|
|
|
Meanwhile, buried on your local newspaper's rear, a national report about teen sexual activity released in March 2005, found that abstinence no longer equates to abstaining from sexual activity. More on that report and how it ties into one Jackson trial myth in the paragraphs ahead.
|
"These people wanted to exploit my concern for children by threatening to destroy what I believe in and what I do...
"I have been a vulnerable target for those who want money," Michael Jackson said. |
Michael Jackson was sued for sexually molesting a boy and settled with the boy and his family out-of-court in 1993 with a cash amount of between $15-$20 million. But that sensational case was after Jackson paid $2 million to the son of an employee, after the boy claimed Jackson had molested him in 1990 -- a case that never went to court.
While Jackson maintained his innocence to molesting both boys between 1988 and 1991, the accusers (who are now of legal age to speak on their own behalf) have not emerged to comment further as of this publication date. If they, as adults, publicly state they were not molested they would face legal action, and rightly so. If they claim they were the boys behind the charges, and were witnesses in support of Jackson's accuser in 2005, it would remove any and all doubt that Jackson's accusers have lied.
As with many men who came forward in unison against priest abuse, Jackson's men could now help a boy who makes the same claim...unless the charges have all been false.
On the other hand, both former accusers have agreed to silence in exchange for cash. Money plays up against the welfare of a boy suing Jackson today.
Jackson currently faces charges that he masturbated a boy while the two lay in Jackson's bed. The boy and his family had developed a relationship with Jackson following the boy's cancer treatment, and appeared with the pop-star on a British television interview.
Complications:
"Years ago, I settled with certain individuals because I was concerned about my family and the media scrutiny that would have ensued if I fought the matter in court," Jackson said about his former employee's son.
"These people wanted to exploit my concern for children by threatening to destroy what I believe in and what I do. I have been a vulnerable target for those who want money," Jackson said.
Whether or not Jackson's molestations were true pre-1993, what type of parents would knowingly allow their son(s) to spend two nights with Jackson after such sensational accusations? Jackson's current accuser along with the boy's younger brother were allowed to sleep in Jackson's home on more than one occasion years after Jackson was in court for a molestation charge.
|
"He told me that if men don't masturbate they might get to a level where they might rape a girl... "He said that once he was looking over a balcony and he saw a boy who didn't masturbate who had sex with a dog," Michael Jackson's accuser said in court. |
In concept, considering the renderings of Jackson's bedroom -- the size of a small house -- the entire family of his current accuser could have spent the night in his bedroom. Where were the parents? Did the parents actually think, that by allowing their son to stay with Jackson, that it provided an opportunity for the case they have today?
The "family" accusing Jackson is bright enough to have supported a claim that masturbation prevents rape. The 15-year-old boy says his grandmother encouraged masturbation to prevent males from raping women. The teen has only said his grandmother and Jackson discussed sexuality with him, not the boy's own parents.
"Michael started talking to me about masturbation," Jackson's accuser said in court on 10 March 2005. "He told me that if men don't masturbate they might get to a level where they might rape a girl ... He said that once he was looking over a balcony and he saw a boy who didn't masturbate who had sex with a dog."
The boy differentiated with jurors that Jackson was pushy about the subject, whereas his grandmother spoke in general terms about masturbation. While his grandmother "explained a lot of things to me," the boy said Jackson "told me you have to do it."
If the claim that Jackson molested the boy is true, indeed the boy is brave -- beyond brave in fact -- to take the stand in a media frenzy trial not seen since O.J. Simpson's fight on murder charges. The boy's candor, willingness, unemotional attachment to his claims are courageous, even more so than most women who do not have enough courage to speak out against an adult rapist.
To top that, the boy doesn't even seem to be angry with Jackson for performing sex on him, against his own will, that too is unusual, because most males have a difficult time discussing childhood molestation. He simply said Jackson was no longer his idol.
Perhaps, due to the boy's cancer survival, he has emerged as a well-spoken and mature young man with a healthy life ahead. If he defends himself well, Jackson, one of the world's most popular superstars is very likely to end up in jail.
For that, we await further details.
However, on 18 March 2005 research about the sexual health of society's teens shows a much bigger problem about sexual awareness. If Jackson's trial is thought to be outrageous, from either his actions against boys or for simply keeping greedy, thoughtless company at his side, this research report has far more implications to the general population. It also speaks to why someone might think "lack of masturbation" leads one to raping a woman. Sexual activity, without clear definition, simply keeps true to myth.
|
Boys who pledge abstinence are four times more likely to have anal intercourse. Abstaining teens were six times more likely to engage in oral sexual behavior than those teens who admit to simply having sexual relations, according to the report. |
Teenagers equate sexual abstinence not to abstaining from all sexual acts, but only to abstaining from male-to-female vaginal intercourse. Teenagers who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are MORE likely to have sex.
A study of 12,000 adolescents for research at Yale University and Columbia University found teenagers who abstain from sex are just as likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease.
It almost doesn't make sense...except that definitions of abstinence, just as definitions of masturbation, emerge as myths when not fully disclosed in society. In the April 2005 issue of Journal of Adolescent Health, sexually "abstaining" teens were more likely to engage in oral and anal sexual acts than those teenagers who simply had male-to-female vaginal intercourse.
Boys who pledge abstinence are four times more likely to have anal intercourse. Abstaining teens were six times more likely to engage in oral sexual behavior than those teens who admit to simply having sexual relations, according to the report.
Teenagers who pledge abstinence before marriage are less likely to take precautions when they engage in (what still is) sex, and are less likely to use condoms.
Data for the research came from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, following an in-school questionnaire of students in grades 7-12. In home interviews were conducted for the following six years with a select group of the (then) teens.
In 2004, the Yale and Columbia universities research team reported that 88 percent of teens who pledge abstinence have sex prior to marriage, whereas 99 percent of those who do not pledge engage in sexual relations prior to marriage.
What does this all mean? Readers can draw their own conclusions. Society avoids sexual discussion barring priest-pedophilia or Jackson's trial. If a boy does not masturbate is he likely to rape a woman as Jackson's accuser has said on the witness stand? Has the term abstinence been so ill defined to mean any sex is okay, as long a male does not penetrate a female?
Why would any so-called intelligent society even have to be asking these questions? Think & Ask
To respond please e-mail: jeffrey @ thinkandask.com
---This content is copyrighted by Think & Ask, reproduction of any kind is not permitted without written consent.---