Micheal Jackson: Children in the bedroom

[Tmy]

Did anyone catch the Mike Jackson interview on 60 minutes last week. Jacko continued with his belief that its ok to sleep with kids in the same bed or in the same bedroom. This really upset people. Morely Safer kept asking the same question about how he coudl think its ok for kids to sleep in the same bed wh someone WHO IS NOT A RELATIVE.

I go to thinking. What is really so wrong wh Jackos stance. First off why does it matter if its a relative or not? Is that line draw so people can still condem Jacko, yet be ok with their kids sleeping in the bed sometimes. As far as the whole pedohile/abuse thing, arent relatives more likely to sexually abuse? So it shoudlnt matter if its a relatives bed or not.

Is this another example of american sexual paranoia/hangups? What do other cultures think about kids sharing the bedroom.?

[aerocontrols]

I'm interested to see what others have to say about your questions re: whether this 'children in the bed' thing is just an American hangup or not. I have a feeling that it isn't, but the simple fact (or so it seems to me) is that when people double up in a bed it's because (1) They want to be intimate or (2) There aren't enough beds to go around and nobody wants to sleep on the floor.

I really doubt Jacko had problem #2.


Originally posted by Tmy
As far as the whole pedohile/abuse thing, arent relatives more likely to sexually abuse? So it shoudlnt matter if its a relatives bed or not.

I think you make an error here, and I'll try to point out by example why. Did you know that children raised by a single mother are 12 times more likely to be abused than children raised by a single father? Can you imagine why that is?

It's because mom's boyfriends are more likely to abuse than dad's girlfriends. Children are more likely in general to be abused by a relative - but only because relatives are the only ones who can 'get away with it' because they have access to the kids. When non-relatives get access to the kids, likelihoods change.

Can you see how this reflects on whether the fact you state above is relevant or not?

MattJ

[TomStockholm]

I regularly bathe with and sleep in the same bed as my girlfriends 7 month old son. Right or wrong?

Would it be different if he were my own flesh and blood?


You know, it scares the fertilizer out of me how all of this is blown out of proportion. In this country men don't dare go for jobs in day care centres and the like because of the danger of being accused of pedophilia. Kids are being denied TLC from paranoid, yet loving men in their networks. Kids need strong male roll modells more than ever. Pedophilia is a terrible thing, but not nearly as prevelent as many would like to believe. (No sources, sorry... )


Nothing to do with Michael Jackson particularly... let the courts decide that one...

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by TomStockholm
I regularly bathe with and sleep in the same bed as my girlfriends 7 month old son. Right or wrong?

If you are asking me that question, I would say that you sleep with the kid because of reason #1. Since you're the boyfriend of his mother, I don't see a problem.

MattJ

[Samus]

There is nothing inherently wrong with sleeping in the same bed as a minor, even if you are not related. After all, it's what you do when you're awake that gets you in trouble! :)

I think people make such an issue out of it because it's Michael Jackson, and he has the double punch of 1. having a past molestation accusation and 2. being really creepy looking. If I were a parent, I probably wouldn't let my child sleep in the same bed as someone who has a past child molestation accusation (certainly not if they were convicted!), if only to err on the side of caution.

That said, I am not a parent, so I know that I cannot fully appreciate a parent's desire to protect their child. Maybe I will when they're mine, but for now, I don't see it being an inherent immoral deed.

[Tmy]

I really think Mike is innocent.

he was accused before, but that was it. No proof. As for the whole "buy off" thing, since when is the victim the be all end all when it come to prosectution. Couldnt the DA go after him still?

It also bothers me to see this DA acting so cocky all the time. I think he has a chip on his shoulder when it comes to Jackson. 80 sheriffs for a sexual abuse search warrant?? What did they expect to find?

Jackson may be weird and socially improper, (and had been for 20 years +) but that doesnt make him a pedophile.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Tmy
What did they expect to find?

An almanac.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Diana Ross' err M.Jackson's innocents in not the question , the question is that freak or not is it correct for a 45 year old man to sleep in the same bed as a non-relitive minor.

Unless this is the middle ages where people commonly slept 3 and more to a bed ( Bed? infested straw pile ) The answer is no

The man's lifestyle and past problems would raise the eyebrow of any human who's IQ resides north of the idiot line so as far as a judgment call by the boy's parent's........


Edit SP
New Years resoloution: must purchase new spel cheker

[Tmy]

Well the bible tells us that any instrument that claims to predict the future must be evil. BAN THE ALMANAC!!!!

Hmmm I wonder why the anti-almanac church crowd is not as popular as the anti-gay church crowd.

[Samus]

TillEulenspiegel: is it correct for a 45 year old man to sleep in the same bed as a non-relitive minor...The answer is no Why is the answer no? Why is it inherently wrong for an adult and minor, who (I assume) are on friendly terms, to share a bed?

[Skeptic]

Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I believe the whole thing is, to a large degree, about money.

What kind of parent would allow his kid to sleep in Michael Jackson's bedroom in the first place? Even if he IS a pedophile, he isn't a kidnapper. It's not like he FORCED anybody to let their children join him.

I think some of the parents must hope their child would be molested by Jackson, as a quick-and-easy way to riches. I can see the settlement negotiations now...

JACKSON'S LAWYERS: "$14 million to shut your mouth?"
PARENTS: "No! We're going to court! That man stole our son's childhood!"
JACKSON'S LAWYERS: "$15 million?"
PARENTS: "He's got a brother, you know...."

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Tmy
Did anyone catch the Mike Jackson interview on 60 minutes last week. Jacko continued with his belief that its ok to sleep with kids in the same bed or in the same bedroom. This really upset people. Morely Safer kept asking the same question about how he coudl think its ok for kids to sleep in the same bed wh someone WHO IS NOT A RELATIVE.

I go to thinking. What is really so wrong wh Jackos stance. First off why does it matter if its a relative or not? Is that line draw so people can still condem Jacko, yet be ok with their kids sleeping in the bed sometimes. As far as the whole pedohile/abuse thing, arent relatives more likely to sexually abuse? So it shoudlnt matter if its a relatives bed or not.

Is this another example of american sexual paranoia/hangups? What do other cultures think about kids sharing the bedroom.?

It's a question of social mores...aka morality.

I go to thinking. What is really so wrong wh Jackos stance.

If you have to ask, then you are very likely to never "get it". Just look at that old thread about incest and you will see rationalizations galore, rationalizations that sound very much like your defense of Mr. Jackson's bedtime habits.

Truth is, morality is indeed subjective and as such is subject to different interpretations by different cultures. However, try as you might you will not find a civilization, (on this planet that is), that would constider Mr. Jackson "normal".

-z

[Tmy]

Sure the guys a weirdo. But we dont throw people in jail just because they are weird.

[American]

Only someone without kids could even ask these questions, or a really really bad parent.

Do you want to know why? The main reason is: if you ever sleep with my kid and claim it's "innocent", I will cut your head off and mail it to the next sick f-ck who tries it.

Is that not a very good reason? Maybe you'll "understand" better with a tire iron lodged in your skull. That will explain rather well why you're not supposed to sleep with kids under any circumstance.

If they still don't "get it", he wants to discuss why he did it, then I'll listen to his rationale. But first I'll cut his tongue out of his head Iraqi-style, and probably go to jail for doing it. But then we can go to the hospital, and I'll sit and listen at his bedside why he thought it was OK.


Hypothetically, of course. I don't have children. Really.

[American]

Having said all that, I think Michael is getting a raw deal. He's probably innocent, though he just screwed himself by lying about "police brutality".

[KelvinG]

So here's the deal Michael Jackson. If you get off (uh, I mean if you are acquitted), how about you exercise some common sense and stop sleeping with kids.
OK, OK, we understand your point that it's never been sexual. Yes, we realize it's because you love kids and when you look into their eyes you see the face of God.

But, has letting kids sleep in your bed been worth all the legal problems you've encountered.
Sure, maybe it's not fair that you are being falsely accused of something you claim you didn't do, but pull your head out of your ass and stop acting like such a dummy.

You claim this is all about money.
You have lots of money.
You are letting kids sleep in your bed.
Two families have made accusations against you in the last ten years.

STOP LETTING KIDS SLEEP IN YOUR BED.

[Tmy]

I think a big problem is that many parents are now obsessed with their own kids to a point where they can justify any dopey behavior because they're just watching out for their kids.


How do you he's lying about police brutality. There seems to be more proof of brutality than sexual abuse.

[hgc]

I also don't think it's a priori wrong for and adult and unrelated child to share a bed.

Afterall, it's a relatively recent in history, and in wealthier societies, where people get much privacy in their sleeping quarters or in the commission of other bodily functions (sex, waste elimination). But it's also relatively recent in history that sexual involvement between adults and children is widely recognized or frowned upon, I believe.

That having been said, you have to look at the individual case. Michael Jackson, from what is publicly known, is clearly nuts (pardon the technical jargon). His emotional development either stopped at age 12 or subsequently regressed. It is inconceivable that the parents of children he attaches to aren't aware of this, and they are incredibly irresponsible in leaving their children in his care. If I had children, I would trust them to some adults, even if sleeping arrangements necessitated a shared bed, but I wouldn't trust Michael Jackson. He's a child in an adult body -- not a good combination.

In summary:

Wrong for unrelated adults and children to share a bed? Not necessarily.

Wrong for parents to trust their children to Michael Jackson? Definitely.

[Troll]

Sleeping with a kid that ain't yours and ain't having nightmares or otherwise a hard time about sleeping is freaking screwed.

Anyone gonna deny that?

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by TomStockholm
I regularly bathe with and sleep in the same bed as my girlfriends 7 month old son. Right or wrong?

Would it be different if he were my own flesh and blood?


OK, but what if the boy was 10 years old? And what if it was just you and him alone in your giant mansion estate.
And what if you were a creepy, possibly mentally unstable, once accused pedophile?

Now it doesn't seem so normal.

Your situation is vastly different than the Michael Jackson situation.

[Tmy]

Arent you assuming that they were alone? That and that Mikey's bedroom is some sort of traditional bedroom. If I remember right from that documnmetry his bedroom is another giant neverland room full of crap.

During the 60 mins interview his lawyer said that Mike is never alone with the kids, at any time there are 100 employees at neverland. Thatd make sense after the prior legal problems he had.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Tmy
Arent you assuming that they were alone? That and that Mikey's bedroom is some sort of traditional bedroom. If I remember right from that documnmetry his bedroom is another giant neverland room full of crap.

During the 60 mins interview his lawyer said that Mike is never alone with the kids, at any time there are 100 employees at neverland. Thatd make sense after the prior legal problems he had.

I doubt that any of the employees were in the bedroom at the time. That would seem odd, although I suppose not impossible.
I'm sure if Jackson really wanted to be alone with a child he could arrange it.
But do I know for sure that they were alone? No.

[Samus]

Troll: Sleeping with a kid that ain't yours and ain't having nightmares or otherwise a hard time about sleeping is freaking screwed.

Anyone gonna deny that? I can't really deny it, as I have no idea what you just said. Are you saying that a child who sleeps with a grown man in bed is "freaking screwed" if they have nightmares, or don't have nightmares? Or is it the adult?

Look, if I were a parent, I would not let my child spend a night in bed with Jackson, but that would be my personal preference. My argument all along is that the adult/child sharing a bed is not, in and of itself, wrong. I have yet to see an effective argument to the contrary, American's rant notwithstanding.

[TomStockholm]

Originally posted by KelvinG


OK, but what if the boy was 10 years old? And what if it was just you and him alone in your giant mansion estate.
And what if you were a creepy, possibly mentally unstable, once accused pedophile?

Now it doesn't seem so normal.

Your situation is vastly different than the Michael Jackson situation.

I am not commenting Michael Jackson, correct me if I am wrong but I didn't think this thread was about him. The courts are there to decide his fate.

But let's take the case of a 10 year old boy. What if he had just had a nightmare and was terrified to sleep by himself. Why shouldn't he share the bed that night with a man he feels comfortable with if it makes him feel comfortable and helps him to sleep? For me the issue here isn't, is it OK for a man to share a bed with a child? That is so individual, depending totally on the relationship between the adult and the child. No the issue is that paranoia about pedophilia is stopping children from having loving, physical relationships with adult men. (I obviously don't mean sexual ones here). With my own sons I have experienced strange looks from people when we hug and kiss in public places. It is just a father being loving with his sons, but for some there is pedophilia behind every bush.

[TomStockholm]

Oops, didn't notice that someone else had already brought up the bit about nightmares...

But I can think of many other situations which might merit a shared bed.

Off the top of my head:

Problems between the parents (and step parents), impending divorce for example

Problems in school

Move to a new home

Broken central heating system


I think also that there is a difference between a 10 year old who wants to share a parents bed every night and one who needs it occasionally.
But this is probably not a problem of pedophilia, but rather other things in the childs life that need to be sorted out.

As I said it depends entirely on the relationship between the adult and the child, not whether they are related or not.

[Dorian Gray]

Do you want to know why? The main reason is: if you ever sleep with my kid and claim it's "innocent", I will cut your head off and mail it to the next sick f-ck who tries it. You'll cut off his head and mail it, but he's a sick f**k?

If Michael slept with all manner of children in groups, it MIGHT be possible to give him a little credibility. However, since he limits himself to 9-12-year-old boys from relatively bad homes, he seems like more of a victimizer. I don't give a crap about his claims of 'living the childhood he never had" or whatever - he is 45 years old with children of his own. Break the f**king cycle. Give him some court-ordered therapy, and some jail time if found guilty. But especially the therapy, no matter what, because regardless of anyone on this forum's personal situation, the one Michael Jackson puts himself in is IMO not right.

A politician is someone who lies to the press and then believes what he reads.

Will Durst
Well:I did it for the nookie!

Fred Durst

[Tmy]

Originally posted by American
he just screwed himself by lying about "police brutality".

Hmmmm the LA Sheriffs Dept being accused of brutality is alot like Mikey being accused of pedophilia. THey both have storied reputations.

[Ed]

I think that there is nothing wrong with an adult being with a scared/sick child.

There is, however, an enormous difference between giving succor and seeking out children to sleep with. I think that that is the difference. Micheal likes to sleep with kids, not the other way around. That, for an adult male, is sick.

As far as sexual hangups, it simply is not done that adult men seek out and sleep with children, ergo, if it happens it looks odd and one might very well believe the worst. I sure do.

[Skeptic]

The whole "is it OK to sleep with children in the same bed?" question is about as well defined as "is it OK to cut people with a knife?".

By who is it done and why? Is the bed occupied by a mother whose five-year-old is scared of the dark, or by a stranger who wants to fondle the young flesh? Is the knife wielded by a surgeon in the operating room or by a mugger on the street?

[sophia8]

Originally posted by TomStockholm
But let's take the case of a 10 year old boy. What if he had just had a nightmare and was terrified to sleep by himself.
In that case, if the adult was male and not his father or brother, the answer is obvious. The adult should soothe the boy, help him get to sleep, then very carefully get up off the bed and spend the rest of the night on the sofa.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Tmy



How do you he's lying about police brutality. There seems to be more proof of brutality than sexual abuse.

He has not filed a complaint, he has just bitched to the media. If he files a false complaint, you see, he has commited a felony.

In this particular case I think no complaint=Lie. We'll see.

[TomStockholm]

Originally posted by sophia8

In that case, if the adult was male and not his father or brother, the answer is obvious. The adult should soothe the boy, help him get to sleep, then very carefully get up off the bed and spend the rest of the night on the sofa.


But not if the adult is female?

Why this discrepency?

Is it because you believe that men cannot controll themselves?

Or do you mean that you believe that men will have more difficulty defending themselves if they get accused of something?

If you believe the latter then I am inclined to agree somewhat. But not because it should somehow be bad for a loving, normal man to spend a night in a bed with a child he knows well. But rather because of the paranoia that surrounds the whole thing.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Commander Cool
I can't really deny it, as I have no idea what you just said. Are you saying that a child who sleeps with a grown man in bed is "freaking screwed" if they have nightmares, or don't have nightmares? Or is it the adult?

Look, if I were a parent, I would not let my child spend a night in bed with Jackson, but that would be my personal preference. My argument all along is that the adult/child sharing a bed is not, in and of itself, wrong. I have yet to see an effective argument to the contrary, American's rant notwithstanding.

No, I'm saying that any grown man that hops into bed with a kid that isn't in need of comforting is messed up, the kid not being your own just increases the level how messed up it is.

Kids get nightmares and run into the parents rooms all the time. Sometimes the parents go in to check on the kid that's having a hard time sleeping because of the thing under the bed or whatever reason. I won't make a blanket statement about any man sleeping next to any children because in some cases it's merely harmless parental comforting.

In Jackson's case, the kids are not his own, and there's never been a mention of them needing some form of comfort due to nightmares or anything. Jackson just seems to like to slepp with little boys and that is not normal adult behavior.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Troll
In Jackson's case, the kids are not his own, and there's never been a mention of them needing some form of comfort due to nightmares or anything. Jackson just seems to like to slepp with little boys and that is not normal adult behavior.

Michael Jackson is not a normal adult? Color me gobsmacked!

[peptoabysmal]

Two points to consider:

1) Michael J. shows a sexual preference in the children he sleeps with, i.e.; only young boys. This displays that at some level, Jackson is getting sexual gratification out of the arrangement.

2) Mr. Jackson has sought the help of the Nation of Islam, a separatist African-American Muslim group. If he were a white man accused of molesting black children and tried to enlist the aid of the K.K.K., what would people think of him?

[hgc]

Originally posted by Tmy


Hmmmm the LA Sheriffs Dept being accused of brutality is alot like Mikey being accused of pedophilia. THey both have storied reputations. It's Santa Barbara County. Do they have a reputation?

[Evolver]

As the father of a 10 year old boy, I ask:
What kind of parent would let their kid sleep with Michael Jackson?

[davefoc]

In the last Michael Jackson thread that I saw I seemed to be about the only one who thought there was much of a chance that MJ was innocent.

I thought it was at least plausible that some lawyers and the alleged victim’s family had just skillfully shaken him down.

Seems like there still aren't enough facts floating around to make a very good guess about what the real situation is but the case against MJ is looking stronger to me:
1. First alleged victim's statement has been released and it is reported to be graphic, specific, incriminatinating against MJ and plausible.
2. The police brutality farce is not making MJ look any too credible at this point.
3. Mark Geragos is defending him.

One question I have about all this is whether there are 40 year old men who have non-sexual obsessions with boys similar to the obsession that MJ seems to have or is sex at the core of all such obsessions.

A local, gay, conservative radio talk show host (Al Rantel) here suggests that anything other than sex is a pretty unlikely explanation for MJ's behavior. I just don't have any basis to make a judgment like that. My experience with forty year old guys similar to MJ is pretty limited.

[Elektrix]

For those who do think Michael Jackson is innocent..... what is the general opinion of the 1993 declaration by the first accuser, where he describes in quite graphic detail the alleged sexual abuse:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/mjsearch1.html

Is the basic assumption then that Jackson was innocent then, the kid was lying, and the story was made up to extort that money from Jackson?

I've personally found that declaration more damning based on what some of he reports Jackson said (i.e. when he talks about how the physical contact started, and describes Jackson starting to kiss him and then putting his tongue in his mouth, he says that Jackson started crying when the kid told him he didn't like that, and he quotes Jackson, saying "He said there was nothing wrong with it. He said that just because most people believe something is wrong, doesn't make it so."

I just consider that kind of damning because that seems to be the same kind of "logic" Jackson uses to defend himself today.

So I guess the big question is, did that kid in 1993 make all this up, were all these situations completely fabricated?

-Elektrix

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Tmy
Did anyone catch the Mike Jackson interview on 60 minutes last week. Jacko continued with his belief that its ok to sleep with kids in the same bed or in the same bedroom. This really upset people. Morely Safer kept asking the same question about how he coudl think its ok for kids to sleep in the same bed wh someone WHO IS NOT A RELATIVE.

I go to thinking. What is really so wrong wh Jackos stance. First off why does it matter if its a relative or not? Is that line draw so people can still condem Jacko, yet be ok with their kids sleeping in the bed sometimes. As far as the whole pedohile/abuse thing, arent relatives more likely to sexually abuse? So it shoudlnt matter if its a relatives bed or not.

Is this another example of american sexual paranoia/hangups? What do other cultures think about kids sharing the bedroom.?

If he were a woman, it would be laughed out of court.