Every now and then we are throwing up a new public Rorschach test, the kind of big emotionally charged problem that almost everyone can make sense of and almost everyone can get really angry with other people to have wrong opinion on. Of course, the internet has accelerated this process immensely, but that does not mean that we still cannot take a moment every single moment for a real classic that reaches HBO's recent Leaving Neverland resurfaced the long-standing accusations of child abuse against the musical superstar Michael Jackson.
Much of the debate about Dan Reeds documentary has centered on whether viewers believed in the emotional, clearly personal painful accusations charged by topics Wade Robson and James Safechuck, both of whom expressed explicitly how Jackson allegedly cared and exploited of them when they were children. Jackson's family denies them, for sure, and his most fierce followers refuse to be swayed as always. The effects on smaller partisan viewers were such that a number of radio stations and even television shows have moved to tie the ties to the musician and his property.
Which brings us in round ax fashion to Jackson's fellow celebrity, Barbra Streisand, as absolutel y mean Robson and Safechuck. But also really: Was the sexual assault of a world-famous musician really so harmful to their lives?
It's the extremely tough takeaway from an interview that Streisand gave to The Times this week, when she responded to questions about Neverland with a really confusing mix of sympathy and "Bygones be bygones, huh?" hilarity. Let's jump right to the worst bit, shall we?
"You can say & # 39; molest & # 39; & # 39; Streisand started maliciously." But the children you heard them say [the grown-up Robson and Safechuk] were thrilled to be there. They both got married and they both have children so they didn't kill them. "
It actually did not kill them, and they, as toddlers, did some excitement and material benefits from the extremely rich, extremely famous person lavish ones with attention, praise and gifts as part of a long-term process of (supposedly) sexually assaulting them. It's probably why Jackson shewed gifts and attention, even though Streisand with his motives also has some thoughts: "His sexual needs were his sexual needs, no matter what childhood he has or what DNA he has."  In the interview, Streisand stroked who only knew Jackson, past his accused intent to use his status and power to take the sexual advantage of Robson and Safechuck (who were children), saying that "it is a combination of emotions. I feel bad for the kids. I feel bad for him. I owe it to the parents who will allow their children to sleep with him. "
Reaction's two Streisand statements have been expected, that is, quite lively, given the degree of compassion that Streisand offers strong man, whom she also fully believes, used spent power to cloud children. can only imagine that she will soon try to remove these comments from the Internet in some way, but of course this is a proven impossibility.
[via Variety ]