Every now and then, our cultural zeitgeist coughs out a new public Rorschach test, a kind of big emotional issue that almost anyone can have an opinion on, really getting mad at other people because he has the opinion wrong . Of course, the Internet has vastly accelerated this process, but that does not mean that we do not always need a minute for a true classic, such as when HBO's Leaving Neverland recently re-emerged the long-standing allegations of child abuse against the musical superstar Michael Jackson. Much of the debate surrounding Dan Reed's documentary focused on whether viewers believed the emotional, obviously personally painful, allegations made by subjects Wade Robson and James Safechuck, both detailing how Jackson was supposed to be groomed and exploited became of them when they were kids. Jackson's family certainly denies her, and his loudest supporters reject as always. However, the impact on less biased viewers has been such that a number of radio stations and even television broadcasts have broken ties with the musician and his estate.
This brings us to Jackson's fellow celebrity, Barbra Streisand, who believes absolutel y Robson and Safechuck. But also, really: Was sexual assault by a world-famous musician really so damaging to their lives?
This is the extremely rough takeout from an interview that Streisand gave this week The Times whereupon she answered questions about Neverland with a truly enigmatic blend of compassion and "Happiness, the past is what?" Let's jump to the worst, right?
"One can say" molested, "Streisand began menacingly:" But these children, as you said [the grown-up Robson and Safechuk]were thrilled to be there. "They both got married and they have children, so it did not kill them."
In fact, they did not kill them, and in fact they had excitement and material benefits from the extremely rich as small children Attracting attention, praise and giving as part of a long-term process to (allegedly) sexually assault them is probably the reason why Jackson attracted the mentioned gifts and attention, even though Streisand has some thoughts about his motives: "His Sexual Needs were his childhood sexual needs or what his DNA is. "(19659004) In an interview, Streisand – whom Jackson just happened to know – forgives his accused's intention to use his status and power to gain the sexual advantage of Robson and Safechuck (the children were) to use, saying, "It's a combination of feelings." I feel it bad for the children. I'm sorry. I guess, I guess, the parents who would allow their children to sleep with him.
Reactions to Streisand's statements were expected, that is to say, absolutely vivid, given the level of compassion Streisand offers to the extreme, a powerful man whom she also believes has used this power to bring up children harass. We can only imagine that she will soon try to remove these comments somehow from the internet, but that, of course, is a proven impossibility.
[via Variety ]