u/harlotmuffin

There have been concerns/complaints recently about unfair post or comment removals that have led to questioning whether or not we are actually just a secret Michael Jackson Stan sub in disguise. The answer to that is no, and if this sub ever becomes that, I will no longer be interested in being a moderator. I'm not the person who started the sub so I obviously cannot fully speak for them nor anyone but myself, but what I can say is that I am currently confident that no one on the current mod list is a stan.

We had an MJ defender sneak in and become a mod for a few days and in that time, they engaged in some foolishness while the others (including myself) were away. Personally, I was initially suspicious of them but another mod was very kind and wanted to give them a chance so we agreed to. At that point, they had not done anything wrong of which I'm aware.

Unfortunately, they behaved poorly and have since been removed. I have done my best to reinstate those comments that were removed by that mod.

THAT BEING SAID. We are not a snark sub, nor do we appreciate snark-like behavior. Speaking for myself, every time an anti-MJ comment is removed, it is not done because I just adore him so much and can't stand people talking poorly about him. It's because what was said was either not constructive, unnecessarily inflammatory, framing speculation as irrefutable fact, or some other violation of our current rules. Not every anti-MJ talking point is going to fly just because. The point of this sub is to critically examine him from a psychological standpoint, not to vent your anger at him/his actions.

We three remaining mods do not always agree, either. After all, we are individuals.

People from LNHBO are also more than welcome to post here. The point of this sub was not to make a direct alternative to theirs. We're not competing and we're not mortal enemies. We just have a slightly different aim/purpose.

Fans are also welcome to post here if they want. Unfortunately many fans have difficulty criticizing MJ in any way, much less serious ones. Sometimes detractors also seem to think that any remotely positive sentiment about anything related to MJ or even correcting misinformation is proof that you're an obsessed MJ fan. Some people think anything negative is good so long as it paints MJ in a bad light.

We would like to avoid either of those traps.

But ultimately, all I can say is that we're doing our best. The sub just started guys. Try to be reasonable with your expectations.

I'm just wondering what could cause this, as I haven't seen any complaints about them. I'm not playing music at unbelievable volumes. My phone volume doesn't even get to a level I would think could blow out earbuds. I wonder if it's related to the ANC only because proceeding the blown out sound, I experienced "screeching" where music would be playing fine but then there'd be this unbearably high pitched squealing sound until I turned them off. Worth noting I had another model of Tozo that lasted me years.

I've purchased the NC3s and am hoping for less trouble.

Obviously we cannot know whether he did or didn't, but most people seem not to believe he didn't act upon his own children. I am also of the mind that he was not inappropriate with them in a sexual way.

Contrary to what a lot of people assume, pedophiles usually do not molest their own children. Obviously many people are molested by parents, but that is a small population amongst people who fit the profile of pedophiles.

However, something that interests me is that when a pedophile *acquires* children (via adoption or becoming a stepparent) versus having them, it is very often for the purpose of having children to abuse.

As most people believe based on the fact that they do not appear to be biologically related to Michael at all, Michael's kids were essentially adopted/created for him.

These would be ideal conditions for abuse to occur, and yet, he seemed to truly love them only as a father.

That has always intrigued me. For their sake, I'm glad and certainly hope that nothing like that happened. They have been through enough trauma as a result of everything else.

But what it does suggest is that Michael had the ability and capacity to care about at least certain children in a more healthy way.

Mod note: I will delete comments making definitive statements about how his kids were definitely abused. That will not be tolerated. That crosses the line from opinion into untrue based on current information. You can say if you think he may have but no definitive statements that have no basis.

This is perhaps the most common thing I see people say when it comes to the sleeping in bed with kids/child "friendships" and it is mention to function as a mic drop moment to pull people out of the glitter and enchantment of Michael's spell. I completely understand what people are trying to accomplish by saying this. They're trying to say that no adult should be acting as a peer with or sleeping with children, and that's completely true, but you simply can't compare the average man to Michael Jackson psychologically.

He was insanely famous by 11, and by the age of 25 that fame grew to such a degree that if you weren't around during Michael's life, there's almost no way I can explain it to you except to say that Michael was almost regarded as a god. To be fair, I was born in the late 80s so even I missed the very peak of his fame. But still, I grew up seeing and knowing that Michael Jackson had no peers in terms of staggering, frightening fame.

That's one of the things that makes MJ such a weird case to discuss. There's pretty much no one to compare him to. Other people are famous. Other people have even been extremely famous (The Beatles, Elvis) but unlike them, Michael grew up in the spotlight and endures in popularity in a way that is uniquely his own.

Of course fame potentially and likely enabled him to do whatever the fuck he wanted and that's a valid thing to criticize and point out. But "if Michael Jackson was a guy down the street" is as effective as saying, "If Michael Jackson was a hamburger" in terms of how far from that thing that he was.

Michael is, both unfortunately and luckily, a one of one case study in how becoming a "god" can completely alter one's perception of reality. No one will ever be that famous again, as monoculture is gone. And no one ought to be.

All this to say, there are other ways to make your point, but comparing Michael Jackson to a random guy can't work by its very nature because he was anything but that.

So, when the stories are "too similar" to each other's (as I often encounter people saying about Wade and James), they are "obviously fake" and when the stories are somewhat different (like Gavin and the Cascios), they "don't fit the pattern.". So, according to defenders, they're lying.

Obviously that's not great logic and I don't think similarity or difference in stories is a great way to determine veracity unless it's something completely and totally out of character, for instance if someone came out tomorrow and said, "MJ abused me and he only did it while wearing a clown outfit." That could be possible but it would rightly invite some questions as zero people have claimed that happened or that he had any interest in dressing up like a clown.

I must admit, though, that the details unique to each victim's experience are interesting to me and I feel worth exploring.

I'm not going to be able to include the Cascios fully as only certain acts and details have been described in detail, as opposed to other victims but I will mention them where I can. For example

Starting with what victims have what in common:

Jordie, James, Wade, Jane Doe, Gavin, Jason Francia and at least some of the Cascio children all describe fondling and/or masturbation. Either of themselves by Michael, of Michael by themselves, or both.

Jordie, James, Wade, Jane Doe all describe kissing.

Jordie, James, Wade, and Jane Doe and at least one Cascio all describe receiving oral contact.

James, Wade, Jane Doe describe being made to give Michael oral contact as well.

James and Jane Doe both describe being penetrated digitally (by finger) by Michael.

James, Wade, and Gavin all describe being shown porn.

James, Wade, and once Cascio describe Michael watching their exposed bodies to masturbate.

Wade and Jane both describe attempted penetration but stopping because of bleeding and pain.

At least one of the Cascios mentions a sexual relationship involving successful penetration. This relationship ostensibly continued for some time with intercourse happening on multiple occasions.

James, Gavin, and the Cascios all describe drinking. The Cascios describe being given additional drugs.

This isn't a perfect list but a general grouping of similarities.

Now for the differences:

Jordie describes Michael essentially bragging to him about his relationships with other children/using the fact that other children do sexual things with him to convince Jordie to do it, too. This is sharply contrasted by Wade and James who were not only told they were the only ones but told by Michael that he had never done these sexual acts with anyone, let alone children. The Cascios also all mention believing completely that they were the only ones even up to adulthood.

Jordie was never shown porn, or at least didn't mention it. Neither does Jane Doe.

James describes that harrowing wedding ceremony. There is currently no other information available that Michael had any kind of wedding or commitment ceremony with any other victim.

Jane Doe started to receive big payouts before and after the 1993 case. Neither Jordie, Wade, James, or Gavin were paid off. Jordie eventually received a settlement but that required going public. Jane Doe does not say in her suit that she threatened to tell. Michael just gave her money. Multiple times.

Wade describes being shocked as an adult to learn that Michael drank at all whereas James describes being given so much alcohol that he was getting completely wasted as a pre-teen.

Jordie does not mention being given alcohol or drugs.

Gavin seems almost like he was the least close to Michael of all the victims which might explain why the abuse he experienced was so limited.

Jason Francia may be the strangest case of all as whole he describes being friendly with Michael, there was no super close relationship and he was never explicitly instructed not to tell like the others. Michael just flat out reached and groped him according to his testimony.

Obviously I know that a predator isn't going to go down the line and do the exact same things or completely different things every time. But the differences with each case are interesting to me and I wonder why they happened.

Why was Jordie the only one to be let in on the secret that Michael was a serial abuser? Why didn't he offer Jordie or Wade alcohol? Why didn't he show Jordie any porn? Why did Jane Doe randomly get a payout without threatening to tell but others didn't? Why did he "marry" James and no one else that we know of? Drinking Dominic Cascio's urine is, from current available information, an experience unique to him. Why didn't he use the code words with Wade that he used with Jordie and James (and apparently the Cascios)? Wade doesn't mention codes at all.

It's all such strange behavior to understand.

Hopefully this sub doesn't get fully brigaded by MJ stans or become a carbon copy of LNHBO, as that tends to happen. While the LNHBO has some wonderful, valuable information, I feel like so much of the content there veers off into tinfoil hat conspiracy land with analyzing everything Michael ever did and reading pedophilia into everything. Mods will, to their credit, sometimes call out the most egregious examples, but for every interesting piece of relevant info I see, I see a thousand wild assumptions. Assuming he was a pedophile, that still doesn't mean everything he ever did was for the purpose of abusing children. There are also so many contradictions that people engage in.

For example, it's common to say it makes no sense to have Michael's adult friends and colleagues defending him from the allegations because they wouldn't know what he got up to in private if he was trying to hide it.

I agree with that but recently I saw a post from a couple years ago from a moderator using the interviews with Wade and Brett as children as proof that Michael didn't care about them and saying he should've gotten Brooke Shields or Elizabeth Taylor instead. But then they turn around and say that Brooke and Elizabeth's opinions don't matter and that only the children can answer. But you can't ask the children? That makes no sense. There's so much intellectual dishonesty both on the stan side and the "anti" side. Although to be very clear I think stans harassing people who come out as victims is obviously much worse than people gathering on the internet to see if they can spot pedophilia in a photo of MJ with a random child. The former is actually harmful, the latter is just a little kooky but doesn't hurt anyone.

I've also noticed this weird cultish mentality even on the "anti" side where if you call out people wildly reaching saying flatly ridiculous things, they'll suspect you of being a secret stan trying to troll or infiltrate. I get saying anything against MJ means they probably have to deal with stans constantly, but not everyone is a stan just because they think certain online behavior on the guilty side is also ridiculous.

I'm not interested in "snarking" on MJ despite my belief they he very likely did what he was accused of. I just want to talk to people and for people to be normal, neither worshipping him nor acting like he was only capable of molesting children and nothing else.