Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 35 of 35

Thread: Could MJ have suffered from something like this

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Pennsylvania, US
    Posts
    171

    Favorite
    Album
    Bad
    Quote Originally Posted by DDFF22552255 View Post
    There’s an enormous, huge difference between “asking questions” and making up wild, nonsensical “theories,” Vega — more like outright LYING and cruel, deliberate slander, when you really think about it — that attempt to “explain” something, or anything, that doesn’t neatly fit into most people’s idea of what is “supposed to be,” and what is considered as “normal.” I would like to know whom, or what, determines what that is?

    The world being such as it is, there is NO such thing as “normal.” Everyone has unique aspects, physical characteristics, personality traits, etc. So, what’s wrong with that, other than some old-fashioned, obsolete, outdated “macho-man” stereotype FINALLY being debunked, thrown out, and gotten rid of altogether?

    Now, I’m definitely NOT saying that Michael had intentionally done that — like some academic “scholars” and authors love to claim, which is also as much a bunch of baloney, foolishness and nonsense as the so-called “puberphonia” theory — yet, the way he looked (especially, from the “Thriller”/“VictoryTour period onwards, for the rest of his life), the way his voice naturally had sounded, his mannerisms and overall personality didn’t come off to most people as that of a fully-grown, adult, “macho” Male.

    I say: “SO WHAT!!!” Michael Joseph Jackson was only being himself, and had to deal with harsh criticism — even the media and the public stooping so low as to question his personal private goings-on (which were none of the media’s, nor any of the public’s, business except for him and his loved ones), which I feel was/is despicable, in my view — all during the second half of his life, just for his having been seen and thought of as “different.” Do you know what I mean?
    My post was quite firmly tongue in cheek.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Vega For This Useful Post:

    PG13 (6 Days Ago)

  3. #32
    These are my personal views, and I will continue to stand by them:

    Quote Originally Posted by DDFF22552255 View Post
    “There’s an enormous, huge difference between ‘asking questions’ and making up wild, nonsensical ‘theories,’ Vega — more like outright LYING and cruel, deliberate slander, when you really think about it — that attempt to ‘explain’ something, or anything, that doesn’t neatly fit into most people’s idea of what is ‘supposed to be,’ and what is considered as ‘normal.’ I would like to know whom, or what, determines what that is.

    The world being such as it is, there is NO such thing as ‘normal.’ Everyone has unique aspects, physical characteristics, personality traits, etc. So, what’s wrong with that, other than some old-fashioned, obsolete, outdated “macho-man” stereotype FINALLY being debunked, thrown out, and gotten rid of altogether?

    Now, I’m definitely NOT saying that Michael had intentionally done that — like some academic ‘scholars’ and authors love to claim, which is also as much of a bunch of baloney, outright ridiculousness, foolishness and nonsense as this so-called ‘puberphonia’ theory — yet, the way he looked (especially, from the ‘Thriller’/‘VictoryTour period onwards, for the rest of his life), the way his voice naturally had sounded, his mannerisms and overall personality didn’t come across to most people as that of a fully-grown, adult, ‘macho’ Male.

    With that being said, however, I say: ‘SO WHAT!!!’ Michael Joseph Jackson was only being himself, and he had to deal with harsh criticism — even the media and the public stooping so low as to question and to even speculate about his personal, private goings-on (which were none of our, nor the media’s, nor any of the public’s, business except for that of him and his loved ones alone, not the business of the whole, entire rest of the world to keep meddling in), which I feel was/is despicable, in my view — all during the second half of his life, just for his having been seen and thought of as ‘different.’ ”
    Here is what I really think of these stupid, ignorant claims; They are nothing but a whole lot of “derp,” to me.

    EXCLAMATION

    — Informal

    — Used as a substitute for speech regarded as meaningless or stupid, or to comment on a foolish or stupid action.”
    Last edited by DDFF22552255; 5 Days Ago at 05:56 PM.

  4. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Pennsylvania, US
    Posts
    171

    Favorite
    Album
    Bad
    Quote Originally Posted by DDFF22552255 View Post
    These are my personal views, and I will continue to stand by them:
    Right. Cool. Just wanted to make it clear I was being entirely facetious.

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Vega For This Useful Post:

    DDFF22552255 (5 Days Ago),PG13 (6 Days Ago)

  6. #34
    Vega, I truly believe that this idea is as much a lot of stupid, nonsensical and foolish “derp” as some other ideas —— speculations about Michael and made-up “theories” concerning him —— such as one that was discussed earlier, in another thread (as I have re-posted some of my previous comments from it, here):

    Quote Originally Posted by DDFF22552255 View Post
    “——, I used to think that writing these papers and articles was a good, positive thing these authors were doing, so that, finally, the public will be told the TRUTH about Michael, instead of all the negative tabloid rumors, gossip and outright lying that’s gone on for his whole, entire adult life.

    What gets on my nerves, however, is THIS: Instead of putting their research to the best possible use in finding out the plain, honest-to-goodness TRUTH in regards to him, many of these articles, books, theses, and so forth are nothing more than a complete waste of time, energy and everything else, merely making long, drawn-out statements about whatever way that Michael either ‘represented’ or ‘related to’ them, in some way or another (supposedly), even if he hadn’t and never did.

    What they write and publish becomes far less about telling the facts, being objective and fair to him, and more about these people themselves, how they dealt with their own personal issues with being seen or viewed as ‘different,’ so, they project whatever personal issues and problems they’ve been going through in their lives, by using him as an example. Do you know what I’m saying? While I would gladly appreciate reading some good, positive, well-written and thoroughly-researched articles, etc., from people who know whom they’re supposed to have been writing about, for a change, I don’t appreciate reading such books and/or articles that are not so much more than extremely long opinion pieces — complete with bibliography pages and, literally, tons of footnotes to boot, from various ‘sources,’ for the purpose of making their so-called ‘authors’ seem to be more ‘scholarly’ than they actually are — on how he (in their view) supposedly, allegedly ‘represents’ this-or-that particular individual or group, and how his having been viewed as ‘different’ (or, even ‘strange,’ ‘weird,’ an ‘oddity,’ etc.) by the media, and sadly, by even some amongst the public, ‘relates to’ the authors who write such pieces.

    These articles, books, papers, theses, whatever and so forth should only, strictly be used for the purpose of uncovering the TRUTH about Michael objectively and getting people to learn more about him, rather than for any self-serving and attention-seeking purposes on the part of their authors.

    Here are some comments I had made in a different thread, on another board. They bring home the same point about Michael, that:
    “Even when he tried to look like what he considered ‘normal’ in his later years, Michael was, at times, severely criticized for his having done just THAT. Since he had passed, something else occurred, that was and is just as bad as the media’s and the public’s criticism of his physical appearance, if not worse. This claim by certain writers of so-called ‘academic’ papers, books, theses and so forth that Michael’sThriller’ and ‘post-“Thriller” ’ looks, his voice, etc. — in fact, anything about him that seemed to have been ‘different’ from the ‘norm,’ to most of us — was used to mis-represent the real person he actually was, as having ‘represented’ people living a certain lifestyle or having ‘related to’ a particular author’s experiences of being considered as ‘different.’ The truth is, that the only person Michael Jackson ever truly was, he was just being himself; He wasn’t trying to ‘represent’ any other person, nor any particular group of people.”


    --- Merged Posts ---

    Here are some more older posts, that very well relate to this thread:


    “I thought they were called idiots.....”

    “Maybe we should just go on ahead and call these people ‘idiots,’ who think they know so much about Michael, ——. What they think and assumed to have ‘researched’ about him and his life is either faulty, at best, or completely mis-representative of him — and, of his having been the way he was, in actuality — at worst.

    What really gets me, is that certain ‘authors’ and writers of ‘academic’ books, theses and papers actually want for anything at all having to do with Michael to ‘represent’ their point of view and/or way of life, especially, if it was something that seemed to be different about him, that was considered ‘unusual’ or didn’t ‘fit into’ the conventional societal ‘norms’ (partly because of his outward physical appearance — particularly, from ‘Thriller’ onwards — the sound of his voice, the way he dressed, his performance onstage, and so forth), even if it didn’t. Do you notice this started happening almost right after he passed? It happened, when he could no longer neither defend nor speak up for himself. You do know that I had commented about this, before, as I will not go into the details, but, I feel the same way now about this, as I did then.

    These so-called ‘academics’ are projecting onto Michael whatever they want to project onto him, saying and writing things about him in order to push their agenda — that he supposedly ‘represented’ something he either wasn’t during his lifetime, or that which went totally against his views — instead of using their research for the purpose of finding out the truth.”
    Last edited by DDFF22552255; 5 Days Ago at 07:50 PM.

  7. #35
    Here are some other previous posts and comments from the “Neverland” and “Boyish” threads, that very well relate to this one:

    Quote Originally Posted by toomuch View Post
    ....Anyone else ever noticed that MJ had a really unique leg to torso ratio (for a man at least) as his anatomical structure is much closer to that of a womans than a man.



    To be more accurate a mans body that is hybridized in parts with a womens, notably at the points that would've elongated during a pubertal growth spurt.
    Now they say your test/estro ratio is set in the womb and is evidenced by the ratio of your 1st and 3rd digits:




    MJ (who had really really big hands in comparison to his frame) was naturally testosterone dominant so in that sense was much like his brothers and the proclivities this brings (See Jermaine Uncle Dad for example) yet he wasn't. Not at all. Now when I discovered this it not only added credence to the "MJ was given female hormones to extend puberty" rumours that kicked around for so long but also explained a whole load of other things that stand out in stark contrast to his siblings (body proportions, mentality, sensitivity and overall vibe) because if Joe did bang him full of estrogen during the time his nuts should've been dropping it. I don't trust Murray as far as I can throw him but he did mention a similar thing:

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbi...is-voice-high/
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrit...d-been-8439967

    Whether this was intentional or accidental as he sought out ways of dealing with his acne is up in the air but if the body provides the body of evidence then its very very clear that there was some form of tampering at a critical juncture in his development that left him how he was. See also:

    https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/artic...ons-castration

    But then the autopsy states the larynx wasn't remarkable and yet the sounds it made were. Either way MJ gets his controversy and people talking even after he's gone but I really do think that behind the scenes this guy had the most miserable existence ever known to man.
    I guess, people will keep on trying to come up with their own ridiculous, downright crazy ideas about Michael, don’t you think? I see something VERY familiar with a certain “theory” discussed in a previous thread, here.
    http://historycontinues.com/forums/s...o-stay-boyish!

    Here are some of my previous views, on that subject matter:

    First of all, the link you posted is nothing but the latest “new” version of a very old story. It’s an ancient piece-of-garbage rumor that has been circulating around the Internet ever since Michael had passed, and had probably been in existence (in some form, or another, only changing the circumstances of “who did what to him, when”) dating back to when he first came fully out of puberty in his late teen years.

    Because of this type of speculation concerning his voice and how it eventually ended up having sounded like it had, everything from questioning his gender to negative assumptions being made about his personal life has been the subject matter of “tabloid” gossip.

    This time, it involves a doctor; Though he may be quite expert in the field of medicine he specializes in, he absolutely does NOT have the medical training, expertise, knowledge nor understanding of anything - be it physically, mentally or otherwise, for that matter - about Michael Jackson at all, whatsoever, to base his personal opinion on (and, more importantly, not one single shred of solid evidence to back up such ridiculous, outrageous, far-fetched claims as he makes), regarding the subject matter of his book.

    What this doctor was trying to promote, at the time, is not based on fact, but only states his views speculating as to what might have happened to Michael during his youth. The article posted on the Web site - a review of the book’s content - is factually wrong. Rather than bring the truth out, and come forward with it, the book’s author merely puts out a “new” twist on an old LIE:


    Was Michael Jackson Castrated to Insure his 3-Octave Voice?”

    “A few years after his death, news linking late King of Pop Michael Jackson with abuse of prescription drugs made the rounds again, as a French doctor alleged that Michael Jackson owed his legendary three octave voice to chemical castration.

    Alain Branchereau, an opera buff and professor of vascular surgery at Timone University Hospital in France's Mediterranean port of Marseille, told the French News Agency AFP that he discussed Jackson’s unusual range with colleagues and they deduced that the Pop Star might have been accidentally castrated through medications used to treat acne - a condition Jackson suffered from at the age of 12.

    Experts say that Jackson might have used Cyproterone – a drug used widely for the treatment of acne in the sixties and seventies and until the development of leuprolide, cyproterone was one of the few drugs used to treat precocious puberty. It was also used in animal experimentation to investigate the actions of androgens in fetal sexual differentiation. Cyproterone is an anti-androgen, which works by suppressing the production of testosterone – the male hormone.

    A 1966 experiment investigated a 'homosexual model' looking at the effect of anti-androgens on sexual behavior and preference. Speculations became rife that the prolonged use of the drug might have been deliberately inflicted on the then teen-star as a means of protecting his vocal assets. In the opinion of Alain Branchereau, Jackson had the ‘voice of a castrato!’ ”
    ——, I only quoted the article, itself. This is a review of a book, written by an author who only has expertise in his particular medical field, not by someone whose word, or personal opinion, is to be taken at face-value as solid, credible “proof” or evidence (of whatever it was, that either may or may not have happened to Michael when he was a child - according to his view) and shouldn’t be questioned, just because he is a doctor.

    That’s equally just as bad as saying, ”Michael’s voice was a ‘fake,’ a ‘put-on,’ an ‘act’ - just so he could create an ‘image’ for himself.” The reason why I referred to this article, calling it “a ‘new’ twist on an old LIE” in my previous comments, is because of the fact that some form, or variation, of this same ridiculous lie has been in existence - at one time or another, but told in different ways, using different circumstances - ever since Michael grew up out of his childhood/adolescence and showed the obvious physical signs of his having become a MAN.

    Though his voice didn’t change nearly as drastically as some (even posters on this board, to be honest) would like to believe it had, it - without any doubt or question - absolutely DID change, however slightly the degree. He never again would sound quite exactly like he did as a young boy, yet, his voice always maintained its “young” sound; As his Lower Range expanded, he didn’t “lose” his Upper Range completely.

    People make up stories about him, still, to this day. All his adult life, they have, and will continue to. Why go over every single statement and claim made in this article, the doctor’s book and everything related to it, if what I have read of it is already known and proven to be false? That would make no sense at all. The book, the review article, and everything else related to it, it has no credibility, not even in one sentence of it.
    What I said and I meant, ——, was that other controversial topics and subject matter, from other threads (and your, my or anyone else’s personal points of view on them) should have been left with those particular threads discussing [other controversial] issues, and NOT carried over to, nor ever brought up in, this one.

    What does any conversation pertaining to other threads on this board have to do with the excerpt from Dr. Branchereau’s book, and his making false assumptions about someone whom he never even met (having been Michael Jackson), much less someone who never was one of his patients, who ever came to this doctor to seek treatment from him of any kind?

    Whatever physical or other problems Michael had, they were not part of Dr. Branchereau’s field of medical expertise that he specialized in, anyway. So, ——, why else would he make these claims, except for the simple fact that, there was the issue of his getting paid quite a bit of money to write a book using Michael’s name in a negative way?

    Also, this book excerpt, you have to remember — as well as its review — do absolutely nothing, except give a new “spin” on one of THE oldest, most persistent rumors ever to have circulated around, as to how Michael’s adult singing-voice became the way it was; Just that certain aspects and “details” of the story have changed over the years — ever since he grew up out of childhood, puberty and adolescence (Then, a story was made up, “explaining” why his voice was still as high-pitched and so soft-spoken as it was, for an older teenager who became an adult, fully-grown MAN.) — as to how such changes in the story occurred, supposedly, “Who did what to him; How, when and why did they do it?,” etc. His lifestyle was questioned as well, because of the sound of his speaking-voice.
    Hmm....——, are you saying that this doctor’s viewpoints, personal opinions and theories about Michael’s larynx and vocal development (from that of a young boy to a fully-grown man’s), were not so far-fetched after all? I don’t believe what he wrote, still. And, like I said earlier, while the vast majority of young and teenage boys’ voices undergo obviously drastic changes (deepening from the child Sopranos these boys once had as children, all the way down to either Baritones or Basses — by the time they finish going through puberty and adolescence — when they reach full adulthood), there are and have been men who went through the same adolescent stage of life whose voices certainly had changed, just not nearly as much, nor to as great a degree. An extremely rare few men have, or had, some physical abnormality that caused their voices not to have ever developed at all.

    Not all young men’s voices develop into what is considered the “standard,” or typical “norm,” for THE “adult Male” voice. One of the many general outcomes, effects and results of going through puberty, on a young boy, is THIS: “The bigger the larynx grows, the longer and thicker the vocal cords eventually become, the deeper the boy’s voice will end up sounding like, when he becomes a MAN. The smaller the larynx, the shorter and thinner the vocal cords, the higher in pitch and much lighter in tone the voice will remain, pretty much.” SO WHAT — Does that alone, in itself, make these men somehow “abnormal,” and their larynxes and vocal cords “under-developed,” simply for their larynxes’ being smaller, the vocal cords’ being shorter and thinner in structure? No, it doesn’t. I’d much rather think of Michael’s adult voice-type as one of a number of variations, or unique qualities, of those voice-types who didn’t necessarily neatly “fit into” this so-called “standard” or go by that old-fashioned, outdated stereotype. There was nothing “wrong” with, nor “abnormal” about, Michael’s voice.

    I get what you said, about what Motown and the public wanted him to have looked and sounded like; That’s how people old enough to remember the national and international T.V. debut of The Jackson 5 first saw Michael — as the young, extremely talented 11-year-old lead vocalist singing with his brothers. It took a while for some people to get used to him growing up out of his “child” stage. Remember, PG, even he said how difficult it was for him to adjust to his own body and voice changing (to what slight degree his voice, eventually, had changed). Some people’s negative reaction to him, when first having seen him since he matured out of his earlier formerly “cute” stage, made this adjustment — while he transitioned from a young child to a teenager, and then, from a teenager to an adult — even worse for him, since he was practically forced to grow up in the public eye, and to have projected a certain “image.” What are your thoughts on this, ——? I would really want to know what they are.
    Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
    Last edited by DDFF22552255; 5 Hours Ago at 12:22 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •