OK. Michael Jackson was found "Not Guilty". Adam Curry, in a recent podcast, rants that we Americans are violating our own ideals if we reply to that as "Not Guilty" does not mean "Innocent". Good point and I agree in principle. He has met Michael. He doesn't believe from his personal experience with Michael that Michael could be guilty of the charges against him. I don't know Michael personally. I don't know anyone involved in the case personally. But, I am assuming that the pornagraphy that the police found was there before they got there. Michael has some kind of interest in sex. Apparently, he had some elaborate warning system to let him know if someone was approaching his bedroom. And, a few more such details, ignore the fact that children slept with him, imply that he is not asexual. If it were as simple as that, then I would say "so what". A grown man with a ton of money wants to buy and use porngraphy in his bedroom and not get caught doing so. I am ok with that.
I am even ok with that this same person being around children in all reasonable contexts. An interest in porngraphy does not a pedophile make. Plenty of non-pedophiles have an interest in porngraphy. Personally, I suspect that Michael has an unusual and potentially dangerous interest in children. It has not been proven in court.
But, what really burns my ass is this: what reasonable parent would knowingly permit their child to sleep with an adult male who is not an extremely close family member. Even then, one would assume that typically there is no reason for such arrangements for most children. Especially if the place where the child is staying has many, many rooms. I don't care who the adult male is. It ain't right; it ain't normal. Those parents are GUILTY of child endangerment. You just don't put children at risk in this regard.
There is some kind of symbiotic and disturbing relationship between Michael and these families if you ask me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment