Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Do

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 49
@ Shy

Hi Shy! Thank you for your understanding! I'll PM you!

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not wrong for having different opinions on this matter.

Thank you iamhere. I have always loved MJ, I stated this many times. I can't help it that I have serious doubts, to me there are just too many things that point in a certain direction. I used to believe in a conspiracy, now I'm not that certain anymore.

There have been times over the years where I have wondered if maybe, just maybe there was some truth to any of it but I always came back believing that none of it was true.

Not because it was Michael Jackson, but because I never saw any proof. Hearsay means nothing to me. In all the years there are no pics? Even the pics and mags that were found in the raid weren't classified as pornographic, even by Mr. Evil himself (Tom Sneddon).

Sadly, I think there were pics and mags that were classified as such (seized evidence of erotic materials, request to admit those to court):

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

A nude pic believed to be Jonathan Spence and many (sometimes exremely graphic)pornography, hetero- and homosexual. Ofcourse that doesn't mean that MJ was a molester, but it certainly WAS pornographic. But then again, if it's for own use, what's the problem.

Plaintiff's (The People of the State of California) motion for reconsideration of the defendant's (MJ) motion for an order excluding 14 items of irrelevant evidence:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

If Michael was a predator (because that is what he would be in this), there would be something, somewhere that would come to the surface and it would stop me stop in my tracks and make me die inside.

I realize that at times victims do take awhile to come forward, but in James and Wade's case why not do it while Michael was still alive? Why wait 4 years after his passing when the man can't defend himself? I don't believe the suppressed story coming from Wade and James looks like a tag-a-long.

I think that having their own children was the biggest trigger. And the fact that Michael also did a lot for them and that they admired him and loved him, kept them quiet. I don't know how the mind works when you were part of an extremely, extraordinary, privilaged and maby manipulative situation back then.

Even though I believe Michael is not guilty 100% that doesn't mean I won't look at this at a different angle if there is something to look at. If these last lawsuits are telling us something, it is up to us to find out what they really mean - even if the outcome isn't what we wanted.

That's all we can do right now, wait and see. Again, thank you for having patience with me!.

After all, isn't this hoax about finding the truth?

Love you Michael!

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The link I posted, along with the there posted link to the investigative article by Mary S. Fisher are about facts.

Your link to the Jimmy Safechuck story is indeed from a hater-site. Funny you use it as your source. It brings many 'happenings' as fact when they are not. You quote from stories about Blanca Francia, Diane Diamond and so on. That tells me a lot.

My first post was a response to a post of Michaelslady, which stated that James volentarily came forward to defend Michael in 2005. That wasn't a fact, because why didn't he defend Michael in court then? Apparently he didn't want to defend Michael at all. And did you know TM stated during Kiki Fournier's cross-examination at Michael's trial (on March 17, 2005) that James was wedded at Jackson’s Neverland Ranch? Which also wasn't a 'fact' because James wasn't married there. Nice lie of TM. But it did make seem that Michael was still in contact with James, which apparently he was not. Besides that, I often felt that Michael himself was not always telling the truth.

Mjfacts is called a hater-site by Michael Jackson fans who believe he is innocent. It is not called a hater-site by me,  it doesn't 'only' quote  doubtful sources like many seem to think. They have many 'facts' over there, which make me doubt.

You say you are after the truth, but at the same time you have clearly already formed an opinion. That doesn't match. So I question your intentions. And you can try to lure me into lengthy debates on the whole case, but I won't bite.

My search for the truth didn't start yesterday. So yes, I am clearly forming an opinion. It isn't an absolute opinion, but I have doubts certainly. And believe me, the last thing I want is a lenghty debate with someone who doesn't want to hear anything about it.

Gelukkig heb ik wel een leuk contact met een anderen hier op de site, die net als jij geloven in Michael's onschuld, maar we kunnen wel samen op een constructieve en positieve manier over dit soort zaken discussiëren. Jammer dat je zo vijandig bent.

Succes met haat zaaien.

I also wonder how, when you are fully convinced Michael is innocent, I'm casting DOUBT with my post?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Do, I wonder what your motivations are to cast doubt on Michael being innocent of child molestation. You talk about things you believe, or can't imagine. And you are making false assumptions to make a point. Maybe before you throw Michael under the bus with wrong information, you should take the trouble of reading the truth, instead of spreading lies.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are only looking at one side of the story, that's why you only talk about things YOU believe or can't imagine. Yes, I read the link you put in your post which RK posted before. And I agree that Michael was found guilty by them based on their 'assumptions'. Do you think it's easy for me to even think Michael could have done these things?

I don't make false assumptions, if there are, they have been brought into the world by his 'false' accusers or even his own family. Have you even read the link I posted? Or are you afraid that the truth might be different then we want to believe? Michaelslady put it best when she said something like: if it looks like fish, taste like fish and smells like fish, then it is fish. That works both ways don't you think? After the Chandler story, everbody was asking: where are the other victims? Now they are coming forward, people immediately call them liars. Is that fair? You, me and anybody else can't know the truth, except for the people involved. So, IF they are telling the truth now, Michael should be thankful to them for not speaking up earlier, because otherwise he would be in jail right now, and broke.

I'm sorry for being this blunt to you, but I get itchy when people do not wish to investigate both sides, or automatically assume none of this happened because Michael was found not guilty in 2005. Like I stated before in another post, do you believe O.J. Simpson was not guilty? I just ask people to have an open mind. If I'm wrong, I will be the happiest woman in the world ofcourse.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Words/actions can be twisted to fit the intent and the intent has always been to bring Michael down.

Unfortunately I'm starting to see this in a different light. Why would anyone want to bring Michael down if he was such a kind person? I just don't get it. He wasn't the only one with money, why only get HIM down? Where were his friends when he needed them? Now I'm starting to believe that they suspected there was a dark side on Michael and that that was the reason they didn't support him. Even Paul Anka wrote about that side in his book.
What we still want to believe is this: everybody is a liar, except for Michael.

There has never been any evidence of any kind to prove any wrong doing that the FBI or child services could find - EVER; if there had been Michael would have been put away.

There was evidence, but it a) never went to a trial back in 1993, because right after taking the pictures, Michael settled with the Chandlers b) evidence was hidden or taken away by his staff. There was plenty of evidence, but because of court laws (which I have zero knowledge about, but read about on several accounts), much evidence was barred of being used (to put it simple).

And how odd that James told his mom that Michael was 'a bad man' and that abuse had occurred, but she did nothing?? And I can't recall hearing how Wades and James personality, mood or emotions changed while all of this abuse was going on. There would have been something to give the parents an inkling something was going on.

I agree with you on that. But maybe, like the article stated and many of us still want to believe: Michael Jackson could do no wrong. Even parents were blinded by the gifts, vacations and privileges they had when they were with Michael. Maybe they were very scared to admit to themselves that they made a mistake in judgement and that their children became victims because of that lack of judgement. Remember, not only Michael would've been guilty, the parent of the children as well!

I don't believe Safechuck or Wade - I do believe there is something with all of this but it isn't about Michael. Could it be part of the double theory?

That crossed my mind a year ago. But I can't seem to make it fit in any scenario.

Now, we have all heard about nobody being allowed in Michael's bedroom at Neverland; ring a bell? Nobody was allowed upstairs at Carolwood. Is that a coincidence? I don't think so.

Not sure what you mean by this. By many accounts, many were allowed unlimited access in Michael's room, but not ALL the time.

After Wade's interview with Matt Lauer, there was a body reader who watched the interview and he said the body movements didn't match to what Wade was saying and the words that Wade was saying wasn't matching to the accusations. He said it was like the victim was feeling sympathy for the

Like I stated many times, maybe that's why they kept quiet for so long or didn't fully understand what had happened to them. Because of the SYMPATHY they felt (and maybe still feel) for Michael. When you have read the link of the Safechuck story, you know how much love James felt for Michael, before he was being pushed out. And if James was only after the money and had hated Michael, he would have testified in 2005. But he wanted to go on back then, maybe still feeling really confused.

As I'm sure you all know during This Is It there are mini movies included, Suddenly Last Summer was one of them. Suddenly Last Summer is about a man who molested young boys and in the end those young boys devoured him.

As I said in the beginning, words/actions can be twisted to fit the intent.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I have been lucky enough to visit Neverland and I wish I could describe the feelings one has while there but I don't think there are any words.

I'm sure it wasn't all bad things what happened there, ofcourse not. Michael did so much good. But that doesn't mean he wasn't capable of doing less good things. Like he said: everybody has deep dark secrets.

Your heart tells you what you need to know.

My heart tells me different things right now :icon_e_sad:

Love you Michael!

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Sorry I don't buy any of the allegations. Not saying im blind, but no I just don't see it. First of all, this so called "Safechuck" VOLUNTARILY came forward and defended MJ publically. Nobody forced or asked him to come forward in 2005. Why make it a point to think so highly of a person that you have to come forward and say how good of a man Mike was? Nobody asked him anything. So why volunteer a lie? Why change it now? If he stayed silent all these years because of MJ being a superstar, why didn't he just keep quiet in 2005? Nobody asked his opinion. What was his motive for defending him then? But why say something now? Why not say it in 2009,2010,2011,2012,2013?

I think hes a liar. Him and Robson both. I have my own opinions of what I think is REALLY going on. But I will keep it to myself.

According to this article, James never came forward in 2005, nor did he volunteer to defend Michael in 2005.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Before anyone dismiss it as a 'hatersite', I recommend you to read it before forming an opinion. Don't want to say everything on it will be the absolute truth, but I just want to learn the truth, so I'm looking at it from both sides,  whether it's in favor of Michael or not.

Part of the article:

Farcically and with zero self-awareness, Jackson called 25-year-old James a total of three times throughout the trial in an attempt to get James on the stand to “deny everything that the cooks at Neverland samid that they saw happen between Decedent and him,” his Petition says. The bid failed spectacularly.

On the first call, Jackson tried to soften James with chat about wanting to assist him with music, directing, and film; when James was a teen, Jackson had promised that “one day, we’re going to make movies together.” Jackson then made the request for James to testify in his defense; James declined.

Jackson became enraged, the Complaint says, and threatened his former ‘special friend’. James told Jackson “never to call him again, and that he wanted a normal life.” Jackson grew angrier at this, James remembers, and escalated his threats — he told James he’d “get [him] for perjury” for statements James had made under oath as a fifteen-year-old at his November 1993 deposition. Jackson was evidently fearful James would decide to tell the full version of their story for the Prosecution in lieu of cooperating in his defense, and attempted to intimidate him with invectives about jailing the boy he once ‘loved’. When the call concluded, James began to panic, his court filings say. He dreaded what his mother could learn about the aspect of he and Jackson’s relationship the star had made him keep secret.

According to several workers at the Ranch, Jackson used the Neverland theater bedrooms with boys. Blanca Francia recalls Jimmy Safechuck.
It was an understandable fear for a young heterosexual man. Though Mark Quindoy died before getting to testify about what he’d seen on August 12, 1989, when Jackson caressed and fondled eleven-year-old Jimmy in the Neverland hot tub, chambermaid Blanca Francia was very much alive. She’d worked for Jackson long enough to see his boys from Spence through Culkin before quitting in 1991. She claimed to have seen Jackson and Jimmy in one of the ‘cancer-kids’ bedrooms in the Neverland theater, both shirtless with their waists and legs covered in a blanket.

James told his mother about the telephone call with Jackson, saying he would not testify for the star because Jackson was a “bad man” — a vague descriptor that no doubt confused his mother, who, like other members of the Safechuck family, believed Jackson “could do no wrong.” In explaining his sudden and surprising rejection of Jackson to his mother but still sparing her from the grimy details, James “was unable to tell her any details or say anything but the briefest statement that he had been abused.”

Jackson later called Mrs. Safechuck himself. He asked the mother not only to convince James to change his mind about testifying but also if she and her husband would give under-oath testimony in his defense. Mrs. Safechuck kept her son’s secret, and apparently neither of the parents took Jackson up on his request.

Jackson’s lawyers and longtime assistant Evvy Tavasci made the second call to James, but he rebuffed their pleas by stating he wanted nothing more to do with Jackson.

The final call from Jackson, James remembers, seemed “rehearsed”, with Jackson’s tone reminding James of all of the listening devices attached to phones at Neverland Ranch. It occurred near the end of the trial, perhaps at a moment when — in spite of his attorney Tom Mesereau’s confidence the Prosecution’s case was full of holes — Jackson feared for his freedom, a tacit acknowledgment that years of bad behavior may have finally caught up with the allegedly ‘smooth criminal’. He needed James. He apologized, James remembers, telling James he was “sorry for not being there for [the Plaintiff].” James suspected the phone call was being recorded and “the very sound of Decedent’s voice made him very uncomfortable and put him into panic mode.”

Jackson pressed, saying Gavin Arvizo — as he’d said about Jordie Chandler over a decade earlier — was only interested in money, but James resisted. He told Jackson “never to try to call or try to talk to him ever again” and hung up.

Please read the full article, it's the whole story about the relation between James and Michael, based on what James confessed what really happened (if true).

AEG ~ Sony / Re: Katherine Jackson versus AEG set for trial 9-10-2012
« on: March 02, 2015, 08:51:59 AM »
I just don't understand. Why, if Michael is still alive, is Katherine heading to Court again for another shot at her megabucks wrongful death claim against concert promoter AEG Live. It is just not making sence to me.

« on: March 01, 2015, 04:05:09 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
My concern goes out to the people who really have been abused , people like Wade , safechuck,do ruin it for people who really had this expiriences.

Yes, very true, that's what I fear as well...

HI @Do, we are not  talking about a little boy here, we speak about a grown man of 20 years old who was a key wittnes in the 2005 trial. Who after that waited for 10 years to discover  that he was also sex. abused by MJ. :icon_eek: he said he always knew, but didnt know it was sex. abuse. but thought it was love , again, 20 years old!

Not in 1.62 Billion years

P.s@ DO it is not my intention to disrespect you or anyone else, i hope i haven't done this in my post.

Hi Shy, don't worry, I don't feel disrespected at all! I'm very glad that we can talk about this without arguing! And I totally understand were you're coming from. It's cristal clear for you, but I'm still strugling with it a bit. I do understand when you (and Michaelslady) are saying that a child don't want to go back to someone who is doing these things. I can't say much more about it, like I said, I'm trying to stay neutral on this.
P.s. Ben je klaar met het klussen in je huis :)

« on: February 28, 2015, 03:22:43 PM »
Hi Michaelslady, I'm so sorry to hear what happenend to you. It must have been really hard, especially because it started when you were such a little girl. I hope you are okay now?
I only wanted to say in my posts that every situation is unique, and therefore it is hard to tell when someone is lying/telling the truth. When victims react in a different way than we expect, that doesn't have to mean he/she is lying. When you are gradually being groomed, then maybe you don't (or less) experience the anguish and disgust you  experience when you are overpowered at an unexpectant time, at an unexpectant manner, in an unexpectant situation, by an unexpectant person.
Again, I hope all is well for you now :bearhug:

« on: February 27, 2015, 04:01:59 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What I also wonder about is why we easily want to accept La Toya's explanation that she lied back then about her allegations because she was manipulated into it by Jack Gordon (and even went back to him after she was beaten up and left him), and that she was telling the truth after that. Why don't we want to accept that an alleged victims could be lying back then and is now telling the truth?
Touché, Do. It does indeed work both ways.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Couldn't it be possible that, among many other reasons, they were manipulated as well (remember, manipulation doesn't always occur in a negative way, it can be done with love as well).
“They” presumably refers to Robson and Safechuck (as discussed in your previous post)—by whom might they have been manipulated? And how might it have been done with love?

And does anyone know the answer to the question that I posed in my previous post?

Hi Starchild, yes, I was referring to Robson and Safechuck but one can also apply this to victims in general.

Please note that I don't like to refer to stories about Robson nor Safechuck since we still don't know if they are credible, but below an example how one can manipulate with love according to Safechuck (since I was talking about him). For objective information, read (parts of) 'Child molesters, a behavioral analysis' (link in one of my previous posts).


Michael Jackson was a master “brainwash” expert who manipulated a young boy into “deviant” sex acts — according to explosive claims filed in his sex abuse case and obtained by

James Safechuck is accusing Michael Jackson of molesting him as a child decades ago. Jackson’s attorneys have tried to block the suit, but Safechuck’s attorneys fired back in a new filing obtained by Radar, and claimed that he should be allowed to sue the late pop star’s estate because he didn’t realize he’d been psychologically damaged until recent therapy.

Jackson’s “manipulation and indoctrination” of Safechuck, who was 10 when he worked with Jackson in a 1987 Pepsi commercial, “rendered him psychologically incapable of understanding the full extent of the harm that Jackson inflicted upon him until he obtained therapy as an adult,” the new court filing contends.

The recent therapy helped Safechuck “‘connect the dots’ between Jackson’s abuse and the deep feelings of panic and anxiety he has experienced since childhood,” the filing claims. “Before entering therapy, Safechuck had always believed that these feelings were ‘just a part of who he is.’”

Safechuck used the same lawyer as Australian choreographer Wade Robson to file a creditor’s claim against Jackson’s estate for alleged damages suffered from child sex abuse.

Jackson estate lawyers argued in a court filing in September that Safechuck started therapy only after he learned about Robson’s claim last year. “Safechuck claims when he learned about Robson’s lawsuit after May 1, 2013, he thought for the first time he might need help. Safechuck started meeting with a psychiatrist on May 20, 2013, and began discussing the alleged abuse during the treatment,” the documents said.

California law allows just one year after someone dies for a claim to be made against their estate. Safechuck waited nearly five years after Jackson’s 2009 overdose from a surgical anesthetic to come forward with his claims.

But Safechuck’s lawyers argue that “the fact that Safechuck was unable to reach this realization until after the deadline for filing a claim had passed, should not be used as the sole basis for denying his petition.”

He claims that he was groomed, and sexually molested by Michael Jackson for five years, beginning when he was 10 years old.

Jackson “left him filled with guilt and shame” and convinced “their relationship was ‘consensual’ and an ‘expression of love,’” the filing contends.

“Jackson’s ‘modus operandi’ was to carefully seduce his victims and their families by exposing them to an exciting and glamorous lifestyle which they found irresistible, and manipulate them into believing that he simply wanted to be ‘friends’ with his target,” the filing says.

“In Safechuck’s case, Jackson ingratiated himself with Safechuck’s family by inviting them to dinner at his home, buying them expensive gifts, and taking them on exotic vacations,” the document says. “Having won Safechuck’s parents’ trust, Jackson began grooming Safechuck for sexual abuse by encouraging him to become a ‘miniature version’ of Jackson, and intensifying the emotional connection between them.”

“Then, once Safechuck had begun to idolize and trust him completely, Jackson initiated Safechuck into his deviant world of childhood sexual abuse by teaching him how to masturbate,” the claim says.

Ultimately, Safechuck was “brainwashed” to believe that the abusive acts were “‘his idea,’ and a normal way for two people to show their love for each other,” the filing contends. “At the same time, Jackson intimidated Safechuck into hiding their relationship from the world, and made Safechuck believe that if the truth ever came out, then their futures ‘would be over.’”

It was those “conflicting messages” that caused “horrible confusion, guilt and shame in Safechuck’s innocent, youthful mind, and this profound emotional harm has continued to plague him into adulthood,” his lawyers write.

Safechuck’s relationship with Jackson was part of the evidence introduced in the 2005 sex molestation trial against the entertainer. A Santa Barbara County, California, jury found Jackson not guilty on all counts

I still don't want to believe it really happenend, but I also don't want to rule out the possibility. When true, I strongly believe that everyone involved is a true victim one way or the other.

« on: February 27, 2015, 01:37:23 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Please correct me if I'm wrong, because truly, IDK. While behavior and body-language analysis of possible victims of sexual abuse provides for interesting discussion, it does not suffice as evidence (i.e., of guilt or innocence, fact or fiction, truth or lies, and so on) regarding the alleged perpetrator in a court of law, or does it?

I have no idea about this one Starchild. I also wonder what about the results of a lie detector examination, is this considered as evidence?

What I also wonder about is why we easily want to accept La Toya's explanation that she lied back then about her allegations because she was manipulated into it by Jack Gordon (and even went back to him after she was beaten up and left him), and that she was telling the truth after that. Why don't we want to accept that an alleged victims could be lying back then and is now telling the truth? Couldn't it be possible that, among many other reasons, they were manipulated as well (remember, manipulation doesn't always occur in a negative way, it can be done with love as well).

« on: February 27, 2015, 08:36:14 AM »
Hey Shy,
Thank you for your post. I truly understand that what Robson and Safechuck claim feels highly suspicious, considering their timing and the fact that they had many opportunities to come forward at a much earlier stage. This makes their stories indeed highly incredible or at least very difficult to examine. My post was merely intended to show that (in general), not all victims of molestation immediately tell someone that they were abused or that they refuse to go back to their molester (which was MFFreedom was wondering about).

However, I still do think that there could be many reasons why a victim doesn't come forward. I'm certainly not a psychologist, but Stockholm syndrome could be one of them You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

In this case, the fact that an alleged molester is of such a magnitude and not to forget, a human being with an exceptional heart and soul, doesn't make it easier (IF such a molestation has taken place) to tell the whole world about it. I CAN easily understand that victims would like to protect the person who might have done such things, but is such a nice, generous, fantastic guy, and not to mention who is helping you with your own career. Also, what about the backlash from such a huge fan base? Such victims saw what happened in 1993 and the fact that the alleged victim had to go underground under an assumed name, definitely looking over his shoulder for many years because of the threats he and his family received.
Major events later in life (marrying, having children) are then the final push to finally break down and come forward. However, the fact that they are doing this in public doesn't feel right, not to mention when they are only doing it for tons of money.

The fact that there was a trial still does not PROVE everything, unfortunately. I'm still not convinced that OJ Simpson was innocent.

What might or might not have taken place, I will never judge Michael or stop loving him. I would still feel very much compassion for him, because I understand that he was/is a product of a very difficult life, with no intentions to harm anybody, but who MIGHT have made a mistake in judgement, born out of his pure love for children.
But I also feel compassion for victims who dare to come forward. So I'm neutral in this one because I nor any of us can know for sure what really happenend, only the persons involved...

« on: February 26, 2015, 03:01:18 PM »
We discused this before. I know I'm not taking a popular stance with this, but this behaviour by victims (victims of sexual molestation in general) is very common, especially when the molester is a nice guy and an aquaintance (and before you jump on me: NOT saying that Michael is a molester!!). Just pointing out that victims do not always run, yell and tell.

From You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis (very much worth to read)

Offender-Victim Bond
Because victims of acquaintance exploitation usually have been carefully seduced and often do not realize or believe they are victims, they repeatedly and voluntarily return to the offender. Society and the criminal-justice system have a difficult time understanding this. If a boy is molested by his neighbor, teacher, or clergy member, why does he “allow” it to continue? Most likely he may not initially realize or believe he is a victim. Some victims are simply willing to trade sex for attention, affection, and gifts and do not believe they are victims. The sex itself might even be enjoyable. The offender may be treating them better than anyone has ever treated them. They may come to realize they are victims when the offender pushes them out. Then they recognize all the attention, affection, and gifts were just part of the master plan to use and exploit them. This may be the final blow for a troubled child who has had a difficult life.
Most of these victims never disclose their victimization. As previously stated younger children may believe they did something “wrong” or “bad” and are afraid of getting into trouble. Older children may be more ashamed and embarrassed. Many victims not only do not disclose, but they strongly deny it happened when confronted. In one case several boys took the stand and testified concerning the high moral character of the accused molester. When the accused molester changed his plea to guilty, he admitted the boys who testified for him were also victims. In another case a 16-year-old victim tried to murder the man who had sexually exploited him but still denied he was sexually victimized. He pled guilty rather than use the abuse as a mitigating circumstance and publicly admit he had engaged in sexual activity with a man. He privately admitted his victimization to a prosecutor, but said he would always publicly deny it.
The most common reasons victims do not disclose are a fear of the stigma of homosexuality; lack of societal understanding; presence of positive feelings for the offender; embarrassment, shame, or fear over their victimization; or do not believe they are victims. Since most of the offenders are male, fear of the stigma of homosexuality is usually a significant issue for victims who are boys. Although being seduced by a male child molester does not necessarily make a boy a homosexual, the victims do not understand this. If a victim does disclose, he risks significant ridicule by his peers and lack of acceptance by his family.

MJ Tributes / Re: my tribute to MJ
« on: February 11, 2015, 03:38:06 AM »
Wow, very impressive! Beautiful!

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 49
SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal