• Introducing Image Options for ResetEra 2.0! Check the left side navigation bar to show or hide images, avatars, covers, and embedded media. More details at the link.

Footage of Michael Jackson ring shopping with a young boy resurfaces

Nov 7, 2017
394
Right? And you listen to the other side, from Wade Robson and James Safechuck, and they reciprocated. That's the entire point of grooming. It becomes a two way romantic relationship. When they talked about when Michael Jackson came into their lives, I kept thinking about how it sounded like two guys reminiscing about their first girlfriends. They talk about the doting attention like I remember giving girls in highschool. It was clear as day when they had the recording of young James being like "What was your favorite part of filming this video?" and Michael was like "Being with you! You were my favorite part!" That shit is exactly like the corny shit you'd tell a girl.

That's precisely why these men are so confused and even feel guilty today. They were in romantic love back with him. Only difference is they were fucking 7 year olds, just beginning puberty, and were confused out of their fucking minds and in no way able to handle the realities of falling in love with another person romantically. That is entirely on the adult. He preyed upon their love for him.

And a layer of fucked up beyond all that -- he was a shitty romantic partner on top of all that. He'd throw them away when he was done with them. Parade their replacements in front of them. An extra dimension of emotional and psychological abuse. Imagine dealing with that at 12 years old, and not being able to even express it to anybody because, "what are you gay or something?" It's like when James says it's like a puzzle and you can't get any help from the outside on it, so you just never figure it out and it keeps getting worse.

Makes me sick to my goddamn stomach on every fucking level. What a monster.
The part where James cried himself to sleep on the couch in confusion while Michael had a new boy with him in his room. What kind of level of emotional abuse and callousness do you have to be at to do that to a child, especially awful with someone who seemed as sensitive and smitten as James. Broke my heart to hear what he went through.
 

Krejlooc

Dreamcast Porno Party
Member
Oct 27, 2017
13,691
The part where James cried himself to sleep on the couch in confusion while Michael had a new boy with him in his room. What kind of level of emotional abuse and callousness do you have to be at to do that to a child, especially awful with someone who seemed as sensitive and smitten as James. Broke my heart to hear what he went through.
Or when wade said on the plane right to America he basically had this idea in his head that he was flying straight to Michael Jackson's mansion, and he was going to be together with him forever and be his new dad and shit, only for him to put him in a hotel and not visit for 3 weeks and tell him on the set of Black or White that he'd been replaced by Culkin.

This after a fucking year of daily faxes, goading them to come. He straight up convinced his mom to leave his dad. Heartless.
 
Nov 7, 2017
394
Or when wade said on the plane right to America he basically had this idea in his head that he was flying straight to Michael Jackson's mansion, and he was going to be together with him forever and be his new dad and shit, only for him to put him in a hotel and not visit for 3 weeks and tell him on the set of Black or White that he'd been replaced by Culkin.

This after a fucking year of daily faxes, goading them to come. He straight up convinced his mom to leave his dad. Heartless.
Don’t forget him telling her “I always get what I want” when he wanted her to leave Wade with him. Just rotten behaviour. I grew up in an at times abusive (emotional and psychological ) environment and I still feel the effects today - from anxiety, to depression, the works. I can’t imagine how these guys feel every day. James reminded me of me, it was incredibly emotional seeing the pain in his eyes. I’d wager on top of being a pedophile Jackson was borderline or narcissistic personality disorder. Or both. Monstrous combination for a child to have to negotiate.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,456
Now that I remember, there was a Peruvian comedy show that would call him on his pedophilia, like here when you see him calling somebody, it's supposed to be him calling a child and someone would come and give him a slap on the wrist. I didn't think much of it at the time, but now... geez...
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,962
Now that I remember, there was a Peruvian comedy show that would call him on his pedophilia, like here when you see him calling somebody, it's supposed to be him calling a child and someone would come and give him a slap on the wrist. I didn't think much of it at the time, but now... geez...
 

Krejlooc

Dreamcast Porno Party
Member
Oct 27, 2017
13,691
Now that I remember, there was a Peruvian comedy show that would call him on his pedophilia, like here when you see him calling somebody, it's supposed to be him calling a child and someone would come and give him a slap on the wrist. I didn't think much of it at the time, but now... geez...
That was pretty much the image of Michael Jackson for years until he died. Once he died, his image did a complete 180. Old TV shows like MadTV and SNL used to skewer him back in the day:


 
Oct 25, 2017
20,241
Now that I remember, there was a Peruvian comedy show that would call him on his pedophilia, like here when you see him calling somebody, it's supposed to be him calling a child and someone would come and give him a slap on the wrist. I didn't think much of it at the time, but now... geez...
I mean, that has been MJ's whole thing for as long as I've known what an MJ was.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,456
I mean, that has been MJ's whole thing for as long as I've known what an MJ was.
Yeah, now I see with the videos above. This Peruvian comedy show had plenty of skits with him, there was one where he'd pretend to be a teacher at a kindergarten.
This was supposed to be him "checking on the kids".

 
Corrected myself later on mate after I read what exactly the books were and who published them. Don't think you can have any questions about his intentions after learning that out. Like I said sorry of the moronic ignorance on my part and for some of my petty behavior.
I think that evidence sheet was what pushed me over the edge, too. There's just... no denying it after seeing that.
https://people.com/crime/michael-jacksons-estate-blasts-new-pornography-reports/

Former Santa Barbara Senior Assistant District Attorney Ron Zonen, who helped prosecute Jackson and recalls viewing the actual documents tied to the case, tells PEOPLE that law enforcement did discover adult pornographic magazines and videos, though nothing constituting child pornography.

“There were all kinds of conventional porn magazines,” says Zonen. “Things like Playboy, Penthouse. There was one called Barely Legal. It was a publication that featured young women presumably over the age of 18 but selected because they look much younger.”

Law enforcement also discovered a book of “masochistic” type drawings.

When it comes to items relating to children, “There were photos of nude children but they weren’t sexually graphic,” he says. “They weren’t children engaged in sexual activity and there was no child pornography. There were no videos involving children. There were videos that were seized but they were conventional adult sexually graphic material. No children involved.”

Specifically, the nude images of children he says, showed children “playing in the stream, climbing trees, nature photographs, nudist colonies, things like that,” he said. “They came from professional publications. Were they designed for pedophiles or designed as artistic photographic books I can’t comment on that.”
There's also more here on regarding that I found here if you wish to read further:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...nd-thenor-now-the_us_577fdfbce4b0f06648f4a3f8
 
Oct 25, 2017
283
Or when wade said on the plane right to America he basically had this idea in his head that he was flying straight to Michael Jackson's mansion, and he was going to be together with him forever and be his new dad and shit, only for him to put him in a hotel and not visit for 3 weeks and tell him on the set of Black or White that he'd been replaced by Culkin.

This after a fucking year of daily faxes, goading them to come. He straight up convinced his mom to leave his dad. Heartless.
and the reality of it is that James was unwilling sucked into it. He wasn't even a fan of the guy. Remember they put MJ posters around his bed in that home video of his to interview him as if he was his big Jackson fanatic.

and it makes you really cry and feel for him since his other siblings were gone by the time he I think was like 4 so he clearly may have longed/vulnerable for some time of companionship and Michael stepped into that with the gifts, phone calls, staying at his house everyday etc. Then again he actually did have school friends but Michael was basically a twisted sick GF/Best friend type situation.
 

Krejlooc

Dreamcast Porno Party
Member
Oct 27, 2017
13,691
Oh hey, it's the guy with "there's so much conflicting information" once again failing to post the damning part of the "further reading":

https://bitsofbooksblog.wordpress.com/2015/02/12/1981-nambla-britishpedigree/

The author of the book that Michael Jackson would give to boys, that was also found in his bedroom, was published by two people who were NAMBLA members who went to jail. These books are out of print and have been collectors items for pedophiles for years.

"Michael Jackson and the book he has in common with many pedophiles: "Boys Will Be Boys"

With the recent articles on Michael Jackson's collection of pornography many were outraged that some media outlets claimed Michael Jackson also had child pornography in this collection. This claim however is false. The contents found in 1993 and 2003 never included any child pornography.The police found both adult heterosexual and homosexual pornography of various types but all were legal to own.

However what they did find were photography books, art books, nudist magazines and these items did show nude children. Many will argue that these books and magazines are completely legal to own and are nothing more than just gifts from adoring fans. Some will also say that these books, etc are art, innocent, etc.

However when one looks at these items in context to the man who owned them than it is hard to just shrug away its importance to the allegations.

I could list the various books and magazines that were owned but I am not sure that would bring enough clarity to the subject. What i want to do is focus on is one book that was found in a locked filing cabinet with an inscription written by MJ himself. This book was edited by Georges St. Martin pseudonym of Martin Swithinbank and Ronald C. Nelson is the pseudonym of Ronald Drew. Both of these men were convicted pedophiles and Martin Swithbank was a major contributor to NAMBLA. (Here is a great link discussing this book and the men who produced it) https://bitsofbooksblog.wordpress.com/…/1981-nambla-britis…/
This book according to Bill Dworin( lead investigator in the 1993 allegations) is a book that has been siezed many times in the homes of convicted pedophiles. Mr. Dworin explains that although this book is legal to own that in the hands of a child predator it becomes child erotica. The book is described as having boys being shown in various activities and most of these boys are naked. Again what cannot be stressed enough is that these images were hand picked by two convicted pedophiles to appeal to other pedophiles.

So why does this matter and how does this relate to the tangled story of Michael Jackson and his interest in boys? I believe the inscription written on the inner sleeve may give us some clues. Here are his words: “Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces. This is the spirit of boyhood, a life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children. MJ.”
Many experts believe that although many pedophiles possess child pornography others prefer child erotica.The theory is that the men who prefer the erotica find child pornography distasteful and takes away the true innocence of the child. In these predators eyes the acts they are engaing in with children are not acts of sex but acts of love. To see a child engaging in a sexual activity in a picture or on film takes away the true desire and that desire is taking away one's innocence. Michael jackson many times mentioned the innocence and joy of children, He stated when he looked at a child he saw the face of god. For many pedophiles this is exactly what they see and romanticize about.

In 2014 James Safechuck claimed that Michael Jackson sexually abused him for a number of years. He stated that when this abuse was occuring Mr. Jackson would state that James was actually teaching him about sex. James also stated that MJ even staged a mock wedding with wedding certificate and ring. Why these specific allegations are so important is because it shows that Michael Jackson did not just want to engage in acts of sex but wanted this to be a representation of true love.The allegation of a mock wedding and promise of monogamy gets into the true psyche of Michael Jackson. In his eyes the relationship was not some pedophile's distasteful lust after a young boy but a real relationship of love and commitment. The allegation that MJ stated that James was teaching him again goes back to the idea of innocence. For some reason MJ felt his innocence was lost and by having these relationships with these boys somehow he may regain that lost innocence. Michael Jackson stated many times that he believed in his heart he was "Peter Pan". He wanted to have the wonderment and imagination of a child forever. Unfortunately that wish could never be granted and the innocence he craved could never be fulfilled. Every boy had an expiration date and when their innocence was gone so was Michael Jackson's fantasy of living in Neverland forever.

So when Bill Dworin talks about the book pictured in this post being child erotica to men who have a interest in boys he is pointing out that sometimes the overly graphic is not what some pedophiles want. Seeing children being overtly abused defines the act. It puts the fantasy these predators create in context. It also takes away the aspect of power and control for the perpertrator. It no longer becomes a act of love for the "child loving pedophile" but a dirty, sick, sexual encounter in print or film. The fantasy of innocence and falling in love is the justification for the abuse and child pornography takes away that fantasy and shows the all to real reality. One of the men who edited this book was heavily involved with the North American Man Boy Love Association. Some of these men are pederasts but many of these men believe that their obsession with boys is natural and expression of love. Wade Robson used this exact term when describing how Michael Jackson justified the abuse. Jordan Chandler also used the words love as well as Jmaes Safechuck and Gavin Arvizo. The facts that these books are somehow legal is irrelevant. They were edited by pedophiles for the sole purpose of sexualizing children under the guises of art. So for those who keep on trying to minimize the importance of books like this being in the possession of a man accused five times of child sexual abuse they need to understand the allegations in their full context. These accusers are not saying MJ violently raped them but what they are saying is that he convinced them that this was an act of love and was innocent and pure. That is the exact description that the creators of the book "Boys Will Be Boys" uses to describe its contents


https://www.facebook.com/waderobson...any-pedophiles-boys-will-be-/995161873930628/
 
Oh hey, it's the guy with "there's so much conflicting information" once again failing to post the damning part of the "further reading":

https://bitsofbooksblog.wordpress.com/2015/02/12/1981-nambla-britishpedigree/

The author of the book that Michael Jackson would give to boys, that was also found in his bedroom, was published by two people who were NAMBLA members who went to jail. These books are out of print and have been collectors items for pedophiles for years.

"Michael Jackson and the book he has in common with many pedophiles: "Boys Will Be Boys"

With the recent articles on Michael Jackson's collection of pornography many were outraged that some media outlets claimed Michael Jackson also had child pornography in this collection. This claim however is false. The contents found in 1993 and 2003 never included any child pornography.The police found both adult heterosexual and homosexual pornography of various types but all were legal to own.

However what they did find were photography books, art books, nudist magazines and these items did show nude children. Many will argue that these books and magazines are completely legal to own and are nothing more than just gifts from adoring fans. Some will also say that these books, etc are art, innocent, etc.

However when one looks at these items in context to the man who owned them than it is hard to just shrug away its importance to the allegations.

I could list the various books and magazines that were owned but I am not sure that would bring enough clarity to the subject. What i want to do is focus on is one book that was found in a locked filing cabinet with an inscription written by MJ himself. This book was edited by Georges St. Martin pseudonym of Martin Swithinbank and Ronald C. Nelson is the pseudonym of Ronald Drew. Both of these men were convicted pedophiles and Martin Swithbank was a major contributor to NAMBLA. (Here is a great link discussing this book and the men who produced it) https://bitsofbooksblog.wordpress.com/…/1981-nambla-britis…/
This book according to Bill Dworin( lead investigator in the 1993 allegations) is a book that has been siezed many times in the homes of convicted pedophiles. Mr. Dworin explains that although this book is legal to own that in the hands of a child predator it becomes child erotica. The book is described as having boys being shown in various activities and most of these boys are naked. Again what cannot be stressed enough is that these images were hand picked by two convicted pedophiles to appeal to other pedophiles.


So why does this matter and how does this relate to the tangled story of Michael Jackson and his interest in boys? I believe the inscription written on the inner sleeve may give us some clues. Here are his words: “Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces. This is the spirit of boyhood, a life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children. MJ.”
Many experts believe that although many pedophiles possess child pornography others prefer child erotica.The theory is that the men who prefer the erotica find child pornography distasteful and takes away the true innocence of the child. In these predators eyes the acts they are engaing in with children are not acts of sex but acts of love. To see a child engaging in a sexual activity in a picture or on film takes away the true desire and that desire is taking away one's innocence. Michael jackson many times mentioned the innocence and joy of children, He stated when he looked at a child he saw the face of god. For many pedophiles this is exactly what they see and romanticize about.


In 2014 James Safechuck claimed that Michael Jackson sexually abused him for a number of years. He stated that when this abuse was occuring Mr. Jackson would state that James was actually teaching him about sex. James also stated that MJ even staged a mock wedding with wedding certificate and ring. Why these specific allegations are so important is because it shows that Michael Jackson did not just want to engage in acts of sex but wanted this to be a representation of true love.The allegation of a mock wedding and promise of monogamy gets into the true psyche of Michael Jackson. In his eyes the relationship was not some pedophile's distasteful lust after a young boy but a real relationship of love and commitment. The allegation that MJ stated that James was teaching him again goes back to the idea of innocence. For some reason MJ felt his innocence was lost and by having these relationships with these boys somehow he may regain that lost innocence. Michael Jackson stated many times that he believed in his heart he was "Peter Pan". He wanted to have the wonderment and imagination of a child forever. Unfortunately that wish could never be granted and the innocence he craved could never be fulfilled. Every boy had an expiration date and when their innocence was gone so was Michael Jackson's fantasy of living in Neverland forever.

So when Bill Dworin talks about the book pictured in this post being child erotica to men who have a interest in boys he is pointing out that sometimes the overly graphic is not what some pedophiles want. Seeing children being overtly abused defines the act. It puts the fantasy these predators create in context. It also takes away the aspect of power and control for the perpertrator. It no longer becomes a act of love for the "child loving pedophile" but a dirty, sick, sexual encounter in print or film. The fantasy of innocence and falling in love is the justification for the abuse and child pornography takes away that fantasy and shows the all to real reality. One of the men who edited this book was heavily involved with the North American Man Boy Love Association. Some of these men are pederasts but many of these men believe that their obsession with boys is natural and expression of love. Wade Robson used this exact term when describing how Michael Jackson justified the abuse. Jordan Chandler also used the words love as well as Jmaes Safechuck and Gavin Arvizo. The facts that these books are somehow legal is irrelevant. They were edited by pedophiles for the sole purpose of sexualizing children under the guises of art. So for those who keep on trying to minimize the importance of books like this being in the possession of a man accused five times of child sexual abuse they need to understand the allegations in their full context. These accusers are not saying MJ violently raped them but what they are saying is that he convinced them that this was an act of love and was innocent and pure. That is the exact description that the creators of the book "Boys Will Be Boys" uses to describe its contents

https://www.facebook.com/waderobson...any-pedophiles-boys-will-be-/995161873930628/
Ok, well thanks for the further info. I only posted that piece as it contained pieces from the prosecution saying as to why the documents were no good.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,996
Ok, well thanks for the further info. I only posted that piece as it contained pieces from the prosecution saying as to why the documents were no good.
“Thanks for the further info”? That’s it? Reach deep inside, my guy... that crummy feeling you got reading that, go with it.
 
Nov 7, 2017
394
I don't think i've once claimed he had child pornography (that would have been a slam dunk anyway ) - the report itself said he had a nude photo of one of his 'friends' - that coupled with the dozens of porn items in a room he shared with 7 year olds should be setting off alarm bells. His defenders all hung up on semantics when people are just horrified this creep had a room full of porno dvds and magazines when he shared the space with little boys. He also gifted that BOY book to another of his alleged victims and inscribed it.
 
Oct 27, 2017
391
This book according to Bill Dworin( lead investigator in the 1993 allegations) is a book that has been siezed many times in the homes of convicted pedophiles. Mr. Dworin explains that although this book is legal to own that in the hands of a child predator it becomes child erotica.
I read this entire post and I can't find a source for this anywhere. When and where did Bill Dworin say this?
 

Krejlooc

Dreamcast Porno Party
Member
Oct 27, 2017
13,691
I read this entire post and I can't find a source for this anywhere. When and where did Bill Dworin say this?
In a 2003 interview with NBC Dateline:

Dworin: “We found books and the books depicted children in the nude. This itself is not a crime.”

The nude photographs were not pornography, by the legal definition, and Jackson says he does not remember having them. But to Dworin any nude photo of a child in the home of a 34-year-old man is suspicious.

Dworin: “Pedophiles will frequently have this material available.”

Mankiewicz: “Because?”

Dworin: “Because they can obtain it legally It’s not illegal to possess, and it’s used for sexual satisfaction and arousal.”
 
Oct 27, 2017
391
In a 2003 interview with NBC Dateline:

Dworin: “We found books and the books depicted children in the nude. This itself is not a crime.”

The nude photographs were not pornography, by the legal definition, and Jackson says he does not remember having them. But to Dworin any nude photo of a child in the home of a 34-year-old man is suspicious.

Dworin: “Pedophiles will frequently have this material available.”

Mankiewicz: “Because?”

Dworin: “Because they can obtain it legally It’s not illegal to possess, and it’s used for sexual satisfaction and arousal.”
Yes, I read that same interview. Nowhere in it does Dworin say "Boys will be boys" has been seized in many homes of convicted pedophiles.
 

Krejlooc

Dreamcast Porno Party
Member
Oct 27, 2017
13,691
Yes, I read that same interview. Nowhere in it does Dworin say "Boys will be boys" has been seized in many homes of convicted pedophiles.
So your take away from the revelation that Boys will be Boys was written and produced by card carrying NAMBLA members, literal convicted pedophiles, in an article explaining how inappropriate the material was, was that the guy didn't say the exact book was found in the homes of other pedophiles, but rather books just like it?

And you think this is a distinction worth pointing out? What exactly does that distinction mean to you?
 
Nov 3, 2017
1,946
Just need add, as I'm sure people have had similar stuff happen to them as kids - it is not too late to get help. I waited until I was almost 46 before I ever discussed my abuse, which at that point was 30 years ago. I've seen people post "Michaels dead!" And also imply they waited soo long to ever speak up. This is common and it dosent matter, getting help, recognizing the abuse and starting the healing process is the greatest gift you can give to yourself. Malesurvivor.org 1in6.org - either can assist with finding a therapist, they have support meetings and are anonymous and free.
 
Oct 27, 2017
391
So your take away from the revelation that Boys will be Boys was written and produced by card carrying NAMBLA members, literal convicted pedophiles, in an article explaining how inappropriate the material was, was that the guy didn't say the exact book was found in the homes of other pedophiles, but rather books just like it?

And you think this is a distinction worth pointing out? What exactly does that distinction mean to you?
I'm not denying the books were written by NAMBLA members, but the writer of the article is trying to reinforce their argument with claims from someone involved the 1993 investigation. If that claim is false, then it makes their argument less convincing. The article says that Dworin says "[Boys will be boys] is a book that has been siezed many times in the homes of convicted pedophiles. Mr. Dworin explains that although this book is legal to own that in the hands of a child predator it becomes child erotica." without any proof of him saying this nor any sources of him saying it. Thus I believe this article isn't worth mentioning or even worth using as "proof" that Michael is a pedophile. We don't need to spread false articles to prove a point. Keep posting the truthful stuff that you have been posting.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,186
All you have to do is watch James Safechuck's hand tremble as he holds this "wedding ring" in the documentary. It was always obvious what MJ was but thank god Leaving Neverland exists. Fuck Michael Jackson. He did all that shit.
 

Krejlooc

Dreamcast Porno Party
Member
Oct 27, 2017
13,691
I'm not denying the books were written by NAMBLA members, but the writer of the article is trying to reinforce their argument with claims from someone involved the 1993 investigation. If that claim is false, then it makes their argument less convincing. The article says that Dworin says "[Boys will be boys] is a book that has been siezed many times in the homes of convicted pedophiles. Mr. Dworin explains that although this book is legal to own that in the hands of a child predator it becomes child erotica." without any proof of him saying this nor any sources of him saying it. Thus I believe this article isn't worth mentioning or even worth using as "proof" that Michael is a pedophile. We don't need to spread false articles to prove a point. Keep posting the truthful stuff that you have been posting.
That is not a false article and you painting it as such is incredibly transparent. The point of the fucking article isn't that other pedophiles had that exact book, the point of the article is that the authors themselves were convicted pedophiles. Get the fuck out of here with this nit picking bullshit. Way to miss the forest from the fucking trees.
 

Shy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,534
I'm not denying the books were written by NAMBLA members, but the writer of the article is trying to reinforce their argument with claims from someone involved the 1993 investigation. If that claim is false, then it makes their argument less convincing. The article says that Dworin says "[Boys will be boys] is a book that has been siezed many times in the homes of convicted pedophiles. Mr. Dworin explains that although this book is legal to own that in the hands of a child predator it becomes child erotica." without any proof of him saying this nor any sources of him saying it. Thus I believe this article isn't worth mentioning or even worth using as "proof" that Michael is a pedophile. We don't need to spread false articles to prove a point. Keep posting the truthful stuff that you have been posting.
 
Oct 27, 2017
391
That is not a false article and you painting it as such is incredibly transparent. The point of the fucking article isn't that other pedophiles had that exact book, the point of the article is that the authors themselves were convicted pedophiles. Get the fuck out of here with this nit picking bullshit. Way to miss the forest from the fucking trees.
The title of the article is literately '"Michael Jackson and the book he has in common with many pedophiles: "Boys Will Be Boys" ', so it's it is one of the points of the article. So curse at me all you want. I'm still waiting on a source for that quote.
 
Oct 22, 2018
2,950
seems like "these books were what a bunch of actual, literal sexual abusers of children thought they could get away with promoting in public without consequences" shouldn't be that hard of an idea to grasp but what do i know
 
Oct 27, 2017
83
The title of the article is literately '"Michael Jackson and the book he has in common with many pedophiles: "Boys Will Be Boys" ', so it's it is one of the points of the article. So curse at me all you want. I'm still waiting on a source for that quote.
Yes, I'm sure once you have a source like the one you're asking for, that will be the tipping point at which you'll stop nitpicking specific parts of the story and also stop being a MJ apologist when it comes to his pedophilia.
 

Shy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,534
seems like "these books were what a bunch of actual, literal sexual abusers of children thought they could get away with promoting in public without consequences" shouldn't be that hard of an idea to grasp but what do i know
But they're not illegal, though.
 
Oct 27, 2017
391
Yes, I'm sure once you have a source like the one you're asking for, that will be the tipping point at which you'll stop nitpicking specific parts of the story and also stop being a MJ apologist when it comes to his pedophilia.
I'm not apologizing for MJ. I'm questioning the validity of a post that was made against another post. If there isn't a source, then it's most likely some made up bullshit and it needs to be removed. Once again, I'm not trying to argue about the NAMBLA members who wrote/produce the book.

Timeline for you:

FarronFox posted an article about the truth of what Michael really had in his bedroom and how anything coming out at the time that article hasn't already been discussed in court and still wasn't proof of anything.

So, Krejlooc retorted with a Facebook post about how one of the books MJ owned, Boys will be boys, was written by NAMBLA pedophile and how an investigator from the first trial basically insinuates that anyone who owns that book is a pedophile. This post is meant to be a gotcha to FarronFox and say "buzzzzz, you're wrong. He had books that were made by pedophiles and a top investigator says anyone who has this book is a pedophile, so it wasn't harmless and prosecutors didn't do their job. Michael is a big pedophile. The End." Well when you see that you have to believe it true right? Well before I go along with such an idea and immediately believe the post, I just want proof that Dworin said what he said and I share the post with friends. I do a search and I can't find a quote for that section. So, I ask "where's the source?"

Well Krejlooc posted an excerpt from an interview in 2003 from Dworin saying they found books and pedophiles have those materials. So I'm like ok? The FB post says something entirely different, he said a specific book. I need the source for that. Even if he included "BWBB" in what he was discussing, it wouldn't make sense because it already established that MJ received one of those books (The Boy A Photographic Essay) from a fan. I guess that fan is a pedophile too. I'm starting to think well maybe he specified "BWBB" and all those pedos with it in another interview, because in my mind if he caught all them with it or most of them, then it's a done deal. Anyway, I ask if there's a specific quote that mentions "BWBB" since the FB post says that Dworin says it.

Krejlooc changes his/her tune when they can't find a specific source. "Those books were written by pedophiles, aren't you more appalled over that instead of some false quote in some article that I was using earlier to shut someone down?". I state I rather not go along with something or spread something that's not based on facts and the NAMBLA part wasn't something I was arguing.

Krejlooc once again replies, very upset because he/she can't back up their FB post anymore, now he/she says the post is supposed to show that books were written by NAMBLA members and it's not about "BWBB" and how I'm fucking nitpicking. Talk about moving a goalpost. In his/her reply to FarronFox, they're trying insinuate that MJ is a pedophile. I guess Krejlooc is not nitpicking when he tries to bring up two "cp" books compared to thousands of adult, heterosexual porn he had. Anyway, I reply with "it's in the title of the FB post, so it's very relevant".

Anyway, did MJ know that book was made by NAMBLA members and that's why he had to have it? Maybe or maybe not, I don't know. I was just trying to not fall down in the rabbit hole of " Hey, you own a copy of Mein Kampf, so you love Hitler, or you own the Anarchist's Cookbook, so you're a terrorist, or you play a lot of shooters you're gonna be a mass shooter". Anyway, I don't care anymore. I doubt a quote/source exists for that specific statement. Peace.
 

Shy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,534
But it's very likely the boys in those books were being abused. Imagine as adults how it might feel knowing there's legal picture books of you naked made by and marketed to pedophiles.
That's a given.

I just want to make it clear. I was being sarcastic in my previous post.
Where can I watch the documentary? Heard so much about it.
On HBO GO. Also please watch the Oprah special afterwards.
 
Last edited:
Nov 3, 2017
1,946
For what it's worth, from my own experience, if you are an adult and disclose sexual abuse from your childhood - and your abuser is a respected relative - family reacts not that differently from how people defend michael jackson. Either there is outright denial, or it's minimized, or since it was long ago it should be left in the past. You are left feeling more isolated and hurt.
 
Oct 25, 2017
15,308
USA
For what it's worth, from my own experience, if you are an adult and disclose sexual abuse from your childhood - and your abuser is a respected relative - family reacts not that differently from how people defend michael jackson. Either there is outright denial, or it's minimized, or since it was long ago it should be left in the past. You are left feeling more isolated and hurt.
Yes, this is a great point. It's also worth noting that predators often make you feel like you're not in a position to disclose the truth.. that if you do, things will get much worse.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,651
For what it's worth, from my own experience, if you are an adult and disclose sexual abuse from your childhood - and your abuser is a respected relative - family reacts not that differently from how people defend michael jackson. Either there is outright denial, or it's minimized, or since it was long ago it should be left in the past. You are left feeling more isolated and hurt.
“Why didn’t you report it to the police when it happened? You’re only doing it for attention.”