New MJ Album Includes Song About Child Sex Abuse

New MJ Album Includes Song About Child Sex Abuse
Jude

Jude

Registrant
New Michael Jackson Album to Include Song About Child Sex Abuse
The new song, entitled Do You Know Where Your Children Are, tells the story of a 12-year-old girl who runs away from her abusive stepfather and turns to prostitution. In one of the song's verses Jackson sings: 'She wrote that she is tired of step-daddy using her/Saying that hell buy her things, while sexually abusing her. The chorus continues: 'Do you know where your children are? Because it's now twelve o'clock/If they're somewhere out on the street just imagine how scared they are.'

It is one of eight tracks recorded by the singer before his death in June 2009 at the age of 50 which will feature on the new album Xscape, set to be released in May.

In the mid 1990s Jackson was accused of sexual abuse by the family of a 13-year-old boy Jordan Chandler. The case was settled out of court for about $25 million and no formal charges were brought against the singer. In 2005, Jackson was tried and acquitted of further child sexual abuse allegations and several other charges after a jury in Santa Maria, California, found him not guilty on all counts. Dancer Wade Robson is suing Jackson's estate after claiming that he suffered sexual abuse over several years at the hands of The King Of Pop. A hearing is due to take place in June.
 
I went to Youtube and checked it out.

The album cover weirded me out, the gunshot at the beginning freaked a bit, and the song is in POOR taste, especially when it says something like, "girl, let down your hair, I'll tell ya' where the money is..." And identifies the subject as a twelve year old.

But the world will dance to the beat, consider the song a work of art and a social statement. I tuned out most of the song and I am certain because of mj's accusations, I am biased.

But I think it SUCKS that his estate will make millions from child porn sung to a rhythmic beat. Not cutting edge. Not cool. Not original. Child abuse has been around since at least when I was 4 years old. And I do think this guarantees that his memory will forever be associated with child abuse....no doubt about it.

Thanks, Jude. Interesting stuff.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I found it nauseating that after his last legal battle on sex charges he fled to an Islamic State where the whole Barzai boys thing is winked at. Much like Afghanistan.

He wasn't even trying to hide what he was.
And his defeders refuse to concede who and what he was to this day no matter what evidence is presented.
 
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote:Sven]We weren't there, we don't really know what happened.[/quote]
[size:17pt]P[/size]recisely.
 
I agree guys. We don't know if mj was guilty or not. That is why I referred to my bias as being based on the accusations of abuseplus his admittance, if I remember correctly- and I may not- of sleeping with the little boys during their overnight stays.

But I do remember that Dottie said her husband's accusers were only after money as well. And I have read that others said the same about those abused within the churches.

You know why I didn't proceed with legal charges against my abuser? The state police detective said to me, "No one was there. It is your word against his." So based on my experiences, I am choosing not to question the authenticity of the accusers. I know personally how that demeans and defames the victim. We see the victims of sexual assault continuously degraded by our assumptions it was their fault, or they are seeking money.

I don't want to sound upset, self-righteous, or "preachy", but before we agree or suggest a possible victim is after money, we need to think about our own story and those of the ones who have been demonized who have come forward.

This is a safe place and we have no idea who may read our words and become discouraged in coming forward publicly with their sexual abuse because we unintentionally discredit them with our remarks, albeit by accident.

Now.. regarding the song. I find it to be a distasteful piece of music and I stick with my view that the estate is preparing to reap $$$ from child porn set to music. I just don't like it! And yes, others will think it edgy and perhaps appreciate the hidden message I missed (I did, after all, tune out most of it.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No, actually, it's just *not* that complicated.

I've followed many child molestation cases in the news, and in *every* case that's made the news that I've read about, there are plenty of "people" who come out of the woodwork to accuse the accusers of being money grubbing scum grubbing for "Ca$h."

In my own case I was directly accused of this by several people even though I'd made clear statements that I had not filed civil suit, and was clear that the statute of limitations for me to do so had long since lapsed, AND that in any case, I had no intention to do so.

In the State of California, CRIMINAL statutes of limitations are VERY short; as we all know, often we don't talk about the abuse until we're well into adulthood. In California, If you're in your late 20's it's too late to file criminal charges (limitation is BEFORE your 28th birthday), and therefore the ONLY recourse is to file civil charges (Lawsuits -- money grubbing, if you're inclined to believe the child molester over the accuser) and even then, you only have a couple of short years after you "realized" that the abuse actually harmed you in order to file civil charges.

Any derision of disbelief of accusers (or their parents) because they've filed civil suits in California is frankly irresponsible.

One final point:
If you're not on the jury or the Judge in the matter, having the *opinion* that someone like MJ is probably guilty is NOT the equivalent of "convicting" someone.

MJ had in his possession (and documented as court evidence) the same nude boy books that the perp who molested me had in his possession -- I, for one am certain that MJ is guilty of the crimes for which he has been repeatedly accused. YOU may not think that that's not fair of me... If so, I'm here to tell you that your opinion about *that* is incorrect.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are certain hallmarks and patterns that can tell you the truth. Studies of pedophiles generally find that the vast majority are not "one-time" perps. In fact one study suggests that the average pedophile racks up over 100 victims in a lifetime. Usually victims will keep coming forward when the time and pressure comes to a head for them.

You see it in the Sandusky affair. It wasn't just one and even as the trial commenced, an adopted son with rampant red flags who had defended Sandusky switched his tune and came out about his own abuse. The pattern is reported back to the 70s. And I still say Paterno had a reputation for an almost KGB like operation as to keeping tabs on those in his program. It would have been out of character to put it mildly for him not to have known.

It shows up in the MJ case as well, with consistent rumors and accusations coming out over time. The former defender Wade Robson switching his testimony is but one sign. His own admission that he slept naked with other people's boys. To say it is murky and solely (humans are doing this so money is likely somewhat a factor) a money driven accusation is a diehard supporter's conclusion.

When it comes to money, that accusation is trotted out in every type of litigation. People horribly disfigured by the most egregious behavior almost always face this. The accused has a right to their defense. In the legal field, there is a saying:

When you have the law, pound the law;
When you have the facts, pound the facts;
When you have neither, pound the table.

The greed argument is usually pounding the table.
 
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sven said:
ok.. well appereantly im not allowed to have opinions on the matter (unless its yours of course) so i suppose i won't try to explain myself any further
Click to expand...
[size:17pt]W[/size]ell I appreciate your perspectives, Sven. The fact is that our opinions will never change whatever the facts are. And - regardless of what really happened in the MJ case - when someone does make false accusations, it is harmful to everyone - most especially to the true victims.

[size:17pt]I[/size]t does not follow that because some victims are falsely characterized as opportunists trying to "cash in" with trumped up charges that no accuser should be questioned about their motives. That "reactionary logic" is fundamentally flawed, in my opinion. To me, healing is about uncovering the truths of my past. Opinions -as convincing as we may find them and as seductive as they are - can be powerful distractions from that mission.
 
who gots the lyrics to this song? the lyrics just basically depict the truth about CSA. who thinks this MJ song is porn?
 
Its always amusing to find that people who have this "progressive view that we should always assume that the accused is innocent until proven otherwise in court, are somehow more altruistic than people who choose to take the accuser at their word. Surely, it would be horrible to be falsely accused, but THAT is a crime too, and can be prosecuted if necessary.

In either case, arguing that *youre* not being allowed to have an opinion because someone disagrees vehemently with your approach, or accusing people of having reactionary logic is just as fundamentally flawed as it is to assume that because someone has filed a lawsuit (especially in California, which has severe statutes of limitations) that their motives are questionable.

In my first reply to this thread, I talked about criminal statutes of limitations because this statement was made:
If you really thought he did those things ... Wouldn't you have taken him to court regardless?"

I made the assumption that the poster was meaning wouldn't you have taken him to CRIMINAL court. I made that assumption because the typical ridicule used against victims of child molestation who sue in this state is: If it really happened, then you should have taken them to CRIMINAL court

Now, in re-read, I see that this statement may been asking: Why did the parents just settle instead of taking the lawsuit all the way to trial.

Heres an example of why:

A man who was molested by the same perp who molested me (same California law and statutes of limitations as the MJ cases) DID decide to sue the molester, because the criminal statute of limitations had passed. The lawsuit was an anonymous lawsuit Both the plaintiff and defendant use an assumed name so that the press/public cant get details.

The victim in this case desperately did not want his family (children) friends, co-workers, etc to find out about what he had gone through.

Statute of limitations for LAWSUITS (California) require that only a few years have passed between the time that you realized the damage and you filed the lawsuit. Therefore, the defendant has the RIGHT to ask for proof that you did not realize that there was damage prior to a few years before filing date.

So, while the molester was to remain anonymous, here is a VERY PARTIAL list of things that victim was required to turn over if he was to proceed to trial (Keep in mind that the victim was about 8 years old at the time of molestation, so the list that hes expected to provide is quite lengthy):

*Please produce ANY DOCUMENTS reflecting ANY diagnosis YOU received for a psychological, psychiatric, or emotional condition.

*information related to any military service that Plaintiff may have had. This information could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Plaintiff' s psychological and emotional state because of the physical and psychiatric testing that is typically conducted by the military. Evidence of Plaintiff' s psychological and emotional state at a time that proceeded [claimed molestation] would be directly relevant to determining whether Plaintiff suffered any injuries as a result of the allegations against [Defendant]

*Please produce ANY DIARY that YOU maintained between the date that [claimed molestation occured] until the present.

*Please produce ALL DOCUMENTS CONCERNING ANY COMMUNICATION that YOU ever made complaining of DR. DOE' s [claimed molestation] of YOU. *NOTE there is a very long paragraph defining communication.

*[Defendant] attempting to learn whether Plaintiff confided in any of his close friends, roommates, and pastors ( if applicable) about the alleged conduct, so that [Defendant] can examine whether there is other evidence from other people that could support Plaintiff' s allegations. Also, evidence that plaintiff spoke to others about mistreatment by [Defendant] would be directly relevant to proving that Plaintiff' s claims are outside the Statute of Limitations because Plaintiff would have known about the cause of his various claimed injuries before [statute of limitations] had transpired.

There are then several pages of specific lists of who should be included for the defendant to contact to discuss the plaintiffs molestation including elementary school, high school, college friends, casual acquaintances, girlfriends or boyfriends, Co-workers, SOCIAL MEDIA contacts, church parishioners, etc Names, phone numbers, addresses, and emails were demanded.

There was also a battery of about 30 very detailed and lengthy psychological tests that the victim was going to be subjected to. (By the way, the molester was a child psychiatrist so the victim would have preferred to gouge his eyes out with a fork before he spent days in some fool shrinks office)

If you think this isnt a *standard* ploy to show the victim just how much more the defendant will f*ck up their life if they dont settle, then youre a fool.

So, when they dangled the settlement check, he took it. I dont blame him, and frankly, I dont need to associate with anyone who *does* blame him.
 
Well this thread has gone way beyond what I intended. Cool off guys.

Personally I still find alot to question in the MJ case. Why would a guy like MJ, under constant public scrutiny the world over, continue to invite boys into his bedroom after the first accusations were settled? Why wouldn't he say to himself "Whoa, I don't want to go down this road anymore"? Like there were no extra bedrooms in his mansion to put those kids in? He was either a pedophile, or he was so addled by drugs that he was incapable of making rational decisions.

And now the world is supposed to buy his CD full of old tracks that weren't good enough to release when he was alive? And we are all supposed to say "Aww gee, he couldn't have been guilty, he wrote a song about child abuse".

That being said, I think we all have better things to do than debate the guilt of a dead pop star. There are too many of these pedophile monsters alive and still roaming the streets. Its them we should be going after. Just sayin.

Jude
 
The reason they're alive and still roaming the streets is because *everyone* is too timid and afraid of being the politically incorrect a**hole who calls them out.

The perps are evil because they are evil; But the people who defend them and drop their vigilance because they're afraid someone is going to accuse them of not following "innocent until proven guilty" are evil because they *chose* to look the other way when evil was doing what it always does.

Not up to me to decide who is worse, I suppose, but I'll never again hesitate to call attention to the problem. I've been called plenty of names because of it. Witch hunts are supposed to be a bad thing, I take it... not when the witches are real, I think.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Canuck said:
The reason they're alive and still roaming the streets is because *everyone* is too timid and afraid of being the politically incorrect a**hole who calls them out.

The perps are evil because they are evil; But the people who defend them and drop their vigilance because they're afraid someone is going to accuse them of not following "innocent until proven guilty" are evil because they *chose* to look the other way when evil was doing what it always does.

Not up to me to decide who is worse, I suppose, but I'll never again hesitate to call attention to the problem. I've been called plenty of names because of it. Witch hunts are supposed to be a bad thing, I take it... not when the witches are real, I think.
Click to expand...
[size:17pt]W[/size]ow. I think I disagree with just about everything you said, but I hope you understand that my disagreement does not translate to a personal judgment about you. I respect your perspectives - if they are like mine or like Sven's or like Jude's or anyone else's, you can respect that we all come from different places. We all have different experiences, and that creates different truths. My truth? My perp wasn't evil. He was defective. The minute I ascribe "evil", I have lumped him into a convenient class - a characature - and in so doing blind myself to any further truth. In my experience, the loud and angry voices that condemn these "monsters" are very often the same ones who - feeling validated in their own indignation - look away. That's precisely what happened in my case. Had the adults looked at the situation without judgement - really looked deeply at what was going on beyond their quick and superficial assessments and labeling, I could have been spared a lot of what brought me here to MS. I was on the front lines of that battlefield, pulling him off little girls every chance I had. I didn't have the time or luxury to indulge in judgement or hate.

[size:17pt]T[/size]aking it back to Michael Jackson - is it possible he just wanted to be a boy again? That he just wanted to be one of them, not have sex with them? That there was no sexual component - just a pretend world of slumber paries and water gun fights, in which he was a boy again? A true Neverland? More to the point, who are we to judge that without the facts? Like us, he had his childhood stolen, albeit in a different way. Like many of us, his growth as an adult may have been pruned abruptly, and he related more easily to kids than to adults. I did for a while, too. I would never dream of being to those younger friends what my molester was to me and to my baby sister. And I would be devastated to be judged otherwise by anyone who assumed they just knew otherwise - with a lick and a seal - and no evidence beyond their own assumptions. With a blanket dismissal of any other explanation. That transcends truth and becomes arrogance. And I have learned never to trust those arrogant voices.

[size:17pt]T[/size]his quote by Winston Churchill pretty much sums up how I feel about the opinions: The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. Having an "opinion" on what MJ may have done is like having an opinion on what the current weather is. The truth resides separately from our beliefs.

[size:17pt]I[/size] think this is a conversation worth having. But I also think we should tread more gently around the feelings of our fellow survivors.
 
I agree with you Eric, I also don't feel like my perps were evil. They did really terrible things, but I know they were really hurt and sure, they made terrible choices, but they were not evil. I still love them, despite the pain the caused me. I think I see most people who hurt people like that - for me, I think seeing them as evil gives me a pass to not look at the causes of abuse, not focus on the very human reasons people hurt each other. I want to see abusers as human because as much as I hate to admit it, doing shitty things and hurting people is a very human thing to do. Some of us just take that further than others.

As for MJ... did he touch those boys? Yeah, in my opinion, he did. But like Eric I think the cause of it was probably wanting so badly to be a boy again, maybe he explained it and justified it to himself, maybe thinking "well this is what young boys do." In any case, yes, children were hurt, and there is no excuse for ever hurting a child. but there are reasons. I guess everyone has a reason.

And if i was that boy? You'd better believe I would have taken the settlement and ran with it. Can you imagine that court case? I wouldn't have been able to do it.

And as for the song, meh, I guess there is a reason it wasn't released before. If i was MJs publicist, i would have been wary about releasing a song about the evils of abuse when the artist in question is accused of abuse! Its weird, thats for sure. But maybe it shows that he didn't see what he was doing as the same thing as "abuse". I don't think anyone can argue that MJ was a very strange, probably very hurt and unwell, man.

Pheuf, that was a lot of topics to cover...
 
Eric, you claim that your "disagreement does not translate to a personal judgment about [me]." and that you "respect [my] perspectives." You claim that you "think we should tread more gently around the feelings of our fellow survivors."

And you offer this up:

"Churchill pretty much sums up how I feel about the opinions: The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

And yet you claim that "We all have different experiences, and that creates different truths."

Who is holding the correct truth, and who is attacking truth with malice?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Who is holding the correct truth, and who is attacking truth with malice?
Click to expand...
[size:17pt]I[/size] wish I could answer that for you, Mr. Canuck. You seem to suggest an inconsistency in my words. I'm sorry, but I see none. I expressed my opinion. I respect other opinions that differ. By offering my own perspectives, I am not trying to dissuade you from yours.
 
The question of the existence of evil in the world is never going to be settled in an online forum guys.

I presume we can all agree that the molestation, rape, torture, murder, and use in porn and prostitution, of children are evil acts. But are the perpetrators of these acts evil? That seems to be where we differ. Perhaps it would be wise to defer that debate for another time and place. Evil people or not, these evil acts need to be stopped. Can we just focus on that?

My state implemented a program several years ago that seems to have significantly impacted the rate of reported child abuse of all kinds. Its worth a quick read: What Works: Preventing Child Abuse and Neglect in Your Community

Jude
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top