Jun. 26th, 2009 08:48 am
This is getting silly
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
textualdevianceI really should be avoiding the subject, because it's starting to piss me off too much, but...
If Jackson weren't a famous pop star, but instead the plumber down the street, with all the same "quirks", would YOU let your kids sleep at his house? Would you even let your kids play there?
A reminder of some of the evidence at his 2005 trial:
*Fingerprints of the boys on some books of porn Jackson had
*He gave them alcohol that he called "Jesus juice"
*He owned books with pictures of naked boys
*Testimony from four other victims, including the one from his 1993 trial, which he settled for $22 million. If you're innocent, you don't pay off your accusers.
This is all unargued fact. That it didn't result in a conviction is almost entirely due to a starstruck jury.
I don't care how much he was abused himself as a child. It's tragic, but it doesn't excuse what he did. I know, how about we excuse his dad for abusing Michael, because he had his own rough childhood, right? Oh, wait. I forgot. Joe is more eeeevil, because he abused someone with a lot of musical talent.
A history of abuse is an explanation for why some people become abusers themselves. It is NOT an excuse, and certainly not something that should be used as a pass for the guy to keep doing what he wanted without any consequences whatsoever. Are his victims somehow less important because they weren't famous musicians? Did they have less of a right to not have their trust violated because the guy who wanted to get them drunk and sleep with them was famous?
People are whining about the "character assasination" going on in his death. What about the same thing that's happening to his victims, who are still alive, and still living every day with what he did to them, and who are being labeled lying golddiggers?
Jackson was a pedophile who had virtually unfettered access to his victims because of his fame. And now those same victims are being victimized again as the world strives to plug their ears and pretend that nothing but his music matters. Disgusting.
If Jackson weren't a famous pop star, but instead the plumber down the street, with all the same "quirks", would YOU let your kids sleep at his house? Would you even let your kids play there?
A reminder of some of the evidence at his 2005 trial:
*Fingerprints of the boys on some books of porn Jackson had
*He gave them alcohol that he called "Jesus juice"
*He owned books with pictures of naked boys
*Testimony from four other victims, including the one from his 1993 trial, which he settled for $22 million. If you're innocent, you don't pay off your accusers.
This is all unargued fact. That it didn't result in a conviction is almost entirely due to a starstruck jury.
I don't care how much he was abused himself as a child. It's tragic, but it doesn't excuse what he did. I know, how about we excuse his dad for abusing Michael, because he had his own rough childhood, right? Oh, wait. I forgot. Joe is more eeeevil, because he abused someone with a lot of musical talent.
A history of abuse is an explanation for why some people become abusers themselves. It is NOT an excuse, and certainly not something that should be used as a pass for the guy to keep doing what he wanted without any consequences whatsoever. Are his victims somehow less important because they weren't famous musicians? Did they have less of a right to not have their trust violated because the guy who wanted to get them drunk and sleep with them was famous?
People are whining about the "character assasination" going on in his death. What about the same thing that's happening to his victims, who are still alive, and still living every day with what he did to them, and who are being labeled lying golddiggers?
Jackson was a pedophile who had virtually unfettered access to his victims because of his fame. And now those same victims are being victimized again as the world strives to plug their ears and pretend that nothing but his music matters. Disgusting.
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
"It's not the sex itself that's the problem. It's the preying on someone who has no way of understanding social power disparity. It's the same problem as having sex with someone who is intoxicated, or mentally ill. The "informed" part of informed consent just isn't there even if a verbalized "yes" is."
This is exactly my point. Social power disparities can exist in situations where people are the same age (or close enough not to count under existing laws). Similarly, actual consent can be disputed by irate parents or schools or whoever. I'd rather have the court assess the actual specifics involved than simply assume that a 14 year old can't consent to sex with her boyfriend but a sixteen year old can. Don't even get me started on the unjust way these laws are applied to same-sex couples.
I get your point with the market thing, I really do. But the way to get Wal-Mart to treat their employees well isn't to drive them out of business, it's to make them responsible for their actions through regulatory processes.
For now, possession laws make sense. But if we want to move towards that kind of regulatory action, it has to begin with legal possession.
no subject
Personally, I'd put the across-the-board AOC at around 16, and have the five-year buffer rule set for that. And I think things like prosecuting a couple of 10-year-olds for playing doctor or prosecuting a 14-year-old for taking nude pictures of herself are preposterous. I mean yeah, you'd want to investigate a little to figure out whether there's just natural curiosity going on or something else, but still.
I hate our cultural madonna/whore complex.