NY Daily News (“Barbra Streisand says Michael Jackson’s accusers were ‘thrilled to be there’ and his ‘sexual needs were his sexual needs’“):
Barbra Streisand is under fire for comments she made about two men accusing Michael Jackson of sexually assaulting them as children.
The legendary singer and actress said that Wade Robson and James Safechuck — whose allegations against the late King of Pop resurfaced in the recent documentary “Leaving Neverland” — “were thrilled to be there” and that what allegedly happened to them “didn’t kill them.”
Streisand, 76, made the strange comments to British newspaper The Times in a piece out Friday, in which she also said that Jackson’s “sexual needs were his sexual needs.”
She says she “absolutely” believes the allegations of abuse by Robson and Safechuck, but puts more blame on their parents than The Gloved One.
“His sexual needs were his sexual needs, coming from whatever childhood he has or whatever DNA he has,” Streisand told The Times. “You can say ‘molested,’ but those children, as you heard say [grown-up Robson and Safechuck], they were thrilled to be there. They both married and they both have children, so it didn’t kill them.”
Streisand, who crossed paths with Jackson during their careers, added that she feels sorry for both the alleged victims and Jackson.
The original Times story is paywalled. Neither the headline nor the subhed (“Barbra Streisand at 76: dog cloning, art collecting and being a grandma
As she announces her UK concerts, the star talks from her Malibu boudoir about stage fright and how Brexit has made her poorer“) refer to her Jackson comments, which seems strange, indeed. But others, including Variety (“Barbra Streisand Believes Michael Jackson Accusers, But Says ‘They Were Thrilled to Be There’“), are re-reporting the story in substantially the same fashion.
Barbra Streisand only met Michael Jackson a few times, but she definitely has some opinions about his alleged molestation of several young boys.
Streisand shared her thoughts with the Times in the U.K. ahead of her July concert at London’s Hyde Park. Given that Streisand is one of the few people alive to have experienced a level of stardom similar to Jackson’s, interviewer Ed Potton asked about her thoughts on “Leaving Neverland.”
The EGOT-winning singer says that she believes Wade Robson and James Safechuck, who allege in the documentary that they were abused by Jackson as children. “Oh absolutely,” she said in the interview. “That was too painful.”
Streisand says that on the occasions she met Jackson, he was “very sweet, very childlike.” But despite the material being painful to watch, she seems to have some sympathy for the late pop star. “His sexual needs were his sexual needs, coming from whatever childhood he has or whatever DNA he has,” she told the Times.
“You can say ‘molested,’ but those children, as you heard them say [the grown-up Robson and Safechuk], they were thrilled to be there. They both married and they both have children, so it didn’t kill them.”
When asked if she’s angry with Jackson, she replies, “It’s a combination of feelings. I feel bad for the children. I feel bad for him. I blame, I guess, the parents, who would allow their children to sleep with him. Why would Michael need these little children dressed like him and in the shows and the dancing and the hats?”
Why, indeed?
SkyNews, People, the Daily Beast, and others have the same quotes. USA Today offers a collection of famous people virtue-signaling their displeasure with Streisand’s comments.
Like virtually everyone else, I find child molestation horrendous and find Jackson’s actions unimaginable. Presumably, the same is true of regular OTB readers. It strikes me as bizarre, indeed, to blame star-struck little boys for what Jackson did to them.
Then again, Streisand has always struck me as rather weird, but that’s often the case with great artists. Still, this is in a different category than, say, cloning your dead dog because you miss him. Presumably, Streisand isn’t pro-child molestation. Is this just an old woman creeping into dementia? A musical superstar defending the legacy of one of her own? I haven’t the foggiest.
