you remember anything you said in that interview at the moment?
A. Not really. (4908-4909 (20-15)) They made him come out with a lot more stuff that he didnt want to say? Huh? They kept pushing him so much that he wanted to hit them in the head?? These are not the words of someone simply trying to hide a molestation. This appears to be a flat-out admission. Many observers who chimed in were completely stunned that this witness would make a statement like that. This also fits with the defenses theory that these adults were leaning heavily on this kid back in 1993 to make an allegation against Jackson. Anonymous (not verified) | 10/11/09 | 03:12 AM
Reply to This Link

You are not proving your case, and I expected a better response. Firstly, Jordan Chandler accurately described MJ's penis. Tell me under what innocent circumstances would a 13 year boy accurately describe the penis of his 35 year old friend? Listen to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxyRGJ1latc and hear the doctor that performed the examination of Michael in the 1993 case. Secondly, Mary K Fishcer said in an interview with Greta Van Sustren in 2004 that there was no corroborating evidence to support Jordie's claim. What she did not know (poor thing) was that Jason Francia was the corroborating evidence. Back in 1996 Maureen Orth wrote an article stating that there was another child that was molested, and was now in therapy. Fast forward to 2005. In the Arvizo case Jason Francia took to the stand and told us he went to therapy for 5 years to deal with the fondling. Jason is a youth minister. Don't you see Jason is the missing link. I would be more incline to believe Michael had there been no Jason. Jason had nothing to gain from going to court. He was a 24 year old man on the witness stand crying. Grown men don't cry because they feel like it. There are some parts of his testimony that are unsure, but the core of it is a molestation. These are facts that cannot be disputed. Chinchilla (not verified) | 10/27/09 | 18:14 PM
Reply to This Link
Chinchilla, those "facts that cannot be disputed" which you present are only testimony. And witness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence the is. So they can, indeed, be disputed. Along with those testimonies, there were testimonies from people like Macaulay Culkin, Wade Robson and Brett Barnes saying that they were not molested. The prosecution presented witnesses saying they saw Michael molest Culkin, yet not only he denied it repeatedly, and even under oath in court, but he remained friends with Michael Jackson. The prosecution preseted as well a witness saying she saw Michael Jackson taking a shower with 8 year old Wade Robson. That witness was no one else than Blanca Francia, the mother of Jason, the another kid (now
man) who accused Michael of molesting him. She claimed she saw that, but she didn't contact the authorities nor did she even quit her job. And her son was often there. Don't you think that had she been telling the truth she wouldn't have allowed her son there?. Wade Robson - who, as Macaulay Culkin remained friends with Michael until his death, went to court to deny he was molested. So what you have is testimony against Michael and testimony on his favour. And the witnesses on his favour had NOTHING to win from it. That is not the case with the witnesses against him, many of whom had been fired for stealing (and only after that had made their claims against Michael), and had sold stories to tabloids. And who would have been able to make a lot of money from civil lawsuits and selling stories to tablids had Michael been convicted. Cristina (not verified) | 10/28/09 | 10:54 AM
Reply to This Link
LOL. Go back and watch the video you posted. Notice where the doctor says he was TOLD LATER that the descriptions totally and absolutely matched the description of the genitalia. (I wonder by who.. Tom Sneddon??) In other words HE DID NOT SEE JORDIE'S DESCRIPTION and did not know if it was a match. You would think that they would use the same doctors who were present for the strip search to then go back and help the police analyze the pictures to see if it matched. That doctor claimed he did not see Jordie's drawings/descriptions. He was TOLD that they did match. He doesn't really know. You don't know either, so you can't claim they were. Randy J. Tarrobarelli wrote about the strip search in his autobiography. He also said the boy was able to give detailed descriptions about the blemishes, however he also claimed MJ was circumized when he was not. Big detail to miss when you claim to be having all that oral sex and masturbation with Michael Jackson. One could easily argue he'd probably never even seen MJ's penis. The father used his contacts inside the hollywood doctors network (he was dentist to the stars) to get details about MJ's Vitligo. In Tarrobarelli's book he claimed that when Evan first learned that MJ befriended his son, he was able to get in touch with MJ's doctor in order to find out about about MJ's character. I wonder what else was he able to find out about MJ and Vitligo using his contacts? Even in that video, the doctor explains that the problems with MJ's penis are typical for the people with his disease. How could Jordie miss the fact that MJ was uncircumcized, if he really did see MJ's penis? The Chandler case just looks like a well orchestrated scam. MJ's defense probably would have easily bounced on that in the 2005 trial and thats why the prosecution were so hesitant about using this supposedly accurate description of MJ's penis as evidence. They made a last minute bid, right b4 the jury were about to go into deliberations to show these pictures (after they'd lossed their credibility with jury by suboring perjury and calling Debbie Rowe to the stand and nothing to loose)They obviously did not have much faith in those pictures. Before the trial began they begged the Judge to use all sorts of things as evidence against MJ, including the 1993 settlement (which was refused because MJ's insurance company paid the Chandlers http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/032205mjmemospprtobj.pdf) and prior bad acts(which blew up in prosecution's face); however, they forgot about those supposedly accurate pictures. Please. Pictures didn't
match. If it did it would have been Tom Sneddon's smoking gun at the very beginning of the 2005 trial. At the end of the trial when its clear they lost their case, they just wanted to show off MJ's spotted prick. To give the jury something sweet to remeber him by while they deliberated. The pro-prosecution judge refused to allow it for precisely that reason. Anonymous (not verified) | 10/30/09 | 01:37 AM
Reply to This Link
"Don't you see Jason is the missing link. I would be more incline to believe Michael had there been no Jason. " You are wrong.Haven't done your research well. He is no missing link. Jason Francia is not an anonymous victim that just popped out of nowhere in 2005 to shock the world. (media now wants you to believe that) Jason and his mother have been intricately linked to the case since 1993. Everyone, including the prosecution and Mary Fischer knew about him in 1993. He was the Diane Dimond purchased victim. Mary Fischer and everyone with a brain, in 1993, had a lot of reasons for doubting his molestation claims in 1993. Go to google news archives and search for articles between 8/1/1993 and 12/31/1993 with the name 'blanca francia'. Blanca Francia (Jasons mom) was on Hard Copy (Diane Dimonds show) and in other tabloid magazines telling MJ molestation stories for a fee. She fed the media flames and played a pivotal role in the destruction of MJ's reputation in 1993 (thats probably why MJ decided to pay her). She even suggested to Diane Dimond, on national TV, that MJ molested her son (Jason). She was quite a vocal and prominent character back then. The police originally did not pay attention to her because she was nothing but tabloid trash. She was being PAID by Diane Dimond to come up with her stories in 1993 (after she was fired in 1991). If her stories were true, she would have reported them to the cops in 1991 (she already lost her job so what was she afraid of?), not to Diane Dimond for money. When in 1993 called to repeat her tabloid stories to a grand jury, she cracked up and admitted she lied for money. Jason himself admitted back then he was coerced by the cops into coming up with his tickling story. Mary J. Fisher, as a serious journalist, felt no need to mention Jason Francia in her article. She didnt know the police were so desperate in 1993 they had turned to the tabloids for corroborating evidence. LOL. There was even a PBS documentary called Tabloid Truth: The Michael Jackson Scandal that investigated the danger of the Francias and other tabloid bought witnesses. You think someone molested your kid and/or you saw someone molesting other boys you go to the cops first, not Diane Dimond for money! Anonymous (not verified) | 10/30/09 | 10:11 AM
Reply to This Link
Believing in MJ's innocence is like believing in Santa Claus, it makes you feel all warm and fuzy, but it is also imaginary. For extortion to work you have to have something to blackmail with, eg David Letterman. Jordan Chandler's father might have been a dubious character, I believe so, but it does not mean something untowards did not occur, and you cannot prove otherwise. Persons like to qoute that infamous tape where
the father says - helping the boy is irrelevant to him, but curiously never question why he would want to destroy Michael's career. If it were all about money then Chandler wouldn't have to give a damn about MJ's career, let it sink or swim. However, he wanted to hurt MJ. Permanantly. Oh, I re-read the Mary Fischer expose, and something jumped out at me. Why did Michael Jackson pay 2.4 million to Blanca Francia? According to Ms Fishcer, Blanca Francia "told Dimond that she had witnessed her own son in compromising positions with Jackson -- an allegation that the grand juries apparently never found credible." Curiously Michael Jackson and his lawyers did, hence the pay day! What did Michael Jackson know that the grand jury did not? During the 1995 Diane Sawyer interview with Lisa Marie Presley & Michael Jackson, Diane (a non-tabloid reporter) hinted at the out of court settlement with another child; however, Michael denied this. It came back to bite him in the ass in 2005 when he, and his lawyers finally had to admit: Yes, there was another molestation settlement! Listen, I don't hate Michael Jackson, and I am not out to bash him, I just think people ought to reseach the cases, and stop calling him a saint, and an angel. I was one that never believed the accusations against him, but since reseaching the cases I now believe in the possibility. I was on Michael Jackson's side, but while reading the court transcripts I found something I did not expect to see: June Chandler under oath saying her son had not spoken to her for 10 YEARS. A son that loved her, and lived with her for 13-14 years of his life suddenly made her persona non grata. That was powerful testimony, and the smoking gun for me. I do not know how you justify that in your mind, but something about it does not sit well with my spirit. Chinchilla (not verified) | 10/30/09 | 19:03 PM
Reply to This Link
Nobody says MJ is innocent. He is definitely guilty of inappropriate relations with children (ironically not Jason or Gavin, only Jordie). He admitted/bragged to it in the Bashir documentary. The question is whether he is guilty of sexually abusing kids, which based on the evidence is not likely. He slept with so many other kids without consequence. Those kids and families continue to defend him. The motives and behavior of the people making the accusations are suspect. Evan Chandler could extort MJ because he was sleeping with Jordie. Thats a bad situation to put yourself in and then be accused of sexual abuse. The million dollar question is, why did Evan Chandler feel the need to extort MJ for molestation? He could have ruined his career, sent him to prison and got money, etc. the LEGAL WAY. Why risk going to prison for extortion for molestation that did happen. Makes no sense. On tape, Evan admits he doesnt care about his son. His son is irrelevant to him, the accusations were all about what he could get for himself, not his son. So you cant tell me hes mad at MJ for hurting his son. He wasnt even involved in his sons life b4 MJ took interest. He had his own personal vendetta against Jackson that could stem from many reasons such as failing to advance his film career or make him a millionaire celebrity (he was trying to sue MJ again for 60 million and an album EVANSTORY in 1995, so much for being afraid of the media circus and wanting to get on with his life as an excuse for refusing to cooperate with the police) Jordie is now estranged from BOTH parents. He is suing his father
too.http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/decisions/appellate/a0422-05.opn.html He could blame both of his parents for ruining his life regardless of whether or not molestation took place. http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=P8iO1wRHegY I think the bigger circumstantial evidence was Jordies refusal to testify for the prosecution in 2005. June signed the settlement and testified so that should put to rest claims that the settlement prevents him from testifying. If MJ never molested him and Jordie regrets the whole thing, what other way does he have to show his regret than not testifying in 2005 trial? I dont think he would legally want to come out and say the whole thing was a lie because that might open him up to lawsuits, perjury charges and might make him even more hated. Its impossible to prove a negative.If youve ever been alone with kids, kids can come back and say you did anything to them and there is no way to disprove it. The only way to defend your innocence is to prove they/ their parents have dubious motivations. Therefore, all people whove ever been accused are forever tainted, not just MJ. You can say believing in their innocence is also like believing in Santa Claus. The fact that children are accusing you means you are guilty because nobody lies about molestation. Even if you prove your accuser is a con-artist extortonist who has a history of making false accusations, that does not prove youre innocent. Dangerous line of reasoning. In that case why do we bother with trials, why cant we convict people based simply on the accusation? Anonymous (not verified) | 10/31/09 | 23:52 PM
Reply to This Link
You are assuming things about the Chandlers that you cannot know. How exactly do you know he loved her for the first 13-14 years of his life. You don't know what Jordie's relationship with his mother was like. Its obvious that Evan Chandler did not love his son, his son accused him of beating him and he is on tape saying he doesn't care about his son. So I don't know what you are talking about as far as the parents are concerned. As if they were a loving and caring family that MJ broke apart. Yeah right. Again with the Francias that I already addressed. What did MJ know? MJ knew that in 1996 if another child molestation lawsuit was filed against him it would kill his career no matter how ridiculous their claims were. He had many logical reasons to settle it quietly for 2 million. It cost less than the damaging publicity and legal fees that would result from another lawsuit. Point is those people were already interviewed by first Diane Dimond and then the police in '93. No one took them seriously then. Police didn't try to file charges on Jason's behalf, grand jury didn't believe his mother in '93 nor did they believe them again in 2005. Jason's testimony was bizarre and reminded them of Janet Arvizo.http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/13/ng.01.html Go read court transcripts from Francias lawyers. http://floacist.wordpress.com/2007/10/16/court-transcripts4-05-2005. They admit settlement wasn't paid until 1996. 3 yrs. AFTER Francias participate in police investigation and Dimond interview, without filing criminal charges. You don't know if MJ even knew about them when Diane Sawyer interviewed him in 1995, even if he did it was none of her business. Again, in the settlement he admits no wrong doing and points out the damages Francias civil claims would do to his reputation as a reason for paying them and these people with no principles agree to sign it for the money.
Anonymous (not verified) | 11/01/09 | 00:31 AM
Reply to This Link
Correction to something that you said "Debbie Rowe had nothing to loose". OF COURSE she did, at the time she was in bitter custody battle with Michael Jackson, she wanted to be a part of her children's lives, and Michael was not permitting it because he had sole custody. She testify on his behalf so that he would be lenient with her and the kids. Don't forget Debbie Rowe was irate when MJ took the children out of the country to live in Bahrain without letting her know. Debbie Rowe thought that she had given up all her perental right, but a judge informed her that was not the case, and after the 3rd molestation case broke Debbie wanted her children back. That is why she turned on the prosecution and testified for Michael Jackson. So she would not have to go through a bitter custody battle. Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/01/09 | 20:48 PM
Reply to This Link
"Jason had nothing to gain from going to court. He was a 24 year old man on the witness stand crying. Grown men don't cry because they feel like it." Of course Jason Francia had everything to gain from continuing to lie. He had 2.4M reasons & the possibility of his mother being criminally charged. I would be crying too if I thought I would have to give up the money & the lie would come to light. Obviously the jury did not believe him with all those crocodile tears--in fact during the break someone in the media reported to the judge that they believe the jury were outside mimicking him & laughing. His tears did not Allie (not verified) | 12/29/09 | 16:08 PM
Reply to This Link
Great article on sexuality, I'm a musician, a reasonably successful one, meaning, I pay my bills with music related services. I'm probably a pervert, but I'm not falling into any of the above described categories of strange sexualities as far as I can tell. Here's what I have to say... MJ was a great performer, like everyone else in his family. He was a very twisted individual and he shouldn't be canonized as some kind of musical saint, he very likely did horrible things to himself and young boys. Furthermore Quincy Jones wrote and arranged those tracks we all danced to, not Michael Jackson. MJ was the delivery system for Quincy's music. Since Quincy didn't sleep with little boys, it's
more newsworthy to talk about MJ. If you doubt my claims, research Quincy Jones, I think you'll find that he is the common thread among a great number of outstanding musical recordings and compositions. Anonymous (not verified) | 10/21/09 | 16:29 PM
Reply to This Link

I have to answer to the last anonymous poster (who didn't have the decency to post his name along with his accusations): - I don't know why you mention you're a musician, but since you did, I'll mention I'm a law student. - For a musician, you exhibit huge ignorance on the subject. No, Quincy Jones did NOT write the songs Michael Jackson performed. You REALLY need to do some research and in any case stop posting factually wrong information for all to see. Most of those songs were written by Michael himself (just to name a few examples: Billie Jean, Beat it, Wanna be Starting Something, Bad, Dirty Diana, Black or White, Will you be There, Heal the World, They Don't Care About Us). Some were written by other people (Thriller, written by Rod Temperton, Man in the Mirror, written by Siedah Garrett and Glen Ballard). So, not only do I doubt your claims, but I call them lies. Either that or incredible misinformation presented as truth. - Michael Jackson was "a very twisted individual"?, " he very likely did horrible things to himself and young boys"?. Really?. Would you by any chance care to provide a source or an argument for those kind of accusations?. I think you've just been reading to many tabloids. Michael Jackson clearly suffered from body dysmorphic disorder - a psychological disorder in which people become obsessed with imagines or minimal physical flaws and think themselves to be extremely ugly - , from vitiligo - a skin disease which makes the skin lose it's pigmentation, and yes, it's in blotches and not even, Michael indeed had blotches until the end of his life) and from discoid lupus, an autoimmune disease which in that form (as opposed to systemic lupus) affects the skin but not the rest of the organs. All of that explains the changes in his looks over the years. Sadly, some people, rather than inform themselves, choose to judge, based on less than reliable information. Cristina (not verified) | 10/28/09 | 10:43 AM
Reply to This Link
Anonymous, Do you only read pro-Jackson material? Have you ever read the articles (all) published by Maureen Orth, or Diane Dimond? Maureen Orth is the late widow of Tim Russert, and as you know Tim's reputation as a journalist is solid. I am not pulling information from News of the World, or the National Enquirer which can be called tabloids. I am reading and listening to investigative journalists. Honestly why would they stake they reputation on unfounded claims? I am a fair minded person. I do plan on eventually reading Moonwalk, and Michael Jackson Conspiracy, and I
have read the Mary A Fishcer report (3 times). I have read the exposes on the pro-MJ websites like the Floacist. What I want to know is do you read what I read? Do you not see that they make good points? Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/01/09 | 12:18 PM
Reply to This Link
I haven't read Diane Dimond's trash and don't plan to. However, I have read the Vanity Fair articles a couple of times and I find them criminally biased. For instance, in the 2004 article Maureen Orth actually believes in the prosecution's conspiracy theory. She believe Janet Arvizos story that she was kidnapped and held prison at Neverland. WOW. At the trial, those claims were proven to be ridiculous. Thats my smoking gun on the credibililty of Maureen Orth's 'investigations'. She writes as truth any outlandish story an ex-business associate tells her (ie. Voodoo story) without any evidence, just gossip/rumor. Doesnt stop and think maybe person telling her stories has an agenda because she herself has one. Her articles are overly long and spend most of the time focusing on Michael Jackson's bad appearance, his debt, media business, and drug addiction, as if thats evidence Jackson is a pedophile. She's just trying to make him look as bad as possible and doesn't provide any evidence toward MJ's guilt other than the stories the accusers tell. Orth's last piece was truly criminal because it whitewashed what had just been proven about the Arvizos in court. Instead of acknowledging how wrong her 2004 article was she makes excuses for Janet Arvizo. She ignores the inconsistencies in the kids stories and attacks Messerau for 'treating them like criminals'. Well if you want to send a man to jail for 20 years these 'kids' (big teenagers 15,14, 18) should know how to tell the truth to a jury about what did or did not happen to them. Also, something Orth said in her last article that really pissed me off, was that MJ would never associate with the Arvizos if he didn't have an ulterior motive. My god. She totally disregards all of the humanitarian work that MJ has done for the past 30 years and all the thousands of sick, needy children that visit Neverland. MJ was a good humanitarian. These allegations would have more weight if they acknowledged that MJ was a nice HUMAN BEING(not a crazy monster from outerspace) who betrayed people's trust because of a secret compulsion to molest boys despite his good works. Instead, they're just running smear campaigns and have to work to present the jury and public with an alternate version of reality, where MJ is a demon who humps mannequins, licks boys heads like a cat,etc., and kidnaps people to forces them to say nice things about him. LOL. Despite her bias, I like reading them because it shows the accusers side of the story (at least I hope Maureen Orth isn't just making stuff up) which still doesnt add up. I found it interesting how she tries to excuse Evan Chandler. She explains why he demanded money before going to the police. What kind of parent doesn't want their son's molester to go to jail? Isnt that illegal? She claims he didn't want the media attention. Sure. Why'd he file the 1993 lawsuit instead of laying low and waiting for the police to conclude their investigation? liar. She also claims their was a conspiracy of Jackson fans in 1993 to harass his family. I believe this. She said he settled because the pressure was too high on him and his family. Yeah right. How does he explain his SECOND lawsuit in 1995 in order to get 60 mil and an album deal? More media attention. He's obviously not afraid of raising a ruckus when it comes to getting money, he's just afraid of dealing with
the cops in order to put his son's supposed molester in prison. Also, Orth cites that slanderous book, MJ was my lover. MJ successfully sued the author for slander. Yet Orth believes its okay to cite this book as evidence. At one point she misrepresents Wade Robsons testimony. Thats not what he actually said in the court transcripts. What Orth's 'investigation' demonstrates is that MJ had a lot of enemies stemming from his business dealings, who Orth liked to associate with and get as many sensational stories as possible from. Many people wanted MJ to go to jail so he could loose his stake in the Beatles catalog. Aphrodite Jones claimed that MJ believed his enemies at Sony were paying some of the prosecution witnesses. That would make logical sense to me in the case of the Francias, and other tabloid witnesses who already have a history of taking money for molestation stories. Although there is no evidence for it. It makes more sense than Orth's idiotic claim that MJ paid Jordie Chandler not show up. If that was the case why didn't he remember to pay June Chandler? And oh yah, I thought MJ was about to go bankrupt so how can he afford to guarantee that Jordie could 'write his own ticket' if he didn't testify. You admit you havent read Aphrodite Jones book. Its the only book that uses the actual court transcripts. Its not only about MJ its also about the lies of the mainstream media and their financial incentive in perpetuating the myth of MJ as a crazy pedophile. They stood to make billions out of MJs prison adventures reports. Theyd already made billions off of Whako jacko stories. No one would publish Jones book because it was pro-Jackson. She self-published. People like Diane Dimond have made careers for themselves off of MJs downfall. Maureen Orth had nothing to loose in slandering MJ and her bosses probably encouraged her to do it since it was mainstream media policy. Basic example is compare the sensational media reports about MJs health right after he died from credible reporters to the actual autopsy results and the evidence in the This is it film. They are liars and have been lying about him or years. Anonymous (not verified) | 11/07/09 | 02:30 AM
Reply to This Link
To answer you directly, I read many things (Fischer, Orth, Jones, many 1993 newspaper articles, websites, etc.) and do my best to get to the truth of what I am reading. Notice when I use the Floacist I never quote anything any blogger says, I point you to the TRANSCRIPTS and COURT DOCUMENTS they post to make their points. The pro-jackson sources tend to be more grounded in facts than anti-jackson sources. Anti-Jackson sources just use spin/imagination and the accusers stories to make their points, even though the accusers actions/behavior contradict their stories. I pointed out many of the biases and half-truths in Orth's pieces. Orth doesn't really contradict anything Fischer says about the Chandlers. She just leaves them out or tries to excuse them. She completely ignored the Arvizos credibility problems and blamed it on the 'Jackson operatives'. As if its normal for a family to con and cheat so many people.
Reply to This Link
Althought this article is about Michael Jackson's sexual proclivities I would like to digress for a moment. You mentioned the "the sensational media reports about MJs health right after he died from credible reporters to the actual autopsy results." I do not know how accurate those autopsy results are as there has been no official confirmation from the coroner's office, also the reports states that Michael Jackson was 5.9', but his mugshot has him at 5.11'. In This Is It he looks closer to the latter. A good investigative journalist, or anyone seeking the truth looks to corrobarate the claims of their sources. I believe Michael Jackson had a serious drug problem, everyone backs up the other. Grace the Nanny, Deiter Weisner the former manager, Brian Oxman, Arnold Klien, Dr. Susan Etok etc, etc, etc. The man himself even admitted this during his 1993 molestation statement, and further confirmed it on his Blood On the Dancefloor album in the song Morphine. What alot of people think is, the autopsy results showed major organs like the liver, heart and kidneys were reletively healthy, and take that to mean he was not an addict. I take that to mean he was not an addict 365 days a year, but rather had lapses of sobriety. MJ definetely had substance abuse problems which contributed to his early demise, it is not uncommon for someone in his profession. Take a look athttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWBDCkjeGrI where he takes about being under the influence of pain medication. Back to sexual molestation allegations. It is funny the one kid I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Michael Jackson was Gavin Arvizo. However, Micheal Jackson's best friend/dermatologist for 20 years ratted him out recently on TMZ. Arnold Klien said Michael Jackson called wine Jesus Juice and gave it to kids, (he also said alot of other things that I will mention at a later date). As you know Gavin said MJ called wine Jesus juice and served it to him in soda cans. Here you have one of Michael Jackson's inner circle friends backing up this claim by Gavin. Interesting don't you think? You cannot say Arnie Klien is lying, or he is a disgruntled ex-friend because up until the time of Michael Jackson's death they were close. People came and went out of MJ's life but Arnold Klien was a constant, what he says cannot and should not be dismissed as trash. Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/07/09 | 19:50 PM
Reply to This Link

Never said he did not have a substance abuse problem. What I said is that media reports right after he died, claimed the autopsy results would prove he was emaciated and on death's door, stomach full of pills etc. They claimed he could never pull off the tour because he was too weak and in bad health. They greatly exaggerated his condition. They were proven false. And you are a lying about the wine claims. Again go watch the video http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=GJxdW6GJ93s. Where does he say MJ gave kids wine? Not what Arnie Klein said. He never saw MJ giving wine to kids. He only read about it in the papers during the trial. If you read Aphrodite Jones book you would know that even prosecution witnesses testified they never saw MJ giving wine to kids either. Everyone knew
MJ drank and he gave wine to his adult visitors. No evidence, not even from prosecution witnesses he gave it to kids. Who ever argued that MJ didn't call wine Jesus Juice? Everyone in MJ's inner circle knew he called wine Jesus Juice, including Klein. That actually works against Gavin's claims. He could have learned about him calling wine Jesus Juice, simply by hearing him talking about it to other adults. Anonymous (not verified) | 11/08/09 | 14:21 PM
Reply to This Link
Another thing. A flight attendant (prosecution witness) testified that MJ drank wine in soda cans during flights with Gavin and his children, although she didn't see him giving wine to Gavin or any other kid. He actually drank from the cans to try to hide the fact that he was drinking. Its possible that MJ didn't fool Gavin on that flight. Gavin (being the shrewd kid everyone says he was) knew he was drinking wine from the soda cans. Thats why he was able to claim MJ gave him wine in soda cans. Same thing is possible with Jesus Juice. Anonymous (not verified) | 11/08/09 | 14:42 PM
Reply to This Link
Well, I found Arnie Klein's interview with Harvey Levin very interesting. I am not the kind to gravitate towards tabloids, but in this case they landed one of MJ's inner circle pals I couldn't resist. Please tell me you are not buying that ridiculous explanation about peeing in cups as the reason Jordie could ACCURATELY described Michael Jackson,s penis. It is a bit convenient and hard to swallow just like the sodium amythal thing. When are people going to realize that the path of least resistent is the truth. Jordie ACCURATELY described MJ's genetalia because something unholy took place between them, and the $20,000000.00 settlement conveniently took place only after the pictures were taken. Why is that so difficult to fathom? The whole explanation sounds so farfetched. Michael Jackson said lies runs sprints, but the truth is a marathon. If that is the case then by his own definition Jordan Chandler is telling the truth. It has been nearly 20 years, and there is still no changing in Jordan's testimony. Furthermore, his uncle has written a book, "All that Glitters", and his little sister, Lily, has also written a book. The behaviour is very extreme if it were a lie. I liked Michael Jackson, but at some point you have to examine the cold hard facts and wake up to the truth. Granted there is no hardcore DNA evidence in this case, but as social workers cited, there soldom is. Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/09/09 | 09:36 AM
Reply to This Link
You have just shown your true colors. Fact is I caught you lying not once but TWICE in order to try to prove your point. 1st about what that dr. who was present for the strip search and second about what Arnie Klein said. This is getting pretty ridiculous.
Also, was Arnie Klein present for the strip search in 1993? Did he also see Jordie Chandler's drawings and do a comparison to know if it matched? Did the interviewer see Jordie Chandler's picture and MJ's penis to do comparisons? Neither of them really know if the pictures matched. Interviewer claimed the pictures matched and Klein has no way of knowing if they did or did not match so he came up with that ridiculous story for the interviewer. He wasn't there and neither was the interviewer. He admit, like most of MJ's 'friends', he had little contact with him when he was going through his problems. So what does he know about the case? I have already addressed this line of nonsense. How can you claim you had all that oral sex and masturbation with MJ to the point where you can identify blemishes on his penis and yet not know that he was uncircumcized? He claimed he had too much interaction with MJ's penis to not see that. At 13 he was old enough to know the difference between circumcized and uncircumcized. Makes the 1993 case look like a scam. They used their knowledge of MJ's vitiligo to claim their were blemishes on his penis, yet didn't know he was uncircumcized. Boy did not see penis. As for prosecution wanting to use it as evidence. TIMING IS EVERYTHING.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7993269/ Go read this article slowly and carefully and try to use some critical thinking skills about what the prosecution says the pictures show. What I have told you so many times in this blog. What MJ's defense told the judge in explanation for not using the pictures. Go read this article.http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0328051jacksonpast1.html. Go read top of thishttp://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/032205mjmemospprtobj.pdf. PAY ATTENTION TO THE DATES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have more than proven my case. You are back tracking. Soon I'm just gonna have copy and paste my previous posts. Anonymous (not verified) | 11/11/09 | 14:35 PM
Reply to This Link
Too slow. I might have to break it down for you. You want to prove to a jury MJ is a pedophile. Which evidence are you most likely to beg the judge to use first. A. The 1993 Settlement documents to prove that MJ admitted guilt by paying. (only MJ's insurance company paid. LOL) B. "Prior bad acts" (only we want to use witnesses who say they saw MJ molesting boys, not the boys themselves cuz they might say otherwise. LOL.) or C. Proof that Jordan Chandler accurately described MJ's penis in 1993. Anonymous (not verified) | 11/11/09 | 14:44 PM
Reply to This
Link
I know it might be hard for you to carefully read the MSNBC article. So here is key qoute. "They then had the accuser draw a picture of what he thought the genitalia looked like. Prosecutors claimed the picture contained a blemish that was unique to Jacksons anatomy." They're not even claiming the boy accurately described MJ's genitalia. They claim he described ONE BLEMISH JACKSON. what about the rest? How many other blemishes did he draw that kinda sorta might match but don't. Then theirs the false cicumcision claim. Please. Jury bout to go into deliberations, so lets give them something nice to remember Jackson by. "But defense attorney Robert Sanger called the photographs an unfair surprise and said prosecutors had not even hinted that they were going to try this tactic in advance." Judge agreed with Defense. Maybe they would have avoided this successful argument from the defense if they asked to used the pictures EARLIER!!! They were just bluffing. I'm calling your bluff. Anonymous (not verified) | 11/11/09 | 14:55 PM
Reply to This Link
"I know it might be hard for you to carefully read the MSNBC article." Well aren't we snippy. Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/13/09 | 23:32 PM
Reply to This Link
I am just reading your post, so no I have not read the links. I also do not appreciate you calling me a liar, just like you read articles to prove your point, I read articles to prove mine. I report what I read. I do not know what you do for a living, but I doubt that you are an investigative reported; therefore, like me you get your information online. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/13/earlyshow/leisure/books/main64... - Watch the video too http://www.statementanalysis.com/jackson/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5906855 I am a skeptic, I do not believe something because it is on television, or the print media unless it can be sustantiated. I do not believe the investigators (journalists & law enforcement) are/were picking on Michael Jackson, I honestly believe they were trying to get to the truth, and belived what they were reporting. If there is another truth then Michael Jackson should have filled in the blanks. You have to look at this from the point of view of someone seeking answers. I go in search of the truth and the ONLY investigative reporter I found took Michael Jackson's side is Mary Fischer. Compare that to every news agency not just the 2005 trial, but the 1993 as well, and the balance of power is skewed. Anyone would find that alarming.
Aprodite Jones did change her mind. For what it is worth settling the 1993 molestation case was the biggest mistake of Michael Jackson's & Jordan Chandler's lives. Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/13/09 | 23:20 PM
Reply to This Link
The difficulty in arguing the 1993 case is, it never went to trial: criminal or civil. The incrimating evidence like the photos, and God knows what else have been sealed. All we have to go on is, what has been leaked to the media, also a star witness has died. So, what it boils down to is circumstantial evidence like June Chandler's testimony, and Evan Chandler's tape recording. You also have to consider that Scott Peterson was convicted on circumstantial evidence. I know you are going to tell me that evidence from the 93 case was introduced in the 2005 case under the prior bad acts law, but lets not get carried away. This was not Jordan Chandler's case, but Gavin Arvizo's. The jury was asked to convict, or acquit on whether Gavin was/was not molested, not Jordie. Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/09/09 | 12:48 PM
Reply to This Link

Who's choice was it that it never went to trial? (hint, hint, the family's name starts with a C.) Why do you think they didnt want it to go to trial? (hint, hint, they might be exposed as extortionists.. better to take that money and run.) Oh yah. You are probably telling another lie about Lily Chandler's book. Never heard of it. Unless you can post a link, I'm assuming you're lying again. Also, I don't know what kind of uncle wants to sell their nephew's molestation story for money. Thats pretty sick. Anonymous (not verified) | 11/11/09 | 15:04 PM
Reply to This Link
These are questions I have always wanted to ask a diehard Jackson fan. Please I am curious. What makes you so sure that he is innocent? Why so quick to dismiss the accusations of the 3 little boys? Had it been the guy next door would you be so convinced? Do you believe that because he was an humanitarian that he could not be a pedophile?
Have you considered that he gave away all that money to ease a guilty conscience, or to over-compensate for that guilty conscience? How long have you been a MJ fan? What would it take to convince you otherwise? If you saw the photos with your eyes, and read the genetalia describtion would you then be convinced? Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/09/09 | 16:30 PM
Reply to This Link

YAWN. I gotta better question for you. What makes you so convinced that these accusations are true when I have successfully refuted all of your arguments? Its turning into a religion for you where you are just convinced that "the child is telling the truth no matter what" even if their story makes no sense and keeps changing, their parents are con-artists, and they refuse to testify in a court of law. "3 little boys". You're still a little boy at 13? You're a little boy at 16, and even 24? More dubious spin. Imagine if we were talking about 13 year old girls. People's implicit homophobia makes Jackson's accusers 'little boys'. Sorta what this article is about too. This mass hysteria was what really provided the transformative moment for Aphrodite Jones.She watched Gavin's original police interview and was supposed to believe that a 13 year old boy (who would turn 14 in just a few months) did not know what an ejaculation is. Anonymous (not verified) | 11/11/09 | 15:27 PM
Reply to This Link
Also, if it were the guy next door, his NOT GUILTY verdict would probably let him go on with his life. There wouldn't be all these people claiming to know better than a jury still calling him a pedophile. And how do you explain the COURT documents I posted before where it explains that MJ's insurance company paid all that money? Anonymous (not verified) | 11/11/09 | 15:39 PM
Reply to This Link
Q1) Was Michael Jackson a Pedophile? A) No.
Q2) Did J. Michael Bailey ever meet or come into contact with Michael Jackson? A) No. Q3) Would you want J. Michael Bailey working for you after reading this peice of nonsence? A) Most probably not. Seany (not verified) | 11/10/09 | 19:33 PM
Reply to This Link

Remember OJ was found not guilty in a criminal trial, yet in the civil trial he ordered to pay the Goldman compensatory damages of $8.5 million and punitive damages of $25 million. In a criminal trial MJ would have won because the DA would have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that MJ was a guilty person who really committed the crime. However, in a civil litigation the standard is very low. The plaintiff wins if the preponderance of the evidence favors the plaintiff. In the 1993 case, Jordan Chandler decided not to testify in the criminal case when learning he could receive money in a civil case. The fact is Jordan did not accurately describe Michael genitals. Jordan claimed MJ was circumcised, which is not the case. MJ decided that he did want to go through any long drawn out trial which would have cost him more in attorney fees, cost, etc. than to settle. MJ would have lost even more money trying this case instead of continuing with his career making music and touring, which brought in more money than he settled the case for. Maybe this decision was wrong since those of you who don't understand the legal process have assumed he is guilty. Anonymous (not verified) | 11/10/09 | 21:52 PM
Reply to This Link

Remember OJ was found not guilty in a criminal trial, yet in the civil trial he ordered to pay the Goldman compensatory damages of $8.5 million and punitive damages of $25 million. In a criminal trial MJ would have won because the DA would have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that MJ was a guilty person who really committed the crime.
Heres the reasonable doubt: The fact that Jordan did not accurately describe Michael genitals. Jordan claimed MJ was circumcised, which is not the case. Jordan did accurately described discloration, but so was the rest of MJs body. In a civil litigation the standard is very low. The plaintiff wins if the preponderance of the evidence favors the plaintiff. Jordan Chandler refused to testify in the criminal case when learning he could receive money in a civil case. It could be said that this was his objection all along since he could have done both, that is, put Michael in jail and take his money. MJ decided to settle the case because he did want to go through any long drawn out trial which would have cost him more in attorney fees, cost, etc. than to settle. MJ would have lost even more money trying this case instead of continuing with his career making music and touring, which brought in more money than he settled the case for. Maybe this decision was wrong since those of you who don't understand the legal process have assumed he is guilty. Anonymous (not verified) | 11/11/09 | 13:54 PM
Reply to This Link

@Anonymous (not verified) | 11/11/09 | 13:54 PM "In a criminal trial MJ would have won because the DA would have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that MJ was a guilty person who really committed the crime. ........ Heres the reasonable doubt: The fact that Jordan did not accurately describe Michael genitals. Jordan claimed MJ was circumcised, which is not the case. Jordan did accurately described discloration, but so was the rest of MJs body." You are really over reaching, and testing the boundaries of common sense. YOU DO NOT KNOW IF HE WOULD HAVE WON. You say it with such certainty when you should not be. Jordan did accurately describe the marking on MJ's penis, he was able to describe in great detail the placement and the shapes of sploches. As for circumcision let me debunk that, an erected penis looks circumcised. I watched the Havey levin/Arnold Klein interview. Harvey specifically said the police report stated that Jordie did describe accurately Michael's penis. A POLICE REPORT, NOT THE ABRAMS REPORT. If you have evidence contrary to a POLICE REPORT bring it on. Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/12/09 | 17:47 PM
Reply to This Link
It sounds like you need to do your own research instead of depending on TMZ, et al the trashy tabloids news. I suggest you search: Evan Chandlers phone conversation with Dave Schwartz. This is a taped recorded conversation leading up to the 1993 molestion charges against Michael Jackson. Also go to Wikipedia, they seem to be accurate on both the 1993 and 2005 molestion cases. This should clear up any doubts you may have about MJ innocense. Anonymous (not verified) | 11/12/09 | 21:18 PM
Reply to This Link
Been there done that, did nothing for me. By the way I read Mary K Fischer 3 times. Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/13/09 | 19:30 PM
Reply to This Link
Geraldine Hughes, the then sole legal secretary of Barry Rothman who represented Jordan Chandler, comes forth to set the record straight about what really happened behind the scenes in the 1993 child molestation case against Michael Jackson. Ms. Hughes states she witness MJ being set-up. I suggest you read Ms. Hughes book "Redemption" and/or view her interview on Bill O"Reilly atwww.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110184,00.html. Furthermore, the police who investigated stated they found... GASP... straight adult porno. How they tried to tie that in to pedophilia is ridiculous. One person put it best when they said "What we found out is that Michael Jackson is a 49 year old who drinks wine, watches porn, and has a bad back. Who knew?" In other words absolutely nothing incriminating. Investigating his accusers lives is far more interesting. Both of them had parents who had criminal histories of suing for false claims in the past. If you don't believe these reliable sources then you must have witness MJ in the act. Anonymous (not verified) | 11/13/09 | 22:12 PM
Reply to This Link
I would like to recant my previous postings on calling Michael Jackson a pedophile, that was wrong of me. My opinion is not the law, and he was never proven guilty by a jury of his peers. Someone called me out on it, and they were right. However, I still have my doubts to his innocence. Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/12/09 | 18:19 PM
Reply to This Link

@Anonymous (not verified) | 11/11/09 | 14:55 PM
"I'm calling your bluff." Well I see your bluff, and I raise you 3. See my response beneath your 11/11/09 | 14:55 PM posting. Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/13/09 | 23:59 PM
Reply to This Link

@Anonymous (not verified) | 11/11/09 | 14:55 PM You should also google Terry George Michael Jackson. Fascinating stuff. "I know it might be hard for you to carefully read the.....article." If you have any questions feel free to ask, and I will be more that happy to explain. Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/14/09 | 22:38 PM
Reply to This Link

I find it fascinating that even after the alledgedly lewd telephone contact with MJ, that Terry George continued calling him until he racked up a big phone bill before his parents' phone was turned off. George's subsequent collect calls to MJ were refused. Years later when MJ was in the UK George tried to resuscitate their friendship, but admitted he felt rejected when MJ's handlers brushed him off. I wouldn't want to continue a friendship with someone whom I thought said or did something inappropriate to me, so I tend to believe he is just striking back because he got the brush off. Allie (not verified) | 12/29/09 | 16:36 PM
Reply to This Link
Actually you are a liar. You lie about what you read/seen. You've done it not one but THREE times to try to prove your points. I was willing to give you a pass the first time. I assumed maybe you misunderstood what the Doctor said about the strip search in the 1st video you posted. After that, you deliberately lied about Dr. Klein's TMZ interview and I caught you. Again you lied about Lily Chandler writting a book (unless you can post a link for this book, I'm assuming you're lying again). You have failed to defend any of your claims. You posted a bunch of articles on 11/11. What do those articles you posted have to do with anything? How do they prove any of your points? All And I've came accross that silly statement analysis article before. What does that prove? All it shows is someone's got a lot of time on their hands and not enough sense. I have defended all of my points by addressing all of your arguments directly. You can't do that with mine. Your other claim about investigative reporters is lame. How many 'investigative reporters' (who actually conducted their own investigation not relying on someone else's) were there in all? What exactly did they investigate? An intelligent person should be critical of everything they read. Its not enough that you can find an article that says what you want to hear (ie. that TMZ reporter claims the pictures matched therefore you
believe him becuase you want to) Its not enough that Aphrodite Jones claims MJ is innocent. What are her sources?They happen to be trial trascripts, DCF interview transcripts, legal evidence, jury foreman, etc. What are Maureen Orth's sources? They happen to be interviews with the Arvizos, Chandlers, Tom Sneddon (who has acted more like the Arvizos and Chandlers lawyer, than a prosecutor over the years) and 'anonymous business associates'. Imagine if Aphrodite Jones wanted to write a pro-Jackson book claiming he was innocent and all she did was interview Michael Jackson, his family, his lawyer, and friends. She'd be laughed out of the park. Yet for some reason Maureen Orth gets away with doing that for the accusers and calls it an investigation. Anonymous (not verified) | 11/15/09 | 15:55 PM
Reply to This Link

Also, another claim you made is that authorities said the pictures matched. I'm going to post that MSNBC article for you AGAIN.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7993269/ Careful reading is important. And for your information, in 1993, it was widely reported in the news media that the picture DID NOT MATCH. Go to google news archive and search for articles between 11/1993-2/1994. So much for consistency from the news media. Something was seriously wrong with those pictures in 1993. Thats why they didn't arrest and charge MJ on the spot after the strip search. Thats why prosecutors presented their evidence in front of 3 grand jurys and failed to get an indictment. Thats probably why the Chandlers chose to settle for ONLY 15 million dollars instead of going to court. (other way of look at things since it takes 2 parties to settle and Chandlers could have gotten a lot more if they won in court) Even in that MSNBC article prosecutors do not claim the boys description was an exact match to the photos. Their focusing on ONE 'unique blemish' not the full description. Wikepedia's claim that there were some similarities and some key differences seems to be the closest to the truth based on all the evidence. Anonymous (not verified) | 11/15/09 | 16:10 PM
Reply to This Link

Also, you are bluffing when you claim with absolute certainty that MJ was guilty because Jordan Chandler accurately described his penis. Not even the prosecutors made that claim to a judge in 2005. Anonymous (not verified) | 11/15/09 | 16:20 PM
Reply to This Link

Hmmm if I am to understand you & the article you pointed out 3 times correctly Jordan Chandler described "a unique feature of ... (Jacksons) anatomy. Senior Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen said "it would show
that Jacksons relationships with boys were not casual. By its very definition the word unique means uncommon and rare. For Jordan Chandler to be so explicit at the very least shows inappropiate behaviour happened. Nowhere in the article did I read there was a mismatched, but I am not calling you a liar. As for Lily Chandler's book I did read that somewhere online if I should come across it again you betcha I will post it. The links that I sent to you especially the Msnbc & CBS ones were to explain how the molestation occured, and what triggered Evan Chandler's suspicion. Mary Fischer herself said it was a particular weekend stay by Jackson at Evan's house that the relationship between him and MJ broke down. The articles explained why. Am I lying here as well? I have always believed that pedophilia is not learnt, but more a matter of bio-chemistry. Therefore, Michael Jackson was not going to wakeup at the age of 35 with a sudden inkling for pubescent males, it would have had revelations earlier, hence Terry George. Terry George is a British millionaire (no need to sell stories to the tabloids) who claims a 19 year old Jackson called him (he was 12 at the time), and proceeded to have a sexually graphic conversation with him about how he was masturbating himself. Terry George is on Youtube, and you can google him as well, then come back and call me a liar again. As for Aphrodite Jones, I don't trust her. She was front and centre of the lynch mob, and now she is in tears watching TII. How gullible does she think sensible people are. I will not say anymore on AJ because it calls for speculation. Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/17/09 | 18:54 PM
Reply to This Link

It appears Evan Chandler has committed suicide by gunshot. Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/17/09 | 20:10 PM
Reply to This Link

With the sad and untimely deaths of Evan Chandler, and Michael Jackson hopefully soon all the speculations will come to an end. Maybe, just maybe the final truth will be revealed. I just hope people have the stomach for it. May they rest in peace. Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/17/09 | 21:23 PM
Reply to This Link

Common sense would tell you that if Jordie Chandler really did see Michael Jackson's penis he would have known that MJ was uncircumcized, not circumcized. Even, if he didn't notice MJ was uncircumcized, he still failed to accurately identify all the marks on MJ's penis. Also, the point I was trying to make with that MSNBC
article is that prosecutors were grasping at wind to try to prove their point. Jordie did not even give a fully accurate description MJ's penis. They were claiming Jordie only accurately described only ONE 'unique blemish on MJ's penis'. Come on, is this blemished shaped like a star? Think about how idiotic that is, considering the fact that they are admitting their were other spots on MJ's penis that Jordie Chandler did not correctly describe and also there's the false circumcision claim. That is bizzarely impossible that boy happend to remember only one blemish and not all the other details. Basically police told the boy to draw MJ's penis and he drew for them a spotted penis. Walla there are spots on MJ's penis justs like their are spots from vitiligo on the rest of his body, however he also happens to be uncircumcized contrary to the boys claims. Prosecutors think one of the spots look like a spot Jordie drew (highly subjective). They wanted to try to use that as evidence, however weak it may be. At the end of the trial they just wanted to shock and gross the jury out. Anonymous1 (not verified) | 11/19/09 | 02:14 AM
Reply to This Link

As for Terry George, he was 13 at the time and MJ was 19. They were BOTH teenagers. Even he said MJ was not a pedophile, just a confused guy stuck in childhood. Back then they were both teenagers and MJ was immature for his age as he always is. They probably both were talking dirty on the phone as teenage boys tend to do stuff like that. Terry George never even claimed MJ was going after him sexaully (this is an important distinction from what the Chandlers and Arvizos claimed) , he just let the conversation get to a point where it became inappropriate because MJ was an adult, not Terry George's peer so he can't talk about sex with him. I never tried to argue that MJ was totally innocent or that his behavior with children was not inapproriate. He obviously viewed children as his peers as this incident with Terry George demonstrated. It doesn't prove MJ has a sexual interest in young boys, all does is support the theory of MJ's regression. More telling is the fact that during this period in his life MJ was also dating Tatum O'neal who was 12/13 when he was 19/20. He claimed Tatum came on to him sexually and nobody has ever been disturbed by the age between those two. Can you explain why this relationship never raised eybrows. I think its more shady than Terry George. Is it because the common assumption has always been that MJ was gay? He could only molest young boys, not young girls, eventhough if you want to claim MJ was robbing the craddle back then there's more evidence that he was doing it to Tatum O'neal and not to Terry George. Theres a ton of evidence to support MJ's heterosexuality. They found lots of heterosexual porn in his house and Lisa Marie Presley has always stated that their relationship was very sexual. As for his obssession with children around this time, MJ also became obssessed with Quincy Jone's 9 year old daughter during this time period in his life when he was 20. In QJ's 2001 autobiography he said MJ was very close to his daughter because they understood each other and had a lot of things in common. His wife was stunned to discover the girl made 91 long distance phone calls to MJ while he was on tour. She was a little girl, not a little boy. What do you make of that? It wasn't only boys. If MJ continued doing this with little girls he probably would have gotten into trouble a lot sooner, or maybe not since people like to believe him to be gay.
Anonymous1 (not verified) | 11/19/09 | 03:04 AM
Reply to This Link

Just curious. Did you know about Terry George before I brough him up? You see I found out about him 2 months ago while researching MJ. I think Michael Jackson's fans think that people just like to hate on MJ for no reason. Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/19/09 | 14:34 PM
Reply to This Link
Now maybe you could help me out with something. Wasn't Michael Jackson suppose to be dating Stephanie Mills around the time you said he was dating Tatum O'neal? Incidentally which is around the time of Terry George. Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/19/09 | 14:40 PM
Reply to This Link
you guys are all stupid, Michael Jackson was a STRAIGHT man and never molested anyone. he had many girlfriends and was married, you guys are just all jealous of him Anonymous (not verified) | 11/19/09 | 10:10 AM
Reply to This Link

i understand people not liking his music, everybody has their own taste, but i hoestly think people do hate him for no reason. people just love to hear what ever is entertaining to their ears. who ever is reading this article PLEASE DO NOT LISTEN TO A WORD THEY ARE SAYING. he was never sexually aroused by anyone of the same sex or any children. i think this article is so pointless because no one should even be talking about it Anonymous (not verified) | 11/20/09 | 18:24 PM
Reply to This Link

It seems we have found a common ground, the article is trash. I originally thought it was clever and insightful, but has since re-read it and it is based on tabloids for sources, and things that have since been disputed. I have my own theory and it is much better. Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/21/09 | 02:35 AM
Reply to This
Link
No he wasn't serious about Stephanie Mills. He didn't spend a lot of time with her. She claims she had a crush on him. He spent more time with Tatum O'Neal and even wrote about her in his autobiography. Even Taraborelli dedicated a chapter to MJ's close relationship with Tatum O'Neal in his biography. And I watched a documentary called Michael Jackson's secret childhood a while back where they interviewed Terry George. In it Terry George pointed out that the sexaul part of his conversation with MJ was just a small one time part of hours long conversations that went on for months. The media decided to pick up on it and blow out of proportion to try to make it look like MJ was a pedophile abusing him. Also that documentary came out while MJ was on trial and they were trying hard to make it look like MJ was a pedophile. It actually had the opposite effect on me because his relationships with kids go way way back and have been very public. Why can't Tom Sneddon who'd find any other accusers to corroborate the Chandlers and Arvizos stories? Pedophiles, specifically the preferential boy-lovers that Diane Dimond claimed MJ matched the profile of ALWAYS have hundreds of victims and almost always have child pornography. Are all the other kids lying to protect MJ? Only the Chandlers and Arvizos with parents who happen to be con-artists are telling the truth. Anonymous1 (not verified) | 11/20/09 | 21:56 PM
Reply to This Link

I also watched the Michael Jackson secret childhood 2-3 months ago, and I thought it is disturbing. I tend to believe Stephanie Mills. Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/21/09 | 02:39 AM
Reply to This Link
And I agree with the anonymous poster. People do hate MJ. Its there right to do so. However, they can't make stuff up as their reasons for hating him and expect to be taken seriously. Chincilla has failed to make a case for MJ being a pedophile. I have sucessfully refuted each and everyone of his/her claims. However, its his/her right to believe whatever wants to believe regardless of the evidence. Anonymous1 (not verified) | 11/20/09 | 22:24 PM
Reply to This Link

Now I never said that I hated MJ, rather I like him. I like his music, his humanitarian and his love for his children is endearing, but he had a corrupt side. Practically everyone he crossed paths with ended up in court.
No need to guess my gender I am female. I have tried to make you see why people believe Michael Jackson was a pedophile, and they are not just pulling this stuff out of their behinds. Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/21/09 | 02:48 AM
Reply to This Link
The truth seems to be making headway among some sources. For the first time I found a media source that admits the settlement came from MJ's insurance company. I already posted court documents that prove this fact, however, the mainstream media has always chosen to ignore that fact in their reporting, until now. The truth is slowly emmerging and MJ will be vindicated. http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/11/18/jackson.accuser.suicide/inde... Anonymous1 (not verified) | 11/20/09 | 23:05 PM
Reply to This Link

Also, this FACT pulls the rug from under MJ haters (it seems to be a cult all on its own hmm...) who for more than a a decade claimed MJ is a pedophile because he 'bought their silence' or 'he admitted guilt by paying'. Anyone one still making those claims is a true idiot. MJ haters now have nothing left to stand on, other than the fact that accusations were made against MJ and they choose to beleive the accusations out of their own personal faith in the accusers. Anonymous1 (not verified) | 11/20/09 | 23:26 PM
Reply to This Link

It is not just a personal faith in the accusers. A belief that the police department would not go after the most powerful celebrity on the planet ( at the time 1993) without being damn sure that they had dot every "i" and cross every "t". Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/21/09 | 02:53 AM
Reply to This Link
Correction Chinchilla, police chose not to go after MJ in 1993 when he was the most powerful celebrity on the planet. They never had enough evidence to file charges against him. They had been investigating him since August of 1993 and were never able to get an indictment. Sneddon kept the case open for 6 years after the Chandlers ran off in the hopes that someone anyone will come foward to make accusations. It never happened.
They didn't go after him until 2003 when he had long fallen from grace, and was widely regarded as 'Wacko Jacko' and a crazy pedophile by the media and the general public. And the case they brought against him was an embarrassment to the legal system. They would have never dreamed of bringing a case like that against anyone but 'wako jacko'. Anonymous1 (not verified) | 11/21/09 | 13:11 PM
Reply to This Link
Also, if a family made claims like that against anyone, I think its the responsibility of the police to do a thorough investigation. However, the police investigated MJ for years and still could never file charges against him. Even in June of 1995, when MJ and Lisa Marie did an interview with Diane Sawyer claiming that he'd been cleared, Sneddon popped out and said no the case is still open and they are STILL investigating MJ. My god, they've investigating the man already for TWO YEARS and could not file charges. All of this is because MJ is a famous celebrity. If it were the guy next door they would given it a break already. Sneddon clearly had an unhealthy obssession, probably because of the prestige and career advantages of prosecuting a celebrity. Police can investigate someone all they want. They need to come up with evidence before they can arrest and charge someone. Anonymous1 (not verified) | 11/21/09 | 13:56 PM
Reply to This Link
Oh, and I have to repeat the Chandler settlement has always been the stuff of legends for people who believe MJ was guilty. It has always been the excuse for why the police could not charge MJ with a crime. In reality, settlement neither prevented Chandler's from testifying, nor was it even Michael Jackson's money!! After all these years, its finally being admitted by even the media that the Chandlers have been enjoying MJ's insurance company's money who settled with them for 'global claims of negligence'. And I read many newspaper articles from 1993 which reported developments in the Michael Jackson case. At first all of those articles pointed out the crucial fact that MJ had not even been charged with a crime. Even the innocent until proven guilty mantra did not apply because no charges were even brought. Just rumors,gossip, and speculation. So its absolutely ridiculous for you to try to use the fact that the police investigated someone for crimes that they never charged them with, as evidence that the person is guilty of a crime. (What crime exactly, since no charges were even brought?!?) In 1993 Michael Jackson was charged with a crime by the media,not by the authorities. Then the media fraudulently used that settlement to convict him of a crime. Anonymous1 (not verified) | 11/21/09 | 14:57 PM
Reply to This Link

"Sneddon kept the case open for 6 years after the Chandlers ran off in the hopes that someone anyone will come foward to make accusations. It never happened. " You are lying, someone did come forward his name was Jason Francia, memba him. The second/ first accuser depending on how you look at. As I pointed out to you the only reason Michael Jackson was not charged was because Jordan Chandler did not want to testify, had he chosen to testify the grand jury would have indicted. Thomas Sneddon also wanted Jason Francia to testify, but Jason said he would only testify if Jordie did also; therefore, when Jordie dropped out Jason did not move forward. Your explanation about for Terry George have me disturbed. No, it is not normal for a 19 year old to be talking on the phone sexually with a 13 year old, regressed or not. My goodness if he is on the phone talking to a little boy like this I shudder at what they talked about, or did when in the same room let alone the same bed. Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/21/09 | 18:36 PM
Reply to This Link

http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=quintaldo.wordpress.com&url=h... Also go to this website: http://quintaldo.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/michael-jackson-pedophile/ and read from contributor "the truth"'. He/she does a pretty good job dismissing this myth about Jason Francia. Sick Of It (not verified) | 12/01/09 | 09:59 AM
Reply to This Link
@Anonymous1 (not verified) | 11/21/09 | 14:57 PM Can we put down the knives for a moment, I would like to ask you a genuine question, and would like your honest opinion. Are the Glenda tapes real? Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/23/09 | 21:56 PM
Reply to This Link
Wow...this article is all over the place...not really sure where Michael fits in this despite the author's efforts. Other than the fact of adding "Michael Jackson" to any blog and getting some hits because people are Googling his name, what was the point of including his name in a discussion of sexual orientation and preferences? And when we got to limb amputations, I was really lost (and bored). When you write an article about someone you don't know, have never treated, and based on media reporting and then have to post a caveat every other second sentence admitting you have no idea if he did this or that, then, well, you are entering pretty dangerous territory and being very irresponsible. Michael for one thing was in *show* business. He, like many other entertainers, had multiple plastic surgeries. He, like, many other singers also dressed androgynously - for reasons that may range from he wanted to make sure he gained a gay audience to he knew it made him controversial and therefore meant he would keep his name in the spotlight. I can think of quite a few rockers who dressed that way, wore makeup, had long hair, and engaged in outrageous or controversial public behavior. If you bothered to do *any* research at all before writing this article and veering all over the place, you may have had a "reasonable" doubt that he molested any of the children that accused him. I don't know what attorneys you consulted, but entertainment attorneys can tell you that their clients are often accused of sexual misconduct and they are often counseled to settle quietly as the accusation alone is enough to ruin careers - whether or not they are guilty. At any rate, the FBI investigated him for many years. I would like to veer off into things I don't know, for what the heck you seem to, and postulate that the FBI probably had him under surveillance and tapped his phone as part of their investigation. We do know they made forensic investigation of 16 of his computers and found nothing, of a provocatively labelled VHS tape and found nothing, and interviewed accusers around the world and never found enough evidence to bring their own federal charges against him. And if their records are to be believed at one point the FBI even declined to bring charges that he violated the Mann Act. I again will take a stab at it and assume they would have if they thought they had something against him. So while some of Michael's action were questionable, there is no evidence he did anything criminal - after 10 years of investigation by law enforcement, including the FBI, forensic examination of his clothing, bedding, DNA, bodily samples, fingerprints, computers, residences, and a trial, in which prior "bad acts" were introduced, no one definitively proved he did anything. You are reaching. You know nothing about this man and you have never psychologically evaluated him. You are using media reports and your own impression of him that were honed by years of those media reports, much of which has now been proven to be false or distorted. He was a public figure, whose public behavior can be exaggerated and designed to keep themselves in the public eye. You do not really know his private behavior. I think your article and speculation about the psychological/sexual makeup of someone you don't know is absolutely egregious. Paulie (not verified) | 12/29/09 | 02:59 AM
Reply to This
Link
One could also say Elvis was a pedophile because Priscilla's parents allowed her to live in Elvis's home from the age of 14. He was a grown man in his 20s then. I have often wondered about parents who could so something of that nature. Granted his parents also lived there, but who knows what went on behind closed doors? In her book Priscilla maintains she was a virgin til she married Elvis, but before that she pleasured him in other ways (she declined to expound). Allie (not verified) | 12/29/09 | 17:07 PM
Reply to This Link

I also think MJ was heretosexual. Why do you think LMP was still following him around up to 3 years after their divorce? See youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGo_PgKDYCM in S. Africa 1977. LMP joined him on his HIStory tour while he was married to Debbie Rowe--the tabloids/media covered that. I don't believe they were playing games & throwing popcorn around the room in their free time. Don't forget, the adult magazines found at Neverland was straight porn. No kiddie or gay porn. Allie (not verified) | 12/29/09 | 17:51 PM
Reply to This Link

Sorry, date of video in previous post: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGo_PgKDYCM is 1997--not 1977. Allie (not verified) | 12/29/09 | 17:54 PM

wow
Reply to This Link
excellent analyses! see more on mj: http://aliciabanks.vox.com/library/post/this-is-not-it---mourning-the-et... alicia banks (not verified) | 12/31/09 | 05:23 AM
Reply to This
Link
Wow...yet another psychologist practicing arm chair psychology on the Internet, using the tabloids as his basis for analysis! What a riot! Michael Jackson was one of the most interviewed, most photographed, most scrutinized personalities in all of history. I've seen much footage of him where he appears perfectly sane, normal (whatever that is) and utterly in control of himself and his surroundings. I would call him nothing close to "spectacularly strange." This kind of judgment comes from those who have done little of significance in their lives and cannot allow another to be spectacularly talented without bringing them down to the judge's level. One must remember that targeting Michael Jackson as tabloid fodder was spectacularly profitable for the tabloids! Those who cannot see that are incredibly naive and not capable of mature discernment. Also, the author of this indictment of one of the most gloriously talented individuals the world has ever seen doesn't mention if he's ever read Michael's autobiography ("Moonwalk") or Michael's subsequent work, "Dancing the Dream." Has he critiqued Michael's work or does he rely solely on unreliable works such as "Be Careful Who You Love" and other flat out lies by questionable authors? It certainly sounds like the latter. In short, Michael Bailey is just another know-nothing as far as Michael Jackson is concerned. He's never met Michael Jackson, nor has he ever talked to anyone who's ever known Michael Jackson. What a waste of cyberspace. Damn...another 30 minutes of my life I'll never get back. He's just pandering to what some people do best: gossip about others to fill their sad and lonely days. By the way, I saw Dolly Parton on Larry King last night. What that woman has done to her face via plastic surgery is nothing short of tragic, yet we don't see Michael Bailey dissecting her on the Internet. Why is that? SoCalGal (not verified) | 01/03/10 | 22:49 PM
Reply to This Link

The FBI couldn't find anything on Michael Jackson. So either MJ is innocent or he is a super genius that alluded even the federal govt (and I sincerely doubt that). truth is this- MJ WAS A HUMAN BEING WITH FAULTS LIKE OTHER HUMAN BEINGS. ONLY HE WAS "SPECIAL" AND PEOPLE LOVE TO KNOCK DOWN, TEAR APART, TERRORIZE people who are different, or beautiful on the inside...sadly, that's life. Michael is resting with the angels now. It's best he is gone....he was to sensitive for this world. The doctor writes "trash" just to put his two cents in. Michael was human...that's all. Just like the rest of us. Monique (not verified) | 01/08/10 | 18:08 PM
Reply to This Link

@ Chinchicilla, I haven't been back on here in a month because I was too busy. But then the FBI files came out and I figured this debate was pretty much over. Anyway I will respond to your last claims if you are even still around. First, no I did not lie about the case being kept open for 6 years. The Chandler case was open for 6 years until the statute of limitations ran out. Even the FBI was still investigating MJ in 1995 a year after the
Chandlers ran off. Also about Terry George, after reading the FBI files and rethinking it, I regret my previous post about him. The reason I was so sympathetic to his claims before was because I saw him on a documentary called "Michael Jackson's Secret Childhood" where he was defending Michael Jackson and saying the phone conversation was really no big deal. He implied that the media had blown everything out of proportions and said he did not believe Michael Jackson was really a pedophile. He confused me about the seriousness of his accusations. Now I think its pretty bizarre. I've also heard that he was a rich business man and therefore he had no reason to sells stories to the tabloids. When I read the tabloid article from the Sun in the FBI files, I began to question his motives. First of all I thought his accusations just came out in 2004, I didn't know he was a part of the original 1993 tabloid circus. According to the article in the FBI files he was a disc jockey in 1993, not the rich businessman of 2004. Considering the tabloids have paid all the other disgruntled ex-employees including the Francias, its highly likely he was paid for his original story in 1993. The FBI files also demonstrate that after the Chandler accusations erupted Terry George went straight to the British tabloids with his story. He didn't think to contact the authorities. The authorities only found out about him through the tabloid. Also, don't know if this is important, but the files state they declined to file charges against MJ based on these accusations. I don't know if its because it was too long ago or if it was because even they were suspicious of Terry George's motives. These FBI files have shed more light on Terry George. I also wonder, considering the DA's desperation in 2005, why he didn't include Terry George in his list of prior bad acts? Suspicious. Also, who does this sort of thing? What does he have to gain by talking to the tabloids and doing TV documentaries and writing (bragging really) about his supposed 'relationship' with Michael Jackson on his blog, while at the same time defending MJ and saying he does not believe he was a pedophile? According to Charles Thompson (very knowledgeable journalist), he has a successful PHONE SEX business!!! Are you kidding me? LMAO. http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2010/01/fbi-file-reveals-at... So maybe, it was his Michael Jackson allegations that helped in become this 'successful businessman' who has nothing to gain by talking to the tabloids. LOL. And as Thompson points out Terry George has no evidence, other than a picture taken with Michael Jackson in 1983, 4 years after he claimed MJ tried to have phone sex with him... hmmm. For all we know he could have been an obssessive fan who had his picture taken with MJ in 1983 after meeting him just once. And again, if this really happened what incentive does Terry George have in talking to tabloids and going on MJ documentaries, instead of cooperating with the authorities ? Could he just be promoting his phone sex business? Anonymous1 (not verified) | 01/14/10 | 16:09 PM
Reply to This Link

And no. I never heard of the Grenda tapes. Anonymous1 (not verified) | 01/14/10 | 16:15 PM
Reply to This
Link
The only thing that is absolutely amazing in this discussion is the number of people that are willing to take hearsay evidence, third-party allegations, and assertions that no basis in fact and make an accusation against another person as if it were proven fact. It doesn't matter what you personally think or believe, since that doesn't constitute evidence. For everyone that thinks it's perfectly OK to accuse Michael Jackson of being a pedophile, just ask yourself how you would defend yourself should a similar accusation ever be made against yourself. Do you think that you'd escape the knowing smirks and innuendos? As for the individual that brought up the testimony of identifying Michael Jackson's penis .... How absurd are we going to get? Are all men automatically criminals to the point of where members of the same sex can't be in a locker room together because of age differences? Why on earth would someone think that it is perverted that two males of different ages may have seen each other nude? The next time you go to the gym and are in the locker room (or showering) ... take a good look and see if there might be 13-14 year old boys around.... and then consider whether a supposedly rational, thinking adult can actually assert that this kind of nonsense is evidence of a crime? This kind of foolishness goes on far too frequently in this country. People need to grow up and realize that the news and television does NOT constitute a trial nor a legal proceeding. Stating accusations as if they were fact, is simply irresponsible. There are no exceptions, there are no excuses. If you don't have hard legal evidence for any of your statements that you're little more than a backyard gossip. The law operates the way it does (sometimes poorly) precisely so that ALL OF US, are not subject to the interpretation of mobs and their sense of justice. So every time someone accuses Michael Jackson of a crime that hasn't been proven, they are showing how little respect they have for the protections that are intended to ensure that none of us is convicted by innuendo. Gerhard Adam | 01/14/10 | 18:53 PM
Reply to This Link

Anonymous1 (not verified) | 01/14/10 | 16:09 PM I have not been around for a while either, and just happened to pop in tonight. Since I last crossed swords with you alot has happened, the FBI files. They did not say much; they neither convicted or exonerate. I think Michael Jackson's fans missed something, Sneddon was not the one chasing Jackson's alleged victims around the world, it seems Ron Zonen crossed many borders as well.
What has changed is my reading list, I have since read Aphrodite's book, Ian Halperin's & Randy Taraborrelli's. I still habour very strong suspicions on Michael Jackson's innocence especially after Taraborrell's book. Here is what I believe in my heart. Michael Jackson either sexually molested Jordan Chandler, or Jordan believes he was sexually molested by Jackson. Oringinally I dismissed the Sodium Amythal explanation given by Mary Fischer, but after other reads it does seem a little more plausibe, but still a stretch. Given the fact that only 2 people know for sure if it were used Evan and Torbiner, and Evan is dead that leaves one to back up or debunk the story. Diane Dimond and Geraldine Hughs do not believe that the drug was administered to the kid. Incidentally the prosecution wanted to call Jordan Chandler to the stand in 2005, and any claims made by a victim while under the influence of sodium amythal is not admissible in a court of law. I doubt Sneddon would have risked it. I do have doubts about Gavin's claims, but Jordan's is very disturbing reading. After reading all these books the only reason I am even entertaining the sodium amythal explanation is, that in Michael Jackson's world everything is back-to-front & upside-down. This is a place were the twight light zone and main street happily co-exist. I don't fully buy Aphrodite's claims of a conspiracy. I think the public fuelled by the media were/are deeply suspicious of Michael Jackson's relationship with young boys. Lets pretend for a moment that his association with them was as he claims innocent, it is still not normal behaviour for a man to be sleeping with young children just for the fun of it. Granted Michael Jackson is an unconventional character, but it is still unseemly. How would it look if Larry King made such a declaration? In addition what was clear to me in the Aphrodite book and FBI report was the sheer zeal in which the prosecution wanted to bring Michael Jackson to his knees. If the 2005 case had a weak foundation and they knew it, the intention then was ruination. It almost worked. What would have caused such intense feelings for MJ? Something about the 1993 case did not sit well with them. I have since come to realize that this case is a mute point, it does not have the burden of proof a criminal trial would reveal, and all we are left with is innuendos, speculations, and second/fourth hand information. Jordan or Michael never took the witness stand in this case, and as far as I know Michael never gave a deposition with his side of events. Chinchilla (not verified) | 01/21/10 | 00:17 AM
Reply to This Link
Lets pretend for a moment that his association with them was as he claims innocent, it is still not normal behaviour for a man to be sleeping with young children just for the fun of it.
That's just rubbish. I'm really tired of everyone assuming that as soon as a "man" is involved then his every action must be viewed as a potential perversion. There is nothing wrong with a man sleeping with his son or
his grandson, just as no one would think anything of a mother/daughter or granddaughter situation. I am really tired of the implicit innuendo that a "normal" man doesn't engage with anyone, as if he's some rabid animal that can't be left alone without supervision. So the only question is whether it is normal to sleep with strangers. The main question to consider is whether it is "normal" to have an amusement park whereby you invite hundreds of strangers to visit and participate. If that's your version of "normal", then I would argue that you can't suddenly allege that sleeping together is somehow perverse. The only reason why people raise their eyebrows is because they're imagining a complete stranger in their own environment. However, the problem is that having a complete stranger over at your house would, in itself, be unusual, so by extension is everything you would do. If you made them a sandwich for lunch that would be unusual for a complete stranger. So, it pays to have a context and the simple truth is that Michael Jackson was constantly surrounded by hundreds of strangers, so his involvement with them is NOT unusual and shouldn't be construed within the same context as you might view the goings on at your own home or a neighbors. They aren't in the same world. Gerhard Adam | 01/29/10 | 17:51 PM
Reply to This Link
"The main question to consider is whether it is "normal" to have an amusement park whereby you invite hundreds of strangers to visit and participate." No, to have an amusement park in your backyard is not normal for a celebrity. The very definition of normal means ordinary, everyday, run-of-the-mill etc, but Michael Jackson was not your ordinary celebrity next door. Personally I don't believe he built an amusement park as a lure for kids, but rather for their genuine enjoyment. However, something is odd when a grown man relates to children better than adults even if it is not untowards. MJ needed to address the root of his dysfunction. No doubt the dysfunction was also an asset which he channelled into exceptional music and dancing. Chinchilla1 (not verified) | 01/31/10 | 10:17 AM
Reply to This Link
"The very definition of normal means ordinary, everyday, run-of-the-mill etc" Well, sort of. Normal is a statistical distribution of the relative frequency of states for a whole population. In this case state = mode of behavior. By the nature of such things most people's behaviors will fall within +/one or two standard deviations from the peak of the curve, and that's what most people mean when they talk about being normal. Less relatively frequent states are represented at the extremes, the left & right tails of the distribution. Those regions represent eccentrics, behaviors which are comparatively rare. For a large enough population, there's bound to be someone whose behavior is eccentric, seemingly odd. It's odd, but not really "abnormal", because statistical dynamics will generate odd behavior at some rate which is small but to be expected. Jackson wasn't abnormal. He was eccentric.
Bradley (not verified) | 01/31/10 | 11:12 AM
Reply to This Link
It is not Grenda tapes, it is Glenda Tapes. I have not been able to confirm if they are authentic, or made by an impersonator. Just so you know they are on Youtube. Chinchilla (not verified) | 01/21/10 | 00:20 AM
Reply to This Link

@ Gerhard Adam | 01/14/10 | 18:53 PM Thank you! That was good points. Stacey (not verified) | 01/29/10 | 17:36 PM
Reply to This Link

Presley is a real child molester he fucks girls when she was only 14 years old.End of story.Study presley a good example of pedophile Anonymous (not verified) | 02/01/10 | 16:52 PM
Reply to This Link

If you are going to comment on Michael's appearance...do the research first. His appearance changed after a Pepsi commercial which elevated an already condition of vitiligo that many people have from sundamage...hence the hea from the commercial . In addition, his lips were burned, eyelashes, brows, etc, and surgery began then. My opinion as a die-hard fan that believes in his innocence, in spite of the EXTORTION CASES...I also did a lot of research and believe from what I have read, that Michael was a subject of a botched surgery that he kept trying to correct. Also...fans defend him, because we DO our research...from reliable sources. Anonymous (not verified) | 02/09/10 | 11:13 AM
Reply to This Link

For a professor you sure are an embarrassment to your field. Is it too much to do a little investigating before coming up with your crazy analysis? Before Jackson died I did know that the 2005 case was utter BS since this was the same kid who was holding hands with him and leaning on him while being interviewed. It was so obvious that the family accusing him was so full of nonsense that I don't know how anyone could take it seriously. Yet, I was not sure about the earlier case since I had no information about the 1993 allegations but what I had heard from the tabloids and media. (Your same source apparently.)
So, I looked online and found out a few things about the 1993 case: - Evan Chandler was a screen writer, and dentist, who was looking to Jackson to finance his new movie and renovate his home. He initially wanted $20 million which is about the amount the settlement was for. - The insurance company made the settlement against Michael's wishes as documented in ACTUAL LEGIT PAPERS. More legit than the ones you read/referenced, if you did at all. - The lawyer used by the Chandlers was also used by the Arvisos as was the same psychologist. - Chandler drugged his son, with a solution that is known to make people susceptible to suggestion which is how he got the confession in the first place. - Jordan had filed charges against his dad for physical abuse. - Jordan was ordered to pay his dad an allowance from the settlement he gained after he tried to get away from him. - Evan Chandler tried to get more money out of Jackson after the settlement. - Jordan Chandler DID NOT accurately describe Michael's genitalia. Look at how much information I obtained from a simple google search on the 1993 allegations. Was that really that hard to do? People who claim that MJ was sexually abusing childen are just going by the news stories they hear and I have learned that you can't always trust journalists or articles, because they just end up reporting the same thing the other one says, so there's a real lack of basic fact checking on anything. As for MJ's statement about sleeping in the same bed with kids, there is a part of the interview that they have recently added into the documentary after his death. In that scene he also said "There's nothing wrong with GIVING your bed to a child." After watching various Michael Jackson interviews it had become apparent to me that he had a hard time expressing himself. This was because of him being sheltered his entire life and not being able to have normal social situations. Being shy myself, I understand his plight, especially when you are put under pressure. Even Macaulay Culkin confirmed in an interview the same thing and stated Michael would not sleep in the same bed as them. Isn't it a little weird that Michael would only target 2 victims in over 10 years of his life? This isn't the case of Gary Glitter or the Roman Catholic Priests that were all accused of sexually molesting children, so why should it be any different for him? It just goes to show your complete ignorance and refusal of seeking out knowledge and I feel terrible for the students that look up to you for guidance. Anonymous (not verified) | 02/21/10 | 06:26 AM

now
Reply to This Link

i dont think that michael is a pedolphile he went through the trials of life and alls they want is his money and that hes dead whos getting his house and the entire property? probally someone in his family but may god rest his soul. smooth criminal (not verified) | 03/21/10 | 12:28 PM

sort:
Reply to This Link

Headlines like this really get on my nerves. If people research they would know he was never anything of the
http://cure4lupus.org/media/michael_jackson_lupus.htm http://www.buttonmonkey.com/misc/maryfischer.html floacist - michael jackson, www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article/1196633 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People-v.-Jackson, www.newswithviews.com/Tong/dean117, www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHV03txW8xc, eurweb.com/story/eur54470.cfm http://www.independent.com/news/2009/jul/09/michael-jackson-triumph-and-... http://elitestv.com/pub/2009/07/celebrity-scales-michael-jackson-the-wou...? conspiracy book by aphrodite jones and redemption book by geraldine hughes. The Untold Story of Neverland dvd by Larry Nimmer. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1205624/The-black-girl-turned-wh... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1201841/I-turned-black-white-H... http://site2.mjeol.com/video/video-2005-mesereau-had-witnesses-ready-to-... http://explosivemuzik.com/2009/07/01/video-michael-jackson-the-footage-y... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wh4960S3RQ http://www.thesilencedtruth.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl... http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/403276-post-h... http://site2.mjeol.com/video/video-timor-tii-dancer-speaks-about-mj-eng-... http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/fire-martin-bashir.html http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/exclusive-michael-jacksons-guitar... http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/110013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzpptd4BBVU http://www.independent.ie/national-news/friends-remember-michaels-specia... http://www.counterpunch.org/vigo06302009.html http://www.counterpunch.org/reed06292009.html http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1901538/interviewing_michael_ja... http://www.mjfanclub.net/mjforum373/showthread.php?t=5119 http://www.uncf.org/Campaign/News/mj.asp http://www.tjmartellfoundation.org/PressReleaseDetailnone.aspx?release=4... http://www.mjfriendship.de/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=... www.mjtruthnow.com http://www.zimbio.com/Hip+Hop+Culture/articles/NYrfi5fp_1n/Micheal+Jacks... www.charles-thomson.net http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?noframes;read=64536
http://www.saratoga.com/horse-racing-blog/2009/06/horse-sense-pop-stars-... http://www.mj-777.com/?p=1624 http://www.jacksonaction.com/index.php?page=search.php&id=5264 http://jetzi-mjvideo.com/books2/con/con0xl.html (conspiracy book) http://jetzi-mjvideo.com/books2/red/red1zf.html (redemption book) Jan (not verified) | 03/24/10 | 12:58 PM
Reply to This Link

Even the FBI didn't find anything wrong about him... Wake up ! If you're a pedo, it's always obvious. I mean, there is no doubt. Maybe he was just "asexual" ? Don't know... Anyway, this article is still interesting. Fleur du mal (not verified) | 03/27/10 | 15:59 PM
Reply to This Link

YOUS A F**kING LIE HES NOT GAY LEAVE MICHAEL ALONE THIS IS A LETTER FROM MICHAEL TO HIS HATERS AND HATEFUL PEOPLE LIKE YOU THAT JUDGE HIM NOW YOU SHOULD STOP IGNORING AND ACTUALLY HEAR WHAT HE HAS TO SAY IF YOU HAVE A HEART YOU MAY CRY FROM READING THIS LIKE I DID AND SO MANY OTHER FANS DID IF YOU ARE JUST STUPID AND STILL MEAN AND HATEFUL AFTER THIS YOU NEED SERIOUS HELP!!! GO ON AND GET SOME MJ WROTE THIS TO HIS HATERS I DONT SEE HOW HE COULD CALL HATIN ASS BITCHES DEAR IT MAKES ME SICK THAT HES SO NICE TO U PLEASE READ IF YOU HAVE A HEART U WILL UNDERSTAND HE WRITES: Dear people, I would like to ask you a question - the question WHY. Why is there so much poverty in the world? Why so many wars? Why so much torture and agony? And why must children die and innocent suffer? I don't understand it. Do you understand it? I want to help. I want to make people happy, and may it be just for a moment. That is what gives my life a sense. Don't you understand me? What did I do that you judge me? Are you really envious of me? You don't have to. I wouldn't wish you to be me Maybe you just want me to confess my 'guilt': Yes, it is true, I do love children! But not the way you want it to be. I love them from the bottom of my heart. Because children don't make wars. Children have never hurt me. It makes me happy to look in their shining eyes. Is it a crime wanting to be happy and want to make others happy? Many of them who visit me are going to die soon, of cancer or other terrible diseases. I won't let you forbid me through your arrogance to give them just one happy day! Yes, it is true that I had plastic surgeries! Do you know what it feels like?! How often did I have to wake up in pain! How often I didn't know what would expect me when I look into the mirror! How often did I cry when I did it! Don't you see that I'm punishing myself for that I cannot cope with my face - and with myself! Why do you also punish me for it?
Yes, it is true, once I was black! You get darker in the sun and get admired for that. But I am sick and you hit me for it. The sun you love so much can kill me. In former times I loved to be outside in the light, too, now I can nearly only go out at night. And you make your fun out of it. If I hadn't become the Michael Jackson you know today, then I would also be like that: I would be a white black with curls and a thick niggernose for which everybody would tease me. Well, now you tease me because of my little nose. Maybe I would already be dead because I couldn't protect myself so good as I can today. Would you prefer it when I was dead? Or when I had never existed? But then you wouldn't have my music! Would you like to do without 'Billie Jean'?! My music you love though, don't you? Just not me. But I create the music to make you happy. You torture me with your disgraceful words. Words can sometimes hurt so much more than punchs. Often I sit in an edge and cry. I ask God for what I have to suffer, what a reason I've given you. Cause I never did harm to anyone. I am afraid of you 'cause you've hurt me so badly. And I don't even defend myself. I simply hide behind my masks. Oh, how I hate these masks! Under them I can hardly breathe. But I have no choice, it's the only way to protect myself. But you don't like it when I protect myself. You'd prefer to kick a defenceless man in his face. but this favour I won't do you. I don't need to be ashamed for anything I've done. And as I can see at you, dear Unknown there are people who understand my message. My friends and me, we don't go into the war with tanks. We come with sunflowers to all of you even though you laugh at us and snap our flowers off. Maybe you will understand not before not only the flowers but the whole sun goes out. With my music, with what I do I would like to bring a light into the world. But is it necessary that I kill myself until someone believes me? And until someone believes me that I just want to do good things and that I suffer from your hate? But then you would be outraged: "And the children?!" Particularly you would say that, you who would love the most to take my children away from me. You say they aren't my children. You say I couldn't educate them. How do you want to know this?! And is it important then what blood is flowing through their veins when I would die for them? Your jealousy and your hate make you blind for what love means. You don't know me, nevertheless you have already judged me! You, those reporters who hammer me at the cross in the morning, you listen to my music in the evening! That is not fair! You are not interested in what you write if it just attracts readers and causes headlines. But my name is enough to attract the people. Why is it always necessary to denounce me? Why don't you write something positive, there you wouldn't have to search so long! Why do I have to be 'Wacko Jacko'? Can't you see that the only one I'm hurting is myself?! You hunt me like I was a piece of cattle. Isn't there anybody who sees that I'm also a human being?! Where do you have your heart? Where do you have your mercy? Where do you have your love? If just one out of ten people who get this letter tries to understand me, already then my life is it worth being lived. MICHAEL KNEW HE WAS NEVER REALLY ALONE HE ALWAYS HAD US HIS FANS HE WROTE TO HIS FANSITES AND ONCE A FANS FOUND THIS AND SHOWED IT TO US AS WE CRIED I COULDN'T HELP BUT SHOW IT TO ALL THESE HATEFUL PEOPLE SO HERE YA GO FOR U MICHAEL MY LOVE YOUR PAIN WILL NEVER GO UNREAD downtorideforthejackson5 (not verified) | 04/08/10 | 00:34 AM
Reply to This Link

This article seems to lack vital information on Michael Jackson and assumes outright some possibilities without considering others. First thing that I think should be noted is that Michael Jackson was a pop star, suggesting that age plays a dominate role in his lively hood (most pop star are about 16 years old, the
mainstream media and record companies refuse to sign stars past their early teen years and quickly look to replace them once they start to look old around 27 to 28 years of age, this is especially more true in the past during Michael's time). Second, Michael apparently hated his appearance, probably because he was abused as a child, or was not well socialized, or both, and most people like this tend to lack a sex drive or sexual arousal all together, forcing their sexual desires to a complete repressed state. Add to that a repressed child hood due to the circumstances of being a celebrity with the money to do what you want but not the freedom to enjoy it, I don't understand how Michael Jackson could have been a pedophile, or whatever this article chooses to call him, rather it seems more likely that he was a self-loathing confused being. Anonymous (not verified) | 04/22/10 | 08:29 AM
Reply to This Link

Huh, I can't believe someone who is trying to become succesful psychologist can be so far away from facts and reality! I have just two things to ask you, if you believe Michael harmed Chandler boy (the first one you say you believe he did), why that boy didn't wittnes at second trial when he was invited? Another question, you say Michael loved to sleep with children, "It seems that he preferred boys to girls." Now tell me, if he was sleeping "with" (he didn't sleep with those kids, he would give them his bed to sleep in) little girls wouldn't their be even bigger chance that he could be accused as rapist?! Oh, and something else, if your child would come and tell you he was sexualy abused, would you accept money or would you try to put that person behind bars for lifetime?! That much about psychology and your theory. One advice, maybe you should ask Lisa Marie Presley about Michael's orientation! And it is so sad, you are same age, and why Michael was master, giant in his work, you are still playing wanna be psychologist. Sad, really sad... Maybe it would be better if you learn something from Michael, like helping others, especially children instead writing non sense. Anonymous (not verified) | 05/08/10 | 15:49 PM
Reply to This Link

the Chandler boy could not testify at the trial - part of accepting a payment is for your silence if he talks about Jackson (aka Pedo Pan), he forfeits the payment nina (not verified) | 06/26/10 | 13:30 PM
Reply to This Link
Absolute lie pedo neno. The 1993 settlement specifically states that neither party would talk about the other - EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF A CRIMINAL TRIAL. In fact it is illegal to pay off a witness not to testify. The actual document is online neno peno you can probably find it and read it yourself and not look so stupid in the future. The DA actually tried to get the 1993 "victim" who was by that time and adult to testify at the 2005 trial. He left the country to avoid facing Jackson in court.
Joyce (not verified) | 02/15/11 | 22:13 PM
Reply to This Link
We all no he was a pedo why would he pay of the familys of the children he abused his music was great but he was a weird man a pedophile who got kicks out of touching little children everyone get your head out your arse and open your eyes Josh (not verified) | 06/25/10 | 03:22 AM
Reply to This Link

Good article. Let me go father. He had a case of arrested development - like a child actor syndrome ,say like Shirley Temple. Thee are two ways to go - to become an adult, as Shirley did although it took awhile, or to become trapped in Never, Neverland as the adored child you were. I have a relative that is like this, who was the center of attention as a child, but then he grew up and lost his cuteness, and he still acts like that kid, although only his mother and close relatives still respond to him as that child he loves to be. Gerard (not verified) | 06/26/10 | 08:48 AM
Reply to This Link

Elvis really wasn't weird - he spent some time living out childhood fantasies -all night movie binges, renting out the amusement park, fireworks fights and lots of rough sports - with an adult entourage. Elvis compared to his peers from the 50's, many of whom battled drugs and alcohol - Elvis' early stage costumes were in line with the times, his later 70's costumes arose out of a blend of country music traditions and comic book heros and the teen idols of the 70's - Osmond, Cassidy and others copied Elvis' jumpsuits. Elvis' shooting the occasional tv certainly pales in comparison to modern rap artists shooting each other. Jackson is in a weird category all his own. I first thought he was a pedophile when his date to the Grammies was Emmanuel Lewis with Brooke Sheilds acting as beard. well before the first accuser came forward. nina (not verified) | 06/26/10 | 13:25 PM
Reply to This Link

There is better evidence that Presley was a pedophile than there is that Jackson was. The person who claimed Presley was a pedophile was Priscilla. She wrote in her book "Elvis and Me" that she and Presley were having "sex", but not intercourse at the time she was a minor. Well diddling a minor is child sexual abuse. Far from trying to profit by making these admissions, Priscilla could have ruined her daughters estate
if the media had treated these revelations the same way they treated Jackson. Some people think the media ignored it because Presley was already dead and no longer in the public eye and there wasn't much to be gained. I have read that the book and these revelations have driven a wedge between Priscilla and Lisa Marie, but I don't know that for sure. Joyce (not verified) | 02/15/11 | 22:43 PM
Reply to This Link
I have read this article with great interest and understand perfectly what is being portrayed. All these accusations could indeed be true if we had any facts. It is too easy to speculate Jackson was any of which you suggest, but we only have media driven stories. Nobody here ever knew Michael Jackson, nobody here ever knew who he really was, so it is very difficult to establish anything. Michael Jackson didn't go to award show's with leggy beauties, he never hung out at the playboy mansion, and as disappointed as some may be - he had no reputation for being a womaniser. So does that make him a child sex offender? To me and many others it was Jackson who was far too easily taken advantage of, frequently manipulated and black-mailed by a sob story - this particular accusation being the ultimate betrayal. As I stated, nobody here knew Jackson, so what makes people think they know anything? It is of course the media projected image which Jackson himself invented - the old razzle dazzle, which in the end destroyed him. The non-human superstar - the untouchable - the weird and bizarre Michael Jackson. All this led to his own demise, people wanted to believe ALL the allegations because there was nobody else like him. Maybe it was media jealousy?, the game of " throw them up and tear them down?" but in the final throw of the dice Jackson was portrayed exactly as the press had wanted him to be "wacko Jacko" . Who would believe him? Only his rabid fans? You speak of gay lover's as though it was absolute truth, yet there are many woman who claim to have been in sexual relationships with him - by the way - with no financial gain. Let's suppose Jackson had been a woman, one who surrounded herself with children and made her home a sanctuary for the sick or underprivilged, would we judge so harshly? I think not. There are rumours that Jackson was possibly A sexual (not attracted to either sex) which is why he led a quiet secluded life and prefered the company of children who he could relate to. They were the little people who were less critical of his appearance and nonjudgemental of his child-like behaviour - is this possible? perhaps. It would be interesting to know just how many people Jackson helped through out his life time, how many lives he inspired, and how much money he gave away to charities. The joy he brought to millions (if not billions) with his music and entertainment. The ultimate showman - one we had never seen before, when he sang - people listened and when he danced - the world stood still. The media have a lot to answer for - really. The rise of the king of pop in the last twelve months is sickening. The press celebrate him as though nothing ever happened, and continue to shamlessly print " Tribute
edition" magazines because they know it will fly off the shelves. How sad it is we need to judge on the needy credibilty of a newspaper -and how sad that Michael Jackson is once again top of the tree in music entertainment , not only because the sheep society need a shephard but - because he is dead! Confused? (not verified) | 06/27/10 | 12:51 PM
Reply to This Link

MR Jackson had two kind of voice: 1)soft - used usually in pubblic 2)deep -used in his pvt life and SOMETIMES in pubblic. Anonymous (not verified) | 08/29/10 | 13:25 PM
Reply to This Link

sorry i just don't get the purpose of the article, even because the doctor either do not know Mr Jackson in person...so for me it's quite useless. And just to add, even some little girls, not only boys, shared his bed. Anonymous (not verified) | 08/29/10 | 13:39 PM
Reply to This Link

Funny to read piles and piles of stuff, with all kinds of scientific names popping in an out. A person sounds like a page in a manual. Maybe Michael Jackson was a person who was different all around. Himself, a child lover in his sense of the word, and a strange conceiver of his needed changes of persona. He was in the end almost all artist, almost nothing else beyond that. People who live publicly are all pointed at when they make life choices, and they make life choices in articulation with their public. That is another aspect of Michael Jackson. Probably the same choices all of us make, but in the relative comfort of anonymity. If anyone were to tell your story, doctor, what would they tell or not tell? How would they describe you, under what heading? Anonymous (not verified) | 08/29/10 | 21:35 PM
Reply to This Link

13 Surgeries? Easily explain by this: Body Dysmorphic Disorder, Read it again, if you remember It's all him.
Some of The symptoms include Wearing hats and even eccentric clothing Problems initiating and maintaining relationships Perfectionism (undergoing cosmetic surgery and behaviours such as excessive moisturising and exercising with an aim to create an unattainable but ideal body and reduce anxiety. Body modification may change one's appearance. This is repetitive, or focused on one or more areas or features that the individual perceives to be defective Drug abuse (often an attempt to SELF-MEDICATE). (In 1993 he admitted he went to rehab because of the abuse of certain medications) Feeling self-conscious in social environments; thinking that others notice and mock their perceived defect(s). Strong feelings of shame. Social and family withdrawal, social phobia, LONELINESS and self-imposed social ISOLATION. Major depressive disorder symptoms. Avoidant personality: avoiding leaving the home, or only leaving the home at certain times, for example, at night. This disorder have some compulsive behaviors such as: Attempting to camouflage the imagined defect: for example, using cosmetic camouflage, wearing baggy clothing, maintaining specific body posture or wearing Hats. (Explanation for the surgical mask) Use of distraction techniques: an attempt to divert attention away from the person's perceived defect, e.g. wearing extravagant clothing or excessive jewelry. Seeking reassurance from loved ones. Excessive dieting or exercising, working on outside appearance. (It's known that most of the time, he ate only once a day) Obsession with plastic surgery or dermatological procedures, often with little satisfactory results In extreme cases, patients have attempted to perform plastic surgery on themselves, including liposuction and various implants with disastrous results. Eating disorders, such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa, are also sometimes found in people with
BDD Around 37% of people with BDD will also experience Social Phobia[14] and around 32% suffer from obsessivecompulsive disorder.[14] The most common personality disorders found in individuals with BDD are avoidant personality disorder and dependent personality disorder, which conforms to the introverted, shy and neurotic traits usually found in BDD sufferers. Cause. BDD usually develops in adolescence, a time when people are generally most sensitive about their appearance. Psychological Teasing or criticism: It has been suggested that teasing or criticism regarding appearance could play a contributory role in the onset of BDD. While it is unlikely that teasing causes BDD (since the majority of individuals are teased at some point in their life), it may act as a trigger in individuals who are genetically or environmentally predisposed; likewise, extreme levels of childhood abuse, bullying and psychological torture are often rationalized and dismissed as "teasing," sometimes leading to traumatic stress in vulnerable persons.[15] Around 60% of people with BDD report frequent or chronic childhood teasing.[15] Parenting style: Similarly to teasing, parenting style may contribute to BDD onset; for example, parents who either place excessive emphasis on aesthetic appearance, or disregard it at all, may act as a trigger in the geneticallypredisposed.[15] Personality Certain personality traits may make someone more susceptible to developing BDD. Personality traits which have been proposed as contributing factors include: [17] Perfectionism Introversion / shyness Neuroticism Sensitivity to rejection or criticism Avoidant personality Common locations of perceived defects Skin (73%) Hair (56%) Weight (55%) Nose (37%) (sounds familiar?) _______________________________________________________________________________________ He always said he felt ugly, even in his latest years. The most recent comment was in 2003, in the infamy
Bashir interview. That part was behind the scene but now It's all over youtube. "Body dysmorphic disorder causes sufferers to believe that they are so unspeakably hideous that they are unable to interact with others or function normally for fear of ridicule and humiliation about their appearance. This can cause those with this disorder to begin to seclude themselves or have trouble in social situations. More extreme cases may cause a person to develop love-shyness, a chronic avoidance of all INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS". I don't think his surgeries had anything to do with your pan-sexual theory, especially for the fact that you used some of the tabloids to build your little argument. His ex-wife Debbie said WHAT? Once again, a Tabloid believer. Anonymous (not verified) | 09/06/10 | 01:35 AM
Reply to This Link

Wow, you took your time to name several kinds of sexual orientations. Thanks for the class, but I have books too. Look, if you truly are a psychologist you will know that is really not that hard to find evidence in pedophile cases. They went in his house with enough manpower and supplies to raid an Al Quaeda base, yet they failed to find even ONE thing which could remotely stand a chance at being labeled as "evidence. Regular Heterosexual porn was found in his personal computers, you may be suspicious about it and think he could do it on purpose , but some of the stuff they found were embarrassing, why would he put it there? Embarrassing but definitely not homosexual or any kind of child porn or anything illegal. This proves either one of two things: either Michael Jackson was cunning and tech-savvy enough to successfully hide evidence (both physical and presumably digital) from a team packed with the top computer scientists and highly trained investigators from an internationally recognized bureau of investigation, or, far more likely, THERE WAS NEVER ANYTHING TO FIND and that whole Neverland raid was an abuse of power and taxpayer money, by the way. But Fist of all the 3th case you name never existed. Show me the documents an I'll believe it. Second: He never said he "loved sleeping with children" MJ is not a good speaker, an ability required to defend yourself, he used to say the first thing in his mind, innocently. And how many children are really abuse in the bed?
AND absolutely yes, his Insurance Company payed the agreement, which was a Negligence accusation. The father change at last minute his accusation and claimed that it was a NEGLIGENCE instead of molestation. This is why the Insurance Company took part of in that minute. Did you know that MJ filed charges against Chandler (father's kid) for EXTORTION? I bet you didn't. Because most tabloids didn't tell. I HAVE ALL THE TRIALS TRANSCRIPT AND DOCUMENTS where his attorney PROVES that his INSURANCE COMPANY DID THE PAY. Let me know if you need them. _________________________________________________________________________________________If you took a few seconds to educate yourself on the subject, instead of spreading rumors, you'd see that nobody bought anyones silence. In the documents (that are public now, but nobody cares to read them) it plainly says that the Chandlers are free to prosecute this case. Nothing stopped Evan Chandler from getting the money and walking right into a police station. Oh, yeah, one thing did stop him. He was lying. _______________________________________________________________________________________AND Yes, MJ did have a lot of surgeries in his nose and admitted himself to have made a cleft in his chin. A CLEFT IN HIS CHIN! That ISNT the most FEMININE of characteristics, is it?. He wore makeup, but lets put all the rockers and male celebrities that wear makeup in the same sack, shall we?? John John (not verified) | 09/06/10 | 02:12 AM
Reply to This Link

I read that they found regular adult heterosexual pornography and adult heterosexual S&M pornography work that one over. Also, some kinky kind of porn that some guy makes look like female genitalia, but it's really armpits. Have to admit I've seen it and it looks real. What I read was the cops didn't know what it was they thought it was real. Tom (not verified) | 02/15/11 | 21:49 PM
Reply to This Link
Hmm lets see he slept with little boys and had cameras outside of his bedroom not rocket science. yeah he wasn't convicted but neither was OJ its called money. Anonymous (not verified) | 12/03/10 | 16:42 PM
Reply to This Link
So the police and district attorney's are either idiots or corrupt. Which is the bigger crime? Gerhard Adam | 12/03/10 | 17:08 PM
Reply to This Link
Hmm lets see he left his door unlocked and ignored the alarms so the 2003 "victims" brother could see him molesting his brother not once, but twice. And all this was after he had known the "victim" for 2 years, but oh by the way, he waited until after the Bashir interview aired to molest the kid. Even if you do shallow this you also have to get around the fact that the brother described something entirely different than what the "victim" described - oops. Read the unembellished trial transcripts (they are available on line) then you will actually know the difference between OJ and MJ and know why the jury, who unlike you heard all the evidence, acquitted him. Anonymous (not verified) | 02/15/11 | 21:32 PM
Reply to This Link
I have been a Professional Dominatrix in NYC for over 15 years AND I have a degree in Cultural Anthropology from Columbia University, School of General Studies, 1973 AND I studied in close tandem with Margaret Mead on mother/child dyad research. I was accepted into the graduate program in Anthropology at Columbia, but dropped out due to financial problems. I am an expert on crossdressing as I have met and dressed over 500 men from ALL walks of life who secretly have been crossdressers for their entire adult lives. I have MDs, college professors, judges, etc who use my services, as I am a highly educated, highly understanding professional. That is to say, men who crossdress will tell me FAR more honest, anecdotal truths about their secret lives than they will do to their doctor, their psychiatrist or any theoretical expert on secret secual paraphilias. Michael Jackson was clearly a crossdresser and suffered from severe body dysmorphia. The vast majority of crossdressers begin around the age of 7, when they are either "latch-key" children of divorce, left alone at home, and in a sense, their precocious pre-pubescent sexuality, and their sense of abandonment and loneliness, leads them to explore their mother's bedrooms. They begin to dress in their mother's lingerie in an effort to gain closeness and intimacy with the mother. All cross-dressing is an effort to regain emotional closeness with the mother, perhaps a closeness that never existed. In cutting edge psychology today, it is acknowledged that the mother/child dyad and bond is ABSOLUTELY necessary for the development of human relational skills. See Dan Siegel's work at UCLA on why children become on bullies, etc. How ironic that after 40 years, Margaret Mead's work on mother/child bonding has now proved itself to be in the forefront of understanding how our species and our pre-frontal cortex is hard-wired for intimacy with the mother, without which, individuals become sexually dysfunctional, socially dysfunctional, and prone to an enormous array of psychological problems.
Karl Jung wrote extensively about crossdressing and his paradigm of the animus and anima, he suggests that crossdressing is an effort at individuation, or the human impulse to have a more integrated understanding of mind. Michael Jackson's mother would, of course, vehemently deny her son's sexual paraphilias as she is an ardent member of the Jehovah's Witness religion, which has a fundamentalist approach to human sexuality. Anything outside of married sexuality for the purpose of procreation is considered taboo and sinful. It's quite clear if you look at progressive photographs of Michael over the years, that he transitioned very gradually (a word the transsexual community uses) from male to female. Although he did not get a breast implant or have his male genitalia changed (although that is possible and we will never know), it is clear that he patterned his face after that of an idyllized "goddess" celebrity; I would suggest either Liz Taylor or Diana Ross. As for his private sexuality, he was clearly a pedophile and wanted nothing more than to be in love with, have sex with (as the older woman) a young boy (his stand-in). Basically, Michael Jackson's weirdness was ALL about the ultimate and ONLY universal human taboo, incest. He wanted to be the mother having sex with the male, young child. How do I know this? Because literally 1,000s of men call me and masterbate to this sexual fantasy. In most men's cases, it remains a secret and favorte masterbatory fantasy. In Michael's case, because of his fame, insane wealth, and his inherent isolation from mainstream life, he acted on these fantasies, and when caught, simply paid off anybody he could to cover up the truth. I also believe he basically committed suicide by pharmaceuticals because living with incessant incestuous, paraphiliac belief systems DOES inevitably lead to increased hard drug use and severe depression. DominaNY (not verified) | 12/11/10 | 13:52 PM
Reply to This Link

He was a pedophile, there's no doubt about it. Anonymous (not verified) | 12/23/10 | 18:03 PM
Reply to This Link

Really? He molested you? That's the only way you could have no doubt, unless of course you saw it with you own eyes. Anonymous (not verified) | 02/15/11 | 21:36 PM
Reply to This Link
There is absolutely no credible evidence that Michael Jackson ever molested a child. Any alleged molester subjected to the intense scrutiny that he was under would have been found out with some corroborating evidence, such as trophies, DNA evidence, or images. Nothing of the kind was ever found. All we have are
two accusers. The second so laughable as to be laughed out of court and the first with plenty of evidence that it was a setup. A lot of smoke, much of it created by accusers looking for money and prosecutors looking for revenge and a political payday, but not much fire (corroborating evidence). It is interesting to note that after his death, there have been no more claims of child sex but plenty of claims of sex with consenting adults, nearly all females. The one homosexual claim was by an Arnie friend or worker. That claim has been dropped. And all the females claimed that Michael Jackson produced their love child. Again accusations made with the clear intent of getting money. Everything else is nothing but speculation and none of it very credible since no psychologist was in his confidence, examined him, tested him, or psychoanalyzed him with his participation and consent. Therefore, everything here is pure speculation and based on the public personna of a performer. What you see publicly is not what you get privately. People who actually spent time with him, have nothing but kind things to say about him. I rather go with what someone who has at least spent some time with him have to say. Paulie (not verified) | 01/29/11 | 13:28 PM
Reply to This Link

Was Michael Jackson A Pedophile? It doesn't take a professor to answer this question. Nobody knows unless they were in the same room as Michael when he had child quests and observed any sex going on. Doug (not verified) | 02/05/11 | 17:15 PM
Reply to This Link

I don't care how qualified Bailey is to talk about human sexuality. He is not in the least bit qualified to talk about Michael Jackson and that 's what the article is about no matter how cloaked. As for DominaNY - You know no more about Jackson than Bailey. Jackson as cross dresser is absurd you have no clue what you are talking about, You also obviously haven't read the autopsy report, which clearly states his liver, kidney and heart were healthy and normal - no long term drug abuse. "Although he did not get a breast implant or have his male genitalia changed (although that is possible and we will never know)" - Yes we do, read the autopsy report his genitalia was normal. " it is clear that he patterned his face after that of an idyllized [sic] "goddess" celebrity; I would suggest either Liz Taylor or Diana Ross." - I would suggest more absurd speculation. The "victim" he "paid off" could have testified against him at any time; even during the 2005 trial when the "victim" was an adult. He refused to face Jackson in court. Jackson as the most vetted person who ever walked the planet is true; yet not one spec of proof has ever been found that he committed any crime. How can we really know what Jackson was like? Listen to the people who did know him. I have; and I've not heard one of them say he was gay, except for Arnie Klein who also said he wasn't gay. These people include the two women he was married to, male friends, family and Jackson himself. The voice? Listen to the other siblings they are all soft spoken.
His children are proof of his parenting skills. From what I've seen and heard of them they would make anyone proud. Anonymous (not verified) | 02/15/11 | 21:19 PM
Reply to This Link

this blog and comments are totally unbelievable: For those who wish to know the truth about Michael Jackson rather than the media sponsored agenda, respectfully I ask you to peruse these sources. FBI files found no wrong doing: http://foia.fbi.gov/hottopics.htm "Was Michael Jackson Framed?" by Mary A. Fischer http://www.buttonmonkey.com/misc/maryfischer.html "Michael Jackson Conspiracy" by Aphrodite Jones (full book online): http://jetzi-mjvideo.com/books3jetzi/con/con0aa.html Article by Deborah Ffrench: "The Making of a Myth" part 1 http://www.stereoboard.com/pdfs/Michael-JacksonThe-Making-Of-A-Myth-Par... FBI Files support Jackson's innocence; Media Reports Otherwise: http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2010/01/fbi-files-support-jacksons-\innocence.html Charles Thomson One of the Most Shameful Episodes In Journalistic History: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-thomson/one-of-the-most-shameful_b_610258.\html Michael Jackson: It's Time For Outlets to Take Responsibility in Covering the Rock Star http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-thomson/michael-jackson-its-time_b_482176.\html If Jordan had testified in 2005, Tom Mesereau was ready: http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/tommesereau-had-witnesses-t... Finally: The reality of Martin Bashir's duplicity: http://explosivemuzik.com/2009/07/01/video-michael-jacksonthe-footage-y... Jan7 (not verified) | 02/28/11 | 16:00 PM
Reply to This Link

http://www.mjworld.net/news/2009/09/24/a-tribute-to-michael-jackson/
Bashir is the sort of person who could stab a person and, with cool and calm demeanor, go on to ask why the victim is in pain. He is disturbed by Jacksons ostensibly eccentric behavior and concerned for the children, all the meanwhile inflicting psychological torture on the father. The manipulative journalist exploits Michaels sensitivity. He throws Michael off balance and then points to his angst as evidence of character flaws. At times his interrogation borders on sadism. Knowing it will open painful wounds, he nevertheless pries into Michaels demons. Perhaps what Bashir was really looking for in his ideal subject was a cold hard rock rather than a human being. What he found instead was a saint. By Filip Panusz Jan7 (not verified) | 02/28/11 | 16:08 PM
Reply to This Link
ADD A COMMENT Your name: E-mail:

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Anonymous
Homepage:
Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite><TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe><u><span> Lines and paragraphs break automatically. Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
Notify me when new comments are posted All comments Replies to my comment CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.
Post Comment
Preview
KNOW SCIENCE AND WANT TO WRITE? Register Now To Get Your Own Column! WHAT'S HAPPENING

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Top Articles New Comments SB News Introduction To Radiation Everything And Nothing Science 2.0 FAQ How Google Saves Billions In Taxes Death, Science and Intelligent Design Addicted To Being Good? The Psychopathology Of Heroism Can A Man Really Get Pregnant? Sure, But It Might Kill Him
Vitamin D levels linked with health of blood vessels Smoking did not influence breast cancer risk among obese women Metabolic syndrome may increase risk for liver cancer Avoiding or controlling diabetes may reduce cancer risk and mortality Large Veterans Health Administration study shows 'last resort' antibiotics use on the rise more
Science 2.0 Links Hot Topics
Science 2.0 Links

Take a look at the best of Science 2.0 pages and web applications from around the Internet!
Michael Jackson: Erotic Identity Disorder?

By Michael Bailey | July 1st 2009 12:27 PM | 288 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
J. Michael Bailey MORE ARTICLES Michael Jackson: Erotic Identity Disorder? Was Michael Jackson A Pedophile? Transsexual Smokescreen: Ignoring Science In The Man Who Would Be Queen
All Articles
ABOUT MICHAEL I am Professor of Psychology at Northwestern University. I study sexual orientation and related traits such as sex atypicality and gender identity...
View Michael's Profile
Michael Bailey
Search This Blog
In Was Michael Jackson A Pedophile? we dismissed the idea that Michael Jackson was gay and the unlikeliness of his being a clinical pedophile along with being an autogynephile. So what was he?
The idea behind erotic identity disordersthat sometimes the sexual object can be inverted into the selfwas first proposed by two important Canadian sexual scientists, Kurt Freund and Ray Blanchard. In their seminal paper, they focused on a series of real cases of pedophilic sex offenders who each appeared to be erotically aroused by the idea that they were children. Two of the pedophiles enjoyed putting on boys' gym clothes and pretending to be boys, while masturbating. Another fantasized about being a 10 year old boy whenever he fondled children. Another requested a consultation with a plastic surgeon in order to make his penis look more childlike. These men might be called "autopedophiles." Like
autogynephiles (who want to become women and are attracted to women) and apotemnophiles (who want to become amputees and are attracted to amputees), autopedophiles have the sexual desire to become what they love, namely children.
Freund and Blanchard noted that none of the pedophiles they studied had erotic identity disorders as intense as typical autogynephiles do. They speculated that perhaps "aspirations of paedophiles who wish that they could be children are simply more limited by surgical realities."
The night of Michael Jackson's death, one television news show focused briefly on Jackson's nose. A commentator speculated that the evolution of Michael Jackson's nose was unconsciously motivated to reduce physical similarity with his father's. In its final form the disastrous nose was indeed very different from his father's (and his own, original) nose, but that speculation ignores the equally odd remainder of Michael's face. I am not expert enough in plastic surgery to speculate about the precise procedures that Jackson had, but one only has to look at a chronicle of the evolution of his face to be convinced that the surgeries were vast. Indeed, his autopsy report declared that he had had at least 13 plastic surgeries.
Normal people would hate to look like Michael Jackson did near the end of his life, and so normal people tend to assume that the surgeries were a series of big, compounded mistakes that Jackson must have regretted. Bad plastic surgery surely happens. But when it does, it is generally recognizable as a poor rendition of an aesthetically pleasing goal. Not so, Michael Jackson's face, which resembled nothing in the actual human, living world. Moreover, it has seemed to me that there was something coherent about the redesign of his facecoherent, not normalsuggesting that there was method in his madness. If so, the 13 surgeries may be explained by something other than 13 different errors of judgment.
Even if Michael Jackson's face had never seen a scalpel, even if one were simply to listen to an audiotape of him talking (not singing), one would have to conclude that he was one strange dude. The high, breathy voice with the hyper-sincere tone was not his natural
manner of speech. Reportedly, when he got mad or surprised, he manifested a "big deep voice." This suggests that the former, his public voice, was an affectation.
The face and the voice were both unnatural, and he went to a lot of trouble to have them. What was he trying to say and show with them? He told us, quite directly, the most likely answer.
"I am Peter Pan," he said, more than once. He lived in Neverland. His second wife, Debbie Rowe, said that in order to get in the mood to have sex with her, Jackson dressed up as Peter Pan and danced around the bedroom. She said: "It made him feel romantic."
Jackson and I are about the same age, and I remember the Disney cartoon Peter Pan quite vividly. According to Wikipedia, in the Disney cartoon "Peter appears to be in late childhood, between 10 and 13 years old." I recently reexamined the cartoon version of Peter Pan, and sure enough, some of the facial features matched: the nose, for example. Peter Pan had pointed ears. Sure enough, a photograph of Jackson exists showing an ear that was described as "mangled by plastic surgery" but looks like it just might be a surgeon's attempt at pointy.
Some things don't quite match between Michael and Peter, however. Cartoon Peter Pan's voice was more masculine than Jackson's public voice. (Jackson's voice is more similar to Mary Martin's, the woman who played Peter Pan on Broadway and in a television special.) And Jackson's long hairapparently a wig over a nearly bald scalpis a clear non-match.
Am I suggesting Michael Jackson was a homosexual autohebephile? I sure am
Am I seriously suggesting that Michael Jackson was a homosexual autohebephile whose erotic goals included resembling Peter Pan and having sex with pubescent boys? I sure am. If I am right, then somewhere there are images of Peter Pan that Michael Jackson brought to a plastic surgeon. There are also computer-generated images of the surgeon's plans for Jackson's face. But I am less certain that Peter Pan is the inspiration of Michael Jackson's
plastic surgeon than about the general idea that Jackson was trying to be a pubescent male.
If my theory is right, what was Michael Jackson's inner life like? Paraphilias usually reveal themselvesat least to those who have themduring adolescence. If I am right about his sexuality, then Jackson certainly had crushes on pubescent boys during puberty, perhaps when he himself was pubescent. But he grew up, and the boys he was attracted to didn't.
If he was attracted to pubescent boys, he undoubtedly felt great shame about it, due to both homophobia and the near-universal loathing of child molesters.
If he was erotically aroused by the idea that he was a pubescent boy (Peter Pan or not), then he probably suffered as his body became a man's. Analogously, autogynephilic males often experience intense gender dysphoria, longing to possess feminine bodies, and loathing their male bodies.
Because he became rich, Michael Jackson had an opportunity that would have eluded others with similar desires. He could remake himself, physically and behaviorally, into the boy he wanted. In some sense, he may have actually believed that he was a boy.
But whatever joy such delusions may have brought him would have been repeatedly interrupted by entirely adult concerns like the criminal accusation and trial, his financial difficulties, and the realization that talent fades with disuse.
*********
Does my theory say anything about the origins of Michael Jackson's tremendous talent? There are some correlations between sexuality and abilities. For example, gay men are vastly overrepresented among professional dancers and fashion designers. This may reflect their increased interest in and dedication to dance and fashion, rather than natural talent per se. Autogynephiles tend to be gifted in technical, mathematical, and scientific pursuits, with computer scientist being the prototypic autogynephilic occupation. But we don't really
know anything about the occupational interests of hebephiles, much less autohebephiles. Although there have been rock stars accused of child molestation, it doesn't seem as if there has been an excess of such accusations (in the way, say, that a disproportionate number of figure skaters died during the AIDS epidemic, presumably because they were gay).
It seems plausible that an adolescent Jackson might have sublimated his forbidden urges into work and musical ambition. But even before he was eight years old, Jackson was a phenomenon in his hometown of Gary, Indiana, and he was only nine when he led the Jackson 5 to win Amateur Night at the Apollo Theater. I don't think my theory, or any available theory, has much to say about why he was one of the greatest performers ever. Whether or not my theory is correct, there will never be another Michael Jackson.
Michael Jackson was one of the most talented performers who ever lived. He also may have been sexually attracted to young boys, and if so, he probably molested at least one. His demons led him to do bizarre things that might still be comprehensible in light of my hypothesis. If any of us had been born with those demons, we might well have done the same or worse. His greatness led to many wonderful things, including the joy of many children. To appreciate his legacy we will have to accept that people are complex, with admirable and problematic aspects frequentlyusuallycoexisting. If Michael Jackson's life helps us to understand that, it may well be his most important gift to us.
RELATED ARTICLES ON SCIENCE 2.0
was.
Michael Jackson Finally Gets His Own Computer Virus Who Is King? Michael Jackson Vs Sir Isaac Newton Was Michael Jackson A Pedophile? Michael Jackson - Freakishness Explained? Michael Jackson: The Castrato? Comparing Jackson to a great singer of the past who
COMMENTS
Thank you for sharing! That is without a doubt the best hypothesis I have ever heard concerning Michael Jackson's strangeness. It follows the clues. It seems to make sense. It explains many things. One thing it does not explain is why the veils and other facial coverings he wore and the children wore? However, that may not be related to his other behaviour. We will have no post hoc, ergo prompter hoc here. Thanks again!
Mark (not verified) | 07/01/09 | 14:28 PM
Reply to This Link

This is not scientific work, this is politics. Politics from Blanchard and friends. What a rubbish. Nothing is based on scientific basis, this is a bloody try to talk about himself. What a poor "scientist". He is no willing to think in a Post Modern way. Kenneth (not verified) | 07/06/09 | 12:19 PM
Reply to This Link

Michael Jackson is one of the World's Best Dancer. I like the way he performed. Today he is not in us, but we all really miss him lot Naturopathic Medicines (not verified) | 11/30/10 | 13:48 PM
Reply to This Link
The cover up of his face was because he suffered from lupus. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/15/09 | 01:30 AM
Reply to This Link

The autopsy report does not mention lupus. It looks to me as if in later years his nose was actually a prosthesis. If so, it was likely uncomfortable. Perhaps he wore a mask when his nose was off? Also his skin condition meant that covering his face outside in the southern California sun was very important. Anonymous (not verified) | 10/09/09 | 15:36 PM
Reply to This Link

Rarely have a I read such a load of nonsense. There is no evidence to suggest that Michael Jackson met any of the ciriteria for the labels mentioned above, The only evidence that is documented as far as his sexual life is concerned is that his first wife, Lisa Marie Presley, claims that they had a normal and active sex life. His second wife claims that they never had any physical relations and that she was supposed to be nothing more that a surrogate mother. They married to please Jackson's mother who is a devout Jehovah's Witness. Michael was convinced by her that as Miss Rowe was carrying his child it was the 'right thing to do'. If Michael Bailey
would like to leave a gift to us then I suggest that in future he writes articles based on fact and not on fantasy. Dr Chris Cooper (not verified) | 11/29/09 | 15:36 PM
Reply to This Link

You're an idiot. His skin, the rosy red cheeks and alot of his ailments are attributed to lupus. Anonymous (not verified) | 09/23/10 | 21:58 PM
Reply to This Link
This hypothesis is only analyzing who the media portrayed him to be and not who he actually was. if you actually study who Michael was and not media lies, you'll see a loving man and father. Liking Peter Pan and liking to play like a child does not mean you are gay or like boys. my father has always told me he was Peter Pan and was the neighborhoods favorite playmate and because of this i have always had a great appreciation for holding on to the child inside us. And now i play childish games with my kids. I climb trees and go on the swingset. i like to stay young. Michael was a responsible human to people, animals, and the Earth. People took advantage of him and lied to get money from him. He had less plastic surgeries than many people in Hollywood. His father always told him he was ugly. It wasn't about wanting to look like a boy. He dated his wife for years after their divorce. His bodyguards talk of how he looked at girls like any other man. He was as normal as someone can be who can never go out of his house without being mobbed and having people lie about you and people all over the world believing horrible things about you. Study the real MJ before making stupid theories on media lies. Anonymous (not verified) | 05/28/10 | 00:22 AM
Reply to This Link

What a bunch of rubbish !!! You "v just analyze his Public distorted persona ,not who he really was ;.a loving incredible human being and a devoted father . Anonymous (not verified) | 12/09/10 | 04:48 AM
Reply to This Link
That was an interesting read on MJ. Many people I know think along the same lines as you that his strangeness was 100% mental. i.e. He simply affected a high voice, (even when under high stress which, as you know from knowing transsexuals is not a simple thing to do), "bleached" his skin, etc.
I still like my explanation that he was either by some condition (or the action of his father with Michael's cooperation) castrated. I wrote a big long piece about it. It's in the related links so I will not waste space repeating it. Some mix of both explainations could be true. Either the type of sex drive you describe could lead him to castrate himself.... to preserve his boyishness. Alternatively having a cronic medical condition which caused vitiligo, and suppressed his puberty could lead him to the behavior we all saw. No matter the expliaination Michael was not "normal" or "ordinary" in any way, for better or for worse. Perhaps our society places too much value on being normal or ordinary. One more thing Dr. Bailey. These men might be called "autopedophiles." Like autogynephiles (who want to become women and are attracted to women) and apotemnophiles (who want to become amputees and are attracted to amputees), autopedophiles have the sexual desire to become what they love, namely children.
Are you a glutton for punishment or what!? Surely you must know how that will read to many in the "transgendered community". They will interpret that sentence into an equation of all those things. They will say that you equate peadophiles with lesbian/bi transsexual women. Please please clarify that before your words are twisted. I personally have no issue with your use of Dr. Blanchard's theory anywhere that I have seen it. You have a right as a human being and as a scientist to theorize freely. Dont tase me bro Hontas Farmer | 07/01/09 | 19:07 PM
Reply to This Link
I still like my explanation that he was either by some condition (or the action of his father with Michael's cooperation) castrated. I wrote a big long piece about it. It's in the related links so I will not waste space repeating it.
As do I, for there are far too many cases where parents feed off of their children. A sexually mature MJ might have put a hole in someone's pocket. You have a right as a human being and as a scientist to theorize freely. For the record, I concur but will take issue with something that could as you say, be "twisted" to suit a self-serving agenda. Laura Hult | 07/02/09 | 00:13 AM
Reply to This Link
In the wake of Jackson's death I have been reading a number of articles on him to better reconcile myself with how to feel about one of the 20th Century's greatest performers. Love him for his boldness, artistry, the sweetness of his voice? Indulge myself in the sentimentality of how his music captured my adolescence, and every time I hear one of his songs, I am shot back through my own time tunnel to people and places I experienced? Or loathe the man for what he certainly was.......... a narcissistic, meglomaniacal child abuser? I choose to love the music and reject its creator. Your article is most insightful but I think is too understanding of the dysfunctional soul of Michael Jackson. We are entirely too forgiving of his perversion for our own, selfish benefit. He hugely entertained us. Would a similarly bizarre, common man with a predeliction for young boys have gotten off scott-free as Jackson did? I know not. Let's not forget, in the collective public hysteria following Jackson's death, that the victims of his child abuse will carry this with them for the rest of their lives. He robbed them of their innocence and marred them emotionally. It is statistically significant that a large percentage of child abusers were themselves molested as children. That's some legacy Michael Jackson has left. Leslie (not verified) | 07/02/09 | 00:35 AM
Reply to This Link

thank you, Leslie. well written. I agree. sittingbytheriver (not verified) | 07/06/09 | 21:31 PM
Reply to This Link
Thank you, Leslie, for articulating my feelings on this person, this entertainer. I, too, have been struggling with this. I choose to remember that sweet little boy with the voice of an angel. And the children he ruined. Suzanne (not verified) | 07/15/09 | 22:41 PM
Reply to This Link

he didn't ruin any children you fool ..he didn't molest anybody!! ..HE HELPED SO MANY CHILDREN ALL AROUND THE WORLD!! and i am not a fan so i'm not trying to stand by his side! he wasn't a pheadofile he just wanted his childhood back , he was a child himself and, to make a point, Jordan Chandler, the kid who accused jackson in 1993, now after his death has ammitted that he (forced by his father)made up a story about Michael Jackson and filed a false case in order to thrash the image if Michael Jackson for money. valentina (not verified) | 08/02/09 | 17:39 PM
Reply to This Link

" Jordan Chandler, the kid who accused jackson in 1993, now after his death has ammitted" not sorry to burst your bubble, but that's an internet hoax. Chandler had to sign a confidentiality agreement as part of th settlement, any statement made - especially an admission of fraud - would result in having to return the money, plus fines in addition to fraud charges. nina (not verified) | 10/09/09 | 15:46 PM
Reply to This Link

MJ did help disabled and terminally ill children. That wasn't for show, he really wanted to help the unfortunate. Some of the boys that accused him of molestation may have fabricated the story for money...some probably did not. MJ was most likely a pedophile. I saw a media shot of him in Rio during one of his concerts. He was on the balcony of his hotel suite, surrounded by handsome 12 year old boys. A heterosexual celebrity would have young women in his apartment, a gay celebrity would have young men in his apartment. Only a pedophile would surround himself with boys. If he were just helping these children, there would be boys and girls of all shapes and sizes. There were only fit-looking 12 year old boys. He also admitted to sleeping with boys. He surrounded himself by 12-14 year old boys at Neverland, and built a theme park for them. These are red flags. You want him to be innocent, but that doesn't mean that he is innocent. I am not trying to harass you. I'm only encouraging you to look at the facts to avoid the same mistake in the future. A pillar of your community could easily be a predator. Take heed of blatantly obvious warning signs.
Anonymous (not verified) | 10/18/09 | 21:40 PM
Reply to This Link
"What he certainly was"???. How on earth can you be so sure that he was a child abuser?. Just let me remind you that a whole jury didn't get to that conviction after hearing all of the evidence and witnesses (and therefore knowing far more than you about it). Shame, really. Cristina (not verified) | 09/21/09 | 23:20 PM
Reply to This Link

You people have no right to analyse another person without ever having spoken to them. Why don't you analyse and do some research on those Arvizo family who falsely accused him of child abuse ? You are truly chosing to remain in the dark (or burying your head in the sand). I too had my doubts during the trial (I guess I was too busy to find out the truth during that time) but believe me if you just try and do some homework on the internet (serious homework - not tabloid trash) you will find out that MJ never harmed any child - on the contrary he was the most loving, charitable, and compassionate man on the earth. The people who falsely accused him did it for just one reason - for the thing that most brings out the evil in all human races - M O N E Y !!! so please stop this bull*** you are really hurtful saying these things. What if someone out there decided to lie about you, should the rest of us believe it just because you are strange ? or different ? THIS IS TRULY VERY UNFAIR IT IS DISGUSTING ..... P.S: let me make another suggestion : Read "The Michael Jackson Conspiracy" by Aprhorite Jones. Learn the truth, and if you are just too busy to read (or simply not interested) just shut up and stop passing judgements ......... Ingrid (not verified) | 11/12/09 | 10:28 AM
Reply to This Link

What a bunch of bull....He had a dysfunctional personality ,but who is completely excepted from it now days . ALL THE ACUSSERS WHERE SERIOUSLY SICK PEOPLE . To my opinion an after reading through lines i do strongly believed he wasn't a child molester at all.So save you comment about the victims cause is no real .What's wrong with you people !!!. He wqs a victim of the system With all respect from Holland Anonymous (not verified) | 03/12/10 | 18:16 PM
Reply to This Link
What a bunch of bull....He had a dysfunctional personality ,but who is completely excepted from it now days . ALL THE ACUSSERS WHERE SERIOUSLY SICK PEOPLE . To my opinion an after reading through lines i do strongly believed he wasn't a child molester at all.So save you comment about the victims cause is no real .What's wrong with you people !!!. He wqs a victim of the system With all respect from Holland Anonymous (not verified) | 03/12/10 | 18:16 PM
Reply to This Link

Michael was certainly different but he was the most scrutinized possible sex offender in the world. He was acquitted of all charges and no one came forward again to accuse him. The LAPD and the FBI spent over ten years trying to find credible witnesses here and in Canada, unsuccessfully. Furthermore his accusers were shown to be extortionists and quite evil people, if you believe in evil. So why are we too forgiving? On the contrary, I believe we are too worried about Jackson's sexual behavior and feelings and I offer a theory of my own. Though Jackson was acquitted, it is true that no one can prove that someone is not a pedophile. So perhaps it is easier to be concerned with a man who is near and yet so far than to face our fear and rage about brothers, fathers, uncles, and neighbors in our own back yard, who also cannot be proven innocent. Sex abuse and incest are serious and pervasive problems in society, doing as you say, great damage to its victims. One man in the limelight is hardly the problem, particularly since it is overwhelmingly likely that he is innocent of any improper or criminal behavior, as a jury of his peers believed, despite a media witch hunt and taxpayers dollars spent on a 10 year investigation which included the FBI. What are we to do about the severe trauma from sexual and physical abuse, cruelty and torture to children in our midst by real flesh and blood perpetrators? I wish I knew. lullachild (not verified) | 04/28/10 | 10:34 AM
Reply to This Link
Passed Michael Jackson is the cover of OK! magazines latest issue. Remenbering Jacko's childhood beginnings in the Jackson 5 to his last moments. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/02/09 | 01:59 AM
Reply to This Link

Dr. Bailey, You talk like a fool. This is a theory you have, not fact. It is sad that someone cannot say something nice about someone even when they are dead. My parents told me that if you cannot say something good about someone then don't say anything. There will be only one judge upon the life of Michael Jackson and that is "God". You do not have that right. In the last years of Michael's life, he was treated like some type of freak by
his own country. After his passing, his fans try to remember him for who he really was. Mr. Bailey you could have mentioned all the cheritable organizations that he gave to or how he helped bring people from other countries and cultures together. Mr. Baily you decided to do a piece on what kind of weird person he is. Remember Mr. Bailey you will be judged in the end also. What will people say about you. Gmoney (not verified) | 07/02/09 | 14:10 PM
Reply to This Link

You're right it is a theory and an excelent one at that. See science is based on theory and facts. If you can predict something, you can prevent it is what we believe. ciminology 2004 (not verified) | 07/19/09 | 17:29 PM
Reply to This Link
On behalf of the trans community, SHUT THE FUCK UP. Hailo (not verified) | 07/02/09 | 18:31 PM
Reply to This Link
On behalf of the science community, that's not how things get done. Hank Campbell | 07/02/09 | 19:05 PM
Reply to This Link
On behalf of the science community, that's not how things get done.
+1 Furthermore no one should think they can speak for the whole "transcommunity". We haven't held any elections to choose our spokes people.
Reply to This Link
no one should think they can speak for the whole "transcommunity". We haven't held any elections to choose our spokes people.
On behalf of the rest of the entire planet, I wholeheartedly concur, Hontas! ;) Patrick Lockerby | 07/02/09 | 19:21 PM
Reply to This Link
Furthermore no one should think they can speak for the whole "transcommunity". We haven't held any elections to choose our spokes people.
There is also the old Native American saying that we cannot criticize another's way of life until after walking a mile in their moccasins - or something close to that. Laura Hult | 07/03/09 | 00:14 AM
Reply to This Link
I have walked the same mile as the commenter. Dont tase me bro Hontas Farmer | 07/03/09 | 01:18 AM
Reply to This Link
I have walked the same mile as the commenter.
Ooops! I think my comment was taken as criticism directed at you. It wasn't intended that way, just trying to lend support for your position. Sorry. Laura Hult | 07/03/09 | 06:55 AM
Reply to This Link
On behalf of the science community, that's not how things get done.
Indeed. Only through the collection of information with attendant discourse and exchange of ideas and opinions, are we going to get anywhere. Being silent does not accomplish anything. Laura Hult | 07/03/09 | 00:12 AM
Reply to This Link
My first thought upon hearing that you had written an essay on Michael Jackson was, Oh no, you too! Seems like one can't get away from journalistic essays about him since he died. But upon reading this I was very
pleasantly surprised, because you managed to do much more than simply write about Jackson on a personal level. It was a perfect illustration of the process in which one examines a set of facts, eliminates irrelevant possibilities, then considers more likely ones until finally reaching a point of relative sureness. Your conclusions make a lot of sense to me. I'm sure further research would provide more verification and more insight into the specifics of how he saw himself, and whether he saw his condition as a mere facet of self, or as demonic possession. This is definitely worth further looking into, as it's a area not explored. At least I am unaware of any research in this area Lisanne! (not verified) | 07/02/09 | 22:32 PM
Reply to This Link

It would be nice, if the terms used to describe certain conditions would fit the DSM-IV, so people do not get confused about a certain condition. You are talking about Gender Identity Disorder, when you term it as Erotic Identity Disorder. Why are you not using the correct terms? Also, the idea of Autogynephilysis is a very, very disputed concept. However, its perfectly okay to hypothesize, something we do all the time at Universities, yet, you are making many assumptions without lying out possible counterpoints. Not so scientific after all. One could also assume, MJ could have been a "tortured" hermaphrodite with anorexic tendencies and Body Dysmorphic Disorder. But, how would we know? Wouldn't we need to sit down with him and take a much closer look in many sessions into account? I think labeling him in your style is much too easy for such a complex matter and personality. There were probably multiple factors at work, all at the same time, and very hard for an individual to handle without the proper care. You are not doing our profession any service by labeling MJ with two terms, of which one is hotly disputed and the other falsely expressed. Also, its always helpful to address the emotional side of a human being, aside from sex, talent, and looking only at one possible pathology. Thanks for reading. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/03/09 | 03:51 AM
Reply to This Link
You are not doing our profession any service by labeling MJ with two terms, of which one is hotly disputed and the other falsely expressed. Also, its always helpful to address the
emotional side of a human being, aside from sex, talent, and looking only at one possible pathology.
This is one of the more insightful responses (lacking in the 'I know more about X than you could because I am X' unscientific and illogical randomness of others) but what is the alternative? tried to provide some answers. Obviously you can write an article on the matter too. It's easy to criticize work someone else does (for He was only going to ever talk with sycophants, including in the medical community but people have questions and Bailey
free, no less) in the interests of science outreach but we have to keep in mind that this took a lot of work and lacking more insight it remains speculation - Bailey never said otherwise. So what is your hypothesis? Hank Campbell | 07/03/09 | 13:06 PM
Reply to This Link

I might start with an examination of the combined effects of Vitiligo and lupus. See for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6xJlyJgfS8 Not mentioning these in any analysis is like talking about the novel Moby Dick without mentioning whales. Zoe Brain (not verified) | 07/06/09 | 04:37 AM
Reply to This Link
I think your response is better thought out than the author of this theory. There is no one simple explanation for why Michael was the way he was. In the end he was a human being deserving of dignity and everyone who is jumping on the bandwagon to condemn him should look at their own Man in the Mirror and keep their theories to themselves. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/04/09 | 23:21 PM
Reply to This Link
autohebephile = homonarcissist attracted to his own childhood appearance
What is so special about it? Would it be so different from any heteronarcissist who got stuck in an impasse? Anonymous (not verified) | 07/03/09 | 03:59 AM
Reply to This Link

The "Man in the Mirror", much like Dorian Gray Anonymous (not verified) | 07/03/09 | 04:23 AM
Reply to This Link
I think Michael was a great entertainer. From what I've read, he was abused as a child. I'm not sure that's part of your theory but it sounds as though he kept dealing with that later in his life. Also, there is what we already know, that some celebrities in the past, and some now too, conceal their true sexual orientation and others may also be transgender or wish they could be but they are in the limelight and if it's a male celebrity, wanting to keep their female fans dreaming about going on a date with them, even though it probably would only happen in their dreams. But of course, they will keep buying their albums and going to their concerts. If a rock star suddenly tells the world he's gay, then isn't that rather risky to his continued fame and fortune. Back to what you wrote about Michael, actually it's very difficult for me to say but it seems there could be more than one issue. I liked him as an entertainer and hope everyone is fair with him and his family. Scott (not verified) | 07/03/09 | 06:43 AM
Reply to This Link

This is where I have to stick up for Michael. My husband and I are both survivors of brutal childhoods and we both have dealt with it in many different ways. His way landed him in prison for life with half a brain mine out here alone for 32 years celebate waiting for him. Michael is not a homosexual. I believe Michael was just trying to out run those memories. Trying to erase them any way he could. After the worst is over one has a tendency to finally collaspse. Children are safe as friends for they do not judge you the way adults do and being so damage you have a tendency to feel so very fragile. He also probably thought by redoing his childhood and replacing those memories he could also get rid of the bad. I do not believe he ever had sex with anyone for I believe his abuse was too extreme to allow himself to go there no matter the love or desire to do so. My heart goes out to the Michael that could have been for as a society we have failed him. He should have gotten the help he needed when he was a child yet no one stepped up for him for he did not matter and even in death to many he still does not matter. He was an abused child and never got to experience real love or real family now let's put him into Gods arms where he belongs may he finally be at peace!
Reply to This Link

I agree with you cause i do belive it so to. I think that michael never had sexual experience because of his childhood. Seems to me that he had a very difficult childhood. I seen and analyze from my own opinion t y watching hes home videos and interwies , he was like a 10 year old..... I dont either belive hes was gay. i do belive also that he was damaged cause of hes childhood life..I think he was a very sensetive humanbien with a big heart... My God B with U Mj... gfhjdk (not verified) | 07/11/09 | 09:55 AM
Reply to This Link
Perhaps Michael Jackson was an autohebocaucaphile? Anonymous (not verified) | 07/03/09 | 07:33 AM
Reply to This Link

'Dr' Bailey, from reading this farce of an article, I am frankly left speechless. Shame on you. Even I expected better than this tripe! J Mead J Mead (not verified) | 07/03/09 | 12:10 PM
Reply to This Link

Hmm...I wonder why this theory was not espoused while he was still alive... withheld (not verified) | 07/03/09 | 14:13 PM
Reply to This Link

What is the DSM term for someone who uses celebrity deaths as a vehicle for attention seeking? What would be the sexual motive which underlies that phenomenon? Elizabeth (not verified) | 07/03/09 | 14:47 PM
Reply to This Link
A 'CNN reporter.' The motivation remains a mystery of science. Hank Campbell | 07/03/09 | 15:26 PM
Reply to This Link

I think he just wants to be published on this "scientific" blogging site there's no such thing as a valid diagnosis happening without at least one personal meeting. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/05/09 | 00:26 AM
Reply to This Link
"Hmm...I wonder why this theory was not espoused while he was still alive..." Because he just thought it up, much like The Sun came up with the fake autopsy report, and wanted to get in on the feeding frenzy with the rest of the bottom feeders. "What is the DSM term for someone who uses celebrity deaths as a vehicle for attention seeking? What would be the sexual motive which underlies that phenomenon?" In this case, you call it "Micheal Baileying" Having read different articles this man has written, it seems to me he has some fixation on sexual issues and is maybe trying to figure out, or share with the world, what is going on with himself. femme (not verified) | 07/03/09 | 20:21 PM
Reply to This Link

Are there are no limits to the depths this sexually frustrated 'professor' will stoop to, in an effort to deflect from his own deviant nature? Erotic Identity Disorder? Blatant self diagnosis. AJ A James (not verified) | 07/04/09 | 03:09 AM
Reply to This Link
your need counceling Anonymous (not verified) | 07/04/09 | 20:01 PM
Reply to This Link

Good old J. Michael Bailey seems to have found yet another target for his anal millinery. Only this time, the target isn't even alive anymore to defend himself. (For that matter, he's not even buried as of yet, which really makes me suspect the timing of this article as pure attention seeking.) I took note of the neat little tie-in with one of your previous works, the whole autogynephilia thing, something you came up with by interviewing a half dozen or so crossdressers in a Chicago gay bar without even letting them know what they were being interviewed for. EXCELLENT scientific work there! You still haven't clued in as to what gender transitioning is all about, have you? Here's a clue-by-four...it's not about sex or 'getting off', it's about who we are inside, that sense of self...it's about IDENTITY! Yet you seem to think we're all a bunch of pervs. I didn't transition so that I could lose my family and my kids. I'm damn lucky my employer allowed me to transition on the job, and funded everything. This would be unusual for a civilian employer to do, let alone the Canadian military. But they see the value in keeping a qualified technician in place, something I suspect they wouldn't do for a sexual deviant. Now you're doing this. What's your real agenda here, Mikey? Are you hiding something, maybe trying to deflect any unwanted attention away from yourself? Get a life. Trans folk have had enough of yours and Blanchard's crap, and we're starting to fight back, as you might have noticed. Natalie (not verified) | 07/05/09 | 15:03 PM
Reply to This Link
Natalie you are so wrong. It is hard for me to keep calm in telling you how wrong you are. First of all you say something you came up with by interviewing a half dozen or so crossdressers in a Chicago gay bar without even letting them know what they were being interviewed for. 1. The ladies Dr. Bailey wrote of by pseudonym ARE NOT CROSSDRESERS! They are and have been transtioned, post op women since the 90's or earlier. I have seen and spoken to them in person and I will personally vouch for the fact that they look better than 90% of the people who write that bit of nonsense. (Repeated over and over again from something written with anger in 2003 by the illustrious McCloskey.)
2. Dr. Bailey did not come up with autogynephilia Ray Blanchard did. I'll bet you have a well formed opinion of this without even actually reading his book (even the passages quoted on various websties) because if you had you would know that.
Reply to This Link

Nevertheless, he insists that any bio-male person transitions purely to get off, be it to attract men as a homosexual transsexual or for the love of ones self as a woman...and anyone who says otherwise is lying. I did not transition to 'get off' in any way, shape or form. I transitioned because this is who I am. Now, who exactly are you anyway...an apologist for the whole BBL crew? Natalie (not verified) | 07/05/09 | 21:55 PM
Reply to This Link
It's odd logic to imply Hontas must be a shill if she disagrees with you, while you would likely regard yourself as interested in truth, fairness and decency - which makes your multiple personal attacks on people here rather ironic (though "anal millinery" was at least funny). The distinction is a scientist versus an advocate with blinders on. I got no dog in this fight but I know the shrill reactionaries here are not interested in correcting Bailey's science or accuracy, they're interested in promoting an agenda, in some cases, or just engaging in a personal war. Hank Campbell | 07/05/09 | 22:00 PM
Reply to This Link

But he started it! Oops. What a giveaway.
I know Science is a very human occupation, where although we may aspire to some Olympian objectivity, we always fail to some degree, but it seems that this area has gone way beyond the acceptable. Yes, you're right, there's too much agenda-promotion, and precious few facts. Actually, none really, in this article. None in rebuttal either. Lots of blanket statements such as "Autogynephiles tend to be gifted in technical, mathematical, and scientific pursuits, with computer scientist being the prototypic autogynephilic occupation." - which as a statement should be susceptible to proof or disproof, and for which solid evidence omitting conformation bias is lacking. All the work on vaginal plethysmography is less than useful, as the control groups never included women who had had vaginal reconstruction due to radiation treatment or remedy of vaginal dysgenesis. I can't account for how such a basic flaw in the methodology could have been countenanced. The work may be salvageable by further experimentation on natal vs reconstructed vaginas in cisgendered women, and preoperative trans men, but given the less than wholly reliable results from plethysmography generally, all of the work based on this technique must be viewed as dubious. I await Dr Bailey's work using MRI scans on gay men. That would be difficult to screw up, and I'm certain peer-review would catch any minor errors. I just hope he extends his work into other areas, as MRI scans on women, both trans and cis, have so far contradicted the strong form of the autogynephillic hypothesis, while confirming the weak one. I better explain - the weak form says that autogynephilia exists as a real phenomenon in some women, cis- and trans-. The strong form says it never exists in cissexual women, and always exists in transsexual women (as opposed to surgically altered gay men). Even more important than these issues though, we need more light, less heat. That can be difficult when both sides are busy pouring Hydrazine on. Zoe Brain (not verified) | 07/06/09 | 00:55 AM
Reply to This Link
I await Dr Bailey's work using MRI scans on gay men. That would be difficult to screw up, and I'm certain peer-review would catch any minor errors.
Actually, using (f)MRI would get him more criticism here than out and out conjecture
like speculation on Michael Jackson's sexuality, since it is almost useless for anything other larger population studies and gay men are unlikely to have different brains. Hank Campbell | 07/06/09 | 01:30 AM
Reply to This Link

Re gay men are unlikely to have different brains. Well, trans women certainly do. That's no longer in contention, the only question is which parts are anomalous, and to what degree. And distinguishing pre-natal factors from the changes in neurology associated with post-natal hormonal environment. Specific Cerebral Activation due to Visual Erotic Stimuli in Male-to-Female Transsexuals Compared with Male and Female Controls : An fMRI Study : Gizewski et al The journal of sexual medicine http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/jsm/2009/00000006/00000002/art... Regional gray matter variation in male-to-female transsexualism by Luders et al Neuroimage. 2009 Mar 30. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19341803 See also the various images we have in studies of gays and lesbians vs hetero controls http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/06/16/Bra... There is an increasing disconnect between the science of psychology, and the sciences of neuro-anatomy, genetics, endocrinology and biology. See for example: Disorders of sex development expose transcriptional autonomy of genetic sex and androgen-programmed hormonal sex in human blood leukocytes : Holterhus et al BMC Genomics 2009, 10:292 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/10/292 http://drdrantz-sciencesexuality.blogspot.com/2009/06/10-my-sexuality-mo... Note that unlike the various psychological conjectures, these are falsifiable, and make predictions that can be examined in later experiments. Compare and contrast with Dr Bailey's article here. Both are blog posts, but they are written to quite different standards. This is perhaps most evident in the recent annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association:
S10. The Neurobiological Evidence for Transgenderism 1. Brain Gender Identity Prof. Sidney W. Ecker, M.D. 2. Transsexuality as an Intersex Condition Prof Milton Diamond, Ph.D. 3. Novel Approaches to Endocrine Treatment of Transgender Adolescents and Adults Norman Spack, M.D. Dr Ecker's presentation is available at http://cs.anu.edu.au/~Zoe.Brain/BGI %203.3.2.ppt Abstract: Gender Identity is that innate sense of who you are in this world with reference to your sexuality and behavior, not necessarily corresponding to your genitalia and reproductive organs. Transgenders are atypical and think as the opposite gender. Certain areas of the brain have been shown to be sexually dimorphic. They are different in structure and numbers of neurons in males versus females. Protein Receptors for the sex hormones in different areas of the brain (limbic and anterior hypothalamic) must be present in sufficient numbers to receive those powerful hormones. There are androgen receptors (AR), Estrogen Receptors (ER), and Progesterone receptors (PRs). ARs or ERs are predominant at different times in different parts of the human brain. Hormone receptor genes have been identified in humans, which are responsible for sexually dimorphic brain differentiation in the hypothalamus. The groundwork in brain gender identity is gene-directed and takes place by forming male and female hormone receptors in the brain before the gonads and hormones can influence them. Multiple genes acting in concert determine our sexual identity. The human brain continues to make neurons and synaptic neuronal connections throughout life. This contributes to Gender Role Behaviors making individuals in the continuum of gender identity. Gender behaviors must be differentiated from gender identity (Hines). Gender Identity cannot be predicted from anatomy (Reiner). Brain gender identity is determined very early in fetal development, but gender expression, expressed as behaviors requires hormonal, environmental, social and cultural interactions, which evolve with time. One cannot deny the profound effects of Testosterone, Estradiol and other steroids on genital differentiation in-utero or their effects on behavior from birth or the physical and mental cross gender changes caused by exogenous hormones, but gender identity is determined before and persists in spite of these effects. The comparison may not be appropriate, but I am reminded by some of the work on Autogynephilia et alia of the ever-increasing complexity and detail in the various psychological theories behind the formation of stomach ulcers, before the helicobacter organism was found to be causal - at least in the majority of cases.
Zoe Brain (not verified) | 07/06/09 | 05:25 AM
Reply to This Link
There are studies which indicate that homosexual males have brains which are a little different from those of straight males. Brain response to putative pheromones in homosexual men by Ivanka Savic, Hans Berglund, and Per Lindstrm a The testosterone derivative 4,16-androstadien-3-one (AND) and the estrogen-like steroid estra-1,3,5(10),16-tetraen-3-ol (EST) are candidate compounds for human pheromones. AND is detected primarily in male sweat, whereas EST has been found in female urine. In a previous positron emission tomography study, we found that smelling AND and EST activated regions covering sexually dimorphic nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus, and that this activation was differentiated with respect to sex and compound. In the present study, the pattern of activation induced by AND and EST was compared among homosexual men, heterosexual men, and heterosexual women. In contrast to heterosexual men, and in congruence with heterosexual women, homosexual men displayed hypothalamic activation in response to AND. Maximal activation was observed in the medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus, which, according to animal studies, is highly involved in sexual behavior. As opposed to putative pheromones, common odors were processed similarly in all three groups of subjects and engaged only the olfactory brain (amygdala, piriform, orbitofrontal, and insular cortex). These findings show that our brain reacts differently to the two putative pheromones compared with common odors, and suggest a link between sexual orientation and hypothalamic neuronal processes.
This is a selected list of the articles citing this article and based on it's work.
o o
High Fetal Testosterone and Sexually Dimorphic Cerebral Networks in FemalesCereb Cortex 2009 19:1167-1174 Abstract Full Text
Full Text (PDF)
o o o o
A. Brancucci, G. Lucci, A. Mazzatenta,
and L. Tommasi Asymmetries of the human social brain in the visual, auditory and chemical modalitiesPhil Trans R Soc B 2009 364:895-914
o o o
Abstract Full Text
Full Text (PDF)
o o
W. Zhou
and D. Chen Encoding Human Sexual Chemosensory Cues in the Orbitofrontal and Fusiform CorticesJ. Neurosci. 2008 28:14416-14421
o o o
Abstract Full Text
Full Text (PDF)
o o o o o o o o o
S.-h. Hu, N. Wei, Q.-D. Wang, L.-q. Yan, E.-Q. Wei, M.-M. Zhang, J.-B. Hu, M.-l. Huang, W.-h. Zhou,
and Y. Xu Patterns of Brain Activation during Visually Evoked Sexual Arousal Differ between Homosexual and Heterosexual MenAm. J. Neuroradiol. 2008 29:1890-1896
o o o
Abstract Full Text
Full Text (PDF)
o o o
C. Ciumas, A. L. Hirschberg,
and I. Savic High Fetal Testosterone and Sexually Dimorphic Cerebral Networks in FemalesCereb Cortex 2008 0:bhn160v1-bhn160
o o o
Abstract Full Text
Full Text (PDF)
o o o o
H. Berglund, P. Lindstrom, C. Dhejne-Helmy,
and I. Savic Male-to-Female Transsexuals Show Sex-Atypical Hypothalamus Activation When Smelling Odorous SteroidsCereb Cortex 2008 18:1900-1908
o o o
Abstract Full Text
Full Text (PDF)
o
D. F. Swaab Sexual orientation and its basis in brain structure and function Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008 105:10273-10274
o o
Full Text
Full Text (PDF)
o o
I. Savic
and P. Lindstrom From the Cover: PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008 105:9403-9408
o o o
Abstract Full Text
Full Text (PDF)
o o o o
H. Berglund, P. Lindstrom, C. Dhejne-Helmy,
and I. Savic Male-to-Female Transsexuals Show Sex-Atypical Hypothalamus Activation When Smelling Odorous SteroidsCereb Cortex 2007 0:bhm216v1-bhm216
o o o
Abstract Full Text
Full Text (PDF)
o o o o o o o o o o
K. Schiltz, J. Witzel, G. Northoff, K. Zierhut, U. Gubka, H. Fellmann, J. Kaufmann, C. Tempelmann, C. Wiebking,
and B. Bogerts
o o o
A gender- and sexual orientation-dependent spatial attentional effect of invisible imagesProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2006 103:17048-17052 Abstract Full Text
Full Text (PDF)
o o o
H. Berglund, P. Lindstrom,
and I. Savic Brain response to putative pheromones in lesbian women Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA2006 103:8269-8274
o o o
Abstract Full Text
Full Text (PDF)
Human "Pheromone" Brain Response and Sexual Orientation JWatch Neurology 20052005:2 Full Text Not to mention all of the articles which were cited by the researchers in the first
place. There is ample evidence that sexual orientations are inborn, immuatble, only differing from culture to culture in how they are expressed.
Reply to This Link

(applause) What we need is More matter, less art. More facts, less unsubstantiated opinion. By all means give analysis and conclusions, but at least let's have a substantial factual basis behind them! This post is an example of what we should be doing. Thanks Hontas, there were some there I wasn't familar with. Zoe Brain (not verified) | 07/06/09 | 07:52 AM
Reply to This Link
But this is why I said we would have made more fun of him doing that sort of brain study using MRI or fMRI. Looking at individual brains and comparing them to other individual brains and noting differences is not good science; my brother and I would show different brains too yet it has nothing at all to do with sexuality or gender. Hank Campbell | 07/06/09 | 11:06 AM
Reply to This Link

Hank - Those aren't the rules of the game. They say that as long as you're a Psychologist, you're allowed to make diagnoses, and even invent novel and original disorders, just on the basis of one
(unreferenced) tabloid article and "common knowledge" amounting to gossip and rumour. And to base it all on a paper stating a set of unevidenced conjectures that are thirty years old. A single fMRI image set would be overkill. Zoe Brain (not verified) | 07/08/09 | 05:46 AM
Reply to This Link

Zoe Brain: there are two kinds of autogynephiles; those who accept it and those who are in denial and act like crazy people. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/08/09 | 22:39 PM
Reply to This Link

There are two types of anonymous commenters: those who admit that there are pink elephants at the bottom of their garden, and those who are in denial about that and act like crazy people. A hypothesis that is unfalsifiable is valueless. Even if true. Zoe Brain (not verified) | 07/09/09 | 04:53 AM
Reply to This Link
Maybe one day you can explain to me why so many in the "transcommunity" treat the assertion that sexual orientations are inborn and "hardwired" as endorsement of Blanchard's theory? Hank, If I understand your point correctly you mean that MRI studies can at most tell us about large samples of people and would be of limited use to saying that person A is transsexual, homosexual, hebesexual, pheobeseual, or AutoJhonnyDeppophiliic? Dont tase me bro Hontas Farmer | 07/06/09 | 11:44 AM
Reply to This
Link
Not even that, unless we start telling people who otherwise aren't that they must be hebesexual based on brain scans - because they are not designed for that kind of accuracy yet they are misused a lot. It's not so simple as saying a homosexual will have a different sized hippocampus and all homosexual men will have brains that look different from other sexualities and genders yet similar to each other. It just doesn't work that way. Hank Campbell | 07/06/09 | 11:54 AM
Reply to This Link
Because the MRI does not tell what a person is thinking, only what part of the brain is active in response to a stimulus. Dont tase me bro Hontas Farmer | 07/06/09 | 13:20 PM
Reply to This Link
Who am I? Google or Bing my name, read everything good or bad. I have nothing to hide and nothing to prove. As for what you said about the people Dr. Bailey wrote of what gives you the right? How do you figure those ladies who you don't know aren't just like you. Hell, they are the ones who of anyone on earth have the best reason to be offended by anything, it was written in reference to them. Who are you to feel that you can say such things about those ladies?
Reply to This Link

Yep...I think I will google up your name, BrendaQG, Hfarmer, Hontasfx, Lucasain, Smartgirl62, Gravitygirl62, Zahara_TS, Aisha_a_ts, or whomever you really are. It's amazing what you find, isn't it? Transkids.us? Gimme a break! For those that don't know what I'm talking about, this person is a known Bailey apologist, with ties to the whole BBL/Clarke cabal. Check out this page on Andrea James' excellent site, as well as this one on OII to see what I mean. What's next? Is it going to turn up that you have connections to the whole Raychel Roo thing a couple of weeks ago? Natalie (not verified) | 07/06/09 | 08:07 AM
Reply to This Link
Your excellent sources contradict each other. Aside from some half truth's, and omissions which I have responded to on this website what's at Oii is true, and contradicts what is written on Andrea James's website. Oii shows pictures of me, a transsexual woman which are from reliable media sources. Pictures from school board meetings held during Ramadan (roughly September) 2008.* Whereas according to AJ's website I'm a fake. I can't be fake and be at a school board meeting. As for my having multiple internet identities, that is both a security measure and a way of keeping my worlds separate. How much sense would it make for me to use the same username here as on my adult website? * As for being an apologist for Bailey. Nonsense. I say that the only people who should be as offended as you act about anything Dr. Bailey wrote live right here in Chicago. The same people you calledcrossdresser's in a gay bar.
Now how about you. Who are you and what makes you so credible? What gave you the right to add another insult to the people Bailey wrote about? *Yes I am a transsexual woman, scientist (grad student), and have done adult work, and when I pray I in arabic faceing Mecca. I just am what I am, I am learning how to do what I want to do, I don't get paid (much) for learning so I need money, and I believe in god. If those are hard things to belive I submit that you are the one with a problem of cognitive ability. I am no different that other physicist who acted more like a cabby and visted topless bars or a gay autistic computer genius. (refering to Richard Feynman and Alan Turing respectively). Dont tase me bro Hontas Farmer | 07/09/09 | 14:20 PM
Reply to This Link

Me? I'm a trans air force chick who can't stand bullshit, especially if it comes from the likes of BBL and CAMH. If Andrea James and Lynn Conway are tagging you as a BBL apologist, that's good enough for me. I'm for real, and I don't need to hide behind multiple userIDs. Someone wants to know who I am, I'll tell them. I didn't transition to 'get off', I did it because it's who I am inside, and life is much better for it. If you transitioned for sexual reasons, (and chances are, if you're hanging around BBL, you did), that's your business. But you and your BBL buddies do not have the right to tell me that I'm either hyper-gay or AGP because I'm neither, and BBL calling me a liar by default, without even knowing who I am or what I'm about, seriously offends me. Same with suggesting that I would have made a better prostitute instead of the 22 year military career I'm currently enjoying. Where do I get this info? Have a look here, which is a source I trust that details all of the shortcomings of TMWWBQ. Where do you fit on this convoluted Venn Diagram, anyway? As for your religion, I could care less if you're a Jedi. You haven't the right to force that on me either. As far as I'm concerned, Farmer, your imaginary sky bullies are not my problem. Natalie (not verified) | 07/09/09 | 15:06 PM
Reply to This Link
So basically you are a older transitoner who hates younger people like me. I have to be younger I'm 29 and you were/are in the Air Force for 22 years, you had to have been at least 18 when you joined so you are at least 40. Basically your difficulty is because of your deep seated insecurities and loss of white male privileges. Bailey is just a smokescreen. It explains your hostility to me, and it explains why you would also deride as "gay cross dressers" the post op transwomen Bailey wrote about pseudonymously. In particular the ones he labeled as "homosexual transsexuals. People you never met and who were directly at least from their point of view, had their confidence betrayed, and were directly insulted by Bailey. Which is really interesting since compared to any of them including Anjelica Kieltyka ,you likely look like a hard ugly brick with features that could cut glass and chip diamond! Your probably old ugly and just can't handle that they, increased their options as a side effect of transition while yours decreased dramatically. Then there is another thing from AJ's excellent website which you consider beyond repraoch, and take every word seriously from... You with your glowing millitary career etc meet a few of her criteria for an online fraud! In particular: 13. Remarkable accomplishments Fakes frequently claim they are very talented at something (won a competition, attend an exclusive school, work as a model, hold a state/national record).
Where as with me you can, ironically thanks to AJ and Curtis Hinkle, find out information which basically supports many of my "extraordinary" claims. My own web presence proves the rest. YOU can present no such proof to back up your glowing millitary career. Which I am sure you told of to get plenty of manly back slaps and hi fives from the people here :roll:
Reply to This Link

I'd like to put on my full DEU-1A, medals and all, and see if you have the bollocks to say that to my face. Would you like me to scan and post my Mil I-card for your perusal? I am the eighth person to transition wearing a Canadian Forces uniform, and there's at least one person reading and writing in this thread who can confirm that. I could care less about your age, your skin colour and your islamic superfriends. They make no difference to me. By the way, I have no problems with how I look. I think I look just fine, than you very much. Get a life, Farmer. Natalie (not verified) | 07/10/09 | 11:41 AM
Reply to This Link

I've met her. We Have Shared Poutine together. And yes, I've seen her in her work clothes - the uniform of the Canadian Armed Forces. Zoe Brain (not verified) | 07/10/09 | 12:11 PM
Reply to This Link
I've met her. We Have Shared Poutine together.
You folks can make a sexual metaphor for anything. Hank Campbell | 07/10/09 | 12:34 PM
Reply to This Link

Get your mind out of the sewer, and back into the gutter with the rest of us! Er - that was an attempt at humour.
Actually, I was in Montreal to give support to another friend of mine. There are very, very few of us whose transition was a matter of natural change rather than therapeuticallyinduced transition. OK, that's not quite true, there's perhaps 5000 in North America, but almost all go from (partly, somewhat, or completely) female-looking at birth to (partly, somewhat, or completely) male-looking later, which can either induce or cure transsexuality, but I digress. Anyway, there's fewer than 20 of us that are definitely confirmed to have had a partial male-to-female natural transition happen, and apart from a few cases where the etiology is known, it's not well-understood. In theory, there may be a dozen ways this can happen, but not all have ever been observed, and some cases don't match any of the theoretical causes. I was there to give moral support to Katie in her surgery. Unlike the natural FtoM cases, the results are never naturally functional, and are ambiguous at best. Surgery is required to remove dysfunctional now internal glands and ensure urinary function, but it's still pretty scary. Usually we go for a complete reconstruction, neo-vagina, the works. There are so few of us, that travelling halfway around the world from Canberra to Montreal was worth it, even if it emptied my meagre savings. Here's what I wrote shortly afterwards: --------I've just spent a month of my life with some of the most wonderful people on the planet. Looking at it objectively, consider a gathering of women comprising: A sound tech from Los Angeles; An NCO in the Canadian Armed Forces; A former US Artillery Officer and Tall Ship Sailor from Philadelphia; A world-renowned GeoScientist from Hawaii and her Fabulously talented Architect partner; A trainee nurse from Boston with a profoundly autistic teenage son; A Rocket Scientist from Australia; an on-call Radio-Tech with the ability to debug broadcasting antennae across the whole of North America from her cell-phone; a Radiographer from New England; I mean, this is a group that would be considered spectacular
over-achievers anywhere else. Some of the kindest people on the planet too, and the most courageous. They had to be, as so many like us don't survive to middle-age. Why were they there, having travelled anything from hundreds of kilometres to halfway round the planet? To give support to two of their number who were having major surgery. They were there out of Love. ---------And of course, to partake in the conspicuous consumption of genuine Quebecois Poutine. In public too, at a Kosher Deli. Zoe Brain (not verified) | 07/11/09 | 08:00 AM
Reply to This Link
I have meet almost all of the major Chicago based players in the Bailey book affair at some point. The ladies that Natalie called crossdressers ,are not. Though we disagree about our specific feelings on Bailey and his book I have never had a problem with any of those people. It irks me to no end when I hear some jealous person like Natalie calling them horrid names, calling them men, when in fact they are very...well how to put it... It's really hard to Imagine them as men, and real easy to Imagine Natalie as the big male privileged chest beating gorilla she acts like. Dont tase me bro Hontas Farmer | 07/10/09 | 16:09 PM
Reply to This Link
I would like to see if you have the guts to come here to Chicago and tell "Maria/Juanita",Gabrielle Schaffer (whom I believe was "Kim"),
and Anjelica Kieltyka ("cher")what you said. I want to see you tell them that you think.. I took note of the neat little tie-in with one of your previous works, the whole autogynephilia thing, something you came up with by interviewing a half dozen or so crossdressers in a Chicago gay bar without even letting them know what they were being interviewed for. Natalie 7/5/09 15:03 I am calling your BS. You by callig those ladies, who really do not like Bailey's book, or Blanchard's theory,"crossdressers" reveals that the theory is not what's eating you. What's eating you is plain old jealousy! Now as for your activities here..... I'd like to put on my full DEU-1A, medals and all, and see if you have the bollocks to say that to my face. Really is that a physical threat how lady like. :roll: Yes I would say that to your hard bricky face which even with $20,000-$40,000 in FFS probably looks a fool. I would say that to you because I don't fear you and I am not impressed by your medals and irrelevant epaluets. I would say it to you because if you wanna read someone who looks better than you, then expect not to get read in return, your a fool.
Reply to This Link

Maudit crisse d'ostie de tabarnac, mon cher, mangez la marde et fourrez vous-meme! Natalie (not verified) | 07/10/09 | 15:32 PM
Reply to This
Link
She's not the only one who is "older". I somehow resent that remark. Natalie may have been career military, but I am career Rail worker. No one here hates younger transsexuals especially me since I live with one. She looks to me as her mother although she has been more of a guiding force in my transition. BTW I am post op and almost 50. Youngsters like you should be damned grateful for oldsters like us since you have never have had to experience living in the wrong body for more than half of your life. Next time you pray to Allah you better include that in your thanksgiving and you bloody well better mean it too. I would not be so quick to discount the experiences of others out there who have completed their transition, such as I or Natalie especially since you have not walked in her shoes and you sure haven't walked in mine. I do see there is a distinct snobbery to your writing however and I chalk this up to the simple fact that you have never done anything physically laborious in your young life. If I am correct, you appear to be a career student, that isn't hard, hon. Traci (not verified) | 07/14/09 | 10:33 AM
Reply to This Link
Compute the Bahaba scattering cross section and show your work, then tell me how hard what I do is. Second, a wise woman once said that "transition is an ongoing process" so talk of being "finished" is total nonsense. No one can do a lifetime of socialization in a couple of years of RLT.
Reply to This Link
Hontas I took your offer up and ran a google on your name as you suggested. Unfortunately what I discovered was deeply disappointing if accurate. I think most of what I read is summarized at this web page: http://www.intersexualite.org/Hontas-Farmer.html I would be interested in reading your rebuttal. Thank you. Denise Norris (not verified) | 08/28/09 | 02:53 AM
Reply to This Link
Dr Bailey uses as his primary source about MJ's plastic surgery a report from the UK tabloid "The Sun" . Perhaps he'd be willing to speculate similarly on another report from that august publication, 'Jacko's ghost at Neverland'. OK, enough of the snarkiness. Truth is truth, even if it comes from less than wholly credible sources. But is it true? I think we would have had some confirmation from a second source by now if it were. It seems to me though that, like much of the work by CAMH, there is an awful lot of conjecture, theorising and wild speculation, and not a lot of actual evidence supporting it. Reasonable for a blog entry as a fanciful conjecture, but to call it a "theory" overstates the case. Zoe Brain (not verified) | 07/06/09 | 00:19 AM
Reply to This Link
Zoe, MJ's plastic surgery is common knowledge here in the USA. We all know what black people look like, they aren't day glow white, and don't have the nose he had. Where It bears mentioning once again is that I don't actually agree with Dr. Bailey's assessment on this. Before he wrote his article I wrote Michael Jackson:The Castrato? Which is nothing like his idea. I suspect based on one of the anon comments that you may have read this already (I don't know which is why I
dislike anon comments...no accountability). However some people need reminding...ie a certain blog which I will not give more traffic by linking it, whic now claims that Dr. Bailey's idea is racist, and that I'm lending it credibility. :-/ I guess Mr. Hinkle never heard a Chris Rock comedy routine where far worse is said and laughed off because allot of people belive it. A large number of people belived, and still belive, that MJ was just nutz, cuckoo, crazy, a pervert etc. Dont tase me bro Hontas Farmer | 07/06/09 | 07:48 AM
Reply to This Link

We all know what black people look like, they aren't day glow white, and don't have the nose he had. You might be surprised - at least about the pigmentation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtHW7ptF76c&feature=related Sufferers of lupus are particularly prone to heart attacks with no previous symptoms in their 40's and 50's. Black Americans are 4 times more likely to have lupus than whites, and lupus and vitiligo are often diagnosed together, as they are auto-immune diseases of similar etiology. One attacks the connective tissues - and can require plastic surgery in extreme cases of chronic cutaneous lupus when there are facial lesions (for example, the nasal cartilage), the other attacks the melanotic skin cells. Severe cases of lupus can lead to crippling joint inflamation, requiring stints in a wheelchair. As I said, any analysis of the situation that doesn't take into account both the physiological and psychological sequelae of these conditions is fundamentally and fatally flawed. Michael Jackson was diagnosed with both lupus and vitiligo over 20 years ago, in 1986. Source: Dan Wallace MD Clinical Professor of Medicine Cedars-Sinai Medical Center/David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA Zoe Brain (not verified) | 07/06/09 | 10:23 AM
Reply to This Link
All i can say he was never convicted of peaodophila unlike Gary Glitter so you cant say he is a peado if on all counts he was accused he was never convicted.... Anonymous (not verified) | 07/06/09 | 10:25 AM
Reply to This
Link
Of course you can say he was a pedophile. The majority of pedophiles are neither caught nor tried nor convicted. They are still pedophiles. sittingbytheriver (not verified) | 07/07/09 | 13:58 PM
Reply to This Link
All i can say he was never convicted of peaodophila unlike Gary Glitter so you cant say he is a peado if on all counts he was accused he was never convicted.... Anonymous (not verified) | 07/06/09 | 10:26 AM
Reply to This Link

Oh no, wait he had the Body Integrity Identity Disorder. I am shure that Blanchard and Lawrence will write this too later. What a poor thinking of shrinks. Kenneth (not verified) | 07/06/09 | 12:26 PM
Reply to This Link

I read some documents about Mr. Bailey. And he will be not lucky when some of this documents will be published later this month. Bit be I know that he will not get a sex surgery. Clarc (not verified) | 07/06/09 | 12:52 PM
Reply to This Link

Reading these comments, I can only wonder if there is a negative association between autogynephilia and spelling ability. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/06/09 | 17:25 PM
Reply to This Link

And people wonder why I left the US and won't go to anyone in the medical community? After reading Bailey's and other people's rubbish (some of it), who would blame me? At least I can forward this to some of those I know in the psychiatric profession to prove my point. It would be far more dangerous for me to go to an American doctor than not. The arrogance in the medical community is quite impressive, however. It must take quite a bit of practice. Though I won't come back to this page, it would be funny to see people hypothesize on who or "what" I am.. Soo sad.. Stoning, from what I see, is still a common public reaction. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/07/09 | 04:27 AM
Reply to This Link

Well reasoned article. I am a lesbian and had a close friend years ago who is a M-to-F transsexual, so I am sensitive to sexual minorities and their self expression.. MJ always struck me as a transsexual, but your argument is finer than I had considered. In his death, I had sincerely hoped more light would fall onto MtFs (or whatever group MJ belonged to), so that their suffering could be known more widely. There are others like MJ out there, feeling alone and strange. Having his/her condition better known would help them, I believe. Thank you for your article. Carol G from BOS (not verified) | 07/07/09 | 08:00 AM
Reply to This Link

I feel that the pathology expressed in the article is too eagerly applied to such a complex personality. However, it is refreshing to read something that involves science, as opposed to the usual Hollywood gossip that we are now being bombarded with in light of MJ's recent passing. Though there are bound to be hundreds of articles both condemning and exalting MJ, it is nice to know that there are knowledgeable individuals sharing their perspectives and attempting to understand him as a human being. I do not, however, entirely agree with the author and I feel that many things were left unaddressed. (On the upside, I am quite pleased by the active discussion the article has inspired.) Speculation abounds and I noticed things heating up here, however, I admire the majority of you for your insights and for being so steadfast with your points. I am happy to say that I'm learning a lot here and will continue to research some of what was discussed. Thanks for reading and for sharing your views. Vicky (not verified) | 07/07/09 | 10:12 AM
Reply to This Link

From an epistemological point of view, this is really a poor job: Theories based on single observation by one of the most controversed "researchers" about gender identity, we are better off without this kind of stuff. It is unfortunately below any acceptable lever of materials useful for scientific discussion. The pity is that too many resources are wasted for this kind of nonsense and too little in serious research. Chistel Lennart (not verified) | 07/07/09 | 17:56 PM
Reply to This Link

If I was to say one thing about J. Michael Bailey I would say he is a man obsessed with sex. Here is a researcher who has devoted the whole of his career to the vision that the human condition can be explained
away through a simple theory of sexual attraction. They say that if the only tool you have is a hammer pretty soon everything begins to look like a nail. Certainly there is nothing wrong with trying to test a theory in every instance where it may be applicable but the astounding lack of scientific method is nothing short of a sin. For example in the article above we have the assertion that some pedophiles are sexually attracted to the image of themselves as children. This is of course, unsurprisingly, true because being aroused by the image of yourself as a child is actually a very common fetish. What exactly does this theory of autoparephelia tell us about these people? Actually very little. Are pedophiles more or less likely to be autopedophiles then the general population? We don't know because there is no control group. What about those people who are aroused by acting child like yet are not aroused by children themselves? How do these people fit into this theory of autoparephilia? In reality all this theory does is divide people into two broad categories. Those that try to become more like the object of their sexual desire and those that do not. What has been grossly overlooked is whether there is a correlation between action and desire or not. For example some men are aroused by wearing womens' clothing. Bailey would call this an "Erotic target location error." What Bailey and his colleagues conveniently gloss over is the fact that many straight women and gay men are also aroused by wearing certain items of womens' clothing. On top of this very few straight women or gay men are aroused by wearing mens' clothing. You might argue that women do not suffer from these "paraphelias" but what about gay men and why are women aroused by womens' clothing? Blanchard and Bailey go through increasingly complex mental acrobatics in order to explain away these inconsistencies with their theory but it does not take a PhD to figure out the simple, obvious, explanation for these observations is that there is some sexual connotation culturally associated with womens' clothing. Karen (not verified) | 07/07/09 | 23:51 PM
Reply to This Link

Michael Jackson's Golf Cart. Photos from an auction of Michael Jackson's stuff by Paul Scheer. Link to the rest of the photos. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/09/09 | 03:15 AM
Reply to This Link

I disagree when you say that Michael Jackson's Public Voice was an affectation. Don't you think like I do, that he was taking hormones to keep his child like voice by the time he reached puberty? The brothers took a little while he took the double or triple dose? Also, some of the brothers and sisters, or all of them, had at least one nose job and that LaToya must have had more done similar to that of Michael. Including bleaching of the skin because if he had vitigo LaToya does to.which very well could be a result of bleaching.
tannerps2004 (not verified) | 07/09/09 | 21:30 PM
Reply to This Link

Which magical hormones would these be? Because once the voice has broken, no amount of estrogen or anti-androgens will mend it. Trans women have to go to great lengths to train their voices, and many never manage it. Surgery on the vocal chords can help, but success rate is no more than 50/50, and may lead to permanent damage to the voicebox. Zoe Brain (not verified) | 07/10/09 | 12:07 PM
Reply to This Link
To close, wouldn't taking hormones at a very med to high dose since puberty, alter your sexuality and entire being? Yes, you can somewhat be born this way but I don't think so in this case. tannerps2004 (not verified) | 07/09/09 | 21:34 PM
Reply to This Link

How do we know that hormones or estrogen supplementation would not cause vitiligo? All this talk that his or his brother's' or Jermaine's is an affectation is non-sense! The girls may sound like this, but the guys? Especially Michael? Yes! You can train your voice to sing just about anything! Is there any hunch that The Bee Gees were taking hormones? I don't think so! Hey! Paul McCartney's Kids should be telling The Jackson Family, 'I want my Daddy's Records!' tannerps2004 (not verified) | 07/10/09 | 13:07 PM
Reply to This Link

estrogen hormone supplementation =lupus and vitiligo in high doses for prolonged periods? Who knows! Maybe The Bee Gees was on them to! I know from my own experiences, that you can sing that way, but talking that way 24/7 would suggest they are taking supplementation to maintain that voice in fear of losing that voice! If you mess up the vocal chords by singing high pitch or ultra feminine or falsetto sounds, you are not going to be able to talk either! Call it a gift but going to far to maintain that is dangerous! tannerps2004 (not verified) | 07/10/09 | 13:21 PM
Reply to This Link
Yes! I have seen cases of affectations in guys or particular person I knew, where they were born with a little to much estrogen or a hormone inbalance, but from observing The Jacksons, that family had enough testosterone then you could say grace over before they started monkeying with themselves! tannerps2004 (not verified) | 07/10/09 | 13:25 PM
Reply to This Link

What an incredible article. I really thought it was well done. Also, the drug and alcohal problems to destress, and mask reality. I think he was reliving the enjoyable sexual experiences/sexual abuse he was involved in as a child. And, I think he truly belived he was never HARMING the children he most likely abused but giving them the pleasure he was enjoying. Even if he knew it was against the law. Jackson lived in a world where most of our laws did not effect him. I only wished that he had gotten help and broken the cycle of sexual abuse rather that passed it down to another generation to try and work though. Michele (not verified) | 07/10/09 | 15:59 PM
Reply to This Link

Also - Jackson was an artist and a perfectionist. I think he thought of his face as a canvas and just didn't know when to stop painting. I think he was going for his version of perfection no matter what the cost. Strangely enough, he really does look good in the last photos before he died for a 50 year old person. Although, not manly but beautiful. I am not commenting on his coloring because that really may have been out of his control. Michele (not verified) | 07/10/09 | 16:11 PM
Reply to This Link

English is my second language, so excuse me if I do not use exact terminology I have seen much the crap Bailey and Blanchard have produced. They both have an interesting philosophical approach to the science. Instead of positivism or hermeneutics Michael Bailey applies his own prejudice as working hypotheses and reflects some picked details of Michael Jackson against his hypotheses. It wouldn't be dangerous if it was the case of philosophy, but it is dangerous because he is working in the field of medicine. And for sure it is unethical to mix own prejudice and religiously driven political views with
medicine. As an Economist I would say that this crap is more philosophical study not medicine. Michael Bailey has crossed the line of the ethics of medicine. His thoughts should be considered as testing his own ideas rather than science. Heli (not verified) | 07/10/09 | 19:03 PM

Hontas.
Reply to This Link
We do need to have a little honesty here. J. Michael Bailey has not from my understanding ever spoke to Michael Jackson, Much less actually spoke to him in any clinical context. A lot of the content of his article about Michael Jackson reads like applying clinical terms to the many and varied media descriptions of Michael Jackson. Bailey's article is a very detailed example of speculation. But as a scientist yourself, you have to agree, the article certainly is not scientific. This does seem to be a hallmark of Bailey's writings. he would make a brilliant tabloid journalist. But as his chosen profession is that of psychology professor/sexologist. this style of writing does not work too well in a scientific context. Stephen Wayrough Anonymous (not verified) | 07/10/09 | 19:25 PM
Reply to This Link

I for one want to thank you for sharing your theory. At least someone out there is coming up with some rational explanations. You offer something other than just talking about the physically, emotionally, and psychologiclly abusive father, the lack of a "normal' childhood. All of that added, I'm sure, to the latent tendency that was there genetically in Michael Jackson. Can any of us really say that we have a completely "normal" eroticism? The big difference here was that Jackson didn't have any checks and balances from the outside. He was so rich and powerful that he could create his own world in which he could continue to act out his disorder without anyone calling him on it. It really is like a king that is all powerful. Like Han's Christian Andersen's story The Emperor's new clothes, no one close to him was willing to call him out. I think Jackson really started to believe his own lies - he only had work done on his nose twice, all the other changes were the works of God - his children were conceived with his sperm cells - he really was Peter Pan. Perhaps he did internalize the adoration that was thrown upon him by his fans when he was a child and adored that image in himself. That's why he became disturbed when he was going through the process of puberty that we all go through - he didn't want to grow up and change into a man.
Your theory really does help make sense of the obsession with Peter Pan, with the non-stop face altering, the anorexia, and the desire to have non-stop slumber parties with pubescent boys. Kat (not verified) | 07/10/09 | 19:37 PM
Reply to This Link

The paper explains the theory perpetuated by the media? Perhaps? S.W. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/10/09 | 19:49 PM
Reply to This Link
I'm wondering where all the skin mags taken from his private residence during his trial fall into play in this strange theory? The vast majority covered women and hetero sex. It doesn't take a vast amount of research to find quotes from MJ about the discomfort he suffered as he hid under the bed during the Jackson 5 glory days when his older brothers pleasured themselves with adoring fans. That doesn't seem to fit in here either. This isn't theory, it is total speculation based on tabloid news. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/10/09 | 21:37 PM
Reply to This Link

The adult "skin mags" --- if MJ indeed was a pedophile --- would have been for grooming the boys into a state of arousal. Nice theory Bailey. My thoughts --- Why did he get a cleft installed in his chin? --- Why did he grow a light five-o-clock shadow goatee in earlier part of decade? --- Why did he wear quasi military clothing? We never saw him dress like a 13 year old boy really, he was almost MORE bizarre looking than "12 year old boy" looking. All the cleft, goatee, military outfit things strike me as kind of "adult" or quasi masculine. He wore a lot of red and black as well. So I wonder if he could have just been a plain old pedophile with some sort of severe body dysmorphic disorder. I see a method to the madness of his facial changes, but there is a masculine undertone to
some of the changes -- the strong jaw, the cleft chin -- that is hard to reconcile with trying to look like a child. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/11/09 | 00:19 AM
Reply to This Link

You miss the point. He had NO pornographic materials that support anything but a hetero interest. Why would an adult have material just to interest young boys and none to reflect his own interest? But no matter -- this is all speculation based on the smallest amount of "facts" gleaned from the impressions of others; the author has no personal knowledge of his subject. Rubbish. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/11/09 | 18:33 PM
Reply to This Link
poor human being.. born with a debilitating (brain) disease,,,,all these crazy over the top talents...raised by a mother fucker father....hoW else would you cope// oh and LUPUS sure as hell doesn't help Anonymous (not verified) | 07/11/09 | 02:02 AM
Reply to This Link

Baileys pseudo-scientific theories are really not worth while to comment. They are just emanations from a sick mind. Bailey is obsessed with sex and needs compassion and limits but beyond this certainly not additional attention. Why are we going on losing our time and commenting on this crap ? There are so many interesting things to do. I am going to unsubscribe from this forum. Good bye. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/11/09 | 02:17 AM
Reply to This Link

Bailey only creates further confusion in this world by saying everything is inborn,something that can never be dealt with. Does he want to disturb the natural order in this world just because there are a few true transsexuals? He only has sex in his mind, he is the enemy of transsexuals as well as normal people. Please call practical corporate managers to deal with this issue. I wish I could throw away such craps. Thomas (not verified) | 07/12/09 | 13:10 PM
Reply to This Link

There are as many types of fantasies/paraphilias as there are various races in this world. Why do researchers waste their time as well as of their readers by classifying people based on sexual preferences and objects? I
think the term "autogynephilia" is a complete crap and should be thrown away into the dustbin. Rather, professional counselling should be set up. This is where the similarity between researchers and sorcerers is. They are just into thinking everything as inborn, unavoidable. They are a redundant being today, I must admit. Thomas (not verified) | 07/12/09 | 13:17 PM
Reply to This Link

I recently came to know that even homosexuality can be cured through meeting internal desires of love and affection from the same gender, so, it's wrong to conclude that gay men are born with their sex. But these researchers and activists are just fooling people around with their craps to disturb the natural order in this world. Apple (not verified) | 07/12/09 | 13:20 PM
Reply to This Link

An Autoegophilic can have very prominent role in an academic setting, it is not unusual for an Autoegophilic individual with an underlying abusive psychopathology to have many followers drawn from brutalized research subjects. Often the same appear to be highly phalocentric and consider it healthy to control the wold with their ideas and writings (Which are of course an extension to their Autoegophilic abusive psychopathology as represented in this concept of being a sexual symbol such as a phallus). This is indeed a paraphilia which can lead to some very complext arguments from the Autoegophilic, An Autoegophilerotic pattern may develop making the autoegophilic more suited for other things. When they become autoegophilerotic, then they are especially suited for pimping. More so than actual trained academics. It's really easy to write this stuff isn't it. Alice (not verified) | 07/12/09 | 15:53 PM
Reply to This Link

Is this BS for real? J. Michael Bailey is a "hackademic" whose shoddy junk science was thoroughly exposed during the controversy surrounding his ludicrous, offensive and bigoted book The Man who Would be Queen. Now, he is trying to foment more exploitative controversies because, as a scientist, and a researcher, he is without any merit. His MO is to create these phony controversies to further his own name only and perpetuate the specious notion that he is an edgy and embattled scientist. But HE is not the victim here. The victims are bisexuals, trans people, Michael Jackson and others who dare to be different and to challenge societal norms. And Hontas Farmer, please quit your annoying campaign of defending Bailey, Blanchard, Lawrence, Dreger et al. in order to get a few shards of attention. You are starting to look like an operative for their cause, and the image is quite unflattering! AngryTrans (not verified) | 07/13/09 | 17:57 PM
Reply to This Link

Hontas Farmer **is** an operative for their cause. She looks like TV's 'Webster', too. Natalie (not verified) | 07/13/09 | 18:13 PM
Reply to This Link
Angry, What makes you think that Dr. Bailey's current posting has anything to do with transpeople? This piece really is not that unique. People have thought that there had to be somehting psychologically wrong with Michael Jackson for him to alter his body the way many thought he did. Is what Dr. Bailey is saying here really so new? There are many people who Consider these words from Rabbi Shmuley Boteach in "No Holds Barred: The Eulogy you won't hear for Michael Jackson": There were also Michael's broken relationships. Two divorces, estrangement from brothers and sisters, and extremely questionable and perhaps even criminal sexual activities. Or in an interview reported here in which he discusses the Martin Bashir interview of Michael Jackson. If you have watched the coverage on MJ's death on TV you know who Rabbi Shmuley is. He was a friend of Michael Jacksons for a period of time and has no axe to grind with him. There are allot of people who think things like what Bailey has written in this blog. Bailey really isn't saying too much new here. As for the nature of my comments if it is your contention that people you don't want to hear should just shut up then yes I will defend his (and your) right to free speech. He as a right to write things like this, you have a right to tell people to shut up, and other people have a right to ignore you and talk/write anyway. Ain't America grand! Natalie, I guess all black people look the same to you.
Reply to This Link

That's not what I said, Farmer. All I suggested is that you bear a resemblance to this guy Much as you like to think that I think you all look alike, you bear no resemblance to Billie Holliday, Michelle Obama, Nichelle Nichols or Grace Jones, you do, in fact, have the same goofy grin as does Emmanuel Lewis as Webster. You calling me a racist now? Go back and see how you've characterized me as a military person. Then STFU. ...and, as far as I'm concerned, you're still a BBL shill. Natalie (not verified) | 07/13/09 | 20:58 PM
Reply to This Link
How I characterized you? You started the reading session, baby. Now your really commanding trying to tell people to STFU is really unbecoming a lady, but very becoming of Gunnery Sargeant Hartman, who I am sure you are a twin of. Only a racist could think that I look a thing like Emanuel lewis. Dont tase me bro Hontas Farmer | 07/14/09 | 00:21 AM
Reply to This Link

Hate to tell you this, Farmer, but I do not profess to be a lady, much less your stereotype of one. I tend to speak my mind, as do a fair number of women that I know. I also happen to be Air Force, not a Marine, a distinction that civies like you couldn't grasp if they tried, and you haven't the foggiest notion of what I look like. Now, explain to me how my commenting that you bear a resemblance to some child actor constitutes racism? Natalie (not verified) | 07/14/09 | 05:45 AM
Reply to This
Link
This may be because that Professor Bailey is comparing Michael Jackson to various infantile images while peddling what appears to be a racist view of Michael Jackson. Perhaps Hontas Farmer has picked up on this and is not feeling all that comfortable at this moment. It is perhaps worth pointing out that many of us feel deceived by Professor Bailey and perhaps Hontas Farmer will be the next to feel this sense of betrayal. Alice (not verified) | 07/14/09 | 09:22 AM
Reply to This Link

I can't help but wonder which BBL category she identifies with, whether she's a hyper-homosexual male after even more cock, or an AGP male, who gets off on the thought of himself as a woman. After all, those are the only two BBL pigeonholes, and anyone else is lying, right? Natalie (not verified) | 07/14/09 | 10:55 AM
Reply to This Link
I don't "identify" as either. Those aren't identities they are diagnoses or psychological designations. They only really gain meaining when large groups of people are considered.
Reply to This Link
Black Comics have said worse things about Micheal Jackson than what Bailey has written here. Take Chris Rock for example.
WARNING: THE BELOW YOUTUBE PLAYER's VIDEO'S SHOW RAW BLACK COMMICS. IF YOU HAVE A PACEMAKER AND HAVE NEVER SEEN RAW BLACK COMMEDY I SUGGEST YOU WATCH A FEW EPISODES OF THE JEFFERSONS FIRST, TO GET READY.
Now tell me that what Bailey has written here is any more "racist" than what those Black commics said about MJ. In particular what Katt Williams says. LMFAO IF ANYTHING KATT WILLIAMS OUGHT TO SUE BAILEY FOR PLAGARISM!
Reply to This Link

You will be telling me that Katt Williams is a member of the HBI next. Alice (not verified) | 07/14/09 | 13:19 PM
Reply to This Link
LOL. But you see what I mean? This blog posting is nothing compared to what black people ourselves thought of Michael. Dont tase me bro Hontas Farmer | 07/14/09 | 13:49 PM
Reply to This Link
Wow. This theory is certainly mind-blowing and eye-opening, and I agree that the whole "he just wants his childhood back" thing is played out and pointless. But I don't think his plastic surgery is all that strange. Other celebrities' skin has mysteriously become lightened as they've become more and more famous (Lil Kim) and many, many other celebrities are clearly addicted to plastic surgery. I know he wasn't particularly nice to look at towards the end, but frankly, neither are most people with tons and tons of plastic surgery. When it comes to editing, knowing when to stop is key. Though he mastered the skill of "editing"
appropriately when it came to his wardrobe, music, or art of any form; when it came to editing himself through surgery, he understandably had no clue when to stop seeing as how you can't have a lifetime of training to comprehend the nuances of when to stop. The Peter Pan theory is nice, but frankly I don't think it's that far off from the original theory you cast down. They're both revolving around the idea that all that Neverland talk we heard about was the real Michael. Yes, I'm sure he loved children and Neverland Ranch and unquestionably he crossed several boundaries with children. But he crossed several boundaries everywhere (music, surgery, art...). The man didn't even see boundaries for the most part. Also, I read in several places that he had severe breathing problems...couldn't that account for the light voice? Also, if you believe this was his condition...how do you account for his children? How does someone who gets surgery to look like a pubescent boy and purposefully alter his voice just to act like and get along with other children and at the same time want to be a parent to children? I'm not saying he was the most conventional father of the year, but it's never been indicated that he abused his own children in anyway. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/14/09 | 04:06 AM
Reply to This Link

By Baiey's theory, all human mental paraphilias are inborn and so nothing can be done about it. Great theory! Let drunkards drink because their genes order them to. Let rapists rape as they are born to rape. Let autogynephiles transition as their brains love that hot female ughhhh!!! Similarly, let pedophiles molest children as they are born having these desires. Oh, mind blowing theory. I think he himself has got some or many such paraphilias and wants to escape from his sins by justifying such nonsense. Why don't people just kick him away? Such researchers don't know to think good about God, this world and its people. They are hypersexual perverts, kinks. They are better off dead. Apple (not verified) | 07/14/09 | 10:22 AM
Reply to This Link

With respect to what Bailey says about human whims and desires, why do we blame Mr. Bush for the Iraq war? He became a dominist but what was his fault? He was born to be so and there is no medical cure for it. I think Bailey wants to devastate this world by saying that paraphilias are inborn and so should be left as such. I advise doctors to avoid and shun these crazy researchers and in their best interests instead, set up medical counselling centres to cure patients with paraphilias. Trans people may be born with what they are but that never justifies that every person having desires is born to have them and take recourse to them. Henry (not verified) | 07/14/09 | 10:28 AM
Reply to This Link

There have been numerous people going for plastic surgeries, so, all of them were born with genetic coding to get them right? Is Bailey mad? I am a PHD and feel ashamed that I am of same academic degree as him. He is such a fool to claim that. People like Bailey are making psychological counselling an impossibility by
saying people are born to be some way or the other. He offers no treatments for the same, so, he is a useless fellow. He is an enemy of normal as well as trans people. I advise all to shun him. Rob (not verified) | 07/14/09 | 10:32 AM
Reply to This Link

It's so ridiculous to say that there is correlation between sexuality and increased abilities. I am gay but don't at all love fashion and music, I am into computer engineering and designing, but I am not autogynephile. Bailey is a typical stereotypical foolish researcher wo only believes in a bunch of stereotypes. There are as many labels possible for people as there are number of people in this world, as every person is unique. So, Bailey's typical labels are derogatory. Angrygay (not verified) | 07/14/09 | 10:42 AM
Reply to This Link
+1 I totally agree with this remark. Dr. Bailey especially in his book, presented sterotypes of homosexuals, which could have a germ of truth, as if they were universal facts. Perhaps he would say he was writing a simple book, for simple minded persons? That's no excuse.
Reply to This Link
gay men enjoy conventionally handsome and masculine faces. I've studied gay speech inborn errors of brain development. Homosexual drag queens and transsexuals are exclusively and unambiguously attracted to men, and they do not cross dress or behave like women, or imagine that they have female genitalia, in order to excite themselves sexually. Really? How many musicians, athletes, and actors have had overbearing parents who made their childhoods miserable? How many of these resemble Jackson in any way whatsoever This article is entirely shocking to me. I have only skimmed the above comments but feel confident from what i have read that this article inspires reactions similar to mine in many others. (whew!) i was particularly astounded by dr, bailys many generalizing assertions such as " gay men enjoy conventionally handsome and masculine faces " or " Homosexual drag queens and transsexuals are exclusively and unambiguously
attracted to men, and they do not cross dress or behave like women, or imagine that they have female genitalia, in order to excite themselves sexually." Of course there are exceptions to these rules (which are not substantiated or sited in any way in this scientific article!) i mean can we at least get a "generally" or a "usually'?? this read like a an animal planet episode ... or worse, a excerpt out of some social-Darwinist paper. i am not sure (nor is it on my to-do list to get sure) if michael jackson abused any children or what his deepest sexual desires were (if any). i DO know that I (a heterosexual female with no history of abuse or mental illness) am delighted by and enlivened by the company of children (for me, female children - those close to or approaching adolescence are particularly refreshing - likely due to my having had like most I think - both the most wonderful and terrifying times of my life in those typically mixed days), when i am feeling for one reason or another alienated, shy or just sick of adult in-authenticity, i generally gravitate toward kids if they are to be found at the moment. i happen to also be "obsessed" with peter pan - having been since childhood - and EVEN as an adult (when i was still single in my 20s) i'd often say i loved "impish" boys finding myself attracted to small and elf-like men as well as women occasionally - and ALSO i do not imagine i am very strange or out of the ordinary for my need to feel attractive in order to be aroused sexually - what i mean is - when i am feeling attractive (after donning a new dress and some good lip gloss for instance) i am FAR more likely to end up in bed w/ my husband than on a day when i have remained in my slippers and have garlic breath. AND since i have never been blessed with large breasts or a curvy more womanly figure (in fact most of me at age 31 looks almost identical to my 12 year old self - no exaggeration) i have long since decided to "go with it" celebrating my own "impishness". so the result has been this: a dating history and marriage which tends toward partners who are attracted to (presumably) somewhat androgynous, small, girlish, women and who themselves are not much larger and only slightly more 'masculine' than myself. Wow, maybe mr. baily or one of his collegues would like to diagnose me? perhaps even invent a new inborn error of brain development name for my condition? No need to meet me in person though the lack of tabloid articles on me may make it more difficult to make a scientific diagnosis. i also experienced vocal chord nodules as an adolescent - since i was a classically trained singer at the time, it was pretty distressing to lose my vocal tone and range as a result. after visiting vocal therapists and surgeons, i learned that the only hope to regain my lost singing voice was to raise my speaking voice far above its "natural" register. i went to therapy and they made me talk JUST like michael - i joked about it then! i couldn't do it though many singers do or undergo surgery in addition or instead - but my hunch is that michael jackson did in order to maintain a singing voice which made him famous and which was destined to change unless he worked very hard to maintain it. dr. baily seems to have avoided a number of these quite logical possibilities for MJs behaviors and appearance. I also have lupus and my father has vitigo. MJ was diagnosed with both of these presumably by a doctor who physically met with him. It is ridiculous to hypothesize about his physical and emotional health or appearance without taking these conditions into account. My father is Italian American, not African American and even on his relatively light skin, the condition has manifested as (interestingly) a white glove which over time has slowly spread up his arm and has thus far reached his neck. This is not subtle it is snow white and his doctor has told him that if he is interested in remedying the cosmetic appearance (which he is not) topical whitening agents could even things out a bit over time. I assume this is what MJ has done and it makes a pretty good case for vitigo as the reason for his famous white glove pretty brilliant, no? Lupus causes a host of mental and physical symptoms. Also, my father was not so great at parenthood and happened to have a huge nose which i inherited. if i could mess with my nose as easily as plucking my eyebrows (as MJ presumably could) and my physical
appearance was extremely visible and essential to my career, i may have taken it to an extreme as well. the author is very naive to site MJs style of dress and long hair etc as sign of mental defect - has he checked out the manner of dress and makeup etc of almost every male pop artist who enjoyed major fame in the 80s?? MJ is a manly man in comparison to many of them. and i would argue that there are LOTS of other once child stars who have had a hard time moving out of the cute kid persona in adult hood. look at drew barymore. how is she any less child-like than MJ? (though Dr. baily seems to use traditional gender roles as his main measure for normalcy allowing for much more child-like behavior from the weaker sex) this guy may have been bizarre - but lets not forget he was a humanitarian. he had been abused as a child yes, and longed to give the gift of fantastic memories to other kids - and perhaps to do the same for himself. i read that he said once that water balloon fights and climbing trees were his favorite pas-times. i'd put both pretty high on my list - but would guess many wouldn't since sadly most adults can't remember the last time they did these things. i'd challenge anyone to try it first before judging MJ for loving them so much. Im not saying michael Jackson wasnt mentally ill Im just really unconvinced by this article by mr. baily and its particular diagnosis nor am I convinced that it is an important addition to psychological science in general. But hes the expert is he??? so from a woman who is aroused by her own child-like body and men/women who are as well, who loves kids and even lets her own and their friends sleep all night in her bed, who is fascinated by peter pan, who wishes she had the discipline to feign a voice like michael's as he had, who has actually had LOTS of gay friends who according to this article are abnormal in their abnormal-ness, who thinks it is a complete shame if it is actually true that a man who enjoys helping and spending time with children as much as i do is almost certainly a predator and who thinks this article is no less smutty and useless than any tabloid crap in the grocery isle today (I think he is actually citing a tabloid in his article and no scientific research either) i say, he's dead if he victimized anyone he will not do it again. There is no other reason to dwell on the inner-workings of michael jacksons sexual desires or mental health. That last paragraph or so of the above article was such a crock of slapped on BS - we have nothing to learn from an article like this one or by trying to dehumanize one man who was challenged in ways none of us could totally comprehend. I was under the impression that a psychologist needs to at least MEET a patient before making a diagnosis. In general, if psychology (and science in general) is all about these broad generalizations - ie. gays do not... or cross dressers always... then there is nothing scientifically useful to learn from a case like Michael Jackson in whose life the confounding factors were so extremely exemplary and unique. this article alone could make an already insecure or identity-confused individual crazy - glad i am assured enough myself not to feel shame at my own similarities to MJ. i say to the author - go fly a kite or climb a tree - assure yourself you have no interest in such odd activities. - look at your favorite actress (assuming you are heterosexual) - notice her youthful skin - her 100 lb body assure yourself that she'd be more attractive with wrinkles, a belly, ass and sagging boobs. but be glad she's over 18 and a woman be glad you arent attracted to anything resembling a 12 year old. - put on a nice suit and get a haircut - look in the mirror and assure yourself that there is nothing about looking your best your sexiest - that makes you more in the mood for sex - play with your kids, or someone elses kids - better yet hang out with a kid (an adolescent male one) that has been neglected and abused and now is dying of cancer - show him the time of his life and when he is scared at night since he's supposedly approaching deaths door, DO NOT let him sleep in your bed or do and see how satisfying it is to see a kid feel safe on account of your generosity. or notice how uncomfortable you were with that whole experience, how inappropriate it felt to spend so much time with a child -
especially to have a boy in your bed - notice how VERY uncomfortable you feel - and report back. You will perhaps notice - those whose skin crawls at the thought of this (as maybe yours does) are perhaps the more 'creepy' among us... i hope you find instead that it is perfectly fine and generous to extend generosity toward children in this way. when you have done these things, re-read your article and notice how ignorant and small it seems in light of true human complexity. ann (not verified) | 07/14/09 | 22:56 PM
Reply to This Link

oops - disregard the first 'paragraph' of my post - that was just my little collection of reminder notes while reading dr. bailey's article - i hadn't intended for them to remain pated at the top of my (LONG!) reaction. ann (not verified) | 07/15/09 | 11:49 AM
Reply to This Link
I speculated in an article herein that Michael's freakishess may be related to the extemely unique, seemingly loveless (love is different from adoration) way he was raised. You have to wonder. James Hawkins | 07/15/09 | 10:16 AM
Reply to This Link

I think this article is carefully thought out and well-written. It makes even more sense when coupled with Hontas Farmer's theory on castrati. I believe it is entirely possible that Jackson had a physical situation that caused endicrinological condition along with a psychiatric disorder(s) Dr. Bailey described herein. I think his celebrity gave him the means to pursue his own transformation or transition. I have watched him morph over the years with alternating disgust and unease, and a hybrid of these two theories makes me understand a little better. I, too, used to think the surgeries were to make him resemble Diana Ross, but he has gone far, far beyond that, and the Peter Pan idea has merit; look at the parts, people. Hontas, I loved your article on the castrati. Thank you for the good work. And ignore the haters, keep fighting the good fight. Suzanne (not verified) | 07/15/09 | 22:38 PM
Reply to This Link
Yes these ideas could make some sense out of the strangeness of MJ's life. It's possible that being castrated, or having a muted puberty could effect someone mentally in the ways that Dr. Bailey describes. It's possible that being in the kind of mental state Bailey describes, could lead to castration. If none of these possibilities is true, then all we have is a intractable mystery, a man who behaved in a very strange way. Eccentricity and genius often go together, MJ was standard in that respect. Thankyou for the support. I just don't see what some people think this has to do with the "transcommunity". MJ went through a transition, but not of the transgender kind. Dont tase me bro Hontas Farmer | 07/16/09 | 19:47 PM
Reply to This Link

The connection with the trans community is your buddy Bailey, who comes up with sex fuelled reasons for everything. He's probably working on a paper about Sarah Palin right now. Natalie (not verified) | 07/17/09 | 11:07 AM
Reply to This Link
Basically it's connected because something unrelated he wrote offended you. Because he offended you that justified your calling the women he actually wrote about "crossdressers". I suppose you could say you were acting on this old "information", this oft repeated lie which revictimizes the only actual concievable victims in this affair.
Because he offended you no one anywhere should ever listen to anything he says about anything ever.
All that matters is that Natalie was offended and everyone else, including other simmilarly offended people it's seems don't matter. Only Natalie counts....you sure do seem to love yourself.
Here's some reading matterial for you Natalie. I think you should read and comprehend something about yourself.
Reply to This Link

If you are upset about being insulted, never mind, here are more insults explaining why you are upset. ??? Jennifer (not verified) | 07/17/09 | 18:11 PM
Reply to This Link

Oh, I'm not insulted at all. The whole trans community knows just how much of an asshole Bailey is, and it's quite hilarious to see what happens when you touch the nerves of one of his apologetic sycophants. I still want to know which of BBL's two pigeonholes Farmer identifies with though...AGP or hyper-homosexual. Natalie (not verified) | 07/17/09 | 18:26 PM
Reply to This Link

Natalie. Unless you have something to contribute to this discussion on this article, please go away. I don't know - nor do I want to learn - why you have an axe to grind with Dr. Bailey and Hontas Farmer, but it is not relevant to this discussion. Stop attempting to represent every transgendered person in the whole wide world. Fortunately, you do not. Go away. Suzanne (not verified) | 07/17/09 | 19:37 PM
Reply to This Link

No, I will NOT go away. I may not represent the entire trans community, but neither do Farmer, Bailey and the rest of the BBL crowd, who insist that we're
in either one or the other of their artificial, sex fuelled pigeonholes, or we're liars. That, to me, is the height of arrogance, and if BBL is going to be allowed a mouthpiece, BBL opponents should be as well. This whole damn thread about MJ is just a continuation of Bailey's fetishes, as far as I'm concerned. Natalie (not verified) | 07/17/09 | 22:12 PM
Reply to This Link

But this thread has nothing to do with transgender issues. Your anger is just clouding the objective discussion of the ideas presented in the blog. Suzanne (not verified) | 07/17/09 | 22:24 PM
Reply to This Link
Yes, exactly. Michael Jackson was not trans anything. Other than the most passing and tangential of mentions....this article has nothing to do with transsexual/transgenderism, nothing what soever. Natalie... What would it matter which one of Blanchards categories would most closely describe me? This isn't about me, and it isn't about you. The reason I pointed you to Lawrence's words on narcicistic rage is because you are acting like a rageing narcicist. You have taken something about Michael Jackson, a African American, non-trans, pop singer... and made it about a member of Canada's Airforce, namely you.
Reply to This Link

Hontas, Transsexual people do have a reason to contest the ideas of Bailey because they are also victims of his pseudo science. It
seems to be a working scientific method in America that a young man gets a business idea: It would be great to write a book about his adventures amongst the nonconformists and deviants, that are in accordance with his own perception of life in conflict with his heteronormative, cisgender supremacist prejudices. His only criteria is that it satisfies the vast bad taste of the majority and their prejudices. Later this young man can retire in the West sellind his own brand of penis enlargement pills. This time Bailey just followed his behavioral pattern or strategy. In order to get famous he wanted to surf with the publicity of a recently died celebrity. Because he needs to become famous, and transsexuals as well as Michael Jackson are only his hobbyhorses on his way to stars. Heli (not verified) | 07/18/09 | 02:12 AM
Reply to This Link
He's not writing about a transsexual he's writing about Michael Jackson! WTH! Dont tase me bro Hontas Farmer | 07/18/09 | 13:33 PM
Reply to This Link

You know that you can't expect consideration for topicality from people whose primary purpose in life is find things to be angry about? Being angry at Bailey is one of the things that gets them up in the morning. Their imagined victimization gets them through lunch. By afternoon they're angry enough to take on 10 Hontas Farmers. They negate any arguments that transitioning makes people emotionally healthy.
It's so sad that they fail to realize how much damage they cause the community as a whole by being disrespectful of others. Any relevant discussion of this article is now almost totally impossible. I suppose that was their goal, and they've succeeded at that. But they've also convinced a number of people that Lawrence and Dreger are right. Even some people who had never heard of either of them before reading these comments. Hang in there, Hontas Lisanne Anderson (not verified) | 07/18/09 | 17:27 PM
Reply to This Link

The proof is in the pudding. While Hontas and Lisanne have every right to their opinion, not all opinions are equally valid. Hontas and Lisanne are woefully out of step with the trans community and support pseudo-scientific theories that harm us and malign us. They stand on the wrong side of history and it is sad that they do not realize this. AngryTrans (not verified) | 07/19/09 | 23:30 PM
Reply to This Link
But Michael Jackson isn't trans anything! WTH are you talking about? Dont tase me bro Hontas Farmer | 07/20/09 | 23:15 PM
Reply to This Link

We are trying to tell you that as much as this article stinks do the previous works of mr. Bailey stink as well. Bailey repeats his non-scientific, prejudice based method that
is based on his own perceptions. The method is discriminating, similar method as the white men used to study the Orient. The method is based on Bailey's own assumpions and prejudices. Edward Said describes how the prejudices work in his book Orientalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism_(bo ok). Bailey represents to me the same colonization but based on cisgender sexism and heteronormativity. Heli (not verified) | 07/21/09 | 01:30 AM
Reply to This Link
I find this professor's work and that of those he seems to associate with very strange, they use big words to deliver what look like insults. "Autogynephile" (Man who wants sex with himself as a woman.) "Homosexual Transsexual (Seems to refer to Latino transsexuals the professor thinks are only fit for prostitution.). Everything he says seems to drip with hatred. When I saw Hontas farmer's link telling you to read an explanation, it read like "You feel hurt by this? that is because you are a dirty stinking pervert!!!" What have you transsexual people done to deserve that? Jennifer (not verified) | 07/17/09 | 19:40 PM
Reply to This Link
Don't feel sad for natalie. Natalie called the women that Dr. Bailey wrote about. People who did not like what he wrote, who complained about his conduct, formally, some of whom are listed on Lynn Conway's website as "transsexual womens success stories"... crossdresser's. She called them crossdressers that Bailey found in a gay bar. (look above for the link to her comment saying that) That's what she did to deserve what I called her. Or do the feelings only of certain people in the so called transcommunity matter? I have noticed a real current of hostility towards anyone who would remotely
fit/ have been said to fit a certain category. It is almost as if the mere existence of straight* transwomen offends certain other transwomen.
*Just to be crystal in this sentence I mean attracted to men. Given we are talking around BBL terminology that is necessary to write.
Reply to This Link

Please be patient with me Hontas, but you say. "Just to be crystal in this sentence I mean attracted to men. Given we are talking around BBL terminology that is necessary to write. " I find this a bit confusing because Dr. Bailey calls such women "Homosexual transsexuals" Which often gets read as "Man who is attracted to men and who has surgery in order to have sex with men". Your explanation is less confusing but this is not the way Dr. Bailey words it and not the way people like me who know very little about all this (I will be truthful) understand what is being said. I admit to not being an expert in things like this, but wouldn't Dr. Bailey avoid a lot of the attacks he gets if he made the same distinctions you are making? #Do you think it may be the wording he actually uses that makes people angry? Jennifer (not verified) | 07/19/09 | 20:31 PM
Reply to This Link
Yes and no. If he had said in his book.... "straight transsexual women may be especially suited to prostitution due to their male typical sex drive" Instead of "homosexual transsexuals may be especially suited to prostitution due to their male typical sex drive" I don't think it would have made much of a difference. However their is the fact that little more than token complaint has been given to anything that he said in relation to "homosexual transsexuals"/ straight transsexual women. As I said above, the needs and concerns of straight transwomen have been uniformly subbordinated to those of lesbain, and bissexual transwomen. With few exceptions many so called transacademcis and activist only care about how this whole thing effects them. Take a look at Natalie above. She felt perfectly justified to insult the transwomen that Bailey directly wrote about, most of whom he described as "homosexual transsexuals". People who really did not like what he wrote. As far as natalie was conerned they could have been the transkid "cloudy". The position of the person on Bailey's book did not matter. What mattered was if you were "one of those". You know let me level with everyone here. It's not that I particuarly like they way Dr. Bailey expressed himself. It's that so far part and parcel of the complaints regarding his book have been as much targeted at straight transwomen's life styles as they have been targeted at what Bailey wrote about them. Case in point the kind of attitude expressed by Natalie and many others.
Reply to This Link

OK so you say "Yes and no. If he had said in his book.... "straight transsexual women may be especially suited to prostitution due to their male typical sex drive" Instead of "homosexual transsexuals may be especially suited to prostitution due to their male typical sex drive" I don't think it would have made much of a difference. "
So Dr. Bailey is saying that homosexual transsexual women, are not women but men, who have a male typical sex drive and are best suited for prostitution? I am probably misreading this somehwere, but I thought, from what I read on these blogs that the transsexual women objected to Dr. Bailey's work because he was saying they were in effect, just men living a sexual fantasy. As you are openly (And bravely) someone who is defined by these very terms, how do you reconcile yourself with this sexual model? I would probably feel very uncomfortable about it if I were in your situation. I am interested to know what value you see in Dr. Bailey's ideas when it comes to things like this. Jennifer (not verified) | 07/20/09 | 17:26 PM
Reply to This Link
I see, most of the complaints about Bailey's writings center on Autogynephilia so you have surmised that most of the women he wrote about in his book were called autogynephilic. That's not what happend at all. You wrote So Dr. Bailey is saying that homosexual transsexual women, are not women but men, who have a male typical sex drive and are best suited for prostitution? I am probably misreading this somehwere, but I thought, from what I read on these blogs that the transsexual women objected to Dr. Bailey's work because he was saying they were in effect, just men living a sexual fantasy.
He wrote that autogynephilic transsexual women were not feminine and were motivated by sexual fantasy. He also wrote that all non-homosexual transsexuals (bissexual, heterosexual, and assexual) were ipso facto autogynephilic. He wrote this about a transsexual woman he called in his book "cher". He wrote that homosexual transsexual women were natrually feminine and motivated by sexual attraction to
heterosexual men. He also wrote that homosexual transsexuals have the male ability to be satisfied by meaningless sex and therefore were "especially suited" to prostitution, shoplifting, and street life. Basically taking stupid risk not unlike young men. He wrote this about transsexual women he caleld in his book, Alma, Juanita, Maria, Kim, Terese, I may be missing one. As you can see there was plenty to complain about regarding what Bailey wrote about so called "homosexual transsexuals". However the complaints of straight transsexual women were largely ignored, and minimized. Afterall he said that we look better.
Reply to This Link

"As you can see there was plenty to complain about regarding what Bailey wrote about so called "homosexual transsexuals". However the complaints of straight transsexual women were largely ignored, and minimized. Afterall he said that we look better. " So because Dr. Bailey sees you as more feminine it makes what he says more bearable? I can understand what you are saying but it does read like "Well we (HSTS) don't get hit so hard because we are pretty." I can see why some people talk about stereotypes and prejudice when discussing Dr. Bailey's work. You are a prominent scientist on this blogging site, you write interesting things. Why let a man like Dr. Bailey put you down like that? Jennifer (not verified) | 07/23/09 | 17:42 PM
Reply to This
Link
One should remember that the opinions of mr. Bailey are not harmless. Insurance companies are willing to pay good money and honey for the research that supports them in their fight against the proper treatment of Gender Identity Disorder. Thus mr. Bailey is endangering the embursement of the treatment expenses, that insurances may not cover diseases of this kind that are in accordance with mr. Bailey's opinions, eccentric way of life, and the treatments elective cosmetic surgeries for perverted people, not necessary for the treatment of GID. For that kind of activity there is one word that describes it well, namely a carrion eater Heli (not verified) | 07/24/09 | 01:29 AM
Reply to This Link
Umm I think that plain ol transphobia or ignorance is responsible for insurers not covering SRS. There is also the idea that it is somehow elective, and the bias that people have against mental conditions. Beyond GID, mental issues are thoght of as being less real, less valid, and less a matter of treatment than a matter of snapping out of it. That general attidued towards mental conditions, which is what GID classifies being transsexuals as, is why we get trouble from insurers. Perhaps we could rally for a more compassionate world for those who are deemed mentally disordered across the board, instead of selfishly lobbying only for something that could benefit (marginally benefit) only our in group.
Reply to This Link
The high, breathy voice with the hyper-sincere tone was not his natural manner of speech. Reportedly, when he got mad or surprised, he manifested a "big deep voice." This suggests that the former, his public voice, was an affectation >this is what the media reported, and it's a speculation. Evidence needs to be presented to suggest that Michael Jackson's high voice was an affection. Not so, Michael Jackson's face, which resembled nothing in the actual human, living world. Moreover, it has seemed to me that there was something coherent about the redesign of his facecoherent, not normal suggesting that there was method in his madness. >many professionals agree that Michael Jackson suffered from Body Dismorphic Disorder. He always saw defects, especially his nose, in his appearance. He said during the interview he never looked at himself in the mirror. His scalp was severely burned during Pepsi commercial, and had vitiligo. If he indeed suffered from BDD, it is understandable why he had at least 13 plastic surgeries. "I am Peter Pan," he said, more than once. He lived in Neverland. His second wife, Debbie Rowe, said that in order to get in the mood to have sex with her, Jackson dressed up as Peter Pan and danced around the bedroom. She said: "It made him feel romantic." >this is also what the tabloid said. I doubt Michael Jackson had an intimate relationship with Debbie Rowe. They were probably good friends. Debbie said during the interview she offered to have his children. He didn't father them, but he is a father of these children after she gave up a sole custody. She gave these children to Michael as presents. (both Debbie and Michael said this during the interview) Am I seriously suggesting that Michael Jackson was a homosexual autohebephile whose erotic goals included resembling Peter Pan and having sex with pubescent boys? I sure am. >Once again, evidence needs to be presented to suggest that Michael Jackson was a homosexual autohebephile. In some sense, he may have actually believed that he was a boy. >Your theory and analysis are mere speculations. Michael Jackson probably felt he was a boy. He identified himself with pubscent boys. On a emotional level, he was a pubscent boy. That explains why he clicked with boys around that age than adults. Adults including his own father did him wrong and he didn't get normal childhood. He wanted to reexperience that normal childhood, and wanted to absorb that essences from
these pubscent boys. However suggesting that he was sexually arosed by the thoughts of being a pubscent boy or engaging in sexual acts with them is a baseless assumption. He also may have been sexually attracted to young boys, and if so, he probably molested at least one. His demons led him to do bizarre things that might still be comprehensible in light of my hypothesis. If any of us had been born with those demons, we might well have done the same or worse. >we do not know if Michael Jackson was really attracted to young boys sexually. We place so much emphasis on sexuality nowadays. sexual deviation is considered the norm than asexuality. Also pedophiles do not moest once or a couple of times throughout thier lives. it is extremely difficult for them to supress thier urges, so they tend to molest minors repeatedly. If Michael Jackson was sexually aroused by boys, he probably molested these boys who shared the same bed with him many times. Considering his status as a celebrity, there was no way to get away with it, IF he really molested children. He was aquitted of all charges, and after interacting with thousands of children, only two came forward as victims. He certainly made poor choices for sharing the same bed. He set himself up for the recent allegations. But I doubt he actually molested any children. In his own mind, children-especially prepubscent boys are the only people, whom he could relate to. Because he was still at that stage emotionally. It's quite common for boys around that age to do sleepovers. So Michael continued to state sharing a bed is the most loving thing you can do. In his mind, there was nothing wrong with sleeping with children. Because he did not associate that with sexuality. once again this is also my assumption, and the only person who knows what really happened is Michael Jackson himself-or those who were really close to him. I feel he was judged harshly because of his unusual appearance and erratic behaviors. But we shouldn't forget his efforts and significant contributions to the charities, and he is the biggest humanitarian activist as a celebrity. He was a musical genius and is one of the best performers of all times. He is on the guiness world record for his contributions as an artist and humanitarian activist. Y.N. (not verified) | 07/17/09 | 15:51 PM
Reply to This Link

@ Hontas: Will you ever actually put your cards on the table? Are you actively collaborating with BBL, a shill and a mouthpiece for their bizarre, specious and damaging theories, or are you so desperate for attention that you must brown-nose with our oppressors? Either way, it is pathetic and repulsive. Hope the pay-off is sweet for being on the WRONG side of history. Does it make you feel good to be their little pet and to lend credence to the ludicrous notion that their ideas actually have any merit? I guess being a token is worth it for some little crumbs of recognition from the pseudo-scientific community of Bailey, Blanchard, Lawrence, Dreger, Zucker and Cantor--the evil axis of transphobic hatred. @ Suzanne: "Stop attempting to represent every transgendered person in the whole wide world. Fortunately, you do not. Go away." Natalie may not represent every transgender person in the world, but she represents a hell of a lot more of us than Hontas Farmer and her collaborationist BS. Like Natalie, I will not be silent and will fight back against these junk scientists, and push back to expose their insidious cultural missions.
AngryTrans (not verified) | 07/18/09 | 00:08 AM
Reply to This Link
I wrote on my own blog that I think Michael Jackson may have either been castrated, or suffered a medical condition which had the same effects as castration. That is totally different than Dr. Bailey's idea. I also wrote my blog before Dr. Bailey wrote his article. So how could I be shilling for him here? Oh I'm making the mistake of talking rationally to an irrational person...who self describes themselves simply as an "angrytrans".
Reply to This Link
If you and Natalie want to "not be silent and will fight back against these junk scientists, and push back to expose their insidious cultural missions", fine, good, whatever. But please do it in an appropriate forum. This thread is to discuss a particular blog about Michael Jackson. Many of us are struggling to reconcile a well-loved cultural icon with a person with obvious mental illness(es) and possible crimes committed against children. Your fight is about something else. Suzanne (not verified) | 07/18/09 | 05:37 AM
Reply to This Link

Have You ever thought about bbetting online ?? have You ever asked yourself why the Sports betting is so popular around the world??. Have You ever thoght aboyt it. Sport betting is awesome to earn some exra cash especialy Betfair exchange platform.Betfair offers You best odds in all kind sports. Think about it and register just today. Dont wait. You can also get huge Betting Bonus up to $1000 don't You wanna get this money for free?? I don't think so. so registre and get Your Free Bet today. dont hesitate, it is not big problem use it within fw seconds. betfair is best Bookmaker in this market so feel free bet there everyoday. Just bet home and earn $1000 everyday. Be master of trading on betfair. Be rich be rich or die trying. Sports betting (not verified) | 07/18/09 | 07:00 AM
Reply to This Link

Your theory is interesting, and there are certainly certain types of people who fit into any of those categories you described. But please do not use "michael jackson" to promote your theory. Your assumptions related to Michael Jackson are not credible without valid proof. If MJ got sexually arosed by prepubscent boys, he would have molested many more children at the Neverland Ranch, and there was no way to get away with it back then. After interacting with thousands of children, somehow only two boys and thier parents came forward. other children who were close to MJ for many years claimed that MJ had never touched them inappropriate and thier friendship was not sexual in nature. I suggest Dr.Bailey to do more research on the field. Moreover MJ was aquitted of all charges. If he was indeed interested in young boys, he could easily go across the countries to pursue his interests anonymously. There are many countries, which allow child exploitation. MJ had been devoted to the charities and children with needs. Why would he go through all the troubles to get "aroused" sexually? He was indeed a prepubscent boy himself, so he was naturally bonded with other boys around the same age. Boys around that age do pillow fights, and it is not unusual for them to sleep in the same bed or room. Based on this assumption, Michael Jackson wasn't sexually arosed by these young friends he had. His emotional stage was perhaps still arresed at prepubscent stage. So he was not sexual. I remember that I was kind of starting to like a boy in the same class back then, but I wasn't really thinking sexually. I spend way more time doing sleepovers with girls, talk all night etc. Michael Jackson suffered from misconceptions, prejudice and his own psychological issues. He is not here to defend himself any longer. Regardless of what people say, he is one of the most talented artist of all times. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/19/09 | 05:18 AM
Reply to This Link

Wow Diane Dimond and Online news, both lowlife tabloids used to substantiate an academic paper.Talk about crossing over lines. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/19/09 | 23:44 PM
Reply to This Link

It is a pity that he has no references to well established scientific journals like Weekly World News :) Heli (not verified) | 07/20/09 | 01:48 AM

false...
Reply to This Link
amazingly, this professor wrote a research paper based on a tabloid report which later decleared to be
Reply to This
Link
It is rebellious to keep labelling people based on paraphilias they have. It is their private issue and need not be revealed or glorified. Those who do it are no more than foolish ruffians- so be it Dr. Bailey too. Cook (not verified) | 07/25/09 | 13:57 PM
Reply to This Link
I always say it is great to be a scientist as you must follow your results and publish them if they are controversial or not. However, if you fail to follow your results to avoid controversy, you should fire yourself and find another job as you are no good to science. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
I'm sure if a Michael Jackson fan was reading this he would be rather annoyed. But I could not care as your work is very convincing and I am quite agree with your conclusion.
Connor Davidson | 07/26/09 | 05:37 AM
Reply to This Link
Oh, and another thing. I was reading an article related to this I wish to recommend: http://searchwarp.com/swa456843-Are-Sexual-Behaviours-Of-People-TodayNormal-Or-Abnormal.htm
Connor Davidson | 07/26/09 | 05:41 AM
Reply to This Link

Yes a "scientist " pursues verifiable information and reports objectively. A pseudo- scientist uses the language of their chosen specialty and taints it with supposition and hearsay as well a dash of tabloid trash. Please don't confuse this nonsense with true research, if I had handed in research papers with these sources I wouldn't have even made it through undergrad. Anonymous (not verified) | 07/26/09 | 16:41 PM
Reply to This Link

Go to youtube, type in mj unuthorized interview 1984, part 3 3:04. He banters, while LaToya ignores him, saying to her, '... we have alot in common,...men', while she continues talking and ignores his comment. No wonder this wonderful 3 part interview never aired, to my knowledge. His handlers refused to let it air. To this day his fans don't want to accapt the recent biographer's assertion of gay lovers. ...He may not have had those alleged affairs, but he hints at being gay in this interview. It took George Michael to get busted to come out. They both had the same demographic (young girls their most avid fans). No wonder MJ sang 'In The Closet', and this old interview was, and is, still so overlooked. Maybe he wasn't all these disorders but simply gay? Or, since he later denied being gay, he changed his mind, or just didn't want to divulge his personal business. Richard Steiner (not verified) | 07/29/09 | 00:10 AM
Reply to This Link

You echoed my opinion perfectly. Most Michael Jackson fans are too blinded by loyalty to him to see that he may have "lied" to safeguard his privacy, and protect his career. Jackson was undoubtedly gay, but unlike the tolerance we exhibit in 2009, back in the early 1980s for a BLACK male entertainer to hint at being bisexual, or gay, would have been tantamount to career suicide. Michael was driven to become a global superstar and would do everything in his power to safeguard that success. How could he admit to being gay? 80% of his record sales came from adolescent and young adult females for whom every crotch grab and pelvic thrust was orgasmic! (Not unlike Elvis' success, and MJ had a fascination/obsession with Elvis Presley). Listen to the lyrics of "In the Closet" , "Human Nature" and "Off the Wall". Jackson's songs were often very personal (as in "Leave Me Alone", "Childhood") and the words of those songs seem to talk about his
personal/sexual identity. By contrast, his hit songs were written to appeal to a larger female audience........one that wanted desperately to believe he was heterosexual. It is unlikely that Michael --- given his secrecy about his personal life, drug addiction and increasing alienation from the world ---- ever really had an enduring adult love relationship. This is profoundly sad. At least he was able to have a loving relationship --- albeit lifestyle --- with his children. I tend to doubt, in the end, that Jackson molested boys; none of the accusers were terribly credible. It is more likely that he was a frustrated gay man, possibly schizophrenic, and did have body dysmorphic disorder, as well as physical ailments such as Lupus and Vitiligo. Leslie (not verified) | 09/06/09 | 02:47 AM
Reply to This Link
Terrible article i can not believe I wasted my time reading this nonsense. It does not explain anything. It is purely based on your opinion. There is no real evidence to support any of your theories. It is not nice to speak ill of the dead and make up terrible stuff about them. Anonymous123 (not verified) | 07/30/09 | 10:58 AM
Reply to This Link

Dear Mr. Bailey, What an interesting theory, I guess it may be correct. I totally agree with you and I find your articles really coherent. To myself, Michael Jackson may have been really sad at heart during all his life, because he knew he was not normal and he had no way to scape to himself or his inner feelings, just like nobody else can. Considering his talent, and his level of genius, could it have been an excess of genius the reason of an erratic sexuality? Aside from that, supposing he 'wanted' to be a boy aged 11-14 years, and he felt as if he was one, my theory is that maybe he felt no sexual desires at all, as in a kid of that frame of age hasn't developed a sexuality desire yet, so my questions are, 1- Could it be the case that Michael wanted to have friends of his 'mental' age with no other intention that sharing games and enjoying their company, with no sentimental or sexual issues involved? As in, does the average of pubescent kids know something about love or sex at all? Do 'autohebephiles' have reached sexual maturity? He was married twice but I can't imagine him having sex with a woman. 2- As for his physical appearance, it's clear to me that he didn't wanted to look like the adult man he was, but, if he wanted in some ways to look like a teen, or a pre-teen, why did he abused so much of make-up? Since Peter Pan didn't wear make-up, why did he appear to like so much to wear red lips, and those feminine hairdoes, and yet he didn't look really feminine or gay. Can a mixture of both 'autogynephilia' and 'autohebephilia' coexist in a person?? 3- About the black appearance, I think he disagreed with his looks in the way he always wanted to be
someone he wasn't. A sweet kid, a white person, Peter Pan. I can't imagine the high levels of wearing-out that this fact might have produced on his inside. Looking back at his early years, that was a time when he was a handsome black youngster with a wonderful smile, even with the big nose and the dark skin, he was very sweet. Do you think he may have also had an obsessive disorder -dysforia, surgical compulsions- a sort of OCD with made him wear an umbrella and a mask to avoid germs?? Not to mention his med addiction. I feel sorry for him and yet I strongly believe he never did any harm to no kid. Seems to me that Michael Jackson had no sign of sexual issues going on on his inside, just because he was a child inside. He might have suffered a lot and I feel pity for him. Molly Spain (not verified) | 08/01/09 | 23:49 PM
Reply to This Link

I think we should be worried about these cases http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fn%2Fa%2F2009%2F07%2F29%2F... where religious beliefs and prejudices do prevent people from having proper treatment. And populist pseudo scientists like Bailey or Dr. Phil try to surf on the wave of the general intolerance and prejudices of the majority, people who do not suffer from any anomalies or diseases. Molly Spain told about sexual issues. I think any people who have a non-conforming sexual orientation or gender identity are subject to heavy sexualization. That is how the majority confronts their own feelings. Instead of seeing a non-comforming individual as an equal form of human race, he/she is seen as a hypersexual creature. What comes to that Peter Pan syndrome, have you ever thought what is the impact of an intolerant environment to a non-conforming individual? If someone's innate feelings are oppressed how can she/he grow into a mature individual with sexual needs. I take the privilege to tell about my own sexuality free of the AGP/HSTS model that I see as fabrication. Namely I didn't have an adult sexuality before my transition. I felt like it was short-circuited somehow, not grown because of the wrong gender. I grew up like an observer. I envied women and suppressed my sexuality. Heli (not verified) | 08/02/09 | 04:50 AM
Reply to This Link
Oh wow, this is article is absurd! It really makes me sad, that people are still writing absurd things about him, even after he is gone. It's so terrible, he had to live through all sorts of crazy assumptions like this when he was alive as well.
For one, Michael Jackson did not have plastic surgery to look like peter pan or whatever! He had plastic surgery because he was very self conscious about himself, especially his nose, because his father abused him and made fun of his nose, saying it was gross, big, ugly and abnormal. He was speculated to have body dysmorphic disorder, which can make a patient have excess plastic surgery, and they are never satisfied with the results, so they keep on having plastic surgery. (Also, he did not bleach his skin, that was another nasty rumor about him - he had vitiligo) He did NOT have plastic surgery to resemble a boy, or to resemble peter pan! He was not attracted to boys, and he did not molest boys. There was no proof, and in fact, those boys that where supposedly "molested" by Michael came out and said they accused him for the MONEY! Michael Jackson was such a kind, caring person. He would never harm anyone, he loved children in a FATHERLY way! He was a normal person, and all these assumptions made about him are absolutely ridiculous, and it's terrible that people made, and keep making all these horrible assumptions about him. I'm so sick of people making assumptions about him! RIP MJ, an amazing person, father, dancer, singer, and humanitarian. He was such a kind soul. Anonymous (not verified) | 08/11/09 | 19:18 PM
Reply to This Link

This is by far the worst thing I've read on MJ! You are searching to deep into his behavior. I don't know how many times he's said he wasn't gay. I prefer to take his word for it, i think he knows better than anyone. Leave this poor man alone and do some research! 1.)While it's true his natural voice was deeper, he prefered to speak in a higher register to keep his falsetto singing voice 2.)he really had vitaligo, his dermatologist testified under oath that he had the disease 3.) He never molested those boys: detailed proof in GQ's article from 1994 by Mary Fisher (huge extortion plot) humannature (not verified) | 08/20/09 | 01:33 AM
Reply to This Link
I have noticed that some people have opted to remove their post here. I suppose they don't think they came across as well as they thought. Or is it an attempt to make it look like I just kept on replying to myself? I will keep my responses here for future reference. Dont tase me bro
Hontas Farmer | 08/20/09 | 20:53 PM
Reply to This Link

No no, he is alive. They found him in the woods. Then the video taper got it!!!! http://doodiepants.com/2009/08/27/michael-jackson-is-alive-and-well/ Dooder (not verified) | 08/29/09 | 01:52 AM
Reply to This Link

Have you ever thought he wanted to change himself for the sake of him?? What does it really matter?? mikeyokinawa (not verified) | 08/29/09 | 02:55 AM
Reply to This Link

It doesn't matter. He just had an extreme form of internal weakness. No biggie. Dooder (not verified) | 08/29/09 | 02:59 AM
Reply to This Link
Michael Jackson had part of his ear removed to help reconstruct his nose not to make his ears look like Peter Pan. I think all Michael Jackson's sexual energy was spent in dancing and having sex with the audience. I think he changed his face and appearance like actors change costumes to enter a new phase of his entertainment career. I think he wanted attention more badly than anything else in the world and would do anything to get it even shock people with statements like I sleep in a hyperbaric chamber, I share my bed with boys, and the 2nd half of the black and white video that was very sexual in nature. I think his case does not apply to most people because I think he liked spending time with children because they were the only people who didn't want something from him and accepted him like he was. I think the chances of him being a schizophrenic are greater than an erotic identify disorder which I kinda think sounds a bit made up. Anonymous (not verified) | 09/01/09 | 23:52 PM

PS
Reply to This Link

After being diagnosed with vilitigo, I think he changed his appearance from black to white to appeal to all audiences. He wanted to be the biggest superstar in the world and probably felt he could not do that with dark skin. Also he tried remade his face with beautiful feminine and masculine features. I think there was a definite plan. I think he was a marketing genius but he underestimated the negative effects of repeat plastic
surgery. I think he desperately wanted his dad's love and tried to recreate father/son relationships with those kids. He wanted to be a loving affectionate father but people thought evil of it. Also, if he had his own kids earlier, he would not have befriended those families who tried to extort money from him. I do not believe MJ ever molested anyone. He slept in the same room with his 5 brothers until he was 10 so he probably could not sleep well without them around. I think he was desperately lonely. If you have ever been really depressed and low self esteem you know that you do not want to have other people judging you and you can relax and be yourself around kids because they do not judge. He did kiss his own chimp on the lips so maybe he is a little too demonstrative. He wanted a loving family with children. I really do think he was gay but it would have destroyed his career to come out especially with AIDS etc. Anonymous (not verified) | 09/02/09 | 00:06 AM
Reply to This Link

PSS I also think MIchael Jackson was incredibly naive and too trusting of other people because he was sheltered from the world when he was growing up. He thought everyone had a pure heart like he did. He was incredibly shy as well. I think you would diagnose Jesus with erotic identity disorder if he were living today because of the loving way he related to children. You should watch Fox 2003 Michael Jackson Private Home Movies on your tube. There are several parts showing occasions of him playing with his boy nephews, cousins and Mac Caulken and you can see that he is a 11 year old at heart. They are running around with super soakers, throwing each other in the pool, having Easter egg hunts, and having a food fight with John Landis on the set of Black and White. You can see in his eyes that he is a totally innocent spirit. MJ was not the performer you see on stage. His real personality was totally different. Steven Spielberg said MJ was like Bambi in a forest fire and that MJ liked to talk to ET. He had a huge interest in Disney characters, in fantasy and magic.I read that a psychiatrist at the trial found that he had arrested development and was actually at the level of an 11 year old which would account for his financial problems. His accusers had dads who were jealous that their sons were closer to MIchael than to them and they were after his money. According to Fox News, the dad from the trial hit his son with a 12 pound weight and tried to strangle the boy in 2006. The boy took out a restraining order against his own dad. Michael Jackson was only guilty of being too nice to the wrong people. I think he was the victim of homophobia and a pedophile witch hunt which is what ultimately killed him. If he looked like Brad Pitt no one would ever have questioned his motives. Only the US public ever believed these allegations. The rest of the world never doubted him. We killed an innocent man. Anonymous (not verified) | 09/02/09 | 07:48 AM
Reply to This Link

Professor Bailey,
I am amazed that you expressed every one of my very uneducated theories on his mental condition. I was not familiar with the terminology, but had the exact same ideas about his appearance, behavior and his fervent and unrelenting desire to surround himself with all things children and childlike. I also made the connection between his affection for Peter Pan and his repeated plastic surgery to make his nose more narrow and pointed. Perhaps there was a dual disorder at work or perhaps the makeup he used helped him complete the look that surgery couldn't. Around the time he married Lisa Marie Presley he more greatly achieved the look than at any other time, even sporting a short Peter Pan hairstyle. I'm also not completely sold on the vitiligo excuse for the pale skin. Has anyone ruled officially that he had this disorder? I'm not inclined to believe any of the unethical physicians (dermatologists, plastic surgeons, etc) that he hired. From a purely scientific standpoint, certainly he has to be one of the most interesting physiological case studies. As a fan that grew up loving the Jackson's and Michael Jackson, I can better reconcile my feelings for him if I can conclude that he in fact had a disorder that made him do the things he did. It doesn't however help me reconcile the fact that I strongly suspect that children were victimized as a result of his illness. CCoy (not verified) | 09/04/09 | 05:56 AM
Reply to This Link

The Private Home Movies are amazing. He was nice and happy at times, he seemed very funny and he liked laughter and games. He seemed to be really friendly and got many friends. He wasn't so lonely, after all. The best MJ looks are those in the Bad Tour but until Remember the Time. Afterwards it all seemed to plummet. And I have to wonder, Why did he had to keep on touching his face? At some point he was really beautiful, really attractive, he was even cute with the pointed nose. Why did noone stop him? Seems to me he had lots of issues going on inside of his head, he was a creative character, a restless brain. But still, I can't help feeling sad about him because he couldn't find the strength nor the power to feel good with himself and his appearance, which invariably led to addictions, voids, and unability to have a partner. And in the end, you can't go on blaming fathers, family, childhood or people, because at the end of the day, the management of the problems is each one's bussiness. Still, if only he had found one partner -man or woman-, one only person who could have advised him in a caring, loving way, someone he could trust, someone he could lean on, someone he actually was truly in love with, things would have changed for Michael Jackson. I am sorry for him and the way he died, I wish things would have been different for him. He knew lots of people liked him whilst others hated him, same way Madonna or Beckham are loved and hated. People's moods are unpredictable. The best thing that could have ever happen to Michael Jackson is to love and to be loved in return. Just to have one lover who could kiss him and tell to him 'honey, don't spoil your face anymore, you are okay the way you are.'
mf (not verified) | 09/07/09 | 23:34 PM
Reply to This Link

Michael was acting like a non threatening black male to have mass appeal. That's why he had that high pitched voice. He wanted longevity. What other artist do you know had mass appeal like Michael Jackson. Frankly I think he had plastic surgery to remove the image of his father off his face. Anonymous (not verified) | 09/26/09 | 07:59 AM
Reply to This Link

I very much doubt that he was intending to act like a "non threatening black male". He was probably just very religious. Cristina (not verified) | 09/26/09 | 14:20 PM
Reply to This Link

This article is beyond ludicrous and I cannot believe anyone is giving it any credence. You've based your theory on sensationalist media stories, which are mostly complete fiction. You have no idea about the man. You'd do better working for the National Enquirer, rather than trying to pass yourself off as a "professor" or scientist...what a joke! Anonymous (not verified) | 10/02/09 | 07:31 AM
Reply to This Link

What a big piece of shit. Some fool who never met MJ throwing big words around trying to pass off as some sort of expert. Hahahahahahaha, It made my day, I'm ROTFLMAO....Thanks for the joke! Anonymous (not verified) | 10/05/09 | 02:24 AM
Reply to This Link

Dr. Bailey, I love your article. I found it the most sensible read on MJ that I have read since his death. I do believe he molested Jordan Chandler, Jason Francia, and possibly Gavin Arivzo. However, they are some things I do not agree with 1. MJ liked how he looked. Wrong. On the Rabbi's tapes he said he hated how he looks that he looks like a lizard. 2. I do not believe he remade every facet of his face. I believe he had surguries on his nose and chin,but that's it. When I look at pictures from the 70's through to his death he always had the same cheeks, they
seem to get hollow as he aged or lost weight. 3. I do not believe his nose was detachable. if it was they would have said so in the real autopsy report, not the tabloid version. See Associated Press autopsy results Oct 1. 4. His children wearing mask I believe had to do with the fact that they could go out in public without him and no one knew who they were. Read the David Nordahl article. 5. One thing you did not address in your article was the 2 MJs. If he was a hepophile then how do you explain the verile man on stage. They are videos of MJ on stage performing having massive erections, and french kissing fans. Here is my take. MJ was on stage who he could not be off stage due to insecurities. I believe he was sexually attracted to women, why would he otherwise have stacks of heterosexually magazines. He often said he could sleep on stage and that is where he was most comfortable; therefore, his onstage persona is a crucial glimpse into who he really was. Offstage was the problem. I believe he was a virgin until he met Lisa Marie, due in part to his insecurities and religious beliefs (sex after marriage is a tenent of christianity). We also know he was most comfortable around children they fed something in his spirit. There is no hardcore CSI evidence to the best of my knowledge to link MJ to molesting a child, but where there is smoke there is fire, and I totally believe Jordan Chandler. I believe bacause he found it so hard to have a normal relationship with a woman, he turned sometimes to children to fulfill that closeness. Chinchilla (not verified) | 10/09/09 | 22:50 PM
Reply to This Link

Dr. Bailey, You said he would have had a great sense of shame due to hepophilia. But on his 1995 CD he wa seething at the media, DA, extortionist, etc.. Of course he could be pretending, but it is unlikely since he was an artist and always felt his music was written by a higher power and dropped in his lap. But I still think he molested children, all the major networks were of the same opinion, they all can't be lying. Also how do you explain this loneliness of his? What was he lonely for? I have a theory. I think it was love and need to be understood. But who could understand MJ he was so different! Chinchilla (not verified) | 10/09/09 | 23:04 PM
Reply to This Link

"All the major networks were of the same opinion, they all can't be lying"...are you serious with this comment Chinchilla? What a ridiculous thing to base your opinion on. Where there is smoke there is most certainly not always fire. When you're an extremely rich person, you are a target for extortionists. You seem to have a good grasp of MJ's history, so how can you not see that Evan Chandler was a piece of scum? Have you heard the phone calls he made saying he was out to ruin Michael's life, and that what his plan would do to his son was irrelevant to him? No parent I know would take money over seeing the person who molested their child rot in prison. Also, just because they settled does not mean they couldn't still go ahead with a criminal trial. But they took the money and disappeared. The Arvizo's were just as corrupt, and had a history of extortion. There is no evidence against MJ, other than these two questionable kids' accusations, out of the thousands
that spent time at Neverland. Michael Jackson was an innocent man accused of terrible things he simply did not do. Can you imagine for a second how that would feel, and how you would go about proving your innocence? It's pretty hard to prove a negative, ie something that did not happen. This article belongs in a trashy tabloid magazine with all the other made up garbage. Anonymous (not verified) | 10/10/09 | 00:57 AM
Reply to This Link

How about J. Michael Bailey: Bigoted Quack With Ties To Neo-Nazi "Race Scientists" Maybe someone can come up with a name for that disorder... Truth (not verified) | 10/17/09 | 14:40 PM
Reply to This Link

I think people are jumping to conclusions too quickly before all of the facts are in about Michael Jackson. 1. Tapes he made with Rabbi Shmuley, Michael is heard saying that he hates his appearance in 2001, he compares himself with a "lizard". 2. He talks on the tapes of being smitten with Brooke Shields, and her being the "love of his life". Was he too emotionally damaged to act upon his attraction to Brooke Shields? 3. His autopsy report by AP reported that he was producing sperm. So he was not a castrati as some on this blog have thought. I don't know if he was a pedophile but it's interesting to note that there are tapes of the first kid's father saying that he is going to destroy MJ and that he's going to "get everything he wants". The kid's father wanted money to write screenplays, he was a dentist that had a failed dental practice and needed the money. Did MJ fall in love with the first boy? I don't know the answer. Someday I'll read the full transcripts from the trial (which are very lengthy). Also the $20 million settlement was made by MJ's insurance company who insured his tour I believe. I have read MJ wanted a trial. I have read a lot of info at the "smoking gun" website, however there are books published which I haven't read that claim that MJ was framed by these people. The one by Aphrodite Jones comes to mind. I do not believe MJ ever touched the 2nd kid. The boy (Arvizo) was coached by his mother (his mother who sued JCPenney for money after being arrested for shoplifting by the store, she also said that the store security guard sexually molested her.) She also used the same lawyer as the first kid (Chandler) who got the $20million settlement used. Seems to me she looked up all this info online and then decided to extort MJ for money after the Bashir interview aired which showed MJ holding hands with the kid. Which may have meant nothing. Also, they alleged the abuse took place after the Martin Bashir documentary was aired. I mean how stupid is MJ waiting after that documentary aired to molest the kid.. He may have been really naive, but he's not a complete moron.
You people need to do a lot more research before jumping to the conclusions you come up with on this blog. Yes, MJ was very different than 99.99% of people. That does not make him guilty of pedophilia. I do think that he was a virgin till he got married to Lisa Marie Presley but she has said that they had sex during their marriage. I do not think his marriage to Debbie Rowe was consummated, she was nothing more than a surrogate for his children. I do think it's unfortunate that Michael had such trouble relating to adults in his life. He may have been unable to relate to the people around him because everyone, including his own family viewed him as an ATM machine or a way to make money. The most recent example was the rabbi who published the tapes and book that were made in 2001. You need to listen to these tapes. What the rabbi did was exploitative of MJ. These tapes seem to be therapy sessions. Also, what purpose did the rabbi have to publish MJ talking negatively of Madonna if the purpose of the tapes was to publish a book to instruct parents on how to be better parents to their kids as the rabbi claimed. Even the rabbi betrayed Michael Jackson. Debbie Rowe took money ($10million) to have his kids. Michael was a very troubled man but I do not think he was evil. I refuse to jump to conclusions until all of the facts are in. Anonymous 3 (not verified) | 10/20/09 | 07:15 AM
Reply to This Link

To the poster above (Chinchilla), I have seen many of MJ's concert performances, I have seen what looked like an erection after an overzealous girl who was slow dancing with him during "You are not alone" I think that was the song, put her cheek up against his crotch and wrapped her arms around him because she did not want to leave him (I really think that what happened was innocent, when she realized what was happening she backed off.) MJ had a normal male reaction to this by getting what looked to be an erection. I have not seen any footage of him french kissing fans onstage however. What tour did this occur on?, I'm going to have to look into this. Also, the people who think that he was a castrati, there is no way a man could dance the way that man danced if they didn't have hormones raging through their systems. He was obviously dancing with the intent of turning people on and he did a really good job doing so imo. Talk about getting a thrill watching someone dance. I never saw anything like this man dancing. What an entertainer. He also told the rabbi that he did concert tours because he wanted to be loved. Well, from what I've seen at his concerts from dvd footage is that people pretty much went nuts when he was on stage performing for them and hell, yeah they loved him. He seemed to have been born to be onstage performing, he loved getting all that adulation from his fans. He told his fans he loved them, he loved them more, he loved them most, etc., etc. It's pretty obvious that he wanted the love from his fans that his father never gave him imo. He took his fans really seriously, went out of his way to hug them when he was in public, seemed to get energized by them and needed them. Also, the incident back in 2002/2003 where he dangled his son "Blanket" in Berlin from a hotel balcony was a reaction to his fans below screaming for him. Mike seemed to get totally carried away, I don't believe he was trying to harm his child. He used very poor judgment in that case. He was overexcited by his fan's presence and he reacted to them like a teenage boy would and did something stupid which he later regretted. The media made it seem like he was trying to throw the kid off the balcony. I saw no such thing. Watching that footage I sometimes wonder if MJ had very high function asperger's syndrome or some other disorder along those lines, he did not seem to be able to form adult relationships, he was very impulsive. He also went on an impulse buying shopping spree in Vegas. I have also seen an unauthorized interview with him where he spontaneously breaks into song and sings, "I'm Peter
Pan, I can do anything" while standing on a fountain at his Encino home in 1984 or around that time. He seemed very immature for a 25 year old man. . During his trial, he always would turn to wave to his fans that were at his trial daily supporting him. (I have never seen such committed fans in my life.) These "true fans" were there for him every day, yelling encouraging things to him such as "fight Michael, fight" and "Michael's innocent". At the end of the trial when he was acquitted he looked totally destroyed. Which was much different than the way OJ looked after he was acquitted (OJ was all smiles, didn't lose any weight, didn't look overly stressed out). Poor Michael looked like he was a broken man at the end of his 2005 trial. Compare him to Scott Peterson (who murdered his wife and unborn baby, he looked like he could care less). Would a man who was guilty of these crimes look so totally destroyed even though he was acquitted? MJ was never the same after that trial. His name was tarnished forever. He probably died of a broken heart. I really have sympathy for this man since he died so tragically, I sincerely hope his kids are okay. I think about him and his kids everyday. His story has really touched my heart. I want to believe so much that he is totally innocent of all of the garbage that was thrown at him. His music is amazing, I discover new music (new to me anyway) posted in loving tributes to him on youtube. I never dreamed this man was so talented. I am amazed at his body of work. I'll never forget Michael Jackson. He has definitely left his mark on this world. Anonymous 3 (not verified) | 10/20/09 | 08:17 AM
Reply to This Link

To the poster above (Chinchilla), I have seen many of MJ's concert performances, I have seen what looked like an erection after an overzealous girl who was slow dancing with him during "You are not alone" I think that was the song, put her cheek up against his crotch and wrapped her arms around him because she did not want to leave him (I really think that what happened was innocent, when she realized what was happening she backed off.) MJ had a normal male reaction to this by getting what looked to be an erection. I have not seen any footage of him french kissing fans onstage however. What tour did this occur on?, I'm going to have to look into this. Also, the people who think that he was a castrati, there is no way a man could dance the way that man danced if they didn't have hormones raging through their systems. He was obviously dancing with the intent of turning people on and he did a really good job doing so imo. Talk about getting a thrill watching someone dance. I never saw anything like this man dancing. What an entertainer. He also told the rabbi that he did concert tours because he wanted to be loved. Well, from what I've seen at his concerts from dvd footage is that people pretty much went nuts when he was on stage performing for them and hell, yeah they loved him. He seemed to have been born to be onstage performing, he loved getting all that adulation from his fans. He told his fans he loved them, he loved them more, he loved them most, etc., etc. It's pretty obvious that he wanted the love from his fans that his father never gave him imo. He took his fans really seriously, went out of his way to hug them when he was in public, seemed to get energized by them and needed them. Also, the incident back in 2002/2003 where he dangled his son "Blanket" in Berlin from a hotel balcony was a reaction to his fans below screaming for him. Mike seemed to get totally carried away, I don't believe he was trying to harm his child. He used very poor judgment in that
case. He was overexcited by his fan's presence and he reacted to them like a teenage boy would and did something stupid which he later regretted. The media made it seem like he was trying to throw the kid off the balcony. I saw no such thing. Watching that footage I sometimes wonder if MJ had very high function asperger's syndrome or some other disorder along those lines, he did not seem to be able to form adult relationships, he was very impulsive. He also went on an impulse buying shopping spree in Vegas. I have also seen an unauthorized interview with him where he spontaneously breaks into song and sings, "I'm Peter Pan, I can do anything" while standing on a fountain at his Encino home in 1984 or around that time. He seemed very immature for a 25 year old man. . During his trial, he always would turn to wave to his fans that were at his trial daily supporting him. (I have never seen such committed fans in my life.) These "true fans" were there for him every day, yelling encouraging things to him such as "fight Michael, fight" and "Michael's innocent". At the end of the trial when he was acquitted he looked totally destroyed. Which was much different than the way OJ looked after he was acquitted (OJ was all smiles, didn't lose any weight, didn't look overly stressed out). Poor Michael looked like he was a broken man at the end of his 2005 trial. Compare him to Scott Peterson (who murdered his wife and unborn baby, he looked like he could care less). Would a man who was guilty of these crimes look so totally destroyed even though he was acquitted? MJ was never the same after that trial. His name was tarnished forever. He probably died of a broken heart. I really have sympathy for this man since he died so tragically, I sincerely hope his kids are okay. I think about him and his kids everyday. His story has really touched my heart. I want to believe so much that he is totally innocent of all of the garbage that was thrown at him. His music is amazing, I discover new music (new to me anyway) posted in loving tributes to him on youtube. I never dreamed this man was so talented. I am amazed at his body of work. I'll never forget Michael Jackson. He has definitely left his mark on this world. Anonymous 3 (not verified) | 10/20/09 | 08:17 AM
Reply to This Link

@Anonymous 3 (not verified) | 10/20/09 | 08:17 AM You asked for the footage of MJ french kissing a fan- so here it is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZd3Nq_fh0A&feature=related MJ also had plenty of erections while on the History tour- here's that too! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCfm9RCM09A However; I have a suspicious feeling that something untoward took place with Jordan Chandler and Jason Francia. Of course I cannot definitively confirm this, but it makes sense. I don't know if it was sexual, but it was weird enough. I am a realise: I do not buy into tabloids about him being chemically castrated, but MJJ had a fixation on little kids particularly boys. Now, maybe he only "slept" with boys because he thought it might look inappropiate for a grown man to be "sleeping" with a little girl. Now there's food for thought.
Chinchilla (not verified) | 10/25/09 | 19:31 PM
Reply to This Link

@Anonymous 3 (not verified) | 10/20/09 | 07:15 AM I do not think he was evil either, but maybe society needs to rethink how we profile pedophiles. Not all of them look like monsters and hide in shadows waiting to pounce on a stray kid, maybe some are outwardly normal, but just wired wrong. Also this idea of profiling a pedophile I am very wary of. Honestly a pedophile, or a serial killer could be sitting next to you in a cubicle, and you will never know until you see their face on the 7:00 news. Although deep down inside I believe Michael Jackson was a pedophile I will admit his strangeness does create some doubt (only 1%). All of his unusualness can be traced back to some logical reason. But I have to say I feel sorry for his victims they must feel really hurt with all the love the fans are lavishing on him. Also MJ led a tortured life for a long time hopefully in the life after he will have some comfort. Chinchilla (not verified) | 10/25/09 | 19:49 PM
Reply to This Link

To Chinchilla: - what are you getting at by saying the 'erections in concert' stuff? I mean, what's the point? How can you be sure that this bundles are erections and not 'normal position'? And even if you are right, the golden trousers he is wearing are smooth and soft and tight and he is dancing, god' sake, he is working. Just the fact that someone is noticing this and searching for erections, it's insane. - EVEN IF MJ had slept and made love with those boys, which I don't know -and neither do you-, have you ever stopped to think that maybe the boys agreed with it? what if they were in an agreed real relationship and they both loved each other? I'm sure there was no harm intended. How can you compare that to some pedophile who walks down the street looking for victims to rape them? How is it the same? And for the record, I'm not supporting the case, I'm just trying to understand. I don't think MJ was a bad person at all. He was very weird but not eviled. Anonymous (not verified) | 10/26/09 | 09:04 AM
Reply to This Link

@Anonymous (not verified) | 10/26/09 | 09:04 AM That is just my point, I do not think he is a bad person either, in fact I like MJ. I think he had a great
compassion for the human condition more so than any other celebrity alive, or dead. I do not think he was pretending to be nice, or caring, I think that is who he was. I cannot bring myself to hate MJ even though I think something untowards took place with those kids. Even if the kids agreed to a romantic relationship with MJ, it could never be consensual. Minors can never be consensual to anything romantic with an adult, one has power over the other. I want to be clear. I do not believe any penetration occurred, only fondling, or something else. Lets open up the discussion. Journalist like Diane Dimond and Maureen Orth would have you believe that Michael Jackson was the vilest person on the planet, and the reason why they could never convince a die hard MJ fan is- it simply wasn't true. It is a bit jagged to swallow when you seen the man genuinely caring about the condition of ophanages, and even leaving 20% of his estate to charity. However, that does not mean he wasn't a pedophile. I am just saying he could have been both. It is possible. As for the erection video, I didn't go looking for it, it found me, and I was happy it did. I found it very entertaining, and it only further proved my point that Michael was onstage who he could not be off stage. When he was onstage he was a lion, and king of his domain. Off stage he was lamb around women. Now I do not believe for one second any ridiculous theories that he was gay. He was very much heterosexual, they are just too many examples to pull from. Ian Halperin's book is trash. I am researching everything Michael Jackson. I find him fascinating. In life I was not that interested, but in death I realized a whole different side. I must say if I had to choose 5 dinner guest alive, or dead he would be my second pick after Jesus. Chinchilla (not verified) | 10/26/09 | 17:54 PM
Reply to This Link

"However, that does not mean he wasn't a pedophile. I am just saying he could have been both. It is possible". You're saying that someone can be a really good and compassionate person and at the same time be a child abuser (and not be crazy...). IF that isn't completely impossible, it's at the very least extremely improbable. Cristina (not verified) | 10/28/09 | 12:51 PM
Reply to This Link
It is hard to believe that someone that loved children that much could purposely hurt them. Experts say that pedophiles do not believe they are hurting children, instead loving them. Still, if Michael Jackson was a pedophile he would have had to know that he was hurting a child. he was too intelligent and well read, also his children were so well brought up. Who knows the truth. I am still to be 100% convinced.
Reply to This Link

To Chinchilla again, thanks for your answer. Well, how do you know MJ was heterosexual? I don't think so. Something in his looks and manners told that he wasn't. I think he felt attraction for boys but I don't know what kind of attraction, maybe it wasn't something sexual at all, as he claimed. If he had done something wrong to the boys, he wouldn't have stood in a trial. He would have just paid for silence, and he didn't do such a thing. And he was acquited and found innocent. As for 'where there's smoke there's fire', sometimes you can say that, while others you can't. The thing is we can keep on guessing and guessing but we'll never know the man, or the truth. Maybe one day the kids themselves will tell in some book what really happened, but even then, we'll never know if they'll be lying, so.... What's the point?? The point is, and I'm telling you now, the important thing about MJ is his voice and the musical legacy he left us, brilliant songs and brilliant concerts where we can see the real man, from his very early years thru his latest times. And I see a gifted dancer, and a real ententainer. That's what really matters, isn't it? People is not always caring and loving and they try to hurt other people, sometimes for sport and sometimes for money; you can take a test yourself: go anywhere, there will always be someone who will try to be unpolite with you. So imagine, if they also are envious and greedy, they can say terrible things just to see you fall from your status. Think it over. Anonymous (not verified) | 10/27/09 | 14:18 PM
Reply to This Link

Michael Jackson was not gay. Where to start? How about 1977-78 when the rumors started flying about his probability. In an interview J Randy Taraborelli asked him just that, and he said he was not, and he hoped that in the future people would stop making up things about him. Or 1979 http://www.saswat.com/michaeljackson/interviews/blacks_most_talented.html. Where he talks about not being a girl. Or, the Martin Bashir outtakes when he tells BM to turn off the cameras and he will tell him his answer. There is says he is not gay but he has many gay fans, and if they want to think he is gay then they can go ahead he does want to offend anyone. Or, the over 70 heterosexually porn magazines they found in his room at Neverland. Not gay porn, but
naked female mags. Or the Rabbi Shmuley tapes. Or, the simple fact that Michael Jackson lived under a microscope if he had a gay lover, really there would be irrefutable proof. There is no way he would have been able to hide it . As for the way he looked. What do you say about Prince? Nothing about Michael Jackson was ordinary. The long hair was a wig because he was balding. As for his attraction to little boys I cannot definitively say what that was about. Hundreds of little boys passed his way, but only had 3 accusers. 3 is enough for me. Zero is a better number. I have an unsubstatiated theory about Michael Jackson and little boys. I said it before and I backed it up with evidence: Who Michael Jackson was onstage was would he could not be off stage. The onstage persona was his altered ego. Just like Superman and Clark Kent. Chinchilla (not verified) | 10/27/09 | 21:11 PM
Reply to This Link
"The thing is we can keep on guessing and guessing but we'll never know the man, or the truth." Of course we will know the truth the truth always comes out. A key to understanding Michael Jackson is reading the lyrics of his music, keeping in mind when they were written. I think the truth is already out there, it is just up to a clever, dilegent person to put all the pieces together. Chinchilla (not verified) | 10/27/09 | 21:31 PM
Reply to This Link

Where is this so-called "erection video".................on YouTube? Could someone post this link? Anonymous (not verified) | 10/28/09 | 00:40 AM
Reply to This Link

Michael Jackson was NOT gay, not even close. Here's one of the videos that makes it difficult to dispute...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOUGpKjEcgo He was also NOT a pedophile. You cannot judge this man by any normal societal standards...he had a life like no one else on this earth from the age of 5 to 50. He was uniquely sensitive to sick and deprived children's pain and suffering because he wasn't given the chance to enjoy a childhood. He loved their innocence and non-judging nature. Two children accused him, out of the hundreds that spent time at Neverland. Sneddon tried everything in his power to get just one child to corroborate the accuser's stories, and he couldn't find any out of all the kids he flew around the world to find and interview, using bully and scare tactics I might add. The families of both accusers were greedy extortionists, plain and simple...it isn't hard to see that if you actually take the time to look. I can't even imagine being accused of a crime that horrible and not being able to prove your innocence. How do you
prove nothing happened? There was no evidence of anything untoward but the media crucified him anyway. It haunted him until the day he died. What a terribly sad ending to a pure hearted soul that wanted nothing more than to please people and make the world a better place. If you want to hear the other side of the story, which the biased media never reported, read Aphrodite Jones book, "Conspiracy", or the GQ article "Framed" for the truth... http://floacist.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/gqarticle-was-michael-jackson-... Anonymous (not verified) | 10/28/09 | 02:52 AM
Reply to This Link

-First of all, if Michael Jackson liked prepubescent boys, that's proof enough, he was homosexual. -Any statement appeared in the press is likely untrue. -I read something about Prince being heterosexual, for the record, Prince is - has always been- gay. -Michael Jackson wasn't heterosexual; maybe he was bisexual, or maybe asexual at all, but I don't think he felt attracted to women. -Of course, interviews can tell whatever they want, it doesn't prove anything to me so stop saying this interview this or that interview that. I'm not a fool. I trust my eyes best. -Make up, long hair, feminine poses and looks, red lips, no girlfriends known, two fake marriages, now come on, it's obvious. Gay or not gay, Michael wasn't straight. Anonymous (not verified) | 10/28/09 | 14:53 PM
Reply to This Link

Michael Jackson was many things I am not sure of, but gay wasn't one. Apart from interviews, which I don't dismiss, he couldn't possibly fooled all his family, friends and associates. Not one ever said anything about him being gay, after his death they have said many unflattering things, but nothing about being gay. If someone close to him had evidence credible or not they would be all over the media talking about his rendevous. It would be impossible for Michael Jackson to be on the down low for so long. Don't you think they would have been some man/men all over the news with CSI evidence that he sex with Michael Jackson and turning it over to the tabloids. Me thinking that is not a stretch of the imagination. Believe your eyes Anonymous, but I will believe the stacks of porn found in his bedroom. If Diane Dimond, or Maureen Orth could turn up evidence that Michael Jackson was gay don't you think they would have. My *** they interviewed every Neverland and Never Neverland employee about his proclivities. If they had the slightest thread of evidence it would be in print. I don't know what the hell he was, but he wasn't gay.
Reply to This Link

No one should look to his family, or Michael himself, and base your assumption on whatever they said. As has been discussed here before, for Michael or his family to admit that he was gay or bisexual would have been tantamount to caeer suicide. Michael was not always truthful in interviews........... he claimed that his children were from his "own sperm cells", which is hardly likely, as not one of them has even the slightest African-American features. Michael also claimed in more than one interview that he had never done more than "two plastic surgeries", on his nose only. Does anyone REALLY believe that? Michael had his own reasons for lying--- perhaps he felt it was really no one's business what he did to his face. So I am suspicious of his protestations, on a few occasiona, that "I am not gay". Why would he dignify questions about his sexuality with any response at all? It seems if a man is heterosexual he would slough off the gay accusations and let his behavior with women tell the truth. I am also perplexed as to why Michael never had sexual relations in order to have children, if he wanted them so badly? Most of our celebrity culture is mired in high drama, tumultous relationships where couples get together and break up in the bat of an eye. No one is shocked by this, so why didn't Michael at least take a chance with one woman ---- any woman ---- and have kids WITH her, if he was really straight? If the relationship didn't work out, he was rich enough to divorce and still be ridiculously wealthy. Have a hard time buying his heterosexuality based on that point alone. Maybe MJ was attracted to women in a very 12 year old boy way, even romantic about it in his head, but clearly he was unable to act on that. There has not been ONE story from a reputable "ex girlfriend" of Michael Jackson who would substantiate they had an adult love relationship. Kinda strange, since everyone now is coming out of the woodwork, for $$ or their 5 minutes of fame. Anonymous (not verified) | 10/28/09 | 17:47 PM
Reply to This Link

"I am also perplexed as to why Michael never had sexual relations in order to have children, if he wanted them so badly? " I couldn't agree more. Anonymous (not verified) | 10/28/09 | 18:06 PM
Reply to This Link
Correct me if I am wrong here.............the music star Prince is not gay. Had a long relationship with a woman named Appolonia and has been living with (or married to) a long-term girlfriend/wife for some time; he also has children, presumably HIS own sperm cells.
Reply to This Link

Correct me if I am wrong here.............the music star Prince is not gay. Had a long relationship with a woman named Appolonia and has been living with (or married to) a long-term girlfriend/wife for some time; he also has children, presumably HIS own sperm cells. Anonymous (not verified) | 10/29/09 | 00:22 AM
Reply to This Link
There are millions of explanations for the porn stuff found in the house, like for example the alibi to support a straight behaviour. Maybe he wasn't gay nor straight. Maybe he just didn't like sex and that's it. Maybe he hadn't reached maturity in that aspect either. Anonymous (not verified) | 10/28/09 | 18:11 PM
Reply to This Link

Lisa Marie Presley has said many times that she and MJ had a normal sexual relationship. She's not the type to mince words or lie. Their marriage wasn't a sham...they actually loved each other. But because of his upbringing I do think he had a different idea of sex than most men. I also think that's what makes his fans love him so much. He was a different cat, that's for sure. Not a bad thing though...far from it. Anonymous (not verified) | 10/28/09 | 19:41 PM
Reply to This Link

Got to respond on this one. If you look at all the MJ & Lisa interviews, as well as the LMP interview with Diane Sawyer (after the divorce), it seems like when Lisa Marie says "Yes, yes, yes, we have sex", she is saying it without ardour, like this is her script and she is annoyed to have to answer this question. Go on Youtube and watch LaToya's interview about LMP... LaToya is wearing a goofy blonde wig and orange outfit. But when asked about Michael's relationship with Lisa Marie, she says it was "a business relationship" and that Lisa Marie "had a role to play". The divorce was "part of the arrangement", but Lisa Marie actually divorced months earlier because she obviously couldn't take "it" (Michael?) anymore. When asked whether Michael and Lisa had had sex, LaToya responds (and watch Toy's facial language here) "Oh no, Michael wouldn't do that." (Why NOT... geez, they were married!!!) The way in which she responds is immediate and matter of fact.....as if the response is honest, not calculated.......and as if the idea that Michael would have sex with a woman was ridiculous. Watch the clip and tell me if you don't think this was her way of saying that Michael was, if not gay, just not sexual with women.
While yes, Lisa Marie Presley seems to be a straight shooter, we can't be sure of this. She married Michael, perhaps for love but she admitted that he manipulated her. She may have entered into an arranged marriage to help him during the child molestation lawsuit --- and fell in love because he "snowed her" (her quote). Maybe she doesn't want to divulge his real proclivities (men, boys?) because she then would have looked the fool. Note that on Larry King, during the 2005 molestation trial, she was not outwardly supportive of Michael and dodged alot of Larry King's questions to her. Maybe Lisa Marie Presley knew more than we do, and not about having sex with Michael. Anonymous (not verified) | 10/29/09 | 00:15 AM
Reply to This Link

Wouldn't you be annoyed if you were constantly asked if you had sex with your husband? It's a ridiculous question. And I'd believe the tabloids before I'd believe anything that comes out of Latoya's mouth. She also claims to talk to Michael through his parrot since he died. She has zero credibility. In the Rabbi Shmuley tapes, Michael talks about being devastated because Lisa Marie originally promised him children and then wouldn't give them to him. Apparently, she decided against it because she didn't think the marriage would last, and it's been speculated that was because she couldn't convert him to Scientology. That's when Debbie Rowe offered to bear his children. In MJ's own words (recorded in private by the rabbi) he said after he and LMP divorced, she regretted it and said she'd give him nine children if he would take her back.http://www.etonline.com/news/2009/09/79246/index.html Listen to the Glenda phonecalls on youtube. MJ was tape recorded without his knowledge, and talks all about his relationships with girls and the crushes he had. http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=cSv0t_52qPg (there are 4 parts) It's obvious he wasn't gay. Anonymous (not verified) | 10/29/09 | 02:20 AM
Reply to This Link

I'm one of the many anonymous who posted before. Very interesting the phone calls on youtube. As he says himself, I hope too he didn't die without knowing what's like to be involved in a relationship. I just saw today 'This is it' and I enjoyed it very much. I strongly reccomend this movie. I came home all sad and touched by the movie. Made me think of this unborn concert, which was the reason for his anxiety. It was so high the anxiety that the poor man couldn't sleep, took too many meds and died. We'll never know how much MJ suffered, quietly. Rest in peace, MJ, you were a good person and a good friend. For those people who met you in
life, they'll never realize how lucky they were. Wherever you are Michael, I hope you can enjoy the happiness you couldn't have in life. Anonymous (not verified) | 10/29/09 | 20:55 PM
Reply to This Link
Michael's marrige to LMP was a "business arrangement"? Are you seriously buying that? LMP did not need that kind of "business arrangement", she did not need the money, she had PLENTY of her own. More to the point if he wanted a business arrangement, and a make-believe wife he could have married Debbie Rowe in 1994, and inseminated her back then. "Why not sexual with women?" I've covered that ground already. Chinchilla (not verified) | 10/29/09 | 22:17 PM
Reply to This Link

There seems to be a lot missing from this discussion. Michael was a savant with respect to dancing. He was able to view a long and complex dance only once and then repeat it perfectly, while other dancers required extensive training and repetition. He experienced frequent flashes of genius, but otherwise his behavior was almost retarded. He said he rode the rides at Neverland every day, climbed a tree every day, threw water balloons and shot supersoakers constantly. When he spoke to adults in interviews, he had a childlike aspect. There is one short film on youtube where he is with Martin Bashir, and climbs with great agility into his favorite tree, while Bashir stays below. Michael sits contentedly up high and freezes up there, with a totally blank expression on his face. I wouldn't have been at all surprised to see him start rocking. He was unaware of why others regarded him as strange or funny-looking, so he kept doing plastic surgery on his nose -- apparently totally unable to see how his mannerisms, carriage, prosody, way of dressing, makeup, and hair made him seem strange. It is rare, and generally only after he was considerably older, to find an interview where he seems even halfway normal. The "This is It" movie shows him in candid conversation with co-workers. He is clearly a genius with respect to music and dance but his prosody and body language are totally off. He sounds very strange when he speaks -- not gay, not femaie, but weird -- very weird. He clicks. He moves jerkily. His clothing, even for casual rehearsals, is extreme. When we see his face, it is mostly devoid of expression -- blank, or smiling vacantly. Also, he was mostly a solo dancer, with other dancers mimicking or emphasizing what he did. When he danced with women, usually he danced around them, with little eye contact and little co-regulation. Even in "Blood on the Dance Floor," which has quite a bit of partner dancing, he was typically staring away from his
partner, and frequently broke away to dance by himself. He freely admitted that he had had his nose and chin done, but emphatically denied doing his eyes or his jaw. The strange, angel look that he had was natural, but abnormal. It might have been hormonal in nature, but might also have been another symptom of some savant or autistic spectrum like disorder. In his autobiography, he mentioned that he thought he was abused more often than his brothers because he fought back with his father. A child fighting back against a much larger, very enraged parent is typically a child with serious social reasoning issues, e.g. with autistic features. Neurotypical children will typically try to placate an angry parent. In the early part of his career, after he left Motown, where questions and answers were rehearsed -- he would not answer reporters questions directly. Janet, his younger sister, was to be heard repeating questions for him. A reporter was warned that Michael would be de-focused and behave strangely, when he was a teen. Janet was obviously very experienced at covering for him from an early age. Michael was a great genius. The amount and quality of his compositions was extraordinary. But there are only so many neurons in the brain. If some abilities are extraordinary, they are going to be accompanied by deficits. I don't think gay explains all this at all, or pedophile either, or auto-hebo whatever it was. People with these issues can pull themselves together for an interview and look normal for the camera. Michael usually could not. He was simply unable even to recognize what would look normal -- just as Einstein always had that bizarre hair do. I say some kind of developmental delay. I believe this delay could have been caused by a childhood genital injury -- but likely also it stemmed from neurological issues. I say he played with children, because his deficits made it impossible for him to interact properly with adults. I say he squandered his money, because his deficits made him unable to keep track of anything other than his art. Anonymous (not verified) | 11/09/09 | 01:18 AM
Reply to This Link

I appreciate your comment because you have obviously researched his life before jumping to any conclusions. But to think he is autistic or developmentally delayed is quite ridiculous. He was extremely well spoken in most interviews I've seen of him. Considering how shy and private he was, and the way his father speaks, I am always amazed at how intelligent and insightful he comes across. He was most definitely a genius in many ways, which tends to make a person eccentric as it is. But he also had an unbelievably unconventional upbringing that none of us could possibly comprehend, so you cannot hold him to any standard of normalcy in the way we understand it. I've posted an older video below that demonstrates he was perfectly capable of handling an interview.
There are 2 parts... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRY8HAhodXg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kgp9EFBE8MQ&NR=1 From everything I've researched over the years, I only see an exceptional, sensitive, and gifted man that was sadly and grievously misunderstood. It's a shame some people, like these pseudo-scientists, are still writing tabloid-like articles to try and tear him down, even after death. Anonymous (not verified) | 11/09/09 | 06:57 AM
Reply to This Link

Hi again, I'm just reading the Randy Taraborrelli book,' magic & madness' and it certainly doesn't applaud openly the genius, but it's a quite good reading, in the way it doesn't pay much tribute to MJ nor praises him - nor the opposite-, it's just a statement of every fact of his career, and it gives an esplendid outlook of all his environment. All I can say is, THERE WAS SO MUCH MORE TO MICHAEL JACKSON THAN MEETS THE EYE. This man suffered a lot during his life, he also was a great bussinessman, and a genius. But there are things I cannot understand about him, as for his insistent friendships with young boys during the second half of his career, which HE SURE KNEW could represent trouble. For example, after the 1st suing, he kept on being seen with young boys, even though people from his environment advised him not to do it, considering the prior trouble. Why he kept insisting with the child routine, even if it was naive and innocent stuff, if he knew people could hurt him, as he was in the public eye due to the first suing. I can't work it out. Why he never showed -or felt- romantic love to no women nor man - apart from LMPresley. And why he couldn't find happiness, when he had it all in life, are my questions. For sure there was more than one person willing to love him and not betraying him. With all I have read to the moment about him, and summing up all I know now, he seemed to be a lonely soul, miles away from us everyday people. He was very obssesive. Why all the manikins at home, dolls, childish stuff, family tragedy routine, messianic routine, strange outfits, tons of make-up, why , why, what was wrong with this man, who couldn't be a normal one. This man was for sure interesting and weird, worrisome and nice, ugly yet attractive -he had a really nice dancer body, and when at the beginnings he was good-looking - silly yet smart.... I came for the music, but stayed longer for the man. Anonymous (not verified) | 11/10/09 | 23:30 PM
Reply to This Link

I'm the poster anonymous above. I got one question. I read the Randy Taraborrelli book. It says that many families with children spent time in Neverland with him, and lots of children sleptover with him. Only 2 of these kids sued him, apparently as an extorsion. But none of the other kids who were friends with Michael have come out publicly to say nothing bad about him.
If MJ had abused of children, lots of them would have come out saying so. Don't you agree? M. (not verified) | 11/13/09 | 22:26 PM
Reply to This Link

Other children may have been abused by Michael........ he just paid hush money to make it go away. Jimmy Safechuck was one child who Michael made payments to (and gifted his family), and apparently there were others, if you read Maureen Orth's (Vanity Fair) articles about Michael's history. I am not blindsided just because Michael was a great singer, dancer, entertainer and humanitarian. His accomplishments were amazing. But his diehard fans often represent a scary bunch of people who seriously believe Mike was "an angel" (sent to Earth), he could do no wrong, he was, in fact, almost Christ-like in his suffering. These people worry me with this sort of devotion. Are we all sheep?!!! Michael had too much money, too many handlers and lawyers and security and influence, and power of intimidation, as well. This is dangerous when you are isolated, out of touch with normal life. It gives one the sense of untouchability. You can make unpleasant problems "just go away". People are multi-faceted. Some can compartmentalize aspects of their lives brilliantly. I believe Michael was very kind & generous on one level, but he also had the ability to behave badly in business, in some relationships, and he was also paranoid (firing people, rehiring them, firing them; not paying people around him; having an "enemies list"; taking the Paul Anka song "This Is It" recording mixes away and not giving Paul credit; underhandedly buying the Beatles catalogue away from Paul McCartney, etc.). In a nutshell, there are certainly darker sides of Michael that existed. If anyone wants to see some very bizarre, agitated and semi-aggressive behavior from Michael, just watch a YouTube clip of Martin Bashir's interview with Michael while he is feeding baby Blanket. When Bashir asks Jackson about having dangled his child over a Berlin hotel balcony, Michael responds hostilely that he showed the baby to please the fans, and "What did they think I was going to do, throw him over the balcony?" I look at Michael in "Thriller," "Beat It" and his early Jackson Five days and think, what a talented child/turned young man. It all went so wrong for him, beginning with a very dysfunctional family but aided and abetted by early fame, fortune and a developing meglomania that Hollywood fueled. Keep reading here and there that Michael had, in addition to lupus and vitiligo, mental health problems, like possibly schizophrenia, borderline personality disorder or bi-polar disorder. Mental health problems, including psychosis are a known, if rarer, symptom of lupus. Michael's family upbringing was also fraught with trauma. Perhaps one day mental health experts will weigh in on why Michael Jackson was the way he was. Anonymous (not verified) | 11/14/09 | 01:14 AM
Reply to This Link

I agree but only to a point. -Sorry, english is not my first language but I try my bestMichael was used to give presents to people, and it wasn't a bribery for noone. He simply was
generous. Also, if I were a mother and seriously considered that I was being victim of a bribery just in order to let my son 'be' with Michael Jackson, I would run away from him and his world, no matter what, of course without taking no gift. So if you take his presents as a bribery, they speak badly about the receiving part, too. I don't think Michael was the angel his diehard fans think, yet he was an unusual generous artist. His attitude was different -and bizarre, and worrisome. I agree the Martin Bashir stuff was a sad giveaway for Michael. Those who knew him, tell that bizarre things were normal nature in him. I like Michael Jackson a lot and since he died I'm interesting in getting to understand him, but try as I might, I can't. The baby episode you refer to, was really weird and everybody thought so -even the fans. Anyway, while Michael in her early career surrounded himself by John Branca and Frank Dileo, he achieved success as these men were intelligent and knew how to do bussiness - if you read the Taraborrelli book, it's amazing how Branca coped with Michael, and convinced him to always make the best decision, as for example in the Jehova's rejection of the videoclip Thriller . But the minute he dismissed these men, the minute he fell down. To myself, yes he maybe had some mental issues, which were agravated in his 40s-50s. But it doesn't mean he was a child molester or a bad person. I've read he was obssessed with the image he gave in the public eye. The only think I can't work out, is why he spoke about his innocent sleepovers with kids, if this is by far what ruined his image the most. Clearly he lost touch with reality. What did he wanted the kids to sleepover? Still, I think if some kid would have anything to say, he would come out saying it, specially now that he's passed away. In the Randy T. book, it tells that Michael, as a capricious person, 'changed the kid' when he got 'tired', and the mothers were like competitors between them, each one wanted his kid to be the favourite, and everytime there was a 'change of kid', the mothers would try to get next pole position. I mean, as in a 'contest'.- It's crazy, isn't it. Another point is that I don't think he slept with no woman or man or had any affair. I think so because again, if any woman or man would have had sex with him, now that he's dead, someone would come out and say it. As for the Rabbi tapes, well these tapes doesn't surprise me, Michael keeps talking all the time about the lost childhood, the love for children. If the rabbi wanted to give a bad impression of MJ by writing the book, he doesn't, on the contrary. It isn't however hard to imagine how was like to be Michael and why did he lost his plot. He was the number one in his field. His ego was miles away from us. The most balanced mind can lose stability when you are the best at what you do. M. (not verified) | 11/14/09 | 13:08 PM
Reply to This
Link
The entire theory is based on the writers belief that Michael Jackson wanted to look like Peter Pan. (and a little reference to the ever reliable tabloid magazines) Should they be wrong about that assumption, the theory is left with nothingsibbo (not verified) | 12/01/09 | 18:46 PM
Reply to This Link

I liked what this article tried to say but I think it simply forgot and ignored some aspects of Micheal's life, mainly the stress induced by fame. I think this and his insecurities might have played a large role in the way he made himself look. Interestingly, if Micheal Jackson had a condition I think he had the same condition I have. Many people think I act and portray myself exactly like Michael Jackson and for years I have been doing some of the same things and enjoying the same things as Michael, I also share his sense of beauty and kinda look like him. I have also changed my appearance drastically over the course of my life albeit without the use of surgery. My skin color is different I am unsure how I managed this. I can't comport myself accurately in public, I have a lot of people who know me and I try to avoid them. I at one point believe my appearance was of high importance and to this day I fight to make myself and keep myself looking a certain way. I don't have a girlfriend though I wanted one and this is where I think this may be where I might be similar to Michael Jackson. For a period of years I really wanted a girlfriend, but do to my shyness and insecurities and my life style at the time I could not. This led me to a complete state of isolation. While completely isolated from the world I grew stranger, this was the time when my appearance changed the most. I also attempted to maintain a certain lifestyle and I tried hard to attract people. I received an immense level of attention in the following years, everything from compliments and adoration, and I am convinced it has a lot to do with my appearance. Which I ended up adoring. I am or was in love with myself, but completely isolated from the world and reality even though the outside world knows me and attempts to tease me with acts of kindness. I have attempted to reach out to everyone who knows me but I have failed, I cannot cope in a conversation with people very well nor can I seem to make friends. I have been this way, socially inept, my whole life. When I was young people simply assumed I was retarded but I wasn't. To this day I have difficulty communicating with people unless I am either drugged out with painkillers or with alcohol however, I still believe it is in an abnormal way. Strangely due to my weirdness I am able to draw crowds of people towards me, and acquire admiration something I am kinda addicted and satisfied in doing. I will continue to draw people to me even though now I am growing older and am thinking it is pointless. By the way, I have a huge problem with aging it has a lot to do with the fact that I believe that I managed to achieve an optimal body appearance and health (usually I feel better like a warm sensation running through my body that wasn't their prior to my appearance change which incurred a lot of work) to lose this would be devastating. I feel almost godly when I am in this state. If I affect this like I did last year I feel lost and in pain
my body slows down and I hate the feeling. Worst of all I do not feel like I can cope with the world around me like everyone else does, I simply can't hold a conversation with people. In part I believe this has to do with social anxiety but I don't know. Sometimes I click and I can talk for hours but I will return to my shyness eventually where I am the most comfortable. I am myself at home, but I cannot help changing my appearance (I do not Identify with the person I see in the mirror since it has changed so much in the last couple of years), I want to look different from everyone else, most importantly I think I am running away from who I was since I hated the feeling I had of myself growing up. I am a tad narcissistic and I know this but the cause of it is my appearance and the fact that I was able to do all this things which I assumed had to do with some great achievement on my part. If I am like Michael Jackson which I am assuming I can probably be the closest thing living today aside from some of his other fans I will say that what is of interest and what may seem important to the author of this article is my sexuality. I am not gay nor bi nor even asexual and maybe not even straight. Let me explain, when I was younger I used to be attracted to all the girls and I had a very strong sexual appetite. But I was ugly, I was ridiculed and I became extremely shy and due to certain situation could was isolated. I never got a girlfriend. Which led me to find other ways of handling my sexuality myself. At one point in my life I simply kept doing what anyone else would and kept watching porn and other things until eventually at one point I got bored with everything sexual. I lost my sexdrive at around the age of 18, it has never returned I've had spurts but no actual desire for sex. I thought at one point I might be gay but this proved to not be true. Later on I actually had sex at the age of 23, I got lucky, however, having already lost most of my sexdrive to probably some mental state or lack of being around people, I actually figured that sex was work, it was not pleasurable at all. Also interesting to note, I think a lot about my body, how I move it, what I feel, and what I am doing with it, when I have sex I thinking of all the feeling I have raging through me, it is not some mindless mechanism or act that I do like it might have been when I was a teenager it has turned into some calculated act of motion when I manipulate through my mind. Sadly this has led me not to enjoy sex, and I cannot simply shut my mind off of my body so every single one of my motions is a tad calculated. Something I think Michael Jackson might have experienced. Also hormonally I think I might have something wrong with me but I am not sure. I am almost entirely not physically attracted to anyone. No one meets my ideal of beauty except for this almost childlike girl that was fully mature but her body seemed not to be she was 19 when I met her and I was 21, Now before I am judged a pedophile or hepaphile or whatever, I was attracted to her appearance and not sexually towards her, I attempted to make moves on her but could not and would not have sex with her, and because of that she left me. I am devoid of sexual desire but can hold an erection and ejaculate all almost at will. I seem to be normal sexually except I don't tend to have any sensations of sexual pleasure before or after orgasm. It is my belief that Michael Jackson was the same as me. I however, do not like the company of children, though I can get along with them better than with adult, I believe Michael sought out children mainly due to his desire for human contact rather than for sexual indiscretions. Over the course of my time spent in isolation I will state that I have seemingly gone kinda frustrated and sought out attention and I created this almost fictional world around me.
However, sadly the events of the last couple of years have shattered the world around me and I am now at a loss and I have come to realize that my world existed in my head only. By the way in order to describe me, I am a quiet person almost all my life, I tend to try to make myself look like a girl yet remain a bit masculine. I have a voice that is high which in part I created because I didn't want to offend anyone or speak over them, partly cause I was shy and used to talk in whispers, so I spoke softly, I now speak in this tone exclusively and cannot lower my voice naturally but at times it sounds lower. I am skinny and wish to stay like that because I feel like I can move better and my body hurts less if that makes sense. I have sorta bleached my skin over the years do to insecurites, I was born really tan a hispanic male who was always around white people and grew insecure. But in addition, now a days I just like my skin tone to stay bright and shiny because I stand out and my face looks different when I look paler albeit I cannot keep my skin entirely white but only on some occasions, now that I am older I no longer care about whether or not I have tan skin because of racial issues but because I like the look. By the way, it was never my intention to bleach my skin, just keep it washed so that it glowed and I had a glow, surprisingly this led me to loose some pigmentation overtime, which I have attempted to keep that way, I believe this is why Michael Jackson looked a shade lighter during his bad era as opposed to his thriller era. I do not know whether or not Michael bleached his skin thereafter during his dangerous era. I am unsure if that was his intention. If given the opportunity to bleach my skin I would have considered it do to the fact that it might remove the stigma around looking a certain way. I have long hair and I used to adore it more than I once did because it has the ability to alter the way my face looks and the way that I move. In the end, I simply believe Michael Jackson was like me sexually. After having spent so many years obsessing over sex I simply lost my desire for it do to not being able to create or manifest any relationship with anyone. Later one as I grew older I simply found myself no longer attracted to anything eventhough I have tried, and am now just coping with life and trying hard to love who I am. Case and point I love altering my body opposed to having sex. I get a rush when I look at myself in the mirror which I can no longer get from sex or any other stimulus except maybe music I do not wish to lose this feeling so I oppose over my face. Sorry if this is long and the grammar is horrible I wrote this rather fast just wanted to state something that nobody else might understand. Something Interesting (not verified) | 12/23/09 | 13:19 PM
Reply to This Link

I forgot to mention that at one point in my life I lived in poverty however around age 10-15 this changed drastically and I began living almost like a rich kid, all my needs and wants where met. If I wanted something it was there and eventually I grew tired of buying and owning things so I actually had no drive whatsoever in trying to get more things or get richer since it seemed pointless. I instead sought out attention love and emotional backing which I have yet to get. Something Interesting (not verified) | 12/23/09 | 13:25 PM
Reply to This Link
Dr. Bailey, You should base your research on facts, and not tabloid rumors. For example, you based part of your "research" on the myth that he never invited little girls to these sleepover from 16 years ago. Karlee Barnes, Marie Nicole Cascio, Allison V. Smith, and Mandy Porter are the names of some of these girls. Does knowing that little tidbit change your conclusion? It is obvious you didn't do any fact checking before writing this paper. Marie Orth is not a credible source for anything. Everything she writes is a lie! By the way, to the poster claiming that Jimmy Safechuck was an abuse victim. It is not true. That is just a very old tabloid rumor. In fact, Safechuck got married at his ranch. The FBI files were released last week. The federal government investigated him for 10 years. If there were evidence of "hush money" paid out to people the FBI would have discovered it. LM (not verified) | 12/31/09 | 03:52 AM
Reply to This Link

Dr. Bailey, Seems to make sense to me. As a lay person to your discipline, and after reading your article, it seems very logical and to the point. For years, I've hardly ever wondered why people become pedofiles or para-types of this kind of sexual orientation. Since I was a teenager, I've understood that gays become gays due to the make up, or rather mutation, of thier genes. But only recently did I appreciate the rational of pedofilia as another type of genetic sexual orientation...which has to be the most uncanny and tragic sexual orientation of them all. Now, I can't ever imagine what it's like to be like that, or what it's like to be gay (not that I think homosexuality is really bad), and I thank my lucky stars that I wasn't born with genes like that. I may have my own issues with phobias and...okay, fine, anger control, but I consider myself pretty fortunate in life...even while in poverty. For what it's worth, I'll say this as well: I believe in a rebirth back to earth or something similar. One of my fears is that I (and everyone else) will constantly be born into everything that every else has become. Scary isn't it? I don't condone or accept what MJ did, at least based on what I believe he did anyway. I think he should have been responsible in trying to get help. Just like I've had to be more responsible in getting help with my own little or medium sized demons. Moreover, MJ had the time and money to do so, unlike many of us who aren't so fortunate. Speaking for myself, I wonder what my life would be like today had I received proper help from professionals
over my anxiety disorder and phobias. By now, maturity has sort of helped curb it. When I was in grad school, I had some more cash than I do now...so I guess I'm still paying the price now. Sorry, were we just talking about MJ and anglo-erotic-philia? (sorry that was bad) dweebisis (not verified) | 01/09/10 | 00:38 AM
Reply to This Link

Reading Dr Bailey's work I understand him to have more of a grasp,and expecting an informed reader also to have, of sexual dynamics. A lot of the characteristics describing autogynaphiles i recognise in myself as one. I have also been the victim of sexual and severe psychological abuse to use a mild word. AutogynaphileDesiring Femininity and Not Young Children. I feel it is my responsibility to speak against the evil of hunterprey sexuality. I don't understand supposed "Transgender Community" ideals as anything less than the same collective ignorance that flourishes in social gangs/heirarchies. Nothing bad or incorrect was said about transexuals or thier nature, although I hesitated for a heartbeat at being catogorised as a type-autogynophile-as any fetishist might have at being mentioned in the same paragraph as those of a possible sinister orientation. Is that your quibble? Dry your eyes. There are more factors not properly talked about in these articles.Esoteric and Ideological. Obviously if he was a homosexual during his pubescence and also very famous and unavailable to normal/natuaral social interactions -- coupled with unlimited capitol then he would have allowed HIMSELF the 'luxury' of not having to adapt sexual desires past the early adolescent phase, not being around peers of the same age year on year growing up.He must have been so jealous of normal people with real emotions. There is more to it than this, and leads me to the conclusion he not only started abusing earlier than most think, but also did so entirely of his own volition. He would have looked most like Nosferatu after the Pepsi Pyrotechnic Acciddent (PPA?), the vampiric nature of Pedophiles sinsister urges are sociopathic in enjoying causing cruelty (in a slightly autohebephylic way) to those they can no longer be like, as the aging wizard steals the souls of children to be immortal (HP Lovecraft NECRINOMICON),the very methodology of Catholic Priest abuse of young boys. By scaring the child leaving them vulnerable and thereby allowing access to their very Lifeblood/Innocence, the skin licking Jackson finds his supper. Surely his own words can lead us to these conclusions, the beggining of a track on "Bad" (which was to be followed by "Dangerous" (with it's Basilisk cover illustration) - featuring such tracks as "Keep It In The Closet") has a whispering Jackson, The Children's Entertainer Who Rubs His Crotch Onstage, says "We should not be doing this,but I need you so much...SO much"- before almost crying and hailing the beginning of the "song" . A means which he saw to an end. A review of his "song lyrics" have pattern undertones and obvious duplicious signals (most notably "It doesn't matter if you're black or white" - a Jim Jones esque method) ,stories of {female} children being hurt ("Annie are you okay?" "Somebody killed Little Suzy"), hysterical,illegitimate anger and self-rightious Jesus Christ self-referencing.The juxtopositions of positive imagery with negative (Blood On The Dancefloor). The more you look at it,the clearer it is. The world needs to wake up to sexual predators and not sweep it under the rug like so many regular Churchgoers, or in this case, Sycophantic Emperor's Servants do (defining the very term "fan").
Obviously his "legacy" is being boosted by the family and record company who need to, if it were true or not, cash their chips while they can.To listen with glee to music partially made by a person who has been associated with child abuse is degenerate. It is a sad day for humanity when a person accused of child abuse is not dogged with interrogation until very clear,certain affirmations of the facts are understood. It shows people don't care, degenerate. D Jonas (not verified) | 02/10/10 | 00:05 AM
Reply to This Link

Reading Dr Bailey's work I understand him to have more of a grasp,and expecting an informed reader also to have, of sexual dynamics. A lot of the characteristics describing autogynaphiles i recognise in myself as one. I have also been the victim of sexual and severe psychological abuse to use a mild word. AutogynaphileDesiring Femininity and Not Young Children. I feel it is my responsibility to speak against the evil of hunterprey sexuality. I don't understand supposed "Transgender Community" ideals as anything less than the same collective ignorance that flourishes in social gangs/heirarchies. Nothing bad or incorrect was said about transexuals or thier nature, although I hesitated for a heartbeat at being catogorised as a type-autogynophile-as any fetishist might have at being mentioned in the same paragraph as those of a possible sinister orientation. Is that your quibble? Dry your eyes. There are more factors not properly talked about in these articles.Esoteric and Ideological. Obviously if he was a homosexual during his pubescence and also very famous and unavailable to normal/natuaral social interactions -- coupled with unlimited capitol then he would have allowed HIMSELF the 'luxury' of not having to adapt sexual desires past the early adolescent phase, not being around peers of the same age year on year growing up.He must have been so jealous of normal people with real emotions. There is more to it than this, and leads me to the conclusion he not only started abusing earlier than most think, but also did so entirely of his own volition. He would have looked most like Nosferatu after the Pepsi Pyrotechnic Acciddent (PPA?), the vampiric nature of Pedophiles sinsister urges are sociopathic in enjoying causing cruelty (in a slightly autohebephylic way) to those they can no longer be like, as the aging wizard steals the souls of children to be immortal (HP Lovecraft NECRINOMICON),the very methodology of Catholic Priest abuse of young boys. By scaring the child leaving them vulnerable and thereby allowing access to their very Lifeblood/Innocence, the skin licking Jackson finds his supper. Surely his own words can lead us to these conclusions, the beggining of a track on "Bad" (which was to be followed by "Dangerous" (with it's Basilisk cover illustration) - featuring such tracks as "Keep It In The Closet") has a whispering Jackson, The Children's Entertainer Who Rubs His Crotch Onstage, says "We should not be doing this,but I need you so much...SO much"- before almost crying and hailing the beginning of the "song" . A means which he saw to an end. A review of his "song lyrics" have pattern undertones and obvious duplicious signals (most notably "It doesn't matter if you're black or white" - a Jim Jones esque method) ,stories of {female} children being hurt ("Annie are you okay?" "Somebody killed Little Suzy"), hysterical,illegitimate anger and self-rightious Jesus Christ self-referencing.The juxtopositions of positive imagery with negative (Blood On The Dancefloor). The more you look at it,the clearer it is.
The world needs to wake up to sexual predators and not sweep it under the rug like so many regular Churchgoers, or in this case, Sycophantic Emperor's Servants do (defining the very term "fan"). Obviously his "legacy" is being boosted by the family and record company who need to, if it were true or not, cash their chips while they can.To listen with glee to music partially made by a person who has been associated with child abuse is degenerate. It is a sad day for humanity when a person accused of child abuse is not dogged with interrogation until very clear,certain affirmations of the facts are understood. It shows people don't care, degenerate. D Jonas (not verified) | 02/10/10 | 00:06 AM
Reply to This Link

Reading Dr Bailey's work I understand him to have more of a grasp,and expecting an informed reader also to have, of sexual dynamics. A lot of the characteristics describing autogynaphiles i recognise in myself as one. I have also been the victim of sexual and severe psychological abuse to use a mild word. AutogynaphileDesiring Femininity and Not Young Children. I feel it is my responsibility to speak against the evil of hunterprey sexuality. I don't understand supposed "Transgender Community" ideals as anything less than the same collective ignorance that flourishes in social gangs/heirarchies. Nothing bad or incorrect was said about transexuals or thier nature, although I hesitated for a heartbeat at being catogorised as a type-autogynophile-as any fetishist might have at being mentioned in the same paragraph as those of a possible sinister orientation. Is that your quibble? Dry your eyes. There are more factors not properly talked about in these articles.Esoteric and Ideological. Obviously if he was a homosexual during his pubescence and also very famous and unavailable to normal/natuaral social interactions -- coupled with unlimited capitol then he would have allowed HIMSELF the 'luxury' of not having to adapt sexual desires past the early adolescent phase, not being around peers of the same age year on year growing up.He must have been so jealous of normal people with real emotions. There is more to it than this, and leads me to the conclusion he not only started abusing earlier than most think, but also did so entirely of his own volition. He would have looked most like Nosferatu after the Pepsi Pyrotechnic Acciddent (PPA?), the vampiric nature of Pedophiles sinsister urges are sociopathic in enjoying causing cruelty (in a slightly autohebephylic way) to those they can no longer be like, as the aging wizard steals the souls of children to be immortal (HP Lovecraft NECRINOMICON),the very methodology of Catholic Priest abuse of young boys. By scaring the child leaving them vulnerable and thereby allowing access to their very Lifeblood/Innocence, the skin licking Jackson finds his supper. Surely his own words can lead us to these conclusions, the beggining of a track on "Bad" (which was to be followed by "Dangerous" (with it's Basilisk cover illustration) - featuring such tracks as "Keep It In The Closet") has a whispering Jackson, The Children's Entertainer Who Rubs His Crotch Onstage, says "We should not be doing this,but I need you so much...SO much"- before almost crying and hailing the beginning of the "song" . A means which he saw to an end. A review of his "song lyrics" have pattern undertones and obvious duplicious signals (most notably "It doesn't matter if you're black or white" - a Jim Jones esque method) ,stories of {female} children being hurt ("Annie are you okay?" "Somebody killed Little Suzy"), hysterical,illegitimate anger and self-rightious Jesus Christ self-referencing.The juxtopositions of positive
imagery with negative (Blood On The Dancefloor). The more you look at it,the clearer it is. The world needs to wake up to sexual predators and not sweep it under the rug like so many regular Churchgoers, or in this case, Sycophantic Emperor's Servants do (defining the very term "fan"). Obviously his "legacy" is being boosted by the family and record company who need to, if it were true or not, cash their chips while they can.To listen with glee to music partially made by a person who has been associated with child abuse is degenerate. It is a sad day for humanity when a person accused of child abuse is not dogged with interrogation until very clear,certain affirmations of the facts are understood. It shows people don't care, degenerate. D Jonas (not verified) | 02/10/10 | 00:06 AM
Reply to This Link

It saddens me that just because some article or news outlet says something is "true" people will believe it. I personally do not believe Michael Jackson was a pedophile. I think he was a traumatized man who in his latter years, chose to suppress the pain, and try to relive his childhood. The only problem was that the world was watching. When you were 12, did you hang with boys or girls your age? Yes. He surrounded himself with children, because he said they were the one group of people who could be in his presence and not want anything from him, but to enjoy friendship and offer him the peace of mind that the adults in his life did not. Even down to his family, everyone wanted something from him. I know how it feels to love being in the presence of children. I spend a great deal of time with prepubescent little girls (I'm a woman). I enjoy their company and being a "big sister" to them. I play their games and do their cheers and dance their dances. Is it because he was a man, that it is so different for him? Why can't he just be a good guy, who connected well with children? I have other people's children spend the night at my house and they sleep in my bed with me. Where else would they sleep? There's nothing wrong with it - society makes it seem so retarded that an adult could take an interest in the company of a child. Children have way more insight than adults, that's for sure. I'm not calling Michael normal, clearly he was not, he was injured, and had someone taken the time to really relate to him, he would probably still be alive. Funny, how people will work a horse til death. Sad he wasn't a horse. Anonymous (not verified) | 02/12/10 | 17:02 PM
Reply to This Link

I think Michael Jackson was a very sensitive human being and very complex, including when it came to sexuality. But we don't know what was it about. How could anybody give an opinion without knowing him personally? It just seems so invasive and cruel to "define" a human being like that. Why? Because he was an artist? Instead of dissecting him, we should have expressed more compassion and look at ourselves in the mirror instead of him. All this conversation only shows how YOU are. Marina (not verified) | 02/16/10 | 08:27 AM
Reply to This
Link
I totally agree with you on your statement. I feel so bad for Michael and people like him, who are judged so harshly without people really taking the time out to get to know the individual. How could thousands of people who don't know him suddenly have such insight into "him" and the people who knew him and loved him not really know him? That's BS. Everyone who ever spent time with him, had nothing but good things to say about him. How normal he was, how much fun, how compassionate, how loving, how manly. I would think they would know more, seeing as they did actually spend time in his presence and all. People can be so cruel. Nikki (not verified) | 02/16/10 | 16:08 PM
Reply to This Link

Oh man this article was so rage inducing as were all the people who were like "Thank you for the article, this explains MJ completely." It would, if you have believed the media and tabloids all your life. It is obvious that many of you, including the author have done NO research into anything are just willing to believe whatever someone throws onto your lap as truth. I also find it sad that people think that you have to be a nutty MJ fan to even object to this article as being false. Anyone who did a little bit of reading on both cases would know that they were just extortion attempts. Also, the FBI were tailing MJ for years and still didn't find anything on him. NOTHING. Are you going to tell me that you know more than the FBI who spent millions in tax payer money also in trying to find something on him, but couldn't? Also, the real coroner's report came out already and disproved most of what was written here. The ignorance of some of you make me sick to my stomach and it makes me realize why people hate Americans. Anonymous (not verified) | 02/21/10 | 06:53 AM
Reply to This Link

I once heard an artist say people don't realize that what you do isn't who you are. What we saw in the entertainment outlets was not "who" Michael Jackson was. Duh, people. He had to keep us entertained, otherwise we would not buy his albums or attend his concerts. I believe he was a sincere big kid and just wanted to have the fun he could not have when he was a child, entertaining the world. Now on the plastic surgery, I believe there was also some sort of insecurity there, never feeling quite pleased with his appearance, so constantly changing it. That was his prerogative, he's not the first, won't be the last to do so. Just goes to show you that money cannot buy security for anyone. Not even MJ. Anonymous (not verified) | 03/02/10 | 15:28 PM
Reply to This Link
First off for those who keep on waffling their OWN speculation that Michael Jackson was a paedophile, go and do some THROROUGH research behind the surface of the media and stop living in ignorance regarding the accusations. 2 good books - Eye openers are, 'Redemption', by Geraldine Hughes, (Truth behind the 93 Allegations)and, 'Michael Jackson Conspiracy' by Aphrodite Jones, (05 trial, the things we did not HEAR/SEE, straight from the court transcriptsEXPOSES the Arvisos for what they truly are). There are TWO sides to EVERY story and for those who are still stuck on the first page and want to get closer to the truth your own independent RESEARCH! Read deep! Here is a starter pack in video form! Jay Leno interviews Attorney Tom Mesereau on "The Tonight Show" - Part 1 of 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cf01v8zDkwk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd1Sv0rz3oI Michael was FRAMED? Michael Jackson Extortion Plot Exposed! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzTntSJot_8 Inside Michael Jackson's trial 1/5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNwbO4uQbYY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXv01YQeeeU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV2uWYefU5s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8hUtn1EGhQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZLRk9WD-6k Aphrodite Jones and Thomas Mesereau: The 'Michael Jackson Conspiracy': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIwehjDPOYU PROOF WITH WITNESSES THAT MICHAEL JACKSON WAS INNOCENT! Michael Jackson Extortion Plot Exposed!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo8wtn-KtwI Now. This article is quiet sick and again, self-assuming and judgemental and some of comments, just as bad!! Since Michaels passing, it seems I have observed many aspects of the human psyche of some people across many forums, articles and in comments regarding Michael Jackson. And yet, here is another one, including some of the comments. The way some continue to pick apart, analyse, psycho-analyse, criticise, antagonise, ostracise, penalise, judge, condemn, make fun of, poke fun at, scorn, ridicule, (I could go on and on), this human being - as if he was some alien from another planet, (and some have already suggested very much the same in their own words.one even stating in an article, something to the affect of he no longer seemed to serve a meaningful function as a human being)How SICK is that?
Who the hell do these kinds of people, (youll if you are one of them), think you are to throw so much dirt at this man/the memory of this man, with such self-assured and often downright self-righteous convention? Unreal and truly sickening to observe this kind of human nature. It is like I am a bystander - observing all this sinful, dehumanising, crazy talk about the man, and I have come to the conclusion that it is truly these kinds of people who are the real *Wackos. I dont EVER recall witnessing so much pathetic and sinful psycho-analyses and judgemental ramblings toward an individual in my whole 47 years on this earth. I am truly saddened and with certain aspects of our so-called, humanity. Some of you need badly need to stand back and slowly observe your own demeanours/characteristics and judgmental traitsfar from perfect and certainly no better than the human being that was Michael Jackson a person who never judged anyone, regardless! Angie (not verified) | 03/07/10 | 15:49 PM
Reply to This Link

First off for those who keep on waffling their OWN speculation that Michael Jackson was a paedophile, go and do some THROROUGH research behind the surface of the media and stop living in ignorance regarding the accusations. 2 good books - Eye openers are, 'Redemption', by Geraldine Hughes, (Truth behind the 93 Allegations)and, 'Michael Jackson Conspiracy' by Aphrodite Jones, (05 trial, the things we did not HEAR/SEE, straight from the court transcriptsEXPOSES the Arvisos for what they truly are). There are TWO sides to EVERY story and for those who are still stuck on the first page and want to get closer to the truth your own independent RESEARCH! Read deep! Here is a starter pack in video form! Jay Leno interviews Attorney Tom Mesereau on "The Tonight Show" - Part 1 of 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cf01v8zDkwk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd1Sv0rz3oI Michael was FRAMED? Michael Jackson Extortion Plot Exposed! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzTntSJot_8 Inside Michael Jackson's trial 1/5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNwbO4uQbYY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXv01YQeeeU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV2uWYefU5s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8hUtn1EGhQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZLRk9WD-6k Aphrodite Jones and Thomas Mesereau: The 'Michael Jackson Conspiracy':
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIwehjDPOYU PROOF WITH WITNESSES THAT MICHAEL JACKSON WAS INNOCENT! Michael Jackson Extortion Plot Exposed!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo8wtn-KtwI Michael Jackson was INNOCENT! PROOF! Tom Mesereau Had Witnesses Ready to Testify Against Chandler http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BhNd3C7dCc Now. This article is quiet sick and again, self-assuming and judgemental and some of comments, just as bad!! Since Michaels passing, it seems I have observed many aspects of the human psyche of some people across many forums, articles and in comments regarding Michael Jackson. And yet, here is another one, including some of the comments. The way some continue to pick apart, analyse, psycho-analyse, criticise, antagonise, ostracise, penalise, judge, condemn, make fun of, poke fun at, scorn, ridicule, (I could go on and on), this human being - as if he was some alien from another planet, (and some have already suggested very much the same in their own words.one even stating in an article, something to the affect of he no longer seemed to serve a meaningful function as a human being)How SICK is that? Who the hell do these kinds of people, (youll if you are one of them), think you are to throw so much dirt at this man/the memory of this man, with such self-assured and often downright self-righteous conviction? Unreal and truly sickening to observe this kind of human nature. It is like I am a bystander - observing all this sinful, dehumanising, crazy talk about the man, and I have come to the conclusion that it is truly these kinds of people who are the real *Wackos. I dont EVER recall witnessing so much pathetic and sinful psycho-analyses and judgemental ramblings toward an individual in my whole 47 years on this earth. I am truly saddened and with certain aspects of our so-called, humanity. Some of you need badly need to stand back and slowly observe your own demeanours/characteristics and judgmental traitsfar from perfect and certainly no better than the human being that was Michael Jackson a person who never judged anyone, regardless! Angie (not verified) | 03/07/10 | 15:56 PM
Reply to This Link

If it makes you feel better - I thought he was a pedophile not only before he died, but before the first claim was ever made public. The excuse of wanting to recreate the lost childhood, just isn't believable. And it's astonishing that anyone thinks his being surrounded by other people's sons of a certain age range was at all appropriate.
If a man in your neighborhood was always offering to take boys of that - or any - age range away for weekend trips or sleepovers, no one would think twice about reporting him to the police. and no one has that much facial altering surgery without having serious issues, which is unrelated to the pedophile issue nina (not verified) | 03/23/10 | 02:57 AM
Reply to This Link
Sorry to disappoint but Michael Jackson did not have any psycho sexual disorders. I know this to be true because my housekeeper worked for him in Bahrain. She, along with her friends that worked for him, have repeatedly said that he had girlfriend who was with him most of the time. Sometimes she would go to Europe or America for short periods but most of the time she was with him and they shared a bed. It was a normal man/woman relationship they said, She was a blonde caucasian woman, younger than him. This is supported by many other people who live in Bahrain as he would be seen out with her occasionally. My husband's employer in Bahrain spent a lot of time with Michael. H claims Michael told him on more than one occasion that Lisa Marie Presley was the love of his life but that he was too immature at the time they were married and that he made a lot of mistakes mostly over not knowing how to compromise and deal with conflict. Michael Jackson was eccentric, highly creative and very bright. He understood show business, it was all he knew. He understood the value of mystique and he cultivated it to the extreme - which is why you have written this article. He was extremely stubborn apparently. He said that he made a promise to himself that once he got free of his father he would never allow anyone to tell him what he could or couldn't do again. This could explain his poor judgement on occasion and why he found commitment anixety forming. As far as the skin bleaching myth is concerned, the autopsy report states that he did indeed suffer from vitiligo as well as lupus. Neither was he castrated according to the autopsy report. His genitalia was normal and he produced sperm. Unfortunately Michael Jackson will continue to be an easy target for the ignorant, the naive and rigid thinkers of this world. It is only their loss that they cannot understand what an outrageously gifted human being he was and why he is so loved and grieved for by so many. Chris (not verified) | 03/15/10 | 06:05 AM
Reply to This Link

Thanks Chris for sharing. I found your response to be interesting. I definitely think Michael Jackson loved the mystique of his "King of Pop" persona. I'm sure he was a normal gentleman with normal tendencies and habits, etc. People constantly mistake what he did, for who he was. He was an entertainer. For 40 years he cultivated an image, and he led a private life apart from the persona. Duh people!! I liked what you say here about him and Lisa Marie. Because I definitely think it was true love. Just because you don't end up together, doesn't mean you don't love someone and doesn't mean you can't still love them til the end, as evidenced by her many tears at his funeral. She evidently loved him very much as well. Thanks Chris. Anonymous (not verified) | 03/15/10 | 08:45 AM
Reply to This Link

@Nina - it's really sad that you cannot see the innocence of wanting to recreate a "lost" childhood. I'm not sure what type of childhood you had, but mine was definitely more grown up than most. Having to deal with sexual violation on more than one occasion and having parents who were both addicted to drugs. Honestly, I live now for the childlike things. I enjoy being in the company of children. I enjoy taking them places and watching their faces light up, doing the things I may have never been fortunate enough to do. I LOVE practical jokes and live for April fool's day. I guess that is the reason I can relate to perhaps what Michael Jackson may have been feeling or experiencing inside. The main difference of course is his being male. He didn't only hang out with little boys. If you ever look over the photos he took while on tour, etc, there were male and female children present. But it would make since, being that he was male, to have male children around as a sort of mentor to them. I honestly think he was a HUGE kid at heart! Like me. I'm just saying perhaps you should not judge so harshly until you try to relate to what he must have been feeling. Anonymous (not verified) | 03/23/10 | 10:22 AM
Reply to This Link

I was molested as a child and had a hard upbringing where I had to raise my very younger siblings who were babies. I am a little childlike.. BUT on the other hand, although kids are attracted to me. I DO NOT like being around them, because of the sexual abuse I endured, sexuality is a problematic area of my life and best not left to be explored esp when I am so lonely. Thats the dif between me and mike, is that I wont put myself in the situation. but he was rich so yeah I can understand what he did, not everything he did, sometimes he seemed plain outright crazy but to a degree I understand. I liked your closing statement. Michael Jackson is a very hard person to come to grips with for us. People remain either delusional or filled with hate. The thing is, its very hard to accept the reality that Mj was abused, that he was messed up, that he was also both awesome, and messed up. Humanity has a hard time looking at the man in the mirror, Michael Jackson makes us see ourselves more than we want to admit. Some people will never come to grips with it. Anonymous (not verified) | 03/30/10 | 19:53 PM
Reply to This Link

LISTEN TO WHAT YOU DIDN'T HEAR THEY NEVER WONTED YOU TO KNOW THIS!!!! http://mjthekingofpop.wordpress.com/ http://mjthekingofpop.wordpress.com/ http://mjthekingofpop.wordpress.com/
WE WONT JUSTICE!!! Anonymous (not verified) | 04/07/10 | 23:57 PM
Reply to This Link

In order to try and label someone i believe it is important to get your facts straight first. his autopsy report did not declare that he had had at least 13 plastic surgeries. I read it completely and it only metioned the scars he had on different parts of his body. I believe he took the surgeries too far but you also have to take the fact that he had vitiligo into account as this made him very pale and gaunt looking and also the wigs he was wearing due to burning his scalp in the pepsi commercial made him more extreme looking than the surgeries alone would have done. Also Debbie Rowe never said he dressed up like Peter Pan in order to have sex with her. She did say they had sex as did his wife Lisa-Marie. He had photos of Brooke Shields on his wall when he was a young man and had a big crush on her. He was in love with Tatum O'Neal and on the tapes that were used to prove he was heterosexual which he thought would remain private he talks about women all the time. He was very much a heterosexual male. Many porn magazines were found at his house with naked women in them and even some research on how to please a woman after the raid which shows his sexual interest. I believe his religious upbringing together with the fact that he saw his own father cheating on his mother in a room near him and his brothers having sex with groupies after they were married put him off to sex and his shyness did too i believe the fact that he did not jump every girls bones does not make him asexual nor gay. He also stated in numerous interviews that he was sensitive to childrens pain because of his own abusive childhood and he wanted to do all he could for underprivileged children to make up for his own lost childhood. Neverland was a place that was not only made for himself but also for children to enjoy the magic of childhood. I find the theory that he wanted to relive his childhood true them far more believable myself. Anonymous (not verified) | 04/20/10 | 14:42 PM
Reply to This Link

I'm sorry, is it common in modern science to analize the patients without any personal contact with them and basing the diagnosis on tabloid trash probably just picked up from the nearer garbage bin? WTF, at least during the medioeval witch hounds they had the excuse "this is the will of God", what excuse do you have? You creepy. Christine (not verified) | 05/03/10 | 16:03 PM
Reply to This
Link
Beside facts provided from other people, I find one more thing interesting. You've said he wanted to be a Peter Pan, he even had a plastic surgery of his ears?! ARE YOU KIDDING US WITH THAT PICTURE?!!!! Is it possible that you don't know MJ had a doubles, and ears are exactly one of physical characteristics we can recognize in what picture real MJ is and in which one is a double?! Check out pictures from This Is It, you'll see his ears are same as 20,30 years ago, as they were for all his life! I can't believe you are profesor and scientific person! Anonymous (not verified) | 05/08/10 | 15:56 PM
Reply to This Link

What a load of shit. sincerely, S. Freud Anonymous (not verified) | 05/13/10 | 16:16 PM
Reply to This Link

This may be a silly question but would it be possible for someone you think is a homosexual autohebephile to also like women? Do these erotic disorders change with age? I'm not sure what I'm getting at but it just seems to me that outside of MJ keeping the company of pubescent boys, he also talked a lot about women, would have (secretly recorded and subsequently leaked) conversations about wanting to fall in love with a woman, and (if those newer reports are to be believed) dated and may have even fooled around with women at the back of his SUV (according to his bodyguards that came out on tv). Could all those 'women talk' be put-ons? But to be doing that for a long long time, how can someone keep that up? Unless he really was interested in both pubescent boys and women... which is probably weird. Sorry. I'm a huge MJ fan and I'm just trying to understand what could have gone on with him. I know it wont affect my life... and I'm not picking a fight either. And yes, before someone points it out, I don't know the first thing about mental/psychological/erotic disorders. Just interested to learn... Thank you. S. J. (not verified) | 05/23/10 | 13:16 PM
Reply to This Link

I have never laughed so much in my whole life! You call this scientific? Where is the science in quoting youtube-videos, Diane Dimond, wikipedia and well-known tabloid journals? You should know better! I would fail this paper, if I was to mark it.
I cannot take this seriously. You only did this to gain attention. Period. Anonymous (not verified) | 05/26/10 | 03:24 AM
Reply to This Link

Excuse me Professor, Hmmm, where did you get your degree exactly? How dare you make an assumption like this about Michael Jackson based on Nothing except speculation. Did you Know Michael? how can you pass judgement on someone that you neverr knew personally. You really need to check your facts. Are you trying to get on a talk show by using Michael's name? You are just more person influenced by the media lies put in place do destroy Michael Jackson. What I don't understand is why people cannot do their research regarding Michael prior to writing about thim; is it too much to ask? I hope to God you are not teaching this BS to upcoming members of our society because it is a very scary thought indeed to think that their minds will be influenced by the likes of you. mjmajorlove (not verified) | 05/26/10 | 10:53 AM
Reply to This Link

What this professor should have done a paper on is GREED and what people would do for MONEY including. The media sold this molestation lie and I wonder WHY NONE OF THEM investigated those making the accusation. Well, I did. Take a look at these videos and asked the question, why can't the professor cover this or the mainstream media? Proof the 1993 was extortion that the MEDIA HELPED saled to the public http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNiSzsNS10w Who was Evan Chandler, the father of the first case in 1993? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuIdVOrme_U Michael's autoposy proves he was innocent http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0ktq7HQiMU The 2005 Case was EASY to see as a fraud. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syQsYdrVuyQ Tom Sneddon, the DA of Santa Barbara belonged to a church that molested 34 boys and he said he was CLUELESS of all the molestation although he was a FREQUENT at that church. This was uncovered in the 90's at the SAME TIME as Sneddon help perpetrated that FRAUD case against Michael Jackson.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x390rVfx3Qg http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/contributors/sneddon_allegations_mich...
He (Sneddon) was a parishioner at the Santa Barbara Mission when it was revealed in the early 1990s that 34 boys had been sexually molested by 11 Franciscan friars who helped run St. Anthony's Seminary next door to the Mission. "Pat (McKinley) and I used to go to church up there, and we were clueless, just clueless" of the molestation cases back then, said Mr. Sneddon, speaking of himself and his second-in-command. " He was clueless because he was too busy focusing on Michael Jackson then REAL PREDATORS. For the TRUTH on Michael Jackson there is NEW MEDIA IN TOWN, youtube MJMedia09 http://www.youtube.com/user/MJMedia09 MJMedia09 (not verified) | 05/26/10 | 19:06 PM
Reply to This Link

Let's see, first the autopsy did NOT say he had 13 surgeries. He had scarring present which may or may not have been from surgeries but you fail to mention how many were to his scalp after suffering from second and third degree burns! It is not a coroner's job to tell how many plastic surgeries someone had--they could not give a precise number, either. Maybe they would guess how many if it were a crime like in the movie "Face Off" perhaps. There is nothing feminine the way Michael looked, not the way he talked, not the way he walked. At times, he spoke softly, more like a shy child trying to hide a changed voice than him trying to sound like a woman. And guess what? When he was comfortable talking, listen to some of his songs, his tapes, his voice was deep. He spoke normally in This Is It, in his tapes with Brett Ratner, in speeches he gave (ex. MTV Japan 2006 awards). His brothers also speak like this, take a notice? He was a normal male who had a very abnormal life that forced him into reclusiveness when he didn't want to be a recluse. Children treated him like a human--adults either loathed him or treated him like a deity. Females fainted when they saw him. You want to have dinner with a woman like that? Male dancers are usually gay? James Brown and Jackie Wilson were gay? AHHAHA! Anyone want to know what was really wrong with Michael? Let's see, he was forced to record and perform when he wanted to be a child. Just look at how many songs he recorded not only with his brothers but also as a solo act--then realize how many takes he had to do and how many songs were never actually released. How did he ever get an education? Then, you have certainly family members ridiculing his nose and acne. You have people making remarks like ""ewwww" to him growing up to be a healthy young man. You have his career that was riding on his voice changing which is something that every healthy boy goes through--but it could have been the end for Michael. Then, on top of alllll that, he had vitiligo (which was actually documented in the autopsy report) and discoid lupus which is evident in photos as far back as 1983, at least
that I have seen. How would anyone learn to deal with losing, not just lightening, the pigment of their skin? Of course you may change the way you look when you have to deal with something like that on a daily basis and you have everyone on their dog following you for photos. Has anyone failed to mention how other African American men have straightened their hair? Let's see, again, James Brown and none other than Prince who also sports a long mane at times. Both like the ladies, too. There are so many other lies in this blog that I cannot even attempt to address. Pointed ears? Looking like Joseph? The comment about Debbie? WTF!? People who tend to write literature like this blog tend to be reflecting points about themselves. Is that saying something about you, sir? Anonymous (not verified) | 05/27/10 | 01:02 AM
Reply to This Link

Well Michael Bailey, I'm so glad I scrolled back to the top of the page after reading your offering. Something I peviously missed confirmed my diagnosis. The author of this article is an unattractive, middle-aged man suffering from the psychological disorder commonly known in layman's terms as jealousy. The subject feels overwhelmed by his desire for extreme inner and outer beauty, love from the masses, endless talent, and musical genius. Said subject projects his feelings of inadequacy toward the one being he sees as possessing all of the desired qualities, in turn presenting this object of his jealous rantings as something vile and repulsive. At this time, my recommendation for treatment is as follows: Avoid all mirrors (this includes any reflective surface), speak as seldom as possible so as to not contaminate others, and most importantly...and I can't stress this enough... just accept the fact you are not even a minute fraction of this object of your obsession and inferiority, and you never will be. You see, what I previously missed at the top of the page was your picture, and you know what they say...a picture speaks a thousand words, and NONE OF THEM WERE GOOD. Anonymous (not verified) | 05/27/10 | 05:12 AM
Reply to This Link

This is a bunch of garbage and is lacking any credibility and more importantly, is completely lacking the truth. You have all of your facts wrong! If you want the truth about Michael and who he truly was, STOP looking at the adulterated, sick, twisted and untrue media-created version of Michael Jackson and SEEK TRUTH about who he truly was, because you have it all wrong! http://www.reflectionsonthedance.com Anonymous (not verified) | 05/27/10 | 14:40 PM
Reply to This Link

This is pure speculation and tabloidish crap. You can't be judging a person who is death and can't defend himself, and with whom YOU NEVER EXCHANGED A WORD in your life. Besides, in what part of the Autospy report it's said that he had at least 13 plastic surgeries??? I have a copy of it and it is not metioned at all. You are writing LIE AFTER LIE HERE. Deborah Rowe had NEVER SAID anything regarding their sex life:NOTHING. You are a snake, a homophobic. I am sorry for you. You are the kind of people who help to distroy this man's reputation. You are very bad informed. Look for more audio recordings of Michael Jackson and you'll find that his voice was natural. You are evil. Stop JUDGING HIM AND TALKING LIKE YOU WERE HIS PILLOW OR CONFIDENT. YOU ARE NOBODY. Anonymous (not verified) | 05/27/10 | 16:29 PM
Reply to This Link

Hey psychopath, why don't you go to analyze your own mother's erotic identity disorders? Anonymous (not verified) | 05/27/10 | 16:35 PM
Reply to This Link

Michael Jackson, happens to be a handsome man. Furthermore, he has a compassionate heart. Mr. Jackson has always strived to help others, in order to make a positive impact on our world. Can you say the same about yourself? Why do people always choose to pick on Michael Jackson? Leave the man alone. How would you feel, if someone were to write an academic paper about your life. Done in this casem without seeking permission from from his relatives. You choose to wait until he supposedly, dies to attack. Michael may not at this time have a voice. For you to write such a disgraceful paper about him, proves that you lack an ethical conscience. Shame on you, professor, shame. Anonymous (not verified) | 05/27/10 | 23:17 PM
Reply to This Link

I have never read such utter rubbish! Michael was not gay, he was not a pedophile and he did not have sex with Debbie Rowe. Where in the world did you get this information? If you are going to do some scientific research at least report fact and not some over inflated egotistical trash that you call a report. You can do all the scientific research you want but you will never understand Michael Jackson. He might of had several plastic surgeries but he was a beautiful person inside and outside. How dare you say that "Normal people would hate to look like Michael Jackson did near the end of his life"? What gives you the right to make such a
statement? He was better looking than you could ever aspire to be. Go and research a subject that you know something about before you open your trap to spew such venomous garbage and pass it off as a scientific report. Anonymous (not verified) | 05/28/10 | 10:13 AM
Reply to This Link

Mr Bailey, Your theory is flawed from the beginning. Your preconceptions and misconceptions are the basis for your flawed thinking and therefore your research and your result are discounted. Research based on fact is what is required. Preconceptions and misconceptions should be put aside. A modicum of research into what Mr Jackson had to say on any of the issues you cite in regard to the circumstances of his life would, perhaps, help. No doubt your research into the various labels was an enjoyable exercise for you but to place any of your labels at the feet of Mr Jackson, based on your flawed research, says more about you than Mr Jackson, and what it does say about you is not pleasant when considering what your role could possibly be at Northwestern University. I did not respond to your article to criticize, although I am aware that is the result. The reason for my response was to urge to you base your opinion on fact rather than any perceptions you have come to believe, no matter how ingrained they might be, otherwise I'm afraid you may as well change careers and write for The Sun. Anonymous (not verified) | 06/03/10 | 03:38 AM
Reply to This Link

http:/:www.backdoortoneverland.com If you want to know more about Michael Jackson's psychology, relationship to women, the question of fatherhood, and much more, you must visit this web site. The identity of Michael Jackson is explored in a brand new way. Backdoor to Neverland (not verified) | 06/05/10 | 18:07 PM
Reply to This Link

That last paragraph almost brought me to tears. Well said. I applaud you. Anonymous (not verified) | 06/30/10 | 03:09 AM
Reply to This Link

What a load of shit. Speculation, conclusions, inaccuracies and outright lies. Try checking FACTS before you right such crap about someone you don't even know. Perhaps if you 'you tubed' Michael's Oxford University speech, interviews with Geraldo, the Clinton inaugeration, his many award speeches, his many videos to fans, his private home videos and most definitely the Aphrodite Jones book about the trial, as well as what Tom Mesereau has to say about Michael... as well as all his closest acquaintances, colleagues and loyal
friends, you might be a little better informed. Michael consistently remained someone who not only talked about healing the world with love, but demonstrated this throughout the whole of his life in the way he lived it. His humility, generosity, tolerance, compassion, dedication, tolerance, humor, creativity, art and just amazing talent will be forever remembered. I will miss him always. Shame on you for your small minded, pseudo science. So inaccurate it's laughable! And what's so sad, is many will agree because of the tabloid trash they believe. Just like you. Jenny (not verified) | 07/04/10 | 03:47 AM
Reply to This Link

What are they teaching in schools these days??? When one provides links to the likes of Diane Dimond and Youtube to support one's theories then the whole world is going to hell in a hand-basket. When I clicked on that link to Diane Dimond, I was pretty much done with reading this drivel. When on earth did Debbie Rowe say this? Please provide a link to this incredible quote. This is nothing more than armchair psychobabble. Put "Michael Jackson" in the title, babble anything, and everyone will click on it. You should see the article written by another idiot with a PhD in "Psychology Today" by Satoshi Kanazawa comparing Michael Jackson and Obama. The title of which is, "If Barack Obama is Christian, Then Michael Jackson is White". Can you get the correlation? This pinhead is an evolutionary psychologist. Apparently, evolution happens in only one generation. Let me see if I can get that moron's premise straight. The point of that article was that Obama was genetically Muslin because his dad was Muslin. Get it? The author also states that Michael Jackson wanted to be white and "acted white". He did not clarify exactly what "acting white" is or exactly how Michael Jackson "acted white". But somehow Michael Jackson proved his point. This is the stuff that comes out of people with graduate degrees. The man is dead, why don't you people leave him alone and your "theories" based on nothing? None of you have ever talked to the man, evaluated, or even met him. And when you resources come from Youtube and Diane Dimond, well, I said that already didn't I? Did you use TMZ as a resource too? http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201008... Paulie (not verified) | 09/02/10 | 22:02 PM
Reply to This Link

3 Surgeries? Easily explain by this: Body Dysmorphic Disorder, Read it again, if you remember It's all him. Some of The symptoms include Wearing hats and even eccentric clothing Problems initiating and maintaining relationships
Perfectionism (undergoing cosmetic surgery and behaviours such as excessive moisturising and exercising with an aim to create an unattainable but ideal body and reduce anxiety. Body modification may change one's appearance. This is repetitive, or focused on one or more areas or features that the individual perceives to be defective Drug abuse (often an attempt to SELF-MEDICATE). (In 1993 he admitted he went to rehab because of the abuse of certain medications) Feeling self-conscious in social environments; thinking that others notice and mock their perceived defect(s). Strong feelings of shame. Social and family withdrawal, social phobia, LONELINESS and self-imposed social ISOLATION. Major depressive disorder symptoms. Avoidant personality: avoiding leaving the home, or only leaving the home at certain times, for example, at night. This disorder have some compulsive behaviors such as: Attempting to camouflage the imagined defect: for example, using cosmetic camouflage, wearing baggy clothing, maintaining specific body posture or wearing Hats. (Explanation for the surgical mask) Use of distraction techniques: an attempt to divert attention away from the person's perceived defect, e.g. wearing extravagant clothing or excessive jewelry. Seeking reassurance from loved ones. Excessive dieting or exercising, working on outside appearance. (It's known that most of the time, he ate only once a day) Obsession with plastic surgery or dermatological procedures, often with little satisfactory results In extreme cases, patients have attempted to perform plastic surgery on themselves, including liposuction and various implants with disastrous results. Eating disorders, such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa, are also sometimes found in people with BDD Around 37% of people with BDD will also experience Social Phobia[14] and around 32% suffer from obsessivecompulsive disorder.[14] The most common personality disorders found in individuals with BDD
are avoidant personality disorder and dependent personality disorder, which conforms to the introverted, shy and neurotic traits usually found in BDD sufferers. Cause. BDD usually develops in adolescence, a time when people are generally most sensitive about their appearance. Psychological Teasing or criticism: It has been suggested that teasing or criticism regarding appearance could play a contributory role in the onset of BDD. While it is unlikely that teasing causes BDD (since the majority of individuals are teased at some point in their life), it may act as a trigger in individuals who are genetically or environmentally predisposed; likewise, extreme levels of childhood abuse, bullying and psychological torture are often rationalized and dismissed as "teasing," sometimes leading to traumatic stress in vulnerable persons.[15] Around 60% of people with BDD report frequent or chronic childhood teasing.[15] Parenting style: Similarly to teasing, parenting style may contribute to BDD onset; for example, parents who either place excessive emphasis on aesthetic appearance, or disregard it at all, may act as a trigger in the geneticallypredisposed.[15] Personality Certain personality traits may make someone more susceptible to developing BDD. Personality traits which have been proposed as contributing factors include: [17] Perfectionism Introversion / shyness Neuroticism Sensitivity to rejection or criticism Avoidant personality Common locations of perceived defects Skin (73%) Hair (56%) Weight (55%) Nose (37%) (sounds familiar?) _______________________________________________________________________________________ He always said he felt ugly, even in his latest years. The most recent comment was in 2003, in the infamy Bashir interview. That part was behind the scene but now It's all over youtube. "Body dysmorphic disorder causes sufferers to believe that they are so unspeakably hideous that they are unable to interact with others or function normally for fear of ridicule and humiliation about their
appearance. This can cause those with this disorder to begin to seclude themselves or have trouble in social situations. More extreme cases may cause a person to develop love-shyness, a chronic avoidance of all INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS". I don't think his surgeries had anything to do with your pan-sexual theory, especially for the fact that you used some of the tabloids to build your little argument. His ex-wife Debbie said WHAT? Once again, a Tabloid believer. Anonymous (not verified) | 09/06/10 | 20:06 PM
Reply to This Link

I wish people would stop erroneously referring to the ATV catalog as "the Beatles' catalog" when in fact it contains songs from many different artists from different genres of music. In a nutshell Paul McCarthy was simply too cheap to purchase the catalog that contained some of his music and wanted Yoko Ono to go halfsies with him - despite having more money than God. Michael simply made an astute and lucrative business decision that would be applauded if Paul had made it. If the catalog contained Jackson songs, no one would refer to the catalog as the Michael Jackson catalog, nor would they accuse Paul of underhanded tactics or betrayal. Paul had first and second dibs and turned them both down. He should want to kick his own behind for being cheap, stupid, and short-sighted. It is the ATV catalog, NOT the Beatles catalog. paulie (not verified) | 09/24/10 | 08:45 AM
Reply to This Link
It was ridiculously overpriced at the time, which did make Jackson look like he was being a jerk. If you tell me you want to buy a television at a garage sale and it is $200 and I show up and offer $1000, it's hard not to feel like there is a hidden agenda in your desire. They were pretty good friends prior to that. Now, Jackson was nuts so it may have been an homage that he wanted to own the Beatles rights - and the only good stuff in the Beatles was written by McCartney. But any time you not only outbid the creator of the content, but bid multiples over its assessed value, you are opening yourself up to dislike. Yes, McCartney has some money but he did not spend it foolishly. His kids went to public school and contracts in the 1960s were not like the 1980s - unlike Jackson, who obviously overspent on many things, McCartney never had to declare bankruptcy because he did not bid emotionally on work that his
friends wanted.
Hank Campbell | 09/24/10 | 09:57 AM
Reply to This Link
Jackson bought the rights as an investment - hardly a "nutty" decision. Prices on valuable items like artwork are jacked up all the time. The rich bid on items considered to be an investment. Prices are based on what the market will bear. Michael had the foresight and willingness to spend money to make money. As far as anyone knows he never used his rightd to the Beatles music contained within the catalog and if he did, he owned them in a legitimate business deal. A double standard here - Michael is "nutty" for making his investment - anyone else would be applauded. Your rationale doesn't wash considering price wars and bidding houses exist and only reflects bias. None can say he bought it to own Beatles' music - he only needed a trip to the record store. Paul was cheap - and stupid - plain and simple. paulie (not verified) | 09/24/10 | 18:09 PM
Reply to This Link

It is properly known as the Sony/ATV Music Publishing and it is co-owned by Michael Jackson and Sony....And only someone like Michael Jackson would be *bashed* for buying it. Again, nothing but a double standard where Michael Jackson is concerned. Considering it's value today, it was NOT ridiculously over priced. Paul could have bought it for $20 million dollars, but wanted Yoko to put up $10 million. Paul probably earns that much in interest alone on his millions. Michael bought it for $45 million. So the argument that Paul was just being his usual "thrifty" self, doesn't wash either. Sotheby's, the *auction* house, should be going out of business any minute now. And the rich will stop purchasing Picassos and jewels (and stocks and bonds) as investments against future anticipated higher value. http://www.sonyatv.com/languages.php http://www.sothebys.com/ Sorry for the inadvertent double post above. Paulie (not verified) | 09/24/10 | 21:47 PM
Reply to This Link

Actually you're wrong, now hear me out. One..... Mike is alive and no need for the "oh how is he" remark. Two MJ didn't molest little boys cause I am a 16 year old boy and he doesn't molest me. Mike is very kind
and no he really doesn't care that much for peter pan.... or at least not like that. What gets him horney is when a woman drops her clothes and he's said that. He isn't homo or any of those other things but he does get horney but only with women and not men or boys. He has never done anything nasty around me and I think he's a very handsome and very attractive man (for women) but he is just scared or shy to have a girlfriend and also I have a relative with a voice softer then his so suck my cock. Sorry but that made me a little mad about the voice and actually it all did but I am not really pissed off. I am just telling you the truth but who will believe you when you say that the most famous man in America is alive??? Nobody thank God, I want Mike to be my friend and if you cause him to come out of hiding then our friendship will be destroyed and I will make you pay so shut up about everything I say. Mike is off drugs and he has been since March I think they said. Also he gets to see his children and family too and he will see his kids this month for Christmas. Also I like Peter Pan too and I am not gay so shut your fucking mouth. Anonymous (not verified) | 12/09/10 | 00:39 AM
Reply to This Link

I'm sorry, but i think you are wrong: 1) the third gender is not a paraphilia. homosexuality is not a disease, and the third gender is not as well. 2) homosexuality and gay/lesbian are the same thing 3) philias are not diseases. they are "some kind of attraction or affinity to something" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-phil4) philias are sometimes classified as diseases, because people don't understand them or condemn them. while some are harmful, like pedophilia, and should be condemned, some others are not, like fetishes. now, if MJ was attracted emotionally and/or sexually to children, pubescent, adolescent, adults or eldery masculine people, he was gay/homosexual, or at least bisexual. sexual orientation has no age barrier, be it wrong or not. i'm sorry but you can't be attracted to boys and not be gay. that's just not the way it works. if i am a teen boy, and i'm attracted to boys, i'm gay, just like if i'm a teen girl attracted to girls, i'm gay too. the reverses is also true. to complicate things, you can have philias by gender or age, which distort or deepen your sexual orientation. there's plenty of reports of adult men that are heterosexually attracted to woman, but also homosexually attracted to boys. there's also adult men heterosexually attracted to woman, and also heterosexually attracted to girls. what you call those? it's not simple, is it? PHILIAS do not define SEXUAL ORIENTATION, nor the reverse does, and should not be put in the same jar. furthermore, so it seems you can have multiple sexual orientations, or "life phases". you can call yourself gay at one age, and then 20 years later, your suddenly hetero. strange huh?
this topic is way too complex to be just explained under 2 pages or a comment. your effort was good, but ultimately, it will take ages for this to be settled for good. to conclude, IMO, MJ was probably a homosexual or bisexual, who was both attracted to adults men and teens/pubescent boys. as for adult or young woman, i don't know. i also think that he did not abuse anyone because he was just too much a child living on the neverland and on fairy tales. and had he ever had, he probably would had it in a child-like regressed form, feeling as a young, ie, an identity disorder just like you put it, which probably does not qualify as a crime, but rather as a psychological problem which needs proper diagnosis and care. PS: i'm not sure you intended to be homophofic or not... Anonymous (not verified) | 12/23/10 | 21:30 PM
Reply to This Link

****I'm sorry, but i think you are wrong:**** i meant, at least, in some aspects. Anonymous (not verified) | 12/23/10 | 21:31 PM
Reply to This Link
i found this article both sad and interesting http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196009/Im-better-dead-Im-How-Mi... i'm sure there's a lot more buried somewhere. but the truths always come out. Anonymous (not verified) | 12/23/10 | 22:15 PM
Reply to This Link

I strongly wish you do not believe what this Halperin is writing about .This is just pure sensationalism ,just like the Bashirs case. Anonymous (not verified) | 01/07/11 | 17:33 PM
Reply to This Link
I strongly disagree with you. In my perspective, I believe Michael had his surgerys, yes because he wanted to look more child like, but not for the reasons you believe. He never had a childhood and he believed the
media liked him better as a child. Also, all of the child molestation accusations were later reported as false and he was never accused guilty in court. Anonymous | 01/24/11 | 22:34 PM
Reply to This Link

we can go on and on and never find the answers... only michael and the boys knew what happend, but i believe he didn't molested those boys, i never believed it yes he did plastic surgery's, and more then he told us... it began with his nose, because he felt it was too big, and then another one and i guess he was addicted to it... he wanted always better and it didn't... it became worse so again plastic to cover it up he had vitilligo, he had lupus, so thats why he where those masks, so that he was protected by the sun and most likely because he had spots in his face or so. the theme park.... you know, he always loved disneyland and so, but could never really enjoyed it because he was michael jackson.. thousands of people following you wasn't a great day so he build one for himself and for all his guests who came along... he had all that money, why shouldn't he have a fairy-wheel and a train and his own private zoo?? he was a moment happily married with lisa, they did have a normal relation that debbie would have told he dressed like peter pan to get in the mood?? i don't believe that, she was only there to cary his children, it was just an agreement between them and yes, there were a lot of little boys around him, but like he always said, the most adults always wanted something from him, or it was money, or favours etc... those boys only wanted to make some fun . somethimes it hurts, when you see intervieuws or fotos around the trial era... he sufferd so much, his hole life fell apart that moment, everything he ever believed in just fade away today, if they ask, someone , what do you know about michael jackson, they say, thriller and child molester, and thats sad, so sad... he was find not guilty!!! they forget the brilliant music he gave us, the amazing videos, the best concerts, all the money he gave away, and not just a few dollars, but millions and millions r i p, michael jackson natascha (not verified) | 01/30/11 | 14:43 PM
Reply to This Link

YOU ARE SO FULL OF CRAP BS ASSUMPTIONS NONCIENTIFIC BUT STREETTALK AND BS EVAN CHANDLER WAS BIPOLAR,CRAZY.............DID THAT RUIN UR HIPOTHESIS MICHAEL JACKSON HAD SEX WITH LISA LISA HAD 100 MILLION BEFORE SHE MARRIED MJJ, DAUGHTER OF ELVIS PRESLEY SHE HAD NO GOOD REASON TO MARRY (MOCKED) HIM BUT DID CAUSE SHE LOVED HIM EVERYONE AROUND HIM, SPECIALLY MALE FRIENDS (quincy, corey feldmen, p didi), SAID HE WAS HETERO
they saw him with women UR BS IS WRONG Anonymous (not verified) | 03/06/11 | 22:08 PM
Reply to This Link
ADD A COMMENT Your name: E-mail:

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Anonymous
Homepage:
Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite><TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe><u><span> Lines and paragraphs break automatically. Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
Notify me when new comments are posted All comments Replies to my comment CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.
Post Comment
Preview
KNOW SCIENCE AND WANT TO WRITE? Register Now To Get Your Own Column! WHAT'S HAPPENING

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Top Articles New Comments SB News New World Record: Calculations With 14 Quantum Bits Is That A New Massive Particle ? Is That Some Kind Of Higgs ? The Jet Energy Scale As An Explanation Of The CDF Signal Portioning Your Stash Safely Without Chemical Scale Survival Of The Stupidest 8 Great Scientist Pranksters It From Bit - Entropic Gravity For Pedestrians
Roberto Bolli discusses cardiac stem cell treatment for heart failure at Cannon Lecture Scientists develop 'universal' virus-free method to turn blood cells into 'beating' heart cells Reformed Medicaid program must put coordinated care at forefront of efforts Americans' views of college access varied, often inflated NIH researchers identify cause and new treatment for common recurrent fever in children more
Science 2.0 Links Hot Topics
Science 2.0 Links

Take a look at the best of Science 2.0 pages and web applications from around the Internet!
When Will Japan Quakes Stop? Science Braces for Shutdown Lethal Drug Export Halted Breast Cancer Gene on Trial The Future is Hard to Predict

Is Micheal Jackson A Pedophile

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Is Micheal Jackson A Pedophile

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Was Michael Jackson A Pedophile?

There is certainly a reasonable doubt about Jackson's guilt, at least in my mind.

his team managed to raise significant doubts.

And we'll discuss that in part 2.

RELATED ARTICLES ON SCIENCE 2.0

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

I'm sure Professor Bailey agrees...

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Gerhard Adam | 07/01/09 | 18:44 PM

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Dont tase me bro Hontas Farmer | 07/03/09 | 01:44 AM

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Jackson (not verified) | 07/02/09 | 13:37 PM

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link

Reply to This Link