Brooke Sheild.s-book/ Excerpts in People-Magazine

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

I agree people have said things way more hurtful and offensive but I take offense in what she said because it was out of ignorance and I relate to Michael in a way. I've never been with someone because I imposed in my values I wouldn't be unless I truly love that person and that person was reciprocate to me but I know I'm not asexual.

 

[SheilaMJFan4Ever]

Re: Brooke *******-book/ Excerpts in People-Magazine

Lol that's because of Dam. S.

I missed the bus on that change, LOL! Thanks for explaining the censoring. :crackingup:

 

[Petrarose]

-I am a native English-speaking person, so when I see someone above^^ say something like basically chicken out is the same as terrified, and another person is quoting the chicken out comment to substantiate the terrified comment, I have to respond. You can chicken out of something because you are terrified, but it does not mean that chicken out means terrified. You can chicken out because you felt insecure, uneasy, realized the prior decision went against your ideals/morals/goals, etc., etc., but still, it does not mean you are terrified. For example, in the 80s I went to a party among peers and there was this guy who danced with you and played with your breast at the same time. All the girls were dancing with him, and I decided to do so too. However, when he asked me to dance I chickened out. Why? Not because I was terrified of breast touching (which I like yum yum), or sex, or intimacy, but because I felt who wants this guy's hands on my breast and all the other breast too, nothing special here, everyone would know that if I danced with him then there would be some breast playing, and I did not want people knowing my business, so I chickened out. We can't mix up the meaning of these words just to serve our own purposes.

-Someone asked me what something else Michael claimed that contradicts Brook's. Well I have said it several times and that is about the nature of the relationship between him and Brooks. Remember I am talking from the perspective of someone who was around in he 80s and paying attention to the artists & their behavior, the music, the dance, the stories so I know in the 80s, she did not say what she claimed in later years. Therein lies the contradiction. She should have said right then before the award show that I am just hanging out with him for publicity. I introduced myself to him for publicity. I went to his house for publicity. I went to out of the way places with him for publicity, even though no one would see us.

-About the comment that the book only talk a little about Michael, well I am not discussing the whole book. Someone made a thread about the Michael excerpts, which is why people are posting in this thread.

-Ivy I am not twisting. I agree that you showed Brooke's 2 statements and she claimed she called. That shows she did not abandon him fully. She went on with her life & he called her when something significant was going on in her life. However, there were people in the thread who asked what abandonment as though Michael was not abandoned. They were acting as though he was not abandoned at all because of a list, and these same people agree that he was abandoned in other threads. So if you feel I twist your words, I am untwisting it now.

-The comment about Brooke saying "he was asexual to me," could mean a number of things. I don't know if she is saying "to me, Brooke, he is asexual," or if she is saying "in our relationship he was asexual." However, comments like that the public take in a layman's way and it just adds to the media image of Michael as this sexless man, who is terrified of sex, intimacy, relationships, and women.

-The comment about there are people who did worse things to Michael etc., as though there is some dictator here who is going to dictate whose statements a person can protest against or dissect, I am against that. There will be no one here who will colonize my consciousness, intellect, & choice to determine the level of what is important to me. The mere fact that we should dismiss certain comments by certain people because to the masses it is not as bad as the comment from this other guy is crazy. So if a person hit me with a hand I should not say anything because there are other people out there who hit with heavy objects, which are worse? If someone makes a white lie I should not disagree with it because other people tell bigger lies? Well I will not accept that. Sure one chooses one's battles, and some you let go; but to tell someone that there are people out there who did worse so let's not bother with what Brooke said is not something I will adhere to.

Snow your comment ... I've never been with someone because I imposed in my values I wouldn't be unless I truly love that person and that person was reciprocate to me but I know I'm not asexual. I like this. The thing is there are some people out there who have different ideas about their own sexual behavior based on some moral code. Are we to call these people asexual, terrified? Even Bush said Michael was asexual, and I loved his book, but that does not mean I agree with what he said and I can oppose that statement if I wish. I have that right. I know how it is to label someone because of a sexual/intimate decision the person holds.

I like these types of threads because it shows what fans really think about Michael. We tend to talk about nonfans or haters as thinking stereotyped ideas about Michael. But over the years, I have found these types of threads do show that within the fan base there are fans who hold these same views. Some will throw his sexuality under the bus to agree with a loved artist/star/writer, and I find it all enlightening.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

They were relatively close for at least a decade, they shared many anecdotes and moments together but she chose to keep perpetuating a lie and/or something Brooke has no proof of since she has relentlessly said for years they were just friends and she wasn't interested in having Michael as a partner. It seems it's a matter of perspective but no one gets a pass from me if someone lies about him, no matter how small it is, a lie is a lie. And enough perpetuating Michael as a freak, asexual being already.

 

[ivy]

when I see someone above^^ say something like basically chicken out is the same as terrified, and another person is quoting the chicken out comment to substantiate the terrified comment, I have to respond. You can chicken out of something because you are terrified, but it does not mean that chicken out means terrified. You can chicken out because you felt insecure, uneasy, realized the prior decision went against your ideals/morals/goals, etc., etc., but still, it does not mean you are terrified. We can't mix up the meaning of these words just to serve our own purposes.

actually dictionary definition of chicken out is "to decide not to do something because you are too frightened", similar words are listed as afraid/scared. so people are correct to equal chicken out to being afraid.

-About the comment that the book only talk a little about Michael, well I am not discussing the whole book. Someone made a thread about the Michael excerpts, which is why people are posting in this thread.

none of these excerpts are in the book. so it's just a people magazine article.

-The comment about Brooke saying "he was asexual to me," could mean a number of things. I don't know if she is saying "to me, Brooke, he is asexual," or if she is saying "in our relationship he was asexual." However, comments like that the public take in a layman's way and it just adds to the media image of Michael as this sexless man, who is terrified of sex, intimacy, relationships, and women.

and she extensively mentioned and mentions that she was a virgin. she was also "sexless". and her full quote includes that. The way I read it he became sexless towards her because she was sexless as well.

"As he grew older and the more he started to change physically, the more asexual he became to me," ******* says. "It was easy for him to be a friend to me, because I was the most celebrated virgin ever; it's ridiculous, but I was America's virgin.

And enough perpetuating Michael as a freak, asexual being already.

Why does anyone has to be "freak" because they are asexual? What's next? virgins are "weird" or LGBT people are "sick? I personally wouldn't use a term like "freak" to describe any sexual orientation. Today 1% of people say they are asexual.

Personally I don't care Michael - or anyone for that matter - is asexual, bisexual, heterosexual or homosexual. Whatever their choice might be it would never ever make them a "freak" in my book.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

Whatever sexual orientation Michael may had identified himself (he said he was straight and I choose to take his word,) for the media and haters he was a freak. It prevails for the most part he was gay or asexual. All of us know that and it doesn't help whatsoever a person who once was close to him keeps perpetuating that false stereotype without proof.

 

[ivy]

a person who once was close to him keeps perpetuating that false stereotype without proof.

ever consider perhaps Brooke hasn't experienced anything sexual with Michael (something she's been saying for decades) and she's just telling her experience?

I'm really struggling with what is the issue here. First Brooke was falsely accused with abandoning / not supporting Michael, but it turned out that she did support him twice. Then her credibility was questioned but Michael is on record saying nothing sexual happened between them because he chickened out (regardless of how you define it). Then the asexual comment became problematic and it looks like you expect a woman who both according to her and Michael didn't have romantic / sexual relations with each other, a woman who was a virgin to confirm Michael's active heterosexual sex life. Totally makes sense. Damn you virgin Brooke, why can't you portray your non existent sexual interactions with Michael as a "normal" man for the "media and haters". My bad. Carry on.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

For the media, it's "normal" male celebs use women like tissues, Michael was not a womanizer who had sex with any random stranger that crossed his path, that's so abnormal in their book. Why do you think many rock stars are glorified?

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

Then why on earth did she say such remarks if she wasn't interested in him romantically and/or sexually? It's uncalled for, to be honest. If she just has stick to we were friends, there wouldn't be any issue, trust me.

 

[ivy]

For the media, it's "normal" male celebs use women like tissues, Michael was not a womanizer who had sex with random stranger that crossed his path, that's so abnormal in their book. Why do you think many rock stars are glorified?

I guess I didn't get the memo that we started to care about what the media or haters think.

Also you are quite naive if you think that media and or haters opinions will change if women come forward and portray Michael as a womanizer.

So added all together I couldn't give a rats ass about what media or haters think. If you wonder what I think: there was a virgin woman and there was a religious man. I'm not surprised that their relationship was sexless and they were just friends and platonic towards each other. I have no problem with that woman telling her experience as it is. The religious man later got married and his wife on national TV declared that they have sex. That's more than enough for me.

 

[AliCat]

In reading the different interviews that Brooke did through the years, about her relationship with Michael, she was a good friend of his. They felt safe with one another. Even Brooke's Mom liked Michael. Michael started out having a crush on Brooke and what guy didn't, she was gorgeous. I can see why Katherine asked Brooke to speak at Michael's memorial, because of their friendship, that Michael and Brooke always had. This photo of Brooke did hang at "Neverland." Michael did give Brooke a very large diamond ring as a friendship ring. They'd both grown up in show business as child star's. Brooke started out in movies in rather provocative parts, Michael started out, performing in Strip clubs as a child.

 

[HIStory]

-I am a native English-speaking person, so when I see someone above^^ say something like basically chicken out is the same as terrified, and another person is quoting the chicken out comment to substantiate the terrified comment, I have to respond. You can chicken out of something because you are terrified, but it does not mean that chicken out means terrified. You can chicken out because you felt insecure, uneasy, realized the prior decision went against your ideals/morals/goals, etc., etc., but still, it does not mean you are terrified. For example, in the 80s I went to a party among peers and there was this guy who danced with you and played with your breast at the same time. All the girls were dancing with him, and I decided to do so too. However, when he asked me to dance I chickened out. Why? Not because I was terrified of breast touching (which I like yum yum), or sex, or intimacy, but because I felt who wants this guy's hands on my breast and all the other breast too, nothing special here, everyone would know that if I danced with him then there would be some breast playing, and I did not want people knowing my business, so I chickened out. We can't mix up the meaning of these words just to serve our own purposes.

We can start nitpicking on the difference between the meaning of the words "terrified" and "chickened out", but the point remains that according to Michael himself there was a situation where they almost got intimate and he chickened out. Brooke easily could perceive that as him being terrified of sex, so to me there is no contradiction in their stories, in fact it seems consistent with what Michael himself said. They can have slightly different POVs as it is always the case about every story, but all in all it seems consistent.

-Someone asked me what something else Michael claimed that contradicts Brook's. Well I have said it several times and that is about the nature of the relationship between him and Brooks. Remember I am talking from the perspective of someone who was around in he 80s and paying attention to the artists & their behavior, the music, the dance, the stories so I know in the 80s, she did not say what she claimed in later years. Therein lies the contradiction. She should have said right then before the award show that I am just hanging out with him for publicity. I introduced myself to him for publicity. I went to his house for publicity. I went to out of the way places with him for publicity, even though no one would see us.

So did she say in later years that she was only with Michael for publicity? I did not realize that. What she said in later years and what she says now is that they never had sex and they were friends, they were like two kids who liked each other. So I do not get why Brooke should have said in the 80s that it's all for publicity because that's not what she says now either.

However, there were people in the thread who asked what abandonment as though Michael was not abandoned. They were acting as though he was not abandoned at all because of a list, and these same people agree that he was abandoned in other threads. So if you feel I twist your words, I am untwisting it now.

Sorry to say this, but to me you ARE twisting the argument. By citing that list I did not claim anywhere that Michael was never abandoned at all. That is absolutely NOT what I said! I brought that list as an example to show that he was not abandoned by everyone. That's not to say he was not abandoned by anyone at all and actually I did stress that so I have no idea why you say this now. This is what I wrote:

Were there many people who abandoned him? Yes, there were. But from that to make the conclusion that he's definitely talking about Brooke is such a stretch. He could have meant hundreds of other people by that comment, not only Brooke. From that Evvy Tavasci note we do know that there WERE people who did call and offer their help. So to make it out to be such an extreme situation where absolutely everyone abandoned him is just not right and not correct. And Michael himself never claimed that either.

I like these types of threads because it shows what fans really think about Michael. We tend to talk about nonfans or haters as thinking stereotyped ideas about Michael. But over the years, I have found these types of threads do show that within the fan base there are fans who hold these same views. Some will throw his sexuality under the bus to agree with a loved artist/star/writer, and I find it all enlightening.

Who threw his sexuality under the bus, may I ask? Who here holds the same view about his sexuality as haters? Thing is, none of us are an authority about his sexuality, only he was an authority about his own sexuality. He himself said he chickened out in the only situation he was about to get intimate with Brooke. So what else are we supposed to say about that? I can only speak for myself, but I did not say he was asexual and I do not think he was asexual. And BTW, some people act here like asexuality was some horrible thing. It isn't. But no, that does not mean I think Michael was asexual. I do not think that. I do think however that he was a late bloomer regarding sex. Is that such a horrible thing that you have to liken us to haters for that view?

 

[HIStory]

For the media, it's "normal" male celebs use women like tissues, Michael was not a womanizer who had sex with any random stranger that crossed his path, that's so abnormal in their book. Why do you think many rock stars are glorified?

Michael was who he was. I am not bothered by it if he wasn't a stereotypical, womanizing rock star. Are you?

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

Of course I'm not bothered for who Michael was, it made him charming and adorable. I'm bothered for what some people contribute to portray him with no proof whatsoever, based ignorant preconceptions.

 

[Petrarose]

actually dictionary definition of chicken out is "to decide not to do something because you are too frightened", similar words are listed as afraid/scared. so people are correct to equal chicken out to being afraid.



none of these excerpts are in the book. so it's just a people magazine article.

Ivy First of all the comment was that terrified means basically chicken out and not that afraid is basically chicken out. You changed it.^^ Second the conclusion you made is wrong. You are doing the same thing the person did you are using a cause and saying it is the same as an effect.

Let's look at this:
-Someone said terrifed means basically chicken out.
-You find a dictionary definition that says you chicken out because you are too frightened.
-You then come to the conclusion-- so chicken out = afraid because the dictionary gives other words for frightened like afraid & scared. Do you see your logic there when you focused on something that explained why someone would chicken out?

Where in the dictionary it says the only time you chicken out is because you are too frightened. There are other reasons to chicken out. Even if I go by your sole definition, afraid does not mean terrified. Terrified has more intensity in it. A dictionary may give various words like big/large/gigantic but these are not the same since they differ in degree. So an afraid person and a terrified person are not the same. Where did it say Chicken out and terrified means the same thing?

You give a reason why someone chicken out, so in that reason why, "frightened" is the cause and "Chicken out" is the effect, but where in the dictionary it says they are the same? Where did it say the action of chickening out equal the cause of too frightened. The reason someone did something is not the same as What they did. Still, we were not talking about afraid in the thread but "Terrified."

You remind me of being in elementary school when the teacher sent us to look up a word from a story, and we came back with the easiest meaning and she would say, go back and get another meaning. If I go by your logic, if I am given an explanation that a person scratches because they itch, it would mean scratch and itch means basically the same thing. Which is incorrect. Also, based on that conclusion ^^ every terrified person we could say it means they chicken out. I would be terrified of snakes and it would mean I chicken out. I would chicken out due to not wanting to be seen and it would mean I am terrified because both words mean the same thing.


What you wrote here: So added all together I couldn't give a rats ass about what media or haters think. If you wonder what I think: there was a virgin woman and there was a religious man. I'm not surprised that their relationship was sexless and they were just friends and platonic towards each other. I have no problem with that woman telling her experience as it is. The religious man later got married and his wife on national TV declared that they have sex. That's more than enough for me.

^^I like this part. However, the time to say no no we are not dating was in the 80's when she was young so Michael would not be going around back then saying they were dating.

Snow your comment Then why on earth did she say such remarks if she wasn't interested in him romantically and/or sexually? It's uncalled for, to be honest. If she just has stick to we were friends, there wouldn't be any issue, trust me.

This is a problem I have too. You were not in a relationship with him, so you did not have to do anything to him for him to chicken out. You get what I am saying here. If me and Santa Claus went out, we are just "out together" for publicity. Why would Santa or me try to do anything that would lead someone to chicken out? Santa is not there for romantic reasons; remember we are only out for publicity. That is why I don't believe all she is saying. The relationship could not be all platonic. If it was just a publicity stunt then no need to go into the terrified comment to make Michael look so abnormal. However, that will not bother most here since they have the same view of Michael that Brooke has.

Personally, and yes I have no proof. I think Michael liked Brooke and her beauty. I think she was interested in him for a time but not seriously. I don't care about who had sex or didn't or who was a virgin or not. I think they went their own way.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

It's a fact religious fundamentalist are extremely sheltered from the opposite sex and sexuality. Michael was raised to believe sexual relationships area sin if that person is not married. No wonder why he felt insecure and had fear, it didn't made him asexual, he was conducting himself for what he thought was right and pure at that moment of his life. I'm not religous but I can understand and empathize where he was coming from because I've beenaccused of asexuality and being lesbian (she didn't accused him of being gay but other people do) too. No matter how you Brooke fans defend her and justify, her remarks were ignorant and offensive.

Let me put it this way, (supposing) if Michael had said HIMSELF he was gay, bisexual, asexual, pansexual, it wouldn't bothered be to the slightless, I'd still be crazily in love with him, my adoration wouldn't fade away. Other people claiming it when they didn't know him enough or have never even met him, that's what it pisses me off.

 

[Petrarose]

^Of course her remarks are offensive. I notice in many books/articles Michael's "friends" will say good things about him, but they will always put in a tabloid or stereotypical comment just to be safe and on the side of the masses or media. I have gotten used to it, but I still react to it when I see it.

I was brought up the same way. You were told not to have sex until you are married because of the fornication topics in the Bible. I understand where he is coming from. Michael may have chickened out due to remembering oh I got to be careful here and not do anything that would have me crossing that line. However, to some he has to be terrified and that can be the only reason.

 

[ivy]

Ivy

thank you for the English lesson but it's just semantics.

Where in the dictionary it says the only time you chicken out is because you are too frightened.

the moment when it doesn't list any other reason that being afraid. However it is irrelevant. My point was simple, people has a very good reason to equal chicken out to being afraid. Basic definition says that.

Also, based on that conclusion ^^ every terrified person we could say it means they chicken out. I would be terrified of snakes and it would mean I chicken out. I would chicken out due to not wanting to be seen and it would mean I am terrified because both words mean the same thing.

well here it's all mixed up. Chicken out is used when you are in the process of doing something and you stop doing it because you are afraid. In other words if you start making out with a person but then stop going any further because you are afraid, it would be chicken out. If you are frightened of snakes then you are frightened of snakes. If you were going to hold a snake but if you change your mind the last minute because you are afraid, it would mean you have chicken out from holding a snake. As far as your example goes I'm not sure if that's same as chicken out or you just made a decision to not dance with that guy.

Again all of these are semantics and moot. Regardless of how you define "chicken out", Michael's statement is easy to understand, they had one encounter Brooke tried to get real intimate with him and he didn't get intimate with her. Apparently Brooke believed this meant he was afraid. That's her experience and her perception.

no need to go into the terrified comment to make Michael look so abnormal. However, that will not bother most here since they have the same view of Michael that Brooke has.

well this is where again twisting begins. just because people understand where Brooke might be coming from doesn't mean they have the same view with her. Multiple people expressed that. I personally expressed that I believe Michael's reasons to not have sex was religious. So it shouldn't be this hard to understand people here don't see Michael was "frightened asexual". Also not everyone thinks such comments make Michael - or anyone for that matter - abnormal. Brooke's own book is filled with how afraid she was about losing her virginity. For multiple reasons people can be afraid of intimacy, it doesn't make them "abnormal".

you Brooke fans

nice attempt to insult other members here. Just because people understand where she might be coming from doesn't make people "Brooke fans". I personally couldn't care about her any less.

No matter how you Brooke fans defend her and justify, her remarks were ignorant and offensive.

Now why didn't I also get the memo that difference of opinions aren't allowed and you are absolutely right? Sweet, no respect towards other people and their opinions. You go girl!!

Other people claiming it when they didn't know him enough or have never even met him, that's what it pisses me off.

well you also get pissed off when people who knew him for decades say stuff about him. So what really pisses you off? People telling their perceptions of Michael or that those perceptions doesn't fit to yours?

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

If calling people Brooke fans is an "insult" to you, what is defaming others like she did with Michael then? You can get annoying with your knowing all attitude.

Brooke. Was friends with him for a decade but Liz was 30 years or more and never said idiocies like that and she knew him much more than Brooke.

 

[HIStory]

If it was just a publicity stunt then no need to go into the terrified comment to make Michael look so abnormal. However, that will not bother most here since they have the same view of Michael that Brooke has.

I think the problem is to you that you think that being afraid of sex and intimacy is somehow wrong. This "abnormal" comment confirms this. To me there is nothing abnormal about it, it happens to millions of young people. So I guess that makes all the difference in being offended or not offended by Brooke's comment.

 

[ivy]

If calling people Brooke fans is an "insult" to you, what is defaming others like she did with Michael then?

I didn't say insult, I said "attempt to insult". It's somewhat common but also very juvenile (and doesn't really work) to question other people's fandom of Michael. We see it often in many other threads as well in multiple different formats. Here people were disagreeing with you and you tried to discredit them by calling them "Brooke fans", it was a veiled attempt to hint they value Brooke more than Michael. To me that just shows the other party doesn't have a valid argument. I'm a Michael Jackson fan that disagrees with you, learn to deal with it.

defaming others like she did with Michael then?

defaming? how? you mean saying people (or Michael or anyone) afraid of intimacy and/or saying the relationship was asexual/sexless is defamation? I think I was very clear I don't see it like that. I actually had serious issue with your "freak" and Petra's "abnormal" comments. To me those are more defaming than anything Brooke said. I don't know anyone's sexual experiences but in past there have been a time that I was frightened of intimacy and I don't see such as offensive, abnormal or freak. I also have friends with different sexual orientations - including asexual - so I don't see it as something to be offended as well. Also it's not uncommon for sex not being the focus of life for gifted people. so in short each to its own I guess.

edited to add

I think the problem is to you that you think that being afraid of sex and intimacy is somehow wrong. This "abnormal" comment confirms this. To me there is nothing abnormal about it, it happens to millions of young people. So I guess that makes all the difference in being offended or not offended by Brooke's comment.

I just realized this as well and I agree. To me there's nothing abnormal about it either (based on personal experience) so I guess that's why I'm not offended by Brooke's comment either.

 

[Petrarose]

Ivy Again it is still not the same. Chicken out does not mean terrified based on what you wrote there. And you keep changing what people said, the comment was that Chicken out means basically terrified and that is incorrect. Chicken out does not mean terrified based on your own definition where you explained why it would happen.

About this: Chicken out is used when you are in the process of doing something and you stop doing it because you are afraid. In other words if you start making out with a person but then stop going any further because you are afraid, it would be chicken out. If you are frightened of snakes then you are frightened of snakes. If you were going to hold a snake but if you change your mind the last minute because you are afraid, it would mean you have chicken out from holding a snake. As far as your example goes I'm not sure if that's same as chicken out or you just made a decision to not dance with that guy.

Well that is why your conclusion is wrong. Because what i wrote there about the snake does not make sense. It only makes sense if your definition was correct, i.e., chicken out = afraid or to use the word of the thread "terrified." Remember you said Chicken out = afraid becuase the dictonary gave frightened/afraid/scared as a reason Why someone chicken out. I said that is incorrect because you use a cause and say it is the effect. Eg., if I am afraid of snakes it would mean I chicken out, because based on your own definition chicken out means afraid. Don't you see that? Every time the word afraid appeared it would mean chicken out or the other way around.

Next, saying Brooke's fans is not an insult unless Brooke is a nasty/bad/horrible person. If someone says Michael fans I am not insulted. If you think that Brook fan comment by the poster is an insult you have to ask yourself what makes being aligned with Brooke a negative thing.

EDit: Oh i see you attempt to insult comment, but why you think aligning with Brooke is an attempt to insult?

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

Why the hell are you accusing me of calling Michael a freak? I'm in total favor of stopping the reinforcement of such demeaning sterotypes cause by that kind of ignorant comments like Brooke's. Michael was different but I've never thought it made him abnormal like a person in a freak show circus for example, never.

 

[Petrarose]

Snow again, can you explain to me how if a relationship with a man is platonic and you only went out for publicity, there would be a need for a "chicken out" experience to occur? Remember there is nothing going on between them, just friends, just 2 people who understand each other. So these 2 people are just hanging out and one of them tried to do something intimate? Why? You are just people hanging out for publicity. This chicken out comment rather than showing terrified of intimacy, show more that one or more than one person there had romantic tendencies so the relationship was not merely platonic.

Ivy ah ha I am glad you had issues with my abonormal comment, now do you see why I have issues with the terrified comment. I see you only understand why something is inappropriate if it goes against YOUR feelings or what is important to you. So I will be the big person here and say I apologize for your hurt if that is what you meant by having "issues with." At the same time the way in which I use the word in the context shows its meaning. It shows I am not saying I think Michael is abnormal. I always stress people read in context. We all know that people see certain behaviors as abnormal and that Michael is seen in a certain way based on the stories people tell about him as being asexual, afraid of intimacy/sex, don't like women, is a child, etc., so let's not pretend here. When Brook make the comments she did it adds to that stereotypical idea of Michael Jackson.

 

[ivy]

Next,

Petra, I'm not interested in an English lesson. For two times I made it very clear it doesn't really matter how you define "chicken out". Members here had a valid reason to think it can equal to being afraid and Brooke could equal it to being frightened. you make your own interpretations - which I don't necessarily disagree with as I too think Michael's reasons was religious. Regardless the point stands, other people and Brooke can equal chicken out to being afraid or being very afraid aka frightened.

saying Brooke's fans is not an insult unless Brooke is a nasty/bad/horrible person. If someone says Michael fans I am not insulted. If you think that Brook fan comment by the poster is an insult you have to ask yourself what makes being aligned with Brooke a negative thing.
EDit: Oh i see you attempt to insult comment, but why you think aligning with Brooke is an attempt to insult?

Let's not insult our intelligence shall we? as I mentioned we have seen similar things at multiple other threads and the reasoning behind such acts to portray oneself as "real/true" fan while questioning the fandom of others. Snow's comment was made to feel like "I'm the real fan of Michael while you are fans of Brooke". Very juvenile like I said. So it's not an issue of being a fan of Brooke or aligning with her being a negative thing - it's not. It's the veiled meaning behind such name calling, the "I'm a better / true/ real fan of Michael and you are not" connotation.

Snow again, can you explain to me how if a relationship with a man is platonic and you only went out for publicity, there would be a need for a "chicken out" experience to occur? Remember there is nothing going on between them, just friends, just 2 people who understand each other. So these 2 people are just hanging out and one of them tried to do something intimate? Why? You are just people hanging out for publicity.

well now I'm curious about your experiences. For you, is it always all or nothing? Didn't you ever have relationship that you kissed, hold hands etc but it didn't get any more physical? Never fall in love with a friend? Kiss a friend? ever consider to be more than a friend but didn't follow through?

also can someone explain to me where did this "just hanging out for publicity" came?

 

[HIStory]

Snow again, can you explain to me how if a relationship with a man is platonic and you only went out for publicity, there would be a need for a "chicken out" experience to occur? Remember there is nothing going on between them, just friends, just 2 people who understand each other. So these 2 people are just hanging out and one of them tried to do something intimate? Why? You are just people hanging out for publicity. This chicken out comment rather than showing terrified of intimacy, show more that one or more than one person there had romantic tendencies so the relationship was not merely platonic.

This is what Michael himself said exactly:

"We had one encounter when she got real intimate and I chickened out. And I shouldn´t have."


We had ONE encounter - he did not say "we were in a relationship" or that it happened often. He said it was ONE encounter. Yes, it can happen that you are a guy and a girl in a platonic, friendly relationship, yet there is a situation where you get a little closer, almost intimate.

Also notice that he said "when SHE got real intimate". It seem she was the initiator. But Michael "chickened out", but he kind of regrets it in the hindsight.

​

I'm not sure what is so bothering to you in this story.

 

[HIStory]

Let's not insult our intelligence shall we? as I mentioned we have seen similar things at multiple other threads and the reasoning behind such acts to portray oneself as "real/true" fan while questioning the fandom of others. Snow's comment was made to feel like "I'm the real fan of Michael while you are fans of Brooke". Very juvenile like I said. So it's not an issue of being a fan of Brooke or aligning with her being a negative thing - it's not. It's the veiled meaning behind such name calling, the "I'm a better / true/ real fan of Michael and you are not" connotation.

Oh and another juvenile way of fans trying to discredit each other in debates is the comparing the other party with a different opinion to haters. That too happened in this thread...

also can someone explain to me where did this "just hanging out for publicity" came?

I do not understand this myself, since neither Michael or Brooke, either now or in the past, said they just hang out for publicity. Brooke said they were friends who had a bond due to similar upbringing etc. She never said it was all for publicity.

 

[ivy]

Yes, it can happen that you are a guy and a girl in a platonic, friendly relationship, yet there is a situation where you get a little closer, almost intimate.

I was thinking the same thing and I edited my post above. It happened to me, more than once I should say. I have kissed multiple friends that I had a platonic / friendly relationship and nothing more happened. I also had a platonic / friendly relationship that turned into a romantic relationship. I think some sort of sexual tension and even some level of intimacy is normal among friends.some people even say men and women cannot really be only friends. but what do I know about what's normal.

 

[Petrarose]

Petra, I'm not interested in an English lesson. For two times I made it very clear it doesn't really matter how you define "chicken out". Members here had a valid reason to think it can equal to being afraid and Brooke could equal it to being frightened. you make your own interpretations - which I don't necessarily disagree with as I too think Michael's reasons was religious. Regardless the point stands, other people and Brooke can equal chicken out to being afraid or being very afraid aka frightened.



Let's not insult our intelligence shall we? as I mentioned we have seen similar things at multiple other threads and the reasoning behind such acts to portray oneself as "real/true" fan while questioning the fandom of others. Snow's comment was made to feel like "I'm the real fan of Michael while you are fans of Brooke". Very juvenile like I said. So it's not an issue of being a fan of Brooke or aligning with her being a negative thing - it's not. It's the veiled meaning behind such name calling, the "I'm a better / true/ real fan of Michael and you are not" connotation.

Ivy if you want to stand by the I am always right stance and say chicken out means afraid then I will leave you to it.

About Snow Brooke comment, why does it mean anything about real fans? This poster is very strong in her speech, and I have been reading her posts for years. She does not mince her words. If she means something she will say it. I have seen her make comments like "I don't care what anyone says but ......." If she wanted to say you are not a real fan, she would say it. Why this beat around the bush. She is not that type of poster. She has no fear (afraid/terrified pun) of anyone here so that she has to comment in a veiled way. We are not going against any rules here. Sometimes people look for things in other people's comments so they can say they are hurt by it, if they feel they can't sway the person to their point of view. Do you think this is happening to you. Don't get offended by this, but could this be the reason?

I am not fighting with you here. I am stressing my opinion firmly and not backing down due to a lack of support. You know very well that I value your intellect. However, we don't agree on things such as personal opinions like in the Brooke thread here and the Frank book thread. Why can't it be that you are a Brooke fan simply because you are for her and her comments. Someone here met her and said they find her nice. I like Brooke. Many here feel she has never said anything against mIchael and like her. This means you are a Brooke fan. You like Brooke. Why does the comment have to have an ulterior motive to attempt to insult?

About your kissing friends comment, now are you trying to say Michael just had to kiss Brooke on the cheek and he chickened out. Do you think the comment he made in the context he made it in means that. If you think that then so be it. How many women we say Michael kissing on the cheek or hugging since the 70s? He never chickened out then, but with Brooke in private he chickened out with a mere friendship kiss. OK

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

Now someone explain me, in what moment did I tell any of you are less Michael for sading with Brooke and/or calling you Brooke fans? When in the world I said that?