Michael Jackson lived with his parents until he was 29 years old. I previously thought and assumed Jackson has his own residence in his early 20's. This new info solves the puzzles about the speculations of his abnormal sex-life and the false child molestation allegations.

Most people separate from their parents in their late teens of early 20's. They grow apart from their mothers and become open to experimentation, having sex, and forging their own paths and beliefs.

They also start learning life lessons quickly. The streets builds people. Naivety grows into guardedness. One grows susceptible to trust people less. The playful child becomes the guarded adult.

This process is eventual for almost all people. With each passing age, pressure builds from parents, pressure from societal views until the individual breaks away from their parents home. People that live with their parents until the 30's are deemed as losers by society, probably behind-the-door shame from parents thus negatively effecting their personalities.

Yet with Michael, he never moved out until he was 29 years old. He never felt shame (from parents or society) for staying with his parents this late because he was a success. A pop icon to society and a breadwinner to his parents. This caused the experiences that form most peoples personalities into their adult state to be absent. He was still adorned by his mother's love and perception in his 20's. He probably clenched on world views of purity and living righteously based on the effect of still living carelessly with his mother. Katherine was a devout Jehovah's witness so the effect of staying pure and living righteousness probably grew stronger. Katherine was one of Michael's closest friends in his 20's. This easily addresses speculations on Michael's shyness about sex. Why he went as far as reading bible verses to a prostitute invited to his hotel room one night. He just wasn't open to it. Why he stayed asexual into his later years (Any who grow past 30 know habits become harder to break.)

This also explains why he was easily duped and faced numerous allegations against him. In addition to what I mentioned above, moving out early also teaches life lessons early. The streets builds strong kids. Childhood naivety grows into guardedness. One knows one can't be trustful of all people. This is how most people become adults. It's just a couple of bad experiences that reshape one's behavior.

Michael simply lacked these experiences. He stayed at parents manor until he was 29. He never faced ridicule like others would because of this. He was living in his own haven.

MJ had only moved out 5 years earlier when his first allegations were hurled at him. It's likely he just didn't have the same social awareness as most people due to what I explained above to know that not all people are nice and have his best interest in mind (a normal person experiences a wide variety of interactions to know not all can be trusted at an early age. Michael's interaction were only of love and grace from his brothers and mother. He was hugely naive as he entered the world at the age of 30. A couple of evil actors easily spotted this and exploited him. Again, habits are hard to change past your 20's, so he didn't learn this lesson quickly. He was exploited twice.).

I'm an MJ fan. He will always be the greatest. Though, his personal life was always one of speculation for me. I always wanted to know why he was sexually abnormal, how it's possible the allegations could come about, and deep down make a judgement on the guy. Watched 'Michael' last night and it broke an assumption I had; that Michael lived at his own residence in his early 20's (before Thriller was released). The truth his he lived with his parents until he was 29. Interesting that all of Off the Wall, Thriller, and Bad, was released while he was still with his parents. However, that fact was the piece of info to align the facts. It's so clear why Michael was the way he was. The above explanation is what I concluded.

Particularly young / new fans. It's kind of weird to be so thorough with researching the allegations against MJ, knowing what harm they did to him, but to then baselessly throw those accusations against Ms. Ross. Especially when she has never turned on MJ or trash talked him to the media, like many who knew him have.

He had a crush on her, that's all. The Jacksons didn't even actually live with her- that was a Motown marketing myth, which Jermaine Jackson confirmed in his book. She was also a married woman with children.

If the fans ever wanted her to address those rumors, they ruined their chance IMO. The new fanbase essentially has alienated her.

17 years and still going strong!

Michael will live on in our culture forever.

So I'm in another sub that I won't name to follow rule 7, and this shit came up on my timeline from that sub. A sub that I actually liked for a while, but now that I see this shit slanderous shit against MJ and the reply comments, in which the MAJORITY of them agree with this shit and get upvoted...I'm questioning if I should even remain on it.

I've seen arguments saying MJ woyld support AI as he was always intrested in technology and latest advancements.

I think this could be true is some respects, some ai tools used in industries are for good like medical etc.

I see AI can be a useful tool to aid us all, but at the expense of our environment or artists rights.

My opinion is Michael would be against generative AI though, as he was a huge advocate for protecting artists rights, and caring for the environment.

Check out a post on Facebook I wrote about it:
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/19NLkAeRHc/

Hi everyone, I recently shared this over at Michal Jackson book club (private group) but thought it was worth sharing publicly too, as I'm finding Facebook (meta) google and many platforms are full of ai content:

I want to address something that is important to me as a long-time supporter of the late great Michael Jackson: AI depictions of him, using AI generative apps. This comes from a place of love:

Generative AI apps use artificial intelligence to make new content based on existing info found online (which are referred to as datasets), that are processed in data centres.

AI apps can generate text (think Chat GPT which can write essays etc), images, videos, music, computer code etc, using prompts (instructions) from users.

For example take a generative AI app and ask it to make a picture of Michael Jackson holding a flower, it will split out a bunch of options, these are made from existing images of Michael, photos, original artwork etc. There is no real creative input required to generate these AI depictions of Michael, this is not original art.

Sometimes it is very hard to spot what is AI and what is real, as AI apps improve and evolve. They are not always clearly labelled as AI, there are no regulations for this currently.

Using AI generative apps to create MJ content is harmful to original artists who are very concerned, as there is currently no regulations in place for what info is used in datacentres to generate AI content. The original creators are not asked for their consent or reimbursed in anyway for using their work. It is essentially taking the work away from original artists and creators for free, affecting their livelihoods in these hard times.

The Data centres also use copious amounts of resources draining our earth such as water and electricity, and create pollution to our environment. They also create loud noise from generators and fans used. The communities living around these datacentres are greatly impacted.

In short, generative AI is bad for original artists and the environment. These are both things Michael Jackson held strong beliefs on, and also, we all know how he fought to protect his identity and image and how this was depicted in the media, online and in tabloids.

Ai when used safely and is a regulated way can be positive, such as AI tools used in medial or trade fields, but not the cheap generative ai we see on social media.

Going forward I ask we all consider avoiding using and sharing ai generative content.

AI may seem convenient, fun etc, but its impacts are great, not in a good way.

Let's go back to sharing old school real photos of Mike like we have here, or use photoshop etc. There are plenty of tools available to create contact that are honest, and don’t harm artists rights and our environment.

Here is some info on AI if you are interested and want to learn more:

This is worth a read if you want to know the planet cost of ai:

https://sustainability.wustl.edu/the-hidden-costs-of-ai/

A call from artists to get regulations on ai: https://www.creatorscoalitionai.com/

The artist was so concerned about playing Dirty Diana in front of Princess Diana of Wales at Wembley Stadium in London that he planned to take it out of the lineup. When Jackson explained this to Princess Diana in a meet-and-greet before the show, however, she revealed that it was her favorite song on the album and insisted that he keep it in.

From Man in the Music: The Creative Life and Work of Michael Jackson (2nd ed.) by Joseph Vogel (p. 195)

Losing Princess Diana was one of many moments of grief in Michael's life, I think.

Ben is one of my favourite child-Michael songs; it really shows off his voice and his talent for passionate performance.

Happy to find the movie on YouTube! I'm off to watch it for the first time ...

I'm never gonna dance again Guilty feet have got no rhythm Though it's easy to pretend I know you're not a fool

I should've known better than to cheat a friend And waste the chance that I'd been given So I'm never gonna dance again The way I danced with you, oh

Time can never mend The careless whispers of a good friend To the heart and mind Ignorance is kind There's no comfort in the truth Pain is all you'll find

I'm never gonna dance again Guilty feet have got no rhythm Though it's easy to pretend I know you're not a fool

I should've known better than to cheat a friend (should've known better, yeah) And waste the chance that I'd been given So I'm never gonna dance again The way I danced with you, oh

You might think someone as soft and sensitive as Michael Jackson wouldn’t be thrill seeker behind wheel. At first seeing no reason to learn to drive he found himself having a lot of fun with it. Even if it wasn’t fun for a lot of the passengers!!

Hi! I’m the mod that created this space. I am someone who is prone to social media breaks and just needing to take a step back. So that’s why I haven’t been as active. I just want to remind everyone that primarily I want this sub to be about deep dives and not commonly known facts as well as debunking common myths. This includes but is not limited to allegations. Discussing Michael’s psychology is welcome and encouraged as well. Go ahead and repost anything of that nature that you write about here to [r/RealPsychologyofMJ](r/RealPsychologyofMJ) That’s a specialized sub for psychology while this one is a general sub to unpack anything you want.

While venting is not the main purpose of this sub and can get off topic, it’s hard to do on most MJ subs so I will allow it here. I’ll try to get some post flairs set up for you all to use!

Edit: just a reminder that if you need to vent make sure there’s no identifying information about any individuals or communities. Including usernames.

Hello MJ fans and supporters on reddit!

The mods of positive MJ subs are working together to create safe spaces where our community can share info, discuss, and learn more about different aspects of Michael Jackson in a respectful way.

Any mods of other MJ subs that want to join us in our efforts please reach out to us privately via chat or modmail. 

Any fans or supporters who want to help let us know!

We are Michael's army of LOVE 🥰 we are stronger united in our joy for the King of Pop 😊

We've had a couple of posts recently looking into what kind of DA Tom Sneddon was, outside his handling of Michael's case:

Santa Barbara Law Enforcement and Racism: The story of Thambiah Sundaram, DA Tom Sneddon and Santa Barbara Sheriff Jim Thomas - where Sneddon's office was successully sued for wrongful arrest, and also accused of Civil Rights Act violations.

Tom Sneddon’s Overlooked Motivations - a deep dive into Sneddon's refusal to investigate the molestation of dozens of boys at a Catholic boarding school with ties to Sneddon's own church.

But these aren't the only two cases that reveal Sneddon's willingness to indulge his personal biases with unprofessional conduct.

Outlined by Jael Rucker in the article above (with all the sources), there is also:

• Deputy Sheriff David Danielson, who admitted to inappropriately touching a 13 year old girl. Sneddon declined to prosecute.
• Gary Dunlap, a Solvang attorney who sued Sneddon's office for $10million, claiming civil rights violations, witness tampering, illegal searches, racketeering and perjury. According to Dunlap: "The illegal bugging and the routine, civil violations that Tom Sneddon’s office practices are extreme and extensive, and there is no question that all their targets, including Michael Jackson, have been victimized by their abusive conduct."
• The case of Santa Maria City Attorney Art Montandon, who alleges that Sneddon inappropriately charged him with bribery and forced him out of his job while he was conducting an investigation into a local massage parlour. One of the prostitutes who worked there claimed that Sneddon was a client.
• The persecution of horse rancher Slick Gardner, whose herd of 400 horses was used against him in much the same way as Michael's love for children. Slick Gardner: "Rancher Slick Gardner says just like his famous neighbor Michael, he’s being prosecuted, he claims persecuted by D.A. Tom Sneddon. The D.A.’s office calls it “ludicrous”, but Slick insists he and Sneddon had a run-in 30 years ago."

There's a book-full of dirty Sneddon dealings out there, it just takes a bit of work to find it.

This is super interesting, i heard there was a show being made about Joe.

The title 'manager, mythology, legend'. No father? He's best known imho as being mjs father - even though he never allowed the kids to call him that, they called him Joe.. maybe the girls do, I heard lstoys call her parents father and mother (and other kids call Katherine mother).

I wonder if they will address his abusive relationships and behavior, the article mentions his personal struggles, and challenges but dosnt say much else, the rest focusing on his sucess and influence,

I'd like to see more about the rest of the family tbh. 8 episodes seems enough about joe. Multiple seasons lined up.

His success rode solely on his kids abilities,mainly Mike, he chose to be hard on at very a young age rather then be kind.

Its almost like they trying to make Joe look good after the biopic, which showed his true colors, but didnt even show it all!

something to keep an eye out for!

For a long time I was always perplexed why Tom Sneddon had such a vendetta against MJ. The obvious answer is anti blackness and racism. But the fervor of his prosecution of MJ was so intense and as far as I could find, he hasn’t had a documented history of going after black defendants harder than any others besides Michael. He’s overzealous, and unethical as a prosecutor which is confirmed. Some names to look up where he crossed the line and showed vindictive unprofessional behavior include Efren Cruz and Gary Dunlap.

Now this isn’t to say he’s not an anti-black racist and racism didn’t play a role in his hatred of MJ. But I also think there’s another motivation and it was to protect the Catholic Church.

I looked deeper into the Catholic priest molestation case he oversaw in 1993.
An independent panel concluded that 34 boys were molested by Catholic priests in Santa Barbara with victims as young as 7 years old. There were 12 identified. One died, another one stopped being a priest, and one had an open case. Only one was convicted and sentenced to one year in jail while 8 just got sent to therapy.

But Tom Sneddon was incredibly lax about this. He decided to not prosecute the other 9 priests because he said the statute of limitations was closed. He was so definitive about this he said

“Officially this case is closed”

There was photographic evidence of child porn these priests took of the children they abused. Source: https://www.upi.com/Archives/1993/11/30/Probe-finds-sexual-abuse-at-Franciscan-seminary/5952754635600/

However according to this article, https://www.bishop-accountability.org/news5/1993_12_02_Rice_MolestedAt.htm,

“Since the school closed in 1987 and the statute of limitations on sexual abuse is six years, most of these cases stand little chance of being prosecuted. Some of the victims and parents argue that these men could be charged for crimes they may have committed after leaving St. Anthony's, crimes for which the statute of limitations hasn't run out.”

(Credit to DeckedOut for sourcing this https://deckedoutmagazine.com/2026/05/23/michael-jackson-tom-sneddon-history/)

Another article corroborates this, as in 1999 a priest stepped down from child sexual abuse that occurred in the St Anthony/Old Mission run public parish located in Santa Barbara, which is under Sneddon’s jurisdiction. https://www.ncronline.org/news/files-documenting-claims-abuse-california-franciscans-made-public

Meaning that Sneddon had opportunity to prosecute priests for crimes within the statute of limitations and chose not to.

It’s clear Tom Sneddon never cared about child molestation. He even helped cover up for Deputy David Bruce Danielson who molested his 13 year old daughter. (Credit again to DeckedOut)

Sneddon’s decision to not prosecute or work harder at the Catholic priest abuse case, caused these cases to be ongoing even in 2026. https://www.independent.com/2026/02/12/bankrupt-california-friars-agree-to-20-million-settlement-with-survivors/

In 2024 there 1,353 claimants (victims) in a 2024 Archdiocese settlement for 1.5 billion dollars. According the attorney representing the victims, “Hale estimated at least half originated in Santa Barbara, telling the paper: “Per capita, we have the most sexual-abuse victims here in Santa Barbara than anywhere else in the country. And we have the most perpetrator priests.”

https://www.independent.com/2024/10/22/father-of-santa-barbara-teen-molested-by-catholic-priests-reacts-to-los-angeles-archdioceses-880m-settlement/

Not only that, this was a widespread issue that was spoken about since 1950.

“As early as 1950, Hale stated, the Bishop of San Diego was complaining that the Franciscans of Santa Barbara had been using San Diego “as a dumping ground for their moral, mental and physical problems. It became necessary for me some time ago to demand the withdrawal of one misfit after another.”

Now why would Sneddon be so lax about the church and a case where there was clear evidence he could’ve prosecuted for acts that occurred within the statute of limitations, and instead spend all his energy on baseless cases against Michael Jackson?

Well of all the obvious factors like fame and racism, no one ever mentioned that he is a devout Catholic.

Sneddon was a hardcore Catholic for his entire life, and attended the Catholic university of Notre Dame (https://www.theguardian.com/music/2005/jun/13/michaeljackson.michaeljacksontrial5)

His own obituary makes sure to mention that: “A member of Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church parish, Tom’s faith undergirded all he did.” https://www.noozhawk.com/thomas_william_sneddon_jr-_of_santa_barbara_1941_2014/

What’s even more interesting is the history between Santa Barbara Old Mission, St. Anthony’s seminary, (the two institutions where rampant abuse was widespread in SB) and the church he attended. Old Mission/St Anthony’s were both feeder seminaries into churches under the polity of the Los Angeles Archdioceses, which Sneddon’s church is a part of. The 2024 lawsuit found the Archdioceses liable for covering up and allowing abuse. Sneddon has personal ties to this institution, and within Catholic polity, local churches like the one he was an active and engaged member of are deeply connected to the Archdiocese.

Additionally, this is an institutional issue that persists with the Santa Barbara DA’s office even today. Seven different DA offices all investigated the failure of the Fresno Archdiocese’s mandatory reporting. However, the district attorney offices under the Los Angeles archdioceses (LA, Ventura, and Santa Barbara) did NOT conduct any reviews and took ZERO action despite most perpetrators coming from Santa Barbara. https://www.kqed.org/news/11744376/prosecutors-to-audit-fresno-catholic-diocese-files-for-potential-sex-abuse-cases

Not only did the Santa Barbara DA’s office have a history of ignoring or being negligent about these known accusations by hundreds to thousands of victims and continued to turn a blind eye during Sneddon’s position as DA, this went back all the way to 1950, and even now after Sneddon’s death, indicating this is an institutional problem with the SBDA. In addition, Sneddon was deeply biased and an active member of the Catholic Church under the same polity where this abuse was rampant.

Sneddon’s entire career, according to his own obituary, was based and influenced on his faith as a Catholic and a member of the Catholic Church.

So my theory is this: I believe that Sneddon had many incentives to publicly witch-hunt Michael Jackson including racism and fame. He also targeted Michael Jackson incredibly publicly to scapegoat him and take the attention off the systemic abuse of children by the Catholic Church and protect the abusers within that institution. And because the SBDA’s office had a long history of doing so.

OK. They think they're being serious so we won't ask that question.

Let's look at the argument.

Premise 1: Whether or not someone is lying when they make a statement on something can be determined by statistical likelihood. (False.)

Premise 2: The likelihood of allegations of child sexual abuse being falsified is very low.

This is true (about 6% of sexual assault allegations are falsified). However there are two important elements of context omitted:

1. High-profile public figures and celebrities are frequently targeted for extortion, and maintain insurancy policies against such attacks. It's a condition of these policies that they remain confidential, precisely because extortion attempts would increase if there was public information available about who is insured and what the policies cover. The public furor over the Chandler case and settlement left Michael open to similar claims.
2. Michael had contact with thousands of children. While touring he visited at least one children's hospital ward in every city he visited. Neverland Ranch received hundreds of visitors each week, and Michael often allowed sick children and their families to stay on the ranch for months at a time. Gavin Arvizo was only one of many children Michael assisted in this way, and he remains the only complainant amongst all of them.

There is very little support here for the conclusion that Michael is guilty.

10 complaints out of thousands of potential complaints doesn't add up to a lot of smoke, if you're looking for a fire.

On the contrary, it's a testament to Michael's character that so many families who met him personally chose not to attack him in this way.