Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Blazing row about Michael Jackson

644 replies

PLP432 · 07/12/2023 12:44

I know it sounds ridiculous on the face of it but hear me out.

I was in a shop with DP last night and they were playing Michael Jackson music. I commented that I don't like hearing his music as I can't get past everything he did. Yes, I know he wasn't convicted but he openly admitted to sleeping in bed with random children, showering together and whatever else.

DP said "we have different opinions on that, he's a really good artist" to which I replied something about Rolph Harris being a good artist and Jimmy Saville being a good fund raiser.

DP then goes on to say he doesn't think MJ did anything untoward with the children and he thinks it's all innocent and because he had a "childlike mind" due to not having a proper childhood.

I said that was no excuse and plenty of people have bad or unusual childhoods and don't groom children.

He was getting defensive and talking about how he was found not guilty in court, to which I pointed out how few rape and sexual abuse cases even make it to court let alone conviction.

I asked whether he'd listened to anything the men on Leaving Neverland said before he formed his opinion that MJ wasn't guilty of anything. He said no, and refused to look it up.

It descended into a row and I was very hurt by some of the things he said, as I have a history of child sexual abuse and rape - which he knows all about.

I asked him whether he would have gladly left our DS in the company of someone like MJ unsupervised and he took a while to answer before saying "I don't know"

I said how that concerned me from a safeguarding perspective to which he took huge offence, started shouting and told me to return all of the presents i'd bought him as he doesnt want them anymore, the immature dickhead.

Now we're not talking.

Was I being unreasonable here?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
21
Ohtobetwentytwo · 07/12/2023 12:54

I think very few people would leave their kids alone with MJ.

But he's dead and was never convicted so its publicly acceptable to carry on as though nothing ever happened.

Original poster
PLP432 · 07/12/2023 12:58

Ohtobetwentytwo · 07/12/2023 12:54

I think very few people would leave their kids alone with MJ.

But he's dead and was never convicted so its publicly acceptable to carry on as though nothing ever happened.

It's strange isn't it?

Jimmy Saville was never convicted either but I've never heard anybody bending over backwards to defend him like people do with MJ.

OP posts:
Fulshaw · 07/12/2023 12:59

I agree with you and had a similar difference of opinion with someone who hadn’t seen Leaving Neverland. If you’ve not seen it, then your opinion is uninformed in the extreme.

I also can’t listen to his music, makes my stomach turn over.

salamirose · 07/12/2023 13:01

I would say to leave him but your son might be better off if you don't unfortunately.

MaryMcCarthy · 07/12/2023 13:01

There's no reason to re-visit anything Rolf Harris or Jimmy Savile did.

Michael Jackson however was one of the most outstanding and popular artists of the 20th century and that's not going to change. His songs and his voice didn't become bad as a result of his behaviour. They are still good songs. And he's no longer profiting from them, so what's the issue?

AllRoadsLeadHome · 07/12/2023 13:03

I agree OP.

Your partners attitude is concerning, both his lack of boundaries and his immature attitude. I couldn’t be with someone like that.

Raindancer411 · 07/12/2023 13:03

Personally I side with husband and like another poster said he was never convicted, and is no longer with us. I think let him rest and if his music plays, turn a deaf ear and let those who enjoy it, just enjoy it.

We all have different views, and we do not have to agree.

TizerorFizz · 07/12/2023 13:03

I agree with that summary but it’s somewhat irrelevant. They are dead. Whatever does it matter to your dc what Michael Jackson did? All you need to do is keep your own dc safe.

GinAndJuice99 · 07/12/2023 13:04

'Never convicted' is completely irrelevant. Jimmy Savile was never convicted.

XDownwiththissortofthingX · 07/12/2023 13:04

Ask your DP about the child sexual abuse material the FBI found at Neverland, or the times MJ plied children with alcohol, and see how he can explain that away as MJ just being "childlike".

People need to look a bit deeper than the mere fact he was acquitted in a criminal trial, and consider the other stuff that he was never actually tried for.

ANightingale · 07/12/2023 13:05

PLP432 · 07/12/2023 12:58

It's strange isn't it?

Jimmy Saville was never convicted either but I've never heard anybody bending over backwards to defend him like people do with MJ.

Show quote history

One difference is that MJ left behind a musical legacy.

Let's say in another, better universe, Savile hadn't been a paedophile, just a TV presenter and fundraiser - what would he have left behind? Very little. You might have seen back episodes of Jim'll Fix IT on some obscure TV channel and he wouldn't have been edited from nostalgic TOTP reruns, but I think he would have been more or less forgotten by now, and not known at all by those born after his time.

Ohtobetwentytwo · 07/12/2023 13:07

General public want to listen to his music and have memories tied up in it so they turn a blind eye. Therds nothing in it for them to kick up a big fuss and fight a public narrative that there was no conviction and no crime.

Big people (record companies, radios etc) have big money in his catalogues.

Put bluntly, MJ is worth more dead than Saville.

gannett · 07/12/2023 13:07

Technically you were right but escalating it to telling your partner you had a safeguarding concern about him was... whew. Unnecessarily offensive, I'll say. I am not surprised he lost his cool at that.

It's complicated when a much-loved artist turns out to have done awful things. Lots of people can't shut off what those songs meant to them - or at least, the process of coming to terms with it isn't instant. And Michael Jackson is a very extreme example - his songs are still routinely played in public (as you heard) in a way that R Kelly and Gary Glitter are not. It's like he's too big to be cancelled, and at the same time there's widespread public knowledge about how he was also a victim.

FWIW I basically agree with you. I loved many MJ songs as a kid and I can't listen to them now. But this is one to have ongoing thoughtful conversations about, not to escalate into a blazing row in the middle of a shop.

LoreleiG · 07/12/2023 13:07

I agree OP. I find the continued adulation of him odd, but then I found him odd in the first place. As a child you can often tell when something is off about someone. Felt like that about Jimmy Saville too.

mollyfolk · 07/12/2023 13:07

I think suggesting you had safeguarding concerns was very hurtful maybe? Do you really ? Or did you take the argument very personally because of your history which is fair enough.

I mean the rest of the argument is just a disagreement- it’s not like he’ll rise from the dead.

InTheRainOnATrain · 07/12/2023 13:11

People want to ignore who he was because they really like the music and want to listen to it. It’s that simple. Yes he was monster but he was also incredibly talented and the songs were good. I don’t think anyone really wants to look at RH’s paintings (can’t recall ever having seen one) or watch old JS TV shows (well before my time) in the same way. Then it’s also easier to justify because he was found Not Guilty at trial. JS never stood trial, RH was found guilty. I don’t think they’re good comparisons because MJ is a particularly unique case. But I do agree with you and think it’s not appropriate to play in a shop. You should get your DH to watch Finding Neverland.

Cas112 · 07/12/2023 13:14

He definitely did something with them children he just had enough money, status and fame to not get convicted

CurlewKate · 07/12/2023 13:14

I'm with you, @PLP432 I have a DVD of my dd dancing to Michael Jackson selection, and while I can't bear to throw it away, I also can't bear to watch it.

MinnieCauldwell · 07/12/2023 13:15

I feel queasy about Eric Gill, his sculpture is still at the BBC. He admitted to having sex with his sister and 'interferring' with his daughters and the family dog!

Ohtobetwentytwo · 07/12/2023 13:16

I'll also add my voice to te people saying his music turns my stomach. Wish it would stop being played so it could die out.

The harm in playing it is that whether you believe the allegations or not, everyone who hears them thinks of sex abuse and I dont want to think about that in a random shop. At home at least people can choose to put it on.

And if you believe the allegations in any way, then the harm is the perception that you can truly be untouchable if your status is high enough. It can put victims off coming forward if there is a sense that 1) you wont be believed and 2) of you are believed, people will write it off because you're still amazing.

Look at the footballer who kicked the cat and got off with no repercussions.

ANightingale · 07/12/2023 13:16

I don’t think anyone really wants to look at RH’s paintings (can’t recall ever having seen one)

He did an absolutely terrible portrait of the late Queen (I've marked it as sensitive because of the artist, not the content)

Sensitive content
Blazing row about Michael Jackson
TeaGinandFags · 07/12/2023 13:17

My childhood was spent enjoying Gary Glitter songs and I choose to stand by that.

The man is not the music or the rest of the band - who were disgusted with him - would be culpable.

Enjoy the art or not as you please. And kick that knobhead boyfriend into touch. The presents he gave you are your property, or is he offering to give you his stuff?

NoTouch · 07/12/2023 13:17

Whatever your thoughts are on MJ they are your thoughts, you dh is allowed his own too.

You have obviously dug deeper into the details and your dh is uninformed, but since when do we need to dig into the lifestyle of every artist before we are allowed to enjoy a good tune being played in a shop. If I heard MJ in a shop I would likely just enjoy it without thinking about the allegations against him and there is nothing wrong with that.

You were trying to make a point that goes way beyond a song which really wasn't appropriate or worth a blazing row in the middle of Christmas shopping.

Doubleespresso33 · 07/12/2023 13:18

PLP432 · 07/12/2023 12:58

It's strange isn't it?

Jimmy Saville was never convicted either but I've never heard anybody bending over backwards to defend him like people do with MJ.

Show quote history

That’s because JS wasn’t a huge iconic celebrity in the same way that MJ was. It’s like comparing apples with oranges

ComtesseDeSpair · 07/12/2023 13:18

History is full of artists, musicians, writers and inventors who didn’t behave wonderfully. We’d have very little left to appreciate if we expected all their material to be removed from the public sphere. Most people are capable of separating the creator and their behaviour from the art.