Blazing row about Michael Jackson

[PLP432]

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?

😬😬😬

That is very . . . Harris-y . . .

People never want to believe someone they love either personally, or as a fan, can be guilty of child abuse or rape. You see it with lots of people. Look at all those who defend Prince Andrew in spite of his million pound payout and obvious lies on the TV interview.
And it seems common for ultra rich people to use money as payouts to get round being prosecuted.
MJ was obviously guilty.

Are MJ's actions despicable? Yes, almost definitely.

Has his music influenced a whole generation worldwide? Yes, almost definitely.

Do we cancel one because of the other? And if we think that we should 'cancel' one person's contribution (music, literature, art or otherwise) then do we need to apply the same ruling for other people too?

That's my view as well. There is no right or wrong attitude towards the work the person produced, its entirely up to each individual.

Personally I separate the work from the person, if you don't that's fine of course. Each to their own.

You acted unreasonably and were pretty horrid refusing to see anything from his POV and then suggesting he isn't safe to care for your child.
I imagine he was pretty upset.
He made reasonable concessions and admitted when he was unsure.
You have already made up your mind and refuse to change it.

Finding neverland was a tipping point for me, if he hasn't seen it then it's understandto still be on the fence.
MJ was a very odd person.
But his case is very different to that of either Saville or Harris...who are different to each other.
And his legacy is different too.
Comparing his music - which is art, was often innovative and ground breaking and global, and can be enjoyed independently of liking the artist to either Savilles fundraising (not art, not going to be enjoyed in future, but people will still be benefitting from things paid for with his fundraising....should they stop?)
Or Harris (he could draw, and present TV but hasn't left lasting works of art that have value in their own right beyond some early comedic songs)
Comparing them is disingenuous.

I don't actually have any problem with him liking his music, I mean you wouldn't see me playing it at home but if he likes it then whatever. I know as mentioned some can separate the art from the artist so to speak.

What really upset me was how he said with such confidence that he doesn't believe he did anything wrong, he was innocent and childlike, he wasn't convicted therefore it couldn't have been true.

I will admit that my own personal history means I'm quite sensitive about topics like this.

I think, knowing what he knows about my history, he shouldn't have said all he said. He's entitled to enjoy the music but undermining the victims and declaring the man's innocence when he has never bothered to look into the allegations really upset me.

For what it's worth as I think it's relevant there is history of him choosing to see the good in people that he shouldn't. His eldest had social services involvement because DP and his ex were spending time with, and allowing DSD to spend time with, a convicted paedophile as they thought it was all just 'malicious rumours'

I didn't know about this until years later.

So yes, it's a very loaded topic and I feel so hurt and yes alarmed that this is his attitude towards CSA.

I’d forgotten RH had made the queen look like she habitually ate children for breakfast.
These are such emotionally charged issues and it’s not easy to decide which side to come down on. I know how you feel, sort of, as my parents buy food weekly from the pub where I was violently raped two years ago (I was drugged mildly and dragged over to the car park). Music is also a particularly evocative medium. But I think the safeguarding concerns was possibly a tiny step too far? It’s possible to like Jackson’s music without endorsing his behaviour as a person let alone exposing children to it (which would be difficult as he’s dead), and the music, which may validly make you uncomfortable, will be OK for the majority of people, and it’s not like he sang happy pop anthems about the joys of young children.

And remember Jimmy Saville was originally feted when he died. The Royal Family put a gushing condolence statement and various stars also did the same. It is only when the evidence became totally overwhelming that it was impossible for anyone to deny what he was.

You obviously have your valid reasons why you don't like Michael Jackson. But escalating that to saying you had safeguarding concerns about your partner is extreme. That's why I think you were unreasonable.

I think it’s very dangerous to decide that someone is guilty of a crime when they haven’t been given a fair trial, let alone convicted, regardless of who they are or their alleged crimes.

On that basis alone, YABU.

I've occasionally heard 'Rock and Roll' as background music in TV/films made pre-Glitter's convictions - it doesn't seem to be something censored retrospectively.

Michael Jackson was a paedophile. Lots of people refuse to accept that because they love his music. Art is full of cruel and abusive monsters (Eric Gill, Picasso, Gauguin) but their genius somehow seems to give them a pass. It’s the age old question of ‘can you separate the art from the artist’.

FWIW, I don’t you are YABU. whenever I hear his songs being played, I think about those poor boys :(

@PLP432 Try and look at this from your husbands perspective.

You made a comment that Michael Jacksons music shouldn't be played. He takes an opposite initial stance. You start to get upset about this, and he's a bit confused, he's probably not thought about this all that much before. We listen to loads of music by deeply problematic people (take David Bowie for instance), why is Michael Jackson different, it's not even as if anything was ever proved about him.

You're still getting progressively more upset, and he's frantically pedalling to catch up with why this huge unexpected argument has kicked off. He's not had time to think through a well formed opinion on this, and panicked people get defensive.

And then you tell him that you don't think his own child is safe with him. How exactly did you expect him to react?

You went from "I think it isn't right that people play Michael Jacksons music", to "I think you're a paedophile" (and yes, I know you that's not what you meant but that's what he'll have heard)

For Gods sake, apologise to him. Its perfectly reasonable to enjoy a piece of music even when the creator was horrendous. Its perfectly reasonable to not judge someone when you don't know all the facts. It's perfectly reasonable to not be all that interested in the facts, its not even like your DP was going out of his way to listen to MJs music, it just happened to be on in the supermarket.

By all means disagree with him, but to judge his entire character based on an (possibly ill informed, but probably the majority) opinion over what songs get played in a supermarket is nuts.

Edit: OK, I cross posted with your last post, that changes the situation a bit.

@PinkLemons99 I hope you do not use that strategy when it comes to safeguarding your own children.

Unfortunately talent isn't only confined to "nice" people.

There are and have always been many famous, gifted people who are unpleasant, even criminal in their behaviour (though Jackson etc are harder to accept I think - possibly because they are not only particularly foul in their behaviour, but because they are contemporary, and there isn't the distance of time to soften their vileness).

I heard the testimonies from those poor children and I think with almost certainty that they were sexually abused by him. No one can say for certain but the victims or MJ, but as a child sex abuse survivor myself, their accounts look very similar to what I would witness.
He was most likely a nonce. No excuse. I had a horrendous childhood, mainly to di with he sexual abuse (and other types of abuse) and I don't predate on children I actuality, I'm very compassionate towards them because I know what it's like to be a scared child. It can and does ruin lives, trust me.

I don't rate Michael Jackson as an artist and couldn't live with someone who wanted to listen to that shite.

Misses point

As for the accusations, he's guilty as hell.

From a dead person?? 🤦🏻‍♀️

ooo the ghostly feels….🤣🤣

No you're right, there is a difference between excusing their actions and accepting they're bad people but still enjoy their music/acting/books etc.

I was trying to point out that some people who do condemn MJ and refuse to listen to his music on principle (instead of just disliking it), but don't do the same for other celebrities are quite hypocritical.

But people do make excuses for many celebrities ie Mark Wahlberg is often excused because he was young and impressionable, taken in by a bad crowd etc. He still racially abused people.

I was never interested in him, I don't actually know the name of any of his songs except Thriller for some reason. I definitely don't think of sex abuse if I hear one of his songs.

Doesn't mean I think they should play his music, I haven't really got an opinion on that, doesn't mean I think he was innocent, I think he probably did abuse some kids but no it isn't something that comes into my mind if I hear him now.

If I do stop and think about it, very rarely, I think what the hell were those parents doing when they should have been protecting their children?

I have (also) watched and enjoyed Woody Allen films.

But I am not defending that man´s actions or trying to claim that he must be innocent. OP´s DP however did.

If somebody asked me whether I would leave an unsupervised child or teenager in his company I wouldn´t hesitate to say NO. Enjoying films doesn´t change that.
OP´s DP however chose to answer with "I don´t know"...

I think it’s very unfair to decide this is is attitude to csa as he doesn’t believe Michael Jackson to be guilty and can’t be arsed reading up. I find that a bit extreme to be fair.

Yes. There's no paedophilia in Jackson's music and there's no antisemitism in Dahl's books.

Savile wasn't an artist, he was a personality. That makes a difference because his product wasn't art, it was himself, and we now know what that self was.

With all that said, there's definitely a degree of selection going on. David Bowie was a great musician but we never seem to talk about how he had sex with underage girls.

@PinkLemons99 do not see someone as a risk unless they have been convicted.

I agree with you op.
That’s after seeing MJ in concert too. I can still admit he was mesmerising but so was Hiltler.
It just goes to show how far grooming can go. All this ‘I’m just a kid at heart, let me play with the kids,’ was quite frankly an act. It worked too.