The “King Of Pop was gay” story is baloney
The horrible truth is that all of this; all the lies and rumours and speculation, is going to continue in spite of Michael being dead. The press didn’t respect him when he was alive, why would they start now? They never cared, and they never will care
By Sandra Sasvari on Tuesday, May 4th, 2010 - 1,122 words.
Jason Pfeiffer
“I was King Of Pop’s secret lover”. The claim comes from Jason Pfeiffer, who is allegedly the CEO of the medical corporation owned by Jackson’s long-time dermatologist Dr. Arnold Klein. People have been fascinated, outraged, and disgusted by his claims – for different reasons, depending on who you ask. As a supporter of Michael Jackson, you would think that I would be amongst the people calling the NBC headquarters demaning that they take the segment down. And I am not. In fact, I think I must be the only person that is not going crazy over this, and I will try to explain why.
It’s quite simple to me, actually. Calling someone gay, whether it’s true or not, is not an insult. It’s as simple as that. With all the horrible things Michael has been called in the media for approximitely twenty-five years, “gay” is the most harmless one. Gay, bi or straight, it does not matter and it is not an insult, so having someone insinuate that you are, is not a reason for hurt feelings or upset emotions. In Michael’s own words: “I am not gay, but I have fans that believe I am. And if they want to believe it, let them believe it. I don’t want to upset anyone.”
So, someone insinuating that Michael was anything other than straight does not upset me. What very much does, however , is that in all of this, there is yet another person with a concucted story and no morals who is willing to sell his own soul and the integrity of a dead man, for money. It upsets me that Dr. Klein, a person that has known Michael for decades, does the same. But the “gay” thing? Not a bit.
The horrible truth is that all of this; all the lies and rumours and speculation, is going to continue in spite of Michael being dead. The press didn’t respect him when he was alive, why would they start now? They never cared, and they never will care. I share the frustration and disgust over their greed, bloodthirst and sensationalism, but we need to learn to pick our battles. There will be false stories published for decades to come – maybe even forever – and it is up to us to try to create a balance, and decide what stories are worth contesting. Michael Jackson being called gay – innacurate and made up as this story may be – is not anywhere near as damaging as him being (falsely) called a paedophile, for example – at least it shouldn’t be.
As much as we would like, we will never be able to stop every single negative piece in every corner of the world. It’s simply not possible. It’ is because of this that we need to spend our energy on spreading the material that shows Michael’s true nature (the books by Geraldine Hughes and Aphrodite Jones, as well as the Larry Nimmer documentary, for example*) as opposed to trying to fight the material that doesn’t. That way, future generations – and those of today - that still believe what the press has spoonfed them will have a chance to know the truth, and be given an option to what the mainstream media is telling them.
This “news” story is one of many. Mailbombing the network isn’t going to stop them from airing it. For the first few weeks following Michael Jackson’s death, there was a chance to succeed in making TV channels, and maybe even tabloids and newspapers, refrain from printing anything that may be seen as negative. as he outcry from the public would have been huge since it is commonly understood as poor taste to mock someone so shortly after their death. Almost a year has passed, however, and although the wounds are still fresh for fans and family, the rest of the world has moved on. Unfortunately, that means that their tolerance for what is “okay” for the media to print has increased.
I have made the personal choice not to e-mail or call NBC and “Extra” for numerous reasons, the main one being that Jason Pfeiffer is doing what he is doing for two reasons: fame, and money. What he is doing thrives on publicity. If there was no publicity, he’d receive no money. This “story” is being discussed all over the Internet as I am writing this, and that is making it possible for him to continue spreadfing his lies, for the very simple reason that network executives and tabloid editors will look at the controversy it is causing and go “Hmm, this is generating upset emotions, that means there’s something there” – and voilá; ratings are up. So in fact, they are more likely to want to broadcast the story if we get on the phone to them - not less.
Our The reactions of the fans are automatically included in the chunk of “controversy” this generates, as well. Network executives don’t care whether people believe a story or not, they just want people to have an opinion of it so they’ll tune in to watch – and it works. Most Michael Jackson fans that had the channel available watched last night’s “Extra”, as did, I’m sure, much of the general public.
Alicia Jacobs, who is the person coming up with the story for “Extra”, made a post on Twitter right before the airing of the program last night, saying:
“oh boy! The controversy wheels r already in major motion! My MICHAEL JACKSON story hasn’t even aired yet, & already there’s fireworks!”
This completely proves my point. If we don’t tune in to the show, don’t respond to the “articles” mentioning what is obviously just someone wanting their fifteen minutes of fame and a paycheck, there will not be an interest, which means there is no show, and no profit. And if there’s no profit…well, you get the point.
If we kill this thing with silence, Jason Pfeiffer and his “story” will fade into oblivion the way they deserve. It may happen slowly, but it will happen. In the meantime, we can all make the world a better place the way Michael would have wanted. People are starving, AIDS is still uncureable, and animals are being abused every day. In the name of Michael…we can help them. THESE are the things that are newsworthy – the Jason Pfeiffer story is not. It is, quite simply, a ridiculous and pathetic story and it doesn’t deserve any attention – so let’s not give it any.
____
(* The books “Redemption: the truth behind the Michael Jackson child molestation accusations” by Geraldine Hughes and “Michael Jackson: Conspiracy” by Aphrodite Jones, as well as the documentary “Michael Jackson: The Untold Story of Neverland” can all be found at www.amazon.com)
Articles related to The "King Of Pop was gay" story is baloney
Michael Jackson is still exploited in death. AEG and Dr. Death should both pay
NOTE: First of all, I would like to make it clear that what is expressed below is my personal reflection and opinion only. I do ...
Michael Jackson and Human Nature
June 13th marked five years since Michael Jackson was acquitted on ten accounts of child molestation. Apart from family and fans, not many from the ...
Barack Obama is the perfect ‘black candidate’ for the liberal establishment
The whole of the U.S. is congratulating itself about the possibility that –- after centuries of oppression –- a black person might finally become president ...
Does the American Dream have to die with Michael Jackson?
Do you think it is a good idea to keep silent about the attacks on one of the most visible achievers of the American Dream? ...
Toy Story 3 in 3D: More serious than you’d think
Watching Toy Story 3 in glorious 3D raises several ontological questions: Do toys ever die, or do they live indefinitely, forever in fear of being ...
52 Comments
Leave a Reply
Sandra Sasvari
Aspiring writer who enjoys art, music, alone time, books, Irish Dancing and drawing. Greatest interests include religion, mass-and social psychology, philosophy, Nazi Germany, traveling for concerts, and people-watching.
Articles by this author
-
“Purple Day” is slacktivism, not solidarity
Today, I woke up to a World Wide Web clad in purple. Nowadays, there's a bright and coloured day for everything: there's ”Pink Day” for breast cancer, ”Blue Day” for …
Read more
-
Michael Jackson and Human Nature
June 13th marked five years since Michael Jackson was acquitted on ten accounts of child molestation. Apart from family and fans, not many from the general public will pay much …
Read more
-
The “King Of Pop was gay” story is baloney
The horrible truth is that all of this; all the lies and rumours and speculation, is going to continue in spite of Michael being dead. The press didn't respect him …
Read more
-
Michael Jackson is still exploited in death. AEG and Dr. Death should both pay
It is true that had it not been for Dr. Conrad Murray giving Michael the heavy amount of medication that he did (apart from the ”usual” doses of Lorazepam and …
Read more
You know what? You're absolutely right! my head had been spinning over this. Absolutely right!
You're 100% right. I don't care about this story either. I just feel gutted that Michael was so closely associated with such a load of cockroaches. I do wonder what the upcoming trial of Murray will reveal as regards Dr Klein and his little friends…
Unfortunately, I don't believe the trial will reach as far as Dr. Klein, or if it does, will scratch the surface very lightly. I wish I could say that I have faith that I trust the court system and that justice will prevail…but I cannot.
Unfortunately, I don't believe the trial will reach as far as Dr. Klein, or if it does, will scratch the surface very lightly. I wish I could say that I have faith that I trust the court system and that justice will prevail…but I cannot.
Unfortunately, I don't believe the trial will reach as far as Dr. Klein, or if it does, will scratch the surface very lightly. I wish I could say that I have faith that I trust the court system and that justice will prevail…but I cannot.
You're 100% right. I don't care about this story either. I just feel gutted that Michael was so closely associated with such a load of cockroaches. I do wonder what the upcoming trial of Murray will reveal as regards Dr Klein and his little friends…
I disagree with the author on this point. I'm not gay and there is nothing wrong with being gay. However, I would take offense to someone telling lies about my sexuality. People feel very strongly about their sexual orientation. This is something that Michael was indeed offended by but did not protest because he did not want to make his homosexual fans feel uncomfortable in any way. Michael accepted all people and never passed judgment on anyone. Yes, the story is baloney. And we fans are frankly sick and tired of people picking on Michael. He is not here to defend himself. But the outrage is probably more for the sake of his children who will have to deal with all this madness when they are older.
I disagree with the author on this point. I'm not gay and there is nothing wrong with being gay. However, I would take offense to someone telling lies about my sexuality. People feel very strongly about their sexual orientation. This is something that Michael was indeed offended by but did not protest because he did not want to make his homosexual fans feel uncomfortable in any way. Michael accepted all people and never passed judgment on anyone. Yes, the story is baloney. And we fans are frankly sick and tired of people picking on Michael. He is not here to defend himself. But the outrage is probably more for the sake of his children who will have to deal with all this madness when they are older.
I disagree with the author on this point. I'm not gay and there is nothing wrong with being gay. However, I would take offense to someone telling lies about my sexuality. People feel very strongly about their sexual orientation. This is something that Michael was indeed offended by but did not protest because he did not want to make his homosexual fans feel uncomfortable in any way. Michael accepted all people and never passed judgment on anyone. Yes, the story is baloney. And we fans are frankly sick and tired of people picking on Michael. He is not here to defend himself. But the outrage is probably more for the sake of his children who will have to deal with all this madness when they are older.
Hello MJFan,
It is indeed true that many people feel very strongly about their sexual orientation – maybe too strongly, if you ask me. Sexual orientation does not matter for the simple fact that it does not define who you are as a person. Being gay, straight or bi is not a personality trait. One's orientation is nothing to be ahsamed of, but it is nothing to be proud of, either. It is what it is.
Hello MJFan,
It is indeed true that many people feel very strongly about their sexual orientation – maybe too strongly, if you ask me. Sexual orientation does not matter for the simple fact that it does not define who you are as a person. Being gay, straight or bi is not a personality trait. One's orientation is nothing to be ahsamed of, but it is nothing to be proud of, either. It is what it is.
Hello MJFan,
It is indeed true that many people feel very strongly about their sexual orientation – maybe too strongly, if you ask me. Sexual orientation does not matter for the simple fact that it does not define who you are as a person. Being gay, straight or bi is not a personality trait. One's orientation is nothing to be ahsamed of, but it is nothing to be proud of, either. It is what it is.
Sandra, I have to disagree with your opinion on whether or not the story is true. We don't know the truth, and it's none of our business. In my strong opinion, though, it was very inappropriate for Dr. Klein to publicly discuss a previous patient's private life, regardless of whether or not it is true. I believe it's called "breach of confidentiality", and I would never want this kind of person as my physician. It's good and well to shoot poisoned darts at the media. I do it all the time. To play devil's advocate, everything printed or aired has a personal bias and an agenda, from NBC to Aphrodite Jones. Everything. But condemning the media when it posts something you don't like doesn't erase the fact it doesn't really matter what Michael Jackson's sexual orientation was. Who cares if Michael was gay, straight, or bisexual? He was obviously a tormented man, so I hope he had at least a little happiness and pleasure with another adult – male or female – during his short life.
Hello,
Thank you very much for your reply. The headline that The Comment Factory chose to give my article is unfortunate; it insinuates thatI care about whether the story is true or not, and I don't – that was the point of the entire piece! That Michael's sexuality doesn't matter is exactly my point; and it is because of that that Jason Pfeiffer's story should be ignored. Sexual orientation does not matter, to anything. So really, I am agreeing with you!
Hello,
Thank you very much for your reply. The headline that The Comment Factory chose to give my article is unfortunate; it insinuates thatI care about whether the story is true or not, and I don't – that was the point of the entire piece! That Michael's sexuality doesn't matter is exactly my point; and it is because of that that Jason Pfeiffer's story should be ignored. Sexual orientation does not matter, to anything. So really, I am agreeing with you!
Sandra, L.O.V.E. you more! <3
Sandra, L.O.V.E. you more! <3
Love you most.
Certainly, it is not an insult to be Gay. The insult here is to perversely sensationalize a story about someone that is not true.
Though I agree with you that by giving such a story attention, brings more attention to it, I feel that standing up for truth is important. Michael Jackson has been falsely portrayed, by media, for far too long. It's a long time comin' that his name be cleared of lies.
This falsehood of him being gay is a very old rumor. For those who only heard his music & failed to listen need to wake-up, out of respect & honor for him.
As for medialoids that sabotaged the MJ story of the day, on 4-29, which was the airing of ID TV True Crime episode referencing FACTual info. about MJ, your greed will not override truth.
I know and I agree, but the thing is there are TOO MANY lies in order for us to stop them all. We couldn't do it when Michael was alive and we cannot do it now. That's why, like I said, we need to choose wisely which ones to spend time and energy on trying to contradict. and stop So many still believe Michael was a paedophile – that is much worse than someone believing he was gay. I wish ALL the lies would stop, but the sad truth is that they never will. So…we have to choose. (And I'm not sure I'm familiar with what happened regarding the "True Crime" episode?)
I know and I agree, but the thing is there are TOO MANY lies in order for us to stop them all. We couldn't do it when Michael was alive and we cannot do it now. That's why, like I said, we need to choose wisely which ones to spend time and energy on trying to contradict. and stop So many still believe Michael was a paedophile – that is much worse than someone believing he was gay. I wish ALL the lies would stop, but the sad truth is that they never will. So…we have to choose. (And I'm not sure I'm familiar with what happened regarding the "True Crime" episode?)
Certainly, it is not an insult to be Gay. The insult here is to perversely sensationalize a story about someone that is not true.
Though I agree with you that by giving such a story attention, brings more attention to it, I feel that standing up for truth is important. Michael Jackson has been falsely portrayed, by media, for far too long. It's a long time comin' that his name be cleared of lies.
This falsehood of him being gay is a very old rumor. For those who only heard his music & failed to listen need to wake-up, out of respect & honor for him.
As for medialoids that sabotaged the MJ story of the day, on 4-29, which was the airing of ID TV True Crime episode referencing FACTual info. about MJ, your greed will not override truth.
Certainly, it is not an insult to be Gay. The insult here is to perversely sensationalize a story about someone that is not true.
Though I agree with you that by giving such a story attention, brings more attention to it, I feel that standing up for truth is important. Michael Jackson has been falsely portrayed, by media, for far too long. It's a long time comin' that his name be cleared of lies.
This falsehood of him being gay is a very old rumor. For those who only heard his music & failed to listen need to wake-up, out of respect & honor for him.
As for medialoids that sabotaged the MJ story of the day, on 4-29, which was the airing of ID TV True Crime episode referencing FACTual info. about MJ, your greed will not override truth.
No, being called gay is not an insult. Being called a liar is. Michael Jackson said he was not gay. Period. This piece about his gay lover, calls him a liar. Again, the slanderous fabrications conjured up a greedy, amoral media. Just like MJ always said, the good stuff doesn't sell.
I know, but as I said in my article and have replied to others here; there are TOO MANY lies for us to stop them all. We are only human. So, we need to decide which lies are the most damaging, and fight those. And to me…this is not one of them.
I know, but as I said in my article and have replied to others here; there are TOO MANY lies for us to stop them all. We are only human. So, we need to decide which lies are the most damaging, and fight those. And to me…this is not one of them.
I just wanted to thank you and the The Comment Factory for writing & printing this story. Really strange when the media is more interested in printing lies & sensation than an article like this one. Kudos and we want you to know that Michael Jackson fans appreciate this type of truth in media.
Thank you so much for your words!
As a fan, the sensationalism and blatant lies of the mainstream media gets to me as much as it does to eveyrone else that had Michael's well being at heart. Luckily; I happen to be good with words and have wanted to be a journalist since I was little, so hopefully I can contribute to some unbiased, TRUTHFUL articles getting out there – although I find myself ashamed most of the time to want to get into a business that is so filthy and so driven by corruption, greed and gossip.
Thank you so much for your words!
As a fan, the sensationalism and blatant lies of the mainstream media gets to me as much as it does to eveyrone else that had Michael's well being at heart. Luckily; I happen to be good with words and have wanted to be a journalist since I was little, so hopefully I can contribute to some unbiased, TRUTHFUL articles getting out there – although I find myself ashamed most of the time to want to get into a business that is so filthy and so driven by corruption, greed and gossip.
Thank you so much for your words!
As a fan, the sensationalism and blatant lies of the mainstream media gets to me as much as it does to eveyrone else that had Michael's well being at heart. Luckily; I happen to be good with words and have wanted to be a journalist since I was little, so hopefully I can contribute to some unbiased, TRUTHFUL articles getting out there – although I find myself ashamed most of the time to want to get into a business that is so filthy and so driven by corruption, greed and gossip.
I just wanted to thank you and the The Comment Factory for writing & printing this story. Really strange when the media is more interested in printing lies & sensation than an article like this one. Kudos and we want you to know that Michael Jackson fans appreciate this type of truth in media.
Unfortunately saying MJ was Gay is basically saying he was "probably" a Child molester too. Not saying all homosexuals have these tendencies but it seems like someone's trying to "set the stage" for more allegations. Being called gay certainly isn't a harmless accusation for MJ, being called a Muslim, on the other hand, would probably be the most harmless accusation IMO considering his brother is one.
But yeah, I think we should take MJ's world for it instead of regarding the accusation as holding ground or disregarding it as being harmless.
Unfortunately saying MJ was Gay is basically saying he was "probably" a Child molester too. Not saying all homosexuals have these tendencies but it seems like someone's trying to "set the stage" for more allegations. Being called gay certainly isn't a harmless accusation for MJ, being called a Muslim, on the other hand, would probably be the most harmless accusation IMO considering his brother is one.
But yeah, I think we should take MJ's world for it instead of regarding the accusation as holding ground or disregarding it as being harmless.
Not at all, people who believe homosexuality can be linked to paedophilia are, well…idiots. I'm sorry, but they are. It's 2010, people should be more evolved and informed than that.
Lets stop being glib and using MJ as an example for a liberal socio-political soap box. At least half of all Americans believe MJ was guilty of Child molestation. Saying a man who was accused of molesting to boys also was a "confirmed" homosexual, would confirm the former accusation. Because it says MJ performed in whats believed by a majority of Americans as being deviant sexually behavior (deviant, meaning different from the norm).
"people who believe homosexuality can be linked to paedophilia are, well…idiots."
Well, there are a lot of "idiots" in this country.
There is no need to be rude. I welcome your opinion just as I do everyone else's, but replying to it is a lot nicer if you are not patronizing.
As for the reason of half of America (actually about 66 per cent) believed he was guilty, was much due to the twisted, biased covering – and I do have enough insight in the trial to know this for a fact.
So you would understand that saying MJ is gay would be detrimental to his character not because of the sexuality itself but because of the implications it carries. I'm sure even openly gay people who are MJ haters would note the implications of this accusation. It wasn't just twisted biased coverage that led to peoples negative views of him, it was an overall prejudice of his "weird" behavior and appearance.
It shouldn't acrry any implication. It's 2010, when are people going to leave their homophobia behind? And I agree that it was people's overall prejudice that led to their judging him so harshly, but the truth is there were none, or very little, bizarre behaviour on his part – most of it WAS fabricated by the media, and whatw asn't (his changing appearance, for example) can be very easily psychologically explained. So those two go hand in hand in my opinion.(For and example of the press twisting things to make him look odd, please read my replies to Max Sydney Smith below about the trial.)
When ever homosexuality comes up in a discussion it always distracts people from the point. That's why I said "don't make this a liberal socio-political soap box" and lets make this about MJ. Homophobia (which is a misnomer BTW) isn't the reason why people had negative views of MJ but a prejudice about certain behaviors tied to sexuality that even supporters of LGBT rights seem to believe. (Femininity=Gay) + (Spending a lot time with children=Pedophile) = (MJ the gay pedophile)
I personally do/did know an openly gay person who was an MJ hater who would undoubtedly note the implications of the accusation. "Its guys like him that make us look bad."
In my position, I'm fully aware of the media twisting stories about him around etc. However on a side note I don't think he had as much changes done to his appearance as people suggest.
Right, I'm with you now…thanks for clarifying.
Also, I can't help but reacting to the comment "it's guys like him that make us look bad." "US"? I understand that he means "us gay men" but it's frankly ridiculous to put so much of your identity into your sexual orientation – that's another reason why there are so many stereotypes. The same goes for skin colour. It's nothing to be ashamed of, but it's nothing to be proud of either; because it has absolutely nothing to do with who someone is. "Gay" or "black" is not a personality trait, and as long as we have pride in direct connection with things such as sexual orientation or skin colour, we will also always have shame and discrimination. We shoouldn't even be using the terms because they're irrelevant. (Although I'm straying slightly from the original topic here.)
"The horrible truth is that all of this; all the lies and rumours and speculation, is going to continue in spite of Michael being dead. The press didn’t respect him when he was alive, why would they start now? They never cared, and they never will care."
Sandra, you talk about respect for Michael and caring for Michael as if the Michael Jackson that we – the public – witnessed was anything more than a media construction. In fact – I don't know about anyone else – but I even find it weird that you call him Michael, not Michael Jackson. It's like your trying to personalise, humanise him. Like calling Jordan, Katie. Or MacDonalds, Mac. God knows what happened to the man behind/under/within the idea of Michael Jackson that we consumed and clearly – yourself included – still have a voracious appetite for. But it seems to me that the battles you're carefully picking are over an interpretation of an idea. Michael Jackson as homosexual. Michael Jackson as heterosexual. Michael Jackson as philanthropist. Michael Jackson as paedophile. I suppose its a bit like the heated theological debates between early Christians over the nature of Christ's divinity. Surely the important thing is that you all believe in him? In the idea of Michael Jackson. No?
(In the name of Michael…Amen.)
I have absolutely no idea what you are on about. :p
Sorry. I guess I'm curious about your involvement with Michael Jackson. Did you know him personally? Or as a fan, reading about him in the papers, seeing him on the TV, listening to his albums? And if your relationship with him is through the media, I don't really understand how you can get emotionally worked up about what people say about him.
As a thought exercise:
In the eyes of the law, Michael Jackson was not a paedophile. But many people believe, maybe want to believe, or need to believe that he was. Why did they do this? I don't know. But maybe for the excitement of it. Maybe because it's a way to undercut an otherwise hugely successful man. Maybe as a way of handling his weirdness. (He was a bit weird). Could you bring yourself to say, if they want to believe that, let them believe it. I don't want to upset anyone?
Ah, I think I get what you mean now.
To answer your question, no, I did not know him personally. When it comes to him being "weird", i think this is where those that know the real stories and those that "just" read their way to them, differ. To me, he was not weird, at all, for the simple reason that much of what was written WAS twisted and untrue (more on that later) and, on the contrary, very psychologically logical considering what his life had looked like.
For example; media coverage of the 2005 trial was very much sensationalized and, what's worse, full of factual errors. (This link is quite good:http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2010…
Other situations were purposely taken out of their context to make him look weird; like the pajama pants incident. The press used that to say how "weird" he was to to do a thing like that, when the truth is that he had been at the hospital for a back injury hence was late for court. *cont*
*cont * Now, that working the way it always does; the judge gave him fifteen minutes to get there – no matter where he happened to be at the time – or he'd have to place a "wanted" arrest on him. So Michael, then, simply had no time to change. He had a jacket on, so he obviously had tried the best he could to look as representable as possible, but there was no time to change completely.
In a trial regarding possible sexual molestation, you'd think focusing on evidence (or in this case lack thereof) as opposed to what someone is wearing would be the most important thing, but that unfortunately was not the case. *cont*
*cont*
As to your question of "why" people did this, I do not know. Pack mentality, greed, morbid fascination…neither? All of the above? I don't know. But I have a big problem, on a personal level, with people being the victim of untruths, slander, gossip and judgment, no matter who they are. That people, then, were given a purposely twisted version of someone, is not okay. That people don't QUESTION what they are bing told is not okay. In this case, what you also have, is a person that did so much for society and the people around him, and that had all of that ignored because people are never interested in the good news. No one ever stands at the water cooler at work gossiping about a colleague's beautiful wedding ceremony; they gossip about her ugly dress or a rumour regarding her husband cheating on her. People are idiots most of the time, and focusing on other people's failed lives – whether what they hear is accurate or not – makes them less panicky about their own.
"I suppose its a bit like the heated theological debates between early Christians over the nature of Christ's divinity. Surely the important thing is that you all believe in him? In the idea of Michael Jackson. No?"
No…
just trying to sow those seeds of reconciliation on the sparse common ground brother
Key word is sparse.
I agree with the person who said above that the problem with this story is that it makes Michael out to be a liar. He said many times that he was not gay. If Michael WAS gay and wanted to remain in the closet, that was his business. If he wanted to come "out" he would have probably done so on his own. It's not for someone else to make that choice for him. The critics and haters of Michael love nothing more than to jump on any excuse to prove that he was a liar, and this story makes him look like one which I think is the main reason it has struck a nerve and offended so many. I think if Michael himself had ever said, "I'm gay" it would have shocked a lot of people but they would have gotten past it, and those loyal to him would still be loyal to him. People want to accuse the fans of being homophobic but the truth is that what we're outraged about is people betraying him behind his back and making him look like a liar. If the story is false, then Jason is lying. If it's true, he's a betrayer, and I don't know which is worse, but both are pretty bad in most peoples' books.
Good stuff, I anticipate reading even more.
What about the pretty part Irish girl with long red hair, whom he was seen with just before Lisa Marie divorced him? There are photos on the internet of the two of them, before the media descended on the convention. If you look at the convention, their photos next to each other, with her singing on the stage. It was rumored he was a fan of her voice and her art.