Do You Think Michael was Feminine?

I think Michael was androgynous rather than outright feminine. Calling him strictly feminine would imply he didn't possess any masculine traits at all, which is decidedly false. His rock star attitude on stage and in short films was definitely a masculine aspect of his, as are several of the song he released. Beat It, Bad, Speed Demon, just to name a few; are those "feminine" songs to anyone?? Lol, not quite. Of course he did possess some feminine traits, I don't deny that and also don't consider it a bad thing at all. But the thing with androgyny is that it's about combining the two and finding a balance.

To me, an outright crossdressing man would be much more feminine than Michael was. For all this nonsense about "Michael the transvestite" (yes, something I've actually read), I have never once seen the man in a dress. He was a fashionable man for sure, but he usually opted for stylish men's clothes. The closest he ever came to crossdressing was wearing his mother's blouse for Motown 25, but the rest of his outfit still consisted of men's clothes including pants, so it still only half-counts. Plus, if you don't know it's a women's blouse, you wouldn't notice, lol.
 
Last edited:
I think Michael was androgynous rather than outright feminine. Calling him strictly feminine would imply he didn't possess any masculine traits at all, which is decidedly false. His rock star attitude on stage and in short films was definitely a masculine aspect of his, as are several of the song he released. Beat It, Bad, Speed Demon, just to name a few; are those "feminine" songs to anyone?? Lol, not quite. Of course he did possess some feminine traits, I don't deny that and also don't consider it a bad thing at all. But the thing with androgyny is that it's about combining the two and finding a balance.

To me, an outright crossdressing man would be much more feminine than Michael was. For all this nonsense about "Michael the transvestite" (yes, something I've actually read), I have never once seen the man in a dress. He was a fashionable man for sure, but he usually opted for stylish men's clothes. The closest he ever came to crossdressing was wearing his mother's blouse for Motown 25, but the rest of his outfit still consisted of men's clothes including pants, so it still only half-counts. Plus, if you don't know it's a women's blouse, you wouldn't notice, lol.
@DangerousGal91, Michael Jackson was seen wearing female garments also on other public occasions.

For example, during his stay in Bahrain, the singer wore abaya with a veil.

Abaya is a long-sleeved, floor-long, black garment that women wear, not men.

He was also seen wearing female garments in Saint-Tropez (France) in 2006.

In Saint-Tropez, he wore high heels, skinny jeans, a ruffled blouse and even a floppy woman's sun hat.
 
@DangerousGal91, Michael Jackson was seen wearing female garments also on other public occasions.

For example, during his stay in Bahrain, the singer wore abaya with a veil.

Abaya is a long-sleeved, floor-long, black garment that women wear, not men.
So now you are pretending that he actually wore women’s clothing because he felt like it? Oh my.

He was disguising himself in order to not get recognized! And given that Abayas’, unlike thawbs’ (which are worn by men), usually also cover the woman’s face, it was easier for him to pretend that he was a woman and get away from the press.

Has nothing to do with his personal preference when it came to clothing.
 
Don't know what really is the definition of feminine vs masculine, but
- dresses in "men's clothes" : millions of women across the world drool over him
- dresses in "women's clothes" : millions of women across the world drool over him
- puts on makeup : millions of women across the world drool over him
If that's feminine to you, let it be, but in my books that's the definition of a man who is secure in his masculinity and does not need to show it by adhering to some artificial standards.
 
@GGVVGGCC22331122, Michael Jackson faked the sound of his high voice when he spoke on public occasions. Liza Minnelli, Teddy Riley, Spike Lee are just three names that come to mind who stated that Michael Jackson’s real voice (during private phone conversations, etc.) was deep. Michael Jackson, himself, also stated to his spiritual advisor Rabbi Shmuley Boteach that he faked the sound of his high voice when he was accepting all these “Grammy”® Awards at the 26th “Grammy”® Awards Ceremony in 1984.
You go on ahead and believe whatever dumb, silly, ignorant and stupid nonsense you want to believe, O.K., @mj_frenzy? I’m not buying ANY of it. This is just a bunch of “one person having said this, that, a third and a fourth to the other” hearsay, stories and personal anecdotes, at best. . . .and, outright bold-faced LYING about about someone, at THE WORST. Even so-called “friends” cannot be trusted, when it comes to dealing with the “mainstream” media. (Case in point, the Rabbi and his use of tape-recorded conversations —— conversations that probably were originally supposed to have been kept private between him and Michael —— for his book, and making them public, along with his more recent belief in the two latest false accusers’ LIES long after Michael had passed; How very convenient of him, at this point, to have completely changed his views since the unfortunate demise of his onetime friend.) When they are the subjects of interviews, people can (and sometimes, they do, on rare occasions, every once in a blue moon) concoct outrageous stories based on what they believed or thought they supposedly, allegedly, saw and heard, rather than just giving the facts.

I have only seen and read unsubstantiated “quotes” allegedly attributed to Michael, without any proof that the words you and some other posters claim he said had ever come out of his mouth. I really don’t believe that he said to the Rabbi what you so desperately want to believe he said. As for these other celebrities’ claims, I take what they said about him with an enormously HUGE grain of salt. What are we supposed to believe, now, that Michael actually sounded like Tito for more than some 30 years, from his late-teens to nearly almost 51, from just before he and his brothers had left Motown in 1975-’76 (all of them BUT Jermaine, at that time, who chose to stay at their former label as a solo artist and continue on for several more years, until he eventually left as well) on up to his last day of “This Is It” rehearsals? Oh, PLEASE!!! Yeah, RIGHT!!!

Tito has THE deepest, heaviest-timbred, darkest, lowest-pitched voice of ALL of the Jackson men, an even deeper voice than what their father’s (Joseph’s) was. Tito Jackson was and is a true, natural Bass-Baritone (unlike what you falsely claim about Michael, who had a naturally high-pitched voice like oldest brother Jackie does, but yet, whose vocal tone/timbre sounded much, much “younger” for his “post-puberty” chronological age and rather “androgynous” for his birth-gender), while neither his father nor any of his brothers ever were. With all due respect, if I may ask you. . . .Why in THE WORLD are you SO hung up on these old stereotypes, so much so, that you can’t accept the FACT of Michael simply having been the way he was, because of what YOU want to fantasize about, and for YOU to have imagined him to have been?
 
Last edited:
^ Yes, the whole “Michael’s voice was actually deep and he would ‘fake’ his voice on a daily basis in appearances and such” is a fantasy. He was clearly a light tenor with a high vocal timbre and pitch.

Could he sing and talk low? Yeah. Was that natural for him? No.
 
You go on ahead and believe whatever dumb, silly, ignorant and stupid nonsense you want to believe, O.K., @mj_frenzy? I’m not buying ANY of it. This is just a bunch of “one person having said this, that, a third and a fourth to the other” hearsay, stories and personal anecdotes, at best. . . .and, outright bold-faced LYING about about someone, at THE WORST.

Even so-called “friends” cannot be trusted, when it comes to dealing with the “mainstream” media. (Case in point, the Rabbi and his use of tape-recorded conversations —— conversations that probably were originally supposed to have been kept private between him and Michael —— for his book, and making them public, along with his more recent belief in the two latest false accusers’ LIES long after Michael had passed; How very convenient of him, at this point, to have completely changed his views since the unfortunate demise of his onetime friend.) When they are the subjects of interviews, people can (and sometimes, they do, on rare occasions, every once in a blue moon) concoct outrageous stories based on what they believed or thought they supposedly, allegedly, saw and heard, rather than just giving the facts.

I have only seen and read unsubstantiated “quotes” allegedly attributed to Michael, without any proof that the words you and some other posters claim he said had ever come out of his mouth. I really don’t believe that he said to the Rabbi what you so desperately want to believe he said. As for these other celebrities’ claims, I take what they said about him with an enormously HUGE grain of salt. What are we supposed to believe, now, that Michael actually sounded like Tito for more than some 30 years, from his late-teens to nearly almost 51, from just before he and his brothers had left Motown in 1975-’76 (all of them BUT Jermaine, at that time, who chose to stay at their former label as a solo artist and continue on for several more years, until he eventually left as well) on up to his last day of “This Is It” rehearsals? Oh, PLEASE!!! Yeah, RIGHT!!! Tito has THE deepest, heaviest-timbred, darkest, lowest-pitched voice of ALL of the Jackson men, an even deeper voice than what their father’s (Joseph’s) was. Tito Jackson was and is a true, natural Bass-Baritone (unlike what you falsely claim about Michael, who had a naturally high-pitched voice like oldest brother Jackie does, but yet, whose vocal tone/timbre sounded much, much “younger” for his “post-puberty” chronological age and rather “androgynous” for his birth-gender), while neither his father nor any of his brothers ever were. With all due respect, if I may ask you. . . .Why in THE WORLD are you SO hung up on these old stereotypes, so much so, that you can’t accept the FACT of Michael simply having been the way he was, because of what YOU want to fantasize about, and for YOU to have imagined him to have been?
@GGVVGGCC22331122, here is the relevant quote which comes straight from Michael Jackson's mouth:

"I used to force my voice to go higher because I always wanted to sound like a kid. And when I won my Grammy Award for Thriller, if you listen to me speak, I sound like a kid...I just wanted to be a kid" (Michael Jackson)

The singer stated that to his spiritual advisor Rabbi Shmuley Boteach.

One can also hear his natural deep voice while he talks with the American actor Chris Tucker during the spoken intro of the 'You Rock My World' music video.

I can easily post even more quotes and examples that prove his natural deep voice, but it would be pointless given that this is not going to change your fantasy idea of Michael Jackson.
 
He was also seen wearing female garments in Saint-Tropez (France) in 2006. In Saint-Tropez, he wore high heels, skinny jeans, a ruffled blouse, and even a woman’s floppy sun hat.
That was an actual woman in Saint-Tropez (a biological Female), NOT Michael. While he did wear the Abaya outfit as a disguise while he and his children temporarily stayed in Bahrain, that was THE closest he ever came to literally wearing “women’s clothes” at any time in his life. This wasn’t an issue of him having “questioned his gender,” nor of him ever having thought of himself as anyone else but what he KNEW good and well he was. He wore a disguise, so he could be left alone in peace and the paparazzi wouldn’t have bothered him and his children.
 
I don't agree with what mj_frenzy is saying overall but I agree on just this one point, he did seem to fake his high pitched voice. In the 2000's he seemed more comfortable using his deep voice as seen in a lot of footages from the time.
 
^Because his voice did mature over the years but it wouldn’t have been this deep say in 1983. You can hear that evolution in his singing also. His singing voice was quite a bit higher in the Thriller era than in the Invincible era.

In a more relaxed setting, I’m sure his voice would get deeper sometimes. Still my point stands that his voice was not naturally low as Frenzy is suggesting.
 
^Because his voice did mature over the years but it wouldn’t have been this deep say in 1983. You can hear that evolution in his singing also. His singing voice was quite a bit higher in the Thriller era than in the Invincible era.
His voice didn't change that much throughout the years, compare The Toy which was sung when MJ was 23 and Best Of Joy when MJ was 50, his voice practically remained the same. I do believe he had a naturally deep voice but chose to use a higher pitched voice to preserve his voice and not to be more "feminine" like mj_frenzy implied though.
 
His voice didn't change that much throughout the years, compare The Toy which was sung when MJ was 23 and Best Of Joy when MJ was 50, his voice practically remained the same. I do believe he had a naturally deep voice but chose to use a higher pitched voice to preserve his voice and not to be more "feminine" like mj_frenzy implied though.
Men who have naturally deep voices are either classified as basses or baritones. The highest note a bass can reach in chest voice is typically E4, a baritone can reach an A4, perhaps even a B4 in the best case scenario. Michael‘s highest belt is a G5. You have to be a light tenor to be able to reach that note.
 
I honestly think this whole "he questioned his gender" thing is borderline slander and shouldn't be tolerated. Not because there's anything wrong with it, but because it simply isn't true and has been used to bring Michael down in the past.

As early as the late '70s, basically as soon as Michael reached adulthood, there were already rumors going around that he was "secretly gay and having a sex change to marry some male actor" (forgot who, doesn't matter). He had to tell a crying female fan that none of this was true, and as we all know, he indeed never had a sex change, nor did he ever have relations with men for that matter.

If Michael truly suffered from gender dysphoria, we would've known. Especially given the fact that he was no stranger to plastic surgery, what would've prevented him from getting a sex change in the first place? Clearly it was not something he desired in any way.

It's also extremely sexist to assume that any androgynous or even feminine man must secretly somehow be suffering from gender dysphoria. There are plenty of androgynous and feminine men in this world who are perfectly fine with living as men. The way Michael expressed his sexual identity in his works also shows, at least to me, a man who is very comfortable with being a man.

I also have to agree that wearing disguises isn't the same thing in any way; Islamic female dress is simply very easy to use as a disguise, especially when you're in the Middle East anyway.
 
@GGVVGGCC22331122, Here is the relevant quote which comes straight from Michael Jackson’s mouth:

I used to force my voice to go higher, because I always wanted to sound like a kid. And, when I won my ‘Grammy® Award for ‘Thriller,’ if you listen to me speak, I sound like a kid...I just wanted to be a kid — (Michael Jackson)

The singer stated that to his spiritual advisor Rabbi Shmuley Boteach.

One can also hear his natural deep voice while he talks with the American actor Chris Tucker, during the spoken intro of the “You Rock My World” Music Video.

I can easily post even more quotes and examples that prove his natural deep voice, but it would be pointless given that this is not going to change your fantasy idea of Michael Jackson.

Again, @mj_frenzy, You are doing nothing but attributing quotes to Michael, and claiming that he said So-and-so, and Such-and-such. . . .This, that and the other, a third and a fourth. . . . ,’ when he most likely never said what YOU claim he said at all. I’m reading quotes supposedly coming from him, but I haven’t actually heard him saying anything even remotely like that. In fact, according to what he wrote in his 1988 autobiography, “Moonwalk,” he felt that his voice was “natural” and “God-given.” Why would he state one thing in his book, while saying something else totally different about his voice more than a decade later, without seeming to contradict himself, given that he had to constantly put up with rumors questioning his private personal life because of the sound of his voice?

I’m sure you have heard at least some of the tape-recordings, because, they’re uploaded and posted as Videos on “YouTube.” What did his speaking-voice sound like on the recordings featured in those Videos? The exact same voice we are all quite familiar with having heard for three decades or more, up to that point, just that the person engaging in conversation with the Rabbi at the time was in his Early-40’s, around either 2000 or 2001.

Also, what you and some other posters like to call a “deep voice” was really THE absolute physical bottom limit of his Lower Register (which had expanded very slightly, by about one note, by the time the Rabbi had interviewed him), as part of a much wider Vocal Range of at least 4 Octaves (from about an “E♭2” to “F♯6,” maybe even wider), if such a Vocal Range wasn’t even broader and more expansive; It potentially may have been wider, because, he was quite capable of doing a whole lot more with his voice than what we, the public, had already heard from him.

 As I pointed out to you before, it is Tito, and NOT Michael, who is the Jackson Male with the deepest-sounding, lowest-pitched voice. All the other adult Male Jacksons’ voices were and are significantly higher-pitched and much lighter-timbred than his, including the voices of brothers Jackie and Michael, who both had THE highest-pitched voices of all of the men in their immediate family.

Their vocal timbres/tones and volumes were 180-degrees different from each other, however, in spite of having been somewhat similar in pitch.* (*Though I very strongly believe that
Michael’s natural voice was closer to and more like a “Countertenor” in its overall sound, and Jackie’s voice is more of a “standard”/“typical” adult Male Tenor, since he spent much of his earlier career singing in “Falsetto” in the background, and didn’t really sing in his natural register all that much, until later; On songs like “Wondering Who” —— from the brothers’ 1980 “Triumph” album —— you can hear his natural register very well.) As we know, Michael was extremely well-trained in “Speech-Level Singing” and developed his wide, extensive Vocal Range. His vocal coach, during one of his Mid-1990’s “warm-up” sessions over the phone, once told him that he sang an “ ‘A ♭’ above ‘High C,’ and that’s NOT Falsetto.’ ” I really doubt he would have been able to even hit a note that high —— much less, attempt to sing it —— without resorting to use “Falsetto,” if he “faked” the sound of his voice.
 
Last edited:
I honestly think this whole He questioned his gender. . . .” thing is borderline slander and shouldn’t be tolerated. . . .Because, it simply is not true, and it has been used to bring Michael down in the past.

As early as the late ’70’s, basically as soon as Michael reached adulthood, there were already rumors going around that he was “secretly gay and having a sex-change to marry some Male actor.” (Forgot who, doesn’t matter.) He had to tell a crying Female fan that none of this was true, and as we all know, he indeed never had a sex-change, nor did he ever have relations with men, for that matter.

If Michael truly suffered from “Gender Dysphoria,” we would’ve known. Especially, given the fact that he was no stranger to plastic surgery, what would’ve prevented him from getting a sex-change in the first place? Clearly, it was not something he desired in any way.

It’s also extremely sexist, to assume that any androgynous or even feminine man must secretly somehow be suffering from “Gender Dysphoria.” There are plenty of androgynous and feminine men in this world who are perfectly fine with living as men. The way Michael expressed his sexual identity in his works also shows, at least to me, a man who is very comfortable with being a man.

I also have to agree that wearing disguises is not the same thing in any way; Islamic Female dress is simply very easy to use as a disguise, especially when you’re in the Middle East, anyway.
I totally agree with you, @DangerousGal91. Just because a lot of aspects of Michael never did fit into the ancient, old-fashioned “machismo” Male stereotype, that in and of itself doesn’t mean he was “confused” and “questioning” himself, as to his “identity” (sort of like what has become THE latest “thing” to do, nowadays, to “identify as” any- and everything else but who and what you really are, biologically and otherwise), nor was he deliberately trying to “be” anyone other than the person he KNEW he was.

Sure, there were many a plethora of “androgynous” —— not completely, exclusively associated with one gender or the other —— aspects of him. Such as his small, thin build, his light, soft-spoken and “delicate”-sounding “young” voice for his adult “post-puberty” age, his big BEAUTIFUL eyes, a lot of the hairstyle, make-up and clothing choices he made regarding what he wore in public from “Thriller” onwards, his shyness and gentle demeanor, the things that really interested him and meant THE MOST to him, things that most so-called “macho men” probably wouldn’t be interested in.

O.T.O.H., there were certain other aspects that ultimately proved he was a MAN through and through, no doubt about it, in spite of him not having been stereotypically and traditionally “macho.” I feel that he was more of a MAN than any big, loud, “booming” Bass-voiced, rough-looking, rough-acting “macho tough-guy” could ever be. What do you think? Your answer could be very interesting.
 
Last edited:
I totally agree with you, @DangerousGal91. Just because a lot of aspects of Michael never did fit into the ancient, old-fashioned “machismo” Male stereotype, that in and of itself doesn’t mean he was “confused” and “questioning” himself, as to his “identity” (sort of like what has become THE latest “thing” to do, nowadays, to “identify as” any- and everything else but who and what you really are, biologically and otherwise), nor was he deliberately trying to “be” anyone other than the person he KNEW he was.

Sure, there were many a plethora of “androgynous” —— not completely, exclusively associated with one gender or the other —— aspects of him. Such as his small, thin build, his light, soft-spoken and “delicate”-sounding “young” voice for his adult “post-puberty” age, his big BEAUTIFUL eyes, a lot of the hairstyle, make-up and clothing choices he made regarding what he wore in public from “Thriller” onwards, his shyness and gentle demeanor, the things that really interested him and meant THE MOST to him, things that most so-called “macho men” probably wouldn’t be interested in.

O.T.O.H., there were certain other aspects that ultimately proved he was a MAN through and through, no doubt about it, in spite of him not having been stereotypically and traditionally “macho.” I feel that he was more of a MAN than any big, loud, “booming” Bass-voiced, rough-looking, rough-acting “macho tough-guy” could ever be. What do you think? Your answer could be very interesting.
I fully agree with you! Part of why I like Michael so much is because he was fully himself. The fact that he openly cared about his appearance and had gentle mannerisms, yet was still confident in being a heterosexual male with a rock star attitude, is a big part of what makes him so attractive to me. He really had his own style and image and it made him so unique and beautiful. It's sad that not everyone understood him in this regard, and even years after his death many people still don't get it. Instead many people talk about plastic surgery, question his gender identity, his sexual orientation, make up lies about him... It just gets so tiring. He was truly one of the most misunderstood human beings to have ever lived, and it pains me that people still want to slander such a beautiful, kind soul.
 
Another stupid rumor that was common back in the day was that Michael supposedly took female hormones "to keep his voice high"... The problem with this, is that female hormones do not make your voice higher. Testosterone, on the other hand, does make your voice deeper - and it's irreversible. You can only make your voice higher through good ol' training and practice.

Don't even get me started on the whole "castrato" rumor that I heard. The voice of a castrato does not drop at all, due to a lack of male puberty; Michael's voice, as we can all clearly hear, did drop over time (plus, acne? Facial hair? What about all that?? Both are caused by testosterone!). Yes he kept a higher singing voice, but it was still undoubtedly the voice of an adult male. Some men just have naturally higher voices. Also, he wanted to become a father, and unlike yet other rumors, his children are most likely biologically his (Prince has vitiligo, and Bigi actually looks a lot like Michael IMO). And castrati, well y'know, they're infertile and all that. I won't go into too much detail about it here, but there's evidence out there that Michael had no significant issues with that.
 
@GGVVGGCC22331122, let's agree to disagree on that.

I stand by my point: Michael Jackson had a natural deep voice, and he faked a higher voice because that was a part of his overall child-like image that he used to project during his life.

@ChanceToDance, one can also hear his natural deep voice on earlier public occasions.

Such as, during his 'Heal The World' speech at the Super Bowl Halftime Show (1993), or even during the 'In The Closet' live segment during the HIStory Tour.
 
I think that Michael was just a Tenore Lirico for the entire adult life because he did brighten his voice and he was neither light tenor nor a baritone. His passaggio were D4 and G4. He just liked to sing the high register.
 
Last edited:
I think that Michael was just a Tenore Lirico for the entire adult life because he did brighten his voice and he was not even a light tenor and he was not necessarily a baritone. His passaggio were D4 and G4. He just liked to sing the high register.
Can you help me out? Total non-music person here, lol. I know Michael is usually described as a lyric tenor. At least, that's what I've mostly seen. I've seen people described as being a light tenor. What is the difference between the lyric and the light?
 
The lyric has a warmer quality than the light and the light has a little bit childish sound than the lyric. The light has a half tone higher than the lyric. In nature Michael was just a normal lyric tenor, but he didn’t strain. Prince naturally had the similar voice as Michael, but sang differently because he didn’t want to be compared to him so he differentiated the vocal technique by adding James Brown-like screams, keeping the falsetto when singing the high notes and lowering the larynx to achieve a darker-sounding, almost bass-baritone-like timbre
 
Last edited:
Another stupid rumor that was common back in the day, was that Michael supposedly took Female hormones to keep his voice high. . . . The problem with this, is that Female hormones do not make your voice higher. Testosterone, on the other hand, does make your voice deeper —— and, it’s irreversible. You can only make your voice higher through good old training and practice.

Don’t even get me started on the whole “Castrato” rumor that I heard. The voice of a Castrato does not drop at all, due to a lack of Male puberty; Because of the effects of Testosterone, Michael’s voice, as we can all clearly hear, did drop over time. (Plus, acne? Facial hair? What about all that? Both are caused by Testosterone!!!) Yes, he kept a higher singing voice, but it was still undoubtedly the voice of an adult Male. Some men just have naturally higher voices.
I agree with almost everything you say, @DangerousGal91, except for the Yes, he kept a higher singing voice, but it was still undoubtedly the voice of an adult Male. part. He didn’t ‘keep’ the pitch of his voice, it just naturally WAS the way it was. By the way, listen to Jackie speak and sing, and you will hear the obvious difference between his and Michael’s natural voices I’m talking about. Jackie’s voice sounds much “older” and it fits in exactly like how you describe, while Michael’s voice never actually did, in my opinion; It always sounded much “younger” and more difficult to classify as either one gender or the other, throughout his entire adult life, even as the bottom of its Lower Register had slightly expanded in his later years. The aging process had slightly deepened both of their voices even further, as would happen to a lot of people, no matter their birth-gender. Their voices were quite similar in pitch, but the timbre and volume of each were completely different.

This whole “Castrato LIE is ridiculous. That people continue to perpetuate it is really quite sad. Two people who were/are supposed to have been “doctors”* kept it going. (*One such doctor in whose office Michael had NEVER, EVER in his life set foot as a patient, much LESS the two of them ever having met each other, a doctor who had no business even commenting on —— let alone writing about —— something far outside of whatever medical field of expertise that was his specialty; Five years later, the man directly responsible for Michael’s passing kept this LIE going as well, his “word” cannot ever be trusted again, because of his incompetence and negligence in the care of his only patient.) I’m referring to Alain Branchereau and Conrad Murray, who each wrote and published a book after he died —— some five years apart (in 2011 and 2016, respectively) —— that continue the rumor, even though it’s false.

A good question to ask, is:

Did Conrad Murray KNOW about Alain Branchereau’s book five years earlier, and simply repeat the rumor in his own book? Or, was it only a coincidence that two separate books (from two different authors, that came out years apart from each other) just so happened to have discussed the same subject matter in them?

It seems really strange, that two “authors” would repeat the exact same LIE in both of their published books, without the more recent writer having known of the previous writer’s work. What is your “take,” on this? I’d like to know.
 
I agree with almost everything you say, @DangerousGal91, except for the Yes, he kept a higher singing voice, but it was still undoubtedly the voice of an adult Male. part. He didn’t ‘keep’ the pitch of his voice, it just naturally WAS the way it was.
Yeah I meant to say that his voice simply remained relatively high, I didn't mean to imply it was fake. Apologies if my wording was a bit odd.
 
In my opinion i don't think so. i just see a flawless sweet kindhearted man. he wasn't feminine to me.
People's scale of masculine and feminine is different from individual to individual but in my opinion, I think he was masculine but had a healthy embrace to his feminine side. He was intuitive, extremely empathetic lol, sensitive but he wasn't no punk. He spoke out and let it be known many of times when he felt he was being disrespected so he w a s no push-over. Seemed to be very charming. Great collaborator, vulnerable (I'm looking at a list of Feminine traits and so far there isn't anything on this list that didn't fit Michael lol. Atleast from the outside looking in. I didn't know him ofcourse.) Seemed he was also vulnerable, an A+ in style lol, I'd say he was pretty self-aware. I don't think there was much Michael didn't already know about himself. I feel he was able to identify his good qualities & traumas & how they effect other aspects of his life for the most part. And he gets a A++ in Kindness.

Going off the list of Feminine traits I looked up, He was very in-touch with his feminine side. And when I looked up Masculine traits he fit all those perfectly too. (strength, courage, independence, leadership, and assertiveness).

The problem was he didn't fit the masculine stereotypes or social constructs of what it meant to be masculine
 
People's scale of masculine and feminine is different from individual to individual but in my opinion, I think he was masculine but had a healthy embrace to his feminine side. He was intuitive, extremely empathetic lol, sensitive but he wasn't no punk. He spoke out and let it be known many of times when he felt he was being disrespected so he w a s no push-over. Seemed to be very charming. Great collaborator, vulnerable (I'm looking at a list of Feminine traits and so far there isn't anything on this list that didn't fit Michael lol. Atleast from the outside looking in. I didn't know him ofcourse.) Seemed he was also vulnerable, an A+ in style lol, I'd say he was pretty self-aware. I don't think there was much Michael didn't already know about himself. I feel he was able to identify his good qualities & traumas & how they effect other aspects of his life for the most part. And he gets a A++ in Kindness.

Going off the list of Feminine traits I looked up, He was very in-touch with his feminine side. And when I looked up Masculine traits he fit all those perfectly too. (strength, courage, independence, leadership, and assertiveness).

The problem was he didn't fit the masculine stereotypes or social constructs of what it meant to be masculine
It has been said that Michael Jackson also adopted some of Diana Ross' gestures and ways of speaking.

Also, certain of his choices of clothing (that he wore) had been designed for women, not for men.

Here is another example: his clothes (jacket and trousers) that he wore on June 16th (2009), when he visited Arnold Klein's medical clinic.

These clothes that he wore on that occasion come from the Balmain French fashion collection, and female models wore them while walking the catwalk during that period.
 
it’s interesting because when ‘thriller 3d’ was released, some fans were surprised by the way michael’s eyebrows were shaped. the quality of the remastered film made them more noticeable, but they were never hidden. though it wasn’t common for men to do that (apart from removing a ‘unibrow’).

the black sequinned cardigan that he wore for the iconic Motown 25 performance, came from his mother’s wardrobe.

I think Michael was inspired by what he felt was beautiful, and didn’t assign gender to it. his appearance seemed to be an extension of his artistry, and made him all the more unique as a whole.
 
I think Michael was inspired by what he felt was beautiful, and didn’t assign gender to it. his appearance seemed to be an extension of his artistry, and made him all the more unique as a whole.
Love that description! He certainly did not care about the artificial societal norms and did what he wanted to do. 'extension of his artistry!' definitely! His persona was very much part of him as an artist. It's very narrow minded to think that in order to be masculine you need to be loud and rowdy and show muscles 💪, that as sexist as it is to say that to be feminine you need to be docile and focused on beautiful 🤮

PS: given the amount of time I spent drooling over Michael and the gold pants, not sure what I am doing on this thread 😂 🤔
 
Back
Top