Michael was desperately in need of his own children!
Knowing what a fantastic parent Michael turned out to be it is easy to understand his motives for keeping the company of children. Why can’t everyone see that in 1993 at the age of 35 he was desperately in need of his own kids? Practically obsessed with the idea?
Having no babies was the reason why his true love for Lisa-Marie Presley came to an end and a yes-answer from Debbie Rowe was the reason why he married her instead of staying by his real love.
Men are generally less capable than women to understand Michael’s feelings. Mothers love carrying babies in their arms and get a little wistful when they grow up and become on their own. With fathers it is exactly the opposite. They grow fond of their children as they get a little older and start talking. This is when they get really involved in raising children as they can communicate with them at last and play games.
But Michael wasn’t that type of a man at all. If mothers had allowed their infant babies to stay in his private quarters I can easily imagine him carrying them in his arms and changing their diapers same as a woman would. In fact this is what Debbie Rowe did say about Michael – she even said that Michael would interrupt serious business meetings to attend to important things like changing his kid’s diapers.
I think it is no coincidence that some boys in Michael’s surrounding even looked like him – remember Omar Bhatti and Jordan Chandler who looked very much like Michael? In the absence of his own children he was probably imagining himself as their father and training himself for a daddy’s role. In the loneliness of his life – where mannequins were his sole companions – the children who resembled himself gave him the illusion they were his close kin.
His manner with them was telling it all – when they misbehaved he was frustrated as he didn’t know how to handle it (one of the maids spoke about it), while when they were ill or in need of help he would do whatever they wanted to. And I’m not surprised that some children called Michael daddy – hearing a child saying that must have been a special treat for the man whose loneliness none of us is capable to imagine.
I know that exactly the same arguments are used by Michael’s haters as proof of their own ideas about him, but the paradox of the situation is that all depends on the eyes you are looking at it through. If you have retained at least a grain of innocence in yourself you will be able to see a big difference between the one who is really like a father to children and someone who is only faking a fatherly attitude for them to win their love and then use it for their own dirty ends.
I agree that the borderline between the two is very thin but in spite of that it is still there. If there were no borderline differentiating them we would have to write off as latent or real molesters all those doctors, preschool and school teachers as well as foster parents who devoted their whole lives to the well-being of the little ones. You will agree that a view like that on all these people will be totally outrageous though many of them do feel and demonstrate a truly fatherly attitude towards children. No, mixing these people up with criminals would be the worst mistake we could make in our lives…
Could Michael ever harm a child? Absolutely not. He could never even bring himself to repeat the word ‘molestation’ as the mere idea would have made him faint, I think. Remember him using strong words like slitting his wrists if anything like that ever entered his mind? The only idea which was constantly on Michael’s mind was having children of his own – this we may be sure of. It is clear from the small things he did and said – for example, from the inscription on one of the books found on his premises during a police search in 1993. Different people will feel different when leafing through that 1966 photography album but what Michael was thinking about was the happiness of his own kids:
- “Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces. This is the spirit of boyhood, a life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children.”
Or look at the way Michael spoke of children as the sole meaning and essence of his life and the embodiment of God in “My Childhood, My Sabbath, My Freedom” essay of Dec. 07, 2000. When he says that his whole sense of God (and understanding what life is all about) was redefined when he finally had his own children, I immediately recognized in his words my own feelings when I also became a mother. Only those who have felt it themselves are able to recognize the truth of these words. He saw God in children and when he finally became a father he felt blessed by Him.
When I became a father, my whole sense of God and the Sabbath was redefined. When I look into the eyes of my son, Prince, and daughter, Paris, I see miracles and I see beauty. Every single day becomes the Sabbath. Having children allows me to enter this magical and holy world every moment of every day. I see God through my children. I speak to God through my children. I am humbled for the blessings He has given me.
There have been times in my life when I, like everyone, has had to wonder about God’s existence. When Prince smiles, when Paris giggles, I have no doubts. Children are God’s gift to us. No – they are more than that – they are the very form of God’s energy and creativity and love. He is to be found in their innocence, experienced in their playfulness.
My most precious days as a child were those Sundays when I was able to be free. That is what the Sabbath has always been for me. A day of freedom.
Now I find this freedom and magic every day in my role as a father. The amazing thing is, we all have the ability to make every day the precious day that is the Sabbath. And we do this by rededicating ourselves to the wonders of childhood. We do this by giving over our entire heart and mind to the little people we call son and daughter.
The time we spend with them is the Sabbath. The place we spend it is called Paradise.