Would you let your young son sleep with a 35yr old man?

[Donkey Waffle]

"Would you let your young son sleep with a 35yr old man/stranger?....well, maby if it was Michael Jackson?"

Why do people ignore that this kind of behavior is considered to be that of a deviant? Yea, he was found not guilty but he admitted that he still SLEEPS WITH YOUNG BOYS. Ask this question to anyone who is going to argue that Michael Jackson got a bad rap and was found NOT GUILTY. I liked Mikes music but I always knew he was a FREAK.

Rev. Al Sharpton - "your daddy's not weird, it weird what your daddy had to go through"

Sorry reverend, your an idiot and your comment is completely ludicrous.

[notluzn]

I think MJ was a Sicko.

[BillBrown]

Rev. Al Sharpton - "your daddy's not weird, it weird what your daddy had to go through"

Maybe Sharpton's just like Jackson.
Not good for the kids in Harlem.

[DRS]

A little girl said goodbye to her father today, maybe the nice thing to do is feel for that little girl and stop saying negative things about her father on public message boards.

[ExDem]

"Would you let your young son sleep with a 35yr old man/stranger?....well, maby if it was Michael Jackson?"

Why do people ignore that this kind of behavior is considered to be that of a deviant? Yea, he was found not guilty but he admitted that he still SLEEPS WITH YOUNG BOYS. Ask this question to anyone who is going to argue that Michael Jackson got a bad rap and was found NOT GUILTY. I liked Mikes music but I always knew he was a FREAK.

Rev. Al Sharpton - "your daddy's not weird, it weird what your daddy had to go through"

Sorry reverend, your an idiot and your comment is completely ludicrous.

No, I wouldn't let my child sleep with a stranger.....especially a very strange stranger like Michael Jackson because of the accusations against him and because he paid off the accusers. However, that doesn't prove guilt, and he was acquitted in the trial. I just wouldn't take any chances because of his other known issues with drugs, and extremely odd behavior. I don't know if he abused children, but based on many red flags, I would not be surprised. I do feel very bad for the children for a lot of reasons. I don't know what they have gone through before MJ died, and I don't know what the future holds for them with all the other issues they will have to deal with. I feel very bad for them.

[captusa]

"Would you let your young son sleep with a 35yr old man/stranger?....well, maby if it was Michael Jackson?"

Why do people ignore that this kind of behavior is considered to be that of a deviant? Yea, he was found not guilty but he admitted that he still SLEEPS WITH YOUNG BOYS. Ask this question to anyone who is going to argue that Michael Jackson got a bad rap and was found NOT GUILTY. I liked Mikes music but I always knew he was a FREAK.

Rev. Al Sharpton - "your daddy's not weird, it weird what your daddy had to go through"

Sorry reverend, your an idiot and your comment is completely ludicrous.

Sharpton is not one of my favorite people but a eulogy is not the place to bring up the faults of the deceased.'
A comforting word to the mourning children is appropriate whether true or not.

[RealityCheck TellTheTruth]

LOL I wouldn't but in Michael Jacksons case you have to remember, he never grew up mentally. He was a boy traped inside a mans body. That is why he felt that it was ok to sleep in bed with children because he thought he was one of them. Did he do the touchy? Let the Lord be the judge of him.

And again NO I would never allow my child to sleep with a man, stranger or even MJ. :))

[Groundhog]

I am not sure if Jackson had the urge to fondle a young boy or not, but regardless, that guy was a whackadoo.

I am more annoyed that the parents would allow their children to have a slumber party with an grown up, even if it was the world's most famous celeb that was emotionally a child. For all they know he could of been faking it and been a monster.

Parents like those should have their kids taken away.

[notluzn]

A little girl said goodbye to her father today, maybe the nice thing to do is feel for that little girl and stop saying negative things about her father on public message boards.

I bet you feel that way when priest do it huh?

[notluzn]

I am not sure if Jackson had the urge to fondle a young boy or not, but regardless, that guy was a whackadoo.

I am more annoyed that the parents would allow their children to have a slumber party with an grown up, even if it was the world's most famous celeb that was emotionally a child. For all they know he could of been faking it and been a monster.

Parents like those should have their kids taken away.So true. The guy was perverted with children.

[BillBrown]

LOL I wouldn't but in Michael Jacksons case you have to remember, he never grew up mentally. He was a boy traped inside a mans body. That is why he felt that it was ok to sleep in bed with children because he thought he was one of them. Did he do the touchy? Let the Lord be the judge of him.

And again NO I would never allow my child to sleep with a man, stranger or even MJ. :))

I keep hearing the story about Jackson never growing up...etc, but how does anyone know that?

The man may simply have been a common pervert. I strongly suspect that was the case.

[RealityCheck TellTheTruth]

I keep hearing the story about Jackson never growing up...etc, but how does anyone know that?

The man may simply have been a common pervert. I strongly suspect that was the case.

Maybe your right. Lord knows

[DRS]

I bet you feel that way when priest do it huh?

What about repecting the feelings of family on the day they die?
Yes

[jeepers]

The only reason why MJ's behavior is excused is because he was talented, rich and powerful. Were you to have this same behavior out of some white guy that is tone deaf and lived in a cardboard box, he'd be in jail.

The biggest mistake that people made with him was excusing inexcusable behavior. It hurt people around him and ultimately took this man's life. However, you don't mess with the cash cow, right?

He wasn't enlightened, he needed therapy. Lots of it.

[BillBrown]

What about repecting the feelings of family on the day they die?
Yes

Jackson died two weeks ago.

[BillBrown]

The only reason why MJ's behavior is excused is because he was talented, rich and powerful. Were you to have this same behavior out of some white guy that is tone deaf and lived in a cardboard box, he'd be in jail.

The biggest mistake that people made with him was excusing inexcusable behavior. It hurt people around him and ultimately took this man's life. However, you don't mess with the cash cow, right?

He wasn't enlightened, he needed therapy. Lots of it.

He needed an orange jump suit.

[DRS]

Jackson died two weeks ago.

Yeah he is dead an no matter what you think of the man he can no longer do anything, but our words can still hurt those who loved him including his kids.

Would you say the same things you say here in front of his kids?

[jeepers]

Btw, the answer to the original question "Would you let your young son sleep with a 35yr old man?" is: No. No, not even if it was entirely asexual.

Because it's a poor example of 'manhood' to act like a child. Yes it's fine for men to have childlike moments in the sense where they can play with THEIR kids.

What is not appropriate is for them not to be a role model as to how to be a man. Men don't do sleepovers. Men can supervise a sleepover for CHILDREN. However, that would make them an authority figure, not one of the participants.

[BillBrown]

Yeah he is dead an no matter what you think of the man he can no longer do anything, but our words can still hurt those who loved him including his kids.

Would you say the same things you say here in front of his kids?

Jackson was a public figure. He made hundreds of millions of dollars being a public figure. He wanted to be a public figure. That's how he made his living.
That makes him fair game for comment and discussion.

Charles Manson and Ted Bundy had/have family. Should that have stifled any commentary on them? Should only nice things be said about them?

[DRS]

Jackson was a public figure. He made hundreds of millions of dollars being a public figure. He wanted to be a public figure. That's how he made his living.
That makes him fair game for comment and discussion.

Charles Manson and Ted Bundy had/have family. Should that have stifled any commentary on them? Should only nice things be said about them?

It probably hurts their famalies what they did and does nothing to help them that it is brought up. And if they had small children then yes I would say not to say things in places where they can read them or hear them that would cause those children pain.

[BillBrown]

It probably hurts their famalies what they did and does nothing to help them that it is brought up. And if they had small children then yes I would say not to say things in places where they can read them or hear them that would cause those children pain.

Then I disagree with you.

[Bob_George]

It depends how well I knew the 35-year-old man. In the case of Michael Jackson, if I knew him well enough to let him babysit my kids and let them sleep at his house in his bedroom, I wouldn't be worried about them being abused. He just didn't seem like someone who could hurt a child. His desire to be around children wasn't because he wanted to satisfy his sexual urges. He surrounded himself with children because they didn't judge him. He could be carefree and just have fun with kids. To the children, Michael Jackson wasn't a rich man or a famous man. He was just a kind man who cared enough to give them the time of day. I think it's a said reflection on our society that when we see a man dedicate his time and money to the benefit of children, we suspect that he's up to no good. Why can't we just accept that there are good people, like Michael Jackson, in this world?

[super cool ski instructor]

Umm...I wouldn't let me child sleep with any adult...whether it is a 35 year old man, a 26 year old woman, or a 50 year old leprechaun.

[BillBrown]

It depends how well I knew the 35-year-old man. In the case of Michael Jackson, if I knew him well enough to let him babysit my kids and let them sleep at his house in his bedroom, I wouldn't be worried about them being abused. He just didn't seem like someone who could hurt a child. His desire to be around children wasn't because he wanted to satisfy his sexual urges. He surrounded himself with children because they didn't judge him. He could be carefree and just have fun with kids. To the children, Michael Jackson wasn't a rich man or a famous man. He was just a kind man who cared enough to give them the time of day. I think it's a said reflection on our society that when we see a man dedicate his time and money to the benefit of children, we suspect that he's up to no good. Why can't we just accept that there are good people, like Michael Jackson, in this world?

Are you employed by the Jackson estate?

[super cool ski instructor]

Are you employed by the Jackson estate?

No..he just has a different opinion than you...GASP!

[BillBrown]

No..he just has a different opinion than you...GASP!

You must not have read his post.
He stated things as fact, not opinion.
It read like a press release. That's why I asked.


His desire to be around children wasn't because he wanted to satisfy his sexual urges. He surrounded himself with children because they didn't judge him. He could be carefree and just have fun with kids. To the children, Michael Jackson wasn't a rich man or a famous man. He was just a kind man who cared enough to give them the time of day. I think it's a said reflection on our society that when we see a man dedicate his time and money to the benefit of children, we suspect that he's up to no good. Why can't we just accept that there are good people, like Michael Jackson, in this world?

[BillBrown]

Donkey- that post violates the Terms of Service. I would delete it if I were you.

[Bob_George]

You must not have read his post.
He stated things as fact, not opinion.
It read like a press release. That's why I asked.
I don't think you get the difference between someone expressing their opinion and expressing a fact. Just to clear it up for you....

Opinion: If I knew Michael Jackson I would probably let him babysit my kids and this is why...etc.

Fact: On June 13, 2005 Michael Jackson was acquitted on all counts of child molestation and administering an intoxicating agent to a child with the intent to commit a felony.

[BillBrown]

I don't think you get the difference between someone expressing their opinion and expressing a fact. Just to clear it up for you....

Opinion: If I knew Michael Jackson I would probably let him babysit my kids and this is why...etc.

Fact: On June 13, 2005 Michael Jackson was acquitted on all counts of child molestation and administering an intoxicating agent to a child with the intent to commit a felony.

No I understand the difference.

Opinion: If I knew Michael Jackson I would probably let him babysit my kids and this is why...etc.

The "whys" you listed were represented as fact.

[DLaw911]

I bet you feel that way when priest do it huh?I would agree with you except in MJ's case not only was he aquitted but the evidence that keeps coming out, including asserted admissions by the son of dentist Evan Chandler that his father coerced him to make a false accusation, suggest no criminal behavior took place. The son (Jordon Chandler) eventually sued his own father (http://mjthekingofpop.wordpress.com/2009/05/05/jordan-chandler/). Needless to say that family is REALLY screwed up .... only surpassed by the Avizo (Santa Barbara accuser) clan.

You're got to remember one thing - there are a lot of people in this world who will do and SAY anything to get money. Unfortunately for MJ he was too trusting.

And, no, I don't think it's appropriate for children to sleep in the same bed with a non family member.

[Donkey Waffle]

Donkey- that post violates the Terms of Service. I would delete it if I were you.

Altered post, less direct so its not considered flaming.

[Bob_George]

No I understand the difference.

Opinion: If I knew Michael Jackson I would probably let him babysit my kids and this is why...etc.

The "whys" you listed were represented as fact.
It's called opinion based on fact.

Fact: Michael Jackson was found not guilty of child molestation.
Opinion: His desire to be around children wasn't because he wanted to satisfy his sexual urges.

Fact: Michael Jackson donated a lot of money to charities benefiting children, even creating his own charities.
Opinion: He was just a kind man who cared enough to give them the time of day. I think it's a said reflection on our society that when we see a man dedicate his time and money to the benefit of children, we suspect that he's up to no good.

See, I'm interpreting the facts, making my own conclusions, and forming my own opinions. That generally how opinions, at least educated opinions, are formed.

[BillBrown]

Altered post, less direct so its not considered flaming.

I don't think it's cleaned up enough.
I'm not a mod and that's just my opinion.
The guy it was directed at is on here. He can decide if it goes any further.

[super cool ski instructor]

No I understand the difference.

Opinion: If I knew Michael Jackson I would probably let him babysit my kids and this is why...etc.

The "whys" you listed were represented as fact.

The same way alot of people around here are calling MJ a pedophile and saying he ruined the lives of children. Their wording looks to be presenting it as fact...are you asking them for clarification too?

[BillBrown]

The same way alot of people around here are calling MJ a pedophile and saying he ruined the lives of children. Their wording looks to be presenting it as fact...are you asking them for clarification too?

No and I never asked him for clarification. He offered it.
READ. It'll help you when you respond to these posts.

[Fire Watch]

Someones been drinking the Jesus Juice.


http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m51/Rickandliz3/JesusJuice.png

[super cool ski instructor]

No and I never asked him for clarification. He offered it.
READ. It'll help you when you respond to these posts.

Oh for the love of God.


He clarified because you asked "Are you employed by the Jackson estate?" and then said "He stated things as fact, not opinion. It read like a press release. That's why I asked."

So maybe instead of stating to you "The same way alot of people around here are calling MJ a pedophile and saying he ruined the lives of children. Their wording looks to be presenting it as fact...are you asking them for clarification too?" like I did...you would rather I ask "The same way alot of people around here are calling MJ a pedophile and saying he ruined the lives of children. Their wording looks to be presenting it as fact...are you going to ask if they work for the families of the children claiming MJ molested them?"

You know exactly what I was saying...you just choose to be difficult. My reading comprehention is just fine and dandy...I just choose not to play the 'semantics' game.

[StoneScratcher]

Hypothetical:

You let your 12-year-old son sleep over a thirty-five-year-old man's house. A man you apparently trust, you have no doubts about him, you are going by every parent sense you have--he's not a pervert, he's a kind and caring man.

You drop your kid off, it was winter, so your kid's in a down jacket and gloves. The 35-year-old sees that your son cannot get his zipper down. Being helpful, the guy grabs hold of the zipper pull at the neck of your son and gently pulls down the zipper to the bottom of the jacket. Using both hands, he unfastens the zipper--his hands are at the level of your son's fly, by the way. But the man only removes the jacket and hangs it up.

NOTHING happens all night into the next morning, other than movies, popcorn, fun, laughter, dumb jokes and trying to make pancakes in the morning shaped like Peter Pan and Mickey Mouse.

You pick your son up. Did I tell you this 35-year-old is FILTHY rich? He is.

About six months later you lose your job, you are so strapped for money, you cannot stand another breath. Aha!

You hire a lawyer--to sue the 35-year-old.

Your son is briefed--and will NOT lie on the stand.

On the stand:

Your attorney: Did this 35-year-old, ever, at any time have his hands at your private parts?

Your son: Yes.

Your attorney: Both hands?

Your son: Yes.

[super cool ski instructor]

Someones been drinking the Jesus Juice.


http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m51/Rickandliz3/JesusJuice.png

Oh Crikey! :))

[Donkey Waffle]

Hypothetical:

You let your 12-year-old son sleep over a thirty-five-year-old man's house. A man you apparently trust, you have no doubts about him, you are going by every parent sense you have--he's not a pervert, he's a kind and caring man.

You drop your kid off, it was winter, so your kid's in a down jacket and gloves. The 35-year-old sees that your son cannot get his zipper down. Being helpful, the guy grabs hold of the zipper pull at the neck of your son and gently pulls down the zipper to the bottom of the jacket. Using both hands, he unfastens the zipper--his hands are at the level of your son's fly, by the way. But the man only removes the jacket and hangs it up.

NOTHING happens all night into the next morning, other than movies, popcorn, fun, laughter, dumb jokes and trying to make pancakes in the morning shaped like Peter Pan and Mickey Mouse.

You pick your son up. Did I tell you this 35-year-old is FILTHY rich? He is.

About six months later you lose your job, you are so strapped for money, you cannot stand another breath. Aha!

You hire a lawyer--to sue the 35-year-old.

Your son is briefed--and will NOT lie on the stand.

On the stand:

Your attorney: Did this 35-year-old, ever, at any time have his hands at your private parts?

Your son: Yes.

Your attorney: Both hands?

Your son: Yes.

GET BACK ON SUBJECT.

The question is not if Michael Jackson is GUILTY or NOT, the question is:

"WOULD YOU LET YOUR 12YR OLD SON SLEEP IN BED WITH A 35yr OLD MAN?

Those of you who keep bringing up MJ's "not guilty" verdict must be okay with this type of behavior which tells us what type of parent you are or would be.

[super cool ski instructor]

Dude Donkey...get a grip.

[JimGP20]

It depends how well I knew the 35-year-old man. In the case of Michael Jackson, if I knew him well enough to let him babysit my kids and let them sleep at his house in his bedroom, I wouldn't be worried about them being abused. He just didn't seem like someone who could hurt a child. His desire to be around children wasn't because he wanted to satisfy his sexual urges. He surrounded himself with children because they didn't judge him. He could be carefree and just have fun with kids. To the children, Michael Jackson wasn't a rich man or a famous man. He was just a kind man who cared enough to give them the time of day. I think it's a said reflection on our society that when we see a man dedicate his time and money to the benefit of children, we suspect that he's up to no good. Why can't we just accept that there are good people, like Michael Jackson, in this world?

There are countless adults in this world who routinely "give the time of day" to children. As a former Cub Scout leader, I happen to be one of them. Not once in all the time I was a youth leader did I ever have the desire to have them over to my house for a slumber party. That behavior is deviant, and any attempts to justify it is a bit sick in it's own right.

[goodlife]

Altered post, less direct so its not considered flaming.

you failed miserably.
Your post was completely inappropriate and if I see another like it, you will be banned.
goodlife

[jeepers]

With anyone else would this behavior be 'acceptable'. Nope. So it's like suspending all knowledge that you have about the universe, sociology and psychology and creating a fantasy one for this one person?

Uhhh, no.

[DLaw911]

Someones been drinking the Jesus Juice.


http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m51/Rickandliz3/JesusJuice.png
As distasteful as I find this image it did give me a laugh.

[Fire Watch]

As distasteful as I find this image it did give me a laugh.
Personally, I havent tasted it..but it made me giggle a bit too.

[DLaw911]

Personally, I havent tasted it..but it made me giggle a bit too.If MJ had been born looking like this I would have said, "No way!". But he did it to himself.

As I said before I believe he was addicted to plastic surgery or otherwise had a very negative image of himself. Maybe he thought it made him look better. It certainly made him look different. I thought he was a very handsome young man. I remember his first obvious plastic surgery. Everyone talked about it. There was no need for it. But, then, it was his body. Not my cup of tea.

[Bob_George]

Isn't defacing the image of Jesus Christ offensive to Christians?

[Fire Watch]

Isn't defacing the image of Jesus Christ offensive to Christians?
I'd first have to ask you to show me an authentic picture of Christ. After you've done so, we'll compare the two photos and see if it's offensive to me as a staunch Christian.

Wouldnt your avatar be offensive to Michael Jackson considering how much money he spent, and how much pain he endured to change his looks?

[BillBrown]

Isn't defacing the image of Jesus Christ offensive to Christians?

I agree with FW that your avatar is a heresy to Jacksonism.
I don't think his High Priest- Sharpton- would be pleased.