Michael Jackson and "Leaving Neverland"

[Artaxerxes II]

I started this topic after I started reading Tom O Carroll's book "Michael's personal liaisons" as well as watching Candace Owens' video on the same matter, which got me thinking: What do MAPs think of the accusations against Jackson?

I know this may be really controversial, especially among boylovers who insist on Michael Jackson (MJ) being one of them, but I'll say it anyway: In my opinion, Michael Jackson isn't a MAP.

Putting aside the fact that he got acquitted of all charges in a trial at 2005, not only did he spend most of his intimate life with adult women, but the FBI files pertaining to allegations of CSA by Jackson following death threats being issued against him, exonerate Jackson. I should also note that many of the accusers, such as Jordie Chandler, has often shown inconsistencies when it comes to his accusations against Jackson, and that a similar pattern is seen by other accusers, such as James Safechuck: https://www.nealdavislaw.com/blog/sex-c ... -debunked/
Isn't it peculiar how, as Jackson hanged out with both rich and poor kids, it's only the poor kids that accuse him of molestation to his day, while the rich kids now defend him?

Of importance is also how some powerful interests converged to attack Michael Jackson back at the height of his popularity. This article does more justice on this than I ever could here: https://www.unz.com/article/the-conspir ... l-jackson/

I would also recommend Razorfist/Rageaholic's video series on Michael Jackson, where he scrutinises every allegations in a 6-part series. An important reminder goes towards "motivated reasoning": Too often, we are caught up with our convictions, so we should be willing to consider the possibility that our own reasoning may be false. Whilst I don't think MJ was a MAP, I'm willing to change my position if credible evidence ever surfaces.

So, returning to the question, is Michael Jackson really a MAP or not?

[ZeroXJoker]

I don't think MJ was a MAP (even if he was that doesn't change my opinion about him). He was a interesting individual to say the least

[Meiwaku_Mailing_Girl]

I started this topic after I started reading Tom O Carroll's book "Michael's personal liaisons" as well as watching Candace Owens' video on the same matter, which got me thinking: What do MAPs think of the accusations against Jackson?

I know this may be really controversial, especially among boylovers who insist on Michael Jackson (MJ) being one of them, but I'll say it anyway: In my opinion, Michael Jackson isn't a MAP.

Putting aside the fact that he got acquitted of all charges in a trial at 2005, not only did he spend most of his intimate life with adult women, but the FBI files pertaining to allegations of CSA by Jackson following death threats being issued against him, exonerate Jackson. I should also note that many of the accusers, such as Jordie Chandler, has often shown inconsistencies when it comes to his accusations against Jackson, and that a similar pattern is seen by other accusers, such as James Safechuck: https://www.nealdavislaw.com/blog/sex-c ... -debunked/
Isn't it peculiar how, as Jackson hanged out with both rich and poor kids, it's only the poor kids that accuse him of molestation to his day, while the rich kids now defend him?

Of importance is also how some powerful interests converged to attack Michael Jackson back at the height of his popularity. This article does more justice on this than I ever could here: https://www.unz.com/article/the-conspir ... l-jackson/

I would also recommend Razorfist/Rageaholic's video series on Michael Jackson, where he scrutinises every allegations in a 6-part series. An important reminder goes towards "motivated reasoning": Too often, we are caught up with our convictions, so we should be willing to consider the possibility that our own reasoning may be false. Whilst I don't think MJ was a MAP, I'm willing to change my position if credible evidence ever surfaces.

So, returning to the question, is Michael Jackson really a MAP or not?

Him getting acquitted doesn't mean much when you consider the fact that in order to be found guilty, he would have to had been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It's possible for an allegation to be completely true or partially true and still for the verdict to still reach not guilty. Considering the fact that some of the jurors did believe Gavin was telling the truth, but they still considered there to be reasonable doubt, so they had to vote not guilty. Some of the jury thought that particular accusation was false but that Jackson had molested other boys in the past. Some of the jury also felt pressured by other members to change their verdict to not guilty. Some felt that there was going to be a hung jury, so they thought it would be best to just vote not guilty. So it's not as if the jury had came to the conclusion that he was undoubtably not guilty of any child molestation. I recommend watching "The Jury Speaks" season 1 episode 2.

How could the FBI have exonerated Jackson of CSA allegations when they never investigated into him? All they did was provide assistance to the Santa Barbara County police investigations that happened in 1993/1994 and 2004/2005.

Razorfist videos are not a good source. Pretty much every point of his is inaccurate information.

[Artaxerxes II]

I started this topic after I started reading Tom O Carroll's book "Michael's personal liaisons" as well as watching Candace Owens' video on the same matter, which got me thinking: What do MAPs think of the accusations against Jackson?

I know this may be really controversial, especially among boylovers who insist on Michael Jackson (MJ) being one of them, but I'll say it anyway: In my opinion, Michael Jackson isn't a MAP.

Putting aside the fact that he got acquitted of all charges in a trial at 2005, not only did he spend most of his intimate life with adult women, but the FBI files pertaining to allegations of CSA by Jackson following death threats being issued against him, exonerate Jackson. I should also note that many of the accusers, such as Jordie Chandler, has often shown inconsistencies when it comes to his accusations against Jackson, and that a similar pattern is seen by other accusers, such as James Safechuck: https://www.nealdavislaw.com/blog/sex-c ... -debunked/
Isn't it peculiar how, as Jackson hanged out with both rich and poor kids, it's only the poor kids that accuse him of molestation to his day, while the rich kids now defend him?

Of importance is also how some powerful interests converged to attack Michael Jackson back at the height of his popularity. This article does more justice on this than I ever could here: https://www.unz.com/article/the-conspir ... l-jackson/

I would also recommend Razorfist/Rageaholic's video series on Michael Jackson, where he scrutinises every allegations in a 6-part series. An important reminder goes towards "motivated reasoning": Too often, we are caught up with our convictions, so we should be willing to consider the possibility that our own reasoning may be false. Whilst I don't think MJ was a MAP, I'm willing to change my position if credible evidence ever surfaces.

So, returning to the question, is Michael Jackson really a MAP or not?

Him getting acquitted doesn't mean much when you consider the fact that in order to be found guilty, he would have to had been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It's possible for an allegation to be completely true or partially true and still for the verdict to still reach not guilty. Considering the fact that some of the jurors did believe Gavin was telling the truth, but they still considered there to be reasonable doubt, so they had to vote not guilty. Some of the jury thought that particular accusation was false but that Jackson had molested other boys in the past. Some of the jury also felt pressured by other members to change their verdict to not guilty. Some felt that there was going to be a hung jury, so they thought it would be best to just vote not guilty. So it's not as if the jury had came to the conclusion that he was undoubtably not guilty of any child molestation. I recommend watching "The Jury Speaks" season 1 episode 2.

How could the FBI have exonerated Jackson of CSA allegations when they never investigated into him? All they did was provide assistance to the Santa Barbara County police investigations that happened in 1993/1994 and 2004/2005.

Razorfist videos are not a good source. Pretty much every point of his is inaccurate information.

False. The FBI did investigate allegations against him, and found nothing to charge him with. And if the 2005 trial isn't enough to prove that Michael Jackson wasn't anything but an eccentric guy with Peter Pan syndrome who was a victim of political machinations, then I don't think much else will convince you tbh.

Also, which claims by Razorfist are false in your opinion? As much as I don't like the guy, he did a really thorough research on Michale Jackson's alleged abuse of boys with his 6-parts video, so I would be interested in hearing what your issues are with his series since I haven't heard anyone debunking his claims.

[Artaxerxes II]

If "Leaving Neverland" was a fiction, it was a fiction written by someone that actually has experienced an adult-boy relationship.

It was too close to my experiences for me to doubt it.

Some of the details are wrong. There was a clear agenda behind it. But that doesn't mean the fundamentals- that MJ loved boys- is inaccurate.

"Loved boys" platonically, or romantically? That is the big question here.

Going off a tangent, the debate regarding Michael Jackson's sexuality kind of reminds me the debates as to whether Charles Dobson a.k.a., Lewis Carroll, the author of "Alive in Wonderland", was actually a girl-lover or not, with the evidence for it being scant. At best, the evidence in support of Lewis Carroll being a MAP (regardless of whether he had contact with Alice Liddell or not) is pretty scant and, even by going with partial copies of his diaries, it seems that the estrangement between him and Alice's family has more to do with some marital thingy than over Lewis's relationship with Alice.

Now, I'm not being dismissive to MAPs that are desperate in some form of modern positive representation, but I do think that for many such people, confirmation bias often clouds their judgement, so that should be taken into consideration. Frag, I know why you're so attached to MJ, but have you tried looking at it dispassionately?

[Artaxerxes II]

have you tried looking at it dispassionately?

He did have a very unique upbringing so it's possible he did have a non-sexual yearning for the company of boys. Maybe he was just one of the weirdest people ever to have existed.

But I also still just don't see the point in denying MJ as a MAP. What does that serve us?

Well, the tabloids certainly picked up on his "weirdness", going as far as allege that he bleached his skin to whiten his skin, despite the fact that the people close to him plus the doctors who examined him stated he merely had vitiligo. Going back to the example of Lewis Carroll again, although I'm a girl-lover, I can't say for certain whether his close relationship with Alice Liddell back when she was a child ever went beyond an affectionate friendship, and I don't think GLs should go spread the "Lewis was a girl-lover" meme without being able to back it up properly lest they come out as clowns in the public eye.

As for your second point, it depends. I would be inclined to claim that MJ was a MAP who had contact and whose only wrongdoing was abruptly breaking his relationships with some of the boys if we MAPs had any decent social clout. But alas, we don't. So we asserting that he was a MAP will only legitimise antis that are anti MJ and, which would only tarnish MJ's reputation more than it happened after the release of the bogus Leaving Neverland Netflix "documentary", which in turn will only invite further negative backlash by antis that are also MJ fans. We already saw how heated the debate was back when that slanderous Netflix was released. In this day an age, calling someone a "pedophile" is unfortunately a smear.
This effectively creates a pedophobic feedback cycle, where anti-MJ antis will use our hypothetical assertions as vindication of their beliefs, which in turn invites further pedophobic response from pedophobic MJ fans, which not only tarnishes MJ's legacy by making his relationships with boys stand out more, but also makes us more stigmatised. After all, antis are averse at having MAPs claiming their beloved heroes as one of their own. I think it's best if we just leave it out.

I get that MAPs that want to have positive representation in pop culture to rally around, but I think it would be better if the figures in question were people who were heavily documented as being minor-attracted (exclusive or not) and had contact with 100% certainty, such as Oscar Wilde, Rabindranath Tagore, Mark Twain, Charlie Chaplin, Simone de Beauvoir, Elvis Presley, etc... rather than ones with a high level of ambiguity regarding their possible minor attraction (e.g., MJ, Marion Bradley, Lewis Carroll, Alexander the Great, etc...).

To be honest though, I'm not sure if I should laugh or be sad at how people today mostly remember MJ due to all the talk as to whether he was a MAP or not rather than his breathtaking musical career.

[Harlan]

If "Leaving Neverland" was a fiction, it was a fiction written by someone that actually has experienced an adult-boy relationship.
It was too close to my experiences for me to doubt it.

Some of the details are wrong. There was a clear agenda behind it. But that doesn't mean the fundamentals- that MJ loved boys- is inaccurate.

Exactly. It seemed that for the film they had to exaggerate some moments to make it look more dramatic. Michael himself said in an interview with Oprah that he considers children to be like a deity and would not harm them (between the lines - mutual and consenting relationships)

[Harlan]

As for your second point, it depends. I would be inclined to claim that MJ was a MAP who had contact and whose only wrongdoing was abruptly breaking his relationships with some of the boys if we MAPs had any decent social clout. But alas, we don't. So we asserting that he was a MAP will only legitimise antis that are anti MJ and, which would only tarnish MJ's reputation more than it happened after the release of the bogus Leaving Neverland Netflix "documentary", which in turn will only invite further negative backlash by antis that are also MJ fans.

This effectively creates a pedophobic feedback cycle, where anti-MJ antis will use our hypothetical assertions as vindication of their beliefs, which in turn invites further pedophobic response from pedophobic MJ fans, which not only tarnishes MJ's legacy by making his relationships with boys stand out more, but also makes us more stigmatised. After all, antis are averse at having MAPs claiming their beloved heroes as one of their own. I think it's best if we just leave it out.

If there was one boy there, that would make sense, but there were quite a few boys and it is likely that at least the information about masturbation with some of them is more true. And there is nothing terrible about it.

Even in this movie, the entire first episode, they never mentioned that he was rude, coercive, intimidating or raping, on the contrary, he was friendly and caring, and they, according to their own words, loved him and they were ready to defend him in court but when their careers did not live up to their expectations, they changed their minds.

[Artaxerxes II]

Even in this movie, the entire first episode, they never mentioned that he was rude, coercive, intimidating or raping, on the contrary, he was friendly and caring, and they, according to their own words, loved him and they were ready to defend him in court but when their careers did not live up to their expectations, they changed their minds.

I get your last point, especially with Wade Robson, the guy who defended MJ in court only to change his mind after MJ's death, as shown by him getting featured in Leaving Neverland. Putting aside the holes in his story as well as the fact that people close to Wade's circle were shocked by his revelations, which gets to a point I mentioned before: Financial motive.

It seems that many of the accusers and their families often have a financial motive behind it, be it with Jordan Chandler's father Evanhttps://www.truemichaeljackson.com/issu ... ccusation/, or Gavin Arvin's parents who, before coming after the musician, have gone after other celebs with similar questionable accusations such as with J.C. Penney.

It's interesting to see how all the accusers of MJ are either poor or were greedy (or at least their families were), whereas the boys who grew to stardom (like Corey Feldman) still see no wrong with MJ and their friendships with him even to this day. You often wonder if this is a case of greedy people lying about a beloved figure for financial gain, or "young friends" who turned messed up later in life and now seek their atonement by attacking him.

I lean towards financial gain as being the main motive and that MJ was merely into kids into a platonic way, but I'm still open to changing my stance on it if credible counter-evidence of my stance ever surfaces.

[Meiwaku_Mailing_Girl]

I started this topic after I started reading Tom O Carroll's book "Michael's personal liaisons" as well as watching Candace Owens' video on the same matter, which got me thinking: What do MAPs think of the accusations against Jackson?

I know this may be really controversial, especially among boylovers who insist on Michael Jackson (MJ) being one of them, but I'll say it anyway: In my opinion, Michael Jackson isn't a MAP.

Putting aside the fact that he got acquitted of all charges in a trial at 2005, not only did he spend most of his intimate life with adult women, but the FBI files pertaining to allegations of CSA by Jackson following death threats being issued against him, exonerate Jackson. I should also note that many of the accusers, such as Jordie Chandler, has often shown inconsistencies when it comes to his accusations against Jackson, and that a similar pattern is seen by other accusers, such as James Safechuck: https://www.nealdavislaw.com/blog/sex-c ... -debunked/
Isn't it peculiar how, as Jackson hanged out with both rich and poor kids, it's only the poor kids that accuse him of molestation to his day, while the rich kids now defend him?

Of importance is also how some powerful interests converged to attack Michael Jackson back at the height of his popularity. This article does more justice on this than I ever could here: https://www.unz.com/article/the-conspir ... l-jackson/

I would also recommend Razorfist/Rageaholic's video series on Michael Jackson, where he scrutinises every allegations in a 6-part series. An important reminder goes towards "motivated reasoning": Too often, we are caught up with our convictions, so we should be willing to consider the possibility that our own reasoning may be false. Whilst I don't think MJ was a MAP, I'm willing to change my position if credible evidence ever surfaces.

So, returning to the question, is Michael Jackson really a MAP or not?

Him getting acquitted doesn't mean much when you consider the fact that in order to be found guilty, he would have to had been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It's possible for an allegation to be completely true or partially true and still for the verdict to still reach not guilty. Considering the fact that some of the jurors did believe Gavin was telling the truth, but they still considered there to be reasonable doubt, so they had to vote not guilty. Some of the jury thought that particular accusation was false but that Jackson had molested other boys in the past. Some of the jury also felt pressured by other members to change their verdict to not guilty. Some felt that there was going to be a hung jury, so they thought it would be best to just vote not guilty. So it's not as if the jury had came to the conclusion that he was undoubtably not guilty of any child molestation. I recommend watching "The Jury Speaks" season 1 episode 2.

How could the FBI have exonerated Jackson of CSA allegations when they never investigated into him? All they did was provide assistance to the Santa Barbara County police investigations that happened in 1993/1994 and 2004/2005.

Razorfist videos are not a good source. Pretty much every point of his is inaccurate information.

False. The FBI did investigate allegations against him, and found nothing to charge him with. And if the 2005 trial isn't enough to prove that Michael Jackson wasn't anything but an eccentric guy with Peter Pan syndrome who was a victim of political machinations, then I don't think much else will convince you tbh.

Also, which claims by Razorfist are false in your opinion? As much as I don't like the guy, he did a really thorough research on Michale Jackson's alleged abuse of boys with his 6-parts video, so I would be interested in hearing what your issues are with his series since I haven't heard anyone debunking his claims.

The Fbi did not investigate him, this is literally what us said on the site "The FBI provided technical and investigative assistance to these agencies during the cases."

Providing assistances for the investigation is not the same as investigating. The FBI had no reason to ever investigate him. He wasn’t accused of breaking any federal law.

Also some of the other stuff you said is incorrect. Not all of his accusers are or were poor. Wade Robsin is a healing coach for child abuse and a faculty member at the broadway dance center. James Safechuck works for an IT company and is financially comfortable. The Chandler’s family wasn’t broke. They were rich.

Also your point about him spending most of his intimate adult life with women is incorrect. He had few verifiable romantic relationships with women and none were long, intimate, or serious.

No Razorfist did not go through thorough research. He's either lying or didn't actually do much research.