![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 22 to 46 of 46. Go back in thread:
Posted by Rach on February 8, 2003, at 1:15:58
In reply to Re: Michael Jackson » Tabitha, posted by NikkiT2 on February 7, 2003, at 6:55:06
I agree, Nik. I think he is a disturbed person, but not someone who is doing anything disturbing (the tree, the sleeping with children).
However, I do find it disturbing that he covers his children's faces. I think he is harming them by creating in them the belief that they are very different to other people. Perhaps even giving them the sense that they are less than other people, or that they are wrong in some way. I don't think his kids should be taken off him, but I do think that the mother or a mother figure needs to be present in their lives. And some normalcy, like going to the zoo without masks.
Posted by dreamerz on February 8, 2003, at 1:56:07
In reply to Re: Michael Jackson » NikkiT2, posted by Rach on February 8, 2003, at 1:15:58
He wants to do the moonwalk on the moon which would cost billions..get the money by advertising.
The image that comes to mind cracks me up.
He freaky but he can afford it--didn't see program but seems a gentle , kind guy.
Posted by Alara on February 8, 2003, at 2:38:48
In reply to Re: Michael Jackson » NikkiT2, posted by Rach on February 8, 2003, at 1:15:58
OK, here's my theory:
The preoccupation that he has with his face is a manifestation of the deep shame surrounding his childhood abuse, sexual issues etc. To create another layer over that shame, he's projecting his face-hiding complex onto the children... He has a need to protect(`blanket') himself and the children while simultaneously hiding them to cover the shame.
Although Michael didn't specifically say that he was sexually molested as a child, I have a strong suspicion that this was an issue. Victims of childhood sexual abuse are often disturbed (and confused) by the conflicting shame, pain and occasional physical pleasure. If this is what happened to Michael, then he has carried this complex into adulthood and has a disturbing compulsion to repeat the experience in order to conquer it. To lessen the guilt and to maintain denial, he creates a delusional world in which he acquires a `Peter Pan' persona, an identity which is so innocent that it absolves him of any paedophilic tendencies.
I feel very sorry for Michael Jackson. Even if he has sexually interfered with children, he maintains the delusion that he is innocent - just as he maintains the somatic delusion that his face is naturally `changing'. He truly believes that he is innocent.
After all, he was robbed of his childhood.
Posted by noa on February 8, 2003, at 11:38:04
In reply to psychological profile, posted by Alara on February 8, 2003, at 2:38:48
I know it's only one aspect of the facial changes he has gone through, but do you think the skin disorder that makes him lose pigment is real? I think it is probably real and just adds to the psychological issues about his face.
He might have body dismorphic disorder, no? He did talk about how his father ridiculed his "wide" nose.
It also looked to me like at least one of the children had his hair bleached.
Posted by Alara on February 8, 2003, at 22:51:27
In reply to Re: psychological profile, posted by noa on February 8, 2003, at 11:38:04
> I know it's only one aspect of the facial changes he has gone through, but do you think the skin disorder that makes him lose pigment is real? I think it is probably real and just adds to the psychological issues about his face.
>
Could be. We'll never know.> He might have body dismorphic disorder, no? He did talk about how his father ridiculed his "wide" nose.
>
Oh yeah, he definitely has BDD!! It's understandable though.> It also looked to me like at least one of the children had his hair bleached.
Either the child had its hair bleached or the egg was not inseminated with his sperm...I suspect the latter.
Posted by juanantoniod on February 9, 2003, at 3:16:08
In reply to Re: psychological profile » noa, posted by Alara on February 8, 2003, at 22:51:27
I just want to know why he can't have that ugly nose corrected. I know we're all not perfect, but the plastic surgeon did a horrible job on his nose and he has the money to fix it. Or maybe he can't because it's in litigation...Yeah that's it! That's the ticket. He's suing his plastic surgeon for botching his plastic surgery and until the lawsuit is settled, he can't change anything.
Posted by Craig on February 9, 2003, at 3:22:50
In reply to What is Michael Jackson's diagnosis?, posted by Tabitha on February 7, 2003, at 1:55:22
Posted by noa on February 9, 2003, at 7:31:23
In reply to Re: What is Michael Jackson's diagnosis?, posted by Craig on February 9, 2003, at 3:22:50
Is he OUR "Elephant Man?"
Posted by bookgurl99 on February 10, 2003, at 0:21:57
In reply to What is Michael Jackson's diagnosis?, posted by Tabitha on February 7, 2003, at 1:55:22
"Blind spots" is the right phrase. I'd donate my therapy time for him.
I think that M.J. has the unfortunate habit, as many of us do, of literally not looking at himself. It is not even that he 'masks' himself with masks or face-changing, but that even in his emotional life, he lies to himself about what he is truly feeling/experiencing.
It is a highly disassociative tendency that I could only see as the result of supressing what he needed for himself over and over as a child.
The down side for MJ in this is that this need, unexamined, has caused him to have an unhealthy home life. I imagine that his friends still treat him as a child, and that he views himself as such in relationship to others.
I fear it will be hard for MJ and his children when they reach adolescence, the point that MJ was not able to cross. Perhaps the confrontation will be positive, and watching them grow will help to ferry MJ across the divide to adulthood that he has avoided, fearfully, for so long.
p.s. my partner is convinced that he's castrated, but i believe that he has worked to preserve the unchanged preadolescent voice. He speaks in an even higher pitch than a MTF transsexual.
Posted by bookgurl99 on February 10, 2003, at 0:28:29
In reply to Re: Michael Jackson's diagnosis? Gotta say......, posted by stjames on February 7, 2003, at 12:15:36
I don't know if I key M.J. as a pedophile. Would he be so open in his habits if he were?
I found that the settlement out of court in regards to the accusations against Jackson to be fishy. If my kid were abused, I would _never_ EVER take any amount of money. I don't care about the millions; that is not how I would want it to be earned. I would want the bastard to go to jail and _suffer._
I think most people agree. Do you really think the people who accused him would have taken the money over true justice? I think it was a concocted case to make $ out of him. The kid probably saw Jackson changing (which in itself does constitute a form of child abuse, but I don't see it as the same as physical rape), and then his parents found out and were ecstatic that they had hit the jackpot.
Jackson paid off rather than fight to avoid the negative publicity.
Posted by Alara on February 10, 2003, at 4:39:20
In reply to What is Michael Jackson's diagnosis?, posted by Tabitha on February 7, 2003, at 1:55:22
He is mentally ill. Is there nobody on this forum with any empathy towards his plight? Stop trying to find somebody who is lower on the totem pole than you in the mental health stakes and show some compassion - just as you would towards anybody who posts on this board.
It is not our duty to judge.
IMHO
Posted by tina on February 10, 2003, at 9:55:44
In reply to Re: Gotta say...... -- Right you are! -- » tina, posted by Ted on February 7, 2003, at 14:11:47
I watched the World Series ONCE. In 1992 because there was a team from Canada actually in it. But, like you, I don't watch those things either.
Posted by tina on February 10, 2003, at 10:03:28
In reply to Re: Michael Jackson's diagnosis? Gotta say......, posted by stjames on February 7, 2003, at 16:23:58
> > who cares?
> what he does?
>I typed exactly what i meant st james. I don't care. Period.
Posted by gabbix2 on February 10, 2003, at 10:54:57
In reply to Give the man a break., posted by Alara on February 10, 2003, at 4:39:20
I don't think anyone here criticized him because he is somehow worse off than we are.
He's been put in the public eye so It's a natural topic to discuss. I agree though, how would we ever know what he is going through, how could we attempt to know? I know most everyone who decides who i am, or how I am are nowhere close to the truth. Its like the story of the blind men and the elephant
Posted by noa on February 10, 2003, at 17:59:00
In reply to my opinion/??'s about MJ's voice., posted by bookgurl99 on February 10, 2003, at 0:21:57
About the voice--I heard some of his friends on some tv show say that in private he talks in a normal, adult male voice!
Posted by stjames on February 10, 2003, at 18:29:22
In reply to Re: Michael Jackson's diagnosis? Gotta say...... » stjames, posted by tina on February 10, 2003, at 10:03:28
> > > who cares?
> > what he does?
> >
>
> I typed exactly what i meant st james. I don't care. Period.
I hope you do not have kids
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 10, 2003, at 19:12:16
In reply to Re: Michael Jackson's diagnosis? Gotta say......, posted by stjames on February 10, 2003, at 18:29:22
Posted by Gabbix2 on February 10, 2003, at 20:30:24
In reply to Re: please keep this thread civil (nm), posted by Dr. Bob on February 10, 2003, at 19:12:16
Okay, I didn't watch the Michael Jackson, whatever it was, interview, documentary.
I echo Tina's sentiments, but I'm hearing people talk about the children. Has he actually been charged with anything, or is this public censure a-la Lyndy Chamberlain 'A cry in the Dark'
I know he settled out of court for one case, which does not mean an admission of guilt.
I also know that children are often encouraged especially in high publicity cases, to say things that they wouldn't have thought of without suggestion bordering on coersion. McMartin Daycare travesty is a great example.Okay MJ had a birthmark the kid recognized.
Well good guess!!! he was 12 years old, look at Michael Jacksons Face, hands, what are the chances of a 12 year old guessing he has other marks. I've changed in front of kids before, very young kids,
I've also cuddled with them, is it different because I'm a woman?I'm not saying he's not 'guilty' how would I know? I'm just wondering what the reasons are he's being censured.
Cause he's weird? We're all weird. Weird people can make great parents.
If any of us had our private lives on display someone would find fault with it. God would they find fault with it! You don't even have to make it public all you have to do is forget to mow your lawn.So what is it besides public opinion, was there something definate pointed out in the interview?
BTW I'm a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, so I'm not blind, but if I were to judge one way or another I'd say its them "normal ones' (whatever that is) ones you have to watch out for.
Posted by Gabbix2 on February 11, 2003, at 10:15:15
In reply to Who Cares? I don't understand. Tina ?St James?, posted by Gabbix2 on February 10, 2003, at 20:30:24
Posted by NikkiT2 on February 11, 2003, at 10:26:54
In reply to Who Cares? I don't understand. Tina ?St James?, posted by Gabbix2 on February 10, 2003, at 20:30:24
The complaint that was filed some years ago, which was settled for money out fo court..
Well, I;ve just read the kids statement. If what he says is true.. well, MJ should be no wher enar kids.
BUT.. is what the kid says true?? A cousin of mine spent 5 years in prison, before the child that accused him admitted it wasn't my cousin that had abused and was someone else...
If you were a parent, and your child had had done to him the things that this statement claims, there is NO WAY on earth you would settle for money.. you would want justice.
Its so hard to know.
Nikki
ps - I am not leaving the link to the statement, but I will email it to anyone wishing to see it for themselves.
Posted by tina on February 11, 2003, at 11:04:19
In reply to Re: Michael Jackson's diagnosis? Gotta say......, posted by stjames on February 10, 2003, at 18:29:22
Nope, I don't have kids.
Posted by Gabbix2 on February 11, 2003, at 11:23:48
In reply to Re: Michael Jackson's diagnosis? Gotta say...... » stjames, posted by tina on February 11, 2003, at 11:04:19
I'm wondering why you would make such a quick judgement about whether or not Tina should be a parent just because she's not interested in Michael Jackson? How does that reflect on her potential parenting skills?
Oh and thanks Nicki T2 I knew about the former allegations and have the same feelings you do.
I was wondering with the seeming severity of the judgement if there had been anything more than public conjecture on whether he is a child abuser.
Posted by stjames on February 11, 2003, at 13:24:39
In reply to Re: Parenting ? St James » tina, posted by Gabbix2 on February 11, 2003, at 11:23:48
> I'm wondering why you would make such a quick judgement about whether or not Tina should be a parent just because she's not interested in Michael Jackson?
I am conserned by anyone who says "I don't care"
in cases were kids could be abused.
Posted by Gabbix2 on February 11, 2003, at 15:43:33
In reply to Re: Parenting ? St James, posted by stjames on February 11, 2003, at 13:24:39
I'm trying to be civil here, its extremely difficult though to be completely supportive with two drastically different opinions.
If an accusation toward's someone's fitness as a parent wasn't involved I wouldn't even attempt to navigate this.
Tina didn't say "I don't care if Michael Jackson abuses children"
It wasn't even what I gather the news story was focused on. There has been no proof of abuse.
What the staff said is not proof. I've been in jobs where people make horrendous absolutely false accusations that become worse and worse the more people hear of it, and add their little bit. And in Mj's case there is always that chance that someone wanted their 15 minutes of fame.
The potential for abuse is anywhere.
A plausible accusation can be made from anything if the desire is there
If the subject had been child abuse I can say almost certainly Tina's response would not have been "I don't care"In my opinion it is more dangerous to jump to accept a conclusion feuled a media feeding frenzy, where there is no proof, and on that alone be quick to make serious accusations. And on top of that make a conclusion about another poster based on a few sentences.
I find that to be abusive toward other human beings
There have been horrifying consequences when the public fed by the media and by hearsay decide guilt or innocence. I find buying into that abhorrent (I'm not overstating) and potentially very dangerous.
Does that mean from this I can justify judging YOUR fitness as a parent?
I don't think so.
Posted by stjames on February 11, 2003, at 17:32:19
In reply to Re Child Abuse.. LONG » stjames, posted by Gabbix2 on February 11, 2003, at 15:43:33
> Tina didn't say "I don't care if Michael Jackson abuses children"
No she did not, but I asked her to clarify,
and she again said she did not care. So it seems
clear to me that she does not care if Jackson abuses children. That is the direct question I asjed her.> It wasn't even what I gather the news story was focused on. There has been no proof of abuse.
> What the staff said is not proof. I've been in jobs where people make horrendous absolutely false accusations that become worse and worse the more people hear of it, and add their little bit. And in Mj's case there is always that chance that someone wanted their 15 minutes of fame.I think now you are assuming what I do or don;t know.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.