Book: Remember the Time: Protecting Michael Jackson in His Final Days / Review @pg8

[PurdyYungThang84]

I think many fans are turning a "1+1=2" sort of situation into rocket science lol. Michael was a single father, is it THAT unimaginable that he was lonely for companionship and started dating around a little? Is he not allowed to? Maybe he met with them in a hotel room for privacy for some adult time away from his kids. Maybe he didn't want his children interrupting them while they were getting to know each other. Maybe they were making out or even (gaaaasp) HAVING SEX and he didn't want to risk his kids having a nightmare, walking in looking for their father to comfort them only to walk in on their dad sharing an intimate moment with a woman he's dating. All of these things happen and are considered when dating, especially in the case of single parents.

Why is the idea of Michael dating such a horror for so many fans lol??? Why is the idea of Michael dating such a threat to him being a gentleman or a decent person? Honestly, what is so unbelievable about any of it? Unless you happen to view Michael as either a eunuch or a child, I just can't wrap my head around the uproar. It sort of gets under my skin how some fans totally forbid Michael from the possibility of engaging in romantic, possibly sexually active relationships with women. Dating a few women makes him a "manslut" and shatters the ideal of him being a good man? That simply does not compute. He was human, he was a straight man that always lamented on his loneliness. But he apparently does what is typically acceptable for a single man that's dating to do (I imagine respectfully so), and this just won't fly with some fans. He wasn't spotted acting crazy in a strip club or picking up ladies of the night lol. THAT kind of stuff is understandably subject to a side-eye. But just dating??? Other than it simply being a juicy fun fact about his private hours, I just can't grasp why some fans are getting so bent out of shape about it. Seems like his fans, the very ones that love him so intensely, still refuse to let Michael live a life of his own...

 

[AliCat]

Okay I can see Michael staying at a Hampton Inn outside of Las Vegas, I happen to personally like Hampton Inn's. Just not in Vegas.

So a girlfriend was in Virginia? I wonder if Raymone Bain will cover this topic in her upcoming book due out in June. What a coincidence, so is the bodyguard's!

Here's an interesting story about a home Michael did rent in 2004 -

A family residing in Leeburg, Va, say they rented their home to Michael Jackson and his entourage for 9 days.genthumb Family Comes Forward Michael Jackson Secret Stay

In 2004 Jackson’s people contacted the family asking if they were interested in renting their home to the troubled star and his peoples. At the time, Jackson was embroiled in legal woes and needed a hideout.

Del and Robin Walters say Jackson saw their home featured on the cover of Washingtonian Magazine while Jackson was shopping at a Safeway market. The Walter’s then received a call asking if Jackson could stay at their home, they agreed. Del Walters said, “I thought it was the right thing to do. Everyone was looking for him he just needed a place to stay. Shelter from the storm.”

It is unknown how much Jackson paid to rent the home for the 9-day stay.

Jackson had full run of the house along with his three children, nannies, chefs and bodyguards. The homeowner and his family left the premises and stayed at a hotel.

The family is speaking out on what Michael Jackson did while he stayed at their home which includes taping the windows shut from prying eyes and when asked of any suspected drug use, Robin Walters said, “There was something making him sleep, don’t know if it were drugs but something to get him off the world for a moment.”

I find it curious the family has any idea what Jackson did to go to sleep, due to the simple fact they were not present in the home. Maybe it’s not all that strange they are commenting on what Michael did while he stayed at the home, it seems everyone else and their mother wants a piece of Michael now that he is gone.

Read more: http://thecount.com/2009/07/24/family-comes-forward-michael-jackson-secret-stay/

So...Michael was in a Safeway store and saw the house on a magazine...interesting

This story is in 2004, different bodyguard's!

 

[Virre]

I don't think anyone on this board or in this thread have anything against Michael dating. As you can read I wrote how Paris has talked about this, about the girlfriend that he had. It's just confusing how bodyguards tells it. Why say he kept it away from his children when one of them say they spent time with her?
I've contact with one woman who dated him, one of those who are not delusional. I think it's wonderful he had that at least. But it should be kept private. And as someone said it's non of our business. No one who worked for Michael needs to write books where they spill Michael hiding in hotels with women. Fans have discussed Michael's love life long before he passed away and some of those fans knows about every single women he looked at, they even have home pages about it, all the women are listed, except for all the ones we don't know about.

 

[Tygger]

He wasn't spotted acting crazy in a strip club or picking up ladies of the night lol. THAT kind of stuff is understandably subject to a side-eye.

Oh? Why is this not an acceptable reaction to loneliness?

Fans are drawing their own conclusions based on their own judgment and comfort level and that may not necessarily be what was true for Michael. What was true for Michael should truly not be a concern for any of his fans. That was his personal life and he deserved to have that privacy.

I cannot speak for others. I believe Michael kept his private life private so that he did not have to incur judgment for his personal choices. These authors feel differently about Michael’s choice for privacy and are purposely not clear on what is fact and what is fiction. The authors prefer to leave that choice to the purchaser and each purchaser can choose for themselves if those tales are fact (read: acceptable to their ideal of Michael) or fiction (read: not acceptable to their ideal of Michael).

 

[PurdyYungThang84]

Oh? Why is this not an acceptable reaction to loneliness?

Fans are drawing their own conclusions based on their own judgment and comfort level and that may not necessarily be what was true for Michael. What was true for Michael should truly not be a concern for any of his fans. That was his personal life and he deserved to have that privacy.

I never said it wasn't acceptable. I used those examples because activities of that nature are more likely to draw negative speculation among a general public and play on wider social taboos. Not because those things equate to "what 'bad' people do" in my eyes personally. Because they don't. My confusion is to why, with Michael in the eyes of some fans, the act of dating is suddenly upgraded to "unacceptable social taboo" status. Sorry if I used a confusing comparison.

I totally agree with you re: fans deciding what they'll swallow as truth or not according to their own personal judgements and comfort zones. I get it. I just don't get the clamor to prevent Michael from appearing to be "too human".

Quick side note: My posts were in no way a passive-aggressive jab to anyone in this thread or beyond in particular. No shade intended at all lol. I was just commenting on the general vibe that I've seen not just on this forum, but some social media platforms as well. I wasn't directly or indirectly trying to single anyone out.

 

[Tygger]

PurdyYungThang84, you said: “THAT kind of stuff is understandably subject to a side-eye” which seems to be unacceptable. That behavior is acceptable among some in the “general public” as you termed it. Las Vegas, U.S. is where that behavior is legal and Michael (and other Jackson family members) lived for a period of time. I believe Michael decided to make a permanent home there as well.

I agree with you that certain members of the fandom do view Michael in extremes; from asexual, eunuch, etc. through to "manslut," womanizer, etc. I believe Michael was like other humans who found a middle ground where they are comfortable. No one knows where that middle ground measured against the extremes for Michael except for those he shared that with privately.

I believe what makes Michael “too human” as you say is subjective. The romantic tale the authors told make Michael human to you as you term it “dating” and therefore, acceptable. I would say that is your conclusion based on their version of events as the definition of “dating” is subjective for many adults; believe it or not.

This is why I asked Amaya why question a selfish shopping spree in the presence of unpaid employees as it is the same man who selfishly sent those unpaid men to buy gift(s) when he could not be bothered to do such. It could be Amaya found the former to be selfish but, not the latter while others see both acts as selfish and others still find neither act selfish. It is all subjective based on tales we do not know are fact or fiction.

 

[PurdyYungThang84]

PurdyYungThang84, you said: “THAT kind of stuff is understandably subject to a side-eye” which seems to be unacceptable. That behavior is acceptable among some in the “general public” as you termed it. Las Vegas, U.S. is where that behavior is legal and Michael (and other Jackson family members) lived for a period of time. I believe Michael decided to make a permanent home there as well.

Yes, which is what I was trying to make clear, that that statement was meant from outside of my own personal belief system and was rather meant from the stance of an on-looking general public. A general public that more than not holds (believe it or not lol) fairly conservative views. The examples that I listed would more often be viewed as blush-worthy taboos at best, and as complete debauchery at worst. Hence me labeling it as the general public's viewpoint, as it holds to be the majority's shared sentiment. Although Vegas is widely regarded as a party city, compared to the greater U.S. population,is a very small part to the larger whole. It's true, there are pockets (like Las Vegas) of more liberal thought on the matter, I consider myself to be more liberal, but it is still the minority opinion. Once again, through the lens of a conservative general public, the accepted majority opinion, I can understand a more scathing reaction to something like frequenting strip clubs from THAT stance, even though I would not personally react the same way to such news. Does that make sense? I hope I didn't make it more confusing lol. ^_^

I agree with you that certain members of the fandom do view Michael in extremes; from asexual, eunuch, etc. through to "manslut," womanizer, etc. I believe Michael was like other humans who found a middle ground where they are comfortable. No one knows where that middle ground measured against the extremes for Michael except for those he shared that with privately.

Completely completely agree, no one knows for sure except Michael himself and whoever he shared these details with.

I believe what makes Michael “too human” as you say is subjective. The romantic tale the authors told make Michael human to you as you term it “dating” and therefore, acceptable. I would say that is your conclusion based on their version of events as the definition of “dating” is subjective for many adults; believe it or not.

I get that, and you're right. But I base my gauging the stories of Michael's lady-friends against my own understanding of dating among adults in the US on what's most commonly practiced, not just on my personal definition. That doesn't mean that it's "right" or "wrong" as everyone has a specific criteria of what "dating" means to them personally, just what is often seen and what is generally commonplace. The dynamic described and alluded to by the authors is not an alien one in regards to average adult romantic interaction in the U.S. So my confusion comes from the idea that Michael couldn't possibly be included into this dynamic. Could he have an alternate dating protocol totally outside of this? Of course, and I don't pretend to know what it is. And there would be nothing wrong with that. But in the event that his own practices are of the average and the bodyguards didn't just make all this stuff up, I don't see what is so far fetched or terrible about that possibility.

A majority of others participate in the exact same dynamic with virtually no ridicule, famous or otherwise. Michael has complained about these sorts of things with his own mouth, that there's a double standard of things that are ok for everyone else to take part in, but when he does it he's harshly judged. I'm having trouble understanding why something that is so commonly seen, is suddenly labeled as foreign and unacceptable when Michael's name is attached to it. I'm not saying what's fact or what's false, cuz I obviously don't know. But whether you personally agree with that "dating" dynamic or not, it's not a bizarre thing to see within context, you know?

None of this ever "made Michael human" to me as he always was in my eyes lol, as is so with many fans. I suppose a better word would've been "relatable" instead of "human" . And again, it's not a matter of what is "acceptable" to me or not, as the status quo is the status quo. That would exist whether I agreed with it or not. Though I'm pretty sure I'd still be accepting of his dating practices if they did differ from what was said. ::shrugs::

I cannot speak for others. I believe Michael kept his private life private so that he did not have to incur judgment for his personal choices. These authors feel differently about Michael’s choice for privacy and are purposely not clear on what is fact and what is fiction. The authors prefer to leave that choice to the purchaser and each purchaser can choose for themselves if those tales are fact (read: acceptable to their ideal of Michael) or fiction (read: not acceptable to their ideal of Michael).

I'm not understanding what you mean by "purposely not clear on what is fact or what is fiction". What is clearer than first-hand accounts (obviously excluding Michael telling the story himself)? I was under the impression that they were writing this book with the idea of presenting past events, or facts, to the reader? Now if fans believe that the bodyguards made everything up and the book is one big fat lie, that's another story. You can choose to believe that they are truthful or not. But I don't think that it's a matter of interpretation. Fans either believe the stories are being shared truthfully, or they don't. Where do you feel that it's vague for you? I'm not trying to be argumentative lol, I'm just curious...

 

[GreenEyes]

I think many fans are turning a "1+1=2" sort of situation into rocket science lol. Michael was a single father, is it THAT unimaginable that he was lonely for companionship and started dating around a little? Is he not allowed to? Maybe he met with them in a hotel room for privacy for some adult time away from his kids. Maybe he didn't want his children interrupting them while they were getting to know each other. Maybe they were making out or even (gaaaasp) HAVING SEX and he didn't want to risk his kids having a nightmare, walking in looking for their father to comfort them only to walk in on their dad sharing an intimate moment with a woman he's dating. All of these things happen and are considered when dating, especially in the case of single parents.

Why is the idea of Michael dating such a horror for so many fans lol??? Why is the idea of Michael dating such a threat to him being a gentleman or a decent person? Honestly, what is so unbelievable about any of it? Unless you happen to view Michael as either a eunuch or a child, I just can't wrap my head around the uproar. It sort of gets under my skin how some fans totally forbid Michael from the possibility of engaging in romantic, possibly sexually active relationships with women. Dating a few women makes him a "manslut" and shatters the ideal of him being a good man? That simply does not compute. He was human, he was a straight man that always lamented on his loneliness. But he apparently does what is typically acceptable for a single man that's dating to do (I imagine respectfully so), and this just won't fly with some fans. He wasn't spotted acting crazy in a strip club or picking up ladies of the night lol. THAT kind of stuff is understandably subject to a side-eye. But just dating??? Other than it simply being a juicy fun fact about his private hours, I just can't grasp why some fans are getting so bent out of shape about it. Seems like his fans, the very ones that love him so intensely, still refuse to let Michael live a life of his own...

Good post. I've seen some fans say the bodyguards are lying and just saying this to smooth over the child molestation accusations. Are they serious???:angry: It's like they are trying way too hard to make sure that Michael could have never possibly wanted a girlfriend. Why?? What is the problem there?

 

[AliCat]

The story of Michael and Madonna, when they attended the Academy Awards together, back in the early '90's, was of one where Madonna taunted Michael with her sexual fantasies. Michael Jackson rejected these advances.

To me this sounds like a man who takes love a little more seriously, not just a roll in the hay. The fact that Michael was dating two women at the same time just leaves a distaste in my mouth. It's like his value system went out the window, which I admired him for. I really thought Michael had a lot of self-control and inner strength, now I'm second guessing myself. Maybe not.

I have not read that Paris Jackson met one of Michael's girlfriend's, nor spent Christmas of 2008 with her. I'm surprised that the media didn't pick up on that story and find out who the woman was, because the media likes to do that sort of thing when it comes to Michael Jackson.

I've always looked at lust or infatuation as something fast and furious, that a person was so unhappy that they would sale them self short. Did Michael really fall into that category. Was his life so miserable with his mounting debt that he sold himself short.

With all his talk about love and sharing and making the world a better place, I thought he had the right idea. I loved this whole ideology coming from a celebrity.

So now the bodyguard's are coming out with a brand new book and it seems that Micheal sneaking around in hotel rooms with different women, like shopping, is the blazing headlines to sell this particular story. Bummer!

 

[turthlili]

as a grown man, MJ didn't owe our fans an excuse about his personal life.
and no matter he had two or more grilfriends, i just hope he was happy at that time.
well, as a fan of him, i couldn't say, i really don't care. but he passed, what could i say more??

as my opinion, i am also questioning these bodyguard, their job is keeping secret.
what the book saying now, does that against the contract they signed??

i don't like the 'big mouth' bodyguards~~~

 

[GreenEyes]

The story of Michael and Madonna, when they attended the Academy Awards together, back in the early '90's, was of one where Madonna taunted Michael with her sexual fantasies. Michael Jackson rejected these advances.

To me this sounds like a man who takes love a little more seriously, not just a roll in the hay. The fact that Michael was dating two women at the same time just leaves a distaste in my mouth. It's like his value system went out the window, which I admired him for. I really thought Michael had a lot of self-control and inner strength, now I'm second guessing myself. Maybe not.

I have not read that Paris Jackson met one of Michael's girlfriend's, nor spent Christmas of 2008 with her. I'm surprised that the media didn't pick up on that story and find out who the woman was, because the media likes to do that sort of thing when it comes to Michael Jackson.

I've always looked at lust or infatuation as something fast and furious, that a person was so unhappy that they would sale them self short. Did Michael really fall into that category. Was his life so miserable with his mounting debt that he sold himself short.

With all his talk about love and sharing and making the world a better place, I thought he had the right idea. I loved this whole ideology coming from a celebrity.

So now the bodyguard's are coming out with a brand new book and it seems that Micheal sneaking around in hotel rooms with different women, like shopping, is the blazing headlines to sell this particular story. Bummer!

I really don't understand what Madonna has to do with this, but anyway...

So what if he was seeing two different people around the same time period? That doesn't make him a jerk or cheater or anything else someone should to imply. He wasn't engaged to them (as far as we know), so he was free to do as he choose and we shouldn't judge.

Besides, why the puritanical view of him? He wasn't above doing this while he was legally married to someone else (while she was pregnant with his child). Yes, we all know the story of Debbie... but since his public image is being questioned, we have to remember this doozy in the press (which he didn't seem to mind).

But, we are all free to see this as you may.

To me, there is nothing wrong that he could have been seeing two different people at the same time. Good for him. :clapping:

 

[marebear]

For me, it doesn't matter what hotel he stayed at or who he was seeing. That was his business. I think after all the trials over the last few years that Michael has no privacy left. This is just for me but I don't know if I need or want to know certain details of his life. I already see him as a human being and I want others to see that too. I just have mixed feelings how much should be said and what. This is just where I am coming from.

 

[PurdyYungThang84]

The story of Michael and Madonna, when they attended the Academy Awards together, back in the early '90's, was of one where Madonna taunted Michael with her sexual fantasies. Michael Jackson rejected these advances.

To me this sounds like a man who takes love a little more seriously, not just a roll in the hay. The fact that Michael was dating two women at the same time just leaves a distaste in my mouth. It's like his value system went out the window, which I admired him for. I really thought Michael had a lot of self-control and inner strength, now I'm second guessing myself. Maybe not.

You gotta remember too at that time, Michael hadn't really ever seriously been involved with anyone when he went around with Madonna. As is with most people, the concept of something we've never personally experienced is more idealistic. After experiencing it, sometimes views are shifted, amended, included and discarded. Maybe this was the case? Some twenty years later, two divorces and three kids later, it's possible that he'd not necessarily relaxed his morals, but relaxed his approach? I'm not claiming to know, I'm just throwing ideas around.

I thought it'd be worth mentioning too, if he was dating two women (ie in the "getting to know you" phase with them) simultaneously, THAT doesn't bother me. But if he had two girlfriends, like relationships in which a commitment was established but neither of the girls knew of one another.... I WOULD NOT be okay with that lol. That's just deceitful, and I'd be really disappointed in him. I'm fairly liberal, but I'm not entirely a hethen lol. I don't expect anyone to adopt my views btw, I was just voicing them.

With all his talk about love and sharing and making the world a better place, I thought he had the right idea. I loved this whole ideology coming from a celebrity.

As long as he was respectful to the ladies involved, and they were okay with everything that went on, why would the qualities that you mentioned be any less anchored in his heart? :heart:

 

[Tygger]

PurdyYungThang84, I appreciate your response. I do not mean to be rude; I do not understand why you qualify your positions with support from the “general public,” “commonplace,” “commonly practiced,” “status quo,” etc. as if that makes it more acceptable. I know Las Vegas, U.S. is one of several cities in the U.S. but, you minimize their legal practices by stating they are the minority. Be that as it may for you, it is where Michael lived and he may very well have partaken in those legal practices you previously said should be “side-eye.”

Michael was human and his passing proved that without shadow of doubt. He succeeded because he was not any of those general terms. Could that have extended to other areas of his life? Indeed! Please note another author has a book pending about how Michael was a pioneer in business resulting in his success.

Again, I am not here to judge your view of a tale or any other. I am simply saying you are comfortable with this particular tale of these authors because it may conform to your view of Michael and others are not because it does not conform to their view. Provided the tale these authors state is true, some do find a man “dating” as you say two women at once acceptable while some find that to be a cad. Some will say the two women were fortunate and some would say they were disrespected. Neither is correct nor incorrect. It is the personal view of the individual being expressed which may or may not align with Michael’s views. Instead of accepting that, fans will continue to debate other fans’ personal views under the guise that they are defending Michael when they are truly defending their own views.

I noticed no one came to a different conclusion about those “dates;” i.e., it is always romantic, never professional, never ends in an argument, etc. It is unfortunate the leap many take that if anyone does not believe this particular tale, it means they do not see Michael as heterosexual which is completely false. From Virre’s posts, it is horrific that one of Michael’s children felt the need to defend their father’s heterosexuality to his fans that have absolutely NO right to question his children about anything let alone his sexuality. I find that utterly disgusting.

My issue is not the fans who are debating their own personal views and stating it is Michael's. My issue is with the authors. I do not see this book as a noble defense of their employer. I see them as cowards who are using this as a sort of retribution and attempt at profit. They have gone against the protocol of their profession by discussing their client’s (and his children's) personal life while their lives (and their children's lives) remain private. They know those tales can hurt one's pride yet relay them for their own personal gain. (Think of a time your credit card was rejected and how it made you feel. Now let someone draft a book about it.) They have limited their previously statements as they are now fully aware of the type of tales some fans will support.

 

[GreenEyes]

You gotta remember too at that time, Michael hadn't really ever seriously been involved with anyone when he went around with Madonna. As is with most people, the concept of something we've never personally experienced is more idealistic. After experiencing it, sometimes views are shifted, amended, included and discarded. Maybe this was the case? Some twenty years later, two divorces and three kids later, it's possible that he'd not necessarily relaxed his morals, but relaxed his approach? I'm not claiming to know, I'm just throwing ideas around.

I thought it'd be worth mentioning too, if he was dating two women (ie in the "getting to know you" phase with them) simultaneously, THAT doesn't bother me. But if he had two girlfriends, like relationships in which a commitment was established but neither of the girls knew of one another.... I WOULD NOT be okay with that lol. That's just deceitful, and I'd be really disappointed in him. I'm fairly liberal, but I'm not entirely a hethen lol. I don't expect anyone to adopt my views btw, I was just voicing them.



As long as he was respectful to the ladies involved, and they were okay with everything that went on, why would the qualities that you mentioned be any less anchored in his heart? :heart:

I think what a lot of us are doing... some are just assuming that the relationships with both were a bit more serious, so it's making him seem like a cheater. When in fact he could have been not serious at all with either one of them.

And then others read the info concerning meeting at a hotel - and that could only translate into one thing. But, that may not have been what was going on at all. None of us know.

All I know is that I hope he found some happiness and company - because God knows he complained of being incredibly lonely for most of his life.

 

[PurdyYungThang84]

PurdyYungThang84, I appreciate your response. I do not mean to be rude; I do not understand why you qualify your positions with support from the “general public,” “commonplace,” “commonly practiced,” “status quo,” etc. as if that makes it more acceptable. I know Las Vegas, U.S. is one of several cities in the U.S. but, you minimize their legal practices by stating they are the minority. Be that as it may for you, it is where Michael lived and he may very well have partaken in those legal practices you previously said should be “side-eye.”

No rudeness taken :flowers:. I'd like to point out that you quoted me incorrectly with the bolded portion. My words were that "I can understand" how some may not look favorably on these activities. I've never said that I feel that people should look on those things a certain way. I am able to see things from an alternate perspective other than my own in order to get a wider understanding of something. Once more, the "side-eye" comment is NOT a position that I personally share, I'm not sure of how I can make that much clearer, and I again apologize if I painted a confusing picture. I don't qualify the status quo with MY OWN positions, if anything its the reverse. My positions are influenced by what I've seen happen often throughout my life outside of myself. Although, most of those views I've not adopted absolutely, the society that I've grown up in has had some influence on my views. Because I don't share a position, doesn't mean I'm not capable of understanding how others do hold a certain position. I may not agree, but I can see why they may feel a certain way. Does that make more sense? Because I feel like something is being lost in translation...

I do minimize what happens in Vegas because it is an extreme rarity in the US, I'm not saying "minority" to belittle Vegas (the city holds a special place in my heart), I use that term because of what the numbers say. I think there are maybe two cities in all of the US that have legalized prostitution? That's of no consequence of how I "feel", that's what IS. Two or three cities compared to thousands and thousands, Vegas falls into the minority. To reiterate, as long as Michael was safe, him choosing to partake in those things isn't my business. And if I was to come across such a story (like say the strip club), FOR ME, it wouldn't be entirely off-putting if at all. Surprising, but not off-putting. Either way, Michael living in Vegas has nothing to do with the bodyguards' story of the alleged goings-on with the ladies mentioned.

Again, I am not here to judge your view of a tale or any other. I am simply saying you are comfortable with this particular tale of these authors because it may conform to your view of Michael and others are not because it does not conform to their view. Provided the tale these authors state is true, some do find a man “dating” as you say two women at once acceptable while some find that to be a cad. Some will say the two women were fortunate and some would say they were disrespected. Neither is correct nor incorrect. It is the personal view of the individual being expressed which may or may not align with Michael’s views. Instead of accepting that, fans will continue to debate other fans’ personal views under the guise that they are defending Michael when they are truly defending their own views.

Absolutely, which is why I questioned how some fans arrived at their conclusions and the reasoning behind them. Because they're not my personal views and I wanted to gain understanding. I don't think there any way of "defending" Michael. One either believes the stories are true or they don't. They are either okay with the nature of the stories or they aren't. Nothing to really "defend".

I noticed no one came to a different conclusion about those “dates;” i.e., it is always romantic, never professional, never ends in an argument, etc. It is unfortunate the leap many take that if anyone does not believe this particular tale, it means they do not see Michael as heterosexual which is completely false. From Virre’s posts, it is horrific that one of Michael’s children felt the need to defend their father’s heterosexuality to his fans that have absolutely NO right to question his children about anything let alone his sexuality. I find that utterly disgusting.

I think kissing was mentioned, which implies romance? I don't feel that it's much of a leap when the context clues appear to point in a particular direction. I agree though, his children should NEVER have felt or, in actuality, have been put into such a position. :no:

My issue is not the fans who are debating their own personal views and stating it is Michael's. My issue is with the authors. I do not see this book as a noble defense of their employer. I see them as cowards who are using this as a sort of retribution and attempt at profit. They have gone against the protocol of their profession by discussing their client’s (and his children's) personal life while their lives (and their children's lives) remain private. They know those tales can hurt one's pride yet relay them for their own personal gain. (Think of a time your credit card was rejected and how it made you feel. Now let someone draft a book about it.) They have limited their previously statements as they are now fully aware of the type of tales some fans will support.

Definitely agree on this one, even if the bodyguards intended this book to come from a heartfelt place, the violation of Michael's confidence and privacy does leave a sour taste in my mouth.

Is it possible that you're maybe confusing me stating an issue, with it being my personal opinion? I don't know, but if that is the case, then that is an incorrect conclusion lol. For sake of not wanting to railroad the thread, my inbox is open if this is a discussion that you'd like to continue (I imagine not lol, but I figured I'd extend the invitation .) I'm not upset or being sarcastic, I extend that invite sincerely.

I am however, not really sure of how to clarify any further, if you have chosen to believe that I mean other than what I've described an explained, you reserve that right. But if that is the case, I can't continue if you've already decided on what I "really mean" despite my explicit explanations. Respectfully, I'll leave you to it. ::shrugs::

 

[Tygger]

PurdyYungThang84, again I appreciate your response. I do not believe we are having any translation issues. I am not debating anyone's personal views regarding Michael and heterosexuality either as it is not my interest and the debate never ends. laughs

He wasn't spotted acting crazy in a strip club or picking up ladies of the night lol. THAT kind of stuff is understandably subject to a side-eye.

This is your post that I responded to. I asked why it would not be an acceptable response to loneliness and you responded that it was not the general public’s view. I understand Las Vegas, U.S. is one of many cities however; it is the city Michael lived in and was to make a permanent home. It is also the city where the general public most likely voted to legalize the activities you stated should be “subject to side-eye.” He may very well have partaken in those legal activities and that should not earn any “side-eye” from any fan. He gave fans his art and that was enough. Some fans demanded more from Michael when he was alive. As he is not, the bodyguards have come in to fulfill the need of those fans while profiting. The authors never said this to be Michael's truth; it is their version of events and readers can take that version as fact or fiction.

I think kissing was mentioned, which implies romance? I don't feel that it's much of a leap when the context clues appear to point in a particular direction.

If you believe the kissing tale, it was previously discussed on GMA as occurring in a limousine not a hotel. I have no clue what the “context clues” are as the authors wisely gave only enough of a tale so that readers could draw their own conclusions. This means it could have been romantic however, it could have also been professional, and could have very well ended in an argument, etc. Whatever the reader wishes so long as the book is purchased.

 

[AliCat]

Karen Faye talked about Michael and his view's on birthday's, up to the day he died, he continued to hold those view's, which is, he personally accepted the Biblical viewpoint, which involved two king's who did celebrate their's and at each individual birthday celebration, an individual died.

At King Herod's, it was John the Baptist. I really thought Michael was that strict to his own moral viewpoint, in which he read the Bible every day.

This is the approach I am coming from. Michael sang about groupies, how females will sleep with a celebrity for the celebrities lifestyle. This turned Michael off. Michael even spoke to Martin Bashir about the subject of sex and seemed sensitive towards the subject. That's why I question the motives of the bodyguard's including in their book about Michael being involved with two females, at the same time, because, what he was lonely?!

In the movie, "This Is It," Michael is an innocent. That's why I can't comprehend the story the way the bodyguard's present it. I still am wondering if it isn't Rushka Bergman and the lady from Atlanta, both coming in to do Michael's hair, makeup and clothing. Both are mentioned in the credits of "This Is It." Which there was no romantic involvement with either one. But, the bodyguard's are spinning this into some kind of tall tale. So I shrug my shoulder's and just try to understand that this seems to run along some kind of vein in selling a book about Michael Jackson. That there has to be something to make someone want to run out and spend $25 to read some words on paper about a famous celebrity.


Lynda Parrish

 

[Ashtanga]

It's unbelievable to see that fans are spending neurons to try to find out who these two women , dissect details of the private life of Michael,what is true or what is a lie and bla bla bla.... This is serious? :wtf:

I know the book does not have a whole chapter talking about these two women and they talk briefly about them. But I keep wondering why the hell they give nicknames for these women and make a brief physical description of them if they say they would not identify them? WTF? :wtf: Makes no sense to me since they say they are preserving the privacy of Michael and bla bla bla. It would be correct to not talk about them in the book! LOL :doh: The private life of Michael is not their business and many less fans! :nono: Oh, I know, talking about women is essential when it comes to MJ. This is to show that man liked women and was not gay :smilerolleyes: ..... it is sooooooooo old and boring. Cheesy! uke:

I'm not against a person writing a memoir talking about your life with Michael , as he was day-to-day, as a parent, as a boss, as a friend, as an artist and all that stuff.... But to talk about the privacies of Michael? Why talk about finances/women since it was not the business of those guys? They were there to look after the safety of Michael and his children. And not to be watching what happens and what does happen in the private life of the boss or simply to listen to the boss's conversations with other people .... Sounds to me like a bunch of gossipy watching the boss's private life as a spectacle of entertainment. :bugeyed uke:

Oh, I know the book had to have something to awaken people's interest and that made people buy the book. But WHY do that if we know and saw how Michael's life was dissected over the years since he was a child star? WHY? :blink:

That's fair to a man who always fought fiercely over the years to keep his private life away from the spotlight? If Michael wanted the whole world to know what happened or did not happen in his private life he would have written his autobiography. He himself would tell everything to the world. Yes, we have the book "Moonwalk", but for me it is sooooooooo superficial, just brief reports of a few facts that Michael shares in the book, ie, he shared what he thought people should know. Nothing more. He did not deepen why that was enough for people to know. -_-

I know these guys are strapped for money and so the idea of ??the book. Ironically after Michael died many had the same idea of writing a book about Michael. :girl_whistle: :smilerolleyes: BUT I would love to know what they will do with the money from the sales of this book........ Anyone have any guesses? :fear:

I just feel sad to see fans spending neurons with such books as the Frank Cascio, these bodyguards and so many others out there.... I have not seen this happen with the book of Joe Vogel, a heated discussion and excitement in dissecting every detail of art of Michael as is happening here with this book these guys.... disappointing. But it's fun to watch the discussion and see the eagerness of the majority of fans want to know more about the private life of Michael.... :fear: :sigh:

*big sigh*

 

[Tygger]

AliCat, these are the authors' version of events. There is a profitable reason for them to portray him in such a manner. Please do not let them or anyone change or confuse what Michael means to and for you.

Ashtanga, perfect post!

 

[serendipity]

See that's why I dislike books/stories like this. People start leaping to all kinds of conclusions about a story that:

1. We know nothing about and likely never will
2. Those telling the story may not know the real situation either
3. The story may not even be real at all! lol

 

[Gold Pants Girl]

These bodyguards aren't the first people to say these things about more than 1 woman or hotels.

 

[Petrarose]

I think many fans are turning a "1+1=2" sort of situation into rocket science lol. Michael was a single father, is it THAT unimaginable that he was lonely for companionship and started dating around a little? Is he not allowed to? Maybe he met with them in a hotel room for privacy for some adult time away from his kids. Maybe he didn't want his children interrupting them while they were getting to know each other. Maybe they were making out or even (gaaaasp) HAVING SEX and he didn't want to risk his kids having a nightmare, walking in looking for their father to comfort them only to walk in on their dad sharing an intimate moment with a woman he's dating. All of these things happen and are considered when dating, especially in the case of single parents.

Why is the idea of Michael dating such a horror for so many fans lol??? Why is the idea of Michael dating such a threat to him being a gentleman or a decent person? Honestly, what is so unbelievable about any of it? Unless you happen to view Michael as either a eunuch or a child, I just can't wrap my head around the uproar. It sort of gets under my skin how some fans totally forbid Michael from the possibility of engaging in romantic, possibly sexually active relationships with women. Dating a few women makes him a "manslut" and shatters the ideal of him being a good man? That simply does not compute. He was human, he was a straight man that always lamented on his loneliness. But he apparently does what is typically acceptable for a single man that's dating to do (I imagine respectfully so), and this just won't fly with some fans. He wasn't spotted acting crazy in a strip club or picking up ladies of the night lol. THAT kind of stuff is understandably subject to a side-eye. But just dating??? Other than it simply being a juicy fun fact about his private hours, I just can't grasp why some fans are getting so bent out of shape about it. Seems like his fans, the very ones that love him so intensely, still refuse to let Michael live a life of his own...

Thanks so much for this post. I was wondering what is the big deal about the hotel and visiting the women. Some people don't like bringing a love interest into their home to stay when they have young children, if they are not thinking about marriage at the moment so that they do not get their kids thinking the person could be a new mom/dad. Maybe Michael was like that. Usually people like that would visit the woman in the woman's home, but the person was visiting so a hotel seemed a good idea. There is nothing odd or shocking about this behavior.

 

[LadyinHisLife80]

If Michael was picking up women from clubs, so what? He was a grown man, that's his life.
Whether it was a lover or just one night stands, to me it's all right.

 

[LadyinHisLife80]

If Michael was picking up women from clubs, so what? He was a grown man, that's his life.
Whether it was a lover or just one night stands, to me it's all right. As long as he was happy.

 

[AliCat]

Okay, so I see the rationalization behind Paris Jackson's deposition concerning Nanny Grace.

You see, during the Hampton Inn rendezvous, it was all over the slander sheet's whether via by Roger Friedman or other media outlet's just picking up on the story, but, Nanny Grace was graciously running Michael Jackson's Empire, because he was so strung out on drug's she had to. If you wanted to see Michael Jackson, during this time period, you had to appease Nanny Grace.

Yet, Paris gives us the truth about Nanny Grace's role in Michael's life, a crazed lunatic.

It seems Nanny Grace was so thwarted by the mysterious women meeting Michael at the Hampton Inn's, she rationalized calling in at a hotel under the guise of Mrs. Michael Jackson. Yep even that rumor was on the slander sheet's during this same time period. That Nanny Grace and Michael Jackson had married.

But, Nanny Grace rationalized jumping into bed with Michael, because Michael didn't mind having mysterious women rendezvousing at the local Hampton Inn's, all the while Nanny Grace sat babysitting during such tryst's.

Poor Nanny Grace, she has yet been exposed as to her actions!

 

[Virre]

deleted post

 

[PurdyYungThang84]

I now noticed fans (not all) see Michael as someone who pursued luxury prostitution :doh: and they think it's cool etc. Fans are okay with that but not with him smoking at times..

And still it's not a problem with Michael having women in his life. It's just that this time it contradict what Paris has told fans. Or this with the hotel happened in 2007 and then he got the woman to meet his children and become someone in the family that stayed with them from time to time. I wonder if they say that too in their book?

Yeah, no kidding about the smoking bit lol. :smilerolleyes:

I have my own personal, more political feelings about prostitution lol. It's a touchy thing for some so I'll spare you all as to not get off topic lol. I know that I brought it up in an example a few pages back, but I just wanted to remind everyone that it was completely in the hypothetical example. I'm not saying that it IS what he did, or wanted to do etc. Or that I encourage it so to speak lol. But in the imaginary event that that had taken place, I'd be more disappointed that Michael had come to feel that he needed to pay for "company", than I would be disgusted with him about it (granted that he was safe). I'm almost certain that there were women already in his life that he could've spent time with, that he felt safe with, to where he didn't need to employ strangers. As many have already said, he was a grown man. Long as he wasn't being deceitful, hurting himself or anyone else, I'd have no reason to be upset about any of his choices. Although I know that those feelings re: his actions will vary from person to person...

I dunno, it seems that when it comes to Michael, no one can ever get their stories or timelines straight lol. :doh:

 

[AliCat]

Mark Lester says Michael was too shy around women. Lester: 'Jackson Found Sex Difficult' "We had conversations on the telephone and Michael was very shy when it came to women and he confided in me that he found it very difficult to actually do the sexual act.
Read more: Lester: 'Jackson Found Sex Difficult' http://www.contactmusic.com/news/lester-jackson-found-sex-difficult_1113596?track=cp

So...who should I believe? Michael Jackson's long time friend or the short term employed bodyguard's?

 

[Soundmind]

Believe Lester dear. I believe he was trustful on the sperm donation too. It's absurd to believe MJ could have been able to have sex with a woman. He could not as Lester revealed. Lester is a credible man, he donated his sperm to father Paris three years after she was born.How can anyone question his credibility ?.