- Joined
- Feb 27, 2019
- Messages
- 430
- Reaction score
- 2
and yet many still know him mostly for being one of the children MJ molested.But he openly says he was molested by others in Hollywood.
and yet many still know him mostly for being one of the children MJ molested.But he openly says he was molested by others in Hollywood.
well feel free to tell me what I was actually saying so I know what we're talking about.That's not what you were saying initially, bro.
and yet many still know him mostly for being one of the children MJ molested.
D'uh, I wrote the post you quoted.did you read the post I quoted?
Sure but gay men having a 'beard' was typically a function of fearing societal condemnation for being gay or in living in place where they cannot comfortable be out.and you're wrong, plenty of gay men have wives and families but aren't into women, aren't bisexual and never will be no matter how many women they have sex with. I know a few lesbians with children and they've never been into men either.
With all due respect what people think personally does not really matter though.I do think Michael Jackson is athough personally
So you can't concede there could be a situation where someone has sex with a minor and is not actually attracted to children? what is the classification for those who specifically want to have sex with children then?D'uh, I wrote the post you quoted.
Sure but gay men having a 'beard' was typically a function of fearing societal condemnation for being gay or in living in place where they cannot comfortable be out.
You are colluding two very different things here. The gay guy is trying to project a socially acceptable life in his community for work and community reasons.
There is no reason to be a heterophile but hide being a gay
phile. Both are considered abhorrent with no line of separation, so your example does not work.
So my point stands ...
"Not sure why you are trying to distinguish between hetero and Homo directedphilia?? They are both
philia and if you act on either you are 'actually into kids'."
With all due respect what people think personally does not really matter though.
You'd be surprised how many people haven't seen The Goonies broLol no that's not what he's known as
I don't know about 'mostly' but that shows you how people believe what they WANT to believe regardless of the facts.and yet many still know him mostly for being one of the children MJ molested.
So you can't concede there could be a situation where someone has sex with a minor and is not actually attracted to children? what is the classification for those who specifically want to have sex with children then?
that's not true, he rented latino males for sex regularly at least before he developed further issues "downstairs".MJ was just a giant kid imo... Yeah he was weird and awkward but I don't think he was molesting anybody. I don't think that dude cared about sex, with anyone.
so you get drunk, wake up next to a 14 yr old (or anyone 2 yrs below the legal age of consent) and you go from being a heterosexual male to aNo.
phile.
haha. You are so struggling to make a point that you now are going off on wild tangents.so you get drunk, wake up next to a 14 yr old (or anyone 2 yrs below the legal age of consent) and you go from being a heterosexual male to aphile instantly, and that's a permanent state for life?
And paying off people only works until they spend that money and become desperate again. Then they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by bringing it out in the open, including details of the 'payoff'. A threat of being sued means nothing to them as they have nothing.Feldman is a dude who has called outphiles in Hollywood numerous times. If he's defending MJ, there might be some merit to it.
Again, every situation could be different, but I just don't believe these dudes. That means MJ would've had to pay off NUMEROUS people in his lifetime, to include the FBI who did a decade long investigation. I don't know about the other dude, but I don't trust Robson at all. He lied under oath about this whole thing.