12
Jul
2010
Why Cowboy Mike had to End . . . . .
farewell COWBOY MIKE
introducing BAD BOY MIKE
Okay, so you wanna know Why Cowboy Mike had to end:********************************
In order to view anything on this site in full you MUST be a member. If you'd like to purchase one of our books, please click the "Lulu" button:
********************************
In order to view anything on this site in full you MUST be a member. If you'd like to purchase one of our books, please click the "Lulu" button:
115 Responses to “Why Cowboy Mike had to End . . . . .”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
"So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see, So long lives this, and this gives life to thee." W. ShakespeareCreate an account with FB, Twitter, Google and Yahoo!
It's automatic. You'll use the name & password you create to log in.
(Spike to Buffy, Buffy the Vampire Slayer.)
"So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see, So long lives this, and this gives life to thee." W. Shakespeare
"----->His intelligence is instinctual and emotional, like a child’s. If any artist loses that childlikeness, you lose a lot of creative juice. So Michael creates around himself a world that protects his creativity”. ~ Jane Fonda
Ohhhhhh the pressure, Mel! I can't take it!
:kissing:
What's the deal w/ Sheryl Crow???? Inquiring minds would like to know!
Was something supposedly to have happened between Michael and Sheryl?
Or was it between Michael and Sheryl's big ego?
Sorry, girl.
And I know what you mean, I do not at all think that MJ was a dog. No way!! [LOL at the "dog in heat"] I just think that he was a lot more involved with women than the world believes which I'm sure from your story you agree too. I was just giving out a couple of ideas, and like I said those were just pure speculation [but I do think that he may have had something with Siedah though].
Sorry about posting the blog and my email on here, they were just meant for you, though, I don't know how to send you private messages.
Anyway, I love all of your stories. I get tired of the fanfics with MJ meeting a random fan, connecting with her, and them falling in love. Considering that he was a real person, I much rather prefer realistic scenarios of what may have been going on in his life at different times. I can't wait for BadBoy Mike!!!
<33
I'm curious as to how far into Michael's life Sabine will take us...
If she goes into the 90's, well, we all know what happens then. If she keeps with the events that happened in his life just like she did with CM then that means he gets married to Lisa!!! Hmmmmm...
This is one hell of an emotional roller coaster!!!
Hey Jazzz, thanks for being a good sport. Don't worry about it.
I mean I have links on here for sites and I have no problem linking them, but it's cool to ask first. If you see down below on the bottom, it says : Contact me, that's how to send me an email.
Yeah, I'm sure Michael got his groove on with some freakin' lucky girls,
GOD!
But I don't pretend to know for sure.
I don't think Siedah got blessed with the Cobra, though. I mean she was walking really straight on that stage, not wobbling or nothing
Siedah is a very religious woman, you know. Not that that means she would be opposed to some Cobra (I actually find in my experience its quite the opposite
)
But I just don't see nothing there -- I know there was an article written once proposing such a thing, but they also wrote the same thing about Karen.
I see she didn't make the list *snicker*, Karen that is.
I'm glad you don't think Michael was a dog. I get so upset when I hear people say that. Michael was a gentlemen!!!!!
I really, personally don't think Michael would have sex with his fans or his employees. Michael was very professional! I think he was too careful about his image and too worried about public perception and stalkers to go there, no matter how sexy he might have thought some of his fans were.
I think he loved to flirt with us though -- I think Michael was a big flirt.
You know, I kinda like a man who loves to flirt!!!!!!
Enjoy BBM!!!!
Sabine I loved Cowboy Mike but I understand why it had to end. I like when stories end on a happy note.I am looking forward to your new MJ story but I have grown to like Sabah so much I cant begin to imagine Lisa Debbie Tatiana coming into the story.But since your including real events in the story I guess I have to accept it.
Your an amazing writer and I think you would be great at writing romance novels.
Well, I told my daughter about two months ago, when I knew it would end that one thing I hate is when a program you've watched on t.v. or a book series you've been reading get's corny, and you go God, it used to be soooooooo good. I always think it's because they didn't end it when they should have.
It's funny, you know, I never aspired to write romance -- this is the first time I've ever done it. I think it's cause people don't take romance writers seriously. I love reading them, though, and I think they're just as important as other books we consider classics, but they get no respect, girl
Its like the publishing industry thinks, awww, she's writing about love, that's not serious.
I don't think he gave Siedah some either, but I do think they had some kind of flirtatious friendship going on. But obviously nothing serious since he didn't really keep iun contact with her after the DWT according to her.
And as for Karen
...I don't even know what to say about that woman.
Looking forward to the first chapter!!!!
AAWWW.. WELL, IT'S BEEN LIKE ALMOST A YEAR BUT I LOOK FORWARD TO BAD BOY MIKE
Hey Jazzi, I can get with that idea. I think Michael flirted with a lot of his employees,
(except Karen
)
never anything that crossed the line though.
I say except Karen because I think he knew if he even breathe in her direction she would devour him!
I know there's one clip in the making of Stranger in Moscow, when he pulls up the bra strap of the woman who's doing his hair, cause it was falling off her shoulder.
Now if Michael was your man or husband, that's the type of behavior that would cause an argument that night!
SHE DOES LOOK LIKE MIKE SABINE! SHES GORGEOUS!
Hey Dani_california85, where you been hiding?
Neicy, Michael shoulda had a bunch of pretty babies just like that!
phew!! that's kind of relieving!! I made the mistake of reading Why why why!!! before I was finished with the Got to be there chapter and I read it half heartedly... But the part where Sabah reaches out to him from behind him and surprises him like that, really made it up. It was the best end you could give to the story. So unexpected it brought tears in my eyes. I know you want to stay as close as possible to the real facts in Michael's life but I really wish you wouldn't bring LMP in (no pressure intended though)
Thank god this story continues coz I am so not ready to say goodbye... I know it has to end sometime but at least for now I can postpone it...
(ps. I'm afraid there must something wrong. I don't receive e mails of following comments even though I have subscribed for that)
Girl, you read the why, why before finishing the chapter!!!!
tsk, tsk, you ruined it for yourself!!!!
Ah, well, I'm glad you're looking at it from the bright side!!!!
I think it might be a problem with the program because nothing is different on my end, re: comment subscriptions.
Oh, the little girl in the picture is cuuuuute! Her expression, I love it! She does look like she could be Michael and Sabah's daughter, totally! Who is she?
P.S. I love Michael's bellybutton!
yeah... stupid me!! I saw it was smaller than Got to be there and since I couldn't read it that time (I hate starting reading sth when I know I won't be able to finish...) so I thought I could read first this (maybe it was some little extra irrelevant with the main story) and then go to Got to be there... ugh anyway...
oops I forgot do you have any idea if there's anything I could do about this little "issue"?
I'll look into honey, a little later, 'kay
Do you see the coming soon up top??????
That little girl, I don't know who she is - - I just found her picture and she whispered, I'm Micah
I love Michael's belly button, too but then again, I love his hands, his nipples, his ears, eyes, nose and mouth, his chin, hair, toes
Me toooo! Hands, definitely and his nipples (affectionately called 'hee hees' by some fans
) And his NECK!!! The neck is...oh my God, the little v-shaped hollow in it...that is perfection right there. 
Yeah, I saw that.
LOL, he was checkin' out Siedah's ass and puttin' his hands all over her legs in the rehearsals for the DWT.
Now tell me is that necessary during a rehearsal?
As for Karen, have you noticed that in most pictures of them, she's hangin' all over him, and he's lookin' a hella uncomfortable?
Oh, I just call that Michael performing -- flirtatiously, of course!
Yeah, that Karen was a regular clinging vine.
I don't think we'll ever know for sure whether Michael had a relationship with a fan or not. But to suggest he wouldn't have because that would be unprofessional is strange. Fans are human beings too and just because they adore someone or love everything they do doesn't make them less than human.
I sometimes think there's a bit of snobbery going on and that if someone is regarded as a "fan" they are considered undesirable.
I think Michael was one of those rare celebrities who actually saw his fans as individuals and, yes, real people too. What would be unprofessional about having sex with a fan as opposed to a non-fan??? Surely meeting someone who already loves everything about what you do is alluring?! Especially if you the relationship developed and you began to find them sexy too!
I don't think the fan/superstar relationship is the same as the pupil/teacher relationship. I personally don't think it would be unprofessional to have a relationship with a fan.
Interesting discussion though
Nope it doesn't make them less than human but like I was saying before, typically what a fan loves and adores, the "everything perfect" that they are seeing is not real. No one is perfect. They don't see the very human, flawed, imperfect person that Michael was (like we all are), instead they fall for a perfected manufactured image, which is fun if it's taken for what its worth, but you can't have a relationship with an image.
Possible? Of course, it is. But you're right, neither I, nor you or most of us can know how open Michael was to that romantically. Me thinks not too open considering his experiences as a child with groupies, his violation sexually by being exposed to the sexual exploits of his brother and father with fans to early and his own experience as a child being mobbed by fans and having fans stalk him.
For one, it's unprofessional to mix business with pleasure -- Michael had a career as a performer -- it was his job. One thing I believe about Michael, and all who worked with him said so, he was very professional and took his job seriously. Sleeping around on the job can become very messy. The potential drama is a real risk for anyone who goes around having sex with their co-workers/employees or in Michael's case I guess you can say "customers".
We're not even addressing the potential drama/disaster that can come about when you go around having sex with people you don't know.
No. 2, I think it needs to be said, a lot of "stars" who have sex with their fans don't respect the fans or consider them as worthy humans, they're just using them . They don't want a relationship, they want easy sex - to get their rocks off. I think precisely because Michael loved his fans and appreciated them, but more importantly respected them, he wouldn't "use" them like his father/brothers did. He might have been attracted to them, but I still maintain, I don't think he went there because of the potential risk to his own reputation and how he felt about sex, in general. I think he thought of sex as sacred, well at least at first. Maybe after Debbie, he might have become more disillusioned about finding the "one". I wouldn't rule that out.
Alluring? Hmmm, I don't know what's alluring about someone not really seeing you as a real person but something they've made up in their mind. Michael said he was painfully lonely precisely because he felt isolated and misunderstood by people who had ideas in their mind of who he was and didn't take time to get to know him. He said time and time again, people have this idea of who I am and when they meet me they realize I'm nothing like that.
As far as a relationship, again, I must say, you can't build relationships with images.
No, I think that's a bad analogy. I think the fan/superstar relationship is impossible. You can only have equal, human to human relationships. A "superstar" is not real. It's a projected image.
If Michael got to know a fan, and a fan got to know Michael and they became friends, then yes, they could have a relationship.
I agree
Not sure about a real relationship with a fan but I think there are enough examples that show that Michael sometimes did get a female fan's number or flirted with them and so on.
And in Cowboy Mike Sabah is a fan, too and he doesn't know who she is, still he sleeps with her right away. I mean she doesn't behave like one of those crazy "Oh my God, it's Michael Jackson, I love yooouuu, aaaaaah!" fans and I think in real life MIchael didn't like that, too but I think there might have been some real life Sabahs as well. Meaning, yes, they were fans but they were also just normal, down-to-earth people who could treat Michael like a normal human being. Might have been rare but not impossible.
With any person he met, fan or non-fan, there would have been the "okay, this is Michael Jackson" issue, you are influenced by that and you have a picture of him in your head, whether you are a fan or not. But I guess as a non-fan you would be less disappointed finding out that he's not the way you imagined him.
Hey Cherry, girl, like I said:
Exactly. She gives herself time and space to get to know him. Remember
Sabah: "Michael you're not as nice as you pretend to be for your fans.
Michael: I didn't leave you in the dirt to die, did I?
Or something like that . . . .
Honestly, I think the issue question is whether Michael could have been attracted to an obsessive fan or a realistic fan. I'm obviously a fan, a diehard one, and so are lots of other people, but there are some fans who take it to another level.
Thanks for your response Sabine.
I think the issue I have is more to do with the definition of fan.
I still don't think it would be unprofessional to have a relationship with a fan, because after all lovers become each others biggest fan don't they?
I just don't like it when people get all disparaging about other human beings who do get somewhat carried away with their obsession - I actually think Michael himself wore his heart on his sleeve and could actually identify with some of his more obsessive fans (I'm not talking about the dangerous ones).
I was watching this you tube video today and this snooty bitch's behavior is the kind I'm talking about:
Now do I need to use code to show this video??
(Jenny FYI - No one can put in pics or videos, you can put in the link and I have to go in and manually make it appear -- it's blocked to prevent spam. ~ Sabine)
Hmm, so what's your definition of fan?
To me a fan is someone who admires a person's work/talent and becomes interested in their life and follows the progression of the artist's work through out their life time and celebrates it even after the artist is gone. They allow the artist to become a part of their life but they don't MAKE the artist their whole life. I think that's the difference between an obsessed fan and a regular fan.
So are you talking about the comment that Bo Derek made in that video, you think that was snotty?
I mean I didn't pay it any attention cause it was true, the fans were outside of his hotel room all night screaming his name -- maybe she mentioned it cause she was jealous???
Truthfully I thought like all announcers do in those corny award shows, she was trying to be funny.
I think Michael had an obsessive kind of personality, I'd agree with that and definitely he wore his heart on his sleeve.
But I couldn't make the distinction between obsessive fan and dangerous fan. Obsession IS dangerous. Obsession has no boundaries and no respect for the object of the obsession, whether it's a person or a drug or whatever. All obsessors abuse the object of their obsession.
:dizzy: (for instance did it ever occur to the fans outside of Michael's window all night long that maybe HE needed to sleep!
:getlost:
I was talking about that in Understanding Michael.
You know, aside from obsession being dysfunctional it's also selfish and self serving.
Obsessive fans say they loved Michael, but you don't show love for instance, by sleeping outside of someone's hotel every night, stalking them and forcing the person to become a virtual prisoner in their room.
I always love to see footage of Michael walking in Ireland. I loved how respectful the fans were. How he was able to walk around freely,and if they wanted an autograph or to say hi, they stopped at a respectful distance and let Michael DECIDE whether he was okay with that. That to me is love.
My heart always broke when I'd watch fans mob him
Yes I think you are right about obsession having the potential to create danger - most definitely - but I would stop short of saying "obsession is dangerous"!!! We need an element of obsession in our lives to make a success of things - I'll say more about that later.
Michael attracted the same kind of fans as the Beatles and Elvis - young girls who fall in love and have crushes - and if they discovered Michael was in their town - of course they would go crazy. Had I been a more confident 13 year old with no fear of large crowds (which I have by the way!) and Michael had come to my town - hell I would have gone and chased him too! LOL
But you know, all the hysteria was probably hyped and generated by the media and even Michael's own PR machine because you know the pictures looked great and he included all those 'crazy' fans in his film Moonwalker! I really DON'T think it broke his heart to be chased and mobbed - I think other things broke his heart, not that! He loved the excitement of it all. Look at his behaviour in the Bashir (sorry!) interview when the crowd is chasing him - he loves it!!!
And tbh the dangerous members of the crowd were more likely to be the big burly paparazzi looking for great photographs and not the little girls who were sobbing their hearts out trying to get a piece of their idol.
I disagree with you about obsession being dangerous. Yes it can become dangerous - but it is what makes us human beings. Without obsession how would we ever fall in love, invent wonderful things, write beautiful songs or create amazing stories (like yours?) - you MUST think about it all the time, consciously or sub-consciously?!
I don't think the crazy fans who chased Michael down the street or who yelled in the streets professing their love for him all night were dangerous!!!
They were in love and they were shouting it from the rooftops and the balcony - and Michael always returned that love - and yes it was a mutual love-affair!
The real danger came from the sycphants who were actually much closer to Michael and told him that they "loved him" but were actually hell bent on ripping him off and lining their own pockets and benefiting from his success. They are the same self-seeking parasites who continue to ruin this man's legacy.
Those 'dangerous' fans, as you put it, Sabine, are the ones who are now trying to rescue it. I don't think Michael is or ever was scared of them.
By the way I love your website Sabine.
If Charles Dickens was alive today, this is exactly the way he would have gone about writing novels - in installments and he would have relished the opportunity to engage with his readers.
I love the fact that you take the time to talk to us after each installment and I wish you continued success with your story and the site.
Hey Jenny! Do you really think Charles Dickens would write like that? Wow! That's a thought huh? Just you mentioning him here to me is a great compliment
Well, I love all my readers and writing the story is nothing if I can't share it, so thank you for loving the website.
About our conversation, well, I think you're making a big distinction. It's natural and a right of passage for young teenagers to have obsessions, they are young and immature and haven't learned enough to know how to love in a healthy way. All teens obsess. I was concerned about my daughter's interest in Chris Brown about a year ago. She was eating, sleeping and breathing him. I mentioned this to her father and he said, Well, weren't you like that about Michael at that age. And I was like:
I was fully convinced that I would marry Michael and it didn't matter that he was 16 years older than I was, a man, while I was a little girl.
But then I grew up! At the time, I had no idea what marriage meant or even what I would do with Michael if I got him. I just loooooooooved him in that obsessive teenage way.
So young girls going crazy at a concert, I mean that's as natural as the sun shining! And of course Michael loved it, what red hot blooded male wouldn't! It's a great boast to any man's ego, and any artist as well.
Of course any good PR team is going to keep the hype alive and continue to promote the artist and the image that the artist has created for himself, otherwise the public, who has a short memory would forget about the artist.
Of course Michael love the excitement of being a super star!!!! Michael loved to perform and loved to be on stage; it was all he knew. Michael, the artist was in love with all of that.
But I'm talking about Michael, the man.
Michael the man himself said it hurt to be mobbed. Michael, the man, himself said his childhood had been stolen from him. Michael himself, the man said that it hurt to have the public want to keep him young and cute when he was growing and changing. Michael, himself, said he spent years YEARS being painfully lonely. Michael, the man said that he wanted the public, the media and the world to remember that he was human, that he cut and bled like everyone else.
While Michael, the artist, might have loved the attention and lived for the praise and adoration he received as an artist from his fans, Michael, the man, longed for a normal life, for space, privacy and respect, time to play, a family and children of his own. Michael, the man, did not like being chased and ripped apart. I believe he described it as feeling like spaghetti and hundred hands pulling you this way and that. I can't imagine that ANYONE would like that.
Well, yes, that is true -- we did see that, didn't we?
We also saw a man shopping and buying millions of dollars worth of items in one day. I'm not saying he didn't have the right, I'm saying let's look a little closer at what we were looking at.
IMO, what we were seeing in that interview is a man in a lot of pain. A man who had been severely damaged by the lifestyle of being first a child star and then a mega super star. By this time, Michael had already been working since he was five years old, robbed of the foundation of relationships and experiences that children make in school and social settings, severely burned in an accident that was work related, suffering from a skin disease that he was constantly being judged over, accused of molestation, targeted by numerous frivolous lawsuits, married and divorced twice -- I mean that's not even all of it!!! IMO, Michael was not only in a lot of emotional pain but desperate for love.
So yes, of course, Michael loveeeeeed the attention his fans gave him!!! It filled a very big, very vast and very empty hole that should have been filled with love from parents who did not use/abuse him, love from a wife who did not abandon him, love frm friends who would not betray him.
Michael used the love of his fans to fill that hole.
I do think about the story A LOT
How did you guess???? But I make a distinction between inspiration and obsession. I am INSPIRED to write this story -- to bring myself joy and the joy I read it brings others. I see one as the positive flip side of the other, inspiration being positive and obsession being negative. There is love that is positive, that promotes growth and creation and bonding and there is love that is negative, that seeks to possess, restrict, objectify, limit, diminish, dominate and eventually will destroy.
There are different kinds of love, too, we can't forget that. Romantic love, platonic love between friends, religious love, familial love and even great affection for anything considered strongly pleasurable, desirable, or preferred is called love -- that's why I like the way the Greeks distinguish between the different types of love. So the fans loved Michael the artist, but they did not fully know Michael the man. I think that's important to acknowledge that.
Which is why I said at the outset of our conversation that sure, if a fan got to know Michael, and they hit it off, they could then have a relationship.
Perhaps it was a mutual love affair, as you describe it. I've read about and seen some very destructive, dysfunctional love affairs in my life time. Love is not supposed to hurt.
We, the public, hurt Michael -- in our insatiable need and love for him, IMO, we hurt him. I'm going to put myself in there, too.
So let me be clear. When I talk about fans who followed Michael from city to city and camped out in front of his hotel, we're not talking about teenage girls going through rights of passage, too immature to understand about boundaries and respect and consideration. We're talking for the most part about grown adults, who could have been living their own full lives, fulfilling their own dreams, pursuing their own passions but instead had made Michael their life. That to me is not positive, that's obsession and negative.
By definition: "Obsessive lovers believe that only the person they fixate on can make them feel happy and fulfilled."
IMO, these fans didn't realize that they were part of the problem -- part of the insatiable public that robbed Michael of his childhood and his ability to lead a normal life.
Yes the sycophants around Michael were also dangerous but that wasn't the only problem in Michael's life.
Whenever our actions limit another, takes away from their quality of life rather than adds to it, restricts a person's freedom rather than enriches another, whenever our love is clinging and limiting, it is dangerous to the well being of the recipient of that "love". Parents can do this, a lover can do this, and even fans can do this.
Just like an obsessive lover will stifle their mate and eventually drive them away, I think some fans needed to learn to back off and have some respect for Michael's privacy, for his right to a separate life away from his fans and for his right to be able to say no to them.
Michael didn't owe us his life. He had the right to live a life separate from us, that's all I'm saying. I think some adult fans took it too far and are still taking it too far.
I've always said and will continue to believe that one of Michael's problems was that he didn't have good boundaries. There were times in Michael's life when he needed to learn how to say NO. To me, it's not about being scared, it's about being prudent and creating space for yourself to be human.
I see exactly where you are coming from when you say Michael, the man, said it hurt to be mobbed by his fans. It must have gotten out of control so many times and actually been pretty scary. However, I don't think we can actually blame the fans in this situation - the whole thing was a circus and it certainly wasn't contrived by the fans!!!!
I also don't think you can blame the fans for Michael's lost childhood, or for the fact that he was incredibly self-conscious about his appearance or that he was painfully lonely. Those are completely separate issues. And were caused by society at large (pressure to look a certain way/ pressure to perform/ pressure from his own father and the industry itself) We can't blame fans for all those issues!
Again these are issues that were part of his complicated life - there were not caused by his fans, even the more obsessive ones. Maybe at times their behaviour was irksome or even downright rude, but we can't say his life would have been better without fans chasing him and following him everywhere.
The blame lies solely with the people he counted upon to love and protect him and who turned their backs on him.
And maybe, just maybe, the fans used Michael to fill a hole in their own lives. Who are we to judge people who devoted their lives to following somebody around the world (gosh IF they had the resources, time and cash to do such a thing) - it's akin to worshiping an idol. What is the difference between a fan who follows their idol and a nun who goes on a pilgrimage??? We could argue that both acts are dangerous and obsessive, couldn't we? The nun has devoted her entire life to the pursuit of God - are you really saying she is having a dysfunctional love affair? I am not an religious person - so if I were to judge her I would say yes! But I'm not going to judge her. It's her life and her decision.
But love DOES hurt. And many relationships, including many marriages are completely dysfunctional. It's what makes us human. Okay so those fans were engaged in a completely dysfunctional relationship in a very open and public way (and we are still judging them) - still many of us are involved in similar relationships - we are just doing it behind closed doors!!! Humans are fallible and we all make mistakes. Perhaps many of those fans now regret their behaviour. I still don't think we should judge them - they were caught up in a very unique set of circumstances. And let's face it Michael was unique!!
As I said earlier, human beings are fallible. It wasn't only Michael who had a problem with boundaries. It was his fans too! But we are all human, frail and weak. We don't all have the benefit of strong healthy relationships around us to model our own behaviour upon.
Michael was like a magnet - and had a very powerful pull - many of his fans were simply too weak to resist it. How can we blame THEM?
I hope I've got the quote thing right
Yup yup
Mmmhm
ooops, sorry - I didn't mean to use such long quotations - it doesn't read very well.
Hey Jenny no sweat with the quotes -- I added my name so it's a little clearer.
Okay, I think I need to say at the outset, I don't do shame/blame, or judgment. I judge behavior, not people. If a behavior is negative or dysfunctional, I believe it needs to be identified, fleshed out and eradicated, because that's how we grow.
I believe that we're here on the planet precisely to grow, so I don't ascribe to the belief of "that's how human beings are" -- because otherwise when do we "change the man in the mirror."?
Human beings are to challenge themselves to be better. Shame/blame is where we get stuck, when we can be looking at how to be better. I'm a realist and that's how I see it.
So just addressing some of your points:
Every individual needs to take responsibility for their behavior. It's a game when we step outside of behavior and try to blame it on some unnamed source or group in order to avoid looking at ourselves and challenging ourselves to change. If the situation got out of control, who made it get out of control. The people involved!
Everyone played a part. I never said anything was contrived, but it happened, too many times, and if we are to stop it from ever happening again, individuals need to look at their behavior and not pass the buck.
Once again, this is not about blame. This is about looking at behavior and assessing whether it is positive and functional or negative and dysfunctional. I mentioned the issues that Michael had to illustrate in small measure all that he had went through in his life -- those things cannot be dismissed. So when the fans came along and propped up their lawn chair underneath his window and made it impossible for him to leave his hotel room, they were contributing to his isolation, to his loneliness, to the isolation of someone who had/was already suffering so much. It's just a truth that has to be acknowledged.
Who is society? Society is made up of you and me. WE are society. So to the extent that we have contributed to a culture that promotes one "look" as attractive (or pretended that it wasn't a problem and ignored all those who did not look like that and suffered because of it) ; to the extent that we have idolized any star (Michael included) and created an environment that makes them feel pressured to perform; to the extent that we have supported the industry that promotes child labor and does not protect child stars; to the extent that we've created or contributed to the environment of racism and intolerance that played a part in creating the Josephs (or stayed silent about it) WE ARE part of the problem.
Who's going to change the world if we don't' change it? But we start changing these monumental issues by looking individually at our lives and changing in us what we can -- becoming the best that we can be. It's not about blame. It's about self-growth.
I say let's not play the blame game. The responsibility must be shared and cannot be found in just in one place. Who would the people who were supposed to love and protect him have to protect Michael from if there were not people with loose boundaries and lack of regard and respect and consideration out there trying to hurt him? Yes, the people close to Michael failed to protect him -- but protect him from WHAT?
I will say IMO, unequivocally that Michael's life would have been infinitely better if he didn't have obsessive fans chasing him and following him all over the globe.
I'm sure they did, and therefore their own behavior was just as dysfunctional. Once again it's not about judging -- it's about calling a spade a spade. IF they had the resources to follow Michael all over the world, I cannot imagine what good those resources could have done if channeled in the right direction, things that Michael passionately believed in, charitable acts of kindness and helping your fellow man. Think of what good could have been accomplished if the passion and obsession that was gear towards Michael was expanded to included the world and all those in need, especially the children?
IMO, spiritually speaking, one cannot compare GOD to a man. Michael was not a perfect deity to be worshiped. He was a man. The difference between a fan who follows their idol and a nun who goes on a pilgrimage, is a pilgrimage is a long journey or search of great moral significance, where a person goes to learn a greater truth about themselves or the world at large. A fan who follows a star around the globe is looking for their truth, their significance in a human being that is just as flawed as they are -- their focus, IMO, is misplaced and doesn't serve the fan or the star well.
We've already spoke about youth. I think such an experience is infinitely more productive when it's a teenager who is searching for themselves and trying to find their place in the world. But when it is an adult, something is wrong. Of course it's their life and decision to do as they please, but that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion about it.
Expressing an opinion about what a person has chosen to do is not judgment. It's just a discussion, as far as I'm concerned. I think it feels like judgment when the person is looking for approval from others for their behavior.
On a positive note, Jenny, this is the kind of positivity I'm talking about -- when someone is inspired and uses that love and inspiration for great good and it is not obsession:
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=436626944244&ref=mf
*points to video*
OMG!!! That's so sweet. Michael WOULD have been proud.
Thanks for the link Sabine - that was an awesome tribute to Michael and a beautiful example of how love can and should be given.
I completely agree with you. We have to change and grow. We shouldn't become fixated on stuff. But I really think many fans became fixated with Michael because he offered them hope in an otherwise cynical - and you are absolutely right to say we should separate the man from the message, but when a man like Michael comes along he is the very embodiment of that message - it's difficult to separate the two. So of course fans wanted to follow him. I still don't think he minded them - following someone is a peaceful action (I'm not talking about the chaos the paparazzi created when they followed him everywhere - just the fans. A good example can be found in Forest Gump - I love that movie. Remember when Forest decided to run across America? He attracts a large following - people just want to follow him. Why? Because he offers hope, inspiration - they are drawn to his philosophy. Michael's followers were drawn to his philosophy - they loved the man and message. The man was the message. They wanted to be close to him. What is wrong with that?
Really? I still don't understand this point. Michael made his fans comfortable - I think he appreciated the peacefulness of the fans who simply camped outside his hotel or house - they weren't doing anything harmful (unless of course they tried to break in and push the boundaries - now THAT would be a violation) - simply camping outside someone's house is okay. It's like saying I love this man, I love his philosophy and I want him to know that. There is absolutely no harm in that whatsoever. If it was harmful or dangerous the police would have put an end to it. People camp outside 10 Downing Street, or the Whitehouse. They are making a political point. The fans outside Michael's house are doing the same thing - I love this man, I celebrate his philosophy, I want peace on earth" There is no harm done!
I disagree with you on this point, Sabine. I think you are exaggerating the problem. Michael's life would have been better had we accepted him, had the media accepted him. Michael's life would have been better had he had more people in his life who loved him and accepted him for who he was. Michael's life would have been infintely better had the world been more open to his ability to love children and be inspired by him. His life would have been better had he not lived in a world which thinks men who openly show their love towards children are pedophiles. The obsessive fans did NOT make his life a misery - other things did!!!!
I agree completely - but the act of following somebody is a peaceful acknowledgment of their beliefs!!! Okay it is a passive act, but it's a peaceful one - for all the reasons I've stated above.
Please please please do not think for one moment that I was comparing God to a man!!!!! Heaven forbid! I was comparing a nun to a fan - which she is of sorts. Yes she is on a moral quest. And by your own admission Michael embodied some GREAT beliefs and philosophies - I think following him is a quest of great moral significance - the fan is saying that she/ he appreciates EVERYTHING Michael stands for - rightly or wrongly. I say again to follow someone you love and admire is not wrong. It IS strange - but I repeat again - it's harmless.
I agree, Sabine. We all need to go on a journey to discover ourselves. And for some people that journey involved following Michael around. You know I've read some heart-warming stories about fans who got to know each other and shared stories with each other outside Michael's hotel or his house - they were discovering themselves. I'd be more disturbed if they were following the likes of drug-crazed, nymphomaniac rock stars -which obviously does happen - with dire consequences.
I still don't see why it is unacceptable?
Now there I totally agree with you! Perhaps if the BP execs took time to go on a moral quest and ask more philosophical questions like how can we heal the world they'd arrive at answers which would really benefit the world.
Sabine, what is that they have done that is so wrong???? I still don't understand.
I think this is the crux of our disagreement Sabine - boundaries. So long as fans don't overstep boundaries I really don't think they have to do anything. I think you and I might disagree with what those boundaries are though!
And that is precisely why fans followed him - physically, spiritually and metaphorically - through his music, his travels around the world, and through all his humanitarian efforts.
Would you have preferred fans not to have turned out to support him? To show him their approval? You can't say of course not, but only sometimes!! Fans are not like water - you either have them or you don't! You can't switch them off when you've had enough or you're simply fed up of them - that's not the way it works. They re either there or they are not.
Okay, so by following him, physically they took the first tentative steps on thet journey to self improvement. More than the likes of those BP execs are ever likely to do in their sad, pitiful destructive lives - they treat this world like THEIR playground. The fans who followed Michael knew that here was a man who could change the world and he did.
I wish I had had the opportunity to follow him too.
Jenny , fame when it comes to someone who is emotionally unprepared; if it is forced on a child, especially if that child did not grow up in a home that had a foundation of love and acceptance, if that child was not taught good boundaries, can ruin a person's life.
You only have to look at Hollywood, follow the corpses of dead child stars who have over dosed on drugs, committed suicide or gaze at their bodies collapsed along side the road of success, the ones who are passed out, drug addicted, alcoholics, has beens, lost, alone and hopeless -- they could not deal with the pressure. What pressure? The pressure to be perfect.
Which leads me to the biggest problem for a "child star". Boundaries.
Okay, so let's go there. What are good boundaries?
I'll try and say as succinctly as I can. Good boundaries is ESSENTIAL for a healthy, productive life.
The definition of boundaries is the ability to know where you end and where another person begins.
In order to have good, appropriate boundaries, a person has to know himself or herself.
But Michael was never allowed the space to grow up and know himself. Not only did he grow up with abusive, dysfunctional parents, but he grew up under the spotlight of fame that demanded he be perfect, an image for the public, and this did not allow room for him to make mistakes and find out who he was on his own.
He grew up in a dysfunctional, usurious environment where he was working when he should have been being a child. Now before you say that has nothing to do with the fans, please. It had everything to do with the fans, because that is who Michael was performing for. Everyone played their part, the music execs, the studio, the record company, Michael's parents and the public.
So let's look at a perfect example of one way a child star is robbed of the ability to establish good boundaries.
One dysfunctional rule of the industry is the idea of being perfect -- presenting a perfect image.
We've already agreed, to be flawed is to be human.
If a person believes that they have to be perfect, they will become shut off from a very large part of their emotional and intellectual self-knowledge, which does not allow for the establishment of healthy boundaries. If an adult tells a child that they have to be perfect, then that adult will systematically invalidate many aspects and characteristics that the child has that would make them human.
Soooooooooooooooooooo, as an example take a child who is sick and tells their parents that they feel sick. They tell the parent, I can't perform, I don't feel well. The child is making a boundary statement. What they’re saying is, “Inside, in my reality, this is going on. I am sick. I’m sharing it with you, a separate person.”
If the parent then turns around and says, “No, you’re not sick,” or "Okay, whatever, you're still performing" that is crazy making for the child.
The child will look inside . . . . they’ll look out at the parent . . . . they’ll look in . . . . then they’ll look at the parent again -- and because kids need to feel safe, and that parents are capable and have their best interest at heart, are always right, rather than believe that the parent doesn't care about them and isn't capable of taking good care of them, they will instead assume that they are wrong and bad.
The child will take on the blame and assume that their perception is faulty. As a result, a large part of their reality is now dissociated out of their body and out of their awareness, and their self-esteem suffers. How can you feel good about yourself if you don't believe that you can make good decisions about your own well being?
The effects are even worse than that because now that child will begin to look towards other people to define who they are and what they feel. That is a very fundamental aspect of codependence. We see Michael doing this through his life.
The ability to make their own decisions, to fail and learn from mistakes, the freedom to express themselves and the space to be who they are is essential to child development.
So back to Michael: When did Michael get a chance to learn autonomy and how to express his feelings, how to know what he felt while he was being forced to perform day in and day out for us?
The way Michael grew up is a perfect recipe for an adult who doesn't even know how to say no. Who doesn't know when something is bothering him or even how to say it. Who doesn't trust his own feelings. Who cannot bring himself to say, I don't really want any fans outside of my hotel tonight. Please arrange for the hotel security to keep them out.
If you came home and found thirty people camped out in front of your house and they stayed there day in and day out, calling for you, YOU WOULD NOT LIKE IT.
Michael was polite and loving to a fault, IMO. He became dependent on the adoration of the fans because such love was sorely lacking in his own life. This further impaired his ability to say NO, when his fame encroached on his private life and made it impossible for him to live a life outside of the public eye.
Am I saying that Michael had no control over his life and couldn't say no to anyone and didn't know who he was?
No.
Michael turned out incredibly well, considering his upbringing -- he is one of the very few child stars who made it, but still there were these very real issues in his life that he grappled with and you know what? He told us!
So because I think Michael is the one who can best speak for himself, and all we have to do is listen, I am going to let his words speak for me:
I need to also say here, painful/terrifying experiences as a child causes TRAUMA. Trauma that has not healed leaves scars that last into adulthood and must heal for a person to live a functional life.
You know, I feel that I am going to fail miserably at helping you see how the public (yes, including the fans) contributed to the loneliness and pain of Michael's life, if you don't want to see it. You really have to want to see it. If one cannot look beyond what they consider to be banal, harmless behaviors they've engaged in for the benefit of self and will not ask themselves, how did my actions affect others, no one save God himself will be able to help them see it -- I really believe that.
For the truth is no man is an island. Everything that we do affects others around us, for good or for bad. And while we are looking to be happy and to fulfill our dreams and to pursue the passion of our hearts, we must be careful that we're not stepping on the backs of others in the process, trampling over their rights or out and out ignoring how they feel, exploiting them, using them or violating their personal space. In order to do that we need to, all of us, constantly take a step back and self reflect on our behavior and ask ourselves how did my behavior affect that other person? Especially when a person is saying that they are hurting. When a person says they are hurting, IMO, we need to listen and try to understand, because it's not all about us.
So when Michael said: It hurts to be me. I really listened and I made a decision to try and learn and understand what he meant by that. I'm not prepared to ignore that and act like he was very happy, and I dare not say, Well, if he was unhappy, it had nothing to do with me.
If it had even the slightest bit to do with me, I want to know it, because I wouldn't want to hurt someone I love not for anything in the world, even in my ignorance.
Everyone needs space to breathe -- to be human, to err, to make mistakes, to not be expected to be perfect all the time. No one can live under a microscope, constantly exposed to scrutiny, having their every actions observed and commented on and criticized. People needs must be acknowledged, no matter who they are -- even if they're a "star".
So in closing, I'm going to link Paul Peterson's article: What did you expect?
He's been advocating for the rights of child stars for long time and has a blog dedicated to protecting them. If you're interested:
WHAT DID YOU EXPECT? by Paul Petersen
Many thanks Sabine. I find your thoughts very powerful and convincing. And thank you for including Michael's own words - it's good to be reminded of how he really felt about fame and the way he was treated - almost like an animal!!! Which is horrific. I will most definitely read the Paul Peterson's article and let you know my thought - thanks!
You keep pointing to other issues like child exploitation and loneliness - arrrgggghhhh!! I am not talking about these issues. The former is a matter for the law - and can and MUST be addressed. The latter is a very personal issue - and something lots of people suffer from whether they are famous or not!!
But my point it, and you will hate me for this, I still don't think it was the fans who caused his misery. You are right though not to let this turn into some kind of a blame game.
But what are you looking to change?
People will ALWAYS be drawn towards greatness - and that will often get out of hand. And I did say I DO NOT condone violence of any kind. I'm sure where Michael got hurt, other fans got hurt too!!!
You cannot stop this kind of behaviour from happening!!!
What could possibly be done to stop this kind of thing from happening. If you stop fans chasing after their idols, do you stop mass demonstrations (people get hurt at those!), do you stop large sporting events (people get crushed to death!!) do you stop concerts because of the dangers....???
Michael was just a man. One individual. A talented genius. An inspiration. An icon. A legend.
How on earth do you keep people away from that???
I just don't understand what you think can change about a phenomenon which has been played time and again throughout history.
When somebody is as famous as Michael people flock to see them.. in their droves.
And therein lies the rub.
Hey Jenny, I think when you read Paul's excellent article you'll see more what I"m getting at.
The call is not to "stop" this kind of behavior from happening by creating laws or rules -- I don't believe in that.
IF I have any desire, it's to get people to self reflect. Here's an example. There was a little boy impersonating Michael on Britain's Got Talent show -- I forget the full name. HE was four years old. Someone sent me the link.
I said, NO, NOOO!!! The little boy is too young to be competing in that show -- that's terrible. I voiced my outrage and other people voiced their opinions as well, and the outcry grew. Eventually Britains Got Talent had to deal with the issue of how young will they allow their contestants to be.
No matter how delighted we are at children who have talent, we need to understand that we are to protect them and allow them to grow and nurture them, not USE them for our own pleasure.
This is a message that has to be emphasized and understood by the world, something that I know Michael would underscore.
CHILDREN ARE NOT TO BE USED.
But how can it be addressed if no one talks about it?
I don't see it as you do -- they're all inter-related. When you say the former is a matter of law -- who is exploiting the children?
People. Change the hearts and the minds of the people and you don't need laws. To do this one must educate and talk about the problem.
You say the second is a personal issue -- personal to whom? So what if many people suffer from loneliness, does that mean now that we dismiss that Michael suffered from it and not ask ourselves why?
Why was Michael lonely? Michael was known in every corner of the world!!!!!! But Michael was painfully lonely because he was not given the space and the freedom to create relationships -- he could not trust anyone, he was elevated by his fame by the public to the stratosphere and left there to fend for himself.
It is not a question of stopping it is a matter of educating.
What am I looking to change?
I'm not looking to change so much as to bring awareness.
People are attracted to greatness, it is true. But people need to understand that every individual has the right to a life.
I find that people in America at least tend to look at the people they elevate to stars as sort of like public property -- and that their life now belongs to the fans and the world. It's terrible , inhumane behavior, IMO.
The world suffers from a lack of regard for others because of many reasons, and we keep seeing it (even the BP scandal is an example) I don't think it's worthy to just ignore it or say this is how things are, or things will never change or even well, he's not the only person who got hurt.
No one should ever have to suffer as Michael did again!!!! No one, especially someone as beautiful, as talented, as kind and as loving as Michael.
What was done to him is a travesty, and are we not going to learn from it?
I remember watching my niece with her new born puppy -- OMG, she loved it so much. She was always chasing it and hugging him and trying to feed it. We had to keep her away from him. In her love, she was going to kill it. She had to be taught that the puppy needed to be cared for and needed to be treated in a certain way, so that she could enjoy him.
People that we admire and love, in the way we loved Michael, needed to be treated with care, so that we can continue to enjoy their gifts.
The public, society on the whole needs to understand that.
Well, it's as the old saying goes, if we don't learn from our history we are doomed to repeat it.
So the question is, when are we going to learn?
I try to do my part by educating myself, by challenging myself, by making my children understand that they are to care for others as much as they care for themselves; to treat people as they would like to be treated. And I do try to bring awareness to the subject when it comes up.
Sabine, I think we are disagreeing on two different issues.
I agree whole-heartedly - child exploitation IS horrific. And we should always SEEK to treat people with care and respect. Absolutely.
But then surely the problem lies with the parent of the child who seeks to put him on stage.
Surely the problem lies with the record industry who invest millions in promoting their child stars.
Surely the problem lies with the media who feel that have the right to publish every little detail about this person's private life...
Okay, so these are the things we can do:
1) Promise we will never exploit our own children in such a way (do not enter them for talent shows, beauty contests (which I personally find abhorrent), don't seek to profit from their talent etc....)
2) Refuse to buy records featuring children (Justin Beiber, The Jackson 5, I can't think of any others though I am sure there are hundreds of examples. Avoid films featuring children - Karate Kid, Annie, Bugsy Malone, The Lovely Bones, Harry Potter etc... )
3) Do not buy magazines which pry into the private lives of celebrities and especially those which feature the children of celebrities or child stars (I find this practice sickening, personally)
I really do agree with you on the exploitation of children. I just don't think it's viable to suggest children do not work in entertainment at all!!! You can't have everything I mentioned in number 2 without the pushy parents and greedy agents etc...
And unfortunately, these type of people are the type of people who are going to inherit a huge fan base.
But believe me if I had pushy parents, a greedy agent and friends who turned their back on me if they weren't getting what they wanted out of me, obsessive fans would be the least of my worries.
Let's address the REAL problem here instead of worrying about fans.
So Jenny, did you read Peter's article, I'm curious -- you didn't say.
But it seems clear to me that to you everyone else was the problem but the fans. You seem to be pointing the fingers at everyone else.
So who is buying the records, who attends the concerts, who buys the magazines? Believe me, they, the powers that be, wouldn't promote one show, record one song or write one article if it didn't sell.
I never said anything about not having children work in entertainment.
A child that has talent that loves to perform and sing and dance should be allowed to express themselves. What shouldn't happen is there shouldn't be a greedy exec trying to exploit the child; irresponsible parents trying to live off the child; exploitive fans, with no care in the world for how the child is being treated. Every step of the way someone should yell STOP -- this is not okay. Let's look at our behavior.
I'm sorry, but I find your position really strange, because you started out this conversation saying that you hate people who are judgmental about the fans -- but I'm reading a judgmental attitude about everyone else. It reminds me of the atheists that I used to debate -- they would claim that their problem w/ religion and those who believe in God was with their intolerance of others who didn't -- but in expressing their views they were SOOOOOO intolerant of anyone with a spiritual belief. It got to the point that I just sat back and said, Wow, they dont' even see it.
So that's why I said before I think I'm going to fail miserably in illustrating to you how fame/fan adulation can ruin a person's life. It's something that I fear you're not willing to see.
Everyone else it seems is wrong, and the fans were just innocent voyeurs, blissfully enjoying Michael's gifts and his hard work without a care in the world, curiously unaware of what they were taking part in and the affect it was having on his life.
Shamone now. Like Michael would say, It's bull.
Why is "SEEK" in capital letters -- I'm just curious?
The list of things we should do, are you SURE that's all we can do?
How about not do this:
or this
or this
So that Michael don't have to walk around like this:
And his kids don't have to endure this:
So that he can buy a book, go to dinner, go to the movies, enjoy a trip to the zoo with his kids, a walk in the park, all the things that you and I can go out and do.
Michael wasn't just hiding from the Paparazzi; I see fans in that crowd, too. He was hiding from the fans too. There's a time and a place for everything; I'm not saying don't come out to see your idol, or don't go to court and hold up signs and support him. I'm saying DON'T MOB HIM; DON'T PREVENT HIM FROM HAVING A LIFE:
Some of the comments from the videos:
"Imagine having that kind of attention since the age of 10! Ive seen those footages of MJ in the Jackson 5 getting mobbed like the beatles and Michael looked so scared. He had 40 years of this, amazing. And on top of the mob scences he had the filthy press bullying him for a good 20 years! At least your at peace now Michael.xx"
"I'm going to be honest now: With fans like that who needs enemies. At least now he is at rest. These type of people would probably ransack his house right now if they had the chance. But its still 100% the media's fault."
"seriously, if MJ walk infront of that people without any security, those fans can kill him."
"Geez, people can't HOLD ON for a second and GIVE THE MAN SOME SPACE ?! .. love you michael, but if i once met you in person, i would try to contain myself at least a LITTLE! "
"if he had his children with him then they shouldnt have been mobbed like that! the children and michael could of been hurt "
"poor michael he cant go nowhere without being mobbed. "
Oh, hmmm, I don't know, I kind of think you wouldn't be happy about this:
Once again, in his own words:
Now a fan can exempt themselves from the "right to private place" boundary that Michael was clearly setting and the "be kind" request.
They can say, Oh, Michael wasn't talking about me -- I can do this, it's okay, and no one, as I said, save God is going to convince them otherwise if that's what they choose to believe.
But they are WRONG. Michael was talking about all of it. He wanted some space.
Sabine - I think it is one of those "yes there is/ no there isn't" type of arguments. I completely agree.
I just happen to think that so long as society creates famous people you will have fans who have a hard time drawing boundaries between what is and what isn't acceptable.
Some people just don't see the difference between what is public and what is private - perhaps because the lives of famous people are made so extraordinarily public - every sordid little detail makes it way into the public domain.
So inevitably this is going to confuse fans - they are told that it's okay to buy records, attend concerts, book signings, album signings, go along to charity functions or red carpet affairs and take photographs and ask for autographs - but if they invade that famous person's private space then suddenly it's not okay! You must admit the boundaries are becoming increasingly blurred these days - and not least because of celebrities themselves. And Neverland was a one of the places where the boundaries where blurred, it was both Michael's home, but also a very public place and he invited members of the public in all the time!)
People are people and please don't tell me if you happened to bump into Michael Jackson in the street you would have given him a wide berth and not acknowledged him because I just won't believe you. Michael could not live the ordinary life you imagine he should have had. It's naive to think it.
The ONLY way we can protect children is through legislation. Children under 16 should not be allowed to work more than x number of hours/ parents should under no circumstances be allowed to profit from their offspring. Period. Problem solved.
The only way we can protect famous adults is through legislation. Put an end to the paparazzi type culture - those men should just be banned. Put an end to these ridiculous magazines which invade people's privacy in an ever more vulgar and disgusting manner.
I know you think I'm just moving blame but this is something that CAN happen!!! If we really want to change, that is... Changing people's behaviour, values and attitudes takes time. Legislation has an immediate effect.
It used to be perfectly acceptable to drink and drive, believe it or not. It was only through legislation that made it illegal and vigorous campaigns that sought to educate people about the dangers of drinking and driving that it finally became taboo. Nobody would condone such behaviour now.
We need legislation to protect children. We need education to change the celebrity culture in which we live.
That is the only way we will prevent the tragedy of some aspects of Michael's life from happening again.
ps As for why I wrote "SEEK" - I'm not sure - I think my emotions over-spilled or something?!
pps I will definitely respond to the article - what I've read so far is excellent - thanks!
I hope you don't think I'm a raving loony!! I didn't mean to engage in an argument with you - I just find it a very compelling issue - and it's interesting to hear your views - you really have opened my mind to many things I hadn't thought of before.
Nooo, Jenny, I love to debate! I find it stimulating! And believe me, I'm listening to you!!!!! I'm not a right fighter at all. I mean, of course I think I'm right but i'm always open to being wrong
It's no biggie to me!!!!
LOL! I'm confused. What do you mean by yes there is/no there isn't.
Once again, here we go. Who is society? WE ARE SOCIETY. We create the famous people. We are the people who do not have boundaries.
Made public by who? Who produces, who consumes? We don't need to know what everyone is doing every second of their life. It's US that are doing it.
You're acting like fans are little children. Like they have no ability to be personally accountable. It's the whole sheeple idea, that the public are just little pawns with no ability to think for themselves.
Yes but what about the fans, how are their boundaries blurred?
We can only hope to really change ourselves - so rather than looking outwards at everyone else, how are the fans who were so invasive, so obsessive, how are they going to change?
Well, you don't have to believe me, but it's true. It all depends on what he was doing. If he was having dinner with his children or in a book store, and obviously wanting to be alone, I might wave or say hi and keep it moving. I'm just not like that. I've often said I would have missed my chance to meet Michael, because there's no way I'm sleeping outside in front of anyone's house or following them all over the world. I'm not like that. I've always said, there's only one person I will do that for and that Is Jesus Christ himself.
Believe it or not, living in NY, I see lots of stars -- I never asked for an autograph because a name on a piece of paper means nothing to me. I never asked for a picture either. Sometimes I've said hi or smiled. Sometimes I've said nothing.
There are plenty of megastars who live a life with privacy and dignity, who are not mobbed. Sting, Bono, even Madonna -- because they required it.
Look at Jay Z and Beyonce, they demand respect and privacy and they public MUST give it to them. So the public knows how to do it. So does the media.
How about WE change -- how's that? How about individually we stop glorifying fame and celebrity lifestyles and get back to family, like Michael said. We worship money and fame, that's the problem. So that legislation will not solve that particular problem -- people who are greedy and want money and fame will find a way around it.
Who is the paparazzi? They are people. Who produces the magazine's? People. The problem is people. We need to change our thinking.
If we REALLY want to change we can take the time and make the effort to change our thinking, which will lead to changing our behavior. Legislation is like my telling my kids what to do -- yes, I do that. But now that they're teens, I want them to understand why I ask them to do what I do, and I want them to want to do the right thing, not because they were told but because they want to.
Condone puuuulease. You know how many people die from drunk drivers now, today. People are STILL drunk driving.
I don't think I'm necessarily disagreeing but I think that the solutions you're providing avoid and skip personal accountability.
Even legislature is proposed by People, and so the change starts with us, within.
People can come together and rally for change and write letters and make their voice known and they only do that with passion and are inspired to do so when their hearts change.
I just mean we keep going round in circles. I was thinking of the arguments you described with atheists about whether God exists or not - that argument will probably go on forever.
I think we keep missing legitimate points we are each making, because we feel so strongly about what it was that made Michael's life intolerable at times.
I respect that answer - we are all part of the problem - not just the fans!!! We're all prying into stars private lives even if it's just looking at a magazine - we don't have to be camped outside his house to be part of the problem.
Exactly - which is why we need to legislate first: change values and attitudes later. That's they way you implement change in a democracy: we need to protect the most vulnerable in society - I'm sorry but most people just don't do that naturally - we can't wait for everyone to "self-reflect" - it just doesn't happen. People are selfish they will, in general serve their own interests first - they'll buy magazines, and ask for an autograph whenever the opportunity arises. You have self-restraint - most people don't when they are caught up in the moment - as Michael experienced.
In a way we become childish when we are in certain situations. Even Sabah behaves like a child when she can't have what she wants when she wants it. I am quite a sensible person most of the time, but if I get excited my cool would go out the window. I have to admit if Michael was walking down the street I would have stopped and said hello and perhaps asked for a question. I know that's not the ideal way to behave, but it was part of Michael's effect on people - everyone said it. They just were not themselves when he was around. It's a shame - but is a fact!.
You're not, but some are. And again, I think you're over exaggerating the problem. There were relatively few fans who followed him around the world. Most of the jostlers would have been locals who just couldn't believe their luck to be in the same place as Michael Jackson. It was a knee-jerk reaction - people think Michael Jackson - M.m..m.m.m.m.mmmm.mmm..MICHAEL JACKSON!!!!!!!!!! Think of the Speed Demon video in Moonwalker - people were really like that!!! Unbelievable, but true!
Very true, but they are not Michael Jackson, are they. They don't even come close. And I'm a big U2 and Madonna fan - but I would not be all that interested if they walked past my house - well, I might be a little curious
But I bet you they'd give their right arm to have the kind of adoration Michael had!! Anyway, are you saying Michael should have tried harder to demand respect and privacy. I don't get this part of your argument??? Clearly respect and privacy are obtainable then????
I agree completely. We live in a very sad society which is full of unfairness and injustice.
But it so would. Legislation is key to civilisation. Look at what greedy people have done to our society. Look at the Bernie Madoffs and Nick Leesons of our society. They are precisely the reason we NEED legislation to protect the weak and vulnerable. We can't hang around for the likes of them to "self-reflect" - it just isn't going to happen.
We need to change our laws. Perhaps Princess Diana would be alive if we had laws which stopped photographers from dangerously pursuing their victims. Michael agreed with me on this - he said it in a BW interview.
Correct. We need laws first. Then we learn why they are they.
Of course, but it isn't acceptable anymore. In the Seventies it was okay. Now it isn't and people get prison sentences and life-time bans for drink driving. Why? Because there are laws in place. Of course, people are always going to break the law - that's a given - sadly.
I agree, but I am NOT avoiding or skipping personal responsibility. I am fighting for it. I believe we should vote for the people who are going to make change happen - who are going to help make our society fair and equal place for everyone. That is an active and important part of my role as a citizen of any country. I do write letters, and make my voice known and I do that with passion because I'm inspired. Not least by people like you.
Oh, I don't know -- I think we're making headway.
Look at what you say below:
Cool! I'm glad to hear you finally acknowledge that there's a problem and you've included the fans, because before you were saying, for ex.:
Clearly there's no distinction between "we" and fans, right? "We" would most certainly include the fans. Last I looked, fans are human beings, right -- people?
Okay, so let's put them in the group of we, okay.
But I think you're going to resist doing that, maybe it's because you started off this conversation saying:
So I really kind of view this whole conversation about you trying to say that obsessive behavior is okay -- that's how we started and I think everything else has been thrown in to try to get away from admitting that obsession is negative and that yes, it affected Michael negatively.
That's my org. point and it just can't be argued -- we need only look at Michael's life and hear his words -- which I quoted.
See, we're agreeing again! Or at least understanding each other. Before you were saying:
Once again, fans are human beings, right -- people? There were fans who were "selfish" who "in general serve[d] their own interests first" -- while Michael's interests and needs were left unmetl; that's what we did to him.
You asked before:
And you've answered your own question:
Michael was vulnerable and needed protection and we, the people, which also includes the fans, who are human and people, put our own interests first and did not protect him. We failed Michael. All of us.
Why make excuses to try to justify the behavior -- it doesn't help things get better. Doing that will make the conversation go round and round, because rather than talk about what can be done, you get stuck discussing/debating if there is even a problem. We've already acknowledged there's a problem. No matter the reason, it exists and needs to be addressed.
Now, re: The problem. I'm not sure how you can watch the footage I linked and read the words that Michael said through out his life and still say:
I think when Michael said: "It hurts to be me" -- he wasn't exaggerating. I believe him. And I take his hurt very seriously. Especially when I look at how he died.
But yet, with all of our legislation, they were still able to do what hey did. Can you imagine that? Hmmm, must have found a loop hole.
Whelp, tell the woman who has lost her child due to a drunk driver - tell her about the laws in place and how unacceptable it is to drink and drive ( it IS acceptable, though, to all the people who still do it) it won't bring her child back.
And you know something fascinating, the behavior and belief system that allows a person to get into a car while drunk and drive, and not stop to think or care that they might kill someone -- that same type of thinking has reemerged in a new pair of pants:
Text driving.
Which is what happens when problems are not addressed and we try to legislate morality.
So treat adults as if they are children? Nah, let's have some ethics class in school, when children are very young and let's keep reinforcing that through out until college -- I bet you'll see milestone changes in society. Let's provide parenting classes to parents who need it, I bet you'll see a big difference in the priorities and ideals of the next generation. That's just two suggestions. I can probably think of a hundred.
Hitler said it best: He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future.
Michael knew it -- let's concentrate on the children; they are clean slates without any prejudices. They can get it right, as long as we don't feed them our propaganda.
Hitler spoke about propaganda, too: Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.
To me, the whole "that's how human beings are" message is a dangerous from of propaganda. IMO, that's how human beings CHOOSE to be. We do have a choice.
Jenny: We need to change our laws. Perhaps Princess Diana would be alive if we had laws which stopped photographers from dangerously pursuing their victims . . . we need to legislate first: change values and attitudes later..
You know, I'm not going to get into the whole legislature thing, because truthfully I think it's a red herring.
Let's stream line this debate.
Who is the "we" that will be changing the laws?
People.
As I keep saying, people need to change their thinking. We are saying the same thing.
The difference between my argument and yours, as I see it, is you say: Concentrate on changing laws and disregard how people feel, that will come later. But curiously enough, at the same time you say "people are selfish" and "in general serve their own interests first".
So why in the world would these selfish people who in general serve their own interests first EVER want to change laws to protect others?
What in the world would be their motivation?
Let me give you an example of what happens when you institute laws and disregard how people feel.
You have Michael Jackson, decades after slavery was abolished and segregation outlawed being told by MTV execs that they WILL NOT play his video on their station BECAUSE he is black.
The behavior becomes covert and hidden but continues. Yep, eventually they played that video. Why? Because of ratings and MONEY. But did it change their hearts? NOPE. The record industry is still racially prejudiced against Black artists as it has been for a LONG, LONG time.
I'm flattered to be counted amongst those who inspire you!
Truly.
But I must say, if we are waiting on government to legislate morality, we will be waiting a LONG time, and still what we will be doing is waiting on OTHER people to make the change that we can internally make. Because the government, the law makers are people, just like we are.
Again, we come right back to my point: People have to change.
And everyone has the ability to become better, Jenny! That's why we're here!!!!
I still stand by my belief that on the whole fans were doing nothing wrong. They were simply behaving as many people would behave given the situation.
I'm not saying the behaviour was great, but it certainly wasn't malicious or intentionally cruel.
Now some of the arguments you are throwing back at me ARE about acts of INCREDIBLE cruelty by human beings who are malicious.
How can you compare the racist behaviour of the record industry and the way some parents exploit their children (these are people who are hell bent on pushing their own agenda - they lack morality) with people who turn up to see a superstar????????
The people who turned up to see Michael Jackson did NOT lack morality. They got caught up in a moment. There is a HUGE difference.
I really cannot fathom your argument, Sabine.
oops I got to identify myself - that was me by the way!!
Actually, your suggestions of including ethics classes in the school curriculum (in the UK we have Personal, Social and Health Education lessons which often include morality and ethics) and parenting classes are VERY good ones.
The school curriculum is generally created by authorities which are setup by local or national governments - elected bodies!!
So I am more than happy to agree with you on these suggestions as a way forward.
Good legislation stems from good education. And a good education makes us better people.
Here's hoping that all children in the world will have access to a good education.
Hey Jenny or should I say anonymous!!!!
You know how the whole Jackson family claims that Michael was not abused -- that Joseph just disciplined them -- that's exactly what you're doing when you try to separate the fans from the public who made Michael live in a bubble. Or when you try to say that their behavior wasn't "that" bad and you just chalk it up to human behavior.
Well, Joseph was a Black man raised in the 20s/30s and he was just raising his children as most black men did back then -- right?
No. There's no excuse for his behavior -- it was abuse.
You can even look at his cheating as just human behavior, I mean, men are just like that, and certainly him being on the road all the time and you know, a good looking tall man, what did Katherine expect -- right?
No. There's no excuse for his behavior -- cheating is also abusive, and it's also wrong and that bad.
See the justification is not for Michael -- it's for you, for the fans, to help you and them feel better about what they've done. There wasn't a huge difference to Michael, who still could not go out into the world without fearing for his safety.
Sure, you can lambaste the media and the paparazzi and Michael's personal friends who you say abandon him but it seems you won't say yes, we did wrong, and we're sorry, which is all a person desires when they are hurting, acknowledgment of their pain and an apology and hopefully a promise to do better.
You won't give it for the fans, and the Jackson family won't give it for Joseph. They continue to say it was "discipline", it wasn't that bad, Michael is just "too sensitive" -- exactly what you say here. "on the whole fans were doing nothing wrong" -- which makes Michael a liar.
Michael said it was THAT BAD and he said he was in pain, and lonely, and hurting. He said it over and over again, and it seems that you are prepared to blame everyone else -- even society and the public -- but you're going to remove the "fans" from the equation. You're going to make them special and water down their behavior.
Let's call a spade a spade -- when Michael was mobbed, in all the 40 years of his life that he was mobbed, when fans came out while he was trying to shop or buy books or go to the zoo or a play and made it impossible for him to do those things and made him run for his life; the fact that Michael had to go out in disguise and also disguise his children -- that was BAD.
No one should have to live like that.
Jenny, do you really believe that the racist thinks he's a bad person?
No, he feels justified and he'll tell you all the reasons that his behavior is right and good.
Do you think that the parents who exploit their children think they are bad?
No, they'll tell you all the ways in which they are helping their child have a better life, providing structure, pushing and motivating them to be better, disciplining them.
THAT'S what human beings do -- they justify their behavior, and it's very easy for us to point fingers at other people and say, Oh look you're wrong, but I'm not because here is the good reason why what I did is different, better, not as bad, not so harmful.
But when the person on the receiving end of our behavior says:
Then to me Joseph and the family has to stop and say, Wait a minute, what is Michael talking about? Did he feel that way? Let's look at this again. Michael felt this was abuse. Maybe we're wrong in our thinking.
So me, as a die hard super dedicated fan, when Michael says:
I ask myself, wait a minute, what does he mean? Sure I can say that has nothing to do with me -- but I don't choose to do that.
When he says:
I ask myself, as a diehard, super dedicated fan, how did I contribute to this mans loss of his childhood? I mean, I could turn away and say, Nope, had nothing to do with me.
But I don't choose to do that. So like everything in life, this conversation, the subject matter is a choice. One can choose to accept responsibility, whatever responsibility they had, or one can choose to deny it.
Yes, the world can be a terribly cruel place but I believe we all play our part in making it that way (unless we're going to tell ourselves we're perfect and without faults) , and we all, if we choose, can change it. So like Michael said I try to live this: