Last week, the teletabloid "Extra" aired a story that claims Michael Jackson had a romantic relationship with a man named Jason Pfeiffer, based on Pfeiffer's recollection of events. Pfeiffer worked (or works) for Jackson's long-term dermatologist Arnold Klein. Klein, who also is reportedly homosexual and is suspected to have a relationship with Pfeiffer is also claiming this story is true. This story actually surfaced back in August but recently has been revamped, likely due to ulterior motives from these individuals and other individuals as well. Individuals who knew Jackson, including his family, close friends and his former bodyguards have come out to refute this claim through various outlets including television and the internet (Facebook, Twitter). His family, friends and former employees have nothing to gain by refuting this claim--they are not being paid to speak out. On the other hand, Pfeiffer and Klein were paid for their interview on "Extra". Though "Extra" has pulled the plug on the second portion of this fabrication, the damage is now done and attempts to repair it need to be done. Please do not think this article is being written with the purpose to attack homosexuality. It is being written in defense of Jackson who for years said he was not homosexual--and everyone should stand by his statement, especially now that he can no longer speak for himself. I will detail reasons why uninformed individuals should dismiss Pfeiffer's claim and believe Jackson himself, his family, friends, ex-wife, fans and former employees instead.
Alicia Jacobs, the TV reporter for "Extra" who is responsible for getting this story out to the public has been making statements on her Twitter that do not correlate with the issue at hand. Jacobs is turning a blind eye to the outrage concerning the authenticity of this story, instead making the issue about homosexuality only. Jacobs does not seem to be able to grasp the concept that many believe it should not have been aired since Jackson is no longer here to give his side of his story, either. Could this be part of the reason for her stance?
Article referencing death threats against Jacobs regarding comments about Carrie Prejean:
Jacobs is obviously a strong proponent for gay rights, going as far as to make statements that resulted in death threats against her. She will apparently go to any lengths to push gay rights. There is nothing wrong with championing for gay rights but when someone, especially someone who cannot speak for themselves, is having a story fabricated about them and it is being used as tool to promote others' agenda it is not acceptable. It is morally wrong. It also taints people like Jacobs' promotion of gay rights which is not fair to those who are gay or support gay rights. It should also be said that individuals themselves should decide when they wish to become public with their sexual orientation. If they are no longer alive to discuss the matter, it should not be brought up. It is also never anyone else's job to reveal someone's sexuality for them. Klein feels it is okay to out someone "out of the closet" yet he has not been clear in coming out about his homosexuality himself--instead focusing on Jackson and using Jackson's name to bring him clout.
The following is an article on the internet tabloid web site TMZ:
There are some inconsistencies with statements contained in this report, for example:
"On Saturday, Klein told TMZ he does not believe he betrayed Jackson because Jackson never tried to hide his sexuality. We called Klein out on his statement, because it seems to us MJ went to extreme lengths to keep his sexuality a secret."
Jackson did not try to hide his sexuality--he made multiple statements that he was a heterosexual, when questioned. He spoke of his heterosexuality in his autobiography "Moonwalk". His family has also been vocal about his heterosexuality over the years. Some quotes from Jackson and his family are contained in Catherine Dineen's book "Michael Jackson: In His Own Words". They have also recently spoken out in his defense as well.
While being videotaped and questioned regarding the extortion attempt by Evan Chandler, Jackson stated boldly that he was not gay. When Martin Bashir manipulated Jackson for the "Living with Michael Jackson" documentary he attempted to edit the footage in a way to make Jackson's reply ambiguous. However, unedited excerpts from the documentary aired as "The Footage You Were Never Meant to See" hosted by Maury Povich--which is the way Bashir's documentary should have been shown--shows Jackson's entire reply to the question of "are you gay?". Jackson replies that he is not gay but did not want to answer the question directly because he did not want to alienate his gay fans by making his heterosexuality so blatant.
Hours of highly-revealing and intimate audio tapes have surfaced online featuring Jackson speaking to a woman named Glenda about various sexual relationships--with women. The authenticity of these tapes have not been proven, but it would seem unlikely that someone would to go great lengths to memorize every aspect of his life, sound like him and then call someone and speak to them for hours without appearing to have any malice or gain in doing so.
Furthermore, audio tapes of Jackson recorded by Rabbi Schmuley Boteach, though contorted by his hypocrisy in the Rabbi's book, also do not point to Jackson being gay. Even the Rabbi himself said he does not believe Jackson is gay. It would seem that if this were the case, Jackson would have at some point opened up with this man about any homosexual tendencies he may have had (or the Rabbi would have taken note of them and written about them in his book). There were apparently no hints of homosexuality in these interviews. Rather, Jackson spoke of his sexual desires for women with the Rabbi.
Long-time biographer of Jackson, J. Randy Taraborrelli has also come out against the claims that Jackson is gay via his Facebook.
Three of Jackson's former body guards and Jackson's long-time friend Karen Faye have also said that Jackson was not gay via Facebook and Twitter, respectfully.
Fans who dub themselves as "followers"--fans who followed Jackson many hours of the day--also reportedly never saw Pfeiffer around which could make one question, was Jackson even Pfeiffer's friend?
How are we suppose to interpret Jackson's long-confessed love for Diana Ross? Anyone with eyes can tell he was infatuated with her in "The Wiz"--though yes, this is an opinion. Lisa Marie Presley has given recollections of their sexual relationship which would indicate him being heterosexual. Also, LaToya Jackson reportedly found a photo of a nude Jackie Onassis in Michael's possession at one time. Though embarrassing for Jackson, he did have pornography in his possession. The pornography featured nude women exclusively. There has been no evidence found that would point to Jackson being homosexual by anyone.
Referring back to the TMZ article, Klein then reportedly "went on to say his declaration is meant to shoot down rumors that Jackson was a pedophile."
Klein does not need to make a statement that Jackson had a homosexual relationship to prove he was not a pedophile. Does this statement imply that Klein is lying about the relationship only for the sake of saying Jackson was not a pedophile? Jackson was found not guilty of all charges in 2005. Books by Aphrodite Jones and Geraldine Hughes expose these allegations as exertion attempts based on evidence. The allegations, for the record, were extortion attempts. Jackson's innocence should be based on evidence that dismisses of all the lies that have amounted over the years--not based on a relationship that has no evidence of existence.
Does anyone find this listing of Klein's, courtesy of his Twitter account, on eBay to be a strange coincidence?
I should also mention due to the nature of Jackson's dermatological issues, there are things Klein was exposed to that a doctor will typically be exposed to by a patient, including being shirtless in an office. Pfeiffer and Klein are in a position in which they could be breaching patient confidentiality (ex. HIPAA) by creating this falsified romantic relationship. Thus far, no substantial evidence of an sexual relationship is evident.
I firmly believe the only person to have had a relationship with Pfeiffer is Klein himself. Pfeiffer likely formed some type of friendship with Jackson based on his position working in Klein's office and their difficult childhoods (did Pfeiffer actually have a traumatic childhood or lie about it, too, to manipulate Jackson?). Revelations contained in Jackson's speech at Oxford about ten years ago detail his meeting with Shirley Temple Black--another child performer who could sympathize with Jackson's pain regarding his childhood. He details a flood of emotions felt when they met--as if two lost souls had found one another. Jackson apparently formed strong connections with those who had traumatic childhoods but that does not imply that anything sexual came about from these relationships.
How could these two men call Jackson a friend when they knew he treasured his privacy? He did not write the songs like "Privacy" for no reason at all. Jackson trusted Klein for years and likely did know Pfeiffer through Klein. If Pfeiffer did indeed tell Jackson he had a traumatic childhood Jackson likely did feel some emotional (not sexual) bond to Pfeiffer--Jackson was apparently drawn to people who he could relate to him concerning his childhood but he also seemed to want to help others with their pain as well. Why did Jackson spend so much time around children? Part of it was to bring those children happiness he felt he lacked when he was a child--he did not want them to experience what he did. Another likely reason was because he found aspects of his life depressing and isolating and one of the things he found joy out of was reverting back to a childhood he lost--and children, not adults, were the only ones willing to do that with him. Instead of taking antidepressants--he became a child to experience that unrestricted joy in life that was lacking at times. Children are carefree--Jackson wanted to be carefree to escape the adult (stressful) things he had been facing since he was a child. Just imagine if you were being sued everyday by people you did not even know, being stabbed in the back by people you thought cared about you, and on top of all that, not knowing who really cared about you and who did not--and to have to experience this as someone who wanted to be loved so desperately by others. Here again, we see Jackson's personal plight with people such as Pfeiffer a long-time friend Klein now added to the list of "backstabbers".
How dare these two men take advantage of a friendship-based relationship and use it to fuel something that Jackson would not want discussed and is simply false.
Today's society of how a man should be is incredibly warped. Jackson appeared to be a very warm, gentle and sensitive soul. He enjoyed simple pleasures like water balloon fights that society in general finds inappropriate for adults, especially for straight men. However, society in general cannot relate to the life this man lived. He was had a life like no other--he never escaped from fame when he was thrust into it at the age of 10. His eccentricities made him a target--just as the nerdy kid in school gets bullied. Rather than this child-like man being accepted by society for being unique man with a different approach to life, we are now more apt to accept a man like Tiger Woods or John Edwards as "real men". What an insult to men across the world, straight or gay. Woods and Edwards are not men--they are trash. Regardless of a man (or woman's) sexuality--our views of what is and is not acceptable should change. Our views of what should and should not be made public should change, too. What we believe to be true should be questioned. Society should be more willing to accept that Jackson was just a misunderstood man who was beaten down by society. Enough is enough.