DuranDuran
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 12,595
- Points
- 113
I guess you've never seen a Janet Jackson concert then, specifically Would You Mind. :rofl:it's repulsive
I guess you've never seen a Janet Jackson concert then, specifically Would You Mind. :rofl:it's repulsive
As a woman, to me MJ's subtle hints at sexuality in his songs and stage performances are a lot more sexy than Prince's explicit sexuality which is rather a turn off to me than a turn on. I never found Prince sexy one bit, MJ on the other hand oozes sexuality to me - in his subtle way. I am sure Prince has his share of female fans who find him more sexy and that is cool, but my issue is with this narrow-minded assumption that all women find the same things sexy and that explicit expressions of sexuality are necessarily sexier to women than the rather subtle hints that MJ operated with. Actually, to a lot of women they aren't. MJ knew how to be sexy without being explicit or vulgar about it and, from a female perspective, his performances were very far from asexual. Women do pick up on those subtle hints and to many of us it is actually more of a turn on than, say, Prince dry-humping a woman on stage.
This is so true, and the bolded is too funny.
:rofl:
Agreed! :yes:Both Prince & MJ were outside the narrow stereotype of macho man that is generally thought to be attractive to heterosexual women.
Prince did that? ew
Just want to add that I'm very sorry that you felt that, but I have not read anything here that should have made you feel "less a person." MJJC is a great forum to me because it's so diverse-we have all races, genders, ages, nationalities, religions and non-religions here that all love Michael-and the great thing with that much diversity is that no one is homophobic. No one is (even if sometimes something is written clumsily), racist. On the whole, it's an extremely respectful group-unlike the people whose comments I read on things like Yahoo News or YouTube.Well that's how it felt, I know there are a lot of people here who believe gays are sinners because thats
what their church tells them.
But talking about the music and his voice and his films and his tours is where we all differ and it's all subjective-and those differing opinions can be discussed without it ever getting ugly or personal.
My point was in answer to the suggestion that MJ was somehow incapable of being anything more than asexual on stage which is blatantly untrue. (Verbs were used such as "incapable" or "didn't master".) He pretty much mastered being sexual in his performances IMO, only he was more subtle about it than Prince. That doesn't mean he was incapable or that he was ineffective in it. On the contrary. Subtle things are often more effective than blatant displays of sexuality and MJ understood that perfectly IMO.
If Michael had told the world he was gay, I'd still adore him and wishing I had the chance of marrying him
I agree!
Look at this for example.
He's just standing in one place moving his hips and it's really really hot, hypnotic even.
Eg.
And for that matter, he didn't simulate sex only with women. LOL.
I don't find it disgusting (and yes, I can also see the irony in some of these, NeoIsis). My point was in answer to the suggestion that MJ was somehow incapable of being anything more than asexual on stage which is blatantly untrue. (Verbs were used such as "incapable" or "didn't master".) He pretty much mastered being sexual in his performances IMO, only he was more subtle about it than Prince. That doesn't mean he was incapable or that he was ineffective in it. On the contrary. Subtle things are often more effective than blatant displays of sexuality and MJ understood that perfectly IMO.
Oh we are in complete agreement on this. I can't understand how anyone who had seen much of MJ's performances could describe them as asexual! Even when he was still in the JWs he couldn't help it despite being criticized by the elders. But especially in his solo tours he absolutely mastered the art of onstage seduction of the crowd.
I think some fans get very attached to the pure, angelic, childlike public persona he portrayed offstage for a good portion of his career , and they see that (& I say this with L.O.V.E.) rather one-dimensional caricature as the sole true essence of the man. & I'm not saying that image was entirely false. But he was far more complex than that image and he
True, true, @analogue. But, the media and the public have been doing that for at least some four and a half to almost five decades, now, making these false assumptions, spreading rumors, innuendoes, implications and even outright LYING about him. On top of that, some posters really do have big chips on their shoulders and get SO hurt and offended ——as if someone were referring to or talking about them, rather than about him —— when you try to come forward with the facts denying the stories that his personal life was anything other than what he and his family knew good and well it was.People need to stop calling the man something he never claimed to be.
I totally agree with you, on this, @NeoIsis. This was true of both of them. But, with several majorly HUGE differences between the two of them, though. Michael, unlike Prince, had endured intense scrutiny during his career, particularly and especially, the media and the public having made false assumptions about him and his private personal life throughout his whole entire post-puberty existence.Both Prince and MJ were outside of the narrow stereotype of the “macho man” that is generally thought to be attractive. Oh, yeah. . . .And, they were both great singers, too.