Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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
Hbh17 · 07/12/2023 15:38

None of us really know the true story re Michael Jackson, so both parties to this discussion could have a valid point.
But it is very unreasonable to have an argument about it in a public place.
It's also possible to separate someone's work from the offences they (may have) committed - Caravaggio was a murderer, but it is indisputable that he painted some of the most beautiful paintings in history (and many of them are still on display in galleries and churches all over the world).

Ohtobetwentytwo · 07/12/2023 15:38

@Maze76 not being funny but if I was a predator I would tactically not abuse someone like McCauley as he has his own star profile and would lend a credible vocal defence.

x2boys · 07/12/2023 15:40

I guess its a,quetion of seperating the man from the art
Personally i have never been a big fan of Michael Jacksons music
But appreciate many people are and that he was a hugely successful recording artist
I did watch Leaving Neverland and found it very disturbing ,if those men are lying all i can say is that they are extremely good liers
And they were very plausible.

mrsmingleton · 07/12/2023 15:50

It's taken you this long to find out that your H felt like this?

Nowherenew · 07/12/2023 15:51

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.

YABU

You’re the doing the exact same thing as DP but worse (saying with such confidence that you think he did do something wrong etc) because there is absolutely no proof he did do anything wrong and he was not found guilty by a court.

You don’t want to agree with him but you are throwing your toys out of the pram because he’s not agreeing with you.

You don’t know that MJ is guilty, just like he doesn’t know if he’s innocent but he is right when he says he wasn’t convicted and that he acted like a child.

You only have to watch anything of him to see that he obviously has some MH issues or ND or possibly both, probably stemming from childhood trauma.

It sounds like you were spoiling for a fight.

Neither of you know whether he is innocent or guilty, so you need to just be respectful of each others opinions and agree to disagree.

Tacotortoise · 07/12/2023 15:52

It sounds like you were both pretty invested in being right tbh @PLP432

The arguement about whether you can separate a person's art from their deeds is ultimately a philosophical one, and whatever we think we are all fairly inconsistent in doing that in practice. And MJ is dead and you didn't know him anyway so arguing about whether to leave your dd with him or not is, frankly, bizzare.

GoonDog · 07/12/2023 15:56

Why are you even wasting time on mumsnet OP?
If he's so awful and thick as mince, surely you should be getting your ducks in a row, and leaving him.

StaunchMomma · 07/12/2023 15:58

You're allowed an opinion that is polar to your partner, OP. But then so is he. It's a bit much that a disagreement about a long dead musician can lead to you not talking!

That said, if the subject is based on subjects that he knows are difficult and personal for you, your DP should have shown more restraint, really. You're not the only one who could have just let it go.

As an aside, I agree re; MJ.

Original poster
PLP432 · 07/12/2023 15:58

GoonDog · 07/12/2023 15:56

Why are you even wasting time on mumsnet OP?
If he's so awful and thick as mince, surely you should be getting your ducks in a row, and leaving him.

Why are you wasting time on mumsnet? Don't you have anything better to do?

OP posts:
RudsyFarmer · 07/12/2023 15:58

I’m not bothered by hearing MJs music but then I haven’t got a history of child abuse that would make the association triggering.

let the whole thing calm down and try and discuss it again. Perhaps the compromise is your partner plays it when you’re not around.

rumred · 07/12/2023 15:59

@PLP432 some eyebrow raising ignorance on here sadly. I don't blame you for losing your rag with him.

For what it's worth I'd question my relationship if my partner was arrogant and unable/unwilling to realise some adults, regardless of their circumstances and pleas of innocence, abuse children. I'd feel unsafe

EtiennePalmiere · 07/12/2023 16:02

Men tend to defend other men in these situations unfortunately.

GoonDog · 07/12/2023 16:03

PLP432 · 07/12/2023 15:58

Why are you wasting time on mumsnet? Don't you have anything better to do?

Show quote history

Don't worry about my wastage of time. I'm good thanks.
You on the other hand, arguing in shops over Michael Jackson, when if your partner is so bad, you surely would have left him by now.

FancyFanny · 07/12/2023 16:03

Doubleespresso33 · 07/12/2023 13:18

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

Show quote history

And Jimmy Savile left nothing of value behind!

Lambiriyani · 07/12/2023 16:04

I love listening to MJ. The verdict was not guilty and Macaulay Culkin said that nothing ever happened. Even some of the accusers admitted in later years that their parents pressured them to give false statements so they could make money out the situation.

Alalalalalongalalalalalonglonglilong · 07/12/2023 16:05

It sounds to me like the real issue is your DHs arrogance, and absolute refusal to budge. He should be more sensitive based on your history but I think he is entitled to his opinion on MJ. This sounds like one of those arguments that has just escalated and become personal when it started as abstract.

Personally I believe in separating the art from the artist but that's just me, others beg to differ. You need to agree to disagree on this and take personal emotions out of it

Georgeandzippyzoo · 07/12/2023 16:05

I don't like hearing his songs either and as a PP said I never really 'got' his hype, there was just something i didn't like ( not saying anything creepy).

It is definitely double standards that his music is still played. I loved R. Kellys 'I believe I can fly'. Its a song which represents so much but I would never play that.

I don't think I would argue with someone over it, but would happily state my view. I think you triggered your partner when uou asked about your child. He realised that there was more to his thoughts and didn't like it.

You can have your views , he can have his, so for that neither if you ABU, However I would NEVER argue/stick up for sonething like this if I knew my DP has a history of child sex abuse and rape. For that I'd find it very hard to forgive And he's just a shitty partner.

ticktickticktickBOOM · 07/12/2023 16:06

If Mr Dyson was a convicted paedophile would you chuck out your vacuum / not let your children use it?

ButterCupPie · 07/12/2023 16:09

GoonDog · 07/12/2023 15:56

Why are you even wasting time on mumsnet OP?
If he's so awful and thick as mince, surely you should be getting your ducks in a row, and leaving him.

THIS. In spades.

2dogsandabudgie · 07/12/2023 16:09

We will never know the truth about Michael Jackson. For as many people who believe he is guilty there are the same amount who think he is innocent. I really don't know what to believe. I like his music and there cam be no denying that he was a musical genius.

I can't understand though OP why you would get in to a heated argument about him in public.

coxesorangepippin · 07/12/2023 16:10

As pps said.

His music was amazing

Wouldn't leave my kids with him though

ButterCupPie · 07/12/2023 16:10

ticktickticktickBOOM · 07/12/2023 16:06

If Mr Dyson was a convicted paedophile would you chuck out your vacuum / not let your children use it?

That's a kind of dumb remark. A snobby Dyson vac is not an artistic creation.

ArchetypalBusyMum · 07/12/2023 16:10

Whether mj is guilty of child sex abuse isn't the issue.
Lots of people take the view that the art and the artist are two separate things and I agree you can enjoy the art without approving of everything the artist has done. I can also see how horrible associations would spoil that same art for others.

I think your DH doesn't want to know if mj is guilty, so would rather not think about it or look into it. That's a common position and also understandable.

But when put on the spot, instead of annoying he'd rather not know, and would rather enjoy the illusion he's done nothing wrong, he's also started he doesn't know if he'd protect his own children from someone who presented that way... Which is pretty bad and to thee mother of those children with a sa background would be heinous.

I think you had his back to the wall because you were exposing his inconsistent and illogical position, so he had no way to climb down from his position without losing face and he reacted immaturely.

The fact you wanted to get to the bottom of his attitude is understandable, I agree with you and would have felt the same. But many a flawed human would have reacted similarly as he did.
It is not admirable, it is crap and childish. He also should have the intelligence to connect the topic to your own background and deal with it now sensitively.

So, it's rubbish. Could you have dropped the subject for the sake of the peace? Yes, you could have done that. That would have saved him from being an arse... It's still on him though.

ImCamembertTheBigCheese · 07/12/2023 16:11

I think 'Michael Jackson' is a red herring here. I think the issue is you believe Jackson's accusers, and I suspect anyone's accusers, without question and your DP does not. Given your history it is understandable that when your DP does not believe a child who has accused an adult of abuse, it greatly upsets you.

Personally I do not believe Jackson was guilty from all I have seen and read but I don't think that whoever it was you would be happy with your partner thinking an accuser is a liar.

ForTheLoveOfFriends · 07/12/2023 16:12

It’s possible to separate the artist from the art.

Whatever Michael Jackson may or may not have done (and the truth is that we will never know the real answer to that), he was supremely talented.

He was found not guilty in a court of law. If we always took the view that we should just argue for someone’s guilt regardless of a verdict, what’s the point in having a justice system? And there is credible evidence that the parents of one of the boys in question definitely were in it for the money.

But tbh I’m not invested either way. It’s very obvious that MJ was a very troubled soul and he clearly wasn’t normal. But he had talent, and I don’t believe that talent should be overlooked purely on the basis of the personal opinions of others.

And MJ is different to JS and RH because neither of those were iconic in the same way. JS didn’t really hold any appeal to the general public, he was predominantly recognised for his fundraising, and that fundraising was valid, or would you suggest that e.g. hospital wings he had raised money for should be pulled down because of what he did? But from a public perspective people wouldn’t have the wish to watch historic episodes of Jim’ll fix it.

Similarly RH’s music was.. wel… shit really. I mean tie me cangaroo down is hardly comparable to thriller is it? And even if RH hadn’t been convicted, we wouldn’t be playing his music as a matter of course in the same way we do with MJ.