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?

Woody Allen is strange I agree however, he was never found guilty of anything and was thoroughly investigated twice.

Can somebody link to the FBI files where they found child abuse on MJ’s computers? Everything I’ve read suggests they investigated him several times but had no case (I’m not saying he’s innocent just interested in the evidence)

To add OP, I think you went too far by bringing your DS into it. Whilst I get the theoretical point you’re making and I understand that as a survivor of abuse yourself it might feel overly personal, it was overkill as was suggesting safeguarding concerns. And being honest I agree with your DH’s answer of ‘I don’t know’. Obviously I’d like to think that I wouldn’t have let him anywhere near my kids but he was the biggest star in the world, he groomed those families to gain access and they didn’t know back then what we know now.

Hopefully once you’ve both calmed down you can both agree it got out of hand, apologise and move on agreeing to never play his music at home.

I don’t believe in mob hysteria, no.

I do believe in the rule of law.

YABU. You picked a fight. I'm surprised he puts up with you!

@PinkLemons99 so people are only guilty if convicted and not guilty if not convicted?

You’re completely right. Even if someone has multiple allegations of child sexual abuse against them from unconnected people we shouldn’t consider them guilty. We wouldn’t want to deny these people access to children would we, especially vulnerable ones. There’s also no need to consider that child sexual abuse conviction rates are really low and are very very very unlikely to be representative of how much child sexual abuse has actually occurred.

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

YABU for this alone. Rolf Harris was a terrible artist.

While we're at it, I think anyone who listens to MJ is being unreasonable, because his music is shite. But that's nothing to do with whether or not he was a paedophile. There are plenty of artists who inhabit a moral vacuum but create works of brilliance.

Dh and I always liked his music. I had my suspicions well before the trials. The neverland documentary I believed both men completely. Makes me cringe now, I actually shudder writing this.

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'

yeah, I can see that wouldn't give you much confidence in his judgement.

Well that's a separate issue really, and explains why you got so upset. On some level, you feel he isn't taking your history seriously and doesn't safeguard family properly.

That makes a lot of sense, OP.

I am sorry you´re having such a hard time on this thread.

As I previously wrote:

Separating music (film, fashion etc.) from the creator is one thing. And there are (imo) convincing arguments for that approach.

But defending the creator - which is what your DP did - is a completely different matter.
I would be upset about that as well. Even without the additional information you chose to share.

an actual convicted paedophile not just someone there were rumours about.

yikes.

I agree with your perspective but I wouldn't have started an argument about it. When he said 'we have different opinions' I would have left it.

While I don’t disagree with you on MJ, I think you were both unreasonable to allow it to escalate the way it did – and you’re still not talking? You’re husband is most likely not a safeguarding risk due to an argument on MJ, nor can any case over him be conclusively proven or disproven (in regard to the law), so it’s very stupid to have such a blazing row over it.

YABU

It sounds like you've picked a fight about something ridiculous. You are free to not like or listen to MJ music, but that doesn't mean that everyone else must feel the same!

It's one thing to like his music/enjoy hearing his songs, it's another to assert that 'oh actually he didn't reeeaaalllyyy abuse kids'.

Like any prolific abuser (thinking of Saville here as well) - his weirdo, in MJs case - childlike persona was likely developed specifically so he could abuse kids and fly under the radar.

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'
OK that explains why you have safeguarding concerns. It’s got everything to do with his lack of prior judgement and has nothing to do with MJ. Don’t make your real world concerns about a long dead celebrity, it makes you sound bonkers when actually this is really concerning.

His victims are still alive, and have to live in a culture where their abuser is still celebrated, defended and promoted.

That alone puts me off.

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

grooming would mean that he was knowingly manipulating the children for sexual purposes, we don’t know that was the case, he may of just been just been (mentally) a child himself, remember that people would be less likely to be diagnosed with autism etc back then.

Always thought this.
He's treated with god like status and the reality was all just brushed under the carpet.
I find it odd that his music is still played, especially when they'll find any excuse nowadays not to play certain songs or artists music.

I completely agree with you OP. As soon as one his songs is played, it is completely tainted by the accusations. I can't listen to it at all, my DH is like yours and will happily listen to it because he made good songs.

I used to like lost prophets music but there is absolutely no way I could listen to it now.

Of course "not everyone must feel the same". But in life we surround ourselves with certain people by choice. I can't be nice to know your partner is ok with defending a paedophile.

I was never much of an MJ fan, but I’m not offended on hearing his music. By the same token, I still sing along to Court of King Caractacus! They’re just songs.

I enjoyed watching animal hospital as a kid. It doesn’t make me sick to remember it, it was a nice programme.

You need to accept people have different opinions and ways of dealing with things. Not everyone has to react to the Nth degree over things that didn’t directly affect them and are no longer relevant given the people are dead anyway.

He should probably be a bit more understanding of your past and why it would trigger you, but it’s unreasonable for you to tell him he has to be offended every time he hears an MJ song.

You can hate the artist but still love the art.

And, to be honest, no artist who lived before about 30 years ago was subject to the scrutiny or morals of the modern world, so I imagine that if everything about them all came out and they were held to modern standards we’d find a lot more very dodgy people.

The first line of the first song of the first Beatles album is ‘She was just 17, you know what I mean?’ A Rolling Stone married an 18 old when he was 52, having been in a relationship with her for several years. Dodgy stuff everywhere.