To: JeanS
None of them thought there was anything weird about a man in his 30s and 40s insisting on sleeping with
children? And mostly male children?
I guess it was worth the money and the percs for the parents. If MJ had been a poor man, it's very doubtful that the moms would have thought it was okay.
7 posted on
05/06/2005 3:52:49 PM PDT by
xJones
To: xJones
"None of them thought there was anything weird about a man in his 30s and 40s insisting on sleeping with children? And mostly male children?"
Exactly. Nothing will come of this though, that's my gut feeling. Parading a bunch of former 'sleep overs', mostly young boys, sleeping with a man in his 40's to testify that his behavior was normal is ludicrous in itself.
15 posted on
05/06/2005 7:03:45 PM PDT by
SeaBiscuit
(God Bless all who defend America and the rest can go to hell.)
To: xJones
None of them thought there was anything weird about a man in his 30s and 40s insisting on sleeping with children? And mostly male children?
Oh, but it will be well worth it to these beacons of motherhood! Getting their 15 minutes of fame (pictures and all) in all the trashy tabloid magazines is worth every single night they sold their child to Michael Jackson, dontcha know.
16 posted on
05/06/2005 7:53:54 PM PDT by
demkicker
(Support DeLay, the Hammer, and the filibuster ban on judicial nominations!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson