Originally Posted By mele Frankly, if other people's children have seen Michael naked, then he deserved what he got. Seeing your parents naked is a little bit different than seeing a virtual stranger naked. I have been taking my girl scout troop camping every single year and they've never seen my underwear let alone me out of my underwear. Absolutely inappropriate behavior that quite possibly was against the law on it's own, w/o any physical contact.
Originally Posted By mele I am stunned that you would brush off possible evidence by saying it would simply be "possible bad judgement". He shouldn't have had that close of contact with other people's children. I've known a lot of guys who made that same kind of "accident" and they were perverts.
Originally Posted By danyoung mele, is it a bad thing if your scout troop girls were to see each other somewhat undressed, like while changing for swimming? This would be absolutely uncool for me, a guy, to be in the middle of this, and I'd think it would be uncool for me to be in the middle of young guys as they're changing. The point that's been made over and over, though, is that MJ didn't see himself as an adult. He thought of himself as another one of those kids, so who cares if anyone sees someone else's wally wally? It doesn't make it right, by any means, but it doesn't make it sexual either.
Originally Posted By danyoung mele, is it a bad thing if your scout troop girls were to see each other somewhat undressed, like while changing for swimming? This would be absolutely uncool for me, a guy, to be in the middle of this, and I'd think it would be uncool for me to be in the middle of young guys as they're changing. The point that's been made over and over, though, is that MJ didn't see himself as an adult. He thought of himself as another one of those kids, so who cares if anyone sees someone else's wally wally? It doesn't make it right, by any means, but it doesn't make it sexual either.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt I think a lot of this may be a combination of our puritanical views on sexuality and MJ's arrogance. While I doubt that he molested children, I think he at least deserved to be questioned about his behavior with them in a public court - and that's what happened. Since there was no evidence that led to the conclusion that he actually did anything wrong then the question should be put to rest. Finally, no accusations of surfaced since, which seems out of the ordinary for someone who should be labeled "pedophile". It should also be noted that in each case the parents willingly approved of the unsupervised sleepovers. If he was so sinister one has to wonder what they were thinking.
Originally Posted By mele You know, it seems like people want to just say "Michael never grew up" and let it go at that. I highly doubt that parents would let most people with a diminished capacity take responsibility of their children. I am still not saying that MJ was guilty but some of the excuses that people are giving are amazing to me. When else would you trust someone like this with your children? MJ had a lot of problems but he wasn't mentally retarded in any way. He has plenty of suggestive lyrics and dance moves (crotch grab, anyone?), and supposedly get married and have children but we're supposed to also believe he had the mind of an innocent child and he would never consider sex? And if he really did believe he was a child...what's more natural than two "kids" playing doctor? (Or undressing together as dan suggests?) I'm not saying he's guilty but I really do see some interesting excuses for his behavior here.
Originally Posted By Mickeysbestfan I liked his music and feel like this is a great loss to the music community. What he did or didn't do with children in his home isn't for me to say, I wasn't there, nor do I know anyone personally that was.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "When else would you trust someone like this with your children?" Well, that's why it's easy to conclude that the parents had motives of their own. In my opinion all parties involved in these cases, not just MJ, are questionable.
Originally Posted By Sara Tonin I have no firsthand knowledge of this, but I've heard that in some mens rooms the urinal is communal. So in that circumstance wouldn't it be possible to see someone else's 'stuff'. And boys over the age of 7 DO NOT want to go into the ladies room with their grandma...(I usually find a 'family' restroom).
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "...in some mens rooms the urinal is communal." I don't think I've ever been in one where it wasn't communal, and most of the time there are no partitions separating the fixtures. How did we get on this subject again?
Originally Posted By DAR <<I have no firsthand knowledge of this, but I've heard that in some mens rooms the urinal is communal. So in that circumstance wouldn't it be possible to see someone else's 'stuff'.>> It's not communal as it's essentially one giant troph, Camp Randall in Madison has one, I know Wrigley Field does. But you do not in any way shape or form even accidentally see someone else's stuff. And if there's room you create a buffer zone between occupants.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Well you could see if it wasn't for the fact that you're basically standing inches from a wall." I think a better example is the common practice of undressing and/or showering in public in the locker room at a gym. It might be uncomfortable for some people, but it is a socially acceptable thing to do.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt Not sure why I put that first paragraph in quotes. I think I'm tired today...
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "...in some mens rooms the urinal is communal." Not in most peoples' homes, and that's what's relevant to this particular topic.
Originally Posted By Sara Tonin So you're saying in your opinion, that without a doubt, Michael Jackson would never have gone anywhere with the kid where they might have needed to use a public restroom?
Originally Posted By Anatole69 The accuser claimed to know what MJ's privates looked like, but was it ever verified to be an accurate description? Given the lack of veracity to other details of the accusers story, it wouldn't surprise me if the description was wrong. - Anatole
