Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By Michael Bailey | July 1st 2009 12:11 PM | 105 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More J. Michael Bailey articles

All

About Michael Bailey

I am Professor of Psychology at Northwestern University. I study sexual orientation and related traits such as sex atypicality and gender identity. In 2003 I published a popular science book, Full Bio

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 quirks—secret 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 gay—although 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 hypothesis—arguably, the most reasonable hypothesis—that 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 called paraphilias. 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 is autogynephilia. 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 men—they 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 amputees—just 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.



Comments

LauraHult's picture
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.

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.

LauraHult's picture
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.

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?

LauraHult's picture
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.

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.

Gerhard Adam's picture
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.   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 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.

LauraHult's picture
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.

Gerhard Adam's picture
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 half-baked 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.



LauraHult's picture
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.

Gerhard Adam's picture
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.

LauraHult's picture
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!

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).

LauraHult's picture
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 naïveté 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.

Hfarmer's picture
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. 

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.

LauraHult's picture
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.

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".

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.

Hfarmer's picture
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.   :-/

Hank's picture
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.

Hfarmer's picture
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.

 

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.

Hfarmer's picture
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}

Stellare's picture
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 :-)

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.

@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.

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.

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

"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.

"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...."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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".

"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.

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

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.

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

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.....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sounds like cowboy likes sixteen year olds

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 don’t 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

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.

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.

"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.

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

Hank you're gorgeous. I think I'm in Love.

Peter

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.

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..

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.

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.

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?

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.

Hfarmer's picture
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.

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.

Hfarmer's picture
"Angrygay" you do realize that to allot of people being gay is a paraphillia.  :-/ People in glass houses....

PEOPLE WHO THINK MICHAEL JACKSON IS PEDO TYPE IN GOOGLE

jodan chandler

says it all

rip cant stop crying :(

jhawkins's picture
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. 


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.

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?

Hfarmer's picture
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.  


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."

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.

'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.

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.

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..

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.

LOLOLOL

MJ + Pedophile = Same

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.

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.

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.

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-...

All you ignorant fools should actually research the cases before passing judgment or else say you don’t know if he’s guilty or not because you don’t know the evidence. There is no evidence that Michael Jackson ever molested anyone other than the words of proven and admitted liars who couldn’t 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 Arvizo’s claims that Michael Jackson molested him. Instead all the evidence, even the prosecution’s ‘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. “He’s spends time with kids instead of women, therefore he is a child molester”. If so how come all the kids he spends time with aren’t accusing him? How come all the victims that exist in your imaginations never come forward with allegations. He’s 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 he’s 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 don’t 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 Chandler’s decision and theirs alone to run after taking the money. If you bother to read it (I know its to difficult for idiots) you’d notice MJ claimed he’s 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 Penny’s 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 Jackson’s 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-2-7-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 didn‘t 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. Here’s 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 who’d never even met Michael Jackson. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3GbPkR-ne4

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I am buying this argument=I am not buying this argument

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 didn’t 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 you’ve 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 didn’t 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 defense’s theory that these adults were leaning heavily on this kid back in 1993 to make an allegation against Jackson.

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, 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.

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.

"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 (Jason’s mom) was on Hard Copy (Diane Dimond‘s 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 (that’s 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 didn’t 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!

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.

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. That’s 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 doesn’t 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 can’t tell me he’s mad at MJ for hurting his son. He wasn’t even involved in his son’s 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 Jordie’s 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 don’t 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 you’ve 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 who’ve 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 you’re innocent. Dangerous line of reasoning. In that case why do we bother with trials, why can’t we convict people based simply on the accusation?

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-transcripts-4-05-2005. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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. Doesn’t 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 doesn‘t 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? Isn’t 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 Robson’s testimony. That’s 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 haven’t read Aphrodite Jones book. It’s 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 MJ’s prison adventures reports. They’d 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 MJ’s 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 MJ’s 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.

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.

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <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>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
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.