In Was Michael Jackson A Pedophile? we dismissed the idea that Michael Jackson was gay and the unlikeliness of his being a clinical pedophile along with being an autogynephile. So what was he?
's Recommended Blogs
[x]
hasn't added any blog recommendations yet.
1
Blogs Instructions
's Recommended Books
[x]
hasn't added any book recommendations yet.
1 Books Instructions
's Affiliates and Organizations
[x]
hasn't added any organizations or groups yet.
1 Badges Instructions
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.
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.
Both in her recent appearance on KQED’s Forum talk show and in her blog, Stanford University’s Joan Roughgarden continues her campaign to discredit me and my book, The Man Who Would Be Queen.
Roughgarden’s rate of false accusations per utterance is so high that it is tempting to take the time to refute them one by one to the exclusion of getting around to discussing the science. Indeed, I believe that is the intent of Roughgarden and my other chief critics.
Roughgarden’s rate of false accusations per utterance is so high that it is tempting to take the time to refute them one by one to the exclusion of getting around to discussing the science. Indeed, I believe that is the intent of Roughgarden and my other chief critics.











