And that was my original issue with the documentary all along...it's just the same ol' allegations we've known about since 1993...and once again very little if anything really concrete to back them up. Mostly just their word against well...not their word (for lack of better term).
What would qualify in your opinion? Should they have had cameras?
I'm a little torn, I kind of agree with Estil.
So far I nearly watched the first half of the documentary. (I had to turn it off after the guy said that when he was 7, Michael Jackson would have him bend over so he could lick his butt.)
While I watched, I completely went along with what the two guys and the family said because I assumed that the two guys were the kids that sued him years ago. I thought the second half of the documentary was going to be about the trial. After I found out these guys are just barely bringing up charges it kind of tinges my view.
I mean, its a fact that Michael Jackson spent a decent amount of time with both families. And it can probably be proven that he spent time alone with the children. After that you have to judge them on their story. I will say that if these people are lying they made a very believable narrative on the way a predator would target children and their parents, disarm the parents, and groom the children.
I wish we could all just agree the real Michael Jackson was killed in 1983 and replaced by a jazzy reptilian impostor, it's so much more comforting and digestable that way.
I wish we could all just agree the real Michael Jackson was killed in 1983 and replaced by a jazzy reptilian impostor, it's so much more comforting and digestable that way.
Geez at least make it somewhat plausable, like this...
it's just the same ol' allegations we've known about since 1993
What's the phrase... where there's smoke and more smoke, and even more smoke, and yet more smoke, there's... something something something?
If you see the previous two cases details, you'll see they were very fishy people. In the first case there's even a pretty damning recording against the father.
it's just the same ol' allegations we've known about since 1993
What's the phrase... where there's smoke and more smoke, and even more smoke, and yet more smoke, there's... something something something?
If you see the previous two cases details, you'll see they were very fishy people. In the first case there's even a pretty damning recording against the father.
You went through that entire transcript? Because it's huge, and reads like a guy who is enraged by what happened to his kid and wants blood
it's just the same ol' allegations we've known about since 1993
What's the phrase... where there's smoke and more smoke, and even more smoke, and yet more smoke, there's... something something something?
If you see the previous two cases details, you'll see they were very fishy people. In the first case there's even a pretty damning recording against the father.
You went through that entire transcript? Because it's huge, and reads like a guy who is enraged by what happened to his kid and wants blood
If I'm not mistaken at some point the other person asks him if he cared what this whole process does to his kid and he said he did not care... And this recording was what mostly threw everything under.
There was no reason why [Jackson] had to stop calling me ... I picked the nastiest son of a bitch I could find [Chandler's lawyer Barry Rothman], all he wants to do is get this out in the public as fast as he can, as big as he can and humiliate as many people as he can. He's nasty, he's mean, he's smart and he's hungry for publicity. Everything's going to a certain plan that isn't just mine. Once I make that phone call, this guy is going to destroy everybody in sight in any devious, nasty, cruel way that he can do it. I've given him full authority to do that. Jackson is an evil guy, he is worse than that and I have the evidence to prove it. If I go through with this, I win big-time. There's no way I lose. I will get everything I want and they will be destroyed forever ... Michael's career will be over.[13]
In the same conversation, when asked how this would affect his son, Chandler replied:
That's irrelevant to me ... It will be a massacre if I don't get what I want. It's going to be bigger than all us put together ... This man [Jackson] is going to be humiliated beyond belief ... He will not sell one more record.[13]
The recorded conversation was a critical aspect of Jackson's defense against the allegations made against him. He and his supporters argued that he was the victim of a jealous father whose only goal was to extort money from him.[13] In October 1994, Mary A. Fischer of GQ magazine reported it was Chandler who initially accused Jackson of molesting his son, before he demanded a screenwriting deal from Jackson instead of going to the police."
------------------
From the article on Evan Chandler
"It was revealed by June Chandler-Schwartz during Jackson's 2005 trial that her son, who, according to his uncle, fled the country to avoid testifying against Jackson, had filed for legal emancipation from his parents and had no contact with his mother since 1994.[10][11] In 2006, court documents filed in the state of New Jersey revealed that Evan Chandler was sued by Jordan after he nearly killed him with a barbell and mace in August 2005.[12] Jordan obtained a permanent restraining order against his father as a result."
I know he was also a celebrity drug dealer, Carrie Fisher being one of his clients during this time. She later confessed that Mr. Chandler used to brag to her that Michael Jackson was obsessed with his son, and he would brag about how attractive his son was, Fisher thought it was very strange how he would talk about his son, but she was more interested in getting high than really digging into it.
It was already clear he was a shit father for letting his son sleep with Jackson in the first place.
Actually I'm gonna say every one of the parents involved are pieces of shit for letting Jackson groom them.
And yet at the end of the day you still have a grown man who sleeps with little boys, and only little boys, who has been accused of abuse 5-6 times. It's very strange to me that the immediate impulse for many people is to try and discredit all of them.
That's not normal. You ever do that with your favorite teacher, coach, mentor, or best friend? A girl does that to her boyfriend.
I know he was also a celebrity drug dealer, Carrie Fisher being one of his clients during this time. She later confessed that Mr. Chandler used to brag to her that Michael Jackson was obsessed with his son, and he would brag about how attractive his son was, Fisher thought it was very strange how he would talk about his son, but she was more interested in getting high than really digging into it.
Heh, that website I shared above is really detailed, I´ll have to give it a good read. Look at what Carrie Fisher said.
"
“Now, I know for a fact that when this first started happening, the good doctor saw no problem with this odd bunking! Excuse me, he had been creepy enough to have allowed all this to happen, and now he’s suddenly shocked—shocked!—virtually consumed with moral indignation! “Can you believe it? I think Michael may have even put his hand on my child’s privates.” Well, what was this man thinking in the first place? Why did he encourage him to sleep in the same bed as Michael Jackson to begin with?
He did it because he knew, somewhere, he would eventually be able to say, “Oh, my God! I suddenly realize that this thing between Michael and my son is weird. I’m horrified. My son may have been damaged! And the only thing that can repair this damage is many millions of dollars! Then he’ll be okay! And we’re not going to buy anything for ourselves with that money! It’s all going toward our son being okay!!!” This was around the time that I knew I had to find another dentist. No drug can hide the fact that one’s skin is crawling."
It was already clear he was a shit father for letting his son sleep with Jackson in the first place.
Actually I'm gonna say every one of the parents involved are pieces of shit for letting Jackson groom them.
And yet at the end of the day you still have a grown man who sleeps with little boys, and only little boys, who has been accused of abuse 5-6 times. It's very strange to me that the immediate impulse for many people is to try and discredit all of them.
That's not normal. You ever do that with your favorite teacher, coach, mentor, or best friend? A girl does that to her boyfriend.
I'm really into reading this, and the more I read the more I'm convinced everything is bullshit, or at the very least, less incriminating than people say. I compell you to check it out, it's really well put together, not a tabloid-y thing.
He was a shit parent, period. Read the 1993 allegations part, you'll be shocked (and the analysis of the tapes, it's shocking and clear that he wants to destroy not only Michael Jackson, but his exwife and even blames his son for damaging him).
Have you ever met someone mentally off, like autistic or someone on the spectrum?
There's a couple of them at my gym and they'd hit several of those bullets by just being someone with a mental disorder. Such as childlike mind, socially awkward (irregular adult relationships), borderline harassing / molesting the female clientele, etc.
I don't care about either side of this argument but it's obvious that Michael Jackson wasn't "all there" mentally. I'd hope both sides can kind of agree on that.
And that was my original issue with the documentary all along...it's just the same ol' allegations we've known about since 1993...and once again very little if anything really concrete to back them up. Mostly just their word against well...not their word (for lack of better term).
What would qualify in your opinion? Should they have had cameras?
I'm a little torn, I kind of agree with Estil. So far I nearly watched the first half of the documentary. (I had to turn it off after the guy said that when he was 7, Michael Jackson would have him bend over so he could lick his butt.) While I watched, I completely went along with what the two guys and the family said because I assumed that the two guys were the kids that sued him years ago. I thought the second half of the documentary was going to be about the trial. After I found out these guys are just barely bringing up charges it kind of tinges my view. I mean, its a fact that Michael Jackson spent a decent amount of time with both families. And it can probably be proven that he spent time alone with the children. After that you have to judge them on their story. I will say that if these people are lying they made a very believable narrative on the way a predator would target children and their parents, disarm the parents, and groom the children. The second half should be interesting.
They got high praise from Oprea a self-described sex abuse survivor who has worked with hundreds of other sex abuse survivors. In After Neverland she claims that she taped 217 episodes on sexual abuse. She tied to get across that sexual abuse was also sexual seduction. She said that They were able to illustrate in 4 hours what she failed to do in 217 episodes. So if they are acting then that is some high praise.
Two other points why I don’t think they made it up.
The oldest brother and grand mother on the doc both blame the mom for this and destroying the family.
They owned up to the lies and stated it was not repressed memory.
And that was my original issue with the documentary all along...it's just the same ol' allegations we've known about since 1993...and once again very little if anything really concrete to back them up. Mostly just their word against well...not their word (for lack of better term).
What would qualify in your opinion? Should they have had cameras?
I'm a little torn, I kind of agree with Estil. So far I nearly watched the first half of the documentary. (I had to turn it off after the guy said that when he was 7, Michael Jackson would have him bend over so he could lick his butt.) While I watched, I completely went along with what the two guys and the family said because I assumed that the two guys were the kids that sued him years ago. I thought the second half of the documentary was going to be about the trial. After I found out these guys are just barely bringing up charges it kind of tinges my view. I mean, its a fact that Michael Jackson spent a decent amount of time with both families. And it can probably be proven that he spent time alone with the children. After that you have to judge them on their story. I will say that if these people are lying they made a very believable narrative on the way a predator would target children and their parents, disarm the parents, and groom the children. The second half should be interesting.
They got high praise from Oprea a self-described sex abuse survivor who has worked with hundreds of other sex abuse survivors. In After Neverland she claims that she taped 217 episodes on sexual abuse. She tied to get across that sexual abuse was also sexual seduction. She said that They were able to illustrate in 4 hours what she failed to do in 217 episodes. So if they are acting then that is some high praise.
Two other points why I don’t think they made it up.
The oldest brother and grand mother on the doc both blame the mom for this and destroying the family.
They owned up to the lies and stated it was not repressed memory.
Guy looks at his newborn son
Scenario A - He thinks to himself "what would I do if someone did to him what happened to me?"
Scenario B - He thinks to himself "I'm in a funk. The best way to get out of it is to lie to the world on television and tell them that Michael Jackson had eaten out my asshole when I was a little kid. Maybe get about ten thousand death threats for the rest of my life out of it. Hey, maybe someone will go in on this with me. Yep, this is a perfect scam."
And that was my original issue with the documentary all along...it's just the same ol' allegations we've known about since 1993...and once again very little if anything really concrete to back them up. Mostly just their word against well...not their word (for lack of better term).
What would qualify in your opinion? Should they have had cameras?
I'm a little torn, I kind of agree with Estil. So far I nearly watched the first half of the documentary. (I had to turn it off after the guy said that when he was 7, Michael Jackson would have him bend over so he could lick his butt.) While I watched, I completely went along with what the two guys and the family said because I assumed that the two guys were the kids that sued him years ago. I thought the second half of the documentary was going to be about the trial. After I found out these guys are just barely bringing up charges it kind of tinges my view. I mean, its a fact that Michael Jackson spent a decent amount of time with both families. And it can probably be proven that he spent time alone with the children. After that you have to judge them on their story. I will say that if these people are lying they made a very believable narrative on the way a predator would target children and their parents, disarm the parents, and groom the children. The second half should be interesting.
They got high praise from Oprea a self-described sex abuse survivor who has worked with hundreds of other sex abuse survivors. In After Neverland she claims that she taped 217 episodes on sexual abuse. She tied to get across that sexual abuse was also sexual seduction. She said that They were able to illustrate in 4 hours what she failed to do in 217 episodes. So if they are acting then that is some high praise.
Two other points why I don’t think they made it up.
The oldest brother and grand mother on the doc both blame the mom for this and destroying the family.
They owned up to the lies and stated it was not repressed memory.
Guy looks at his newborn son
Scenario A - He thinks to himself "what would I do if someone did to him what happened to me?"
Scenario B - He thinks to himself "I'm in a funk. The best way to get out of it is to lie to the world on television and tell them that Michael Jackson had eaten out my asshole when I was a little kid. Maybe get about ten thousand death threats for the rest of my life out of it. Hey, maybe someone will go in on this with me. Yep, this is a perfect scam."
Situation A. You lie. Convince one of the few other holdouts to say the same bringing the total to four long time companions to turn on him. Convince the entire family to lie or lie to your family as well. Turn on your mom and stand by while others in the family to do the same. Then do it so well that Opera tells you that you have explained what she could not in alll the years that she has tried.
Situation B. You hit rock bottom. Two mental breakdowns. You cant carry the weight of the lie. One reason above all to carry on you have a son. You come clean and recover.
For many having a child gives them the strength to be a better person when they lacked the strength or desire to do so for themselves. I quit drinking after my daughter was born. Some days it is hard other days it is easy but she is 12 now and I’ve kept my promise to her.
Comments
it's just the same ol' allegations we've known about since 1993
What's the phrase... where there's smoke and more smoke, and even more smoke, and yet more smoke, there's... something something something?
And that was my original issue with the documentary all along...it's just the same ol' allegations we've known about since 1993...and once again very little if anything really concrete to back them up. Mostly just their word against well...not their word (for lack of better term).
What would qualify in your opinion? Should they have had cameras?
I'm a little torn, I kind of agree with Estil.
So far I nearly watched the first half of the documentary. (I had to turn it off after the guy said that when he was 7, Michael Jackson would have him bend over so he could lick his butt.)
While I watched, I completely went along with what the two guys and the family said because I assumed that the two guys were the kids that sued him years ago. I thought the second half of the documentary was going to be about the trial. After I found out these guys are just barely bringing up charges it kind of tinges my view.
I mean, its a fact that Michael Jackson spent a decent amount of time with both families. And it can probably be proven that he spent time alone with the children. After that you have to judge them on their story. I will say that if these people are lying they made a very believable narrative on the way a predator would target children and their parents, disarm the parents, and groom the children.
The second half should be interesting.
I wish we could all just agree the real Michael Jackson was killed in 1983 and replaced by a jazzy reptilian impostor, it's so much more comforting and digestable that way.
Geez at least make it somewhat plausable, like this...
it's just the same ol' allegations we've known about since 1993
What's the phrase... where there's smoke and more smoke, and even more smoke, and yet more smoke, there's... something something something?
If you see the previous two cases details, you'll see they were very fishy people. In the first case there's even a pretty damning recording against the father.
it's just the same ol' allegations we've known about since 1993
What's the phrase... where there's smoke and more smoke, and even more smoke, and yet more smoke, there's... something something something?
If you see the previous two cases details, you'll see they were very fishy people. In the first case there's even a pretty damning recording against the father.
You went through that entire transcript? Because it's huge, and reads like a guy who is enraged by what happened to his kid and wants blood
it's just the same ol' allegations we've known about since 1993
What's the phrase... where there's smoke and more smoke, and even more smoke, and yet more smoke, there's... something something something?
If you see the previous two cases details, you'll see they were very fishy people. In the first case there's even a pretty damning recording against the father.
You went through that entire transcript? Because it's huge, and reads like a guy who is enraged by what happened to his kid and wants blood
If I'm not mistaken at some point the other person asks him if he cared what this whole process does to his kid and he said he did not care... And this recording was what mostly threw everything under.
From Wikipedia:
"
On July 2, 1993, in a private telephone conversation, Chandler was recorded[ lease_clarify" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;" title="Wikipedia lease clarify">how?] saying:
In the same conversation, when asked how this would affect his son, Chandler replied:
The recorded conversation was a critical aspect of Jackson's defense against the allegations made against him. He and his supporters argued that he was the victim of a jealous father whose only goal was to extort money from him.[13] In October 1994, Mary A. Fischer of GQ magazine reported it was Chandler who initially accused Jackson of molesting his son, before he demanded a screenwriting deal from Jackson instead of going to the police."
------------------From the article on Evan Chandler
"It was revealed by June Chandler-Schwartz during Jackson's 2005 trial that her son, who, according to his uncle, fled the country to avoid testifying against Jackson, had filed for legal emancipation from his parents and had no contact with his mother since 1994.[10][11] In 2006, court documents filed in the state of New Jersey revealed that Evan Chandler was sued by Jordan after he nearly killed him with a barbell and mace in August 2005.[12] Jordan obtained a permanent restraining order against his father as a result."
Father of the year!
More on this: https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2018/09/23/the-1993-chandler-allegations-summary-version/
Originally posted by: buttheadrulesagain
Father of the year!
I know he was also a celebrity drug dealer, Carrie Fisher being one of his clients during this time. She later confessed that Mr. Chandler used to brag to her that Michael Jackson was obsessed with his son, and he would brag about how attractive his son was, Fisher thought it was very strange how he would talk about his son, but she was more interested in getting high than really digging into it.
Actually I'm gonna say every one of the parents involved are pieces of shit for letting Jackson groom them.
And yet at the end of the day you still have a grown man who sleeps with little boys, and only little boys, who has been accused of abuse 5-6 times. It's very strange to me that the immediate impulse for many people is to try and discredit all of them.
That's not normal. You ever do that with your favorite teacher, coach, mentor, or best friend? A girl does that to her boyfriend.
Father of the year!
I know he was also a celebrity drug dealer, Carrie Fisher being one of his clients during this time. She later confessed that Mr. Chandler used to brag to her that Michael Jackson was obsessed with his son, and he would brag about how attractive his son was, Fisher thought it was very strange how he would talk about his son, but she was more interested in getting high than really digging into it.
Heh, that website I shared above is really detailed, I´ll have to give it a good read. Look at what Carrie Fisher said.
"
“Now, I know for a fact that when this first started happening, the good doctor saw no problem with this odd bunking! Excuse me, he had been creepy enough to have allowed all this to happen, and now he’s suddenly shocked—shocked!—virtually consumed with moral indignation! “Can you believe it? I think Michael may have even put his hand on my child’s privates.” Well, what was this man thinking in the first place? Why did he encourage him to sleep in the same bed as Michael Jackson to begin with?
He did it because he knew, somewhere, he would eventually be able to say, “Oh, my God! I suddenly realize that this thing between Michael and my son is weird. I’m horrified. My son may have been damaged! And the only thing that can repair this damage is many millions of dollars! Then he’ll be okay! And we’re not going to buy anything for ourselves with that money! It’s all going toward our son being okay!!!” This was around the time that I knew I had to find another dentist. No drug can hide the fact that one’s skin is crawling."
Originally posted by: Brock Landers
It was already clear he was a shit father for letting his son sleep with Jackson in the first place.
Actually I'm gonna say every one of the parents involved are pieces of shit for letting Jackson groom them.
And yet at the end of the day you still have a grown man who sleeps with little boys, and only little boys, who has been accused of abuse 5-6 times. It's very strange to me that the immediate impulse for many people is to try and discredit all of them.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hlu...
That's not normal. You ever do that with your favorite teacher, coach, mentor, or best friend? A girl does that to her boyfriend.
I'm really into reading this, and the more I read the more I'm convinced everything is bullshit, or at the very least, less incriminating than people say. I compell you to check it out, it's really well put together, not a tabloid-y thing.
https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/
He was a shit parent, period. Read the 1993 allegations part, you'll be shocked (and the analysis of the tapes, it's shocking and clear that he wants to destroy not only Michael Jackson, but his exwife and even blames his son for damaging him).
Have you ever met someone mentally off, like autistic or someone on the spectrum?
There's a couple of them at my gym and they'd hit several of those bullets by just being someone with a mental disorder. Such as childlike mind, socially awkward (irregular adult relationships), borderline harassing / molesting the female clientele, etc.
I don't care about either side of this argument but it's obvious that Michael Jackson wasn't "all there" mentally. I'd hope both sides can kind of agree on that.
Wow
And that was my original issue with the documentary all along...it's just the same ol' allegations we've known about since 1993...and once again very little if anything really concrete to back them up. Mostly just their word against well...not their word (for lack of better term).
What would qualify in your opinion? Should they have had cameras?
I'm a little torn, I kind of agree with Estil. So far I nearly watched the first half of the documentary. (I had to turn it off after the guy said that when he was 7, Michael Jackson would have him bend over so he could lick his butt.) While I watched, I completely went along with what the two guys and the family said because I assumed that the two guys were the kids that sued him years ago. I thought the second half of the documentary was going to be about the trial. After I found out these guys are just barely bringing up charges it kind of tinges my view. I mean, its a fact that Michael Jackson spent a decent amount of time with both families. And it can probably be proven that he spent time alone with the children. After that you have to judge them on their story. I will say that if these people are lying they made a very believable narrative on the way a predator would target children and their parents, disarm the parents, and groom the children. The second half should be interesting.
They got high praise from Oprea a self-described sex abuse survivor who has worked with hundreds of other sex abuse survivors. In After Neverland she claims that she taped 217 episodes on sexual abuse. She tied to get across that sexual abuse was also sexual seduction. She said that They were able to illustrate in 4 hours what she failed to do in 217 episodes. So if they are acting then that is some high praise.
Two other points why I don’t think they made it up.
The oldest brother and grand mother on the doc both blame the mom for this and destroying the family.
They owned up to the lies and stated it was not repressed memory.
And that was my original issue with the documentary all along...it's just the same ol' allegations we've known about since 1993...and once again very little if anything really concrete to back them up. Mostly just their word against well...not their word (for lack of better term).
What would qualify in your opinion? Should they have had cameras?
I'm a little torn, I kind of agree with Estil. So far I nearly watched the first half of the documentary. (I had to turn it off after the guy said that when he was 7, Michael Jackson would have him bend over so he could lick his butt.) While I watched, I completely went along with what the two guys and the family said because I assumed that the two guys were the kids that sued him years ago. I thought the second half of the documentary was going to be about the trial. After I found out these guys are just barely bringing up charges it kind of tinges my view. I mean, its a fact that Michael Jackson spent a decent amount of time with both families. And it can probably be proven that he spent time alone with the children. After that you have to judge them on their story. I will say that if these people are lying they made a very believable narrative on the way a predator would target children and their parents, disarm the parents, and groom the children. The second half should be interesting.
They got high praise from Oprea a self-described sex abuse survivor who has worked with hundreds of other sex abuse survivors. In After Neverland she claims that she taped 217 episodes on sexual abuse. She tied to get across that sexual abuse was also sexual seduction. She said that They were able to illustrate in 4 hours what she failed to do in 217 episodes. So if they are acting then that is some high praise.
Two other points why I don’t think they made it up.
The oldest brother and grand mother on the doc both blame the mom for this and destroying the family.
They owned up to the lies and stated it was not repressed memory.
Guy looks at his newborn son
Scenario A - He thinks to himself "what would I do if someone did to him what happened to me?"
Scenario B - He thinks to himself "I'm in a funk. The best way to get out of it is to lie to the world on television and tell them that Michael Jackson had eaten out my asshole when I was a little kid. Maybe get about ten thousand death threats for the rest of my life out of it. Hey, maybe someone will go in on this with me. Yep, this is a perfect scam."
And that was my original issue with the documentary all along...it's just the same ol' allegations we've known about since 1993...and once again very little if anything really concrete to back them up. Mostly just their word against well...not their word (for lack of better term).
What would qualify in your opinion? Should they have had cameras?
I'm a little torn, I kind of agree with Estil. So far I nearly watched the first half of the documentary. (I had to turn it off after the guy said that when he was 7, Michael Jackson would have him bend over so he could lick his butt.) While I watched, I completely went along with what the two guys and the family said because I assumed that the two guys were the kids that sued him years ago. I thought the second half of the documentary was going to be about the trial. After I found out these guys are just barely bringing up charges it kind of tinges my view. I mean, its a fact that Michael Jackson spent a decent amount of time with both families. And it can probably be proven that he spent time alone with the children. After that you have to judge them on their story. I will say that if these people are lying they made a very believable narrative on the way a predator would target children and their parents, disarm the parents, and groom the children. The second half should be interesting.
They got high praise from Oprea a self-described sex abuse survivor who has worked with hundreds of other sex abuse survivors. In After Neverland she claims that she taped 217 episodes on sexual abuse. She tied to get across that sexual abuse was also sexual seduction. She said that They were able to illustrate in 4 hours what she failed to do in 217 episodes. So if they are acting then that is some high praise.
Two other points why I don’t think they made it up.
The oldest brother and grand mother on the doc both blame the mom for this and destroying the family.
They owned up to the lies and stated it was not repressed memory.
Guy looks at his newborn son
Scenario A - He thinks to himself "what would I do if someone did to him what happened to me?"
Scenario B - He thinks to himself "I'm in a funk. The best way to get out of it is to lie to the world on television and tell them that Michael Jackson had eaten out my asshole when I was a little kid. Maybe get about ten thousand death threats for the rest of my life out of it. Hey, maybe someone will go in on this with me. Yep, this is a perfect scam."
Situation A. You lie. Convince one of the few other holdouts to say the same bringing the total to four long time companions to turn on him. Convince the entire family to lie or lie to your family as well. Turn on your mom and stand by while others in the family to do the same. Then do it so well that Opera tells you that you have explained what she could not in alll the years that she has tried.
Situation B. You hit rock bottom. Two mental breakdowns. You cant carry the weight of the lie. One reason above all to carry on you have a son. You come clean and recover.
For many having a child gives them the strength to be a better person when they lacked the strength or desire to do so for themselves. I quit drinking after my daughter was born. Some days it is hard other days it is easy but she is 12 now and I’ve kept my promise to her.
They both have little boys pants half off.