- Joined
- Sep 17, 2005
- Messages
- 8,211
- Reaction score
- 4,179
- Location
- Chicago
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Here's my reasoning.
He has a thing for kids, so he invites them all over and lets them sleep in his bed, etc. Weird, but not necessarily proof of anything. Then, the first kid accuses him of molestation and the world goes crazy. Huge scandal, ruins his image, costs him millions, etc. Let's say that that accusation was a total lie and that he never did anything with that kid.
What would a reasonable person do in that situation?
We're not talking about a reasonable person - quite the opposite actually.
Everything possible to stay the **** away from little boys or any appearance of impropriety.[/B] If you've been accused of molesting kids, you never go near a kid again. The fact that he continued to invite kids over and do the same things after that indicates to me that there is something seriously wrong in his head, which makes it all the more plausible for me to believe that he did do shady **** with some kids.
I don't think an inclination towards pedophilia is necessarily dependent upon mental illness. Obviously, there will always be some mental illness inherent to pedophilia, but it certainly isn't a clear indicator of potential.
Many pedophiles, in fact, are quite astute at hiding their desires and actions from the public at large, either maintaining a complex duel identity or simply withdrawing from society altogether. Michael Jackson fits neither one of these descriptions.
Not all pedophiles are demonstrably neurotic, and not all people who are demonstrably neurotic are pedophiles.