The Danger of Normalising Michael Jackson's Behaviour

May 10, 2020

In considering the allegations surrounding Michael Jackson, there are three indisputable facts that must be acknowledged:

1. MJ spent an excessive amount of time with children, particularly boys aged 10 to 14. His interactions included trips, playdates, and extended stays both at his home and theirs. This type of engagement, while seemingly innocent on the surface, raises significant questions about the nature and appropriateness of such relationships, especially for an adult celebrity.
2. He frequently slept with children without any parental or adult supervision. This behaviour was corroborated in court by several boys who testified on his behalf, including Brett Barnes, Wade Robson and Macaulay Culkin. Jackson consistently provided justifications for why he engaged in these actions, often appealing to a narrative of innocence and childlike spirit. This brings a more profound concern regarding the blurred lines between friendship and inappropriate behaviour; when does affection cross into danger, especially when it involves minors?
3. He showered children with expensive gifts and gave them special treatment, which can easily create a sense of loyalty and obligation among young impressionable minds. Such gestures, though they appear generous, often serve to create a dependency that complicates the ability for children and their guardians to assess the true nature of the relationship.

Defenders of Jackson often cite his tumultuous childhood, arguing that he sought to recapture lost experiences by forming friendships with young children. However, it is vital to ask whether there is any empirical evidence supporting the notion that individuals with truncated childhoods feel compelled to establish such relationships later in life. In short, the answer is no. 

Losing one's childhood is profoundly tragic, but it does not grant an individual the right to form intimate friendships with children or engage in unsupervised activities. Many people around the world experience childhood trauma far worse than Jackson's circumstances, whether due to poverty, conflict, or other severe adversities, and yet they do not resort to questionable behaviour involving minors.

The troubling tendency among Jackson's defenders to rationalize his inappropriate actions ultimately creates a dangerous narrative, suggesting that individuals can act without accountability if they’ve faced adversity. This mindset enables abusers to cloak their behaviours under the guise of personal history and trauma. Merely having a difficult past should never excuse suspicious behaviour; it opens the door to further exploitation and abuse.

Children should never serve as emotional support or therapy for adults grappling with unresolved issues. Psychologists do not endorse relationships in which an adult seeks solace in child interactions; such patterns are unhealthy and concerning. If Jackson had not been a star, it is unlikely that such justifications would earn any credence.

Critically, some fan pages have attempted to discredit parents who expressed concern about Jackson's behaviour toward their children. These pages assert that parental intuition is unfounded, advocating the dangerous idea that vigilance against suspicious adult attention is unwarranted. This logic directly contradicts the findings of studies dedicated to understanding paedophilia and child safety, which argue that any adult exhibiting excessive interest in a child should raise alarms.

Below are some examples:

A discerning question to ask yourself: Who do you share your free time and vacation with? Paedophiles and ephebes are more likely to spend their free time with minors. Healthy adults will spend their free time with other adults. We vacation and recreate with those we feel most comfortable with, we spend our free time with those who are more like us. One of the big red flags for paedophilia is an adult vacationing and spending their free time with other people's children.

Source: A Tragic Grace: The Catholic Church and Child Sexual Abuse.

And:

Adults should be suspicious of someone who prefers the company of children, tends to be childlike in his play, frequently engages children in roughhousing or tickling activities, and somehow immediately becomes a close and trusted friend.

Source: The Socially Skilled Child Molester: Differentiating the Guilty from the Falsely Accused (2014).

And:

Men who mingle with children and seem to be more interested in children than adults should be a “red flag” for aberrant behaviour. Parents should be duly concerned if they detect that their child is spending more time with an adult who seems “too good to be true” than with them.

Source: To Believe a Kid: Understanding the Jerry Sandusky Case and Child Sexual Abuse (2014).

Research underscores that many people fail to recognize grooming behaviours, a significant issue that allows potential abuse to go unchecked. The interactions that transpired between Jackson and the children in his life resemble those that would typically trigger concern in a more alert population.

The interactions between the children and this minister included that he would hug children (“hug”), take certain children to lunch or dinner (“dinner”), sometimes wrestle with the children (“activities”), give some children candy and gifts (“gifts”), and one time at an overnight church retreat he slept in a bed with several young children (with other parents in the room).

Source: papers.ssrn.com

Importantly, Jackson himself contributed to the troubling discourse surrounding these behaviours. In the documentary "Living with Michael", he made several alarming statements:

1. He downplayed the risks associated with his actions, suggesting that the fault lay not with him but with those who perceived his behavior as sinister. This blame-shifting is a classic tactic used by abusers to deflect responsibility for their actions and reinforce the narrative that they are victims of misunderstanding rather than perpetrators of harmful behaviour.
2. He consistently rejected the idea of setting appropriate boundaries, failing to recognize when such limits would have benefited all parties involved. Literature on child safety argues that adults who dismiss concerns about their relationships with children are, in fact, the ones who should be viewed with extreme caution. When boundaries are disregarded, it casts doubt on the adult's motives and ultimately jeopardizes the well-being of the child
3. He normalized the idea of children sharing beds with adults, which is a deeply misguided message. The reality is that the majority of child abuse cases involve trusted individuals, not strangers—further compounding the dangers of such justifications. By encouraging this mindset, Jackson not only endangered the young individuals around him but also set a precedent that could lead to further normalization of inappropriate adult behaviour.

We may never know the full truth about whether Jackson permitted children to sleep with other adults. What we do know is that any attempt to normalize such behaviour undermines the seriousness of adult-child boundaries and children’s safety.

In conclusion, we must ask ourselves: Is it ever acceptable for a stranger to maintain an overly close relationship with a child if a convenient excuse is presented? Would you allow your loved ones to spend unsupervised time with an adult simply because it may evoke sympathy for their past? This question requires careful reflection.

Ultimately, the imperative is clear. The justification of alarming behaviour not only compromises the safety of children but also normalizes risk and negligence—dangerous paths we cannot afford to travel down. Every adult should be held accountable for their actions, and there should be no exceptions based on fame, past experiences, or other personal circumstances. If we fail to recognize that troubling behaviour cannot be justified, we risk perpetuating cycles of abuse that prey on the most vulnerable among us. This reflection must lead to a collective commitment to prioritizing the safety and well-being of children above all else.