The Greens oppose the CPRS not because it is too weak, but because it will point Australia in the wrong direction with little prospect of turning it around in the timeframe within which emissions must peak, says Senator Christine Milne.
Michael Jackson: was he a castrato?
|
When Alessandro Moreschi died on 21 April, 1922, the world thought it had felt the last stubbleless kiss of the voice of an angel on Earth — the boy castrato. The castrato tradition dictated that the talented boy singer was castrated before he reached puberty so that his larynx was not transformed by age and his angelic voice was preserved into adulthood. Castrati sang with a range equivalent to that of a female soprano, and the absence of testosterone as they grew resulted in unusually long ribs which gave them an almost superhuman lung power. By the time Michael Jackson was 11 years old, he was the keystone to the earning power of a Motown juggernaut with an unprecedented string of consecutive number-ones. And his voice was about to break. This week at his memorial, his brothers and sisters gathered to support and to mourn the passing of their talented sibling. In the photos of those difficult times, it is immediately apparent that whatever it was that was different about Michael, it probably wasn’t genetic. His eldest brother Jackie is a thick-set man with broad shoulders, Tito has a solid, masculine figure, Jermaine shares the manly physiques of his older brothers and combines it with a chiselled jaw, Marlon and Randy have similar builds and Marlon usually wears a thick moustache. The surviving images of the great castrati of history suggest that castrati do not physically develop in the same way as other boys. The absence of testosterone as they grow not only affects their ribs, it also prevents them developing the other typical physical characteristics of grown men — body hair, broad shoulders and most significantly, a manly voice. A study in mice also found that castrating mice leads to depigmentation of their skin. Although this finding is hardly conclusive, it provides an intriguing explanation for the significant depigmentation of his skin. The lack of women (or men) who claim to have slept with Michael Jackson seems surprising given his level of celebrity, and it appears that none of his children were naturally conceived. Michael Jackson kept his private life intensely private, which was his prerogative. But is it possible that his unusual love and s-x life was as much a result of a physical inability to engage in sexual intimacy as it was about sexual preference? He clearly enjoyed the company of children. Could this have been the result of a preference for the simpler, more honest level at which children communicate, free of the temptations and complications of sexual desire? Perhaps children were more his physical and emotional equals than the adults in his life. They at least spoke with similar voices. Carlo Broschi, who died in 1782, had legendary three-octave vocal range and could reputedly hold a note for a full minute. Another great castrato, Farinelli, had a voice that was likened by critics to that of a god. It seems the world appreciates the purity and agility of the castrato voice, even though they may wince at the methods behind its creation. Whatever it was that altered the trajectory of Michael Jackson’s adult life, it almost certainly happened before he reached puberty. Money and superstardom are powerful motivators to do extreme things. We will never know what conversations took place in the rooms backstage in the months leading up to Michael’s puberty, and whether the possibility of him losing the voice that had made him and a lot of other people fabulously wealthy was discussed at all. But it might have been. And if so, was there a solution proposed? Could it be that the explanation for Michael Jackson’s unquestioned uniqueness lay in a hidden childhood shame? Whether or not it was the case, he undoubtedly sacrificed a lot for our entertainment, and, as he always said, the world was not willing to accept him for who he was. The question remains, was he the great castrato of our time? Jack Ellis is a graduate in Composition of the Sydney Conservatorium of Music and studied Phase Composition at the Royal Conservatorium, The Hague. |
|
|
107 Comments
he was nuts…
What a pity Jack Ellis didn’t indulge in even the slightest research before writing his absurd article. It was widely reported in the world media at the time of Jackson being accused of child molestation, his genitals were photographed by the LAPD as his accuser had indicated he had a purple birth mark in close proximity. A description of both pen.s and testicl.s was subsequently reported on extensively. This hardly indicates the reason for his gentle voice, which incidently is not so soft and angelic on ALL his recordings. Sensational stuff Jack, go back tothe Hague and learn some more.
As for J-BOY57.. you are fool.
Just to clarify, Carlo Broschi (1705-82) was the real name of the singer known as Farinelli. They were the same person.
As for castrati and sexual activity, the castrati in earlier times were not only usually capable of sexual activity but were highly sought after as sexual partners because of the obvious fact that they could not cause pregnancy.
Very odd how this should be a piece in Crikey as i mentioned this possibility to friends over the weekend and they were shocked that such a term even exists!
And unless i’m mistaken, i’m pretty sure they don’t get rid of the whole ‘twig and berries’ when doing the procedure do they?
I lived in Indiana in 1976 and was 11 years old and first had the term explained to me then by my father because he told me that is what had been done to Michael Jackson. I am Australian. We were visiting a large Uni at the time. I wonder if my dad had inside information?
It’s the piece that lacks balls and substance, not Michael Jackson. Hell, it may even be true - just there’s not a shred of evidence for it, apart from the fact that he sang in a higher register. Lame!
This is conspiracy theory nonsense. The only thing missing is a claim that Jackson was/is going to be buried in concrete in order that his castrato secret will never be found out.
Maybe we will soon be breathlessly told that Jackson is not dead and that the whole thing is a charade dreamed up on a Hollywood backlot.
Pure speculation without a single bit of evidence. I heard he spoke with quite a deep, manly voice when not around the media… but that’s also pure speculation and not really worthy of a story in Crikey.
Now this is a very News Limited type story. I bet Rupert regrets his company’s ever so fitting name.
I had no idea this story had been posted by the Daily Telegraph this afternoon. Unbelievable!
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/indepth/is-omer-bhatti-25-michael-jacksons-secret-lovechild/story-fn3i5h5v-1225753165194
I’m sorry Crikey, but you cannot spend the better part of every day lambasting News Ltd for tabloid sensationalism and then publish something like this. Seriously? Nine paragraphs of speculation and innuendo, with nary a fact to back any of it up. The sanctimonious, holier-than-thou, moral guardians of the fourth estate facade that you dress up in every other day is only going to be convincing if you desist from publishing unsubstantiated rubbish like this. Only two weeks ago you were tut-tutting in disgust at the tabloid media’s all-consuming obsession with the (and I quote), “death of a pop star”. And now you publish this? CTFO. Very disappointing. …
Agree 100% with Bryce. If Crikey is going to sink into the slime of tabloid type items, best it stop having a go at other media for doing same. Hypocrite quickly comes to mind.
We are not much interested in trash like Miss J but sisters have wondered for decades whether Mae West was actually a sister and NOT a fish.
It is claimed that nobody ever f — — - Mae, or saw her naked, and that she performed only ‘oral love’ on her numbers.
Discuss!
Dear me, apologies all round. And here was me just thinking this was a rather appealing little piece of whimsy.
Tsk tsk, with such vehement reactions, who’s being absurd, nonsensical, sanctimonious, very disappointing, lame, not really worthy, slime, hypocritical, tabloid even, etc etc? There is a major script going on here. Leading one to wonder why such strong responses shooting the possibly spot on, for all we know, messenger. You angers spews forth as if you know the undefilable truth about Michael Jackson’s gonads; as if contrary to the perfectly reasonable one thought here. From where ever this emotive closed mindedness festers, is it somewhere ‘rooted’ in ‘rooting’ however buried, for the said deceased or a far more complex psychological twister yet still?
Does this notion subconsciously challenge your own testosterone producing manhood collides-with relections of whatever this icon/his music/the mystery (lurking permutations thereof within the medicore masses so affected, who never quite came to terms with this enigma) may at any time have represented to/for you? What straight jacketed version do you have as alternative? The haughtily stabbed at ‘humour’ of concreted bodily entombment hints at a perverse flight of fancy that a hypothetical anyone couldn’t see to find out for themselves, anyway, before a body rots….. yeah make sure (your) denial remains buried forever. Hmmm, well won’t it be a most newsworthy moment when someone does surface with evidence. Already I can see lofty connections with DaVinci, and their contribution to the psyche of the collective consciousness - for the most part lost on us - but that’s another story.
Given the article who’s heading clearly indicates a speculative piece, was informative, perfectly plausible, compassionate and fair, what’s your inappropriately-blown-out-of all-proportion-to-the-act problem? Are you going to line up and castrate anyone who’s ever penned supposition? How hollowly sustained was your thrill in shooting down a perfectly legitimate query, just because it is just that and not statement? The real question is, if it arrived in the form of HARD news, what inner unravellings would each of you be going through…..that is, once you got over your incredulity. Or perhaps you wouldn’t strain the brain/emotive centres too much on anything too close to the raw nerve. These cheap shots are the sort of shallow knee jerkiness that I wouldn’t expect to find here, but amongst the mindset of tabloid followers you so scathingly reduce this article to.
Thanks Graham, Michael and Alison for furthering the information. I sincerely congratulate Crikey and Jack Ellis for assisting me with my own ambivalent stuck inability to process him/parts of what he represented. The first comment here was what I’d subscribed to previously. However this is certainly an ‘a-ha’ Eureka moment and solely due to these words above, have I softened to a compassionate understanding for the man. Why at this point - for me, an intuitively affirmative registry - dissing him as nuts is redundant. When, as is fittingly speculated, powerful executives made a decision to line their pockets, affect history and Michael’s Peter Pan destiny, he paid a price otherwise known as life scarring child abuse.
Don’t bother sticking the boot in over my acceptance of this without ‘proof’. (Difference here for me is that I’m well capable of suspending dis/belief in either direction on particular issues, however choose in this instance to go beyond neutral territory to concur without hesitation.) I never believed little Johnny’s statment that children were thrown overboard among a bunch of other witch hunting and commonly swallowed lies/myths, the easily led ignorant so bigotedly passionately believe. Suppose you believe those kids are his too, hey? Well I KNOW they aren’t biologically so, and knew so before accepting veracity to this key explanation of the man. Wonder how many of you smokes’n’mirrors detractors a) have an inkling about genetics in closely witnessed/generationally tracked progeny outcomes and b) (on absolutely any level whatsoever - c’mon denial runs deep) are racist…… If so, and you believe they’re his real kids, then you bought the same deception in his deranged mind that to thin his nose/lips and whiten his skin etc, then to parade his ‘offspring’ to the world, made it so. How gullible, swallow this foolishness and do some your own busting out of Neverland. He never had a chance.
WTF, ROFL. What a pearler. Even my gonads are flabbergasted.
On ya
PacificP what planet did you say you were from??????????????
Jack
I thought it was a good piece. I think Crikey was right to publish it here. Shame about the Faranelli bit, probably just the sub-editor mixing up what you had intended to say. I haven’t seen anything in all this malicious carping that sways me away from the view that your story poses a well considered question. I think many of the replies here seem to forget that you merely raise a question (most interesting to me but obviously a little offensive to some), rather than propose an insuperable conclusion. Some of these Crikey readers need to ease back on the caffeine.
Give us more Jack!
Ahhhh Wonky Wilson Tuckey, writes under his non de plume “Jack”, onya Tuckers.
Sally T
I thought myself that it was a mild and, I have to say, credible piece. I remember years ago that I had barely heard of Michael Jackson. I heard a song several times on the radio and asked my then young children who the woman was singing. They told me it wasn’t a woman, it was Michael Jackson.
As PP rightly responds, the piece is, as headed, speculative.
And why should this speculation not be given the possibility of being plausible. Does it sound so absurd? I think not.
The absurdity is when those others who have such closed minds, would rather slosh around in the mud then to give someone so wonderfully gifted, some clear understanding and hence return the honour he deserves.
I met him briefly in Brisbane 87. He shook my hand as I welcomed him and he spoke in his very soft, angelic and innocent tone.
I feel sad for his passing and I feel sad for the pressures he endured.
So…Who’s Bad?
It stuns me to see this piece of ill-informed, speculative garbage getting any support at all among Crikey readers. As mentioned earlier on this page, the evidence presented in Jackson’s child molestation case rules this ludicrous theory out - therefore to call this nonsense ‘speculation’ is simply wrong. I pay my Crikey subscription to read (for the most part) quality journalism - if I wanted this trash I would get the Herald Sun home delivered.
I endorse the comments of David1 above. If there had been a scintilla of research undertaken by the author Ellis would realise that the proposition he is advancing is completely without foundation.
It is a matter of public record that Jackson had a full examination of the relevant area by law enforcement officials in 1993. He was not a castrato. A cursory google search would show as much.
This article is a complete disgrace. How something so ill-considered, offensive and ignorant found itself onto the (generally excellent) Crikey website warrants further analysis.
In looking at the name of the author I wonder whether Australia now has its own Max Gogarty. Jack isn’t related to Bob by any chance is he ? The only explanation for the publication of something so entirely misconceived and lazy was that a lower standard was applied to its submission through family connection.
Well, Well, Rob and David1
if you are so sure, give us all a link to reference anything to support your ham-fisted argumentation.
As I recall the evidence was all about birthmarks and he was photographed to aid in the confirmation of the location, colour and shape of the marks - which could not possibly enlighten us as to whether he had any functioning test*cles. in the wrinkly sack.
I am theorising the only evidence you are both presenting is evidence of your own cognitive dissonance. ie. you are probably former and/or continuing fans of Michael Jackson, and you seek to control your dissonance with the possibilities raised by the writer, to the extent that you slam the metaphorical table with (unreferenced) hyperbole in an effort to shut down the argument.
give us the proof of your conviction.
Evidently, get off your lazy backside and Google for yourself. I have no intentionof assisting your stupidity. There is ample evidence if you care to look for it. Incidently I am no lover of Jacksons music, his talent as a song writer, choreographer and producer are beyond dispute. So you want information, get it yourself, I did, remember Google is your best friend, I doubt by your attitude you have many.
A cursory search would reveal the nonsense of this article.
There may well be a bigger “Max Gogarty” to this submission to be explored.
David1: Yeah it’s called Asperger’s. You wouldn’t know/like life without it. Many of the greatest minds and contributors to the world and it’s attendant comfort zones were/are wired this way. How grateful I am that I’m not a chronically dismissively blinkers-on neurotypical. Question earthlings is, are you going to enlighten yourselves? We have to adjust to your planetary view and it’s perpetually found wanting.
Evidently: if you assume I’m part of the “insuperable conclusion” pack, you missed the complexities behind my expression. People will believe what they will on flimsy or otherwise ‘evidence’; lack thereof. It may appear ‘balanced’ to be a reserving judgement fence sitter, which is fine and safe, just like going with the dominant (ahem: ‘civilised’) world ‘reality’ that the earth was flat, till proven otherwise. That’s why the best, humble and most interesting scientists aren’t full of their limited scope selves - what scraps of ‘proof”/absence of, otherwise spun problematic answer-alls to with set-in-concrete postulations. That is, alternating with ‘blissful’ ignorance - a position in itself.
The fact, obvious by the sampling here, that people baulk at conceptualising this possibility
for Jackson, as though despite all his media exposure/vulnerability, this aspect of him is some sort of sacred hands off, speaks of another phenomenon - a dogged refusal to make a call on the (at least) likelihood that black is white, or vice versa.
And if you’re referring to me, I don’t do caffeine or stimulants (unless I want to pay a lose/lose heavy price for focusing [and be vilified by the likes of you just because big pharma ‘answers’ are controversial. That’s right two positives make a negative or is that over your ‘voice of reason’ head?] and lose the richness of valid diversion): I’ve got enough naturally as a woman with full blown ADD. And with the ignorance flying around here, many of you - as microcosm at any rate for the wider population - are likely to know squat about that too. But hey never stops every Tom, Dick and Ain’t Gotta Clue from having a baseless/stereotyped/incorrect opinion. By the way it is society who decides what a disability is. It’s not my sin that ‘ablist’ bashers are ones who decide difference as though aberrant. The only reason Jackson wasn’t some invisible tranny was his sheer talent including business acumen - at one stage. (How’s the audacity of the McCartney song rights trick?)
Rob: oh dear, better go educate yourself. Reality check: yes castrated men do get erections and ejaculate for that matter. Try googling: is a castrated man sexually functioning? Over 70,000 sites. One will tell you all about his personal experience, effects of hormones etc and is soliciting for that matter. Another tells of the hot water a US politician is in for the release of a castrated sex offender who went on to serially rape again………
I doubt Evidently has the mental capacity for research so here is something I managed to track down in about 2 minutes:
“The attempt to admit the genitalia photographs stems from a 1993 molestation investigation of Jackson. When prosecutors were trying to gather evidence against the singer back then, they served a subpoena at his home that allowed them to photograph his genitalia.They then had the accuser draw a picture of what he thought the genitalia looked like. Prosecutors claimed the picture contained a blemish that was unique to Jackson’s anatomy.Arguing for use of the pictures, Senior Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen said the prosecution wanted to show jurors a child’s description “of a unique feature of his (Jackson’s) anatomy.” He said it would show that Jackson’s relationships with boys were “not casual.” ” - Associated Press, May 25 2005.
Evidently, you are a drop kick. I respect Jackson’s talent but I do not own a single CD or record. I am not a fan, just someone who does not want his Crikey subscription wasted on crap like this.
Exactly right Rob. It seems inconceivable that, first, the article could be written and submitted without such simple resarch having been undertaken and, second, that it would be published.
OK, the castrationists don’t have a leg to stand on, so to speak.
END OF STORY.
I read the article yesterday and it seemed plausible speculation. I’ve googled and I can’t find anything about the LAPD photographing his genitals and in any event, I don’t know enough about castrati to know what the genital area would look like after such an operation (but surely a good surgeon could make everything look similiar to before the operation). I can’t imagine that even the greediest parent would allow this to be done to a son but stranger things have happened.
I see that a few readers think crikey is too highbrow for this type of speculation, but I think it’s just the sort of thought provoking article that fits here.
No, it is complete garbage. Patently false.
Whether you can find it or now, the LAPD examination is well known and can be ascertained with a competent basic Google search. The author clearly was so ignorant he wasn’t aware of it.
I’m not opposed to articles on popular culture (if I was I wouldn’t have read the article to begin with), but there is a tendency to apply a lower standard to articles on such subjects, as if a lack of basic research and totally fanciful speculation is permissible in this context.
This is possibly the most poorly researched and ludicrous article ever to be published on a credible news website. The only thoughts it provokes is how it ever got that far.
To those who are inflamed by speculative nature of piece, I don’t see a single assertion of fact in the piece. It’s a speculation piece.
To speculate further, his characteristics do lend themselves to a castrato. Depigmentation is not normally associated with castration. But since the castration tradition was primarily based in Europe, it may never have been observed in pale skinned subjects. There has been some tentative links of melanin production (brown pigment of skin) with testosterone [1], but again hardly conclusive.
The presence of his complete set of genitals as proven by the LAPD, doesn’t actually rule out castration. Traditional chemical castration is unlikely since they usually have to keep up medication to sustain the effect . One possibility that springs to mind is a kind of modified vas sclerosing directly into to the testes [2], not known of course. Another possible explaination, other than purposful castration, could be a simple genetic disease like Kallmann syndrome.
I’m no doctor and I have no other information other than that is avalable publically.
[1] Slominski, A., D. J. Tobin, et al. (2004). “Melanin Pigmentation in Mammalian Skin and Its Hormonal Regulation.” Physiol. Rev. 84(4): 1155-1228.
[2] Freeman, C. (1975). “Preliminary human trial of a new male sterilization procedure: vas sclerosing.” Fertility and sterility 26(2): 162.
Deary me, talking about getting peoples knickers in a twist.
I don’t hear the same howls of protest when crikey publishes some ridiculous, ultra-left wing, earth hugging, gaia loving article from Clive Hamilton
I can’t believe how much of a response this article has received! As if you would waste your time getting all het up about a small, amusing, SPECULATIVE piece on some freaky dead singer. I say good on ya, Crikey. And Jack.
P.S Tell First Dog I said hello….
Alright, move on people, there’s nothing more here to see…
A “speculative” piece should still have regard to known facts, particularly those readily ascertainable through a modicum of research. The best speculative pieces are those that construct a theory arounf fact. The entire premise of this piece has arisen through the ignorance of,and lack of research by, the author.
There are a lot of apologists for this piece on the basis of who it was written about as if that somehow makes a difference. That is beside the point; the article is sloppy, lazy, offensive and misconceived. Don’t patronise though who think it’s important that some standards be maintained.
And Jack.
P.S Tell First Dog I said hello….
Thought so. Say hello to Max Gogarty as well.
Well said MByrnes. Although I do worry that by continuing the argument we are giving the false impression that this article is worth debating. Let’s be clear here: this is not speculative writing, it is ignorant and ill-informed fantasy. You know, the kind you find in New Idea and Woman’s Day. People only ever write this kind of guff after the subject is dead because they know they will be hauled before a defamation court and they will never be held to account for publishing, at best, ill-researched gossip, and at worst, blatant lies. I’ll say it again, I subscribed to Crikey.com, not some ACP trash mag.
Rob McLennan, MByrnes and all the other hotheaded individuals that love to revert to cursing other views of the argument, and wish to win said argument by shouting down those that have asked for evidence that causes you to believe that you are so right, may I ask you again where is the evidence that this piece is so far off the mark.
You say that you have presented the evidence here…
“The attempt to admit the genitalia photographs stems from a 1993 molestation investigation of Jackson. When prosecutors were trying to gather evidence against the singer back then, they served a subpoena at his home that allowed them to photograph his genitalia.They then had the accuser draw a picture of what he thought the genitalia looked like. Prosecutors claimed the picture contained a blemish that was unique to Jackson’s anatomy.Arguing for use of the pictures, Senior Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen said the prosecution wanted to show jurors a child’s description “of a unique feature of his (Jackson’s) anatomy.” He said it would show that Jackson’s relationships with boys were “not casual.” ” - Associated Press, May 25 2005.
..but you would be wrong if you think that is evidence to support your claim that the author’s work is unfounded.
If you are so clever at research how do YOU rate as a researcher if you did not check that castrati DO actually have a pen*s and may even have test*cles. It is the absence of hormones that the test*cles produce that cause the effect that the author of this article speaks, which means (it is terribly boring to have to spell it out to you ungrateful nitwits) that he either has no test*cles, or he has them but they have not produce enough hormones to prevent the effects thus described by Jack.
When it comes to saying “nothing to see here”, I will remember that there is not much to take note of in your work Rob McLennan, not so far anyway.
*sigh* Despite the poor quality of the original article I had so hoped for some intelligent debate…
This is fun! But who deleted my dumbhead comment? I want answers, people!
I was wondering about that too, I was starting to suspect you were a Crikey insider…
No, just a devout First Dog fan …
The next person who writes about this deserves extreme genital mutilation followed-up by an intimate photo shoot with the LAPD.
You have been warned.
I’m with GREGSTYLES - the apparent presence of testicles doesn’t prove a person hasn’t been castrated. He could have had his testicles removed and replaced with prosthetic ones, as occurs when men lose testes to cancer.
I found the article interesting and thought-provoking, but obviously intended as a piece of fluffy speculation rather than something to be taken seriously as investigative journalism. Some of you really need to lighten up.
Right, that’s it. You’ve pushed me too far. An African witch doctor is on his way and the LAPD photographers are on standby.
Rob McLennan
I believe now the only intelligent thing for you to do is put up the evidence or shut up. I have shown in smallish words that you previous evidence is not the proof of you claim it is.
This Crikey reader for one believes that author of the article far more intelligent than yourself with your unsubstantiated claims of the Jacko knowledge ‘high-ground’.
I am all ears (or eyes), I am actually interested in seeing the evidence that this story is baseless nonsense or whatever else hyperbolic over-claiming names you’ve called it.
I am not too worried about name-calling me, I never cared much for intelligence ratings, I much rather the Charles Handy definitions of intelligence coming in lots of different and indiscernible forms.
Anyway what is all this about this being the wrong sort of journalism now? Are you an better at those sort of judgement calls than Jonathan Green now too??? Gosh no-one is as intelligent as you today. You hot.
Evidently you are not listening. You’re next on the list. Those garden shears are crude but remarkably effective.
The evidence is readily ascertainable.
It is certainly evident the author had no knowledge of the 1993 incident when he wrote this. That reflects how poorly researched and conceived it was.
As for the editorial decision to publish this article, I will put myself forward as saying it was, with respect to this generally fine website, an appalling decision. In part this has given rise to my Max Gogarty references.
Not nearly as appalling as having your nether regions chopped off.
I think the fact that this article has created a lot of comment and brought forward a lot of information - I now know more about castrati than I ever thought I would - tends to confirm that the editors of crikey were right in printing it yesterday.
Peter, you are going to have some very first hand knowledge if these idiotic posts don’t stop.
Who is David Sanderson to say when the comments must stop. Jokesey threats to stop comments are idiotic and inappropriate.
This aggressive shut down just makes me more suspicious that there is no evidence to the contrary.
MByrnes you clearly can’t read. You are suffering cognitive dissonance because you used to love this Wacko, and you are projecting your insecurities on those who are asking for a proper debate driven by the evidence.
There has been no evidence presented to falsify this story. Evidence = none.
I have found nothing in the 1993 - 2005 incidents that in anyway countervails the authors argument, so far that is, I am hoping that one of you table slapping jaw bones actually presents something to the contray rather than big talking “the evidence is readily ascertainable”
Where is it?
Fruit loop alert…
Evidently, you are unable to know when to stop. Someone has to tell you. If that needs to be accompanied by incredibly serious threats of imminent emasculation then so be it.
While the shears are getting blunt there is still enough slice in them for your wee member.
This is not like me to have been so slow to drop onto this delicious bit of gossip. Still, I’ve had some nasty problems.
JONATHAN GREEN. Onya! But whimsical? Oh well, you’re the expert.
EVERYONE ELSE: My my, what a lot of pounding of keyboards over a piece of writing being described as trash, lacking-in-research, fantasy, squalor, shock, horror, dismay and every other adjective in the book. What appalling hypocrites we are. If this opinion piece is so mendacious, etc, etc why give it legitimacy by debating it?
If, on the other hand, it’s a terrific piece of gossip. Enjoy it for what it is.
Cheers Jack!
Why can’t people just accept MJ for who he was. This deep analysis isn’t going to solve world hunger, nor is it going to resurrect the dead singer.
Fruit loop alert? How mature.
I’m with EVIDENTLY, can one of you - Rob or David or MBYRNES - please explain how the 1993-2005 incidents countervail Jack Ellis’s argument? Castrati CAN have testicles. They can get hard-ons. Did the investigators force MJ to shoot some sperm?
P.S. Rob McLennan, I’d start with the man in the mirror if I were you.
No Jacki. It is baseless rubbish, not delicious gossip.
Whilst there are many who are dismissive of the tabloid media, and News Limited in particular, they had what could fairly be described as delicious gossip in a story about Jackson yesterday.
They reported that a person who has long been considered a possible “love child” of Jackson was seated in the front row of his memorial service with the Jackson family. They took a fact, wrapped it in some long-standing gossip and speculation, and you have an intriguing story.
That story’s foundation is the fact this person was seated with his family at a memorial. The problem with the Crikey piece is that it ignores facts known from a 1993 investigation, presumably through lack of knowledge and research on the part of the author.
I’ll ask again, MBYRNES, since you seem to be ignoring the question, how does the 1993 investigation prove that Michael Jackson was not a castrato?
Ace
I think that the MByrnes has no evidence to the contrary of the author nor has anyone else.
I am genuinely interested in debate to the contrary, why are there these 3 or 4 that want to shut it down? I also am now convinced that MByrnes is actually aware that he/she/it is projecting his/her/its own fears that he/she/it is presenting baseless counter-argument.
I don’t know for sure but I think that it is Festinger’s theory, you know the thing that most television advertising is to reassure you that made the right choice? Think about BMW etc. Which means that the goading to stop my requesting evidence is based on the dissonance they feel by being former Jacko admirers.
Venise never fails to disappoint in the analysis, and among the jawboning big-talkers, personally I feel a sense of victory for the author, this is all been table thumping.
Anam (anom? A name?) is righ, we should just accept MJ for who he was, a talented young singer, possibly forcibly castrated by a family member delerious with the prospect of the prodigy’s future earning potential.
Keep it coming Jack Ellis - it has proved to be a good story.
I have tried very hard to let this thread go but Ace, people like you cannot be ignored. Flogged with a wet fish, tied up and gagged with used stockings, yes - but ignored, never.
The question is not whether it can be proven that MJ was not a castrato, but whether there is a shred of evidence (not gossip or hearsay as put forward in the article) that he was. If you put the idea out there you have a responsibility to prove it, not the other way around. If you don’t, your article is not worth paying for and we, Ace, as Crikey subscribers, have paid for this piece of trash.
Ace, you demonstrate the same apalling lack of logic as Evidently by buying into the argument at this late stage, beginning with a shovel load of personal abuse and carrying no significant argument to support your case. Also, your detailed knowledge of the hard-ons of the castrarti is deeply worrying.
Alas, my belief that Crikey readers were a little more intelligent than the average Aussie bogan has been proven sadly wrong today.
ROB MCLENNAN. Speaking as one of the bogans, you sound a bit piss and windish yourself.
However, we are left in something of an impasse. According to your circuitous reasoning…We can’t prove Michael Jackson was a castrato. We can’t prove he wasn’t a castrato, the author stinks, his creds are shot, if one is castrato no can have erection. Can have erection. It’s all to do with twigs and berries. And someone is going to be flogged with a wet fish? And all of these comments are meant to prove what. Enough! I’m tired of the discussion.
I believe this is an appropriate moment to quote Gmail:
“The conversation has been moved to the Bin.”
Followed by:
“Would you like to delete it permanently?”
Oh yes please, thanks ever so much. I never want to think about his testicles ever again. Not even if you paint them purple and decorate them with fairy floss.
mmm… fairy floss…
Well, it’s been entertaining ladies and gentlemen, a fine way to pass a slow afternoon in the office. Goodnight, God bless, and may you all have pleasant dreams of flacid albino organs and shrivelled sun-dried gonads that serve no purpose other than decorative.
Especially you, Evidently.
Evidently, like many champion bores you are unstoppable. Nevertheless, I do urge you to desist and spare us any more lessons in logic. Your “scientific rigour” is so powerful it could kill cats and I can tell you they would not die happy.
“chemical castration is unlikely since they usually have to keep up medication to sustain the effect”… Mmmm.
An interesting article to say the list Mr Ellis. Some may think of it as “whimsical” but after some hours of research since this morning’s read, I find it now to not just be a speculative piece but in-fact, quite an interesting hypothesis.
There is also some interesting reading to be had on the subject of chemical castration. The adverse side effects and drugs to counteract such side effects and the side effects of these counteractive drugs.
Such effects including but not limited to: Hair loss, hypopigmentation (albinism), liver malfunction and heart failure.
I await your next article.
David Sanderson
I have not posed any lessons in logic nor have put forward anything other than a request for you and the MJ fanclub to put forward something to back up your arguments.
You sir are the annoying fluff that seems to adorn virtually every turn of any decent debate with your fevered language that seems always to contain something unnecessarily abstract and visually unattractive.
To me you offer inane and juvenile argument and I wish you would come back with just something worth listening to, and hopefully something that offers your side the credence to criticise the author, the editor, the whole magazine and those of us who are not so quick to condemn original theory. We are all still waiting for the evidence to the contrary of the author… Hello?
Hello Evidently,
I do apologise for the “visually unattractive” language. I don’t know what comes over me sometimes. A pompous, foolish bore comes along and, all of a sudden, ugly tomcats spring up and spray their last all over my usually impeccable prose.
I’m sorry too about the visually unattractive garden shears that made a gory debut in my earlier comments. I believe I also made a visually unattractive reference to you own wee member in that context and I deeply regret the shrivelling effect that had.
We must all do our best to make this a more visually attractive world and I am sure that your enthusiasm for emasculation could be a wonderful help in that regard. Done right it could make all the males of the world a lot neater and, most importantly, much more visually attractive.
Earnestly yours,
David Sanderson
Jack Ellis’s thoughtful hypothesis will please a few elderly gents like me with an inner Poirot and an interest in human motive. It could explain why Jackson hated his father so much, and his father’s protest that he was never ‘physically abused’. It could explain why Jackson turned white, identified with Peter Pan, befriended young children, didn’t engender children himself in the normal way, never grew up huge and hairy like his brothers, sang with high voice all his life, was resolutely defended as a harmless platonic friend by Macaulay Culkin and acquitted by a white jury on nine counts of pederasty, had difficulties with two wives and called his ranch Neverland.
Raised a Jehovah’s Witness by a greedy slave-driving male parent with sons to spare and millions to make before sunset and possessed of a priceless high prepubertal voice, he could have been secretly injected with temporary sterilising chemicals and then, two years later, been quietly persuaded to undergo the equivalent of a vasectomy which leaves (as I understand it) the testicles intact and theoretically reconnectable. At the same age, fourteen, when many other young men resolve to become suicide bombers or Olympic swimmers or astronauts, he may have agreed to this dodgy proposition in the heat of the moment and later regretted it after medical complications and romantic frustrations and have become thereafter the reclusive nose-chopping hysteric who charmed the western world. Nothing in the above story rings false in any detail, as Poirot would silkily say, and one feels for him now the sympathy one felt for the castrati of other centuries, past martyrs to fine music and money-hungry parents and religious nutters in charge of cathedral choirs.
Why all the fuss? No such anger greeted the theory that Frank Sinatra was freakishly well-hung, Bing Crosby a violent parent, Pavarotti a rat with women, Cole Porter a closet homosexual or John Lennon a heroin addict. What’s the problem? It’s worth knowing what a great musician’s art springs from, isn’t it? Why hide anything?
The fuss arises from the sloppy, ham-fisted way in which the analysis has been undertaken by the author. Contrary to what some assert, that is the issue, not some misguided, sycophantic desire to protect a dead star’s reputation. Incidentally, for those who believe this is some sort of new thesis, it was the source of schoolyard speculation in the 1980’s and has also been canvassed on numerous threads on-line. Sad to say that analysis is often more sophisticated than that presented in this thread. It’s as old and cliched as various theories about Jamie Lee Curtis (born without certain organs) and Walt Disney (frozen after death).
What Ellis has done is akin to speculating about the strong influence Tim Buckley had on Jeff Buckley’s early life and how that affected his music, and not mentioning the fact they only ever met once when Jeff Buckley was 8. It’s akin to speculating about how Frank Sinatra will tour next year, and not mentioning that he died in 1998. It’s speculation that ignores the best, direct, readily available evidence about the matter.
In this case that evidence is the 1993 examination of Jackson’s private area undertaken by law enforcement officials. I’m not going to venture into the graphic detail here. It is available from myriad sources accessible through a quick search. I believe it is fatal to the hypothesis.
Even if you don’t accept it is game, set and match to the non-castrato brigade, the lack of mention of the 1993 examination leaves open an inference that the author was not even aware of it. That ignorance, and other mistakes, speak volumes about how sloppy and lazy research for this article was.
Consistent with this, he makes errors in the identity of key castrati, asserts wrongly that no man or woman has come forward to claim physical intimacy with Jackson ( Lisa-Marie Presley has been consistent that she was) and ignores that jackson’s vocal range is inconsistent with that of castrati.
Please spare us the patronising third rate psychoanalysis manifesting itself in comments such as “Jackson lover” and “cognitive dissonance”. This is about a misconceived, poorly resarched article that is not worthy of this site. I raised the spectre of Max Gogarty to account for it. The editor has said he considers it a piece of whimsy. Perhaps it is that which informed the poor decision to publish it without further fact checking.
MBYRNES, I look forward to your PhD on the subject. You are wise not to choose a small topic on which to exercise your intellectual mastery.
I’m open minded about this and Jack Ellis and PJ Ward put forward plausible speculation. I just don’t see how M Byrnes can say that since the fatal contrary evidence is available from a myriad of sources, he won’t tell us where or what it is.
This has been done to death and nothing’s changed, it’s speculation that is supported by a range of circumstantial factors, but no real evidence.
Wow! You guys are STILL going? This is better than the cricket.
Open mindedness in the abstract is a very good thing. Open mindedness in this particular instance is akin to a mental vacuum. This is junk brain food therefore you need to find something to think about that is a little larger than a cheerio sausage.
MBYRNES,
Please enlighten us as to how the 1993 investigation is ‘fatal to the hypothesis’. We are not convinced.
And YOU ‘assert wrongly’ that the author wrote ‘no man or woman has come forward to claim physical intimacy with Jackson’. He wrote ‘the lack of’. Considering Michael was the most famous man in the world, there are surprisingly few women out there who have claimed to have sexual experiences with him. And anyway, did Presley ever actually talk about her and MJ getting physically intimate?
The Smoking Gun, Vanity Fair articles, range of sources available on-line. I’m not going to explore the very graphic and explicit detail here. You’re all intelligent and resourceful enough to use Google to find it and form your own views if so inclined.
Ace, I understand you don’t believe the examination to be fatal to the argument. Even accepting that, the omission of any reference to it in the article spotlights the lack of research.
Presley did talk about intimacy. The 1995 Diane Sawyer inteview is one such example. She then affirmed it in subsequent interviews at the time she was promoting her first album.
Incidentally, the fact the underlying sybject matter is considered trivial does not excuse the lack of rigour. It is a source of irritation that reporting on popular culture issues is often so poor because checking facts and research are considered less important in that sphere. Even the editor here seems to concede in his one post on the issue that a different standard was applied. in this instance because it was considered a piece of “whimsy”.
Ace, I detect a stroppy tone in your last utterance. I would remind you that this is a scholarly discussion and that you would be well advised to adopt a much more civil tone.
And MBYRNES, I am very pleased to see you are making such fast and excellent progress on your thesis. You have lost none of your famed mental acuity.
I’m sorry MByrnes, when someone tells me that I’m intelligent and resourceful enough to answer a question myself, I start to suspect that they’re fobbing me off because they don’t know the answer.
I’ve looked on google and I can’t find all this obvious evidence so MByrnes, please assist a lesser light and tell me the links to your sources.
Peter, as a starting point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_child_sexual_abuse_accusations_against_Michael_Jackson
Remember my primary point that Ellis failed to do this basic research.
MBYRNES, I assume this is only one of the many items to appear in your bibliography. A PhD is all about “basic research” and I have high hopes that your basic research will add mightily to this important field of academic inquiry.
As one scholar to another I salute you on your extraordinary scholarship and I look forward to reading the results of your basic research in New Idea.
Take a bow, Monsieur Poirot. Some clues as to why the fuss, seeing as what has been butchered here is an ability to ponder cognisance of none-too-hard to decipher puzzle pieces, tempered with non bias. Those of us higher evolved types [oooh, I can hear the ton of bricks falling now] are compelled to take a stand against the corrosive dogma of non believers, drunk on their delusional zealotry, as if healthy sceptics with some undeclared higher moral ground.
Truth being stanger than fiction, the fascinatingly stranger yet most piteous thing is the rabid energy consumed by the mediocre to defend a stand that is cover for their underlying insecurities. The fragility to order the world as they see fit. What in fact is being hidden here.
Banging on about LAPD investigations, photos, interviews with Presley, dis/misinformation on castration (and the ability to have sex one of the most lost departures in all this - as if you have to be ‘whole’ to perpetrate) etc……. misses the point entirely that you “whole Jacko” brigade are highly selective with what you choose to believe.
Oh yeah and do you reckon their sloppy, to understate, ‘investigation’ of OJ: example of your blind faith in the authorities version of events/’evidence’? But a drop in the ocean of incompetence/fabrication that pollutes/corrupts unsuspecting minds. And you reckon we were born yesterday.
Speaking of which, getting back to the fuss - none of these non Tall Poppy examples are negro. Making it the most curious perversion that the icon has so many bigots for defenders. How many, in the scheme of things, were perturbed at Hoover’s relentless ‘criminal’ setups of Martin Luther King? If you ‘act’ white, try to be white, (or a woman, or a child or forever young and ‘beautiful’), ride the wave of popularising sexual instant gratification circa Madonna….. all the way to the bank - you’re an untouchable. Why did our insane world ‘justice’ with attendant media circus leave criminals OJ and MJ free to predate? Because black heros trump sex/violence towards women/children.
Oh yawn, yawn, yawn…. how few does it not escape that no less than any other sphere of double standard servings, the media scrutinises black leaders mercilessly to the most perverse degree: Obama. Just as well he’s such damned fine calibre, with an unenviable role most unbecoming of him - instead of the the other way round for all the incredulous racists. [“Oh we’re in such an intractable mess: let’s give the darkie a go!”] His own savvy up to date utilisation of medium aside, how many stop to compare the inane twisted minutiae mutated as ‘analysis’ re the most spurious ‘connection’ to the man; all the unable-to-conceptualise let alone deal-with mocking pre and post presidency reaching stratospheres transcending any gloves off political sniping that no (white) leader has ever had to traverse.
We did it with Charles Perkins, ATSIC and Land Councils etc as if a skerrick/scheme of corruption through (forced) adoption of western ‘civilised’ institutions were inherent in non white culture/persons and not learned, opportunistic and systemic. How many of you pseudo crusaders have a remote appreciation of the tragic breadth and depth of countless Aboriginal greats that we have - no less than figuratively - castrated? I ponder the incidence of crossover subsets within an individual of this, fans of MJ and deep male organ/manhood fears. ‘Cause as with many ugly manifestations it’s a cover for deep if not historical guilt. So who’s got the bigger picture perspective on authenticity and what’s really behind newsworthiness or insight for that matter? It’s rarer than your presume.
I hope to high heaven I never become that “evolved”. I don’t think I could stand the windy emptiness and desolation.
Mr Jonathan Green
The Editor
Crikey.com.au
Dear Mr Green,
Would it be possible to allow this particular comments section to be printed? It isn’t often a subject has been printed -thank you so much Jack Ellis-and has excited such interest and genuine humour. It would be a great shame to mislay it.
Most sincerely
Venise Alstergren
WOW Jack Ellis you must be pleased.
With85 comments so far,you certainly have fired the feelings of quite a few people.Of all the nonsense written about MJ over the the years and since his passing ,this article makes alot of sense to me.
I saw a picture in the print press the other day of MJ & his sister La Toyah, they could have been twins. I cannot understand the vitriol spewing forth from some of you towards the author. To me the article expresses thoughts that one might consider.I for one would like to read more of Jack Ellis’s thoughts, any subject would do! Bring it on.
I’ve got it, Michael and LaToyah are really male twins and one is castrato and one is not, so hence we get the different voices on different songs, one twin doing the high vocals and t’other the lows.
OR and this is where it gets really tricky, they are both half castrato and which one actually ended up in the gold casket and which one is still alive and kicking? What say you Holmes?
I say to Jungle Jane the reason Michael Jackson and his sister, LaToya could have been twins, is because they both went to the same plastic-surgeon. The nose-jobs are indeed identical.
Jungle Jane, much of the negative feedback (it is hardly vitriol - people need to be more robust) is directed at the author for glaring factual and research deficiencies in the article. Surely your observation about La Toya looking like Michael as supporting the thesis is intended as a joke. Is that the best you can do at this stage of the discussion ?
The number of comments about an article doesn’t reflect on its quality; in fact, often the inverse is true. For instance, this article has only achieved a mere fraction of the notoriety of Max Gogarty’s ill-fated, short-lived, nepotism-originated blog.
In the same way the Guardian was tone deaf on the paradigm on new media in the Gogarty scandal, perhaps the writer and editor here are as well.
Mr Ellis hasn’t deigned to respond to criticisms of his article and the editor has made just one post. If this was on one of the News Limited blogs both would likely have been responding regularly. There are too many old media types who are struggling to make the adjustment to a new media paradigm of direct accountability to its readership.
MBYRNE, I think that Mr Ellis’s response could more appropriately be included in the doctoral thesis you are currently writing on the subject. You and Jack Ellis should join forces and conduct a thorough forensic dissection of Mr Jackson’s groinal region. I urge you not to leave one pubic hair unturned or any gonad unmolested until the truth is found once and for all.
We are all behind you in this remarkable scholarly journey. New Idea is so hungry for dissertation that they are leaving the cover, and the first eight pages, of their next edition free in order that they may be the first to present your findings to a gobsmacked populace.
MBYRNE. Isn’t this the point? From the preciousness of your remarks I’ve imagined you would never read one of the trashy News Limited blogs. You sir, are having a ball. Doubtless it didn’t belong to the late Michael Jackson.
David Sanderson. You sir, are a class act! Albeit a terrible stirrer. I’m worn out with laughter.
Goodnight.
Venise.
That would explain a lot about Jackson and his behaviour - like how he was never that interested in women - and his appearance - the skin whitening and so on. And why the Jackson family considered him special and protected the privacy aspect so much. It’s not fair to take away a boy’s testicles but you got to admit it really payed dividends career-wise. Could that be the abuse from his father that Jackson spoke of? The brothers had very different voices and were non-distinct. But what a move to make in the modern day. I feel sorry for Jackson.
@mbyrnes et al: The appearance of testicles doesn’t disprove castration. It is an easy plastic surgery to get prosthetic testicles. Given Jackson’s penchant for plastic surgery it would surely be expected he would restore his manhood that way, at least aesthetically. But you just get on message and then keep insisting that you’re right; the “proof” the “evidence” and so on. You mean: your interpretation of third-hand knowledge of the alleged photographic evidence, right?
One of the many things I find to be a puzzle is the appeal to pre-pubescent and pubescent ladies of contra-tenore voices in men. Many, many rock stars have assiduously cultivated this type of voice and combined it with an effeminate mien. This is in no way an attempt to deny the very real talent of Michael Jackson. But, surely this interesting phenomenon has received, or been the subject of much learned debate.
Why does this age group of predominantly female persons feel stirred to such orgasmic lust? Is it because a part of the female brain has picked up the message that these shemales are off the menu and therefore safe. Perhaps the same thing occours with older women with androgynous actors like the late Fred Astaire and the actor Johnny Depp.
Re Lisa Presley’s alleged intimacy with Jackson, I remember her at one time describing him as “a tiger in bed”, which seemed to be straining for effect. I always thought the marriage was a sham, to take attention off the paedophelia allegations. Wasn’t it stitched up by the “Church” of Scientology? Certainly didn’t last long.
There is nothing alleged about the photographic evidence. The 1993 examination by law enforcement officials is a matter of public record.
Predictably there have been some websites and forums devoted to the thesis that Michael Jackson’s death is an elaborate, staged hoax. As ludicrous as that proposition is, the arguments presented in some of those fora are more cogent and factually based than presented in this article and accompanying comments. At least those people have done a little bit of research on the subject, even if they reach rather bizarre conclusions.
If some of those commenting and defending the article saw it on a News Limited or conspiracy theory website, they would dismiss it as the work of an ill-informed crackpot. Because it is featured here on Crikey, the cosy literary love-in clique get to work.
The thesis is stale and the research non-existent. It’s simply not worthy of this site.
@MalcomStreet - I’m also a little incredulous at Lisa-Marie Presley’s assertions on the subject, but the reality is she made them, made them consistently and has maintained them as true over a lengthy period. This renders one of the key statements and foundation arguments of the author incorrect.
I do realise I’m beginning to come across like one of the protagonists in those never-ending Gerard Henderson-Robert Manne exchanges ! It’s really more about the journalistic quality of the article that Jackson. It’s reflective of the appalling standard of many pop culture pieces.
Wow, this went on for a long time. I haven’t read it all, but one point:
Just because there’s a sack, doesn’t mean there’s potatoes in it. For those who are not squeamish, have a look at the clamps they use on livestock for the same job. removes the bloodflow only, and not the aparatus inside. Yet they stop working. Hence, a photograph of the package will not be conclusive.
Having testicles is NOT conclusive proof you are not technically castrated. I can’t believe people are still banging on here about “evidence” - unless you are a doctor and have examined Mr Jackson’s testicles or know his complete medical history, you are as much in the dark as any of us. There is no evidence (that has come to light) that EITHER proves OR disproves this theory and until there is, it will remain just that; an interesting theory. I don’t get why some people are getting so het up about this.
100
mbyrnes
your arguments have been defeated many times over.
as doilyhead said you just can’t accept that you have not provided anything to the contrary. Many readers here have written the same but you continue to hammer on. A cursory and/or deep examination of the public record reveals no evidence that the author’s hypothesis is rejected.
Your continued reference to the 1993 evidence is a non-sequitur. It proves nothing to the contrary. Look again, and don’t be so cowardly as to not admit it.
The other irksome thing is this editorial high-ground that you perch upon. Id trust the editor’s view any day over your cowardly attacks on what is an interesting and obviously good story.
Perhaps we can paraphrase your nastiness toward the author and editor and say “MByrnes, appalling cur, is not worthy of Crikey readership”.
You’re right Chinda. I have no way of knowing for sure that you have no testicles and a spare set of breasts. These are areas of knowledge that are yet to be thoroughly investigated so, in the meantime, I choose to believe you are living with that extraordinary setup.
Until the Gender and Body Parts Task Force gets around to your place and probes your inner working we will never really know. In the meantime your bodily arrangement will, for all of us, remain a mystery wrapped inside an echidna.
I love you all. More than you could ever possibly know.
David S and Elyce, thats the second mug of coffee thats gone over this week
and its only Tuesday. I dont think my keyboard can take much more!!! Never in the history of Crikey has one mans privates received so much attention. Eat your heart out Bernard.
Barry Gibb singing Staying Alive was very high but in the film clip his genitals are on show through his trousers. Jacko’s dead can we forget him & let those who enjoy it listen to his music?