Okay, so the British Michael Jackson interview was finally telecast last week here in the states. And of course, now everyone is up in arms again over his alleged pederasty.
Originally I had no intention of weighing in with my views on the subject. I did not watch the interview although it has been the subject of much coverage on the local news here in LA so I have seen and read quite a number of highlights from it. But there seemed to be no need for me to comment on it, as it is the subject of much discussion all across the web.
But then today I read the court papers posted on The Smoking Gun and was aghast by their graphicness.
Jacko: The Original Child Abuse Allegations
This was back in '93 and somehow, even after that account, the case was dropped and swept under the carpet. Somehow... actually it's fairly obvious how that happened. He paid millions to the boy's family to keep it out of court. And they took it.
This to me is the truly disgusting fact - that parents would sell out the children that they supposedly love and cherish. They took anywhere from 15 to 40 million in exchange for their child's alleged "emotional distress". What could they have possibly told the boy? That 'everything is okay now that we have the dosh'? 'Just forget that he did you in the bath, sweetie... look at our new house!'
An excellent article in the British paper the Sunday Herald asks this very same question - and more.
"Jackson is not a charged or convicted paedophile, so instead of demanding 'would you let your child sleep with this man?', why are none of the angry tabloids asking 'would you forgive a paedophile for abusing your child if he paid you off?'"
And what about the family of the boy shown in the interview? Also in the Herald, this article is frankly almost more disturbing than Jacko's comments on the joy of bed sharing.
It seems to me that Jackson is displaying all of the classic signs of a survivor of child abuse. And despite the fact that he may not want to continue the cycle, as many end up doing, he is still contributing to it no matter how "sweet" he may think he's treating these boys.
In doing research for this entry I googled "pederasty" and of course hundreds of hits came up. But what was most surprising to me were the number of support groups run for and by "BoyLovers". I trolled through the forum of one such site and read posting after posting that was filled with earnest longing and zeal towards their "young friend(s)". At first I will admit that it made my flesh crawl, but after reading further my attitude slowly began to shift. The disgust was pushed to the background and I found myself filled with pity for these men. Their postings seemed like those of teenaged girls yearning for the pop stars and cute boys at school that they could never hope to have.
To us simple folk, Jackson seems to have it all going on; unbelievable wealth, talent and fame. And because of people willing to soullessly pimp out their precious children, he can easily buy a boy to share his bed, as a llama or a chimp for his personal zoo. And no one of any authority can stop him. Not even himself.
Michael Jackson seems to simultaneously embody two of the western world's favorite maxims:
1. The rich can buy their way into and out of anything.lovedoll sez so February 10, 2003 11:15 AM2. Money cannot buy you happiness.
