Do You Think Michael was Feminine?

[Sophia2023]

I think some fans are seeing voice types as biological, while others view them as choice.

 

[Licinus]

I think some fans are seeing voice types as biological, while others view them as choice.

I don’t think anyone believes in ‘voice type by choice’, that’s a weird take.

 

[DangerousGal91]

I don’t think anyone believes in ‘voice type by choice’, that’s a weird take.

Not to mention physiologically impossible.

 

[wendijane]

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/19914423339043073/

Michael's like, "Close this thread!"

 

[GGVVGGCC22331122]

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.

I agree, @DangerousGal91. ABSOLUTELY. Michael was really misunderstood as a person, and this was one amongst several different aspects of him that were misunderstood.

His voice didn’t change that much throughout the years; Compare “The Toy” —— which was sung when MJ was 23 —— and “Best of Joy,” which was sung when MJ was 50, his voice practically remained the same.

Yes, indeed. There is a whole other different thread on those two songs. I see your point. This was proof of his voice NOT having changed anywhere even close to as drastically as a lot of people would like to think it had. But yet, it did change, however slight such a change was. People should more readily accept and fully embrace EVERY and ALL of the many various attributes and aspects of him, and stop basing everything on old, long-worn-out, ancient “Gender” and “Age” stereotypes that should be thrown out and gotten rid of, anyway. What is your view?

@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.

@mj_frenzy, I listened to the segment of the actual tapes of the private conversations between Michael and the Rabbi (posted on “YouTube,”® by the way), and I didn’t hear anything even remotely like one word of what you claim he said.

I am only reading unsubstantiated “quotes” posted all over the Internet (on this board and others), yet having actually heard absolutely NOTHING —— nary a peep from the man, himself, in his own voice —— making such false claims. Even on the tapes, themselves, the very sound of his voice proves you dead WRONG, here. Michael was very likely in his Early-40’s, when he first talked to the Rabbi in those taped conversations. For a man of his mature adult age, at that particular time, his voice still sounded as “young” and “androgynous” as ever, in spite of its bottom Lower Register having expanded a bit (due to the effects of the aging process on his vocal cords), some six or seven years removed from his 1994 “HIStory”-album “warm-up” sessions with his longtime vocal coach, Seth Riggs. What you erroneously consider as a “deep” voice was really THE absolute bottom of his extremely wide natural Vocal Range, and THE absolute physical limit of his Lower Register. He NEVER, EVER “faked” the sound of his voice, unless he was obviously acting in a role or portraying a character.

“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.”

 

[mj_frenzy]

@mj_frenzy, I listened to the segment of the actual tapes of the private conversations between Michael and the Rabbi (posted on “YouTube,”® by the way), and I didn’t hear anything even remotely like one word of what you claim he said.

I am only reading unsubstantiated “quotes” posted all over the Internet (on this board and others), yet having actually heard absolutely NOTHING —— nary a peep from the man, himself, in his own voice —— making such false claims. Even on the tapes, themselves, the very sound of his voice proves you dead WRONG, here.

@GGVVGGCC22331122, this particular quote is included on Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's 'Honoring The Child Spirit: Inspiration And Learning from Our Children, In Conversation With Michael Jackson' book.

Also, one can check Teddy Riley's interview at the Red Bull Music Academy.

Teddy Riley spoke about that, and more specifically he stated that it was Seth Riggs who actually made Michael Jackson talk high.

"No matter what you do, when you talk to people you talk high!" (Seth Riggs)

Michael Jackson followed that Seth Riggs' advice, as confirmed by Teddy Riley.

So, the fact that Michael Jackson faked a high voice has been confirmed by multiple sources, even by Michael Jackson himself.

 

[GGVVGGCC22331122]

You go on ahead and believe whatever nonsense you want to believe, @mj_frenzy. I’m still not buying it. In fact, the Rabbi is the same man who, years after Michael had passed, said that he believed the two latest accusers who claimed to have been “victims” of (supposed, alleged) “abuse,” the same man who turned his conversations with Michael —— which probably were supposed to have been private —— into at least a couple of books that were made public. How very convenient of this so-called “friend” and “advisor” to wait years later, and start saying negative things. (This former “friend” and “advisor” having shown his true colors, so to speak, when Michael is no longer with us and is in  NO position to defend and speak up for himself; Others have to be put in the position of having to speak up for him.)

 

[staywild23]

This thread has been quite a wild ride haha. I will not claim that I've read all of it (GOOD GOD) but I've read quite a bit. It's remarkable how many dated, stereotypical views, and overly simplistic thinking is present in certain parts of the conversation. Not all of course. Lots of interesting, thoughtful conversation too. But damn, friends lol.

Anyway, to the actual question, I really don't see Michael as feminine, but then I also don't see him having some traditional feminine qualities as a negative thing, or as making him any less of a man. I think he was an incredible and dynamic person with some qualities that absolutely flew in the face of many traditionally "male" stereotypes in the best possible way. Some of these things are what made him an ideal role model for other men, actually. He was not afraid to show emotions, he was open about his sensitivities. He was gentle, kind, disavowed violence. Commanded respect and authority, with a quiet control, and strong influence. He embraced things that were beautiful, regardless of the prescribed gender, whether it came to his personal style or his interests. He just seemed totally unbothered by other people's perceptions of gender, or what other people's expectations of him should be, based on gender. He was thoroughly his own person. Is there anything more admirable than this? What I hate is my own impulse to attribute that level of confidence to his inherent masculinity, but then all of us in this conversation are impacted by our own flawed perceptions of gender, right? I see so much of his swagger and self-possession as deeply masculine (not to mention incredibly sexy), but that seems like its own narrow view. I might need to work on that.

Either way, Michael's duality is one of the many things that make him so utterly fascinating, charismatic, and enchanting. When he was a child, he had an old soul. When he was an adult, he had a childlike innocence. He was a man, but he was staggeringly beautiful. He was soft-spoken, but indelibly strong-willed and self-possessed. He was shy and self-conscious in interviews, but an absolute beast on stage. He was everything, all at once, and that is what made him so all-consuming. That's one of many things that makes him so irreplaceable. Everyone is drawn to him, regardless of age, race, gender, sexuality, etc.

For what it's worth, I see Michael as very masculine and (obviously) supremely attractive. But I don't think it really matters either way if he was masculine or feminine. There's nothing wrong with being either. Both are valuable, sexy, exciting, and admirable. Being a man who is beautiful, stylish, and soft-spoken doesn't make him less of a man. But even if it did, what does that matter? What exactly is the measuring stick for masculine and feminine, and why is one always seen as superior to the other? And anyway, is it about being a man, or about being a certain kind of man? Why do we only regard one type of man as the measure of what all other men should be? I'm not saying he was perfect (at least not this time haha) but he possessed a lovely balance of personal characteristics that range from the traditionally masculine to the traditionally feminine. I love this about him. To me, this is part of what makes him the absolute sexiest man imaginable. And I say this with no reservations. No hangups about femininity or masculinity. No hangups about his sexuality, or gender, or anything else. He was alluring and sexy as hell in every way.

This is an interesting thread and I think it's a worthwhile conversation. I'm not sure how much I really contributed, in the end lol. But if anything, it sort of highlights how much the world struggles with people like Michael. People who can't be pinned down to one category in a way that everyone will automatically agree on. There is nothing obvious about Michael Jackson, that's for sure. But what's remarkable is people like him force these kinds of conversations and (hopefully) introspection about what these labels mean, and why they matter (or don't).

 

[GGVVGGCC22331122]

Anyway, to the actual question, I really don’t see Michael as “feminine,” but then, I also don’t see him having some traditional “feminine” qualities as a negative thing, or as making him any less of a man. I think he was an incredible and dynamic person with some qualities that absolutely flew in the face of many traditionally “Male” stereotypes, in the best possible way. Some of these things are what made him an ideal role model for other men, actually. He was not afraid to show emotions, he was open about his sensitivities. He was gentle, kind, and he disavowed violence. Commanded respect and authority, with a quiet control and and strong influence. He embraced things that were beautiful, regardless of the prescribed gender, whether it came to his personal style or his interests. He just seemed totally unbothered by other people’s perceptions of gender, or what other people’s expectations of him should be, based on gender. He was thoroughly his own person. Is there anything more admirable than this? What I hate, is my own impulse to attribute that level of confidence to his inherent “masculinity,” but then, all of us in this conversation are impacted by our own flawed perceptions of gender, right? I see so much of his swagger and self-possession as deeply “masculine”. . . .But, that seems like its own narrow view. I might need to work on that.

Either way, Michael's duality is one of the many things that make him so utterly fascinating, charismatic, and enchanting. When he was a child, he had an old soul. When he was an adult, he had a childlike innocence. He was a man, but he was staggeringly beautiful. He was soft-spoken, but indelibly strong-willed and self-possessed. He was shy and self-conscious in interviews, but an absolute beast on stage. He was everything all at once, and that is what made him so all-consuming. That’s one of many things that makes him so irreplaceable. Everyone is drawn to him, regardless of age, race, gender, etc.

For what it’s worth, I see Michael as very “masculine” and (obviously) supremely attractive. But, I don’t think it really matters either way if he was “masculine” or “feminine.” There’s nothing wrong with being either. Both are valuable, exciting, and admirable. Being a man who is beautiful, stylish, and soft-spoken doesn’t make him less of a man. But, even if it did, what does that matter? What exactly is the measuring stick for “masculine” and “feminine,” and why is one always seen as superior to the other? And, anyway, is it about being a man, or about being a certain kind of man? Why do we only regard one type of man as the measure of what all other men should be? I’m not saying he was perfect (at least, not this time), but he possessed a lovely balance of personal characteristics that range from the traditionally “masculine” to the traditionally “feminine.” I love this about him. . . .And, I say this with no reservations. No hangups about “femininity” or “masculinity.” No hangups about his sexuality, or gender, or anything else.

This is an interesting thread, and I think it’s a worthwhile conversation. I'm not sure how much I really contributed, in the end. But if anything, it sort of highlights how much the world struggles with people like Michael. People who can’t be pinned down to one category in a way that everyone will automatically agree on. There is nothing obvious about Michael Jackson, that’s for sure. But, what’s remarkable is people like him force these kinds of conversations and (hopefully) introspection about what these labels mean, and why they matter (or don’t).

Yes, this thread is indeed very fascinating, @staywild23. I agree with your points, here. THE main big question is: “Why couldn’t Michael have just been considered and thought of as a human being —— with HUMAN emotions, physical and mental aspects and character traits, etc. —— without his birth-gender, race, or anything else, having been attached to them?” The members of the human SPECIES, in and of ourselves, we are made up of a vast, wide variety of different people with a multitude of physical, mental, emotional and personality traits amongst us, as a whole. All however many BILLIONS of us there are on this planet. Was Michael Joseph Jackson a member of the same species as we are? Yes, he certainly was. Both Males and Females are HUMAN, after all. So, what we tend to strictly divide into “masculinity” and “femininity” should only be viewed as amongst the many various aspects that are part of simply being HUMAN.

 

[GGVVGGCC22331122]

Here are my original comments on this subject matter:

“This is a very interesting subject matter for a thread, here. I believe that Michael was very gentle, sweet, shy and naturally soft-spoken (a type of speaking-voice that the majority of his siblings and his mother also have, as far as family ‘traits’ are concerned). Do those traits he had seem ‘feminine’ to some people? Yes, they do. Or, are they just HUMAN ones that don’t necessarily fit into these old-fashioned, rigid ‘Gender’ stereotypes of how boys and girls, men and women* —— And, I’m simply talking about *biological, normal, natural-born Males and Females, just for the sake of this discussion, not to make a point of confusing things or making them complicated, here. —— are ‘supposed to’ behave and act like?

With that being said, Michael was unquestionably Male, through and through, when it came to certain aspects of his behavior. But, his post-surgery looks/outward physical appearance became increasingly more and more ‘androgynous,’ from Thriller’/‘Victory’ onwards, all the way up to ‘This Is It.’ That’s just a fact. He never appeared that way, at any previous time in his life up to that point, before the ‘Thriller’/‘Victory’ era at the height of his career.

Sure, he wore his hair in different styles that looked ‘feminine,’ from that point onwards, wore ‘women’s’ cosmetics and eye make-up to emphasize and draw attention to his big, BEAUTIFUL eyes —— one of the few natural physical characteristics of his face that NEVER actually changed at all, which remained with him throughout his entire life —— and, he wore lipstick on his lips.

His speaking- and singing-voices sounded, to me, in my honest opinion, not so much like he was of one gender or the other, exclusively (and, I don’t even want to classify them in that way, other than to use the words ‘androgynous,’ ‘gender-neutral’ and ‘agender’), but they sounded extremely ‘young’ for an adult. Not only that, he never ‘faked’ the sound of his voice; It was completely 100% REAL, absolutely NOTHING about it was ‘phony,’ contrary to what some people have always wanted to believe about him.”

I really don’t mind the subject matter of this discussion. A lot of very thoughtful comments, here.

 

[Andymachine]

Michael was both , he would at times be very feminine with his make up and lipstick and "odd " behavior. Though other times he would be masculine. Though MJ loved make up , he was once caught by Diana Ross trying on her makeup and he told her that it was "magic" lol. He was quite funny when you look back at his life.

 

[Sophia2023]

Michael was both masculine and feminine at the same time.

 

[PurpleThriller]

No. He was just himself.
He dared to not fit into this ridiculous,monotonous society and he has my respect for that. There are too many simple people so an outcast is always welcome.
Labels as "masculine " and "feminine" are for close minded sheep and elitist snobs.
I hate both with a passion

 

[GGVVGGCC22331122]

He was once caught by Diana Ross, trying on her make-up, and he told her that it was “Magic.”

I didn’t know about this, @Andymachine. When did this incident (supposedly, allegedly) happen, and where  did you get the story from? Something about it is at least a little bit suspect of smelling “fishy” and “tabloid” to me, if not literally reeking of sensationalism. Of course, they were former co-workers at the same label (Motown) together, were very close friends, and he had an enormous crush on her when he was a child/young teenager. But yet, in my honest opinion, the story of him wearing her make-up goes too far.

 

[Andymachine]

I didn’t know about this, @Andymachine. When did this incident (supposedly, allegedly) happen, and where  did you get the story from? Something about it is at least a little bit suspect of smelling “fishy” and “tabloid” to me, if not literally reeking of sensationalism. Of course, they were former co-workers at the same label (Motown) together, were very close friends, and he had an enormous crush on her when he was a child/young teenager. But yet, in my honest opinion, the story of him wearing her make-up goes too far.

It was from Tarborelli's book sorry for the spelling. I had heard the story before i think it was it was in Caesars Palace in Las Vegas in 1986. Though of course it is very likely embellished for sensationlism

 

[GGVVGGCC22331122]

Michael was both “masculine” AND “feminine,” at the same time.

True, true. But, why not use the word “androgynous,” @Sophia2023 —— since many aspects of him were neither exclusively of one birth-gender or the other of the two —— or better yet, just count ALL of the sum and totality of the aspects of his having existed as simply “HUMAN”?

 

[GGVVGGCC22331122]

He was just himself.
He dared to not fit into this ridiculous, monotonous society, and he has my respect for that.

Very well-put, @PurpleThriller. You have pretty much summed everything up quite nicely, here, and I most definitely agree with your point, which is a valid one.

 

[GGVVGGCC22331122]

The story was from Taraborelli’s book. . . .I had heard it before. I think, what happened was at Caesar’s Palace in Las Vegas, in 1986. Though, of course, the story was very likely embellished for sensationalism.

Are you saying, @Andymachine, that there were rumors and stories already circulating around that “something” had happened, even before the book was written? Hmm. . . .That’s interesting.

 

[Sophia2023]

I think that Michael and Prince had similarly-placed voices in nature but their habits made their voices sound different because of the approaches. Michael brightened his voice while on the other hand, Prince used larynx depression. They were both lirico tenors. They both had a passaggio of G4.

 

[GGVVGGCC22331122]

I think that Michael and Prince had similarly-placed voices in nature, but their habits made their voices sound different because of the approaches. Michael brightened his voice, while on the other hand, Prince used larynx depression. They were both Lirico Tenors. They both had a passaggio of “G4.”

As to what you personally “think,” versus what the FACTS really are, @Sophia2023, these men’s natural voices and vocal types couldn’t have been any more different. Completely opposite, between the two of them. Truthfully, one had a naturally much deeper, somewhat “older”-sounding (and, slightly heavier) Baritone voice (Prince), while the other (Michael) had a naturally much higher-pitched, lighter and “younger”-sounding voice. This was true, no matter what supposed, alleged “brightening” or “darkening” of their voices that either one of them may or may not have done, manipulation of their larynxes or no, or whatever other false claims you make.

One man’s natural voice was an obvious deep Baritone (with an extremely high extension of his Vocal Range up to the “Falsetto” that he frequently relied and depended upon, as well as its “Whistle”-Pitch Register capabilities), while the other man’s voice was naturally an “androgynous,” light-/“delicate”-timbred, extremely “young”-sounding former child Soprano-turned-High Tenor/“Countertenor,” whose own voice hadn’t actually changed anywhere even close to what a lot of people want to believe it had; And yet, it did slightly change, nonetheless. So, go on ahead and believe whatever it is you want to believe, the FACTS prove otherwise.

 

[Sophia2023]

That's the truth. Voice types are categorized by brightness, size, and weight.

 

[Green Eyed Angel]

Michael did had a feminine energy.
But who says that feminine energy makes you like a woman? it does not ! feminine and female is not same ! Absolutely different concept !

feminine energy is a divine energy.

Generally, GOD is feminine energy.
think about Jesus, he did had a feminine energy.

Love, kindness, beauty, caring, art, birth, universe , integration, intelligence - all this is feminine energy.
feminine energy is this divine energy of love !

And ordinary people when they see divine feminine energy, they can not understand what is it , and think it’s female energy, that’s why they thought Michael looked like a woman. But he did not ! He never did !
he looked like a GOD! he looked like an angel, a divine creature !

Now think about Indian god Krishna. Krishna's male, and he never was considered a girl like, just pure god like beauty male .
for me Michael somehow was similar to him.

Everything was unique in Michael, his appearance, his hair, his style, his clothes, his movement, his presence, there will never be someone like him ever, because he is one and only.

ordinary minds can never understand and feel divine energy !


I saw him first time in “Do you remember the time” when I was 5 years old, and I never once had a feeling that he looked like a woman. Because he did not ! he never did ! I was 5 and I clearly saw he looked like a god, absolutely beautiful and stunning ! simply perfection !

He is Pure passion and sexiness overload.
He is the sexiest man ever !

 

[GGVVGGCC22331122]

That’s the truth. Voice-types are categorized by brightness, size, and weight.

Differences in natural vocal pitch —— from one person to another* (*even within and amongst a group of adult individuals of the same natural birth-gender, whether the group is either exclusively Male or Female) —— are also part of one’s voice-type, as the facts bring out. There are as many differences  within a group of people of the same birth-gender (for the sake of this discussion, Males, for example) as there are in a mixture of a group with both Males and Females, no matter at what age or at which stage of life each member of the group is.

 

[GGVVGGCC22331122]

@Green Eyed Angel, Michael was HUMAN, like everyone else who has ever lived on this planet. . . .including us. Natural-born people of either one gender or the other (both Males and Females) are human beings, too. The spirit realm is invisible, and has NO “human”-like appearance at all.

 

[Green Eyed Angel]

@Green Eyed Angel, Michael was HUMAN, like everyone else who has ever lived on this planet. . . .including us. Natural-born people of either one gender or the other (both Males and Females) are human beings, too. The spirit realm is invisible, and has NO “human”-like appearance at all.

who says he was not a human? I am talking about the energy. you can feel energy through the person, through his personality and appearance too. so what you explain is not the concept of what I am talking about.

 

[Sophia2023]

I agree with you.

 

[GGVVGGCC22331122]

Who says he was not a human? I am talking about the energy. You can feel energy through the person, through his personality and appearance too. So, what you explain is not the concept of what I am talking about.

I don’t understand any of that. Can you please explain what you mean, when you talk about “energy”? No one can “feel” anything “through” anyone else.

 

[GGVVGGCC22331122]

No. Men who choose to wear their hair long, and who beautiful facial features, are not always “feminine.” I feel that Michael was “masculine,” bordering on “androgynous.” I think Prince was more “feminine,” especially in 1991. If I compare images from that year, Michael was always the “masculine” one, without a doubt.

 

[GGVVGGCC22331122]

No. Men who choose to wear their hair long, and who beautiful facial features, are not always “feminine.” I feel that Michael was “masculine,” bordering on “androgynous.” I think Prince was more “feminine,” especially in 1991. If I compare images from that year, Michael was always the “masculine” one, without a doubt.

I agree with your points, @wendijane, to some extent. But Prince, especially from the Late-1970’s/Early-1980’s to around 2000 or so (before he started to greatly tone down his onstage act and public image/appearance/personae, dressing much more conservatively in his later years, mostly due to significant changes in his personal beliefs, amongst other reasons), got away with his having worn certain outfits and articles of clothing, at that time —— like his previously having worn bikini underwear onstage, along with high heels, lace gloves, puffy-sleeved blouses and see-through-butt pants, for example, at different times in his career —— that Michael, O.T.O.H., wouldn’t even dare to ever get himself caught wearing, nor to ever be seen in, PERIOD.

Prince would wear some form of facial hair —— whether it was only a thin mustache on his upper lip, a complete full beard, or something in-between, whatever the case —— much more often than Michael had, whose face was mostly clean-shaven. Though both men were thin, small-built —— even with their differences in height (one of them at 5'9" or 5'10," the other at 5'2" or 5'3," respectively) —— they both had “pretty” facial features (as Prince’s were naturally that way and Michael’s came about through doctors surgically reducing the size and changing the shape of his nose, as it kept getting narrower, smaller and its tip increasingly more upturned, from “Thriller” onwards, making his already enormous, BEAUTIFUL eyes, with such long lashes, stand out even more), and they both wore eye make-up, Michael always dressed “masculine,” the way most men normally do, while Prince didn’t always dress that way until much later on in his life.

Their natural voice-types couldn’t have been any more different from one another’s —— like night and day —— as Prince’s voice (both in singing and in speech) was naturally a little bit heavier-timbred, a much deeper, lower-pitched and slightly “older”-sounding Bass-Baritone that could extend upwards as high as “Falsetto” and “Whistle”-Pitch Register when he sang, while Michael’s, as an adult, was an extremely High Tenor that never truly “lost” any of its former “child Soprano”-like Upper Range (because, though he would use “Falsetto” occasionally —— like, every once in a blue moon on some songs, but not on all of them, when he would hit high notes —— he could still sing high notes without ever necessarily having had to rely on it) even while the Lower Register had slightly expanded downwards to near-“Baritone”-like notes by the time he reached middle age; It had maintained, throughout his adult life and career, its “androgynous,” “young” sound as well.

I very strongly believe that Prince, in spite of his natural, non-surgical facial features (unlike what had been done to Michael’s nose, and the enhancement of the dimple in his chin, during and after “Thriller,” that seemed to have changed the proportions of his entire face), his hairstyles and diminutive, small size —— no matter how he looked or the way he dressed when in public (from the Late-1970’s to when he changed his style from outrageous and controversial [no pun intended] to a much more toned-down and conservative one, by comparison, from the Early-2000’s onwards) —— he still came across as a totally “masculine” man, when it came to his behavior.

Meanwhile, O.T.O.H., Michael had “work” done on his nose, and had his chin-dimple enhanced, during the “Thriller” and subsequent “post-‘Thriller’ ” eras, wore women’s eye make-up and other cosmetics on his face; The hairstyles he wore at the time obviously looked “feminine” as well. And yet, he wore very, very undoubtedly “masculine” clothes, shoes, and so forth. Everything else about him was either “young,” “childlike” or “androgynous”/“gender-neutral” —— to describe the sound of his voice, no matter in what way he used it (to speak or to sing), for instance —— or “masculine,” to describe the way he danced or some other aspects of his behavior.

 

[DangerousGal91]

I'm actually somewhat surprised this thread is still going, to be completely honest... This will be my final response here, but all I just wanna say is that I think the subject has gotten tiring a long time ago. 🤷‍♀️ I've actually been trying to avoid it for quite some time now, for that reason, this is really just the last thing I wanted to say about it. All that was necessary to be said, has already been said, in my honest opinion.

I shall now take my leave and go back to the picture threads, lol. I already feel kinda guilty for posting this since I didn't want to give it any more attention.