Barbra Streisand’s Excuses for Michael Jackson’s Perversion May Soon Be the New Normal

Advertisement

Last week, legendary performer Barbra Streisand made some beyond unbelievable comments about fellow legendary performer Michael Jackson’s notorious sexual relationships with young children.

Some were outraged, far fewer than should have been, as per usual, but we simply cannot fail to point out the most noteworthy thing about the sick and twisted excuses she made for the King of Pop’s despicable sexual abuse of young children.

In case you missed it, here’s what she said, courtesy of Breitbart:

Actress Barbra Streisand made a series of bizarre comments about the child molestation allegations against pop legend Michael Jackson in a new interview, saying that children were “thrilled” to be with him.

“His sexual needs were his sexual needs, coming from whatever childhood he has or whatever DNA he has,” Barbra Streisand told the U.K. Times. She also said that the children “were thrilled to be there.”

“They both married and they both have children, so it didn’t kill them.”

“It didn’t kill them.”

You might find it absolutely unbelievable that she would dare think, much less utter, such abhorrent statements.

But as abhorrent, sickening, and unthinkable as this line of reasoning is…it’s also more common than you would think.

The idea that pedophilia is just another sexual preference, and that sexual preferences are needs, is actually fairly predominant in our society. Why? Because as soon as we opened up floodgates and released sexuality from within the sacred bond of heterosexual marriage, we paved the way for pedophilia apologists, the natural conclusion of deviating from God’s design for sex.

Let’s not forget Salon’s now-notorious op-ed, I’m a pedophile, but not a monster, in which Todd Nickerson, who shared and attempted to normalize his sexual attraction to children, wrote:

My name is Todd Nickerson, and I’m a pedophile. Does that surprise you? Yeah, not many of us are willing to share our story, for good reason. To confess a sexual attraction to children is to lay claim to the most reviled status on the planet, one that effectively ends any chance you have of living a normal life. Yet, I’m not the monster you think me to be. I’ve never touched a child sexually in my life and never will, nor do I use child pornography.

But isn’t that the definition of a pedophile, you may ask, someone who molests kids? Not really. Although “pedophile” and “child molester” have often been used interchangeably in the media, and there is some overlap, at base, a pedophile is someone who’s sexually attracted to children. That’s it. There’s no inherent reason he must act on those desires with real children. Some pedophiles certainly do, but many of us don’t. Because the powerful taboo keeps us in hiding, it’s impossible to know how many non-offending pedophiles are out there, but signs indicate there are a lot of us, and too often we suffer in silence. That’s why I decided to speak up.

He claims to not act on his desires and we certainly pray, for the sake of any child he has ever come into contact with, that this is the case.

However, according to Red State, he has also made a similar argument to Streisand’s in pedophile-friendly chat rooms, only arguing in favor of the sexual needs of the child. 

…in fact, I’d argue that it’s actually benificial for the child. I will reiterate my swimming metaphor here (though I’ve already mentioned it twice.) Society preventing children from engaging in sex play and romance play is akin to preventing them from learning to swim, but not only that — refusing to tell them anything ABOUT swimming (or swimming pools or lakes . . .) and then, when the child turns 18 or so, taking them to the ocean and tossing them in, shouting, “Well, you’re on your own!” That’s what society does to children in the name of protecting them.

It takes someone who knows how to swim to teach a child to swim, does it not? How is this not an argument in favor of allowing adults to “teach” children how to engage in sexual contact?

Yes, this man is indeed a monster, and according to the mountain of evidence we have against Michael Jackson, so was he.

Barbara Streisand is someone who believes that two consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they wish in the bedroom according to their sexual desires, so it’s only natural that she’d begin to consider a pedophile’s needs. Nichols certainly isn’t the only person who has made the argument that children be exposed to sex as children to “teach” them.

Our society and our children are frogs in a pot of water, and Barbara Streisand just turned up the heat a tiny bit.

Sponsor